Minimum Height for 180° Auto in the Cruise

[megan]

Wondering what opinion the good folk may have, and you bad ones as well. ;)

The Oz Army I'm told used to teach their Kiowa pilots 360° autos initiated on the tree tops in the cruise, for the time when low flying and the failure occurred just as you passed over the only clear spot. In training we always did cruise 180° from 1,000, 360° from 1,500 irrespective of type.

I ask the question because of my flying offshore in the 205 and in my dotage wondering how far out I hung my sweet little *** in the doing, thinking of the days with 60 knots or so tailwind.

[Ascend Charlie]

There used to be a film, shown to us "envious" Huey drivers, of two Kiowas (Kiowae?) galloping along at treetop level. Both chopped their throttles, one zoomed and then travelled for a mile further before touching down, the other zoomed up into a 360 and landed under where the throttle was cut. Impressive.

For currency, us Huey pilots had to fly downwind at 1000', 90kt, and as we passed over a 100' circle on the grass below, enter auto, do a 180, and touchdown inside the circle and stop the skid inside the circle. The penalty for going through the circle was a loss of captaincy and re-training. Dictated by the dicheads at OpCom.

The CO put up with this for a few cycles, but then got the 5h1ts with it. He pulled everybody in, got 3 Hueys and 3 instructors, and the whole squadron did the test. The CO and one of the qfi failed, as did quite a few of the senior pilots, and the ones who did best were the newly-arrived boggies fresh off conversion. The CO declared the squadron to be non-operational due to lack of captains, and sent the message to OpCom with some choice words. The reply came rocketing back, scratch the test results, forget we ever asked, you are all back on line.

While doing this test, we asked one of the ace instructors, whose nickname was something like an arachnid, if he could land on a matchbox (on its side) in the middle of the circle.
"Of course!"
Off a 360 from 1000'?
"Of course! Which skid do you want on it?"
We let him have the left skid, and away he went, into wind. Full 360, and as he pulled pitch at the end, the matchbox blew over and he skimmed its side.

[[email protected]]

Standard Brit Mil was 1000' for 180 and 1500 for 360 but that was in the Gazelle, entering at 90 kts and using a standard 60 kts and 30 deg AoB, so it was an academic manoeuvre used to teach the basic handling skills before moving to PFLs.

Changing speed and AoB from the academic ones could get you round much quicker.

[Agile]

For the average pilot a 360 auto is prone to give you a lot of trouble:
1/ Because of the turning load factor, Rotor RPM will creep up and you are likely to increase the collective too much in a rush to reduce RRPM, consequently to the collective increase the AC will pitch up and worsen that problem further.
2/ Because of all that turning you might loose your landing spot (talking of an average pilot focused of regulating the auto)
3/ Keeping in trim in a 360 auto is also a task that is often missmanaged

for an average skill level I find it much more applicable to
1/ reduce the speed to a hover auto, the flare will help get your RRPM right even if it had decayed due to possible slow reaction time, (talking about a real case, where collective down response is not a perfect motor reflex)
2/ do a pedal turn to find your spot
3/ than heavy nose down to get 50knots before the ground proximity

[212man]

than heavy nose down to get 50knots before the ground proximity

That in itself needs care - it can seem like an eternity before the ‘needle unsticks’, while the ground rushes up at you. Uses quite a lot of height (as you know).

[meleagertoo]

for an average skill level I find it much more applicable to
1/ reduce the speed to a hover auto, the flare will help get your RRPM right even if it had decayed due to possible slow reaction time, (talking about a real case, where collective down response is not a perfect motor reflex)
2/ do a pedal turn to find your spot
3/ than heavy nose down to get 50knots before the ground proximity
Wow! That sounds scary. A pedal turn in an auto? Never even heard of that! And isn't that pitch-down asking for mast bumping in some types?
I think I'd stick to 360s!

[Rotorbee]

Wow! That sounds scary. A pedal turn in an auto? Never even heard of that! And isn't that pitch-down asking for mast bumping in some types?
I think I'd stick to 360s!
Na, works like a charm. Actually I always found it much easier like that to hit a spot. Also the entry is much smother, no slamming down of the collective, just gently flare and lower the collective slowly. For me much easier to keep the NR in the green. Much less chasing of NR.
Once I got the hang of it, I became much more consistent in hitting the spot and I really appreciate not having the feeling of my stomach between my ears.
No problems of mast bumping at all, there is no hard push over and the tailrotor can not push you into a roll, since it does not produce a lot of thrust. Just enough to overcome the friction of the system, but not the whole torque of the engine.
Take a instructor and try it. Just a new tool in your box. Really helpful. BTW, you can even go backwards for a while to hit the spot better.

[Rotorbee]

Right, my lowest 180 was from about 500' in an R22 to a clearing on a hill with power recovery. The instructor and I worked our way down from 1000' down in small steps, but in the end the flare started in the turn. Just gives one more confidence in the capability of the machine and yourself.
In real life, I would recommend not flying lower than 1000'. 3000' is my go to altitude today for cruise.

