I hope the injured personnel make a full recovery, the fact that no one was killed is a testament to the pilot's skill and training, well done!

Or far more likely a testament to the sturdy design and construction of the helicopter, a very high percentage of

aviation accidents are caused by pilot error, rather than mechanical failure.

Not all accidents involving aircraft are caused by pilot error, it does happen but is not the sole cause, mechanical failure does happen, I don't believe automatically blaming the pilot is right unless the facts are known to point at the pilot.

I hope the injured personnel make a full recovery, the fact that no one was killed is a testament to the pilot's skill and training, well done!

Or far more likely a testament to the sturdy design and construction of the helicopter, a very high percentage of

aviation accidents are caused by pilot error, rather than mechanical failure.

Not all accidents involving aircraft are caused by pilot error, it does happen but is not the sole cause, mechanical failure does happen, I don't believe automatically blaming the pilot is right unless the facts are known to point at the pilot.

You are of course absolutely right TT but history and statistics clearly show that more aviation accidents are caused by

pilot error than mechanical or engineering fault. I am not aware that anyone on the thread has laid any blame on the pilot

in this instance and your assumption that the pilot saved the day is well off as you clearly state the facts are not yet known

so your " well done " is hardly deserved as it is quite possible that the pilot caused the helicopter to crash in the first place!!!

"A US Marine helicopter on Wednesday made a "hard landing""

No landing where all can basicly walk or be carried away from alive is a bad landing. Mind you, it's either the weather, those military pilots or just the bloody flying contraption itself, but helicopters seem somewhat less safe than other means of transportation (even though in these heli's you don't need to open a door to get rid of your cigar stomp)

Statistics show that this is not actually true; but I agree, the common perception amongst the general public is that helicopters 'are dangerous'

I'd be interested in seeing those statistics. I have been a passenger in hundreds of helo flights and my impression has always been that the helo flight was much more dangerous then the plane flight to get there. Although I don't have any hard stats to back it up I am fairly sure that more oil workers die in helo crashes then are killed in airplane crashes.

If its off shore you refer to, there's a reason for that. Fixed wing aircraft don't do the transport. Either by sea or helicopter.

I stand corrected, being ex-military and knowing the standard of pilot training in the military I automatically put mechanical failure before pilot error.

I hope the injured personnel make a full recovery, the fact that no one was killed is a testament to the pilot's skill and training, well done!

The pilot made a hard landing, they are trained not to, so the skill must have failed for a minute there.

Totally impossible to arrive at that conclusion.

I'd be interested in seeing those statistics. I have been a passenger in hundreds of helo flights and my impression has always been that the helo flight was much more dangerous then the plane flight to get there. Although I don't have any hard stats to back it up I am fairly sure that more oil workers die in helo crashes then are killed in airplane crashes.

Well flying in the offshore environment is dangerous, and depending on where you are it proves to be some of the most demanding flying that there is, often as a result of atrocious weather conditions at sea. Of course more oil workers have died in Helicopter crashes than fixed wing, because they have to use helicopters for off shore ops. I haven't seen anyone try to do a crew change on a rig using an Airbus, but hey maybe some one might. Watch them try to stick an Airbus or a 737 on a platforms landing deck and see how many oil workers are killed then!

As an Engineer servicing helicopters for 30 yrs, a hard landing may occur if the helicopter is below the safety Auto-rotation height of 300 feet this is death mans curve, also zero airspeed when this occurs...usually take off condition. Over weight condition while in the take off mode. Wind direction..down wind assures a slow climbing speed through the dead mans curve. Maintenance check to see if auto-revs are set while in flight to see if the rotor speed while descending stays in green range est 300 rpm of rotor speed indicator. Over gross will make the helicopter descend very quickly and a maintenance check will show this...adjust the pitch links on main rotor blades. Flying over water with floats on skids the pilot does not have a reference..like in a snow storm all white out..on ocean no vertical reference...the water comes up and decent must be slow and with caution... well enough..oh yes a tail rotor failure will cause the helicopter to Yaw and power must be cut..allowing helicopter to keep a forward decent and again the helicopter must be high enough to safely land. Any more questions I can address..lets see the accident report...Rotor Ron...

Rotor Ron

Nice try but a fail...sorry! As a Military Helicopter Pilot for almost 20 years, this is why there are Engineer's and Pilot's. Why would anyone want to 'assure themselves' of a slow climbing speed through the 'Dead Mans Curve' (Your expression not mine), on the contrary Pilots avoid those flight conditions as much as possible and are always planning an 'escape route' should they find themselves in an undesirable part of the flight envelope. We only ever depart down wind if we have to or if you are lazy (and therefore unprofessional). When you have an engine failure or a tail rotor failure, It is irrelevant if the aircraft is at 3000 ft or 300 ft providing you have airspeed, the only difference is in the time available to make a quality decision and the time available to select the landing area that offers the best outcome. At zero airspeed there are techniques that are well practiced to get you on the ground safely, but the landing is likely to spill the passengers Gin and Tonic that's for sure. There are a number of mechanical problems that can result in a heavy landing, just as there are a number of issues that could be attributed to Human Error, that would result in a heavy landing, loss of Situational Awareness or entering Vortex ring being just a few of many. The truth is that with so many possible reasons, it is impossible to speculate with the remotest accuracy and why aviators would normally prefer to hear at least the preliminary findings of an investigation board, before arriving at any cause group. By the way Ron, not having a go, just correcting you, and if I came back to base with an aircraft that had a problem, I would simply tell you the symptoms, as I know you would come up with a better technical solution than me, that's our jobs

I hope the injured personnel make a full recovery, the fact that no one was killed is a testament to the pilot's skill and training, well done!

