University of Tennessee, Knoxville TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange
Masters Theses Graduate School
5-2002
An Investigation of the Effects of Relative Winds Over the Deck on the MH-60S Helicopter During Shipboard Launch and Recovery Operations
Dominick J. Strada University of Tennessee - Knoxville
Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes
Part of the Aerospace Engineering Commons
Recommended Citation Strada, Dominick J., "An Investigation of the Effects of Relative Winds Over the Deck on the MH-60S Helicopter During Shipboard Launch and Recovery Operations. " Master's Thesis, University of Tennessee, 2002. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes/2170
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Masters Theses by an authorized administrator of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. To the Graduate Council:
I am submitting herewith a thesis written by Dominick J. Strada entitled "An Investigation of the Effects of Relative Winds Over the Deck on the MH-60S Helicopter During Shipboard Launch and Recovery Operations." I have examined the final electronic copy of this thesis for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the equirr ements for the degree of Master of Science, with a major in Aviation Systems.
Fred Stellar, Major Professor
We have read this thesis and recommend its acceptance:
Ralph Kimberlin, U. Peter Solies
Accepted for the Council: Carolyn R. Hodges
Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School
(Original signatures are on file with official studentecor r ds.) To the Graduate Council:
I am submitting herewith a thesis written by Dominick J. Strada entitled “An
Investigation of the Effects of Relative Winds Over the Deck on the MH-60S
Helicopter During Shipboard Launch and Recovery Operations.” I have examined the final electronic copy of this thesis for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
Master of Science, with a major in Aviation Systems.
Fred Stellar
Major Professor
We have read this thesis and recommend its acceptance:
Ralph Kimberlin
U. Peter Solies
Acceptance for the Council:
Dr. Anne Mayhew
Vice Provost and Dean of Graduate Studies
(Original signatures are on file in the Graduate Student Services Office.) AN INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECTS OF RELATIVE WINDS OVER THE DECK ON THE MH-60S HELICOPTER DURING SHIPBOARD LAUNCH AND RECOVERY OPERATIONS
A Thesis
Presented for the
Master of Science Degree
The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Dominick Joseph Strada
May 2002 DEDICATION
This thesis is dedicated to
God, The Omnipotent Creator, and The Provider of all that I have;
and to my tremendous family, without whom I am incomplete:
my wife, Brandi Strada, the love of my life, and my tremendous sons, Dominick Gabriel and Nicholas Raphael.
ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to acknowledge and thank all those who have contributed to
my success in the pursuit of this Master of Science Degree.
I would like to begin by thanking all those at United States Naval Test
Pilot School, Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland who provided me with the background and education upon which I depended during my tour as a developmental test pilot at Naval Rotary Wing Aircraft Test Squadron. In particular, I would like to thank those instructors who gave me a real appreciation for helicopter performance, aerodynamics and handling qualities, Mr. J. J.
McCue, Mr. Mike Mosier, and Mr. Lee Khinoo, respectively.
I would like to thank the engineers at Naval Rotary Wing Aircraft Test
Squadron, NAS Patuxent River, Maryland, with whom I worked very closely during the developmental testing of the MH-60S helicopter. It was a tremendous experience made possible and successful by the participation and leadership of the following people: Mr. Bob Riser, MH-60S Project Engineer and Team Leader;
Mr. Lew Fromhart, Project Aerodynamicist; Mr. John Petz, Project Propulsion
Engineer and H-60 expert; Mr. Ben Johnson, Project System Safety Engineer; Mr.
Tim Gowen, helicopter aerodynamicist and handling qualities expert; Mrs. Amy
Hunger, Dynamic Interface Engineer; and Mr. Joe Furgeson, Dynamic Interface
Engineer.
I would like to thank Mrs. Sharon Kane at the University of Tennessee campus in Patuxent River, Maryland for her tremendous assistance in the completion of this project over 3 years and several thousand miles.
iii I would like to thank those at the University of Tennessee who made this possible: my Thesis Advisor, Mr. Fred Stellar for his guidance in preparing my thesis and my defense; Dr. Ralph Kimberline and Dr. Peter Solies, members of my thesis defense committee; Mrs. Betsy Harbin for her assistance with the thesis process; and Mrs. Heather Doncaster for her formatting assistance.
Finally, I would like to acknowledge and extend my gratitude to my perfect family for their exceptional patience during the completion of this degree on my own time, which was really on my family’s own time.
iv ABSTRACT
Vertical replenishment (VERTREP) of underway fleet naval vessels by helicopter is the primary mission of the MH-60S helicopter and is absolutely critical to sustaining fleet combat readiness at sea. The effectiveness of the MH-
60S helicopter in conducting this crucial mission is directly dependent upon its
ability to launch from and recover to the delivery ship under a wide range of
wind-over-deck (WOD) conditions.
This thesis is an investigation of the effects of relative winds over the deck on the MH-60S helicopter documented during shipboard launch and recovery operations conducted during the initial MH-60S shipboard testing and launch and recovery wind envelope development.
The investigation involved the calculated variation of relative wind-over-deck speed and direction during shipboard launch and recovery evolutions. Effects of the relative winds over the deck on the helicopter during launch and recovery were quantified using pilot rating scales, designed to permit the brief yet accurate characterization of aircraft handling qualities and pilot workload. Build-up flight test techniques were used to mitigate the risk associated with shipboard launch and recovery wind envelope development.
This investigation yielded a satisfactory characterization of the handling qualities of the MH-60S helicopter aboard three different classes of naval vessels.
Additionally, it resulted in the establishment of relatively large and operationally flexible launch and recovery wind envelopes for each of these classes of ship, all
v of which are recommended for employment by the fleet upon introduction of the helicopter.
The investigation also yielded four unsatisfactory pilot-vehicle interface (PVI) deficiencies pertinent to operating the MH-60S helicopter aboard ship. They were related to extremely limited forward field of view (FOV), excessive cockpit vibrations, aft location of the tail wheel, and hazardous strength of the main rotor down wash.
It is the opinion of this author that much can be done to make the immense task of initially qualifying a new helicopter for operations aboard all classes of naval ship safer, and more economical, efficient and logical. It is also the position of this author that this initial MH-60S shipboard test effort did not satisfactorily leverage the massive amount of knowledge pertinent to such an endeavor that currently exists in government, military, civilian and academic institutions of the world interested in this field of study.
If U. S. Navy launch and recovery wind envelope development is to succeed at truly maximizing the shipboard operational capability of a helicopter, more must be done to leverage the tremendous technological advances being made in this and related fields of study, and to employ data already gathered by institutions conducting similar testing.
vi PREFACE
The shipboard testing and qualification of a particular helicopter aboard the various classes of ship in the U. S. Navy, is a monumental effort that can span the two to three decades that typically constitute such a helicopter’s entire service life. The most significant goal of such a test effort is the development of wind- over-deck envelopes that permit launch from and recovery to the flight deck in as many wind-over-deck conditions as are safely possible.
This testing, designed to maximize the shipboard operational capability of a helicopter, can be extremely hazardous. The inherent risk in this process is mitigated by the employment of logical and proven risk mitigation techniques, which ensure that the edge of a safe operating envelope can be safely located, without compromising airframe or structural limitations, and without unnecessarily constraining operational fleet employment of the involved aircraft.
Developmental shipboard testing is a safe and methodical, successful and exciting effort.
This thesis details the initial launch and recovery wind envelope development testing that was recently conducted for the newest of the U. S. Navy’s helicopters, the MH-60S Sea Hawk. This initial shipboard effort was designed to investigate the effects of relative winds over the deck on the helicopter while aboard three of the first classes of ship upon which it will deploy. As the testing continues, MH-
60S launch and recovery wind envelopes will eventually be developed for all classes of naval ship.
vii Most of the information and data presented in this thesis were collected during
Naval Air Systems Command-sponsored flight testing, and involved collaboration with Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation and Lockheed Martin Federal Systems. The presentation of this material, to include the discussion, results and conclusions, is strictly the opinion of the author, and should not be construed or viewed as an official position of the aforementioned organizations, the United Stated Navy, the
United States Department of Defense, or the United States Government.
viii TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION...... 1 1. BACKGROUND ...... 1 2. PURPOSE OF TEST ...... 3 3. DESCRIPTION OF TEST AIRCRAFT: THE MH-60S SEA HAWK ...... 4 4. DESCRIPTION OF MH-60S COMMON COCKPIT...... 7 5. DESCRIPTION OF TEST SHIPS...... 8 i. United States Ship BATAAN (LHD 5) ...... 8 ii. United States Naval Ship CONCORD (T-AFS 5)...... 9 iii. United States Naval Ship SIRIUS (T-AFS 8) ...... 10 6. DESCRIPTION OF EMPLOYABLE TECHNOLOGY AND SIMILAR H-60 TEST EFFORTS...... 11 i. Similar H-60 Shipboard Test Efforts ...... 12 ii. Mathematical And Aerodynamic Prediction Tools ...... 13 iii. Initial Aircraft Design...... 14 II. METHODOLOGY ...... 16 1. SCOPE OF TEST ...... 16 i. General...... 16 ii. Shore-Based Handling Qualities Testing...... 17 iii. Shipboard Launch and Recovery Wind Envelope Development ...... 18 a) General...... 18 b) Launch and Recovery Wind Envelope Development Process...... 20 c) Limitations to Scope ...... 22 2. METHOD OF TEST...... 24 i. General...... 24 ii. General Handling Qualities...... 25 iii. Shore-Based Handling Qualities ...... 29 iv. Shipboard Handling Qualities...... 31 a) General...... 31 b) Shipboard Landing Pattern ...... 32 c) Launch and Recovery Wind Envelope Development...... 34 v. Data Collection and Aircraft Instrumentation...... 36 a) General...... 36 b) Aircraft Bureau Number 165742 Data Collection Package...... 38 III. RESULTS...... 39 1. GENERAL...... 39 2. SHORE-BASED HANDLING QUALITIES...... 40 3. LAUNCH AND RECOVERY WIND ENVELOPE DEVELOPMENT...46 i. USS BATAAN (LHD 5)...... 46 ii. USNS CONCORD (T-AFS 5)...... 50 iii. USNS SIRIUS (T-AFS 8)...... 57 4. PILOT-VEHICLE INTERFACE...... 59 i. General...... 59 ii. Forward Field of View...... 59 iii. Cockpit Vibrations...... 61
ix iv. Tail Wheel Location ...... 63 v. Main Rotor Down Wash ...... 65 5. LAUNCH AND RECOVERY WIND ENVELOPE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS ...... 68 IV. CONCLUSIONS...... 70 1. GENERAL...... 70 2. LAUNCH AND RECOVERY WIND ENVELOPE DEVELOPMENT...71 i. USS BATAAN (LHD 5)...... 71 ii. USNS CONCORD (T-AFS 5)...... 72 iii. USNS SIRIUS (T-AFS 8)...... 73 3. PILOT-VEHICLE INTERFACE...... 74 i. General...... 74 ii. Forward Field of View...... 74 iii. Cockpit Vibrations...... 75 iv. Tail Wheel Location ...... 75 v. Main Rotor Down Wash ...... 76 4. LAUNCH AND RECOVERY WIND ENVELOPE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS ...... 76 V. RECOMMENDATIONS...... 78 1. LAUNCH AND RECOVERY WIND ENVELOPE DEVELOPMENT...78 i. USS BATAAN (LHD 5)...... 78 ii. USNS CONCORD (T-AFS 5)...... 80 iii. USNS SIRIUS (T-AFS 8)...... 81 2. PILOT-VEHICLE INTERFACE...... 83 i. General...... 83 ii. Forward Field of View...... 84 iii. Cockpit Vibrations...... 85 iv. Tail Wheel Location ...... 87 v. Main Rotor Down Wash ...... 88 3. LAUNCH AND RECOVERY WIND ENVELOPE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS ...... 90 WORKS CITED...... 93 APPENDICES...... 98 APPENDIX A: FIGURES...... 99 APPENDIX B: TABLES ...... 124 VITA...... 173
x LIST OF FIGURES
Figure A-1: MH-60S Seahawk Helicopter Dimensions ...... 100 Figure A-2: MH-60S Exterior Arrangement...... 101 Figure A-3: MH-60S Cockpit Arrangement...... 102 Figure A-4: MH-60S Common Cockpit Instrument Panel...... 103 Figure A-5: MH-60S Common Cockpit Flight Display ...... 104 Figure A-6: United States Ship BATAAN (LHD 5) ...... 105 Figure A-7: United States Naval Ships CONCORD (T-AFS 5) and SIRIUS (T- AFS 8)...... 106 Figure A-8: General Launch and Recovery Wind Envelope for LHD Class Ships ...... 107 Figure A-9: General Launch and Recovery Wind Envelope for T-AFS Class Ships ...... 108 Figure A-10: Port Landing Spot Aboard LHD Class Ships ...... 109 Figure A-11: Typical T-AFS Ship Deck with Line Up Lines ...... 110 Figure A-12: Low Airspeed Trimmed Flight Control Positions (45 KTAS, 21000 lbs.)...... 111 Figure A-13: Low Airspeed Trimmed Flight Control Positions (45 KTAS, 21000 lbs.)...... 112 Figure A-14: Low Airspeed Handling Qualities (16500 lbs.) ...... 113 Figure A-15: Low Airspeed Handling Qualities (21000 lbs.) ...... 114 Figure A-16: Launch and Recovery Wind Envelope, USS BATAAN, Spot 4 .. 115 Figure A-17: Launch and Recovery Wind Envelope, USS BATAAN, Spot 5 .. 116 Figure A-18: Launch and Recovery Wind Envelope, USS BATAAN, Spot 6 .. 117 Figure A-19: Launch and Recovery Wind Envelope, USS BATAAN, Spot 7 .. 118 Figure A-20: Launch and Recovery Wind Envelope, USNS CONCORD, Starboard Approach ...... 119 Figure A-21: Launch and Recovery Wind Envelope, USNS CONCORD, Port Approach...... 120 Figure A-22: Launch and Recovery Wind Envelope, USNS SIRIUS, Starboard Approach...... 121 Figure A-23: Launch and Recovery Wind Envelope, USNS SIRIUS, Port Approach...... 122 Figure A-24: Rectilinear Plot of Pilot Station Forward Field of View...... 123
xi LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Shore-Based Test Day Conditions and Configurations...... 40 Table 2: Aircraft Parameters During Shore-Based Testing ...... 41 Table 3: HQR Assignment During Shore-Based Testing (16500 lbs.)...... 42 Table 4: VAR Assignment During Shore-Based Testing (16500 lbs.)...... 43 Table 5: HQR Assignment During Shore-Based Testing (21000 lbs.)...... 44 Table 6: VAR Assignment During Shore-Based Testing (21000 lbs.)...... 45 Table 7: USS BATAAN (LHD 5) Test Day Conditions and Configurations...... 46 Table 8: USNS CONCORD (T-AFS 5) Test Day Conditions and Configurations ...... 50 Table 9: Unsatisfactory Evolutions Aboard USNS CONCORD (T AFS 5) ...... 51 Table 10: USNS SIRIUS (T-AFS 8) Test Day Conditions and Configurations... 57 Table 11: PVI Evaluation Test Day Conditions and Configurations...... 60
Table B-1: Tests and Test Conditions Matrix...... 125 Table B-2: Cooper-Harper Handling Qualities Rating Scale ...... 128 Table B-3: Dynamic Interface Pilot Rating Scale...... 129 Table B-4: Vibration Assessment Rating Scale...... 130 Table B-5: Pilot Induced Oscillation Rating Scale...... 131 Table B-6: Turbulence Rating Scale...... 132 Table B-7: Instrumentation Package Parameters, BUNO 165742...... 133 Table B-8: USS BATAAN (LHD 5) Data Sheets ...... 135 Table B-9: USNS CONCORD (T-AFS 5) Data Sheets...... 150 Table B-10: USNS SIRIUS (T-AFS 8) Data Sheets...... 168
xii LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AC alternating current AFCC automatic flight control computer AFCS automatic flight control system AFS combat stores ship AGL above ground level AMCM airborne mine countermeasures APU auxiliary power unit ARG Amphibious Ready Group ASUW anti-surface warfare
BuNo bureau number
CBG Carrier Battle Group CC common cockpit CFD computational fluid dynamics CG Guided Missile Cruiser CLF Combat Logistics Force COMNAVAIRSYSCOM Commander Naval Air Systems Command CNO Chief of Naval Operations CSAR combat search and rescue CVN Nuclear Aircraft Carrier
DA density altitude DC direct current DIT dynamic interface testing DLQ deck landing qualification DOD Department of Defense
EGI embedded GPS/INS ESCG engine start center of gravity ESGW engine start gross weight
FAS flight avionics segment FCLP field carrier landing practice FFG Guided Missile Frigate FOV field of view FTEG Flight Test and Engineering Group FVP field VERTREP practice fpm feet per minute
GPS Global Positioning System
HMP Helicopter Master Plan Hp pressure altitude
xiii HQR handling qualities rating Hz Hertz
IAW in accordance with IGE in ground effect ILS Instrument Landing System INS Inertial Navigation System
KGS knots ground speed
LF/ADF low frequency/automatic direction finding LHA Amphibious Assault Ship LHD Amphibious Assault Ship LSE landing signalman enlisted
MSC Military Sealift Command MSL mean sea level
NAS naval air station NATOPS Naval Air Training and Operating Procedures Standardization NAVAIR Naval Air Systems Command NAWCAD Naval Air Weapons Center Aircraft Division Nr main rotor speed NRWATS Naval Rotary Wing Aircraft Test Squadron NVD night vision device NWP Naval Warfare Publication
OAT outside air temperature OGE out of ground effect ORD Operational Requirements Document
PCM pulse code modulated PIO pilot induced oscillation PVI pilot-vehicle interface
SAC Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation SAS stability and augmentation system SAR search and rescue SHP shaft horsepower SWS special warfare support
TACAN tactical airways navigation T-AFS combat stores ship TAS true airspeed TEMP Test and Evaluation Master Plan
xiv TFCP trimmed flight control positions TM telemetry, telemeter T/M/S type/model/series TQ engine torque TURB turbulence rating
US United States USNS United States Naval Ship USNTPS United States Naval Test Pilot School USS United States Ship
VAR vibration assessment rating VERTREP vertical replenishment VHF very high frequency VMC visual meteorological conditions VOR VHF omni-directional radio range
WOD wind-over-deck
xv I. INTRODUCTION
1. BACKGROUND
Post-Cold War downsizing of the U. S. military has forced senior military leadership to seek a cheaper, safer, more efficient way of maintaining force
strength and superiority with reduced funding. Within the Department of Defense
(DOD), for example, there has been a complete restructuring of the entire acquisition process, from research and development, to final testing, product procurement and delivery for use. In the U. S. Navy, the direct result of military downsizing is evident in the radical reduction in the number of ships, submarines and aircraft available to the fleets for national defense.
Specifically within naval aviation, the Fleet Commanders-in-Chief have developed a plan, the U. S. Navy Helicopter Master Plan (HMP), which is designed to assist naval helicopter aviation in the required streamlining process.
The HMP “establishes a road map for the modernization and re-capitalization of the naval helicopter force through the year 2020,” (Operational Requirements
Document, 1998), and details a type/model/series (T/M/S) reduction of current helicopter inventory from eight (SH-60B, SH-60F, HH-60H, CH-46D, SH-3, SH-
2G, UH-1N, and MH-53E) to two (SH-60R and MH-60S). “The reduction to two models of the same type of helicopter, with maximum commonality of components, will yield significant savings to the Navy in both acquisition costs and operations and support costs” (Operational Requirements Document, 1998).
Additional advantages of this T/M/S reduction are improved war fighting
1 capability, and reduction in manpower and infrastructure requirements.
Commonality, cost and manpower reductions, and support infrastructure optimization will be greatly facilitated by major airframe and component commonality, and, most significantly, by implementation of the Common Cockpit
(CC), a fully integrated, software-driven, glass cockpit, which will be installed in both the SH-60R and the MH-60S (Operational Requirements Document, 1998).
The MH-60S, according to the HMP, is scheduled to replace most of the current Navy helicopter inventory (HH-60H, CH-46D, SH-3, UH-1N, MH-53E) and the SH-60R is scheduled to replace the remaining models (SH-60B, SH-60F, and SH-2G). The first step in this years long process of helicopter replacement, is the introduction of the baseline MH-60S, designed to replace the 1960’s vintage
H-46D Sea Knight, due to its unacceptably high maintenance requirements, insufficient operating radius, inadequate adverse weather capability, and lack of combat survivability. The replacement entails the employment of technologies designed to reduce pilot workload; increase multi-mission effectiveness; improve aircraft reliability, maintainability and availability; and allow for future systems technology growth (Operational Requirements Document, 1998).
The process of developing, testing and fielding this new airframe has reached the testing phase, and operational deployment of this desperately needed replacement is scheduled for 2002. The current MH-60S test effort underway at
Naval Rotary Wing Aircraft Test Squadron and at Operational Test and
Evaluation Squadron One is designed to evaluate the aircraft as a direct form, fit and functional replacement for the H-46D as it is currently employed in the fleet
2 in its Vertical Replenishment and Amphibious Ready Group (ARG) Search and
Rescue missions. With successful replacement of all H-46D helicopters, SH-3 and UH-1N helicopters will be replaced. Follow-on MH-60S testing is designed to support the integration and deployment of the systems necessary in the next step of the HMP, the replacement of the MH-53E in 2005, and the SH-60F and
HH-60H in 2006.
Thus, the United States Navy’s newest helicopter, the multi-mission MH-60S
Sea Hawk, is now in the final stages of the testing process and is due to commence fleet operations aboard naval vessels in late 2002. The requirement of the MH-60S helicopter to operate in the shipboard environment has necessitated a detailed shipboard evaluation of the helicopter, and includes the development of launch and recovery wind envelopes designed to permit safe shipboard operations aboard all classed of naval ship without significantly reducing operational capability or flexibility.
2. PURPOSE OF TEST
The purpose of this test was to investigate the effects of relative winds over the deck on the MH-60S helicopter during launch and recovery operations aboard
LHD 1, T-AFS 1, and T-AFS 8 class ships. Quantitatively, the purpose of this
investigation was the development of operationally flexible launch and recovery
wind envelopes for MH-60S helicopter aboard these ships.
3 3. DESCRIPTION OF TEST AIRCRAFT: THE MH-60S SEA HAWK
The MH-60S helicopter, presented in Figures A-1 and A-21, is manufactured
by the Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation (SAC), Stratford, Connecticut. The aircraft
is a twin-engine, single main rotor helicopter designed to perform the primary missions of vertical replenishment (VERTREP) of underway fleet assets, fleet
logistical support, and battle group search and rescue (SAR). The aircraft was
also designed to permit future systems growth in order to support the additional primary missions of combat search and rescue (CSAR), airborne mine countermeasures (AMCM), overland special warfare support (SWS), and anti- surface warfare (ASUW).
The MH-60S helicopter is an amalgam of current Sikorsky H-60 components, but also includes the incorporation of some unique systems and components. It is constructed primarily of an U. S. Army UH-60 Black Hawk airframe, and outfitted with U. S. Navy SH-60 Sea Hawk mechanical, automatic flight control, and dynamic components.
The airframe consists of three primary sections, the cockpit, the cabin compartment and the tail pylon. The cockpit accommodates two pilots, and each pilot station permits access to a full compliment of instruments and conventional helicopter flight controls. The airframe incorporates a non-retractable landing gear system consisting of fixed right and left main landing gear, and a swivel-type tail wheel.
1 Figures A-1 through A-25 are located in Appendix A.
4 The MH-60S aircraft is equipped with a fully articulated, SH-60 main rotor system. Four main rotor blades are attached to hinged spindles retained by elastomeric bearings, all contained in a one-piece titanium hub. The elastomeric bearings, two per blade, are designed to permit the blades to flap, lead, lag, and change pitch. Flight control movement is transmitted to the rotor blades via the main rotor head, which employ bell cranks, swash plates and pitch control rods to do so. Cyclic, collective, and pedal controls are mechanically combined in the mixing unit that is designed to ensure uncoupled aircraft response characteristics with flight control input, prior to the main rotor head. The rotor system is equipped with a hydraulic rotor brake system designed to prevent the rotor system from turning during engine start and to provide for rapid shutdown. Anti-torque and directional control in the MH-60S is provided by a bearingless, crossbeam tail rotor system. Tail rotor blade movement (flap and pitch change) occurs by deflection of the flexible, graphite blade spars. The tail rotor is a tractor-type, on the right side of the aircraft, and canted 20° upward (providing about 2.5% of the total lift in a hover). Both the main and tail rotor systems are designed to fold, the main rotor system automatically, and the tail rotor system manually, for shipboard stowage.
Tail rotor authority is dependant upon tail rotor impressed pitch (actual tail rotor blade angle). Tail rotor impressed pitch is dependant, not only upon pedal position, but collective position (due to collective-to-yaw mixing), stability augmentation system (SAS) inputs, and individual aircraft rigging differences, none of which are fed back to influence pedal position. In order to provide
5 additional left pedal margins and permit operations at high gross weights and density altitudes, and because American-made helicopters do not typically have right pedal margin problems, tail rotor impressed pitch is biased to the left side.
This bias has traditionally been by 1.5° in U. S. Navy helicopters, however, 3° of tail rotor bias is being explored for fleet implementation (U. S. Army, U. S. Air
Force and U. S. Coast Guard all currently employ 3° of tail rotor bias). With 1.5° of tail rotor bias, tail rotor impressed pitch available ranges from 14° right to 17° left blade angle. With 3° of tail rotor bias, tail rotor impressed pitch available ranges from 12.5° right to 18.5° left blade angle (in an unbiased condition, 15.5° of blade angle is available both left and right).
The MH-60S transmission system is designed to combine the power output of
two engines, reduce the rotational speed, and transfer power to the main and tail
rotors. Additionally, the transmission system provides electrical and hydraulic
power generation. Each engine is an improved T700-GE-401C engine that
provides maximum continuous power of 1662 SHP, intermediate power of 1800
SHP (for 30 minutes), and contingency power of 1940 SHP (for 2½ minutes).
Fuel for the main engines and the auxiliary power unit (APU) is provided by a
crash-worthy, suction-type fuel system, which includes two main fuel cells with a
total capacity of 360 useable gallons (approximately 2448 lbs. of JP-5).
The MH-60S hydraulic system is designed primarily to provide up to 3000 psi
of hydraulic pressure to the main rotor and tail rotor primary servos, the pilot
assist servos and the trim actuators. The aircraft incorporates an electro-
hydromechanical automatic flight control system (AFCS) which is designed to
6 provide flight control inputs for stability augmentation; stabilator control; trim; attitude, heading, airspeed and altitude hold; and coupled approach, hover and departure capabilities (A1-H60SA-NFM-000, 2002).
A complete and detailed description of the MH-60S helicopter can be found in
A1-H60SA-NFM-000, Naval Air Training and Operating Procedures
Standardization Flight Manual, Navy Model MH-60S Aircraft.
Two MH-60S aircraft, Bureau Number (BuNo) 165742 (aircraft #1) and
BuNo 165744 (aircraft #3), were flown during this evaluation. BuNo 165742 was production representative with the exception of the following components: (1) a sophisticated data recording package that permitted the telemetry (and recording) of data and the real time monitoring of aircraft parameters during test events; (2)
150 lbs. of ballast installed on the nose in place of the Instrument Landing System
(ILS) antenna for center of gravity (CG) management; and (3) 3° of tail rotor bias vice 1.5°. BuNo 165744 was a production representative MH-60S, which was not instrumented, incorporated the ballast package with the ILS antenna, and had 1.5° of tail rotor bias.
4. DESCRIPTION OF MH-60S COMMON COCKPIT
The Common Cockpit (CC) is built by Lockheed Martin Federal Systems
(LMFS), Owego, New York. Designed for use in both MH-60S and SH-60R
helicopters in support of the Helicopter Master Plan, the CC is the U. S. Navy’s
first “all glass,” digital cockpit (Figures A-3 and A-4). The CC incorporates two
multifunction flight displays (Figure A-5), two multifunction mission displays,
two key sets, communications subsystems, navigation subsystems, and manual
7 operator input/output panels. Each flight display provides primary flight and navigation information, and each mission display provides geosituational and navigational information, and aircraft systems and diagnostic information.
Interface with the systems is via two key sets located on the lower, center console.
Major communications and navigation subsystems available include: Embedded
Global Positioning System (GPS) Inertial Navigation System (INS) (EGI); Ultra and Very High Frequency (UHF/VHF) plain/secure and satellite communications;
Tactical Airways Navigation (TACAN), Very High Frequency (VHF) Omni- directional Radio Range (VOR), Instrument Landing System (ILS), and Low
Frequency/Automatic Direction Finding (LF/ADF) navigation (A1-H60SA-NFM-
000, 2002).
5. DESCRIPTION OF TEST SHIPS
i. United States Ship BATAAN (LHD 5)
The USS BATAAN (Figure A-6), one of five ships in the WASP (LHD-1)
class, is an amphibious assault ship designed to embark, deploy, and land
elements of a Marine Amphibious Ground Task Force by combination of helicopter and amphibious landing craft. Each ship is 844 feet long, has a waterline beam of 106 feet, a draft of 27 feet, and displaces approximately 40,500 tons fully loaded. Two Combustion Engineering boilers, two Westinghouse geared turbine engines, and two propeller shafts are designed to propel WASP
class ships at up to 24 knots by producing 77,000 SHP. LHD-1 class ships are
designed with a full-length flight deck that is 819 feet long and 106 feet wide, a
8 large below-deck aircraft hangar, two aircraft elevators, several below-deck vehicle storage areas, and a floodable well deck for amphibious landing craft and air cushion vehicles. The flight deck, equipped with Night Vision Device (NVD) compatible lighting, is approximately 60 feet above the ship’s waterline, and incorporates nine marked helicopter landing spots. In close proximity to these flight deck landing spots is a very large ship superstructure located amidships, on the starboard side. Designed primarily to provide the structural requirements for all above flight deck level operating spaces, it also incorporates a complex array of antennae, exhaust stacks and other structural elements.
LHD-1 class ships are designed to deploy with the following compliment of aircraft: 30 CH-46 Sea Knight and CH-53E Sea Stallion helicopters and 6 AV-8B
Harrier jets. Ships crew consisted of 62 officers and 1084 enlisted, and berthing for up to 1685 Marine troops is available, as are medical facilities for up to 600 patients (Polmar, 1997; NAEC-ENG-7576, 2001). ii. United States Naval Ship CONCORD (T-AFS 5)
The USNS CONCORD (Figure A-7), one of five ships in the MARS (T-AFS
1) class operated by the Military Sealift Command (MSC), is a combat stores ship designed to provide at-sea replenishment of supplies (food, mail, ammunition, etc.) via tensioned cargo rigs and helicopters. Traditionally, two H-46 helicopters are normally embarked aboard. Each ship is 581 feet long, 79 feet wide, has a 24- foot draft, and displaces approximately 18,663 tons fully loaded. Three Babcock
& Wilcox boilers, 1 De Laval turbine (Westinghouse in TAFS 6), and one propeller shaft are designed to propel MARS class ships at up to 21 knots by
9 producing 22000 SHP. T-AFS 1 class ships incorporate an aft flight deck that accommodates one helicopter during launch and recovery, and a hangar designed to house 2 folded helicopters. The flight deck is approximately 68 feet long and between 50 feet wide (aft) and 72 feet wide (forward). The deck is marked and lighted for oblique port and starboard approaches and is 34 feet above the waterline. The USNS CONCORD incorporates night and NVD lighting packages for landing and VERTREP operations. In close proximity (just forward) of the flight deck is a very large ship superstructure. Designed primarily to provide the structural requirements for all above flight deck level operating spaces, it also incorporates a complex array of antennae, exhaust stacks and other structural elements. The ship crew consists of 49 naval personnel and 125 civilians (NAEC-
ENG-7576, 2001; Combat Stores Ships, 1999). iii. United States Naval Ship SIRIUS (T-AFS 8)
The USNS SIRIUS (Figure A-7), one of three ships in the SIRIUS class operated by the Military Sealift Command (MSC), is a combat stores ships designed to provide at sea replenishment of supplies (food, mail, ammunition, etc.) via tensioned cargo rigs and helicopters. Traditionally, two H-46 helicopters are normally embarked aboard. Each ship is 524 feet long, 72 feet wide, has a 24- foot draft, and displaces approximately 16,792 tons fully loaded. One Wallsend-
Sulzer diesel engine, and one propeller shaft are designed to propel SIRIUS class ships at up to 19 knots by producing 11520 SHP. T-AFS 8 class ships incorporate an aft flight deck that accommodates one helicopter during launch and recovery, and a hangar designed to house 2 folded helicopters. The flight deck is
10 approximately 63 feet long and 67 feet wide. The deck is marked and lighted for oblique port and starboard approaches and is 43 feet above the waterline. USNS
SIRIUS incorporates night and NVD lighting packages for landing and
VERTREP. In close proximity (just forward) of the flight deck is a very large ship superstructure. Designed primarily to provide the structural requirements for all above flight deck level operating spaces, it also incorporates a complex array of antennae, exhaust stacks and other structural elements. The ship crew consists of 49 naval personnel and 115 civilians (NAEC-ENG-7576, 2001; Combat Stores
Ships, 1999).
