I have seen photographic proof that what counts is what you do at the top of the auto....yes , I agree with R22Driver that you may "bin the heli into the floor" at the bottom but screw it up at the top and you die , screw it up at the bottom and you can still walk away. There are still bits of a 206 sitting near Mt Wilhelm in PNG that bear testimony to a successful engine out entry and approach to a razor back ridge with a lousy touchdown. The machine became a piece of survival equipment but we all walked away.
I loved doing full on autos in training (not power recovery) in single engine helicopters. Good fun. In twins , we stopped doing it back in the 80's but we still do power recovery autos. Important for the entry , the procedures on the way down....then......
Fly safe (and enjoy) ..Peter:8

Why do you guys insist on talking about the last five feet??? A good auto to a bad spot is preferable to a bad auto to a good spot.

Peter, your story is good, and I'm glad you came out ok, but I could dredge up numerous accident reports where pilots screwed up the last portion of the auto and allowed RRPM to decay, A/S to fall off, and over/undershot the desired landing spot - many being fatal.

Once you roll the throttle back up, the excercise is over. You cannot get any meaningful information about what happens during the flare once the power is back. How do you teach various methods of steepening or lengthening the flare, or the retreival of RRPM during the flare in a power revovery - you don't, peroid.

So you can PROPERLY SIMULATE all the power recoveries you want, but you'll be leaving out a huge amount of information as to what goes on at the end - where it counts. If every engine failure ended up over a road or a nice big field, fine - but they don't, and I've seen the resluts when a flare into a tight LZ in 60ft trees goes wrong.

If you want to believe that power recoveries are teaching you all you need, great, whatever lets you sleep well at night... But there are a great many guys out there who've had the misfortune of experiencing the real thing over lousy terrain who'd disagree with you. I believe that we should all be doing everything possible to stack the odds in our favour, that includes, but is not limited to, training full-ons.

Then again, safey's a great thing until someone points out the $$$ of it...

RH

'hook,
I think you may not have the picture of the power recovery I'm talking about. I'm talking about the power coming in after the flare, when the skids are just off of the ground, not a go-around after a simulated engine failure. Autos are about technique and tactics - tactics don't need the touchdown, and the only part of technique that should be different is what happens after the flare - put another way, any good power recovery could become a touchdown simply by not joining the needles as you pull pitch. I'm not debating the fact that practicing touchdowns will make you better at touchdowns. I'm just missing the life-threatning aspect of terminating a maneuver by rolling on throttle at 5' AGL with low or no groundspeed versus not rolling on the throttle at 5' AGL with low or no groundspeed. I guess I don't share your belief that a power recovery to a hover is significantly different than a touchdown, except where possible damage to the aircraft is concerned.

I was wondering the same thing. The power recovery autos that I did in training brought the power in after the flare, at about the same time you pushed the cyclic forward to avoid hitting the tail. Airspeed was just about zero (depending on how well I did) and we were close to the ground.

The flare ofcourse brought in some RRPM, and during the flare we were spooling up the throttle so that we could join the needles at the end of the flare (this ended up being more difficult timing wise then the rest of the auto).

I spoke to a Blackhawk pilot once who told me that they tend to recover much higher in training (50 - 100 ft?) is this standard practice?

I certainly agree that there's no substitute for the real thing. But since I don't own the helicopter, I can understand that there might be pressure from the flight schools and operators to restrict the requirement for doing full down autos.


If this is (was) only a CFI requirement, how many full down autos are being done?

Simply not correct---As far as I know, and endorsement is NOT required.
There has been NO official reason as to why it has been removed. I doubt that it has anything to do with "examiner stress".

JohnL,
I'm with you. I will still continue to teach touchdowns, however, I am in agreement that a CFI applicant should not have to demonstrate proficiency to a set standard. Most of the "bad incidents" of wrecked aircraft that I am aware of personally, were caused by trying to complete a touchdown when they should have power recovered. Applicants were trying so hard to get within the 50 requirement that they sacrifice rpm, airspeed and/or attitude and still try to put the thing down. Another option that probably was NOT considered by the FAA, would be to have separated out the auto, ie. Have a requirement to complete a 180 degree power recovery to within 50 feet of an assigned point, followed by another auto to touchdown from a straight in to a runway, ignoring the requirement to arrive at a specific point. This way both skills are tested and the risk is "somewhat" reduced.

Just my personal $0.02.

I didn't say examiners-stress I said checkride stress, meaning the applicant of course.