[SASless]

This discussion seems to beg some careful consideration of several factors beginning with the type of aircraft being flown, pilot experience, training, and proficiency for starters followed by airspeed, height above ground, and wind direction/velocity..

During my flight training we learned to how to operate very close to the ground in what was called Low Level Flight Ops which later was expanded to become known as Nap of the Earth flight that was quite different than low level flyingl

The difference being NOE varied airspeed for different height above the ground where low level was done at normal cruise speed.

Initially we learned to apply aft cyclic and up collective to provide a "zoom" climb (if any helicopter can be accused of "zooming" speed wise) to 300-5000 feet and then a normal autorotation could be initiated to include a 180 degree turn.

It must be remembered the aircraft involved had high inertia rotor systems.

Later, a wild haired Aussie Check Captain demonstrated a much different method....which involved an abrupt pull up and a pedal turn at the top much like a stall turn.....and landing back on a spot " behind" us.

That was worked fine so long as one was at a high airspeed and low height when initiated and reacted very quickly.

The benefit of these kinds of discussions is they remind us that one system's dogma might not be the only answer to the question and that some systems are far too regimented.

We can all learn from others....we just have to be careful what we learn from them.

If you are going to experiment be sure to do so very carefully and apply that new learning with caution.

One precaution I take which has been very successful is never to get inside a Robbie for any reason.

I have done low level 180 degree autorotations in Jet Rangers, Hughes 500's right on up to the Chinook and the techniques work.

That being said....being current, proficient, and practiced is the key.....but who is all of that when it comes to an engine failure when you are low and slow?

Do you know what the normal rate of descent is for your particular aircraft is? Is your aircraft properly rigged and the Auto Rev's confirmed to be as they should be by an air test?

[topradio]

I've had a 180° auto to the ground from 500ft demonstrated in a R22 while I was sat in the RHS

Not something that I would ever attempt myself

[[email protected]]

Instructors love to show off and a 500' 180 is a party trick when you know when the 'engine failure' is going to happen - in the real case there will be a delay, the Nr will decay and the punchy flare will be needed to recover that Nr - the chances of making a 180 to EOL following a real engine failure from that condition are slim.

As for the low speed auto - again a standard technique taught in Brit Mil as an alternative to a 360, particularly for strong winds when a 360 would drift you a long way down wind.

On most aircraft the speed was brought back to 20 to 30 Kts (the ASI is pretty useless then anyway) and you held it until the wind blew you backwards (relative to the ground) enough for you to see the landing spot. With the Gazelle you could use the balance string to indicate zero IAS as it would point upwards.

You just had to give yourself enough height to make the recovery back to bucket speed if you wanted to have a chance of the RoD (which will increase markedly at low speed) to stabilise back to normal auto RoD. 1000' to 1200' was usually recommended for training.

Flying with other pilots and having PFL competitions, where the NHP calls the entry and aiming point, is a great way to build awareness and skill.

The more basic turning autos you do, the better will be your Nr control - if you learn to anticipate how loading the disc will increase the NR and vice-versa, you will make the small collective corrections to prevent rather than correct Nr excursions.

[Gordy]

Wow! That sounds scary. A pedal turn in an auto? Never even heard of that! And isn't that pitch-down asking for mast bumping in some types?
I think I'd stick to 360s!
Nah...this is our standard auto these days. Here it is in a Huey:

https://youtu.be/jWcR7GlkK2Q

[megan]

two Kiowas (Kiowae?) galloping along at treetop level. Both chopped their throttles, one zoomed and then travelled for a mile further before touching down, the other zoomed up into a 360 and landed under where the throttle was cut. Impressivewhen Bell were out to demonstrate the 206 to Oz military went for a ride seated in the back of a fully loaded machine, flat chat at 0', throttle chop, climbed to some great height, and landed some 3,500' down range, then picked up into a hover for a 360° pedal turn. Impressed after flying the Scout.

How about the grass Gordy to save skid wear, or is it full of gopher holes? Nice video. :ok:

chasing Nr, always found it a difficult task in the 76 with glass cockpit, never did get a handle on it, with steam gauges no problem.

[RVDT]

Coyle, Shawn. LIttle Book of Autorotations . Eagle Eye Solutions LLC.

Cuts through a lot of the dross.
​​​​​​​

[Agile]

Nah...this is our standard auto these days. Here it is in a Huey:

https://youtu.be/jWcR7GlkK2Q

Long flare was well balanced into the turn, Auto started at 1000ft ASL, 180 finished at 1000ft ASL (12 seconds)
That left a confortable 750ft to regain forward speed.

An auto that starts well has much better chance to finish well, I found those 12 seconds helpfull to recover and get my ducks in row.
One can actually practice or demonstrate this at low risk, enter an auto and maintain a long gentle flare and see how long you can maintain altitude.
it is always more time than I expected and a good alternative to the 3,2,1 collective down cyclic aft to keep level attitude that is always taught.