6. DESCRIPTION OF EMPLOYABLE TECHNOLOGY AND SIMILAR H-60
TEST EFFORTS
The field of study that is helicopter-ship dynamic interface testing (and launch and recovery wind envelope development) is a relatively new one. The complex nature of this field (fluid dynamics, helicopter stability and control, etc.) requires that, in order to successfully pursue and apply a full understanding of the matter, every effort be made to employ all available assets and knowledge. Such assets and knowledge include the use of past and ongoing H-60 shipboard test efforts, the employment of technological advances in mathematical and aerodynamic prediction tools, and the development of helicopters specifically designed for shipboard operations.
11 i. Similar H-60 Shipboard Test Efforts
Similar H-60 shipboard test efforts have been, or are being, conducted by different organizations within the U. S. Navy, and by other organizations within the U. S. Government. The most significant of the past H-60 shipboard test efforts conducted by the U. S. Navy over the last two decades was the initial SH-
60B and SH-60F launch and recovery wind envelope development. Although not as frequently conducted as in the past during fleet introduction, the SH-60B and
SH-60F launch and recovery test effort continues to this day as new ship classes emerge, as current ship classes are modified, and as shipboard requirements, aircraft configurations and missions change. Past H-60 shipboard test efforts conducted by other organizations of the U. S. Government (other than the
Department of the Navy) include those conducted by the U. S. Coast Guard, the
U. S. Air Force and the U. S. Army, all of which operate various versions of the
H-60, and most of which have, at one time or another, conducted H-60 shipboard testing.
The most significant of the current H-60 shipboard test efforts involving another service is that effort currently being conducted jointly by the U. S. Army and the U. S. Navy: the Joint Ship Helicopter Integration Program (JSHIP).
JSHIP is under the Joint Test and Evaluation Office of the Office of the Secretary of Defense. The JSHIP charter includes the main objectives of developing “a process for certification of Army and Air Force helicopters to operate on-board
Navy Ships,” developing “a legacy process that will account for future changes to ship and helicopter configurations,” and identifying “agencies to accept
12 responsibility to certify shipboard operations given these changes” (Joint Ship
Helicopter Integration Process, History, 2002). Completed JSHIP testing includes development of launch and recovery wind envelopes for the H-60A and
H-60L aboard LHA, LHD, and CVN class ships. Future H-60 envelope development is planned aboard CG and FFG class ships. ii. Mathematical And Aerodynamic Prediction Tools
One of the most capable prediction technologies in development is computational fluid dynamics (CFD). With the rapid growth of computing power it is now possible to process the tens of thousands of CFD calculations required to predict ship air wake performance in various ambient conditions in reasonable amounts of time. With such an amazing prediction tool available it is currently possible to study any number of wind-over-deck conditions prior to actually evaluating them in the aircraft. In the near future CFD predication technology may permit the development of expected launch and recovery wind envelopes that can simply be spot checked or verified during limited actual shipboard test.
Successful CFD efforts are currently underway at U. S. Navy institutions, as are many other prediction and simulation efforts worldwide (Advani and
Wilkinson, 2001; Fusato and Celi, 2001; Hess and Zeyada, 2001; Higman et al.,
2000; Wilkinson et al., 1998; Xin, Chengjian and Lee, 2001).
JSHIP also sponsors a simulation effort, the Dynamic Interface Modeling and
Simulation System (DIMSS). The DIMSS team “is developing a process using simulation to establish wind over the deck flight envelopes and provide a high level of fidelity simulation for training aircrews specifically for launch from and
13 recovery to air-capable ships. In order to validate this process, JSHIP [has teamed up] with the NASA Ames Research Center to utilize the Vertical Motion
Simulator as the host simulator for DIMSS models and simulation” (Dynamic
Interface Modeling and Simulation System Overview, 2002). Due to the tremendous success of the JSHIP DIMSS project in wind-over-deck testing with flight simulators, an additional effort has been funded by the Office of Naval
Research which will focus on ship air wake modeling called Ship Aircraft Air
Wake Analysis for Enhanced Dynamic Interface (SAFEDI). iii. Initial Aircraft Design
An aircraft’s handling qualities are determined primarily by its stability and control characteristics, by its flight control system characteristics, and by the pilot workload associated with the missions or task that it is expected to perform
(USNTPS FTM 107, 1995). It therefore logically follows that in order to best minimize pilot workload associated with the execution of a particular mission or task, one should design an aircraft with stability and control and flight control characteristics which provide optimal aircraft response (and minimal pilot workload) during the execution of that particular mission or task.
The U. S. Army embraced this philosophy and developed a design standard, the ADS-33D, which it is now employs to evaluate its newest developmental helicopter, the RAH-66 Comanche. Army-developed, the ADS-33 is designed to evaluate a land-based helicopter and includes only land-based missions and tasks to employ in such an evaluation. An effort to develop an ADS-33 addendum, which would address the specific design standards necessary to evaluate
14 shipboard missions and tasks (e.g. launch and recovery), is underway by several interested institutions, foreign and domestic (Carignan, S. J., and A. W. Gubbels,
1998; Carignan, S. J., A. W. Gubbels, K. Ellis, 2000; Fusato, D., and R. Celi,
2001; Gowen, T. E. and B. Ferrier, 2001; Hess, R., and Yasser Zeyada, 2001;
Higman, J., et al., 2000).
Mandatory adherence to such a detailed maritime or shipboard design standard, once specific maritime handling qualities criteria can be exactly determined for specific shipboard missions and tasks, is critical to the continued growth and effectiveness of the dynamic interface test effort. Ensuring that a future helicopter, expected to safely and satisfactorily perform in the shipboard environment, inherently possesses (by design) characteristics that minimize pilot workload, is an obvious and attainable goal to pursue in the quest to improve the process designed to maximize helicopter shipboard operational capability.
15 II. METHODOLOGY
1. SCOPE OF TEST
i. General
Testing to determine maximum operational wind-over-deck (WOD) envelopes
for shipboard launch and recovery of the MH-60S helicopter included both shore- based and shipboard test events, and consisted of 19 flight events and 38.7 flight hours (32.5 day and 6.2 night hours). Shore-based testing was conducted by
Naval Rotary Wing Aircraft Test Squadron (NRWATS) at Naval Air Station
(NAS) Patuxent River, Maryland, and shipboard testing was conducted by
NRWATS aboard three U. S. Navy vessels off the Atlantic Coast. All test events were conducted under day and night, visual meteorological conditions (VMC). A detailed Tests and Test Conditions Matrix of all flight test events is presented in
Table B-12.
Two MH-60S aircraft, Bureau Number (BuNo) 165742 (aircraft #1) and
BuNo 165744 (aircraft #3), were flown during this evaluation. BuNo 165742 was
a production representative MH-60S outfitted with a sophisticated data recording
package that permitted the telemetry of data and the real time monitoring of aircraft parameters during test events. BuNo 165744 was a production representative MH-60S. BuNo 165742 Basic Operating Weight (Basic Aircraft
Weight, 2 pilots, 2 aircrew, and instrumentation package) was 15091 lbs. (14291
2 Tables B-1 through B-10 are located in Appendix B.
16 lbs. without aircrew). BuNo 165744 Basic Operating Weight (Basic Aircraft
Weight, 2 pilots, 2 aircrew, and instrumentation package) was 14782 lbs. (13982 lbs. without aircrew). Standard full fuel load was 2300 lbs. of JP-5; fuel load was used together with internal ballast to achieve and maintain desired test gross weights.
All flights were conducted in accordance with the operating parameters and aircraft limitations outlined by Commander, Naval Air Systems Command
(122002ZJUL00, 2000; 232006ZAUG00, 2000).3
ii. Shore-Based Handling Qualities Testing
Limited shore-based handling qualities testing was conducted in order to
mitigate some of the risk associated with shipboard launch and recovery wind
envelope development. This testing was designed to characterize the low airspeed
handling qualities of the helicopter, and to permit the identification of any
unexpected conditions or results, in a relatively benign environment.
MH-60S BuNo 165742 was used for all shore-based flight test due to the
installation of the real time data telemetry instrumentation. 1.9 flight hours were
flown during 2 shore-based test events (Events 1 and 2, Table B-1). All events
were conducted within the local NAS Patuxent River flying area in day, VMC.
During all shore-based testing stability augmentation, trim, and auto pilot were
on, the stabilator was in automatic mode, hydraulic pilot assist functions were
3 Commander, Naval Air Systems Command (COMNAVAIRSYSCOM) is the flight clearance authority for all naval aviation flight test, responsible for the definition of scope, method and limitations associated with flight test programs, particularly with respect to flight test operations outside previously approved flight envelopes. 17 engaged, and 3° of tail rotor bias was employed. Aircrew for all shore-based test events consisted of two test pilots. Mean test gross weights (and centers of gravity) employed were 16500 lbs. (364 inches) and 21000 lbs. (355 inches). iii. Shipboard Launch and Recovery Wind Envelope Development a) General
Shipboard testing was conducted aboard three naval vessels, representing
three different classes of ship: United States Ship (USS) BATAAN (LHD-5),
United States Naval Ship (USNS) CONCORD (T-AFS 5), and USNS SIRIUS (T-
AFS 8). Build up events (practice shipboard landings) were conducted at NAS
Patuxent River, Maryland prior to shipboard testing. Shipboard testing was
primarily a handling qualities investigation of the effects of wind over the deck on
the MH-60S helicopter during shipboard launch and recovery operations, and was
designed to maximize the shipboard operational capabilities of the aircraft by
developing the largest possible launch and recovery wind envelopes.
MH-60S BuNo 165742 and BuNo 165744 were employed during the
shipboard launch and recovery wind envelope development. Aboard the first two
ships (USS BATAAN and USNS CONCORD) BuNo 165744 was flown. Aboard
USNS SIRIUS, due to the higher gross weights and use of 3° of tail rotor bias,
BuNo 165742 was flown in order to enable real time monitoring of aircraft
parameters, namely tail rotor impressed pitch. In all, 36.8 (32.5 day and 6.2
night) flight hours were flown during 17 shipboard test events. USS BATAAN
testing yielded 13.6 total flight hours (12.1 day, 1.5 night) and 232 launch and
18 recovery evolutions from spots 4 through 7. USNS CONCORD testing yielded
17 total flight hours (12.9 day, 4.1 night) and 265 launch and recovery evolutions.
USNS SIRIUS testing yielded 6.2 total flight hours (all day) and 84 launch and recovery evolutions (mechanical problems with the hangar doors necessitated the early termination of testing; only one day launch and recovery test period was completed).
All events were conducted in the US Atlantic Coast Operating Areas, during day and night, VMC. During all shipboard testing stability augmentation system, trim, and auto pilot were on, the stabilator was in automatic mode, hydraulic pilot assist functions were engaged, and 1.5° and 3° of tail rotor bias was employed
(for BuNo 165744 and BuNo 165742, respectively). Aircrew for all shipboard test events consisted of two test pilots and two aircrewmen. Mean test gross weights and centers of gravity employed were 21000 lbs. and 354 inches (aboard
USS BATAAN and USNS CONCORD), and 21750 lbs. and 355 inches (aboard
USS SIRIUS).
In addition to following all flight clearance guidance and requirements, standard procedures for operating in and around amphibious assault and air- capable naval vessels were strictly adhered to (i.e. per NAVAIR 00-80T-106,
Amphibious Assault Ship (LHD/LHA) Naval Air Training and Operating
Procedures Standardization Manual, and NWP 3-04.1M, Helicopter Operating
Procedures for Air-Capable Ships).
19 b) Launch and Recovery Wind Envelope Development Process
The scope of the launch and recovery wind envelope development process is
significant when a new helicopter is introduced to the fleet. A basic
understanding of this scope is essential to understanding the nature of launch and
recovery wind envelope development and the importance of employing an
efficient and successful method for developing launch and recovery wind
envelopes.
The U. S. Navy has not introduced a new helicopter to the fleet in well over a
decade and, thus, has not recently had to develop a new set of launch and
recovery wind envelopes for operations aboard all classes of air-capable ship.
The investigation or evaluation required for the development of such a portfolio
of launch and recovery wind envelopes is a monumental effort that can span the
two to three decades that typically constitute such a helicopter’s entire service
life. In fact, the shipboard dynamic interface test effort is still on going for both
of the U. S. Navy’s primary, and most recently introduced, helicopters, the SH-
60B and the SH-60F, introduced in 1983 and 1988, respectively (SH-60B
Seahawk, 2000).
The reasons for the immensity inherent in the task of evaluating and operationally qualifying a new helicopter for shipboard operations are numerous.
The sheer number of variables is enormous and includes over two dozen classes of air-capable ships, and a plethora of wind-over-deck conditions, that must be tested in ensure satisfactory and operationally flexible wind envelopes. Generally speaking, there are two categories into which the factors that contribute to the
20 immensity of the dynamic interface problem fall. The first category captures those factors that result in untested or modified ship air wakes and/or helicopter aerodynamics. This category, by far, makes the greatest contribution to the scope of such a project. This first category includes ship classes currently in service and not yet tested, ship classes in service that undergo superstructure or ship deck modifications, new ship classes that enter service, incorporation of helicopter airframe modifications, variations in approach direction or landing spot location, and variations in wind-over-deck conditions during test. The second category captures those factors that physically limit the test period and the development of the required envelopes. This second category includes test aircraft availability, test ship availability and operational schedule, and test period ambient conditions.
The scope of this developmental process is further complicated by the theoretical, physical and mathematical complexity of ship air wakes, helicopter aerodynamics, and their interaction with each other. However, with the relatively recent emergence of very powerful computers and of fields of study such as computational fluid dynamics (CFD), a greater understanding of this complex problem is developing among the government, military, civilian and academic institutions of the world interested in such endeavors. With institutional collaboration of results, the monumental process that is shipboard dynamic interface investigation and testing of a new helicopter aboard all classes of the U.
S. Navy’s air-capable ships, can be a more efficient, expeditious and scientific process.
21 c) Limitations to Scope
There were several limitations to the scope of this investigation of the effects
of relative wind over the deck on the MH-60S during launch and recovery
operations. Due to the immaturity of Common Cockpit avionics and flight displays, and due to limited pilot night experience and proficiency with this new
“glass cockpit”, envelope development was not conducted during the first night
evaluations aboard ship (USS BATAAN). Rather, the night evolutions aboard
USS BATAAN were used to build pilot night proficiency (unaided by NVDs)
during shipboard operations. Furthermore, in order to ensure as benign an
environment as possible during the first night shipboard operations in the MH-
60S, operations were conducted only within the general launch and recovery wind envelope. Additionally, although the MH-60S will ultimately operate with NVD capability aboard all naval ships, initial shipboard testing was not designed to include NVD operations; all night testing was entirely unaided.
Due to the time limitations imposed by the ship’s operational schedule, there was not enough time available to develop launch and recovery wind envelopes for
all nine spots on the LHD. Thus, based on the spots most employed by the
current H-46D aboard LHD class ships, launch and recovery wind envelopes were
only developed for spots 4, 5, 6, and 7 (see figure A-6). The development of
expanded launch and recovery wind envelopes for the remaining spots will be
conducted during future shipboard testing. Such limitations were not applicable
to the single spot T-AFS vessels, and launch and recovery wind envelopes were
developed for both port and starboard approaches to the ship.
22 Based on previously conducted high gross weight testing of the SH-60B by
NRWATS, limitations were in place which addressed MH-60S maximum aircraft operations gross weight for testing. At gross weights above 21800 lbs., real time monitoring of tail rotor impressed pitch was required (only possible with aircraft
BuNo 165742 with it’s extensive instrumentation package). This limitation was based on the current maximum operational gross weight of the U. S. Navy SH-
60F helicopter of 21884 lbs. During the first two shipboard test periods aboard
USS BATAAN (LHD-5) and USNS CONCORD (T-AFS 5), in the interest of building up to worst case conditions, and due to the fact that aircraft BuNo
165742 (the instrumented aircraft) was not available, the 21800 lbs. maximum gross weight limit was not exceeded. By the third shipboard test period aboard
USNS SIRIUS (T-AFS 8), the necessary test equipment and personnel were in place for slightly higher gross weight testing (22250 to 21250 lbs., with a target test gross weight of 21750 lbs.). It should be noted that during the testing, however, problems with the hangar door aboard the ship precluded the completion of most events. A somewhat limited day launch and recovery envelope was developed, but no night launch and recovery or external load testing was conducted.
Additionally, during all of the launch and recovery wind envelope development test periods, ambient conditions (i.e. not enough ambient winds available when needed) and time constraints (imposed by ship schedule) always precluded development of the largest possible launch and recovery wind envelopes. In other words, in no case did the documentation of unsatisfactory
23 aircraft handling qualities play a major role in the definition of the final launch and recovery wind envelopes. In fact, in all cases, that definition was due almost entirely to inadequate ambient wind speed and/or not enough time available (to either maximize use of available winds, or wait/search for adequate winds) to develop the largest possible wind envelope.
Finally, due to the known reliability of the AFCS system, and based on the limited time available for shipboard testing, no degraded flight control system envelope development was conducted.
2. METHOD OF TEST
i. General
U. S. Navy rotary wing flight test is defined by the procedures and methods
standardized by and taught at U. S. Naval Test Pilot School (USNTPS). These
methods fall under one of two major categories of flight test, performance and
handling qualities flight test, and are detailed in the following USNTPS
publications: USNTPS FTM 106, Rotary Wing Performance, United States Naval
Test Pilot School Flight Test Manual 106; and USNTPS FTM 107, Rotary Wing
Stability and Control, United States Naval Test Pilot School Flight Test Manual
107. Shore-based MH-60S developmental flight test was conducted per these
USNTPS publications. Additional standardization of rotary wing flight test, namely that associated with the evaluation and documentation of helicopter compatibility with a ship (known as dynamic interface testing (DIT)), was
24 provided by the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division’s Dynamic Interface
Test Manual.
A Tests and Test Conditions Matrix is provided in Table B-1, which details specific test events flown, conditions encountered and methodology employed.
Further methodology descriptions are presented below.
In the interest of mitigating the risk associated with developmental flight test a build-up approach was employed throughout the testing. The risk associated with sequential events in the test process was designed to increase gradually over the course of the entire test process, so that each test event was preceded by a more benign one, or by practice of that event in more benign conditions than were expected to occur during the actual test. Thus, day test events preceded night test events; shore-based test events preceded shipboard test events; simulated shipboard launch and recovery evolutions were practiced using shipboard landing spots painted on a runway or helicopter landing pad; and finally, prior to shipboard launch and recovery wind envelope development, initial shipboard launch and recovery evolutions were conducted within a very limited, pre- approved General Launch and Recovery Wind Envelopes (Figures A-8 and A-9). ii. General Handling Qualities
Aircraft handling qualities are "those qualities or characteristics of an aircraft that govern the ease and precision with which a pilot is able to perform the tasks required in support of an aircraft role" (Cooper and Harper, 1969). Some of the factors which affect the evaluation of an aircraft’s handling qualities are stability and control characteristics, flight control system characteristics and control laws,
25 cockpit interface (controls and displays), ambient environmental conditions, and pilot workload and stress associated with task execution. Specific flying qualities performance, or "the precision of control with respect to aircraft movement that a pilot is able to achieve in performing a task" (Rotary Wing Stability and Control,
1995), was quantified through the identification and use of specific tolerances.
Task performance is further quantified by describing the total workload associated with achieving a tolerance parameter during task execution. Total pilot workload includes that due to a pilot’s compensation for aircraft deficiencies plus that due to actually executing the task (Cooper and Harper, 1969).
The definitive work on the quantification of aircraft handling qualities is
“The Use of Pilot Rating in the Evaluation of Aircraft Handling Qualities” by G.
E. Cooper (of the National Aeronautical and Space Administration (NASA) Ames
Research Center) and R. P. Harper, Jr., (of the Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory).
In 1969, based on “objections that [had] been raised to limitations of earlier [pilot rating] scales,” they proposed a “new definition of handling qualities, which emphasizes the importance of factors that influence the selection of a rating other than stability and control characteristics”, namely pilot workload (Cooper and
Harper, 1969). Their work culminated in the development of the Cooper-Harper
Handling Qualities Rating (HQR) Scale (Table B-2), a scale used, to this day, almost exclusively in the evaluation of an aircraft’s handling qualities during specific tasks. Pilot ratings of adequacy to perform specific tasks are dependent upon aircraft controllability, pilot workload, and whether or not observed qualities are satisfactory or need improvement (Cooper and Harper, 1969). Designed to
26 evaluate aircraft handling qualities performance during very specific tasks, the
Cooper-Harper HQR method was employed extensively during MH-60S flight test, particularly during the shore-based characterization of the aircraft’s low airspeed handling qualities.
During the shipboard evaluation of aircraft handling qualities, the primary scale employed was the Dynamic Interface Pilot Rating Scale (PRS), developed by the Dynamic Interface Division of the Naval Air Warfare Center. This rating system, presented in Table B-3, was designed to permit the rating of pilot workload of an entire evolution, or series of specific tasks (whereas the Cooper-
Harper HQR Scale was designed to permit the rating of pilot workload during a very specific, single task). For example, the Dynamic Interface PRS is used to evaluate the entire shipboard recovery evolution, which is made up of many individual tasks, each occurring sequentially: the initial takeoff into a hover; altitude and heading maintenance while in the hover; the transition off the ship deck into forward flight and maintenance of altitude; heading and track over the ground; climb to pattern altitude; and maintenance of pattern altitude and airspeed. Similarly, the PRS is used to evaluate the entire launch evolution, which is also made up of many individual tasks, each occurring sequentially: the descending turn for ship deck line up from pattern altitude; maintenance of aircraft heading, airspeed, glide slope and track over the ground on final approach; the transition to a hover over the deck; altitude and heading maintenance while in the hover; and the descent to the ship deck for landing.
27 The Dynamic Interface Pilot Rating Scale incorporates the extraordinary principles of Cooper and Harper, modified to accommodate the uniqueness inherent in the shipboard evaluation of aircraft handling qualities. Pilot effort and workload are still the primary focus of the rating assignment, and the importance of safe repeatability and aircraft controllability are still essential. Additionally, ratings of pilot workload also typically take into account such parameters as control margin remaining, torque management, WOD speed and direction, ship motion, and field-of-view (FOV) (Dynamic Interface Test Manual, 1998). Over the course of hundreds of launch and recovery evolutions during a single underway period, the PRS provides practicality and expediency, precludes the excessive quantification of aircraft handling qualities data, and permits the efficient capture of sufficient data for wind investigation and envelope development.
Three other rating scales were employed during the handling qualities evaluation of the MH-60S in order to facilitate the description of various qualitative phenomena observed during test. These phenomena have been deemed important enough to possess their own rating scales as the presence of any or all of them may result in increased pilot workload and higher overall pilot ratings.
The Vibration Assessment Rating (VAR) Scale (Table B-4) was employed to describe noteworthy or significant vibrations observed. The Pilot Induced
Oscillation (PIO) Rating Scale (Table B-5) was employed to facilitate classification of the susceptibility of the aircraft to PIO during a task. The
Turbulence (TURB) Rating Scale (Table B-6) was employed to assist with
28 describing turbulent ambient conditions during the execution of a task. VARs,
PIO ratings and TURB ratings were assigned using USNTPS guidance (USNTPS
FTM 107, 1995). iii. Shore-Based Handling Qualities
In the interest of mitigating the risk associated with shipboard launch and recovery wind envelope development, a controlled, shore-based study of the handling qualities and characteristics of the aircraft in the low airspeed regime was incorporated in the test process. This study was designed to commence the characterization of the low airspeed handling qualities of the helicopter, to permit the identification of any unexpected conditions or results in a relatively benign environment, and to provide some insight into the handling qualities performance to be expected during low airspeed shipboard operations. In particular, low airspeed flight test was conducted to determine aircraft control margins and evaluate aircraft handling qualities during operations in crosswind, tailwind and headwind conditions. The results permitted the test team to estimate, or roughly predict, the handling qualities of the aircraft in a similar regime while shipboard, as well as identify azimuth and wind speed combinations that might result in unsatisfactory, and potentially dangerous, handling qualities. This helped to minimize the number of unexpected handling qualities discovered during shipboard testing, and permitted the test team to build the largest launch and recovery wind envelope in as safe a manner as possible, while either avoiding or very carefully approaching these so-called “critical azimuths”.
29 During the shore-based low airspeed testing, aircraft handling qualities were documented with relative winds of several different speeds, from several azimuths around the helicopter. Specifically, airspeed was varied from 0 to 45 knots of true airspeed (KTAS) in approximately 10 KTAS increments, and azimuth was varied around the entire 360° range in 30 or 45° increments.
The MH-60S helicopter is equipped with a conventional pitot-static system to determine indicated airspeed. Such a system cannot accurately determine airspeeds less than 40 KIAS. Additionally, due to the fact that the pitot-static ports are aligned for forward flight, neither can such a system accurately determine indicated airspeed when relative winds are not from directly in front of the aircraft. Due to the limitations of the pitot-static airspeed system in the low airspeed environment, a pace truck, equipped with low airspeed detection capability, was employed during test to assist in the determination of true airspeed. While targeting azimuth, the pace truck system calculated ground speed required (based on runway heading available and ambient winds) to obtain various target wind conditions (true airspeeds) for each targeted azimuth. The helicopter was then flown down the runway in use, in formation with the truck, at constant altitude. Helicopter heading was varied as necessary to accommodate for the limitations imposed by use of a runway with each data run (and rarely was aircraft heading coincident with path over the ground). Once established on airspeed in a steady state condition, flight control positions, torque required, and aircraft attitude were recorded. Additionally, pilot ratings (HQR, VAR, TURB scales) were assigned, as necessary, for each data point. Desired and adequate
30 tolerances employed for HQR assignment were ±3 and 5 feet of altitude, ±3 and
5° of heading, and ±1 and 2 KTAS of airspeed, respectively. Testing was conducted at two different gross weights in order to determine the effect of gross weight on aircraft handling qualities (USNTPS FTM 107, 1995). iv. Shipboard Handling Qualities a) General
Shipboard dynamic interface testing is conducted to evaluate and develop all
aspects of shipboard helicopter compatibility. Such testing consists almost
exclusively of a handling qualities investigation of the effects of ambient wind
and the resulting ship air wake (or relative wind over the deck) on the helicopter
during shipboard launch and recovery operations. The primary objective of such
testing is the maximization of operational flexibility of the helicopter in the
shipboard environment through the development of shipboard launch and
recovery wind envelopes.
This particular investigation of the effects of wind over the deck on shipboard
helicopter operations was conducted in order to develop maximum wind-over-the-
deck launch and recovery envelopes for the MH-60S helicopter aboard WASP
class (LHD-1) amphibious assault ships, and MARS (T-AFS 1) and SIRIUS (T-
AFS 8) class combat stores ships.
This testing was designed to result in the expansion of general launch and
recovery wind envelopes (Figures A-8 and A-9) that had already been approved
(by COMNAVAIRSYSCOM) for use by the MH-60S aboard all classes of U. S.
31 Navy ship. These general envelopes, by design, are very limited and permit launch and recovery only under very benign conditions. They were designed for use by any U. S. Navy helicopter aboard any U. S. Navy ship upon which it is authorized to land, should a specific expanded launch and recovery wind envelope not exist. Typically, these general launch and recovery wind envelopes are only applicable when a new helicopter or a new ship enters fleet service, or if a helicopter has to make a landing aboard a type of ship that it does not normally land aboard. b) Shipboard Landing Pattern
Shipboard landing patterns are specifically designed for, or tailored to, each
class of air-capable ship. They permit the safe management of the airspace
surrounding such a ship during the launch and recovery of aircraft to and from its
ship deck.
Operations to landing spots 4, 5, 6 and 7 aboard LHD-1 class ships require
approaches from the port side of the ship. These were made using the 45° line up
line associated with the landing spot being tested (see Figure A-10), and the pilot
at the controls during each approach was always the closest to the superstructure
(i.e. approaches to port spots were flown by the pilot in the right seat). The day
recovery evolution consisted of: interception of a 3° glide slope at 300 feet AGL
and ½ mile (at 70 KIAS) on the port side of the ship, a straight-in approach up the
line up line to the spot, a left pedal turn to align the aircraft with ship’s heading
while transitioning to a 10-foot hover over the landing spot, and a vertical landing
on the ship deck. Ship deck landings were made on the numbered spots in the
32 direction of ship’s heading, with main mount wheels on the athwartships line.
The day launch evolution consisted of: a vertical takeoff into a 10-foot hover over the landing spot, a left lateral movement off the deck and out over the water, and a simultaneous transition to forward flight (300 feet and 70 KIAS). The launch was flown by the same pilot who conducted the recovery and the departure was flown in the direction of ship’s heading. In between launch and recovery evolutions a port side, left hand racetrack pattern was flown at 300 feet AGL and 70 KIAS.
Night launch and recovery procedures were flown employing exactly the same procedures.
Operations to single-spot T-AFS class ships can be conducted using approaches from either the port or the starboard side of the ship. These were made using one of the ship deck line up lines (port-to-starboard or starboard-to- port) as a reference for final course line up (see Figure A-11), and the pilot at the controls during each approach was always the closest to the superstructure (i.e. port-to-starboard approaches were flown by the pilot in the left seat, and starboard-to-port approaches were flown by the pilot in the right seat). The day recovery evolution consisted of: interception of a 3° glide slope at 150 feet AGL and ½ mile (at 70 KIAS), a straight-in approach up the line up line to the spot, transition to a 10-foot hover over the ship deck landing area, and a vertical landing on the ship deck. Ship deck landings were made on the line up line referenced during the approach, with the main mount wheels touching down in the forward half of the nose wheel circle. The day launch evolution consisted of: a vertical takeoff into a 10-foot hover over the ship deck landing area, a pedal turn
33 left or right in the direction of planned departure of approximately 45° off the ship heading, and a transition to forward flight (150 feet AGL and 70 KIAS). The launch was flown by the same pilot who conducted the recovery, and the general direction of departure was the same as for the recovery (i.e. departures to starboard were flown after port-to-starboard approaches, and departures to port were flown after starboard-to-port approaches). In between launch and recovery evolutions, a port, left hand or starboard, right hand racetrack pattern was flown at
150 feet AGL and 70 KIAS. Night launch and recovery procedures were flown employing exactly the same procedures with the exception of pattern altitude, which was 300 feet AGL. c) Launch and Recovery Wind Envelope Development
Launch and recovery envelope development entailed the expansion of the
previously authorized general launch and recovery envelopes for LHD and T-AFS
class ships. Initial wind-over-the-deck (WOD) conditions (speed and azimuth) to
be tested were located within the applicable (LHD or T-AFS) general launch and
recovery wind envelopes. One wind azimuth at a time was investigated, and wind
speed was varied while maintaining constant wind azimuth. Once the maximum
wind speed was achieved for a particular wind azimuth, either due to ambient
wind limitations or the assignment of unacceptable handling qualities ratings,
wind azimuth was then varied. In establishing the WOD conditions for sequential
test points, conditions were varied a maximum of 5 knots of speed or 15° of
direction. For each relative WOD condition at least one launch and one recovery
evolution was attempted, and PRS ratings were assigned (one for the entire launch
34 evolution, and one for the entire recovery evolution). If a satisfactory PRS rating
(PRS-1 or 2) was assigned to both the launch and recovery evolutions, under a specific WOD condition, the ship was maneuvered to attain the WOD conditions required for the next test point. Initial WOD conditions for each successive shipboard flight test period were located within the previously tested envelope boundaries. On occasion, WOD conditions were re-tested so as to provide a rating validation check of the previously assigned PRS rating for that condition, provided that the PRS rating was a satisfactory one (PRS-1 or 2).
PRS ratings and pertinent aircraft handling qualities comments were either relayed to test engineers aboard ship either in flight or on deck, after the completion of an evolution. If a PRS-3 rating was assigned to an evolution, that evolution, under the same WOD conditions, could be repeated for verification, with aircrew and test team concurrence. After the assignment of such a rating, the wind speed was reduced in 5-knot increments, while maintaining constant wind azimuth, until a satisfactory PRS rating was attained. If a PRS-4 rating was assigned to an evolution, WOD conditions would then have been reduced to levels corresponding to a previous PRS-1 or 2 rating, prior to conducting another evolution. (Dynamic Interface Test Manual, 1998).
During night launch and recovery wind envelope development (only conducted aboard T-AFS class ships) exactly the same method of test was employed, except that the night general launch and recovery envelope was used as the beginning point. No night launch and recovery wind envelope development
35 was conducted aboard USS BATAAN (LHD-5). All night conditions were previously evaluated during day testing. v. Data Collection and Aircraft Instrumentation a) General
Shore-based handling qualities testing pertinent to this investigation was only
a small part of a fairly large developmental air vehicle test effort conducted to
evaluate the performance and handling qualities of the MH-60S helicopter. Due
to the extent of this air vehicle testing, and the significance of the testing with
respect to the production milestones of the program, a very complex, real-time
(via telemetry) data collection package was incorporated on the first airframe
accepted by the U. S. Navy (BuNo 165742). Thus, although manual entry of data
on knee board cards was the primary means of recording data (basic aircraft
parameters, pilot ratings, ambient conditions) during the two shore-based test
events pertinent to this thesis, supplemental quantitative data was also available.
