Autorotative landings

[Kuma]

Helicopter pilots (mainly TH-57, TH-67 or jet ranger instructors)-

 

I earned my wings in Feb of 94 so I have been out of the school house for a while. I did a bunch of google searches, but failed to find a current Maneuver Description Guide for autorotative landings.

 

The way I think I remember the "technique" is "PULL...PAUSE...LEVEL...CUSHION...CUSHION...CUSHION". I don't know if that was my individual instructor's mantra or the official mantra for teaching autos.

 

The sticking point here is that I pull a distinct amount of collective while still nose up in the flare. I pause while that takes effect, then I level the aircraft and use the remaining Nr to cushion the landing.

 

I was flying with the department instructor pilot the other day, and he only pulls collective (while in the flare) to keep from overspeeding the head. He waits until the skids are level before pulling any significant collective at all.

 

He is a big picture kind of guy who is interested in learning other techniques. He was mostly trained in the civilian world but has also had great Army instructors from within the department. I was trained in Naval Flight School only. I am pretty sure that is how I did my full autos in flight school and my power recovery autos in the AH-1W. I am looking to the forum for your techniques in flying an autorotational landing; I want to make sure that I am not totally out to lunch.

 

Please give me your experiences, and or point me to the current official position of helicopter basic training.

 

Semper Fi-

Kuma

[vertrefadmin]

Helicopter pilots (mainly TH-57, TH-67 or jet ranger instructors)-

 

I earned my wings in Feb of 94 so I have been out of the school house for a while. I did a bunch of google searches, but failed to find a current Maneuver Description Guide for autorotative landings.

 

The way I think I remember the "technique" is "PULL...PAUSE...LEVEL...CUSHION...CUSHION...CUSHION". I don't know if that was my individual instructor's mantra or the official mantra for teaching autos.

 

The sticking point here is that I pull a distinct amount of collective while still nose up in the flare. I pause while that takes effect, then I level the aircraft and use the remaining Nr to cushion the landing.

 

I was flying with the department instructor pilot the other day, and he only pulls collective (while in the flare) to keep from overspeeding the head. He waits until the skids are level before pulling any significant collective at all.

 

He is a big picture kind of guy who is interested in learning other techniques. He was mostly trained in the civilian world but has also had great Army instructors from within the department. I was trained in Naval Flight School only. I am pretty sure that is how I did my full autos in flight school and my power recovery autos in the AH-1W. I am looking to the forum for your techniques in flying an autorotational landing; I want to make sure that I am not totally out to lunch.

 

Please give me your experiences, and or point me to the current official position of helicopter basic training.

 

Semper Fi-

Kuma

 

Not that I'm any Bell 206 expert but when I was flying during a factory school for Jetranger the start of the flare was lower the collective if the rpm would allow it then "POP" the collective to stop descent then cushion. The POP works great at stopping descent and forward but could be a bad technique to carry into low inertia rotor systems. "POP" in this context is an abrupt pull on the collective followed by an exact amount reduction. It accomplishes what needs to be down without bleeding down the rpm. The best techniques I have seen keep the rpm high. In a real one I'm hoping to keep the rpm as high as I can get it without having the rotor fly off. Most of my friends who have had engine failures say the rpm is the first to go away and getting used to pulling collective early is a bad thing.

 

Sort of off the Bell subject but a good indication of what a real auto will do. He may have been too slow and couldn't get enough out of the rpm (granted it is a MD (low inertia)) but he was able to walk (run) away.

 

333Engine Failure at Night

[Helo-Pilot]

Actually, that is not a 500. It is a Schweizer 333 (330 upgraded to 333, I believe) from the San Antonio PD. If memory serves me correctly, NTSB said it was a turbine failure caused by improper maintenance. Contributing factors were night, and lack of options for suitable landing area, with wire strike at the bottom portion of the flare.

 

If you slow the video down, near the end where it shows the security footage, you can actually stop it and see the forward cabin and can tell what type of airframe it is.

[500E]

Whatever he walked away, with not a lot going for him eng out, night, confined aeria, and wire.

Must have felt some one had it in for him.

[vertrefadmin]

Actually, that is not a 500. It is a Schweizer 333 (330 upgraded to 333, I believe) from the San Antonio PD. If memory serves me correctly, NTSB said it was a turbine failure caused by improper maintenance. Contributing factors were night, and lack of options for suitable landing area, with wire strike at the bottom portion of the flare.

 

If you slow the video down, near the end where it shows the security footage, you can actually stop it and see the forward cabin and can tell what type of airframe it is.

 

Thanks, I thought it looked like a squatty 530F. I just assumed the crash distorted the cabin. I'll change the video name to reflect the 333. I think he did a great job too for what he had to work with.