[SLFMS]

I used to do them pretty regularly on light helicopters from 500ft in the cruise but it was worked down from a higher height and more of a demo to students as your reactions had to be bang on not having inertia to play with.
I always thought 800ft was a realistic height for an unforeseen event even then you have to be pretty quick.


I’m pretty sure the closest I’ve come to death in a helicopter involved a 500ft throttle chop on a very windy day. While in the turn I encountered severe wind shear and recovered high speed low rpm about 2ft off the ground. Lesson learnt…. Be careful playing out there.

[hargreaves99]

A 180 degree auto from 500 feet (in an R22) was always part of the FAA CPL syllabus/test around 2004-6

[Luther Sebastian]

I have done auto entries in a light-ish 44 on a thermally day, and quite often it floats like a competition glider - takes ages for any RoD to appear at all. Not quite ‘bring something to read’, but certainly lacking drama.

[[email protected]]

Things to note on Gordy's video are:

Entry height is only 750'agl (starts at 1000 and lands at 250')

The Low Nr warning is on for most of the turn (not unsafe and I suspect well within limits) but decays further when the nose is pushed down to recapture the speed (negative flare effect)

The RoD is still high (2500' fpm) as he starts the flare - that is why I mentioned recovering to bucket speed with enough height to let the RoD settle back to normal - again not a problem in a light aircraft for training but you reduce your margins in a heavier and less capable aircraft for a safe EOL if you have a higher RoD.

The only time I can think you would use this technique for real is if the only landing area is pretty much right underneath you and the wind isn't too strong when the donk stops. A good handling exercise though.

[SASless]

Just for the record......the RPM Warning can be for low or high Rotor RPM and there is an associated Warning Audio sound for certain low RPM situations.

From the UH-1 Operators Manual2-85. RPM High-Low Limit Warning System. The rpm high-low limit warning system provides the pilot with an immediate warning of high and low rotor or engine rpm. Main components of the system are a detector unit, warning light and audio signal circuit, low RPM AUDIO/OFF switch, and electrical wiring and connectors. The warning light and audio warning signal systems are activated when any one of the following rpm conditions exist:

a Warning light only:
(1) For rotor rpm of 329-339 (High Warning).

(2) For rotor rpm of 300-310 (Low Warning).

(3) For engine rpm of 6100-6300 (Low Warning).

(4) Loss of signal (circuit failure) from either rotor tachometer generator or power turbine tachometer generator.

b. Warning light and audio warning signal combination:

(1) For rotor rpm of 300-310 and engine rpm of 6100-6300 (Low Warning).

(2) Loss of signal (circuit failure) from both rotor tachometer generator and power turbine tachometer generator.

[FH1100 Pilot]

PHI used to have us do 180 autos from 500 feet in a 206B during every year during Recurrent. No big deal. The key was to initiate the aft cyclic input first, or at least simultaneously with putting the pitch down. If you put the collective down first, the nose WILL drop and...guess what...the helicopter will start to descend. You'll be at "something less" than 500' as you get stabilized in autorotation. So it's imperative that you get the nose up (not just maintain it at level) which of course also helps slow the decay of the NR. As you make your 180 turn, now it's important maintain a level cabin attitude and not to dive for the runway or pull the nose up further. A level cabin attitude will keep the speed in the ballpark without staring at the gauge. And who cares if you arrive at the flare with 50 or 60 knots - the a/c certainly doesn't.

We did 300-foot 180's too, but they were a wild, nearly aerobatic maneuver that are fun but no one was expected to try in real life.

Having done as many practice 180's as I've done in my career (both before and after PHI), I'm utterly convinced that if the engine really does quit while tootling along downwind at 500' agl, most pilots (probably even me) will land straight ahead and not even try to get it back around into the wind. (I mean, do I *really* remember what's back there?) Thankfully, the 180-degree auto is more of an academic procedure these days, since it derives from a time when helicopters were powered by big, six-cylinder piston engines, spinning at 3200 rpm (yikes!) and that did have a tendency to quit, as opposed to our modern turbines which almost never do unless we run them out of fuel. If I flew an R-44, I'd probably practice them. A lot.

[Robbiee]

Right, my lowest 180 was from about 500' in an R22 to a clearing on a hill with power recovery. The instructor and I worked our way down from 1000' down in small steps, but in the end the flare started in the turn. Just gives one more confidence in the capability of the machine and yourself.
In real life, I would recommend not flying lower than 1000'. 3000' is my go to altitude today for cruise.

I always cruised around 800', can't imagine cruising at 3,000' in the 22. Lowest I ever did a 180° was 400', but practicing in the pattern doesn't really count. I'd say the lowest throttle chop I ever got (that resulted in a 180°) was around 1,000'

[Robbiee]

Wow! That sounds scary. A pedal turn in an auto? Never even heard of that! And isn't that pitch-down asking for mast bumping in some types?
I think I'd stick to 360s!

If you've reduced your airspeed to a hover in an auto, then pitching the nose down will not induce low-g, therefore there'd be no risk of mast bumping. The same goes for pitching down to recover from VRS.

