Jump to content


VR Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by iChris

  1. In Reply to the recent post: Helicopter Evasive Maneuvers Question: "Hi all, I am trying to consolidate information from all helicopter military pilot users on Helicopter Evasive Maneuvers from ground threats. I will Appreciate it, if you guys are able to send me information on any threat reaction to ground threats (ADA units, RPG, MANPADS, Tanks, Artillery). Please direct me where I can find the information, which I need to draft out a Helicopter Evasive Manual." Reply: The best information you're likely to obtain is basic tactics and maneuvers (approved public release). You must remember a single low flying helicopter, slow mover, is an easy target for a mobile ground attacker. However, in a multi-aircraft environment once that threat is indentified, it can be readily eliminated. See chapter 6, section 3 (Basic Combat Maneuvers).
  2. I've seen it done in the training environment; however, I don't recall it being use to any extent in an operational environment.
  3. Your answer is in the summary of the final ruling.. DATES: This final rule is effective October 20, 2009. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: 64. This revision of Sec. 61.129 amends the commercial pilot certification solo aeronautical experience requirements to allow the aeronautical experience to be performed either solo or while performing the duties of PIC with an instructor on board This final rule revises Sec. 61.129(a)(4), ©(4), (d)(4), (e)(4), and (g)(2) to allow the commercial pilot certification aeronautical experience to be conducted either solo or while performing the duties of PIC with an instructor on board. Even though the commercial pilot certification aeronautical experience requirements for a multiengine airplane rating allow the aeronautical experience requirements to be conducted either solo or with an authorized instructor on board (See Sec. 61.129(b(4)), the solo aeronautical experience requirements were purposely written differently for other aircraft categories. This is because comments received in response to Notice No. 95-11 (60 FR 41160­41284; August 11, 1995) indicated that some insurance policies prohibit persons who do not already hold the multiengine airplane category and class rating on their pilot certificate from flying solo in multiengine airplanes. Five commenters supported the proposed provision permitting flights previously required to be performed solo with an instructor on board. One commenter stated the knowledge requirements are unchanged, and an additional pilot scanning for traffic enhances safety. Three commenters asserted that upon receiving private pilot certificates, pilots are permitted to fly solo and carry passengers, and should have no further solo flight requirements. Thirteen commenters opposed the provision with seven arguing that solo flight contributes to the development of essential self-reliance, decision-making, and command skills. Two commenters stated that, under the proposed rules, a pilot could progress all the way to an ATP certificate with only 10 hours of solo flight early in training. One commenter recommended pilots completing a commercial certificate with zero solo time in class be issued ratings limited to second in command (SIC) privileges. One commenter suggested if it is not possible for an applicant to perform the flights solo, then dual instruction requirements should be increased. Two commenters believed the proposed provision is driven by insurance and cost concerns, rather than safety or education concerns and insurance concerns should not restrict solo flight by commercial pilot candidates. The commenter stated most commercial pilot training is performed in either a single engine fixed gear airplane or in some low performance single engine retractable gear airplane, neither of which is difficult to insure. The Greater St. Louis Flight Instructor Association rejected the argument that flights with an instructor on board foster cockpit resource management (CRM) skills, noting that the purpose of part 61 training is to prepare pilots to fly to single-pilot standards, not to prepare them for a future airline career. The association also asserted the proposed provision subverts the intent of Sec. 91.3, which defines the PIC as directly responsible for, and the final authority on, the operation of the aircraft. Finally, the association asserted students ostensibly acting as PIC will defer to flight instructors and Examiners. One commenter recommended solo cross country experience be required, but that pilots working toward a commercial multiengine airplane rating be permitted to perform the flights in a single engine airplane to avoid potential insurance conflicts. Two commenters, including AOPA, recommended permitting performance of cross country flights solo or with an instructor on board and that commercial pilot candidates be permitted to perform the flights with passengers on board. One commenter recommended all pilots who hold a private or sport pilot certificate be permitted to fulfill solo flight requirements for additional certificates or ratings with an instructor on board, or while carrying passengers, arguing that carrying passengers allows pilots to share costs and expose potential future students to the experience of flight without degrading safety. Finally one commenter opposed the underlying requirement for a long cross-country flight from commercial pilot candidates because it is only meant to conform to ICAO standards. Since the adoption of Sec. 61.129, the FAA has learned that some operators of the other categories and classes of aircraft also have the same insurance policy restrictions. Many of these aircraft operators also believe solo provisions for commercial pilot certification multiengine airplane rating is beneficial in teaching crew resource management (CRM). These provisions permit the training to be performed solo or with an instructor on board while the applicant is performing the duties of PIC in a multiengine airplane. Some operators have said that they will be agreeable to their commercial pilot applicants practicing abnormal and emergency procedures if the applicant's instructor was on board. Therefore, this final rule provides for commercial pilot certification for the single engine airplane, helicopter, gyroplane, powered-lift, and airship ratings to be performed either solo or while performing the duties of PIC with an authorized instructor aboard. We believe the negative comments against this proposal are more of a philosophical disagreement than a safety issue. The existing rule, Sec. 61.129(b(4), has permitted the commercial pilot-airplane multiengine training to be performed either solo or with an instructor on board since August 4, 1997, and there has not been any difference noted in safety or the quality of the skills and abilities of commercial pilot-airplane multiengine applicants. We believe applicants and instructors have used this training for commercial pilot-airplane multiengine applicants to achieve proficiency in crew resource management and coordination with an SIC designated pilot. For the stated reasons, the FAA is adopting the revision as proposed in the NPRM. http://rgl.faa.gov/R...11?OpenDocument
  4. That mod never made it to the R44; however there was a Cyclic Grip mod for the R22 made by Altair Avionics (STC # SR9BO). The full text of the STC may detail what all was included. The mod has currently been discontinued. Altair moved on to more successful products as a part of Pratt Whitney.
