Low flying endorsement

Endosements, Ratings and Certificates.
User avatar
skypig
4th Dan
4th Dan
Posts: 1705
Joined: Nov 2005

Re: Low flying endorsement

Postby skypig » Mon Oct 26 2009, 23:40

pilonrock
There is no such thing as a low flying rating in Australia (I wonder what part of the human condition makes me write that, when others on this thread have written it, only to be ignored apparently).
Some helicopter operations in Australia require specific training, which not everyone does in their basic training.
All helicopter pilots can fly legally below 500’ in various circumstances outlined in CAR 157. (Including, obviously TO/Landing, I assume your reference to this is some sort of infantile wind up)
In Australia radio procedures are designed to minimise the risk of confusion, with the potentially deadly outcome associated with miscommunication.
One of the challenges of an Australian check pilot is to get experienced overseas trained pilots to use standard phraseologies and read back the parts of a clearance that require it.
Even “Top Gun cool” talk like: “...tree top for traffic...” “...check the beaver on the slide!” would be considered unprofessional. :cool_slp:
pilonrock
Silver Wings
Silver Wings
Posts: 24
Joined: Jan 2003

Re: Low flying endorsement

Postby pilonrock » Tue Oct 27 2009, 01:13

Well Skypig

Absolutely no point in discussing any further!

Everybody is great
There are no heros
Last edited by pilonrock on Tue Oct 27 2009, 05:53, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
deskpilot
Silver Wings
Silver Wings
Posts: 27
Joined: Feb 2003

Re: Low flying endorsement

Postby deskpilot » Tue Oct 27 2009, 04:01

pilonrock,

Just to confirm, you didn't re-read your post and tell us the joke that was hidden in it..? But reading your next one... :?

pilonrock wrote:Oh and by the way I did get the opportunity to check Ozzy check pilot here in Canada who claimed he was a mountain pilot. I just couldn't figure out why he approached to land at 7500' on the down wind side of mountain at with a 25kt wind. Speaks to the standards I guess! He said he had 2000hrs. It was a short ride!


That statement was some what... um... Oc:=

I took the bait and now I need a coffee.

Spot on nathan_m, by the way.

Aussie!, Aussie!, Aussie!
Coriolis
1st Dan
1st Dan
Posts: 208
Joined: May 2006

Re: Low flying endorsement

Postby Coriolis » Tue Oct 27 2009, 04:37

Pilonrock (aka pillock) I'll take the bait mate!
Your post really makes no sense at all and does show a total disregard for common sense and sound airmanship.
If any of the readers ever find a need to wander over to Canada for some special training with you (something I very much doubt) I suggest they pay particular attention to their personal life insurance requirements and pay scant attention to your unprofessional and unorthodox use of the radio! I doubt that sort of crap would even be acceptable in the backwaters of Canada.
As to trying to stir up contention between Kiwi land, Australia and Canada - give it a miss right? I've check flown many pilots from all those countries and there are good and bad in all of them but mostly good. I would not suggest for 1 second that the best come from any particular country or ex-military or whatever. Some of the best pilots I've ever flown with come from humble beginnings (civvy street) in Australia. Even the worst I've flown with have never tried to pull a radio call as crappy and senseless as yours! :roll:
Life is like a ferris wheel;
Some days your on the top,
some days your on the botton!
User avatar
bellslapper
Gold Wings
Gold Wings
Posts: 154
Joined: Mar 2006

Re: Low flying endorsement

Postby bellslapper » Tue Oct 27 2009, 05:37

pilonrock

maybe I am reading your last post wrong but if you approach on the "down wind side" of the mountain wouldn't that be into wind ?...and isnt that what you want?

Cheers
pilonrock
Silver Wings
Silver Wings
Posts: 24
Joined: Jan 2003

Re: Low flying endorsement

Postby pilonrock » Tue Oct 27 2009, 06:16

bellslapper wrote:pilonrock

maybe I am reading your last post wrong but if you approach on the "down wind side" of the mountain wouldn't that be into wind ?...and isnt that what you want?

Cheers


Good question!

You want to be on the upwind side! Wind flows like water over a rock. If you approach into wind your gonna get thrashed in the curl on the down wind side of the slope. Cross wind on the upslope side is where ya want to be! The approach should be shallow at 45 degrees to the slope so you have an out. A contour crawl prior will give you a idea of where the altimeter should be and reference taken, there are also obvious visual illusions that can catch you off guard and the normal expected white-out.

Skypig or the Editor should be able to provide you with the full procedure for this as they are obviously the gurus here and I have no clue what I am talking about!

For your own safety I would strongly advise a proper mountain flying course before flying in the hills.

