More Failed Autos Coming Soon.....

Now that touchdown autorotations are no longer required or even
demonstrated for CFI applicants, nor are FAA inspectors going to do
them, is the general proficiency for autorotations going down the tubes
by FAA mandate?
I seeeee.......a new CFI isn't required to show any-ANY proficiency in
a full on auto so they will be unable to teach something that has the
FAA scared to death. How is that going to bode for new helicopter
pilots? Hmmmmm?
A new batch of helicopter pilots that are not able to do some of the
most important and perhaps critical flight manuevers and yet are going
to be hauling unwitting and unsuspecting passengers.
Is there something wrong with this picture? Does it rank right in there
with only demonstrating an approach to a spin without actually
experiencing one and then go teach the same flawed philosophy?
I can see lots of tailbooms being chopped off in the next couple
years...
Comments anyone?
Rocky

Seems like a bad idea to have instructors that have not
actually demonstrated a spin (for airplanes), or a touchdown
auto (heli's). I went to talk by the founder of Silver
State helicopters, and he mentioned that they had wrecked
two R-22s in one week practicing touchdown auto's when the
outside air temperature was hot, and the density altitude
was high. It could be that the FAA is responding to
pressure from the flight schools that touchdown autos are
too dangerous to their equipment.

Don W.

Ol Shy & Bashful wrote:
Now that touchdown autorotations are no longer required or even
demonstrated for CFI applicants, nor are FAA inspectors going to do
them, is the general proficiency for autorotations going down the tubes
by FAA mandate?
I seeeee.......a new CFI isn't required to show any-ANY proficiency in
a full on auto so they will be unable to teach something that has the
FAA scared to death. How is that going to bode for new helicopter
pilots? Hmmmmm?
A new batch of helicopter pilots that are not able to do some of the
most important and perhaps critical flight manuevers and yet are going
to be hauling unwitting and unsuspecting passengers.
Is there something wrong with this picture? Does it rank right in there
with only demonstrating an approach to a spin without actually
experiencing one and then go teach the same flawed philosophy?
I can see lots of tailbooms being chopped off in the next couple
years...
Comments anyone?
Rocky

"The OTHER Kevin in San Diego" skiddz "AT" adelphia "DOT" net wrote in
message ...
On 20 Apr 2006 04:20:32 -0700, "Ol Shy & Bashful"
wrote:

Does it rank right in there
with only demonstrating an approach to a spin without actually
experiencing one and then go teach the same flawed philosophy?
I can see lots of tailbooms being chopped off in the next couple
years...
Comments anyone?
Rocky

As a hopefully soon to be minted CFI-H, I think this new rule is just
stupid. While I don't doubt I could auto a helicopter to a "walk away
pretty much unhurt but man is that helicopter effed up" landing right
now, I'd much rather be able to do one where not only the occupants
survive, but the helicopter does as well.


Did a little trimming before commenting! :-)

Rocky, respectfully, I've been watching (and paying attention to!) reports
of helicopter accidents on the local and national news for 30+ years now.
In all that time, I only remember a couple of them where the tailbooms "were
not" chopped off. I'm not a rated rotorcraft pilot so maybe I'm not
qualified to judge but it seems to me that most of the people out there that
are, can't do a proper auto to the ground anyway. Granted, some of those
were approaches to very restricted LZ's but most were not. That makes your
concerns even the more scary, IMO. I earned my fixed wing rating in 1979.
We weren't required to demonstrate spins either, even back then, and I
always through it was stupid. This does not bode will for rotorcraft
training in this country as far as I'm concerned. Too bad actually. :-(

By the way, I did catch a news story yesterday (04-19) that showed a
corporate level Sikorsky helicopter (red), I'm not familiar with the exact
model designation, that had experienced a tail rotor failure. The pilot
managed to put the aircraft down safely. I'm sure, due to the fuselage
rotation, he/she folded the left rear landing gear on touchdown so the
aircraft was leaning over to that side on the ground. Beyond that, the
airframe seemed to be perfectly intact. I couldn't even tell that a rotor
blade had touched the ground. All things considered, this was one of the
better recoveries I've seen in a long time!

Fly Safe,
Steve R.

