Jump to content

Fatals then and now


Goldy

Recommended Posts

A quick check of the NTSB database for this YTD and back in 90 before SFAR kicked in..

 

9 fatal accidents in 2008 YTD..3 of the 9 involve R22/R44

 

5/25/2008

 

Sunrise Beach, MO

McDonnell Douglas 500-E

N686F

Fatal(1)

Part 91: General Aviation

 

Preliminary

Preliminary

5/24/2008

 

Avalon, CA

Aerospatiale AS-350-D

N67GE

Fatal(3)

NSCH Part 135: Air Taxi & Commuter

 

Preliminary

Preliminary

5/16/2008

 

Comstock, MI

Fairchild Hiller FH-1100

N5049F

Fatal(1)

Part 91: General Aviation

 

Preliminary

Preliminary

5/10/2008

 

La Crosse, WI

Eurocopter Deutschland EC 135 T2+

N135UW

Fatal(3)

NSCH Part 135: Air Taxi & Commuter

 

Preliminary

Preliminary

4/15/2008

 

Chickaloon, AK

Eurocopter France AS350B2

N213EH

Fatal(4)

NSCH Part 135: Air Taxi & Commuter

 

Preliminary

Preliminary

3/13/2008

 

Wilmington, NC

Robinson R22 Beta II

N2215R

Fatal(1)

Part 91: General Aviation

 

Preliminary

Preliminary

2/5/2008

 

S. Padre Island, TX

Eurocopter France AS350B2

N911VA

Fatal(3)

Part 91: General Aviation

 

Preliminary

Preliminary

1/25/2008

 

Los Angeles, CA

Robinson R22

N705JJ

Fatal(1)

Part 91: General Aviation

 

Probable Cause

Factual ,

Probable Cause

1/22/2008

5/28/2008

Ochopee, FL

Robinson R44

N18HB

Fatal(2)

Part 91: General Aviation

 

Now here is Jan- May 1990. 13 fatal accidents, only one was an R22

 

 

5/30/1990

 

BRANTLEY, AL

HUGHES TH-55

N7054C

Fatal(1)

Public Use

 

Probable Cause

Factual ,

Probable Cause

5/23/1990

1/27/1993

GRIFFIN, GA

ROBINSON R22 BETA

N8064K

Fatal(1)

Part 91: General Aviation

 

Probable Cause

Factual ,

Probable Cause

5/21/1990

9/30/1991

KELSO, WA

HUGHES 369D

N8306F

Fatal(1)

Part 133: Rotorcraft Ext. Load

 

Probable Cause

Factual ,

Probable Cause

5/12/1990

12/8/1992

CARMEL VALLEY, CA

BELL 206B

N75SH

Fatal(1)

Part 91: General Aviation

 

Probable Cause

Factual ,

Probable Cause

5/6/1990

12/10/1990

ULYSSES, KS

BELL UH-1B

N8142W

Fatal(1)

Part 137: Agricultural

 

Probable Cause

Factual ,

Probable Cause

4/28/1990

12/14/1992

SOUTHFIELD, MI

SIKORSKY S-58F

N871

Fatal(1)

Part 133: Rotorcraft Ext. Load

 

Probable Cause

Factual ,

Probable Cause

4/20/1990

12/14/1992

MONCKS CORNER, SC

BELL 205A-1

N67HJ

Fatal(1)

Part 133: Rotorcraft Ext. Load

 

Probable Cause

Factual ,

Probable Cause

3/31/1990

11/9/1992

SODDY-DAISY, TN

HILLER UH-12D

N94496

Fatal(1)

Part 91: General Aviation

 

Probable Cause

Factual ,

Probable Cause

3/9/1990

12/14/1992

CROSS, SC

SIKORSKY HSS-1N

N4875M

Fatal(1)

Part 133: Rotorcraft Ext. Load

 

Probable Cause

Factual ,

Probable Cause

3/8/1990

3/5/1993

MIAMI, FL

AEROSPATIALE 350D

N5778W

Fatal(2)

NSCH Part 135: Air Taxi & Commuter

 

