Chopper crash

[[email protected]]

A Russian helicopter crew turned into a real emergency when the chopper
crashed. The accident happened today at an island between Russia and
Japan when an amphibious helicopter landed in the water and tried to
take off again. The chopper tipped over and its rotors hit the water,
breaking it into pieces. 13 People were on board at the time. One died
and three others were injured. The chopper was participating in an
emergency drill with Japan at the time. Check out the video of this
crash:
http://www.groundhog.tv/apps/editor/staticplayer.jsp?clip=1147465288295.wmv"><img
src="

[Ron Snipes]

Kinda looked like a Huey Tuck without the Huey!
my 2 cents

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>A Russian helicopter crew turned into a real emergency when the chopper
> crashed. The accident happened today at an island between Russia and
> Japan when an amphibious helicopter landed in the water and tried to
> take off again. The chopper tipped over and its rotors hit the water,
> breaking it into pieces. 13 People were on board at the time. One died
> and three others were injured. The chopper was participating in an
> emergency drill with Japan at the time. Check out the video of this
> crash:
> http://www.groundhog.tv/apps/editor/staticplayer.jsp?clip=1147465288295.wmv"><img
> src="
>



*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***

[Steve R]

Huey tuck? Never heard of that before. Is is something they're prone to
under certain circumstances?


"Ron Snipes" > wrote in message
.. .
> Kinda looked like a Huey Tuck without the Huey!
> my 2 cents
>
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>A Russian helicopter crew turned into a real emergency when the chopper
>> crashed. The accident happened today at an island between Russia and
>> Japan when an amphibious helicopter landed in the water and tried to
>> take off again. The chopper tipped over and its rotors hit the water,
>> breaking it into pieces. 13 People were on board at the time. One died
>> and three others were injured. The chopper was participating in an
>> emergency drill with Japan at the time. Check out the video of this
>> crash:
>> http://www.groundhog.tv/apps/editor/staticplayer.jsp?clip=1147465288295.wmv"><img
>> src="
>>
>
>
>
> *** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***

[Ron Snipes]

Huey Tuck:

If you read the book Chickenhawk, by Robert Mason, he describes it in detail
there. You can find this book on ebay, or amazon. If you order it directly
from him, he'll autograph it for you. I have one. I forget the website, but
google search his name or chickenhawk.

Basically like this, if you lift off in an extreme nose low attitude, the
airflow hits the relatively flat upper deck, which pushed the nose down. He
did some testing and determined the only way out is to like fly off a cliff
where you can fly nose low and keep flying to recover. He tested it on
pinacle LZ's I believe. If you do a google search for Huey Tuck, there is a
little bit of info.

I'm on the road, at the beach but have one of my two copies with me. Scanned
and found this section.

From Robert Mason's Chickenhawk, page 333. The Tension chapter:

I experimented with the Huey Tuck that day. If the Huey was nosed over too
far on takeoff, the wind resistance on top of the flat roof would force the
nose even lower. The ship would then try to dive into the ground as it
accelerated. IF this happened over level ground, you were trapped in a
vicious circle. Pulling the cyclic back would not overcome the wind pressure
on the roof. Pulling up on the collective to stay away from the ground only
added power to the system, causing you to crash at a higher speed. If you
don't do anything but curse, you hit the ground at a lower speed. Either
way, you lost.

I almost got caught in a Huey Tuck once, and I wanted to know just how far
over was too far. I found out by simulating a level takeoff from a pinacle.

I nosed over very hard and pulled enough pitch to keep the ship flying
horizontal to the ground. I tested the cyclic, and the ship would not
respond. I could feel it happening. Adding power only made it worse. When I
could feel the trap and how I got into it, I knew I could never get into it
by accident. I was experimenting with this over a valley, so all I had to do
to recover was to dive.

Ron



*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***

[[email protected]]

> Mi-14 crash
Here is a different video of the incident,

http://today.reuters.co.uk/tv/videoChannel.aspx?storyid=7e3a3d0716530bead5b66cb9 e689c000d6f4b10a
It's in the Top News section, scroll along to the right
nearly to the end.


This one starts earlier and show the helicopter
apparently taking off vertically from the water and then perhaps
sufferning some failure that causes it to free fall
into the sea. The video link originally posted
just shows the descent.

I notice thet the undercarriage which was retracted
on the way down was deployed when the helicopter
turned over in the water.

The video appears to show the main and tail rotors
slowing down although this visual effect will be
affected by the frame rate and may not be real.

FInally there appears to be a puff of smoke
from near the rotor head area just after the
machine settles. This could of course be
from water thrown up on to the rotor
or a hot component in the engine.

It would seem an odd decision for the pilot to make
to try to lift off again after such a heavy landing
in any case so maybe the failed take off was not
commanded.

