Fixed Wing to Rotor Ops

[akmountaineer]

After flying fixed wing ac for 10 years, I've decided to do a commercial rotor add-on. Helis have always scared me due to their inherent instability, but nevertheless, they have also been a source of fascination. I was wondering if some of you fixed wing turned rotor guys and girls could share your experiences regarding the transition and how rotor flight compares to fixed wing in your level of excitement, satisfaction, and flight preference.

 

[MikeD]

After flying fixed wing ac for 10 years, I've decided to do a commercial rotor add-on. Helis have always scared me due to their inherent instability, but nevertheless, they have also been a source of fascination. I was wondering if some of you fixed wing turned rotor guys and girls could share your experiences regarding the transition and how rotor flight compares to fixed wing in your level of excitement, satisfaction, and flight preference.

Rotor is much funner, IMHO.

 

[ProudPilot]

Well I respected MikeD... and then he said funner. Now we all know who slept in class...

 

[MikeD]

Well I respected MikeD... and then he said funner. Now we all know who slept in class...

LOL! Both have their respective plusses and minuses.

 

[badtransam97]

Would you care to elaborate on some of the "plusses and minusses"..lol! Since I have decided to go ahead and pursue the RW route, I'd just like to hear wether or not I've made the smartest descision..haha! I "think" I've made a wise choice in that I've chosen a RW school that has put into writing that I have a CFI job upon completion of training, and doesn't require all the money up front..lol!

 

[Low_Level_Hell]

I did it the other way around. Rotor to fixed wing.

Only "issues" I had in the transition was getting used to, was pulling the yoke towards me on the flare, opposite of what you do in a helo before you touch down on a roll on landing. Also the first time my CFI pulled the throttle to idle in a 172 to simulate an engine failure at altitude I immediately selected a field right in front of me and stated we're landing right there. Ended up overshooting the field by a couple miles. The C172 definitely has better glide characteristics than an Apache.

I also noticed flying instruments in a fixed wing is about 100 times easier than in a helicopter.

 

[Blackhawk]

The C172 definitely has better glide characteristics than an Apache.

I also noticed flying instruments in a fixed wing is about 100 times easier than in a helicopter.

You were an Apache pilot. Don't lie. You never flew instruments.

 

[Low_Level_Hell]

You were an Apache pilot. Don't lie. You never flew instruments.

True, but I was also a TH-67 pilot for a couple months.

Also have several distinct memories of limping my way through more than enough sandstorms staring at my flight page and gps.

 

[MikeD]

True, but I was also a TH-67 pilot for a couple months.

Also have several distinct memories of limping my way through more than enough sandstorms staring at my flight page and gps.

Funny around here when the WX goes down, the TH-67s all begin marshalling lower and lower to avoid the WX (don't know if they're the VFR or IFR ones) and it becomes a mad house. At least in the UH-1, we can comfortably pop into the WX......well, some of us can.....the student pilot Lts. who came from the T-6 aren't used to the round dials and tuning boxes of the UH, with it's old school RMI, ADF, and OBS.

I personally love it.

Speaking of Apaches and WX, there's the story here of an accident 2 years ago here
of an Apache that entered inadverent IMC. IP was a DAC with 25 yrs experience. They ended up nosed into the ground with both fatal. Thought was that they tried to maintain some sort of "VMC" through the FLIR system and may have been near thermal crossover. Not an Apache guy myself, but I do wonder if basic-attitude-instrument is intuitive to those guys?

 

[Low_Level_Hell]

Speaking of Apaches and WX, there's the story here of an accident 2 years ago here
of an Apache that entered inadverent IMC. IP was a DAC with 25 yrs experience. They ended up nosed into the ground with both fatal. Thought was that they tried to maintain some sort of "VMC" through the FLIR system and may have been near thermal crossover. Not an Apache guy myself, but I do wonder if basic-attitude-instrument is intuitive to those guys?

Not that familiar with that accident. But that's why they teach when you're in IMC you should commit to your instruments instead going back and forth between instruments and visual flight.

The Apache's pleanty capible to fly in IMC. Problem is not all the pilots are. Legally the Apache can not enter actual IMC, which I think is unfortunate because if crews had actual experience in IMC in a controlled environment we would have a much better track record when crews enter IMC inadvertantly.

Instrument flying evals are conducted in a simulator or by the pilot flying the aircraft just looking inside instead of out. The only FAA approved nav aid we have is an ADF but in practice we use our GPS and moving maps by either preloading or entering the way points.

Its an Army Aviation problem. I think a couple months ago a UH-60 entered inadvertant IMC and crashed. I also remember the same happening my last deployment to a CH-47.

 

[C650CPT]

Its an Army Aviation problem.

