Power Off Touchdown Autorotation

[SelwayKid]

Well it appears this board needs something to stir some activity. So,
let's talk about touchdown autorotations. Just like spins in the
phyxed wing world, there are those who argue for/against touchdown
autos.
I've been flying helicopters since the mid 60's and have done quite a
few touchdown autos in both practice and engine out, or mechanical,
for real. I've never bent a machine because of it. Been flying phyxed
wing since the late 50's, have done literally thousands of spins, and
never bent a machine doing them.
So, my question is, what ever happened to pilot skills to cope with
these very basic, and very real flight conditions? I have flown with a
number of instructors for both fw/rw who were nervous about doing
spins and touchdown autos. WHY????
I think its a lack of good training and practice. When no one wants to
do these maneuvers, how can they teach them? If no one practices them,
how can they stay sharp or current?
If there is an aircraft that is not safe for these maneuvers, should
they be allowed to be used for training?
While not rotor related, I saw a recent TV news blurb regarding a
pilot who propped his aircraft and it got away doing damage to several
other aircraft. I think that is also a lost art. Perhaps that is what
prompted my post here.
Long time people here will recognize me as crusty and opinionated with
credentials to back up my thinking.
The gauntlet is tossed down. Are you willing to pick it up and
challenge?
Rocky ATP CFII/RAM 22,000 hours doing lots of hair raising stuff

[Wayne]

(SelwayKid) wrote in message >...
> Well it appears this board needs something to stir some activity.


> I think its a lack of good training and practice. When no one wants to
> do these maneuvers, how can they teach them? If no one practices them,
> how can they stay sharp or current?


> > The gauntlet is tossed down. Are you willing to pick it up and
> challenge?
>
I'll be willing to take up that challenge, and on one point I will
agree
with you, full down auto's are not taught at the Private level. That
being
said I have to disagree with you on the point of them not being taught
and
practiced. I am presently working on my commercial and CFI ratings
and have
been warned of the oncoming necessity of learning the full down auto.
I'm not
trying to stir the pot here, because I wholeheartedly agree with you
on the
point of needing to be trained to do these manouvers. My best guess
on the
reasoning behind the lack of training private students to do full
downs is a
combination of fear of damaging the helicopter, and the simple lack
of experience of a student pilot. Not to mention that many CFI's are
CFI's only
because they HAVE to be to get their hours to move on to A REAL JOB as
they
would see it. I am looking forward to training for mine as this will
much more
realistically simulate an engine out situation. Hey, thanks for
stirring up
life!


Get in the air, no matter how you get yourself up there!

[SelwayKid]

(Wayne) wrote in message >...
> (SelwayKid) wrote in message >...
> > Well it appears this board needs something to stir some activity.
>
>
> > I think its a lack of good training and practice. When no one wants to
> > do these maneuvers, how can they teach them? If no one practices them,
> > how can they stay sharp or current?
>
>
> > > The gauntlet is tossed down. Are you willing to pick it up and
> > challenge?
> >
> I'll be willing to take up that challenge, and on one point I will
> agree
> with you, full down auto's are not taught at the Private level. That
> being
> said I have to disagree with you on the point of them not being taught
> and
> practiced. I am presently working on my commercial and CFI ratings
> and have
> been warned of the oncoming necessity of learning the full down auto.
> I'm not
> trying to stir the pot here, because I wholeheartedly agree with you
> on the
> point of needing to be trained to do these manouvers. My best guess
> on the
> reasoning behind the lack of training private students to do full
> downs is a
> combination of fear of damaging the helicopter, and the simple lack
> of experience of a student pilot. Not to mention that many CFI's are
> CFI's only
> because they HAVE to be to get their hours to move on to A REAL JOB as
> they
> would see it. I am looking forward to training for mine as this will
> much more
> realistically simulate an engine out situation. Hey, thanks for
> stirring up
> life!

Wayne
Of course a student pilot with low experience will have a hard time
doing touchdown autos but they had a hard time learning hovering autos
too didn't they? Seems to me the actuals are easier than the practice.
I can't tell you why that is so, but I'm not the only experienced
pilot to say that.
A lot of my helicopter time is down low doing crop spraying and
working the machine to its full capability. That being the case,
perhaps I am too demanding of others without remembering they don't
have the opportunity to do the kind of stretching the envelope flying
we do in aerial application. For example, in a given hour of spraying,
we'll spend on average :15-20 seconds straight and level at about 3-5'
above the crop, then make a pull up and turnaround to start the next
spray run keeping within a 2' track from pass to pass. We'll make
approximately 200 pull-ups and turnarounds every hour with at least
half of them being in close proximity to obstructions like wires,
structures, trees, fences, equipment and other things that can hurt
you. On average you'll make 10 gross weight takeoffs with little or no
wind and generally high temps, either from the top of a nurse rig
truck, or from the ground. I could go on and on....
Still, I maintain the skills are being eroded by lack of training or
practice except by a very few (comparatively speaking). The
instructors at most factory schools are doing full on autos daily and
not bending machines. What does that say? Practice.Some of the most
fun autos I've done were touchdowns on floats to the water.
As for spins in phyxed wing, the first spins I ever did were on my
first solo back in the late 50's in a Taylorcraft (taildragger for you
rotorheads!) It was no big deal then, and its no big deal now. Same
thing holds true for many CFI's being afraid to do them because of
lousy training and no practice.
Of course the insurance industry will drive most of what is done in
training and there is going to be a steady dumbing down of skills
which will only make the situation worse as time goes on. Ask that
question of nearly any old gray haired pilot with 18-20,000 hours and
I'll bet you get a similar answer. That has been the case at
conventions and seminars I've attended over the past 5-10 years.
Thanks for your response. I hope more weigh in and some discussions
get going.
Ol Shy & Bashful
>
>
> Get in the air, no matter how you get yourself up there!

[Steve R.]

"SelwayKid" > wrote in message
om...
> Of course the insurance industry will drive most of what is done in
> training and there is going to be a steady dumbing down of skills
> which will only make the situation worse as time goes on. Ask that
> question of nearly any old gray haired pilot with 18-20,000 hours and
> I'll bet you get a similar answer. That has been the case at
> conventions and seminars I've attended over the past 5-10 years.
> Thanks for your response. I hope more weigh in and some discussions
> get going.
> Ol Shy & Bashful

Isn't that the truth! I got my Pvt license in 1979 and even then, spins
were not a required skill to get your license. Cessna reduced the maximum
flap settings on their 152's and 172's from 40 degrees to 30 in the late
70's. Why? From what I heard, is was because these aircraft wouldn't climb
with full flaps deployed and pilots were wadding them up on a full power
go-around because they "weren't" reducing the flap settings and establishing
a positive rate of climb. Rather than fix the pilot, they adapted the
aircraft. It just seems to be the status quo these days. Rather than
holding individuals to a higher standard, they dumb down the standard.

