eagle5 Posted July 7, 2012 Posted July 7, 2012 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.... Makes perfect sense to me! At 70hrs PPL you still have 40 more hours after your instrument to get to commercial, then another 50hrs after that for the 200hrs needed to work. That's plenty of time to put more "tricks in your bag", and it'll all be PIC! Remember, the more hours it takes to get your PPL the more hours past 1000TT you have to fly to get to the 1000PIC you need to apply to the next level jobs! That means spending more time living in a cardboard box eating dry Ramen and peanut butter as a CFI! Still, if I cannot hover without busting my MAP limits (or simply running out of engine power), I'm not going to attempt a running takeoff,...but I guess that is just one of MY personal limits! Quote
jim_222 Posted July 7, 2012 Posted July 7, 2012 I still think that everyone is saying pretty much the same thing. As Spike put it, we have an elephant in a dark room in front of us, and each one of us is touching different parts of it, and describes what he feels... Which is different part of the elephant, hence different descriptions, yet still the same beast... Spike I agree with you, but it comes down to helicopter training to be so freakin' expensive, for an individual student to be able to afford. All these skills you are mentioning are extremely useful, and could save my life at some point, but I just don't have the luxury to pay my training for all these things. I do not think there is even one person in here who would argue that receiving training in all these areas you mentioned is not immensely critical and helpful... You mention zero speed autos.... Heck, I am 30 hours past my PPL, and I still cannot perform an auto, even if I know it's coming, and I am perfectly set up for it.... Sure, I do pretty much the right movements, enough to convince my instructor and the DPE, but they are doing most of it (shhh....). If need arise, for an actual auto, in one of my solos one of these days, the helicopter is a goner, already... my only hope is to create a survivable situation (i.e. I have some RPM left at the end of the flare to pull...) So, I cannot learn even this basic maneuver on my own dime... let alone all the rest you are mentioning. And I believe that this is a known fact in the industry, and that's why companies provide the necessary (for their specific needs) training once they hire you... (which is what Pohi says... his students get hired, and probably receive more specific training there) All students have to come to terms with the fact that they will pay for their first 200 hours of their flying experiences. But this is already a huuuuge stretch for most of us! And there are so many things to learn in those 200 hours as it already is right now... (hopefully by that time I'll be able to execute a decent auto...) The whole concept/notion of establishing the PTS is pretty difficult. Especially when there are so many variables in everybody's training (age, learning curve capabilities, frequency of flying, instruction quality, etc). They could definitely be higher than what they already are, and I think that the industry (accidentwise) would benefit from that, but who would be able to afford the needed 300 or 400 hours of training? What you are saying about the schools,is valid and true, and is just the icing on the cake. It drives me crazy that there are schools that won't rent a helicopter to their own graduates/students!!! If that does not indicate the trust one has in the training he is providing, then I wonder what would... At my school, when I signed the solo/insurance documents, I pretty much agreed that I won't try to do anything else other than normal pattern procedures... It is a huge discussion, but it boils just to money... or to lack of it, more appropriately. 1 Quote
jjsemperfi Posted July 7, 2012 Posted July 7, 2012 Guys. I never said we do running take offs when we can't get off the ground. If you cannot lift the helicopter off the ground then you don't fly. But if you can get the helicopter off but cannot maintain rpm in the hover ans start to sink, then a running takeoff is perfectly acceptable. My school does these all of the time. For someone learning at low altitudes you'll probably never have to do one. Remember one thing, just because you do a running take off doesn't mean you'll have to do a running landing. Fuel burn helps with that. Quote
eagle5 Posted July 7, 2012 Posted July 7, 2012 Guys. I never said we do running take offs when we can't get off the ground. If you cannot lift the helicopter off the ground then you don't fly. But if you can get the helicopter off but cannot maintain rpm in the hover ans start to sink, then a running takeoff is perfectly acceptable. My school does these all of the time. For someone learning at low altitudes you'll probably never have to do one. Remember one thing, just because you do a running take off doesn't mean you'll have to do a running landing. Fuel burn helps with that. I guess I misunderstood when you said "when you don't have enough power to hover..."? Still if you cannot stabalize it in a hover and continue to sink back to the ground, it sounds like you're too heavy to fly. How do you determine if you have enough room to pass through ETL before you run out of runway? Quote
