University of Tennessee, Knoxville University of Tennessee, Knoxville

TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative

Exchange Exchange

Masters Theses Graduate School

5-2002

An Investigation of the Effects of Relative Winds Over the Deck on An Investigation of the Effects of Relative Winds Over the Deck on

the MH-60S Helicopter During Shipboard Launch and Recovery the MH-60S Helicopter During Shipboard Launch and Recovery

Operations 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 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 trace@utk.edu.

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

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 student records.)

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

ii

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.

iii

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.

iv

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.

v

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

vi

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.

vii

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.

viii

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.

ix

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

x

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

xi

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

xii

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

xiii

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

xiv

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

xv

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

1

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

2

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

3

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.

4

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.

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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.

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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.

16

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.

17

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.

18

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

19

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).

20

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

21

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.

22

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.

23

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

24

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

25

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,

26

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

27

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.

28

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

29

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”.

30

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

31

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.

32

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

33

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

34

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

35

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

36

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

37

(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

38

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.

39

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.

40

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 Range 365.5 to 353.3 inches

Low 16500 lbs. (no internal ballast employed) Target Gross Weights High 21000 lbs. (4500 lbs. internal ballast

employed) Rotor Speed 100%

Automatic Flight Control System Configuration

Stabilator in automatic mode; stability augmentation, trim, autopilot and hydraulic pilot assist functions engaged.

41

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

(control margin or aircraft attitude)

Limit (% remaining or attitude documented,

and azimuth at which it occurred) Minimum longitudinal control margin 26% remaining (from full aft) @ 300°R

Minimum lateral control margin 14% remaining (from full right) @ 120°R Minimum directional control margin 26% remaining (from full left) @ 120°R

Minimum tail rotor impressed pitch margin

27% remaining (100% maximum available for anti-torque) @ 120°R

Collective control margins Consistently very large at all tested wind 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

42

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

2 Pilot compensation not a factor; negligible handling qualities deficiencies 15

3 Minimal pilot compensation; some mildly unpleasant handling qualities deficiencies 45

4 Moderate pilot compensation; minor but annoying handling qualities deficiencies 30

5 Considerable pilot compensation; moderately objectionable handling qualities deficiencies 10

43

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 2 10 Slight Not apparent if fully occupied;

noticeable if not otherwise occupied 3 35 4 30 5 17.5 Moderate Does not affect work over short period

of time 6 0

44

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

2 Pilot compensation not a factor; negligible handling qualities deficiencies 6.67

3 Minimal pilot compensation; some mildly unpleasant handling qualities deficiencies 36.67

4 Moderate pilot compensation; minor but annoying handling qualities deficiencies 50

5 Considerable pilot compensation; moderately objectionable handling qualities deficiencies 6.67

45

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 2 6.67 Slight Not apparent if fully occupied;

noticeable if not otherwise occupied 3 20 4 43.33 5 23.33 Moderate Does not affect work over short

period of time 6 6.67

46

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 (relative to the bow of the ship)

210°R clockwise around to 145°R, 3 to 45 knots

Aircraft Gross Weight Range 21582 to 20582 lbs. (4500 lbs. of internal ballast employed)

Aircraft Center of Gravity Range 356.1 to 352.9 inches Target Gross Weight 21000 lbs. Rotor Speed 100%

Automatic Flight Control System Configuration

Stabilator in automatic mode; stability augmentation, trim, autopilot and hydraulic pilot assist functions engaged.

47

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

48

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

49

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

50

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 Tested (relative to the bow of the ship)

1 to 38 knots, around the entire 360° wind azimuth

Aircraft Gross Weight Range 21582 to 20582 lbs. (4500 lbs. of internal ballast employed)

Aircraft Center of Gravity Range 356.1 to 352.9 inches Target Gross Weight 21000 lbs. Rotor Speed 100%

Automatic Flight Control System Configuration

Stabilator in automatic mode; stability augmentation, trim, autopilot and hydraulic pilot assist functions engaged.

51

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

Approach Launch or Recovery

WOD Conditions (Azimuth and Speed)

Event Numbers (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 Recovery 045°R at 22 knots 185 Recovery 330°R at 25 knots 201

Starboard

Recovery 000°R at 37 knots 224 Launch 300°R at 19 knots 210 Launch 300°R at 14 knots 214 Port

Recovery 300°R at 13 knots 215

52

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

53

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

54

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

55

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

56

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.

57

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 (relative to the bow of the ship)

2 to 27 knots, around the entire 360° wind azimuth

Aircraft Gross Weight Range 22250 to 21250 lbs. (4880 lbs. of internal ballast employed)

Aircraft Center of Gravity Range 356.4 to 353.4 inches Target Gross Weight 21750 lbs. Rotor Speed 100%

Automatic Flight Control System Configuration

Stabilator in automatic mode; stability augmentation, trim, autopilot and hydraulic pilot assist functions engaged.

58

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

59

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

60

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 Tested (relative to the bow of the ship)

1 to 45 knots, around the entire 360° wind azimuth

Aircraft Gross Weight Range 22250 to 20582 lbs. (4500 & 4880 lbs. of internal ballast employed)

Aircraft Center of Gravity Range 363.4 to 352.9 inches

Target Gross Weights 21750 & 21000 lbs. Rotor Speed 100%

Automatic Flight Control System Configuration

Stabilator in automatic mode; stability augmentation, trim, autopilot and hydraulic pilot assist functions engaged.

61

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.

62

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.

63

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.

64

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.

65

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.

66

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.

67

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

68

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

69

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.

70

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.

71

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).

72

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.

73

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

74

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.

75

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.

76

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

77

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.

78

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

79

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).

80

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.

81

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.

82

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.”

83

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

84

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

85

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

86

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

87

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

88

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.

89

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.”

90

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

91

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

92

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.

93

WORKS CITED

94

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. <http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/ships/ship-tafs.html>.

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.