My understanding with rotorcraft and autorotations is that, even CFI
applicants are not required to demonstrate an autorotation to the ground on
their check ride. Can you folks confirm whether that's true or not? I'm
not sure I'd want a CFI teaching me that "hadn't" put the aircraft I'm
training in all the way down in an auto.

Fly Safe,
Steve R.

[bryan chaisone]

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&threadm=cedc9c73.0407060203.5fd20a4%40posting.goog le.com&rnum=3&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dchaisone%2Bfull%2Bauto%26hl%3Den%26lr %3D%26group%3Drec.aviation.*%26scoring%3Dd

hope the link above works,

full auto'd to the ground once.

bryan

[John Martin]

The reality is that more machines get wrecked in practice touch-down autos
than in real touch down autos. By a long way.

I suspect it would be a non-debate if there were no such thing as training
in low inertia blade machines. I think if everyone trained in Bell 47s or
R44s the rules would still allow for touch downs because you have so much
time to set up the final landing. But the reality is that so many people
train in R22s where you tend to have it all happening fast and furious at
the end. In that situation its a trade off - the risk of a complete bingle
against the minor loss of reality by not going the last few feet to the
ground. Its easy to say that it isn't real unless you go to the ground but
the wrecked machines are real and the practice is then reflected in
insurance rates going up and injuries/deaths in the wrecks.

Is just the "top bit" of the auto enough? Don't know myself I haven't come
across anyone who has only learned power recovery autos who has then gone to
have a real auto. I guess that would be the answer to the debate. Anyone
know of such an accident?

Every few months I go off with an instructor and do practice autos etc. If
they say we'll do autos to the ground - I use their machine otherwise we go
in mine.

John Martin

"bryan chaisone" > wrote in message
om...
> http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&threadm=cedc9c73.0407060203.5fd20a4%40posting.goog le.com&rnum=3&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dchaisone%2Bfull%2Bauto%26hl%3Den%26lr %3D%26group%3Drec.aviation.*%26scoring%3Dd
>
> hope the link above works,
>
> full auto'd to the ground once.
>
> bryan

[B4RT]

There's a bunch of real world training requirements that aren't met by the
FAR regs.
The loss of TR, TR component or TR effectiveness series is one of the more
serious
defeciencies. The real problem was already mentioned here before; A great
number
of students now are being trained by instructors out there are fairly low
time themselves.
A lot of them are being trained in an R22, which I believe is too
unforgiving to be used
in a serious failure training environment.

Spins and (really) unusual attitude training in fixed wing carry the same
problems.
I went out with a zillion hour aerobatics instructor a couple weeks ago to
hone my
skills in this area. I learned that they were a lot of fun, but I also
learned that almost
everything I thought I knew/learned from my initial training was flawed.
Why?; My fixed wing instructor was a low timer that had never been in an
airplane
that was upside down, or really spinning.

IMO: I think it would be a really good idea to create a super-classification
of instructor.
Becoming a SuperIP would require very high time and tested skills in
advanced areas.
New students would be required to be signed off by these SuperIP's in the
advanced
skill areas before they can take a checkride. This would keep metal (and
carbon fiber)
from being bent up while also creating much safer new pilots.

Bart








"John Martin" > wrote in message
...
> The reality is that more machines get wrecked in practice touch-down autos
> than in real touch down autos. By a long way.
>
> I suspect it would be a non-debate if there were no such thing as
> training in low inertia blade machines. I think if everyone trained in
> Bell 47s or R44s the rules would still allow for touch downs because you
> have so much time to set up the final landing. But the reality is that so
> many people train in R22s where you tend to have it all happening fast and
> furious at the end. In that situation its a trade off - the risk of a
> complete bingle against the minor loss of reality by not going the last
> few feet to the ground. Its easy to say that it isn't real unless you go
> to the ground but the wrecked machines are real and the practice is then
> reflected in insurance rates going up and injuries/deaths in the wrecks.
>
> Is just the "top bit" of the auto enough? Don't know myself I haven't
> come across anyone who has only learned power recovery autos who has then
> gone to have a real auto. I guess that would be the answer to the debate.
> Anyone know of such an accident?
>
> Every few months I go off with an instructor and do practice autos etc.
> If they say we'll do autos to the ground - I use their machine otherwise
> we go in mine.
>
> John Martin
>
> "bryan chaisone" > wrote in message
> om...
>> http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&threadm=cedc9c73.0407060203.5fd20a4%40posting.goog le.com&rnum=3&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dchaisone%2Bfull%2Bauto%26hl%3Den%26lr %3D%26group%3Drec.aviation.*%26scoring%3Dd
>>
>> hope the link above works,
>>
>> full auto'd to the ground once.
>>
>> bryan
>
>

[SelwayKid]

"John Martin" > wrote in message >...
> The reality is that more machines get wrecked in practice touch-down autos
> than in real touch down autos. By a long way.
>
> I suspect it would be a non-debate if there were no such thing as training
> in low inertia blade machines. I think if everyone trained in Bell 47s or
> R44s the rules would still allow for touch downs because you have so much
> time to set up the final landing. But the reality is that so many people
> train in R22s where you tend to have it all happening fast and furious at
> the end. In that situation its a trade off - the risk of a complete bingle
> against the minor loss of reality by not going the last few feet to the
> ground. Its easy to say that it isn't real unless you go to the ground but
> the wrecked machines are real and the practice is then reflected in
> insurance rates going up and injuries/deaths in the wrecks.
>
> Is just the "top bit" of the auto enough? Don't know myself I haven't come
> across anyone who has only learned power recovery autos who has then gone to
> have a real auto. I guess that would be the answer to the debate. Anyone
> know of such an accident?
>
> Every few months I go off with an instructor and do practice autos etc. If
> they say we'll do autos to the ground - I use their machine otherwise we go
> in mine.
>
> John Martin
***********************
John
Well doesn't that add to what I said about a machine that isn't safe
for training? Yes there are many who train in the R-22 and many who
will. But if you can't do full down autos, and can't instuct in them
without going thru some special factory training to satisfy the
insurance companies, what does that say about the safety record?
I've got about 25 hours in the R-22 models with a factory check-out
with Bob Golden many years ago(early 80's) at Torrance, then an add on
IFR (85), then a few years later the CFII(95) via Helicopter
Adventures. (HAI switched over to the Schweitzer fwith good reason for
their training)
I've had a rotor CFI for over 30 years and about 8,000 in rotorwing. I
still don't like the R-22 for its flying characteristics and only fly
them when I have to. Even then it has to be pretty compelling.
This isn't necessarily directed at you John, but a statement of how I
feel in response to your post. Glad that you joined in for an exchange
of views.
Regards
Ol Shy & Bashful
>
> "bryan chaisone" > wrote in message
> om...
> > http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&threadm=cedc9c73.0407060203.5fd20a4%40posting.goog le.com&rnum=3&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dchaisone%2Bfull%2Bauto%26hl%3Den%26lr %3D%26group%3Drec.aviation.*%26scoring%3Dd
> >
> > hope the link above works,
> >
> > full auto'd to the ground once.
> >
> > bryan

