High Altitude Training

[nightsta1ker]

Another cryingoutloud…..

 

For clarification, please quantify this statement.

 

I don't need to. You already did on page one.

 

Why you gotta be so hard on me Spike?

[Spike]

Why you gotta be so hard on me Spike?

 

Not trying to be hard. Just asking a question........

[aeroscout]

Not trying to be hard. Just asking a question........

Some questions are quite hard, just saying. Sometimes just asking or just saying aren't just.

[nightsta1ker]

Not trying to be hard. Just asking a question........

 

I don't see the point in asking me to quantify a statement that you have already quantified earlier in this post. I agree with you that the most important factor that should be considered in picking a school is chances of getting hired on the completion of training, and that this means a larger school with a high turnover rate. Whether that school is in a high DA environment or not... well, to me that is not as relevent as other aspects to consider, like the safety record of the school, if they turn out successful and happy customers, if their CFI's go on to get hired with other operators and do well. If you find a school that has all of the above and is also at high altitude, then all the better, you will definitely learn how to finesse the aircraft operating in a high DA environment. But if your school of choice is at SL, you will still probably learn a lot of good stuff and be able to move on in your career when you are done. From what I have heard, people don't go from CFI to fighting fires overnight. Usually you get a job with an operator that does something entry level like tours AND does firefighting contracts. When you get enough experience, they start training you to do the firefighting.

[Spike]

I don't see the point in asking me to quantify a statement that you have already quantified earlier in this post. I agree with you that the most important factor that should be considered in picking a school is chances of getting hired on the completion of training, and that this means a larger school with a high turnover rate. Whether that school is in a high DA environment or not... well, to me that is not as relevent as other aspects to consider, like the safety record of the school, if they turn out successful and happy customers, if their CFI's go on to get hired with other operators and do well. If you find a school that has all of the above and is also at high altitude, then all the better, you will definitely learn how to finesse the aircraft operating in a high DA environment. But if your school of choice is at SL, you will still probably learn a lot of good stuff and be able to move on in your career when you are done. From what I have heard, people don't go from CFI to fighting fires overnight. Usually you get a job with an operator that does something entry level like tours AND does firefighting contracts. When you get enough experience, they start training you to do the firefighting.

 

I’m not trying to offend you as well and apologize if it seems like it and I probably should have been more specific with my question. My bad.. BTW, it had nothing to do with limiting MP……

.

I believe people come here to learn and others come here to educate. While everyone is entitled to an opinion, it’s these opinions that will generate questions (if you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen). Therefore, when comments are made regarding “marketability” and/or what can “make or break” a flying career, one should have a frame of reference to back up these statements……. That’s all….

[nightsta1ker]

deleted by poster

Edited July 1, 2012 by nightsta1ker

[jjsemperfi]

Come out to Colorado. You'll get practice at 9, 10, and sometimes 11,000 foot density altitude days. It's good training when you don't have enough power to hover, that's when running take offs and landings come in handing.

[eagle5]

Come out to Colorado. You'll get practice at 9, 10, and sometimes 11,000 foot density altitude days. It's good training when you don't have enough power to hover, that's when running take offs and landings come in handing.

 

Should you really be taking off when you cannot hover?

[Helipilot PTK]

Should you really be taking off when you cannot hover?

 

Isn't that what they are meant for? If you do a proper W&B, and you check the limitations section (including personal limitations) and everything is within limits, you should be able to have a safe flight. I do agree however, that you should at least be able to hold a hover for a short amount of time, and if not it would be wise to postpone or cancel the flight. I have only practiced these maneuvers, no real world experience doing them, so take my opinion with a grain of salt.

 

This reminds me of a story told a while back on this forum. Where two guys in a R-22 couldn't take off, so one of them got out and ran with the helicopter until it got airborne and jumped back in. Don't think I will be trying that anytime soon! Unless I'm getting shot at.

[eagle5]

Isn't that what they are meant for? If you do a proper W&B, and you check the limitations section (including personal limitations) and everything is within limits, you should be able to have a safe flight. I do agree however, that you should at least be able to hold a hover for a short amount of time, and if not it would be wise to postpone or cancel the flight. I have only practiced these maneuvers, no real world experience doing them, so take my opinion with a grain of salt.