You are right, its a cultural problem that has its beginings back in the vietnam era where only the "top" few of each flight school class were given comprehensive IFR training. The majority of flight students got minimal IFR training or a TAC (for Tactical) Ticket. This basically was ADF flying to points in space with the hopes if they ever needed it the weather would be just good enough to get in. The thought process was applicable to current ops in Vietnam. As I stated in another thread we still have the old shoes in the system and thier "influence" continues.
The Army doesnt do itself any favor here with calling inadvertant IFR an Emergency Procedure ... it sets the wrong tone and expectation in my opinion. The reason the Apache and the Cobra (which was my platform of choice), are not certified is that there was no incentive on the manufactures part to spend the money in certification as there is no "market" on the civilian side for such.
The other problem is that we Army pilots are lazy when it comes to IFR training. Yes there are limited resources of time and money to go practice an IFR flight when we need to concentrate on Battle focuse training, but I think we lack balance. I know as an Attack guy I had to beg to go fly approaches ... heck our guys didnt even want to talk to ATC on a VFR flight through the DC VFR corridor ... yet most of them could fly the hell out of the aircraft tactically.

So Mike how do you enjoy intersection holding with just one VOR?

 

[MikeD]

The Army doesnt do itself any favor here with calling inadvertant IFR an Emergency Procedure ... it sets the wrong tone and expectation in my opinion.

Haha. Depending on which IP I fly with, when Im briefing the sortie and get to this very portion, the Army background guys want to treat it as an emergency, and avoid WX down to and including a PL. To the AF background guys, I simply brief climb/contact ARAC and get a clearance, then vectors for an approach. Squawk emer if need be. Funny the difference.

Funny too, that the one base field here in the Rucker complex with the most available instrument approaches aside from Cairns, is Hanchey AHP......a field that has ZERO instrument capable helos based there!

The reason the Apache and the Cobra (which was my platform of choice), are not certified is that there was no incentive on the manufactures part to spend the money in certification as there is no "market" on the civilian side for such.
The other problem is that we Army pilots are lazy when it comes to IFR training. Yes there are limited resources of time and money to go practice an IFR flight when we need to concentrate on Battle focuse training, but I think we lack balance. I know as an Attack guy I had to beg to go fly approaches ... heck our guys didnt even want to talk to ATC on a VFR flight through the DC VFR corridor ... yet most of them could fly the hell out of the aircraft tactically.

So Mike how do you enjoy intersection holding with just one VOR?

One VOR is awesome! The UH panel is just like the old T-37, just as disorganized and with the same instruments. Funny thing about the old-school UH-1s (not the TH-1s), is that instrument-wise, you have NO idea what you're getting insofar as instrumentation in the bird, until you get open the door to your particular tail number. Some have dual FM comms, some have ADFs where you set the numbers in, others have the old ADF head where you kind of tune it like an AM radio dial to the "approximate" ADF frequency. Some have OBS, most have RMI. Some have no glideslope available, some do. Only the UH-1Vs have radar altimeters.

And yes, the Army guys hate talking to anything other than a tower, or going into airspace higher than Class D.

 

[Ian_J]

And yes, the Army guys hate talking to anything other than a tower, or going into airspace higher than Class D.

So true. Sad, and I wish I didn't have to admit it, but true.

At Campbell I'd schedule instrument flights to BNA and back and 9 out of 10 times the co-pilot would say something about us not being allowed to fly into class C.

I also was flying out to Carson from Campbell with a 17 year MTP. Filed IFR but clearly he wasn't expecting to actually fly through clouds. Got into some actual and he kept murmuring how helicopters weren't supposed to do this stuff.

And this is from the Chinook community - arguably the most instrument trained of all the other rotary-wing platforms in the army.

 

[Low_Level_Hell]

You are right, its a cultural problem that has its beginings back in the vietnam era where only the "top" few of each flight school class were given comprehensive IFR training. The majority of flight students got minimal IFR training or a TAC (for Tactical) Ticket. This basically was ADF flying to points in space with the hopes if they ever needed it the weather would be just good enough to get in. The thought process was applicable to current ops in Vietnam. As I stated in another thread we still have the old shoes in the system and thier "influence" continues.
The Army doesnt do itself any favor here with calling inadvertant IFR an Emergency Procedure ... it sets the wrong tone and expectation in my opinion. The reason the Apache and the Cobra (which was my platform of choice), are not certified is that there was no incentive on the manufactures part to spend the money in certification as there is no "market" on the civilian side for such.
The other problem is that we Army pilots are lazy when it comes to IFR training. Yes there are limited resources of time and money to go practice an IFR flight when we need to concentrate on Battle focuse training, but I think we lack balance. I know as an Attack guy I had to beg to go fly approaches ... heck our guys didnt even want to talk to ATC on a VFR flight through the DC VFR corridor ... yet most of them could fly the hell out of the aircraft tactically.

So Mike how do you enjoy intersection holding with just one VOR?