[gaylon9]

Took the Bell Factory 206 Course in March and found a big difference in the
quality of instruction next to the low time guy who originally taught me to
hover and power recovery autos. No substitute for pilot time and factory
metal to 'risk'. In retrospect wish I had taken the course at about a 6
months after getting my license. Need a little experience to get the
benefit. However, bet I could learn quite a bit even if I took the course
each year.
Gaylon

[SelwayKid]

"gaylon9" > wrote in message news:<EYtqd.21790$233.11761@okepread05>...
> Took the Bell Factory 206 Course in March and found a big difference in the
> quality of instruction next to the low time guy who originally taught me to
> hover and power recovery autos. No substitute for pilot time and factory
> metal to 'risk'. In retrospect wish I had taken the course at about a 6
> months after getting my license. Need a little experience to get the
> benefit. However, bet I could learn quite a bit even if I took the course
> each year.
> Gaylon
********************
Gaylon
I think every pilot can either learn something new, or uncover a rusty
skill at the factory schools. The Bell guys are pretty good and should
be with the regular practice they get!
How about this one....I was asked to train a guy in his own 206. When
the insurance app went in, they wanted to know if I had been thru the
Bell course. I said no, and they refused me...with over 1000 in the
206 and 8000 rotor! Yet they will insure a pilot with minimum time who
has been to the factory school. I'll never figure that one out.
Regards
Ol Shy & Bashful

[John Martin]

No offence or insult taken.
I am ambivalent about the subject because I can see both sides of the
argument and I haven't seen any quantitative evidence that one or the other
is statistically better.

I think the post down the list about the army's cyclical including and
excluding full touch-downs says a lot. If there was a clear answer based on
evidence we would all be doing it. Until then there is a lot of gut feeeling
in it and nothing much to hang a hat on - one way or the other.
Guess it's like most things with some "damned if you do damned if you don't"
in it.

Interesting - about your comment about a "super instructor". In Oz that is
how it is - in a way.
As I recall from my student days (in the 90s) - our more junior instructors
can teach the students, the CFI (In Oz that's Chief Flying Instructor- the
super instructor) has to have interaction with each student on a regular
basis and he's (or she's) the one who signs off that you're ready for the
flight test etc. So it would be easy enough here to ensure that - say if you
were training in an R22 - you did power recoveries with the grade 2
instructors then did full downs with the boss-man. or something along those
lines.
Don't know how you system works in USA

>>Well doesn't that add to what I said about a machine that isn't safe for
>>training? <<

Maybe. Certainly it is a harder machine to train in and probably does exceed
the skill limits of some student pilots. But if UH-1s can exceed the skills
of some pilots then there's no hope for Robbies :-)

At some point we have to be practical and say "this is what we got - now
lets make the work we have to do with it safe as possible". If it were
legislated that R22's couldn't be used for training I would guess the costs
would go up so lots of people would be forced out when they would otherwise
accept the risk.

[Steve R.]

"The OTHER Kevin in San Diego" <skiddz "AT" adelphia "DOT" net> wrote in
message ...
>
> What I've been told over the past few months is full down autos are
> not required for PPH, but will be required for the commercial ticket.
> I think they (full downs) should be taught starting on day one. If
> the noise behind me stops for some reason, I want to be able to walk
> away from it. Seems to me if you can auto without balling up the
> ship, your chances are pretty effing good you're going to unstrap and
> walk away.
>
> Right now, the consensus between us students is that we have the
> skills to save our lives, but the helicopter will be a write off and
> we'll probably end up in the hospital.

I've heard the same thing about PPH students. Are they "changing" the rules
for commercial pilots? If so, I think that's a good thing.

I agree that "full downs" should be taught from day one. I've never liked
the idea of my first full down auto being the one that's "for real!" I've
always kept an eye out for anything related to helicopters in the news and
I've seen, as I'm sure we all have, "many" news reports of helicopter
crashes through the years. The thing the worries me about modern training
is that, in the past 20 to 25 years, virtually all the autorotative landing
they've shown on TV have resulted in the loss of the aircraft. Most times,
the pilots/passengers walked away from it but the aircraft, as you say, was
a write off, and these were supposedly relatively high time commercial
pilots and not students or low time private pilots either. The "one" ship I
remember seeing that was still on the skids was an MD500 (don't remember the
exact model) and it was still missing the tail boom.

I guess my point is that, while I've heard all the rhetoric from helicopter
pilots about how they can put it down in someone's back yard if they have to
or only touch down at 5 to 10 mph with no problems, most of them don't seem
to be able to do it. Now, it's very likely that the news folks aren't
bothering to tell the stories of the helicopter pilot that safely landed his
aircraft after the engine failed. If it's not all bent up, it's not worth
reporting. Still, I can't help but get the impression that most folks could
use "a lot" more training in this area.

Fly Safe,
Steve R.

[Hennie Roets]

I know this is a contraversial subject but I had the experience to do
a full down auto in the R22. Maybe I was lucky because I did not
damage the heli and did not even slide on. It was a bit of a rough
landing but otherwise ok. I have a total of apprixmately 300 hours
heli time. Enstrom, Mini 500, R22 etc.
I was never taught to do a full down but Rocky might add some comments
to what I want to say.
I think you should FLY THE HELI UNTILL YOU ARE ON THE GROUND
Just remember even with the low rotor rpm horn sounding you still have
control.
In the R22 you have still got control at 80% rotor rpm but I do not think it
can be
streched any further.

