Jump to content

Sticky

Member
  • Content Count

    42
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Sticky

  1. Well I didn't get my HGU-84 helmet :( , it was on e-bay and I bid up to $400.00 for it.  The thing jumped at the last second to apporx. $600.00 from $300.00.  I am gonna keep looking though.

    Helmets are a pet peeve of mine.

     

    Norm, in your career as a helicopter pilot you will invariably go through many flight suits, work boots, gloves, GPS's and other personal ops gear but you will probably only own one helmet. If you cheap out and get a used helmet from EBay you may find that it was someone's toss away that maybe got dropped off the top shelf or worse.

     

    And fit is of huge importance because you will be wearing this thing for hours on end in the cockpit (hopefully)...if its flopping around on your head or squeezing your temples till your eyes pop out then it will make the day feel doubly as long.

     

    Get a new helmet from a reputable source with the proper earphones, microphone, and cord for a civilian helicopter (ex-military helmets will cost you upwards of $300.00 to modify to civilian spec) and make sure that it is the correct size for your noggin. Get a dual visor if you can - clear and tinted. Gentex SPH-5's are reasonably priced and a proven design...and should be the minimum helmet you consider.

     

    It may seem expensive now but what's it really worth to you if and when you need that protection? Besides, in twenty years you can probably still sell it on EBay to some unwitting new helicopter pilot for a profit...

  2. A valid argument can be made to rationalize either of your options.

     

    If you're willing to expend the cash for another 5-10 hours in the spring to refresh your skills then flying this fall is viable - just not ideal from a continuity perspective. You may find after this four-week layoff that getting back into the groove will be frustrating and you'll arrive at your own conclusion anyway.

     

    Personally, flying helicopters is a career choice that deserves your undivided attention so if you can gather the funds by next season I would wait and dedicate yourself to the task.

  3. Generally speaking a prospective pilot should be taught to hover before being taught hovering autorotations.

    I don't think you can ever introduce any autorotations too early in a pilot's training. I always included one as a demo manoeuvre from the first lesson onwards to remove any mystique and anxiety about them. When they actually got to do one for themselves is another issue but certainly before first solo they would have seen and done many. Its a basic survival skill after all.

     

    RW, its already been said by others but I too appreciate you providing the details of the accident so we can all learn from it...and of course remove any speculation. I'm sure there will be a few instructors out there reading your comments who will subconsciously follow through a little closer on the controls with their students for a while. Based on what you said it sounds like you have a solid and calm individual for an instructor. Count yourself lucky and hang on to him.

     

    As for your employability...I think you could bring the pictures to an interview and it wouldn't have a negative impact as this was simply a training accident. (BTW, I'm being facetious about the pictures...pls don't bring them to your first meeting with the Chief Pilot because I said it was OK :unsure: ).

     

    Get back in the cockpit as soon as you can. :up:

  4. The TC Instrument Procedures Manual should have the answer, unfortunately, I'm on the road and don't have a copy handy. The rule of thumb, as I recall, is:

     

    Intercepting outbound - looking at the ADF, you go from the tail of the needle to the desired track plus 45 degrees (tail to desired plus 45)...if the tail initially indicates 250 and you want to intercept the 280 outbound you steer 325 (plus/minus wind); and

     

    Intercepting inbound - looking at the ADF, you go from the desired track to the head of the needle and add 30 degrees (desired to head plus 30)...if your desired inbound track is 100 and the head of the needle indicates 150 you steer 180 (plus/minus wind).

  5. I'm currently using Eric Bradley's FLTDUTY XLS (ver 2.01) and it has most of the functionality that I need (702/703 rotary-wing operation); however, it seems a little dated (can't back up to anything other than the A:\ drive, no automatic calculation of days off last 42, etc...). I also maintain a "hand-raulic" version but the math can be quite taxing at times... :blink:

     

    Despite TC apparently distancing themselves from supporting the use of electronic flight duty software, what are people using these days in the field on their laptops and/or PDAs to calculate their flight duty times? Google searches leave me empty handed.

  6. I have had three pilot's sign off my different endorsements, none of them had "the course" so is this just someone screwing up in the office?  Also I would appreciate the reference for this rule if anyone knows.  CARS/AIP?

