- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Duey, please tell me that there is some operational reason that pilots don't have NVG's trying to land at night on a dark floating platform. It can't be that no one was interested in buying them, right? ???
Canadian Sea King crashes off Denmark
- Thread starter Guardian
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
CFL, to my knowledge, it doesn't mean anything for the pilot as long as he wasn't hot dogging, which he wasn't.
Zip, for the last 15 years the SK community has been expecting a replacement and AFIK, it is purely a money thing with respect to making the SK cockpit NVG friendly, always put on the back burner in anticipation of the new helo coming on board. At least that's my understanding of the resistance to equipping SK front enders and the helo itself for the use of NVGs.
By the way, night deck landings are stressful, but night sonar dipping is by far the most stressful flying I've ever done. On approach all you can see is the ship's lighting and everything else around you black. In the dip, everything is black around you, you can't see jack. A poor coupler makes the whole event that much worse since it over corrects and makes for an unstable approach and unstable hover until it sorts itself out.
Zip, for the last 15 years the SK community has been expecting a replacement and AFIK, it is purely a money thing with respect to making the SK cockpit NVG friendly, always put on the back burner in anticipation of the new helo coming on board. At least that's my understanding of the resistance to equipping SK front enders and the helo itself for the use of NVGs.
By the way, night deck landings are stressful, but night sonar dipping is by far the most stressful flying I've ever done. On approach all you can see is the ship's lighting and everything else around you black. In the dip, everything is black around you, you can't see jack. A poor coupler makes the whole event that much worse since it over corrects and makes for an unstable approach and unstable hover until it sorts itself out.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
Thanks Inch.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Inch said:
Brutal. Well, maybe that is another thing Uncle Stephen can set right. What a sink hole that guy has inheritted. :
- Reaction score
- 17,060
- Points
- 1,010
NVGs and Sea Kings... I could go on and on and on...
Since this is a public forum, let's just say that this issue has been pushed since about 2002 (and maybe earlier), to the point where 443 Sqn sent an aircraft to Cold Lake for several weeks of trials. The whole thing was then binned. The "official" answer (if there is such a thing) that I received when I asked "why?" was that there was not enough test/engineering support available in the CF to manage a change like that. There were also concerns about the pilot training bill, in a time when Sea King flying hours are falling through the floor due to maintenance issues. Of course, this was pre-SCTF. Now we look a bit dumb not having gone through with all of the design and test work, at the very least. Duey can probably back me up when I say that getting an Operational Airworthiness Certification for anything these days is not a simple, quick or easy process, so I can understand the decision to abandon the whole thing in about 2004, when it did not look like it would bear any fruit until 2007-2008.
Inch is right- NVGs and ship landings are not really the issue here. Our ships are not NVG compatible (we are violating a STANAG or two, probably) at this time. On approach to our ships at night, the drill is: flying pilot is on the dials and the non-flying pilot is looking out for the ship. Once the non-flying pilot calls visual (usually under 1/2NM) he will give conning to the flying pilot and then slowly take control when he has the deck environment. He will then enter the "delta hover astern" (about 30 yards on the port or Stbd quarter) and wait for the signal from the LSO to slide over the deck and begin the landing process. At this point, the pilot has excellent references, including deck lights and gyro stabilized horizon bars which help him to not "follow" the ship's motion. NVGs don't help you to land better in this environment- they allow you to land with the lights on the ship "out". This is more, not less dangerous than what we do now, but it is more "tactical".
Inch is also right, night dipping would be much easier and safer on googles. At the very least, the pilots would always have a visible horizon, no matter what happens in the aircraft. Right now, if you are dipping at night and you lose your electrical systems, you have very little choice but to ditch the aircraft. I don't know too many pilots who would try "freestreaming" with 400 feet of cable out and only a small, not very accurate SAIS for a horizon. I doubt I would even have time to get a Mayday out...
Since this is a public forum, let's just say that this issue has been pushed since about 2002 (and maybe earlier), to the point where 443 Sqn sent an aircraft to Cold Lake for several weeks of trials. The whole thing was then binned. The "official" answer (if there is such a thing) that I received when I asked "why?" was that there was not enough test/engineering support available in the CF to manage a change like that. There were also concerns about the pilot training bill, in a time when Sea King flying hours are falling through the floor due to maintenance issues. Of course, this was pre-SCTF. Now we look a bit dumb not having gone through with all of the design and test work, at the very least. Duey can probably back me up when I say that getting an Operational Airworthiness Certification for anything these days is not a simple, quick or easy process, so I can understand the decision to abandon the whole thing in about 2004, when it did not look like it would bear any fruit until 2007-2008.
Inch is right- NVGs and ship landings are not really the issue here. Our ships are not NVG compatible (we are violating a STANAG or two, probably) at this time. On approach to our ships at night, the drill is: flying pilot is on the dials and the non-flying pilot is looking out for the ship. Once the non-flying pilot calls visual (usually under 1/2NM) he will give conning to the flying pilot and then slowly take control when he has the deck environment. He will then enter the "delta hover astern" (about 30 yards on the port or Stbd quarter) and wait for the signal from the LSO to slide over the deck and begin the landing process. At this point, the pilot has excellent references, including deck lights and gyro stabilized horizon bars which help him to not "follow" the ship's motion. NVGs don't help you to land better in this environment- they allow you to land with the lights on the ship "out". This is more, not less dangerous than what we do now, but it is more "tactical".
Inch is also right, night dipping would be much easier and safer on googles. At the very least, the pilots would always have a visible horizon, no matter what happens in the aircraft. Right now, if you are dipping at night and you lose your electrical systems, you have very little choice but to ditch the aircraft. I don't know too many pilots who would try "freestreaming" with 400 feet of cable out and only a small, not very accurate SAIS for a horizon. I doubt I would even have time to get a Mayday out...
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
There wouldn't be much of a horizon if it's overcast and raining. When the mlx is less than 1.0, anything outside of the IR light is just a shadow, and a dark one at that.
You're are right though. It certainly would be a nice thing for you guys to have.
- Reaction score
- 17,060
- Points
- 1,010
Fair enough- but we don't generally night dip in the rain- the freakin cockpit usually leaks too much! Water+electrons=bad
Anyway- next helo, we get NVGs for the whole crew (not just the back end).
Cheers
Anyway- next helo, we get NVGs for the whole crew (not just the back end).
Cheers
- Reaction score
- 22,046
- Points
- 1,360
Then again, hearing Rob Dalhiwal and Jabba talk about the time they lost an engine in the dip at night, I'm not sure I'd want to see what I almost augered in to! 
SKT is right, I think the guys didn't want to be bothered with the whole effort knowing that the SK replacement was "just around the corner"...kind of like not doing anything to improve the Buff, knowing that it was leaving service in1990, 1993, 1997, er...some time in the past. 
Cheers,
Duey
SKT is right, I think the guys didn't want to be bothered with the whole effort knowing that the SK replacement was "just around the corner"...kind of like not doing anything to improve the Buff, knowing that it was leaving service in
Cheers,
Duey
- Reaction score
- 17,060
- Points
- 1,010
You mean- CHF (Combat Helicopter Force)?
