Helo ditching procedure

[Lawman]

One sim instructor told me once that with the computer modeling used in the sim, it simulates the whole tail literally falling off just behind the transition section. So, the procedures are good but yes, the modeling is pretty poor.

Along with that, the Simulator we use for the TH-67 wasnt actually programed by Bell Aircraft. Apparently Bell wanted too much money for the job so the contract ended up going to Beech. Last time I checked Beech doesnt build any helicopters so that might explain some of the stupidity I remember seeing in that sim.

Longbow Cockpit Trainer is pretty good for button pushing and DMS sweeps overall but its nowhere near what it was sold as. The Gunnery is actually anti reality in that a lot of the systems that work well in the Sim work like garbage in the air and vice verse. Originally they wanted to have 8 sims networks on trailers together and literally fly the whole mission before doing it in real aircraft. Do it over the actual terrain they were going to be flying over after loading up enemy Intel and everything. Same thing that Falcon view supposedly for mission planning.

 

[RobLyman]

Soooo, what you're saying is that Marine pilots are the best because we fly night over water and NVG low over land??

Noooo, that's what you are saying.:icon_tong

 

[lowflier03]

One sim instructor told me once that with the computer modeling used in the sim, it simulates the whole tail literally falling off just behind the transition section. So, the procedures are good but yes, the modeling is pretty poor.

Depends on the sim. If you fly the Legacy ones and do a tail rotor failure EP, you will notice that the nose actually breaks right at the bottom of the auto. Which is NOT the way it happens in real life. So technically it's not modeled correct either way you slice it. Although I can tell you from experience that simulating the whole tail falling off isn't too far from what is likely to happen in real life and would actually train you for the worst case scenario. The newer sims at least have the modeling more correct for yaw at the bottom. Though it still isn't real world, it's progress.

 

[BACONATOR]

Depends on the sim. If you fly the Legacy ones and do a tail rotor failure EP, you will notice that the nose actually breaks right at the bottom of the auto. Which is NOT the way it happens in real life. So technically it's not modeled correct either way you slice it. Although I can tell you from experience that simulating the whole tail falling off isn't too far from what is likely to happen in real life and would actually train you for the worst case scenario. The newer sims at least have the modeling more correct for yaw at the bottom. Though it still isn't real world, it's progress.

Instead of delving into the intricacies of aerodynamic and degraded performance modeling of the sims, let's hit the important points like how on one of the 60S SIMs at NASNI, you could stealthily slip on EXT PWR before an EP sim and never have to watch your screens go black when they gave you dual eng failures, AC/DC failure, Dual Converter failures or generator malfunctions.

If you ain't cheating, you ain't trying....

 

[Pags]

If you ain't cheating, you ain't trying....

You're only cheating yourself.

 

[phrogpilot73]

You're only cheating yourself.

Cue Otto: "But those EPs will NEVER happen!" Riiiggght...

 

[BACONATOR]

You're only cheating yourself.

Cue Otto: "But those EPs will NEVER happen!" Riiiggght...

For those REALLY concerned with my training while in the RAG.... it only works the first time. As long as they're not sleeping, they'll flip it back off. Either way, I'm jealous of those who have a SIM. Poor modeling aside, it's a great training tool to mess around with, especially without the stress of getting a card out, and just experimenting.

 

[lowflier03]

As an FYI for those interested. The Legacy Sims in Jax and the Sierra sims in Norfolk almost always have open slots. (They may not always be during the "ideal" times in Norfolk) but if you want to hop in and just "experiment" with stuff, there are opportunities. And the CSI's are more than willing to let you try things out with the helo falling apart around you.

 

[Gatordev]

True, Army folks aren't as well versed at flight over water. True, night over the water is "crazy talk" to them. Their meat & potatoes is NVG flying low over the land. That night over the water translates into hard instrument time for land lubber aviators. They do not have the extensive night over water experience those in the Navy take for granted. So, years and years of different experience under different institutions results in very different ways to fly (nearly) the same aircraft in a given environment.

As for the <5 miles vis comment, I am sure we can all throw out anecdotal evidence of when the other service has done something crazy, stupid, whimpy, etc.. All I can say is that flying on at least two sides of the fence, I have seen and flown in equally bad weather on both sides. Thunderstorms & hard rain in the Navy...snow, icing, low vis and ceilings in the Army.

What you may have experienced with Army aviators is a result of their mission approval process. The worse the weather, visibility, ceiling, etc..the higher the approval authority for the mission. While the local unit may feel comfortable launching in certain weather, that weather requires approval from a higher unit, who may, based on any number of reasons (legit or not) decide to hold launch authority.


I have flown missions in the Army National Guard that the Navy would never do. And likewise I have flown missions in the Navy the Army would never do. It really isn't the pilots in either service that are not ready and willing. It is the managing structure and their adversion to certain risks that makes the biggest difference.

Speaking of missions, I am am off to do some NVG flying at Camp Blanding...later.

I completely agree with the jist of what you're saying. My point wasn't that the Army (or Guard) are lesser pilots because they aren't experienced in night over water flying, just that it's a different skill-set they don't practice, just like night-Terf is something I don't practice.

I also have noticed that my comfort level with weather is much higher than your average Navy helo guy just because I've spent a lot more time either in the weather or dodging the weather as an IP in the VTs.

