Jump to content

Rob Lyman

VR Member
  • Posts

    208
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Everything posted by Rob Lyman

  1. Here is the Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM). See page 37 for change to section 61.73. E7_1467.pdf
  2. Hey, don't we have a Chinook from back in the day in our unit now?
  3. The mechanical mixing is the same in both models. The AFCS is different. They both have SAS1 and SAS2, although I believe SAS1 may be different between the two. The SH-60B has nothing in the start checklist to ensure SAS1 is off. The UH-60 has Flight Path Stabilization (FPS) while the SH-60B has Autopilot. The latter incorporates an altitude hold (RadAlt and BarAlt), an automatic approach to hover, and a coupled hover. The collective has a trigger to engage and disengage the collective trim on the SH-60B. The UH-60 has a friction lock for the collective. There are alot of other minor differences that make the transition between the two annoying, such as no rotor brake, less sturdy landing gear, no ECS, no built in hydraulic rescue hoist, no torque limits for rotor engagement (due to the tailwheel being further back) on the UH-60, different locations for the parking brake, tailwheel lock, boost pump switches, rotor deice. The UH-60 has a cyclic trigger switch to slew the stabilator up, the SH-60B, with shielded wiring for the stabilator control, does not. The Army also has a bunch of EPs for the UH-60 that are not in the SH-60B NATOPS which include: Lightning Strike, Uncommanded Nose Up/Nose Down, FPS failure, and Pedal Bind. I also noticed this weekend there is no positive open lock on the pilot's door in the UH-60. The SH-60B door must be "unlocked" from the full open position by turning the door latch. The Navy knew to expect gusty winds. I guess the Army figures that you won't leave your hands, feet or anything else near the door opening while sitting in the aircraft. I nearly lost some fingers when a gust of wind pushed the UH-60 door closed with a slam on Saturday. Oh, and who had the bright idea you need a key to unlock and start a military helicopter? The "ignition" switch in the UH-60 is actually like a car, requiring a key. If I look on the overhead console for the igntion switches (#1 and #2) one more time I am going to start banging my head against the glare shield which, as luck would have it, is padded in both models.
  4. A link to the article made it to the front page of military.com. I love his dispatches. http://www.military.com/forums/0,15240,163953,00.html?wh=wh.
  5. A link to the article made it to the front page of military.com. I love his dispatches. http://www.military.com/forums/0,15240,163953,00.html?wh=wh.
  6. SIC, which is why we couldn't do anything like tow a sled, etc... I have lots of time as a pax. Another part of my job on the battle group staff involved working with the Marines, so I have lots of trips around Camp Pendleton in the back of a CH-53E.
  7. Jacksonville may not be the best place for a low time helicopter pilot to get a job. There are a bunch of Navy helicopter squadrons in Mayport and NAS Jacksonville. There is also an Army National Guard aviation batallion/GSAB at Cecil. You may be competing with former military pilots from these units for civilian jobs. Add to that a recently defunked Silver State Helicopter school and I would think the prospects for a low time pilot are not great. On the bright side, former military pilots are used to getting paid better than their low time civilian counterparts, so if you do find a low time job, chances are you will be more comfortable with the lower wages.
  8. I once hoisted a really fat guy from a Navy SH-60B. Edit: OK. OK...I'll keep to the subject... I have one flight in an MH-53E. It was a cool benefit of being the Mine Warfare Officer when I was on a battle group staff. I didn't get to pull a sled or anything cool. Just fly up and down the beach.
  9. 44 years old and restarting a second career. Right now I make my REAL money in software, but make extra dough teaching fixed wing at the nearby Navy flying club and flying Blackhawks for the FLARNG. If a technician or AGR position comes up, I may bail on my software job.
  10. The most common error I see with helicopter pilots transitioning to fixed wing is a slowing down on final. Maintaining airspeed from downwind to just prior to final is pretty much the same in both. You set your nose attitude for the airspeed you want, trim, cross check airpseed and alititude, repeat... However, on final, it is VERY common to have the helicopter pilot drop 5 - 10 kts on final before getting to the threshold. It probably doesn't feel natural to keep the nose down as you descend in a helicopter when approaching for a landing. But for an airplane, this is necessary. In fact, as you lower flaps in an airplane, the nose attitude may need to be lowered even more just to maintain airspeed. If you did this (lowered the nose) in a helicopter, it would accelerate (or at least not decelerate) while on final. No matter how much I coach them, they almost always increase the back pressure on the yoke or stick ever so slightly and bleed off a few knots of airpseed. It can be a very hard habit to break. This leads to the second most common error I see....the round-out and flair. The error above almost always leads to varying airspeed as you cross the threshold. If your airspeed is different each time you flair to land an airplane, the control movement required to affect a smooth flair is going to change for each landing. Too slow and the aircraft mushes and lands hard. Too fast and the aircraft floats or levels off high.
  11. I instruct part time and get about 120 hours a year. My other job is 7:00-4:00 so I can get flights in after work during most of the year. I couldn't instruct full time because my living expenses are too high. so, my "job" pays the bills while the instructing adds time (slowly) and satisfies my flying bug. BTW, I am not trying to build time, as I already have 10 years of flying in the Navy and enough flight time for any flying job I might want. Too bad I can't find a flying job that pays what my real job does.
  12. Another WO here. Just don't ask me any questions about the normal WO process. If you want to know about Navy to Army National Guard transitions, I can tell you about that.
  13. I heard as many as 1/2 of all Navy pilots these days are helicopter pilots. Considering that the jet spots are usually the most sought after, if you ask for helicopters, I am sure you will get them. I averaged 25-30 hrs a month as an FRS instructor. Flight time while deployed was usually closer to 30-35 hours a month, with a few 50 hr months. It could have easily been more during high operational tempo periods, but we had few of those and only one aircraft on all of my detachments with 5 pilots. High tempo ops can net you up to 75 hrs a month, but usually maintenance and parts become a limiting factor. There is only so much that can be done on a small ship. Now, with the aircraft carriers and supply ships also using H-60 variants, the maintenance and parts issues are less of a factor. I flew HSL (SH-60B Seahawk) in the Navy. Based on Mike Murphy's avatar, he flew the same mission with the SH-2 Seasprite. Same mission, different airframe. Now, the Navy is going to all H-60 airframes. HSL will drop the SH-60B for the MH-60R. HS will has dropped the SH-3 for the SH-60F and HH-60H and will add MH-60S. HSC has dropped the CH-46 for MH-60S. I can't say how the exactly the different communities vary in flight hours, but operational tempo has more to do with it than airframe and mission.
  14. The night unaided requirement is there to make sure you can takeoff, land and fly at low altitude at night without NVGs. If you think about flying a helicopter under 500' at night near the edge of a city, you are going to be going from a very bright "city lights" environment (NVGs uneffective) to a black, no visual horizon environment just by executing a 180 degree turn. This type of flying requires frequent transitions from a VMC to an IMC scan. Also, it is quite different in a fixed wing than in a helicopter. Fixed wing usually stay 1000' or above in "congested" or populated areas where as helicopters are not necessarily restricted by altitude. Also, fixed wing are going to maintain a greater minimum speed than a helicopter at night. The manuevers will be quite different between fixed wing and rotary wing. I know if I was hiring and looking for unaided night time, I would consider only about 1/4 of the fixed wing time. It's valuable, but you need the night unaided helicopter time too.
  15. That is correct. Customs & Border Patrol hire dual rated pilots. I just helped an Ex-Army/Coast Guard helo pilot add an instrument rating to his PPL. He had commercial helicopter and private airplane ratings with instrument only on the helicopter rating. He did not HAVE to have the dual ratings to get hired, but it made him more competitive and allowed him to get an earlier slot for some type specific training. BTW, I am dual rated and it allows me to do two different jobs. I flight instruct at the local Navy flying club with my fixed wing CFI/CFII/MEI and fly for the FLARNG with my commercial helicopter instrument rating.