95

11. Dynamic Interface Modeling and Simulation System Overview. Joint Ship

Helicopter Integration Process Home Page. 16 March 2002. <http://www.jship.jcs.mil/jship.htm>.

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. <http://www.jship.jcs.mil/jship.htm>.

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.

96

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.

97

32. SH-60B Seahawk. United States Navy Fact File. Last updated: August 28, 2000. <http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/aircraft/air-sh60.html>.

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.

98

APPENDICES

99

APPENDIX A: FIGURES

100

TAIL ROTORDIAMETER11 FEET12 FEET-

4 INCHES

9 FEET -5 INCHES

MAIN ROTOR DIAMETER53 FEET - 8 INCHES

7 FEET -7 INCHES

1 FOOT -7 INCHES

WHEEL BASE 29 FEET

LENGTH - ROTORS AND PYLON FOLDED 41 FEET - 4 INCHES

FUSELAGE LENGTH 50 FEET - 7.5 INCHES

OVERALL LENGTH 64 FEET - 10 INCHES

6 FEET -6 INCHES

2.8 INCHES

FUSELAGE WIDTH7 FEET - 9 INCHES

TREAD8 FEET

10.6 INCHESMAIN LANDING GEAR9 FEET - 8.6 INCHES

STABILATOR WIDTH14 FEET - 4 INCHES

8 FEET-9 INCHES

20 O

SANS0360

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.

101

15 16 17 17

18192021

1. PITOT CUTTER2. BACKUP HYDRAULIC PUMP3. NO. 1 HYDRAULIC PUMP AND NO.1 GENERATOR4. UPPER (ROTOR PYLON) CUTTER5. TAIL LANDING GEAR DEFLECTOR6. APU EXHAUST PORT7. COOLING AIR INLET PORT8. PNEUMATIC PORT9. PRESSURE AND CLOSED CIRCUIT REFUELING PORTS

10. NO. 1 ENGINE11. MAIN LANDING GEAR DEFLECTOR / CUTTER

12. LANDING GEAR JOINT DEFLECTOR13. STEP AND EXTENSION DEFLECTOR14. DOOR HINGE DEFLECTOR15. RIGHT POSITION LIGHT (GREEN)16. FIRE EXTINGUISHER BOTTLES17. FORMATION LIGHTS18. TAIL POSITION LIGHT (WHITE)19. APU20. LEFT POSITION LIGHT (RED)21. PITOT TUBES

1 2 3 4

14 13 12 11 10 9 8 6 57

SANS0358

Figure A-2: MH-60S Exterior Arrangement Source: Ibid.

102

1. UPPER CONSOLE2. PILOT'S COCKPIT UTILITY LIGHT3. FREE-AIR TEMPERATURE GAGE4. NO. 2 ENGINE FUEL SYS SELECTOR LEVER5. NO. 2 ENGINE OFF / FIRE T-HANDLE6. NO. 2 ENGINE POWER CONTROL LEVER7. WINDSHIELD WIPER

8. INSTRUMENT PANEL GLARE SHIELD9. INSTRUMENT PANEL

10. VENT / DEFOGGER11. PEDAL ADJUST LEVER

13. PARKING BRAKE LEVER12. REHOSTAT

14. ACCEL NULL SWITCH

18. STANDBY (MAGNETIC) COMPASS19. #1 POWER CONTROL LEVER20. #1 ENGINE OFF FIRE T-HANDLE21. #1 ENGINE FUEL SELECTOR LEVER

15. PB/INDIC TEST SWITCH16. FIRE EXTINGUISHER17. STANDBY INSTRUMENTS

26

26

37

35

2728

29

36

25

24

23

22

25

27

29

30

28

32

CHECKLIST

DATA & M

AP

STOWAGE

CHECKLIST

DATA & MAP

STOWAGE

31

33

Figure A-3: MH-60S Cockpit Arrangement Source: Ibid.

103

SANS0706

2 1 1 2

4 85

6

7

9

3 3

100

1020

3040

DN

OF

F

STABPOS

DEG

#1 ENGOUT

FIRE MASTER CAUTIONPRESS TO RESET

LOW ROTORRPM

#2 ENGOUT

5

1

225

2

15

KNOTS CLIMB

IVE

PULLTO

CAGE

RESET MODE ST/SP

A

#1 ENGOUT

FIRE MASTER CAUTIONPRESS TO RESET

LOW ROTORRPM

#2 ENGOUT

1000 FT100 FT IN. HG

12

0

2 9

01

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

9 0

1. MISSION DISPLAYS2. FLIGHT DISPLAYS3. MASTER WARNING PANEL4. BACKUP AIRSPEED INDICATOR5. BACKUP ATTITUDE INDICATOR6. STABILATOR POSITION INDICATOR7. DIGITAL CLOCK8. BAROMETRIC ALTIMETER / ENCODER9. LAMP PRESS-TO-TEST

Figure A-4: MH-60S Common Cockpit Instrument Panel Source: Ibid.

104

1 2 3 4

5

6

7

8

9

10111213

14

18171615

ADI2FRAME

Index Display Element Index

Display Element

1 Attitude Indicator Bank Angle Pointer 10 Low Altitude Carrot

2 Local Barometric Pressure Digital Readout 11 Turn Rate Indicator

3 Attitude Indicator Horizon Line 12 AI Pitch Ladder/Scale

4 Declutter Selection 13 Attitude Indicator Sky/Ground Presentation

5 Vertical Speed Indicator 14 Indicated Air Speed Scale/Tape

6 Barometric Altitude Indicators 15 Universal Control Knob Indicator

Readout

7 Variable Altitude Setting Readout 16 Configuration Speed Limit

8 Variable Altitude Setting/Decision Height Bug 17 Attitude Indictor Aircraft Symbol

9 Radar Altitude Indicators 18 Attitude Indicator Bank Angle Scale

Figure A-5: MH-60S Common Cockpit Flight Display Source: Ibid.