  5. Buying your way via the Factory school is not what it once was. The Factory 206B course (5 flight Hours + ground) is up over $10K
  6. That news report was a little off-track. "The NTSB database shows 10 crashes of Robinson R22 helicopters since 2007; before Wednesday's crash near Felts Field, only of those 10 crashes of Robinson R22 helicopters involved a fatality." From 6/1/2009 to 6/1/2010 (1 year period) there were: 24 R22 accidents/incidents recorded (3 outside U.S.) 17 nonfatal 7 fatal (3 outside U.S) 11 total fatalities (4 outside U.S) That's about 1 fatality per month.
  7. Good point… However, it's interesting how the French breakdown the Canopy components on their Astar. They have a "Windshield"!! However, that maybe just for the U.S. market.
  8. NO, this will not stop you from getting your medical. According to FAR 67.107 and 67.207 it would have to be an established medical history or clinical diagnosis of mental or other conditions. As long as you're in good health, not under any medications or other treatments and do not have any of the following conditions you're entitled to an appropriate medical certificate. I would recommend that be a second class in your case. (1) Coronary heart disease (2) Angina (3) Myocardial infarction (4) Heart replacement (5) Cardiac valve replacement (6) Permanent cardiac pacemakers (7) Diabetes (8) Psychosis (9) Bipolar disorder (10) Severe personality disorder (11) Substance dependence or abuse (12) Epilepsy (13) Disturbance of consciousness (without satisfactory explanation) (14) Transient loss of nervous system function Since you have no established medical history or clinical diagnoses of any of these conditions and have no reason to know of any medical condition that would make you unable to meet the requirements for the medical certificate, you should answer "NO" to any such questions on the medical application. As an Example.. There are a number of questions on the medical application under the following heading (Line # 18): "Have you ever in your life been diagnosed, had, or do you presently have any of the following:" One of those questions is: “Mental disorders of any sort” (yes or no): To this you could answer, NO. Since it was never any established basis (clinically or otherwise) that you ever had ADHD. Also read FAR 67.113 and 67.213. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sec. 67.107 Mental. (In Part) Mental standards for a first-class airman medical certificate are: (a) No established medical history or clinical diagnosis of any of the following: (1) A personality disorder that is severe enough to have repeatedly manifested itself by overt acts. (2) A psychosis. As used in this section, ``psychosis'' refers to a mental disorder in which: (i) The individual has manifested delusions, hallucinations, grossly bizarre or disorganized behavior, or other commonly accepted symptoms of this condition; or (ii) The individual may reasonably be expected to manifest delusions, hallucinations, grossly bizarre or disorganized behavior, or other commonly accepted symptoms of this condition. (3) A bipolar disorder. (4) Substance dependence, except where there is established clinical evidence, satisfactory to the Federal Air Surgeon, of recovery, including sustained total abstinence from the substance(s) for not less than the preceding 2 years. As used in this section-- (i) ``Substance'' includes: Alcohol; other sedatives and hypnotics; anxiolytics; opioids; central nervous system stimulants such as cocaine, amphetamines, and similarly acting sympathomimetics; hallucinogens; phencyclidine or similarly acting arylcyclohexylamines; cannabis;
  9. Most everyone calls the windshield a windscreen; I understand this is British terminology so how did it come about being the term of choice? Is it really the term of choice? Bell Helicopter and MD helicopters use the term "windshield" in their IPB documentation. In Robinson's sales and maintenance documentation, I've seen both terms used. As an example, in the R44 brochure under standard equipement they list Tinted Windscreen. Move down a few lines and you'll see Windshield Cover. So it seems you need a windshield cover to cover your windscreen. You're correct, windscreen is the British term taken as synonymous with windshield. Why do you think most skids are only curved up in the front and not the back? Skids are designed for forward movement. Like skis, they curve-up in the front. They were not designed to handle any significant rearward movement. Aft movement on the skids should always be avoided. Recall your Private Rotorcraft PTS (page 1-9) under Vertical Takeoff and Landing: "Maintains position within 4 feet of a designated point, with no aft movement." It may not look as neat but it seems like it would be safer to have it not snag in the unfortunate event of backwards movement. The pilot's ability and overall skill in controlling the helicopter will determine the degree of safety. The well trained pilot will avoid aft movement, thus avoiding any fear of snagging the aft end of the skids. Pages from r44_brochure.pdf
  10. Binder1.pdf Arotrhd description is correct. The term that is used is "Sympathetic Resonance"
  11. I'm glad you clarified your situation. Your CFI is correct. At this point in your training (2.5 Hrs total time) that type of training is of very little benefit. With 2.5 hours your skill level in calm winds has not even developed. For all practical purposes, you're just a ride-along under those conductions with your CFI doing the flying. Is that what you're paying for? That's a good CFI. Most would have taken you up just to log the time. It's all about a learning process, step-by-step. Let's edit that quote: "Anyone can learn to fly when it's calm. Anyone can learn to hover when it's calm. Anyone can learn to land on the cart when it's calm. Most of all, anyone can learn to do those things well when it's windy."
