TH-57 fleet grounding

[MasterBates]

The "and airframe stricken" add on to the $1M or fatality for Class-A's was due to TH-57s not being class A's in case of a total loss where nobody died.

At least that's what they told us!

 

[phrogdriver]

After reading a number of articles in trade magazines debating the need to practice full autos (a lot of people are arguing that more mishaps occur during a practice full auto), I think this is definitive proof that it's necessary.

If you're flying single-engine helos, probably.

Also, in terms of risk v. cost--a power recovery gives 90% of the learning with a small portion of the risk. If you can get to a power recovery profile on a real failure, you'll at least survive, even if you goon up the landing.

 

[scoober78]

You can't have a class A based on $$....WORDS WORDS WORDS.....

The 206 is fairly cheap to repair, and if all that happens is spread skids it's actually really cheap (comparatively, of course). Something worse like drive train contact with transmission mounts doesn't even cause it to get near a Charlie level mishap.

Wrong again skippy...

5102.1D...CH 2.... Class A Mishap. The resulting total cost of damages to DoD or non Dod property is $1million or more; a Dod aircraft is destroyed; or an injury and/or occupational illness result in a fatality or permanent total disability.

Good link to have in your bookmarks.... http://www.safetycenter.navy.mil/instructions/default.htm


As for the second part...I think you misunderstand what I am getting at. What it actually costs isn't my point. I am saying that for my .02 I would rather give up several lesser incidents to prevent one Class A...it isn't dollars and cents, its what is right. Its about being smart, safe and ready.

 

[phrogpilot73]

You can't have a class A based on $$, a Charlie is just under 1 million, but there is the loss of aircraft part of the req's, so a total loss of an Bravo or Charlie will do it.

And that's why the whole HT-18 passing a crapload of Class A mishap free flight hours a couple of years ago is so puzzling. A Charlie crashed when I was in HT's, following an instrument auto (sprag clutch slippage upon recovery), and the aircraft was destroyed. I thought it had been stricken, but if it was - then it would have impacted their Class A record... Maybe some creative accounting? Anyone know the low down on that one?

Fwiw, the full auto portion of flight school was my most favorite and important part of it. Being able to land a helo with the engine not providing any power at all really taught me how to control it well. It's a shame we can't do them in the fleet birds, but I'd imagine a hard landing in a 60 could really cost some $$$.

I agree. I look back on doing full autos in the Bravos, and it made me realize that the "theory" works. As for doing full autos in the Fleet... F=ma. I suspect that something with a lot of m, say a 53 would be ugly, and it would only do it once...

 

[phrogpilot73]

Wrong again skippy...

5102.1D...CH 2.... Class A Mishap. The resulting total cost of damages to DoD or non Dod property is $1million or more; a Dod aircraft is destroyed; or an injury and/or occupational illness result in a fatality or permanent total disability.

Good link to have in your bookmarks.... http://www.safetycenter.navy.mil/instructions/default.htm

I think you both just said the same thing. He said that the cost of a Charlie is under $1M, so as long as the Charlie's not stricken - it's not an Alpha. If it is, then it is...

If you're flying single-engine helos, probably.

Also, in terms of risk v. cost--a power recovery gives 90% of the learning with a small portion of the risk. If you can get to a power recovery profile on a real failure, you'll at least survive, even if you goon up the landing.

I agree with you on this, but I'd argue that the confidence in the "theory" that a pilot gets by doing a full auto at least once ("wow, it really does work") will lessen any nervous responses at the bottom that may lend to gooning up the landing.

 

[scoober78]

IBB

I think I misunderstood you...sorry. I thought you were saying that you can't have a class A mishap based on cost period...not in the -57...and that a class C mishap was just under 1 mil...you meant Charlie model....gotcha....

Mea Culpa...

I have no idea why this is in itallics...can't turn em off...

 

[insanebikerboy]

IBB

I think I misunderstood you...sorry. I thought you were saying that you can't have a class A mishap based on cost period...not in the -57...and that a class C mishap was just under 1 mil...you meant Charlie model....gotcha....

Mea Culpa...

I have no idea why this is in itallics...can't turn em off...

It's ok nerd, now I know you keep links to the safety center handy!:icon_tong

 

[scoober78]

It's ok nerd, now I know you keep links to the safety center handy!:icon_tong

<<<<<-------P-3 Driver....


What do you expect?

 

[Cavt]

Does HX-21 test 57s? If so who would do the OT?

HX-21 has two Charlies that they use for proficiency time. Not sure about the testing or the OT but they do operate them.

 

[phrogpilot73]

HX-21 has two Charlies that they use for proficiency time. Not sure about the testing or the OT but they do operate them.

Which begs the question (looking at your avatar), does that include proficiency on an IX?!? Looking back, I was so nervous about that X, but it's WAY easier than some of my nights around the boat...

 

[Cavt]

Which begs the question (looking at your avatar), does that include proficiency on an IX?!? Looking back, I was so nervous about that X, but it's WAY easier than some of my nights around the boat...

I have no idea, I was PTAD with them for a little while before API. I just know they have two sitting in the hanger and they use them for proficiency time, not sure what that all entails...

 

[llnick2001]

^ Funny thing is that there was a discussion of reducing emphasis on autos @ HSC-3: The reason -- too many students were downing flights because of bad autos that time to train took a hit.

This surprises me. It never seemed to be an issue at HS-10. I never heard of anyone downing for autos while I was there. Maybe they've just already deemphasized it, or maybe the S doesn't have the gas to provide adequate training time. I never thought my autos were very good but the instructors never seemed to have a problem with them.

 

[bert]

Did anybody participate in any of the "super" hawk NATOPS conferences? I wonder if standardization of autos was addressed?

 

[SH-60OB]

This surprises me. It never seemed to be an issue at HS-10. I never heard of anyone downing for autos while I was there. Maybe they've just already deemphasized it

I guess what surprises me is that we would de-emphasize a potentially life saving procedure because people were struggling with it. I can imagine the stress this is causing the NAPPI (or whatever they call it now) guys but it is a hard call to push a guy down the hall to the fleet squadrons without some minimum auto proficiency.

I never thought my autos were very good but the instructors never seemed to have a problem with them.

Wait until you do an instructor tour and do a couple of thousand of them then you'll realize a couple things: Your autos really did suck and your instructor's confidence in his/her ability to salvage a really bad one was pretty darn high.

 

[MasterBates]

What's a little tailslide at 60' between friends?