Navy Helos and support to Special Operations

[busdriver]

The ground has a Pk of 1.0, Hadji does not.

That said, the steep approach technique of brownouts has a lot of merit. It requires more power, BUT if you set it up correctly the only control inputs in the last 20-30 feet are a slight aft/left cyclic (translating tendency + last bit of decel) and a bit of collective (promptly removed so you don't stall at 10ft). I have found that teaching a new co-pilot the steep approach technique is much easier than shallower methods, even if the shallow approach is better for power reasons. I don't know what you guys use as a "steep" reference, but in this case I like to keep the landing point visible just barely above the glare shield until 30 or so feet, then I transition to hover cues/FLIR reference.

 

[Stearmann4]

Don't forget the all important fact that shallow approaches royally screw everyone behind you...You know what I mean if you've ever been behind a guy who descends to 50-60' agl the last 1/4 mile and drags it in nice and slow. Which is why we emphasize steep approaches.

 

[busdriver]

I completely agree, but keep in mind that just about everything we (Rescue) do is two ship. After I finally got a hold of the 160th SOP stuff I had to laugh at how similar it was to our SOP, for the most part the only difference was that we had many more standard things based mostly on the fact that we VERY rarely fly in anything larger than a two ship formation. If you threw out the things that were predicated on a two ship, I would say our SOPs are 95% the same.

For what it is worth I have been the victim of lead "raking" the LZ with his rotor wash and leaving a giant cloud of dust. Trying to find a way down through that mess usually results in me looking at my co wide eyed and thinking "well I guess we survived another one."

 

[Pags]

The ground has a Pk of 1.0, Hadji does not.

That said, the steep approach technique of brownouts has a lot of merit. It requires more power, BUT if you set it up correctly the only control inputs in the last 20-30 feet are a slight aft/left cyclic (translating tendency + last bit of decel) and a bit of collective (promptly removed so you don't stall at 10ft). I have found that teaching a new co-pilot the steep approach technique is much easier than shallower methods, even if the shallow approach is better for power reasons. I don't know what you guys use as a "steep" reference, but in this case I like to keep the landing point visible just barely above the glare shield until 30 or so feet, then I transition to hover cues/FLIR reference.

Yeah, you can only hope to tie the low alt record.

The thing is, we have no written procedure for a steep approach to a brownout. We only have the shallow one. I don't like the idea of some guy who thinks he's super tactical improvising. Especially when you stall out in the dust cloud.

We don't do a lot of "real" brownouts. Nowhere near enough to be good at them. We do some tactical approaches to "grass out", which doesn't help that much when you go do real brown out.

And this wasn't a new guy...

 

[busdriver]

As to "grass out" if the grass is very long, it can be a very good brownout trainer since you get very little contrast or directional input low to the ground.

As to stalling out, that is obviously a no-go. I posted something similar in the scariest night flying thread about stalling out and nearly rolling the aircraft, and that was with a very good pilot. I as a co-pilot took the controls and landed, rather violently but we lived to fight another day.

 

[Pags]

As to "grass out" if the grass is very long, it can be a very good brownout trainer since you get very little contrast or directional input low to the ground.

I'm talking about the mowed portion of the local outlying field (might as well land on a golf course). But i get what you're saying.

 

[hscs]

.... because it wasn't "really that tactical" and that "the 160th shoots theirs steeper, etc". There's nothing like coming into a hover at 20' with no ground reference.

Whoever told you this is wrong -- never saw anyone of any of the four services come into a 20' hover or fly a steep approach (when not required due to obstructions).

Be careful what people tell you about how someone else tells you how another unit does it. Chances are they really don't know themselves. In fact, a very senior pilot who was trying to make the current navy approach profile more tactical by coming in wicked hot, ended up having a class b mishap @ pad 1 in IB on a beautiful day in SD (he had a rotor blade slice through the IGB cowling).

I have flown plenty of approaches where you need to come in steeper -- I still find a way to intercept our current profile somewhere along the way (even if it @ 20').

Pags, your boy needs to go to an HFC.

 

[busdriver]

Curiosity question:what does the Navy teach as a "normal" approach angle? Where would the intended touchdown point rest on the windscreen at the initiation point?

 

[bobbybrock]

As an IP I've always taught both methods. There is no one size fits all. My guard unit is deployed in Afghanistan and we have the whole spectrum of flying here, from desert to mountains.
Power management has a lot to do with what type of approach you're going to do. I've always preferred the steep approach. If any of you are HAATS grads then you've seen the advantages.
I know the Army is finally getting serious about sending most of it pilots to HAATS. I highly recommend the course.

 

[Pags]

Curiosity question:what does the Navy teach as a "normal" approach angle? Where would the intended touchdown point rest on the windscreen at the initiation point?

It varies...10deg for a "normal", 25-45 for a "steep" and the tactical approach is pretty flat.

 

[phrogdriver]

To those doing "steep" RVLs, are you in aircraft with hover instrumentation (coupled hvr, drift vector displays, etc.)

In the 46 we always shot shallow for RVLs. In the 22 we've got a couple technique options using instrumentation.

Also, what's HAATS?

 

[highside7r]

http://www.coloradoguard.army.mil/webpages/haats.htm

Where the Army will send crews to learn Mtn/high alt. flying.

 

[iwishiwaseatin]

Has anyone else read the latest Navy Times (March 9) that has a blurb about the Seahawk weapons upgrade? If I read correctly the armed helo upgrade has been purchased and is soon to be a fleet reality. If that is the case wont all HSC squadrons be more "tactical"?

 

[exhelodrvr]

This is a really interesting thread for me. When I started (HS H-3s), on the East Coast combat SAR was one of our quals that went into the combat readiness for the crews and the squadron. We would do fairly simple SAR-EXs with the air wing A-7s, generally picking up a "downed pilot" at the Army reserve base about 30 miles from NAS Jax. On transferring to San Diego, I found that the West Coast H-3 squadrons would never do SAR-EXs, because "it wasn't in the ROC and POE." I guess they figured that someone else would magically do it if a aircrew on a West Coast carrier were to get shot down.

 

[phrogdriver]

This is a really interesting thread for me. When I started (HS H-3s), on the East Coast combat SAR was one of our quals that went into the combat readiness for the crews and the squadron. We would do fairly simple SAR-EXs with the air wing A-7s, generally picking up a "downed pilot" at the Army reserve base about 30 miles from NAS Jax. On transferring to San Diego, I found that the West Coast H-3 squadrons would never do SAR-EXs, because "it wasn't in the ROC and POE." I guess they figured that someone else would magically do it if a aircrew on a West Coast carrier were to get shot down.

I'm not arguing, just trying to get a discussion here, while being concscious of OPSEC.

And if that H-3 got shot down too trying to do the rescue, it wouldn't help much either. Unless the combatant CINC signed up for it, the H-3 wouldn't make the rescue. That CINC has to have a SAR plan as part of the op. The JSRC should tap the forces to do it.

An in-house training plan probably doesn't cut it. Were your SAR crewmen trained for overland rescue in a non-permissive environment?