  16. I have a unique perspective in that I flew for the Navy and am now in the Army National Guard. I would say that for any direction you go in the military, flying is flying. Each aircraft and service has its own mission. If you fly helicopters in the Navy, you will almost certainly end up in an H-60 airframe. But the missions vary greatly with the specific model. Some look for submarines, some do cargo ops, some do combat search and rescue, some search for ships with radar and other sensors. All do some degree of search and rescue, either as a primary or secondary mission. Flight training in the Navy begins in the T-34C, a single engine turbo prop airplane. This will soon change to the T-6 Texan II. At the end of primary flight training, you get selected for jets, props, or helos. Jet guys go to the T-45 and helo and prop guys stay in the T-34C a little longer. Then the helo guys go on to TH-57s (Bell JetRangers) and the prop guys go to the T-44 (Beech QueenAir). If you go helos, at the end of flight training you can take your FAA equvalency exam and get a commercial airplane and helicopter, instrument airplane and helicopter rating. You'll get about 100 fixed wing hours and 100 - 150 helicopter hours in flight school. At the end of flight school, which can take anywhere from 1 to 2 years, you get your wings. I went SH-60Bs. After flight school I went to the fleet replacement squadron (FRS), also called the replacement air group (RAG). Because of the multiple missions the SH-60B conducts, this training was 8 months long. There were a few months of basic training in the airframe, then they add day and night rescue ops, external cargo ops, anti-ship and anti-submarine warfare tactics, and finally day and night shipboard landings. When you come out of the FRS you are a fully qualified helicopter second pilot (H2P) for ALL missions. The Army is a bit different. I did not go to "flight school" in the Army, but will attend a 6 week AQC for the H-60. Army aviators get their wings after AQC. You get the basics of flying the H-60 and that is about it. You then go to your unit and get the remainder of your qualifications in an "RL" progression. Both ways are effective, just a different approach to training and qualification. As an officer in the Army or Navy, you will have considerable collateral duties once you get to your unit. These duties can be flight, maintenance or admin related. The more senior you get, the less important flying is and the more important the collateral duties become, to the point that they are no longer "collateral" duties. As an Army warrant officer, flying and flight related duties remain a much higher part of your job. If you want to be "in charge", go the officer route. If you don't mind not being in charge and you want to fly, go warrant officer. BTW, there is a VERY limited Navy flying warrant officer program they started a few years ago. Check with a recruiter to see if it is still available.
  17. You can use an experimental for training (ie rent it) only for type specific or transition training. For example, you could use a Rotorway Exec to train certified helicopter pilots (PPL or better) to fly the Rotorway Exec. This allows the owner of the plane to charge for rent as well as instruction. This was a special waiver the FAA gave in response to the EAA's request. I had heard this waiver was going to be replaced by a permanent rewrite of the FARs. I researched this extensively a year and a half ago when I was considering building or buying an experimental airplane. I figured I could really make it work financially if I could give flight training in it in addition to my own personal flying. Alas, this was not to be. Here is an EAA article on it. Read the second to last paragraph. Flight Instruction in an Experimental/Amateur-Built Aircraft Am I allowed to receive flight Instruction in an Experimental /Amateur -Built aircraft? The short answer is yes, you can receive flight training in an amateur-built aircraft. However, there are some issues that may limit this opportunity. First, the aircraft in question must have already completed it’s flight test phase (called “phase one operations”). Phase one is usually either the first 25 or 40 hours of operation, depending on what engine/prop combination is installed. During phase one operations, only the pilot can be in the aircraft, so no dual flight instruction could take place in the aircraft during this time.Assuming that the aircraft has completed phase one operations and has been moved into phase two (normal) operations, flight training in the aircraft would be allowed. The next issue is finding a CFI (certified flight instructor) who is willing to provide primary training in the homebuilt aircraft in question. Not all CFI’s are willing to give instruction in homebuilt aircraft. Another issue is whether the aircraft in question meets all the requirements of training for the license or rating sought. For private pilot certificates and above, there are requirements for night and instrument training, as well as radio navigation, so the aircraft used for training must be equipped for these operations. If the amateur-built aircraft does not have the appropriate equipment, a second aircraft will have to be used for those portions of the training. Splitting your training between two aircraft will certainly add additional hours to the flight training but will provide the added benefit of experiencing more than one aircraft’s flight characteristics. The next thing to consider is the practical test (checkride). This is governed by 14 CFR 61.45, which states that the applicant must present a standard, limited, or primary category aircraft for the practical test. However, this regulation also allows the Designated Pilot Examiner (DPE) the discretion to administer the test in an Experimental-Amateur Built aircraft. Some DPE’s are not willing to give a practical test in an amateur-built aircraft, so you may have to find an aircraft acceptable to the DPE in which to take your checkride. Also, the aircraft used for the checkride must be equipped to perform all the tasks listed in the Practical Test Standards for the license or rating sought. Depending on the level of equipment in your homebuilt, you may end up taking your checkride in the aircraft in which you did your night and instrument training As a practical matter, you will only be able to do your primary training in a homebuilt that you own. This is due to the fact that the operating limitations (which are issued as a part of the aircraft’s airworthiness certificate) for a homebuilt prohibit the carriage of persons or property for compensation or hire. This means that the owner of a homebuilt aircraft cannot rent the aircraft to you, as that would constitute carrying a person for compensation or hire. Finally, you need to make sure you can properly insure the aircraft for primary training (including solo). Depending on the aircraft, insurance may not be available for an owner that is not yet a certificated pilot. Even if you can acquire aircraft insurance as a student pilot, this may or may not be cost-effective. You’ll have to balance the cost of this insurance against the cost of renting an available training aircraft from your local FBO (Fixed Base Operator). Note that even if you rent an aircraft from an FBO it is strongly recommend that you carry non-owner insurance (often called “renter’s insurance”) to protect you in the event of an accident. The insurance premium for your homebuilt will probably drop considerably once you get your pilot certificate and a few hours of experience in your logbook.