I am not sure how long this latter video may
be available.

[[email protected]]

IMHO you can clearly see significant main rotor coning
on it's accelerated descent.
A clear indication for loss of rpm.

Looking at the vessel being tossed around by the waves just before
the final crash,
it is scary to see, how close the main rotor blades are getting to the
water surface.
So I could understand the pilots decision under pressure, to give it a
try to get away,
if he should not have seen any indication of a technical fault, after
rpm has recovered.
But this is PURE SPECULATION from my side.

[boB]

wrote:
> IMHO you can clearly see significant main rotor coning
> on it's accelerated descent.
> A clear indication for loss of rpm.
>
> Looking at the vessel being tossed around by the waves just before
> the final crash,
> it is scary to see, how close the main rotor blades are getting to the
> water surface.
> So I could understand the pilots decision under pressure, to give it a
> try to get away,
> if he should not have seen any indication of a technical fault, after
> rpm has recovered.
> But this is PURE SPECULATION from my side.
>

Just speculation on my part as well. Having never experienced settling
with power or even seen it, this looks like what settling with power
might look like when the pilot did not have sufficient power to pull out
of it.

--

boB
Wing 70

U.S. Army Aviation (retired)
Central Texas - 5NM West of Gray Army Airfield (KGRK)

[Steve R]

"boB" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>> IMHO you can clearly see significant main rotor coning
>> on it's accelerated descent.
>> A clear indication for loss of rpm.
>>
>> Looking at the vessel being tossed around by the waves just before
>> the final crash,
>> it is scary to see, how close the main rotor blades are getting to the
>> water surface.
>> So I could understand the pilots decision under pressure, to give it a
>> try to get away,
>> if he should not have seen any indication of a technical fault, after
>> rpm has recovered.
>> But this is PURE SPECULATION from my side.
>>
>
> Just speculation on my part as well. Having never experienced settling
> with power or even seen it, this looks like what settling with power might
> look like when the pilot did not have sufficient power to pull out of it.
>
> --
>
> boB
> Wing 70
>

I know nothing about operating an aircraft off of water like that but I
thought it strange how far he put the nose down in his attempt to lift off.
I'd imagine that he was trying to achieve ETL but really?? He buried the
nose, all the way over the windshield, "under" the surf. Once that
happened, it's no surprise that he didn't have enough power to pull out, or
cyclic authority to level the ship.

The pilot definitely made screwed the pooch on that one. The real tragedy
is that someone had to die because of it.

Fly Safe,
Steve R.

[boB]

The OTHER Kevin in San Diego wrote:
> On Mon, 15 May 2006 20:03:25 GMT, boB >
> wrote:
>
>
>> Just speculation on my part as well. Having never experienced settling
>> with power or even seen it, this looks like what settling with power
>> might look like when the pilot did not have sufficient power to pull out
>> of it.
>
> Power won't get you out of settling with power, it'll only make it
> worse. You've got to fly out of it by moving out of the downwash.

Not true. If you have enough power to retard the sink rate you can fly
forward out of the recycled air.

--

boB
Wing 70

U.S. Army Aviation (retired)
Central Texas - 5NM West of Gray Army Airfield (KGRK)

[JohnO]

boB wrote:
> The OTHER Kevin in San Diego wrote:
> > On Mon, 15 May 2006 20:03:25 GMT, boB >
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Just speculation on my part as well. Having never experienced settling
> >> with power or even seen it, this looks like what settling with power
> >> might look like when the pilot did not have sufficient power to pull out
> >> of it.
> >
> > Power won't get you out of settling with power, it'll only make it
> > worse. You've got to fly out of it by moving out of the downwash.
>
> Not true. If you have enough power to retard the sink rate you can fly
> forward out of the recycled air.
>
> --
>
> boB
> Wing 70
>
> U.S. Army Aviation (retired)
> Central Texas - 5NM West of Gray Army Airfield (KGRK)

Presumably he was descending fast enough to become trapped in his own
vortex ring?

O

[boB]

The OTHER Kevin in San Diego wrote:
> On Tue, 16 May 2006 21:46:32 GMT, boB >
> wrote:
>
>
>> Not true. If you have enough power to retard the sink rate you can fly
>> forward out of the recycled air.
>
> Isn't this what I just said? Recovery is not to pull in more power,
> that just increases your rate of sink. You apply cyclic (preferrably
> forward, but any direction will work) and altitude permitting, lower
> the collective and fly out of it.. Once you're out of the vortex,
> pull pitch and climb out.