I might have been lucky with mine but it is a lot easier to just land the
heli than to
do a power recovery.

Regards

Hennie

[SelwayKid]

"Hennie Roets" > wrote in message >...
> I know this is a contraversial subject but I had the experience to do
> a full down auto in the R22. Maybe I was lucky because I did not
> damage the heli and did not even slide on. It was a bit of a rough
> landing but otherwise ok. I have a total of apprixmately 300 hours
> heli time. Enstrom, Mini 500, R22 etc.
> I was never taught to do a full down but Rocky might add some comments
> to what I want to say.
> I think you should FLY THE HELI UNTILL YOU ARE ON THE GROUND
> Just remember even with the low rotor rpm horn sounding you still have
> control.
> In the R22 you have still got control at 80% rotor rpm but I do not think it
> can be
> streched any further.
>
> I might have been lucky with mine but it is a lot easier to just land the
> heli than to
> do a power recovery.
>
> Regards
>
> Hennie
*****************************
Hennie
One of the things that prompted my original post was recalling that at
most of the helicopter repair shops I have visited, you can nearly
always find a tail boom that was chopped off by a hard landing. I have
been puzzled by that for years and always asked how it happened. In
most cases it was the direct result of a flawed pilot technique in a
full down auto, either actual or practice. I could never figure out
why it happened so often and came to the conclusion it was from poor
pilot technique that came from poor training or just sloppy flying.
With all that I have done with different machines and without further
damage has me wondering. Don't misunderstand me...I'm not the ace of
the base by any means. Did I get lucky and get some superb instruction
(compared to today), or was it just luck? I did break a machine
(phyxed wing) back when I was a new pilot and had an engine failure at
night over the trees, and one while crop dusting. Never bent any
helicopters.
And you are right about flying it to the ground but I admonish all my
students to fly it until the dust settles !! <gg> Boer mak a plan
Hennie
Cheers
Rocky

[hellothere.adelphia.net]

I hope that full touchdown auto's would become a requirement for any
license. I know the insurance companies do not want to hear this, but
the training that comes out of it is what everyone should have.

I never did a full touchdown for any of my training, until I started
working at the current place I fly for. We do nothing but full
touchdown auto's (unless it doesn't look like it will work). I guess
that I have done several hundred or so now. If my engine quits, I know
what to expect all the way to the ground. There is a measured
difference on how the helicopter reacts during that last several feet.
And it is loads of fun to boot....


On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 19:04:25 -0800, The OTHER Kevin in San Diego
<skiddz "AT" adelphia "DOT" net> wrote:

>On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 14:26:01 GMT, "Steve R."
> wrote:
>
>
>>I've heard the same thing about PPH students. Are they "changing" the rules
>>for commercial pilots? If so, I think that's a good thing.
>
>Like I said, I'm not entirely sure. I'll need to poke around in the
>AIM and the PTS books behind me and see what I can dig up. I'll also
>be asking Q when I go fly tomorrow (Should be interesting since I've
>not flown in over a week now)
>
>>I agree that "full downs" should be taught from day one. I've never liked
>>the idea of my first full down auto being the one that's "for real!" I've
>>always kept an eye out for anything related to helicopters in the news and
>>I've seen, as I'm sure we all have, "many" news reports of helicopter
>>crashes through the years. The thing the worries me about modern training
>>is that, in the past 20 to 25 years, virtually all the autorotative landing
>>they've shown on TV have resulted in the loss of the aircraft. Most times,
>>the pilots/passengers walked away from it but the aircraft, as you say, was
>>a write off, and these were supposedly relatively high time commercial
>>pilots and not students or low time private pilots either. The "one" ship I
>>remember seeing that was still on the skids was an MD500 (don't remember the
>>exact model) and it was still missing the tail boom.
>
>The only full down autos I've see with no damage to craft or occupants
>was on Discovery Wings and it was an instructional flight in a Gazelle
>where the engine was literally shut down and the student had no other
>option than a full down (He made it look SOOOOO easy)
>
>>I guess my point is that, while I've heard all the rhetoric from helicopter
>>pilots about how they can put it down in someone's back yard if they have to
>>or only touch down at 5 to 10 mph with no problems, most of them don't seem
>>to be able to do it. Now, it's very likely that the news folks aren't
>>bothering to tell the stories of the helicopter pilot that safely landed his
>>aircraft after the engine failed. If it's not all bent up, it's not worth
>>reporting. Still, I can't help but get the impression that most folks could
>>use "a lot" more training in this area.
>
>I've got a magazine around here somewhere that had an article in it
>about some advanced helo school in the Southwest (I want to say Las
>Vegas) where all sorts of advanced maneuvers were taught. For autos,
>students were required to hit a specific square in a grid painted on
>the ground, regardless of the position of the ship when the throttle
>was chopped. If you've got the skills to to that, THEN you can use
>the "I can put it down in someone's back yard" rhetoric. I hope to be
>that good some day. Right now, I'll settle for a balled up ship and
>having to call someone to come pick me and the "carcass" up.
>

[Steve R.]

<hellothere.adelphia.net> wrote in message
...
>I hope that full touchdown auto's would become a requirement for any
> license. I know the insurance companies do not want to hear this, but
> the training that comes out of it is what everyone should have.
>
>If my engine quits, I know
> what to expect all the way to the ground. There is a measured
> difference on how the helicopter reacts during that last several feet.
>

And THAT is why it should be taught and insurance companies be damned!

Fly Safe,
Steve R.

[Hennie Roets]

Yeah I had it slightly wrong. Until the dust settles next time

Ha-ha

Hennie

> And you are right about flying it to the ground but I admonish all my
> students to fly it until the dust settles !! <gg> Boer mak a plan
> Hennie
> Cheers
> Rocky

[Biff Douglas]

Many good observations here pro & con. My personal experience is that
when I obtained my helicopter license in 1981, all my autos to that
point were with power recovery. My first full touch down auto was a
180 full touch down auto after an engine failure at 500' agl. I landed
in a bean field & didn't put a nick the Bell 47G2 I was flying. I was
very fortuate that I was in a somewhat rural area. There was not much
to hit except for the ground. Everything happened so fast, I just
reacted. I had maybe 60 hours total at the time. I was far from a hot
stick, still am for that matter.

Given a choice, I'd do full touch down autos but not in my helicopter.
Ever price new skids? I'll pass on doing full touch downs in a R-22.
In fact, I'll pass on doing anything in a R-22.