105

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.

Landing Spot 4 Approach

Landing Spot 4 Approach

Landing Spot 4 Approach

Landing Spot 7 Approach

Superstructure

106

Figure A-7: United States Naval Ships CONCORD (T-AFS 5) and SIRIUS (T-AFS 8)

Source: Ibid.

Port-to-Starboard Approach

Starboard-to-Port Approach

107

5

10

15

20

25

30 KT010

020

045

090270

315

340

350

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.

108

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.

109

Figure A-10: Port Landing Spot Aboard LHD Class Ships

Ship’s Heading

45° Line Up Line

AFT

PORT

STARBOARD

4

Spot Number

FORWARD

Athwartships/Main Mount Line

110

Figure A-11: Typical T-AFS Ship Deck with Line Up Lines

Port-to-Starboard Line Up Line

Starboard-to-Port Line Up Line

Main Mount Circle

AFT

FORWARD

PORT STARBOARD

Ship’s Heading

111

Figure A-12: Low Airspeed Trimmed Flight Control Positions (45 KTAS, 21000 lbs.)

112

Figure A-13: Low Airspeed Trimmed Flight Control Positions (45 KTAS, 21000 lbs.)

113

Figure A-14: Low Airspeed Handling Qualities (16500 lbs.)

114

Figure A-15: Low Airspeed Handling Qualities (21000 lbs.)

115

Figure A-16: Launch and Recovery Wind Envelope, USS BATAAN, Spot 4

116

Figure A-17: Launch and Recovery Wind Envelope, USS BATAAN, Spot 5

117

Figure A-18: Launch and Recovery Wind Envelope, USS BATAAN, Spot 6

118

Figure A-19: Launch and Recovery Wind Envelope, USS BATAAN, Spot 7

1 PRS-3 WOD Condition ~ glide slope maint

119

Figure A-20: Launch and Recovery Wind Envelope, USNS CONCORD, Starboard Approach

1 PRS-3 WOD Condition ~ large right yaw on launch ~ 0% pedal remaining

1 PRS-3 WOD Condition ~ position/heading maint with ship motion ~ PRS-2 with less deck motion (thus, included)

4 PRS-3 WOD Conditions ~ large right yaw on launch and recovery ~ 0-10% pedal remaining ~ settling on leeward side ~ Tq management (121%)

120

Figure A-21: Launch and Recovery Wind Envelope, USNS CONCORD, Port Approach

1 PRS-3 WOD Condition ~ altitude/position/headingmaintenance

2 PRS-3 WOD Conditions ~ glide slope and closure rate~ position/heading maintenance ~ large right yaw on launch (LTE)

121

Figure A-22: Launch and Recovery Wind Envelope, USNS SIRIUS, Starboard Approach

122

Figure A-23: Launch and Recovery Wind Envelope, USNS SIRIUS, Port Approach

Figu

re A

-24:

Rec

tilin

ear P

lot o

f Pilo

t Sta

tion

Forw

ard

Fiel

d of

Vie

w

Sour

ce: N

aval

Air

Syst

ems C

omm

and

Tech

nica

l Ass

uran

ce B

oard

Yel

low

She

et R

epor

t, N

aval

Rot

ary

Win

g A

ircra

ft Te

st S

quad

ron,

CH

-60S

, RW

-3A

, Enc

losu

re (1

), 20

July

200

1

123

124

APPENDIX B: TABLES

Tabl

e B

-1: T

ests

and

Tes

t Con

ditio

ns M

atrix

Eve

nt

Dat

e;

Flig

ht

Hou

rs

Tas

k/T

est

Sub-

task

/test

T

est

Air

spee

d

Tes

t A

ltitu

de

Ban

d

Gro

ss W

eigh

t,

Cen

ter

of G

ravi

ty

Inte

rnal

B

alla

st

Surf

ace

Pres

sure

A

ltitu

de,

Out

side

Air

T

empe

ratu

re

Met

hod/

Rem

arks

(1, 2

, 3, 4

, 5)

Shor

e-B

ased

, Air

Veh

icle

Tes

ting:

1 08

/21/

00

0.9

day

Low

Gro

ss

Wei

ght

1700

4-16

004

lbs.

365.

5-36

2.3

inch

es

Non

e -3

20 ft

Hp,

15

°C

2 08

/22/

00

1.0

day

Shor

e-ba

sed

Han

dlin

g Q

ualit

ies

Hig

h G

ross

W

eigh

t

0, 1

0, 2

0, 3

0,

40, 4

5 K

TAS

0-50

ft

AG

L 21

539-

2053

9 lb

s. 35

6.5-

353.

3 in

ches

4500

lbs.

inte

rnal

ba

llast

100

ft H

p,

19 °C

Airc

raft

1657

42.

Pace

truc

k an

d w

ind

obse

rver

in

to

wer

.

Var

ied

airc

raft

head

ing

and

track

ov

er

grou

nd.

Rec

orde

d ai

rcra

ft at

titud

e,

fligh

t co

ntro

l po

sitio

ns,

HQ

R a

nd V

AR

at

diff

eren

t w

ind

azim

uths

an

d m

agni

tude

s. T

M’d

dat

a.

Ship

boar

d, D

ynam

ic In

terf

ace

Tes

ting:

3 08

/30/

00

2.0

day

Fly

On

& D

ay

DLQ

s

4 08

/30/

00

2.8

day

Day

DLQ

s &

Enve

lope

D

evel

opm

ent

5

08/3

0/00

1.

8

(0.3

day

, 1.

5 ni

ght)

Day

Env

elop

e D

evel

opm

ent

&

Nig

ht D

LQs

6 08

/31/

00

2.3

day

Day

Env

elop

e D

evel

opm

ent

7 09

/06/

00

3.7

day

Day

Env

elop

e D

evel

opm

ent

8 09

/07/

00

1.0

day

USS

B

ATA

AN

(L

HD

-5)

WO

D

Inve

stig

atio

n

Fly

Off

0-10

0 K

IAS

0-

500

feet

A

GL

2158

2-20

582

lbs.