    CARS 421.40 Blanket and Individual Type Ratings

    (3) Within the 12 months preceding the application for the rating, an applicant for an individual aircraft type rating for a helicopter with a minimum flight crew requirement of one pilot shall have successfully completed:

     

    (i) a flight test, on the helicopter type, for the issue of a Private or Commercial Pilot Licence - Helicopter; or

     

    (ii) a Pilot Proficiency Check on the helicopter type; or

     

    (iii) a qualifying flight under the supervision of a person qualified in accordance with CAR 425.21(7)(b ).

     

    -----

     

    CARS 425.21

    (7) A person who conducts flight training toward the issuance of an aircraft type rating shall: (fixed-wing stuff snipped)

     

    (b ) in the case of training a holder of a helicopter pilot permit or pilot licence:

     

    (i) be the holder of a Commercial Pilot Licence or an Airline Transport Pilot Licence; and

     

    (ii) have experience of not less than 10 hours flight time on the type of helicopter used for the training.

  7. Give us all a break and turn it over to the private sector.

    Hmmm, a private sector military...I think they call them "Mercenaries"... :blink:

     

    The loss of heavy-lift has always been a sore point since DND sold the CF's Chinooks to the Dutch and then forced them to go with one common airframe (Griffon) to fulfill what was once done with three types (Kiowa, Huey, Chinook). The ultimate embarassment was relying on Chinook support from the Americans in Afghanistan because Canada couldn't provide their own helicopters that were capable of operating in those conditions. My spidey-senses tell me that we'll see combat-capable heavy-lift helos in Canadian military colours within 18-24 months.

     

    If anyone is going to fix what has been ailing the military, it will be Gen Hillier. He has the charisma to kick the politicians in the *** and make them think it was their idea. Insofaras Canadian generals go, he is somewhat unique in his broad understanding of joint operations and his dynamic and forthright approach to problems. He will put the proper focus on the army and subtley remind the airforce and navy that they are the supporting services without devaluing their import. I think we'll see a more unified and clarified CF than in the past.

     

    My only fear is that Hillier's time as CDS is finite and his vision will undoubtedly take longer to execute than he has available. His legacy will have to be moved forward by his successors and change of this magnitude will need constant momentum and consistency in application to succeed. I predict some outstanding short-term successes for the CF on the horizon but overall it will become FUBAR once the politicians start jumping on the bandwagon trying to implement their own self-serving "next great idea" without regard for the wider picture.

  8. Sticky ------ why would all of the latter have to be precluded from civilian instructors being involved? It's not " rocket science" and if something called for it to be taught according to some military syllabus, then what would prevent the IP's from doing so? Am I missing something here? The only difference between the instructing in all facets of the training at Ft Rucker is that the instructors are civilian......other than that, it's all exactly the same as it was with the military IP's before.

    No slight intended cap, I didn't preclude it...it was stated by HP in the opening of this thread that civilian instructors would do ab initio and the advanced training would be done by military pilots. None of the helicopter training currently conducted in Portage, except for perhaps formation work and NVGs (if that becomes part of the syllabus), requires unique military skills in order to teach the course so civilians would be well suited to do all of the training. The QFI course is quite demanding and would adequately prepare anyone unfamiliar with military training methods to teach in Portage. And I'm fairly certain civilians would allow dual-rating of instructors so they could teach both phases of the course...

     

    The only disadvantage to having 100% civilian instructors is all the fuel that would be spilled on the ramp from their morning DIs :shock: ...just kidding :)

  9. Dual qualification, would work if they do not make the requirements so intense for both types. As the rules are now it would not work and the plan is to make guys either Jet Box drivers only or 412/A109 only.

    Too bad because it would be a nice perk of the job. I instructed in Portage when we had a mixed fleet of CH-136s and CH-139s for one year and the extra hoops we had to go through to qualify on both types were cumbersome considering they were really both just JetRangers of similar flavour. I was just curious if there would be a change in the wind for this contract. For skullcap, I used to drain my fuel on the JetBox DI whenever I was away from base on a x-country. I'm pretty sure it was a requirement of the DI and away trips were the only time pilots did a full DI (called a "B" Check back then) since the techs always did them in garrison. Instructors/students would just do a pre-flight once the techs signed off the "B" Check.

