Heavens after 45 years of doing this and having been retired for 10 years I'll have to go learn everything again. I didn't realise that a Sight Picture Approach was such a complicated exercise!
E86

You're right. Three pages and 80 posts analysing what pilots do every time they fly.

Many HAA/EMS operators have adopted departure and approach profiles that live entirely inside the HVD and would seeming drive a new instructor insane. An operator might require departure and approach profiles similar to:

• For any non-airport departure, maintain a profile that will ensure all obstacles are cleared by a minimum of 30 feet. After clear of all obstacles accelerate to and maintain best rate of climb speed.
• Rates of descent shall be kept below 200 fpm when less than 300 feet above the landing surface. Steep approach angles with a rate of descent greater than 200 fpm shall be avoided.

At one time, I too thought this exaggeratedly and dangerously slow. For most pilots its excruciatingly difficult to fly an approach this slow, or to liftoff vertically without an obstacle 10 foot in front of them. Try it. However, it makes sense from a statistical point of view. As an industry, we run into far more (seen and unseen) obstacles rather than suffer from failures of our incredibly reliable turbine engines.

Sight Picture Approach. Thank you,Eagle 86; for some 80 replies on this topic,I have barely understood where they were all coming from. A novice helo pilot in 1963 at CFS(H) I was taught only 2 approaches: sight picture and confined area. It seemed enough to see me through to 1987
Cafe solo..

Since Agile started the thread with a question about which type of approach to use and when - it seems to have a been a reasonable discussion covering a number of options.

There is not really a right and wrong way to fly your approach unless you are required to use PC1 profiles - if you can only fly an approach one particular way you are missing the fantastic flexibility that comes from being in a helicopter.

Vive la difference :ok:

I appreciated everybodies input. there is indeed not a single fit-all prescription of one versus the other method. the principal driver of the approach profile is to reduce risk, but assessing the risk is so much specific to a specific situation.

For those who have a lot of experience in doing it with variations that have always worked it might seem to be a lot of overthinking, For the rest of us including myself the specific aerodynamic elements involved are and remain complex in a helicopter.

The opportunity to remain curious in defining those aerodynamic elements to both anticipate the effects and understand the trade offs is a fine exercise.

Personally, the "rip, !!!! and bust" approach, taught to me by Eagle 86 and his mates back in 1973, is a favourite, but doesn't set a great example to the student these days.

Gotta be responsible.

No fun....

With you on that one AC:ok: Wingover arrival to dispersal always worked for me:)

Good Heavens, at last a reply, what took you so long Crab? Don't answer that, this has already gone on far too long! ;)

Better still, arriving` a la Maverick` into a pull-up ,proper TQ.turn,where at the apex you should be going up and backwards,followed by a `full-free controlchec ,into a ful-face `stand-it-up flare,just dabbling the tailwheel,tailskid,bumper on the ground,hoping the Gnomes,Nimbus,or Aztissue are still co-operating,to smoooothly cushion the touchdown.....combing your hair as you get out for a well deserved coffee...sorry ,no tea/coffee,no biscuits either......!!
on the FBW thread ,I`m not sure the `unique cyclic sidearm`gizmo and FD would really be able to cope,or be such `fun`.....

Regardless of the type of approach you chose to fly your preflight planning should take into account questions as to whether the termination will be IGE or OGE.
Consult the RFM to determine a/c performance. If the pad is unfamiliar then plan for the worst case in the "best guess" prevailing conditions.
And on approach your ROD after the loss of translation lift should be well under control at around 200 feet per minute.
Not wishing to start a thread on unknown landing site/Mountain ops.
E86

"Regardless of the type of approach you chose to fly your preflight planning should take into account questions as to whether the termination will be IGE or OGE.
Consult the RFM to determine a/c performance. If the pad is unfamiliar then plan for the worst case in the "best guess" prevailing conditions.
And on approach your ROD after the loss of translation lift should be well under control at around 200 feet per minute."

Gosh you are a serious chap.............:E

If the group will allow a bit of thread drift...