  18. Without the interconecting drive shaft a single engine failure would be a disaster in helicopter mode if not recognized immediately. Maybe some of the Chinook pilots can chime in here regarding interconnecting driveshaft failure. I do not know if they have an EP for this or they just bend over and kiss their butt goodbye. For the V-22, read this article. About half way down this article you will find this paragraph: An interconnecting driveshaft allows the Osprey to continue flying in the advent of an engine failure. Either engine can power both proprotors, although with reduced performance. The drive train subsystem is comprised of two proprotor gearboxes (PRGB), two tilt-axis gearboxes (TAGB), one mid wing gearbox (MWGB), an interconnect drive train, and an emergency lubrication system (ELS). The primary purpose of the drive system is to distribute engine power to the two proprotors, which generate lift and thrust. The drive system enables power distribution to the proprotors during all engines operating (AEO) and one engine inoperative (OEI) conditions.
  19. All Navy and Marine aviators get about 100 hrs fixed wing time in the T-34C (soon to be the Texan II) before moving on to helos. I would think this would be adequate intro to flying in the airplane mode. I don't see the need for multi-engine training, since the engines/prop-rotors on the Osprey are connected via a drive shaft. The emphasis on the multi-engine rating is handling the assymetric thrust and Vmc situations, not necessaily the loss of total thrust. After all, there is no multi-engine helo rating because you are really just dealing with a loss of power, where as a multi-engine airplane experiences yawing and rolling moments as a result of an engine failure.
  20. #1 doesn't seem plausible. The fuel and oil never mix, of course. Perhaps the explanation is because of the proximity of the oil and fuel that is the issue? Charging the fuzz burn off in an engine chip detector might send an electrical charge through the oil and then into the fuel due to its close proximity in the fuel/oil heat exchanger? The whole accessory section of the engine is internally cored to allow fuel and oil to pass from one accessory to another internally. I doubt that the fuel/oil heat exchanger is a plausible reason to not have a fuzz burn off feature on the engine chip detector. BTW, look where the chip detector is in proximity to the engine driven fuel pump (right above the pump and to the left of the fuel/oil heat exchanger). I think if there was any loss of integrity of the fuel channel, the heat of the engine would be enough to set the thing ablaze. Something to consider is the makeup of the systems being lubricated. If I recall, the gearing in the main transmission module has some coating (nickel or something like that). At least the Navy version did. I think it was a slightly beefed up version. I know the Navy transmissions had a tendency to shed pieces of this coating a little more regularly, thus the fuzz burn off feature.
  21. OK, most of my experience is with the T700-GE-401 and T700-GE-401C engines in the Seahawk, but I do have some Blackhawk (T700-GE-700 & T700-GE-701C) experience too. If you notice, the main transmission chip detector fuzz burnoff feature is disabled at 140 C. It's normal operating temp is -50 to 105 C. The engine oil normal operating temperature is -50 to 135 C. This is closer to the cutoff temp for the main transmission chip detector. Granted, the chip detectors are not the same for the engine and the transmission, but I think the operating temperatures at least have something to do with it. Throw in there that the two chip detectors are monitoring systems with vastly different parameters (load & rpm) and you have two different needs. In the Navy, we were simply told that the engine system did not require the fuzz burn off and the operating temperature of the engine more or less made fuzz burnoff moot.