    Many things may yet change of course but there exists a good chance the B06 will go to civil instructors which I might add I have no problems with at all. The Air Force is currently very well served by current contractors in both maintenance and flying.

    I'm all for civilian instructors taking over some of the instructional duties on the helo course and I may have spoken out of turn when I said you wouldn't get many qualified guys taking the job. It sounds like a nice cushy job on the surface but I think it would become quite mundane :wacko: in short order since all the good parts (nav, IF, x-countries, and basic NVG I presume) of the course will be handled by the military side of the house. I could be wrong though.

  10. Let's also not confuse "operational availability" with "serviceability". Operational availability normally means that if a unit with say eight aircraft is responsible for generating five lines of tasking (ie. five aircraft must be available constantly for missions 24 hrs day) and it manages to provide aircraft to satisfy their responsiblity for that 24-hr period, then the availability rate would be 100%. So add in refueling, turn-arounds, aircraft swaps, crew changes, snags, hard unservicabilities, normal maintenance, scheduling problems, weather delays, etc... you can see the availability rate drops dramatically - even substantially less than the servicability rate. So the Airbus probably has a 99% rating because of how often its expected to be tasked. I don't have firsthand knowledge of the tasking schedule for the Airbus, but I'm sure not all five aircraft are expected to fly every day, all day. Beancounters :hide: love to throw these numbers around like they mean something but the number game really has little bearing on the true picture. When the machines are in the field working, they fly...and they fly a lot. Minor snags are noted but not rectified until the techs can get to it without affecting operations. In garrison there is less pressure to fly with problems so the time is taken to fix a snag even if a mission has to be delayed or cancelled.

     

    In short, its apples and oranges...you can't compare how commercial operators do it with how the military functions. I love flying commercially because its me, my machine, an engineer, and a job to do for four to six weeks at a time. In the military, its you, your crew, the Sqn maintenance organization, restrictive flying rules, leave requirements, mandatory career courses, continual military skills training, secondary duties, staffwork, social obligations, unexpected deployments, ad infinitum...none of which is truly bad, its just not what you get in the commercial world where an aircraft on the ground can't generate revenue which truly IS a bad thing.

     

    Truth be told, in the military the bulk of my "real" work for the day started after I got out of the cockpit...

  11. The new two type system will mean that the Jet Ranger instructors no longer do any cross country trips, no navigation and only basic instrument flying in the local area. We won't even be allowed to take the machines to Winnipeg. Military pilots are not interested in coming to Portage and be completely restricted to the local airfield for four years. It will be impossible to entice pilots for this job, they will only be interested in flying the twin, whichever one is used.

    This may be outside the box, but why not make the instructors dual-rated - then they could do ab-initio and the advanced training...now there's some incentive to take a posting to Portage. Instead, you're looking for 45 instructors to turn out 45-50 helicopter pilots every year. :blink:

    Hmmm...

     

    I'm sure I'm not being innovative and that the concept of dual-rating the instructors has most likely been discussed by those at the table but I'd be interested to know what the major stumbling block is...currency, competency on type, cost, disruption of ricebowls?

     

    I know I'm over-simplifying the issue Hover-Pig (Sluggo, n'est pas?), but having been in your chair once I know it really wouldn't be that big a deal. And I certainly wouldn't expect a lineup of (qualified) civilian helicopter pilots to suddenly appear at the door to handle the JetRanger instruction part of the school. We're all motivated by the same things really.

     

    Anyway, I was just curious...

  12. Duf  ------I was "pulling your leg" buddy. The latex glove comes when he feels that you are at the possible age to need it. Did I just say "need"? Slap my face.....nobody "needs" that, but alas it should be done to old "goats".

    And if you feel two hands on your shoulders... :shock: you better hope one of them belongs to the nurse.

     

    The good news cap is that they can accomplish the prostate check with a simple blood test nowadays instead of the latex glove...I did just that last week. Much more, ummmm, civilized.