Eagle86 is absolutely right. The time to start thinking about your next landing is before pulling pitch on the takeoff that will lead to it. I mean, let's face it, most helicopter flights are not hours and hours long. I don't want to sound arrogant, but if I'm headed for an off-airport landing, I definitely think about all of the factors that will come into play before I ever get in the air. It helps if I've been there before, so I can visualize the different approach paths and angles I might have to use when I arrive.

One of the things that makes airline flying so safe is the repeatability and consistency of their operations. As much as possible, everything is planned out in advance so there should be few (if any) surprises. Nice and predictable...and boring. By contrast and out of necessity, a lot of what we helicopter pilots do is an improvisation. Instead of landing on big, long runways where we know the wind and other conditions well in advance, we arrive over our intended LZ and then have to decide how we're going to get down there and land. I'm not a big fan of the make-it-up-as-you-go-along school of helicopter flying. What we do in our end of the industry may never be as predictable as airline flying, but I like to keep the amount of improvising I do down to a minimum.

Georg1na - thing is, if all helicopter pilots did as Eagle 86 and FH1100 suggest, we would have far fewer accidents and incidents to discuss on these pages. Sadly, it would seem they do not.

Helicopter flying is fun, for the most part, but that doesn't mean you should just cuff it once you have your licence. Performance and pre-flight planning is in the syllabus for a reason and not just so you have something to swot up on for a checkride.

Low between the hangers at Valley, pull up into wingover and pop it on the spot - simples!!:ok:

Zactly! At last, some common sense :8

But if you ever tried that in my job, your next trip would be on foot with a P45 in your hand.

Wrong job mate!:ok:

Wingovers, as much fun as they are, pale into insignificance beside loops, barrel rolls and back flips in a Lynx:E:ok:

Maybe but I got my “Hooray Henry” stuff done quite some years ago.

In about 1987.... :cool:

Georg1na. Mate I've done all the jobs and I'm still here to talk about it.
E86

Got my stuff done in the 60's and 70's and beyond. Also still here and laughing.:O

Crab you are right about the Lynx................articulated heads and no ASE made it much more difficult.........

Welcome to the club.
E86

Georg1na - you fly the manoeuvres in the Lynx without ASE since the gyros topple and you want maximum control response rate - the yaw channel stays in but that's it :ok:

Crab, your user name is the navy slang for an air force person.
The air force didn't have the Lynx.
If you were really navy, you might be considered guilty of cultural appropriation, a serious sin in these woke days.*





*but I am as politically incorrect as it is possible to be.

It all started back in the day with Torque Turns, using the throttle to swing the aircraft around at the apogee (!!) of the manoeuvre - ohh errr.:eek:

Ascend Charlie - my username comes from 7 years on exchange with the AAC at Middle Wallop - what was then known as the School of Army Aviation or SAAvn - see what I did there? I was lucky enough to fly all the display manoeuvres and even did a display for Blur.:ok:

Georg1na - not feasible with modern governed engines but you can lower the lever on the way up and then raise it at the top to push you round. With the power of the Lynx TR, a pedal turn was the preferred option.

Crab, who was it who signed -off the `Extension of Flight Envelope` Limitations in the RTS then...?

Sycamore - Westlands ISTR. The aircraft went through substantial testing with various accelerometers fitted to assess the engineering penalties for each manoeuvre and a couple of aircraft at Wallop were allowed to be used (they had G meters fitted).

The purpose was to allow the Blue Eagles display team to fly 1 Lynx and 4 Gazelles during the display season each year. It wasn't just cuffed on the back of a fag packet.

Crab,I used to fly a rigid-rotor Scout,with a Lynx copy head,but Scout blades,fully instrumented with strain-gauges and camera on top..Used for `agility` testing,but the FTE`s were not keen on too much `expressionism` being applied.Also used for deck-landing stress measurements,on the `rolling deck which could go to +-20*,with skids..for the Navy...!

We was all heroes in our own lunchtime.................especially the RN chaps!!:D