Bristow, PHI & ERA have been flying single engine Bells well over the horizon offshore for 40+ years.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Hot new helicopter/rotorcraft news
- Thread starter Randy Daytona
- Start date
Bristow, PHI & ERA have been flying single engine Bells well over the horizon offshore for 40+ years.
Recent struggles with aircraft/buoy interfaces lead me to say hmmmm
1. Inappropes?
2. SAR TX is not DLQs
Interesting statement - the TH-57 sims are old but what level are the H-60 sims that the Navy uses?
They're not really a Level anything, since they don't have motion (or most of them, anyway). The -60S has the new aero-modeling, which is supposed to be better. I haven't flown it, so I can't compare, but the -60R is good enough but not the same. There are things in aero model of the -60R that are significantly better than the -60B, but a few other things that are "weird" (namely hovering...collective movement is more of a binary feeling compared to the real thing).
Are the -60 sims perfect? Far from it, and I have to relearn how to fly it every time I get in it to do Fams (read: NATOPS check), but I'd argue it's still more valuable than what I remember trying to fly the -57C sim, years ago.
A friend was recently in town (from pax) testing a new -60R aero model in the West coast sims. He seemed to think it was a giant waste of money, and that improvement was minimal. Alas, the community asked for a new model and we got one. Should be widely implemented in the near future.
Also, to have a level "X" simulator I think the FAA has to sanction it as such. As for motion, I guess after the tech refresh TOFT-6 will be the highest fidelity trainer. That assumes they figure out the motion/graphics lag that makes people hurl.
If you've heard of TRPS, I'm not sure I'd use the words "near future." But yeah, I believe it will get implemented with the TRPS upgrade. That's a shame to hear it's not noticeable.
TOFT-6 is the second sim to get upgraded (it might be the third if you count one in SD, but I can't remember the order after TOFT-4), but don't look for it to be completed anytime before mid to late 2018. Yay. But yeah, concur with the Level certification.
The motion lag has been resubmitted....again....and supposedly -205 has it for action. Let me just add that to my list................
Is the H-60 sim NVG compatible?
The Romeo sims are all capable, but due to being produced in multiple generations and by different entities (CAE and Manned Flight) they accomplish the compatibility in different ways.
On earlier generations it was simply a lighting output change from the projectors. The new hotness in the TOFT 8 baseline, actually makes the whole world monochromatic so that reflected light can be modeled appropriately. Albedo and whatnot is much better in that mode.
I will say that since that is a separate IC (initial condition) you have to re-boot the sim to use it that way. As such, most are too lazy or too rushed and just tweak the lighting to make it work. When done correctly it's pretty damn good and responsive to lunar phase, weather, etc.
On earlier generations it was simply a lighting output change from the projectors. The new hotness in the TOFT 8 baseline, actually makes the whole world monochromatic so that reflected light can be modeled appropriately. Albedo and whatnot is much better in that mode.
I will say that since that is a separate IC (initial condition) you have to re-boot the sim to use it that way. As such, most are too lazy or too rushed and just tweak the lighting to make it work. When done correctly it's pretty damn good and responsive to lunar phase, weather, etc.
A close friend of mine in our Stan Department flew them. She loved the Bell 429 but seemed to think the AW-119 was the most appropriate and ready to train student aviators. She was blown away at just how much better all of them were compared to the 57. But, alas, until someone budges, either the FAA or the Navy, I can't see this getting fixed anytime soon.
To recap as I understand it:
Navy: we want a single-engine IFR certified aircraft.
Industry: That doesn't exist (yet).
FAA: We're not certifying helicopters without dual redundancy. -- and I think this is referencing electronics and hydraulics, neither of which the 57 has. (The standby generator is connected to the engine... just like the normal generator).
At the Captains of Industry Panel, one of the "Captains" (I forget which company) said that we are no closer to a replacement than we were 4 years ago, (largely due to indecision on the Navy's part is how I interpreted it). The others on the panel seemed to agree. In general, what I gathered was that Airbus is pushing for us to go twin engine to totally revamp our syllabus - removing autos in favor of greater tactics (as in, "look how much time you spend teaching one increasingly unlikely maneuver that's practiced even less in the fleet; yet your Commodores complain HT students don't have an equivalent "strike" syllabus heavy on tactics so they show up to the fleet unprepared. You need to take a hard look at what you're teaching and the efficiency of it; a twin engine helicopter will bring you to a next level of training"). On the other hand, I got the impression that Bell and Augusta Westland/Leonardo seem to think (this is speculation) they will get their single engine helos FAA Certified for IFR... one day. Then, of course, there's the internal rumors of us going with something that is "capable" but not certified... which, as I understand it, would limit us to actual VFR at all times, but has the avionics to shoot approaches.
Fixed it for you - Lots of bills are coming due - and with OBOGS and grey a/c readiness needing money - this will fall to the wayside for a while. DON and FAA may be arguing, but it is most likely action officer busy work until someone puts some cash against the program.