• 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

Bell 505 Discussion

thump said:
Everyone loves full autos, but nobody has died in a Navy H-60 for their lack of ability to shoot a full auto, afaik. We do, otoh, routinely ball up aircraft due to a lack of understanding of power limits.
Click to expand...
I can't name anyone who died that way in a 60, either, but it's got a lot of time on in the last 45 years so who knows? Beyond just knowing how to land a helicopter without an engine, though, I think a full down auto is about the best ways to develop basic air work and machine control out there.

thump said:
Do you still have the TH-67 auto syllabus? I thought that was the most challenging flying in all of TPS.
Click to expand...
I have to admit ignorance on this one.
 
FlyNavy03 said:
Tell me you've never flown with a FADEC...
Click to expand...
Also, bonus points to whoever picks up on the movie reference I hid in this post. It's pretty subtle, but references one of the greatest movies of all time. Hint: It's not robot overlords.
 
Nice. I got impatient for someone to pick up on it. I almost said, "One of the greatest aviation movies of all time" but I thought that would be too obvious.
 
thump said:
Everyone loves full autos, but nobody has died in a Navy H-60 for their lack of ability to shoot a full auto, afaik. We do, otoh, routinely ball up aircraft due to a lack of understanding of power limits.

Do you still have the TH-67 auto syllabus? I thought that was the most challenging flying in all of TPS.
Click to expand...
People have shot full autos in H-60s when required, but I don't know if those pilots would say the confidence gained from full autos in H-57s was a factor (also hard to measure).

Yes! The auto & HV is still alive at USNTPS. It's still in OH-58Cs, though it may shift shortly to another Bell 206 derivative.
 
IKE said:
People have shot full autos in H-60s when required, but I don't know if those pilots would say the confidence gained from full autos in H-57s was a factor (also hard to measure).
Click to expand...
I will admit that the autos we do at Whiting probably are not going to save a lot of lives. Unless your engine only fails at 700 feet and 70 KIAS while in a tight downwind. In that case, you're golden.
 
IKE said:
Not rhetorical. How much positive knowledge is transferred from a twist grip aircraft to a dual-PCL Sikorsky? It seems to me it's only a mental model of how torque can couple into yaw attitude and ECU malfunctions can lead to the need for manual throttle control.

The muscle memory of twisting the throttle while manipulating collective is entirely different than moving PCLs, and there's the whole single-piloted vs. dual-pilot difference.
Click to expand...

Again, I may just not be understanding what you're saying, but as was mentioned, the concepts are similar even if the inputs are different. I'll also admit that when I talk about twist grips, I'm doing so with dual-engine grips in mind and not single-engine grips. Perhaps that's where my disconnect is.

But like FlyNavy03 is saying...understanding the mental model is great, but actually making the mechanical inputs helps with understanding what is actually happening. When I'm talking about FADEC failures (or partial failures), the indications are very much like High/Low side in the -60 except there's no rocketing up of Np/N2. You may lose some of your indications and you need to adjust your "bad" power down to some predetermined setting.

When I had to learn the FADEC malfunction EP, it wasn't very complicated because I understood the concept from the -60 side after a lot of PCL manipulations. I'd argue the reverse would also be true if someone came from the FADEC side and transitioned to the -60.
 
thump said:
aircraft that are more challenging to fly due to their mere simplicity.

I’m very thankful I grew up in the steam gauge T-34/57 pipeline.
Click to expand...
With a slight change to T-28/TH-57/TH-1, I completely agree. Reflecting on the time proven mantra of "Aviate, Navigate, Communicate" it is best to train in those distinct areas of expertise. And simple basic aircraft are best suited for learning basic aviation skills. Remove the distraction of system overload and allow the most basic thing to occur... "fly the aircraft."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top