Pohi Posted July 7, 2012 Posted July 7, 2012 The pts does not need to have every maneuver that a helicopter can do be part of its contents. These "advanced" maneuvers previously discussed are things that a pilot who knows and understands the basics, along with a little correlation should be able to figure out. Flying a helicopter is like making Mexican food, there are a few basic ingredients, but knowing how to use them can produce amazing results. Quote
jjsemperfi Posted July 7, 2012 Posted July 7, 2012 I guess I misunderstood when you said "when you don't have enough power to hover..."? Still if you cannot stabalize it in a hover and continue to sink back to the ground, it sounds like you're too heavy to fly. How do you determine if you have enough room to pass through ETL before you run out of runway? No worries, that's exactly why we practice running take offs. We get the helicopter light on the skids, usually about 19 inches or so, then we perform the maneuver. You do this enough and you can start to get an idea of how much room it takes, even to clear just a 6 foot fence. I think it's foolish not to teach a maneuver just because it's not in the PTS. 5 years down the road every pilot that gets a job from my flight school will be able to perform a running take off or landing if the situation arises and do it safely. Schools that don't teach this....well they will have to learn from trail and error. I'm not saying this will result in accidents, but it is more inclined to. Quote
jjsemperfi Posted July 7, 2012 Posted July 7, 2012 Trail and Error, that's a new one for me. Just because I can fly helicopters doesn't mean I can spell.... Quote
Spike Posted July 7, 2012 Posted July 7, 2012 (edited) I still think that everyone is saying pretty much the same thing. As Spike put it, we have an elephant in a dark room in front of us, and each one of us is touching different parts of it, and describes what he feels... Which is different part of the elephant, hence different descriptions, yet still the same beast... Spike I agree with you, but it comes down to helicopter training to be so freakin' expensive, for an individual student to be able to afford. All these skills you are mentioning are extremely useful, and could save my life at some point, but I just don't have the luxury to pay my training for all these things. I do not think there is even one person in here who would argue that receiving training in all these areas you mentioned is not immensely critical and helpful... You mention zero speed autos.... Heck, I am 30 hours past my PPL, and I still cannot perform an auto, even if I know it's coming, and I am perfectly set up for it.... Sure, I do pretty much the right movements, enough to convince my instructor and the DPE, but they are doing most of it (shhh....). If need arise, for an actual auto, in one of my solos one of these days, the helicopter is a goner, already... my only hope is to create a survivable situation (i.e. I have some RPM left at the end of the flare to pull...) So, I cannot learn even this basic maneuver on my own dime... let alone all the rest you are mentioning. And I believe that this is a known fact in the industry, and that's why companies provide the necessary (for their specific needs) training once they hire you... (which is what Pohi says... his students get hired, and probably receive more specific training there) All students have to come to terms with the fact that they will pay for their first 200 hours of their flying experiences. But this is already a huuuuge stretch for most of us! And there are so many things to learn in those 200 hours as it already is right now... (hopefully by that time I'll be able to execute a decent auto...) The whole concept/notion of establishing the PTS is pretty difficult. Especially when there are so many variables in everybody's training (age, learning curve capabilities, frequency of flying, instruction quality, etc). They could definitely be higher than what they already are, and I think that the industry (accidentwise) would benefit from that, but who would be able to afford the needed 300 or 400 hours of training? What you are saying about the schools,is valid and true, and is just the icing on the cake. It drives me crazy that there are schools that won't rent a helicopter to their own graduates/students!!! If that does not indicate the trust one has in the training he is providing, then I wonder what would... At my school, when I signed the solo/insurance documents, I pretty much agreed that I won't try to do anything else other than normal pattern procedures... It is a huge discussion, but it boils just to money... or to lack of it, more appropriately. Nicely said and I appreciate your contribution… Just know this. None of this is new. There are a lot a CFI’s out here who’ve done this before. Way before. Many times before. You see, in the early 90’s, students routinely graduated as a Pvt at around 50 hours and nearly all as a CFI at the 150-ish hours mark. The question I have is; what has changed since then? The helicopters are the same… The regulations are about the same.. CFI’s gain the same certification… The air is the same.. What has changed? Why 70-80 hour privates? Why are folks accepting the fact that they’ll pay for 200 hours? Plus, money has always been an issue. Nothing new here either. However, why are students forking over the cash to fly an R44 beyond the SFAR minimums (short of the weight issue)? And, it would appear, even in that 200 hours, some pilots have never completed a running take-off… Wow…. Double wow…. You can lead a horse to water….. Edited July 7, 2012 by Spike Quote
