Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Well I still think it's good to teach such maneuvers. When I teach run on landings and takeoffs I always tell my students that they will probably never do this in real world flying, and that if conditions are such that they would need to do a run on takeoff, they probably shouldn't fly. However, I think it teaches valuable skills and allows the student to really get a feel for what the aircraft can and can't do. One of the exercises I like to do is to gradually lower the allowable limit so that the student can see what is workable and what is not. Another scenario, partial power failure. What if you have a dead cylinder? You might be forced to make a run on landing for reasons other than high DA. Also, run on landings are basically the second half of a full down autorotation (granted this is now taught for CFI candidates only now). If pilot's don't get trained in these maneuvers they have less tools in their tool boxes for unforseen and unusual situations that they may encounter in the real world. I think instructors just need to make the distinction clear that these maneuvers are for familiarization and not for normal use. I have not trained at a school that did not teach this stuff, and I would not want to.

 

Also, as far as doing a running take-off and hitting obstacles... doesn't the R22 POH have a chart that gives you ground run to clear an obstacle at different DA/weight configurations? I'm pretty sure it does. You have to familiarize yourself with ALL aspects of the flight before making a decision to go. If all the proper tools are used a run on takeoff CAN be safely executed and you can be underway. I probably wouldn't do it unless I was able to at least get a temporary hover, and there were no obstacles that I needed to clear. Good training and good judgement can take you a long way.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, mike, that if at a hover while at max power, if a pilot is too aggressive on the controls then there may be ground contact. I trained in a instrument beta, and before I learned how to be patient with the takeoff, I would sometimes make ground contact. And yes, knowing to keep the skids parallel with the helicopter movement is key. This technique is, as you said, important and learned on running landings (also full down autos).

 

In my mind, I see a difference between a brief groun contact due to an overly aggressive cyclic input on takeoff and sliding the helicopter along the ground for a few hundred feet before reaching ETL. One case the helicopter can maintain a hover, the other one can't.

 

I would argue that teaching a takeoff while at max hover power without making ground contact would be preferable to just accepting the idea that the helicopter is gonna hit the ground (because it's "normal" to do that).

 

Maybe im looking at the issue too black and white. I see hitting the ground while taking off as doing something wrong, not hitting the ground doing it right. But, I only have my limited experience in which to base my opinions on. Maybe in the future if I have a job where I can't get in the air without smacking the ground on takeoff, I'll change my tune.

 

Out of curiosity, what types of jobs might those be, the ones where helicopters routinely hit the ground during the takeoff roll? And, as a follow up, isn't there any on the job training that addresses this issue?

 

Great thread by the way, makes the work day fly by.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nightstalker, run on landings are in the pts, and are tested by the DPE. It's just that running takeoffs are not.

 

As far as the Robbie POH having obstacle clearance for takeoffs, I don't remember ever seeing those. I don't have a POH handy, so I can't check, I'm sure somebody else does.

 

I can see how there is good aircraft control benefits to teaching certain maneuvers, but I personally am not going to teach somebody to do something and then in the next breath tell them not to do it outside of training. The same aircraft control techniques can be taught in different maneuvers.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"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"."

 

A cfi once taught me how to surface taxi in a 300. At the junction he made a 90 degree right turn, the upon reacing our parking space, another 90 degree right turn. I suppose in a 300 this is ok (although I would never attempt it) but in an R22, or perhaps even a 206, I have the feeling that you would roll over!? I hope his other students realize this?

 

I don't mind practicing the occasional running takeoff, but I would never use it for the reason it was taught to me (i.e. if I pick up into a hover and then immediately sink back to the ground because I cannot maintain rpm, I'm not going to attempt a running takeoff!).

