Left seat or right, big deck or small boy, FLIR up..or down?

[shaw5fe]

It wasn't your theory about the origin of the seating arrangement. That was great. It was the lecture about ORM, human factors, NATOPS, and "key to your fate" stuff that was the issue. You can't possibly tell a room full of pilots that they're all wrong.

For another example, just because I let a passenger in through the "crew door" am I violating NATOPS?

You are absolutely right and for that I do apologize. After I posted what was actually on my mind at the time I thought to myself that maybe I should not have done that. Unfortunately the relevancy of what I was trying to say was completely lost, so I do appreciate the fact that you were able to see what I was trying to get across amongst all the muck.

I did retract my NATOPS statement because I realized I was off key. The human factors stuff I simply wanted to show a reason why you would want to be in the right seat in the unfortunate event that you did suffer a loss of tail rotor. I know there’s not much that can be done but it certainly would be a nice upper hand advantage. As for the ORM stuff I know I took it a bit too far, it was originally meant to show that there is a connection both in CCW, and CW rotating heads and the designated seat nomenclature and an engineered in control measure put in place to minimize the potential outcome of a tail rotor failure. I hope this helps clear the air for everyone, and that tomorrow will bring a better day.

I am not sure about your door question because in my last squadron all passengers would enter through the crew or PAX door. The only other entrance we had was a ramp in the rear.

 

[phrogpilot73]

The human factors stuff I simply wanted to show a reason why you would want to be in the right seat in the unfortunate event that you did suffer a loss of tail rotor. I know there’s not much that can be done but it certainly would be a nice upper hand advantage. As for the ORM stuff I know I took it a bit too far, it was originally meant to show that there is a connection both in CCW, and CW rotating heads and the designated seat nomenclature and an engineered in control measure put in place to minimize the potential outcome of a tail rotor failure.

Here's the thing about engineers. They "think" they know why they're designing something, and can come up with an "engineering" explanation as to why the pilots seat is on the right, and the copilots seat is on the left. However, they have no knowledge/experience outside of engineering.

So let's just assume that your theory is correct as to why the right seat is the pilots seat. What happens when it's a brand-new HAC in the right seat with 700 flight hours, and a seasoned 2000 hour guy in the left seat (he's not the HAC). Who do you think is going to be better prepared to handle the TR emergency?

Even better, what about if the HAC is in the right seat and the 2P is in the left seat and they lose their tail rotor on takeoff? 6-7 seconds later they impact the deck. Does it really matter at that point? Neither one of them has time to react.

These are the things that as pilots we consider, but engineers don't. Oh, and you still haven't addressed why the CH-46E (which is a tandem rotor system with no Tail Rotor) sticks with the Pilot/Copilot seat convention. I've done a crap load of research on the topic, and the only thing that I've EVER found historically goes back to the Igor days and the collective being in the center. I'd be willing to bet an arrogant engineer (and almost every single one I've met is arrogant) decided that wasn't a good enough reason, and that his reason was the "real" reason. Guess who writes your textbooks? Engineers. Surprise, surprise.

Why don't the Russians/French do it the same way? I know very little of historical foreign helicopter design - but maybe they outfitted it with two collectives instead of one and decided to stick with FW convention.

 

[phrogdriver]

I am not sure about your door question because in my last squadron all passengers would enter through the crew or PAX door. The only other entrance we had was a ramp in the rear

That's the point. In ramp-configured helos, the little door with the steps usually has the nomenclature,"crew door." Does that mean only crew members can board the helo via that entrance? No, it's situationally dependent based on the judgment of the HAC. I usually have passengers come up the ramp unless they're VIPs, in which case they come on via the crew door, even though they're only passengers.

Same thing with the pilot seat. If the situation dictates, the copilot can sit there.

 

[HokiePilot]

You still keep clinging to the thought that you know better than pilots where we should sit. There are many different risks that we face when we fly and T/R failure is just one of them. We have learned how to balance these risks and make decisions based on that.