[deanathpc]

Not that I'm any Bell 206 expert but when I was flying during a factory school for Jetranger the start of the flare was lower the collective if the rpm would allow it then "POP" the collective to stop descent then cushion. The POP works great at stopping descent and forward but could be a bad technique to carry into low inertia rotor systems. "POP" in this context is an abrupt pull on the collective followed by an exact amount reduction. It accomplishes what needs to be down without bleeding down the rpm. The best techniques I have seen keep the rpm high. In a real one I'm hoping to keep the rpm as high as I can get it without having the rotor fly off. Most of my friends who have had engine failures say the rpm is the first to go away and getting used to pulling collective early is a bad thing.

 

Sort of off the Bell subject but a good indication of what a real auto will do. He may have been too slow and couldn't get enough out of the rpm (granted it is a MD (low inertia)) but he was able to walk (run) away.

 

333Engine Failure at Night

 

While I'm a newbie here and have already started reading some of the books presented here in preparation for flight training I have to say that video scares the hell out of me! This is something I won't show the wife cuz my flying days will be done before I even get started!

 

Any idea(s) what happened? You can hear an alarm kick in just before he talks about "auto" but I'm too new to identify it. Unless it's one of those that is hard to tell or something.

 

How many of you have had this happen to you? Makes me think twice that's for sure....

[slick1537]

Ive never flown anything but the r22 but im pretty sure it is the low rotor rpm horn. When the rotor rpm drops below a certain percentage, 101% or 97% in the r22 it will kick on. That video gives me shivers too. Its kind of scary that they train you to autos (I haven't started those yet, soon) but that ones looks pretty violent! What went wrong, was it the wire strike at the end?

 

After reading the report is it because he pulled up on the collective way to early to try to avoid the power lines?

Edited September 15, 2007 by slick1537

[Pogue]

Any idea(s) what happened? You can hear an alarm kick in just before he talks about "auto" but I'm too new to identify it. Unless it's one of those that is hard to tell or something.

 

NTSB Report - "The loss of engine power due to the axial movement of the compressor rotor blades contacting the compressor vanes resulting in a subsequent compressor stall. A contributing factor was the improper assembly of the compressor section during the engine overhaul by unknown maintenance personnel."

 

http://ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=2004...A076&akey=1

[deanathpc]

NTSB Report - "The loss of engine power due to the axial movement of the compressor rotor blades contacting the compressor vanes resulting in a subsequent compressor stall. A contributing factor was the improper assembly of the compressor section during the engine overhaul by unknown maintenance personnel."

 

http://ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=2004...A076&akey=1

 

WOW! They don't leave anything out on those reports do they? Now he has a job and under 500 hours of flight time. From what I'm reading everywhere that is impressive since the average company won't touch you till you have 1000 hours unless that is a bunch of brainwashing..

 

In any case thanks for the report. That has opened my eyes some that's for sure! Thankfully they walked away from that. Amazing.... And by "unknown maintenance personnel" would make me nervous to go up again with that organization!

[Gomer Pylot]

That's a police department pilot. It's public use, which means that technically the pilot doesn't even need an FAA license. Most do, but it's not required for public use, just as military pilots aren't required to have one. Police departments generally hire from within, taking a police officer and making a pilot of him, because they would rather have an experience police officer flying than an experienced pilot. I think they're wrong, but that's immaterial.

[doanut99]

That's a police department pilot. It's public use, which means that technically the pilot doesn't even need an FAA license. Most do, but it's not required for public use, just as military pilots aren't required to have one. Police departments generally hire from within, taking a police officer and making a pilot of him, because they would rather have an experience police officer flying than an experienced pilot. I think they're wrong, but that's immaterial.

 

agreed. And by the way that video scares the hell out of me.

[Goldy]

agreed. And by the way that video scares the hell out of me.

 

 

It all looked good to me until he was 60 feet off the ground or so...I do wonder why he didnt flare at the end....maybe the due to the wire strike??

 

According to the NTSB report, it's a 269D, not a 333.

Edited September 16, 2007 by Goldy

[apiaguy]

are you being serious goldy??

 

A 269D IS a 333.

 

The faa doesn't know what a 333 is.... just like they don't know what a 300, 300c, 300cbi, etc.....

 

They are all 269's

 

This stems from the original type certificate that was issued for the 269A...... then over the years as they refined the design..... 269B, 269C, 269C-1, 269D.... they just added it to the original type certificate... kinda like a robinson r-22 alpha and a beta II.... anyway, all those model names...ie, 300, 300c, 300cbi, 333.... are all commercial marketing names... sometimes over the years they just catch on and everyone uses them instead.... kinda like saying a jetranger instead of a 206BIII.

