Hot new helicopter/rotorcraft news

[Gatordev]

Bell 407 doing touchdown auto at KARA. I did autos in a float equipped 206 on the waterway to the left during my EMS interview at PHI in ‘96

That video kind of shows exactly what Jim is getting at. That auto is so drastically different from a -60 auto. I can see both sides of this. On the one hand, auto-ing in a dual-engine helicopter is so rare, why are we worried about it? On the other hand, I've seen FRS IPs who auto similar to a late-stage CAT 1, it's kind of scary. Learning that finese has merits.

I don't know who taught you to machine gun the force trim, I didn't let any of my onwings or IUTs do that

You obviously need to move back to the HTs...for eternity. Oh the machine-gunning!

 

[ChuckMK23]

So is the 505 enough helo to replace the TH-57?

 

[RobLyman]

That video kind of shows exactly what Jim is getting at. That auto is so drastically different from a -60 auto. I can see both sides of this. On the one hand, auto-ing in a dual-engine helicopter is so rare, why are we worried about it? On the other hand, I've seen FRS IPs who auto similar to a late-stage CAT 1, it's kind of scary. Learning that finese has merits.



You obviously need to move back to the HTs...for eternity. Oh the machine-gunning!

The machine-gunning is so much worse in the 60M! Unless you hit the remote standby switch on the cyclic, the aircraft will try to couple to 60 kts IAS on its own. Imagine, after settling down at 100 kts cruise, you start seeing the magenta anticipated airspeed bug start jumping around on your airspeed display. I noticed it when flying with another PC over Baghdad. I asked, "Are you clicking the force trim?" The reply..."Uhhh, no. Why?"

FWIW, I know two crews that auto'd Seahawks to the ground. One was an oil cooler shaft and the other was a misdiagnosed high side failure with a bad white engine cable. All survived and both aircraft flew again.

 

[bert]

...

FWIW, I know two crews that auto'd Seahawks to the ground. One was an oil cooler shaft and the other was a misdiagnosed high side failure with a bad white engine cable. All survived and both aircraft flew again.

So now I’m curious having not heard of either of these incidents - how did either crew get from those issues to doing full autos? Or did they do power-on autos just to get the deck as fast as they could?

 

[RobLyman]

Happened back in the 80s.

First one was a sheared oil cooler drive shaft . It happened to dash two in a flight of three. Dash three said, "Dash two, your tail rotor stopped turning!" They auto'd from about 3000' into a field in south Florida.

Second one I don't remember as well. There was a torque split between engines. They brought the low side engine to lockout. Unfortunately the other engine was already experiencing a high side failure, but due to the rotor/collective being loaded, Nr stayed within reasonable limits. Once the aircraft made it within range of shore (Maine coast line) , they lowered the collective to begin a descent. Both engines now running without an operable ECU, went high side and flamed out. If I remember correctly, this accident resulted in an ECU and engine harness upgrade for the fleet.

 

[ChuckMK23]

Navy unveils acquisition plan for TH-57replacement.... (warning, may be dated)



The Navy revealed earlier this week the TH-57 Sea Ranger training helicopter fleet will be replaced with a commercial solution and will divulge schedule details next year, according to a service official.

Rear Adm. Scott Conn, air warfare director in the office of the chief of naval operations (N98), said March 6 the Navy is taking a new approach to replace 115 TH-57s.

“We're going for commercial off-the-shelf aircraft that is going to be competed and we're going then after the competition, buy those aircraft,” he said during a Senate Armed Services seapower subcommittee hearing. “And we're still working through the actual maintenance plan [and] certification plan.”

The Navy considered several different paths for replacing the TH-57. These include a COTS solution, a combination of procurement and services contract, or a services contract to provide aircraft simulators and ground instructors, according to fiscal year 2019 budget justification documents.

Inside the Navy reported in June 2017 the service anticipates releasing a request for proposals to replace the TH-57 in late FY-19 or early FY-20.

"While the Navy, Marine Corps and U.S. Coast Guard aircraft have been recapitalized to new technology, the training helicopters have remained with the late 1970s technology," Navy spokesman Michael Land wrote in a June 2017 statement.

The outdated technology results in a variety of training capability gaps ranging from use of the flight management system to digital cockpit integration to flight and mission planning.

"Along with the aircraft's advanced age . . . the associated increased cost of sustainment indicate the need for a replacement," Land wrote.