356.

1-35

2.9

inch

es

4500

lbs.

inte

rnal

ba

llast

-125

to 1

45 ft

H

p,

15 to

26

°C

Airc

raft

1657

44.

Day

and

nig

ht D

LQs

cond

ucte

d w

ithin

th

e G

ener

al

Enve

lope

. D

ay l

aunc

h an

d re

cove

ry

enve

lope

dev

elop

men

t con

duct

ed o

nce

DLQ

s co

mpl

eted

(no

nig

ht e

nvel

ope

deve

lopm

ent

was

con

duct

ed).

Day

en

velo

pe d

evel

opm

ent

cond

ucte

d by

pr

ocee

ding

in m

axim

um in

crem

ents

of

15°

of w

ind

azim

uth

or 5

kno

ts o

f w

ind

spee

d.

Ev

alua

ted

hand

ling

qual

ities

du

ring

each

ev

olut

ion;

re

cord

ed H

QR

, V

AR

, PR

S, T

UR

B,

torq

ue, f

light

con

trol p

ositi

ons,

WO

D,

fuel

, sea

stat

e.

125

Tabl

e B

-1.

Con

tinue

d

Eve

nt

Dat

e;

Flig

ht

Hou

rs

Tas

k/T

est

Sub-

task

/test

T

est

Air

spee

d

Tes

t A

ltitu

de

Ban

d

Gro

ss W

eigh

t,

Cen

ter

of G

ravi

ty

Ext

erna

l L

oad,

In

tern

al

Bal

last

Surf

ace

Pres

sure

A

ltitu

de,

Out

side

Air

T

empe

ratu

re

Met

hod/

Rem

arks

(1, 2

, 3, 4

, 5)

Ship

boar

d, D

ynam

ic In

terf

ace

Tes

ting

(con

tinue

d):

9 09

/11/

00

1.2

day

Fly

On

& D

ay

DLQ

s

10

09/1

1/00

2.

7 da

y

Day

DLQ

s &

Enve

lope

D

evel

opm

ent

11

09/1

1/00

1.

9 (0

.2 d

ay,

1.7

nigh

t)

Day

Env

elop

e D

evel

opm

ent

& N

ight

D

LQs

12

09/1

2/00

2.

3 da

y 13

09

/12/

00

1.0

day

14

09/1

3/00

3.

3 da

y

Day

Env

elop

e D

evel

opm

ent

15

09/1

3/00

2.

4 ni

ght

Nig

ht

Enve

lope

D

evel

opm

ent

16

09/1

5/00

2.

2 da

y

USN

S C

ON

CO

RD

(T

-AFS

5)

WO

D

Inve

stig

atio

n

Day

Env

elop

e D

evel

opm

ent

& F

ly O

ff

0-10

0 K

IAS

0-50

0 fe

et

AG

L 21

582-

2058

2 lb

s. 35

6.1-

352.

9 in

ches

4500

lbs.

inte

rnal

ba

llast

-150

to 2

20 ft

H

p,

18 to

30

°C

Airc

raft

1657

44.

DLQ

s co

nduc

ted

with

in t

he G

ener

al E

nvel

ope.

D

ay

and

nigh

t la

unch

an

d re

cove

ry

enve

lope

dev

elop

men

t con

duct

ed o

nce

DLQ

s co

mpl

eted

.

Enve

lope

de

velo

pmen

t con

duct

ed b

y pr

ocee

ding

in

max

imum

inc

rem

ents

of

15°

of

win

d az

imut

h or

5

knot

s of

w

ind

spee

d.

Eval

uate

d ha

ndlin

g qu

aliti

es

durin

g ea

ch e

volu

tion;

reco

rded

HQ

R,

VA

R,

PRS,

TU

RB

, to

rque

, fli

ght

cont

rol

posi

tions

, W

OD

, fu

el,

sea

stat

e.

126

Tabl

e B

-1.

Con

tinue

d.

Eve

nt

Dat

e;

Flig

ht

Hou

rs

Tas

k/T

est

Sub-

task

/test

T

est

Air

spee

d

Tes

t A

ltitu

de

Ban

d

Gro

ss W

eigh

t,

Cen

ter

of G

ravi

ty

Ext

erna

l L

oad,

In

tern

al

Bal

last

Surf

ace

Pres

sure

A

ltitu

de,

Out

side

Air

T

empe

ratu

re

Met

hod/

Rem

arks

(1, 2

, 3, 4

, 5)

Ship

boar

d, D

ynam

ic In

terf

ace

Tes

ting

(con

tinue

d):

17

11/2

7/00

1.

0 da

y Fl

y O

n &

Day

D

LQs

18

11/2

9/00

4.

0 da

y D

ay E

nvel

ope

Dev

elop

men

t 19

11/3

0/00

1.

2 da

y

USN

S SI

RIU

S (T

-A

FS 8

) W

OD

In

vest

igat

ion

Fly

Off

0-10

0 K

IAS

0-50

0 fe

et

AG

L

2225

0-21

250

lbs.

356.

4-35

3.4

inch

es

4880

lbs.

inte

rnal

ba

llast

-70

to -4

0 ft

Hp,

14

to 1

6 °C

Airc

raft

1657

42.

D

ay

DLQ

s co

nduc

ted

with

in

the

Gen

eral

En

velo

pe.

Day

lau

nch

and

reco

very

en

velo

pe

deve

lopm

ent

cond

ucte

d on

ce

DLQ

s co

mpl

eted

(n

o ni

ght

enve

lope

de

velo

pmen

t co

nduc

ted)

. En

velo

pe d

evel

opm

ent

cond

ucte

d by

pr

ocee

ding

in

max

imum

inc

rem

ents

of

15°

of

win

d az

imut

h or

5 k

nots

of

win

d sp

eed.