During shipboard launch and recovery wind envelope development, when
aircraft maximum gross weight was at or below 21800 lbs., data (namely pilot
ratings, basic aircraft performance parameters, ambient conditions and ship
motion) were recorded manually on knee board data cards. Control position
displacements were approximated, as necessary.
Testing above 21800 lbs. gross weight was authorized only in the
instrumented aircraft, and only when real-time data monitoring of critical
parameters was employed. Critical parameters during high gross weight testing
36 (above 21800 lbs.) included airframe and dynamic component stress and strain, aircraft vibration levels, and, most importantly, tail rotor impressed pitch. As tail rotor impressed pitch (or authority) remaining is directly related to aircraft gross weight (via the collective due to control mixing to the tail rotor), and as the U. S.
Navy has never operated an H-60 at gross weights in excess of 21800 lbs., this real-time data monitoring was deemed a requirement. Furthermore, the incorporation of 3° of tail rotor bias vice the 1.5° traditionally employed by the U.
S. Navy (resulting in more left pedal authority for operations at higher gross weights), warranted the use of detailed data collection to validate the usefulness and/or necessity of such an incorporation.
The real-time monitoring of telemetered data during higher risk test events
(namely high gross weight operations) ensured that critical parameters were redundantly monitored by test engineers in a benign environment, in the case of those parameters which could also be monitored by the pilots during the test.
Additionally, the telemetry of data afforded the test team the opportunity to real- time monitor critical parameters not normally presented to the pilot. In all cases, the telemetry of data, and its monitoring real-time, afforded any number of test team members the opportunity to terminate a high risk test condition, immediately, and prior to the development of an unsafe flight condition.
In the interest of continued risk mitigation, aircraft gross weight during the first shipboard test periods (aboard USS BATAAN and USNS CONCORD) was not designed to exceed 21800 lbs. Thus, the instrumented aircraft was neither required nor employed. Aboard USNS SIRIUS, however, testing was designed to
37 evaluate aircraft handling qualities at gross weights in excess of 21800 lbs., and aircraft BuNo 165742, with real-time data monitoring, was required.
During both shore-based and shipboard testing data collection was facilitated by communications with ground-based test engineers.
Data collected were reduced and presented as outlined in USNTPS Flight Test
Manuals (USNTPS FTM 106 and FTM 107). Dynamic interface test data was graphically displayed using a Naval Air Warfare Aircraft Division software program designed specifically by the Dynamic Interface Test Branch to provide graphical presentation of shipboard wind envelope test data. b) Aircraft Bureau Number 165742 Data Collection Package
In order to collect detailed air vehicle flight test data an extensive data
collection package was installed in aircraft BuNo 165742. This package was
designed to record hundreds of parameters onto digital tape, and employed high-
speed, pulse code modulated (PCM) format. Additionally, the package was
designed to provide real-time, ground-based monitoring of aircraft parameters
during test events. Particular parameters of interest for telemetry and recording
during air vehicle and dynamic interface testing were: engine power turbine and
gas generator speeds, engine temperature and torque, rotor speed, fuel quantity,
calibrated and indicated airspeeds, pressure and radar altitudes, rate of climb,
flight control positions, tail rotor impressed pitch, heading, pitch and roll attitude,
pitch, roll and yaw rate, sideslip, and EGI velocities (3 axis). A complete list of
instrumented parameters is presented in Table B-7.
38 III. RESULTS
1. GENERAL
The results of this investigation of the effects of relative wind over the deck
on the MH-60S helicopter during launch and recovery wind envelope
development are presented in four different discussions. The first presents the
results of the shore-based handling qualities investigation conducted in an attempt
to better understand qualitative aircraft handling characteristics in the often
unpredictable low airspeed environment, and prior to investigating them in the
more unpredictable low airspeed shipboard environment. The second discussion
presents the results of the shipboard launch and recovery wind envelope
development and the associated investigation of wind over the deck effects on
aircraft handling qualities in the shipboard environment. A third discussion is
presented which addresses the documented pilot-vehicle interface deficiencies
identified as adversely contributing to the pilot workload required during
shipboard launch and recovery operations. Finally, a discussion is presented
which pertains to the process employed by the U. S. Navy in the development of
the first MH-60S launch and recovery wind envelopes. Although an evaluation of
the launch and recovery wind envelope development process was not specifically
identified as a purpose of this investigation, this author feels that several
shortcomings in this process were significant and, in the interest of improving
continued MH-60S wind envelope development, are worthy of documentation and
discussion.
39 2. SHORE-BASED HANDLING QUALITIES
During the shore-based handling qualities evaluation, conducted in the relatively benign shore-based environment, various hover wind conditions (cross, tail and headwinds) were simulated using a pace track and a low airspeed calculating system. Relative winds of 10, 20, 30, 40, and 45 knots of true airspeed (KTAS) were evaluated while varying relative wind azimuth in 30°
increments around the entire 360° range (relative to the nose of the aircraft). Test
day conditions and configurations are presented below in Table 1.
Testing was conducted at two mission representative aircraft gross weights: a relatively low gross weight of 16500 lbs., and a relatively high gross weight of
21000 lbs. The results of the testing are presented in Figures A-12 through A-15.
Figures A-12 and A-13 graphically depict trim flight control positions (cyclic, pedals, tail rotor impressed pitch) and aircraft attitude and power required (pitch, roll, collective position, engine torque), respectively, during 45 KTAS testing at
21000 lbs. (the least benign of the tested shore-based configurations). In general,
Table 1: Shore-Based Test Day Conditions and Configurations Parameter Conditions/Configuration Outside Air Temperature Range 15 to 19° Celsius Pressure Altitude Range –320 to 100 feet Aircraft Gross Weight Range 21539 to 16004 lbs. Aircraft Center of Gravity 365.5 to 353.3 inches Range Low 16500 lbs. (no internal ballast employed) Target Gross Weights 21000 lbs. (4500 lbs. internal ballast High employed) Rotor Speed 100% Stabilator in automatic mode; stability Automatic Flight Control augmentation, trim, autopilot and hydraulic System Configuration pilot assist functions engaged.
40 no unsatisfactory results were documented. In all cases, minimum flight control margins were satisfactory and no critical flight control positions were noted (i.e. at all times, at least 10% control position remained). Additionally, aircraft attitudes were considered satisfactory, as were collective position and power required (none were considered excessive). Specific results are detailed below in
Table 2.
Figures A-14 and A-15 graphically depict the low airspeed handling qualities of the aircraft by presenting the pilot ratings assigned to each of the wind conditions (azimuth and airspeeds) tested. Neither turbulence nor pilot induced oscillations were observed during the testing. Thus, only handling qualities and vibration assessment ratings were assigned.
Graphical depictions such as these are designed to facilitate the identification of wind conditions (azimuths and airspeeds) that are unsatisfactory, and
Table 2: Aircraft Parameters During Shore-Based Testing Parameter Limit (control margin or aircraft (% remaining or attitude documented, attitude) and azimuth at which it occurred) Minimum longitudinal control 26% remaining (from full aft) @ 300°R margin Minimum lateral control margin 14% remaining (from full right) @ 120°R Minimum directional control 26% remaining (from full left) @ 120°R margin Minimum tail rotor impressed 27% remaining (100% maximum pitch margin available for anti-torque) @ 120°R Consistently very large at all tested wind Collective control margins azimuths, with 40 to 47% remaining at all times. Maximum pitch attitude 6.3° nose up @ 150°R Minimum pitch attitude 0° @ 030°R and 330°R Maximum right roll attitude 1° @ 90°R Maximum left roll attitude 6.2° @ 270°R
41 potentially dangerous, with respect to pilot workload and resulting aircraft handling qualities. They permit the discovery of “critical” wind conditions that can be emphasized during future testing (e.g. shipboard launch and recovery wind envelope development).
At 16500 lbs. gross weight (Figure A-14), no critical wind conditions were documented. All pilot ratings assigned were HQR-4 or less (most were HQR-3), with the exception of four HQR-5 ratings, assigned to various conditions between
30 and 45 KTAS, with winds from the port/port quarter (approximately 180-
270°R). This was most likely attributable to disturbances in tail rotor airflow
(and, thus, in tail rotor thrust) and to the resulting increases in pilot workload that these disturbances produced.
Table 3 below provides specific information about the frequency with which each HQR was assigned. Of significance is that 60% of the HQR assignments rated pilot workload as minimal at most, and were for deficiencies that were satisfactory without improvement.
Vibration assessment ratings assigned during testing at 16500 lbs. were more significant. Although not significant enough to warrant the identification of a
Table 3: HQR Assignment During Shore-Based Testing (16500 lbs.) HQR Assigned % Occurrence Pilot compensation not a factor; negligible handling 2 15 qualities deficiencies Minimal pilot compensation; some mildly unpleasant 3 45 handling qualities deficiencies Moderate pilot compensation; minor but annoying 4 30 handling qualities deficiencies Considerable pilot compensation; moderately 5 10 objectionable handling qualities deficiencies
42 specific critical wind condition, almost half (47.5%) of the assignments were for moderate vibrations that are distracting to the pilot during one of the most critical phases of flight (i.e. landing). During the landing phase of flight, after a long and fatiguing mission, these vibrations degrade pilot situational awareness and make concentration on the demanding task of landing aboard ship more difficult. The results of this vibration level analysis are further significant in that these vibration assessment ratings were assigned under relatively benign conditions, namely, steady state wind conditions and low aircraft gross weight.
Table 4 below provides specific information about the frequency with which each VAR was assigned. Similar to HQR assignments, the worst VAR assignments were with wind from the port quarter (approximately 200-245°R).
This was most likely attributable to disturbances in tail rotor airflow (and, thus, in tail rotor thrust) and to the resulting increases in airframe and cockpit vibrations that these disturbances produced. It should also be noted that the worst VAR assignments were not at the maximum wind speeds of 45 KTAS, but at 30 KTAS.
This was most likely attributable to ingestion of main rotor vortices, or perhaps to main rotor vortex interaction with the tail rotor or other fuselage components.
Above and below this airspeed, cockpit vibrations levels, and resulting vibrations
Table 4: VAR Assignment During Shore-Based Testing (16500 lbs.) VAR Assigned % Occurrence 1 7.5 Not apparent if fully occupied; Slight 2 10 noticeable if not otherwise occupied 3 35 4 30 Does not affect work over short period Moderate 5 17.5 of time 6 0
43 were not as significant.
At 21000 lbs. gross weight (Figure A-15), no critical wind conditions were documented. All pilot ratings assigned were HQR-4 or less (most were, in fact,
HQR-4), with the exception of four HQR-5 ratings, assigned to various conditions between 20 and 45 KTAS, with relative winds from between 120 and 270°.
Table 5 below provides specific information about the frequency with which each HQR was assigned. Of significance is that almost 57% of the HQR assignments rated pilot workload as moderate to considerable, and were for deficiencies that warranted improvement. Furthermore, when compared to the
HQR assignments at 16500 lbs. gross weight, which identified minimal pilot workload during most wind conditions, it is apparent that pilot workload increased with aircraft gross weight.
Vibration assessment ratings assigned during testing at 21000 lbs. were, again, more significant. Although not significant enough to warrant the identification of a specific critical wind condition, the overwhelming majority (more than 73%) of the assignments were for moderate vibrations that, again, are distracting to a fatigued pilot during the critical landing phase of flight. Furthermore, when
Table 5: HQR Assignment During Shore-Based Testing (21000 lbs.) % HQR Assigned Occurrence Pilot compensation not a factor; negligible handling 2 6.67 qualities deficiencies Minimal pilot compensation; some mildly unpleasant 3 36.67 handling qualities deficiencies Moderate pilot compensation; minor but annoying 4 50 handling qualities deficiencies Considerable pilot compensation; moderately 5 6.67 objectionable handling qualities deficiencies
44 compared to the VAR assignments at 16500 lbs. gross weight, which identified moderate vibrations during less than half of the wind conditions, it is apparent that cockpit vibration levels increased with aircraft gross weight.
Table 6 below provides specific information about the frequency with which each VAR was assigned. The majority of the worst VAR assignments (namely
VAR-6 assignments) were observed with wind from the port/port quarter
(approximately 200-270°R). This was, again, most likely attributable to disturbances in tail rotor airflow (and, thus, in tail rotor thrust) and to the resulting increases in airframe and cockpit vibrations that these disturbances produced. It should also be noted that 75% of the 30 KTAS points were assigned HQR-5 or 6 ratings, and 75% of the 20 KTAS points were assigned HQR-4 or 5 ratings. Thus, that the worst vibration levels were found with winds of 20 to 30 KTAS, was again observed. And again, this is most likely attributable to ingestion of main rotor vortices, or perhaps to main rotor vortex interaction with the tail rotor or other fuselage components. Above and below these airspeeds, cockpit vibrations levels, and resulting vibration assessment ratings were not as significant. These wind speeds (20 to 30 KTAS), at which the worst cockpit vibration levels were observed, are particularly significant in that such wind speeds are typical of those
Table 6: VAR Assignment During Shore-Based Testing (21000 lbs.) VAR Assigned % Occurrence 1 0 Not apparent if fully occupied; Slight 2 6.67 noticeable if not otherwise occupied 3 20 4 43.33 Does not affect work over short Moderate 5 23.33 period of time 6 6.67
45 found over the deck during most helicopter shipboard operations.
3. LAUNCH AND RECOVERY WIND ENVELOPE DEVELOPMENT
i. USS BATAAN (LHD 5)
Day launch and recovery wind envelope development was conducted aboard
USS BATAAN (LHD 5) to spots 4, 5, 6 and 7. Test day conditions and
configurations are presented below in Table 7.
Testing was conducted at the relatively high aircraft gross weight of 21000
lbs. In order to achieve this mission representative aircraft gross weight,
simulating a full compliment of passengers or a large load of internal cargo, 4500
lbs. of internal ballast was employed.
The results are presented graphically in Figures A-16 through A-19, and each
depicts the wind-over-deck conditions tested (wind speed and azimuth), and the
Table 7: USS BATAAN (LHD 5) Test Day Conditions and Configurations Parameter Conditions/Configuration Outside Air Temperature Range 15 to 26° Celsius Pressure Altitude Range –145 to -132 feet Pitch of the ship: 0 to ±1° (average of 0°) Sea State Calm Roll of the ship: 0 to ± 2° (average of ± 1°) Wind-Over-Deck Conditions Tested 210°R clockwise around to 145°R, 3 to (relative to the bow of the ship) 45 knots 21582 to 20582 lbs. (4500 lbs. of Aircraft Gross Weight Range internal ballast employed) Aircraft Center of Gravity Range 356.1 to 352.9 inches Target Gross Weight 21000 lbs. Rotor Speed 100% Stabilator in automatic mode; stability Automatic Flight Control System augmentation, trim, autopilot and Configuration hydraulic pilot assist functions engaged.
46 resulting recommended day and night launch and recovery envelopes, for each of the spots employed (spots 4, 5, 6, and 7, respectively). Additionally, overlaid on the plots are the Day and Night General Launch and Recovery Envelopes for
LHD class ships. As night evolutions were not conducted outside the Night
General Launch and Recovery Envelope in the interest of mitigating the risk inherent in the first night shipboard MH-60S operations (and in order to develop initial night pilot proficiency in the helicopter), the Night General Launch and
Recovery Envelope for LHD ships was not expanded.
A total of 232 (199 day, 33 night) launch and recovery evolutions were conducted, and almost all of them were documented as satisfactory and assigned either a PRS-1 or a PRS-2 rating. Only one unsatisfactory WOD condition (PRS-
3) was documented during the entire LHD 5 test period. All evolutions conducted to spot 4 (59 day, 12 night), spot 5 (51 day, 12 night), and spot 6 (46 day, 4 night), were assigned satisfactory PRS ratings (PRS-1 or PRS-2). All evolutions conducted to spot 7 testing (43 day, 5 night), with two exceptions, were assigned satisfactory PRS ratings (PRS-1 or PRS-2). Typically, pilot workload increased as relative wind azimuth increased to starboard, due mostly to turbulent airflow up and over the starboard deck edge (spots 4 and 5), or over and around the large superstructure on the starboard side of the ship (spots 6 and 7). In general, during approaches to spots 5, 6, and 7, with starboard winds more than 25° off the bow, at 20 knots and greater, significant turbulence and chop were noted, which tended to increase pilot workload during glide slope maintenance on final approach, and
47 position maintenance over the spot. Such chop and turbulence at spot 7, led to the only PRS-3 rating assignment during LHD shipboard testing.
Glide slope maintenance was qualitatively evaluated on final approach to spot
7, with relative winds from 40° to starboard at 35 knots (Table B-8, Events 257 and 259). On short final (within 75 feet of the port deck edge), the aircraft experienced a large and abrupt loss of altitude (10 to 20 feet within ½ second).
An immediate 1 to 2” collective increase, of up to approximately 105% torque, followed rapidly by a 1 to 2” collective reduction, was required to arrest the induced rate of descent and reestablish a safe glide slope for landing. Another approach to spot 7 was made, under the same ambient conditions, in order to verify assignment of an unsatisfactory rating, and the same results were documented. The difficulty associated with glide slope maintenance, and the unexpected collective inputs required to arrest descent rate and maintain glide slope on short final to spot 7, under these ambient conditions, was considered unacceptable for fleet pilots under typical operational conditions. Consequently, a
PRS-3 rating was assigned to these wind-over-deck conditions during operations to spot 7. As this data point was successfully conducted only under controlled test conditions, employing proven build up test techniques, it was not included in the recommended day launch and recovery envelope for MH-60S helicopters to spot 7, aboard LHD-5 class ships.
Position maintenance was qualitatively evaluated over spots 5, 6, and 7, with relative winds from 340 to 360°, at 35 to 40 knots (Table B-8, Events 37, 45, and
49 through 56). Significant airframe buffeting (due to moderate chop and
48 turbulence) was noted while maintaining position over all spots, and was most significant over spot 6. Also noted were the resulting cockpit vibrations that, over spots 5 and 7, were assigned VAR 6 ratings, and, over spot 6, were assigned VAR
7 ratings. While position maintenance over the spot was possible ±2 feet, with minimal pilot compensation in pitch and roll (±½” at ½ Hz), the turbulence and vibrations noted made this a mentally and physically fatiguing regime that would eventually result in impaired ability to conduct a safe landing should an extended hover be required (PRS-2 assigned). Also noted was continued moderate chop while on deck on spot 6. The turbulence and vibration levels documented in the cockpit during these wind-over-deck conditions represented the maximum allowable for a PRS-2 rating assignment. Higher turbulence or cockpit vibration levels would be considered unsatisfactory, and the conditions that generated these levels would not have been included in the recommended day launch and recovery envelope for MH-60S helicopters to spots 5, 6, and 7, aboard LHD-5 class ships.
Power requirements, and associated pilot workload during maintenance of airframe torque limitations, were evaluated during launches from spots 4, 5, 6, and 7, with tail winds of 5 to 10 knots (Table B-8, Event numbers 138 through
146). No significant handling qualities deficiencies (i.e. unsatisfactory pilot ratings) were noted, and all ratings assigned were PRS-1 or PRS-2. However, it was documented that a 20 to 25% increase in torque above in ground effect (IGE) power was required to prevent settling below the deck edge during takeoff, and to achieve a satisfactory climb out after launch (during a headwind launch a 10 to
49 15% increase in torque required would be expected). This increase in power required during tail wind takeoffs was most likely attributable to the delayed onset of forward indicated airspeed and the longer-than-usual requirement for out of ground effect (OGE) hover power. ii. USNS CONCORD (T-AFS 5)
Day and night launch and recovery wind envelope development was conducted aboard USNS CONCORD (T-AFS 5) during port and starboard approaches and departures to the ship deck. Test day conditions and configurations are presented below in Table 8.
Testing was conducted at the relatively high aircraft gross weight of 21000 lbs. In order to achieve this mission representative aircraft gross weight,
Table 8: USNS CONCORD (T-AFS 5) Test Day Conditions and Configurations Parameter Conditions/Configuration Outside Air Temperature Range 18 to 30° Celsius Pressure Altitude Range –150 to 220 feet ±1 to ±6° of pitch of the ship (average of ±2°) Sea State ±1 to ±10° of roll of the ship (average of ±3°) Wind-Over-Deck Conditions 1 to 38 knots, around the entire 360° wind Tested (relative to the bow of the azimuth ship) 21582 to 20582 lbs. (4500 lbs. of internal Aircraft Gross Weight Range ballast employed) Aircraft Center of Gravity Range 356.1 to 352.9 inches Target Gross Weight 21000 lbs. Rotor Speed 100% Stabilator in automatic mode; stability Automatic Flight Control augmentation, trim, autopilot and hydraulic System Configuration pilot assist functions engaged.
50 simulating a full compliment of passengers or a large load of internal cargo, 4500 lbs. of internal ballast was employed.
The results are presented graphically in Figures A-20 and A-21, and each depicts the wind-over-deck conditions tested (wind speed and azimuth), and the resulting recommended day and night launch and recovery wind envelopes, for each of the approaches employed. Additionally, overlaid on the plots are the Day and Night General Launch and Recovery Wind Envelopes for T-AFS class ships.
A total of 265 launch and recovery evolutions were conducted, 130 of them were port launches and recoveries (100 day and 30 night), and 135 of them were starboard launches and recoveries (109 day and 26 night). Almost all launch and recovery evolutions conducted were documented as satisfactory and assigned either a PRS-1 or a PRS-2 rating. Ten evolutions (4% of the total numbered conducted) were documented as unsatisfactory with assignment of PRS-3 ratings.
The wind-over-deck conditions and event numbers of these unsatisfactory evolutions are detailed below in Table 9.
Overall pilot workload was evaluated during starboard launch and recovery
Table 9: Unsatisfactory Evolutions Aboard USNS CONCORD (T AFS 5) Type Launch or WOD Conditions Event Numbers Approach Recovery (Azimuth and Speed) (see Table B-9) Launch 040°R at 33 knots 176 and 180 Recovery 045°R at 33 knots 179 Recovery 045°R at 28 knots 183 Starboard Recovery 045°R at 22 knots 185 Recovery 330°R at 25 knots 201 Recovery 000°R at 37 knots 224 Launch 300°R at 19 knots 210 Port Launch 300°R at 14 knots 214 Recovery 300°R at 13 knots 215
51 evolutions, with relative winds between 040 and 045°, and between 22 and 33 knots. During recovery, as the aircraft transitioned to a hover over the spot, the aircraft tendency was to yaw rapidly to the right (most likely attributable to the weathervane effect and the increase in power required). A large (1½ to 2”) left pedal input was required to maintain aircraft heading with the starboard-to-port line up line, and the resulting left pedal travel remaining was approximately 10-
12% (PRS-3 assigned). In one instance (event 185), during this large left pedal input the left pedal stop was momentarily contacted (0% left pedal remaining), although tail rotor authority was not noticeably degraded. During launch, under the same ambient conditions, the aircraft experienced a rapid, uncommanded, 10 to 20° right yaw towards the relative wind line immediately after crossing the deck edge (again, most likely attributable to the weathervaning effect). Another large (1½ to 2”) left pedal input was required to arrest the yaw rate and establish aircraft heading in the direction of flight. The resulting left pedal travel remaining was approximately 14% (PRS-3 assigned). Also noted during launch, was slight difficulty maintaining altitude on departure, most likely attributable to the loss of wind effect as the aircraft transitioned into the leeward side of the superstructure.
To arrest the loss of altitude, a large ½ to 1” up collective was required
(maximum torque noted was 121%) to arrest the rate of descent. The tendency of the aircraft to settle on transition to forward flight at about the same time that the yaw excursions were occurring further increased pilot workload on the transition as the increases in torque due to both left pedal and up collective had to be managed carefully to prevent an over-torque situation. Furthermore, the
52 aforementioned pedal and collective requirements (noted during both launch and recovery) were noted at the lower end of the test gross weight range (i.e. just prior to refueling). The minimal pedal control margin remaining under these conditions, the rapid and unpredictable nature of these yaw excursions, and the workload associated with torque management and altitude control during launches and recoveries under these ambient wind conditions, were considered unacceptable for fleet pilots under typical operational conditions. As these data points were successfully conducted only under controlled test conditions, employing proven build up test techniques, they were not included in the recommended day launch and recovery envelope for MH-60S helicopters during starboard approaches to T AFS-1 class ships.
Overall pilot workload was evaluated during a starboard recovery, with relative winds from 330°, at 25 knots. During recovery the aircraft tended to drift laterally and longitudinally over the spot with ship motion (relatively significant at ±5° in pitch, ±6° in roll), and with the moderate chop encountered on short final and over the deck (most likely attributable to air flow disturbance over the superstructure). The moderate chop and airframe vibrations encountered on short final and over the spot both resulted in a VAR-6 rating for the evolution.
Maintaining position and heading over the spot was very difficult and required lateral and longitudinal cyclic inputs of ±½ to 1” at 2 to 3 Hz, and pedal inputs of
±½” at 1 to 2 Hz. Although this WOD condition yielded a PRS-3, the significant deck motion was considered a major contributor to this unsatisfactory rating.
When another recovery under identical WOD conditions was attempted a PRS-2
53 resulted (event 339), due primarily to a much more benign sea state, less deck motion, and less pilot workload. Despite the fact that this WOD condition, under the higher sea state conditions, was considered unacceptable for fleet pilots under operational conditions, it was included in the recommended day launch and recovery envelope for MH-60S helicopters during starboard approaches to T-AFS
1 class ships. Its inclusion is mitigated by the PRS-2 assignment for an identical
WOD condition in a more benign sea state, and by the deck motion limitation on the recommended envelope of ±3° and ±5°, respectively.
Overall pilot workload was evaluated during a starboard launch, with relative winds from 000°, at 37 knots. During transition to forward flight, just as the aircraft transitioned off the flight deck and out from the leeward side of the superstructure, it exhibited a very strong tendency to yaw right into the relative wind. This weathervaning effect was most likely attributable to the immediate side force present on the right side of the fuselage and tail section once clear of the sheltering effect (or null area aft) of the superstructure. A large 1 to 2” left pedal input was required to arrest the yaw rate (approximately 30° per second) and realign aircraft heading back in the direction of departure (the rapid onset of yaw rate resulted in a 15 to 20° change in aircraft heading, despite almost immediate left pedal input). During the large left pedal input, the left pedal stop was momentarily contacted (0% left pedal remaining), although tail rotor authority was not noticeably degraded. The minimal pedal control margin remaining under these conditions, and the rapid onset of right yaw rate during launch under these ambient WOD conditions, were considered unacceptable for
54 fleet pilots under typical operational conditions (PRS-3 assigned). As this data point was successfully conducted only under controlled test conditions, employing proven build up test techniques, it was not included in the recommended day launch and recovery envelope for MH-60S helicopters during starboard approaches to T AFS-1 class ships.
Overall pilot workload was evaluated during a port launch, with relative winds from 300°, at 19 knots. Maintaining altitude, while hovering over the spot, prior to transitioning to forward flight, was difficult, due primarily to ship deck motion
(±3° pitch, ±5° roll), and required large, rapid collective inputs of ±1 to 2” at 1
Hz. Workload was further increased by the requirement to carefully monitor and manage engine torque, which was noted as high as 128% for 1 second.
Maintaining heading, while hovering over the spot was also difficult, primarily due to continuous moderate turbulence and yaw chop, requiring pedal inputs of
±½” at 1 to 2 Hz. The high workload associated with maintaining position and heading while hovering over the spot, prior to transitioning to forward flight, was considered unacceptable for fleet pilots under typical operational conditions
(PRS-3 assigned). As this data point was successfully conducted only under controlled test conditions, employing proven build up test techniques, it was not included in the recommended day launch and recovery envelope for MH-60S helicopters during port approaches to T-AFS1 class ships.
Overall pilot workload was evaluated during port launches and recoveries, with relative winds from 300°, between 13 and 14 knots. During recovery, while still on long final, glide slope and closure rate were difficult to manage, due to the
55 strong effect of the relative port quartering tail wind. Additionally, position and heading maintenance, while hovering over the deck prior to landing, was noted as difficult, with unpredictable excursion in all axes and continuous moderate turbulence. Overall workload required while hovering included ±1” lateral and longitudinal cyclic inputs at 2 to 3 Hz, and ±½” pedal inputs at 1 to 2 Hz. During launch, on transition to forward flight, the aircraft yawed rapidly right (15 to 25°), and began to lose altitude. The large right yaw, most likely attributable to momentary loss of tail rotor effectiveness, required a large left pedal input (1 to
2”) to arrest the rate and return aircraft heading to direction of flight. The loss of altitude was only arrested with a large (1-2”) up collective input. It is suspected that this altitude loss was most likely attributable to the transition from an in- ground-effect to an OGE condition and to the loss of wind effect experienced while transitioning to the leeward side of the superstructure (and the associated increase in power required for each). The high workload associated with maintaining position and heading while hovering over the spot and while transitioning to forward flight was considered unacceptable for fleet pilots under typical operational conditions (PRS-3 assigned). As this data point was successfully conducted only under controlled test conditions, employing proven build up test techniques, it was not included in the recommended day launch and recovery envelope for MH-60S helicopters during port approaches to T AFS-1 class ships.
56 iii. USNS SIRIUS (T-AFS 8)
Day launch and recovery wind envelope development was conducted aboard
USNS SIRIUS (T-AFS 8) during port and starboard approaches to and departures from to the ship deck. Test day conditions and configurations are presented below in Table 10.
Testing was conducted at the relatively high aircraft gross weight of 21750 lbs.
In order to achieve this mission representative aircraft gross weight, simulating a full compliment of passengers or a large load of internal cargo, 4880 lbs. of internal ballast was employed.
The results are presented graphically in Figures A-22 and A-23, and each depicts the wind-over-deck conditions tested (wind speed and azimuth), and the resulting recommended day and night launch and recovery wind envelopes, for
Table 10: USNS SIRIUS (T-AFS 8) Test Day Conditions and Configurations Parameter Conditions/Configuration Outside Air Temperature Range 14 to 16° Celsius Pressure Altitude Range –70 to -40 feet 0 to ±2° of pitch of the ship (average of 0°) Sea State 0 to ±2° of roll of the ship (average of 0°) Wind-Over-Deck Conditions Tested 2 to 27 knots, around the entire 360° (relative to the bow of the ship) wind azimuth 22250 to 21250 lbs. (4880 lbs. of Aircraft Gross Weight Range internal ballast employed) Aircraft Center of Gravity Range 356.4 to 353.4 inches Target Gross Weight 21750 lbs. Rotor Speed 100% Stabilator in automatic mode; stability Automatic Flight Control System augmentation, trim, autopilot and Configuration hydraulic pilot assist functions engaged.
57 each of the approaches employed. Additionally, overlaid on the plots are the Day and Night General Launch and Recovery Wind Envelopes for T-AFS class ships.
A total of 84 launch and recovery evolutions were conducted, 48 of them were port launches and recoveries, and 36 of them were starboard launches and recoveries. All launch and recovery evolutions conducted were documented as satisfactory and assigned either a PRS-1 or a PRS-2 rating. The test effort aboard
USNS SIRIUS (T-AFS 8) was hampered by several problems, the most notable being the destruction of one of the hangar doors, which fouled the flight deck and forced an unexpected divert to shore, and resulted in the premature termination of the T-AFS 8 test effort. Additionally, instrumentation problems precluded the collection of any useful tail rotor impressed pitch data, via telemetry, at the higher gross weights. In the end, the test effort originally designed to evaluate higher
MH-60S gross weight shipboard operations abruptly concluded with minimum day wind envelope data, and prior to the collection of any night wind envelope development data. The limited day wind envelope development that was accomplished occurred during a single test evolution aboard USNS SIRIUS (T-
AFS 8).
Power requirements, and associated pilot workload during maintenance of airframe torque limitations, were evaluated during port launches and recoveries, with relative tail winds (Table B-10, events 77, 78, 82, 83, 86, and 87). No unsatisfactory handling qualities issues were identified, and all ratings assigned were PRS-1 or PRS-2. However, torque management was documented as the highest workload task, most notably due to 15 to 20% increase in torque above
58 IGE hover power required necessary to prevent settling below the deck edge, and to achieve a satisfactory climb out after launch.
4. PILOT-VEHICLE INTERFACE i. General
Throughout the development of the launch and recovery wind envelopes for the MH-60S aboard various classes of ships, several pilot-vehicle interface (PVI) deficiencies were identified that are pertinent to the shipboard evaluation of the helicopter and the effects of relative winds over the deck on the helicopter. Each of the identified deficiencies contributed adversely to the pilot workload required during shipboard launch and recovery operations, and, thus, did play some role in the ultimate definition of the launch and recovery wind envelopes. ii. Forward Field of View
Forward field of view (FOV) was evaluated in both the static and dynamic environment. The static evaluation was conducted on the ground, no hydraulic or electric power was applied, and the rotors were not turning. Azimuth and elevation of the cockpit structure and components that obstructed pilot (right seat) forward field of view, from approximate design eye position, was documented (in degrees). The results are presented rectilinearly in Figure A-24. Primary forward field of view, from the pilot position, was documented as extending from approximately 38° left of center to 46° right of center, and 21° above center and
29° below center. Significant field of view obstructions from this position were the glare shield and instrument panel, as well as the airframe structure between
59 the instrument panel and the right door (to include the door hinge support, separating the pilot windshield and the pilot door window).