Or far more likely a testament to the sturdy design and construction of the helicopter, a very high percentage of

aviation accidents are caused by pilot error, rather than mechanical failure.

Not all accidents involving aircraft are caused by pilot error, it does happen but is not the sole cause, mechanical failure does happen, I don't believe automatically blaming the pilot is right unless the facts are known to point at the pilot.

You are of course absolutely right TT but history and statistics clearly show that more aviation accidents are caused by

pilot error than mechanical or engineering fault. I am not aware that anyone on the thread has laid any blame on the pilot

in this instance and your assumption that the pilot saved the day is well off as you clearly state the facts are not yet known

so your " well done " is hardly deserved as it is quite possible that the pilot caused the helicopter to crash in the first place!!!

Almost right but wrong! What the statistics tell you is that more aviation accidents are caused by Human Error than catastrophic failure of an aircraft system or component. That human error could be the pilot making a poor decision or exhibiting bad flying technique, It could be the Air Traffic controller making a huge error of judgement, but could also be the engineer that fitted a component incorrectly or completely forgot to fit a component (such as a screw or bolt), because he answered his mobile in the middle of a job when Mum called. I have as many statistics as you want. After leaving Military flying ops I started a company delivering Crew Resource Management training and Human Factors training for Pilots, Engineers and others. The company still operates all over the world with clients covering the entire spectrum of aviation operations, both commercial and military.

I stand corrected, being ex-military and knowing the standard of pilot training in the military I automatically put mechanical failure before pilot error.

Tom you may be right both ways. Yes military pilots are trained to a very high standard. The machines are normally well maintained. The operational environment that military, particularly rotary wing, pilots have to operate in increases the risk quite a bit as they do fly in parameters that a normal civilian pilot may not encounter. Examples of this would be formation flying at night under NVG, brown outs in places ending in Stan etc. I am not saying that's the case here but their operations are certainly not "sedate"

Much the same way as a crop duster pilot has a far greater risk than a 747 captain.

Helicopters traditionally aren't very forgiving when critical components fail though.

I stand corrected, being ex-military and knowing the standard of pilot training in the military I automatically put mechanical failure before pilot error.

Tom you may be right both ways. Yes military pilots are trained to a very high standard. The machines are normally well maintained. The operational environment that military, particularly rotary wing, pilots have to operate in increases the risk quite a bit as they do fly in parameters that a normal civilian pilot may not encounter. Examples of this would be formation flying at night under NVG, brown outs in places ending in Stan etc. I am not saying that's the case here but their operations are certainly not "sedate"

Much the same way as a crop duster pilot has a far greater risk than a 747 captain.

Helicopters traditionally aren't very forgiving when critical components fail though.

My fingers have suddenly started trembling and I feel in need of a large G&T (it seemed fun at the time )

Tom

bless you fella for those kind words, but military pilots do screw it up, I guess the point is that for such a short non technical news article we simply have no idea yet what happened. All I know that if it were mechanical or indeed human error, I am thankful that everyone survived and wish the injured a speedy and full recovery.

Or far more likely a testament to the sturdy design and construction of the helicopter, a very high percentage of

aviation accidents are caused by pilot error, rather than mechanical failure.

Not all accidents involving aircraft are caused by pilot error, it does happen but is not the sole cause, mechanical failure does happen, I don't believe automatically blaming the pilot is right unless the facts are known to point at the pilot.

You are of course absolutely right TT but history and statistics clearly show that more aviation accidents are caused by

pilot error than mechanical or engineering fault. I am not aware that anyone on the thread has laid any blame on the pilot

in this instance and your assumption that the pilot saved the day is well off as you clearly state the facts are not yet known

so your " well done " is hardly deserved as it is quite possible that the pilot caused the helicopter to crash in the first place!!!

Almost right but wrong! What the statistics tell you is that more aviation accidents are caused by Human Error than catastrophic failure of an aircraft system or component. That human error could be the pilot making a poor decision or exhibiting bad flying technique, It could be the Air Traffic controller making a huge error of judgement, but could also be the engineer that fitted a component incorrectly or completely forgot to fit a component (such as a screw or bolt), because he answered his mobile in the middle of a job when Mum called. I have as many statistics as you want. After leaving Military flying ops I started a company delivering Crew Resource Management training and Human Factors training for Pilots, Engineers and others. The company still operates all over the world with clients covering the entire spectrum of aviation operations, both commercial and military.

As I said PILOT ERROR is the most common cause of aviation accidents.

Source.

http://www.lawfirms.com/resources/personal-injury/aviation/causes-aviation-accidents.htm

Human Error.