On June 1, the Navy posted a special notice on the Federal Business Opportunities website calling for industry to submit responses to a request for information.

"The number of helicopters will not be one-for-one," Land wrote. "The exact number is still under study and will take into consideration factors such as attrition, planned aircraft service life and planned aircraft availability.

 

[ChuckMK23]

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-...31/airbus-helicopters-preps-naval-trainer-rfp

From casual discussion with the Airbus helo folks at OSH this year - Airbus is very confident that they have this in the bag - and Sen. Wicker of Mississippi is going to drive this at the Senate A.S. committee level.

This would be an overhaul of the curriculum to be sure.


Anyone want to weigh in?

 

[Jim123]

Great. So they're basically hoping we make the same mistake that the Army did with the 72.

 

[ChuckMK23]

Great. So they're basically hoping we make the same mistake that the Army did with the 72.

Just to be clear though the Army is making it work.

Also the FAA has no issues with granting Mil COMP Commercial Helicopter ratings to graduates of the UH-72 IERW program. So... is it coming down to “no big deal” ???

 

[Gatordev]

Just to be clear though the Army is making it work.

The Army makes it work when the weather is "VFR" but they turn around and RTB due to weather. The fact that Army makes something work shouldn't be our benchmark.

I might have more thoughts on the matter in a couple of weeks.

 

[Jim123]

Chuck, you have the chops from your mil and civilian helo experience that your preference for this is well informed. I just happen to think that the 135/145 isn't as rugged as a primary trainer should be. I think it can make a good trainer that could modernize a lot of naval rotary training (not the least of which is having two engines). I just don't think it's a great trainer.

I also still don't like how it got back-doored into being the Army's primary trainer, what with the Guard basically offloading them because they didn't want the things. I'm glad that the Army is making it work- their aviators deserve quality training just as much as ours. They didn't really have a choice though and they've sort of had to figure out a lot of things after it was a done deal.

 

[ChuckMK23]

Chuck, you have the chops from your mil and civilian helo experience that your preference for this is well informed. I just happen to think that the 135/145 isn't as rugged as a primary trainer should be. I think it can make a good trainer that could modernize a lot of naval rotary training (not the least of which is having two engines). I just don't think it's a great trainer.

I also still don't like how it got back-doored into being the Army's primary trainer, what with the Guard basically offloading them because they didn't want the things. I'm glad that the Army is making it work- their aviators deserve quality training just as much as ours. They didn't really have a choice though and they've sort of had to figure out a lot of things after it was a done deal.

Interesting tidbit of data
http://www.ncfa.ncr.gov/sites/default/files/ARI - UH-72 Primary Trainer.pdf

 

[Jim123]

Interesting tidbit of data
http://www.ncfa.ncr.gov/sites/default/files/ARI - UH-72 Primary Trainer.pdf

Decent summary; I have a few comments-

I'm willing to listen to arguments both for and against the full autorotation thing (like modern simulator training, practice power recovery autos, etc.), but whoever wrote "inability of the aircraft to do touchdown autorotations (a task that will never be encountered in a dual- engine helicopter like the UH-72)." [underline mine] is either a fool or a damn liar. Never is a pretty definitive word- they're exceedingly rare in operational flying- which is why I'm willing to listen to alternatives to that aspect of helicopter training.

There's also something in there about it being too much aircraft for the mission. For this, I'm also willing to listen to arguments on both sides. For example, the T-6 is an overwhelming aircraft for primary airplane training. The benefit to that is that a lot of airplane can make or break students very early in the program. There is a lot to be said for that in military flight training, although I don't think the platform would overwhelm advanced naval helicopter students any more than a modern 407 or 119, since they'll have already had the firehose shock of growing up on the T-6.

I'm kinda surprised there hasn't been more of a fuss about government waste to come out of that program (whether or not anyone can prove anything), although I guess in the big scheme of mil procurement, this one doesn't pop up very high on the radar.

 

[Griz882]

Well, the part where it costs $176K to put a student through UH-72 training compared to a much less $54K per student for a 407GX is pretty telling. I also understand the Army lowered the number of training hours in their flight school; is this because of the cost?

 

[IKE]

1. I've flown the UH-72. It's expensive for a trainer and super easy to overtorque, exceed Nr (in autos), and break the mast moment limit (especially during running landings).

2. Anyone who says full autos don't happen in dual-engine helicopters is ignorant of both the operational history of the H-60 and doesn't understand that dual-engine provides no redundancy for the single tail rotor.