Much agreed. Flying in IMC is a glaring training deficiency. If anything RW aviators should be more versed in inadvertant IMC recovery than anyone. Recovering IIMC at 50 feet AGL is much more difficult than when cruising at 5000 feet.

You're right that calling IMC an emergency condition doesn't help either. The times I have gone IIMC I recieved a quasi-ass chewing for putting myself there in the first place. This makes myself and probably many other PC's reluctant to commit to IMC when it really is thier best option.

At least with the Block III Apaches coming out there will be a full instrument suite included making it legal for IFR/IMC, something should have been included in a 30 million dollar aircraft in the first place.

 

[PeterPilot]

Helis have always scared me due to their inherent instability,

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

When fixed wing pilots run out of ideas on a landing and things aren't going well, they pull back on the stick. When rotary wing pilots get to the same problem level, they push forward on the stick. That seems to be the single hardest problem for F/W to R/W folks. Don't pull back, and especially, don't pull back at low RPM at the end of an autorotation. Just let it slide and slow down by lowering the collective.

 

[MikeD]

So true. Sad, and I wish I didn't have to admit it, but true.

At Campbell I'd schedule instrument flights to BNA and back and 9 out of 10 times the co-pilot would say something about us not being allowed to fly into class C.

I also was flying out to Carson from Campbell with a 17 year MTP. Filed IFR but clearly he wasn't expecting to actually fly through clouds. Got into some actual and he kept murmuring how helicopters weren't supposed to do this stuff.

And this is from the Chinook community - arguably the most instrument trained of all the other rotary-wing platforms in the army.

The reason I get from most Army guys about not going IMC, is that in a single-engine helo, you always want to be able to see where you can potentially autorotate to. Fair enough, but that would also preclude single-engine Cessna/Piper flying too, etc. So to me thats an assumed risk. But I see where they're coming from a little there. Multi-engine helos, especially Chinooks which have a pretty good instrument suite (and secondarily, the Blackhawk which has a decent one too), guys shouldn't be too afraid IMO.

Its also funny this too I noticed: In the AF, if you're an IP, you teach everything.....as an IP in the 117 for example, you teach contact, instruments, tactics, etc. In the Army however, being an instrument IP appears to be some sort of special qual....and guys assigned to do that (like in the TH-67s) only seem to teach that portion, with other IPs being the guys in the rest of the VFR-only TH-67s.

 

[Low_Level_Hell]

Its been awhile since flight school and I have no references, but I heard of an LSI instrument instructor had an engine failure while cruising in IMC, autorotated by instruments, broke out at 500 feet, and succesfully landed with minimal damage to the -67.

That's pretty bad ass.

 

[MikeD]

Its been awhile since flight school and I have no references, but I heard of an LSI instrument instructor had an engine failure while cruising in IMC, autorotated by instruments, broke out at 500 feet, and succesfully landed with minimal damage to the -67.

That's pretty bad ass.

Not bad at all.......500 AGL breakout to pick out a PL location? Wow.

Last TH-67 crash was earlier this year that killed the LSI IP. During an SEF, IP directed a power recovery and the student rapidly brought in collective without following with the throttle, thus severly drooping the rotor and they dropped to the ground like a rock.....faster than the -67/-58 already does.

 

[Low_Level_Hell]

Its also funny this too I noticed: In the AF, if you're an IP, you teach everything.....as an IP in the 117 for example, you teach contact, instruments, tactics, etc. In the Army however, being an instrument IP appears to be some sort of special qual....and guys assigned to do that (like in the TH-67s) only seem to teach that portion, with other IPs being the guys in the rest of the VFR-only TH-67s.

The Army has IP's that do teach everything but can not evaluate someone on instruments. Instrument Examiners, IP/IEs or SP/IEs we call them, are able to evaluate instruments on checkrides. Things don't always run the same way at Fort Rucker than the rest of the Army.

LSI is a whole different animal. Some instructors do jump around but many get set in thier schedules, routines, ect. The instrument guys have it the best, or so it seemed when I was there, they have the shortest days of all.

 

[MikeD]

The Army has IP's that do teach everything but can not evaluate someone on instruments. Instrument Examiners, IP/IEs or SP/IEs we call them, are able to evaluate instruments on checkrides. Things don't always run the same way at Fort Rucker than the rest of the Army.

LSI is a whole different animal. Some instructors do jump around but many get set in thier schedules, routines, ect. The instrument guys have it the best, or so it seemed when I was there, they have the shortest days of all.

Ok. That explains it better then and makes sense.

For all the dislike of instruments the Army has, on the flip side of things, when it comes to contact flying....some of these guys here with Vietnam backgrounds, etc, can fly these birds 3rd nature.

One other funny thing I notice, that there seems to be no.....or at least possible very few.....Army IPs in the TH-67s. It seems to all be LSI or maybe DACs. If there are active duty IPs, I haven't seen one around on the flightline bus yet.