The most common cause of aviation accidents is human error, usually by the pilot (53% of all accidents) or other person (8% of all accidents.) Although the error made by the pilot usually occurs during the flight or whilst taxiing on the runway, other errors occur outside the aircraft, for example during maintenance work, fuelling, or while loading the aircraft. The Federal Aviation Administration controls air traffic through the Air Traffic Control System, or ATC. If there is a question as to whether an air traffic controller may have been at fault, e.g. after a mid-air collision, then it may be that the US Government is liable for damages.

Your company can operate all over the universe, but facts are facts Gentleman Jim

Back to helicopters, I think my perception of them being somewhat less safe than aeroplanes may be colored by the fact that helicopters tend to be flown in weather and terrain conditions where no one would even think of flying a plane. That distorts the picture somewhat.

Off-topic posts deleted.

Not all accidents involving aircraft are caused by pilot error, it does happen but is not the sole cause, mechanical failure does happen, I don't believe automatically blaming the pilot is right unless the facts are known to point at the pilot.

You are of course absolutely right TT but history and statistics clearly show that more aviation accidents are caused by

pilot error than mechanical or engineering fault. I am not aware that anyone on the thread has laid any blame on the pilot

in this instance and your assumption that the pilot saved the day is well off as you clearly state the facts are not yet known

so your " well done " is hardly deserved as it is quite possible that the pilot caused the helicopter to crash in the first place!!!

Almost right but wrong! What the statistics tell you is that more aviation accidents are caused by Human Error than catastrophic failure of an aircraft system or component. That human error could be the pilot making a poor decision or exhibiting bad flying technique, It could be the Air Traffic controller making a huge error of judgement, but could also be the engineer that fitted a component incorrectly or completely forgot to fit a component (such as a screw or bolt), because he answered his mobile in the middle of a job when Mum called. I have as many statistics as you want. After leaving Military flying ops I started a company delivering Crew Resource Management training and Human Factors training for Pilots, Engineers and others. The company still operates all over the world with clients covering the entire spectrum of aviation operations, both commercial and military.

As I said PILOT ERROR is the most common cause of aviation accidents.

Source.

http://www.lawfirms....n-accidents.htm

Human Error.

The most common cause of aviation accidents is human error, usually by the pilot (53% of all accidents) or other person (8% of all accidents.) Although the error made by the pilot usually occurs during the flight or whilst taxiing on the runway, other errors occur outside the aircraft, for example during maintenance work, fuelling, or while loading the aircraft. The Federal Aviation Administration controls air traffic through the Air Traffic Control System, or ATC. If there is a question as to whether an air traffic controller may have been at fault, e.g. after a mid-air collision, then it may be that the US Government is liable for damages.

Your company can operate all over the universe, but facts are facts Gentleman Jim

One of the key things about preventing further human error is the ability to take any critical feedback or have a discussion without taking it personal Phuketjock. Please do not quote some rubbish law firms statistics, or some other quotation from elsewhere on the net about liability of ATCO's with the FAA

I was a member of the United Kingdom Standing Committee on Human Factors in Aviation. I was a member of the initial team that worked tirelessly to set up all the standards that are now adopted world-wide by all the aviation regulatory bodies. The FAA lifted its entire policy in terms of standards in HF from the UKCAA and JAA (before EASA). If you break down Human Error related incidents then the operating crew will come out as number 1 on the list, as they have their hands on the stick for most of the time. The point is that in an incident such as this where we know absolutely no details then why try and aim the blame at the Pilot? It could be any number of Humans in the chain of events and there are many people on here that don't understand that the Human Error cause group contains many many more people than pilots. Depending on what statistics you look at from what regulatory body or organization, Human Error is responsible for 65%-83% of aircraft accidents. Material science and the incredible rate of improvement of maintenance procedures, is indeed reducing the number of incidents where human error in engineers is manifesting itself, but it is still a large part of the over all contribution of Human Error towards incidents and accidents. The fact that will please you is that in 20 years the machine will be so good and the predictive maintenance, so good, that by then 95% of all accidents will be caused by Human Error.

 

Not all accidents involving aircraft are caused by pilot error, it does happen but is not the sole cause, mechanical failure does happen, I don't believe automatically blaming the pilot is right unless the facts are known to point at the pilot.

You are of course absolutely right TT but history and statistics clearly show that more aviation accidents are caused by

pilot error than mechanical or engineering fault. I am not aware that anyone on the thread has laid any blame on the pilot

in this instance and your assumption that the pilot saved the day is well off as you clearly state the facts are not yet known

so your " well done " is hardly deserved as it is quite possible that the pilot caused the helicopter to crash in the first place!!!

Almost right but wrong! What the statistics tell you is that more aviation accidents are caused by Human Error than catastrophic failure of an aircraft system or component. That human error could be the pilot making a poor decision or exhibiting bad flying technique, It could be the Air Traffic controller making a huge error of judgement, but could also be the engineer that fitted a component incorrectly or completely forgot to fit a component (such as a screw or bolt), because he answered his mobile in the middle of a job when Mum called. I have as many statistics as you want. After leaving Military flying ops I started a company delivering Crew Resource Management training and Human Factors training for Pilots, Engineers and others. The company still operates all over the world with clients covering the entire spectrum of aviation operations, both commercial and military.