That sounds the same to me. :)

--

boB
Wing 70

U.S. Army Aviation (retired)
Central Texas - 5NM West of Gray Army Airfield (KGRK)

[Steve R]

"The OTHER Kevin in San Diego" <skiddz "AT" adelphia "DOT" net> wrote in
message ...
> On Mon, 15 May 2006 21:14:51 GMT, "Steve R"
> > wrote:
>
>
>
> Water will dissipate the downwash- kinda like "sorta ground effect".
> Same with tall grass.. The water ops I've seen always had the heli
> make a vertical pickup to a hover, then a normal takeoff.. I have to
> wonder if dumping the collective when the water started coming over
> the cockpit might have saved the heli.

I was wondering that myself. I tend to believe, though, that once he had
the nose of the aircraft under water, it wouldn't have made much difference.
If he was holding a lot of aft cyclic (I tend to think I would have been if
I were in that situation, especially after the nose of the aircraft started
going under!), wouldn't dropping collective risk a boom strike? Once he bow
was submerged, I'd think his options were extremely limited.

Lot's of questions to speculate on and not much in the way of answers.

>>The pilot definitely made screwed the pooch on that one. The real tragedy
>>is that someone had to die because of it.
>
> I think the pilot was the one who died...

Well, if that's true, I'd call it natural selection. I can't help but
wonder what his flight loading was? What were the circumstances that got
him in trouble in the first place? The video shows the aircraft descending
vertically with a "lot" of visible coning in the rotor blades, suggesting a
low rpm issue. It would be interesting to know more about the specifics.

[Stefan Lörchner]

can't contribute a new technical issue, only that it seems to me like he
tried a power off landing, though a "hard" one.

>> I think the pilot was the one who died...

the speaker in the video says "all persons were rescued. However one of
them - an engineer from Zystech (?) - died in the hospital because of
his injuries.

[Jim Carriere]

Stefan Lörchner wrote:
> can't contribute a new technical issue, only that it seems to me like he
> tried a power off landing, though a "hard" one.
>
>>> I think the pilot was the one who died...
>
> the speaker in the video says "all persons were rescued. However one of
> them - an engineer from Zystech (?) - died in the hospital because of
> his injuries.

I wonder what the deceased person's role in the aircraft was. Is
"engineer" a loose translation into English and the fellow was part of
the flight crew (call it flight engineer, crew chief, navigator,
aircrewman, etc)? Or was he a company representative aboard the flight
for some other reason?

Regardless, what a shame.

[boB]

The OTHER Kevin in San Diego wrote:

>
> Once in the downwash, you can't apply more power to get out of it.
> Doing so only accelerates the downwash and increases the sink rate.
> You can't "retard the sink rate" by hauling up on the collective.
>
> Again, the only way out is to apply cyclic to fly out of the
> downwash...

Of course you can apply collective and slow the decent rate if you have
enough power. The rotor wash does not increase equal to the amount of
power applied. You don't "increases the sink rate" unless there is no
power left.

--

boB
Wing 70

U.S. Army Aviation (retired)
Central Texas - 5NM West of Gray Army Airfield (KGRK)

[John_F]

Bob
There is not a helicopter made with that much excess power unless it
is a UNLOADED sky crane. You have to fly out of the vortex into clean
air either forward, backwards or sideways. The more collective you
pull the faster you drop. Been there and done that and had the crap
scared out of me when it happened on a steep down wind landing.

A good demo of this is LTE loss of tail rotor effectness when doing
360 degree hover turns about a point with a strong wind. If you get
the turning speed just right it is going to do an uncommanded spin for
part of the turn and there is not a darn thing you can do about it
once it starts except ride it out and let it turn till the wind blows
the vortex away and your tail rotor is not in the tail rotor "side
wash" vortex any more.
John

On Thu, 18 May 2006 01:18:37 GMT, boB >
wrote:

>The OTHER Kevin in San Diego wrote:
>
>>
>> Once in the downwash, you can't apply more power to get out of it.
>> Doing so only accelerates the downwash and increases the sink rate.
>> You can't "retard the sink rate" by hauling up on the collective.
>>
>> Again, the only way out is to apply cyclic to fly out of the
>> downwash...
>
>Of course you can apply collective and slow the decent rate if you have
>enough power. The rotor wash does not increase equal to the amount of
>power applied. You don't "increases the sink rate" unless there is no
>power left.

[Steve R]

"The OTHER Kevin in San Diego" <skiddz "AT" adelphia "DOT" net> wrote in
message ...
> On Thu, 18 May 2006 01:18:37 GMT, boB >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Of course you can apply collective and slow the decent rate if you have
>>enough power. The rotor wash does not increase equal to the amount of
>>power applied. You don't "increases the sink rate" unless there is no
>>power left.
>
> Every text I've read and every high time (10,000+ hour) heli pilot
> I've spoken to disagrees with that statement
>
> My experience on the stick (limited as it is) clearly shows the sink
> rate increases as you pull pitch when you're in the downwash.
>

I agree! I know some full size pilots around here won't take this seriously
because it didn't happen with a 100% scale machine but, I've had this happen
with an RC model. We had mounted a camera system to an RC model (a Bergen
Observer, www.bergenrc.com if you're curious) and was using it to do aerial
inspections. We had a video downlink on the machine so the camera operator
(there were two RC control systems, one to fly the helicopter and one to
operate the camera pan, tilt, zoom, and shutter functions) could see what he
was taking pictures of.

