Jump to content

Crusty

Member
  • Content Count

    36
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Everything posted by Crusty

  1. He's a troll. Joined the Forum on November 17. He's starting to leave other threads on the site.
  2. Crusty

    Paint

    He's a troll. Joined the Forum on November 17.
  3. NVGs do require proper training, as RDM-1 states. Peripheral vision is constrained to the lateral field of view within the overall reduced field of view of the goggles (hold a toilet paper tube about an inch or so from your eye and that will show how much your field of view can be reduced). This leads to an increased need for constant scanning (head movement far left and far right - ie head on a swivel) as the peripheral vision is significantly reduced. Also your depth of field is affected by the goggles and height above terrain/obstacle judgement is affected in the low level environment - solution is a radar altimeter that pings when you hit your preset height above terrain floor (carrying a slung load? Don't forget to reset your radalt to account for the sling length below the helo). Monochromatic goggles can hide obstacles in hilly terrain due to shadowing created by the ambient light. Goggles can also "see" through thin overcast or light to moderate precip so you won't know you're in the clag/crappier weather until the anti-collider is reflecting off of the clouds if you continue to climb or if the clarity of terrain features starts to reduce. If the goggles don't have a HUD feature for key aircraft instruments, then you have to "look under" the goggles to check RRPM IAS, ALT, etc - have to raise your head slightly and look under the NVG tubes to see the NVG-compatible instrument panel. There's lots of theory that has to be built into a goggle programme and the implementation of a flying programme has to be crawl-walk-very light jog to get to a comfort level that is safe.
  4. Blackmac How do your comments relate to the tragedy involving the Cyclone and the loss of 6 lives? My posts were put forth to inform the community of a military helicopter accident that unfortunately resulted in a tragic loss of life for all souls on board. You then discuss some personal grudge against the military procurement and contracting system - zero value added. GrayHorizons TSB and DFS (Directorate of Flight Safety) are separate entities, both bound by separate and distinct rules and regulations. Detailed TSB reports are for civilian consumption; Detailed DFS reports are for military consumption - you'll have to make do with the "redacted fluff" I'm afraid. rnkelly Well said.
  5. Really? Without a doubt, probably the most inane armchair quarterbacking I've had the misfortune to read in regards to any military aviation accident in the absence of: CVR data, FDR data, witness statements or preliminary flight safety investigation results. It was always my perception that aviation professionals, civilian and military, assigned human error as the sole cause factor only when all of the facts failed to support any other conclusion.
  6. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/canadian-military-helicopter-missing-1.5550395
  7. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/helicopter-crash-canadian-navy-fredericton-1.5549654
  8. Never assume that the next approach and landing will be identical to the last one to the same LZ.
  9. Check is not done at idle to prevent excessive MR flapping and and MR hub damage.
  10. I understand what you're saying Bif. I guess it boils down to personal discipline...it never fails that the one time you should have, you didn't, and then you pay some kind of price...
  11. In all seriousness, the link I'm providing is dated (1996) but still very relevant for today's helicopter crews. Basically Nomex or Nomex-blend is the current working man affordable gold standard, but layering as Heliian states, is essential to get the maximum benefit of Nomex. But the most important note on layering - natural materials only (cotton, wool, silk) and stay away from man made fibres such as nylon and polyester. The following statement is taken from the link document: Clothing and life support equipment are effective only if worn in the manner for which they are designed. https://watermark.silverchair.com/milmed-161-1-54.pdf?token=AQECAHi208BE49Ooan9kkhW_Ercy7Dm3ZL_9Cf3qfKAc485ysgAAAmswggJnBgkqhkiG9w0BBwagggJYMIICVAIBADCCAk0GCSqGSIb3DQEHATAeBglghkgBZQMEAS4wEQQM3JoDh1I40qGz2bqtAgEQgIICHu5VPEA6Q52I2NTO8yjFaYTW8arg888tXueUdstp56M7lTCUxLchV_ocVBLfJo7H57PJcFwsrjCb02h4zqlbxJrGdOZyx75L1PckpOmyOz-BpZNwMx1x2x_3np-5DBB25HQZrpxGzvNAgHGnyIvPeBceafKFY7Hqi-C0EJCwmkA2U5erJ1990uwKNsFL2zABeJo39AvGiIvWT591ja5D9Dtf5DjlqHYOrmZqQtud_1COkv2iyHbygDvodMuUAD0vGMvulhpmB4QHlZgXEigSLgXdnEtVw0AFGeKDLex3E3pNitMVprL9YuJc8r0uFdU8XWT9vIGtItb33QcsK9i8el-476pMojtZAVVvm5iFok31J-mWjjxr4HXki6KrKUMEenf_vaeSHZpydS3N5e0vsQgxump1gdCYRNHdhsy4CqdbGYGgSWH391sSJ-UkZ7IYqbERGY-BvJEJu-1Qv2q978s0u_3A2z2R-rhjTsx2gMwBWFPiwTjZ43Rzz4F5jhhpvkLaoKme7v3_ivhNAtKsPaz7d1Zrc5DEC7rsRt27ij8mckCDNNdR0IIA3fMJ1THwZspcAL3K2LdUAyxS-dvqN-1Y3DbtJoORSDgyHB5F6fh2Ocit0YgJMqmUZaoK8nIILM9CCbjGJQfYDTB0bmtHf_TTQrd-Ym6o0yEgWmHxypl-HbCRqjjde-BHlCrX2foKut6B273e9FSh1fN-Hah7 The following link is a document titled Industrial Flash Fire and Burn Injury Fundamentals with an Instrumented Manikin Demonstration of Protective Clothing Performance, is an excellent scientific study for fabrics (Nomex vs Cotton). It's not very long and has excellent information applicable for aircrew clothing. https://nascoinc.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Industrial-Flash-Fire-and-Burn-Injury-Fundamentals_ASSE-.pdf