  12. Knowledge of the differences between "Air Density" and "Density Altitude" and how they are sometime misused is the key. Please understand, Density Altitude along with its ISO model, are still useful tools in predicting general aircraft performance. They also are the base reference for our altimeter system and altitude reporting equipment, transponder mode C. As long as we use them along side and in compliance to the RFM performance data, we'll be assured accurate results.
  13. Why is this line not vertical? Graphs can be arranged to reference data in many different formats along the X-Y axis. However, the accompanying data is just repotted to reflect the actual flight test results. As an example, the 300CB IGE chart has density altitude plotted on the vertical with 8,000 feet DA as a take-off and landing limit. Robinson like most manufactures places the main data on the X-Y. The ISO and DA information is added as an overlay reference. In other words, why is the maximum hover weight greater at lower altitude and higher temp, and less at higher altitude and lower temperature, even though both result in the same density altitude? As with any normally aspirated piston engine helicopter, air density determines performance. As the density of the air increases aircraft performance increases. Conversely, as air density decreases aircraft performance decreases. In both cases, atmospheric pressure change is the major factor over that of temperature (See attached ISO table). Remember, a lapse rate still exist even during non-standard conditions. Also note, the maximum manifold pressure of any normally aspirated piston engine helicopter, can never be more than about 1inches less than the outside air pressure. Once, your normally aspirated helicopter departs sea level conditions, your available power starts decreasing. Aren't we told that DA is what determines aircraft performance? No, that's not technically 100% correct. The air density (mass per unit volume) determines aircraft performance. The atmospheric pressure, temperature, and humidity however, determine air density. In general, we use DA in terms of high-density altitude or low-density altitude as a reference to the actual air density being lower than standard or the actual air density being higher than standard respectively. We've used "Air density" and "Density altitude" as synonymous terms; however, they aren't the exact same in reality. Take another look at your textbook Lift equation and Drag equation. Both calculations are based on “rho” which is the actual air density. Air density is measured in slugs/per cubic feet, which defines the mass of air per unit volume. In contrast, Density Altitudes unit of measure is in feet, a height reference. Density Altitude is a measure of the density of air corrected for ambient temperature. In other words, it is the equivalent pressure altitude with standard temperature. The density altitude gives only general reference to the actual air density. The ISO established a model atmosphere that allows us to estimate performance based on an equation that correlates pressure altitude and temperature into Density altitude (See Attached). Density altitude is an index that tells us if the current conditions are better than, equal to, or worse than the ISO model. The model states as we climb in altitude, the temperature drops off at a rate of 1.98C per thousand and pressure decreases 1 inch per thousand feet, the standard lapse rate. During non-standard conditions we should expect the same type of change, but at different rates. Why is performance different, even though DA is the same? The performance is different because the actual environment is different. The outside air density is changing. The premise that a given DA calculation yields the same performance at different combinations of pressure altitude (PA) and temperature is only correct if the actual air densities are all the same. The IGE/OGE graph holds true to that fact as it shows actual performance decreasing with altitude. The flight test data reflect actual values of atmospheric pressure, temperature, and humidity. Whereas, PA and DA values are based on the ISO model and yield predictable performance. Look at the attached equations for air density and density altitude. First, they are not equal to each other, so they don't produce the same results and secondly, density altitude is computed from ratios of ambient Pressure/temperature vs. ISO model ratios of pressure/temperature. The DA and the ISO model were developed as a simple approximation to allow rapid and easy analysis of aircraft performance. It would be best to say density altitude is used to estimate or predict aircraft performance. Binder4.pdf
  • Create New...