The machine flew Ok but it was carrying about as much weight as could be
expected. It was mid summer so temps and humidity were in the upper 90's
(can we say, "high" density altitudes!) and it was a "dead calm" day.
Absolutely no wind to speak of so no help from ETL in an OGE hover. At one
point, the camera operator needed me to do a vertical descent. I lowered
the collective and it started down. For the record, I was trying to be
gentle with this. When he said, that's good, I raised the collective back
up to stop the descent. Needless to say, it didn't work. Next thing I
know, the model was dropping "very" fast. I understood what was happening.
The rotor blades, which are normally relatively quiet, were really mixing it
up. I finally applied full cyclic to move off the column of air I was
descending in and found, to my total horror, that it didn't seem to be
working. At full control input, that model should have come close to doing
a flip, right there. It seems that when the rotor is in full on vortex ring
state, cyclic authority goes way down too. It did eventually react and fell
off to one side. When the rotor blades finally caught clean air, there was a
loud aerodynamic pop and the model shot off in that direction. It was very
close. The model started at about 300 ft and recovered around 75 ft. The
rate of descent was truly amazing and the entire ordeal couldn't have lasted
more than a couple of seconds. We were "very" lucky!

The advantage you full size pilots have is that you're "in" the machine.
I'd imagine that you can feel this coming on, or have other clues to warn
you about it's inception. Flying a model helicopter is a totally visual
exercise. I had no warning that this was going to happen until after it
started and then it took a split second to recognize what was going on. If
it hadn't been for all the reading I'd done on helicopter aerodynamics back
when I was learning to fly the models, I wouldn't have had a clue as to what
was happening and what to do about it. I would have buried the model and
about $10k worth of electronics right along with it.

I know this much. I never want to repeat that experience and I "certainly"
NEVER want to experience it in a full size machine with "my" butt on the
line!

FWIW,
Fly Safe,
Steve R.

[Stuart & Kathryn Fields]

Kevin: There is a section in Prouty where he reports on a series of tests
conducted at Cal Poly that claimed to demonstrate no change in hover power
required over water. I've put that in the magazine once and received a
bunch of howls from helo pilots claiming other wise. The Cal Poly guys did
have some instrumentation with numbers to support their argument.??

--
Stuart Fields
Experimental Helo magazine
P. O. Box 1585
Inyokern, CA 93527
(760) 377-4478 ph
(760) 408-9747 publication cell
"The OTHER Kevin in San Diego" <skiddz "AT" adelphia "DOT" net> wrote in
message ...
> On Mon, 15 May 2006 21:14:51 GMT, "Steve R"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>I know nothing about operating an aircraft off of water like that but I
>>thought it strange how far he put the nose down in his attempt to lift
>>off.
>>I'd imagine that he was trying to achieve ETL but really?? He buried the
>>nose, all the way over the windshield, "under" the surf. Once that
>>happened, it's no surprise that he didn't have enough power to pull out,
>>or
>>cyclic authority to level the ship.
>
> Water will dissipate the downwash- kinda like "sorta ground effect".
> Same with tall grass.. The water ops I've seen always had the heli
> make a vertical pickup to a hover, then a normal takeoff.. I have to
> wonder if dumping the collective when the water started coming over
> the cockpit might have saved the heli.
>
>>The pilot definitely made screwed the pooch on that one. The real tragedy
>>is that someone had to die because of it.
>
> I think the pilot was the one who died...

[Stefan Lörchner]

>Kevin: There is a section in Prouty where he reports on a series of tests
>conducted at Cal Poly that claimed to demonstrate no change in hover power
>required over water. I've put that in the magazine once and received a
>bunch of howls from helo pilots claiming other wise. The Cal Poly guys did
>have some instrumentation with numbers to support their argument.??

Nice that somebody mentions!

"Mike Baker and Jonathan Scarcello made ground effect measurements over
astroturf and over water. The astroturf results tend to refute the
pilots' observations. The ground effect at half a rotor diameter was
roughly 30% stronger than over the smooth solid surface. Over water,
however, there was _little_ measurable difference"

Prouty in "More helicopter aerodynamics" Chapter 2.