Pilot and copilot station forward field of view was quantitatively evaluated in the dynamic environment during launch and recovery wind envelope development aboard USS BATAAN (LHD 5), USNS CONCORD (T-AFS 5), and USNS
SIRIUS (T-AFS 8). Test day conditions and configurations are presented below in Table 11.
During almost all approaches to the ship deck for landing, with the flying pilot seated at a comfortable eye height position, field of view was inadequate and unsatisfactory, and restricted sight of the landing environment. Particularly during decelerating flight, when up to 15° of nose up attitude was not uncommon to safely control closure rate prior to landing, field of view was severely limited by the instrument panel and glare shield.
Table 11: PVI Evaluation Test Day Conditions and Configurations Parameter Conditions/Configuration Outside Air Temperature Range 15 to 30° Celsius Pressure Altitude Range –150 to 220 feet 0 to ±6° of pitch of the ship (average of ±1°) Sea State 0 to ±10° of roll of the ship (average of ±2°) Wind-Over-Deck Conditions 1 to 45 knots, around the entire 360° wind Tested (relative to the bow of azimuth the ship) 22250 to 20582 lbs. (4500 & 4880 lbs. of Aircraft Gross Weight Range internal ballast employed) Aircraft Center of Gravity 363.4 to 352.9 inches Range Target Gross Weights 21750 & 21000 lbs. Rotor Speed 100% Stabilator in automatic mode; stability Automatic Flight Control augmentation, trim, autopilot and hydraulic System Configuration pilot assist functions engaged.
60
During these approaches, in most cases, at least a small pedal input was required to yaw the aircraft from the direction of flight (typically 10 to 30° right or left, depending on pilot seat at the controls), in order to preclude visual loss of the landing environment (landing spot, superstructure, line up line or landing signalman enlisted (LSE)). By yawing the aircraft slightly from the direction of flight, the pilot was able to maintain line of sight to the ship deck through the lower portion of the windshield and the chin bubble (no longer obstructed by the glare shield and instrument panel). Just prior to transitioning to a hover over the flight deck, and with application of power required for hover, the pilot was required to remove the pedal input necessary to maintain adequate field of view on final approach, in order to align the nose of the aircraft with the line up line for landing.
The inadequate field of view, due to the instrument panel and glare shield obstructions, during final approach to a ship deck for landing, was extremely limited and unsafe, and frequently resulted in the loss of sight of the landing environment. This deficiency directly affected pilot workload and associated workload ratings during much of the shipboard testing. iii. Cockpit Vibrations
Cockpit vibrations were qualitatively evaluated during launch and recovery wind envelope development aboard USS BATAAN (LHD 5), USNS CONCORD
(T-AFS 5), and USNS SIRIUS (T-AFS 8). Test day conditions and configurations are presented above in Table 11.
61 Excessive cockpit vibration levels (assigned VAR 5, 6, and 7) were documented during almost all flight in the low airspeed regime. These moderate to severe cockpit vibrations consisted primarily of four-per-revolution, main rotor vibrations documented almost constantly at airspeeds less than 40 to 50 KIAS, and particularly during deceleration and the onset of main rotor vortex ingestion.
In several instances the cabin vibration absorber was totally saturated and further incapable of absorbing vibrations, indicated by its excessive travel and its contact with the airframe around the mount (observed visually and aurally by the aircrewmen in the cabin). Furthermore, operations at higher gross weights tended to aggravate the vibrations, and lead to their onset earlier, with respect to airspeed.
The MH-60S helicopter is required to operate extensively in the low airspeed regime while operating in and around naval vessels, particularly during launch and recovery, and VERTREP operations. The low airspeed environment is one of the most critical and demanding during shipboard flight operations, and the excessive and continuous level of main rotor vibrations experienced in the cockpit during most of this wind envelope development was fatiguing, annoying and distracting. It is recognized that most missions are not flown exclusively in this low airspeed regime (although about 50-75% of the VERTREP mission can be).
However, all flights terminate in this regime, when the pilot is most fatigued and consequently, most adversely impacted by these high vibration levels. This deficiency directly affected pilot workload and associated workload ratings during much of the shipboard testing.
62 iv. Tail Wheel Location
Tail Wheel location was qualitatively evaluated during launch and recovery wind envelope development aboard USS BATAAN (LHD 5), USNS CONCORD
(T-AFS 5), and USNS SIRIUS (T-AFS 8). Test day conditions and configurations are presented above in Table 11.
There were no significant tail wheel location deficiencies documented statically with respect to the "foot print" of the helicopter while on the ship deck with the main mounts in the forward half of the main mount circle.4 In other
words, the fit of the helicopter on each of the ship decks evaluated was
satisfactory and did not contribute towards a significant increase in pilot workload
during shipboard operations.
Specifically, aboard USS BATAAN (LHD 5) tail wheel location or foot print
during landing was not documented as unsatisfactory or deficient in any way
since main mount circles are not employed on such ships due to the large size of
the flight deck. Aboard USNS CONCORD (T-AFS 5), approximately 52 feet of
lineup line was available aft of the forward half of the main mount circle, which
easily accommodated the 29-foot longitudinal wheel base of the MH-60S, and did
not result in increases in pilot workload during ship deck landings. Finally,
aboard USNS SIRIUS (T-AFS 8), which has a significantly shorter lineup line
4 The helicopter’s “footprint” is defined by the lateral distance between the left most and right most main mounts, and by the longitudinal distance between the forward most and aft most wheels. These distances are used to determine static physical fit on a specific ship deck and in associated deck strength analyses. The main mount circle, designed to provide pilot reference during landing, ensures that the tail wheel will touch down safely on the ship deck provided the main mounts touch down in the forward half of the main mount circle, and the helicopter is aligned with one of the lineup lines.
63 available aft of the forward half of the main mount circle (approximately 38 feet), the MH-60S longitudinal wheel base was still satisfactorily accommodated for during ship deck landings. It should be noted that the smaller flight deck and the resulting increase in precision required during landing was associated with slightly higher pilot workload while over the ship deck, just prior to landing.
However, this slightly higher pilot workload was not significant enough to result in unsatisfactory (PRS-3 or greater) handling qualities.
What was documented as significant during shipboard operations with respect to tail wheel location, was its frequent proximity to the ship deck during final approach for landing. Due to the nose up attitude required for deceleration and rate-of-closure maintenance on final approach, tail wheel proximity to the ship structure, deck personnel or staged loads had to be managed very carefully.5 Tail
winds or higher approach speeds, and/or a pitching ship deck, typically resulted in
the largest nose up attitudes on short final and the smallest tail wheel clearance
heights over the deck (and increased pilot workload due to the increased workload
requirements for management of tail wheel height).
Finally, and of utmost importance during transitions over the ship deck, was
the fact that the tail wheel is structurally designed with a large shock absorber to
absorb large loads longitudinally, not laterally. Due to the unsatisfactory field of
view (and the necessary pilot-initiated yaw to improve it) aboard T-AFS class
5 A steady state hover in the MH-60S requires approximately 5° of nose up attitude (i.e. when the nose of the aircraft is approximately 10 feet AGL, the tail wheel is approximately 5 feet AGL). Decelerating (nose up) attitudes exacerbate this physical characteristic of the airframe and demand careful management of tail wheel height particularly when crossing the deck edge for landing.
64 ships, and to the 45° left pedal turn required on transition to a hover aboard LHD class ships, lateral translation of the aircraft and, thus, the tail boom, was common. Should firm contact in the lateral direction be made with immovable ship structure, the potential exists for tail wheel separation.
The location of the tail wheel aft on the airframe, the requirement for excessive nose up attitudes during deceleration, and the resultant severely limited field of view and loss of situational awareness with respect the ship deck environment, directly affected pilot workload and associated workload ratings during much of the shipboard testing. v. Main Rotor Down Wash
The effect of main rotor down wash on the ship deck environment (ship structure, deck personnel and equipment) was qualitatively evaluated during launch and recovery wind envelope development aboard USS BATAAN (LHD
5), USNS CONCORD (T-AFS 5), and USNS SIRIUS (T-AFS 8). Test day conditions and configurations are presented above in Table 11.
In general, the down wash effects of the single main rotor on the ship deck environment were more severe than those typical of the tandem rotor H-46D helicopter while conducting similar shipboard operations (launch and recovery,
VERTREP, etc.). This is most likely attributable to the differences in main rotor disk loading, the resulting differences in induced velocities at the rotor head and the differences in down wash velocities experienced by the flight deck personnel.
65 Flight deck personnel may experience up to approximately 30% higher down wash velocities from an MH-60S than from an H-46 (at the same gross weights).6
These high down wash velocities were particularly significant during tail wind launch and recovery wind envelope development aboard T-AFS class ships.
During tail wind launch and recovery wind envelope development, particularly at higher aircraft gross weights (above 21000 lbs.), the aft-to-forward relative WOD conditions tended to push the main rotor down wash forward across the flight deck towards the hangar and into the flight deck personnel (particularly the LSE standing just in front of the hangar doors, and other support personnel standing on the catwalks around the hangar).7 Furthermore, this forward-driven rotor down wash tended to roll up the hangar face and back down onto the helicopter and flight deck, lingering in the deck environment longer than usual without the typical forward-to-aft WOD conditions available to cleanse the flight deck of such turbulence. The net result was increased pilot workload while maintaining position over the deck and compensating for turbulence associated
6 Disk loading on each rotor head of a 21000 lbs. hovering H-46 helicopter is approximately 5 lbs./ft2 (at sea level, assuming that thrust equals weight and that the thrust is equally divided between the two rotor heads (which is not entirely accurate)). Disk loading on the rotor head of a 21000 lbs. hovering MH-60S is approximately 9 lbs./ft2 (again, at sea level and assuming that thrust equals weight). Induced velocities at the rotor head(s) required to generate 21000 lbs. of thrust are approximately 30 and 22 mph, and actual down wash velocities observed by flight deck personnel may actually be as high as 60 and 44 mph, for the MH-60S and the H-46, respectively. “Disc loading above 10 to 12 lbs./ft2 may blow over…equipment and personnel.” (Prouty, 1985)
7 An LSE typically stands forward of the helicopter, faces aft with respect to the ship, and provides positional guidance to the pilots via hand signals during launch and recovery operations. Aboard LHD class ships the LSE stands well forward and to the starboard side of the landing spot. However, aboard T-AFS class ships the LSE is forced to stand between the helicopter and the hangar face on the lineup line in use by the pilot. Particularly aboard T-AFS 8 class ships, the distance between the LSE and the helicopter is not very large, and thus the down wash effects can be significant.
66 with re-ingestion of main rotor down wash off of the hangar face. Additionally, increased workload was observed for flight deck personnel supporting flight operations as they attempted to overcome the effects of this high gross weight main rotor down wash. On several occasions, while the aircraft was hovering over the deck, the LSE was driven backwards and forced up against the hangar doors that then provided the support necessary for him to continue his signalman duties.
The real significance of the rotor down wash effects on the ship deck environment and on workload in the cockpit was observed during the last launch and recovery wind envelope test events aboard USNS SIRIUS (T-AFS 8) (see table B-10, events 80-87). All of these data points were assigned PRS-2 ratings, however, associated pilot workload was due almost exclusively to flight deck turbulence (VAR-6) and the resulting power management and position maintenance difficulties. Of particular interest is event 87 (Table B-10). While hovering over the deck just prior to takeoff, the rotor down wash funneled into the hangar bay via a partially open middle hangar door, and back out via the closed starboard hangar door, tearing it off its tracks. Due to the nature of the hangar door failure, and the inability to secure it from total failure and separation during the next landing, wind envelope development was prematurely concluded and the helicopter was forced to divert to Naval Station Norfolk, Virginia.
The high disk loading of the MH-60S at high gross weights, and the resulting high speeds of the rotor down wash, were significant, particularly during tail wind operations. Ground personnel were forced to frequently concentrate on protecting
67 themselves from the down wash rather than on their important flight deck duties; pilot workload increased with the increased turbulence experienced while operating in close proximity to the ships superstructure; and extensive damage to hangar equipment resulted.
5. LAUNCH AND RECOVERY WIND ENVELOPE DEVELOPMENT
PROCESS
During the investigation of the effects of relative winds over the deck on the
MH-60S helicopter during initial shipboard testing, shortcomings were
documented in the general process that the U. S. Navy currently employs in the
development of helicopter launch and recovery wind envelopes.
Of most significance, is the fact that initial MH-60S shipboard test effort did
not satisfactorily leverage the massive amount of knowledge pertinent to such an
endeavor that currently exists in the government, military, civilian and academic
institutions of the world. Specifically, this test effort did not employ any comparison studies with previous H-60 shipboard testing data, nor did it employ
any prediction tools for ship air wake and helicopter aerodynamic modeling.
Consequently, a great deal of time was spent carefully exploring previously
explored (or at least partially explored) wind-over-deck conditions. Also, a great
deal of time was spent carefully exploring unknown or unexpected wind-over-
deck conditions that might have been predicted and planned for in advance.
Furthermore, the initial test effort was extremely limited by the ambient
conditions available during the at-sea test periods, resulting in envelopes that limit
operational flexibility not because aircraft handling qualities warranted it, but
68 because sufficient ambient conditions did not exist to discover the true shipboard handling qualities limitations of the airframe. During all of the launch and recovery wind envelope development test periods, ambient conditions (i.e. not enough ambient winds were available when needed) and time constraints
(imposed by the operational commitments of the test ship’s schedule) always precluded development of the largest possible launch and recovery wind envelopes. In other words, in no case did the documentation of unsatisfactory aircraft handling qualities play a major role in the definition of the final recommended launch and recovery wind envelopes. In fact, in all cases, that definition was due almost entirely to inadequate ambient wind speed and/or not enough time available (to either maximize use of available winds, or wait/search for adequate winds) to develop the largest possible wind envelopes.
69 IV. CONCLUSIONS
1. GENERAL
Overall, the investigation of the effects of relative winds over the deck on the
MH-60S demonstrated that the helicopter possesses the handling qualities
necessary to safely operate in the shipboard environment during launch and
recovery operations from LHD 1, T-AFS 1, and T-AFS 8 class naval ships.
Enough satisfactory handling qualities data were gathered during this
investigation to develop relatively large and operationally flexible launch and
recovery wind envelopes aboard three different classes of naval vessel for day
operations. Only aboard USNS CONCORD (T-AFS 1 class) was a relatively
large and operationally flexible launch and recovery wind envelope for night operations developed.
These envelopes are the quantifiable results of a rather qualitative investigation of wind-over-deck effects on the MH-60S helicopter during launch and recovery. They include only those wind-over-deck conditions which were actually tested and which, based on the subjective opinion of the qualified test pilots involved, will permit safe shipboard launch and recovery operations for the average fleet MH-60S pilot. Only a small number (<2%) of tested wind-over- deck conditions yielded unsatisfactory handling qualities, and these conditions were, naturally, excluded from the recommended launch and recovery wind envelopes.
70 Additionally, this investigation yielded some unsatisfactory findings pertinent to the operation of this helicopter aboard ship, which, even if done so within the aforementioned recommended wind envelopes, adversely affect already dangerous operations. Specifically, these unsatisfactory pilot-vehicle interface
(PVI) issues were found to contribute significantly to the pilot workload associated with shipboard launch and recovery operations during this investigation of wind-over-deck effects on the helicopter.
2. LAUNCH AND RECOVERY WIND ENVELOPE DEVELOPMENT
i. USS BATAAN (LHD 5)
The day launch and recovery wind envelopes developed during the
investigation of the effects of relative winds over the deck on the MH-60S helicopter while operating aboard USS BATAAN (LHD-5) are considered satisfactory for operational fleet employment aboard all LHD-1 class ships.
These envelopes, presented in Figures A-16 through A-19, provide adequate initial operational flexibility for fleet employment and should permit consistently safe shipboard launch and recovery operations using spots 4, 5, 6 and 7, at aircraft gross weights at or below 21500 lbs.
As the effects of relative winds over the deck during day launch and recovery wind envelope development were not investigated for the remaining spots (1, 2, 3,
8, or 9), all day launch and recovery operations aboard LHD-1 class ships using these spots must be conducted within the day General Launch and Recovery Wind
Envelope for LHD class ships (Figure A-8).
71 Similarly, as the effects of relative winds over the deck during night launch and recovery wind envelope development were not investigated at all (in the case of spots 1, 2, 3, 8, or 9) or outside the night General Launch and Recovery Wind
Envelope for LHD class ships (in the case of spots 4, 5, 6, or 7), all night launch and recovery operations must be conducted within this night general envelope.
It should be noted that the use of any day or night general launch and recovery wind envelope aboard a ship on which the MH-60S is expected to deploy for extended periods of time is unsatisfactory. These general envelopes impose severe operational limitations not only on the MH-60S, but also on the LHD upon which it is deployed, and on the entire Amphibious Ready Group (ARG) of which it is an important part. Operating with such limited launch and recovery wind envelopes will require the LHD to steer a very specific course during amphibious operations for extended periods of time (in order to launch and recovery their
MH-60S amphibious search and rescue assets). Not only does this make the entire ARG more vulnerable, but it also limits the operational flexibility and maneuverability of the LHD and its air wing, as both are inherently limited to the requirements of the most restrictive launch and recovery envelope of the various air wing aircraft. ii. USNS CONCORD (T-AFS 5)
The day and night launch and recovery wind envelopes developed during the investigation of the effects of relative winds over the deck on the MH-60S helicopter while operating aboard USNS CONCORD (T-AFS 5) are considered satisfactory for operational fleet employment aboard all T-AFS 1 class ships.
72 These envelopes, presented in Figures A-20 and A-21, provide adequate initial operational flexibility for fleet employment and should permit consistently safe shipboard launch and recovery operations, using port or starboard approaches, at aircraft gross weights at or below 21500 lbs. iii. USNS SIRIUS (T-AFS 8)
The day launch and recovery wind envelopes developed during the investigation of the effects of relative winds over the deck on the MH-60S helicopter while operating aboard USNS SIRIUS (T-AFS 8) are considered satisfactory for operational fleet employment aboard all T-AFS 8 class ships.
These envelopes, presented in Figures A-22 and A-23, provide adequate initial operational flexibility for fleet employment and should permit consistently safe shipboard launch and recovery operations, using port or starboard approaches, at aircraft gross weights at or below 21500 lbs.
As the effects of relative winds over the deck during night launch and recovery wind envelope development were not investigated, due to the premature and unexpected termination of the test effort, all night launch and recovery operations aboard T-AFS 8 class ships must be conducted within the night
General Launch and Recovery Wind Envelope for T-AFS class ships (Figure A-
9).
It should be noted that the use of the night general launch and recovery wind envelope aboard a ship upon which the MH-60S is expected to deploy for extended periods of time is unsatisfactory. This general envelope imposes severe operational limitations not only on the MH-60S, but also on the T-AFS upon
73 which it is deployed, and upon the entire Carrier Battle Group (CBG) of which it is an important part. Operating with such limited launch and recovery wind envelopes will require ships in the CBG to steer very specific courses for extended periods of time while alongside for underway replenishment. Not only does this make the entire CBG more vulnerable, but it also limits its operational flexibility and maneuverability, while unnecessarily increasing the time, effort and cost required for replenishment.
3. PILOT-VEHICLE INTERFACE i. General
The pilot-vehicle interface deficiencies observed during this testing all adversely affected the pilot workload associated with shipboard operations in general, and were identified as common to shipboard operations in general, rather than associated with shipboard operations aboard specific classes of ship. ii. Forward Field of View
The forward field of view (FOV) documented during this investigation was unsatisfactory, and fleet MH-60S pilots should not be expected to operate on a regular basis with this deficiency outstanding. The FOV available to the flying pilot, particularly while decelerating for landing, was severely restricted and frequently resulted in loss of visual contact with the landing environment. The existence of such an unsafe condition at such a critical phase of flight may result in a collision with the ship, deck personnel, or deck equipment.
74 iii. Cockpit Vibrations
The excessive and continuous main rotor vibrations, observed in the cockpit while operating in the low airspeed regime during this were unsatisfactory. Fleet
MH-60S pilots should not be expected to operate on a regular basis with this deficiency outstanding. These vibrations, particularly at higher gross weights, were very fatiguing, annoying, and distracting while executing a shipboard recovery. The existence of such an unsafe condition at such a critical phase of flight may result in reduced situational awareness and carelessness during a critical phase of flight, and may lead to a collision with the ship, deck personnel, or deck equipment. iv. Tail Wheel Location
The location of the tail wheel aft on the airframe, evaluated during this investigation, warrants further investigation and consideration for improvement and/or relocation. The current location, together with the consistent requirement for large nose up attitudes during deceleration for landing, and the resultant severely limited field of view and loss of situational awareness with respect to the ship deck environment, consistently contributed to increased pilot workload.
Increases in pilot workload during recovery were due primarily to the additional requirement of tail wheel height-over-the-deck management. This condition may eventually result in contact between the tail wheel and ship structure, deck personnel or deck equipment.
75 v. Main Rotor Down Wash
The high speeds of the main rotor down wash observed during this investigation were significant. Particularly at high aircraft gross weights during relative tail WOD conditions, the high main rotor down wash, a consequence of high rotor disk loading, was unsatisfactory for single-spot shipboard operations.
Not only did it increase pilot workload over the deck, but it also resulted in a dangerous environment for flight deck personnel. This hazard may result in personnel injury or loss (overboard), or in deck equipment damage (as was the case during this investigation).
4. LAUNCH AND RECOVERY WIND ENVELOPE DEVELOPMENT
PROCESS
The conventional U. S. Navy method of investigating the effects of relative
winds over the deck on a new helicopter during launch and recovery operations,
and of then developing appropriate launch and recovery wind envelopes, is in desperate need of improvement. The current dynamic interface and wind
envelope development process often fails miserably at truly maximizing
helicopter shipboard operational flexibility, only really achieved by bounding
wind envelopes solely by aircraft handling qualities limitations.
Significant improvement to the shipboard dynamic interface process will
greatly benefit the MH-60S and the fleet vessels upon which she will deploy.
Furthermore, a significantly improved, efficient, scientific process for developing
launch and recovery wind envelopes for a new helicopter will also greatly benefit
the introduction of the next of the U. S. Navy’s helicopters, the SH-60R, expected
76 in about 2008. Only when a new and improved technological approach to the investigation of the effects of winds over the deck on a helicopter can be developed, will true maximization of shipboard operational flexibility be achieved. And only then will the entire U. S. Navy benefit fully from these two helicopters and their pivotal role in the successful execution of the Helicopter
Master Plan.
77 V. RECOMMENDATIONS
1. LAUNCH AND RECOVERY WIND ENVELOPE DEVELOPMENT
i. USS BATAAN (LHD 5)
There are several specific recommendations that should be considered by the
U. S. Navy during future MH-60S testing and prior to the fleet introduction of the
MH-60S helicopter aboard USS BATAAN (LHD 5).
The day launch and recovery wind envelopes for spots 4, 5, 6, and 7,
developed during this investigation and presented in Figures A-16 through A-19,
will permit safe and operationally flexible shipboard launch and recovery
operations for the average fleet MH-60S pilot. They should be authorized by the
U. S. Navy, prior to MH-60S fleet introduction, for use aboard all LHD 1 class ships. Also prior to fleet introduction of the MH-60S, these envelopes should be incorporated into the following reference publications: NAVAIR 00-80T-106,
Amphibious Assault Ship (LHD/LHA) Naval Air Training and Operating
Procedures Standardization Manual, and NWP 3-04.1M, Helicopter Operating
Procedures for Air-Capable Ships.
Launch and recovery operations are currently authorized to all spots not
evaluated during this investigation only if the General Launch and Recovery
Wind Envelope for LHD class ships (Figure A-8) is employed. MH-60S launch
and recovery operations to the untested spots (spots 1 through 9 at night; spots 1,
2, 3, 8, and 9 in the day) should employ this general envelope upon fleet
introduction until the appropriate wind-over-deck investigations can be conducted
78 which warrant the expansion of this approved general envelope. Furthermore, in the interest of maximizing the operational flexibility of the MH-60S helicopter aboard LHD 1 class ships, further wind-over-deck investigations must be conducted to those spots not yet tested as soon as possible. Also, as larger launch and recovery wind envelopes may be achievable for spots 4, 5, 6, and 7, additional wind-over-deck investigations should be conducted to these already tested spots, if time permits.
In order to ensure that all aircrews are aware of the hazardous conditions noted during tail wind launch and recovery operations aboard LHD 1 class ships, a warning8 should be incorporated in the following reference publications: A1-
H60SA-NFM-000, Naval Air Training and Operating Procedures
Standardization Flight Manual, Navy Model MH-60S Aircraft, and NAVAIR 00-
80T-106, Amphibious Assault Ship (LHD/LHA) Naval Air Training and
Operating Procedures Standardization Manual. The warning should read:
“During transition to forward flight from spots 4, 5, 6, and 7, aboard LHD 1 class
ships, with ambient winds over the deck from 090° to 270° relative (i.e. with tail
winds), power required may be 20 to 25% higher than that required in a 10-foot
hover over the spot.”
Currently landing spot markings painted on each landing spot on an LHD 1
class ship include wheel markings for use as a visual references to assist aircrews
when positioning wheels on the deck upon touchdown. As MH-60S helicopters
8A NATOPS Warning is defined as “an operating procedure, practice or condition, etc., which may result in injury or death, if not carefully observed or followed” (MH-60S NATOPS, 2002).
79 do not yet deploy aboard these ships, appropriately located touchdown wheel markings are not included as part of LHD 1 landing spots (as are wheel markings for those helicopters which do currently deploy aboard these ships, i.e. the H-46 and H-53). Prior to MH-60S fleet introduction, wheel markings delineating required MH-60S wheel locations once on deck should be incorporated as part of each landing spot. ii. USNS CONCORD (T-AFS 5)
There are several specific recommendations that should be considered by the
U. S. Navy during future MH-60S testing and prior to the fleet introduction of the
MH-60S helicopter aboard USNS CONCORD (T-AFS 5).
The day and night launch and recovery wind envelopes for port and starboard approaches, developed during this investigation and presented in Figures A-20 and A-21, will permit safe and operationally flexible shipboard launch and recovery operations for the average fleet MH-60S pilot. They should be authorized by the U. S. Navy, prior to MH-60S fleet introduction, for use aboard all T-AFS 1 class ships. Also prior to fleet introduction of the MH-60S, these envelopes should be incorporated into the following reference publication: NWP
3-04.1M, Helicopter Operating Procedures for Air-Capable Ships.
In the interest of maximizing the operational flexibility of the MH-60S helicopter aboard T-AFS 1 class ships, as larger day and night launch and recovery wind envelopes may be achievable, additional launch and recovery wind envelope development should be conducted for port and starboard approaches, if time permits.
80 Finally, in order to ensure that all aircrews are aware of the hazardous conditions noted during tail wind launch and recovery operations aboard T-AFS 1 class ships, a warning should be incorporated in the following reference publications: A1-H60SA-NFM-000, Naval Air Training and Operating
Procedures Standardization Flight Manual, Navy Model MH-60S Aircraft, and in
NWP 3-04.1M, Helicopter Operating Procedures for Air-Capable Ships. The warning should read: “When conducting launch and recovery evolutions from T-
AFS 1 class ships, with ambient winds over the deck from 090 to 270° relative
(i.e. with tail winds), power required may be 15 to 20% higher than that required in a 10-foot hover over the spot.” iii. USNS SIRIUS (T-AFS 8)
There are several specific recommendations that should be considered by the
U. S. Navy during future MH-60S testing and prior to the fleet introduction of the
MH-60S helicopter aboard USNS SIRIUS (T-AFS 8).
The day launch and recovery wind envelopes for port and starboard approaches, developed during this investigation and presented in Figures A-22 and A-23, will permit safe and operationally flexible shipboard launch and recovery operations for the average fleet MH-60S pilot. They should be authorized by the U. S. Navy, prior to MH-60S fleet introduction, for use aboard all T-AFS 8 class ships. Also prior to fleet introduction of the MH-60S, these envelopes should be incorporated into the following reference publication: NWP
3-04.1M, Helicopter Operating Procedures for Air-Capable Ships.
81 In the interest of maximizing the operational flexibility of the MH-60S helicopter aboard T-AFS 8 class ships, additional launch and recovery wind envelope development should be conducted for port and starboard approaches, if time permits.
As night shipboard testing was not conducted, night launch and recovery operations are currently authorized for port and starboard approaches only if the
General Launch and Recovery Wind Envelope for T-AFS class ships (Figure A-9) is employed. Night MH-60S launch and recovery operations should employ this general envelope upon fleet introduction until the appropriate wind-over-deck investigations can be conducted which warrant the expansion of this approved general envelope.
Finally, in order to ensure that all aircrews are aware of the hazardous conditions noted during tail wind launch and recovery operations aboard T-AFS 8 class ships, a warning should be incorporated in the following reference publications: A1-H60SA-NFM-000, Naval Air Training and Operating
Procedures Standardization Flight Manual, Navy Model MH-60S Aircraft, and in
NWP 3-04.1M, Helicopter Operating Procedures for Air-Capable Ships. The warning should read: “When conducting launch and recovery evolutions from T-
AFS 8 class ships, with ambient winds over the deck from 090 to 270° relative
(i.e. with tail winds), power required may be 15 to 20% higher than that required in a 10-foot hover over the spot.”
82 2. PILOT-VEHICLE INTERFACE i. General
There are several specific pilot-vehicle interface (PVI) recommendations that should be considered by the U. S. Navy during future MH-60S testing, prior to the fleet introduction of the MH-60S helicopter to the fleet, and prior to the
development of the next generation of shipboard helicopter. These
recommendations pertain to forward field of view, cockpit vibrations, tail wheel
location and main rotor down wash.
The recent selection of the MH-60S as the U. S. Navy helicopter airframe of choice was based primarily on the urgent need to replace the failing H-46 airframe as quickly as possible and on the simultaneous availability of U. S. Army
Black Hawk airframes previously ordered but no longer required. Thus, in her acceptance of the baseline U. S. Army H-60 as a replacement for the H-46 airframe, the U. S. Navy ensured that she received a helicopter not in the least designed for the shipboard mission, rather than one specifically designed for it. In
doing so, the U. S. Navy inherited a safer airframe with respect to airframe age
and component reliability, but also inherited one with previously identified and
uncorrected deficiencies, and one not originally designed for shipboard operations
in general, or, specifically, for shipboard internal and external cargo operations.
During this investigation, four pilot-vehicle interface deficiencies were
identified and they are all related to this problem inherent in employing an aircraft
in a mission that it was never designed to perform. In many ways, the helicopter
performed quite satisfactory, but in some it did not. Deficient PVI results were
83 due primarily to the inadequacies of the aforementioned acquisition process and the lack of consideration for mission or known deficiencies in the design process.
Failure to correct the following PVI deficiencies will not preclude the successful operation of the MH-60S in the fleet. However, incorporation of the required corrections would certainly increase the efficiency, operational effectiveness and safety of the operations and missions in which the helicopter is employed. At a minimum, these PVI deficiencies should be identified as significantly dangerous to pertinent personnel (aircrew and ship deck crews) in the appropriate references manuals and during shipboard helicopter training. ii. Forward Field of View
The extremely limited forward field of view (FOV) observed during all phases of shipboard operations and wind envelope testing should be corrected as soon as possible. An engineering investigation should be conducted to determine whether or not the very large size of the glare shield overhanging the instrument panel is entirely necessary, and whether or not a smaller one is feasible. A well designed smaller glare shield might provide better forward FOV, particularly during decelerating flight, while still providing adequate glare protection for the instrument panel.
This deficiency could easily have been avoided during the development of the initial cockpit and helicopter design, when consideration should have been given to requirements of the airframe and its mission, to typical or generic helicopter deficiencies to be overcome or minimized, and to outstanding legacy deficiencies.
In the case of the MH-60S (and the SH-60R) much consideration should have
84 been given to the incorporation of a correction for the well-documented FOV deficiency identified in all legacy H-60 models (which only got worse with the
MH-60S and its larger instrument panel). FOV has been identified as unsatisfactory and unsafe in all models of H-60 for almost two decades, yet it continues to go ignored by the acquisition process, despite the fact that it is directly responsible for a number of aircraft mishaps and accidents.
Finally, in order to ensure that all aircrews are aware of the dangers inherent in the extremely limited forward FOV while operating aboard ship in the MH-60S helicopter, a warning should be incorporated in the following reference publications: A1-H60SA-NFM-000, Naval Air Training and Operating
Procedures Standardization Flight Manual, Navy Model MH-60S Aircraft, and in
NWP 3-04.1M, Helicopter Operating Procedures for Air-Capable Ships. The warning should read: “Pilot and copilot field of view is extremely limited during approaches to the ship deck, due primarily to cockpit obstructions and high nose attitudes required for deceleration, and may result in collision with the ship, deck personnel, deck equipment, or staged load(s).” iii. Cockpit Vibrations
The excessive and near constant main rotor vibrations observed in the cockpit while operating in the low airspeed regime during shipboard operations and wind envelope testing should be corrected as soon as possible. An engineering investigation should be conducted to determine the specific nature and origin these excessive vibrations. As such vibrations have not been documented in similar airframes (US Navy H-60B/F, US Army H-60A/L), the investigation
85 should perhaps focus on those configurations and components of the MH-60S which are unique: prototypical cabin vibration absorber, prototypical tail pylon, location of common cockpit avionics in transition section (and resulting aft center of gravity), high aircraft operational gross weights, etc.
