The great Helo debate

[lowflier03]

"Superhawk" means most of the document is common, along with the associated EP's that apply to common systems. (Which caused some angst because for example the HSL guys handle EP's differently than HS so even something like a Stab failure procedure/restrictions becomes an arguing point) The NATOPS manual and PCL's are still specific to TMS with the same common section and your own systems specific stuff.

-I hope that made sense. Really it didn't buy us anything useful since the intent didn't really come to fruition. (The intent was that since it was a common NATOPS you could technically fly in any TMS once you had your qual in one.)

 

[helolumpy]

Which caused some angst because for example the HSL guys handle EP's differently than HS so even something like a Stab failure procedure/restrictions becomes an arguing point

To add to this EP issue, back in 1999 NAVAIR directed the 60F/H Model Manager (HS-10) and the 60B Model Manager (HSL-40?) to make the EP's standard. The Rotary Wing and VX-1 folks who flew both models complained that the same EP (like single engine failure EP) in similar aircraft was different.

When HS-10 had a NATOPS review conference, we invited the 60B Model Manager to sit-in and actually gave them a vote on the new EP's for the 60F/H. Since the 60F/H manual was getting reviewed first, we would unite the EP's and then the 60B Model Manager would then incorporate them when the 60B manual was reviewed which occurred 6 months later.

The 60F/H changed about 7-8 EP's. Mostly is was changing the order steps occurred. There was nothing radical about what was changed.
When the 60B Model Manger presented the new EP's to his community at their review conference, the Model Manager (an O-4 select) was told "Hell, no, we're not changing anything".

So, to concur with LF03, trying to get the different communities to agree would be like trying to get consensus in the UN....

 

[scoolbubba]

This is where in part I think Superhawk is fail. Now instead of only having to argue with the Otto's in your own community, you have to deal with/talk sense into the Otto's from the other -60 communities as well. Its a lot harder to end up with common sense procedures that way because as we all know, there are some real winners out there.

For you young guys, remember this when you start asking why we can't just fix something, or why a procedure seems convoluted/counter-intuitive.

...Because someone somewhere is out there ottoing it up. Ottoing all over your logical, well thought out plans.

 

[bert]

...

-I hope that made sense. Really it didn't buy us anything useful since the intent didn't really come to fruition. (The intent was that since it was a common NATOPS you could technically fly in any TMS once you had your qual in one.)

I kept a dual qual in the Sierra and Romeo for 6 years and regularly flew both in normal and test configurations so I think I am qualified to comment on both airframes. I appreciate that the two airframes are tactically employed in different ways. But even though a barely competent HAC can learn the airframe system differences in less than hour, "we" are still trying to act like they are completely different platforms. That's just stupid and a waste of resources.

 

[insanebikerboy]

Yet another interesting Army/Navy difference. We do engine washes with the rotor brake off. We have no opertor checklist for the engine wash, so we use the engine manual procedures...which are written to include a hot section wash. The rotor brake is left off so that the power turbine blades are washed evenly. So, even when doing just a gas path wash (ie cold section), we leave the rotor brake off.

This pure speculation on my part, but the rotor brake on for engine washes more than likely stems from us doing them on the deck of a ship.

So, what is the deal with the highspeed shaft sagging on rotor brake starts? Is this at the front of the engine, ie output shaft or is it the power turbine shaft and torque reference shaft? Where does it rub when you release the rotor brake and advanceto fly too fast? We hadn't heard of this when I left the Navy in 1996 and the Army hasn't mentioned it with the 60M yrt.

I believe it's the power turbine shaft since that's not spinning when the brake is on. The problem is that it rubs when you pop the brake off and rapidly move them to fly. There is just enough flex in the system that it can rub and create wear on the same spot. If you let it sit at idle for about 20 seconds you wouldn't have much problem at all, which goes back to the fact that sitting at idle on the deck of a pitching and rolling ship can be bad juju for the rotor head.

 

[Gatordev]

The 60F/H changed about 7-8 EP's. Mostly is was changing the order steps occurred. There was nothing radical about what was changed.
When the 60B Model Manger presented the new EP's to his community at their review conference, the Model Manager (an O-4 select) was told "Hell, no, we're not changing anything".

The irony, of course, is that the B community changed the order of the Stab EP twice since I was a FRP, plus the change from Superhawk. Other than yelling, at the top of my voice, "STAB!" three times, I'm still not entirely sure what the technically correct order is nowadays without looking at the book.

I believe it's the power turbine shaft since that's not spinning when the brake is on. The problem is that it rubs when you pop the brake off and rapidly move them to fly. There is just enough flex in the system that it can rub and create wear on the same spot. If you let it sit at idle for about 20 seconds you wouldn't have much problem at all, which goes back to the fact that sitting at idle on the deck of a pitching and rolling ship can be bad juju for the rotor head.

It's not "flex" per se, but the uneven heating of the shaft, which then causes it to "flex" out of balance once it starts spinning. I've been in rough weather on a FFG, but generally, it's not "that" big a deal to sit at idle for 15 seconds on a ship.

And because no one has said it in this thread yet... I'm all for shaft rub. I'm not sure why you guys have a problem with it.

