The Autorotational Flare for the AS350 and EC130

[@Steeyuv]

I thought the flare looked a little high at the start of the videos, but then you went on to explain about the airspeed at entry, made perfect sense.

[@seancook5611]

Thank you for doing these videos. There is so little educational information, especially with good visuals, available for our aircraft.

[@EUROSAFETYTRAINING]

Thanks Sean!

[@helifenix]

during our lives as helicopter pilots it is a good idea to explore different types of autorotation, within the safety parameters to have tools to deal with real failures, different speeds and different RPMs and different heights of the flare. I remember an anecdote of a pilot who experienced engine failure over swamps and chose to arrive with 0 translation speed so he flared to a higher altitude and arrived completely vertical in the swamp achieving excellent autorotation. FLY SAFE

[@coreyhart4334]

Thanks for publishing these videos.

[@EUROSAFETYTRAINING]

It's my pleasure

[@airspotter100]

Love these videos!!

[@EUROSAFETYTRAINING]

thanks!

[@helicopterovirtual-msfs6254]

Magnífico 👏

[@abbas41]

Can you explain why do we tend to drop speed to 50 knots during 360 degree autorotation and what if we try to come down maintaining 65 knots! Like I have experienced it’s always easier to do 360 with less speed!

[@EUROSAFETYTRAINING]

That is an interesting discussion and I will try to be brief, though I have a tendency to expand, When making a 360 degree autorotation... the turn is either made tight or wide. if you have a tight turn you have a more nose down attitude but your airspeed will not not rise rapidly because of centrifugal loads. But because you have a high VSI this substitutes for the lack in airspeed for the flare. So when you come out of the descent into the flare with a slow speed the NR is more manageable. If you have higher speed and a high rate of descent when flaring the NR management is more difficult. Does that answer your question?

[@isbgr785]

where can we find the article?

[@slavikpablo]

Thank you very much for share this very important information. So useful!!!! I really appreciate it! I usually fly in high mountain environment. Just to clarify: all the instructors use to talk about 65 KIAS but the RFM is very clear...it mentions Vy. So if I am finishing my auto at a spot at 10000 ft I should enter the flare with 55 KIAS instead of 65 right? And in your experience this works? Or you use a different speed for your high altitude autos? Thank you very much in advance for your response

[@EUROSAFETYTRAINING]

This topic is a very interesting discussion. If we to look at just the somewhat recent 350 models, and as a reminder all 350 models with gray blades autorotate the same... In the B3e and B3 2B1... autorotational speed is Vy (emergency procedure section is recommended information), Vy is 65 -1 kt per 1000 feet (normal procedure section), in the Limitation section (required compliance) it states...When OAT < -20°C, calculated VNE power off must be reduced by 20 kt (37 km/h), with a minimum of 65 kt .... which is confusing on its own... does the 65 kt minimum only apply at temps below -20 or is it always the power off lower limitation. In the B3 2B... autorotational speed in the emergency procedure section is "approximately 65 knots"... in the limitation section it states... - Absolute power off VNE is 125 kt at zero pressure-altitude....At higher altitudes this speed is to be reduced by 3 kt per 1000 ft without dropping below 65 kt . In cold weather, reduce the VNE as follows : -20 kt when OAT is below -20°C without dropping below 65 kt.... so we can see here they are specifically addressing not going below 65 kts in the autorotation, which in later manuals they changed but again they auto exactly the same. In the B2 VEMD.... autorotational speed is 65 kt and in limitation section it states...When OAT < -20°C, calculated VNE power off must be reduced by 20 kt (37 km/h), with a minimum of 65 kt In the B2 ..... autorotational speed in the emergency procedure section is "approximately 65 knots"... in the limitation section it states... - Absolute power off VNE is 125 kt at zero pressure-altitude....At higher altitudes this speed is to be reduced by 3 kt per 1000 ft without dropping below 65 kt . In cold weather, reduce the VNE as follows : -20 kt when OAT is below -20°C without dropping below 65 kt From personal experience I use 65 kts as a lower red line for autorotations... as long as I am above 65 I have good inertia for rotor build and velocity braking... if I am a bit fast I will flare a bit higher... if I am low airspeed at flare I know I have to accept more ground run. Good question

[@PabloSlavik]

Thank you very much for your answer! Very complete and informative!