As I said PILOT ERROR is the most common cause of aviation accidents.

Source.

http://www.lawfirms....n-accidents.htm

Human Error.

The most common cause of aviation accidents is human error, usually by the pilot (53% of all accidents) or other person (8% of all accidents.) Although the error made by the pilot usually occurs during the flight or whilst taxiing on the runway, other errors occur outside the aircraft, for example during maintenance work, fuelling, or while loading the aircraft. The Federal Aviation Administration controls air traffic through the Air Traffic Control System, or ATC. If there is a question as to whether an air traffic controller may have been at fault, e.g. after a mid-air collision, then it may be that the US Government is liable for damages.

Your company can operate all over the universe, but facts are facts Gentleman Jim

One of the key things about preventing further human error is the ability to take any critical feedback or have a discussion without taking it personal Phuketjock. Please do not quote some rubbish law firms statistics, or some other quotation from elsewhere on the net about liability of ATCO's with the FAA

I was a member of the United Kingdom Standing Committee on Human Factors in Aviation. I was a member of the initial team that worked tirelessly to set up all the standards that are now adopted world-wide by all the aviation regulatory bodies. The FAA lifted its entire policy in terms of standards in HF from the UKCAA and JAA (before EASA). If you break down Human Error related incidents then the operating crew will come out as number 1 on the list, as they have their hands on the stick for most of the time. The point is that in an incident such as this where we know absolutely no details then why try and aim the blame at the Pilot? It could be any number of Humans in the chain of events and there are many people on here that don't understand that the Human Error cause group contains many many more people than pilots. Depending on what statistics you look at from what regulatory body or organization, Human Error is responsible for 65%-83% of aircraft accidents. Material science and the incredible rate of improvement of maintenance procedures, is indeed reducing the number of incidents where human error in engineers is manifesting itself, but it is still a large part of the over all contribution of Human Error towards incidents and accidents. The fact that will please you is that in 20 years the machine will be so good and the predictive maintenance, so good, that by then 95% of all accidents will be caused by Human Error.

 

Source,

http://airlinesafety.com/editorials/HumanErrorVsTerrorism.htm

Accident Causes by Category (percent)

Cause 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s Total

Pilot Error 41 34 27 28 27 31

Pilot Error (weather related) 9 17 14 15 14 14

Pilot Error (mechanical related) 6 5 4 3 4 4

Total Pilot Error 56 56 45 46 45 49

Other Human Error 2 7 8 6 8 7

Weather 16 11 15 15 14 14

Mechanical Failure 20 19 19 19 24 21

Sabotage 5 4 11 13 8 8

Other Cause 1 3 2 1 1 1

The tables above and below are compiled from the PlaneCrashInfo.com accident database, representing 1,834 accidents from 1950 thru 1999. The table above uses 1,286 accidents where a cause can be identified and excludes accidents where a cause could not be determined. The table below includes all 1,834 accidents including those where a cause could not be identified.

"Pilot error (weather related)" represents accidents in which pilot error was involved but brought about by weather related phenomena. "Pilot error (mechanical related)" represents accidents in which pilot error was involved but brought about by mechanical failure. "Other human error" includes air traffic controller error, improper loading of aircraft, fuel contamination, improper maintenance etc. Sabotage includes explosive devices, shoot downs and hijackings. "Total pilot error" is the total for all types of pilot error (on the fourth line in yellow). Where there were multiple causes, the most prominent cause was used.

Accident Causes by Category (percent)

Cause 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s Total

Pilot Error 27 24 18 21 20 22

Pilot Error (weather related) 6 12 9 11 11 10

Pilot Error (mechanical related) 4 3 3 2 3 3

Total Pilot Error 37 39 30 34 34 35

Other Human Error 2 5 5 4 6 4

Weather 10 7 9 11 11 10

Mechanical Failure 13 14 12 15 18 14

Sabotage 3 3 7 10 6 6

Other Cause 1 2 1 1 1 1

Undetermined or missing 34 30 36 25 24 30

The facts are much the same on this aviation orientated website, or are they unacceptable to you as well??

Nothing personal intended or taken. Sitting on commitees does not change the facts either sorry, no matter

how you wish to dress it up Pilots are still the primary cause of accidents in aircraft, full stop!!

Edited February 21, 201313 yr by phuketjock

Sorry I have tried several times to fix the spacing on my last post

but it will not allow me to do so, but I am sure you get the message??

As a person who has had rides in many helicopters from King Bee's through Huey's to

Blackhawks with a few Jolly Greens, Pave Lows & Chinooks tossed in for some kind of

measure my sip satang goes to the flight and maintenance crews. Special recogs to

door gunners also. However....an old aviation saying holds true here...."When the wings

start moving faster than the fuselage, flight safety goes right out the window"

As a person who has had rides in many helicopters from King Bee's through Huey's to

Blackhawks with a few Jolly Greens, Pave Lows & Chinooks tossed in for some kind of

measure my sip satang goes to the flight and maintenance crews. Special recogs to

door gunners also. However....an old aviation saying holds true here...."When the wings

start moving faster than the fuselage, flight safety goes right out the window"

Yeah right, I am sure the recent Boeing Dreamliner passengers and operators might

disagree with the truth of your "old aviation saying".