I stand corrected. As for the endorsement---I agree that there probably should be one. That way it somewhat ensures that an applicant has some touchdown training. It was mentioned on the initial letter pushed about by the FAA and was obviously discussed. The most recent document eliminating the td auto makes no mention, of course the FAA may change their mind and make it a requirement.

ah shucks
 

and J.D. you trained me oh so well !!!
dcb

This issue may be a matter of which side of which pond you're on, as here in the U.S. I've never heard of a "power terminated" auto (which sounds like all power has been terminated :E ). Likewise, it's likely different for those who trained in turbine machines where the throttle must be brought back into play much sooner versus those who trained in pistons with their fast throttle response.

I will put money on it that all the pilots wanting to do full EOL,s do not own the machines themselves and dont pay the insurance !!:ok: Anybody who says the last 5 ft are critical are talking Bxxxxxks. It is just untrue to say that, the fact is that most fatalities come from problems in the entry of the autorotation . If you have the correct airspeed and a full up rrpm then after your flare you will be 1) nearly stationary 2)very low vert descent ....IF you have chosen a good spot you will be very unfortunate to be hurt. If you want to go practicing full autos to the ground then the insurance companies should just not pay up and give us all a break on our premiums.......if you are THAT confident of your skills then the odd 30 seconds without insurance shouldnt bother you eh?????:ok: :ok: having said this no doubt some twit will stuff his robbo in doing one tommorow:confused:

I've never really thought about the terminology we used, but I would break it down like this...

Autorotation -> flare -> power recovery = auto; "We did about four autos in today's flight." -- This being the norm.

Autorotation -> flare -> touchdown = fulldown; "I wish my school didn't prohibit me from teaching fulldowns." -- fulldown gets it's own name, as it's so rare.

Autorotation -> power recovery -> fly away (no flare) = power recovery / go around / I don't know if I really had a term for this; "If I give you any simulated engine failures on todays flight, we'll terminate them in a power recovery at 300' agl." (School prohibition on carrying an off airport auto below 300' agl.) -- I think I usually would simply call this a go around.

I dislike doing "needles joined" flares in r22s as either they are unrealistic (too much pitch pulled) or the Nr increases and splits the needles anyway when you flare.

As to the original topic, my .02 is that it's a shame that fulldowns are being eliminated from the CFI PTS. IMHO it should be demonstrated to students prior to solo (I was not allowed to to this where I taught), and demonstrated BY students before commercial. As to cost / benefit comparisons etc, my vote is we strive to master the machine, and fulldowns are a step in the right direction.

An endorsement requirement would be better than nothing, but I can name at least one flight school in the states that would probably just pencil whip that training in about 2 seconds flat.

Bottom line for me... Compared to teaching any type of auto to a "real" student in an r22, the TASK of demonstrating a fulldown to an examiner is a cakewalk. If you can't do a simple fulldown, how well will you teach "enhanced training in autorotations" required by SFAR 73.

edited for readability

SFAR 73 isn't about fulldowns, it's about managing RRPM from top to bottom. Robinson's own training syllabus has very little to say about what happens after levelling the flare.

How about "power recovery at altitude" vs "power recovery at the hover"?

I'm not claiming they shouldn't have different names, nor that the names you already have for them in your lexicon are inappropriate, I was just giving you a glimpse into the lexicon and training environment that I'm familiar with (in order to clear up / add to the confusion).

Were I still teaching I might adopt the "power terminated" term, but unfortunately, my company prefers if I avoid autos all together (I guess they might scare the tourists.) :( .

Ah, but my point is that managing RRPM from top to bottom, while doing non-standard manuevers to reach a specific spot, such as max glide configuration, zero airspeed or backwards autorotational descents, turns, etc. (which are the types of maneuvers that the Sacramento FSDO attaches to the term "enhanced") is all much more difficult, IMHO, than simply flying a fulldown auto, which means that cfi who can teach sfar maneuvers (and/or recieve an SFAR endorsement in the SAC FSDO) should find demonstrating a fulldown to be cake.

Basically I'm saying that teaching real autos to real students (in fake helicopter?:hmm: ) takes a lot of skill / training, and since that is one of the primary things a cfi will find him(or her)self doing, they should be pretty proficient at it by the time they become certified to teach it, which should make the completion of the fulldown TASK pretty easy.

I can agree with some that the final five feet aren't that difficult, and that if you can fly the auto to a powered hover in a good safe spot, you'll probably walk away from the real thing, but I see any lowering of the standards to be a step in the wrong direction.

