Running T/Os discussion

[Pohi]

If I push my students, then they will have been taught better than I was, and therefore they will be better pilots. I will never be able to compete with them for a job.

 

Plus, I am not teaching anybody to be a real world pilot, I am teaching people to be instructor pilots. That is the natural progression of things.

[Spike]

 

Correct me if I am wrong Spike, but your company did give you some training on how to fly with a loaded bucket. I am pretty sure that if you did not master the takeoff on the first try that they would not have fired you on the spot, I can imagine that whatever unique skills a pilot will need for a specific job, the company will give adequate instruction.

 

 

Yes you are correct; the company did provide me with training. However, in this instance, through my pervious experience with similar situations, I was able to immediately perform to the expected standard. Plus, my previous experience had provided me with the judgment to automatically assess the situation and make the correct decisions. Some of the experience I speak of came from learning and teaching the types of maneuvers related to this discussion.

 

To be clear, if the company thought I required additional instruction for the job, I surely would have never been hired. Helicopter companies are not in business to train their pilots. Companies check their pilots out, and if necessary, provide additional training for any deficiencies. During a check-flight, if a new applicant is initially placed in a situation where he/she has no clue to what the alternatives are, then the check-flight will be short.

 

I understand and agree with your stance regarding company policy. If youre prohibited from teaching the maneuver, then dont.

Edited August 17, 2010 by Spike

[Trans Lift]

Oh boy, you just don't get it do you. You are not teaching pilots to be instructors, that is what the CFI course is for. You won't be able to do that until you have usually taught for two years. You are teaching them to be pilots and the best they can be. You don't know if all of your students will go on to be instructors, do you?

Edited August 17, 2010 by Trans Lift

[clay]

[BOATFIXERGUY]

I'm trying to think of a 135 checkride I've done where I wasn't required to demonstrate a running take-off and landing...can't think of one.

 

I remember as a lowly 20 hour pilot having to have them mastered. There is much more benefit to the maneuver(s) than having to "get" somewhere. Look at the big picture.

[Gomer Pylot]

In 40+ years, I've never been asked to demonstrate a running takeoff on a checkride. Not once. Minimum power takeoff from a hover, yes, but that involves determining hover power and not using any more power than that, which accomplishes the same thing. I've done running takeoffs on wheeled aircraft in training, but it was never done on a checkride, because it's not allowed on a Part 135 flight. We used to practice it in UH1s in the Army, but that was long ago, and we didn't do it on checkrides. I don't see the point in teaching it in the civilian world, because it should never be done, and because the minimum power takeoff from a hover teaches the same skills, and is often done.

[Tarantula]

If I push my students, then they will have been taught better than I was, and therefore they will be better pilots. I will never be able to compete with them for a job.

 

Plus, I am not teaching anybody to be a real world pilot, I am teaching people to be instructor pilots. That is the natural progression of things.

 

Pohi,

If that's true, I'd say maybe you should have done some more research before you chose the school that you did. If you have students to teach, you've already beaten them in competing for a CFI job. If you teach them well, you'll be able to keep that CFI job, have more students, and teach many people how to fly safely and well.

 

If you're not teaching people to be pilots, but merely "teaching" to get more flight hours, I wish the best of luck to your students, and to you as well, both of you will need it.

[Trans Lift]

If you have students to teach, you've already beaten them in competing for a CFI job. If you teach them well, you'll be able to keep that CFI job, have more students, and teach many people how to fly safely and well.

 

But he doesn't, so his instructor must have instilled the same poor ethics that he himself now preaches. Therefore this didn't lead to a job.

Edited August 17, 2010 by Trans Lift

[clay]

In 40+ years, I've never been asked to demonstrate a running takeoff on a checkride. Not once. Minimum power takeoff from a hover, yes, but that involves determining hover power and not using any more power than that, which accomplishes the same thing. I've done running takeoffs on wheeled aircraft in training, but it was never done on a checkride, because it's not allowed on a Part 135 flight. We used to practice it in UH1s in the Army, but that was long ago, and we didn't do it on checkrides. I don't see the point in teaching it in the civilian world, because it should never be done, and because the minimum power takeoff from a hover teaches the same skills, and is often done.

 

Do you know how to do one? if your answer is "yes", dont you think everyone else should have the same opportunity to learn the maneuver and have the knowledge in the "bag"?

[r22butters]

If helicopter designers really wanted us to attempt running takeoffs(when we cannot hover!), wouldn't we have charts for determining takeoff distance?

[Pohi]

Wow, busy busy since I have been at work.

 

First of all, I am severly dissapointed with the lack of response on the Rambo quote. I could barely type because I was laughing so hard. The things I do that go unappreciated around here

 

Now down to the matter at hand;

 

Im glad that things worked out well for you Spike, but I always thought companies will teach the tools needed for the job. Somebody has to be the first one to show how to longline, drop buckets, shoot rockets, and many other valuable tools for their toolbox.