This deficiency could easily have been avoided, perhaps, during development of the initial helicopter design, when consideration should have been given to requirements of the airframe and its mission, and to incorporation of prototypical airframe and cockpit components. Furthermore, these vibrations were identified years ago during the initial MH-60S proof-of-concept demonstration by the contractor yet they went largely ignored until the commencement of government developmental testing. Furthermore, although identified by the government as significant and potentially dangerous, correction of this deficiency has yet to be incorporated and will not impede fleet introduction and employment of the MH-
60S helicopter.
Finally, in order to ensure that all aircrews are aware of the dangers inherent in the excessive and continuous main rotor vibrations observed in the cockpit while operating in the low airspeed regime during shipboard operations in the MH-60S helicopter, a warning should be incorporated in the following reference publications: A1-H60SA-NFM-000, Naval Air Training and Operating
Procedures Standardization Flight Manual, Navy Model MH-60S Aircraft, and in
NWP 3-04.1M, Helicopter Operating Procedures for Air-Capable Ships. The warning should read: “Cockpit vibrations during low airspeed flight are fatiguing and distracting, may result in reduced situational awareness and carelessness
86 during landing at the end of a long mission or during extended VERTREP operations, and may eventually lead to helicopter or load impact with the ship deck or with ship deck personnel.” iv. Tail Wheel Location
The location of the tail wheel is too far aft and should be corrected as soon as possible. An engineering investigation should be conducted to determine the feasibility of moving the tail wheel significantly forward of its current location.
When the U. S. Army UH-60A Black Hawk airframe was modified for employment by the U. S. Navy (as the SH-60B) in the early 1980’s one of the modifications made was tail wheel location. The SH-60B tail wheel is well forward of the original Black Hawk tail wheel position to minimize ship deck foot print and pilot workload associated with landing a larger footprint aircraft on a single-spot ship deck. In the acquisition of the MH-60S airframe (essentially a
UH-60A airframe) the U. S. Navy has accepted the original U. S. Army Black
Hawk tail wheel location, a location originally deemed unacceptable for shipboard operations.
Relocation of the current tail wheel location of the MH-60S to that of the SH-
60B and SH-60F tail wheel location would significantly reduce the high probability of tail wheel impact with ship structure, deck personnel, or deck equipment during shipboard landing or load pick up, and provide 3 to 5 more feet of clearance between the tail pylon and the deck environment during nose up attitudes. Furthermore, although location of the tail wheel was not identified as a deficiency with respect to deck dimensions available for landing when compared
87 to the aircraft foot print, relocation of the tail wheel would significantly reduce the longitudinal dimension of the MH-60S (from approximately 29 feet to approximately 18 feet). This would undoubtedly improve an already satisfactory condition when landing aboard T-AFS class ships, but also when landing aboard other classes of ships with even smaller, single-spot decks (e.g. guided missile cruisers and destroyers).
Finally, in order to ensure that all aircrews are aware of the dangers inherent in aft location of the tail wheel during shipboard operations in the MH-60S helicopter, a warning should be incorporated in the following reference publications: A1-H60SA-NFM-000, Naval Air Training and Operating
Procedures Standardization Flight Manual, Navy Model MH-60S Aircraft, and in
NWP 3-04.1M, Helicopter Operating Procedures for Air-Capable Ships. The warning should read: “Tail wheel height over the deck must be managed carefully, particularly during load pick up. Due to tail wheel location aft on the airframe, and the requirement for nose up attitudes during decelerations, the potential exists for contact of the tail wheel with the deck edge, the flight deck, the hook up personnel, or the external load during approach to a ship deck.” v. Main Rotor Down Wash
Down wash from the singe main rotor of the MH-60S helicopter is very powerful, particularly at high aircraft gross weights and during shipboard operations with relative tail winds. It results in increased cockpit vibrations and pilot workload during shipboard operations, and is dangerous for deck personnel.
88 An engineering investigation might be conducted in the interest of rectifying this situation, however, it is already known to be a consequence of high rotor disk loading, and of operating a large helicopter in the vicinity of a ship deck.
Increasing the size of the main rotor to reduce the magnitude of the disk loading is operationally unfeasible due to the limited size of the environment available during shipboard operations. And preventing a cargo aircraft from operating at its highest operational gross weights significantly limits its operational capability. In the interest of ensuring the availability of an effective medium lift helicopter for shipboard operations all that can really be done with respect to powerful down wash of the helicopter is identification of this phenomenon to those involved in helicopter shipboard operations. Additionally, and only if operationally feasible, tail wind operations can be minimized, as can operations with high gross weight cargo and large fuel loads.
Finally, in order to ensure that all personnel involved in the direct support of
MH-60S flight deck operations are aware of such powerful main rotor down wash during shipboard operations in the MH-60S helicopter, a warning should be incorporated in the following reference publications: A1-H60SA-NFM-000,
Naval Air Training and Operating Procedures Standardization Flight Manual,
Navy Model MH-60S Aircraft, and in NWP 3-04.1M, Helicopter Operating
Procedures for Air-Capable Ships. The warning should read: “Main rotor down wash during shipboard operations, particularly at high aircraft gross weights or in relative tail wind conditions, can be very significant, and may result in injury to deck personnel or damage to equipment.”
89 3. LAUNCH AND RECOVERY WIND ENVELOPE DEVELOPMENT
PROCESS
As the current process is inadequate and not conducive to the development of
“ideal” launch and recovery wind envelopes, bounded only by aircraft handling
qualities deficiencies, more must be done to leverage the tremendous
technological advances being made in this and related fields of study, and to
employ the data already gathered by institutions conducting similar testing.
Specifically, the U. S. Navy must conduct detailed H-60 comparison studies, employ mathematical and aerodynamic predication tools, and mandate better shipboard helicopter design.
First and foremost, the U. S. Navy must determine what other shipboard H-60 investigations have already been conducted, or are currently being conducted.
Data from past and ongoing H-60 shipboard wind-over-deck investigations must then be identified and collated. A comparison study would than yield whether or not such data is applicable or employable by the MH-60S shipboard test effort.
Ideally, comparison studies might identify significant handling qualities trends and potentially hazardous wind-over-deck conditions, might permit the prediction of wind envelopes without actual test, or might even permit the use of one model
H-60 envelope by another model H-60. In any case, without question, knowledge of past and ongoing H-60 shipboard test efforts and results, would greatly benefit future MH-60S and, ultimately SH-60R, shipboard launch and recovery wind envelope development. Incredible as it may seem, none of the aforementioned H-
60 shipboard test data was studied prior to the commencement of MH-60S
90 shipboard testing. It is recommended that the MH-60S test effort does not continue without doing so, and that the terrific H-60 experience already gained aboard ship be logically studied and employed in future MH-60S (and all H-60) shipboard test efforts.
The second action that must be taken by the U. S. Navy in the full integration of all available assets to modernize its process of investigating the effects of relative wind over the deck on helicopters is to fully embrace rapidly emerging mathematical and aerodynamic predication technology. The employment of such prediction technology is critical in the effort to improve launch and recovery wind envelope development. The cost, efficiency and safety implications are tremendous. Once again, incredible as it may seem, none of the aforementioned prediction or simulation technology was employed prior to the commencement of
MH-60S shipboard testing (even more incredible when one considers that several of the most successful prediction efforts underway are at least partially U. S.
Navy-initiated). It is recommended that the MH-60S test effort does not continue without utilization of these tremendous prediction tools to assist with air wake and turbulence definition and visualization, and prediction of probable wind envelopes, possible aircraft handling qualities deficiencies, and hazardous conditions.
The third essential step for the U. S. Navy to take in improving the dynamic interface test process and in maximizing the results of future wind-over-deck investigations is to continue its involvement in aircraft design standard research.
This effort is a complicated and expensive one that incorporates a great deal of
91 advanced technology (e.g. variable stability aircraft and complex helicopter shipboard simulation) and necessitates a great deal of cooperation among various interested institutions. It is certainly the one recommendation, of the three made
(comparison studies and predication tools being the other two) that would most significantly affect the development of ideal launch and recovery wind envelopes.
Yet it is also the one that is the farthest from complete development (with respect to completion of an actual shipboard design standard) and implementation
(particularly at the contractor level during future helicopter design/concept consideration). Additionally, this effort is extremely under-funded, and the development of a naval helicopter based on design standards that have yet to be determined is understandably hard to imagine. Naturally, the MH-60S was not, but future naval helicopters certainly should be developed and evaluated according to detailed shipboard design criteria.
92 WORKS CITED
93 WORKS CITED
1. 122002ZJUL00. Interim Flight Clearance for MH-60S BUNO 165742. Patuxent River, Maryland: Commander Naval Air Systems Command, 2000.
2. 232006ZAUG00. Flight Clearance for MH-60S Aircraft Dynamic Interface Testing. Patuxent River, Maryland: Commander Naval Air Systems Command, 2000.
3. A1-H46AD-NFM-000. Naval Air Training and Operating Procedures Standardization Flight Manual, Navy Model H-46D Aircraft. Washington: Chief of Naval Operations, 1996.
4. A1-H60SA-NFM-000. Naval Air Training and Operating Procedures Standardization Flight Manual, Navy Model MH-60S Aircraft, Preliminary Change 2. Washington: Chief of Naval Operations, 2002.
5. ADS-33D. Handling Qualities Requirements for Military Rotorcraft, Aeronautical Design Standard 33D. St. Louis, Missouri: U. S. Army Aviation and Troop Command, 1994.
6. Advani, S. K., and C. H. Wilkinson. “Dynamic Interface Modeling and Simulation – A Unique Challenge.” Presented by Aircraft Development and Systems Engineering B. V. and by Information Spectrum, Inc. at the Royal Aeronautical Society Conference, London, United Kingdom, October 2001.
7. Carignan, S. J., and A. W. Gubbels. “Assessment of Vertical Axis Handling Qualities for the Shipborne Recovery Task – ADS 33 (Maritime).” Presented by the National Research Council of Canada Flight Research Laboratory at the 54th Annual Forum of the American Helicopter Society, Washington D. C., May 1998.
8. Carignan, S. J., A. W. Gubbels, K. Ellis. “Assessment of Handling Qualities for the Shipborne Recovery Task – ADS 33 (Maritime).” Presented by the National Research Council of Canada Flight Research Laboratory at the 56th Annual Forum of the American Helicopter Society, Virginia Beach, Virginia, May 2000.
9. Combat Stores Ships - T-AFS. United States Navy Fact File. Last updated: May 25, 1999.
10. Cooper, G. E., and R. P. Harper, Jr. The Use of Pilot Rating in the Evaluation of Aircraft Handling Qualities. National Aeronautics and Space Administration Technical Note, NASA TN D-5153. Washington: NASA, 1969.
94
11. Dynamic Interface Modeling and Simulation System Overview. Joint Ship Helicopter Integration Process Home Page. 16 March 2002.
12. Dynamic Interface Test Manual. Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division, 1998.
13. FTEG-TID-94-1-RWG. Report Writing Guide for Flight Test and Engineering Group Reports. Patuxent River, Maryland: Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division, 1994.
14. Fusato, D., and R. Celi. “Formulation of a Design-Oriented Helicopter Flight Dynamic Simulation Program.” Presented by the University of Maryland Department of Aerospace Engineering at the 57th Annual Forum of the American Helicopter Society, Washington D. C., May 2001.
15. Gowen, T. E. and B. Ferrier. “Manned Flight Simulator Shipborne Recovery Handling Qualities Assessment Using the Proposed ADS-33 Standard.” Presented by the Naval Air Systems Command Flight Dynamics Branch and by Anteon Corporation EITG Dynamic Interface Program at the 57th Annual Forum of the American Helicopter Society, Washington D. C., May 2001.
16. Hess, R., and Yasser Zeyada. “Modeling and Simulation for Helicopter Task Analysis.” Presented by the University of California Department of Mechanical and Aeronautical Engineering at the 57th Annual Forum of the American Helicopter Society, Washington D. C., May 2001.
17. Higman, J., et al. “The Development of a Variable Fidelity, Multidisciplinary Comanche Flight Simulation.” Presented by the U. S. Army Aviation Technical Test Center and by Advanced Rotorcraft Technology, Inc. at the 56th Annual Forum of the American Helicopter Society, Virginia Beach, Virginia, May 2000.
18. Joint Ship Helicopter Integration Process, History. Joint Ship Helicopter Integration Process Home Page. 16 March 2002.
19. NAEC-ENG-7576. Shipboard Aviation Facilities Resume, Revision AU. Washington: Chief of Naval Operations, 2001.
20. NAVAIR 00-80T-106. Amphibious Assault Ship (LHD/LHA) Naval Air Training and Operating Procedures Standardization Manual. Washington: Chief of Naval Operations, 1998.
95 21. NWP 3-04.1M. Helicopter Operating Procedures for Air-Capable Ships. Washington: Chief of Naval Operations, 1998.
22. Operational Requirements Document for MH-60S Fleet Combat Support Helicopter. Patuxent River, Maryland: Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division, 1998.
23. OSD/JSHIP-TRPT-D1-OPS-08/2000. Dedicated At-Sea Test #1 Final Report: UH-60A and CH-47D Aboard the USS SAIPAN (LHA 2). Patuxent River, Maryland: Joint Shipboard Helicopter Integration Process, 2000.
24. OSD/JSHIP-TRPT-D1A-OPS-02/2001. Dedicated At-Sea Test #1A Final Report: UH-60A Aboard the USS PELELIU (LHA 5). Patuxent River, Maryland: Joint Shipboard Helicopter Integration Process, 2001.
25. OSD/JSHIP-TRPT-D2-OPS-10/2000T. Dedicated At-Sea Test #2 Final Report: UH-60A and A/M-H6J Aboard the USS ESSEX (LHD 2). Patuxent River, Maryland: Joint Shipboard Helicopter Integration Process, 2000.
26. OSD/JSHIP-TRPT-D3-OPS-11/2000T. Dedicated At-Sea Test #3 Final Report: UH-60L and SH-60F/H Aboard the USS CONSTELLATION (CV 64). Patuxent River, Maryland: Joint Shipboard Helicopter Integration Process, 2000.
27. OSD/JSHIP-TRPT-D4-OPS-07/2001T. Dedicated At-Sea Test #4 Final Report: MH-47D, OH-58D MH-53J/M, MH-60L Aboard the USS DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER (CVN 69). Patuxent River, Maryland: Joint Shipboard Helicopter Integration Process, 2001.
28. Perrins, J. A., and J. Howitt. “Development of a Pilot Assisted Landing System for Helicopter/Ship Recoveries.” Presented by Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA, United Kingdom) at the 57th Annual Forum of the American Helicopter Society, Washington D. C., May 2001.
29. Polmar, Norman. The Naval Institute Guide to Ships and Aircraft of the U. S. Fleet. Annapolis, Maryland: United States Naval Institute, 1997.
30. Polsky, Susan. “Time-Accurate Computational Simulations of Ship Airwake for Dynamic Interface, Simulation and Design Applications.” Presented by Naval Aviation Systems Command at the Department of Defense High Performance Computing Modernization Program Users Group Conference, Biloxi, Mississippi, June 2001.
31. Prouty, R. W. Helicopter Aerodynamics. Peoria, Illinois: PJS Publications, Inc., 1985.
96 32. SH-60B Seahawk. United States Navy Fact File. Last updated: August 28, 2000.
33. TEMP 1552. Test and Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP No. 1552) for Fleet Combat Support Helicopter. Patuxent River, Maryland: Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division, 1998.
34. TM 1-1520-237-10. Operator’s Manual for UH-60A Helicopter, UH-60L Helicopter, EH-60A Helicopter. Washington: Department of the Army, 1996.
35. USNTPS FTM 106. Rotary Wing Performance, United States Naval Test Pilot School Flight Test Manual 106. Patuxent River, Maryland: United States Naval Test Pilot School, 1996.
36. USNTPS FTM 107. Rotary Wing Stability and Control, United States Naval Test Pilot School Flight Test Manual 107. Patuxent River, Maryland: United States Naval Test Pilot School, 1995.
37. Wilkinson, C. H., et al. “Modelling and Simulation of Ship Air Wakes for Helicopter Operations – A Collaborative Venture.” Presented at the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Research and Technology Organization Applied Vehicle Technology Panel Symposium on Fluid Dynamics Problems of Vehicles Operating Near or in the Air-Sea Interface, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, October 1998.
38. Xin, H., Chengjian He, and Johnson Lee. “Combined Finite State Rotor Wake and Panel Ship Deck Models for Simulation of Helicopter Shipboard Operations.” Presented by Advanced Rotorcraft Technology, Inc. at the 57th Annual Forum of the American Helicopter Society, Washington D. C., May 2001.
97 APPENDICES
98 APPENDIX A: FIGURES
99 FUSELAGE WIDTH 7 FEET - 9 INCHES
20 O
8 FEET- 9 INCHES
TREAD 8 FEET 10.6 INCHES MAIN LANDING GEAR 9 FEET - 8.6 INCHES
STABILATOR WIDTH 14 FEET - 4 INCHES
TAIL ROTOR DIAMETER 11 FEET 12 FEET- 4 INCHES 2.8 INCHES MAIN ROTOR DIAMETER 53 FEET - 8 INCHES
9 FEET - 5 INCHES
WHEEL BASE 29 FEET 7 FEET - 1 FOOT - 6 FEET - 7 INCHES 7 INCHES 6 INCHES LENGTH - ROTORS AND PYLON FOLDED 41 FEET - 4 INCHES
FUSELAGE LENGTH 50 FEET - 7.5 INCHES
OVERALL LENGTH 64 FEET - 10 INCHES
NS0360 SA
Figure A-1: MH-60S Seahawk Helicopter Dimensions Source: A1-H60SA-NFM-000. Naval Air Training and Operating Procedures Standardization Flight Manual, Navy Model MH-60S Aircraft, Preliminary Change 2. Washington: Chief of Naval Operations, 2002.
100 1 2 3 4
14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5
15 16 17 17
21 20 19 18
1. PITOT CUTTER 12. LANDING GEAR JOINT DEFLECTOR 2. BACKUP HYDRAULIC PUMP 13. STEP AND EXTENSION DEFLECTOR 3. NO. 1 HYDRAULIC PUMP AND NO.1 GENERATOR 14. DOOR HINGE DEFLECTOR 4. UPPER (ROTOR PYLON) CUTTER 15. RIGHT POSITION LIGHT (GREEN) 5. TAIL LANDING GEAR DEFLECTOR 16. FIRE EXTINGUISHER BOTTLES 6. APU EXHAUST PORT 17. FORMATION LIGHTS 7. COOLING AIR INLET PORT 18. TAIL POSITION LIGHT (WHITE) 8. PNEUMATIC PORT 19. APU 9. PRESSURE AND CLOSED CIRCUIT REFUELING PORTS 20. LEFT POSITION LIGHT (RED) 10. NO. 1 ENGINE 21. PITOT TUBES 11. MAIN LANDING GEAR DEFLECTOR / CUTTER
NS0358 SA
Figure A-2: MH-60S Exterior Arrangement Source: Ibid.
101 22
37
23 36
35
24
26
26 25
25 27 28
27
C T H S D E LI P A C K A S T K C M T A L & E O & IS HE G W T C A A M AT A A 28 D W G P TO E S
29 33 29 31 30
32
1. UPPER CONSOLE 8. INSTRUMENT PANEL GLARE SHIELD 15. PB/INDIC TEST SWITCH 2. PILOT'S COCKPIT UTILITY LIGHT 9. INSTRUMENT PANEL 16. FIRE EXTINGUISHER 3. FREE-AIR TEMPERATURE GAGE 10. VENT / DEFOGGER 17. STANDBY INSTRUMENTS 4. NO. 2 ENGINE FUEL SYS SELECTOR LEVER 11. PEDAL ADJUST LEVER 18. STANDBY (MAGNETIC) COMPASS 5. NO. 2 ENGINE OFF / FIRE T-HANDLE 12. REHOSTAT 19. #1 POWER CONTROL LEVER 6. NO. 2 ENGINE POWER CONTROL LEVER 13. PARKING BRAKE LEVER 20. #1 ENGINE OFF FIRE T-HANDLE 7. WINDSHIELD WIPER 14. ACCEL NULL SWITCH 21. #1 ENGINE FUEL SELECTOR LEVER
Figure A-3: MH-60S Cockpit Arrangement Source: Ibid.
102 #1 ENG #2 ENG #1 ENG #2 ENG OUT OUT OUT OUT 2 0 25 MASTER CAUTION LOW ROTOR MASTER CAUTION LOW ROTOR 9 1 FIRE PRESS TO RESET RPM FIRE PRESS TO RESET RPM 5 8 2 1 0 2 2 CLIMB 1000 FT IN. HG KNOTS 100 FT 3 1 7 2990
15 6 4 5 IVE
PULL TO CAGE
10 STAB 0 POS 10 20 O F 30 DEG F 40 DN
A
RESET MODE ST/SP
3 3 4 8 5
216 1 2 7
9
1. MISSION DISPLAYS 2. FLIGHT DISPLAYS 3. MASTER WARNING PANEL 4. BACKUP AIRSPEED INDICATOR 5. BACKUP ATTITUDE INDICATOR 6. STABILATOR POSITION INDICATOR 7. DIGITAL CLOCK 8. BAROMETRIC ALTIMETER / ENCODER 9. LAMP PRESS-TO-TEST NS0706 SA
Figure A-4: MH-60S Common Cockpit Instrument Panel Source: Ibid.
103 15 16 17 18 1 2 34
14
5
6
7
8
9
13 12 11 10 ADI2FRAME
Display Element Inde Display Element Index x Attitude Indicator Bank Angle 1 10 Low Altitude Carrot Pointer Local Barometric Pressure 2 11 Turn Rate Indicator Digital Readout Attitude Indicator Horizon 3 12 AI Pitch Ladder/Scale Line Attitude Indicator Sky/Ground 4 Declutter Selection 13 Presentation 5 Vertical Speed Indicator 14 Indicated Air Speed Scale/Tape Barometric Altitude Universal Control Knob Indicator 6 15 Indicators Readout Variable Altitude Setting 7 16 Configuration Speed Limit Readout Variable Altitude 8 17 Attitude Indictor Aircraft Symbol Setting/Decision Height Bug Attitude Indicator Bank Angle 9 Radar Altitude Indicators 18 Scale Figure A-5: MH-60S Common Cockpit Flight Display Source: Ibid.
104
Superstructure
Landing Spot 4 Approach
Landing Spot 4 Approach
Landing Spot 4 Approach
Landing Spot 7 Approach
Figure A-6: United States Ship BATAAN (LHD 5) Source: NAEC-ENG-7576. Shipboard Aviation Facilities Resume, Revision AU. Washington: Chief of Naval Operations, 2001.
105 Port-to-Starboard Approach
Starboard-to-Port Approach
Figure A-7: United States Naval Ships CONCORD (T-AFS 5) and SIRIUS (T- AFS 8) Source: Ibid.
106
30 KT 350 010
25
20
15 340 020
10
315 045 5
270 090
Notes: 1. Entire envelope applies to day operations, shaded area applies to night operations. 2. Envelope for port and starboard approaches; axis aligned with ship’s heading. 3. Pitch and roll limits are ±2° and ±4°, respectively.
Figure A-8: General Launch and Recovery Wind Envelope for LHD Class Ships Source: Dynamic Interface Test Manual. Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division, 1998.
107
Notes: 1. Entire envelope applies to day operations, shaded area applies to night operations. 2. Envelope for port and starboard approaches; axis aligned with deck line-up line. 3. Pitch and roll limits are ±2° and ±4°, respectively.
Figure A-9: General Launch and Recovery Wind Envelope for T-AFS Class Ships Source: Ibid.
108
Ship’s Heading FORWARD
STARBOARD
PORT
4
Spot Number
45° Line Up Line
AFT
Athwartships/Main Mount Line
Figure A-10: Port Landing Spot Aboard LHD Class Ships
109 Ship’s Heading
FORWARD
Starboard-to-Port Port-to-Starboard Line Up Line Line Up Line
PORT STARBOARD
Main Mount Circle
AFT
Figure A-11: Typical T-AFS Ship Deck with Line Up Lines
110
Figure A-12: Low Airspeed Trimmed Flight Control Positions (45 KTAS, 21000 lbs.)
111
Figure A-13: Low Airspeed Trimmed Flight Control Positions (45 KTAS, 21000 lbs.)
112
Figure A-14: Low Airspeed Handling Qualities (16500 lbs.)
113
Figure A-15: Low Airspeed Handling Qualities (21000 lbs.)
114
Figure A-16: Launch and Recovery Wind Envelope, USS BATAAN, Spot 4
115
Figure A-17: Launch and Recovery Wind Envelope, USS BATAAN, Spot 5
116
Figure A-18: Launch and Recovery Wind Envelope, USS BATAAN, Spot 6
117
1 PRS-3 WOD Condition ~ glide slope maint
Figure A-19: Launch and Recovery Wind Envelope, USS BATAAN, Spot 7
118
1 PRS-3 WOD Condition ~ large right yaw on launch ~ 0% pedal remaining
4 PRS-3 WOD Conditions ~ large right yaw on launch and recovery ~ 0-10% pedal remaining ~ settling on leeward side ~ Tq management (121%) 1 PRS-3 WOD Condition ~ position/heading maint with ship motion ~ PRS-2 with less deck motion (thus, included)
Figure A-20: Launch and Recovery Wind Envelope, USNS CONCORD, Starboard Approach 119
1 PRS-3 WOD Condition ~ altitude/position/heading maintenance
2 PRS-3 WOD Conditions ~ glide slope and closure rate ~ position/heading maintenance ~ large right yaw on launch (LTE)
Figure A-21: Launch and Recovery Wind Envelope, USNS CONCORD, Port Approach
120
Figure A-22: Launch and Recovery Wind Envelope, USNS SIRIUS, Starboard Approach
121
Figure A-23: Launch and Recovery Wind Envelope, USNS SIRIUS, Port Approach
122
123
Figure A-24: Rectilinear Plot of Pilot Station Forward Field of View Source: Naval Air Systems Command Technical Assurance Board Yellow Sheet Report, Naval Rotary Wing Aircraft Test Squadron, CH-60S, RW-3A, Enclosure (1), 20 July 2001
APPENDIX B: TABLES
124
Table B-1: Tests and Test Conditions Matrix
Surface Date; Test Pressure Test Gross Weight, Internal Event Flight Task/Test Sub-task/test Altitude Altitude, Method/Remarks (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) Airspeed Center of Gravity Ballast Hours Band Outside Air Temperature Shore-Based, Air Vehicle Testing: 08/21/00 Low Gross 17004-16004 lbs. None -320 ft Hp, 1 0.9 day Weight 365.5-362.3 inches 15 °C Aircraft 165742. Pace truck and wind observer in tower. Varied aircraft Shore-based 0, 10, 20, 30, heading and track over ground. 0-50 ft Handling 40, 45 4500 lbs. Recorded aircraft attitude, flight 08/22/00 High Gross AGL 21539-20539 lbs. 100 ft Hp, 2 Qualities KTAS internal control positions, HQR and VAR at 1.0 day Weight 356.5-353.3 inches 19 °C ballast different wind azimuths and magnitudes. TM’d data.
125 Shipboard, Dynamic Interface Testing: 08/30/00 Fly On & Day Aircraft 165744. Day and night DLQs 3 2.0 day DLQs conducted within the General Day DLQs & Envelope. Day launch and recovery 08/30/00 4 Envelope envelope development conducted once 2.8 day Development DLQs completed (no night envelope 08/30/00 USS Day Envelope development was conducted). Day 1.8 BATAAN Development 4500 lbs. -125 to 145 ft envelope development conducted by 5 0-500 feet 21582-20582 lbs. (0.3 day, (LHD-5) & 0-100 KIAS internal Hp, proceeding in maximum increments of AGL 356.1-352.9 inches 1.5 night) WOD Night DLQs ballast 15 to 26 °C 15° of wind azimuth or 5 knots of 08/31/00 Investigation Day Envelope wind speed. Evaluated handling 6 2.3 day Development qualities during each evolution; 09/06/00 Day Envelope recorded HQR, VAR, PRS, TURB, 7 3.7 day Development torque, flight control positions, WOD, 09/07/00 fuel, sea state. 8 Fly Off 1.0 day
Table B-1. Continued
Surface External Date; Test Pressure Test Gross Weight, Load, Event Flight Task/Test Sub-task/test Altitude Altitude, Method/Remarks (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) Airspeed Center of Gravity Internal Hours Band Outside Air Ballast Temperature Shipboard, Dynamic Interface Testing (continued): 09/11/00 Fly On & Day 9 1.2 day DLQs Day DLQs & 09/11/00 10 Envelope 2.7 day Development Aircraft 165744. DLQs conducted 09/11/00 Day Envelope within the General Envelope. Day 1.9 Development and night launch and recovery 11 (0.2 day, & Night envelope development conducted once 1.7 night) USNS DLQs DLQs completed. Envelope 09/12/00 CONCORD 4500 lbs. -150 to 220 ft development conducted by proceeding 12 0-500 feet 21582-20582 lbs. 2.3 day (T-AFS 5) 0-100 KIAS internal Hp, in maximum increments of 15° of AGL 356.1-352.9 inches 13 09/12/00 WOD Day Envelope ballast 18 to 30 °C wind azimuth or 5 knots of wind 1.0 day Investigation Development speed. Evaluated handling qualities 126 09/13/00 during each evolution; recorded HQR, 14 3.3 day VAR, PRS, TURB, torque, flight Night control positions, WOD, fuel, sea 09/13/00 15 Envelope state. 2.4 night Development Day Envelope 09/15/00 16 Development 2.2 day & Fly Off
Table B-1. Continued.
Surface External Date; Test Pressure Test Gross Weight, Load, Event Flight Task/Test Sub-task/test Altitude Altitude, Method/Remarks (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) Airspeed Center of Gravity Internal Hours Band Outside Air Ballast Temperature Shipboard, Dynamic Interface Testing (continued): 11/27/00 Fly On & Day Aircraft 165742. Day DLQs 17 1.0 day DLQs conducted within the General 11/29/00 Day Envelope Envelope. Day launch and recovery 18 4.0 day Development envelope development conducted once DLQs completed (no night 19 USNS envelope development conducted). SIRIUS (T- 22250-21250 lbs. 4880 lbs. 0-500 feet -70 to -40 ft Hp, Envelope development conducted by AFS 8) 0-100 KIAS 356.4-353.4 inches internal AGL 14 to 16 °C proceeding in maximum increments WOD ballast 11/30/00 of 15° of wind azimuth or 5 knots of Investigation Fly Off
127 1.2 day wind speed. Evaluated handling qualities during each evolution; recorded HQR, VAR, PRS, TURB, torque, flight control positions, WOD, fuel, sea state. Notes: (1) Two MH-60S aircraft, BuNo 165742 (aircraft #1) and BuNo 165744 (aircraft #3), were flown during this evaluation. BuNo 165742 was equipped with a sophisticated data recording package that permitted the telemetry of data and the real time monitoring of aircraft parameters during test events. BuNo 165744 was a production representative MH-60S. BuNo 165742 Basic Operating Weight (Basic Aircraft Weight, 2 pilots, 2 aircrew, and instrumentation package) was 15091 lbs. (14291 lbs. without aircrew). BuNo 165744 Basic Operating Weight (Basic Aircraft Weight, 2 pilots, 2 aircrew) was 14782 lbs. (13982 lbs. without aircrew). Standard full fuel load was 2300 lbs. of JP-5; fuel load was used together with internal ballast to achieve and maintain desired test gross weights. (2) All testing comprised of 19 test events and 38.7 flight hours (32.5 day and 6.2 night). (3) Shore-based air vehicle testing comprised of 2 test events and 1.9 day flight hours. Aircraft configuration: stability augmentation system, trim, and auto pilot on, stabilator in automatic mode, and 3° of tail rotor bias (165742). (4) Shipboard dynamic interface testing comprised of 17 test events and 36.8 flight hours (32.5 day and 6.2 night). USS BATAAN testing yielded: 13.6 total flight hours (12.1 day, 1.5 night) and 232 launch and recovery evolutions from spots 4 through 7. USNS CONCORD testing yielded 17 total flight hours (12.9 day, 4.1 night) and 265 launch and recovery evolutions. USNS SIRIUS testing yielded: 6.2 total flight hours (all day), and 84 launch and recovery evolutions. (5) Aircraft configuration USS BATAAN and USNS Concord: stability augmentation system, trim, and auto pilot on, stabilator in automatic mode, 1.5° of tail rotor bias (BuNo 165744). Aircraft configuration USNS SIRIUS: stability augmentation system, trim, and auto pilot on, stabilator in automatic mode,, 3° of tail rotor bias (BuNo 164742).