[ShyTorque]

Over the years I decided that the safest thing was to fly solely twin engined aircraft.

[212man]

Over the years I decided that the safest thing was to fly solely twin engined aircraft.
Cue AnFi……

[Gordy]

How about the grass Gordy to save skid wear, or is it full of gopher holes? Nice video. :ok:


NEVER do touchdowns to grass unless a real auto---the risk of rollover is too great. We have full lenght carbide skid shoes...good for about 2,500 touchdowns on concrete before needing to be changed.
Things to note on Gordy's video are:
The Low Nr warning is on for most of the turn (not unsafe and I suspect well within limits) but decays further when the nose is pushed down to recapture the speed (negative flare effect)

That is the engine out light---there is no low RPM warning in this particular Huey.


The RoD is still high (2500' fpm) as he starts the flare - t
Nah--this is an old steam gauge not an instantnaeous VSI, I can assure you the ROD was about 1,000 fpm at entry. The 2,500 was in the nose dive to gain our speed back, and we had somewhat levelled by about 100' short of the flare, 200' agl


The only time I can think you would use this technique for real is if the only landing area is pretty much right underneath you and the wind isn't too strong when the donk stops. A good handling exercise though.
This technique is good for areas where you have only a toght spot to go as your descent profile is steeper, allowing you to almost geet it into a confined area. I find most pilots can control the turn a lot better while in this flared attitude rather than trying a co-ordinate turn at 60 kts. It alos improves accuracy to a spot as you "drive" the nose to the spot to gain speed back after zeroing out.



​​​​​​​

[hargreaves99]

a twin lowers the risk of injury/death when over sea/mountains/cities etc, but for any other flying you are just paying a cost/weight penalty dragging an extra engine around

two properly trained pilots is always safer than two engines

[megan]

NEVER do touchdowns to grass unless a real auto---the risk of rollover is too greatIn the military all our Huey autos were to grass, some areas had an uneven surface, but there was never an issue, of course we were operating to a surface of known condition. Civil Huey autos were more fun as they had fixed floats and thus were done on the local lake.

[Rotorbee]

Shawn (Coyle) once told me, autorotations to the grass are harder on the airframe, because they prevent the skids to spread out. Just saying ...

Hi Robbie, why would you think it is safer to cruise at 800' instead of 3000'? Much more time to work things out if the donk stops. For example to restart it. And lots more things to see.

Well, that is a new one, Crab does not know a flying technique. I am with Gordy here. This technique has some advantages beyond spots right below you. I see it more as a technique that gives me more mental capacity to find the right spot. And you do not have to stop completely. When the donk stops, all I have to do immediately is flare. If I remember right from the safety course, at cruise speed the flare will give you about 7 seconds before the NR starts to drop without touching the collective. That's a long time to get the collective down. I never waited the 7 seconds though. Don't have the nerves (don't try this at home kids). I just slowly lower the collective. But in a normal auto, I jump on the collective, flare a bit to bring the speed to 60, look at the ball to fly coordinated, adjust the NR and so on. All that in way less than 7 seconds. Only then I have the time to look at the landing spot, but I already have lost quite a bit of altitude. With that other technique, I am still at the original altitude or even higher. I then stop the flare and everything is just calm and less stressful. I then put the nose towards the landing spot and might take on a bit of speed to reach it. I can adjust my gliding distance without going trough S-turns. From my training experience, the entry point for the 180 autorotation does not differ for either technique.
I personally think, that when I have to autorotate for real, I will take the NEXT best spot. I will not use the one at the optimal gliding distance. I think I will take one that is much closer. One I am absolutely sure I can reach.
Depending on the helicopter I am flying, the sight picture right in front of you is more or less obstructed by the instrument panel. Therefore the spot I will choose, will be more often than not to my right and close by. What I just said is pure theory fuelled by the experience of many nasty throttle chops by various mean instructors since I never had an engine failure. I go knocking on wood now.

[skadi]

In the military all our Huey autos were to grass, some areas had an uneven surface, but there was never an issue, of course we were operating to a surface of known condition.

Same with me. Only ARs to concrete were in Ft. Rucker, after returning to Europe all the ARs were done to grass. Many of them with BO105, UH-1 and never had problems.
We even did solo ARs with UH-1 to grass. Ok, not realy solo, but 2 student pilots

Skadi

[ShyTorque]

a twin lowers the risk of injury/death when over sea/mountains/cities etc, but for any other flying you are just paying a cost/weight penalty dragging an extra engine around

two properly trained pilots is always safer than two engines

Strangely enough, I always start both engines. IN any case, In U.K. you need two engines, plus the associated dual equipment they bring, for IFR.

I’ve flown with some pilots where their equivalent weight in fuel would have been more useful. :hmm:

[[email protected]]

Just for the record......the RPM Warning can be for low or high Rotor RPM and there is an associated Warning Audio sound for certain low RPM situations. Yup, I looked the Nr gauge to see what was actually happening.