I got kicked in the ass on mentioning that towards some of my CFIs.
And I noticed that I need little more power in hover over tall
grass/bushes. However, that's not astroturf.
I never hovered over water.

[Dikkie Dik]

> I've actually wondered about the over water stuff myself. It's been
> drilled into my head that hover IGO over water takes more power, but
> other than some surface wave action dissipating the downwash, the
> water is, in effect, a solid surface. (Ever jumped off a 40' cliff
> into water? It spanks you pretty hard!)

That's just the speed. I remember a nice program on television where
some guy had two pieces of pork fat and a plate. The first piece of fat
was smeared over the plate, the second one loaded into a gun and shot
the plate to pieces.

Actually, when you hover above the water, you deform the water, forming
a shallow pit. If the helicopter would suddenly disappear in a puff of
magic, the water would flow back into it. I think it is this deformation
that dissipates the energy.

Best regards

[B4RT]

Kids,

Do not try this at home; its not a demo, its stoopid. There's a really good
chance that you'll never get the chopper back under control because of the
inertia of the spin. And by the way, if you get in to this condition in a
hover over a nice surface you might consider chopping the damn throttle.

Oh and FWIW; I think the water crash this thread is all about was caused
because the guy came in too hot, got behind the turbine, and couldn't arrest
the sink into the drink. Then the dude was so focused on getting the thing
back outa the water that he did a forward version of a dynamic rollover. If
he'd had a system failure, then why would he try to take off again?

There was a comment in here about hin getting into low rotor RPM. That
doesn't really happen in a turbine ship unless you're already behind the
engine so far that you can't get the power up (or you have a low-side
governor failure). Chances are the dude pulled pitch too late and saw his
torque-o-meter peg at the redline and his VSI still saying "elevator-down".
Looked to me like he just ran outa airspeed, altitude, and ideas all at
once.

Bart

"John_F" > wrote in message
...
> A good demo of this is LTE loss of tail rotor effectness when doing
> 360 degree hover turns about a point with a strong wind. If you get
> the turning speed just right it is going to do an uncommanded spin for
> part of the turn and there is not a darn thing you can do about it
> once it starts except ride it out and let it turn till the wind blows
> the vortex away and your tail rotor is not in the tail rotor "side
> wash" vortex any more.
> John
>
>

[B4RT]

Kevin,

Water always feels like tall grass to me. I'm always so busy trying to make
sure that I don't fubar that I never did a scientific study, and I don't get
low enough to the corrosive stuff to be totally IGE. One thing you really
gotta watch for though is to not "white" yourself out with the sea spray. I
got into that once and it was a tad spooky. It was a lot like dealing with a
snowy LZ; you really have to mind your attitude indicator as well as whats
going on outside.

Bart

>
> I've actually wondered about the over water stuff myself. It's been
> drilled into my head that hover IGO over water takes more power, but
> other than some surface wave action dissipating the downwash, the
> water is, in effect, a solid surface. (Ever jumped off a 40' cliff
> into water? It spanks you pretty hard!)
>
> The only water I've hovered over was a small pool near a stream and
> while power required was about an inch more MAP than over the hard
> pack dirt area we taxied from, I wondered if the tall grass/shrubs
> surrounding the pond might have had something to do with that.


...

[Mikko Pietilä]

On Sat, 20 May 2006 16:47:52 -0400, "B4RT" >
wrote:

>Oh and FWIW; I think the water crash this thread is all about was caused
>because the guy came in too hot, got behind the turbine, and couldn't arrest
>the sink into the drink. Then the dude was so focused on getting the thing
>back outa the water that he did a forward version of a dynamic rollover. If
>he'd had a system failure, then why would he try to take off again?
>

That sounds like a very credible explanation. Especially the
characteristics of the aircraft support that (this is assuming the
Mi-14 to be similar to Mi-8 in this respect). The rotor governing is
probably not very good in the aircraft, in Mi-8 you are not allowed to
raise the lever from idle to full power in less than 10 seconds,
without a big Nr droop.

As a curiosity, the russian helicopters typically do not have a
Torque-meter at all. The transmission is over-engineered to take in
all conditions what the engines can deliver. In Mi-8 the power is
limited by the engine control system, which will limit the fuel flow
and let the rotor droop if too much lever is pulled.

In the final screenshots the landing gear is out. If it came out when
the helicopter hit the water, they must have affected the nose-over.