Probable Cause

Factual ,

Probable Cause

2/10/1990

11/23/1992

NEW YORK CITY, NY

BELL 206L

N16664

Fatal(1)

Part 91: General Aviation

 

Probable Cause

Factual ,

Probable Cause

2/7/1990

6/10/1991

WRANGELL, AK

BELL 205A-1

CGNMJ

Fatal(6)

Part 91: General Aviation

 

Probable Cause

Factual ,

Probable Cause

1/11/1990

9/4/1992

SAN DIEGO, TX

BELL UH-1B

N15SX

Fatal(1)

Part 91: General Aviation

 

 

So statistics can be viewed many ways. There were a lot fewer Robinson ships in the air back in 1990.

 

Also in 90 we had 4 external load fatals as opposed to zero so far this year...yet EMS accidents seem to be on the rise....any EMS/External load guys have comments ?

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good topic Goldy.

 

What I found interesting is that with a major increase in the number of Robinsons out there, the fatalities have gone way down percentage wise. I would have thought the percentage would remain pretty much the same.

 

As far as long-line accidents, I would say that it's just a nature of the beast. It is an extremly hazardous flight no matter how safe of a pilot you are, or how good your equipment is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My first post... yay!

 

I'm a native Californian and a helicopter enthusiast, so I thought I might bring some of my thoughts to the table. (I live near the Torrance airport and I'm currently looking into becoming a Warrant Officer with the Army).

 

The two crashes this year in LA- the Aerospatiale crash in Avalon and the R22 crash in Los Angeles actually happened pretty recently. The R22 was flown by a man who had trained at the Torrance Airport at a certain school (the Robinson factory is in the same area, by the way). I checked out a few schools in the area and they're all pretty sketchy in my opinion. The story is that he was new to night flying, told to fly low because of a passing aircraft when he was about to fly over the 110 freeway. He struck some power poles and died as a result.

 

The Aerospatiale was a engine failure- witnesses reported seeing fire from the engine that the aircraft looked like it was going to crash. The actual crash didn't happen in Avalon, but the Isthmus area (the canyon-like downbend towards the northern part of the island). The Isthmus has less resources than Avalon does (so I've noticed).

 

My conclusion is that the FAA does not nearly require enough for pilots. Yes, it's extremely expensive, but I think it's better to spend more money rather than lives. :mellow:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A quick check of the NTSB database for this YTD and back in 90 before SFAR kicked in..

 

9 fatal accidents in 2008 YTD..3 of the 9 involve R22/R44

 

5/25/2008

 

Sunrise Beach, MO

McDonnell Douglas 500-E

N686F

Fatal(1)

Part 91: General Aviation

 

Preliminary

Preliminary

5/24/2008

 

Avalon, CA

Aerospatiale AS-350-D

N67GE

Fatal(3)

NSCH Part 135: Air Taxi & Commuter

 

Preliminary

Preliminary

5/16/2008

 

Comstock, MI

Fairchild Hiller FH-1100

N5049F

Fatal(1)

Part 91: General Aviation

 

Preliminary

Preliminary

5/10/2008

 

La Crosse, WI

Eurocopter Deutschland EC 135 T2+

N135UW

Fatal(3)

NSCH Part 135: Air Taxi & Commuter

 

Preliminary

Preliminary

4/15/2008

 

Chickaloon, AK

Eurocopter France AS350B2

N213EH

Fatal(4)

NSCH Part 135: Air Taxi & Commuter

 

Preliminary

Preliminary

3/13/2008

 

Wilmington, NC

Robinson R22 Beta II

N2215R

Fatal(1)

Part 91: General Aviation

 

Preliminary

Preliminary

2/5/2008

 

S. Padre Island, TX

Eurocopter France AS350B2

N911VA

Fatal(3)

Part 91: General Aviation

 

Preliminary

Preliminary

1/25/2008

 

Los Angeles, CA

Robinson R22

N705JJ

Fatal(1)

Part 91: General Aviation

 

Probable Cause

Factual ,

Probable Cause

1/22/2008

5/28/2008

Ochopee, FL

Robinson R44

N18HB

Fatal(2)