[[email protected]]

That is the engine out light---there is no low RPM warning in this particular Huey. Yet the caption on the light clearly says RPM LIMIT?

Nah--this is an old steam gauge not an instantnaeous VSI, I can assure you the ROD was about 1,000 fpm at entry. The 2,500 was in the nose dive to gain our speed back, and we had somewhat levelled by about 100' short of the flare, 200' agl The VSI seems to respond quite quickly enough to the whole of the auto - we used to reckon on wings level by 300' for a 100' flare height - I reckon in a Huey you can almost do what you like, especially in a light one.

This technique is good for areas where you have only a toght spot to go as your descent profile is steeper, allowing you to almost geet it into a confined area. ​​​​​​​ In that case, why would you not teach a constant attitude EOL? Speed back to around 30Kts, gives a steep approach with no flare required, just a handful of collective at the bottom. If you have limited space available, why would you keep at 50 to 60 and flare? Sounds like a recipe for a tail strike.

[[email protected]]

Well, that is a new one, Crab does not know a flying technique. I didn't say I didn't know it, I've used it and the techniques you described in PFLs for many years in many different helicopters.

'Get close - stay close' is the best mantra for a forced landing.

The effectiveness of the flare on entry depends on your cruise speed - from 100 kts you will get a decent benefit but not as much as at 140 kts and in the real case you will use a lot of that flare effect just to recover the Nr which will start to decay immediately the donkey quits.

If your cruise speed is high and you react quickly you could well get a climb or at least delay the descent with flare but don't base your expectations on practising it without a throttle chop or a delay in taking recovery action, that is false hope.

Co-ordinating the entry to auto is a well used term but it is a variable feast depending on conditions - fast cruise, lead more with cyclic, slow speed or hover, lead with lever (quickly).

We used to demonstrate Nr decay to our QHI students from 1000' downwind in the circuit - chop the throttle and do nothing until the Nr was approaching the bottom limit. Then show how a flare and turn (loading the disc) spins up the Nr again and complete a 180 to the EOL.

[[email protected]]

Never had a problem with grass stopping the skids from spreading on an EOL.

[Rotorbee]

Never had a problem with grass stopping the skids from spreading on an EOL.

Since we have often discussed this very subject, nobody has a definitive answer. I can see Shawn's point, that it is harder on the airframe. And since he was an engineer with degree and everything, I tend to take his opinion seriously. On the other hand, just from the feeling of things, an auto on a hard surface with all the shudder and screeching, just makes it uncomfortable. In the end, I take what get.

Oh and crab, believe me, by far most of my autorotations in training were throttle chops without warning. Whenever there was a dull moment, one could be sure it got exciting again any second. Everywhere, at any time of the day. The autorotations during nighttime to an unlit runway were particularly exciting. I had to stare down along the beam of the landing light until I saw the runway, that was the moment to flare. My instructor never let me turn the runway lights on. Never. Just once I wanted to see the ground light up, but no. Everything always to the unlit runway. Chased foxes around the runway though.

[sycamore]

Well,here`s a few`endings`,after things have gone `quiet`...
https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/192x298/tail_less_faf3acfdc8aa04e024222ff2bd92b4dca2253b7d.jpg
Tail rotor and gearbox both departed,landed on a hilltop,luckily a tree stump burst a tyre,so we didn`t roll off.
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1243x1608/tinkershill020002_1643__af048989b6c44d1f497985bf805b391290f5 c363.jpg
Engine surged over a mangrove swamp(middle pic, going L-R),about a mile over `shark and croc infested estuary,taking 6 pilots to help the Navy on a troop lift.Had to fly at min.RRPM,170 ,for range ,as I ..did not wish to get wet,then a wild,flaring turn pointing at the beach.Unfortunately ,nose-wheels dug in a blade hit the sand ,then sliced the tail.....This happened 10 days after the t/r failure.
https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/640x467/no_3_stuck_in_a_bog_8bcf5f05ff966b4bc5f2c89d83a52a2e1132e891 .jpg
New Squadron co-pilot flying approach to hill-top LZ ,gets low/slow,pulls big handfull of collective,forgets to use pedals,engine surges,and down the hillside we go`.,scrabbling for airspeed and RRPM,,BETWEEN THE TREES INTO A LOG FILLED SWAMP,NOSEWHEELS DIG IN,AND WE STOP...He made Gp.Capt,and Staish later..I didn`t..!
No animals /pilots/crew were injured,no nearby schools were terrorised,and flying suits were soon cleaned..

Moral is..if crashing is inevitable,never give up,and fly it under control as long as you can...


NB..ALL aircraft were repaired within weeks after recovery by Belvedere....

[[email protected]]

Rotorbee - whenever you fly with an instructor on a training sortie, you know he will turn things off on you so you are waiting for it and prepared mentally to a degree you probably aren't when tooling around by yourself or with pax.

[Robbiee]

Hi Robbie, why would you think it is safer to cruise at 800' instead of 3000'? Much more time to work things out if the donk stops. For example to restart it. And lots more things to see.