 

Running landings are ok too. However, there are more reasons to do one than taking off when I shouldn't have (like hydraulic failure, stuck pedal, loss of tail rotor thrust). The problem is that, at least in my experience, they are always taught simulating not enough power to hover! Which again, I agree, gives students a false sense of security!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would probably poop in my pants if I was riding with somebody and they did a ground taxi, complete with pedal turns in a helicopter with skids :-)

 

I can see very few scenarios where a surface taxi would be necessary, one of them being a forced partial power landing, or a forced landing at a field that is high DA and a sustained hover is not possible, but you want to clear the runway. In a situation like that, having done it even once with an instructor might mean the difference between you pulling it off or rolling it over. But type of aircraft needs to be considered here too. I wouldn't do it in a 22...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, mike, that if at a hover while at max power, if a pilot is too aggressive on the controls then there may be ground contact. I trained in a instrument beta, and before I learned how to be patient with the takeoff, I would sometimes make ground contact. And yes, knowing to keep the skids parallel with the helicopter movement is key. This technique is, as you said, important and learned on running landings (also full down autos).

 

In my mind, I see a difference between a brief groun contact due to an overly aggressive cyclic input on takeoff and sliding the helicopter along the ground for a few hundred feet before reaching ETL. One case the helicopter can maintain a hover, the other one can't.

 

I would argue that teaching a takeoff while at max hover power without making ground contact would be preferable to just accepting the idea that the helicopter is gonna hit the ground (because it's "normal" to do that).

 

Maybe im looking at the issue too black and white. I see hitting the ground while taking off as doing something wrong, not hitting the ground doing it right. But, I only have my limited experience in which to base my opinions on. Maybe in the future if I have a job where I can't get in the air without smacking the ground on takeoff, I'll change my tune.

 

Out of curiosity, what types of jobs might those be, the ones where helicopters routinely hit the ground during the takeoff roll? And, as a follow up, isn't there any on the job training that addresses this issue?

 

Great thread by the way, makes the work day fly by.

 

Pohi,

 

I did not say that touching the ground on a take off was normal or acceptable as routine.

 

Picture this, I am at KSUN in Idaho in the summer in a Bell407, Elevation 5318, OAT 85F, 4 pax plus me on board with some baggage and fuel for out and back on board. Hover check over the taxiway southbound completed and about 7% reserve Q available. Wind has been steady from the South all day at 10 to 12. As I initiate the takeoff from the taxi way we start to sink slightly but still not going to touch when the airplane taxiing northbound behind me increases the throttle and some prop wash hits me from the downwind side, maybe the wind decreases to 5 or less at that moment! Oh did I mention that the taxi way elevation came up 3 inches. So many variables that could make my skids touch over a long taxi way when I started with reserve power, not max power in the hover and I was not overly aggressive on the cyclic!

 

After almost 23,000 take offs, I realize that none of them are routine. The only time that I ever took off where I did not have hover power was in RVN with 22 Vietnamese on board in a UH-1. Two pilots steady on the controls sliding along in a rice paddy to clear a 12" dyke or people were going to die from enemy fire and execution. In civilian ops I never attempted a take off without the reserve power to do what I desired.

 

The saying that "if you can not hover at least momentarily" does not make it for me. I have to be able to sustain a hover with some amount of reserve power and I have a lot of of skills and experience. I set my own limitations/standards and live by them.

 

How we teach our Pilots in Training is on all of us. It is what we make it within the system that we train them in. I fault no one in their decision on how to train. I certainly do not accept smacking the ground as you stated and it is not routine.

 

Best wishes to All,

 

Mike

Edited by Mikemv
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see very few scenarios where a surface taxi would be necessary, one of them being a forced partial power landing, or a forced landing at a field that is high DA and a sustained hover is not possible, but you want to clear the runway. In a situation like that, having done it even once with an instructor might mean the difference between you pulling it off or rolling it over. But type of aircraft needs to be considered here too. I wouldn't do it in a 22...

 

Nightsta1ker,

 

I was in Rapid City, South Dakota, B206LI (500HP C28 engine) for departure for a 2.5 hour flight to land at 11,000 in the Big Horn Mountains in Wyoming. It was summer, about 90F, I forget the elevation. To get out of the FBO ramp area required a downwind hover which was not always possible with the wind conditions. Some ground taxi was required to not over temp. Upon reaching the taxiway for take off into the wind I had sufficient power to hover and reserve to depart into the wind. There is your example in an actual operation outside the training environment.

 

Mike

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nightsta1ker,

 

I was in Rapid City, South Dakota, B206LI (500HP C28 engine) for departure for a 2.5 hour flight to land at 11,000 in the Big Horn Mountains in Wyoming. It was summer, about 90F, I forget the elevation. To get out of the FBO ramp area required a downwind hover which was not always possible with the wind conditions. Some ground taxi was required to not over temp. Upon reaching the taxiway for take off into the wind I had sufficient power to hover and reserve to depart into the wind. There is your example in an actual operation outside the training environment.

 

Mike

 

Did you make any 90 degree turns while surface taxiing?,...because that's what actually made my balls kringe!

Edited by eagle5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nightsta1ker,

 

I was in Rapid City, South Dakota, B206LI (500HP C28 engine) for departure for a 2.5 hour flight to land at 11,000 in the Big Horn Mountains in Wyoming. It was summer, about 90F, I forget the elevation. To get out of the FBO ramp area required a downwind hover which was not always possible with the wind conditions. Some ground taxi was required to not over temp. Upon reaching the taxiway for take off into the wind I had sufficient power to hover and reserve to depart into the wind. There is your example in an actual operation outside the training environment.

 

Mike

 

Well there you go!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although my attempts to express my opinion has seemed to have gone haywire, I never implied that anyone should do a running take-off if it’s not possible do so safely. That is, if the machine won’t hover at all, then that’s an FBI clue… Like Mike said, at this point the problem becomes failing headwork, and not an underperforming machine or poor technique. I assumed this went without saying but apparently not. My bad…..

 

Through my training and experience, knowing how to perform a running take-off has its benefits. Other opinions and experience may differ.

 

In my opinion, as a pro pilot, to believe every take off will be from a 3 foot hover with oodles of power available is not realistic. Furthermore, to believe that no take-off should occur unless you have obtained that 3 foot stabilized hover is not realistic either. As a pro, this is where you earn your pay.

 

In my opinion, the running take-off maneuver teaches students about Translational Lift, wind, and “feel” more than any other maneuver. More specifically, students often become highly vigilant about ETL. They quickly adapt and understand where it occurs and how it occurs as it’s easily identifiable. Shoot, on a grass field you can see where it’s going to occur. Simply put, they’d hover-push-n-fly, hover-push-n-fly all-day-every-day without ever really understanding the rotor system gains performance once the machine begins to move. Or, with the addition of wind. I found, again like Mike, performing a running take-off to a flying machine and to slow down and settle back to the surface correlates the significance of TL, ETL and wind. Plus, it teaches how the machine “feels” during these transitional phases which IMO, is the most important aspect...

 

As a pro, at times, you will be close to margins. In my experience, if the machine struggles to hover inches off the surface near max power (5 min limit) during predicted conditions, sometimes I’d rather conduct a running take-off. This allows me to take-off well below max power and subsequently decrease the margin of risk. Otherwise, the result could be, settling back to the surface for unforeseen circumstances and then going airborne again. While this is acceptable during training scenarios (theoretically qusi-SBT), I don’t feel it’s necessary OTJ….. Simply put, I’m doing the RTO because I want to, not because I need to.

 

Lastly, unless we want this to go to #100, I’ve needed to surface taxi for a number of reasons. Mostly to reduce the downwash when operating near other aircraft.... And, once to piss off a tower contoller....

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see very few scenarios where a surface taxi would be necessary, one of them being...

 

If I had a forced landing, I'm not surface taxiing that thing unless it has wheels. For the most part, in every forced landing I've had for a mechanical, be it engine related or hydraulic failure, etc., that aircraft stays where I landed it. If a runway is shut down, so be it.

 

However, I've surfaced taxied on skids plenty of times. Mostly to minimize my downwash. Pretty straight forward to do. Unless I needed to turn, which is aslo, pretty straight forward. No big deal if you've practiced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I belive that high altitude training is important. Case in point I learned to fly at sea level then moved to Idaho where the DA is commonly above 5,000 in the summer. Learning to do autos and performance at this altitude is way different than at sea level. When I went down to the Robinson course the flying was a joke. It was so simple and I had TONS of power to use. If you start your training in a tough environment and dont let it's difficulty discourage you, you will be a much better pilot for it! I certainly am.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"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.