[Simon Robbins]

"The OTHER Kevin in San Diego" <skiddz "AT" adelphia "DOT" net> wrote in
message ...
> Back in the mid 90's when I did the fixed wing thing, I basically
> forced my instructor to teach me spin recovery. I knew it wasn't
> required, but at the time, I subscribed to several aviation related
> magazines and was amazed at all the spin related incidents I'd read
> about in almost every issue. Once I did a few, they were no big deal
> to recognize and recover from. To tell the truth, they were pretty
> damned fun!

I got taught spins when I was doing my PPL(A) after about five or six hours.
I was then told to stop grinning as I wasn't supposed to be enjoying them so
much!!

Si

[Hennie Roets]

> Given a choice, I'd do full touch down autos but not in my helicopter.
> Ever price new skids? I'll pass on doing full touch downs in a R-22.
> In fact, I'll pass on doing anything in a R-22.

Biff I do not think you should write off the R22 that quick.

There are about 80% more new R22 sold than any other helicopter in the
world together. More of them are
used for training than any other heli. If you look at the hours flown
worldwide they fly the most as well.
I saw statistics a while ago on the internet about helicopter accidents in
Australia and do you know who came
out on top. Guess?????
It might not be the most rugged helicopter in the world. I also do not have
the highest inertia in the main
rotor blades but I can tell you if you can safely fly an R22 you will not
have problems with any of the others.


Regards

Hennie

[PJ Hunt]

> I saw statistics a while ago on the internet about helicopter accidents in
> Australia and do you know who came
> out on top. Guess?????

And adding to that, don't omit what it is they're doing with them in
Australia either. They work those machine very hard, way over the limit,
often flown at or above redline. It's no wonder they ball them up pretty
regularly just due the higher risk of what they're doing.

They've had high hours put on them, low or poor maintenance, usually
followed with padding to logs to attempt to hide this.

Considering how hard they're flown, you have to give the little R22 a little
credit. Its' not a bad machine. You just gotta learn to control that
*less* bit of energy a little better than you do in something with a heavier
blade.

There's no arguing that it's less forgiving, that's a fact, but it's nothing
that can't be learned and controlled with "good" instruction. I have done
full downs in R22's but have to admit, they're much less in heavier
machines.

PJ

============================================
Here's to the duck who swam a lake and never lost a feather,
May sometime another year, we all be back together.
JJW
============================================

[Biff Douglas]

On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 11:33:33 +0200, "Hennie Roets"
> wrote:

>> Given a choice, I'd do full touch down autos but not in my helicopter.
>> Ever price new skids? I'll pass on doing full touch downs in a R-22.
>> In fact, I'll pass on doing anything in a R-22.
>
>Biff I do not think you should write off the R22 that quick.
>
>There are about 80% more new R22 sold than any other helicopter in the
>world together. More of them are
>used for training than any other heli. If you look at the hours flown
>worldwide they fly the most as well.
>I saw statistics a while ago on the internet about helicopter accidents in
>Australia and do you know who came
>out on top. Guess?????
>It might not be the most rugged helicopter in the world. I also do not have
>the highest inertia in the main
>rotor blades but I can tell you if you can safely fly an R22 you will not
>have problems with any of the others.
>
>
>Regards
>
>Hennie
>
I agree with your comments re flying the R-22 safely. It demands
respect. I have flown them and agree that if you can fly the R-22 you
can pretty much fly anything. I just dont think that the way the R-22
is built I'd be doing full down autos in one if I owned it.

[SelwayKid]

Biff Douglas > wrote in message >...
> On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 11:33:33 +0200, "Hennie Roets"
> > wrote:
>
> >> Given a choice, I'd do full touch down autos but not in my helicopter.
> >> Ever price new skids? I'll pass on doing full touch downs in a R-22.
> >> In fact, I'll pass on doing anything in a R-22.
> >
> >Biff I do not think you should write off the R22 that quick.
> >
> >There are about 80% more new R22 sold than any other helicopter in the
> >world together. More of them are
> >used for training than any other heli. If you look at the hours flown
> >worldwide they fly the most as well.
> >I saw statistics a while ago on the internet about helicopter accidents in
> >Australia and do you know who came
> >out on top. Guess?????
> >It might not be the most rugged helicopter in the world. I also do not have
> >the highest inertia in the main
> >rotor blades but I can tell you if you can safely fly an R22 you will not
> >have problems with any of the others.
> >
> >
> >Regards
> >
> >Hennie
> >
> I agree with your comments re flying the R-22 safely. It demands
> respect. I have flown them and agree that if you can fly the R-22 you
> can pretty much fly anything. I just dont think that the way the R-22
> is built I'd be doing full down autos in one if I owned it.
********************************
Why not? Is the R-22 not safe for full down autos? Is your skill or
training level not up to it? Or is it just a matter of dollars? I
don't believe in crashing my car just because it has all the airbags
either but I've driven enough miles that I can avoid most of those
accidents. Same in helicopters and airplanes. Now just watch....I'll
trip over a damned tiedown cable and break my neck at the airport!!!
<ggg>
Part of what I perceive to be a problem is, if there is too great a
potential for damaging the training equipment, we don't do the
training in that equipment because it costs too much to replace it or
fix it. So, let's just talk about it and not actually do it. Wait
until you are actually faced with the real emergency and see if the
talk works?
I think that kind of training only leads pilots to be shaky in their
own abilities, or on the other side of that coin, to be overconfident.
There it becomes mostly a matter of the individual being able to adapt
to the situation. When I was asked to ferry some Hughes 500's down to
South America, I demanded some recurrent training before I did so.
Hadn't flown one in a few years and wanted to make sure I was up to
speed before I headed south. It included some touchdown autos. No
problems and it certainly made me feel better.
Glad to see some good input and response to this question. Thanks for
your response.
Ol Shy & Bashful

[Beav]

"SelwayKid" > wrote in message
om...
> "Hennie Roets" > wrote in message
> >...
>> I know this is a contraversial subject but I had the experience to do
>> a full down auto in the R22. Maybe I was lucky because I did not
>> damage the heli and did not even slide on. It was a bit of a rough
>> landing but otherwise ok. I have a total of apprixmately 300 hours
>> heli time. Enstrom, Mini 500, R22 etc.
>> I was never taught to do a full down but Rocky might add some comments
>> to what I want to say.
>> I think you should FLY THE HELI UNTILL YOU ARE ON THE GROUND
>> Just remember even with the low rotor rpm horn sounding you still have
>> control.
>> In the R22 you have still got control at 80% rotor rpm but I do not think
>> it
>> can be
>> streched any further.
>>
>> I might have been lucky with mine but it is a lot easier to just land the
>> heli than to
>> do a power recovery.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Hennie
> *****************************
> Hennie
> One of the things that prompted my original post was recalling that at
> most of the helicopter repair shops I have visited, you can nearly
> always find a tail boom that was chopped off by a hard landing. I have
> been puzzled by that for years and always asked how it happened. In
> most cases it was the direct result of a flawed pilot technique in a
> full down auto, either actual or practice. I could never figure out
> why it happened so often and came to the conclusion it was from poor
> pilot technique that came from poor training or just sloppy flying.
> With all that I have done with different machines and without further
> damage has me wondering. Don't misunderstand me...I'm not the ace of
> the base by any means. Did I get lucky and get some superb instruction
> (compared to today), or was it just luck?