HeliUtah Posted July 7, 2012 Posted July 7, 2012 I did learn running takeoffs in my primary training, and I would teach them to my commercial students, but at this point, my chief pilot has said in no uncertain terms that if I am on a 135 flight and get into a situation where a running takeoff is necessary, then I messed up ... bad. Fix it (drain fuel, wait for cooler temps, offload weight, etc), no harm no foul. If I go ahead and perform a running takeoff and he hears about it, then find another job. A running takeoff means you are too heavy. Sure you can get off the ground, but what happens if you have to put it back on the ground due to engine failure or something that precludes a running landing? Always have a plan B, and having to execute a running takeoff means you are already into plan B, leaving little in the way of options if something goes wrong. I don't have a ton of experience, but my chief has 40+ years doing this, so I'll defer to him... not to mention, I need the job. Quote
aeroscout Posted July 7, 2012 Posted July 7, 2012 Practicing running takeoffs with power in reserve is good training for high altitude operations. Quote
Helipilot PTK Posted July 7, 2012 Posted July 7, 2012 Learning to land on a platform might be a good one to learn early on. I agree. On my night cross country, my instructor had me land on an elevated helipad. I didn't think it was going to be to difficult until I tried it for the first time, your judgment is a little off because it's not level with the ground and you have to be much more precise when coming in on final. The wind can defiantly add to the complexity of the landing. I learned a lot from practicing them. If I ever become a CFI they will be in my curriculum of things to work on. I see everyones point of view on this topic. You obviously have to teach to PTS standards so the applicant can successfully pass there checkride. However, I believe that by practicing maneuvers that are not on the checkride, you help the student have better decision making and coordination for maneuvers that are. For example with the running takeoffs, you have to takeoff in the helicopter either way to complete lessons. So why not teach the student a new maneuver and increase the students ability and coordination, all while it's not costing them a dime more than if you didn't teach them. Its a win win the way I see it. You may or may not ever have to use a running takeoff, but why short change the student of not having the ability to do so. Quote
pilot#476398 Posted July 7, 2012 Posted July 7, 2012 Nicely said and I appreciate your contribution… Just know this. None of this is new. There are a lot a CFI’s out here who’ve done this before. Way before. Many times before. You see, in the early 90’s, students routinely graduated as a Pvt at around 50 hours and nearly all as a CFI at the 150-ish hours mark. The question I have is; what has changed since then? The helicopters are the same… The regulations are about the same.. CFI’s gain the same certification… The air is the same.. What has changed? Why 70-80 hour privates? Why are folks accepting the fact that they’ll pay for 200 hours? Plus, money has always been an issue. Nothing new here either. However, why are students forking over the cash to fly an R44 beyond the SFAR minimums (short of the weight issue)? And, it would appear, even in that 200 hours, some pilots have never completed a running take-off… Wow…. Double wow…. You can lead a horse to water….. What has changed? Here's my guess; Back in the 90s perhaps there weren't as many cfi factories as today? At my school everyone was on the 200hr plan, so there was no hurry to get the ppl. I myself did more training than I really needed (including a few rather long cross country flights) and thus got my ppl in around 70hrs! Why 200hrs? SFAR 73 that's why. Why SFAR 73? Because the R22 is cheaper for the school to operate and it brings in more money because the student has to fly more! Why fly the R44 beyond the SFAR requirments? Because unlike in the 90s, the instrument rating is now mandatory if you want to get hired. Schools use the R44 as an instument trainer because it brings in more money. Students fly it because they want to get hired by that school! Why do we accept all of this? One reason could be that some of us are not paying for it straight away (i.e. when all of this started student loans were being handed out like water at McDonalds (all you have to do is ask!)), others have the G.I. bill to bay for it! Another reason could be that if you want to get hired, this is what the schools are saying we have to do. Since they are they only employers of new pilots, we have to do what they want! It has been said before, flight training is a business! Quote