Didn't say it was safer, just said it was where I used to cruise.

[Rotorbee]

Yes Crab, but do you have a better idea for training? At least with the repetition of autos you get to a point, where if the nose yaws suddenly, you just lower the collective and that buys you time. And let me add this, the clues in training are also wrong. I can feel the throttle turning when the instructor chops it. I can even feel it, when he/she touches it. Or see it in my peripheral vision (a clue is when he leans forward to cover his hand). Here a simulator is better, but in the sim, everybody knows also that everything will go wrong.
I do tool around on my own, I am an instructor after all, but not with pax, that's for sure.

[[email protected]]

Rotorbee, you are right there is no real better way to train but we must never forget that a real engine failure is very unlikely to be like the practice ones.

And yes the sim is good but you do know it is coming - how many stare avidly at the engine instruments in the sim far more than you would in the real aircraft?

I agree the yaw is a good cue but more than that is the sound - your ear gets attuned to the right Nr and engine noise and it only has to change very slightly to provoke a reaction.

[Rotorbee]

Crab, please note, that I do not want to contradict you now, but I have a "but". I am not sure, if I would react faster to the loss of engine noise. Especially with turbine helicopters where sometimes the gearbox is quite loud, too. And with all the noise attenuating headsets, a brain will just tune the rest out. That might be the reason, why most if not all turbine helicopters have engine out warnings in the form of lights and "Bitching Betty". I think, from a "attention getting" point of view, something that comes up suddenly, is much more efficient, than something that goes away. AFIAK, that is the reason, why modern cockpits are designed as dark cockpits.
Again, as far as I know, because I have not flown everything out there, but from my experience and what is written in the POH's of those ships, in a piston helicopter the first indication is a yaw, for turbine helicopters it's an engine out light and sound.
Having said that, I have to add a disclaimer. I todays training world, throttle chops are a big NO NO. Today you have to yell "engine failure" and let the student do his/her thing. I don't know if that is better, because now the student never gets to experience the clues. For a better training experience the instructor should have a switch to make the engine out warning go of. That could be helpful. And all helicopters should have an engine out indication. Also every Robinson, Schweizer, Enstrom and Cabri.
I get it, why throttle chops are not en vogue anymore. Engine failures are so far down the list of preferred methods of beding helicopters, the gain in additional safety is small compared to the risk of additional accidents in training. Am I happy with that? No, because there is a tendency to train pilots to autorotate only to runways, to get it out of the way. Am I in favour of the full down auto? Yes, but to make somebody proficient in it, you need a lot of training time you don't have. On balance I prefer to do a lot of power recoveries to various spots all over the country side. The military can train its pilots to the standard they want, unfortunately in the civilian world, we can not do that.

[[email protected]]

Rotorbee, I hear what you are saying but I have flown noisy turbines for 40 years and if a pilot needs an engine out light to tell them something has gone wrong then they are not listening to their aircraft.

Listening is vital, even with noise attenuating headsets, not just for engine malfunctions but for gearboxes, hyd pumps, rattles, bangs and other noises that helicopters often make just before (or just as) they are going wrong.

Trouble is when you are 200 plus miles out to sea, every flicker of a gauge or slight noise change is easy to perceive as impending doom:)

The yaw is noticeable in a piston but also in a single turbine, slightly less so in a twin because the other engine is still driving.

To give you an idea of how powerful the audio sense is - the Gazelle has a particular whine as the the engine shuts down and pilots would often transmit to ATC that they were complete as they chopped the throttle on shutdown - I and many colleagues have started to lower the lever in flight just from hearing that noise in the background of a radio transmission before realising it wasn't us.

I was on a checkride in a Wessex during training so I knew emergencies would come thick and fast - I had lifted to the hover and was doing a lookout turn, heard the engine note change and called 'Engine failure, landing', much to the amusement of my instructor who had done nothing and it was just the slight change in audio cue as I turned crosswind with the cockpit doors open.

[[email protected]]

The military can train its pilots to the standard they want, unfortunately in the civilian world, we can not do that. That isn't a very good state of affairs I think - certainly all my ATPLH VFR sim checks haven't really required a high standard of handling, on one the examiner seemed surprised I could fly a 30 deg banked turn without changing height! Maybe I did learn something in 10,000 hours:)

[oldbeefer]

In the good old days. when pranks were allowed, I was Duty Instructor in the tower at Sy on a gorgeous summer afternoon. Viz was good and I could see streams of Gazelles transiting through the gates to the West. I pressed the tit and said 'Practice Engine Failure Go'. Hadn't laughed so much for years. Childish really!

[[email protected]]

In the good old days. when pranks were allowed, I was Duty Instructor in the tower at Sy on a gorgeous summer afternoon. Viz was good and I could see streams of Gazelles transiting through the gates to the West. I pressed the tit and said 'Practice Engine Failure Go'. Hadn't laughed so much for years. Childish really!
Much like you playing the student on an EOL, deliberately buggering up the entry, chopping the throttle and then telling me I had control - I sweated all the way to the ground and you just giggled:)

[Rotorbee]

You funny old geezers. BTW, did any of the Gazelles actually go for the auto?

