Helo ditching procedure

[exhelodrvr]

"but it won't matter one bit if the flight model in the sim isn't accurate."

I think the benefit of going through the EPs, especially the critical first few steps, outweighs negative habits that might be built up.

 

[Pags]

"but it won't matter one bit if the flight model in the sim isn't accurate."

I think the benefit of going through the EPs, especially the critical first few steps, outweighs negative habits that might be built up.

I should have been more clear. Using the OFT as a procedures trainer is a great tool for muscle memory and the switchology. However, due to limited flight hours and the desire to "preserve assets", there has been a lot of push for using the sim to replace a lot of fam flights. For instance, when I got to the fleet we were allowed and encouraged to do OEI work at night and boost off at night. About the only thing we couldn't do was autos at night. But then it was decided that you weren't allowed to do any EPs at night. All EP work had to be done during the day. And then due to flight hour reductions and syllabus increases, there wasn't a lot of flight time for fam flights. So the answer was "go do the fam stuff in the sims." But the sims don't accurately reflect the flight characteristics of the helo. So, working on the flare in the bottom of the auto, for instance, is not something best done in the sim. Another example would be TR EPs. We were prohibited from blocking the pedals or simulating TR EPs in the aircraft. But the sim only provided one failure mode, so flying the sim a lot made you good at flying the sim, but not the aircraft. I feel pretty safe in saying that my peers and I have never regularly (or legally) practiced TR EPs. My only exposure to simulated TR EPs has been in the sim and the one flight in the HTs where you practice.

 

[exhelodrvr]

^ Completely agree with that.

 

[HeloBubba]

In the H-2 FRAC Syllabus, there was a whole lesson on the bail-out option. The aircrewman jumps out with the bag of rafts (which weighed almost 90 pounds), the pilot on the left jumps out (because the collective is in the way for water egress), and the pilot in the right seat flies a short distance away and then puts it into the water. I will check the NATOPS later to verify.

Following up: the scenario outlined above is referred to as "Planned Ditching" in NATOPS. Bailout was a much shorter checklist. The planned ditch was used for things like anticipated fuel starvation. Bailout was recommended only if uncontrollable fire or other circumstances make it impossible to ditch.

 

[wink]

You guys are great! Lots of good thoughts for the brief. There is no way we are getting the training. What I tell these guys is all they will have to prepare them.

Does anyone remember how high the collective is after an auto in the -58/B206? Will it be a problem for the left seat?

I think the -58 and B407 will react similarly in the water. I am expecting the chin bubbles to break and leak water. The aft bagage compartment will provide buoyancy if the door doesn't come open from airframe flexing. That is more likely in the -58 then the 407. The -58 cockpit is small. If we roll over it will probably go past 90 degrees and 75 % of the cockpit will fill with water. At least one guy will be completely submerged. If we float any time at all I think it will be nose low from the chin leaking.

Excellent discussion on keeping forward speed verses the 0/0 entry. I am bringing that up to my stick monkeys and let them hash it out.

 

[BACONATOR]

How much simulator time per year is typical for post-FRS pilots?

If you go to Guam... none. :icon_tong

unless you can swing a det-CRM trip to SD...

 

[busdriver]

The Air Force has the same cyclic in the direction of roll blurb in our checklist as well, I guess it's a way to get the rotor stopped given a roll.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that the chance of keeping a helo not designed for water landings upright after an auto are pretty slim. In addition, any forward ground speed at all is going to break things like chin bubbles given water's density.

Since getting the proper dunker training is out, I'd say building your own chair out of PVC and having guys "egress" in a pool is a really good idea. Do it with a form of blind fold on. I'd also look into LPUs and possibly HABD (HEEDS, ETC, mini-scuba bottles). A friend of mine had to egress underwater and probably would have died if not for HEEDS, being able to breath is very calming and allowed him to get himself out of the tangle of comm cables. Also, you need to breath out the whole way up, this guy was probably 30-40 feet down when he finally got out air expansion injuries can be very bad.

 

[Pags]

The Air Force has the same cyclic in the direction of roll blurb in our checklist as well, I guess it's a way to get the rotor stopped given a roll.