No, I think its because so many of the upper echelon of the FAA are
inept and not professional pilots. Why???? Because 20 years ago the FAA
in its weird way was hiring so many brand new inexperienced pilots as
part of the "affirmative action" policy and hired a lot of barely legal
commercial pilots as general aviation ops inspectors. Over the years,
they have risen to the upper reaches of the FAA and are now in policy
making positions. That is rearing its ugly head in dumbing down
requirements for pilots because the rule makers don't know what in
phuck they are doing!
Shall I tell you what i really think and not sugar coat it?
As for the R-22 and high density altitude lack of performance, I guess
that speaks for itself? Sure as hell didn't have much to do with pilot
performance...or did it? The R-22 is popular in SoAfrica and
Johannesburg sits at about 5,000'msl. I haven't heard of any particular
problems there? I spent a couple of years flying in that area some 30
years ago with both piston and turbine helicopters and airplanes.
Arrrgggghhhhh
Best Regards
Rocky

Hi Steve
It has always been of interest to me that I see so many helicopters
that experienced a chopped tailboom and how many of them were doing
instruction? To be sure, doing dual autos to the ground is anxious, but
why should it result in so many accidents if not for simple pilot
incompetency? I've been a rotor CFI since about 1971, and I've
experienced at least 5 mechanical malfunctions that took me to the
ground during crop dusting or ag operations. None of them resulted in
any damage as a result of the unscheduled landing. Sure I am very
experienced but not the ace of the base by any means. So, why should I
have been able to do the touchdown autos into spooky conditions and
places without damaging the helicopter? Proper training and proper
practice can be the only answer.
I'm really upset with this latest memo from the FAA and the continued
degradation of pilot skills and requirements. But then... you have to
ask this current crop of new military pilots I am doing screening with
prior to their commencing military training..... several of them have
come back into the office asking if there were any seat cushions for
sale since I had chewed their asses so badly about poor flight
performance and they needed something soft to sit on!
Again........ARRRRRrrrggggghhhhhhh
gg
Rocky

Just went to the 206 Bell factory refresher course at Alliance in Fort Worth
and all the autos were to touchdown, no power recoverys.
Also did about every kind of failure I can imagine and others I never
thought of. Even did such things as high and low end governor failure only
on a simulator. Its a hoot to try to maintain control in a simulated
shortshaft failure -- gives you no power to the main rotor and full power to
the tail rotor with the governor going nuts up and down because it can't
follow the load properly.
Gaylon
"John?] "
wrote in message
. net...

I have posted this before, but in 20 years of flying Army rotorcraft
including some time pushing students as an IP at Mother Rucker, I
watched the Army seesaw on this issue time and time again. Were it not
so sad, it would be comical.

They had a few accidents during annual checkrides out in the field and
some pencil pusher said "OMG, we have to stop this waste of assets;
let's prohibit touchdown autos except for initial entry training."

After a year or two there would be a rash of accidents caused by the
inability of pilots in the field to do a simple touchdown auto under
perfect conditions and some genius would say, "Training...that's
it...that's the answer" and touchdown autos on annual checkrides would
return. Then there would be a few accidents on annual checkrides and
some genius would say, "OMG..."

I saw the cycle repeat itself at least three times in 20 years. Sad to
say, it cost the lives of some terrific people.

The policy will change back within five years but that will be too late
for some good pilots.

John






In article , Don W
wrote:

Seems like a bad idea to have instructors that have not
actually demonstrated a spin (for airplanes), or a touchdown
auto (heli's). I went to talk by the founder of Silver
State helicopters, and he mentioned that they had wrecked
two R-22s in one week practicing touchdown auto's when the
outside air temperature was hot, and the density altitude
was high. It could be that the FAA is responding to
pressure from the flight schools that touchdown autos are
too dangerous to their equipment.

Don W.

Ol Shy & Bashful wrote:
Now that touchdown autorotations are no longer required or even
demonstrated for CFI applicants, nor are FAA inspectors going to do
them, is the general proficiency for autorotations going down the
tubes
by FAA mandate?
I seeeee.......a new CFI isn't required to show any-ANY proficiency in
a full on auto so they will be unable to teach something that has the
FAA scared to death. How is that going to bode for new helicopter
pilots? Hmmmmm?
A new batch of helicopter pilots that are not able to do some of the
most important and perhaps critical flight manuevers and yet are going
to be hauling unwitting and unsuspecting passengers.
Is there something wrong with this picture? Does it rank right in
there
with only demonstrating an approach to a spin without actually
experiencing one and then go teach the same flawed philosophy?
I can see lots of tailbooms being chopped off in the next couple
years...
Comments anyone?
Rocky

I think maybe you can in part thank me for them adding the short-shaft
simulation, I'd asked them a couple years running if they could demonstrate
it. The old sim couldnt, but they made sure that the new one at AFW could.

If you want some excitment, take their "Advanced Airmainship" course. A
whole lot of low altitude , zero airspeed autos to the ground from an oge
hover. They're really fun, but my first couple were pretty ugly.

