"I give her credit for going to get some training though, before her 135 ride."
Yeah, but... Without nitpicking that video to death, I do have a comment or two. In it, she seemed awfully nervous about doing 180 autos for some reason. Her bearded, man-bunned instructor (whom she hired to dry cherries with her and so had a vested interest in not pissing her off) kept kissing her butt, telling her how great her autos were, even though *none* of them even came close to hitting the spot - not even the straight-ins. Well...maybe the last one did, at which point she quit while she was ahead instead of doing another just to see if that one was a fluke. In the words of John Wayne, "Nobody likes a quitter, son,"...words that kept echoing in my mind when I was trying to stop smoking last year. But anyway...
Also, she seemed obsessively focused inside on the airspeed and tach when her eyes should have been outside the cockpit. I don't think she turned her head to look over her shoulder at her spot even once. I'll have to go back and watch it to verify that. But in any event, you can't be looking out thisaway when the spot you want to land on is back thataway, behind you.
It just reinforces my belief that when faced with an actual emergency, most helicopter pilots will just land straight ahead - that's their default. If they are consciously or sub-consciously anxious about 180's, then they won't do one when the poop hits the advancing blade no matter where the wind is coming from.
In the video, she kept overshooting the turn-to-final and flying out over the runway instead of lining up on the parallel taxiway. Hey, here's a hint: If you see that happen once, next time don't fly your downwind so close to the taxiway you're shooting for. Move out a bit...get some more airspeed...give yourself some time.
Now, look. It may seem awfully critical to be doing this, but I give this pilot a lot of credit for putting her videos up. That takes guts. Because you just KNOW that some smartass like me is going to sharpshoot the things to death. Hey, I wouldn't want a camera in my cockpit, recording every little thing I do wrong.
But we can use these videos, not just to make fun of another pilot, but as learning experiences. Because at the end of the day, we all just want to be the best pilot we can be, right? None of us is perfect. No, not even me. There was only one perfect person ever on this earth, and that was a guy called Jesus H. Christ, a name that was often invoked by my poor, long-suffering CFI's when I was learning how to fly. As in (after my feeble attempt at a normal approach), "JESUS H. CHRIST, Bob! That was awful! Don't you have some sort of musical talent or woodworking skills that you could exploit and make a career of? Do you HAVE to be a helicopter pilot? Because I'm just not feeling it."
Sadly, I can barely bang out three chords on a guitar, and I just about sawed my hand off trying to replace a doorknob in my house the other day. (Who knew you don't need a saw for that job!) So I persevered anyway with this flying thing.
I keep coming back to this: If you're going to put up a video of yourself flying on YouTube, don't give the FAA anything with which to violate you. I bet most FSDO inspectors are so bored that they spend their days at their desks watching YouTube videos.
Here's a good example: There's a kid named Matt Guthmiller. He's gotten to do some awesome flights that he's documented on his YouTube channel. He did the Atlantic crossing portion of a 'round-the-world flight two guys named JP and Louis did in a Cessna 210. Anyway, Matt happens to be friends with another guy who recently put a Beechcraft Bonanza down in Half Moon Bay, south of San Francisco in California after an engine failure. (Matt kept calling it a "new" Bonanza but it turns out that it was a 1979 model - hardly new.)
Matt interviewed the pilot and recorded it for YouTube. In the video, the pilot admits that during preflight he got some contamination in his fuel and he had to sump the tanks *five times* before getting a clear sample. Five times?! Water is one thing, but if you've got particle contamination and it takes *five* attempts to get a "good enough" sample, I think I'd be looking for the source of the particles before proceeding any further. I mean, what's deteriorating?
So you know the FAA is going to be looking closely at the cause of the engine failure, with particular (get the pun?) attention to the pilot's statement that he got some fuel contamination on preflight. Me, personally? I wouldn't have said jack-squat about my fuel samples. Why even risk that something like that could be turned around on you?
FAA Inspector: "Soooooo...we saw a YouTube video in which you say that you suspect that you may have gotten some contaminated fuel, and you got solid particles in five successive fuel samples, but you took off anyway? Do you really think that was prudent?"
Me (doing my best Jackie Gleason impersonation): "Ahhhhh...hommina-hommina…"
This is why I'll never have a YouTube channel ;-)