How did the AF/ANG guys from Long Island do it when they ditched the 60 in bad weather after not being able to tank in the "Perfect Storm" incident? Sounds like an interesting case study.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Helo ditching procedure
- Thread starter wink
- Start date
How did the AF/ANG guys from Long Island do it when they ditched the 60 in bad weather after not being able to tank in the "Perfect Storm" incident? Sounds like an interesting case study.
This seems spot on. It's the basics. HABD in, windows out, violent motion stops, water stops rushing in your egress point - get out of the sinking or soon to be sinking bird. There isn't going to be a lot of time.
The 53 ditching in January 2005 was "ideal" for a ditch. A transmission failure gave the crew enough warning time for them to comprehend that the bird was not going to make it to shore. The crew was able to set up for a water landing. They got a mayday call out with a lat/long over guard. A USCG C-130 from E-City heard the broadcast and was en route within minutes. The crew set the 53 on the water and shut the head down and let it coast to a stop. The tail starting sinking and water started rushing in the back - quickly as the ramp was open for an AMCM mission. I spoke with the co-pilot afterwards and he recalled being very surprised with how forceful the water was coming in behind and from his open window. The water temperature was 38 degrees, so it was shockingly cold. 2 USN 60 squadrons were on a nearby ship doing DLQs and they responded as well. In all, all hands were rescued. Great lessons were learned by the 53 community about water landings and ditchings in general.
Wink, another huge consideration that dictates how you'll respond is how your airframe is expected to hold up in the event of a water landing, controlled or otherwise. In the 60 community, looking at recent water impacts and hearing from the tech reps, we have a reasonable expectation of surviving most immediate water landings that don't involve unintentionally flying a good bird into the water. In a 206 airframe, however, if a situation calls for a ditch you might want to do that sooner rather than later while you still have controllability so the impact is minimal. I would probably get the doors off, keep everybody inside/strapped in and set it down. Wait for violent motion to cease, CDRB. With a 206 sitting low and water rushing in, I imagine that a rotor blade will hit the water long before you could plan which direction that would be. Best of luck!
Is it considered preferable to have the ramp down (for an additional exit) or closed (to slow down the water coming in)?
phrogpilot73
Well-Known Member
In the Phrog, our procedures are for the ramp to be closed. Not to keep water out, but to prevent someone from egressing and getting stuck between the hatch and transmission.
So do I, I just remember talking about lock starts around a 60 guy down here and he looked at me with complete confusion.
Another note about ditching/autos. Several recent mishaps have proven that the -60 airframe is extremely survivable if you hit the ground/water with some forward airspeed. A 0/0 is extremely hard to do IRL and has a high probability of getting you killed due to excessive sink rate at the bottom. Where as almost any of us stick monkeys should be able to get the speed below 20 knots at the bottom while keeping the VSI reasonable and letting the airframe absorb the energy.
As for the rest of it, I've heard both sides of the fence on jettisoning windows, letting the crew jump and doing an air taxi, stacking the blades, etc. I think it is all very situationally dependent and you will do whatever you think you can best execute quickly given the circumstances. (And I say that from experience) You just can't pre-brief every single scenario, at some point SA and headwork have to come into play.
As for the rest of it, I've heard both sides of the fence on jettisoning windows, letting the crew jump and doing an air taxi, stacking the blades, etc. I think it is all very situationally dependent and you will do whatever you think you can best execute quickly given the circumstances. (And I say that from experience) You just can't pre-brief every single scenario, at some point SA and headwork have to come into play.
How much simulator time per year is typical for post-FRS pilots?
Depends on squadron and location. For FDNF squadrons its 0. For fleet guys in Jax, based on the sim schedules I see it's not alot, but that's by their choice. (Usually they only use the sims for Inst checks, ASW stuff and certain other evaluations.) In the WWS I've got 80 hours in the sim in the last year.
I had always thought the "pilots will "flip" the helo over if we ditch over water." was an old urban legend. I was asked that question many times during pax briefs, but always told them not. After reading this I guess I was wrong, at least for Army. Jump while the A/C is still flyable yup, hold power until the last engine flames out, yup. Never once do I remember discussing rolling the A/C on purpose.
In the H-2 FRAC Syllabus, there was a whole lesson on the bail-out option. The aircrewman jumps out with the bag of rafts (which weighed almost 90 pounds), the pilot on the left jumps out (because the collective is in the way for water egress), and the pilot in the right seat flies a short distance away and then puts it into the water. I will check the NATOPS later to verify.
Oh, no. You can. And there's plenty of HSL pilots that will try.
The better question is "how good is the simulator time that pilots are getting?" You can go do all the sim autos you want, but it won't matter one bit if the flight model in the sim isn't accurate. At that point you're almost building negative habit patterns. Most of the sims are actually "operational flight trainers", which means they're good at button/switch-ology but not as good on the flight model side of things.