Are motors failing enough that more training is required or have operator responses to historical failures been so bad that additional training at the undergrad level is required? My guess is that the answer to both of these questions is no and therefore this would be a nice to have that may result in the additional cost that comes with more motors.
-
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
Totally a fair argument that has to be weighed. I think the other argument that I missed, but @Randy Daytona made, was that the option packages the Navy wants might dictate buying a medium IFR twin.
Yeah. Depends on whether or not the Industry/NAVAIR team can get other helos FAA certified to meet the Navy's requirements. This would probably come with its own cost that would have to be weighed against other costs and ability to meet requirements.
I assume the Navy will buy a trainer off the shelf and would not pay to develop a single engine IFR machine - the question is will a manufacturer build one on their own for a prospective run of 100+ helicopters.
The Navy has 4 options which I will list in my estimate of likelihood:
a) Purchase an existing single pilot IFR light twin for all training except full autorotations - keep the TH-57B's for full downs in a limited role (SNA's do not have to know systems as to not impact time to train.)
b) Purchase an existing single pilot IFR light twin and have a stripped down variant for full autos (ala TH-57B, TH-57C)
c) Have a manufacturer develop a single-engine IFR helo.
d) Wild card - the FAA relaxes its requirements for single engine IFR helicopters and manufacturers develop an IFR STC for existing helicopters (STC = supplemental type certificate)
Whither the Single-Engine IFR Helo?
Certification rules didn’t change. But in 1999, it became much harder to bring an IFR-certified single-engine helicopter to market. Industry leaders are trying to change that.
http://www.aviationtoday.com/rw/issue/features/Whither-the-Single-Engine-IFR-Helo_85138.html
The Navy has 4 options which I will list in my estimate of likelihood:
a) Purchase an existing single pilot IFR light twin for all training except full autorotations - keep the TH-57B's for full downs in a limited role (SNA's do not have to know systems as to not impact time to train.)
b) Purchase an existing single pilot IFR light twin and have a stripped down variant for full autos (ala TH-57B, TH-57C)
c) Have a manufacturer develop a single-engine IFR helo.
d) Wild card - the FAA relaxes its requirements for single engine IFR helicopters and manufacturers develop an IFR STC for existing helicopters (STC = supplemental type certificate)
Whither the Single-Engine IFR Helo?
Certification rules didn’t change. But in 1999, it became much harder to bring an IFR-certified single-engine helicopter to market. Industry leaders are trying to change that.
http://www.aviationtoday.com/rw/issue/features/Whither-the-Single-Engine-IFR-Helo_85138.html
Forgive the dumb question, but what are the differences in pilot training for a single-vs-dual-engine helo? It was mentioned that all Fleet helos have 2+ engines...is it a big/difficult transition to make? Is it worth the money to have a dual-engine trainer?
I'd say minimal. I don't recall the transition between the HTs and the FRS being too difficult with regards to engines. Would a twin engine trainer be more representative of a fleet helo? Sure. Is it necessary for successful undergrad helo education? My guess is no since the HTs have been successfully producing RPs that met the fleet's needs for years with single motor a/c. What it buys you is an increase in safety and an easier path to single pilot IFR cert. The cost is in more engines to maintain and buy.
Not dumb at all. As said, it's a minimal transition to go from single to dual. The principles are still the same. Nr is governed by the computer. Collective still controls pitch. You pull collective and the Governor/DECU still keeps Nr at 100%. Just a few more moving parts and a little more CRM to the EPs.
What JT said - the only thing I would add is engine management (if a governor or FADEC) goes bad to prevent the rotor from overspeeding / underspeeding (the most important thing when flying a helo is rotor speed).
By far the biggest problem is that there does not exist a single engine, single pilot IFR equipped helicopter due to extremely stringent FAA regulations. You do not want to bang around a bigger twin, day after day, year after year, decade after decade - the helo will wear out structurally. Unless the FAA changes it rules, the Navy will probably come up with a 2 helo solution - a full IFR light twin and a cheap single to bounce around on full autorotations. As the TH-57B fills the latter very well, I expect the Navy to keep the latter and replace the TH-57C's with a Bell 429, EC-135/145 or an AW-109.