 

[hscs]

This is where in part I think Superhawk is fail. Now instead of only having to argue with the Otto's in your own community, you have to deal with/talk sense into the Otto's from the other -60 communities as well. Its a lot harder to end up with common sense procedures that way because as we all know, there are some real winners out there.

For you young guys, remember this when you start asking why we can't just fix something, or why a procedure seems convoluted/counter-intuitive.

True - but when the Airboss reviews mishaps that could have been prevented by a procedure that exists in another H-60 community - he decides to make the communities standardize themselves. You have to admit - he does have a point.

 

[lowflier03]

True - but when the Airboss reviews mishaps that could have been prevented by a procedure that exists in another H-60 community - he decides to make the communities standardize themselves. You have to admit - he does have a point.

That all depends on which procedure ends up being the one "standardized"

 

[hscs]

That all depends on which procedure ends up being the one "standardized"

Well, unfortunately, you have to go in with an open mind to these things and can't take that attitude. There probably is a reason that one community does things a certain way - maybe they had a string of near misses or mishaps or maybe it was a knee jerk reaction by an overzealous NATOPS PM. Who knows - that all has to be flushed out in the process. Let's not loose sight of the reason for this - make our collective communities safer by sharing our ideas. OBTW - Jet guys manage to make this work.

 

[RobLyman]

It's not "flex" per se, but the uneven heating of the shaft, which then causes it to "flex" out of balance once it starts spinning. I've been in rough weather on a FFG, but generally, it's not "that" big a deal to sit at idle for 15 seconds on a ship.

And because no one has said it in this thread yet... I'm all for shaft rub. I'm not sure why you guys have a problem with it.

That explaination makes more sense. Gravitational sag would be insignificant. Even the shaft itself probably wouldn't deform that much from heat, as the diameter is small and the heat difference between the top and bottom would be small. But the power turbine blades themselves would be significantly different from the top of the engine to the bottom of the engine, probably causing an inbalance and enough centrifugal force to throw the shaft around at 100% Nr/Np, vs 40-50% at idle. Throw in a 20-40% or 60-90% harmonic and I could see it happening.

Does the Navy still limit the Q when moving the PCLs to fly? < 40%?

 

[squorch2]

That's a limit for the 57 to prevent engine chugging. I've slammed the PCLs to FLY with no problem - acceleration limiter keeps you safe.

 

[Gatordev]

That explaination makes more sense. Gravitational sag would be insignificant. Even the shaft itself probably wouldn't deform that much from heat, as the diameter is small and the heat difference between the top and bottom would be small. But the power turbine blades themselves would be significantly different from the top of the engine to the bottom of the engine, probably causing an inbalance and enough centrifugal force to throw the shaft around at 100% Nr/Np, vs 40-50% at idle. Throw in a 20-40% or 60-90% harmonic and I could see it happening.

I thought the 60-90 was for the head and the 20-40 was just for Np shaft. I'm asking, as I can't remember and don't feel like breaking out my Natops.

Does the Navy still limit the Q when moving the PCLs to fly? < 40%?

You were an East coast guy, weren't you? I keed! What squorch said...that's a -57-ism that creeps into the -60 world from time to time. Just like people thinking they have to use their tailcode to fly IFR.

 

[PhrogLoop]

That's like a beaten wife loving her husband because he always makes sure to not bruise her on the face.

It almost killed you a minute ago. You should be pissing on that machine, not trying to make sweet, sweet love to it.

Your reading comprehension skills disappoint. Shitty maintenance almost killed me. Rugged American engineering brought me home.

 

[phrogpilot73]

N 37° 7.704' W 76° 36.500'

Day only for Navy folks per Wing Guidance.

Ahh, OK. BTDT. Didn't know it had a name. Single ship only zone, and have only done it once at night (we were bored & tired of the VOR site). The one that is just north of it, you can JUST fit a section of Phrogs, but I wouldn't want to do it at night...

 

[RobLyman]

I thought the 60-90 was for the head and the 20-40 was just for Np shaft. I'm asking, as I can't remember and don't feel like breaking out my Natops.

You could be right. It was never explained to me which component had the issue with each range, just that it was a harmonic issue.

You were an East coast guy, weren't you? I keed! What squorch said...that's a -57-ism that creeps into the -60 world from time to time. Just like people thinking they have to use their tailcode to fly IFR.

Both coasts, but primarily East. I couldn't remember why the Navy said that, but I thought it was related to this warning we have for the Blackhawk:

"Restrict the rate of ENG POWER CONT lever's movement, when tailwheel lockpin is not engaged. Rapid application of ENG POWER CONT levers can result in turning the helicopter, causing personnel injury or loss of life."

In training they mention this also applies to wet or icy surfaces with the tailwheel locked.

Uuuugh! The IFR codes...we have to use a different code based on who, when and why we are flying. "Guard 123" if we are not activated. "Army 123", if we are activated title 10 but not flying in a local Army flying area, "Eat my shorts 123" for the specific base we are flying out of during AT or premobilization, and "I'm a test pilot 001" when doing test flights at Ft. Hood IF you are specifically leaving Hood Army Airfield...but be sure to close out your flight plan as both "Eat my shorts 123" and "I'm a test pilot 001" or they will call your wife at home in Florida asking where her husband's aircraft is. Oh, and "Plasma 123" when we are on deployment.

But no, we do not use "HK 123" or anything like that for IFR or VFR in the Army.