Training Scars from Practice Autorotations

While practice autorotations are essential for developing foundational skills and procedural proficiency, it is important to acknowledge the differences between training conditions and real-world emergencies. These differences can lead to training scars—habit patterns developed in a controlled environment that may not translate effectively under actual emergency conditions. 

In training, practice autorotations are conducted under ideal conditions—with forgiving entry parameters under favorable environmental conditions—to ensure safety. In contrast, real autorotations are likely to occur unexpectedly, at lower altitudes, faster airspeeds, and under less-than-ideal conditions. 

By identifying and addressing these differences, we can better prepare aircrews to respond instinctively and effectively when faced with a real autorotation. The following points highlight key areas where training and reality diverge, and offer instructional emphasis to help mitigate those gaps. 

By recognizing these differences, we can better prepare for real-world scenarios and ensure training leads to effective, instinctive responses: 

• Early Recovery Altitude Practice autos are typically recovered at 80’ AGL, whereas a real autorotation requires recovery between 35–60’ AGL. This discrepancy builds a habit pattern for early recovery, which may not be effective in an actual emergency. Conveniently, our RADAR altitude display has a large 50’ mark. Pilots should note the RADALT pointer at the big 50’ mark can be a trigger for recovery at the appropriate altitude during a real auto.

• Altitude Hold Use Autorotations are usually practiced with altitude hold off, yet pilots frequently operate with it on during normal flight. Pilots should regularly discuss disabling altitude hold before releasing collective trim in a real auto to avoid unanticipated and undesired collective pitch reactions when realizing collective trim during an auto. 

• Unrealistic Entry Parameters Practice autos are often initiated from slower airspeeds and higher altitudes than typical operational profiles. In contrast, real autorotations are more likely to begin from higher airspeeds and lower altitudes, resulting in a much faster-paced event. Instructors should highlight this mismatch during training. 

• Incorrect Failure Assumption Pilots often simulate practice autos as a response to a dual engine failure, yet the more likely scenario is a loss of tail rotor thrust. To reinforce proper habit patterns, pilots should discuss the need to secure PCLs prior to the flare in most actual autos. 

• Wind and Landing Site Considerations Current procedures state, “If altitude permits, turn into the wind.” This should be expanded to include, “and/or toward a suitable landing site.” In a real autorotation, the landing zone’s impact on survivability often outweighs wind alignment.
• A Visible Horizon Our community only practices autorotations during the day in favorable ceilings and visibility. At night offshore, a turn toward a visible horizon may be critical to an effective flare that allows for a survivable landing/ditching.