Rocky, as I never reached the auto stage in full sized heli's (health
defeated me there) I can't say for definite what causes boom strikes, but on
the RC models I've been teaching people to fly for years (well 25 of them)
the boom killer is the cyclic stick position when the skids make contact
with the ground. If there's even a TOUCH of back stick held in after the
flare, the boom is a thing of the past, but a touch of forward cyclic at
that point stops even a badly cacked up auto from turing into a badly cacked
up boom. In fact, some of the guys I've taught to auto do the most
tremendous slide-ons imaginable and don't break anything.

This also applies to powered landings too. No back stick or you've no boom.


Beav

[Beav]

"SelwayKid" > wrote in message
om...
> Biff Douglas > wrote in message
> >...
>> On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 11:33:33 +0200, "Hennie Roets"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >> Given a choice, I'd do full touch down autos but not in my helicopter.
>> >> Ever price new skids? I'll pass on doing full touch downs in a R-22.
>> >> In fact, I'll pass on doing anything in a R-22.
>> >
>> >Biff I do not think you should write off the R22 that quick.
>> >
>> >There are about 80% more new R22 sold than any other helicopter in the
>> >world together. More of them are
>> >used for training than any other heli. If you look at the hours flown
>> >worldwide they fly the most as well.
>> >I saw statistics a while ago on the internet about helicopter accidents
>> >in
>> >Australia and do you know who came
>> >out on top. Guess?????
>> >It might not be the most rugged helicopter in the world. I also do not
>> >have
>> >the highest inertia in the main
>> >rotor blades but I can tell you if you can safely fly an R22 you will
>> >not
>> >have problems with any of the others.
>> >
>> >
>> >Regards
>> >
>> >Hennie
>> >
>> I agree with your comments re flying the R-22 safely. It demands
>> respect. I have flown them and agree that if you can fly the R-22 you
>> can pretty much fly anything. I just dont think that the way the R-22
>> is built I'd be doing full down autos in one if I owned it.
> ********************************
> Why not? Is the R-22 not safe for full down autos? Is your skill or
> training level not up to it? Or is it just a matter of dollars? I
> don't believe in crashing my car just because it has all the airbags
> either but I've driven enough miles that I can avoid most of those
> accidents. Same in helicopters and airplanes. Now just watch....I'll
> trip over a damned tiedown cable and break my neck at the airport!!!
> <ggg>

You shouldn't even joke about it Rocky:-)

A pal of mine ran a full weekend on the racetrack with his "pretty" quick
motorcycle (trackbike special 200mph+) and walking back to his car/trailer,
he tripped and landed on his elbow. It blew up like it'd been hit with a
sledgehammer. For a full year he could barely use his arm and even now he
still can't straighten it.

So that's two useless elbows he's got now:-)) (He did bust the other on his
bike a few years earlier)


Beav

[hellothere.adelphia.net]

On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 22:00:10 -0000, "Beav"
> wrote:

>
>"SelwayKid" > wrote in message
om...
>> "Hennie Roets" > wrote in message
>> >...
>>> I know this is a contraversial subject but I had the experience to do
>>> a full down auto in the R22. Maybe I was lucky because I did not
>>> damage the heli and did not even slide on. It was a bit of a rough
>>> landing but otherwise ok. I have a total of apprixmately 300 hours
>>> heli time. Enstrom, Mini 500, R22 etc.
>>> I was never taught to do a full down but Rocky might add some comments
>>> to what I want to say.
>>> I think you should FLY THE HELI UNTILL YOU ARE ON THE GROUND
>>> Just remember even with the low rotor rpm horn sounding you still have
>>> control.
>>> In the R22 you have still got control at 80% rotor rpm but I do not think
>>> it
>>> can be
>>> streched any further.
>>>
>>> I might have been lucky with mine but it is a lot easier to just land the
>>> heli than to
>>> do a power recovery.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Hennie
>> *****************************
>> Hennie
>> One of the things that prompted my original post was recalling that at
>> most of the helicopter repair shops I have visited, you can nearly
>> always find a tail boom that was chopped off by a hard landing. I have
>> been puzzled by that for years and always asked how it happened. In
>> most cases it was the direct result of a flawed pilot technique in a
>> full down auto, either actual or practice. I could never figure out
>> why it happened so often and came to the conclusion it was from poor
>> pilot technique that came from poor training or just sloppy flying.
>> With all that I have done with different machines and without further
>> damage has me wondering. Don't misunderstand me...I'm not the ace of
>> the base by any means. Did I get lucky and get some superb instruction
>> (compared to today), or was it just luck?
>
>Rocky, as I never reached the auto stage in full sized heli's (health
>defeated me there) I can't say for definite what causes boom strikes, but on
>the RC models I've been teaching people to fly for years (well 25 of them)
>the boom killer is the cyclic stick position when the skids make contact
>with the ground. If there's even a TOUCH of back stick held in after the
>flare, the boom is a thing of the past, but a touch of forward cyclic at
>that point stops even a badly cacked up auto from turing into a badly cacked
>up boom. In fact, some of the guys I've taught to auto do the most
>tremendous slide-ons imaginable and don't break anything.
>
>This also applies to powered landings too. No back stick or you've no boom.
>
>
>Beav
>

Beav, it really depends on the helicopter on how much aft cyclic if
any at all. In all the one's that I fly you keep a slight aft cyclic.
Most helicopters mast is tilted forward (an A-Star is 2 degree's if I
recall right), and any forward cyclic you go skidding for a pretty
good distance. Not something you really want. A little aft and you can
stop in 5-10 feet. And all this without the tailboom getting hit.