Anyway, the comparison of civilian and military training isn't fair anyway. Most of the flights in the military are training flights. As a civi jockey, we get training and then go out to make money for some company. That most of us survive it, is due to the fact that the training isn't so bad after all and helicopters are rather reliable.

[[email protected]]

The Gazelles did thousands of EOLs/full down autos in the Brit MIl, it was the sport of kings.

Most guys I taught on the instructor's course had flown EOLs in Gazelle during basic training but most of those had the assistance of the Hand of God from the instructor at the time. We had to build their confidence and skill to a point where they could not only go solo for EOLs but be able to correct student errors.

Valid point about the relative training systems but, while there are a lot of training sorties (often to keep current at the myriad of disciplines), a great many are operational flights (the Military equivalent of earning your company money).:ok:

[Two's in]

Another obvious difference with military training was understanding that faults and failures often led to other faults and failures. On a check ride at low level, one of the Squadron QHIs would casually say "you've just taken a round to the Hydraulic pack", then take out the Hydraulics, after letting you wrestle with the controls for a bit and do the Gazelle straight-leg pedal lock, he would say "where do you think all that leaking fluid is going? I reckon it's going down the engine intake - Practice engine failure - Go". So now it's a zoom climb and then try to find a hole in the woods to put it down, all in manual reversion. Others argued that it was extremely unlikely and therefore unrealistic, but it certainly taught you to understand that bad news is never far away in a helicopter.

[Robbiee]

Having said that, I have to add a disclaimer. I todays training world, throttle chops are a big NO NO. Today you have to yell "engine failure" and let the student do his/her thing. I don't know if that is better, because now the student never gets to experience the clues. For a better training experience the instructor should have a switch to make the engine out warning go of. That could be helpful. And all helicopters should have an engine out indication. Also every Robinson, Schweizer, Enstrom and Cabri.
I get it, why throttle chops are not en vogue anymore. Engine failures are so far down the list of preferred methods of beding helicopters, the gain in additional safety is small compared to the risk of additional accidents in training.
.

"Yell "engine failure"", lol. I was with this kid a few years ago who just nonchalantly said "engine failure" in the middle of his sentence. I looked over at him and said, "So, what about engine failures?"

I can live without calling VRS "SWP". I don't really care if they want to call LTE "unanticipated yaw". I can even accept the dumbing down of the Robby POH over this past decade,...

,...but I really miss throttle chops!

We don't need an "engine out" light. We need less "fresh off the assembly line time builders" teaching newbies, and more pilots with actual real world experience doing it.

[Rotorbee]

Oh for ... sake. PPrune really has to do something about their site. Every time I want to post something, I am thrown out, because the cookie timed out. It takes time for me to write something in English hrrgttnchml (read Gaston and you now what I meant).
Anyway, Robbie, I am curious. What about the dumbing down of the Robinson POH? Please elaborate. I am there with you regarding the throttle chops. But some idiot instructors did it on unprepared students, even in climbs in an R22, which is very, very stupid. I think you can work with students to get them to the point where throttle chops are not dangerous anymore, but that is not something you do early in the training.
Regarding the low time instructors, that is the US-system. 135 work takes a minimum of 500h. 91 work is sparse. An the insurance companies are to blame, too. They don't care about low time pilots. I had the fortune to have an instructor with loads of experience, because I was one of his first students, when he opened his flight school.

Crab, I actually wanted to know, it OldBeefers prank worked and a bunch of Gazelles dropped out of the sky.

[[email protected]]

Crab, I actually wanted to know, it OldBeefers prank worked and a bunch of Gazelles dropped out of the sky. It certainly would have caused some consternation amongst the crews on their way out of the VFR gate at Shawbury - I think from his comments that Oldbeefer saw a couple of aircraft perform self-initiated PFLs before realising they had been fooled.

When we did throttle initiated EOLs on the Gazelle there was a standard brief where the NHP identified the throttle (in the roof) put his hand on it, moved it sideways out of the gate and only retarded it on the command '3, 2, 1 Go' - it worked well until some bright spark rearranged the callsigns so someone had 321Golf as theirs:)

When two staff instructors were flying together it was also important to retard the throttle when the HP said 'Go' and not when you thought they were going to say it - two chums only just made it to the EOL area when the HP changed the cadence of his 3,2,1 Go as he hadn't quite reached his desired entry point but the NHP chopped the throttle in anticipation of the 'Go' Cue drooping the Nr for extra range to make it over the fence.

[Robbiee]

Anyway, Robbie, I am curious. What about the dumbing down of the Robinson POH? Please elaborate.

It's just some little things I've noticed since Kurt took over. Like in the EP section on fires, they added "pull mixture" to all three, as if they don't think we know how to shut down the engine anymore.