Eval

uate

d ha

ndlin

g qu

aliti

es

durin

g ea

ch

evol

utio

n;

reco

rded

HQ

R,

VA

R,

PRS,

TU

RB

, to

rque

, flig

ht c

ontro

l pos

ition

s, W

OD

, fu

el, s

ea st

ate.

N

otes

: (1

) Tw

o M

H-6

0S a

ircra

ft, B

uNo

1657

42 (a

ircra

ft #1

) and

BuN

o 16

5744

(airc

raft

#3),

wer

e flo

wn

durin

g th

is e

valu

atio

n. B

uNo

1657

42 w

as e

quip

ped

with

a s

ophi

stic

ated

dat

a re

cord

ing

pack

age

that

per

mitt

ed th

e te

lem

etry

of d

ata

and

the

real

tim

e m

onito

ring

of a

ircra

ft pa

ram

eter

s du

ring

test

eve

nts.

BuN

o 16

5744

was

a p

rodu

ctio

n re

pres

enta

tive

MH

-60S

. B

uNo

1657

42 B

asic

Ope

ratin

g W

eigh

t (B

asic

Airc

raft

Wei

ght,

2 pi

lots

, 2 a

ircre

w, a

nd in

stru

men

tatio

n pa

ckag

e) w

as 1

5091

lbs.

(142

91 lb

s. w

ithou

t airc

rew

). B

uNo

1657

44 B

asic

Ope

ratin

g W

eigh

t (B

asic

Airc

raft

Wei

ght,

2 pi

lots

, 2 a

ircre

w) w

as 1

4782

lbs.

(139

82 lb

s. w

ithou

t airc

rew

). S

tand

ard

full

fuel

load

was

230

0 lb

s. of

JP-

5; fu

el lo

ad w

as u

sed

toge

ther

with

inte

rnal

bal

last

to a

chie

ve a

nd m

aint

ain

desi

red

test

gr

oss w

eigh

ts.

(2

) All

test

ing

com

pris

ed o

f 19

test

eve

nts a

nd 3

8.7

fligh

t hou

rs (3

2.5

day

and

6.2

nigh

t).

(3) S

hore

-bas

ed a

ir ve

hicl

e te

stin

g co

mpr

ised

of 2

test

eve

nts

and

1.9

day

fligh

t hou

rs.

Airc

raft

conf

igur

atio

n: s

tabi

lity

augm

enta

tion

syst

em, t

rim, a

nd a

uto

pilo

t on,

sta

bila

tor i

n au

tom

atic

mod

e,

and

3° o

f tai

l rot

or b

ias (

1657

42).

(4) S

hipb

oard

dyn

amic

inte

rfac

e te

stin

g co

mpr

ised

of 1

7 te

st e

vent

s an

d 36

.8 fl

ight

hou

rs (3

2.5

day

and

6.2

nigh

t). U

SS B

ATA

AN

test

ing

yiel

ded:

13.

6 to

tal f

light

hou

rs (1

2.1

day,

1.5

nig

ht) a

nd

232

laun

ch a

nd re

cove

ry e

volu

tions

from

spo

ts 4

thro

ugh

7. U

SNS

CO

NC

OR

D te

stin

g yi

elde

d 17

tota

l flig

ht h

ours

(12.

9 da

y, 4

.1 n

ight

) and

265

laun

ch a

nd re

cove

ry e

volu

tions

. U

SNS

SIR

IUS

test

ing

yiel

ded:

6.2

tota

l flig

ht h

ours

(all

day)

, and

84

laun

ch a

nd re

cove

ry e

volu

tions

. (5

) Airc

raft

conf

igur

atio

n U

SS B

ATA

AN

and

USN

S C

onco

rd: s

tabi

lity

augm

enta

tion

syst

em, t

rim, a

nd a

uto

pilo

t on,

sta

bila

tor i

n au

tom

atic

mod

e, 1

.5°

of ta

il ro

tor b

ias

(BuN

o 16

5744

). A

ircra

ft co

nfig

urat

ion

USN

S SI

RIU

S: st

abili

ty a

ugm

enta

tion

syst

em, t

rim, a

nd a

uto

pilo

t on,

stab

ilato

r in

auto

mat

ic m

ode,

, 3° o

f tai

l rot

or b

ias (

BuN

o 16

4742

).

127

128

Table B-2: Cooper-Harper Handling Qualities Rating Scale

Adequacy for Selected Task or

Operation1

Deficiency Improvement

Necessary

Aircraft Characteristics

Demands on Pilot During Selected Task or Required Operation

Pilot Rating

Excellent; highly desirable 1

Good; negligible deficiencies

Pilot compensation not a factor for desired performance.

2

Adequate performance attainable with a tolerable pilot workload. Satisfactory Without Improvement

Deficiencies do not warrant improvement

Fair; some mildly unpleasant deficiencies

Desired performance requires minimal pilot compensation. 3

Minor but annoying deficiencies

Desired performance requires moderate pilot compensation. 4

Moderately objectionable deficiencies

Adequate performance requires considerable pilot compensation. 5

Adequate performance attainable with a tolerable pilot workload. Not Satisfactory Without Improvement

Deficiencies warrant improvement

Very objectionable but tolerable deficiencies

Adequate performance requires extensive pilot compensation. 6

Adequate performance not attainable with maximum tolerable pilot compensation (controllability NOT in question, however.).

7

Considerable pilot compensation is required for control of aircraft. 8

Adequate performance NOT attainable with tolerable pilot workload

Deficiencies require improvement

Intense pilot compensation is required to retain control of aircraft. 9

Not controllable Improvement mandatory

Major deficiencies

Control will be lost during some portion of required operation. 10

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).

129

Table B-3: Dynamic Interface Pilot Rating Scale

PRS Rating Pilot Effort Rating Description

1 Slight No problems; minimal pilot effort required to conduct consistently safe shipboard evolutions under these conditions.