I do most of the mountain training with our company, its a 20hr flying course that is required before you can work in the hills. Several government agencies figured out a long time ago that lots of crashes where do to improper mountain flying. It can bite you in the bum quickly and even the most experienced mountain pilots get bitten.

Good luck!
Banjamin James
Silver Wings
Silver Wings
Posts: 89
Joined: Feb 2008

Re: Low flying endorsement

Postby Banjamin James » Tue Oct 27 2009, 07:32

bellslapper wrote:pilonrock

maybe I am reading your last post wrong but if you approach on the "down wind side" of the mountain wouldn't that be into wind ?...and isnt that what you want?

Cheers


Despite everything else Pilonrock says, I have to agree. Perhaps we both misunderstood what you meant?
User avatar
skypig
4th Dan
4th Dan
Posts: 1705
Joined: Nov 2005

Re: Low flying endorsement

Postby skypig » Tue Oct 27 2009, 08:25

pilonrock

I’m not sure where I claimed to be a mountain flying expert. :o
Thanks for the info and description, very useful and in my opinion, just what we need on Blade Slapper. I’d love to do a Canadian Mountain flying course, especially with someone of your experience. :D

sky "lots left to learn" pig 8) 8)
BenThomas
1st Dan
1st Dan
Posts: 207
Joined: Sep 2009

Re: Low flying endorsement

Postby BenThomas » Tue Oct 27 2009, 10:13

Good to see that after a great deal of "heated opinion sharing" that cooler heads prevailed! :D Pilonrock I dnt know you from Adam but as someone who has spent some limited time in the hills (southern alps of NZ ) I agree with your last post well done :!: I do not have alot of mountain experiance at all so im definatly no guru but the wind is a differant beast in the hills.

I like to see that after all is said and done we are all here to share knowlage and experiance. Just like Bladeslappers is ment to be.

Welcome to the southern hemisphere( if ya here that is, if not your welcome any time)

Fly safe

Ben
User avatar
deskpilot
Silver Wings
Silver Wings
Posts: 27
Joined: Feb 2003

Re: Low flying endorsement

Postby deskpilot » Tue Oct 27 2009, 11:22

I would have to agree with Skypig and also Ben. Misunderstood...Maybe but seriously if you read the first posts...

I had a chat with a very experienced aviator about his mountain flying while long lining. He was talking about a technique for a high altitude approach with or without some swinging cargo.

*Approach from the upwind side of the mountain and make a climbing approach to the area.*

pilonrock - can you elaborate, is this a technique you would teach? Or have heard of?

DP
pilonrock
Silver Wings
Silver Wings
Posts: 24
Joined: Jan 2003

Re: Low flying endorsement

Postby pilonrock » Tue Oct 27 2009, 18:18

A quick story!

In 1986, I got my first job on a Bell 206 flying in Newfoundland and Labrador, my first mission was to fly a group of geologists for INCO into the Torngat mountain range. Little did I know at that time and was not prepared for what I was about to experience.

The ferry flight to the base camp was uneventful, through northern Quebec and finally to the base camp in George River. For three days we were fogged in but eventually off we went into the foothills of the Torngat mountain ranges.

Not knowing Adam from Eve, or any idea about mountain flying my first approach to a small rock bluff resulted in a hard landing, and bad damage to the skid gear where a sharp rock punched a hole right through the skid shoe. What could have gone wrong? I was into wind. Had I known that wind and air acted like water and eddied on the down wind side of the hill, and had a proper mountain course things would have been different.As I pulled in the power I effectively got into a settling with power situation, the bell 206 started coming down and shuddering severely. It is only by gods grace that more damage was not done. :shock:

Additional damage included a large gouge to the transmission isolation mount due to the violent movement of the transmission and the striker pin being sheared off.

It was only years later that I figured out what had happened after taking a mountain course.

Some of the addition things that a mountain course teaches is:( a partial list)

-Contour Crawls- to assess wind and direction and approach altitude
-The standard figure 8 approach on steep terrain to assure you always have a way out down hill if it goes bad- Never point directly into the mountain, approach at 45 degrees.
- The various geographical features of mountain,and how winds are effected
- Cornices, saddles, and other.
- Factors like surface friction and trees and the effects of winds.

The moral of the story: It a really good idea if you have any concern for self preservation to take a mountain course before blasting off into the hills. These techniques apply not only to large mountains but rolling hills as well, where the situation can be the same. :wink:

Fly safe all and remember learn form the mistakes of others, because you wont live long enough to make make them all yourself.


