Whistlerpilot

Hey fleman, flown Longrangers with and without so here’s my opinion. The IBF does add cost and it can effect performance. However it f you regularly fly in sandy environments or snow I think it’s a good idea. The particle separator stops the big stuff but sand and dust can still come through. Erosion of the compressor blades is inevitable if you do that a lot with no filter. I did fly one Longranger without even particle sepersator. We nicknamed it the “Bare Dog” instead of the “Long Dog”. Didn’t make me feel warm and fuzzy out in the bush without maintenance support for compressor washes. In Hawaii I flew Airbus helicopters with no filters. However the company did daily water and weekly zoc compressor rinses. Also they only land in pre approved spots so no bush dusty landings. So my opinion, if you don’t land off airport in dusty spots and do compressor washes often the particle separator is fine. But if you’re working in the bush or snow go for the IBF. In snow if the filter clogs you can open the IBF doors to avoid loss of air to the engine. If the particle separator clogs up, well you’re SOL hope you can land immediately before engine starves. The snow scoops over the intakes do work pretty good, but the particle separator swirls can plug up. Some machines have a purge to blow bleed air for cleaning. Obviously reduces power. I would do it immediately on skid touch down if power limited and landing in dust. The IBF system gives you a light with pressure sensor so you have the option to open the inlet doors and land without such urgency if the filter is clogging. But the filter does a great job of keeping your compressor clean. A bit of extra maintenance to clean the filter as needed but no big deal. In Canada I have never flown an Astar without a filter. Peace of mind going into tight spots, and imperative for heliskiing. The 212 I’m flying now has a different but effective particle separator system so after market mods aren’t needed. So how often do you land in the dust and what does the compressor look like after rinse? That will determine if it’s worth the cost of going IBF. Peace of mind, well that’s harder to put a cost on. Happy Landings, Eric