>There was a comment in here about hin getting into low rotor RPM. That
>doesn't really happen in a turbine ship unless you're already behind the
>engine so far that you can't get the power up (or you have a low-side
>governor failure). Chances are the dude pulled pitch too late and saw his
>torque-o-meter peg at the redline and his VSI still saying "elevator-down".
>Looked to me like he just ran outa airspeed, altitude, and ideas all at
>once.
>
>Bart
>

Mikko

[[email protected]]

Here is a higher quality video.

http://www.canada.com/globaltv/national/story.html?id=5d95353f-2430-4fcd-bd9b-9a6241666200#
Click "Watch video of the crash"


It show the take off, the brief hover and the sudden
descent. It then cuts to a different shot
so it is impossible to tell how long the
maching was in the water. It is easy to
assume that there was no delay between the
'landing' and the take off but it is not at all clear.

This video also shows a spout of water
coming out of a hole in the under nose
"radome" as the helicopter rolls over.

Maybe the hard landing for some reason
caused a hole that allowed water to
enter the "radome" and it was this water that
caused the failed take-off.

[[email protected]]

The "radome" may be a sonar dome. For operation
it will need I guess to be filled with water to effectively
couple the signal into and out of the water.

Is the helicopter supposed to fly with water in the
dome?

This one apparently tried to anyway.

[[email protected]]

The "radome" may be a sonar dome. For operation
it will need I guess to be filled with water to effectively
couple the signal into and out of the water.

Is the helicopter supposed to fly with water in the
dome?

This one apparently tried to anyway.

[boB]

The OTHER Kevin in San Diego wrote:
> On Thu, 18 May 2006 01:18:37 GMT, boB >
> wrote:
>
>
>> Of course you can apply collective and slow the decent rate if you have
>> enough power. The rotor wash does not increase equal to the amount of
>> power applied. You don't "increases the sink rate" unless there is no
>> power left.
>
> Every text I've read and every high time (10,000+ hour) heli pilot
> I've spoken to disagrees with that statement
>
> My experience on the stick (limited as it is) clearly shows the sink
> rate increases as you pull pitch when you're in the downwash.
>


Kevin, I'm not here to cause problems. In my experience, with only 6000
plus hours, but with most of those hours in the military flying in the
dead man's curve most of the time, I disagree. You don't have the
option to land into the wind or less than a near vertical decent, I have
actually added power to "power out" of the condition. If that was not
true myself, and many other IP's, would have helicopter wreckage all
around us.

Most approaches in the desert of Iraq had to be flown in the dead mans
curve because if you hesitated and leveled for just a second the sand
would blot out any visibility you had. I flew OH-58D helicopters in
Desert Storm and if you know about the aircraft you know most flights in
that helicopter were under NVG's at night. It was not a fun time.


So it's my experience that settling with power must be considered on any
approach that meets the requirements for settling with power the pilot
must be careful but not shy away from the approach if there are no other
alternatives, ie. bad guys in front of you. But my experience is based
on many many approaches, not hours and hours of flying from point A to
Point B

I hate to even write this as I don't want to start any wars. I am
envious of some of the guys in here who have a hell of a lot of
experience with different types of helicopter flying and I read the
messages because there is so much to learn. Learning never ceases.


I like reading the messages from the new guys because some of them
brings back some good memories.

I'm not listing my certificates below to impress anyone. My flying
career is over. I just list them to show I have at least some
experience. And if some think I'm lying, which is possible for anyone
to do, I can scan my license sitting on a piece of paper with something
written that someone here tells me to write. That can't be faked.

I thought I could contribute to the group by telling my experience.
Maybe I should have just kept quiet.

--

Bob


ATP Rotorcraft
Commercial w/instrument SEL

U.S. Army Aviation (retired)
Central Texas - 5NM West of Gray Army Airfield (KGRK)

[boB]

The OTHER Kevin in San Diego wrote:

>
> I'm not disputing you by any means and your experience FAR outweighs
> mine. (I hope to rectify that over the next 10 years or so. hehe)
>


And I also envy you. So much to do and you'll soon have some great
memories.


>
> You mean you never used the "I'm a helicopter pilot" line to pick up
> girls?? hell, if I wasn't married, I'd be waving around that little
> blue card along with my Platinum Visa card. hehehe
>

<G> I can't think of a time I could have used that line. During the
first couple of years I had one experience where I'm glad I didn't have
one. The short story, got lost somewhere in Ohio in a Cobra, landed to
ask directions, (neither of us had a map) and had a sheriff come over to
us and asked us for our "pilot license". We convinced him that Army
pilots didn't need any stinkin pilot license. Then he saw we were
wearing 38's and asked us for our "gun" license. He finally shut up
after we told him the 40MM Grenade launcher and the mini-gun in the
turret required us to wear firearms. There's more but it would be
boring. Something about walking in to a liquor store wearing the 38's
and walking into a police station carrying the mini-gun. The clerk on
duty disappeared.