Cheers

Pilon Rock

Ps: Just for you skypig! Favorite sayings: "Tower, I will hold for the Beaver"
In addition on my first trip down under I was very disappointed with the toilets as they do not flush in the same manor they do here in Canada and I was not able to see the water go down in the opposite direction as per the corriolis effect so I had to use the sink.So anti climatic and disappointing. Do you you suppose you guys could fix that up for the next time. :lol:
User avatar
CYHeli
4th Dan
4th Dan
Posts: 1825
Joined: Jun 2006

Re: Low flying endorsement

Postby CYHeli » Tue Oct 27 2009, 21:53

Ps: Just for you skypig! Favorite sayings: "Tower, I will hold for the Beaver"

I suppose that makes you a gentleman...
It's been interesting watching this and another thread about the differences between ICAO countries and the CPL courses.

As has been said, horses for courses. But it would be nice to have the 10 hours of instrument flying done here in Oz.
There's talk now of building a GPS course into the syllabus, about time.
Mind you, the last time I did the flight from Alice Springs to Melbourne was without GPS, only the compass and DG to work with.
Old school!
What you leave behind is not what is engraved in stone monuments, but what is woven into the lives of others.
User avatar
Jabberwocky
3rd Dan
3rd Dan
Posts: 505
Joined: Dec 2007

Re: Low flying endorsement

Postby Jabberwocky » Tue Oct 27 2009, 22:35

There is actually a small part CYHeli in the syllabus that requires us to now know how to use some Navigational Aids. Not an instrument rating as such, but I'm sure it is greatly over looked during many CHL tests...

Day VFR Syllabus.
2.9. Unit C8: Navigate Aircraft – Flight Standard
C8.8 Use radio navigation aids
• Tunes, identifies and tests all navigation aids before use
• Determines aircraft is within rated coverage of applicable radio
navigation aids
• Fixes aircraft position and solves aircraft orientation problems
using radio navigation aids
• Tracks/homes to the ground station
• Verifies integrity of GPS signal
• Enters and checks waypoint entry into GPS system
• Confirms waypoints and fixes from all radio navigation aids with
flight plan and identified ground fixes during en route navigation at
least once every 60 minutes.
User avatar
hand in pants
4th Dan
4th Dan
Posts: 1615
Joined: Sep 2006

Re: Low flying endorsement

Postby hand in pants » Wed Oct 28 2009, 03:03

Jabbie, I wouldn't say "overlooked" as much as not all that possible as you would be pushing poo up a steep hill with a pointy stick just trying to find a training aircraft with an ADF or VOR in it. The usual nav aid in a robbie is a magnetic compass................

Yes, yes, I know some schools do have them, but some don't and as there is no casa standard for training aircraft you do it in whatever is available and cheap.
Hand in Pants, I'm thinking, my god, that IS huge!!!!!!!!
User avatar
Jabberwocky
3rd Dan
3rd Dan
Posts: 505
Joined: Dec 2007

Re: Low flying endorsement

Postby Jabberwocky » Wed Oct 28 2009, 04:01

Totally agree hip, it is just not such a realistic option here in Oz (atm anyway). I bet a lot of people don't know about it tho, and a lot of other people choose not to know about it ;)
Bite_me
Silver Wings
Silver Wings
Posts: 76
Joined: Mar 2003

Re: Low flying endorsement

Postby Bite_me » Thu Oct 29 2009, 21:34

As an aside, the NAVAID can be the GPS; does not have to be ADF or VOR exclusively.
User avatar
Worzel_Gummidge
Silver Wings
Silver Wings
Posts: 82
Joined: Jun 2008

Re: Low flying endorsement

Postby Worzel_Gummidge » Fri Oct 30 2009, 05:15

As an aside, the NAVAID can be the GPS


Then you'd have to have a GPS qualification wouldn't you? When I did my night rating I had to get a GPS 'enroute' qualification in order to legally use the GPS for navigation. Naturally the GPS has to comply with the relevant TSOs too.
Banjamin James
Silver Wings
Silver Wings
Posts: 89
Joined: Feb 2008

Re: Low flying endorsement

Postby Banjamin James » Fri Oct 30 2009, 05:55

I wouldn't think so? You get tested on using the navaids in fixed wing, they stick you under the visor and you have to navigate using the VOR or NDB flying only on instruments. You don't need an instrument rating to be tested, so following the same logic I don't think you would need a GPS cert to be tested on this either.
Bite_me
Silver Wings
Silver Wings
Posts: 76
Joined: Mar 2003

Re: Low flying endorsement

Postby Bite_me » Sat Oct 31 2009, 09:44

BJ is quite correct. If you are tested using the VOR or ADF for the issue of the CPL, you do not get endorsed on that NAVAID per se; you just have to be capable of operating it, tuning it and tracking on it. Same then goes for the GPS. As for the NVFR Rating, you must be RATED as competent on at least one of these aids! Your NVFR Rating will say which aid you have been tested as competent on.

Return to “Advanced Training”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests