Power Off Touchdown Autorotation

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

(SelwayKid) wrote in message . com...
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!

(Wayne) wrote in message . com...
(SelwayKid) wrote in message . com...
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!

"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.

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...%26scoring%3Dd

hope the link above works,

full auto'd to the ground once.

bryan

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=e...%26scoring%3Dd

hope the link above works,

full auto'd to the ground once.

bryan

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=e...%26scoring%3Dd

hope the link above works,

full auto'd to the ground once.

bryan

"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=e...%26scoring%3Dd

hope the link above works,

full auto'd to the ground once.

bryan

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

"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