They also do LTE from an OGE hover and that lil bit of instruction really
helped me once. I got into LTE at about 2500 ft with a cameraman in the
back while filming a stunt pilot doing his thing. I'm not completely sure
why it happened. I was within 15 degrees of being into the wind, and at a
totally reasonable power setting and OAT. All the sudden it felt like I was
in beginnings of SWP and ship rotated almost 90 degrees (even with a lot of
pedal). I got out of it fast enough that the camera operator thought I was
just repositioning for a better angle. Thanks Bell.

My 2 cents on the No-Full-Down thing is that its prob attributable to the
low intertia Robbies. They know that theres a lot of them out there, and IMO
they don't seem like theyd be all that safe at it. Esp when high hot n
heavy.

I've always wondered how the survivability of real world R22 autos stack up
against high-intertia 44s and Bells. I did a couple full downs in an 280FX
once, and they were "interesting" enough for me. The Bell 407 comes down
pretty quick too in a full down, but theres so much pitch available at the
bottom its a non-issue. I love my Jet Ranger, I spose there's sexier things
out there, but the Jet Ranger is just so well behaved. They'd mandate full
downs for everyone if the other choppers were as well behaved.

Bart

"gaylon9" wrote in message
news:GMd2g.3215$fG3.1034@dukeread09...
Just went to the 206 Bell factory refresher course at Alliance in Fort
Worth
and all the autos were to touchdown, no power recoverys.
Also did about every kind of failure I can imagine and others I never
thought of. Even did such things as high and low end governor failure only
on a simulator. Its a hoot to try to maintain control in a simulated
shortshaft failure -- gives you no power to the main rotor and full power
to
the tail rotor with the governor going nuts up and down because it can't
follow the load properly.
Gaylon
"John?] "

This kinda ticks me off. Are they (Silver State) telling you that if
it is hot and high, that the helicopter can not do an auto? Sure seems
like it. All it tells me is that they do not know how to do them
(instructors). Understanding your machine includes all the conditions
you can encounter. Makes me want to really fly with them.... NOT.

Where I fly now, as part of recurrency, we do full touch down auto's,
hydraulic failure to touch down, stuck pedal also to touch down. Glad
of that and I shake my head when I see it not being a requirement.
Sure you may bang up a bird (I understand the financial impact), but
when the **** hits the fan, you may have just saved 4 or 6 people.

When I taught fixed wing, my requirement was to do spins even though
the FAA did not require it. And depending on the student, I would take
them up in a Citabria and show some limited aerobatics. Was not a
requirement, but everyone of my students gained confidence.

-Mark



On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 17:00:48 GMT, Don W
wrote:

Seems like a bad idea to have instructors that have not
actually demonstrated a spin (for airplanes), or a touchdown
auto (heli's). I went to talk by the founder of Silver
State helicopters, and he mentioned that they had wrecked
two R-22s in one week practicing touchdown auto's when the
outside air temperature was hot, and the density altitude
was high. It could be that the FAA is responding to
pressure from the flight schools that touchdown autos are
too dangerous to their equipment.

Don W.

wrote in message
...

When I taught fixed wing, my requirement was to do spins even though
the FAA did not require it. And depending on the student, I would take
them up in a Citabria and show some limited aerobatics. Was not a
requirement, but everyone of my students gained confidence.

-Mark


Damned straight! There's nothing like getting out of extreme unusual
attitudes with an instructor for impressing on the student that they "can"
do it safely. Maybe it's not required by the FAA, but I bet it saves a life
somewhere along the way!

Way to go! thumbs up!

Fly Safe,
Steve R.

Hey Mark,

I don't think they were saying it couldn't be done. Only
that the number of bent R22's increased dramatically when
the temperature got hot ;-)

wrote:
This kinda ticks me off. Are they (Silver State) telling you that if
it is hot and high, that the helicopter can not do an auto? Sure seems
like it. All it tells me is that they do not know how to do them
(instructors). Understanding your machine includes all the conditions
you can encounter. Makes me want to really fly with them.... NOT.

Where I fly now, as part of recurrency, we do full touch down auto's,
hydraulic failure to touch down, stuck pedal also to touch down. Glad
of that and I shake my head when I see it not being a requirement.
Sure you may bang up a bird (I understand the financial impact), but
when the **** hits the fan, you may have just saved 4 or 6 people.

Agreed.

When I taught fixed wing, my requirement was to do spins even though
the FAA did not require it. And depending on the student, I would take
them up in a Citabria and show some limited aerobatics. Was not a
requirement, but everyone of my students gained confidence.

-Mark

I've got about 36 hours in the Citabrias, with my share of
spinning earth and upside down horizon time ;-) I agree
with you that some aerobatic experience is a good confidence
builder. It teaches you that you don't always have to fly
gentle turns with light control inputs.

Don W.