Hot new helicopter/rotorcraft news

[Stingerhawk]

Hi. Former CAT I stan here.

Studs fly in the 57B for 3 weeks - and that first week, the vast, vast majority of them do not even think about autos beyond "holy shit that is crazy why did I become a helicopter pilot."

After that, they don't perform full autos anymore.

Furthermore, as you pointed out, there are big instructional costs associated with overcoming the primacy of auto techniques necessary for the high-inertia head in the 57.

In the end, it comes down to what works for the fleet - and the cost/benefit analysis for full autos in HTs just doesn't convince me they're required.

I stand by my statement that nowhere else in your flying career do you gain that level of confidence in being able to accomplish a full auto if you had to. As far as the 57's rotor head not being congruent with auto characteristics of today's fleet aircraft, easily overcome with a modern training helicopter and instantly regain the building block approach and the primacy of learning to fly a helicopter.

 

[Stingerhawk]

Also CAT 1 STAN (and CNATRA Stage Mgr) - If memory serves, autos happen from FAM 6 forward. I totally agree with the fact that the training requirements get driven by Fleet input. But Tail Rotor malfunctions were always a big ask by the H-60 community at NHA, and the risk decision was NOT to do these based on historical incident data.

The auto profile of the '57/B206 is VERY forgiving, stupidly so. Having done full auto to the ground in modern medium/light twins, the experience is very very different, and very *unforgiving*.

The auto in a 60 is there as a last resort, generally as a result of a tail rotor failure, combat damage (remember in Black Hawk Down when Clif Wolcot - played by Jeremy Piven - calls out "you going to pull those PCL's back or what?") or other major failure.

The level D sims - FlightSafety operated - for the Sikorsky S-92 have VERY high fidelity on the full auto profile - especially from flare to ground.

So there are options and there will be risks going forward - but this is all moot, since the NAVAIR RFP firmly describes the need for repeated full autos to the deck.

Now temper that NAVAIR is open to a bi-model solution, 2 different aircraft for VFR/IFR. You may very well see a light twin for IFR training, and a light single for FAM's and others...

Blackhawk Down scenario is exactly why auto training is fundamental skill for helicopter pilots. I agree with all up until the two model approach for a new aircraft. You are stepping right back into the biggest resources issue TAW 5 has. 3 T/M/S in actuality (some even agrue 4 with the hooks only being installed on a few) with 57b's, 57c's and 57c's with NVG kits. Why are you afraid one 1 T/M/S that can do it all and cut the time to train? You cut all the trans-fams and the need for IP's with multiple TH-57B & C quals right away effectively streamlining the training pipeline just from that benefit alone......... Wait I get it now. You are presuming that Bell wins this and they have to put a multiple T/M/S solution forward just to meet the IFR requirements with a twin engine (407 isn't likely getting certified IFR unless they install a 2nd Hyd system) like the 429. Then they pass the pain of their inability to meet the requirements with one T/M/S on to the Navy.

Or they could just use the TH-119......

 

[hscs]

Or they could just use the TH-119......

Or we could follow acquisition laws/rules and compete the bid and see who wins, especially since I believe the RFP is still open.

I may be the only one, but I am suspect of your posts lauding the merits of the TH-119 over Bell bid, considering your location in your profile, Agusta Westland's HQ is in Arlington, and heavy posting in only this forum.

If I am wrong, I sincerely apologize.

 

[Stingerhawk]

I never suggested NOT competing it or doing anything that's not in the best interest of the Navy. Never did. Competition is a good thing for the taxpayer, which we all are.

I am just saying that its too easy to assume the incumbent is always the better answer. I happen to see the TH-119 live at Navy League Sea, Air, Space last week up here and I've flown the 407. This appears to be a better solution whether the Navy buys it or uses a services contract. I don't really care. Something needs to be done for the good of Naval Helicopter Training. Strike community would have never let things get this bad. NEVER.

For the record, I thought Agusta was only located in Philly in the US? Where are they in up in the DC area? I'll have to check them out.

Apology accepted.

 

[ChuckMK23]

FWIW the current TH-57C *is* certified SP IFR for Part 91 operations. The airframe logbooks have this endorsement from FAA when SFENA finidhed completion and delivered to Navy in early 80's

 

[Flash]

...For the record, I thought Agusta was only located in Philly in the US? Where are they in up in the DC area? I'll have to check them out...

They have a big branded building visible off the Dulles Toll Road in Reston along with a bunch of other defense contractors.

 

[ChuckMK23]

First off, can we get @Stingerhawk some wings?

Second, I would like nothing better than see the Yahtzee dice shaken up a bit with regards to Navy/MarineCorps undergraduate helicopter pilot training. I think the curriculum is way too stale and has suffered from incrementalism for too many decades. The constraints are of course rooted in the same historical inter-service parochialism and services need for "special flowers". I won't belabor the point, but my statement comes after a brief period in the 90's flying the Army New Training Helicopter program candidates in 1992 at Cairns AAF. The experience gave me an appreciation for the contrast in curriculum between NAVAIR and Army and Air Force. (e.g. combat skills in Help UPT).

So, the emergence of GPS and digital cockpits should do away with the need to teach "failed card" and "TACAN point to point" kind of curriculm items, and leave more time for say, night over water instruments at low level, or pinnacle landings, or maneuvers that simulate hoisting, or .."pick your favorite evolution".

I see how successful the Air Force has been with TH-1H's with digital cockpits, full IFR capability, in a robust machine capable of teaching real world applications of a helicopter.