By far the biggest problem is that there does not exist a single engine, single pilot IFR equipped helicopter due to extremely stringent FAA regulations. You do not want to bang around a bigger twin, day after day, year after year, decade after decade - the helo will wear out structurally. Unless the FAA changes it rules, the Navy will probably come up with a 2 helo solution - a full IFR light twin and a cheap single to bounce around on full autorotations. As the TH-57B fills the latter very well, I expect the Navy to keep the latter and replace the TH-57C's with a Bell 429, EC-135/145 or an AW-109.
It's a tough call. I personally think you get adequate training between a Level D SIM and power recovery autos in the actual aircraft, but a majority of my buds disagree. The least cost , least disruption option is to get the new trainer but keep the TH-57B's and have the SNA's fly 2-3 flights at the end of fams with HITU instructors. Would like to hear other suggestions.
I was never an HT IP nor was I ever an FRS IP and since I'm out now I can call myself an unbiased observer. I'm not sure what you get by teaching studs full autos other than a bunch of spread skids and roll overs. The fleet doesn't do full autos and the skills learned in the H-57 aren't exactly transferrable to an H-1/53/60 since the auto profiles and behaviors are so different. You could probably make a pretty strong case that learning to auto an H-57 is negative training for a fleet aircraft. About the only thing that knowing how to auto an H-57 is good for is to keep you safe while flying an H-57. Full autos are fairly high risk; there's always a risk of pranging the airplane and hurting people. It's also hard on the airframes which has its own cost. If there's a sim that has a high enough fidelity that can provide this training I'd say that that would be a lower risk (and maybe lower cost) option.
Again, dumb question: isn't that alone a good enough reason? I mean...studs flying a single-engine, in a hot/humid environment. Seems knowing how to full-auto it would be worth the squeeze. Akin to knowing how to blow the canopy and roll out of a T-34, though they'll never need to know how to manually bail out in the Fleet (unless they're in an E-2 on fire).
Talking way out of my lane here, I know - two-anchor guy and everything I know about helos I learned from my Pops - sorry if this is derailing things. Strictly to satisfy my own thirst for knowledges.
I don't know.
No one does full autos for training in fleet birds or in H-57Cs. The only time a stud or IPs will do full autos is in a 57B. Studs will solo in both 57Bs and Cs, so apparently having done full autos in that T/M/S is not a requirement for solo.
Upon reflection, doing full autos on a stud solo with 15-20 helo hours probably ranks as one of the top 3 riskiest things I ever did in a helo.
It's all good. Needing to do a full auto to the deck is a reality in a single engine helo if your only engine cuts. The -57 engine is pretty reliable, but it's still 1960s vintage with all mechanical control and little redundancy. There were a few cases of that failing, and also some instances of people accidentally turning the engine off to simulate engine failures, and full autos did happen. In a fleet dual engine helo, you'd only do a full auto if you lost both engines at the same time (very low likelihood) or you lose Tail Rotor drive (has happened).
If you bought only a dual engine trainer, full autos for engine failures would be a pretty unlikely thing. The -57 could fly at cruise speed without tail rotor drive to a run on landing, but I have no idea about tail rotor failures in a medium twin and how flyable they are. So you'd eliminate one need to do full autos, and maybe create a second.
@Pags Not sure if you know, but full autos aren't allowable for the student solo anymore.
We are all here to learn - same reason I ask questions about pointy nose stuff.
I am out now and thus do not have a dog in the fight but I do have 5,000+ hours as an IP at South Whiting. If SNA's are taught in a light twin and then go to the fleet and fly a medium twin / heavy triple, then the odds are them ever having to do an autorotation are remote - most likely due to fuel contamination, loss of tail rotor or battle damage. I still think power recovery autorotations to 10 feet / 10 knots or 5 feet / 5 knots are sufficient when combined with a Level D simulator. As Pags mentioned, negative habit transfer between a high inertia / low rotor transitory speed of a Bell 206 (TH-57) to a low inertia / high rotor transitory speed of a rigid rotor system (Bell 429 / EC-135/145) or fully articulated rotor system (any helicopter bigger than 12,500 lbs with the exception of the new Y/Z) is something that needs to be considered - first time I did an auto in a 407 was an eye opening experience after the benign engine out characteristics of a 206.
In other words, if SNA's start out in a twin and then only fly twins in the fleet, the odds of having to do a full auto are remote - especially if the helicopter is flyable without a tail rotor (some helicopters have insufficient vertical fins for streamlining and must autorotate upon loss of the tail rotor). If you can get down to a safe profile of 10 feet / 10 knots, you will live and most likely not damage the helicopter too severely.
Last edited: