Power Off Touchdown Autorotation

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

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.

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.

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 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
============================================