 

This reminds me of a story told a while back on this forum. Where two guys in a R-22 couldn't take off, so one of them got out and ran with the helicopter until it got airborne and jumped back in. Don't think I will be trying that anytime soon! Unless I'm getting shot at.

 

The thing is, there are no charts for determining takeoff distance for a running takeoff (at least in anything I've flown) when you cannot hover. Therefore, how do you know if you are going to be able to get it airborn before you run out of room (let alone climb enough to get over any obstacles)!?

 

I don't know why they teach running takeoff (maybe just because they're fun?) and I don't plan on ever using it in real life!?

[Pohi]

You might want to check a current pts. I don't think they do running takeoffs anymore for helicopters with skids due to the idea that if you can't hover, you should not try to take off.

 

E. TASK: ROLLINGTAKEOFF

NOTE: This TASK applies only to helicopters equipped with wheel-type

landing gear.

REFERENCES: FAA-H-8083-21; POH/RFM. Objective. To determine that the applicant:

1. Exhibits knowledge of the elements related to a rolling takeoff.

2. Considers situations where this maneuver is recommended and

factors related to takeoff and climb performance, to include

height/velocity information.

3. Maintains RPM within normal limits.

4. Utilizes proper preparatory technique prior to initiating takeoff.

5. Initiates forward accelerating movement on the surface.

6. Transitions to a normal climb airspeed, ±10 knots, and power setting.

7. Remains aware of the possibility of wind shear and/or wake

turbulence.

8. Maintains proper ground track with crosswind correction, if

necessary.

9. Completes the prescribed checklist, if applicable.

 

Edit: added pts reference

Edited July 6, 2012 by Pohi

[Pohi]

As a disclaimer, the school I trained at still teaches them. I'm guessing because it was in their FAA approved sylabus and it was easier to teach extra maneuvers than change the sylabus.

 

Where I taught, the owner's opinion on the matter is that if it was not in the pts, don't teach it.

[Spike]

Where I taught, the owner's opinion on the matter is that if it was not in the pts, don't teach it.

 

The Practical Test Standards are minimum standards which a pilot applicant must meet in order to gain certification. Flight schools that restrict training to this minimum standard are not interested in producing professional pilots. They are only interested in producing pilots that can pass a test. These schools should be avoided like the plague……

 

The moment when you realize you’ve never done a running take-off, is the moment when you really need to do one…… Plus, not all running take-offs are what you see in flight school…

Edited July 6, 2012 by Spike

[eagle5]

The Practical Test Standards are minimum standards which a pilot applicant must meet in order to gain certification. Flight schools that restrict training to this minimum standard are not interested in producing professional pilots. They are only interested in producing pilots that can pass a test. These schools should be avoided like the plague……

 

The moment when you realize you’ve never done a running take-off, is the moment when you really need to do one…… Plus, not all running take-offs are what you see in flight school…

 

A school who's goal is for me to pass the test will save me some money, and (especially these days) saving money is very important! If the Practical Test Standards are good enough for the FAA, they are good enough for me! Besides, there is plenty of time to learn more advanced stuff later on (like while building up your hours for the commercial).

 

Sure, there are times when picking straight up into a hover isn't the best idea (just like not all running landings are because you don't have the power to hover). However, we're talking about doing a running takeoff when you don't have the power to hover. So, when do you "need" to takeoff when you don't have the power to hover?

[aeroscout]

A running takeoff is especially useful in potential whiteout or brownout conditions. The idea of being proficient in minimum power takeoffs has saved the day in the past. Ever read Chickenhawk ?

[Pohi]

 

 

The Practical Test Standards are minimum standards which a pilot applicant must meet in order to gain certification. Flight schools that restrict training to this minimum standard are not interested in producing professional pilots. They are only interested in producing pilots that can pass a test. These schools should be avoided like the plague……

 

The moment when you realize you’ve never done a running take-off, is the moment when you really need to do one…… Plus, not all running take-offs are what you see in flight school…

 

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. First, there is a huge difference between teaching to the minimum pts standard, and not teaching maneuvers that are not in the pts because a pilot who knows how to plan their flight should never find themselves in. My students are not going hot into an LZ under heavy fire needing to rescue 10 people or they are all going to die. My students are learning to be professional commercial pilots, who know how to plan their flights ahead of time.