Under autos, it used to say, "Adjust collective as necessary to keep rpm in the green arc,...". Now its, "between 97 and 110", which makes me wonder if students and new pilots are just getting really sloppy nowadays? I mean, the old way taught precision, and 97 isn't even the bottom of the yellow arc, 90 is, so wtf?

Combine this with some of the later Safety Notices and it just seems like Robinson thinks that pilot training has gotten worse (or pilots have just gotten dumber) in the last decade, or so, and need everything almost spoon fed to us?

,...but maybe its just me. :hmm:

[SASless]

Seems like a good question to ask Robinson themselves.

Also ask if their Lawyers had an input re the changes.

[megan]

they added "pull mixture" to all three, as if they don't think we know how to shut down the engine anymoreAs SAS hints, smells of lawyers and the litigious US system. Hiring a car in the US was staggered at the size of the manual compared to the slim in comparison volume we get in Oz, put the "Encyclopedia Britannica" to shame.

[ShyTorque]

It certainly would have caused some consternation amongst the crews on their way out of the VFR gate at Shawbury - I think from his comments that Oldbeefer saw a couple of aircraft perform self-initiated PFLs before realising they had been fooled.

When we did throttle initiated EOLs on the Gazelle there was a standard brief where the NHP identified the throttle (in the roof) put his hand on it, moved it sideways out of the gate and only retarded it on the command '3, 2, 1 Go' - it worked well until some bright spark rearranged the callsigns so someone had 321Golf as theirs:)

When two staff instructors were flying together it was also important to retard the throttle when the HP said 'Go' and not when you thought they were going to say it - two chums only just made it to the EOL area when the HP changed the cadence of his 3,2,1 Go as he hadn't quite reached his desired entry point but the NHP chopped the throttle in anticipation of the 'Go' Cue drooping the Nr for extra range to make it over the fence.

A colleague of mine was in the process of demonstrating a low level EOL to his Gazelle student, at RAF Ternhill. The student had to be briefed to retard the throttle for these demos. The standard briefing for this to the student, as mentioned by Crab, was:

1.“Identify the throttle”. The student was briefed to identify and put his hand on the correct lever (in the ceiling on the Gazelle).
2. “Out of the gate”. The student was briefed to bring the throttle out of the gated position.
3. “On my command 3-2-1……NOW!” Retard the throttle.

We used to get the student to practice the above whilst safely on the ground, prior to flying a low level circuit, descending on the final run in to 100’ and 130 kts for the EOL.

On this particular day, this practice brief was done and the student responded correctly.

The low level circuit was duly completed and on the run in at 100 feet my colleague said “Identify the throttle”……whereupon the student reached up, grabbed and instantly fully retarded the throttle.

The Gazelle ended up in a field half a mile short of Ternhill.

A suitably worded debrief was carried out.

[ShyTorque]

On the Puma HC1 we were required to practice double engine failures once a month, by having both throttles pulled by a squadron “beefer”. The aircraft was loaded to MAUM by the fitting of a steel frame in the cabin, and a suitable number of lead weights added to it.

The HC1 initially came with “draggy” metal main rotor blades and it was critical to be very prompt in lowering the collective when entering autorotation to prevent rotor under speed, and leaving it on the bottom stop whilst manoeuvring. When the aircraft were retrofitted with composite main rotor blades, as they all were, the handling in autorotation became quite different because the blades were much more efficient and the rotor could quite easily over speed in manoeuvre. Because of the poor engine response on the Puma, with no automatic anticipators on the engines, it was then very important to get the NR under control “in the governed band” before raising the collective to significantly pull power.

I went out with a new Beefer to carry out my monthly training. The brief was for the crewman to sit on the jump seat and handle the throttles, under the Beefer’s command. The brief was for the throttles to go forward at a low altitude once it was obvious the aircraft would make the chosen field and a flare recovery would then be carried out.

I carried out a couple of practices, which I thought were ok. The new Beefer then said he would show me how to do it properly because he thought I flared a bit too high…so I sat back to watch. Having climbed away, he went into QHI mode patter, demoed his auto, aiming for a cabbage field. Unfortunately he flared very late in my humble opinion and the NR was still above the governed band when he began to pull power. The NR drooped and the aircraft carved a swathe through a row of very nice cabbages as the patter ended in the words “Oh f******* hell!”. We then went back to base where shredded cabbage was hosed off the undercarriage.

I’m not going to name names but it wasn’t OldBeefer.

[[email protected]]

,...but maybe its just me. https://www.pprune.org/images/smilies/yeees.gif No, Robbiee, you are just getting older like the rest of us and remembering your glory days through rose-tinted glasses like the rest of us :):ok:

Much like noticing how young policemen and doctors look nowadays.....

[ShyTorque]

No, Robbiee, you are just getting older like the rest of us and remembering your glory days through rose-tinted glasses like the rest of us :):ok:

Much like noticing how young policemen and doctors look nowadays.....

I’d probably notice but around where I live policemen are very rare and seeing a doctor is impossible.