Table B-2: Cooper-Harper Handling Qualities Rating Scale
Adequacy for Deficiency Aircraft Demands on Pilot During Selected Pilot Selected Task or Improvement Characteristics Task or Required Operation Rating Operation1 Necessary
Excellent; highly 1 desirable Adequate Pilot compensation not a factor for performance Good; negligible desired performance. attainable with a 2 Deficiencies do deficiencies tolerable pilot not warrant workload. improvement Satisfactory Fair; some mildly Desired performance requires Without unpleasant 3 minimal pilot compensation. Improvement deficiencies
Minor but annoying Desired performance requires Adequate 4 performance deficiencies moderate pilot compensation. attainable with a Moderately tolerable pilot Deficiencies Adequate performance requires objectionable 5 workload. warrant considerable pilot compensation. Not Satisfactory improvement deficiencies Without Very objectionable but Adequate performance requires Improvement 6 tolerable deficiencies extensive pilot compensation.
Adequate performance not attainable with maximum tolerable pilot 7 compensation (controllability NOT Adequate in question, however.). performance NOT Deficiencies attainable with require Considerable pilot compensation is tolerable pilot 8 improvement Major deficiencies required for control of aircraft. workload Intense pilot compensation is 9 required to retain control of aircraft.
Improvement Control will be lost during some Not controllable 10 mandatory portion of required operation. Notes: 1. Definition of desired task or operation involves designation of flight phase and/or sub-phases with accompanying conditions. 2. Reproduced from USNTPS FTM 107, page VI.1 (based on HQR Rating Scale presented in NASA TN D-5153).
128
Table B-3: Dynamic Interface Pilot Rating Scale
PRS Rating Pilot Effort Rating Description No problems; minimal pilot effort required to 1 Slight conduct consistently safe shipboard evolutions under these conditions. Consistently safe shipboard evolutions are possible under these conditions. These points 2 Moderate define the fleet limits recommended by NAWCAD PAX RIVER. Evolutions are successfully conducted only through maximum effort of experienced test pilots, using proven test methods, under controlled test conditions. Successful 3 Maximum evolutions could not be consistently repeated by fleet pilots under typical operational conditions. Loss of aircraft or ship system is likely to raise pilot effort beyond capabilities of average fleet pilot. Pilot effort and/or controllability reach critical levels; repeated safe evolutions by 4 Unsatisfactory experienced test pilots are not probable, even under controlled test conditions. Note: Dynamic Interface Pilot Rating Scale as presented in the Dynamic Interface Test Manual.
129
Table B-4: Vibration Assessment Rating Scale
Degree of Description of Vibration Pilot Rating Vibration NONE No discernible vibration 0 Not apparent to experienced aircrew 1 fully occupied by their tasks, but 2 SLIGHT noticeable if their attention is directed to it or if not otherwise occupied. 3 4 Experienced aircrew are aware of the
vibration, but it does not affect their 5 MODERATE work, at least over a short period. 6 Vibration is immediately apparent to 7 experienced aircrew even when fully
occupied. Performance of primary task 8 SEVERE is affected, or tasks can only be done 9 with difficulty. Sole preoccupation of aircrew is to INTOLERABLE 10 reduce vibration level.
Note: Reproduced from USNTPS FTM 107, page VI.5 (based on the Subjective Vibration Assessment Scale developed by the Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment (A&AEE), Boscombe Down, England).
130
Table B-5: Pilot Induced Oscillation Rating Scale
Pilot Action Resulting Aircraft Motion Pilot Rating No undesirable aircraft motion 1 Undesirable aircraft motion, no oscillations, task performance not 2 Pilot initiates abrupt compromised. maneuvers or tight Undesirable aircraft motion, no control oscillations, task performance 3 compromised. Causes oscillations (not divergent) 4 Caused divergent oscillations 5 Pilot simply enters Causes divergent oscillation 6 control loop
Note: Based on the PIO Rating Scale presented in USNTPS FTM 107, page VI.3.
131
Table B-6: Turbulence Rating Scale
Intensity Aircraft Reaction Reaction Inside Aircraft TURBULENCE: The aircraft momentarily experiences slight, erratic Occupants may feel a changes in altitude or attitude. slight strain against seat
Light belts or shoulder straps. CHOP: The aircraft experiences slight, Unsecured objects may rapid, and somewhat rhythmic be displaced slightly. bumpiness without appreciable changes in altitude or attitude. TURBULENCE: The aircraft experiences changes in altitude or attitude, but remains in positive control Occupants feel definite at all times. The aircraft also usually strains against seat belts experiences variations in indicated Moderate or shoulder straps. airspeed. Unsecured objects are
displaced. CHOP: The aircraft experiences rapid bumps or jolts without appreciable changes in altitude and/or attitude. TURBULENCE: The aircraft experiences large, abrupt changes in altitude and/or attitude. The aircraft also Severe usually experiences large variations in Occupants are forced indicated airspeed. Aircraft may be violently against seat momentarily out of control. belts or shoulder straps. Unsecured objects are TURBULENCE: The aircraft is tossed about. violently tossed about and is practically Extreme impossible to control. It may cause structural damage.
Notes: 1. Based on the Turbulence Rating Scale presented in USNTPS FTM 107, page VI.4. 2. The frequency of turbulence is used to further amplify the ratings (Occasional – less than 1/3 of the time, Intermittent – between 1/3 and 2/3 of the time, Continuous – more than 2/3 of the time).
132
Table B-7: Instrumentation Package Parameters, BUNO 165742
Total Number Parameter Specific Parameter (222 total) of Category Measurements Indicated Airspeed 1 Calibrated/Boom Airspeed 1 Barometric Altitude 1 Rate of Climb 1 Radar Altitude 1 Heading 1 Attitude 2 Rates Pitch, Roll, Yaw 3 Control Position Cyclic, Collective, Pedal 4 Sideslip 1 Aircraft Main Rotor Speed 1 Reference Torque 2 Parameters Temperature 2 (38) Engines Power Turbine Speed 2 Gas Generator Speed 2 EGI Speeds x, y, z 3 Tail Rotor Impressed Pitch 1 Main Rotor Azimuth 1 Tail Rotor Azimuth 1 Outside Air Temperature 1 Load Factor at CG Nx, Ny, Nz 3 Weight on Wheels 1 Fuel Quantity 2 Transmission Beam 17 Beam 8 Transmission Forward and Aft 10 Airframe Frame Splice 4 Strain Tail Cone 13 Parameters (74) Tail Driveshaft 4 Tail Landing Gear 8 Pylon Fold Hinge 6 Tail Gearbox 4 Tail Rotor Torque, Bending, Dynamic 5 Loads Strain Parameters Main Rotor Servos, Control Rods, (13) Scissors, Bending, 8 Torque
133
Table B-7. Continued.
Total Number Parameter Specific Parameter of Category Measurements Heel and Floor 7 Audio Management 3 Cockpit Computer Instrument Panel 5 Center Console 2 Overhead 1 Cabin Acceleration Floor 9 Parameters Nose 4 (64) Canted Bulkhead 3 Intermediate Gearbox 3 Tail Rotor Gearbox 3 Engine 6 Vibration Absorbers Nose, Cabin, 5 Stubwings Transition Shelf 13 Transition Shelf 7 Nose Bay 5 Audio Management 1 Ambient Computer Temperature Instrument Panel 5 Parameters Center Console 2 (28) Air Data Computer 2 Nose Bay 1 ECS Supply Transition Section 2 Main Gearbox Oil 1 Engine Oil 2 Pressure Engine Oil 2 Parameters Main Gearbox 1 (5) Tail Gear Oleo 2
134
Table B-8: USS BATAAN (LHD 5) Data Sheets
WOD Aircraft WOD Avg. Max. Avg. Avg. OAT Local Event Type PAC Ldg Direc. Launch Recovery Gross Hp Speed TQ TQ Pitch Roll (deg. Comments Time No. Evolution1 Seat2 Spot (deg. PRS PRS Weight (feet) (kts.) (%) (%) (deg.) (deg.) C) R) (lbs.) Period 1 (30Aug00) - Events 3 and 4 in Table B-1 (Day DLQs and Envelope Expansion) 1300 1 E - - 36 16 - - 21517 - - 0 1 25 -145 1307 2 L R 5 38 17 2 - 21467 90 105 0 1 25 -145 Commence Day DLQs 1317 3 R R 4 0 23 - 1 21367 88 100 0 1 25 -145 1320 4 L R 4 0 24 1 - 21317 85 90 0 1 25 -145 1323 5 R R 5 0 24 - 2 21267 75 82 0 1 25 -145 1324 6 L R 5 0 22 2 - 21247 95 103 0 1 25 -145 135 1326 7 R R 6 0 22 - 2 21227 78 86 0 1 25 -145 1326 8 L R 6 0 22 2 - 21197 88 100 0 1 25 -145 1330 9 R R 7 5 22 - 1 21167 80 90 0 1 25 -145 1331 10 L R 7 5 22 1 - 21137 87 100 0 1 25 -145 1337 11 R R 4 0 25 - 1 21067 80 88 0 1 25 -145 1339 12 L R 4 5 28 1 - 21037 80 94 0 1 25 -145 1342 13 R R 5 5 27 - 1 21007 72 81 0 1 25 -145 1343 14 L R 5 5 25 1 - 20957 80 96 0 1 25 -145 1345 15 WO R 6 5 25 - - 20947 - - 0 0 25 -145 1347 16 R L 6 6 26 - 2 20927 80 90 0 1 25 -145 1347 17 L L 6 5 26 1 - 20907 90 100 0 1 25 -145 1349 18 R L 7 5 26 - 2 20887 80 94 0 1 25 -145 1349 19 L L 7 5 26 1 - 20867 90 98 0 1 25 -145 1355 20 R L 4 5 31 - 2 20807 70 76 0 1 25 -145 1355 21 L L 4 5 31 2 - 20777 90 102 0 1 25 -145 1357 22 R L 5 5 31 - 2 20757 72 78 0 1 25 -145 Table B-8. Continued.
WOD Aircraft WOD Avg. Max. Avg. Avg. OAT Local Event Type PAC Ldg Direc. Launch Recovery Gross Hp Speed TQ TQ Pitch Roll (deg. Comments Time No. Evolution1 Seat2 Spot (deg. PRS PRS Weight (feet) (kts.) (%) (%) (deg.) (deg.) C) R) (lbs.) 1357 23 L L 5 4 31 1 - 20727 94 100 0 1 25 -145 1400 24 WO _ 0 4 31 - - 20707 - - 0 0 25 -145 129 1406 25 R L 6 4 32 - 2 20617 - - 0 1 25 -145 FOV from left seat 1407 26 L L 6 4 32 1 - 20577 92 102 0 1 25 -145 1409 27 R L 7 2 34 - 2 20577 70 76 0 1 25 -145 1410 28 L L 7 2 32 1 - 20547 90 100 0 1 25 -145 1412 29 R L 4 0 31 - 2 20517 - - 0 1 25 -145 Hot Refuel 1424 30 L R 4 0 24 1 - 21567 77 97 0 1 25 -145 Commence Day DIT 1431 31 R R 4 0 36 - 1 21447 75 83 0 0 25 -145
136 1436 32 L R 4 358 37 1 - 21437 68 90 0 0 25 -145 1434 33 R R 5 356 38 - 1 21417 70 92 0 0 25 -145 1434 34 L R 5 358 39 1 - 21407 65 90 0 0 25 -145 1436 35 R R 6 358 37 - 1 21387 70 75 0 0 25 -145 1436 36 L R 6 5 36 1 - 21377 70 94 0 0 25 -145 Lat/long position keeping (cyclic +/- 1438 37 R R 7 0 37 - 2 21347 70 84 0 1 25 -145 3/4" @ 2-3 Hz) 1438 38 L L 7 0 35 1 - 21337 70 98 0 1 25 -145 1447 39 R R 4 357 40 - 1 21227 59 70 0 0 25 -145 1448 40 L R 4 357 40 1 - 21207 64 84 0 0 25 -145 1449 41 R R 5 358 40 - 1 21167 63 68 0 0 25 -145 1450 42 L R 5 355 38 1 - 21157 66 92 0 0 25 -145 1451 43 R R 6 355 38 - 1 21137 65 76 0 0 25 -145 1452 44 L R 6 358 40 1 - 21137 67 90 0 0 25 -145 1453 45 R R 7 0 39 - 2 21117 63 73 0 0 25 -145 Lat position keeping 1454 46 L R 7 352 40 1 - 21097 67 92 0 0 25 -145
Table B-8. Continued.
WOD Aircraft WOD Avg. Max. Avg. Avg. OAT Local Event Type PAC Ldg Direc. Launch Recovery Gross Hp Speed TQ TQ Pitch Roll (deg. Comments Time No. Evolution1 Seat2 Spot (deg. PRS PRS Weight (feet) (kts.) (%) (%) (deg.) (deg.) C) R) (lbs.) 1502 47 R R 4 345 38 - 2 20987 60 63 0 0 25 -145 1502 48 L R 4 350 38 1 - 20977 68 82 0 0 25 -145 Lat workload, +/- 1/2" @ 2 Hz; 1504 49 R R 5 348 38 - 2 20957 62 68 0 0 25 -145 moderate yaw chops/kicks on deck Lateral shuffle/VAR-6 short final (4 per 1505 50 L R 5 350 37 2 - 20927 66 84 0 0 25 -145 rev) Overall workload (long/lat +/- 3/4" @ 2- 1507 51 R R 6 345 38 - 2 20887 63 65 0 0 25 -145 3 Hz), moderate lateral chop/shuffle @ 1 Hz in a hover; VAR-7 1510 Overall workload (long/lat +/- 3/4" @ 2- 52 L R 6 345 39 2 - 20877 68 79 0 0 25 -145 3 Hz), moderate lateral chop/shuffle @
137 1 Hz in a hover; VAR-7 Overall workload (long/lat +/- 3/4" @ 2- 1512 53 R R 7 345 39 - 2 20847 65 65 0 0 25 -145 3 Hz), lateral chop @ 1 Hz <5 ft; VAR- 6 1512 54 L R 7 345 38 2 - 20827 65 83 0 0 25 -145 1517 55 R R 4 345 37 - 2 20797 59 63 0 0 25 -145 Ballooned over deck edge; refuel Lat workload - considerable left lat 1535 56 L R 4 340 36 2 - 21527 65 88 0 0 25 -145 cyclic to decel with left crosswind
Lat workload decelerating (considerable 1537 57 R R 4 330 35 - 2 21517 60 65 0 0 25 -145 left lat cyclic required) and over deck
1538 58 L R 4 325 34 2 - 21487 58 80 0 0 25 -145 Lat workload; VAR-5 in hover 1539 59 R R 5 330 35 - 2 21477 62 65 0 0 25 -145 Lat workload (+/- 1/2" @ 2 Hz) 1541 60 L R 5 330 35 2 - 21457 72 84 0 0 25 -145 Lat workload (worst <5 ft); +/- 1/2" @ 3 1542 61 R R 6 330 35 - 2 21437 60 65 0 0 25 -145 Hz 1543 62 L R 6 330 35 2 - 21397 72 78 0 0 25 -145
Table B-8. Continued.
WOD Aircraft WOD Avg. Max. Avg. Avg. OAT Local Event Type PAC Ldg Direc. Launch Recovery Gross Hp Speed TQ TQ Pitch Roll (deg. Comments Time No. Evolution1 Seat2 Spot (deg. PRS PRS Weight (feet) (kts.) (%) (%) (deg.) (deg.) C) R) (lbs.) Lat workload and left lat cyclic on 1546 63 R R 7 330 35 - 2 21387 72 78 0 0 25 -145 decel; VAR-5 in hover 1547 64 L R 7 330 35 2 - 21367 72 90 0 0 25 -145 1549 65 R R 4 335 36 - 2 21357 72 78 0 0 25 -145 1553 66 D R 4 330 35 - - 21317 - - 0 0 25 -145 Shutdown Period 2 (30Aug00) - Event 5 in Table B-1 (Day Envelope Expansion and Night DLQs) 1850 67 E R 4 5 19 - - 21267 - - 0 0 25 -132 1857 68 L R 4 0 20 1 - 21167 90 109 0 0 25 -132 Commence night DLQs 1907 69 R R 5 355 27 - 2 20997 - 0 0 0 25 -132 1908 70 L R 5 350 26 1 - 20987 80 102 0 0 25 -132 1911 138 71 R R 5 0 27 - 1 20947 - - 0 0 25 -132 1912 72 L R 5 0 25 1 - 20927 78 101 0 0 25 -132 1917 73 R L 5 357 26 - 2 20847 80 92 0 0 25 -132 1918 74 L L 5 350 24 1 - 20837 83 92 0 0 25 -132 1921 75 R L 5 350 25 - 1 20787 - - 0 0 25 -132 Refuel 1932 76 L L 5 350 24 1 - 21567 84 95 0 0 25 -132 1935 77 R L 4 350 24 - 2 21537 70 84 0 0 25 -132 1935 78 L L 4 350 25 2 - 21517 80 94 0 0 25 -132 1938 79 R L 5 350 23 - 2 21497 80 92 0 0 25 -132 1938 80 L L 5 350 23 1 - 21477 - - 0 0 25 -132 1941 81 R L 6 355 25 - 2 21447 70 80 0 0 25 -132 1942 82 L L 6 355 25 1 - 21427 78 92 0 0 25 -132 1944 83 R L 7 350 25 - 2 21397 75 90 0 0 25 -132 1945 84 L L 7 350 25 1 - 21387 75 94 0 0 25 -132 1953 85 R R 4 0 29 - 2 21267 - - 0 0 25 -132
Table B-8. Continued.
WOD Aircraft WOD Avg. Max. Avg. Avg. OAT Local Event Type PAC Ldg Direc. Launch Recovery Gross Hp Speed TQ TQ Pitch Roll (deg. Comments Time No. Evolution1 Seat2 Spot (deg. PRS PRS Weight (feet) (kts.) (%) (%) (deg.) (deg.) C) R) (lbs.) 1953 86 L R 4 0 29 1 - 21267 - - 0 0 25 -132 2000 87 R R 4 5 24 - 2 21147 - - 0 0 25 -132 2000 88 L R 4 10 24 1 - 21137 - - 0 0 25 -132 2003 89 R R 5 10 24 - 2 21097 - - 0 0 25 -132 2004 90 L R 5 10 25 1 - 21087 - 108 0 0 25 -132 2006 91 R R 6 10 25 - 2 21047 - 97 0 0 25 -132 2007 92 L R 6 10 25 1 - 21027 - 108 0 0 25 -132 2010 93 R R 7 10 24 - 2 20997 - - 0 0 25 -132 2010 94 L R 7 10 25 1 - 20957 - - 0 0 25 -132 2023 95 R R 4 10 22 - 2 20917 - - 0 0 25 -132
139 2023 96 L L 4 5 22 1 - 20877 - - 0 0 25 -132 2027 97 R L 4 10 20 - 2 20747 75 80 0 0 25 -132 2027 98 L L 4 10 22 1 - 20707 75 105 0 0 25 -132 2031 99 R L 4 10 20 - 2 20667 80 85 0 0 25 -132 2035 100 D _ 4 10 20 - - 20667 - - 0 0 25 -132 Complete night DLQs Period 3 (31Aug00) - Event 6 in Table B-1 (Day Envelope Expansion) 1248 101 E - 4 0 8 - - 21517 - - 0 0 26 -144 1254 102 L R 4 330 6 1 - 21477 85 105 0 0 26 -144 1309 103 R R 4 5 31 - 1 21297 73 84 0 0 26 -144 1310 104 L R 4 8 30 1 - 21257 85 104 0 0 26 -144 1312 105 R R 5 10 30 - 1 21237 - 82 0 0 26 -144 1314 106 L R 5 10 30 1 - 21217 79 106 0 0 26 -144 1315 107 R R 6 10 29 - 2 21187 79 85 0 0 26 -144 Lat workload 1316 108 L R 6 10 30 1 - 21177 78 102 0 0 26 -144 1317 109 R R 7 10 29 - 2 21157 70 84 0 0 26 -144
Table B-8. Continued.
WOD Aircraft WOD Avg. Max. Avg. Avg. OAT Local Event Type PAC Ldg Direc. Launch Recovery Gross Hp Speed TQ TQ Pitch Roll (deg. Comments Time No. Evolution1 Seat2 Spot (deg. PRS PRS Weight (feet) (kts.) (%) (%) (deg.) (deg.) C) R) (lbs.) 1317 110 L R 7 10 30 1 - 21147 80 100 0 0 26 -144 1324 111 R R 4 25 20 - 1 21047 75 79 0 0 26 -144 1325 112 L R 4 25 23 1 - 21027 80 104 0 0 26 -144 1326 113 R R 5 25 26 - 1 21017 80 86 0 0 26 -144 1326 114 L R 5 25 25 1 - 21007 84 103 0 0 26 -144 1328 115 R R 6 25 25 - 2 20987 85 94 0 0 26 -144 Lat/long workload Position keeping over spot (lat/long 1328 116 L R 6 25 25 2 - 20977 90 104 0 0 26 -144 workload) 1330 117 R R 7 25 25 - 2 20957 90 100 0 0 26 -144 1330 118 L R 7 25 25 2 - 20947 90 108 0 0 26 -144 1342 119 R R 4 50 10 - 2 20747 85 92 0 0 26 -144
140 1343 120 L R 4 50 10 1 - 20737 90 103 0 0 26 -144 1345 121 R R 5 40 10 - 2 20727 85 96 0 0 26 -144 Glide slope maint/altitude control 1345 122 L R 5 50 10 2 - 20707 84 110 0 0 26 -144 Tq management 1347 123 R R 6 49 11 - 2 20677 95 104 0 0 26 -144 Lat workload 1347 124 L R 6 55 9 2 - 20657 93 111 0 0 26 -144 Tq management 1349 125 R R 7 50 9 - 2 20647 82 94 0 0 26 -144 1349 126 L R 7 50 9 2 - 20627 84 104 0 0 26 -144 Refuel 1351 127 R R 4 45 10 - 2 21582 80 90 0 0 26 -144 1403 128 L R 4 40 10 2 - 21547 93 106 0 0 26 -144 Pitch attitude on decel/FOV (15 deg 1417 129 R R 4 130 5 - 2 21357 86 96 0 0 26 -144 nose up) Tq management; settled to deck edge 1418 130 L R 4 115 5 2 - 21327 85 120 0 0 26 -144 level on departure with wind behind superstructure 1419 131 R R 5 115 6 - 2 21297 88 96 0 0 26 -144 4 per vibes on final (VAR-5) 1420 132 L R 5 110 6 2 - 21287 95 117 0 0 26 -144 Tq management on departure
Table B-8. Continued.
WOD Aircraft WOD Avg. Max. Avg. Avg. OAT Local Event Type PAC Ldg Direc. Launch Recovery Gross Hp Speed TQ TQ Pitch Roll (deg. Comments Time No. Evolution1 Seat2 Spot (deg. PRS PRS Weight (feet) (kts.) (%) (%) (deg.) (deg.) C) R) (lbs.) Pitch attitude on decel/FOV (12 deg 1422 133 R R 6 115 6 - 2 21257 88 98 0 0 26 -144 nose up) 1422 134 L R 6 115 6 2 - 21237 100 115 0 0 26 -144 Tq management on departure 1424 135 R R 7 120 4 - 2 21217 90 106 0 0 26 -144 Departure over elevator helps with tq 1424 136 L R 7 115 4 1 - 21197 90 106 0 0 26 -144 management 1430 137 R R 4 110 3 - 2 21107 90 109 0 0 26 -144 Tq management 1434 138 L R 4 145 4 2 - 21067 85 108 0 0 26 -144 Tq management/slight settling off deck Tq management; 4 per rev on final 1444 139 R R 5 180 6 - 2 20947 95 110 0 0 26 -144 (VAR-6) 1444 140 L R 5 180 4 1 - 20927 90 103 0 0 26 -144 141 1446 141 R R 6 180 3 - 2 20907 95 106 0 0 26 -144 1446 142 L R 6 190 4 2 - 20897 90 112 0 0 26 -144 Tq management 1448 143 R R 7 210 5 - 2 20857 85 106 0 0 26 -144 1448 144 L R 7 210 5 1 - 20847 85 100 0 0 26 -144 1450 145 R R 4 210 8 - 1 20827 84 99 0 0 26 -144 4 per rev on final (VAR 5) 1451 146 L R 4 220 6 1 - 20797 92 102 0 0 26 -144 1454 147 R R 5 230 5 - 2 20757 88 106 0 0 26 -144 4 per rev on final (VAR 6) 1455 148 L R 5 240 5 1 - 20727 88 98 0 0 26 -144 1457 149 R R 6 240 5 - 2 20697 85 98 0 0 26 -144 1457 150 L R 6 230 6 1 - 20687 86 99 0 0 26 -144 1458 151 R R 7 240 7 - 1 20677 88 98 0 0 26 -144 1459 152 L R 7 250 6 1 - 20657 87 94 0 0 26 -144 1501 153 R R 4 250 6 - 1 20582 85 98 0 0 26 -144 1505 154 D - - 250 6 - - - - - 0 0 26 -144
Table B-8. Continued.
WOD Aircraft WOD Avg. Max. Avg. Avg. OAT Local Event Type PAC Ldg Direc. Launch Recovery Gross Hp Speed TQ TQ Pitch Roll (deg. Comments Time No. Evolution1 Seat2 Spot (deg. PRS PRS Weight (feet) (kts.) (%) (%) (deg.) (deg.) C) R) (lbs.) Period 4 (05Sep00) - Day and Night VERTREP - - 1745 155 E - - 340 16 - - - - - 0 0 15 -145 Commence Day VERTREP Quals (2000 1752 156 L R 5 345 12 1 - 17582 70 - 0 0 15 -145 lb load) 1754 157 R R 6 355 20 - 1 - - 95 0 0 15 -145 1755 158 L R 6 360 20 1 - - 70 - 0 0 15 -145 1758 159 WO R 9 360 20 - - - - - 0 0 15 -145 1800 160 P R 9 0 24 2 - 17510 74 100 0 0 15 -145 1800 161 DO R 9 0 23 - 2 - - 100 0 0 15 -145 1802 162 P R 9 0 25 2 - - 72 90 0 0 15 -145 1805 163 DO R 9 0 25 - 1 - - 90 0 0 15 -145 142 1807 164 P R 9 0 25 2 - - - 90 0 0 15 -145 1808 165 DO R 9 0 25 - 2 17320 70 100 0 0 15 -145 Nose high, tail low on decel 1810 166 P R 9 0 25 1 - - - 90 0 0 15 -145 1811 167 DO R 9 0 25 - 1 - 65 - 0 0 15 -145 1815 168 P R 9 0 24 2 - - - - 0 0 15 -145 1817 169 DO R 9 0 27 - 2 - 70 - 0 0 15 -145 Nose high, tail low on decel 1818 170 WO R - 0 27 - - - - 78 0 0 15 -145 1824 171 P R 9 0 27 1 - - 70 78 0 0 15 -145
1826 172 DO R 9 0 27 - 1 - 0 75 0 0 15 -145 Load fell apart; began with 500 lb load
1828 173 P R 9 0 27 1 - - 62 - 0 0 15 -145 1829 174 DO R 9 0 27 - 1 17080 - - 0 0 15 -145 1831 175 P R 9 0 27 2 - - - - 0 0 15 -145 1834 176 DO R 9 0 26 - 2 17010 - - 0 0 15 -145 1836 177 P L 9 0 24 1 - - - - 0 0 15 -145
Table B-8. Continued.
WOD Aircraft WOD Avg. Max. Avg. Avg. OAT Local Event Type PAC Ldg Direc. Launch Recovery Gross Hp Speed TQ TQ Pitch Roll (deg. Comments Time No. Evolution1 Seat2 Spot (deg. PRS PRS Weight (feet) (kts.) (%) (%) (deg.) (deg.) C) R) (lbs.) 1838 178 DO L 9 0 24 - 1 16970 - - 0 0 15 -145 1840 179 P L 9 0 24 2 - - - - 0 0 15 -145 1842 180 DO L 9 0 25 - 2 - - - 0 0 15 -145 1843 181 P L 9 0 24 2 - - - - 0 0 15 -145 1846 182 DO L 9 0 24 - 1 - - - 0 0 15 -145 1847 183 P L 9 0 24 2 - - - - 0 0 15 -145 1849 184 DO L 9 0 25 - 1 - - - 0 0 15 -145 1851 185 P L 9 0 25 1 - - - - 0 0 15 -145 1853 186 DO L 9 0 24 - 1 16880 - - 0 0 15 -145 1856 187 R L 4 0 24 - 1 - - - 0 0 15 -145 Refuel 1909 188 L R 4 0 25 2 - - - - 0 0 15 -145 Commence night VERTREP Quals 143 1933 189 P R 9 355 20 1 - - - - 0 0 15 -145 1936 190 DO R 9 355 20 - 1 16510 - - 0 0 15 -145 Overall workload, visual cuing - despite 1937 191 P R 9 355 20 2 - - - - 0 0 15 -145 lighter load 1938 192 DO R 9 0 20 - 1 - - - 0 0 15 -145 1940 193 P R 9 0 22 1 - - - - 0 0 15 -145 1942 194 DO R 9 350 20 - 2 - - - 0 0 15 -145 1944 195 P L 9 350 20 2 - - - - 0 0 15 -145 1946 196 DO L 9 0 23 - 2 - - - 0 0 15 -145 1948 197 P L 9 0 25 2 - - - - 0 0 15 -145 1951 198 DO L 9 0 22 - 2 - - - 0 0 15 -145 2006 199 P R 9 0 20 2 - 16080 - - 0 0 15 -145 2007 200 DO R 9 0 20 - 2 - - - 0 0 15 -145 2009 201 P R 9 350 20 2 - - - - 0 0 15 -145 2011 202 DO R 9 350 20 - 2 - - - 0 0 15 -145
Table B-8. Continued.
WOD Aircraft WOD Avg. Max. Avg. Avg. OAT Local Event Type PAC Ldg Direc. Launch Recovery Gross Hp Speed TQ TQ Pitch Roll (deg. Comments Time No. Evolution1 Seat2 Spot (deg. PRS PRS Weight (feet) (kts.) (%) (%) (deg.) (deg.) C) R) (lbs.) 2013 203 P R 9 0 20 2 - - - - 0 0 15 -145 2016 204 DO R 9 0 20 - 2 - - - 0 0 15 -145 2018 205 P L 9 0 21 2 - - - - 0 0 15 -145 2020 206 DO L 9 0 20 - 2 - - - 0 0 15 -145 2022 207 P L 9 0 20 2 - 15820 - - 0 0 15 -145 2024 208 DO L 9 355 20 - 2 - - - 0 0 15 -145 2026 209 P L 9 350 22 2 - - - - 0 0 15 -145 2028 210 DO L 9 355 21 - 1 - - - 0 0 15 -145 2030 211 P L 9 355 20 2 - - - - 0 0 15 -145 2033 144 212 DO L 9 355 22 - 2 - - - 0 0 15 -145 2036 213 R R 7 345 20 2 - 15582 - - 0 0 15 -145 Complete VERTREP Quals 2039 214 D - - 345 20 - - - - - 0 0 15 -145 Period 5 (06Sep00) - Event 7 in Table B-1 (Day Envelope Expansion) 1509 215 E - - 155 5 - - 21567 - - 0 0 20 -145 1514 216 L R 7 145 4 1 - 21567 88 107 0 0 20 -145 1530 217 R R 4 0 37 - 1 21347 65 80 0 0 20 -145 1531 218 L R 4 0 40 1 - 21327 68 95 0 0 20 -145 1532 219 R R 5 355 40 - 1 21317 70 80 0 0 20 -145 1532 220 L R 5 350 39 1 - 21307 68 96 0 0 20 -145 AOB to control closure rate; lat 1533 221 R R 6 350 39 - 2 21287 70 84 0 0 20 -145 workload 1534 222 L R 6 350 37 1 - 21267 74 92 0 0 20 -145 1535 223 R R 7 350 39 - 1 21247 78 88 0 0 20 -145 1536 224 L R 7 2 40 1 - 21217 0 0 0 0 20 -145 1543 225 R R 4 2 45 - 1 21147 59 64 0 0 20 -145 1543 226 L R 4 0 40 1 - 21127 70 92 0 0 20 -145
Table B-8. Continued.
WOD Aircraft WOD Avg. Max. Avg. Avg. OAT Local Event Type PAC Ldg Direc. Launch Recovery Gross Hp Speed TQ TQ Pitch Roll (deg. Comments Time No. Evolution1 Seat2 Spot (deg. PRS PRS Weight (feet) (kts.) (%) (%) (deg.) (deg.) C) R) (lbs.) 1544 227 R R 5 355 40 - 1 21107 65 75 0 0 20 -145 1545 228 L R 5 357 41 1 - 21097 73 95 0 0 20 -145 1546 229 R R 6 356 41 - 1 21077 68 70 0 0 20 -145 1546 230 L R 6 0 40 1 - 21057 73 94 0 0 20 -145 AOB to control closure rate; lat 1548 231 R R 7 355 48 - 2 21037 70 77 0 0 20 -145 workload 1549 232 L R 7 3 49 1 - 21007 70 96 0 0 20 -145 1555 233 R R 4 15 40 - 1 20937 65 79 0 0 20 -145 1556 234 L R 4 13 40 1 - 20917 73 92 0 0 20 -145
145 1557 Lat/ped workload; moderate chop over 235 R R 5 15 42 - 2 20907 70 82 0 0 20 -145 spot (VAR 6); airframe buffet @ 1Hz (+/- 5 deg yaw) Lat/ped workload; moderate chop over 1558 236 L R 5 23 43 1 - 20887 85 93 0 0 20 -145 spot (VAR 6); airframe buffet @ 1Hz (+/- 5 deg yaw) Lat/ped workload; moderate chop over spot (VAR 7); airframe buffet @ 1Hz 1559 237 R R 6 10 42 - 2 20877 75 78 0 0 20 -145 (+/- 5 deg yaw); some yaw chop on deck) Lat/ped workload; moderate chop over spot (VAR 7); airframe buffet @ 1Hz 1600 238 L R 6 10 46 2 - 20867 80 92 0 0 20 -145 (+/- 5 deg yaw); some yaw chop on deck) Lat/ped workload; moderate chop over 1601 239 R R 7 10 44 - 2 20837 75 80 0 0 20 -145 spot (VAR 6); airframe buffet @ 1Hz (+/- 5 deg yaw) Lat/ped workload; moderate chop over 1602 240 L R 7 7 40 1 - 20817 85 95 0 0 20 -145 spot (VAR 6); airframe buffet @ 1Hz (+/- 5 deg yaw) 1607 241 R R 5 0 37 - 1 20747 - - 0 0 20 -145
Table B-8. Continued.
WOD Aircraft WOD Avg. Max. Avg. Avg. OAT Local Event Type PAC Ldg Direc. Launch Recovery Gross Hp Speed TQ TQ Pitch Roll (deg. Comments Time No. Evolution1 Seat2 Spot (deg. PRS PRS Weight (feet) (kts.) (%) (%) (deg.) (deg.) C) R) (lbs.) 1618 242 L R 5 5 33 1 - 21587 74 100 0 0 20 -145 Refuel 1637 243 R R 4 23 39 - 2 21477 - - 0 0 20 -145 1638 244 L R 4 22 41 1 - 21447 - 109 0 0 20 -145 Moderate vert buffet, lat chop and VAR 6 on short final and over spot; glide 1639 245 R R 5 15 40 - 2 21437 - 78 0 0 20 -145 slope maint difficult short final; lat workload in a hover (+/- 3/4" @ 2-3 Hz). 1639 246 L R 5 25 39 1 - 21427 - 105 0 0 20 -145 Moderate vert buffet, lat chop and VAR 6 on short final and over spot; glide 1641 247 R R 6 28 40 - 2 21417 80 90 0 0 20 -145 slope maint difficult short final; lat workload in a hover (+/- 3/4" @ 2-3 Hz). 1642 146 248 L R 6 25 43 2 - 21387 - 108 0 0 20 -145 Moderate vert buffet, lat chop and VAR 6 on short final and over spot; glide 1644 249 R R 7 25 44 - 2 21357 80 90 0 0 20 -145 slope maint difficult short final; lat workload in a hover (+/- 3/4" @ 2-3 Hz). 1645 250 L R 7 30 43 2 - 21347 - 113 0 0 20 -145 Tq management; lateral workload 1640 251 R R 4 40 35 - 2 21257 - - 0 0 20 -145 1641 252 L R 4 41 30 1 - 21217 80 113 0 0 20 -145 Tq management on departure Lat workload (+/- 1/2" @ 2 Hz); VAR 6 1643 253 R R 5 45 35 - 2 21207 - 100 0 0 20 -145 on final and in hover Lat workload (+/- 3/4" @ 3 Hz, 1644 254 L R 5 45 31 2 - 21197 80 114 0 0 20 -145 occasional 1 1/2" input); Tq management on departure Lat workload (+/- 1/2" @ 2 Hz); VAR 6 1646 255 R R 6 37 30 - 2 21137 - 90 0 0 20 -145 on final and in hover
Table B-8. Continued.
WOD Aircraft WOD Avg. Max. Avg. Avg. OAT Local Event Type PAC Ldg Direc. Launch Recovery Gross Hp Speed TQ TQ Pitch Roll (deg. Comments Time No. Evolution1 Seat2 Spot (deg. PRS PRS Weight (feet) (kts.) (%) (%) (deg.) (deg.) C) R) (lbs.) 1647 256 L R 6 40 37 2 - 21137 - 111 0 0 20 -145 Moderate vert buffet, lat chop and VAR 7 on short final and over spot; glide slope maint difficult short final 1648 257 R R 7 40 35 - 3 21127 - 104 0 0 20 -145 (abrupt loss of 10-15 ft, 50 yrds from deck - up 1" collec to arrest descent); lat workload (+/- 3/4" @ 3 Hz, occasional 1 1/2" input) 1649 258 L R 7 39 35 2 - 21107 - 114 0 0 20 -145 Tq management; lateral workload 1650 Moderate vert buffet, lat chop and VAR 7 on short final and over spot; glide slope maint difficult short final 259 R R 7 40 35 - 3 21047 - 100 0 0 20 -145 (abrupt loss of 10-15 ft, 50 yrds from 147 deck - up 1" collec to arrest descent); lat workload (+/- 3/4" @ 3 Hz, occasional 1 1/2" input) 1659 260 L R 7 35 35 2 - 21027 - 112 0 0 20 -145 Tq management; lateral workload Lat/long workload; yaw buffet short 1700 261 R R 4 55 21 - 2 21017 - 112 0 0 20 -145 final and over spot (VAR 6) 1701 262 L R 4 55 21 2 - 20937 - 115 0 0 20 -145 Tq management; lateral workload Lat/long workload; yaw buffet short 1702 263 R R 5 58 24 - 2 20897 - 100 0 0 20 -145 final and over spot (VAR 6) 1703 264 L R 5 60 21 2 - 20887 - 115 0 0 20 -145 Tq management; lateral workload Lat/long workload; glide slope maint 1704 265 R R 6 62 24 - 2 20857 - 97 0 0 20 -145 (collect workload) with buffet (VAR 6) 1705 266 L R 6 60 22 2 - 20807 - 112 0 0 20 -145 Tq management; lateral workload 1719 267 R R 4 50 28 - 2 20647 - 0 0 0 20 -145 Tq management; lateral workload; 1720 268 L R 4 35 28 2 - 20627 - 113 0 0 20 -145 refuel
Table B-8. Continued.
WOD Aircraft WOD Avg. Max. Avg. Avg. OAT Local Event Type PAC Ldg Direc. Launch Recovery Gross Hp Speed TQ TQ Pitch Roll (deg. Comments Time No. Evolution1 Seat2 Spot (deg. PRS PRS Weight (feet) (kts.) (%) (%) (deg.) (deg.) C) R) (lbs.) Lat/long workload; glide slope maint 1722 269 R R 6 40 24 - 2 21557 - 100 0 0 20 -145 (collect workload) with buffet (VAR 6) 1739 270 L R 6 55 21 2 - 21537 - 118 0 0 20 -145 Tq management; lateral workload Lat/long workload; glide slope maint 1741 271 R R 4 50 25 - 2 21517 - 98 0 0 20 -145 (collect workload) with buffet (VAR 6) 1742 272 L R 4 60 25 1 - 21497 - 112 0 0 20 -145 1743 273 R R 5 65 25 - 1 21457 - 100 0 0 20 -145 Tq management and settle off deck 1755 274 L R 5 70 21 2 - 21367 - 121 0 0 20 -145 behind superstructure 1757 275 R R 4 65 17 - 2 21337 - 103 0 0 20 -145 1758 276 L R 4 65 17 2 - 21327 - 120 0 0 20 -145
148 1759 Lat/long workload; glide slope maint 277 R R 5 62 20 - 2 21307 - - 0 0 20 -145 (collect workload) with buffet (VAR 6) Tq management with quartering tail 1800 278 L R 5 65 20 2 - 21297 - 113 0 0 20 -145 wind Lat workload and AOB to maintain 1823 279 R R 4 310 26 - 2 20917 - - 0 0 20 -145 closure rate and glide slope 1823 280 L R 4 310 27 2 - 20897 - 90 0 0 20 -145 Lat workload and AOB to maintain 1825 281 R R 5 310 28 - 2 20887 - 70 0 0 20 -145 closure rate and glide slope 1825 282 L R 5 305 27 2 - 20877 - 80 0 0 20 -145 Lat workload and AOB to maintain 1826 283 R R 6 305 25 - 2 20867 - 78 0 0 20 -145 closure rate and glide slope 1827 284 L R 6 315 32 2 - 20847 - 80 0 0 20 -145 Lat workload and AOB to maintain 1829 285 R R 7 315 30 - 2 20837 - - 0 0 20 -145 closure rate and glide slope 1829 286 L R 7 310 27 1 - 0 - - 0 0 20 -145 Lat workload and AOB to maintain 1840 287 R R 4 290 25 - 2 20637 - - 0 0 20 -145 closure rate and glide slope
Table B-8. Continued.
WOD Aircraft WOD Avg. Max. Avg. Avg. OAT Local Event Type PAC Ldg Direc. Launch Recovery Gross Hp Speed TQ TQ Pitch Roll (deg. Comments Time No. Evolution1 Seat2 Spot (deg. PRS PRS Weight (feet) (kts.) (%) (%) (deg.) (deg.) C) R) (lbs.) 1840 288 L R 4 295 23 1 - 20637 - 90 0 0 20 -145 Lat workload and AOB to maintain 1843 289 R R 5 295 29 - 2 0 - 85 0 0 20 -145 closure rate and glide slope 1844 290 L R 5 295 29 1 - 20597 - 79 0 0 20 -145 Lat workload and AOB to maintain 1845 291 R R 5 315 29 - 2 20587 - 85 0 0 20 -145 closure rate and glide slope 1846 292 L R 6 290 30 2 - 20557 - 78 0 0 20 -145 Lat workload and AOB to maintain 1847 293 R R 6 290 25 - 1 20547 - 83 0 0 20 -145 closure rate and glide slope 1848 294 L R 7 315 27 2 - 20537 70 80 0 0 20 -145 1850 295 R R 7 310 27 - 2 20527 - 87 0 0 20 -145
Notes: 1 149 Launch (L), Recovery (R), Engagement (E), Disengagement (D), Load Drop (DO), Load Pick (P), Wave Off (WO) 2Right Seat (R), Left Seat (L)
Table B-9: USNS CONCORD (T-AFS 5) Data Sheets
Aircraft WOD WOD Avg. Max. Avg. Avg. Local Event Type PAC Type Launch Recovery Gross OAT Hp Direction Speed TQ TQ Pitch Roll Comments Time No. Evolution1 Seat2 Appr3 PRS PRS Weight (deg. C) (feet) (deg. R) (kts) (%) (%) (deg.) (deg.) (lbs.) Period 1 (11Sep00) - Events 9 and 10 in Table B-1 (Day DLQs and Envelope Expansion) 1352 1 E - - 335 17 - - 21887 - - 1 2 28 -140 Commence DLQs 1357 2 L R S 335 18 1 - 21507 88 109 1 2 28 -140 1359 3 R R S 340 18 - 1 21467 90 96 1 2 28 -140 1400 4 L R S 340 18 1 - 21457 90 102 1 2 28 -140 1402 5 R R S 340 18 - 1 21437 90 100 1 2 28 -140 1403 6 L R S 340 18 1 - 21417 90 101 1 2 28 -140 1404 7 R R S 340 18 - 1 21397 90 100 1 2 28 -140 150 1405 8 L R S 340 18 1 - 21387 92 111 1 2 28 -140 1406 9 R R S 340 16 - 1 21367 88 100 1 2 28 -140 1407 10 L R S 340 16 1 - 21357 92 109 1 2 28 -140 1409 11 R R S 340 17 - 1 21337 92 100 1 2 28 -140 1409 12 L R S 340 17 1 - 21317 92 108 1 2 28 -140 1420 13 R L P 35 18 - 1 21157 - - 1 3 28 -140 1421 14 L L P 35 18 1 - 21127 90 100 1 3 28 -140 1423 15 R L P 35 18 - 1 21117 85 100 1 3 28 -140 1424 16 L L P 35 18 1 - 21097 85 104 1 3 28 -140 1425 17 R L P 35 18 - 1 21067 90 108 1 3 28 -140 1427 18 L L P 35 18 1 - 21057 90 112 1 3 28 -140 1428 19 R L P 35 18 - 1 21017 85 100 1 3 28 -140 1429 20 L L P 35 18 1 - 21007 90 104 1 3 28 -140 1432 21 R L P 35 18 - 1 20967 85 100 1 3 28 -140 1433 22 L L P 35 18 1 - 20947 85 108 1 3 28 -140 1435 23 R L P 35 18 - 1 20917 87 101 1 3 28 -140 Table B-9. Continued.
Aircraft WOD WOD Avg. Max. Avg. Avg. Local Event Type PAC Type Launch Recovery Gross OAT Hp Direction Speed TQ TQ Pitch Roll Comments Time No. Evolution1 Seat2 Appr3 PRS PRS Weight (deg. C) (feet) (deg. R) (kts) (%) (%) (deg.) (deg.) (lbs.) 1436 24 L L P 35 18 1 - 20907 85 108 1 3 28 -140 End DLQs 1446 25 R L P 0 13 - 1 20757 85 101 1 3 28 -140 Begin Envelope Expansion 1447 26 L L P 0 13 1 - 20727 90 107 1 3 28 -140 1449 27 R R S 0 12 - 2 20707 90 100 3 5 28 -140 Lat position keeping 1450 28 L R S 0 10 1 - 20657 90 101 3 5 28 -140 1459 29 R L P 0 20 - 1 20537 85 95 3 2 28 -140 1500 30 L L P 0 20 1 - 20527 90 104 3 2 28 -140 1502 31 R R S 0 20 - 1 20497 90 112 3 2 28 -140 1502 32 L R S 0 20 1 - 20487 90 106 3 2 28 -140
151 1505 33 R R P 0 20 - 1 20457 - - 3 2 28 -140 Refuel 1517 34 L R S 0 24 1 - 21547 94 104 3 2 28 -140 1521 35 R L P 0 25 - 1 21477 90 102 2 2 28 -140 1522 36 L L P 0 25 1 - 21477 90 107 2 2 28 -140 1526 37 R R S 5 27 - 1 21437 92 100 2 2 28 -140 1527 38 L R S 5 27 1 - 21417 89 108 2 2 28 -140 1536 39 R L P 0 30 - 1 21287 78 94 2 2 28 -140 1537 40 L L P 0 30 2 - 21247 85 116 2 2 28 -140 Tq management; VAR-5 1539 41 R R S 0 30 - 2 21207 86 102 2 2 28 -140 Glide slope maintenance on short final 1540 42 L R S 0 30 1 - 21187 92 106 2 2 28 -140 Moderate yaw chop (5-10 deg hdg 1548 43 R L P 345 27 - 2 21077 75 92 2 2 28 -140 changes); lat directional control Moderate yaw chop in hover; VAR-5 in 1549 44 L L P 345 27 2 - 21047 88 102 2 2 28 -140 hover 1552 45 R R S 345 28 - 1 21007 88 100 2 2 28 -140 1553 46 L R S 345 28 1 - 20987 92 101 2 2 28 -140 1600 47 R L P 330 20 - 2 20897 84 94 2 2 28 -140 Lat position keeping (+/- 3/4" @ 1/2 Hz) Moderate yaw chop (10-15 deg hdg 1601 48 L L P 330 20 2 - 20877 85 107 2 2 28 -140 changes)
Table B-9. Continued.
Aircraft WOD WOD Avg. Max. Avg. Avg. Local Event Type PAC Type Launch Recovery Gross OAT Hp Direction Speed TQ TQ Pitch Roll Comments Time No. Evolution1 Seat2 Appr3 PRS PRS Weight (deg. C) (feet) (deg. R) (kts) (%) (%) (deg.) (deg.) (lbs.) 1603 49 R R S 330 22 - 2 20857 90 99 2 2 28 -140 Lat/long workload; AR-5 1604 50 L R S 330 22 1 - 20827 85 100 2 2 28 -140 Lat workload on lineup short final; 1610 51 R L P 315 13 - 2 20717 85 95 2 2 28 -140 moderate yaw chop; AR-5 for 4 per rev vibe Tq management behind superstructure 1613 52 L L P 315 14 2 - 20707 85 106 2 2 28 -140 on takeoff 1614 53 R R S 315 14 - 1 20677 85 103 2 2 28 -140 1615 54 L R S 315 14 1 - 20667 90 102 2 2 28 -140 1626 55 R L P 300 9 - 2 20477 99 95 2 2 28 -140 Lateral position keeping on landing 1627 56 L L P 300 9 2 - 20477 99 104 2 2 28 -140 TQ management 1628 57 R R S 300 10 - 1 20437 92 97 2 2 28 -140 152 1629 58 L R S 300 10 1 - 20437 96 95 2 2 28 -140 1631 59 R R S 300 10 - 1 20427 94 89 2 2 28 -140 1635 60 D - - 300 10 - - 20387 - - 2 2 28 -140 Shutdown and refuel Period 2 (11Sep00) - Event 11 in Table B-1 (Day Envelope Expansion and Night DLQs) 1849 61 E - - 10 18 - - 21547 - - 2 2 28 -140 1855 62 L R S 10 20 1 - 21517 98 100 2 2 28 -140 1900 63 R R S 5 20 - 1 21437 95 102 2 2 28 -140 1900 64 L R S 10 20 1 - 21417 95 110 2 2 28 -140 1910 65 R L P 5 20 - 1 21297 86 104 2 2 28 -140 1910 66 L L P 10 20 1 - 21277 88 108 2 2 28 -140 1920 67 R R S 20 27 - 2 21117 89 104 2 2 28 -140 1921 68 L R S 20 28 2 - 21077 98 108 2 2 28 -140 1924 69 R L P 15 30 - 2 21047 83 108 2 2 28 -140 1925 70 L L P 15 30 2 - 21047 88 110 2 2 24 -150 1941 71 R R S 350 17 - 1 20807 85 100 2 2 24 -150 Commence night DLQs
Table B-9. Continued.
Aircraft WOD WOD Avg. Max. Avg. Avg. Local Event Type PAC Type Launch Recovery Gross OAT Hp Direction Speed TQ TQ Pitch Roll Comments Time No. Evolution1 Seat2 Appr3 PRS PRS Weight (deg. C) (feet) (deg. R) (kts) (%) (%) (deg.) (deg.) (lbs.) 1942 72 L R S 350 17 1 - 20777 89 100 2 2 24 -150 1945 73 R R S 345 17 - 2 20737 85 96 2 2 24 -150 Visual cuing 1947 74 L R S 350 15 1 - 20737 88 108 2 2 24 -150 1949 75 R R S 345 15 - 2 20677 85 92 2 2 24 -150 1950 76 L R S 345 15 1 - 20657 85 107 2 2 24 -150 1953 77 R R S 350 15 - 2 20617 85 95 2 2 24 -150 Visual cuing 1956 78 L R S 350 15 2 - 20577 90 105 2 2 24 -150 Visual cuing 1959 79 R R S 350 15 - 1 20537 - - 2 2 24 -150 2000 80 L R S 350 15 1 - 20527 - - 2 2 24 -150 2004 81 R R S 350 15 - 1 20497 - - 2 2 24 -150 153 2004 82 L R S 350 15 1 - 20487 - - 2 2 24 -150 2016 83 R L P 45 11 - 1 20457 - - 2 2 24 -150 2016 84 L L P 45 11 1 - 20437 - - 2 2 24 -150 2020 85 R L P 45 10 - 1 20437 - - 2 2 24 -150 2020 86 L L P 45 10 1 - 20397 - - 2 2 24 -150 2024 87 R L P 45 10 - 1 20367 - - 2 2 24 -150 2024 88 L L P 45 11 1 - 20337 - - 2 2 24 -150 2028 89 R L P 40 13 - 1 20307 - - 2 2 24 -150 2028 90 L L P 40 12 1 - 20287 - - 2 2 24 -150 2031 91 R L P 40 13 - 1 20257 - - 2 2 24 -150 2031 92 L L P 45 12 1 - 20227 - - 2 2 24 -150 2036 93 R L P 45 12 - 1 20207 - - 2 2 24 -150 2046 94 D - - 40 12 - - 20177 - - 2 2 24 -150 End night DLQs Period 3 (12Sep00) - Event 12 in Table B-1 (Day Envelope Expansion) 839 95 E - - 300 5 - - 21537 - - 2 2 18 -100 844 96 L R P 300 6 2 - 21517 88 112 1 1 18 -100 Tq management; settle on transition
Table B-9. Continued.
Aircraft WOD WOD Avg. Max. Avg. Avg. Local Event Type PAC Type Launch Recovery Gross OAT Hp Direction Speed TQ TQ Pitch Roll Comments Time No. Evolution1 Seat2 Appr3 PRS PRS Weight (deg. C) (feet) (deg. R) (kts) (%) (%) (deg.) (deg.) (lbs.) 847 97 R R S 300 6 - 1 21487 88 103 1 1 18 -100 848 98 L R S 300 6 2 - 21477 90 115 1 1 18 -100 Tq management 850 99 R L P 300 6 - 2 21427 98 116 1 1 18 -100 Lat/long workload over spot 852 100 L L P 300 6 2 - 21407 102 118 1 1 18 -100 Tq management 903 101 R R S 280 4 - 1 21277 90 98 1 1 18 -100 903 102 L R S 285 4 1 - 21257 92 104 1 1 18 -100 905 103 R L P 280 4 - 1 21227 95 107 1 1 18 -100 906 104 L L P 280 4 2 - 21207 103 117 1 1 18 -100 Tq management 907 105 R R S 270 4 - 1 21177 88 110 1 1 18 -100
154 908 106 L R S 270 4 1 - 21157 89 106 1 1 18 -100 Altitude control/glide slope maintenance 910 107 R L P 265 4 - 2 21117 93 109 1 1 18 -100 on short final (rapid 1" up collective required) 911 108 L L P 265 4 2 - 21107 100 119 1 1 18 -100 Tq management Lat workload over deck and during 913 109 R R S 265 4 - 2 21077 89 104 1 1 18 -100 touchdown; VAR-5 due to burble on short final 913 110 L R S 265 4 1 - 21067 90 110 1 1 18 -100 916 111 R L P 265 4 - 1 21037 95 102 1 1 18 -100 917 112 L L P 260 4 2 - 21017 105 114 2 2 18 -100 Tq management 927 113 R R S 250 5 - 1 20867 90 100 2 2 18 -100 927 114 L R S 250 5 1 - 20847 90 104 2 2 18 -100 Long position keeping over spot with 930 115 R L P 250 5 - 2 20807 100 108 2 2 18 -100 tail wind 931 116 L L P 250 5 2 - 20787 97 114 2 2 18 -100 Tq management Lat position keeping over spot (+/- 3/4" 942 117 R R S 240 4 - 2 20647 93 110 3 5 18 -100 @ 2 Hz); burble on short final (VAR-5) 943 118 L R S 235 4 1 - 20627 90 110 3 5 18 -100
Table B-9. Continued.
Aircraft WOD WOD Avg. Max. Avg. Avg. Local Event Type PAC Type Launch Recovery Gross OAT Hp Direction Speed TQ TQ Pitch Roll Comments Time No. Evolution1 Seat2 Appr3 PRS PRS Weight (deg. C) (feet) (deg. R) (kts) (%) (%) (deg.) (deg.) (lbs.) 945 119 R L P 235 4 - 2 20587 95 111 3 5 18 -100 Lat/long workload over spot 946 120 L L P 235 4 2 - 20557 88 115 3 5 18 -100 Tq management Long position keeping over spot (+/- 947 121 R L P 235 4 - 2 20537 85 105 3 5 18 -100 3/4" @ 2-3 Hz); 4 per rev on short final (VAR-5) 100 122 L L P 350 22 1 - 21547 94 110 3 5 18 -100 1012 123 R R S 190 4 - 1 21387 92 105 3 2 18 -100 Long position keeping over spot (+/- 1014 125 R L P 200 4 - 2 21337 95 105 3 2 18 -100 3/4" @ 2-3 Hz); 4 per rev on short final (VAR-5)
155 1015 126 L L P 200 4 1 - 21307 97 111 3 2 18 -100 1023 127 R R S 160 4 - 2 21187 95 119 3 2 18 -100 Tq management Tq management; moderate yaw chop 1023 128 L R S 160 4 2 - 21187 93 115 3 2 18 -100 (+/- 5 deg @ 2 Hz) Glide slope/closure rate maintenance; 13 1026 129 R L P 160 5 - 2 21137 90 100 3 2 18 -100 deg nose up (FOV issues) 1026 130 L L P 160 5 1 - 21117 95 112 3 2 18 -100 Glide slope/closure rate maintenance; 13 1035 131 R R S 145 4 - 2 21007 92 102 3 2 18 -100 deg nose up (FOV issues) Tq management; moderate yaw chop 1036 132 L R S 145 4 2 - 20997 93 110 3 2 18 -100 (+/- 5 deg @ 2 Hz) Lat workload over spot; 13 deg nose up 1037 133 R L P 145 4 - 2 20957 88 100 3 2 18 -100 on short final (loss of FOV). 1038 134 L L P 145 4 2 - 20927 95 120 3 2 18 -100 Tq management Glide slope/closure rate maintenance; 15 1045 135 R R S 105 3 - 2 20837 85 104 3 2 18 -100 deg nose up (FOV issues) Glide slope/closure rate maintenance; 1046 136 L R S 105 3 2 - 20827 94 107 3 2 18 -100 VAR-5 on short final Lat workload over spot (+/-3/4" @ 2 1048 137 R L P 110 3 - 2 20797 90 100 3 2 18 -100 Hz)
Table B-9. Continued.
Aircraft WOD WOD Avg. Max. Avg. Avg. Local Event Type PAC Type Launch Recovery Gross OAT Hp Direction Speed TQ TQ Pitch Roll Comments Time No. Evolution1 Seat2 Appr3 PRS PRS Weight (deg. C) (feet) (deg. R) (kts) (%) (%) (deg.) (deg.) (lbs.) 1048 138 L L P 110 3 1 - 20777 92 108 3 2 18 -100 Glide slope/closure rate maintenance; 15 1056 139 R R S 75 6 - 2 20667 82 105 3 2 18 -100 deg nose up (FOV issues) Moderate yaw chop on departure (+/- 10 1057 140 L R S 75 6 2 - 20637 87 104 3 2 18 -100 deg @ 2 z) Lat workload over spot; 13 deg nose up 1058 141 R L P 75 6 - 2 20617 95 102 3 2 18 -100 on short final (loss of FOV). 1103 142 D - - 80 5 - - 20607 - - 3 2 18 -100 Period 4 (12Sep00) - Event 13 in Table B-1 (Day Envelope Expansion) 1325 143 E - - 330 15 - - - - 3 2 30 -30
156 1336 144 L R P 25 24 1 - 21437 88 106 3 10 30 -30 1342 145 R R S 35 23 - 1 - - 3 10 30 -30 1356 146 L R S 5 23 1 - 21222 88 103 3 10 30 -30 1404 147 R R S 25 23 - 2 21127 87 95 3 10 30 -30 Lat workload Directional workload; +/- 10 deg yaw 1404 148 L R S 25 23 2 - 21127 88 106 3 10 30 -30 kicks in burble over deck (VAR 5) Collective workload on descent to spot 1407 149 R L P 25 23 - 2 21067 85 90 3 5 30 -30 (1" rapid up collective required) 1407 150 L L P 25 23 1 - 21047 80 105 3 5 30 -30 Overall workload with burble over deck 1412 151 R R S 30 20 - 2 20967 78 101 3 5 30 -30 (VAR 5) Lat/directional workload; +/- 10 deg 1413 152 L R S 30 20 2 - 20967 89 102 3 5 30 -30 yaw kicks with moderate chop (+/- 3/4" pedal inputs @ 2 Hz); VAR 5 Glide slope/closure rate maintenance on 1415 153 R L P 30 20 - 2 20947 85 95 3 5 30 -30 short final (11 deg nose up); lat workload over spot 1415 154 L L P 30 20 1 - 20917 95 108 3 5 30 -30
Table B-9. Continued.
Aircraft WOD WOD Avg. Max. Avg. Avg. Local Event Type PAC Type Launch Recovery Gross OAT Hp Direction Speed TQ TQ Pitch Roll Comments Time No. Evolution1 Seat2 Appr3 PRS PRS Weight (deg. C) (feet) (deg. R) (kts) (%) (%) (deg.) (deg.) (lbs.) Glide slope/closure rate maintenance on 1419 155 R R S 35 18 - 2 20887 80 105 3 5 30 -30 short final (13 deg nose up); lat workload over spot Lat/directional workload; +/- 10 deg 1419 156 L R S 35 18 2 - 20867 85 104 3 5 30 -30 yaw kicks with moderate chop (+/- 3/4" pedal inputs @ 2 Hz); VAR 5 Glide slope maintenance on short final; 1421 157 R L P 35 18 - 2 20847 85 96 3 5 30 -30 long/lat workload over spot (+/- 3/4" @ 2-3 Hz) 1422 158 L L P 35 1 1 - 20837 90 108 3 5 30 -30 Closure/closure rate maintenance; 15 1433 159 R R S 40 8 - 2 20667 88 101 3 5 30 -30 deg nose up (FOV issues)
157 1437 160 D - - 45 7 - - - - 3 5 30 -30 Period 5 (13Sep00) - Event 14 in Table B-1 (Day Envelope Expansion) 1323 161 E - - 280 15 - - 21547 - - 5 5 29 80 1333 162 L R S 5 30 1 - 21457 88 106 5 5 29 80 1335 163 R R S 5 31 - 1 21427 88 101 5 5 29 80 1336 164 L R S 5 31 1 - 21407 90 111 5 5 29 80 1338 165 R L P 5 32 - 2 21387 90 100 5 5 29 80 Glide slope/closure rate maintenance 1338 166 L L P 5 32 2 - 21357 90 120 3 6 29 80 Tq management 1343 167 R R S 5 35 - 2 21307 85 106 3 6 29 80 Lat workload with ship roll 1344 168 L R S 5 35 2 - 21287 88 109 3 6 29 80 Overall workload with ship roll Glide slope/closure rate maintenance; 13 1346 169 R L P 5 38 - 2 21257 90 100 4 10 29 80 deg nose up (FOV issues); overall workload with ship roll Lat workload with ship roll; 15 deg yaw 1348 170 L L P 5 38 2 - 21207 100 108 4 10 29 80 kick into relative wind on departure 1352 171 R R S 25 37 - 2 21167 80 95 5 8 29 80 Lat workload with ship roll
Table B-9. Continued.
Aircraft WOD WOD Avg. Max. Avg. Avg. Local Event Type PAC Type Launch Recovery Gross OAT Hp Direction Speed TQ TQ Pitch Roll Comments Time No. Evolution1 Seat2 Appr3 PRS PRS Weight (deg. C) (feet) (deg. R) (kts) (%) (%) (deg.) (deg.) (lbs.) 10 ft loss of altitude on departure; 1353 172 L R S 25 37 2 - 21127 80 105 5 8 29 80 moderate yaw chop on transition through burble 1355 173 R L P 25 37 - 2 21097 80 95 5 8 29 80 Overall workload with ship roll 1356 174 L L P 25 37 2 - 21067 85 92 5 8 29 80 Overall workload with ship roll Maintaining line up on final with left 1404 175 R R S 40 32 - 2 20957 80 90 5 8 29 80 pedal (14% remaining) On transition to fwd flt, 10-20 deg 1407 176 L R S 40 33 3 - 20937 88 118 5 8 29 80 yaw into relative wind (12% pedal remaining) 158 1410 Lat workload (+/- 1/2" @2-3 Hz), long 177 R L P 40 33 - 2 20887 80 90 5 8 29 80 workload (+/- 3/4" @ 2-3 Hz) - over spot Lat workload (+/- 1/2" @2-3 Hz), long 1412 178 L L P 40 34 2 - 20867 78 92 3 5 29 80 workload (+/- 3/4" @ 2-3 Hz) - over spot Repeat of 175 WOD conditions; on transition to fwd flt, 10-20 deg yaw 1415 179 R R S 45 33 - 3 20837 84 96 3 5 29 80 into relative wind (10-12% pedal remaining) On transition to fwd flt, 10-20 deg 1416 180 L R S 40 33 3 - 20787 85 121 3 5 29 80 yaw into relative wind (14% pedal remaining) 1429 181 R R S 40 30 - 2 20607 83 100 5 5 29 80 Overall workload with ship roll; 18% 1431 182 L R S 40 28 2 - 20587 80 108 5 5 29 80 left pedal remaining Large left pedal (1-2") required to maintain aircraft heading on 1433 183 R R S 45 28 - 3 20527 85 99 3 5 29 80 transition to hover (10-12% remaining)
Table B-9. Continued.