jim_222 Posted July 7, 2012 Posted July 7, 2012 Just know this. None of this is new. There are a lot a CFI’s out here who’ve done this before. Way before. Many time before. You see, in the early 90’s, students routinely graduated as a Pvt at around 50 hours and nearly all as a CFI at the 150-ish hours mark. The question I have is; what has changed since then? The helicopters are the same… The regulations are about the same.. CFI’s gain the same certification… The air is the same.. What has changed? Why 70-80 hour privates? Why are folks accepting the fact that they’ll pay for 200 hours? Plus, money has always been an issue. Nothing new here either. However, why are students forking over the cash to fly an R44 beyond the SFAR minimums (short of the weight issue)? And, it would appear, even in that 200 hours, some pilots have never completed a running take-off… Wow…. Double wow…. You can lead a horse to water….. I am so new in the field, so we know that I definitely do not have the answers to your questions (rhetorical or not). But I 'll try and give my best shot, hopefully implementing some logical thinking... I 'll start with the easiest: I have accepted the fact that I will pay for the first 200 hours, because in order to teach in Robinsons I need to have 200 hours. The school I go to uses R22s and R44s, and thanks to SFAR 73, I have to hit that mark before somebody else starts paying for my flying. On the more philosophical discussion of what has changed since the 90s... One thing I believe is that the military influence has been reduced in civilian training. I am not sure, but I guess back then there were more ex-military pilots working/affiliated with flight schools, therefore training the new pilots to higher levels. I have yet to meet an ex-mil pilot where I go. I guess all of them now go directly to the big ships, getting the PIC and SIC positions. Then, there is a negative snowball effect: my CFI didn't show me a running take-off/stuck pedal/you-name-it procedure, as a result, I won't show it to my students, either. They won't show it to theirs and so on and so forth... And I am pretty sure that the administration has the CFIs grabbed by the balls, threatening to twist them tighter, if they try to do/show/teach anything outside of the Practical Testing Standards... Last but not least, a critical difference separating us from the early 90s is the SFAR 73 itself... (although I was not able to find when it came in effect, I see the years 1994 and 1995 being mentioned in there...) Probably set with good intentions, it has provided flight schools (that is just my opinion) with an abundance of good excuses, about doing things in a slower than necessary pace. Starting with saying you cannot solo before the 20hour mark, which I think just sets the bar too low... But that's fine for the flight school business, isn't it? Spike, I can already see your reply coming: "yes, but WHY do they set that bar so low?" and I do not have an answer to that.... Quote
Pohi Posted July 7, 2012 Posted July 7, 2012 (edited) Like HeliUtah's boss says. Plan better and you won't need to do them. There are a lot of things they used to teach and do in the good 'ole days that they don't anymore. Perhaps instead of saying that the training is defective now, maybe look at the issues objectively and you might see training has evolved. And what has changed since the 90's? The accident rates. Edited July 7, 2012 by Pohi Quote
Spike Posted July 7, 2012 Posted July 7, 2012 (edited) I am so new in the field, so we know that I definitely do not have the answers to your questions (rhetorical or not). But I 'll try and give my best shot, hopefully implementing some logical thinking... I 'll start with the easiest: I have accepted the fact that I will pay for the first 200 hours, because in order to teach in Robinsons I need to have 200 hours. The school I go to uses R22s and R44s, and thanks to SFAR 73, I have to hit that mark before somebody else starts paying for my flying. On the more philosophical discussion of what has changed since the 90s... One thing I believe is that the military influence has been reduced in civilian training. I am not sure, but I guess back then there were more ex-military pilots working/affiliated with flight schools, therefore training the new pilots to higher levels. I have yet to meet an ex-mil pilot where I go. I guess all of them now go directly to the big ships, getting the PIC and SIC positions. Then, there is a negative snowball effect: my CFI didn't show me a running take-off/stuck pedal/you-name-it procedure, as a result, I won't show it to my students, either. They won't show it to theirs and so on and so forth... And I am pretty sure that the administration has the CFIs grabbed by the balls, threatening to twist them tighter, if they try to do/show/teach anything outside of the Practical Testing Standards... Last but not least, a critical difference separating us from the early 90s is the SFAR 73 itself... (although I was not able to find when it came in effect, I see the years 1994 and 1995 being mentioned in there...) Probably set with good intentions, it has provided flight schools (that is just my opinion) with an abundance of good excuses, about doing things in a slower than necessary pace. Starting with saying you cannot solo before the 20hour mark, which I think just sets the bar too low... But that's fine for the flight school business, isn't it? Spike, I can already see your reply coming: "yes, but WHY do they set that bar so low?" and I do not have an answer to that.... Hope for the best but prepare for the worst I always say. Sure, it’s a wise plan to have the funds for 200 hours cuz that’s what the SFAR requires (as I’ve said many time before). However, another wise decision is to have 300 time upon graduating CFI. Why? If you have a CFI at 180 hours and luck finds you and, you get a teaching job flying a 300, then SFAR doesn’t matter. Either way, I completely understand what flight schools are telling you. You’ll need to pay for the 200 hours or you won’t have a shot at a job….. I get it… In any case, this is why it is so critical to choose the *right* flight school.. The right flight school will guide you, not gouge you… BTW, when the SFAR was implemented, lots of schools allowed under the 200 hour CFI crowd to fly with private pilots so they could gain those hours for free. Or at least, at a shared cost… Edited July 7, 2012 by Spike Quote