Part 91: General Aviation

 

Now here is Jan- May 1990. 13 fatal accidents, only one was an R22

 

 

5/30/1990

 

BRANTLEY, AL

HUGHES TH-55

N7054C

Fatal(1)

Public Use

 

Probable Cause

Factual ,

Probable Cause

5/23/1990

1/27/1993

GRIFFIN, GA

ROBINSON R22 BETA

N8064K

Fatal(1)

Part 91: General Aviation

 

Probable Cause

Factual ,

Probable Cause

5/21/1990

9/30/1991

KELSO, WA

HUGHES 369D

N8306F

Fatal(1)

Part 133: Rotorcraft Ext. Load

 

Probable Cause

Factual ,

Probable Cause

5/12/1990

12/8/1992

CARMEL VALLEY, CA

BELL 206B

N75SH

Fatal(1)

Part 91: General Aviation

 

Probable Cause

Factual ,

Probable Cause

5/6/1990

12/10/1990

ULYSSES, KS

BELL UH-1B

N8142W

Fatal(1)

Part 137: Agricultural

 

Probable Cause

Factual ,

Probable Cause

4/28/1990

12/14/1992

SOUTHFIELD, MI

SIKORSKY S-58F

N871

Fatal(1)

Part 133: Rotorcraft Ext. Load

 

Probable Cause

Factual ,

Probable Cause

4/20/1990

12/14/1992

MONCKS CORNER, SC

BELL 205A-1

N67HJ

Fatal(1)

Part 133: Rotorcraft Ext. Load

 

Probable Cause

Factual ,

Probable Cause

3/31/1990

11/9/1992

SODDY-DAISY, TN

HILLER UH-12D

N94496

Fatal(1)

Part 91: General Aviation

 

Probable Cause

Factual ,

Probable Cause

3/9/1990

12/14/1992

CROSS, SC

SIKORSKY HSS-1N

N4875M

Fatal(1)

Part 133: Rotorcraft Ext. Load

 

Probable Cause

Factual ,

Probable Cause

3/8/1990

3/5/1993

MIAMI, FL

AEROSPATIALE 350D

N5778W

Fatal(2)

NSCH Part 135: Air Taxi & Commuter

 

Probable Cause

Factual ,

Probable Cause

2/10/1990

11/23/1992

NEW YORK CITY, NY

BELL 206L

N16664

Fatal(1)

Part 91: General Aviation

 

Probable Cause

Factual ,

Probable Cause

2/7/1990

6/10/1991

WRANGELL, AK

BELL 205A-1

CGNMJ

Fatal(6)

Part 91: General Aviation

 

Probable Cause

Factual ,

Probable Cause

1/11/1990

9/4/1992

SAN DIEGO, TX

BELL UH-1B

N15SX

Fatal(1)

Part 91: General Aviation

 

 

So statistics can be viewed many ways. There were a lot fewer Robinson ships in the air back in 1990.

 

Also in 90 we had 4 external load fatals as opposed to zero so far this year...yet EMS accidents seem to be on the rise....any EMS/External load guys have comments ?

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

In an article I recently read in FAA Aviation News written by the Director of Flight Standards Service, he states that 2007 had the fewest amount of GA fatal accidents since WWII. Which is half as many as was reported 20 years ago. Granted he didn't separate accidents by category but it at least shows that the community, in general, is headed in the right direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My first post... yay!

 

I'm a native Californian and a helicopter enthusiast, so I thought I might bring some of my thoughts to the table. (I live near the Torrance airport and I'm currently looking into becoming a Warrant Officer with the Army).

 

The two crashes this year in LA- the Aerospatiale crash in Avalon and the R22 crash in Los Angeles actually happened pretty recently. The R22 was flown by a man who had trained at the Torrance Airport at a certain school (the Robinson factory is in the same area, by the way). I checked out a few schools in the area and they're all pretty sketchy in my opinion. The story is that he was new to night flying, told to fly low because of a passing aircraft when he was about to fly over the 110 freeway. He struck some power poles and died as a result.