> You, Bart and Rocky seem to have the most experience here. I'm still
> a wet behind the ears newbie, wannabe CFI.. (But I do have that nifty
> blue card from the FAA with the Wright brother's pictures on it.
> hehehe)
>
>

I still have an old dog-eared tan card. Not much point in requesting a
new one. And I do enjoy hearing all the stories told here. I'm fairly
sure you will have many to come.


--

boB
Wing 70

U.S. Army Aviation (retired)
Central Texas - 5NM West of Gray Army Airfield (KGRK)

[Mr Rogers]

Common, I want to hear the whole story about not having a map. It makes for
good reading. Infact I'd love hear all the stories you have if you have the
time to write them.

Waiting with bated breath,

Regards

Heath

"boB" > wrote in message
...
> The OTHER Kevin in San Diego wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm not disputing you by any means and your experience FAR outweighs
>> mine. (I hope to rectify that over the next 10 years or so. hehe)
>
>
> And I also envy you. So much to do and you'll soon have some great
> memories.
>
>
>>
>> You mean you never used the "I'm a helicopter pilot" line to pick up
>
> <G> I can't think of a time I could have used that line. During the first
> couple of years I had one experience where I'm glad I didn't have one. The
> short story, got lost somewhere in Ohio in a Cobra, landed to ask
> directions, (neither of us had a map) and had a sheriff come over to us
> and asked us for our "pilot license". We convinced him that Army pilots
> didn't need any stinkin pilot license. Then he saw we were wearing 38's
> and asked us for our "gun" license. He finally shut up after we told him
> the 40MM Grenade launcher and the mini-gun in the turret required us to
> wear firearms. There's more but it would be boring. Something about
> walking in to a liquor store wearing the 38's and walking into a police
> station carrying the mini-gun. The clerk on duty disappeared.
>
>
>> You, Bart and Rocky seem to have the most experience here. I'm still
>> a wet behind the ears newbie, wannabe CFI.. (But I do have that nifty
>> blue card from the FAA with the Wright brother's pictures on it.
>> hehehe)
>>
>>
>
> I still have an old dog-eared tan card. Not much point in requesting a
> new one. And I do enjoy hearing all the stories told here. I'm fairly
> sure you will have many to come.
>
>
> --
>
> boB
> Wing 70
>
> U.S. Army Aviation (retired)
> Central Texas - 5NM West of Gray Army Airfield (KGRK)



*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***

[boB]

Mr Rogers wrote:
> Common, I want to hear the whole story about not having a map. It makes for
> good reading. Infact I'd love hear all the stories you have if you have the
> time to write them.
>
> Waiting with bated breath,
>
> Regards
>
> Heath
>

Just a bit now, more later if you are interested. We were flying an
AH-1G to be a static display at the Ohio State Fair. We found Columbus
just fine but the directions we got prior to the flight was "It's
located in the North-West part of Columbus and we would see it
immediately when we approached the NW part of the city. We did have a
sectional and landed to ask directions. The Sheriff finally told us
where the Fair was actually located.

As for the guns, we had to remove them each night and secure them at the
police station. We thought it had already been coordinated but we found
out it was at a different Police Station. The on-duty desk clerk took
one look and disappeared from the office. We finally got permission to
secure the guns there each night. It's a bit boring once told but it's
one of my memories from "way back then"

My only advice to Kevin is to always be alert, know that something will
happen that will require his training to kick in and there will be some
memories that he will never forget.

But Kevin.... I feel for you about paying the loan back. And tell you
there are hour building jobs out there. At Papillon Grand Canyon
Helicopters I saw a female get hired with only R22 time and going to the
Bell course on the B206 turbine helicopter class. I never asked about
her certificate and hours but it couldn't be too many hours. Flying the
Canyon gets SO boring but definitely is an hour builder.

PS... Send a picture with your resume. For some reason I found out I
was hired because I did send the picture. It at least causes the Chief
Pilot to look twice and may be the difference between getting hired or not.

--

boB
Wing 70

U.S. Army Aviation (retired)
Central Texas - 5NM West of Gray Army Airfield (KGRK)

[boB]

The OTHER Kevin in San Diego wrote:

> I wanna hear about walking into the Sheriff's office with a
> mini-gun....
>
> ...and where the hell did the clerk run off to when you did???


I just responded to an earlier message but the clerk disappeared out of
a side door into the office section. I wasn't too long that an Officer
appeared and looked to make sure the minigun was on the floor.