Spike Posted July 7, 2012 Posted July 7, 2012 (edited) "Like HeliUtah's boss says. Plan better and you won't need to do them." Really…… “plan better” eh? "There are a lot of things they used to teach and do in the good 'ole days that they don't anymore." Really, and what would that be? "Perhaps instead of saying that the training is defective now, maybe look at the issues objectively and you might see training has evolved." You base this on what? Furthermore, I’ve been objectively looking this for 20 years. You? "And what has changed since the 90's? The accident rates." Do you know what the safest helicopter is? It’s the one parked in the hangar…… Edited July 7, 2012 by Spike Quote
nightsta1ker Posted July 8, 2012 Posted July 8, 2012 Accident rates have hardly improved over the years. In fact, some trends that I looked at show that they are getting worse. One could, hypothetically speaking, make a link between this so called 'evolution' in training to higher fatal accident rates as the years go by. I'm not saying that is the case. But it could be. Think about it. Mitigating risk by cutting out maneuvers that will teach a pilot more about flying, but could also cause an accident while conducting that training may save the flight schools (and the insurance companies) some dough, but it's not going to save any lives when that pilot is out there on their own and they encounter an adverse situation they cannot handle (that they might have been able to if they had that extra bit of training that was not in the PTS). 1 Quote
jjsemperfi Posted July 8, 2012 Posted July 8, 2012 I did learn running takeoffs in my primary training, and I would teach them to my commercial students, but at this point, my chief pilot has said in no uncertain terms that if I am on a 135 flight and get into a situation where a running takeoff is necessary, then I messed up ... bad. Fix it (drain fuel, wait for cooler temps, offload weight, etc), no harm no foul. If I go ahead and perform a running takeoff and he hears about it, then find another job. A running takeoff means you are too heavy. Sure you can get off the ground, but what happens if you have to put it back on the ground due to engine failure or something that precludes a running landing? Always have a plan B, and having to execute a running takeoff means you are already into plan B, leaving little in the way of options if something goes wrong. I don't have a ton of experience, but my chief has 40+ years doing this, so I'll defer to him... not to mention, I need the job. Just because you are too heavy to hover and have to perform a running takeoff doesn't mean you're over gross and you can't auto. In the 135 world you're most likely operating helicopters that have the power to hover, and if you can't, then you're most likely over gross, which is a completely different story if you can't hover because you're over gross. But when we're training and when we're doing running take offs and landings, we're not over gross, our helicopter just isn't producing the power we need at the high DA. Quote
Pohi Posted July 8, 2012 Posted July 8, 2012 This link is from the ntsb. It says in the title 2007-2009, but there are lots of data collected from 2000-2009. Interesting read, they break things down between helicopters, airplanes, 135, GA, etc. http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2011/ARA1101.pdf Quote
Pohi Posted July 8, 2012 Posted July 8, 2012 I think that there are some maneuvers that can be taught, like running takeoffs, that can do more harm than good. They might give a person a false sense of security and may prompt them to do something that they normally wouldn't do because, "hey, we did this in training all the time". Simulating a running takeoff is great and all, but it's the same thing, IMHO, as simulating a high DA. The helicopter performance is not degraded, and a person could grow to expect performance that just isn't there, and learn that lesson too late. Two ntsb reports come to mind. One where a guy couldn't get off the ground so he did a running takeoff and couldn't clear a fence at the end of the runway. Destroyed his helicopter, and he said that perhaps he should have just taken one passenger out instead of trying to go anyway. Another is a helicopter that couldn't maintain a hover, witnesses saw him pick up, move a few feet and hit the ground hard. But what the heck, still able to do a running takeoff, so he did. Unfortunately he couldn't clear the terrain after the runway and crashed. I'm sure there are plenty more of those. There is a lot more to the flight than getting the helicopter off the ground. If performance is so limited that the helicopter can't get off the ground normally, then those conditions are still there when the helicopter is flying. After a running takeoff, which has been mentioned would "need" to happen in high da/mountains, is accomplished.... Then what? Good luck finding a place to do a running landing in the mountains, other than another airport. So now the pilot has greatly reduced the opportunities for suitable forced landing areas. Sure, the helicopter can still auto, but how many emergencies that require a "land as soon as possible" involve an auto? And even if the pilot