As a person who has had rides in many helicopters from King Bee's through Huey's to

Blackhawks with a few Jolly Greens, Pave Lows & Chinooks tossed in for some kind of

measure my sip satang goes to the flight and maintenance crews. Special recogs to

door gunners also. However....an old aviation saying holds true here...."When the wings

start moving faster than the fuselage, flight safety goes right out the window"

Yeah right, I am sure the recent Boeing Dreamliner passengers and operators might

disagree with the truth of your "old aviation saying".

Or they might not.

I stand corrected, being ex-military and knowing the standard of pilot training in the military I automatically put mechanical failure before pilot error.

Unfortunately TT military or civilian trained it appears to make little difference, statistics dictate that it should be pilot error that

you should automatically put before any other possible cause when it comes to aircraft accidents. Sad but true.

I hope the injured personnel make a full recovery, the fact that no one was killed is a testament to the pilot's skill and training, well done!

The pilot made a hard landing, they are trained not to, so the skill must have failed for a minute there.

------------------------

What the military refer to as a "hard landing" is little more than a controlled crash.

In general it is an unpowerd auto rotate landing.

And a Helicopter, even at the best of times, is a box you are in riding in with all of the weight and equipment (including the engne and rotor) ABOVE you

NOT a good place to be in a "hard landing".

Not true; there are many other things that might cause a heavy landing. Even an autorotative landing (that you refer to), if carried out correctly, can be conducted very smoothly

I flew with some colleagues to do a video shoot over the Whitsunday Islands years ago, it was by helicopter, and prior to the flight we were all standing around talking about the old "Jesus Nut" jokes, when the pilot came over. He was also an instructor and he said that he had a video showing two helicopters landing, he would show it to his students, and then ask them to spot the difference. They almost always missed the fact that one was a powered landing, and the other was an autorotate. The pilot said that in fact he would much rather be in a chopper if the engine failed, than in a fixed wing.

I am glad I never found out, but good to know that a helicopter pilot feels that way - after all, in any emergency, he wants to survive as much as anyone else!

EDIT - I just saw the note from "rotorbreeze" (Rotor Ron) and he mentions some much more valid points re height rotor speed etc, so yes, there is a definite point where the helicopter is not going to be safe for autorotate, but a similar point could be raised for a fixed wing that was under a certain altitude and did not have enough forward velocity to provide lift, so I guess its much of a muchness. Thanks for the info Ron!

Edited February 22, 201313 yr by Greer

"A US Marine helicopter on Wednesday made a "hard landing""

No landing where all can basicly walk or be carried away from alive is a bad landing. Mind you, it's either the weather, those military pilots or just the bloody flying contraption itself, but helicopters seem somewhat less safe than other means of transportation (even though in these heli's you don't need to open a door to get rid of your cigar stomp)

Statistics show that this is not actually true; but I agree, the common perception amongst the general public is that helicopters 'are dangerous'

I'd be interested in seeing those statistics. I have been a passenger in hundreds of helo flights and my impression has always been that the helo flight was much more dangerous then the plane flight to get there. Although I don't have any hard stats to back it up I am fairly sure that more oil workers die in helo crashes then are killed in airplane crashes.

That could be because more helicopters land on rigs than fixed wing aircraft, so they fly in them more often...?

The runway is probably a little short for fixed wing on most rigs, unless they don't mind the sudden drop to the water at the end...

EDIT - I just saw the note from "rotorbreeze" (Rotor Ron) and he mentions some much more valid points re height rotor speed etc, so yes, there is a definite point where the helicopter is not going to be safe for autorotate, but a similar point could be raised for a fixed wing that was under a certain altitude and did not have enough forward velocity to provide lift, so I guess its much of a muchness. Thanks for the info Ron!

Absolutely nothing against Ron, but two ex-military flight instructors have already pointed out in the thread that Ron's information is quite inaccurate.

Let's keep it real folks

EDIT - I just saw the note from "rotorbreeze" (Rotor Ron) and he mentions some much more valid points re height rotor speed etc, so yes, there is a definite point where the helicopter is not going to be safe for autorotate, but a similar point could be raised for a fixed wing that was under a certain altitude and did not have enough forward velocity to provide lift, so I guess its much of a muchness. Thanks for the info Ron!

Absolutely nothing against Ron, but two ex-military flight instructors have already pointed out in the thread that Ron's information is quite inaccurate.

Let's keep it real folks

Boon Toong There is actually nothing wrong with the information above, but let me put it another way.

If I found myself at 1000ft. and twenty miles from the nearest runway and no power with the choice of

a fixed wing aircraft or a helicopter without a second of hesitation I would choose the helicopter hands

down. A helicopter in the hands of a skilled pilot can land in autorotation in an area little more than the

length of a helipad or small clearing. A fixed wing needs several hundred feet and much more speed

than a helicopter ( 70 knts ) to have any real chance of making a safe landing from a 1000ft glide, the

larger the aircraft the longer landing area required.