I bet the ones that the tailboom are getting whacked are mainly two
bladed copters, low RPM (bad flair), and the pilot has a hefty aft
cyclic when he is hitting the runway. And I bet the decent hasn't been
slowed down like it should have been.

-Mark

[[email protected]]

Beav wrote:
> "SelwayKid" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Biff Douglas > wrote in message
> > >...
> >> On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 11:33:33 +0200, "Hennie Roets"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >> Given a choice, I'd do full touch down autos but not in my
helicopter.
> >> >> Ever price new skids? I'll pass on doing full touch downs in a
R-22.
> >> >> In fact, I'll pass on doing anything in a R-22.
> >> >
> >> >Biff I do not think you should write off the R22 that quick.
> >> >
> >> >There are about 80% more new R22 sold than any other helicopter
in the
> >> >world together. More of them are
> >> >used for training than any other heli. If you look at the hours
flown
> >> >worldwide they fly the most as well.
> >> >I saw statistics a while ago on the internet about helicopter
accidents
> >> >in
> >> >Australia and do you know who came
> >> >out on top. Guess?????
> >> >It might not be the most rugged helicopter in the world. I also
do not
> >> >have
> >> >the highest inertia in the main
> >> >rotor blades but I can tell you if you can safely fly an R22 you
will
> >> >not
> >> >have problems with any of the others.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Regards
> >> >
> >> >Hennie
> >> >
> >> I agree with your comments re flying the R-22 safely. It demands
> >> respect. I have flown them and agree that if you can fly the R-22
you
> >> can pretty much fly anything. I just dont think that the way the
R-22
> >> is built I'd be doing full down autos in one if I owned it.
> > ********************************
> > Why not? Is the R-22 not safe for full down autos? Is your skill or
> > training level not up to it? Or is it just a matter of dollars? I
> > don't believe in crashing my car just because it has all the
airbags
> > either but I've driven enough miles that I can avoid most of those
> > accidents. Same in helicopters and airplanes. Now just
watch....I'll
> > trip over a damned tiedown cable and break my neck at the
airport!!!
> > <ggg>
>
> You shouldn't even joke about it Rocky:-)

Beav
Why not joke? Sure beats crying! I've been so beat up/busted
up/shot/stabbed and generally treated ugly that it doesn't matter
anymore! I've walked into wings, rotor blades, tail rotors,(mostly at
night) tripped over tie downs, slipped on ice and oil, and wondered why
I ever bothered to get into aviation?
Still, in at least 18 mayday situations, I've only really been injured
once in aircraft. Night time in a phyxed wing with an engine failure
over the pine swamps. Just another adventure...... BTW, shootings and
stabbings are for real.
Rocky
>
> A pal of mine ran a full weekend on the racetrack with his "pretty"
quick
> motorcycle (trackbike special 200mph+) and walking back to his
car/trailer,
> he tripped and landed on his elbow. It blew up like it'd been hit
with a
> sledgehammer. For a full year he could barely use his arm and even
now he
> still can't straighten it.
>
> So that's two useless elbows he's got now:-)) (He did bust the other
on his
> bike a few years earlier)
>
>
> Beav

[Beav]

<hellothere.adelphia.net> wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 22:00:10 -0000, "Beav"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"SelwayKid" > wrote in message
om...
>>> "Hennie Roets" > wrote in message
>>> >...
>>>> I know this is a contraversial subject but I had the experience to do
>>>> a full down auto in the R22. Maybe I was lucky because I did not
>>>> damage the heli and did not even slide on. It was a bit of a rough
>>>> landing but otherwise ok. I have a total of apprixmately 300 hours
>>>> heli time. Enstrom, Mini 500, R22 etc.
>>>> I was never taught to do a full down but Rocky might add some comments
>>>> to what I want to say.
>>>> I think you should FLY THE HELI UNTILL YOU ARE ON THE GROUND
>>>> Just remember even with the low rotor rpm horn sounding you still have
>>>> control.
>>>> In the R22 you have still got control at 80% rotor rpm but I do not
>>>> think
>>>> it
>>>> can be
>>>> streched any further.
>>>>
>>>> I might have been lucky with mine but it is a lot easier to just land
>>>> the
>>>> heli than to
>>>> do a power recovery.
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>>
>>>> Hennie
>>> *****************************
>>> Hennie
>>> One of the things that prompted my original post was recalling that at
>>> most of the helicopter repair shops I have visited, you can nearly
>>> always find a tail boom that was chopped off by a hard landing. I have
>>> been puzzled by that for years and always asked how it happened. In
>>> most cases it was the direct result of a flawed pilot technique in a
>>> full down auto, either actual or practice. I could never figure out
>>> why it happened so often and came to the conclusion it was from poor
>>> pilot technique that came from poor training or just sloppy flying.
>>> With all that I have done with different machines and without further
>>> damage has me wondering. Don't misunderstand me...I'm not the ace of
>>> the base by any means. Did I get lucky and get some superb instruction
>>> (compared to today), or was it just luck?
>>
>>Rocky, as I never reached the auto stage in full sized heli's (health
>>defeated me there) I can't say for definite what causes boom strikes, but
>>on
>>the RC models I've been teaching people to fly for years (well 25 of them)
>>the boom killer is the cyclic stick position when the skids make contact
>>with the ground. If there's even a TOUCH of back stick held in after the
>>flare, the boom is a thing of the past, but a touch of forward cyclic at
>>that point stops even a badly cacked up auto from turing into a badly
>>cacked
>>up boom. In fact, some of the guys I've taught to auto do the most
>>tremendous slide-ons imaginable and don't break anything.
>>
>>This also applies to powered landings too. No back stick or you've no
>>boom.
>>
>>
>>Beav
>>
>
> Beav, it really depends on the helicopter on how much aft cyclic if
> any at all. In all the one's that I fly you keep a slight aft cyclic.
> Most helicopters mast is tilted forward (an A-Star is 2 degree's if I
> recall right), and any forward cyclic you go skidding for a pretty
> good distance. Not something you really want. A little aft and you can
> stop in 5-10 feet. And all this without the tailboom getting hit.

That forward tilt on the mast would make up for the difference I would
imagine Mark, and it's something I forgot about. (I know the 206 has a
forward AND a sideways tilt built in, but it slipped my mind). I didin't
know the Squirrel (A-Star) did though. Thanks for the info.
>
> I bet the ones that the tailboom are getting whacked are mainly two
> bladed copters, low RPM (bad flair), and the pilot has a hefty aft
> cyclic when he is hitting the runway. And I bet the decent hasn't been
> slowed down like it should have been.

