USN HT's a calamity

[Gatordev]

A lot of that is because the collective on the Bell has a friction lock but no force trim- a year or two ago, a couple of IPs spread the skids by letting go of the collective in a hover with the friction dialed all the way off (friction was off because that's part of the control/hydraulics check procedure these days).

Still no excuse, but it helps explain why everybody is so gun shy coming out of the pipeline.

I wasn't a huge "YOU MUST KEEP YOUR HANDS ON THE CONTROLS" guy in the 60 and thought it was stupid when I had an XO who threatened to bench indefinitely people he caught doing it (despite the Skipper being a routine offender), but in the the 57, you really need to. And, I'm not just talking collective, the first student I ever let use the tablet, he took his hands off collective and cyclic immediately after start (waiting for the 1 minute idle time) to adjust his iPad - which is also when the PC is IN THE ROTOR ARC (!), then again both hands off during flight twice. To me, that's egregious, especially in the 57, and also inexcusable in the 60. Is it less of a risk in the 60? Sure. But it's a terrible habit to say "I have the controls" and let go of all of them except yaw.

I get all that and understand the logic, but both of your anecdotes are when the rotors are turning. I am not. What gives me the extra chuckle is when they are afraid to hit the SAS/Boost button before spin-up, but then have no issue swapping hands so they can write down a clearance right before taxi. There must be a caveat in NATOPS I'm not familiar with.

The deprogramming happens fast enough, though. They figure out that no one else is going to adjust their BARALT for them or set their RADALT pipper.

 

[Jim123]

I get all that and understand the logic, but both of your anecdotes are when the rotors are turning.

But in your example your expectations are that the subject will apply logic and critical thinking.

 

[ChuckMK23]

Its very reasonable to remove your hands from the controls - thats what friction settings in the TH-57 are for. I'm saying this as a former STAN and NATOPS evaluator.

Situational judgement applies AS IP's teach your students this - and give some friendly bar room advice to your fellow IP's who are black and white thinking nazis

 

[Jim123]

... your fellow IP's who are black and white thinking in absolutes nazis

The moral of the story is don't think in absolutes.

 

[Gatordev]

But in your example your expectations are that the subject will apply logic and critical thinking.

I chuckled today after thinking about this thread and today's event...

Me: "Chip IBIT...test"
Stud: "Okay.........<click>...<click>...test for 2 minutes." (all with left hand).
Me: <several other tests including RADALT and XPNDR that require stud's left hand>
Me: "SAS/Boost...test"
Stud: <stares at SAS/Boost button>..."uh, okay, ready for you to push the button."
Me: "You can totally push that button without me."
Stud: "Oh, uh, okay." <pushes button with left hand and universe fails to implode>

So what changed between the IBIT test and the SAS/Boost? That's really what has me amused.

 

[jtmedli]

I chuckled today after thinking about this thread and today's event...

Me: "Chip IBIT...test"
Stud: "Okay.........<click>...<click>...test for 2 minutes." (all with left hand).
Me: <several other tests including RADALT and XPNDR that require stud's left hand>
Me: "SAS/Boost...test"
Stud: <stares at SAS/Boost button>..."uh, okay, ready for you to push the button."
Me: "You can totally push that button without me."
Stud: "Oh, uh, okay." <pushes button with left hand and universe fails to implode>

So what changed between the IBIT test and the SAS/Boost? That's really what has me amused.

My personal favorite is "I'll get the TACAN while you get the RADALT". They're like one line item apart in the DIAG page. How's about you just do them both while you're in there?

 

[Gatordev]

My personal favorite is "I'll get the TACAN while you get the RADALT". They're like one line item apart in the DIAG page. How's about you just do them both while you're in there?

Never underestimate the time it takes a CAT 1 (or a CAT Other...of which I was one) to do anything. Splitting the two actually saves time.

 

[Pags]

It always amazed me how long it took guys to stop verbalizing checklist items. "Dude, you're a HAC, we both know the IBIT takes two minutes. Just hit the damned button. "

 

[IKE]

I chuckled today after thinking about this thread and today's event...

Me: "Chip IBIT...test"
Stud: "Okay.........<click>...<click>...test for 2 minutes." (all with left hand).
Me: <several other tests including RADALT and XPNDR that require stud's left hand>
Me: "SAS/Boost...test"
Stud: <stares at SAS/Boost button>..."uh, okay, ready for you to push the button."
Me: "You can totally push that button without me."
Stud: "Oh, uh, okay." <pushes button with left hand and universe fails to implode>

So what changed between the IBIT test and the SAS/Boost? That's really what has me amused.

HX has given me the unique opportunity to fly with folks from different Navy rotary backgrounds. Here's a few things I've noticed by community:

HSL/HSM:
- Right seat stares at left seat waiting for SAS/BOOST button to be pushed. Nothing in NATOPS says you should keep hand on collective, and rotors aren't spinning.
- Everyone clears arc before turning main gens on or off. Heard both senior chief decapitation and junction box/GCU explosion explanations for this, but not in NATOPS, and controls should be in hand.

HSC:
- Most people wait for engine oil pressure to indicate before putting PCL to IDLE on engine start. Not in NATOPS. Only explanation I've heard is to make abort start easier if it fails to rise in time. Silly, IMO, just increasing sharter usage - arguably the most failure prone part in the hawk. Heard this was NATOPS procedure for the H-46, and may be an unthinking tradition which has been post-facto rationalized.
- Don't even get me started on 45° nose-up, finishing move, tail slide practice auto recoveries (still saw FRS IPs doing this in 2015)

HS:
- To be fair and balanced, I was taught to pull a little collective during HYD LEAK test. Not in NATOPS, and not necessary.