 

Still not sure if you already knew that or not.... but for those that didn't.....

[Vaqueroaero]

Back to the original question.

 

The way I teach it is to do the following: Flare at roughly 70 feet, hold the flare until you reach the apex - the point where you have lost forward speed and the helicopter suddenly falls again, 'pop' the collective (technically the nose is still up) then level and cushion with whatever amount of collective is required until touchdown.

 

It is important to remember though that every auto is different. It is dependent upon wind speed, landing surface etc as to what kind of touchdown you want to do. If you are over a rough surface it is very important to lose as much groundspeed as possible. Over concrete/asphalt it is not so important. A running landing is easier and a little safer.

 

If you have flared too high and therefore your apex is too high, then I level and wait until I'm lower then am a little more aggressive on the collective input. If your descent rate is high then you are fine to bring in a little collective even before you flare. The increased airflow through the disc will maintain your rpm, or a least hold it where it is until you are ready to cushion.

 

In any case rpm conservation is critical, as is levelling before touchdown. You can drop a Jetranger onto the ground from a considerable height without damaging it, as long as you are level. In order to level ensure that your eyes are looking as far away as possible from the touchdown point. On the horizon if possible.

 

Anyway describing how to do an auto is very difficult - every single one is different. It's a bit like asking how long is a piece of string. It depends!

 

Anyway breakfast is ready, must dash - hope that helps a bit.

 

Fly safe.

[Kuma]

Thanks everyone for your inputs. I've learned a lot.

 

For the new guys...an engine failure is a big, life threatening situation. Autorotations are a critical skill that you need to practice, so that if it does happen, you'll have the tools to save yourself.

 

Even the one in the video is great. The guy lost his engine from a couple of hundred feet and instead of plummeting to his death, walked away. Success.

[doanut99]

Even the one in the video is great. The guy lost his engine from a couple of hundred feet and instead of plummeting to his death, walked away. Success.

 

 

That was a very nice reaction time, once you hear the engine quit it seems only a second until the pilot it yelling "AUTO AUTO!" And to land in an HEB parking lot at the drop of a hat? Well done I say.

[Goldy]

That was a very nice reaction time, once you hear the engine quit it seems only a second until the pilot it yelling "AUTO AUTO!" And to land in an HEB parking lot at the drop of a hat? Well done I say.

 

 

And don't forget that was not a straight in, I think he turned at least 90 degrees or more to his right to find that parking lot.

 

And yeah, I know the NTSB and their reference to type certificates. However does this make sense to never mention the model name? Kinda like a Chevy 1500, but they call it a Silverado ! Anyway, the 333 is no closer to a 269 than an R22 is ! I thought the FAA was changing the req's on type certificates so they could not be significantly different. ( kinda like the 206L is part of the 206B cert.)

 

Oh well, it was a great auto in that they lived to fly another day, I still wonder what kept him from a good flare...maybe just distracted from the wire strike, which happened about 2 seconds before you would need to flare..

 

Goldy

[nicepants]

Impressive that the pilot found a suitable spot to put the helo down, and walked away. The onboard video made it look like they hit pretty hard.

[rmiller4292]

Gomer, Can you elaborate on why you think police departments are wrong to take good Police Officers and make them pilots? It seems like several of the posters on this board are LE pilot-haters.. I am a fixed wing LE pilot working on my Commercial-rotorcraft rating, and am just curious where all the negativity comes from. Is it because someone is picking up the tab for training, and somehow that makes them less vested in the industry? I have paid for all of my fixed wing ratings, and been a Police Officer for a little over 7 years. If you think it is because there will be a 200 hr wonder out flying a turbine helicopter at 500 agl at night over a city, you are wrong..at least where I work. We are public use, however our city does not self insure, and we have insurance requirements that must be met just like a 135 operator. The San Antonio Police Aviation unit is a great outfit that is very safety oriented unit and is very professional. (I do not work for SAPD btw)

 

 

Ryan

[slick1537]

Hey guys I saw this on google video, it gives you a much better look at the aircraft after impact, it also states that the same aircraft was involved in an emergency landing a few months before from an engine failure.

 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=30...h&plindex=2

[HelliBoy]

Gomer, Can you elaborate on why you think police departments are wrong to take good Police Officers and make them pilots? It seems like several of the posters on this board are LE pilot-haters..

 

Gomer doesnt like anyone that didnt become a pilot the same way he did: straight out of the womb with an ATP and 8,000 hrs. Dont you know an experienced police officer/race car driver/actor/farmer/banker/burger flipper/etc cant possibly also be an experienced pilot?