Vertical Reject?
 

Has anyone on the other side of the pond used/heard of the term 'Vertical Reject'?

If so in what context is it used? I guess it is something to do with an aborted landing or something like that. We're looking for some clarification.

Sarcastic answers welcome.

Many thanks.

It's a rejected take off from a procedure that uses a vertical (or very close to -e.g. A back up profile) prior to TDP. Normally associated with a Cat A helipad procedure. Sarcasm will come later when discussing 'pull and go' procedures ......

yes I have

Fixed wing pilot perhaps?

Heres my best guess at a definition. The maximum vertical reject height is the maximum height whereby a safe vertical landing can be carried out following an engine failure in flight.

Its a start

Sarkozy ??

It's part of a Category A procedure for helipads (ground level and possibly elevated). Some Category A procedures for some helicopters call for a vertical climb after liftoff to some pre-determined height for the Decision Point. The profile calls for return to helipad prior to this height if an engine fails. A vertical reject is what happens if you are carrying out this profile and have an engine failure prior to reaching this height.

A Dwarf ?

E.

Shawn Coyle is right. it of a non-event in training, it sounds worse than it is. The big problem is not over-reacting. Never tried it for real, but I think the loud bang, oh! F***! moment probably takes out the over-reaction effects any way.

Not sure that i would agree that it's "a bit of an non event during training".

The procedure has led to at least two serious damage accidents in the UK whilst carrying out vertical reject training on the S76.

I think the degree of non-eventness depends on the weight of the a/c and the DA. ie, not an issue if you are very light in temperate climes, but if you are on the edge of the Cat A WAT limits, everything will be a lot less forgiving!

WAT.........is the crucial element
 

The UK - unlike other NAAs - requires all engine failure training to be carried out at 90% of the RTOW appropriate for that day's weather conditions. The S76 vertical is particularly brutal and guaranteed to terrify you the first time you do it. Do an EOL in a Robo and you might bend it but even if you write it off you probably wont have to spend as much on a new one as the S76 owner (stands to attention and salutes) had to pay to mend theirs after a vertical reject went a wee bit wrong (twice I believe).

The 139 is altogether more instructor-friendly. Both engines remain running when you hit the OEI training switch but the aircraft reacts as if a genuine failure had occurred and the displays play the game too. Very clever and much safer.

G. :ok:

I believe the incident with the S76 you mentioned was when they were experimenting with a modified short field take off technique rather than a true vertical. The S76 C+ and C++, as well as the 365N3, are amongst a number of other modern types which, like the AW139 have OEI training switches and the S76B had an add-on which also enabled single engine training to be carried out fairly safely.