     

    Excellent advice on the volunteering of info. The CAME is only checking to see that you aren't going to pass away in the cockpit. Ideally your CAME would be a pilot since he'd have a better appreciation of your plight should he find something wrong with you. Not easy to find one though.

  13. I agree with donnybrook. Do as much of your IFR training in a small fixed-wing as you can because IFR is IFR - the platform isn't that important in the early stages. A fixed-wing is cheaper and more stable and will make grasping the basics so much easier and a whole lot cheaper (just don't tell your friends you flew a fixed-wing). Self-study is a good way to cut costs but there are strengths in studying in a structured group environment. You will have lots of questions in the beginning and its nice to hear other's questions as well...and hearing the correct answers from an experienced instructor.

     

    I used Culhane's when I did my INRAT and, as Phil said, you need a fairly solid background in instrument procedures to use it as sole source guidance...not for an IFR newbie unless you want to use it to crosscheck your knowledge.

     

    Computer-based sims are great for putting theory into practice before you fork over the big bucks to fly them in the actual aircraft but be sure you're doing the procedures correctly before you imprint any bad habits. IFR is largely procedural and bad habits are hard to erase once they've been practiced a lot.

     

    Training for IFR at night is great advice after you've gotten some of the basics under your belt. Reading approach plates by flashlight isn't great when you're starting out. Outside visual cues are usually a bigger distraction than a benefit (they can really contribute to "the leans") so night flight takes away that problem and many times you can even fly without the hood. There may be less traffic at night as well. Also, find a school that is willing to do actual cloud time...its a whole different ballgame than hood time.

     

    Find a good IFR checklist that includes enroute procedures and use it. Memorize things like the level-off check and pre-descent check so you can be thinking well ahead before level-off or descent. Cockpit management is so important when operating IMC so strict checklist usage is critical to success.

     

    Enjoy. Flying under IFR is challenging and a well executed flight is extremely rewarding. Its money well spent.

  14. my question is what's it like to try and keep everything so steady.. found myself wondering about the rotorwash created by each disk so close to each other... and how much turbulence you are trying to compensate for...

     

    the same went on liftoff... must be some pretty good co-ordination on the pitch pull.. :shock:  B)

    If both machines are into wind then the rotorwash will tend to flow down and aft, therefore, won't affect the other helicopter appreciably. On takeoff, if both lift off the ground into a high hover at the same time they will avoid each others rotorwash as well and the timing of pulling pitch can easily be coordinated on the radio. What looks hard on TV sometimes really isn't - they just build up the drama for effect although I never saw this Fear Factor episode so maybe it was harder than I imagine... :wacko:

     

    form.jpg

     

    Me...in the middle (summer 1990). We're halfway through a line abreast formation 360 degree pedal turn...and no problems with rotorwash.

     

    I remember watching a TV show when I was a kid of a guy hovering a 206. He had a little robotic arm on the toe of the right skid and he had to prepare a bowl of cereal - milk and all, just using the arm. I was pretty impressed back then but in reality, with some practice, it's probably within the capability of your average helicopter pilot.

     

    I guess I shouldn't make this stuff sound too easy or everyone will want to be a helicopter pilot. :huh:

  15. here is another prime example as to why it would be nice to have a preliminary reporting system in place much like the FAA has.

    I agree ####. The Canadian Forces has a similar system in place and it works very well. After an accident/incident Flight Safety issues an initial report to the flying communities as soon as possible so that everyone can increase their vigilance. Its amazing what it can do to help you "readjust" your flying habits after you read one. Supplemental reports are issued as key info comes available and then it finally gets published in a summary once the event is wrapped up and the findings have been made. You can see some here: Flight Safety Summaries

     

    I know from my experience this summer, after a company lost a machine during refueling I had a hard look at my personal technique; however, the only way I heard about this incident was through the grapevine...sometimes effective but certainly not ideal.

     

    I'm not sure how the FAA does it...there needs to be a certain degree of openess and I think most operators would be hesitant to contribute meaningfully to the system and subsequently put a spotlight on their operations...no matter how squeeky clean they are. I could be wrong. That's not saying it can't be done...

