Hot new helicopter/rotorcraft news

[SynixMan]

Common outgrowth of flying almost 100% night aided in the fleet, even around home.

 

[TexasForever]

I never heard an instructor say it was unsafe to fly without goggles at night just that it was really really uncomfortable. I wish instead of the hood for simulating IMC we just used powered off goggles and developed the around the goggle scan.

 

[Gatordev]

I never heard an instructor say it was unsafe to fly without goggles at night just that it was really really uncomfortable. I wish instead of the hood for simulating IMC we just used powered off goggles and developed the around the goggle scan.

That's actually a really good idea.

I used to think wanking about not having goggles was lame. Then I did some night dip-to-dip ops facing away from the coast. I'll make do no problem doing everything but the DTD, but doing the DTD would usually result in a, "Okay, one's enough, let's head back in."

 

[Randy Daytona]

If we do that then we'll end up with a generation who is afraid to fly in IMC. We already had one "ASAP" report out of the HTs this year, from some instructor who described, in great detail, why he/she did not like having to fly BIs and RIs the TH-57 at night without his NVGs.

As for ASAP, since it is anonymous, it is impossible to use that report to figure out who needs to turn in their wings (and man card) and go to their safe space.

You have got to be kidding me. I've got over 1500 hours of unaided night in the TH-57C, not counting NVG time. Saying that you are afraid to fly UNAIDED NIGHT in an aircraft with a stabilization system, an IFR rated GPS and an ILS - and absolutely no terrain - is beyond absurd. Said person who "ASAP" that should do the following without hesitation....

 

[Randy Daytona]

It doesn't help that Army 60s have the ridiculous IDLE-to-OFF spring-loaded lock.

I assume those locks are to prevent either pilot error or something like the following horrendous luck accident a few years ago.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/11/24/helicopter.crash.cause/

Investigators believe the bird's impact jarred the fire extinguisher T-handles loose and moved them aft, which pushed both engine control levers into the flight idle position, reducing fuel to both engines, the statement said.

From another article on the same crash...

The helicopter was flying at 850 feet msl and 135 knots at the time of the accident. Sterbcow said that the pilots had less than six seconds to save the helicopter after the bird strike. “Imagine flying the helicopter. You never see this bird and then you hear a bang, followed by the failure of the canopy, which you may or may not be able to see right away. Wind starts to come into the cockpit. Within a blink of an eye you completely lose rotor power and you are looking around with no idea why it happened, unless you can look up and see that those [engine control levers] had come out of their detent. It doesn’t take a lot. It is not like you are moving them six inches. It is an inch or two, maybe not even that much, because of the design of this helicopter. Our [experts] tell us from the moment of the bang to the time the pilots cannot recover the aircraft is six seconds. It would take you six seconds just to look around and say, ‘What the hell just happened?’”

The NTSB concluded that the helicopter’s sudden loss of power was caused by the hawk strike near the engine control quadrant. The impact jarred the fire extinguisher T-handles into the engine control levers and pushed the levers toward the flight-idle position.

Interesting that when I was in South Africa training in the Puma, they had welded in solid steel bars in front of the PCL's to prevent a bird strike from doing the above.

 

[Randy Daytona]

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.

I'm not saying anything more than the aircraft should have the size and performance that if you want to develop something later, you have an aircraft physically capable of it. The Bell 206B JetRanger that we all know is 3200 lbs and has a 420 HP engine. The Bell 407GXP is 5250 lbs internal (6000 external) with 862 HP, the EC-135 is 6415 lbs with two 600+ HP engines and the AW-119 is 6283 lbs with a 1,000 HP PT6. All of these are a huge, YUGE step up from the 206.

 

[IKE]

I assume those locks are to prevent either pilot error or something like the following horrendous luck accident a few years ago.

They are designed to prevent pilots from pushing the starter buttons while moving the PCLs from IDLE to OFF. Apparently, this was a big issue in the Army. I have never heard of anyone doing this in the Navy. Doing so causes damage to the power control quadrant, but not to the engines. IMO, clearly not worth the added complexity.

On a related note: On a recent visit to Stratford, the Sikorsky engineers told me the reason the Blackhawk's pitot tubes are located above the doors (outboard of the hyd bay), is because the Army was concerned grunts would use them as handholds or steps. The nose location of the pitot tubes on Seahawk series (except the S) is preferred by the aero nerds.

 

[Gatordev]

Doing so causes damage to the power control quadrant, but not to the engines.

I've never heard that before. What gets damaged? Does the button wear against the stop when you hold it down and move the PCL back?

 

[IKE]

I've never heard that before. What gets damaged? Does the button wear against the stop when you hold it down and move the PCL back?

I'm rusty on the mechanics of the power quadrant (the parts you can't see), but I think it wears at the starter contacts, which are actuated by the starter button.
The latches only prevent movement backward from IDLE. You can still hold in the starters while moving the PCL to IDLE (which I've had to do on a number of Navy birds when the starter didn't want to stay latched on).

 

[Gatordev]

That's what I was getting at...I figured it might be a contacts issue. I guess that makes sense, mechanically, even if not from a design standpoint.

I'm happy to say that I never had a starter that wouldn't stay latched when it mattered. Or at least when it was only a contact issue and not a sheared starter issue.

 

[RobLyman]

The locks do not stop you from holding the starter button in when shutting off the engines. They make it difficult, but not impossible. The damage occurs because the micro switches in the quadrant are thin strips of metal. They are very delicate. When the starter button is pressed in and the PCL is moved from IDLE to OFF, the start button transitions from the override switch to the starter switch. The button can get hung up at the transition, bending or breaking the thin metal contacts.

Now, if only there was something to keep the pilots from squeezing the PCLs together as they advance or retard them.

 

[Gatordev]

Interesting. Thanks for the info. I would have never guessed this was a problem, probably because it never has been.

 

[squorch2]

Now, if only there was something to keep the pilots from squeezing the PCLs together as they advance or retard them.

PCL 1 out of detent, PCL 2 out of detent, push both forward smoothly with flat hand?

 

[Stingerhawk]

I'm not saying anything more than the aircraft should have the size and performance that if you want to develop something later, you have an aircraft physically capable of it. The Bell 206B JetRanger that we all know is 3200 lbs and has a 420 HP engine. The Bell 407GXP is 5250 lbs internal (6000 external) with 862 HP, the EC-135 is 6415 lbs with two 600+ HP engines and the AW-119 is 6283 lbs with a 1,000 HP PT6. All of these are a huge, YUGE step up from the 206.

Especially in the pan handle where you have to modify the training schedule because the DA's get too high for the TH-57s.

 

[RobLyman]

PCL 1 out of detent, PCL 2 out of detent, push both forward smoothly with flat hand?

Yes, but by the time they get to us about 70% of the new pilots are already grabbing the PCLs between their thumb and first finger and their ring and pinky finger in a fist, then advancing them. It results in PCLs that are no longer parallel, so the starter button slides to the side of the starter switch. Then the starter won't engage.

Unfortunately in this PC world I can't smack the snowflake's hand with a ruler when they do something stupid. I laugh now at the thought of my T-34C/TH-57 helmet scars from my instructors' kneeboards.