OK here goes, I will take a bite at this topic. Bring on the debate. Canada CPL: full down PPC annual training: 25% full down, 75% power recovery USA CPL: power recovery CFI: limited full down Bell and Robinson factory course: full down PPC annual training: power recovery Nepal CPL: Power on glide Auto training whats that? Actually did auto training there for Nepali pilots but due to lack of proficiency of local pilots they dont roll the throttle off. So they call the power on glide an auto for PPC purposes. I trained in Canada with Chinook Helicopters. Did around 200 full down autorotations in my commercial course which was 100 hours. We did a few power recoveries so I would know how to do those too. This was with the Bell 47 and last 10 hours Jet Ranger. Honestly the power recovery on the 47 is a handful to get the engine rpm matched so its easier just to do a full down. Its a high inertia rotor system so plenty forgiving. Later I did CFI in the US at 300 hours and we did a dozen or so full down autos in the R22 in preparation for the CFI checkride. Over the course of my career have only done full down training during annual recurrency with 2 companies in Canada. All the rest have been power recoveries. Some of the best auto training I ever did was with Blue Hawaiian. They set a very high standard, must get to the spot every time with the trainer imitating the failure at different spots so you have to use range variation to make it. The most realistic and thorough training Ive experienced despite not doing full downs. One advantage of dual fadec EC130 is the snappy engine response so throttle can be rolled back on in the flare. In my opinion the R44 is one of the best for auto training. It does full downs and power recoveries very well and is fairly forgiving. If the RRPM is kept at the very bottom of green arc just before the flare, you can flare hard and it will not overspeed. This allows a real flare to arrive at the spot with zero airspeed and then it can be a nice full down or if throttle is rolled on it will power recover without the torque spike typical of a Jet Ranger. Of course the H125 is awesome for that too but its 4 times the cost. And most companies dont want to risk their 3.5 million dollar helicopter doing full downs! When I did training with the R22 I did just enough autos with it so the student would have a fighting chance if the engine failed during solo. I suggested they invest in 4 hours of sold auto training with the R44 with a good Instructor who can do full downs and range variation. Some students did this but sadly most saved a few bucks at the risk of later saving their life. Its super important to build primacy for a good auto in the beginning. If you dont flare hard enough to arrive at a complete stop over a precise spot in a real life engine failure then the outcome may not be walkoutable. Im interested to go for an intro flight with the Cabri G2 to see how it autos. However since most initial training is done with the R22 my advice is invest in a few hours of quality R44 training including full downs with a good Instructor. For this reason I hope the R44 cadet gets some traction in the training industry. Having worked as a 300 hour newly minted CFI I was not confident at that time to do full downs with students in the R22. The R22 training style auto most students learn in my opinion teaches bad auto habits in the most critical phase of primacy training. This is because of low time instructors and the unforgiving nature of the R22 for autos. To avoid the dreaded costly overspeed the flare is gentle and high, throttle rolled on early and usually terminates with airspeed carried into a fly through. Thats not how to do a real life save your ass auto if the engine quits. I love flying the R22, super fun little helicopter but it is the worst of all makes/models for auto training in my opinion. Im glad I learned my primacy in the Bell 47 with full downs. This summer Im new on the Bell 212. We did actually practice autos during training despite twin engine but it was power recovery with throttles rolled back on early before the flare. Most of the focus was on one engine failure at different altitudes and airspeed and respective procedures. There was a company on fires this spring that had an engine failure on the 212 while bucketing. He dropped the bucket, secured the engine, and flew to a safe landing for an engine replacement. Vertical hover in or out of 100 foot trees confined area with a 10 man fire crew the outcome probably would involve bent metal. At least a chance of no bent backs but that situation would sacrifice the machine. After all these years on singles I do like the big heavy twin more than I expected. We should all have a plan on how to successfully crash. No time to figure it out in the heat of the moment. Primacy will prevail. But even with only a few seconds to play out the scenario your reaction can be critical to the outcome. Pre-thinking your plan for thick trees, water, steep mountainside, congested city, which way to turn for wind, etc... will give a fighting chance for your reaction. I recommend reading Shawn Coyles Little Book of Autorotations. Also recommend Factory Course Training. Did both Bell and Robinson factory courses. On the Bell course we did an auto from 200 ft and 40 kits while climbing out from take off to full down. Had never actually done that before. That was on the Bell 505 which is a fantastic trainer. Bit on the spendy side however. Interested to hear others opinions on this topic. Let the debate begin.

Hey Max the Kid, I did something similar but have the advantage of both US and CDN passports. You will not find Canadian owners or operators happy to lease or rent to such a low timer as yourself. My recommendation is to convert your CDN commercial to FAA (now just paperwork) and spend your money on obtaining FAA instrument and CFII ratings. That will make you more marketable than just hours burned in the sky. At that point you could lease an N reg R22 and find students so at least you break even. Whats your end game? If you want to work back in Canada those time building hours are looked on with skepticism. Better to pay your dues for a few years as ground crew like everyone else. If leasing and building hours gets you the next job, for example Tuna Boat, then your idea could work. As a US foreign student you can get the 2 year visa to go through training to CFII and then have the permission to work as a CFI for limited period. I know a few foreigners who have done this and it jump started their career. It sounds like you have some funds available to you but I advise to use them wisely. Just hours logged time building doesnt get you a job in Canada. Its the quality of those hours and how you have progressed as a pilot thats most important. Operational experience is what any new pilot needs. Flight Instructing is the path in FAA land. In Canada its ground crew leading eventually to operational flying. Yes I can share contact info on who leased to me. To meet insurance minimums I was just over 300 hours heli with CFI. I committed to 6 months lease and 100 hours month. I had recruited students and time builders for the previous 6 months, put 15K up front and went in the hole about 10K on the whole project. Knowing what I know now at 7000 hours it was ridiculously high risk. But it got me going in the industry. PM me for specifics. Will give you my phone/email. Since I moved back to Canada I can share the good the bad and the ugly of the industry here. Happy Landings, Eric

USA doesnt have type ratings unless the helicopter is over 12500lbs. In Canada type ratings are issued and You can obtain a Bell 47 type rating in around 5hours of air time plus some ground instruction. However you will need to convert your EASA to TC first. Contact Chinook Helicopters in Abbotsford BC one hour east of Vancouver. They still operate the 47 as a primary instructor.