  16. P.S. Sticky, what was that about a "shortline bucket"? Are they still making those?

    I fly a 212 on RapAttack so no sticks in the left seat (AB forestry policy)...as you can imagine it makes longline bucketing a REAL challenge ;) ... you need either extremely long arms to fly from the left or a giraffe-like neck in the right seat. Shortline is the order of the day and it really makes for a nice, quick, low-level circuit in the flatlands of Northern Alberta so I enjoy it nonetheless... although you sometimes get pretty up close and personal with larger fires... :blink:

  17. For such a simple question its hard to nail the exact answer. I never intended to be a helicopter pilot when I started my flying career a couple decades ago...it just worked out that way...and I wouldn't change a thing.

     

    Helicopters offer a truly unique experience each and every day. Rarely do I land at an "airport" and 1000 feet and below is the norm for cruise. I fly for forestry during the summer months and its usually me, the machine, a keen forestry crew and a new challenge. You can't beat a good fire, a nearby water source, a shortline bucket, and a few other helicopters in the mix for pure fun. Once everyone finds their groove its magic. Geez, only five months to the start of next season...

  18. It doesn't invalidate the book, and comments like those below are completely uncalled for:

    "The author's comments make the rest of the book suspect...(Sticky)"

    My apologies. After rereading my post last night I realized that I was being a little flippant about a book that I have not read myself and that's not fair to you nor your book.

     

    My concern for the way the tailrotor is described in that paragraph still stands though and Ryan is my case in point. He's now left with the notion that the 206 tailrotor can withstand significant abuse and will still get you home. Based on the strength of an idea, this may leave him just a bit more vulnerable in his future operations as a helicopter pilot.

     

    Again, my sincere apologies.

  19. The author's comments make the rest of the book suspect...

     

    Perhaps he's boldly quoting something Bell used in its sales propaganda for its 1960s'ish bid to woo the US Army but I'm pretty sure that the loss of 50% of a blade would cause enough imbalance to shear the bolts securing the T/R gearbox or the T/R shaft. I know of a Bell 412 that lost about 18 inches of one T/R blade while in flight and the gearbox followed shortly thereafter. :(

     

    His point about it being a pusher is odd as well. Here's a good site that explains the difference between a pusher (ie. Bell 206) and a tractor (ie. Bell 212) type tail rotor.

     

    http://www.enae.umd.edu/AGRC/Aero/tailrotors.html

     

    Do you still have your receipt? <_<

     

    Keep studying and don't take everything you read at face value. If you can find a copy you should read "Helicopter Aerodynamics" by R.W. Prouty. Fairly technical but well worth the money.

    --

    Sticky

  20. I think in a written forum environment such as this, you just have to accept that you will have all manners of discussions here. "IP blocking" those who have controversial ways of expressing themselves would be counterproductive. I like to hear all sides of the fence to get a balanced perspective of our business - whether the comments are rational and well-worded or just blowing-off-some-steam rants - it shouldn't matter. I think we're all mature enough to apply our own filters.

     

    BV - sorry to hear about your job situation and I hope there are better days ahead, but don't blame it all on foreigners taking BC jobs. That kind of thinking makes life very insular. I live in BC but work in Alberta. Perhaps I'll do some international work later on. Am I taking jobs from someone else in their province/country? Maybe, maybe not, but we should be free to work wherever we choose...isn't that part of the reason we're helicopter pilots?

     

    As for a union...don't get me started (yes, I voted "No" in the poll). I think they would hurt more than they heal but truth-told I have no direct experience with a union and what they can offer. I have, however, worked side-by-side with union employees and am fully aware of the apathy unionization can create in the worker's approach in quality performance of their duties. My feeling is that this industry can, and should, be largely self-regulating and could be better achieved through a community-accepted professional body providing some guidance and oversight in establishing standards, promoting ethical business practices and perhaps even providing some ombudsmanship - and I don't mean a union nor TC intervention here :rolleyes: . Unions are heavy-handed and seem to create an adversarial relationship with "management" - not healthy in my estimation. I like the concept of HEPAC but need to understand its agenda better before I offer my support. All I'm saying is don't jump on the Union bandwagon hoping it will cure your ill - I don't think its that simple.

     

    My $0.02 for tonight.

×
×
  • Create New...