Edited February 22, 201313 yr by phuketjock

EDIT - I just saw the note from "rotorbreeze" (Rotor Ron) and he mentions some much more valid points re height rotor speed etc, so yes, there is a definite point where the helicopter is not going to be safe for autorotate, but a similar point could be raised for a fixed wing that was under a certain altitude and did not have enough forward velocity to provide lift, so I guess its much of a muchness. Thanks for the info Ron!

Absolutely nothing against Ron, but two ex-military flight instructors have already pointed out in the thread that Ron's information is quite inaccurate.

Let's keep it real folks

Boon Toong There is actually nothing wrong with the information above, but let me put it another way.

If I found myself at 1000ft. and twenty miles from the nearest runway and no power with the choice of

a fixed wing aircraft or a helicopter without a second of hesitation I would choose the helicopter hands

down. A helicopter in the hands of a skilled pilot can land in autorotation in an area little more than the

length of a helipad or small clearing. A fixed wing needs several hundred feet and much more speed

than a helicopter ( 70 knts ) to have any real chance of making a safe landing from a 1000ft glide, the

larger the aircraft the longer landing area required.

Boon Toong ! You know nothing mate so shut up! All them thousands of hours flying heli's and fixed wings, instructing, doing dangerous stuff and going in wars, you were just blagging your way through it mate. Phuketjock has spent 4 hours on google so is therefore THE expert. When I meet you for a beer next week, we better exchange dits about lego or macrami or something as clearly neither of us know what the <Snip!> we are talking about Phuketjock, I am thinking of cutting and pasting all your posts on to PPRuNe.org, not sure if I need to put them in the test pilot forum or the Self Loading Freight forum. Now I think about it I think the Test Pilot forum, as we/they all need the benefit of your input.

Edited February 23, 201313 yr by metisdead

EDIT - I just saw the note from "rotorbreeze" (Rotor Ron) and he mentions some much more valid points re height rotor speed etc, so yes, there is a definite point where the helicopter is not going to be safe for autorotate, but a similar point could be raised for a fixed wing that was under a certain altitude and did not have enough forward velocity to provide lift, so I guess its much of a muchness. Thanks for the info Ron!

Absolutely nothing against Ron, but two ex-military flight instructors have already pointed out in the thread that Ron's information is quite inaccurate.

Let's keep it real folks

Boon Toong There is actually nothing wrong with the information above, but let me put it another way.

If I found myself at 1000ft. and twenty miles from the nearest runway and no power with the choice of

a fixed wing aircraft or a helicopter without a second of hesitation I would choose the helicopter hands

down. A helicopter in the hands of a skilled pilot can land in autorotation in an area little more than the

length of a helipad or small clearing. A fixed wing needs several hundred feet and much more speed

than a helicopter ( 70 knts ) to have any real chance of making a safe landing from a 1000ft glide, the

larger the aircraft the longer landing area required.

Jock, with respect, what qualifies you to speak about this in such a seemingly knowledgeable way?

"the larger the aircraft the longer landing area required" - Not necessarily true. Please rearrange this well-known expression: 'myself foot the shot in'

I've been in Katoey bars many times; doesn't make me a Katoey expert

Edited February 22, 201313 yr by BoonToong

EDIT - I just saw the note from "rotorbreeze" (Rotor Ron) and he mentions some much more valid points re height rotor speed etc, so yes, there is a definite point where the helicopter is not going to be safe for autorotate, but a similar point could be raised for a fixed wing that was under a certain altitude and did not have enough forward velocity to provide lift, so I guess its much of a muchness. Thanks for the info Ron!

Absolutely nothing against Ron, but two ex-military flight instructors have already pointed out in the thread that Ron's information is quite inaccurate.

Let's keep it real folks

Boon Toong There is actually nothing wrong with the information above, but let me put it another way.

If I found myself at 1000ft. and twenty miles from the nearest runway and no power with the choice of

a fixed wing aircraft or a helicopter without a second of hesitation I would choose the helicopter hands

down. A helicopter in the hands of a skilled pilot can land in autorotation in an area little more than the

length of a helipad or small clearing. A fixed wing needs several hundred feet and much more speed

than a helicopter ( 70 knts ) to have any real chance of making a safe landing from a 1000ft glide, the

larger the aircraft the longer landing area required.

Boon Toong ! You know nothing mate so shut up! All them thousands of hours flying heli's and fixed wings, instructing, doing dangerous stuff and going in wars, you were just blagging your way through it mate. Phuketjock has spent 4 hours on google so is therefore THE expert. When I meet you for a beer next week, we better exchange dits about lego or macrami or something as clearly neither of us know what the <Snip!> we are talking about Phuketjock, I am thinking of cutting and pasting all your posts on to PPRuNe.org, not sure if I need to put them in the test pilot forum or the Self Loading Freight forum. Now I think about it I think the Test Pilot forum, as we/they all need the benefit of your input.

Yeah macrami sounds about right with your feeble attitute.

EDIT - I just saw the note from "rotorbreeze" (Rotor Ron) and he mentions some much more valid points re height rotor speed etc, so yes, there is a definite point where the helicopter is not going to be safe for autorotate, but a similar point could be raised for a fixed wing that was under a certain altitude and did not have enough forward velocity to provide lift, so I guess its much of a muchness. Thanks for the info Ron!