 

Speaking of this proverbial toolbox, why fill it with a bunch of crap that will never be used? The posts stated earlier about taking off at max gross weight, or at least simulated are very valuable. I did the majority of my training in a Beta and my instructor was a big fella. We were hovering at the max limit and had to ease through ETL every day during the summer. I teach this skill to my students ( and yes, I do have a job teaching, I was just getting some people fired up ) because it is a relevant skill to know.

 

Here is some interesting reading,

 

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20020531X00796&key=1

 

these guys apparently had just enough knowledge to kill themslelves with the running takeoff tool. I was talking to the guy who fueled them up a few weeks ago.

 

Here is the synopsis:

 

The helicopter impacted trees and the rising mountainous terrain approximately 7.8 miles from the airport. Prior to departure, the helicopter's main and auxiliary fuel tanks were topped off with fuel. Witnesses observed the pilot and passenger board the helicopter, and reported that the engine start was normal. The engine idled for two minutes, the rpm increased to "full power". The helicopter lifted off the ground "approximately 3 to 4 feet, and then set down very controlled." The engine rpm decreased for a few seconds, then back to "full power". The helicopter lifted off the ground, turned to the west, and moved about 30 feet to "the yellow X (a closed taxiway), and set down very hard." One witness stated that "[it] seemed like they had difficulty trying to get off the ground." After a few seconds, the helicopter lifted off again dragging the forward portion of the skids on the taxiway, departed to the west and "did not gain a lot of altitude." The maximum allowable gross weight of the helicopter was 1,370 lbs. Considering the occupants, miscellaneous baggage, and full of fuel, the helicopter's gross weight, at the time of departure, was 1,459.25 lbs. The density altitude at the departure airport and the accident site was calculated at 8,702 feet and 10,681 feet, respectively. According to the approved rotorcraft flight manual, the in-ground-effect (IGE) hover ceiling versus gross weight, and the out-of-ground-effect (OGE) hover ceiling versus gross weight performance limits were not available beyond 1,370 lbs. gross weight. The performance specifications had been approved up to the maximum allowable gross weight. The engine was test run on the airframe, and no anomalies or discrepancies were noted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:

 

The pilot's poor decision to continue the flight into the rising mountainous terrain, and subsequent failure to maintain clearance with the trees. Contributing factors were rising mountainous terrain, the high density altitude, and the exceeded weight and balance and performance capability of the helicopter.

 

 

So...

Not enough power to take off means not enough power for a predictable climb out performance.

 

I would hate to be the guy who gave that pilot the confidence to try and take off overloaded when he should have done the responsible thing and waited until the temperatures dropped or unload some of the fuel.

Edited August 17, 2010 by Pohi

[Pohi]

Oh, I forgot, yeah translift. My instructor taught me all kinds of interesting things that I will never show anybody because he was thinking outside of the box.

 

You do have a valid point about instructors teaching very poor judement and complacenc to their students.

[R22139RJ]

Pohi, the overloaded helicopter isn't the issue. The two pilots, one who is a CFI, made a SUCCESSFUL running take off. Good thing that was in their "Toolbag". It was the mountain that killed them.

 

I'm the farthest thing from a salty pilot and I keep hearing about this mythical toolbag and a back of tricks that I'm supposed to have. I'm still waiting for MikeMv to rock my world with my countless deficiencies as a pilot, but for now, I ponder to myself.

 

Everyone but me seems to have these tools needed to pull off amazing things as a pilot. I remember going through the PTS as a student and doing the assigned lesson, now come to realize I was sent out into the real world with an empty toolbag.

 

In my CFI career, not the real world, I had a student pull the mixture in the mountains, + 5000ft with Pine Trees everywhere at traffic pattern altitude (we were using a grass runway), and managed to enter the auto rotation and restart the helicopter and not die. If only my instructor would of taught me things that were going to happen once in a lifetime.

 

Desperately seeking tools, PM with details, there seems to be a lot on the forums.

Edited August 17, 2010 by R22139RJ

[Tarantula]

these guys apparently had just enough knowledge to kill themslelves with the running takeoff tool. I was talking to the guy who fueled them up a few weeks ago.

 

So...

Not enough power to take off means not enough power for a predictable climb out performance.

 

I would hate to be the guy who gave that pilot the confidence to try and take off overloaded when he should have done the responsible thing and waited until the temperatures dropped or unload some of the fuel.

 

First off, a few things. One, they were overweight. They should have offloaded until below their max gross weight. Second, if you look at the full description...

 

"A pilot-rated witness, who was located at his mountainside residence between the accident site and the airport, reported that at the time of the accident, the wind was gusting to 30 knots. Based on previous flight experience in the area of the accident site, the witness stated he often "encountered high turbulence and strong downdrafts" near the top of the mountain pass."