A school can teach pts maneuvers and create exceptional pilots.

 

Secondly, no school can possibly be expected to teach every single specific maneuver that a pilot may face maybe only once tn their career, 15 years down the line. For that matter, they can't be expected to teach maneuvers that some pilots may use a lot, later in their career. Long line isn't in the pts, nor is parachute jumping, or sticking one skid on the side of a hill while passengers disembark the helicopter, or NVG, etc. Are you really saying that a school that doesn't teach all of these skills are just a pilot factory and should be avoided?

[Flying Pig]

"High Alt" training falls into the same category as a turbine transition. Dont pay for it unless you have cash laying around and all your ratings are done. Any mountain course will teach you the same things. Power management.

[Helipilot PTK]

The first time I performed a running take off was on my PPL check ride. I did say however that you should at least be able to hover for a short time. Shawn Coyle explains running takeoffs very well in his book "Cyclic and Collective", which I'm sure many of you have read.

[Spike]

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. First, there is a huge difference between teaching to the minimum pts standard, and not teaching maneuvers that are not in the pts because a pilot who knows how to plan their flight should never find themselves in. My students are not going hot into an LZ under heavy fire needing to rescue 10 people or they are all going to die. My students are learning to be professional commercial pilots, who know how to plan their flights ahead of time.

A school can teach pts maneuvers and create exceptional pilots.

 

Secondly, no school can possibly be expected to teach every single specific maneuver that a pilot may face maybe only once tn their career, 15 years down the line. For that matter, they can't be expected to teach maneuvers that some pilots may use a lot, later in their career. Long line isn't in the pts, nor is parachute jumping, or sticking one skid on the side of a hill while passengers disembark the helicopter, or NVG, etc. Are you really saying that a school that doesn't teach all of these skills are just a pilot factory and should be avoided?

 

You are free to disagree. That’s what makes this a great country.

 

Story; once, myself and the company owner were considering other pilots to offer them a job to fly a contract. I immediately suggested one former employee who I thought was an exceptional pilot. The boss told me “negative”… His reason was; this pilot only gave the minimum in everything he did….. If the task only required 80% effort, this guy only provided 80% effort….

 

There are flight schools out in the world which teach to a higher standard. A higher standard can produce a recently graduated CFII that could slide seamlessly into a commercial turbine gig without as much as a thought. Unfortunately today, industry philosophies and insurance requirements prevent this from happening.

 

Nevertheless, IMHO, minimum standards produce marginal pilots. Refer to past discussion: http://helicopterfor...the-pilot-pool/

 

What I am saying is; people should choose a flight school that provides the best training possible. A school which isn’t hyper-paranoid about liability and restricts their staff to fly in a box. And sure, (your words) a school can teach PTS maneuvers and create exceptional pilots. If that’s the case, what kind of pilot is being produced by the schools which typically exceed the standard? In my experience, they not only produce exceptional pilots but, “employed” pilots as well……

Edited July 6, 2012 by Spike

[Pohi]

I think we are talking apples and oranges. Not teaching running takeoffs has nothing to do with teaching minimum standards.

 

Running takeoffs = not required by PTS

Minimum standards = allowing a 200 foot, 10 knot deviation because it's within standards.

 

Or, to put it yet another way, quality instruction has little to do with if the student is in or out of a box, or if a running takeoff is taught or not, it's how well an instructor teaches the maneuvers they teach, and how well the student applies themselves. And that is what (IMHO) gets a person a job. Not the instructor, not the maneuvers, not the school, but the personal dedication and drive that person has and how well they use the tools provided.

 

I never taught a running takeoff to students, yet none of them are unemployed pilots. Kinda strange.

 

 

[Spike]

I think we are talking apples and oranges. Not teaching running takeoffs has nothing to do with teaching minimum standards.

 

Running takeoffs = not required by PTS

Minimum standards = allowing a 200 foot, 10 knot deviation because it's within standards.