[@Niko-qs1sl]

Hey Glenn. Me again, thank you for the videos. I totally agree with everything that you have said. I do have a few follow on questions. My technique closely mimics yours, only with one exception, instead of lowering the collective through the flare to increase the NR, I autorotate ~5kt above the recommended speed and use a 'pre-flare check' (maybe around 110ft-ish). This pushes the RRPM above ~400 just like it does with your technique. It also importantly slows down the groundrush/vertical speed perception at the end which may help with what I call unwanted lizard panic instincts which in my experience leads to the "overflare" that you talked about. Should I change my technique to yours? What are the advantages and disadvantages? Anyway, my main question is in regards to 2` change at the bottom of the flare. I do try to touch down with the aircraft fairly level with the ground (still slightly nose up) as I do not want to harm the stinger behind me (be it designed for that exact reason, it's like bumping into a car next to you when parking with the excuse that this is what bumpers were made for) - is it that you have done so many of them you know exactly where the stinger is or is it that your flare angle will never strike the stinger to begin with. Are you concerned on the forces on the bear paws when contacting the ground with such a nose up attitude? Thank you for all your wisdom and being the antithesis to Vuichard

[@EUROSAFETYTRAINING]

Hi Niko, first, when ever I am giving my opinions on Autorotations I like to preface that it really is an art form and there are many different methods that work. I never advocate that there is only one way. ....I am assuming when you say "check" you are referring to the method of inducing a momentary hard collect application and then a removal of that collective. This "check" gained popularity in Bell Helicopters many years ago and I was taught it back in the day on the Bells. I never really cared for it as I like a more graceful manipulation of the controls as opposed to what I viewed as a hammer method. From what I understand, Bell stopped recommending the method many years ago and I see less and less of it. Regarding your question whether you should change, I am constantly trying new methods, I would simply recommend you try a change to your method and if you like the change, if you find more success in how you have been doing it and it works, stick with what you like. Regarding advantages of driving up rotor with reduction of collective... I like a precise NR number prior to cushion on bottom. This gives me a consistent NR inertia for touchdown. Regarding your questions about touchdown attitude. This would be a variable that would fall in the "highly recommended" category. The mast on the AS350 is tilted forward and the cabin is canted upward. So a level cabin will put the helicopter on its toes for touchdown. If you are talking skids level the mast is still tilted forward which will accelerate the helicopter on touchdown, not slow it down. I would not look at the stinger as a car bumper. We of course want to avoid "hitting" it with great force but to drag it down the runway does zero damage to the helicopter. Most pilots dont even realize how often they make contact with the ground with it on normal landings when alone in the helicopter. Regarding bear paws... allows remove prior to practicing full downs. Thank you for your comments and being a fan of the videos. It is very encouraging to see the desire of the helicopter community for information to make us all safer.

[@Niko-qs1sl]