  12. Two piece. Think doing a #2 in your winter flying kit - just drop trou with a 2-piece if it's really cold instead of stripping down with a one piece...less chance of dropping a log into the shoulders of the onesie that's coiled around your ankles, which ends up on the back of your neck when you pull everything up...oh, yeah... Think doing #2 in mosquito and black fly weather - just drop trou and only the heinie gets bit with a 2-piece...the dangly bits too if you're slow...otherwise too much pink showing with a onesie... ...and it's easier to pork out with a 2-piece than it is with a onesie, having to reduce your bacon, beer and black forest cake input...ever seen a guy in a onesie who was too girthful for it? Eeegads!
  13. My best recommendation for you tobese, and depending where you live, is to get a hold of the closest helicopter squadron and arrange a visit or a phone call. Your best place to start is with the Adjutant, Operations or Deputy Commanding Officer (DCO). Any one of those can get you pointed in the right direction for your fact finding mission. Of greatest importance to you at this time would be to talk to any pilots fresh out of their OTU (Operational Training Unit) or pilots who are awaiting training. Talking to some of those folks will give you the very latest gen on how long they've been in, how long to get to wings status, how long to wait for training, pros and cons of their experiences, how happy/sad they are. My information would be a bit dated, but I do know that it is a journey from enrolment in the RCAF to getting your wings to getting your operational training. Think of a time frame of years to accomplish all of that. And it;s not just flying - there is the mandatory officer development training, multiple courses related and not related to flying, and so on. When I joined back in the day, it was selection process, then basic officer training (Chilliwack), then primary flight training (Musketeer), then French language training, then survival training, then basic jet training (Tutor), then helicopter training (Jet Ranger/OH58A), then operational training (Kiowa), and then posted to my first unit (Kiowa). That whole process took 2 1/2 years to get to my first operational unit - it is close to double that now. With the current pilot shortage, I believe they have waived the requirement for a diploma or degree as a prerequisite for the pilot trade. Thinking Chinooks? Even longer. Current payback time is on the order of 5 years post wings (takes you to 10-12 years of service under the current system). Bureaucracy? I chuckled quite a long time at that question. Yes - to the extreme - hope that you have a good sense of humour and patience. Lifestyle differences? In the military: steady pay (not impacted by hours flown - based on trade, rank and time in trade), clean sheets, roof over your head, you're told what to wear every day and it's a life of rules, orders and regulations, lots of training flying, always someone looking over your shoulder, job security is high, annual flight hours are low. The operational flying is great and you get to see the world. Would I do it all over again? Yes In the commercial VFR world (please defer to the folks on this board who have done it as a career for their more relevant experiences, but in my case): pay was good but varied significantly depending whether on spec, on contract, hours flown; exciting flying (fires), all single pilot flying, not boring holes in the sky doing training, skills/experience gathered quickly once you start to fly regularly, thinking outside the box to get the job done instead of being constrained by a myriad of rules and regulations, it's a small world in the commercial helo sector and reputation is everything, accommodations vary throughout the comfort spectrum, you work hard for the money you make when you're in the field (definitely no silver platters or pampering here) Would I do it all over again? Yes It's a lifestyle choice - ask thousands of questions and talk face to face with people who are currently in the business (both military and civ) - ask the right questions and ask the hard questions. Best of luck to you.
