For the record, IPs at South Whiting can practice Full Autos
I would beg to differ. I have a number of friends who had to take a full auto after the engine failed to respond after a simulated engine failure at altitude.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Hot new helicopter/rotorcraft news
- Thread starter Randy Daytona
- Start date
For the record, IPs at South Whiting can practice Full Autos
I would beg to differ. I have a number of friends who had to take a full auto after the engine failed to respond after a simulated engine failure at altitude.
Any idea if the Navy will ever bring back USS Bay Lander so the SNA's can get qualified for boat landings?
Also, if the Navy does use TH-57B's for full down autorotation practice, we should copy Bristow which has a 206B with permanently mounted pontoons. We would practice 300 ft, 100 knot, 180 deg full splashdown autos to the lake - lot of fun.
Also, if the Navy does use TH-57B's for full down autorotation practice, we should copy Bristow which has a 206B with permanently mounted pontoons. We would practice 300 ft, 100 knot, 180 deg full splashdown autos to the lake - lot of fun.
IPs can do full autos in 57Cs?
I'd also wager as mentioned above that the reliability of the 57's motor could be improved with a more modern digital control system.
Yes, the prohibition on full autos in the C was a RWOP driven issue. After a few Engine failures in the C, the commodore has eliminated the blanked prohibition. C full autos are now approved with a whole host of rules IP/IP only. The instructing IP must also be B qualled. Fuel limits. Wind Limits. etc. I forget all the restrictions.
Wasn't there some concern as to whether the FAA would convey commercial helicopter privileges if the Navy opted out of teaching full autos?
Seems like they consider full auto training to be foundational skill set. I know the ratings are not a major concern for big Navy, but it would be a failure of leadership to undermine people's opinion of our training system vs that of what civilians are required to complete.
Seems like they consider full auto training to be foundational skill set. I know the ratings are not a major concern for big Navy, but it would be a failure of leadership to undermine people's opinion of our training system vs that of what civilians are required to complete.
IX-514 is somewhere way up the St. John's river, lying at a birth. I'm not sure who owns it at this point, but I don't think it's moved in a while. That reminds me, I need to go see if I can find it sometime.
Summer of 1994, I suffered an engine rollback to idle in a TH-57B during a simulated engine failure maneuver while instructing a FAM-7 enroute to OLF Pace. The DA was close to 3000' and I had a 200 LB + student in the back in addition to my porky 235 pound body and that of my student. We had a full bag of 90 gallons of fuel. My gross weight was somewhere in the 3100 lb range - I was flying Modex 190 TH-57B.
I took the controls from the student at 250' AGL over Zig-Zag field, and proceeded to executed a full touchdown auto at about 5 kts of groundspeed into the peanut field. The aircraft did fine performance wise, very little difference in flying qualities to a student syllabus full auto maneuver believe it or not.
I was awarded the "Flying Pro" personally by CNATRA himself at the time. I believe my adventure was chronicled in September 1994 issue of Approach.
I took the controls from the student at 250' AGL over Zig-Zag field, and proceeded to executed a full touchdown auto at about 5 kts of groundspeed into the peanut field. The aircraft did fine performance wise, very little difference in flying qualities to a student syllabus full auto maneuver believe it or not.
I was awarded the "Flying Pro" personally by CNATRA himself at the time. I believe my adventure was chronicled in September 1994 issue of Approach.
Not since IX 514 went away in ~2010 timeframe.
What was the rationale for that?
If it was decided it wasn't worth the operating costs, okay. Unfortunately we're seeing more and more decisions about training where it's "we can't afford it, so we don't really need it."
I never went to the boat in HTs as IX-514 was in the yards and for a time no one went. I also think the boat flights were always waiverable.
Slow to Spool. Had that happen before.
I will disagree with the need for learning an advanced autopilot - might as well come up to speed early. The younger generation, raised on PlayStation and Xbox, is better than my generation. A modern autopilot is a thing of beauty - full 4 axis (pitch, roll, yaw and collective). Systems will couple on an ILS or WAAS GPS, intercept the glideslope, fly down at a designated airspeed with computer controlled deceleration, level at 50 feet over the runway or initiate a miss go and enter the hold correctly, and stay there until ordered to leave. As instrument skills atrophy in fleet, having this capability is a great thing.
It was pretty much a non-event. Sea state in the bay had to be almost calm and the boat went something like 5 knots. It was day landings only and really wasn't much different than landing on a huge pad that just happened to be very slowly moving away from you. Cool experience for a SNA, but I'd argue it didn't really prepare you for anything.
Lets just put a pad on the back of a semi and drive it real slow back and forth on Gulf Hwy between P'cola Beach and Navarre. 