Also realize that in the event of a T/R failure, there is no time to swap controls. Depending on altitude, the PNAC (Pilot Not at the Controls) has to shut down the engines immediately. Even a just winged aviator is quite capable of not hitting shit.

BTW, I wonder what side the pilot sits on in a HH-65 Dolphin. Hint: It is a Eurocopter!

 

[Flying Low]

How many simulated T/R EP's have you done? Just wait to you get the demo in the HT's and then tell me how much it matters which seat you are sitting in. I can do right pedal turns from the left just as well from the right. What happens if you get a stuck left pedal? Guess the HAC needs jump out and switch seats. In the H-3 the HAC sat left seat to see the Code enter and exit from the air stair. Seems like you are wrapped up with the name pilot and copilot. A HAC logs AC time the whole flight but only logs pilot time when actually flying. They had to name the seats something and Starboard seat just sounded to gay.

 

[H60Gunner]

It's time for you to step back, STFU - and listen for once.

PO Shaw,

Duuude! Listen to what these guys are saying. Hell, I probably have more stick time than you and certainly more flight time.

You're embarrassing yourself and making me want to barf.

Of all the shit I have given pilots over the years, I have NEVER once told them how they should fly, which is what you are doing right now. And it's making you look stooopid.

No one cares what kind of degree you have or where you earned it from
in the middle of the night, when the shit hits the fan.

 

[FlyBoyd]

...I thought to myself that maybe I should not have done that...

So you do have a self-check mode. Learn to listen to that inner voice before you speak or hit submit and you will avoid being labeled a "Ted."

You may have been there and done that, but you haven't been there and done this.

...there are a LOT of instructors (API, VT's and RAG's) on this board, and more than one guy here has learned the hard way that what's said on AW has a way of biting them on their actual ass.

coming to a VT/HT near you[/FONT][/SIZE]

Me and my training command brethren look forward to meeting you. Thanks for the pic so we can keep an eye out. All we have is cock and cake. FYI, we are fresh out of cake.

 

[insanebikerboy]

...words...

The hole just keeps getting deeper. Sooner rather than later you're not gonna be able to climb back out. Shut up while you still can.

 

[MasterBates]

Best advice ever.

 

[Uncle Fester]

The hole just keeps getting deeper. Sooner rather than later you're not gonna be able to climb back out. Shut up while you still can.

When the instructors post your picture with a "we'll be waiting for you" tag...I'd say it's officially too late.

 

[BACONATOR]

One word comes to mind: Joboy.

 

[Pags]

This is worse, he's a PO1.

 

[BACONATOR]

This is worse, he's a PO1.

Yes, well for that, I blame ERAU. Created more than one pompous, arrogant aviation prick.

 

[shaw5fe]

Here's the thing about engineers. They "think" they know why they're designing something, and can come up with an "engineering" explanation as to why the pilots seat is on the right, and the copilots seat is on the left. However, they have no knowledge/experience outside of engineering.

So let's just assume that your theory is correct as to why the right seat is the pilots seat. What happens when it's a brand-new HAC in the right seat with 700 flight hours, and a seasoned 2000 hour guy in the left seat (he's not the HAC). Who do you think is going to be better prepared to handle the TR emergency?

Even better, what about if the HAC is in the right seat and the 2P is in the left seat and they lose their tail rotor on takeoff? 6-7 seconds later they impact the deck. Does it really matter at that point? Neither one of them has time to react.

These are the things that as pilots we consider, but engineers don't. Oh, and you still haven't addressed why the CH-46E (which is a tandem rotor system with no Tail Rotor) sticks with the Pilot/Copilot seat convention. I've done a crap load of research on the topic, and the only thing that I've EVER found historically goes back to the Igor days and the collective being in the center. I'd be willing to bet an arrogant engineer (and almost every single one I've met is arrogant) decided that wasn't a good enough reason, and that his reason was the "real" reason. Guess who writes your textbooks? Engineers. Surprise, surprise.