Looked to me like he succumbed to a sneezing fit and forgot to fly the helicopter. We will see if the accident report blames it on hay fever.

Ive landed on the Grande Hospital rooftop pad many times. Its a very slippery steel deck, there is virtually no ground friction. Hareram is not very experienced and probably doesnt know that neutral pedals is not flat pitch. In order to have no tail rotor thrust an Astar pilot must push left pedal 2 cm past neutral pedal. Hareram probably landed and held some collective for a few seconds. Then he lowered collective but didnt push left pedal forward. On normal pads dirt concrete etc the Astar has friction and doesnt spin. Obviously he froze and didnt do anything once the spin started. Full down collective and full left pedal should have stopped it but if not then shut engine off and he wouldnt have continued to spin off the roof. He was lucky to go that way, all the other sides are 12 story fall to the ground.

When you do the instrument rating only 15 hours of the 40 is required in a helicopter so you can save a little money by doing the maximimum allowed instrument training in an airplane. I recommend to do this at night because its totally realistic. However as the others said, if you want to fly helicopters dont waste any precious training money on airplane time. When you are an experienced helicopter pilot down the road you can do an airplane add on for very little. Right now focus on getting your helicopter CFII and finding an instructor job. Good luck!

My very first helicopter job at 150 hours paid $75. Per day rate and $50. Per hour flight pay. I also got a $40. Per day perdiem for food and they paid all accommodation and travel expenses as well as medical/dental after 6 months. It was a great 8 month season mostly near the arctic circle. I didnt fly many hours but around 4 days a week I got to do a short flight of some sort in the 206 and 206LR. I mostly did ground crew work but it got me started and Im eternally grateful to Great Slave Helicopters for the opportunity. That was only 12 years ago but now Ive travelled the world flying and have over 6000 hours. Thanks GSH and RIP to KO Keith Ostertag who passed recently and helped me get my start. KO you are a legend, and even after 60 years of flying you were still helping us low timers.

Merci Chris, René Mouille est certainment Monsieur Helicoptere!

Merci Chris, René Mouille est certainment Monsieur Helicoptere!

Hands down the AS350 series now H125 starflex. Simple effective low maintenance reliable and responsive. Combined with probably the best in class gearbox it makes for the best heart of any helicopter in my opinion.

If you get the squirrel cheek cargo pod then the front seat might fit in the left side pod, though contact Airbus to verify. I would caution you against doing impromptu medevac flights for the public for all the reasons previously stated.

The Bell tech reps response was pretty much as iChris described. In the end some numbers were exchanged and the power check is now being done as it should be. Lucky for me I don't need to fly this aircraft often. On my way to the Bell factory March 12 for the 505 course. The company is buying 2 505's though the B3e is still the aircraft of choice for high altitude flying in Nepal. There is competition for the "bottom" end of the market and for some strange reason my company wants to spend outrageous money for the 505 rather than just using a cheap B2. So I will keep you all posted on flying the 505 in the Himalaya. Too bad the Van Horn tail rotor isn't STC'ed yet but perhaps with that long tail boom the tail rotor has some oomph. Good times Pheriche, Dingboche, Lukla, Kathmandu shuttles. Everest Base Camp will be a little beyond what it can do.

This summer flying in Nepal I took off with 3px plus bags at DA 22,700 could barely get into a one foot hover but the wind was helping. The Kalapathar pad allows a sidewise jump off to clear the tail and descent is possible to gain airspeed above the Khumbu glacier which is 300 below.

Totally agree with your power check and dummy approach. This is what I was taught and still practice.