Absolutely nothing against Ron, but two ex-military flight instructors have already pointed out in the thread that Ron's information is quite inaccurate.

Let's keep it real folks

Boon Toong There is actually nothing wrong with the information above, but let me put it another way.

If I found myself at 1000ft. and twenty miles from the nearest runway and no power with the choice of

a fixed wing aircraft or a helicopter without a second of hesitation I would choose the helicopter hands

down. A helicopter in the hands of a skilled pilot can land in autorotation in an area little more than the

length of a helipad or small clearing. A fixed wing needs several hundred feet and much more speed

than a helicopter ( 70 knts ) to have any real chance of making a safe landing from a 1000ft glide, the

larger the aircraft the longer landing area required.

Jock, with respect, what qualifies you to speak about this in such a seemingly knowledgeable way?

"the larger the aircraft the longer landing area required" - Not necessarily true. Please rearrange this well-known expression: 'myself foot the shot in'

I've been in Katoey bars many times; doesn't make me a Katoey expert

Perhaps too much time in Katoey bars with Gentleman Jim mate

Interesting that your sole critisism of my post is that it is " Not necessarily true " that the larger the fixed wing aircraft the longer the distance required to land?? I would have thought that the larger the aircraft the heavier it woud be and would therefore possibly take a bit longer to bring to a halt no?? No reverse thrust with no power.

Ah the arrogance of aviators as many of you prefer to call yourselves.

What qualifies me Hmmm let me see. I have been a helicopter engineer for a fair while, i started my training when I joined the British Army in 1966 and after completing my service I obtained my first UKCAA Type rated Licensed aircraft maintenance engineers license in September 1976, i have since obtained several more type ratings on Sikorsky ( 2 ) Aerospatiale ( 1 ) Eurocopter ( 1 ) and Bell helicopters ( 1 ). I am now retired but I still retain a valid engineering license. So roughly all in about 46+ years experience qualifies me to comment.

You may now extract your feet from your mouth.

Edited February 23, 201313 yr by phuketjock

BTW for those of you who are unaware PPRuNe.org is an aviation forum where mainly pilots can

boast to each other about how great they are, a bit like Thaivisa but more self praise than criticism.

And all that knowledge without one Google.

Edited February 23, 201313 yr by phuketjock

Boon Toong There is actually nothing wrong with the information above, but let me put it another way.

If I found myself at 1000ft. and twenty miles from the nearest runway and no power with the choice of

a fixed wing aircraft or a helicopter without a second of hesitation I would choose the helicopter hands

down. A helicopter in the hands of a skilled pilot can land in autorotation in an area little more than the

length of a helipad or small clearing. A fixed wing needs several hundred feet and much more speed

than a helicopter ( 70 knts ) to have any real chance of making a safe landing from a 1000ft glide, the

larger the aircraft the longer landing area required.

Jock, with respect, what qualifies you to speak about this in such a seemingly knowledgeable way?

"the larger the aircraft the longer landing area required" - Not necessarily true. Please rearrange this well-known expression: 'myself foot the shot in'

I've been in Katoey bars many times; doesn't make me a Katoey expert

Perhaps too much time in Katoey bars mate

Interesting that your sole critisism of my post is that it is " Not necessarily true " that the larger the fixed wing aircraft the longer the distance required to land?? I would have thought that the larger the aircraft the heavier it woud be and would therefore possibly take a bit longer to bring to a halt no?? No reverse thrust with no power.

Ah the arrogance of aviators as many of you prefer to call yourselves.

What qualifies me Hmmm let me see. I have been a helicopter engineer for a fair while, i started my training when I joined the British Army in 1966 and after completing my service I obtained my first UKCAA Type rated Licensed aircraft maintenance engineers license in September 1976, i have since obtained several more type ratings on Sikorsky ( 2 ) Aerospatiale ( 1 ) Eurocopter ( 1 ) and Bell helicopters ( 1 ). I am now retired but I still retain a valid engineering license. So roughly all in about 46+ years experience qualifies me to comment.

And there I was thinking that the 'jock' in Phuketjock must have been the aviation term for pilot, rather than someone from a country often stereotyped for wanting to pick fights about anything.

Come on don't stop there, telling us you got a type licence to maintain on 'Aerospatiale', or Eurocopter or Bell. Which ones exactly?

I can't ever remember telling any of our engineers how they should change one of the engines, yet did experience one or two in my career that thought they could tell me how to fly, but they were often the wannabees that should have worked harder at school. What aircraft did you work on in the 'British Army'? By the way unless you didn't notice your experience as an engineer in no way not even closely qualifies you to talk about flying...but you seem to think it does. Frankly with the language you have used in your earlier posts, I don't believe you, but I am delighted to think that the posts by myself and Boon Toong have encouraged someone to learn, even if it is by spending hours on Google.

Nothing to prove Jim but I am prepared to humour you a little.

Army:- Beaver, Souix, Scout.

Type ratings:- S61N, S76C, SA330J, AS332L, Bell212.