If you do it all the way to the ground and land using the decaying Nr - call it an EOL.

If you pull in the power just before you would touchdown - call it a flare recovery to the hover (power comes in after the flare)

If you pull in power before you start the flare - call it an overshoot or go-around.

Frankly the thought that a pilot could get all the way through to flying passengers without ever having completed an EOL is very scary. Maybe the US wants to get some decent examiners who can deal with 'checkride stress'. And before anyone starts, I have done EOLs in an R22 - they happen a bit quicker than on other types but they're not that bad, it's just a crap aircraft for teaching them on.

Thats great Crab, so i guess you will be paying for the one that you will bend, inevitably, due to the aircraft being "crap" !!!!! Do us a( owners and operators) favour and bring the power in after the flare, that way you will get away with ....a sudden drop in the wind speed , found the one piece of un even ground , ground was soft etc etc etc all good excuses for ballsing up the " last 5 feet " .....Why do it ???:mad:

I've actually done a couple of hours of instructing, mostly in the R22, some in the B47, H300 and a bit in turbines, B206, B206L, H500 and B407. My opinion is that touch down autos need to be done during initial training (I'm talking civilian, not military, so piston helicopters). Over here some schools do them to death, almost as though it happens that often that you need to be very good at it.
I think limited power is a more likely situation for helicopters than engine failure, it can happen without mechanical problems.
Fact is engines do fail, unfortunately, more often than not because "old mate behind the wheel didn't bring enough juice". So with that in mind, yes you need to be proficient at autos to the ground (or maybe make sure you your engine has the required fuel and maintenance).
So how often should you do touch down autos to remain proficient? (I've got no idea).
The question is how much money do you want to give insurance companies. It won't be long and schools won't be able to insure their aircraft for touch down autos as it will be cost prohibitive. Then what do we do.
I don't have any good answers to the problem, but who has???????????

How is it that a touch down auto is considered more risky than a run on landing with a jammed pedal or collective?
Or does that not come into the equation:confused:
They are all very controllable manouvers (at least they should be) in the right environment. It is not like any flight school will be rubbing their skids on a surface they are not familiar with.
It is a great bit of exposure and completion for the student to have a slide on the grass. The money that they pay for their ticket should ensure that the instuctor is proficient and able to provide as much quality exposure as possible.
In respect to the above if they really want to increase safety standards they should increase the minimum requirements for an instructors rating.
I realise that it has become a bit of an avenue to obtain hours early on but it is just not right. I am not having a go at the blokes who are doing it I think that the industry is the culprit that allows it.
Maybe I was a bit of a slow learner but I was still learning way too much with less than a 1000hrs to teach someone else to the extent that their dollars deserve. I would have started feeling comfortable with 2000/2500.
Most people will carry a lot of basic methods and traits from their initial training. Even the undisciplined ones. A lot of good advice and maybe a few scares along the way will adjust and improve(in most cases) their approach but your attitude towards aviation, to a larger part, is developed at the flying school.
That is why it should be value for money.

A good question, the flight school I taught at answered by prohibiting us from teaching those maneuvers either (we could only teach things outlined in the R22 training manual -- we may have exceded this mandate from time to time :ok: ). Conservative towards equipment, but limited scope in training.:yuk:

I wholeheartedly agree. Sadly, this is not the case at most schools I've seen. When I started teaching, I may have been competent (debatable of course ;) ) but my ability to teach these types of maneuvers improved a great deal throughout the year and a half I taught.

Unfortunately, I can't think of an environment where I could have learned to be a better instructor, without being an instructor (where else does one get to do 20 - 30 + autos a day?) One possibility for better instruction in the future is the development of better simulators/FTDs which could allow for the removal of the risk of damage until the student (and instructor) are more competent.

Gotta go to work...

Right - so we're all in agreement, then!

BTW, at our little school (flying the mighty Schweizer), we demo EOLs to students before they solo They must be able to perform "approaches with the engine idling", followed by "flare recoveries", as well as power failure at the hover, aka "hover autos". They must also show proficiency at dealing with simulated engine failures to a go-around. Once post-solo, if a CFI feels a Private student will benefit from EOL practice, they are authorized to provide that training, after an O.K. from the chief (that's me). At the Commercial level, all students recieve EOL training, as well as training in engine failures on approach, departure, OGE hover and so on.

flingwing:

that sounds like a sensible approach for students. im guessing you dont do all this stuff in the r22 as well?