Most of the models are two bladers, with blades that are free to move within
the grips. If these slow down, the lag is sufficient that a handful of
collective can see a blade hooked under the vertical stab, and that's not
even REALLY slowed down. Even at these rpm, the blades are still lifting and
no out of the ordinary coning is happening. Mind you, I bet you full size
guys would LOVE the blade rigidity that we RC guys have. We can pick up the
whole machine by the blade tips:-) They don't flex much as you can guess:-)

Beav

[Beav]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Beav wrote:
>> "SelwayKid" > wrote in message
>> om...
>> > Biff Douglas > wrote in message
>> > >...
>> >> On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 11:33:33 +0200, "Hennie Roets"
>> >> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> Given a choice, I'd do full touch down autos but not in my
> helicopter.
>> >> >> Ever price new skids? I'll pass on doing full touch downs in a
> R-22.
>> >> >> In fact, I'll pass on doing anything in a R-22.
>> >> >
>> >> >Biff I do not think you should write off the R22 that quick.
>> >> >
>> >> >There are about 80% more new R22 sold than any other helicopter
> in the
>> >> >world together. More of them are
>> >> >used for training than any other heli. If you look at the hours
> flown
>> >> >worldwide they fly the most as well.
>> >> >I saw statistics a while ago on the internet about helicopter
> accidents
>> >> >in
>> >> >Australia and do you know who came
>> >> >out on top. Guess?????
>> >> >It might not be the most rugged helicopter in the world. I also
> do not
>> >> >have
>> >> >the highest inertia in the main
>> >> >rotor blades but I can tell you if you can safely fly an R22 you
> will
>> >> >not
>> >> >have problems with any of the others.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Regards
>> >> >
>> >> >Hennie
>> >> >
>> >> I agree with your comments re flying the R-22 safely. It demands
>> >> respect. I have flown them and agree that if you can fly the R-22
> you
>> >> can pretty much fly anything. I just dont think that the way the
> R-22
>> >> is built I'd be doing full down autos in one if I owned it.
>> > ********************************
>> > Why not? Is the R-22 not safe for full down autos? Is your skill or
>> > training level not up to it? Or is it just a matter of dollars? I
>> > don't believe in crashing my car just because it has all the
> airbags
>> > either but I've driven enough miles that I can avoid most of those
>> > accidents. Same in helicopters and airplanes. Now just
> watch....I'll
>> > trip over a damned tiedown cable and break my neck at the
> airport!!!
>> > <ggg>
>>
>> You shouldn't even joke about it Rocky:-)
>
> Beav
> Why not joke? Sure beats crying!

Well go one then, I did :-))

I've been so beat up/busted
> up/shot/stabbed and generally treated ugly that it doesn't matter
> anymore! I've walked into wings, rotor blades, tail rotors,(mostly at
> night) tripped over tie downs, slipped on ice and oil, and wondered why
> I ever bothered to get into aviation?

I think in your shoes I'd be wondering why I ever got out of BED!! :-)))

> Still, in at least 18 mayday situations, I've only really been injured
> once in aircraft.

I congratulate you Rockster, that's a bloody good record in anyone's book.

Night time in a phyxed wing with an engine failure
> over the pine swamps. Just another adventure...... BTW, shootings and
> stabbings are for real.

I didn't doubt it for a second.

I *WAS* going to say "Take care", but I have a feeling it'd fall on deaf
ears, so I'll just say "Keep it up" instead:)

And keep up with the histories, they make fascinating reading.



Beav

[[email protected]]

Beav
You guys always make me laugh with your wry sense of humor! For a while
my wife would walk in the door and ask me, "Well, what have you done
today to damage your beautiful body?"...(she has this illusion that I
am special) and it got to the laughable point she'd nearly do a strip
search checking for bloody areas. At least I have gotten over it for at
least the past 12 months or so. Hmmmm, perhaps I should go risk my neck
again..
On the helicopter side, there has been a lot of discussion about the
relative merits of different machines for touchdown autos over in
JustHelicopters forum. there are some pretty abrasive people there and
some who will jerk your chain just because, but if you can get past
that and learn how to navigate the posts, there is a plethora of deep
solid information to be gained.
Trying to think of the different helicopters I've done full down autos
in will include the Bell 47 series(lots of them), Hughes 269/300 (dates
me huh?), H-500 series, Hiller 12 series, Bell 206, UH-1,
R-22(yeehaww), Enstrom F28, probably some others that I can't think of
at the moment.
A technique we learned in the USMC while working down under was to just
simply roll inverted and autorotate for a rapid gain in altitude ;< )
Merry Christmas y'all
Ol Shy & Bashful aka Rocky

[Beav]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> Beav
> You guys always make me laugh with your wry sense of humor!

Born of necessity Rocky, it's ****ing down with rain and there's no food on
the table:)
For a while
> my wife would walk in the door and ask me, "Well, what have you done
> today to damage your beautiful body?"...(she has this illusion that I
> am special)

Get her some new glasses Kid:-)

and it got to the laughable point she'd nearly do a strip
> search checking for bloody areas.

You could also get her a part time job at the local jail.

At least I have gotten over it for at
> least the past 12 months or so. Hmmmm, perhaps I should go risk my neck
> again..

Well *I* bloody well would:-))

> On the helicopter side, there has been a lot of discussion about the
> relative merits of different machines for touchdown autos over in
> JustHelicopters forum. there are some pretty abrasive people there and
> some who will jerk your chain just because, but if you can get past
> that and learn how to navigate the posts, there is a plethora of deep
> solid information to be gained.

I can take chain jerking in my stride.

> Trying to think of the different helicopters I've done full down autos
> in will include the Bell 47 series(lots of them), Hughes 269/300 (dates
> me huh?), H-500 series, Hiller 12 series, Bell 206, UH-1,
> R-22(yeehaww), Enstrom F28, probably some others that I can't think of
> at the moment.


How did the UH-1 compare to all the others? (apart from the R22)

I've not DONE a full down but I've been in numerous heli's when they have
been (Enstrom, Bell 47 with the stab bar removed, and the R22) and the
Enstrom was wonderful. Not quite so the R22.

> A technique we learned in the USMC while working down under was to just
> simply roll inverted and autorotate for a rapid gain in altitude ;< )

Works everytime. :-))

> Merry Christmas y'all

And the same to you and yours



Beav