 

[Gatordev]

The auto in a 60 is there as a last resort, generally as a result of a tail rotor failure, combat damage (remember in Black Hawk Down when Clif Wolcot - played by Jeremy Piven - calls out "you going to pull those PCL's back or what?") or other major failure.

Point of order... The quoted line was actually during a cut-gun maneuver (or "Altitude or Airspeed Insufficient for Auto-rotation Procedure") and not during an auto, at least as described in the book (which has been shown to have some inaccuracies).

 

[Randy Daytona]

Can't really argue with any of that. And again, for the record, I'm pro-full-autos.
I found it easier once I stopped assuming the user interface was designed for a human being. But that's a whole other rant about Navy/future/compromises/etc.

.
10+ years as an IP at Whiting, have flown Bell, Boeing, Eurocopter and Sikorsky. As for autos, I've done full autos to a run-on and to a spot, to dry land and to the water. Based on my experience, I find 5 feet / 5 knot power recovery autos to be sufficient. If you want to do full autos, by all means go ahead - but to me the 3 most important parts of either a loss of tail rotor or a main driveshaft failure are the entry, the flare and the pull - if you do these correctly, the last part is for all intents and purposes a simple cut gun. That said, I find the whole autorotation argument secondary to training with glass, power management, handling a low inertia rotor system and being able to fly solid IFR / 0% illumination over the ocean without fear or hesitation.

I've mentioned before and will say again that whatever trainer is selected for naval aviation, it should be suitable for use as a little bird if the Navy and Marines ever wise up - much like the T-6 can be the AT-6.

 

[Gatordev]

I've mentioned before and will say again that whatever trainer is selected for naval aviation, it should be suitable for use as a little bird if the Navy and Marines ever wise up - much like the T-6 can be the AT-6.

So now you're adding another requirement? The AT-6 SIGNIFICANTLY held up the T-6B development time. We all lament the Naval acquisition system, but then trying to buy something "that can also..." just makes the process worse.

And I'm not even getting into the argument about whether the Naval services even need a light attack helo.

 

[Stingerhawk]

Point of order... The quoted line was actually during a cut-gun maneuver (or "Altitude or Airspeed Insufficient for Auto-rotation Procedure") and not during an auto, at least as described in the book (which has been shown to have some inaccuracies).

Great line in the movie though. Doing 360's in the air over Mogadishu after having the t/r driveshaft taken out by an RPG, and he says the line like he's asking his 13yr. kid to walk the dog for the tenth time....."you going to pull those PCL's back or what?"

 

[Stingerhawk]

FWIW the current TH-57C *is* certified SP IFR for Part 91 operations. The airframe logbooks have this endorsement from FAA when SFENA finidhed completion and delivered to Navy in early 80's

Good homework. It would be hard to step back to only being able to do IFR procedure training in VMC, if they don't get an IFR certified helicopter.

 

[hscs]

One thing that they didn't really show in the movie is the difficulty in getting the PCLs off once the aircraft starts spinning. Heard from one pilot who was in a TR EP that the g force made it impossible to get the PCLs all the way off.

For autos in the 60s, if you are doing one, you are going to have a class A. The goal (imho) is to minimize injuries. For this, I think the 5/5 recovery works in the HT school house.

The TR EP fleet demand signal came from a number of TR eps in the fleet between 03-~10 that ran from drive failures, stuck pedals, and LTE.

As for idea of an attack version - not sure the requirement is even in the nice to have category. The AT6 had a requirement in a longer dwell cost effective COIN CAS platform. Unless the helo trainer candidates can support a rescue hoist, carry more than 4 pax/troops, support a litter internally, externally lift more than 2-3k lb external load on a hot day, and not need gas after every cycle, then this is a very nice to have when budgets are really tight.

 

[Stingerhawk]

For autos in the 60s, if you are doing one, you are going to have a class A. The goal (imho) is to minimize injuries. For this, I think the 5/5 recovery works in the HT school house.

Agree completely. Spinning in a helo and reaching up to the overhead for PCL's is a major physics problem. In fact, most newer aircraft with FADEC have gotten away from PCL's on the overhead for that reason.

Also agree that a full auto in just about any combat helicopter is going to be a Class A regardless. So the goal should be to execute it the best you can to limit the damage and injuries. (autos in a 53 are a great example of this strategy). 5/5 autos are good in the training command in a forgiving aircraft, but following that same line of reasoning, the training command IS the place then to build a solid foundation and high level of confidence in that pilot survival skill. So if it were to happen....... you are at least setting the aircraft and your crew up for the best chance of surviving the event because you have done it in real time. Not just in simulation where nothing is really on the line.

 

[Pags]

Agree completely. Spinning in a helo and reaching up to the overhead for PCL's is a major physics problem. In fact, most newer aircraft with FADEC have gotten away from PCL's on the overhead for that reason.

Also agree that a full auto in just about any combat helicopter is going to be a Class A regardless. So the goal should be to execute it the best you can to limit the damage and injuries. (autos in a 53 are a great example of this strategy). 5/5 autos are good in the training command in a forgiving aircraft, but following that same line of reasoning, the training command IS the place then to build a solid foundation and high level of confidence in that pilot survival skill. So if it were to happen....... you are at least setting the aircraft and your crew up for the best chance of surviving the event because you have done it in real time. Not just in simulation where nothing is really on the line.

I think you might be overselling the "confidence" from the HTs. Foundational? Absolutely. Confidence in working your fleet helo is built upon BASIC skills from the RAG that are applied to fleet aircraft at the FRS and then developed over the upgrade process.