 

The Aerospatiale was a engine failure- witnesses reported seeing fire from the engine that the aircraft looked like it was going to crash. The actual crash didn't happen in Avalon, but the Isthmus area (the canyon-like downbend towards the northern part of the island). The Isthmus has less resources than Avalon does (so I've noticed).

 

My conclusion is that the FAA does not nearly require enough for pilots. Yes, it's extremely expensive, but I think it's better to spend more money rather than lives. :mellow:

 

 

There is a lot more to both of those accidents than meets the eye and is simply not as easy as saying the FAA dosen't require enough for pilots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its amazing how many turns a post can take. I originally posted this as a question about SFAR 73 and its effectiveness. We had a lot fewer Robinson accidents 18 years ago then we do now. What the stats don't (and can't) show is the number of accidents as a ratio to the number of aircraft hours flown.

 

There really is no doubt that the additional training required has saved lives in the long term, likewise there are still a lot of accidents related to 3 safety topics that they teach. (Low G, Low RPM, CFIT)

 

My real commentary is are we truly learning from these 3 common mistakes of others?

 

Mechanical failures do happen, often with tragic results. My post is really more concerned with common pilot errors, which occur more frequently. Just look at the turn around in external load ops over the years...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Goldy,

 

It's a good topic. I suspect that in general we are learning and yes the SFAR has made a difference. There were quite a few main rotorblade strikes before then and until they changed the requirement from demonstration(low G) to just verbal.

 

It seems though we are not learning from some of the CFIT accidents. More sould be placed on CRM and ADM skills taught to students and even seasoned pilots alike. The mission at stake cannot have an affect on the decision of to go or not to. It has to be based on, can this flight be done safely given the circumstances? I lost a friend of mine when he made the decision to take off at night in IMC under VFR. How the thought process leading to that decision always boggles my mind.

 

Another thing, if the weather is MVFR why not just play safe and file IFR? It seems some of the recent EMS accidents were in IFR equiped and pilot trained aircraft. Yet the flight continued VFR. Is there a lack of IFR training to not just meet FAA currency but to meet the comfort level of the pilot?

 

We will always see some accidents in the Robinsons. Afterall the majority of those helicopters are used for flight training. Things do happen. Rollovers, botched autos and the like.

 

I would like to see more training given to pilots who fly in an IFR program. More training in ADM and CRM. I would also like to see more training in enhanced autorotations. If you have been to the Robinson factory course then you may have been lucky enough to do some. It would be nice to think that we can just complete an autorotation. It is not always that easy. It's one thing if you are at 500' and at an aiport using a runway or taxiway. It would be another if it were downtown LA and the engine failed or in the Grand Canyon like me and the engine failed.

 

The one spot maybe right under you. The Robinson factory teaches pilots some methods in reaching tight spots in an auto. Many part 135 operators do not do the same. They practice their autos at an airport even though most landings in helicopters are off airport.

 

I have a friend who is going to send me some good information on autorotations. I will send that long to you guys.

 

Food for thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My first post... yay!

 

I'm a native Californian and a helicopter enthusiast, so I thought I might bring some of my thoughts to the table. (I live near the Torrance airport and I'm currently looking into becoming a Warrant Officer with the Army).

 

My conclusion is that the FAA does not nearly require enough for pilots. Yes, it's extremely expensive, but I think it's better to spend more money rather than lives. :mellow:

 

Numbskull-

 

Welcome to VR, you will find this a valuable resource for information and advice on the helicopter industry.

 

That said, had you done a search, or if you had been around a while, you would know that those two accidents (indeed most helicopter accidents) have been discussed ad nauseum. We know the probable cause of the accidents, and we have heard the "story". I suggest that you get a little more experience with the board, and helicopters in general, before you make "Conclusions" like this one.

 

As Goldy pointed out there is always more than one side to every story, and the information that you seem to be getting appears to be from the uninformed and largely ignorant side. The FAA places a lot of restrictions and requirements on all pilots. Perhaps you should actually start flight training, before you assume anything about how much should, or shouldn't be required.

 

Best of luck with your "potential" military career.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My first post... yay!