  14. I started my flying career as a military helo pilot and at best I can say that I dabbled in the commercial VFR helo world. As a military pilot, you are trained in a very regimented manner and nowadays this training takes quite a long time (in comparison to commercial VFR). Things are done "by the book" and one shall not stray from the book (ie creativity, no matter how safe, is frowned upon). Most of your "experience" is of the training variety, day in and day out, until you are deployed on operations, and the operations can be somewhat frequent or never depending on the mood of the sitting government. Upgrading from co-pilot to aircraft captain is generally a long process as all current operational CAF helicopters are multi-crew. The emphasis is on holding an IFR ticket on your respective aircraft type, so the more natural transition from military to commercial flying is in the IFR world. The general consensus in the commercial VFR world is to avoid hiring ex-military pilots (unless things have changed). Some military pilots have not made a good impression on their commercial VFR employers and it has at times made it difficult for others trying to get in to shake the reputation of military pilots. When I dabbled in the VFR commercial world, I came to the realization quite quickly that despite a few thousand hours of military flying under my belt, I was like a duck out of water. The skill set and mindset required to fly effectively in the commercial VFR world is different from military flying. There is more freedom in the commercial VFR world to be creative in order to get the job done (as compared to the strictly regimented military flying), provided it is done safely. As an example with respect to rules, VFR weather limits are lower in order to get the job done - half mile and clear of cloud commercial VFR single pilot, you launch with the Mk1 A1 Eyeball and drop water on the fires; half mile clear of cloud under military rules, you don't launch or you launch IFR only. As an example with respect to skills, long lining 100 ft+ is truly an art - I have been amazed at some of the VFR commercial pilots and what they can do with a 100', 150', 200+' longline - and longlining skills today are likely essential to get hired on. I was fine short lining, but my longlining skills were absent to say the least. I can honestly say that I only scratched the surface of the spectrum of commercial VFR flying, and I take my hat off to those who have been in the industry as a career. Also, in the military you have a whole host of support for your operations before and after your flights. In the commercial VFR world it is just you, or just you and the engineer. Comparatively speaking, military pilots/crews and techs are pampered in comparison to their commercial VFR counterparts - but that is by necessity in the different worlds that each operate in. Retired now, I enjoyed my career as a military pilot. And I also very much enjoyed my brief foray into commercial VFR flying - call it happily refreshing. Both are challenging in their own ways, both have their rewards, both have their issues. In the end, it's a lifestyle choice.
  15. No Canadian content in buying a machine built and supported in the States and since the UH-1Y isn't built in Mirabel....in a riding where Canadian politicians live...chances of Canada buying it are slim and none...meaning the logical purchase choice for an appropriate replacement for the CH146 will never happen. All Bell military helos are built in the USA and Mirabel builds some Bell civ helos (the CH146 was an anomaly), so moving jobs to Canada is a non-starter for the Americans. The CH146 Griffon is well on its way to becoming the army aviation version of the Sea King...in 2035 it will be 43 years old...
  16. Reference: "CH146 Griffon Capability Replacement: Informed By The Past, Prepared For The Future", author LCol JKA Fountain, DND Paper published 2016 Below find an excerpt from the Ref paper. There was also an agreement in place between the US and Canada that allowed the US to offer surplus military equipment at greatly reduced costs (to its allies). The rumour at the time was that the US was offering Canada, at the time of the Griffon purchase, Model A Blackhawk helicopters for $1 million (US dollars) per airframe. Apparently this was disregarded by the government for political reasons (explained in the excerpt below). "In November 1991 a study cosponsored by ADM(Mat) and Commander Air Command was initiated to explore the cost benefits of replacing all utility helicopter fleets with one aircraft type. The study concluded that doing so would be a cost effective measure, 2 however, it did not consider loss of capabilities. The prioritization of funding within the RCAF without adequate consideration of the loss of Tactical Aviation capability sets was the first error that occurred in the decision process to rationalize tactical aviation assets. The misguided prioritization of funding left tactical aviation community with a one fleet option; however, minimal military input was accepted regarding what platform should be used. The politicians had decided to purchase the Griffon before the CAF was able to draft the Statement of Operational Requirement (SOR). In April 1992 when the contract for the Griffon was announced two politically favourable outcomes would occur. First, the cries of favouritism towards Ontario would be silenced following the recent large purchase of armored vehicles built in London, Ontario. As well, the future of the fledgling Bell manufacturing facility would be stabilized . The Defence Minister, Marcel Masse, a minister from Quebec with a history of directing favourable defence contracts to his home province announced an untendered $1.3 billion dollar contact in April 1992 to be awarded to Bell Helicopter for the production of 100 Bell 412CFs, known to the CAF as the CH-146 Griffon. While it was recognized that a utility helicopter purchased under the Canadian Forces Utility Tactical Helicopter (CFUTTH) project would lack capability in the reconnaissance, firepower and transport missions, the Land Force wished to cover as much of the tactical aviation tasks as possible. As well as traditional air mobility tasks the Commander Force Mobile Command (Land Force Commander) specifically mentioned reconnaissance, fire support coordination, command and liaison and surveillance as important aspects to cover. Even though the CFUTTH Statement of Requirements (SOR) was reverse engineered from the decision to buy the Griffon, it still acknowledged the deficits above and accepted that “there would probably not be enough aircraft procured to do all tasks (required by Comd Force Mobile Command)… simultaneously”. It was clear that the CFUTTH project would not provide the numbers of aircraft or the capabilities required. The second error therefore occurred when the existing procurement process was ignored in favour of a politically directed, one-for-one platform replacement. Stove-piped decision making and ignoring established procurement processes resulted in the Auditor General reporting in 1998 that the Griffon was more costly to operate than its predecessors, had inadequate lift performance, and a limited reconnaissance capability6 . The CFUTTH (SOR) stated “the UTTH has neither the maneuverability of the light observation helicopter nor the single aircraft lift capability of the CH147”. Helicopters magazine highlighted that the Griffon was “woefully inadequate” in its ability to conduct troop transport and reconnaissance. Additionally, Jane’s Defence Weekly correspondent Sharon Hobson added that the Griffon procurement demonstrated how “too often decisions are made on the basis of shortterm political opportunism without a view to the long-term implication for the Canadian Forces and the Canadian Public”.
  17. I would suggest a 2-piece flight suit (shirt and pants). Makes going to the bathroom a lot easier (especially in winter) and you can always remove the shirt when the temperatures dictate.
  18. I was flying a 212 with a FN support crew out of the Elbow Fire Base some years ago. It was getting near the end of their 21-day rotation and one of their older guys came up to me after the morning checks and asked me something. The conversation went like this: George: I was wondering if I can ask you something? Me: Sure. Go ahead. George: I was thinking that maybe we can get Tiny up in the helicopter today. He's been driving the support truck all the time and wants to go flying. Me: Sure. That shouldn't be a problem. I have time to talk to him and give him a safety brief. George then goes away and returns shortly with Tiny. To my astonishment, Tiny was anything but...tiny. I pegged him at 6'3" or 6'4" with a considerable girth. A mountain of a man that I would estimate weighed in the area of 300+ pounds. With the operating elevation of the fire base, DA, crew weights, gear and fuel calculations I gave myself a small margin of wiggle room to stay within the aircraft operating charts. I pulled George aside. Me: George, I can put Tiny in the back, but you have to tell me which 2 guys he's going to replace. George: Replace 2 guys? Why? Me: Tiny's a big boy and I can't add him to the crew without removing something. Since we can't remove fuel or equipment, it'll have to be people. George: (thoughtful for a few seconds) Tiny, back to the truck. No flying for you and don't ask me again.
  19. Hello Ice. It all depends on how it's treated and what kind of shape it's in. If: a. The shell is cracked anywhere (including edge cracks) it's u/s (the shell is the primary force absorber and it can't be compromised); b. The shell has been dropped and there is a soft spot or indentation on the shell surface, it's u/s (see above); c. You have a Styrofoam liner and it's badly gouged, cracked, or dented, replace the styrofoam liner (the Styrofoam is the secondary force absorber and will be "activated" for heavier impacts - it can't be compromised); d. You have a "bubble" skull cap liner and the "bubbles" have flattened, replace the liner (you should have at least 2 layers of the bubble liner minimum to augment impact protection - one layer doesn't cut it. The bubble liner works in conjunction with the Styrofoam liner for heavier impact absorption); e. Some paints will eat into the Kevlar/carbon shell material and compromise the structure (makes it soft). Not an issue unless your helmet was re-painted by "Bob down the street"' f. Visors are scratched, replace them; g. Chinstrap or attached webbing is frayed/damaged, replace them; h. Earcup shells are cracked, they're u/s and replace them (earcups are the primary force absorber for helmets whose shells don't cover the earcups; and earcup shells are secondary force absorbers for helmets that have shells extending over top of them - they can't be compromised). If the helmet was involved in an accident/incident and used in anger (ie it saved your skull), retire it and replace it with a new one. It's like an airbag, one use and done, no matter how "minor" the damage appears to be.
  20. Very tragic. My heartfelt condolences to family and friends of those who died. RIP.
  21. It sounds like an Ivory Tower directive from Transport Canada, especially with the unbelievable statement "even for the purposes of saving human life." I see the potential for law suits if: (a) a patient dies and ( the helicopter crew/company can prove that the patient delivery could have been done safely to the H1 helipad IAW the flight manual. In the end this becomes a moral decision on the part of the aircraft captain - save a life or don't break a TC regulation to save a life - sounds like my aviation tribunal would be front page news in the papers because I broke a regulation to save a human life. How would TC look then?
  22. R0T0R - I did not upgrade my liner. I used the existing fitting pads and liner assembly. By looking at the Oregon Aero liner, it may be a little thicker than your existing liner, so you may have to play slightly with your helmet adjustment for a while until you give the new liner a "memory".
×
×
  • Create New...