TH-57 fleet grounding

[scoober78]

What is your hard deck? 300 feet 180 KIAS?

Haven't done one here at VP-30 so I can't speak to that...but all the ditching practice we did in Advanced was way above that. We would usually start 1000 above and the ditch deck was say 5000'. Speeds were...I wanna say about 120 kts...but that's a guess...The C-12 is officially gone from memory. I guess the difference is that the ditches we practiced were entirely instrument ditches...on an assigned heading and based on radalt.

 

[busdriver]

How were the previous 46 guys doing it?

 

[bert]

The problem was -46 types not really understanding how to auto a -60, and then trying to teach a student how to auto (IMHO).

So that explains all the B mishaps?

 

[NozeMan]

You're on crack dude. Stay a flight school student AS LONG AS POSSIBLE. Look at FLYTPAY and 'Bates.

obviously didn't get the sarcasm......chill

 

[Gatordev]

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?

The aircraft was still in the hangar when I started HTs, which was probably about 6 months after you started. I don't know the story, but I think what was discussed makes sense; they were trying salvage as much as they could before they finally "destroyed" the nameplates.

 

[hscs]

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

Did not participate but heard that direction from CNAF was if the manuever/system was the same - the wording in the book had to be the same across TMS.

 

[magnetfreezer]

The aircraft was still in the hangar when I started HTs, which was probably about 6 months after you started. I don't know the story, but I think what was discussed makes sense; they were trying salvage as much as they could before they finally "destroyed" the nameplates.

I had an aviation safety briefer during API who mentioned that the class A damage criteria used to only be $1 million and that the "or aircraft destroyed" clause was added because of the above situation. He said the change happened because the -57 cost less than a million to replace and the HT's were racking up class-A free safety records even after destroying several helicopters. Any truth to this scenario?

 

[phrogpilot73]

I had an aviation safety briefer during API who mentioned that the class A damage criteria used to only be $1 million and that the "or aircraft destroyed" clause was added because of the above situation. He said the change happened because the -57 cost less than a million to replace and the HT's were racking up class-A free safety records even after destroying several helicopters. Any truth to this scenario?

I guess it's plausible, but I seem to remember that the aircraft loss clause was there when I was going through flight school. I could be wrong.

 

[Rubiks06]

That was what they told me when i was going through API too. Basically that the HT's were baling up aircraft digging through the rubble and finding a altimeter or attitude indicator dusting it off and making it "new".

Rumor also has it that with the implementation of the "57d" if and when they ever get it, they will be able to return to full-autos in the instrument stage because it will be so much lighter.

 

[TKRyan]

TH-57 Grounding

My son(a Navy Ensign) training on TH-57's(Bell 206) in Milton Florida informed me of this problem. He tells me the problematic part is manufactured by a Rolls Royce sub contractor, and new parts will be manufactured and installed. My question is, if this sub contractor manufactured the flawed part, presumable based on the original specs, why would their "re-manufacture" of the same part be safer? Also given the multi-million dollar contract involved, why did Rolls Royce not immediately dispatch engineers and designers to ALL the facilities using this dangerous product?

 

[Rubiks06]

There are so many facilities that use the 206 they probably dont have enough people to dispatch.

 

[phrogpilot73]

My son(a Navy Ensign) training on TH-57's(Bell 206) in Milton Florida informed me of this problem. He tells me the problematic part is manufactured by a Rolls Royce sub contractor, and new parts will be manufactured and installed. My question is, if this sub contractor manufactured the flawed part, presumable based on the original specs, why would their "re-manufacture" of the same part be safer? Also given the multi-million dollar contract involved, why did Rolls Royce not immediately dispatch engineers and designers to ALL the facilities using this dangerous product?

Ooo! Ooo! I know! I know! We covered it in my "Philosophy, Principles, and Practices in Management of Quality" class this semester. Eliminating the "common cause" variation (which are a result of the design, I'm assuming that the design is good - since they've been using it a while), so the type of variation in play is "special causes" or "assignable causes". Factors of this type of variation include: bad material from a supplier, poorly trained operators, broken or worn out tools, or tools that are out of calibration.

So it's as simple as that. There is no great conspiracy. Rolls Royce is a good company, and they have a long history of building good (well, decent if you include the Harrier) engines. I would assume that they are still building the parts with the process that they've always used, only now something popped up that they didn't catch. Rolls Royce uses Six Sigma, so I can only assume that their Black Belts are a bit busy right now.

 

[jamnww]

There are so many facilities that use the 206 they probably dont have enough people to dispatch.

Not only that, the same engine or the same specific part could be used in a number of different types of aircraft. Considering all this the number of locations using the part is far more than even a large company would find it unmanagable.

 

[phrogdriver]

The class A including destruction of aircraft has been there for a long time, and really does make sense. I think people trying to ascribe that to TH-57s in particular are just trying to make something up to explain it. The dollar figures are completely out of whack with the prices of modern aircraft components. A single composite panel will get you above $20K, and a hydraulic actuator can cost over $100K. One million is not that hard to get to, either. A class C should have to be a fairly significant event, not a ding, and an A should be something along the lines of balling the thing up. I think that was the original intent, and inflation has skewed the ratings downward.

 

[Rubiks06]

As expensive as a couple of hellfires or even a single FLIR are you could taxi into something and have a class A.