 

I'm a native Californian and a helicopter enthusiast, so I thought I might bring some of my thoughts to the table. (I live near the Torrance airport and I'm currently looking into becoming a Warrant Officer with the Army).

 

My conclusion is that the FAA does not nearly require enough for pilots. Yes, it's extremely expensive, but I think it's better to spend more money rather than lives. :mellow:

 

At the risk of beating a dead cat and hijacking the thread, I would like to say welcome to the group! I'm sure you'll find a lot of good information here, and plenty of people willing to offer information, advice and support. The only thing I ask is that you be prudent with your research or information gathering before posting. Many of the people on this forum have first hand knowledge of the accidents or incidents that occur, and many of us either know the people that have died directly, or have met them in passing. Stick around and get a feel for the board, there is a lot of experience here and I'm not sure there isn't a school out there that someone on here hasn't either trained at or worked for. So ask questions, seek advice, and be productive to topics, but just be aware there are many people on here that have been around the block quite a few times.

 

Everyone on here is always looking to help out and answer questions or provide support through out your training, so don't feel like we are flaming you or trying to belittle you. We truely do wish you the best of luck, and let us know if we can help.

 

Now to answer Goldy's original topic so I don't feel like I've totally hijacked the topic...

It is wierd sometimes how it seems like regulations are almost counter productive. I also wounder if it doesn't have something to do with the whole, "Well I've been trained on it, so I should be ok." type of attitude.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>>>I have a friend who is going to send me some good information on autorotations. I will send that long to you guys.

 

Oooh ooh oooohh oooooh, pick me pick me pick me! Looking forward to what you'll have to share.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JD said it very well. I have been a CFI for a while now and have had a few people close to me bend an aircraft or even destroy a few (none fatal). I see and teach all kinds of lessons about LTE, autos, vortex ring state, DR and such. Like JD said there needs to be so much more focus on CRM, ADM and situational awareness. 90% of every bent aircraft I have seen one or more of these three things lacking in the pilot. I would like to see more informaton about these things in study materials and in knowledge or even practical test. I believe you will more likey to get into trouble by making a poor descision or not knowing your aircraft or surroundings than not knowing what to do when that good ol Lycoming goes out on you. (Trust me it is important to know what to do I'm just saying the chances are small on an engine failure).

 

Practicing advanced autorotations is very important too. I don't practice these things often with private students (unless they have the time). But if you are going to be a commercial or even CFI you NEED to know how to get the aircraft to the spot.....safely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe you will more likey to get into trouble by making a poor descision or not knowing your aircraft or surroundings than not knowing what to do when that good ol Lycoming goes out on you.

 

I often think we practice way too much for something that happens so rarely. Especially when CFIT kills us 10 times more often. Also, the way we practice....little too unrealistic..you know, always at 65 KIAS, 500 AGL, yeah, yeah....

 

Goldy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly right Goldy. While we do practice autos for something that very rarely happens when it does it is almost never going to be over an airport runway or taxiway. More training needs to be spent on advanced autos much like the Robinson factory does. There are not many part 135 companies out there teaching autos like that.

 

When the factory pilots come out here in December I plan on asking if we can do some more advanced autos instead of the normal full downs to the runway. If you can get it to 5 feet and have your RPM built up you will be fine, aircraft damage? Yes it's possible but all I really care about is the passengers. I want to practice getting into spots that are litteraly right below me. It's been so long since I have done those. Anyone at our level, hell even at the private level anyone can do an auto to a nice smooth open spot. How many times are we flying over such a spot?

 

ADA(Aviation Decision Making) skills need to be taught more. CFIT in my opinion could be just about entirely avoided if correct decisions were made about the flight. Avoid get there-itis, avoid the thought that the mission must be completed(esp. in EMS). Identifiying when these thoughts are in your head, you can then take corrective action to avoid a bad situation. My friend who died in a CFIT accident had gotten away with flying in the clouds VFR before so perhaps he thought he could do it again? Only this time it was at night and ended up trapped VFR over the top. Just because we may have gotten away with something before doesn't mean it won't catch up to us in the future. It's better off not tempting fate to begin with.