 

Or, to put it yet another way, quality instruction has little to do with if the student is in or out of a box, or if a running takeoff is taught or not, it's how well an instructor teaches the maneuvers they teach, and how well the student applies themselves. And that is what (IMHO) gets a person a job. Not the instructor, not the maneuvers, not the school, but the personal dedication and drive that person has and how well they use the tools provided.

 

I never taught a running takeoff to students, yet none of them are unemployed pilots. Kinda strange.

 

Not to go tit-for-tat…

 

In my opinion,

 

The number of “tools” in the box is the key regardless of number of flight hours….

When doing my initial bucket training, the IP suggested using a “running take-off” method of take-off when operating at high power settings. If I didn’t have the “tools” to immediately understand what he was talking about, what do you think the end result would have been? And, let’s not get into semantics. A running take-off is the same at 20 hours in a R22 as it is at 2000 hours in a 206.

 

In any case, I must say, having every one of your students graduate and subsequently become employed is outstanding! Good for you. Truly, that is quite an accomplishment….

[jim_222]

Gentlemen,

 

sorry to jump in, but I am finding myself in the awkward position of agreeing with both of you, in what you are saying...

 

One of the crucial things to keep in mind is that training has to do with hours flown, and minimum requirements. I 'll try to keep it simple:

 

We all know that there are sooooo many factors involved in somebody's training pace. We also know that to take the PPL checkride (just picking one, arbitrarily), one needs to have at least 40 hours. If somebody has met the PTS for the PPL checkride at 30 hours, and then the rest 10 hours the school's mentality is "well, that's the only things you need for the checkride, so we will just work on these PTS maneuvers for the rest 10 hours, and don't even think of trying something more challenging, because it will increase the chances of an accident," then it is what Spike is saying... a bad school, providing a disservice to the student.

 

On the other hand, if I am paying $300/hour, and I just managed to be able to fly at PPL PTS when I am beyond 70-80 hours, then please save the running take-offs for some other time... Just let me take the checkride.

 

hope it makes sense to somebody else too, and not just me....

[Pohi]

To clarify, spike, im not saying all of my students graduated. I had several that stopped training due to various reasons, finances, personal, etc. i just meant that none of those that did graduate and went on to continue their pilot career have failed to find employment so far. I'm happy for them, and am glad I could assist their progress.

 

Maybe in a few years some will come back and kick me in the nuts for failing to teach them something that prevents them from getting a job. It's too soon to tell.

 

And Jim, I understand what you are trying to say. When given the opportunities of a student having "extra" time to train before their minimums, more right traffic patterns isn't really helping all that much. Asking for tighter tolerances, more challenging confined areas, or pinnacles can be a benefit.

[aeroscout]

Learning to land on a platform might be a good one to learn early on.

[Spike]

Gentlemen,

 

sorry to jump in, but I am finding myself in the awkward position of agreeing with both of you, in what you are saying...

 

One of the crucial things to keep in mind is that training has to do with hours flown, and minimum requirements. I 'll try to keep it simple:

 

We all know that there are sooooo many factors involved in somebody's training pace. We also know that to take the PPL checkride (just picking one, arbitrarily), one needs to have at least 40 hours. If somebody has met the PTS for the PPL checkride at 30 hours, and then the rest 10 hours the school's mentality is "well, that's the only things you need for the checkride, so we will just work on these PTS maneuvers for the rest 10 hours, and don't even think of trying something more challenging, because it will increase the chances of an accident," then it is what Spike is saying... a bad school, providing a disservice to the student.

 

On the other hand, if I am paying $300/hour, and I just managed to be able to fly at PPL PTS when I am beyond 70-80 hours, then please save the running take-offs for some other time... Just let me take the checkride.

 

hope it makes sense to somebody else too, and not just me....

 

Kind of…

 

The elephant in the room is; why are the current PTS and 8083-21 undergoing changes? Is it because the “minimum standard” has proven to be adequate, or inadequate? Maybe I’m just old and out of touch. But, in my experience, schools that teach what is written in between the lines understand what was at stake…..

 

Along with running take-offs, what about; zero speed autos, stuck peddles, rapid decel at altitude, toe in, full down to other than a hard surface, stuck collective, hover over open/moving water, night off airport…… Any others?

Edited July 7, 2012 by Spike