If you're rolling, which the 60 is going to do, the rotor is going to stop one way or another. I'm surprised that both the AF and Army pubs have the same thing, because here's what the 60S NATOPS has to say about it:

"The sequence of events necessary to successfully conduct an immediate landing/ditching demand prior coordination
and briefing. After a water landing, the aircraft tends to sink nose down and roll unpredictably to either side within
10 seconds. Depending on available power and rotor speed, the PAC may not be able to arrest these motions with
collective or cyclic application. The aircraft may maintain some degree of buoyancy in the fuel cell transition section
(approximately 2 to 5 minutes) after water landing."

If you're in a 60 and there's enough water for it to roll in, expect it to go over. Again, trying to control the roll just seems to me like time that could be better spent doing something like this:

* 1. HABD — As required.
* 2. ICS/HUD cords, DMK —
Disconnect/remove.
* 3. Door/window — Open/jettison.
* 4. Place hand on known reference point.
* 5. Harness — Release.
* 6. Exit helicopter.
After egress:
* 7. Swim clear of helicopter and inflate LPU.

I fully agree with your final point. If you can't get a dunker, make a SWET chair and train your guys for the HADB/HEEDS bottles.

 

[Gatordev]

I'm guessing the Army and AF pubs say what they do because they just don't operate in the environment we do w/ the frequency we do. Overwater during the day, the Army can manage. Overwater during the night...crazy talk. In weather w/ less than 5 miles viz...the Army turns the other way and RTB's (true story). Obviously the more "higher-tiered" Army units may take exception to my comment, but you get the idea.

 

[teabag53]

I've never operated with/near Army units from sea but I've seem some pretty impressive stuff from not 'higher-tiered' units to include flying in some pretty gnarly vis.

 

[RobLyman]

I'm guessing the Army and AF pubs say what they do because they just don't operate in the environment we do w/ the frequency we do. Overwater during the day, the Army can manage. Overwater during the night...crazy talk. In weather w/ less than 5 miles viz...the Army turns the other way and RTB's (true story). Obviously the more "higher-tiered" Army units may take exception to my comment, but you get the idea.

True, Army folks aren't as well versed at flight over water. True, night over the water is "crazy talk" to them. Their meat & potatoes is NVG flying low over the land. That night over the water translates into hard instrument time for land lubber aviators. They do not have the extensive night over water experience those in the Navy take for granted. So, years and years of different experience under different institutions results in very different ways to fly (nearly) the same aircraft in a given environment.

As for the <5 miles vis comment, I am sure we can all throw out anecdotal evidence of when the other service has done something crazy, stupid, whimpy, etc.. All I can say is that flying on at least two sides of the fence, I have seen and flown in equally bad weather on both sides. Thunderstorms & hard rain in the Navy...snow, icing, low vis and ceilings in the Army.

What you may have experienced with Army aviators is a result of their mission approval process. The worse the weather, visibility, ceiling, etc..the higher the approval authority for the mission. While the local unit may feel comfortable launching in certain weather, that weather requires approval from a higher unit, who may, based on any number of reasons (legit or not) decide to hold launch authority.


I have flown missions in the Army National Guard that the Navy would never do. And likewise I have flown missions in the Navy the Army would never do. It really isn't the pilots in either service that are not ready and willing. It is the managing structure and their adversion to certain risks that makes the biggest difference.

Speaking of missions, I am am off to do some NVG flying at Camp Blanding...later.

 

[phrogpilot73]

True, Army folks aren't as well versed at flight over water. True, night over the water is "crazy talk" to them. Their meat & potatoes is NVG flying low over the land.

Soooo, what you're saying is that Marine pilots are the best because we fly night over water and NVG low over land??

 

[insanebikerboy]

Good points about sims...

One sim instructor told me once that with the computer modeling used in the sim, it simulates the whole tail literally falling off just behind the transition section. So, the procedures are good but yes, the modeling is pretty poor.

 

[Pags]

I'm guessing the Army and AF pubs say what they do because they just don't operate in the environment we do w/ the frequency we do.

The Navy's training, equipment and procedures for ditching / underwater egress are pretty well matured after 60+yrs of putting helos in the drink. A lot of blood and lives expended have given us some pretty mature products. Even as a "newer" aircraft, the 60 community has almost 30yrs of experience with the airframe and what to expect from a water entry.

 

[Pags]

One sim instructor told me once that with the computer modeling used in the sim, it simulates the whole tail literally falling off just behind the transition section. So, the procedures are good but yes, the modeling is pretty poor.

I've heard the same thing.