Jump to content

Phil Croucher

Senior Member
  • Content Count

    889
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    15

Posts posted by Phil Croucher


  1. The AS 355 F1 uses the same engine as the 206 (except the transmission comes out of the other end), and the generator is turned on at 100% in those. I would just turn the genny on. In UK, the 206 has a big light that flashes if it fails (just like in your car) so it's hard to forget it.

     

    The reason you sit there at 70% in the first place is a hangover from the early days of the 206A where switching in the gen at low RPM would draw so much power it would cut the engine.

     

    Phil


  2. **not to imply that Canada is necessarily greater than any other country

     

    Aren't Canadians God's frozen people? :)

     

    Phil

     

    Without prejudice. All models over 18 years of age. No animals were harmed during the production of this product. Any resemblance to actual people, living or dead, or events, past, present or future, is purely coincidental. Some names have been changed to protect the innocent. Batteries not included. If condition persists, consult your physician. Slippery when wet. Parental guidance advised. Always read the label. If rash, irritation, redness, or swelling develops, discontinue use. Please remain seated until the web page has come to a complete stop. If ingested, do not induce vomiting. May contain nuts. May be too intense for some viewers. In case of accidental ingestion, seek professional assistance or contact a poison control centre immediately. Products are not authorized for use as critical components in life support devices or systems. objects in rear-view mirror may be behind you. Driver does not carry cash. Other restrictions may apply.


  3. Some really good material there which I will be working on. Thanks!

     

    The other thing that will be included in the proposed syllabus, though I don't think there will be any questions, is the wearing of helmets. And the private operator stuff is going to be removed from air law.

     

    Looks like a common-sense regime in there right now.

     

    phil


  4. That's pretty much it, except for saying that co-ordination and smoothness on the controls is the key. And you don't really have to be outside the WAT chart to use it. We're often on a rig in Dubai where the wind is awkward (they never put them in good places) and you need to get yourself quickly into a good position (and we're taking about a hot day with a 212). In our case we use it to get ourselves quickly into wind if it's not quite on the nose.

     

    For the record (although I'm sure you know these already):

     

    Just because a technique works for one helicopter, doesn't mean it works for others

     

    On twins you always need power in hand, because they will cut the power right when you need it if you're heavy, so your margin is important

     

    Techniques such as these should not be used to skirt the edges of safety. Treat them as a weapon in your armoury for occasional use. Otherwise, as Rob says, they are aerodynamically sound and a legitimate use of the machine IN THE RIGHT CIRCUMSTANCES.

     

    As far as the TC syllabus goes, though, I won't even mention it.

     

    Phil


  5. The new edition of the Flight Training Manual will describe a reconnaisance according to "what is done operationally".

     

    If there's anything you guys think should be in there, let me know and I will pass it on to the people concerned (this is NOT official! I'm just making sure I cover the syllabus properly)

     

    It will not be low level and downwind!

     

    phil


  6. Not too many details as yet - I am in correspondence with them about the new syllabus and I'm still waiting for further details. I would imagine it will work rather like the fixed wing side of things. There may be an exam because the new syllabus will be out when the agreement is signed, and there is some stiff to be included. I've incorporated most of it already.

     

    Phil


  7. In answer to some queries by PM, and to save me typing the same stuff over and over, here is some current info.

     

    There is a push to have JAA/EASA compliant licensing for flying offshore, because of the perceived safety from having more in depth knowledge in pilot's heads. This means that, to be employable world wide, you really need an FAA and a JAA licence, and possibly an Australian one (an Australian one is a straight swap to or from a New Zealand licence, and I believe that you only need to turn up with a JAA licence and take the law exam to get the Oz one in the first place).

     

    The agreement for an exchange arrangement between the FAA and Transport Canada (for helicopter licences) is expected to be signed early in 2010, to become effective around 3 months later. So, if you have a Canadian licence, you will shortly be able to get an FAA one, and if you have a JAA one, you can get an Australian (and an NZ one) with very little extra effort.

     

    For those who are not already aware, the Joint Airworthiness Authorities (JAA), who are shortly to be replaced by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) make the aviation regulations for Europe - in fact, EASA is intended to be the equivalent of the FAA for all of Europe, so if you have an EASA licence you can fly anywhere in Europe, subject to immigration.

     

    However, many other countries that are not in Europe require an EASA licence - Mauretania is one, and even in Dubai, they have the same rules by another name (CAR OPS instead of JAR OPS - all they did was change one paragraph).

     

    Yes, the JAA exams are much more in depth (there are 13 of them for the ATP, and 9 for the CPL(H)), but they are not entirely irrelevant, as the rumour mill would have you believe (I have used all the stuff I learned in Europe flying around N Alberta). The problem is the question database which is done by committee. For example, the French handle Principles of Flight and the Brits handle the radio stuff (in fact the ICAO radio annex tends to follow the amendments in the CAA publications). Those that have dealt with committees or who have been trained as a Microsoft engineer will already know the problem - the exam questions bear no relation to reality, and you would be very unwise to go into them without special preparation, even if you are exempt formal training.

     

    So what, you may ask? Well, we are the only school in Europe approved to do the training by distance learning for the ATPL(H), the CPL(H) and the IR(H). You can gain a European licence from Bristow Academy in Florida, but that course is residential and you have to attend their classrooms for a period.

     

    We will have an ad on the front page in a week or so, but more information is available from the website at Caledonian Advanced Pilot Training. Of course, you can always PM me through here as well.

     

    In short, it is a bit of a minefield, but it is not impossible. And believe it or not, you may even find it interesting!

     

    phil


  8. Yes, there would be telephone/skype support - we already do classes by videoconferencing in Europe. The $2000 I quoted was for the commercial - the PPL(H) would be a lot cheaper. Is it 80 hours these days? We have time logging software that will record that for the authorities.

     

    I guess you need to talk to the school concerned - most of them know my stuff (if they don't try Electrocution's Aviation Books). They also know Culhane.

     

    Phil


  9. I may have a way out of this. I know Rob was trying to get an online course together, but the costs were horrendous. However, I already have a distance learning course for helicopter pilots for Europe. It wouldn't take much work to adapt it for Canada, and Transport tell me that as long as a CFI certifies it, that's good enough.

     

    It's not CBT (yet), although I have just come across some software that will cut the costs for that drastically, but it's paper based, meaning you can study anywhere, but the progress tests will be available online.

     

    If there's a market for that kind of thing I coud have it up and running inside a month. I reckon the costs would be approx $2000

     

    What does the panel think?

     

    Phil


  10. I found that trifocal progressives were a) expensive and B) made my neck hurt when I had to keep moving my head up and down to read anything with the bottom part of the lens. As it happens, I only need them for reading, but as I'm too lazy to keep reaching into my pocket I settled on bifocals (that I wear permanently) adjusted for the instruments, but I spent some time to ensure that the line across the lens coincided with the top of the instrument panel (on the 212). For some reason the specs for bifocals from the CAA (in UK) seem to like the smallest possible area under the line, which is now further down, but this brings in the same head movement problems mentioned above. Go figure.

     

    This means that I need two pairs, one for flying and one for reading, but it works fine for me.


  11. There was one at Remote Helicopters during 2003 and another at Canadian a little bit further North. Luckily both were on the ground at the time, but the Remote incident was such that a guy who was fairly strong couldn't pull the cyclic back. Don't know about the Canadian one because it wasn't officially recorded. At least, not initially.

     

    There is no proof, as far as I am aware, that the OMNR machine was subject to that, but maybe someone else knows more about it.

     

    BTW, in the Remote machine, the cyclic went over to the left.

     

    Phil

×
×
  • Create New...