2 Moderate

Consistently safe shipboard evolutions are possible under these conditions. These points define the fleet limits recommended by NAWCAD PAX RIVER.

3 Maximum

Evolutions are successfully conducted only through maximum effort of experienced test pilots, using proven test methods, under controlled test conditions. Successful 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.

4 Unsatisfactory

Pilot effort and/or controllability reach critical levels; repeated safe evolutions by 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.

130

Table B-4: Vibration Assessment Rating Scale

Degree of Vibration

Description of Vibration Pilot Rating

NONE No discernible vibration 0

1

2 SLIGHT

Not apparent to experienced aircrew fully occupied by their tasks, but noticeable if their attention is directed to it or if not otherwise occupied. 3

4

5 MODERATE

Experienced aircrew are aware of the vibration, but it does not affect their work, at least over a short period. 6

7

8 SEVERE

Vibration is immediately apparent to experienced aircrew even when fully occupied. Performance of primary task is affected, or tasks can only be done with difficulty. 9

INTOLERABLE Sole preoccupation of aircrew is to reduce vibration level. 10

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).

131

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 compromised.

2

Undesirable aircraft motion, no oscillations, task performance

compromised. 3

Causes oscillations (not divergent) 4

Pilot initiates abrupt maneuvers or tight

control

Caused divergent oscillations 5 Pilot simply enters

control loop Causes divergent oscillation 6

Note: Based on the PIO Rating Scale presented in USNTPS FTM 107, page VI.3.

132

Table B-6: Turbulence Rating Scale

Intensity Aircraft Reaction Reaction Inside Aircraft

Light

TURBULENCE: The aircraft momentarily experiences slight, erratic changes in altitude or attitude. CHOP: The aircraft experiences slight, rapid, and somewhat rhythmic bumpiness without appreciable changes in altitude or attitude.

Occupants may feel a slight strain against seat belts or shoulder straps. Unsecured objects may be displaced slightly.

Moderate

TURBULENCE: The aircraft experiences changes in altitude or attitude, but remains in positive control at all times. The aircraft also usually experiences variations in indicated airspeed. CHOP: The aircraft experiences rapid bumps or jolts without appreciable changes in altitude and/or attitude.

Occupants feel definite strains against seat belts or shoulder straps. Unsecured objects are displaced.

Severe

TURBULENCE: The aircraft experiences large, abrupt changes in altitude and/or attitude. The aircraft also usually experiences large variations in indicated airspeed. Aircraft may be momentarily out of control.

Extreme

TURBULENCE: The aircraft is violently tossed about and is practically impossible to control. It may cause structural damage.

Occupants are forced violently against seat belts or shoulder straps. Unsecured objects are tossed about.

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).

133

Table B-7: Instrumentation Package Parameters, BUNO 165742

Parameter Category Specific Parameter (222 total)

Total Number of

MeasurementsIndicated 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 Main Rotor Speed 1

Torque 2 Temperature 2 Power Turbine Speed 2 Engines

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

Aircraft Reference Parameters (38)

Fuel Quantity 2 Transmission Beam 17 Beam 8 Transmission Forward and Aft 10 Frame Splice 4 Tail Cone 13 Tail Driveshaft 4 Tail Landing Gear 8 Pylon Fold Hinge 6

Airframe Strain Parameters (74)

Tail Gearbox 4 Tail Rotor Torque, Bending,

Loads 5 Dynamic Strain Parameters (13)

Main Rotor Servos, Control Rods, Scissors, Bending, Torque

8

134

Table B-7. Continued.

Parameter Category Specific Parameter

Total Number of

MeasurementsHeel and Floor 7 Audio Management Computer

3

Instrument Panel 5 Cockpit

Center Console 2 Overhead 1 Cabin Floor 9

Nose 4 Canted Bulkhead 3 Intermediate Gearbox 3 Tail Rotor Gearbox 3 Engine 6 Vibration Absorbers Nose, Cabin,

Stubwings 5

Acceleration Parameters (64)

Transition Shelf 13 Transition Shelf 7 Nose Bay 5 Audio Management Computer

1

Instrument Panel 5 Center Console 2

Ambient

Air Data Computer 2 Nose Bay 1 ECS Supply Transition Section 2

Main Gearbox Oil 1

Temperature Parameters (28)

Engine Oil 2 Engine Oil 2 Main Gearbox 1

Pressure Parameters (5) Tail Gear Oleo 2

Tabl

e B

-8: U

SS B

ATA

AN

(LH

D 5

) Dat

a Sh

eets

Loc

al

Tim

e E

vent

N

o.

Typ

e E

volu

tion1

PAC

Se

at2

Ldg

Sp

ot

WO

D

Dir

ec.

(deg

. R

)

WO

D

Spee

d (k

ts.)

Lau

nch

PRS

Rec

over

y PR

S

Air

craf

t G

ross

W

eigh

t (lb

s.)

Avg

. T

Q

(%)

Max

. T

Q

(%)

Avg

. Pi

tch

(deg

.)

Avg

. R

oll

(deg

.)