 

[phrogdriver]

IRT hands off, I used to be way more serious about it, but I still think that if not held, they generally need to be at least guarded. A helo turning on the ground isn't a fixed wing. That stick will still flip you over if the nimrod next to you decides to dive for his pen.

I had to deal with F/W guys transitioning to the V-22 and some of them were way too cavalier about having their hands off the controls.

 

[Pags]

HX has given me the unique opportunity to fly with folks from different Navy rotary backgrounds. Here's a few things I've noticed by community:

HSL/HSM:
- Right seat stares at left seat waiting for SAS/BOOST button to be pushed. Nothing in NATOPS says you should keep hand on collective, and rotors aren't spinning.
- Everyone clears arc before turning main gens on or off. Heard both senior chief decapitation and junction box/GCU explosion explanations for this, but not in NATOPS, and controls should be in hand.

HSC:
- Most people wait for engine oil pressure to indicate before putting PCL to IDLE on engine start. Not in NATOPS. Only explanation I've heard is to make abort start easier if it fails to rise in time. Silly, IMO, just increasing sharter usage - arguably the most failure prone part in the hawk. Heard this was NATOPS procedure for the H-46, and may be an unthinking tradition which has been post-facto rationalized.
- Don't even get me started on 45° nose-up, finishing move, tail slide practice auto recoveries (still saw FRS IPs doing this in 2015)

HS:
- To be fair and balanced, I was taught to pull a little collective during HYD LEAK test. Not in NATOPS, and not necessary.

Haha. You said "sharter."

HM:
-general amazement that everything is working as advertised and they're actually flying an up aircraft as opposed to an "up" aircraft.

A test tour was good because it made everyone drop their community biases/habits and actually read the NATOPS. A lot of "huh, I guess thats not in the big book." That and we all got to put aside our collective Helo community differences and agree that the VP guys are the real wieners.

 

[Hotdogs]

I honestly can't believe this is so trivial.

I've had crewchiefs in the front seat running vibes and track/balance and never hesitated to take my hand off of the collective with the collective friction all the way tightened to pogo ground to tower and vice versa while taxiing (I.e. Flying). It is even standard in our FCP syllabus for the IP to play "crew chief" and not know a damn thing about gauges or avionics manipulation. Thankfully nobody can see shit in my aircraft with regards to my hands. Lest I be branded as "cavalier."

 

[jtmedli]

HX has given me the unique opportunity to fly with folks from different Navy rotary backgrounds. Here's a few things I've noticed by community:

HSL/HSM:
- Right seat stares at left seat waiting for SAS/BOOST button to be pushed. Nothing in NATOPS says you should keep hand on collective, and rotors aren't spinning.
- Everyone clears arc before turning main gens on or off. Heard both senior chief decapitation and junction box/GCU explosion explanations for this, but not in NATOPS, and controls should be in hand.

HSC:
- Most people wait for engine oil pressure to indicate before putting PCL to IDLE on engine start. Not in NATOPS. Only explanation I've heard is to make abort start easier if it fails to rise in time. Silly, IMO, just increasing sharter usage - arguably the most failure prone part in the hawk. Heard this was NATOPS procedure for the H-46, and may be an unthinking tradition which has been post-facto rationalized.
- Don't even get me started on 45° nose-up, finishing move, tail slide practice auto recoveries (still saw FRS IPs doing this in 2015)

HS:
- To be fair and balanced, I was taught to pull a little collective during HYD LEAK test. Not in NATOPS, and not necessary.

-I always cleared the rotor arc before pulling off the GENs too. Not something that's in NATOPS necessarily or anything anyone ever taught me but there is that note about the AFCS kicking off and rotors dropping to 4 feet over the deck so I just don't mess with it. Wait 'til everyone's clear, then do it.
-I haven't seen anyone going that nose-high on an auto. MDG limit is 35 degrees nose up in the flare and 25 - 30 is pretty normal to me (and benign). Most people aren't taught about tail-slides in primary and aren't aware of the negative effects on the aircraft.

 

[insanebikerboy]

HX has given me the unique opportunity to fly with folks from different Navy rotary backgrounds. Here's a few things I've noticed by community:

HS:
- To be fair and balanced, I was taught to pull a little collective during HYD LEAK test. Not in NATOPS, and not necessary.

I've actually had the collective jump and yaw kicks doing that test. A little up and a little left pedal removes any movement in the controls.

 

[RobLyman]

Interesting differences. I'll add Blackhawk/Army differences:

- "Collective no more than an inch" means add one inch of collective during rotor start/shutdown. This inadvertently avoids some of the collective jump when doing hydraulic leak check
-Clearing arc during generator swap over - meh
-Autos - I totally forgot that the nose up limit in the Seahawk is 35 degrees? Or is it 45 degrees? It is 30 degrees in the Blackhawk. That sheds light on why Army pilots tend to finish an auto with significantly more ground speed. (I'll take the hit on not remembering my limitations. Has it really been 21 years since I flew a Seahawk? Yes!)
- Engine start - Some guys let the starter peak before advancing to idle. As an IP, I questioned students on why they do it. It is ALWAYS the result of watching an MTP do it. As an MTP, IP and ME, I have to make sure my IP and MTP/ME run ups are not the same, less I impart "bad habits" onto a PI.
-SAS/Boost check. We don't have it in our run up, except for MTFs. Then it is mid position collective, turning boost off and on. We should have our hands on the controls because we are checking for control movement

It is interesting how different services and communities can fly the same or similar aircraft and invent and institutionalize different procedures. I would be obvious if they were mission or aircraft related accommodations, but they aren't. It just goes to show the value of standardization.