As for the particular unit I was dealing with, it wasn't higher authority that was the issue, it was a combination of their SOP and pretty junior pilots. That said, when you fly for 100+ miles to arrive at a location where everyone is waiting for you and then you turn around 10 miles from the airfield to fly all the way back, that's a little embarrassing, especially when the Navy guys showed up w/out a problem.

When we were leaving to head back to the boat at the end of the day, there was some showery weather, and lots of haze, but the METAR was calling 1200/3. When we said our goodbyes and started walking to our bird, we were asked if we were really going to fly in this stuff. We were polite, of course, but among ourselves, we joked about how "crazy" the weather was. And by "crazy," we mean VFR.

But at the end of the day, I can't make fun of the Army too much. They have to spend 15 months away from home and on top of it all, people are shooting at them.

 

[Lawman]

Gator,

Keep in mind a lot of our aircraft (Apache + Kiowa) are not certified for IFR. Its not a non capability as far as being able to do it. Hell with my dual INU's and hold modes IFR is easy. But since I dont have dual VORs the Army says I cant fly in clouds in an All Weather Attack Helicopter. Unfortunately we've killed a lot of people trying to stay VFR and ending up IFR because people wouldnt commit to it. Once we start fielding the Blk III in the next year we will actually have Dual VORs so we can fly IFR instead of just train for it.

 

[lowflier03]

Gator,
But since I dont have dual VORs the Army says I cant fly in clouds in an All Weather Attack Helicopter. Once we start fielding the Blk III in the next year we will actually have Dual VORs so we can fly IFR instead of just train for it.

Funny how the different services think. All we have in the F/H that is actually certified to use for Nav is a single TACAN. And I've flown a healthy chunk of actual IFR in some pretty crappy conditions in that bird.

 

[Lawman]

Funny how the different services think. All we have in the F/H that is actually certified to use for Nav is a single TACAN. And I've flown a healthy chunk of actual IFR in some pretty crappy conditions in that bird.

We've got an ADF, and we would be able to hold a certification if our INU's were a non editable database but since we store our approaches as Waypoints that we can edit in the air they say No-Go on making it a GPS only IFR bird. I find it hysterical that the worlds most advanced attack Helicopter needs to have a 30 year old navigation system that is on its way out added too its already 70 year old nearly retired navigation aid in order to do something we all know is possible and even more accurate with the GPS. Especially when you talk about Blk II and the moving satellite map display. I can literally come to an IGE hover over a field, scale to 2 and land in a field using nothing but the hold modes and the picture on the screen.

 

[bobbybrock]

Gator,

Keep in mind a lot of our aircraft (Apache + Kiowa) are not certified for IFR. Its not a non capability as far as being able to do it. Hell with my dual INU's and hold modes IFR is easy. But since I dont have dual VORs the Army says I cant fly in clouds in an All Weather Attack Helicopter. Unfortunately we've killed a lot of people trying to stay VFR and ending up IFR because people wouldnt commit to it. Once we start fielding the Blk III in the next year we will actually have Dual VORs so we can fly IFR instead of just train for it.

I was a pre-TH-67 flight school bubba so I always found it odd that the Army would give students dual VOR's when none of the aircraft in the fleet have them. It always confused me why we only gave the AH/OH guys the minimum when it came to instruments. As a 60SP/IE I can see the huge amount of trepadation in a former Attack guy when I take him in the clouds. Glad to see they are finally geting the equipment that they need.
I think being in the guard gives you an unique perspective on how other people do business. Not only do we have guys from our sister services but we have guys who fly for federal and local agencies that bring different ideas to the table. Some of those ideas are better, some not .
I was in Hawaii in the late 90's. It took a few former 160th guys in our unit to get a real over water program going. And that is in a place where you have to fly over water. The Army is not big on change.

 

[Gatordev]

Gator,

Keep in mind a lot of our aircraft (Apache + Kiowa) are not certified for IFR. Its not a non capability as far as being able to do it. Hell with my dual INU's and hold modes IFR is easy. But since I dont have dual VORs the Army says I cant fly in clouds in an All Weather Attack Helicopter. Unfortunately we've killed a lot of people trying to stay VFR and ending up IFR because people wouldnt commit to it. Once we start fielding the Blk III in the next year we will actually have Dual VORs so we can fly IFR instead of just train for it.

These weren't Apaches nor Kiowas, but I understand your point. Like lowflier said, all we have is one nav system, and it's so outdated it's getting harder and harder to fly on the airways. But that's a whole other thread and discussion.

 

[bert]

As an FYI for those interested. The Legacy Sims in Jax and the Sierra sims in Norfolk almost always have open slots. (They may not always be during the "ideal" times in Norfolk) but if you want to hop in and just "experiment" with stuff, there are opportunities. And the CSI's are more than willing to let you try things out with the helo falling apart around you.

The Foxtrot sim in Jax can do fixed-pitch tail rotor EP's now - very good training (most of the Navy 60 sims are really only simulating stuck pedal and you still have control mixing). UK does a fantastic job with their sims - they spent the money and did it right. Best t/r training I've had was with the RAF Merlin sims (and I was very impressed with their ability to link the different T/M/S sims for mission training as well). While the Navy has talked a good game about simulator utilization from both a training and FLM point of view, in reality we are really aiming at OFT's.