First off, some juicy gossip for you, Glenn: the Bell technique has recently resurfaced. Ironically, it was none other than Vuichard who wanted to plaster his name on the technique. More hilarity and execution (of our Swiss friend, and the autorotation) can be found on PPRUNE. Just search new-vuichard-auto-revolutionary (for some reason KZbin did not let me post the link) I agree that the old Bell technique didn't sit right with me either; seeing any student jerking any control sends shivers down my spine. Apologies for the confusion. What I meant by a check-flare is a slight flare before the actual flare, only done with the cyclic in a classic configuration. It's enough to slow down the rate of descent and start to accelerate the NR to 400's. However, if the NR is a bit low (i.e., for range in some aircraft), then I also encourage the lowering of the collective a little. I currently teach this as the "vanilla technique" because it gives pilots more opportunity to perform tasks sequentially rather than in parallel. The disadvantage I currently talk about is the potential need for more clear space; the advantage being that having the right NR in the flare gives the pilot more headspace to concentrate on getting the landing right. This autorotation technique into a small area, like a vacant block in the city, is a complete no-go, and I teach a different technique in that scenario. It’s tricky with the stinger, Glenn. In isolation, I agree that the stinger is designed for this job. However, I run a helicopter company that prides itself on the presentation of our aircraft, and my concern is cultural. Our pilots truly baby them and have strict techniques on how to fly, wash, store and take pride in them. It's always a challenge bringing in a new pilot. I fear that sending the stinger scraping down the runway sends "mixed messages." Especially on a check flight where this can set the stage of how we treat our aircraft. We all know the type of pilots who slam doors, chip paint every time they climb up and down, and use what I can only imagine as 400 grit sandpaper on screens worth more than our cars - Paaaaaaaain Thank you for answering my question regarding the touchdown attitude. All the best

[@Niko-qs1sl]

​@@EUROSAFETYTRAINING First off, some juicy gossip for you, Glenn: the Bell technique has recently resurfaced. Ironically, it was none other than Vuichard who wanted to plaster his name on the technique. More hilarity and execution (of our Swiss friend, and the autorotation) can be found on PPRUNE. Just search new-vuichard-auto-revolutionary (for some reason KZbin did not let me post the link) I agree that the old Bell technique didn't sit right with me either; seeing any student jerking any control sends shivers down my spine. Apologies for the confusion. What I meant by a check-flare is a slight flare before the actual flare, only done with the cyclic in a classic configuration. It's enough to slow down the rate of descent and start to accelerate the NR to 400's. However, if the NR is a bit low (i.e., for range in some aircraft), then I also encourage the lowering of the collective a little. I currently teach this as the "vanilla technique" because it gives pilots more opportunity to perform tasks sequentially rather than in parallel. The disadvantage I currently talk about is the potential need for more clear space; the advantage being that having the right NR in the flare gives the pilot more headspace to concentrate on getting the landing right. This autorotation technique into a small area, like a vacant block in the city, is a complete no-go, and I teach a different technique in that scenario.

[@Niko-qs1sl]

First off, some juicy gossip for you, Glenn: the Bell technique has recently resurfaced. Ironically, it was none other than Vuichard who wanted to plaster his name on the technique. More hilarity and execution (of our Swiss friend, and the autorotation) can be found on PPRUNE. Just search new-vuichard-auto-revolutionary (for some reason KZbin did not let me post the link) I agree that the old Bell technique didn't sit right with me either; seeing any student jerking any control sends shivers down my spine. Apologies for the confusion. What I meant by a check-flare is a slight flare before the actual flare, only done with the cyclic in a classic configuration. It's enough to slow down the rate of descent and start to accelerate the NR to 400's. However, if the NR is a bit low (i.e., for range in some aircraft), then I also encourage the lowering of the collective a little. I currently teach this as the "vanilla technique" because it gives pilots more opportunity to perform tasks sequentially rather than in parallel. The disadvantage I currently talk about is the potential need for more clear space; the advantage being that having the right NR in the flare gives the pilot more headspace to concentrate on getting the landing right. This autorotation technique into a small area, like a vacant block in the city, is a complete no-go, and I teach a different technique in that scenario

[@Niko-qs1sl]

First off, some juicy gossip for you, Glenn: the Bell technique has recently resurfaced. Ironically, it was none other than Vuichard who wanted to plaster his name on the technique. More hilarity and execution (of our Swiss friend, and the autorotation) can be found on PPRUNE. Just search new-vuichard-auto-revolutionary (for some reason KZbin did not let me post the link) I agree that the old Bell technique didn't sit right with me either; seeing any student jerking any control sends shivers down my spine

[@HongyaMa]

When you can do an auto in any type of helicopter with zero airspeed and zero descent from any point in the compass That's when you mastered autorotation - The book is just the start