 

Safe skies,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I often think we practice way too much for something that happens so rarely. Especially when CFIT kills us 10 times more often. Also, the way we practice....little too unrealistic..you know, always at 65 KIAS, 500 AGL, yeah, yeah....

 

Goldy

 

I totally agree. There is so much emphasis on Auto's, LTE, etc etc... but when it comes down to it. Specially with things like Setteling with Power, where decision making skills are more important. Yeah it's good to know how to recognize it, and what to do when your in it, and all that. But I don't know that I've ever been taught how to make decisions to avoid it. It's kind of learn as you go. Should those things still be tested, YES! but good DM will trump every time.

 

I'm not a Helicopter CFI yet, but I am an Airplane one, and I try to make every situation as realistic as safely possible. I was trained, "Ok, 2000ft, 24 inHg, 2400 rpm, now go a head and enter the stall." That's not realistic, I really don't like training that way. The 3 times I've had an engine failure, have never been straight and level in cruse flight. Once on take off at about 250ft in a single engine, Once while after the FAF on an ILS in a Baron which was Icing related (Good ADM???), and the other was a precautionary shutdown of the right engine in that same Baron. So yeah, I try not to be so, "Ok you have to do it this way." I'll introduce the manuvers like that, but after my students get a feel for them and can handle them safely, it's fair game anytime. Because that's how it's going to be in real life, fair game, anytime.

 

Couldn't have said it any better JD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I often think we practice way too much for something that happens so rarely. Especially when CFIT kills us 10 times more often. Also, the way we practice....little too unrealistic..you know, always at 65 KIAS, 500 AGL, yeah, yeah....

 

Goldy

 

How would you propose changing the training emphasis?

I get where your coming from I just cant imagine a realistic way to deal with problem in a systematic way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How would you propose changing the training emphasis?

I get where your coming from I just cant imagine a realistic way to deal with problem in a systematic way.

 

 

As far as advanced autos and the like, the factory courses are the way to go. At Robinson they (instructors) are top notch. I have seen these guys out there.

 

As far as CRM and ADM it's in the books. However, until the FAA puts more empasis on checkrides they will continue to take a back seat to the other training goals. They need to ask more questions on these topics on the checkrides and have the instructors focus on them more. I think many instructors don't really understand CRM and ADM so they don't teach it. It's really not too hard.

 

CRM(Crew Resource Management) in my opinion applies not only to dual pilot aircraft but also single pilot aircraft. Use all the resources you have. On a private flight with your family, do you have them look outside for traffic? On a Commerical flight you can use dispatch, FSS, Flight Watch, ATC as people to rely on for things. Do you really know how to use ALL the functions on the GPS and other installed equipment? We have so many tools for us to use but yet many don't use or understand them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, ADM needs more emphasis. But, in a different way than we are currently teaching it. The emphasis needs to come in the form of situational problem solving. Instructors and Examiners are teaching and evaluating the "book" answers and definitions. Teaching and evaluating via situation is difficult because it takes more time, thought, and experience to develop realistic situations for discussion/training.

Instrument instruction in helicopters is mostly treated as a square filler. This is a shame. You guys know it takes quite a lot more than the minimums to be truly proficient in instrument flying.

The avionics (GPS) take a lot of time and "playing" with to get the hang of all the features. Plus, no GPS unit is built for the helicopter pilot in my opinion. Most manufacturers do not take into account the ergonomics of a helicopter or the task load of the pilot (both hands usually occupied). We do not want to waste valuable flight time "playing" with the GPS during training...examiners know this and do not hold instructors' students accountable. Better GPS simulators and possibly including the use of a GPS on the checkride via a simulator are possible avenues of correction.

As far as overall training...the instrument rating should be a requirement for a commercial checkride (FW or RW). 10 instrument training hours in an aircraft is not adequate. Also, instrument currency should be required for maintaining commercial currency. Do most companies require this anyway?

 

I would venture to say most "ADM related mistakes or accidents" are spur of the moment decisions or sudden loss of judgment (SLOJ) mistakes...nearly impossible to predict or train to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

First of all, you are doing a comparison for a year that is only half over. Try doing 2007?