Why don't the Russians/French do it the same way? I know very little of historical foreign helicopter design - but maybe they outfitted it with two collectives instead of one and decided to stick with FW convention.

When you say convention do you mean with the pilot seat on the left and the copilot seat on the right AKA fixed wing style?

If so, then this would be one more example which helps to prove my theory. From what I know of the CH-46 the fwd rotor rotates counter clockwise counteracting the tq of the rear rotor which rotates clockwise. The aft gear box which drives the aft rotor system receives power from the two engines mounted on either side of it. The power transmitted to the aft gear box is then transmitted to A: the aft rotor sys. And B: to the forward gear box to turn the fwd rotor sys via drive shaft which run from the aft gear box to the fwd. If I understood what you said correctly and the pilot seat is on the left, then this would make perfect sense. Because if the drive shaft failed which powered the fwd gear box then the fwd rotors would slow causing the fuselage to rotate in the opposite direction of the aft rotor head. In this case the fuselage would rotate to the left and if in fact the pilot seat is on the left it would be on the same side as the direction of rotation. This is the same reason that H-53's H-3's, and H-60's have pilot seats on the right, because they are on the same side as the direction of rotation for a tail rotor failure. This has been my argument for the last two days. Your question regarding the CH-46 will be used to either rule out my theory or give it more creditability.

Please let me know if I took what you said about seat position correctly, otherwise my theory can be debunked simply based on the CH-46. If I was correct in my interpretation then my theory has been proven correct again.

(Now the rest of this is not addressed to you personally so don’t take it that way. This is to everyone else who keeps throwing the exact same questions out there about pilots or HACs switching seats. Please listen, I know that this happens, the point of all this is to answer a question which was asked on the first page of this blog. Why the pilot seat is on the right. Please let this posting serve as my blind test. If the pilot whose posting I am replying to replies back that yes the labeled pilot seat is on the left than please give my theory the credit and I the credit it deserves. If the opposite then congratulations you win I am wrong.)

 

[Pags]

When you say convention do you mean with the pilot seat on the left and the copilot seat on the right AKA fixed wing style?

If so, then this would be one more example which helps to prove my theory. From what I know of the CH-46 the fwd rotor rotates counter clockwise counteracting the tq of the rear rotor which rotates clockwise. The aft gear box which drives the aft rotor system receives power from the two engines mounted on either side of it. The power transmitted to the aft gear box is then transmitted to A: the aft rotor sys. And B: to the forward gear box to turn the fwd rotor sys via drive shaft which run from the aft gear box to the fwd. If I understood what you said correctly and the pilot seat is on the left, then this would make perfect sense. Because if the drive shaft failed which powered the fwd gear box then the fwd rotors would slow causing the fuselage to rotate in the opposite direction of the aft rotor head. In this case the fuselage would rotate to the left and if in fact the pilot seat is on the left it would be on the same side as the direction of rotation. This is the same reason that H-53's H-3's, and H-60's have pilot seats on the right, because they are on the same side as the direction of rotation for a tail rotor failure. This has been my argument for the last two days. Your question regarding the CH-46 will be used to either rule out my theory or give it more creditability.

Please let me know if I took what you said about seat position correctly, otherwise my theory can be debunked simply based on the CH-46. If I was correct in my interpretation then my theory has been proven correct again.

(Now the rest of this is not addressed to you personally so don’t take it that way. This is to everyone else who keeps throwing the exact same questions out there about pilots or HACs switching seats. Please listen, I know that this happens, the point of all this is to answer a question which was asked on the first page of this blog. Why the pilot seat is on the right. Please let this posting serve as my blind test. If the pilot whose posting I am replying to replies back that yes the labeled pilot seat is on the left than please give my theory the credit and I the credit it deserves. If the opposite then congratulations you win I am wrong.)

GIVE UP. Just stop.

If a sync shaft (i think that's what it's called) fails in Phrog, you're fucked.