OA

T

(deg

. C

)

Hp

(fee

t)C

omm

ents

Peri

od 1

(30A

ug00

) - E

vent

s 3 a

nd 4

in T

able

B-1

(Day

DL

Qs a

nd E

nvel

ope

Exp

ansi

on)

1300

1

E -

- 36

16

-

- 21

517

- -

0 1

25

-145

1307

2

L R

5

38

17

2 -

2146

7 90

10

5 0

1 25

-1

45

Com

men

ce D

ay D

LQs

1317

3

R

R

4 0

23

- 1

2136

7 88

10

0 0

1 25

-1

45

13

20

4 L

R

4 0

24

1 -

2131

7 85

90

0

1 25

-1

45

13

23

5 R

R

5

0 24

-

2 21

267

75

82

0 1

25

-145

1324

6

L R

5

0 22

2

- 21

247

95

103

0 1

25

-145

1326

7

R

R

6 0

22

- 2

2122

7 78

86

0

1 25

-1

45

13

26

8 L

R

6 0

22

2 -

2119

7 88

10

0 0

1 25

-1

45

13

30

9 R

R

7

5 22

-

1 21

167

80

90

0 1

25

-145

1331

10

L

R

7 5

22

1 -

2113

7 87

10

0 0

1 25

-1

45

13

37

11

R

R

4 0

25

- 1

2106

7 80

88

0

1 25

-1

45

13

39

12

L R

4

5 28

1

- 21

037

80

94

0 1

25

-145

1342

13

R

R

5

5 27

-

1 21

007

72

81

0 1

25

-145

1343

14

L

R

5 5

25

1 -

2095

7 80

96

0

1 25

-1

45

13

45

15

WO

R

6

5 25

-

- 20

947

- -

0 0

25

-145

1347

16

R

L

6 6

26

- 2

2092

7 80

90

0

1 25

-1

45

13

47

17

L L

6 5

26

1 -

2090

7 90

10

0 0

1 25

-1

45

13

49

18

R

L 7

5 26

-

2 20

887

80

94

0 1

25

-145

1349

19

L

L 7

5 26

1

- 20

867

90

98

0 1

25

-145

1355

20

R

L

4 5

31

- 2

2080

7 70

76

0

1 25

-1

45

13

55

21

L L

4 5

31

2 -

2077

7 90

10

2 0

1 25

-1

45

13

57

22

R

L 5

5 31

-

2 20

757

72

78

0 1

25

-145

135

Tabl

e B

-8.

Con

tinue

d.

Loc

al

Tim

e E

vent

N

o.

Typ

e E

volu

tion1

PAC

Se

at2

Ldg

Sp

ot

WO

D

Dir

ec.

(deg

. R

)

WO

D

Spee

d (k

ts.)

Lau

nch

PRS

Rec

over

y PR

S

Air

craf

t G

ross

W

eigh

t (lb

s.)

Avg

. T

Q

(%)

Max

. T

Q

(%)

Avg

. Pi

tch

(deg

.)

Avg

. R

oll

(deg

.)

OA

T

(deg

. C

)

Hp

(fee

t)C

omm

ents

1357

23

L

L 5

4 31

1

- 20

727

94

100

0 1

25

-145

1400

24

W

O

_ 0

4 31

-

- 20

707

- -

0 0

25

-145

1406

25

R

L

6 4

32

- 2

2061

7 -

- 0

1 25

-1

45

FOV

from

left

seat

14

07

26

L L

6 4

32

1 -

2057

7 92

10

2 0

1 25

-1

45

14

09

27

R

L 7

2 34

-

2 20

577

70

76

0 1

25

-145

1410

28

L

L 7

2 32

1

- 20

547

90

100

0 1

25

-145

1412

29

R

L

4 0

31

- 2

2051

7 -

- 0

1 25

-1

45

Hot

Ref

uel

1424

30

L

R

4 0

24

1 -

2156

7 77

97

0

1 25

-1

45

Com

men

ce D

ay D

IT

1431

31

R

R

4

0 36

-

1 21

447

75

83

0 0

25

-145

1436

32

L

R

4 35

8 37

1

- 21

437

68

90

0 0

25

-145

1434

33

R

R

5

356

38

- 1

2141

7 70

92

0

0 25

-1

45

14

34

34

L R

5

358

39

1 -

2140

7 65

90

0

0 25

-1

45

14

36

35

R

R

6 35

8 37

-

1 21

387

70

75

0 0

25

-145

1436

36

L

R

6 5

36

1 -

2137

7 70

94

0

0 25

-1

45

1438

37

R

R

7

0 37

-

2 21

347

70

84

0 1

25

-145

La

t/lon

g po

sitio

n ke

epin

g (c

yclic

+/

-3/

4" @

2-3

Hz)

1438

38

L

L 7

0 35

1

- 21

337

70

98

0 1

25

-145

1447

39

R

R

4

357

40

- 1

2122

7 59

70

0

0 25

-1

45

14

48

40

L R

4

357

40

1 -

2120

7 64

84

0

0 25

-1

45

14

49

41

R

R

5 35

8 40

-

1 21

167

63

68

0 0

25

-145

1450

42

L

R

5 35

5 38

1

- 21

157

66

92

0 0

25

-145

1451

43

R

R

6

355

38

- 1

2113

7 65

76

0

0 25

-1

45

14

52

44

L R

6

358

40

1 -

2113

7 67

90

0

0 25

-1

45

14

53

45

R

R

7 0

39

- 2

2111

7 63

73

0

0 25

-1

45

Lat p

ositi

on k

eepi

ng

1454

46

L

R

7 35

2 40

1

- 21

097

67

92

0 0

25

-145

129

136

Tabl

e B

-8.

Con

tinue

d.

Loc

al

Tim

e E

vent

N

o.

Typ

e E

volu

tion1

PAC

Se

at2

Ldg

Sp

ot

WO

D

Dir

ec.

(deg

. R

)

WO

D

Spee

d (k

ts.)

Lau

nch

PRS

Rec

over

y PR

S

Air

craf

t G

ross

W

eigh

t (lb

s.)

Avg

. T

Q

(%)

Max

. T

Q

(%)

Avg

. Pi

tch

(deg

.)

Avg

. R

oll

(deg

.)