--

boB
Wing 70

U.S. Army Aviation (retired)
Central Texas - 5NM West of Gray Army Airfield (KGRK)

[boB]

The OTHER Kevin in San Diego wrote:
> On Thu, 25 May 2006 22:06:35 GMT, boB >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Yeah, the loan isn't too bad. Just a tick over $400/month. I just
> got a raise which is about that much each month so I figure the
> company is paying it back now. :) I toss in a few extra bucks when I
> can and that extra bit goes right to the principal..
>
> I've got a friend who knows everyone there is to know in aviation and
> he's already got me interviews lined up for when I get my CFI-H. He
> did talk to Papillion last week about getting me in there but I need
> about 400 more PIC hours before they'd hire me. Damned insurance
> companies... Did PHI send her to the Bell course or was that on her
> dime?
>


I didn't ask. But I assumed, by the way she was talking that she went on
her own. I guess it was an investment which paid off. Papillon goes
through several pilots a season. Chuck was the Chief Pilot back then
(damn, it was 10 years ago) and he was left holding the bag so to speak
when pilots up and went with short notice since he recommended whether
to hire or not. After a couple months I received a request for an
interview with PHI but I asked them if they would put a hold on my
interview because if I left, Chuck would be left holding another bag so
to speak. :) It worked out great in the end because I met my wife when
she booked a flight on my aircraft. If I had gone to PHI I would never
have met her. Almost at the end of the season Chuck asked me if I would
like to work full time. I told him I would sleep on it and finally
decided to move to Germany for a while with Gabriella. She was a German
tourist on a tour of the southwest USA when I met her. Chuck told me he
could give me a few months off but I was expecting to be in Stuttgart
for much longer than that. My Army retirement was/is more per month than
I was getting at the Canyon anyway. But after the first year the pay at
Papillon went up quite a bit. It would be a great job for hour building
and not bad money after the first year. Very good people there, (at
least 10 years ago) :)


PS.. I gotta say there was one bad thing flying the Canyon. When it got
windy - 40 knots or so - the turbulence was "disturbing". I had never
had turbulence slam me sideways into the door before flying there. One
day the company asked me on the company freq how bad the bumps were on
the long route and I told them I usually liked having control of the
aircraft most of the time. They shut down the long route. There were
many a scream in my aircraft during the windy season.

--

boB
Wing 70

U.S. Army Aviation (retired)
Central Texas - 5NM West of Gray Army Airfield (KGRK)

[B4RT]

"boB" > wrote in message news:vUAdg.60153
> I didn't ask. But I assumed, by the way she was talking that she went on
> her own. I guess it was an investment which paid off.

This is not a bad idea. a 206B Transistion costs $9000 and takes 5 days. Its
worth every penny even if you never fly a 206 again. You'll learn _real_
stuff, not just the pantywaisted version of stuff reqd to get a ticket these
days. All the IPs there are as good as it gets in the rotorcraft world.

Its not uncommon for a smart pro-pilot to pay for his own transistion
training. We're overly familiar with the corporate jet world, and a lot of
guys/gals go to Flight-Saftety on their own dime. If you think 206
transition is expensive, imagine paying $20K out-of-pocket for a single jet
type-rating.

The other advantage to paying yourself is that you wont be hamstrung by the
employer. Most companies will keep you on a short leash by either requring
you to do mundane stuff for a long time before theyll pay for the Type,
and/or by binding you up contractually after they pay for it. This weird
form of endentured servitude is really common among newbie first officers in
aviation. For all practical purposes, turbine helicopters might as well
require a Type rating, cuz you'll never fly one unless you've gone to
transistion training and yearly re-current in each type. The 206 "Type" will
put you in a different postition when looking for a job. ( I'm not saying it
will get you one though, typically you'll need about 1200 Rotor and 200+
Turbine to get a turbine job. )

Bart

[Steve R]

"The OTHER Kevin in San Diego" <skiddz "AT" adelphia "DOT" net> wrote in
message ...
> On Fri, 26 May 2006 08:01:34 -0400, "B4RT" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>The other advantage to paying yourself is that you wont be hamstrung by
>>the
>>employer. Most companies will keep you on a short leash by either requring
>>you to do mundane stuff for a long time before theyll pay for the Type,
>>and/or by binding you up contractually after they pay for it.
>
> Yeah, that's pretty typical. I used to work for a chop that said
> they'd pay for my Novell Netware certification, but I'd have to stick
> with them for two years after I got my cert. I said no thanks, I'll
> do it on my own.
>

Very smart choice on your part. My work has been requiring new hires to
sign "pre-employment" contracts in order to be hired. "That" has blown up
in more than a few of their faces. Once they've got you under that
financial obligation, then they can treat you any way they want, figuring
there's nothing you can do about it.

It makes for a **** poor working environment and "very" unhappy employees!

[JohnO]

wrote:
> The "radome" may be a sonar dome. For operation
> it will need I guess to be filled with water to effectively
> couple the signal into and out of the water.
>
> Is the helicopter supposed to fly with water in the
> dome?
>
> This one apparently tried to anyway.

I doubt it's sonar. ASW choppers drop sonobuoys. No reason to risk
being a sitting duck in a hot situation.