 

"During a telephone interview conducted by the NTSB IIC, the co-owner of the helicopter stated that this was the pilot's first flight in the accident helicopter to MMH. The co-owner stated the pilot had the CFI accompany him for "high altitude" flying."

 

"In addition, the CFI had logged 2.5 flight hours as "mountain flying.""

 

"In addition, the handbook states, "When the wind blows over large obstructions such as mountain ridges...it is a much more disturbed condition. The wind blowing up the slope on the windward side is usually relatively smooth. However, on the leeward side the wind spills rapidly down the slope...setting up strong downdrafts and causing air to be turbulent. The downdrafts can be very violent and cause aircraft to strike the sides of mountains. Therefore, when approaching mountain ridges against the wind, it is sound practice to make an extra altitude allowance to assure safe terrain clearance. Where pronounced mountain ridges and strong winds are present, a clearance of 2,000 or 3,000 feet above the terrain is considered a desirable minimum. Also, it is advisable to climb to the crossing altitude well before reaching the mountains to avoid having to make the climb in a persistent downdraft.""

 

Its fairly obvious, that between the two of them, they had only a total of 2.5 hours of mountain time between them. If you're going to pull up some accident reports, you should at least find ones that are relevant.

 

Here's one I found.

 

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20050617X00808&key=1

 

"The helicopter landed at the heliport with approximately 220 lbs. of fuel on board. At that time, the helicopter was oriented to north, with a light westerly wind. The helicopter was on the ground for 2 to 3 minutes while ground personnel boarded passengers for a sightseeing flight. The helicopter lifted up to a hover and initially turned left 90 degrees toward west, but the wind was from the northeast at approximately 5 knots. When the pilot realized the wind was from the other direction, he then turned right about 270 degrees. The pilot initiated a southeasterly takeoff run, oriented about a 160-degree heading. During the approximate 275-foot takeoff run, the skids contacted the ground at least once as the pilot attempted to increase forward speed. The pilot felt like the helicopter did not have full power during the takeoff run; however, the pilot and passengers did not recall any cockpit warnings or anomalies. The helicopter did not gain altitude as it neared the end of the heliport, and the tailrotor struck the edge of the pier as the helicopter descended towards the water. The helicopter subsequently impacted the water and rolled inverted. Examination of the helicopter did not reveal any pre-impact mechanical malfunctions. The pilot did not ask passengers their weight, and did not have a scale at the heliport. Rather, he estimated the weight and balance. For the accident flight, he estimated 150 lbs. per person, as there were three male passengers, and three female passengers. However, the average weight of the passengers was approximately 188 lbs. The weight of the occupants and the weight of the fuel revealed that the helicopter was about 222 lbs. overweight at the time of the accident; not including the weight of clothing, personal effects, and baggage. In addition to being over the maximum gross weight, the helicopter was at or beyond its performance limits for the environmental conditions, and the takeoff was attempted with a light left crosswind or quartering tailwind.

 

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:

The pilot's inadequate preflight planning, which resulted in an attempted takeoff with an overweight helicopter, and subsequent impact with a pier and water. Factors were a high ambient temperature and unfavorable winds."

 

He took off overweight, in the wrong directions, in high DA. He didn't get enough speed, never hit translational lift, and hit the tail on the pier as they went over. Funny thing about this though... He could hover! Definitely shows what could happen if you're trying to do a running takeoff, and don't get the speeds you need to get up in the air before you run out of runway.

 

"When asked if the helicopter was overweight, the pilot stated "no," he was able to hover with 92 percent torque and "720" indicated on the temperature."

[Spike]

 

Im glad that things worked out well for you Spike, but I always thought companies will teach the tools needed for the job. Somebody has to be the first one to show how to longline, drop buckets, shoot rockets, and many other valuable tools for their toolbox.

 

 

Out of the 10 or so companies I’ve worked for, this has not been the case. In my experience, most companies will expect a certain level of competence to even be hired. But what do I know… Maybe things have changed since I needed to look for a job. Maybe the companies of today hire pilots and train them to proficiency in their specific fields. Maybe companies now want completely green pilots so they can mold them into the kind of pilots they want or need. Maybe the cost of training new hires has been somehow subsidized and is now profitable for a company to provide such training. Then again, maybe not..

 

Everyone is free to believe what they want to believe.

[Gomer Pylot]

Do you know how to do one? if your answer is "yes", dont you think everyone else should have the same opportunity to learn the maneuver and have the knowledge in the "bag"?

Yes, I know how to do one. As I said earlier, I learned in the military, where being able to do one could be the difference between living and dying. But I haven't been shot at in a very long time, and without that facing me, I not only wouldn't do one, I wouldn't even consider doing one, at least in a skid-mounted model. There is no reason to make things more dangerous than they already are, at least for civilian pilots.