 

 

While we do practice autos for something that very rarely happens when it does it is almost never going to be over an airport runway or taxiway. More training needs to be spent on advanced autos much like the Robinson factory does. There are not many part 135 companies out there teaching autos like that.

 

I couldn't agree with this more. When I went to the Robinson factory course, I didn't do much for advanced autos as I only had the min required 3 hours in a 22 when I went. I DID do some advanced auto's with Tim Tucker when I went to him for my R44 CFI endorsement and it was awesome. From that day on, I did advanced auto's with a few of my students that were working on their CPL. We'd play "hit the spot" where I'd give them a spot and an engine failure. OR, like in my own training, I would give them an engine failure and ask them where they are going and make sure they get there. Worked out really well and is WAY more real world.

 

Fortunately, when I came to my current Part 135 employer, we did a lot of advanced autorotations. Hitting the spot is CRUCIAL in Alaska as there are FEW spots that are even large enough for the Astar to fit into in many areas. Hitting the spot dead on could meant the difference between life and...well... The 360's (hitting a spot right beneath you), max glide (wow the ASTAR glides far!), and zero AS auto's are my favs! :D

 

Fly Safe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>>>I have a friend who is going to send me some good information on autorotations. I will send that long to you guys.

 

Oooh ooh oooohh oooooh, pick me pick me pick me! Looking forward to what you'll have to share.

 

 

LOL, don't worry. As soon as I get it I will send it along.

 

Cough cough, anything yet? Need to smack that friend perhaps? :lol: ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as CRM and ADM it's in the books. However, until the FAA puts more emphasis on checkrides they will continue to take a back seat to the other training goals. They need to ask more questions on these topics on the checkrides and have the instructors focus on them more. I think many instructors don't really understand CRM and ADM so they don't teach it. It's really not too hard.
I agree, ADM needs more emphasis. But, in a different way than we are currently teaching it. The emphasis needs to come in the form of situational problem solving. Instructors and Examiners are teaching and evaluating the "book" answers and definitions. Teaching and evaluating via situation is difficult because it takes more time, thought, and experience to develop realistic situations for discussion/training.

 

 

 

I agree that we need to be teaching situationally (if that's a word), but I have a question for all of you who know better than I.

 

I am an instructor, and I have a good imagination; I can come up with tough-call-decision type situations to throw at my students. But I am relatively low-time myself, and I lack the experience to give definite answers to my own questions. How am I supposed to judge whether my student makes the "right" hypothetical decision when I have so little experience myself? I am trying to learn as fast as I can, I read the NTSB reports, listen to the more experienced pilots, ask questions...but the fact remains that I just don't have a lot of real-world experience. I get the obvious ones (ask for help before the problem becomes a crisis, stick to your fuel reserves or more, respect the weather, etc), it's the ones that get you on the ground in one piece but made you wet your pants a little that I don't know how to teach. And it's always going to be a judgment call, so how do you teach that? You throw a hypothetical into a room with twenty pilots and you'll get twenty different answers (in my experience, most of these twenty will be logical, backed-up by a story of some kind, and validated by FAR or AIM or both).

 

I, too, was not really taught practical ADM as a student, and now I feel like I'm reinventing the wheel using only two nails and a flat-head screwdriver. And I'm supposed to be the one with the answers...

 

For Goldy's question, has the SFAR helped us? - My personal opinion is both yes and no, based on my experience with it. "Yes," because of the requirement that PIC's under 200hrs stay annually tied to an instructor's apron strings. It may not be that the apron strings are really doing that much, but the low-time pilot feels them there, and it makes a difference in how he deals with the helicopter. "Yes" also because of the SFAR sign-off requirement for instructors. It forced me into greater depth in my studies in those areas, and I'm grateful for the push.

I say "No" to the awareness training prior to manipulating the controls. And it's not the training I object to, it's the timing. Prior to manipulating the controls of the R22, I had no experience in helicopters whatsoever, and next to nothing in that ground lesson stuck at all. Prior to solo, however, I went back through my verbatim notes (how did I know what was and wasn't important? I just wrote everything down), and was amazed at how much sense it suddenly made. So I absolutely think it should be taught...but not until the student can understand at least some of what they're hearing. Until then it might be better to spend that first lesson on positive exchange of flight controls and wire-strike avoidance and then touch on low-g avoidance.