  22. Without more information of the geometry of the airport, its difficult to 'jump on any bandwagon'. Where was the intersection? East, Middle or West? Were you the only one in the pattern? Were you making left or right patterns? Was his student on radio or instructor? Did you establish any two-way communication? The airport is KHEG. Runway 29 ends about 1/2 to 2/3 down runway 25. At the time I was the only one in the pattern and had been making calls crosswind, downwind, base and final. Aircraft at an airport 50 miles away (which uses our same CTAF) heard my calls, because they asked for clarification that I was going to 29 at HEG and not 29 at X47. I was making left traffic to 29. You obviously feel that you are the superior pilot here. I think there could have been 100 and 1 reasons why this pilot acted as he did (or even made the RWY error) if he did. In this case, yes, I think I was the superior pilot. But that is not what the post was about. I instruct at this airport and am very familiar with the various operations that occur at the airport. I am very cautious and deliberate with respect to safety when operating at this airport due to its varied and sometimes heavy traffic. You are correct, there could be 100s of reasons why. The circumstances and my experience tell me that the likihood of this not being a "numbnutz" situation are low, but not impossible. 1. His radio was turned down. Didn't hear your call. He looked up to see you , sidestepped to 25 threshold. No real sidestep scenario existed. 2. Your radio transmitter was not good. He could only hear your transmission 1/5. My calls were heard and responded to by aircraft over 50 miles away. 3. He deliberately called 29 patterns and then elected to use 25 when closer. Possibly, but then he never made a call stating his new intentions. 4. 2nd Guy setting up for 29 did nothing wrong. He avoided you. Agree. Rob, from your post, it certainly sounds like there were misunderstanding and errors made by this helicopter driver. But that's all we have to go on. If so, then that doesn't surprise me. I've made mistakes before. Could there be other reasons why the events occured as you describe rather than attributing it to simply the 'numbnutz' factor? Sure it is possible. We all make mistakes. I posted this as a learning experience, as a warning to "watch out" and also as a recommendation to err on the cautious side when working at uncontrolled airports. I also tied it in to the "bandwagon" in that this is the first "numbnutz" move by a helicopter I had seen at the airport (I see fixed wing guys screw up all of the time) and it coincided with the first time I encountered these "guys" working at the airfield. Could it be a misunderstanding on your part? Could you have missed one of his calls? Could, what you thought was a takeoff, have been a quick stop exercise? Could the two pilots have agreed before leaving that low level work would be done on the inactive runway and so no need to give locations (you had seen him on 25 presumably)? On final to 29 I made a radio call and saw the guy hover taxiing just west of the numbers of 25. I dropped below the trees on short final and lost sight of the helo on 25. Doing a touch and go, I applied power, accelerated and rotated. Just then, the treeline between 29 and 25 broke and I saw the helo accelerating down 25. I called on the radio, "62Y on 29 on the go!". This is when he executed his quick stop manuever. You also strongly hint that this is connected to a particular school - like you said, 'bandwagon'. I'm not sure about this. It just seems un-necessary. I've read a lot of stories about that school and have always tried to reserve judgement based on those stories. I have, however, had a couple of opportunities for first hand contact with people from this school and can say my experience has not been impressive; at least not in a good way. A captain told me the other day: When you point a finger at someone else, there are three pointing back at yourself. Just an alternative wagon. Fair enough. I usually point the finger at myself to begin with. In this case I think I did everything right. Could I have done more to affect how this situation developed? Sure. I think some of the discussion has pointed that out. Chalk this one up as a learning experience. To clarify the "bandwagon" aspect of this post: For those looking for instruction, hopefully stories like this will not be the only information you use to decide whether to avoid this school (or any other), but they should serve as a reason to be thorough when investigating the school's history. Heck, you should do that even without stories to warn you. Although you could all speculate as to who this school is and most of you would be correct, I did not mention the name because frankly, it could apply to any school that has a questionable history.
  23. sniff...I need a hug.......Preferably from the hot model-nurse!
  24. nbit, My last comment was more or less in response to your last comment: "No sense in adding to the rumor mill inferences... An ex-navy brethren is trying to disappoint me here??? " No biggie. I shortened my original post (before posting) and left it open to misinterpretation. My bad. I just wasn't worried about disappointing anyone with my post. I also wasn't trying to cast aversions or spread rumors. Just wondering. I think we all learn a lot about flying by aiming a critical eye at our own actions as well as those of others. Beside the critical eye, sometimes there is a personal connection. In this case, it wasn't there. But it was eerily close this time. "There but by the grace of God go I." While I did make another post today that was critical of someone else's actions, my response on this thread was merely a reflection on how close to home this particularly accident might have been to my own personal life. ie What if that was a boatpix helo and that happened the weekend I was racing in Sarasota?
×
×
  • Create New...