I would say it is better to pick a school that is already at high altitude or operates close to mountains so you don't need a "mountain course" it is just part of your training. We are at a pretty consistent 5000 foot DA in the summer time and about 10 minutes away are mountains at 6-8000 feet, that is where we go to do pinnicles or confines (power permitting) plus, see how awesome your autos are after training at altitude and then go to the Robinson course at sea level, you will not beleive how well you can auto that litte r-22.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say it is better to pick a school that is already at high altitude or operates close to mountains so you don't need a "mountain course" it is just part of your training. We are at a pretty consistent 5000 foot DA in the summer time and about 10 minutes away are mountains at 6-8000 feet, that is where we go to do pinnicles or confines (power permitting) plus, see how awesome your autos are after training at altitude and then go to the Robinson course at sea level, you will not beleive how well you can auto that litte r-22.

 

If you go to one of those sea level schools in the LA basin, there are plenty of high altitude training areas right next door! Although even at sea level, two people in an R22 can experience not being able to hover at an OGE LZ on a hot day without going very high up!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I would very much like to hear that story sometime. Preferably over a beer. I'm buying.

 

I'm in too!! :)

I'll pay the next one! XD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Contact one of the students and one of the instructor pilots at Guidance Aviation. There are many valid points in this thread, but I am certain hearing the lessons learned and experience acquired while training at high altitude may make your decision easier. Contact Robert in student services at robert@guidance.aero and ask him to arrange a phone conversation with both a student and an instructor pilot. Hope this helps your decision making process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Someone predicted this thread wouldn't go to 100 replies. I think it needs a little push. Therefore, all this week I will try to do at least one running takeoff a day, not because I have to, but just for spite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When talking about high altitude training (and likely mountain training, since that is where most of the high altitudes are), don't forget too much about mountain weather, winds, etc. I fly FW out of Colorado Springs (field elev. 6,178'), which is located on the plains of Colorado. I have landed at Leadville (elev. 9,934'). The aero club I fly with has an annual mountain ground school as part of our monthly safety meeting. One of our instructors (a 20,000+ hour pilot) reminded us that "we are part-time pilots, but those are full-time mountains".

 

I've watched the weather change amazingly fast over/in the mountains. You also have to contend with the unpredictable winds/turbulence around the peaks and in the valleys. And, of course, the high DA. The same instructor mentioned above also told us that standard temperature in Leadville is 24 degrees, due to the high altitude. Therefore, when I land in Leadville in the summer and the temperature is a chilly 55 degrees, the DA is nearly 18,000'.

 

We also saw a video that was recovered from the wreckage of an airplane that had crashed in the mountains and was discovered a couple of years later. The video (with audio) clearly showed the airplane pilot and passenger flying up a valley, both commenting on the beauty of the tree-covered mountains around them, as the terrain continued to rise ahead. Finally, as the valley continued to narrow on both sides, the pilot executed a 180 degree turn. Unfortunately, he was flying on the right side of the valley and he turned right, crashing into the tree-covered slope that was nearest to him before he could complete the turn. At that point, you saw and heard a brief portion of the crash and then the tape ended. Both the pilot and passenger onboard were killed.

 

Could he have made the turn if he had turned left, towards the center of the valley? Who knows, but it does illustrate the additional risks involved with mountain flying. The point of all this is to remind people that DA (real or simulated) isn't the only issue you need to learn about and learn to deal with regarding mountain training. Just because you are simulating limited power available doesn't mean you are prepared to fly in full-time mountains. Fly safe!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone said it was a substitute. There is no substitute for reality. But when it comes to picking a school I wouldn't make it the top priority. I would rather find a school that has a good reputation, a safe record, and a large instructor turnover. Flying someplace with decent weather will keep you in the air year round as well. I live in the PNW. Morethan half the year is marginal VFR at best. Sure you get some good experience because of that, but we also spend a lot of time on the ground twiddling our thumbs. .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...