If it is of any use I don't think you are averse to telling a few porkies yourself, but it is not that important to me either way.

Your arrogance is showing again and you don't even know it. " OUR engineers " ? We don't belong to anyone, we are

our own people!!

Nothing to prove Jim but I am prepared to humour you a little.

Army:- Beaver, Souix, Scout.

Type ratings:- S61N, S76C, SA330J, AS332L, Bell212.

If it is of any use I don't think you are averse to telling a few porkies yourself, but it is not that important to me either way.

Your arrogance is showing again and you don't even know it. " OUR engineers " ? We don't belong to anyone, we are

our own people!!

How strange the term 'our' applying to 'our' Squadron's (our engineer's, our gunners, our Boss, our mates, our Pilots), surely you were proud to be a part of your flying Squadron? We were a family, the RAF and Navy were definitely like that, as were the proud members of the AAC I flew with and lived with in the field. We were all fiercely competitive, but it was superficial, we belonged to a special club, Military Aviation', and that included all of us ('our engineers' as well!), hell we would have (and some did) died for each other, regardless of inter-service rivalry . The term 'Our engineers' is a sign of close belonging and loyalty, a bit like they said 'our aircrew', we had huge loyalty towards each other, on the job and off the job, in uniform and out, and still do. I feel a great sense of loss for you if you have not been on a flying Squadron that fostered that intense sense of camaraderie, there is nothing quite like it as a young man. So...no sense of ownership, but a sense of belonging...you had better believe it.

I stated I did not believe you because you seem to resort to quoting wiki type sites for your answers to flying issues, but as you have licences on 61, 76, 330 and 332 then we could have a real good chat between you BT and myself, as me and BT have those covered. Now what am I telling porkies about? admittedly I have done in my life.....'honestly officer I swear the speedo said 30...honest Guv', but here...nope. This thread has already led to the reunion of a couple of old muckers and the introduction of others quietly watching, whom will now gather for a beer in BKK. Now whilst I could tell you anything I wish and lie through my ass, believe me their is more chance of hell freezing over than me or any of my peer group on here lying in front of each other. There is something though that gives me the idea you may have been an engineer in the Army, and that is you have a trait that was possessed by a poor few who made it their lives mission to complain at the arrogance of pilots and strive to drive an ever deeper wedge between the two groups. Thankfully that was something that we never allowed to happen. Maybe that was just the Army of the 60's though. So long

Nothing to prove Jim but I am prepared to humour you a little.

Army:- Beaver, Souix, Scout.

Type ratings:- S61N, S76C, SA330J, AS332L, Bell212.

If it is of any use I don't think you are averse to telling a few porkies yourself, but it is not that important to me either way.

Your arrogance is showing again and you don't even know it. " OUR engineers " ? We don't belong to anyone, we are

our own people!!

How strange the term 'our' applying to 'our' Squadron's (our engineer's, our gunners, our Boss, our mates, our Pilots), surely you were proud to be a part of your flying Squadron? We were a family, the RAF and Navy were definitely like that, as were the proud members of the AAC I flew with and lived with in the field. We were all fiercely competitive, but it was superficial, we belonged to a special club, Military Aviation', and that included all of us ('our engineers' as well!), hell we would have (and some did) died for each other, regardless of inter-service rivalry . The term 'Our engineers' is a sign of close belonging and loyalty, a bit like they said 'our aircrew', we had huge loyalty towards each other, on the job and off the job, in uniform and out, and still do. I feel a great sense of loss for you if you have not been on a flying Squadron that fostered that intense sense of camaraderie, there is nothing quite like it as a young man. So...no sense of ownership, but a sense of belonging...you had better believe it.

I stated I did not believe you because you seem to resort to quoting wiki type sites for your answers to flying issues, but as you have licences on 61, 76, 330 and 332 then we could have a real good chat between you BT and myself, as me and BT have those covered. Now what am I telling porkies about? admittedly I have done in my life.....'honestly officer I swear the speedo said 30...honest Guv', but here...nope. This thread has already led to the reunion of a couple of old muckers and the introduction of others quietly watching, whom will now gather for a beer in BKK. Now whilst I could tell you anything I wish and lie through my ass, believe me their is more chance of hell freezing over than me or any of my peer group on here lying in front of each other. There is something though that gives me the idea you may have been an engineer in the Army, and that is you have a trait that was possessed by a poor few who made it their lives mission to complain at the arrogance of pilots and strive to drive an ever deeper wedge between the two groups. Thankfully that was something that we never allowed to happen. Maybe that was just the Army of the 60's though. So long

The last time I served in the Army Air Corp Jim there were no such things as Squadrons, only flights or workshops, so

much for your knowledge then. I have no gripe whatsoever with the pilots I have met and worked with in my time as many

were real good and decent people, but unfortunately there were too many like yourself who could not see past their own

percieved greatness and arrogance which I would venture to suggest probably goes a long way to contribute to the sadly

high accident percentage caused by pilots in aviation today. I think IMHO that the people that worked with/under you in

your day probably had similar feelings about your abyssmal attitude. But I can't be sure I wasn't there, thank god.

Edited February 23, 201313 yr by sbk