Aircraft WOD WOD Avg. Max. Avg. Avg. Local Event Type PAC Type Launch Recovery Gross OAT Hp Direction Speed TQ TQ Pitch Roll Comments Time No. Evolution1 Seat2 Appr3 PRS PRS Weight (deg. C) (feet) (deg. R) (kts) (%) (%) (deg.) (deg.) (lbs.) 10-15 deg right yaw into wind line on 1447 184 L R S 50 20 2 - 21547 90 107 3 5 29 80 departure (1/2" left pedal required) Large left pedal (1-2") required to maintain aircraft heading on 1450 185 R R S 45 22 - 3 21507 88 105 3 5 29 80 transition to hover; momentarily hit pedal stop 5-10 deg right yaw into wind line on 1452 186 L R S 45 22 2 - 21487 90 116 3 5 29 80 departure (1/2" left pedal required) Lat/long workload over spot with ship 1455 187 R L P 40 23 - 2 21437 92 102 3 5 29 80 motion Lat/long workload over spot with ship 1456 188 L L P 40 23 2 - 21427 95 108 3 7 29 80 motion
159 1500 190 L L P 55 18 1 - 21337 95 100 3 6 29 80 1508 191 R L P 65 15 - 1 21227 95 105 3 6 29 80 1509 192 L L P 65 15 1 - 21217 95 102 3 6 29 80 1517 193 R L P 340 27 - 2 21067 90 100 3 6 29 80 Lat workload over spot with ship motion Tq management; moderate yaw chop 1520 194 L L P 340 27 2 - 21047 92 112 3 6 29 80 (+/- 5 deg @ 2 Hz) 1523 195 R R S 340 30 - 2 21007 88 114 3 6 29 80 Tq management; overall workload Tq management with large deck heave 1524 196 L R S 340 28 2 - 20987 90 128 6 5 29 80 and burble over spot (2" up collective required) 1530 197 R R S 345 30 - 2 20917 90 108 3 4 29 80 Lat workload over spot with ship motion Directional workload over spot with 1531 198 L R S 345 29 2 - 20887 92 112 3 4 29 80 ship motion Overall workload over spot (+/- 1/2" 1539 199 R L P 330 25 - 2 20807 75 108 3 4 29 80 pedal @ 1 Hz, +/- 3/4" lat/long @ 2-3 Hz) Tq management; moderate yaw chop 1540 200 L L P 330 25 2 - 20757 87 126 5 6 29 80 (+/- 5 deg @ 2 Hz; required +/- 3/4" @ 1-2 Hz))
Table B-9. Continued.
Aircraft WOD WOD Avg. Max. Avg. Avg. Local Event Type PAC Type Launch Recovery Gross OAT Hp Direction Speed TQ TQ Pitch Roll Comments Time No. Evolution1 Seat2 Appr3 PRS PRS Weight (deg. C) (feet) (deg. R) (kts) (%) (%) (deg.) (deg.) (lbs.) Overall workload over spot with ship motion (+/- 1/2" ped @ 1 Hz, +/- 1" 1543 201 R R S 330 25 - 3 20707 90 104 5 6 29 80 lat/long @ 2-3 Hz); lat PIO tendency (PIO 3); VAR 6 Overall workload over spot with ship 1546 202 L R S 330 28 2 - 20667 90 109 5 6 29 80 motion Lat workload over spot with ship motion 1555 203 R L P 315 22 - 2 20537 80 114 5 6 29 80 (+/- 1" @ 2 Hz) Tq management/altitude control over 1556 204 L L P 315 22 2 - 20507 90 121 5 6 29 80 spot with burble (pitching deck); moderate turbulence 160 1557 Tq management (with pitching deck) 205 R L P 320 20 - 2 20487 90 110 5 6 29 80 and lat/long workload over spot (+/- 1" @ 2-3 Hz) 1607 206 L R S 305 20 1 - 21547 92 113 3 6 29 78 Tq management/altitude control over 1608 207 R R S 305 18 - 2 21527 88 109 3 5 29 78 spot with burble (pitching deck); moderate turbulence Lat workload over spot with ship motion 1610 208 L R S 300 18 2 - 21517 88 114 3 5 29 78 (+/- 1" @ 2 Hz) Tq management/altitude control over 1611 209 R L P 305 17 - 2 21497 90 124 3 5 29 78 spot with burble (pitching deck); moderate turbulence Tq management/alt control over spot with burble (pitching deck) - large 1612 210 L L P 300 19 3 - 21457 110 128 3 5 29 78 coll inputs (1-2"@ 1 Hz) required; direc workload (+/- 1/2" @ 1-2 Hz) to maintain hdg; mod turb 1620 - WO R S 270 14 - - 21337 0 0 3 5 29 78 Glide slope/closure rate control on final; 1623 211 R R S 270 14 - 2 21317 88 104 3 5 29 78 altitude maintenance over spot (waved off first attempt) 1624 212 L R S 270 14 1 - 21307 90 102 3 5 29 78
Table B-9. Continued.
Aircraft WOD WOD Avg. Max. Avg. Avg. Local Event Type PAC Type Launch Recovery Gross OAT Hp Direction Speed TQ TQ Pitch Roll Comments Time No. Evolution1 Seat2 Appr3 PRS PRS Weight (deg. C) (feet) (deg. R) (kts) (%) (%) (deg.) (deg.) (lbs.) 1637 213 R L P 300 14 - 2 21117 90 112 3 5 29 78 Overall workload over spot Large right yaw (15-25 deg) on departure (1-2" left pedal required) - LTE? ; large up collective (1-2") 1638 214 L L P 300 14 3 - 21047 95 118 3 5 29 78 required to arrest descent on departure (Tq management) behind superstructure 1641 Closure rate/glide slope maintenance difficult with crosswind; high 215 R L P 300 13 - 3 21047 96 108 3 5 29 78 workload all axes over spot with left quartering winds (+/- 1/2" ped @ 1-2 Hz, +/- 1" lat/long @ 2-3 Hz) 161 1645 216 D - - 300 11 - - 21007 - - 3 5 29 78 Period 6 (13Sep00) - Event 15 in Table B-1 (Night Envelope Expansion) 1918 217 E - - 0 24 - - 21527 - - 2 2 28 100 1923 218 L R S 5 24 1 - 21497 90 104 2 2 28 100 1925 219 R R S 0 23 - 1 88 100 2 2 28 100 1927 220 L R S 0 23 1 - 21467 88 112 3 5 28 100 1930 221 R L P 0 23 - 2 21387 90 100 3 5 28 100 Overall workload
1931 222 L L P 0 23 2 - 21407 95 114 3 5 28 100 Tq management; overall workload
1940 223 R R S 0 35 - 2 90 105 3 5 28 100 Glide slope maintenance Right yaw (10-15 deg) into relative 1944 224 L R S 0 37 3 - 21197 92 111 3 5 28 100 wind on departure; large left pedal (1- 2") required to counter; hit pedal stop 1950 225 R L P 0 34 - 2 21137 91 102 3 5 28 100 Position maintenance over spot Tq management; overall workload over 1951 226 L L P 0 34 2 - 21127 100 114 3 5 28 100 spot 2000 227 R R S 0 30 - 2 20987 88 106 3 5 28 100 Lat workload over spot
Table B-9. Continued.
Aircraft WOD WOD Avg. Max. Avg. Avg. Local Event Type PAC Type Launch Recovery Gross OAT Hp Direction Speed TQ TQ Pitch Roll Comments Time No. Evolution1 Seat2 Appr3 PRS PRS Weight (deg. C) (feet) (deg. R) (kts) (%) (%) (deg.) (deg.) (lbs.) Lat/direc workload over spot with ship 2001 228 L R S 0 30 2 - 20967 92 111 3 5 28 100 roll
2013 229 R R S 340 27 - 2 20787 95 119 5 5 28 100 Tq management; workload over spot
2014 230 L R S 340 27 2 - 92 112 5 5 28 100 Direc workload over spot Position over spot maintenance (10 deg 2017 231 R L P 340 26 - 2 20717 85 100 5 5 28 100 nose up at one point -FOV issue) 2019 232 L L P 335 25 2 - 20697 100 112 5 5 28 100 Overall workload over spot 2030 233 R R S 25 30 - 2 20537 - - 2 5 28 100 Overall workload over spot 2031 234 L R S 25 30 2 - 20507 90 106 2 5 28 100 Overall workload over spot 162 2035 235 R L P 25 32 - 2 20467 85 95 3 5 28 100 Overall workload over spot 2037 236 L L P 25 32 2 - 20447 90 100 3 5 28 100 Overall workload over spot 2040 237 R L P 25 32 - 2 20417 80 95 2 3 28 100 Overall workload over spot; refuel 2050 238 L L P 40 27 2 - 21547 85 98 3 5 28 100 Overall workload over spot Overall workload over spot (12 deg nose 2054 239 R L P 40 30 - 2 21497 89 - 3 5 28 100 up required on short final (FOV issue) 2055 240 L L P 40 30 2 - 21477 90 100 3 5 28 100 Overall workload over spot 2100 241 R L P 60 15 - 2 21407 - - 3 5 28 100 Overall workload over spot 2101 242 L L P 60 15 2 - 21397 80 112 3 5 28 100 Overall workload over spot 2110 243 R R S 300 16 - 2 21247 88 116 3 5 28 100 Tq management; workload over spot 2111 244 L R S 300 16 2 - 21237 92 110 3 5 28 100 Overall workload over spot 2126 245 R L P 330 21 - 2 21007 90 114 3 5 28 100 Tq management; workload over spot 2127 246 L L P 330 21 2 - 20987 90 114 3 5 28 100 Tq management; workload over spot 2131 247 R R S 330 22 - 2 20947 88 106 3 5 28 100 Overall workload over spot 2135 248 D - - 330 20 - - 20907 - - 3 5 30 100 Period 7 (14Sep00) - Day VERTREP Validation 1331 249 E - - 0 13 - - 17032 - - 2 2 30 0 1335 250 L R S 0 12 1 - 16982 60 85 2 2 30 0
Table B-9. Continued.
Aircraft WOD WOD Avg. Max. Avg. Avg. Local Event Type PAC Type Launch Recovery Gross OAT Hp Direction Speed TQ TQ Pitch Roll Comments Time No. Evolution1 Seat2 Appr3 PRS PRS Weight (deg. C) (feet) (deg. R) (kts) (%) (%) (deg.) (deg.) (lbs.) 1340 251 P R A 355 12 1 - 18922 90 95 1 1 30 0 2000 lb load 1342 252 U R A 355 11 - 1 18872 90 95 1 1 30 0 1344 253 P R A 350 11 1 - 18852 87 92 1 1 30 0 1346 254 U R A 350 12 - 1 18822 90 103 1 1 30 0 1348 255 P R A 350 13 1 - 18802 90 93 1 1 30 0 1350 256 U R A 350 12 - 2 18762 85 93 1 1 30 0 Overall workload over spot 1353 257 P L A 350 13 1 - 18702 85 90 1 1 30 0 1356 258 U L A 350 15 - 2 - 78 90 1 1 30 0 Overall workload over spot 1400 163 259 P L A 350 14 1 - - - 100 1 1 30 0 1403 260 U L A 350 14 - 1 - - - 1 1 30 0 1404 261 P L A 350 14 1 - - - - 1 1 30 0 1406 262 U L A 350 13 - 1 - - - 1 1 30 0 1418 263 P R A 345 11 1 - 20327 92 103 1 1 30 0 4000 lb load 1421 264 U R A 345 12 - 2 - - - 1 1 30 0 Overall workload over spot 1427 265 P R A 345 12 1 - - - - 1 1 30 0 1429 266 U R A 345 12 - 2 - - - 1 1 30 0 Overall workload over spot 1431 267 P R A 345 12 2 - 20107 - - 1 1 30 0 Overall workload over spot 1433 268 U R A 340 11 - 2 - - - 1 1 30 0 Overall workload over spot 1436 269 P L A 340 10 1 - - - - 1 1 30 0 1438 270 U L A 345 10 - 1 20067 - - 1 1 30 0 1440 271 P L A 345 10 1 - - - 100 1 1 30 0 1443 272 U L A 345 11 - 1 - - - 1 1 30 0 1444 273 P L A 345 10 1 - 19917 - 106 1 1 30 0 Overall workload over spot just prior to 1447 274 U L A 340 10 - 2 19877 - - 1 1 30 0 drop 1447 275 R L P 340 10 1 - - - - 1 1 30 0
Table B-9. Continued.
Aircraft WOD WOD Avg. Max. Avg. Avg. Local Event Type PAC Type Launch Recovery Gross OAT Hp Direction Speed TQ TQ Pitch Roll Comments Time No. Evolution1 Seat2 Appr3 PRS PRS Weight (deg. C) (feet) (deg. R) (kts) (%) (%) (deg.) (deg.) (lbs.) 1503 276 L L P 0 22 - 1 20997 - - 1 1 30 0 1506 277 P L A 0 22 1 - 20977 - 105 1 1 30 0 1509 278 U L A 0 23 - 1 - - - 1 1 30 0 1511 279 P R A 0 24 1 - - - 108 1 1 30 0 1513 280 U R A 0 25 - 1 - - - 1 1 30 0 1519 281 P L A 345 21 1 - 20747 - - 1 1 30 0 Overall workload over spot in left 1522 282 U L A 345 21 - 2 20727 - - 1 1 30 0 crosswind; moderate yaw chop (VAR 5) 1525 283 P R A 340 21 1 - - - 1 1 30 0 1527 Overall workload over spot positioning 284 U R A 340 21 - 2 - - 1 1 30 0 164 load 1542 285 P L A 25 20 1 - 20457 - - 1 1 30 0 1544 286 U L A 25 20 - 1 20427 - - 1 1 30 0 1546 287 P R A 25 20 1 - 20367 - - 1 1 30 0 1547 288 U R A 25 20 - 2 20337 - - 1 1 30 0 Overall workload over spot 1602 289 P L A 35 15 1 - 20137 - - 1 1 30 0 1604 290 U L A 35 15 - 2 20097 - - 1 1 30 0 Overall workload over spot 1607 291 P R A 35 15 1 - 20037 - - 1 1 30 0 1610 292 U R A 35 15 - 1 - - - 1 1 30 0 1611 293 R R S 40 15 1 - 20017 - - 1 1 30 0 1625 294 L R S 340 17 - 1 21037 65 80 1 1 30 0 1627 295 P R A 340 17 1 - 21017 - 102 1 1 30 0 1629 296 U R A 340 17 - 1 - - 1 1 30 0 1631 297 P L A 340 17 2 - 20967 - 113 1 1 30 0 Overall workload over spot Overall workload over spot; moderate 1633 298 U L A 340 17 - 2 - - - 1 1 30 0 yaw chop on final (VAR 5) 1637 299 P R A 330 8 1 - 20867 - 110 1 1 30 0 1640 300 U R A 330 7 - 1 20817 - - 1 1 30 0
Table B-9. Continued.
Aircraft WOD WOD Avg. Max. Avg. Avg. Local Event Type PAC Type Launch Recovery Gross OAT Hp Direction Speed TQ TQ Pitch Roll Comments Time No. Evolution1 Seat2 Appr3 PRS PRS Weight (deg. C) (feet) (deg. R) (kts) (%) (%) (deg.) (deg.) (lbs.) 1642 301 P L A 330 7 2 - 20797 - 113 1 1 30 0 Tq management 1645 302 U L A 330 7 - 1 20767 - - 1 1 30 0 1650 303 R R S 330 6 - 1 20657 - - 1 1 30 0 1652 304 D - - 330 6 - - 20627 - - 1 1 30 0 Period 8 (14Sep00) - Night VERTREP Validation 1854 305 E - - 0 4 - - - - - 1 1 26 80 1857 306 L R S 0 4 1 - 16592 60 80 1 1 26 80 1858 307 P R A 10 5 1 - - - - 1 1 26 80 1902 308 U R A 10 5 - 1 - - - 1 1 26 80
165 1903 309 P R A 10 5 1 - - - - 1 1 26 80 1905 310 U R A 10 5 - 1 - - - 1 1 26 80 1906 311 P R A 10 5 1 - - - - 1 1 26 80 1908 312 U R A 10 5 - 1 - - - 1 1 26 80 1909 313 P L A 10 5 1 - - - - 1 1 26 80 1910 314 U L A 10 5 - 1 - - - 1 1 26 80 1921 315 P L A 5 19 1 - - - - 1 1 26 80 1924 316 U L A 5 18 - 1 - - - 1 1 26 80 1926 317 P L A 5 18 1 - - - - 1 1 26 80 1928 318 U L A 5 15 - 1 - - - 1 1 26 80 1930 319 P R A 5 15 1 - - - - 1 1 26 80 1932 320 U R A 5 13 - 1 - - - 1 1 26 80 1934 321 P R A 5 15 1 - - - - 1 1 26 80 1936 322 U R A 5 14 - 1 - - - 1 1 26 80 1938 323 P R A 5 14 1 - - - - 1 1 26 80 1941 324 U R A 5 13 - 1 - - - 1 1 26 80 1943 325 P L A 5 14 1 - - - - 1 1 26 80
Table B-9. Continued.
Aircraft WOD WOD Avg. Max. Avg. Avg. Local Event Type PAC Type Launch Recovery Gross OAT Hp Direction Speed TQ TQ Pitch Roll Comments Time No. Evolution1 Seat2 Appr3 PRS PRS Weight (deg. C) (feet) (deg. R) (kts) (%) (%) (deg.) (deg.) (lbs.) 1948 326 U L A 0 14 - 1 - - - 2 3 26 80 Overall workload increase due to lack of 1950 327 P L A 0 14 2 - - - - 2 3 26 80 visual cuing Overall workload increase due to lack of 1954 328 U L A 0 15 - 2 - - - 2 3 26 80 visual cuing Overall workload increase due to lack of 1957 329 P L A 5 15 2 - - - - 2 3 26 80 visual cuing Overall workload increase due to lack of 2004 330 U L A 5 13 - 2 - - - 1 1 26 80 visual cuing 2005 331 R L P 5 12 - 1 - - - 1 1 26 80
166 2014 332 L L P 0 19 1 - - - - 1 1 26 80 2025 333 R L P 0 22 - 1 - - - 1 1 26 80 2027 334 D - - 0 22 - - - - - 1 1 26 80 Period 9 (15Sep00) - Event 16 in Table B-1 (Day Envelope Expansion) 832 335 E - - 330 23 - - - - - 1 1 24 220 837 336 L L P 330 26 - - 21287 95 102 1 1 24 220 840 337 R L P 330 27 - 1 21237 85 106 1 1 24 220 841 338 L L P 330 27 1 - 21267 85 100 1 1 24 220 Moderate yaw chop; lat/long position 843 339 R R S 330 26 - 2 21267 85 100 1 1 24 220 keeping over spot Moderate yaw chop; lat/long position 844 340 L R S 330 25 2 - 21157 85 100 1 1 24 220 keeping over spot 853 341 R R S 325 23 - 2 21037 85 98 1 1 24 220 Lat workload over deck 854 342 L R S 325 23 1 - 21027 85 107 1 1 24 220 Large lat cyclic input (1 1/2") on final to 856 343 R L P 325 24 - 2 21007 85 104 1 1 24 220 maintain line up; lat workload on descent to deck Directional workload; altitude control 856 344 L L P 325 25 2 - 20977 85 114 1 1 24 220 on departure (lost 10 ft - required large 1" up collective)
Table B-9. Continued.
Aircraft WOD WOD Avg. Max. Avg. Avg. Local Event Type PAC Type Launch Recovery Gross OAT Hp Direction Speed TQ TQ Pitch Roll Comments Time No. Evolution1 Seat2 Appr3 PRS PRS Weight (deg. C) (feet) (deg. R) (kts) (%) (%) (deg.) (deg.) (lbs.) Overall workload over deck; large left 907 345 R R S 45 26 - 2 20817 85 102 1 1 24 220 pedal input required to maintain heading (14% left pedal remaining). Tq and alt management on depart 908 346 L R S 45 23 2 - 20807 85 112 1 1 24 220 (behind superstructure) Overall workload over deck; large left 913 347 R R S 35 30 - 2 20727 85 95 1 1 24 220 pedal input required to maintain heading (14% left pedal remaining). Direc control and moderate yaw chop on 914 348 L R S 35 30 2 - 20697 85 108 1 1 24 220 departure 922 349 R R S 345 33 - 2 20587 80 90 1 1 24 220 Lat/long workload 167 925 350 L R S 345 33 1 - 20567 90 95 1 1 24 220 Lat workload on descent to deck; large 926 351 R L P 345 34 - 2 20547 78 88 1 1 24 220 left pedal on final to maintain line up Moderate lateral chop; direc workload 927 352 L L P 345 33 2 - 20537 80 110 1 1 24 220 on departure 929 353 R L P 345 33 - 1 20507 75 89 1 1 24 220 943 354 L R S 355 33 - - 0 0 1 1 24 220 Fly Off
Notes: 1Launch (L), Recovery (R), Engagement (E), Disengagement (D), Load Drop (U), Load Pick (P), Wave Off (WO) 2Right Seat (R), Left Seat (L) 3Starboard (S), Port (P), Astern (A)
Table B-10: USNS SIRIUS (T-AFS 8) Data Sheets
Aircraft WOD WOD Avg. Max. Avg. Avg. OAT Local Event Type PAC Type Launch Recovery Gross Hp Direc. Speed TQ TQ Pitch Roll (deg. Comments Time No. Evolution1 Seat2 Appr3 PRS PRS Weight (feet) (deg. R) (kts) (%) (%) (deg.) (deg.) C) (lbs.) Period 1 (27Nov00) - Event 17 in Table B-1 (Day DLQs) 1337 1 R L P 70 9 - 1 21050 - - 2 2 14 -40 1110 2 D L - 55 9 - - 21050 - - 2 2 14 -40 1431 3 E L - 85 5 - - 21050 - - 2 2 14 -40 1435 4 L R P 90 5 1 - 20945 - - 2 2 14 -40 1438
168 5 R R P 80 4 - 1 20895 - - 2 2 14 -40 1438 6 L R P 100 2 1 - 20895 - - 2 2 14 -40 1440 7 R R P 90 4 - 1 20855 - - 2 2 14 -40 1440 8 L R P 90 2 1 - 20855 - - 2 2 14 -40 1441 9 R R P 90 4 - 1 20825 85 95 2 2 14 -40 1442 10 L R P 90 4 1 - 20825 90 98 2 2 14 -40 1448 11 R R P 75 4 - 1 20735 85 95 2 2 14 -40
1448 12 L R P 80 4 1 - 20735 89 97 2 2 14 -40 1450 13 R R P 80 4 - 1 20695 - - 2 2 14 -40 1457 14 L R P 80 4 1 - 20595 - - 2 2 14 -40 1508 15 R R P 70 5 - 1 20485 90 95 2 2 14 -40 Period 2 (29Nov00) - Events 18 in Table B-1 (Day Envelope Expansion) 1337 16 E R - 25 15 - - 22270 - - 0 0 16 -70 1345 17 L R S 25 13 1 - 22250 95 108 0 0 16 -70 1348 18 R L P 30 14 - 1 22200 95 98 0 0 16 -70 VAR 5 1349 19 L L P 30 16 1 - 22145 95 103 0 0 16 -70 1350 20 WO R S - - - - 22100 - - 0 0 16 -70 1356 21 R R S 335 13 - 1 21965 95 100 0 0 16 -70
Aircraft WOD WOD Avg. Max. Avg. Avg. OAT Local Event Type PAC Type Launch Recovery Gross Hp Direc. Speed TQ TQ Pitch Roll (deg. Comments Time No. Evolution1 Seat2 Appr3 PRS PRS Weight (feet) (deg. R) (kts) (%) (%) (deg.) (deg.) C) (lbs.)
1357 22 L R S 330 14 1 - 21945 95 104 0 0 16 -70 1402 23 R R S 0 16 - 1 21875 95 102 0 0 16 -70 1402 24 L R S 0 16 1 - 21865 94 110 0 0 16 -70 1405 25 R L P 0 15 - 1 21825 92 100 0 0 16 -70 VAR 5 1405 26 L L P 357 16 1 - 21825 95 111 0 0 16 -70 1409 27 R R S 0 20 - 1 21745 95 108 0 0 16 -70 1410 28 L R S 0 20 1 - 21725 90 102 0 0 16 -70 1412 29 R L P 357 21 - 1 21705 94 98 0 0 16 -70 1412 30 L L P 357 21 1 - 21695 94 104 0 0 16 -70 1415 31 R R S 0 25 - 1 21645 95 102 0 0 16 -70 169 1417 32 L R S 0 27 1 - 21635 93 104 0 0 16 -70 1418 33 R L P 0 25 - 1 21605 90 97 0 0 16 -70 1418 34 L L P 0 25 1 - 21605 90 108 0 0 16 -70 1424 35 R R S 12 26 - 1 21505 94 102 0 0 16 -70 1425 36 L R S 15 25 2 - 21505 93 110 0 0 16 -70 power management 1427 37 R L P 12 25 - 2 21475 89 94 0 0 16 -70 1427 38 L L P 10 25 1 - 21465 94 98 0 0 16 -70 lat/yaw workload over spot, VAR 1432 39 R R S 32 20 - 2 21335 95 106 0 0 16 -70 5 on final +/- 1" @ 1 Hz PED, +/- 0.5" @ 0.5 1434 40 L R S 35 20 2 - 21315 95 111 0 0 16 -70 HZ LAT - in burble over deck; lat buffet in yaw +/-2 deg. 1438 41 R L P 30 22 - 1 21295 89 101 0 0 16 -70 VAR 5/6 on final 1439 42 L L P 30 22 1 - 21275 90 110 0 0 16 -70 1440 43 R R S 32 20 - 1 21250 90 100 0 0 16 -70 VAR 5/6 on final; refuel 1455 44 L R S 47 17 1 - 22250 98 100 0 0 16 -70 yaw chop on transition 1457 45 R R S 48 17 - 1 22200 98 114 0 0 16 -70 tq management
Aircraft WOD WOD Avg. Max. Avg. Avg. OAT Local Event Type PAC Type Launch Recovery Gross Hp Direc. Speed TQ TQ Pitch Roll (deg. Comments Time No. Evolution1 Seat2 Appr3 PRS PRS Weight (feet) (deg. R) (kts) (%) (%) (deg.) (deg.) C) (lbs.)
choppy transition to hover; power 1458 46 L R S 50 16 2 - 22180 99 112 0 0 16 -70 management 1500 47 R L P 48 16 - 1 22150 97 100 0 0 16 -70 VAR 5/6 on final 1501 48 L L P 45 17 2 - 22105 97 100 0 0 16 -70 VAR 5/6 on final 1506 49 R R S 53 15 - 1 21995 97 106 0 0 16 -70 VAR 5/6 on final power management on transition 1507 50 L R S 55 14 2 - 21975 99 121 0 0 16 -70 behind superstructure 1510 51 R L P 55 13 - 1 21925 90 101 0 0 16 -70 VAR 5/6 on final 1510 52 L L P 50 13 1 - 21925 95 106 0 0 16 -70
170 1521 53 R R S 345 26 - 1 21755 95 98 0 0 16 -70 VAR 5/6 on final 1522 54 L R S 348 26 1 - 21735 95 96 0 0 16 -70 lat/yaw control; large left pedal requirement (1.5") on slide in 1523 55 R L P 347 26 - 2 21715 92 108 0 0 16 -70 behind superstructure, over deck; VAR-5. 1524 56 L L P 350 26 2 - 21695 94 112 0 0 16 -70 power management 1528 57 R R S 335 21 - 1 21645 96 108 0 0 16 -70 VAR 5/6 on final 1528 58 L R S 335 21 1 - 21625 96 93 0 0 16 -70 1531 59 R L P 335 23 - 2 21605 93 108 0 0 16 -70 lat workload; VAR 6 on final power management on transition 1531 60 L L P 333 23 2 - 21595 93 120 0 0 16 -70 behind superstructure 1535 61 R R S 315 17 - 1 21515 93 95 0 0 16 -70 1535 62 L R S 320 16 1 - 21515 95 93 0 0 16 -70 lat workload over deck +/- 1/2"@ 1537 63 R L P 320 17 - 2 21495 95 106 0 0 16 -70 2 Hz), VAR-6 on final 1538 64 L L P 320 17 1 - 21475 95 110 0 0 16 -70 1543 65 R R S 300 12 - 1 21325 93 100 0 0 16 -70 VAR 6 on final 1545 66 L R S 300 11 1 - 21365 93 98 0 0 16 -70
Aircraft WOD WOD Avg. Max. Avg. Avg. OAT Local Event Type PAC Type Launch Recovery Gross Hp Direc. Speed TQ TQ Pitch Roll (deg. Comments Time No. Evolution1 Seat2 Appr3 PRS PRS Weight (feet) (deg. R) (kts) (%) (%) (deg.) (deg.) C) (lbs.) 1547 67 R L P 295 13 - 1 21335 90 95 0 0 16 -70 VAR 6 on final 1547 68 L L P 295 11 1 - 21335 92 117 0 0 16 -70 1555 69 R R S 280 10 - 1 21225 85 91 0 0 16 -70 VAR 6 on final 1555 70 L R S 280 10 1 - 21195 86 96 0 0 16 -70 lat workload, AOB on final and 1557 71 R L P 275 10 - 2 21185 89 95 0 0 16 -70 over deck to maintain posn 1557 72 L L P 280 10 2 - 21165 95 115 0 0 16 -70 power management AOB over deck and on touchdown 1559 73 R L P 277 13 - 2 21125 90 100 0 0 16 -70 to maintain posn 1612 171 74 L R S 270 7 2 - 22250 116 123 0 0 16 -70 power management; refuel 1614 75 R R S 265 8 - 1 22200 95 107 0 0 16 -70 VAR 6 on final 1615 76 L R S 265 7 1 - 22175 96 105 0 0 16 -70 power management in hover (tq 1618 77 R L P 265 7 - 2 22125 105 126 0 0 16 -70 +/- 10% to maint alt); lat workload (+/- 1/2" @ 2 Hz) 1619 78 L L P 265 7 2 - 22085 105 120 2 2 16 -70 power management 1625 79 R R S 245 8 - 1 21985 95 104 2 2 16 -70 power management in slide off 1625 80 L R S 245 7 2 - 21975 98 114 2 2 16 -70 deck 1627 81 WO L P 245 8 - - 21955 - - 2 2 16 -70 power management in hover (tq 1629 82 R L P 245 10 - 2 21935 105 116 2 2 16 -70 +/- 10% to maint alt); lat workload (+/- 1/2" @ 2 Hz) 1630 83 L L P 255 8 2 - 21895 105 121 2 2 16 -70 power management lat workload over deck (+/- 0.5" @ 1635 84 R R S 235 7 - 2 21805 98 105 2 2 16 -70 0.5 HZ); strong buffet (VAR-6)
Aircraft WOD WOD Avg. Max. Avg. Avg. OAT Local Event Type PAC Type Launch Recovery Gross Hp Direc. Speed TQ TQ Pitch Roll (deg. Comments Time No. Evolution1 Seat2 Appr3 PRS PRS Weight (feet) (deg. R) (kts) (%) (%) (deg.) (deg.) C) (lbs.)
power management (tq fluctuation 1636 85 L L P 235 9 2 - 21765 98 95 2 2 16 -70 85-115%) - large burble (VAR-6)
power management in hover (tq +/- 10% to maint alt); lat workload 1639 86 R L P 235 10 - 2 21745 100 120 2 2 16 -70 (+/- 1/2" @ 2 Hz); strong buffet (VAR-6) power management; VAR 5; 1640 87 L L P 235 9 2 - 21715 100 118 2 2 16 -70 unscheduled fly off after blowing hangar door off.
172 Notes: 1Launch (L), Recovery (R), Engagement (E), Disengagement (D), Load Drop (U), Load Pick (P), Wave Off (WO) 2Right Seat (R), Left Seat (L) 3Starboard (S), Port (P)
VITA
Lieutenant Commander (LCDR) Dominick Joseph Strada, United States
Navy, was born at Subic Bay Naval Base, Republic of the Philippines, on 23
April 1969. The son of a Naval Officer, he grew up in several different states and
countries: The Republic of the Philippines, Rhode Island, California, England and
Virginia. He graduated from Paul VI Catholic High School, Fairfax, Virginia in
May 1987. In July 1987 he entered the United States Naval Academy, Annapolis,
Maryland and, upon graduation in May 1991, received a Bachelor of Science degree in Physics, and was commissioned an Ensign in the United States Navy.
After temporary assignment to Inspector General, Commander Naval Recruiting
Command, Alexandria, Virginia, LCDR Strada began flight training at NAS
Pensacola, Florida, as a Student Naval Aviator in April 1992. After designation as a Naval Aviator in September 1993, he was assigned to Helicopter Combat
Support Squadron Three for training as an H-46D helicopter pilot. In October
1994, he was assigned to Helicopter Combat Support Squadron Five where he made numerous Western Pacific and Persian Gulf cruises aboard T-AFS class combat stores ships, providing vertical replenishment and search and rescue support for the Pacific Fleet and the Marianas Islands. In April 1997, LCDR
Strada was selected for United States Naval Test Pilot School, and after graduation in June 1998, was assigned to Rotary Wing Aircraft Test Squadron, where he was a developmental test project officer on H-46D/E, SA-330J and MH-
60S programs.
173
LCDR Strada is currently assigned to Helicopter Support Squadron Three
as a H-60R/S Fleet Introduction Team Member, as the Squadron Operations
Officer, and as the first MH-60S instructor and standardization pilot, where he provides expertise and guidance in the transition of the squadron, and ultimately, of the U. S. Navy from H-46D to MH-60S helicopters.
174