 

That's what I think, anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that we need to be teaching situationally (if that's a word), but I have a question for all of you who know better than I.

 

I am an instructor, and I have a good imagination; I can come up with tough-call-decision type situations to throw at my students. But I am relatively low-time myself, and I lack the experience to give definite answers to my own questions. How am I supposed to judge whether my student makes the "right" hypothetical decision when I have so little experience myself? I am trying to learn as fast as I can, I read the NTSB reports, listen to the more experienced pilots, ask questions...but the fact remains that I just don't have a lot of real-world experience. I get the obvious ones (ask for help before the problem becomes a crisis, stick to your fuel reserves or more, respect the weather, etc), it's the ones that get you on the ground in one piece but made you wet your pants a little that I don't know how to teach. And it's always going to be a judgment call, so how do you teach that? You throw a hypothetical into a room with twenty pilots and you'll get twenty different answers (in my experience, most of these twenty will be logical, backed-up by a story of some kind, and validated by FAR or AIM or both).

 

I, too, was not really taught practical ADM as a student, and now I feel like I'm reinventing the wheel using only two nails and a flat-head screwdriver. And I'm supposed to be the one with the answers...

 

For Goldy's question, has the SFAR helped us? - My personal opinion is both yes and no, based on my experience with it. "Yes," because of the requirement that PIC's under 200hrs stay annually tied to an instructor's apron strings. It may not be that the apron strings are really doing that much, but the low-time pilot feels them there, and it makes a difference in how he deals with the helicopter. "Yes" also because of the SFAR sign-off requirement for instructors. It forced me into greater depth in my studies in those areas, and I'm grateful for the push.

I say "No" to the awareness training prior to manipulating the controls. And it's not the training I object to, it's the timing. Prior to manipulating the controls of the R22, I had no experience in helicopters whatsoever, and next to nothing in that ground lesson stuck at all. Prior to solo, however, I went back through my verbatim notes (how did I know what was and wasn't important? I just wrote everything down), and was amazed at how much sense it suddenly made. So I absolutely think it should be taught...but not until the student can understand at least some of what they're hearing. Until then it might be better to spend that first lesson on positive exchange of flight controls and wire-strike avoidance and then touch on low-g avoidance.

 

That's what I think, anyway.

 

You brought up the main point with out even realizing it. A big problem in this industry is the way it is set up. The very first thing we do after getting rated is to teach others.

 

That in lies the problem. At that point in our career we know so little in actual hands on knowledge in which we can pass on to our students. It's from these experiences that we learn from and can pass on to our students. The best instructors are ones who have been in the industry for some time. They can better present a student with a real case situation they can expect to find. Although many new CFI's can also, the main thing is that the seasoned pilot has been through it already.

 

I can tell you right now, I would be a better CFI now than I was back then. I admit it. I was an effective CFI then too, it's just the real life things I have taken in that helps all the more. I can actually tell my students what it is like to declare an emergency, hit a bird, lose radios, see all the lights on the panel(not all at the same time :D ) and what I did and how to better handle it. When I was training, I always prepared for those things. Never heard of it actually happening to anyone I knew.

 

I would be able to give them more effective training of ADM as well. I know the pressures put on a pilot to fly in the real world. It is there, if you admit it or not is another story. However, knowing what it really feels like and having put ADM to real use I would be better prepared to teach it to my students.

 

It sounds you are doing all you can thus far. Reading the NTSB reports, listening to other pilots and learning from them. These are all things you can do to help your students. These are also things you can do(which I recommend) for the rest of your career.

 

As far as the SFAR goes. I agree, it's been both good and bad. It can scare a new pilot right off the bat. The main thing to cover is as you said, positive exchange of controls and of course Low G. When you cover the initial SFAR, don't go overboard in detail. Just cover the basics and go over it again once the student has a better grasp of things.

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...