elects to auto (when it's not required because they did a running takeoff and can't do a normal landing), what is safer, landing in an off airport emergency landing area from a hover, or running landing? Like spike said, he does a running takeoff with a Bambi bucket (at least that is what I think he said). Thats great, but guess what? He can dump his load if a problem happens and still do normal EP's and not worry about having to try a running landing. It's often said that accidents usually happen after not just a single incident, but a chain bad events that turn out poorly. I don't think it is a good idea to start the flight out with one strike against the pilot. If there is a specific job that uses running takeoffs, then they will teach it at the job. That's what on the job training is for. That's my two cents on the matter (with a great attempt to not antagonize people for S&G). I don't teach them, and have no regrets with that choice. However, if I ever need to do one, I will tell you guys all about it. Quote
280fxColorado Posted July 8, 2012 Posted July 8, 2012 Running landing isn't your only option with marginal hover power. Have you ever practiced a 0/0 or no hover landing? Another helpful tool to have in your bag... Quote
Pohi Posted July 8, 2012 Posted July 8, 2012 Good point. Forced with the option, a no hover landing would be better than a run on landing. Either way, there is an increased chance for dynamic rollover, especially in an off airport landing. A lot of areas look good from 500, 300, even 100 feet from the air that are not so good when the helicopter gets closer to the ground. It would be great to able to reposition to a suitable area rather than be committed to the origional chosen spot. On another note, I've never attempted a no hover landing to a slope. Knowing my luck, that's what I would be faced with if the situation arises. Quote
Mikemv Posted July 8, 2012 Posted July 8, 2012 Wow, 73 posts in this long thread and many good opinions along with personal feelings and sincere approaches to providing training. As an experienced old fart CFI and member of a few entities that are involved in upgrading the training the industry provides I would like to offer my thoughts. Pilots that attempt a running take off with obstacles in front of them and then crash were not taught to make sound decisions which is the weak link in the current antiquated training system. Pilots in training are taught to fly but not taught ab initio to think and develop headwork skills. The June 19 & 20 NTSB Conference I attended both discussed and confirmed this. The presenters and NTSB board members all agreed that Aeronautical Decision Making and Risk Management skills need to be introduced in the first lesson, even if only by demonstration by the CFI and making the Pilot in Training aware that these are elements to be developed as training progresses. Enough on this as it is in the works thru PTS mods and DPE evaluations (8900.1, chng. 200). Let me present an operational use for teaching running take offs and a time saving way to train both take offs and landings. Consider when you make a hover check, note power required and reserve power then initiate the take off and the helo descends and prior to approaching ETL the skids are going to touch the ground ever so gently or not. Having trained in keeping the nose/skids straight during learning/practicing a running take off the pilot will have the perception of contacting the ground during the take off and keeping the skids aligned with the direction of movement. This can happen many times in actual operations and be part of your pilot technique. So there is a valid reason for learning running TOs. Now let me show an expedited and safe way to incorporate both running TO & landings. My method of teaching this in a minimal amount of cost/time is to initiate a take off from a std. hover height and then as forward movement is initiated to lower the collective slightly to intentionally contact the ground with forward movement while keeping the skids aligned and fly into ETL. This teaches both the TO and landing in one maneuver. Of course it can be expanded upon and should be preceded by ground instruction on the procedures to be used. The maneuver can also be expanded to practice multiple forward touch downs and fly offs (2 or 3) in a row without ever spending time in a traffic pattern. Time and costs are minimized while maximizing the learning experience to a correlation level. I do not suggest that any CFI go against their company methods and/or using my methods. CFIs must be comfortable in their abilities. Sincerely, Mike 5 Quote
Flying Pig Posted July 8, 2012 Posted July 8, 2012 With the idea of checking your power, we've used and been taught that when doing pinnacle landings or off-site landings to higher terrain, that you start below your landing zone and fly up slope to it. If you can fly up slope, you have the power to hover and land. Usually when we are landing off site its because we are picking someone up. So if your very limited on the approach, your not going to get out once that SAR guy tosses his body and pack in the back seat. Not always, depends on your over all scenario, but if you know you may be limited on power it is pretty effective. As far as off-site running take offs and/or landings, nahhhh. Not unless Im getting shot at. And the snow shoes we have make it unfavorable. Thats in a 500E. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.