OA

T

(deg

. C

)

Hp

(fee

t)C

omm

ents

1502

47

R

R

4

345

38

- 2

2098

7 60

63

0

0 25

-1

45

15

02

48

L R

4

350

38

1 -

2097

7 68

82

0

0 25

-1

45

1504

49

R

R

5

348

38

- 2

2095

7 62

68

0

0 25

-1

45

Lat

wor

kloa

d,

+/-

1/2"

@

2

Hz;

m

oder

ate

yaw

cho

ps/k

icks

on

deck

1505

50

L

R

5 35

0 37

2

- 20

927

66

84

0 0

25

-145

La

tera

l shu

ffle

/VA

R-6

sho

rt fin

al (4

per

re

v)

1507

51

R

R

6

345

38

- 2

2088

7 63

65

0

0 25

-1

45

Ove

rall

wor

kloa

d (lo

ng/la

t +/-

3/4"

@ 2

-3

Hz)

, m

oder

ate

late

ral

chop

/shu

ffle

@

1 H

z in

a h

over

; VA

R-7

15

10

52

L R

6

345

39

2 -

2087

7 68

79

0

0 25

-1

45

Ove

rall

wor

kloa

d (lo

ng/la

t +/-

3/4"

@ 2

-3

Hz)

, m

oder

ate

late

ral

chop

/shu

ffle

@

1 H

z in

a h

over

; VA

R-7

1512

53

R

R

7

345

39

- 2

2084

7 65

65

0

0 25

-1

45

Ove

rall

wor

kloa

d (lo

ng/la

t +/-

3/4"

@ 2

-3

Hz)

, lat

eral

cho

p @

1 H

z <5

ft; V

AR

-6

1512

54

L

R

7 34

5 38

2

- 20

827

65

83

0 0

25

-145

1517

55

R

R

4

345

37

- 2

2079

7 59

63

0

0 25

-1

45

Bal

loon

ed o

ver d

eck

edge

; ref

uel

1535

56

L

R

4 34

0 36

2

- 21

527

65

88

0 0

25

-145

La

t w

orkl

oad

-co

nsid

erab

le

left

lat

cycl

ic to

dec

el w

ith le

ft cr

ossw

ind

1537

57

R

R

4

330

35

- 2

2151

7 60

65

0

0 25

-1

45

Lat w

orkl

oad

dece

lera

ting

(con

side

rabl

e le

ft la

t cyc

lic re

quire

d) a

nd o

ver d

eck

1538

58

L

R

4 32

5 34

2

- 21

487

58

80

0 0

25

-145

La

t wor

kloa

d; V

AR

-5 in

hov

er

1539

59

R

R

5

330

35

- 2

2147

7 62

65

0

0 25

-1

45

Lat w

orkl

oad

(+/-

1/2"

@ 2

Hz)

15

41

60

L R

5

330

35

2 -

2145

7 72

84

0

0 25

-1

45

1542

61

R

R

6

330

35

- 2

2143

7 60

65

0

0 25

-1

45

Lat w

orkl

oad

(wor

st <

5 ft)

; +/-

1/2"

@ 3

H

z 15

43

62

L R

6

330

35

2 -

2139

7 72

78

0

0 25

-1

45

137

Tabl

e B

-8.

Con

tinue

d.

Loc

al

Tim

e E

vent

N

o.

Typ

e E

volu

tion1

PAC

Se

at2

Ldg

Sp

ot

WO

D

Dir

ec.

(deg

. R

)

WO

D

Spee

d (k

ts.)

Lau

nch

PRS

Rec

over

y PR

S

Air

craf

t G

ross

W

eigh

t (lb

s.)

Avg

. T

Q

(%)

Max

. T

Q

(%)

Avg

. Pi

tch

(deg

.)

Avg

. R

oll

(deg

.)

OA

T

(deg

. C

)

Hp

(fee

t)C

omm

ents

1546

63

R

R

7

330

35

- 2

2138

7 72

78

0

0 25

-1

45

Lat

wor

kloa

d an

d le

ft la

t cy

clic

on

de

cel;

VA

R-5

in h

over

1547

64

L

R

7 33

0 35

2

- 21

367

72

90

0 0

25

-145

1549

65

R

R

4

335

36

- 2

2135

7 72

78

0

0 25

-1

45

15

53

66

D

R

4 33

0 35

-

- 21

317

- -

0 0

25

-145

Sh

utdo

wn

Peri

od 2

(30A

ug00

) - E

vent

5 in

Tab

le B

-1 (D

ay E

nvel

ope

Exp

ansi

on a

nd N

ight

DL

Qs)

18

50

67

E R

4

5 19

-

- 21

267

- -

0 0

25

-132

1857

68

L

R

4 0

20

1 -

2116

7 90

10

9 0

0 25

-1

32

Com

men

ce n

ight

DLQ

s 19

07

69

R

R

5 35

5 27

-

2 20

997

- 0

0 0

25

-132

1908

70

L

R

5 35

0 26

1

- 20

987

80

102

0 0

25

-132

1911

71

R

R

5

0 27

-

1 20

947

- -

0 0

25

-132

1912

72

L

R

5 0

25

1 -

2092

7 78

10

1 0

0 25

-1

32

1917

73

R

L

5 35

7 26

-

2 20

847

80

92

0 0

25

-132

1918

74

L

L 5

350

24

1 -

2083

7 83

92

0

0 25

-1

32

1921

75

R

L

5 35

0 25

-

1 20

787

- -

0 0

25

-132

R

efue

l

1932

76

L

L 5

350

24

1 -

2156

7 84

95

0

0 25

-1

32

1935

77

R

L

4 35

0 24

-

2 21

537

70

84

0 0

25

-132

1935

78

L

L 4

350

25

2 -

2151

7 80

94

0

0 25

-1

32

19

38

79

R

L 5

350

23

- 2

2149

7 80

92

0

0 25

-1

32

19

38

80

L L

5 35

0 23

1

- 21

477

- -

0 0

25

-132

1941

81

R

L

6 35

5 25

-

2 21

447

70

80

0 0

25

-132

1942

82

L

L 6

355

25

1 -

2142

7 78

92

0

0 25

-1

32

19

44

83

R

L 7

350

25

- 2

2139

7 75

90

0

0 25

-1

32

19

45

84

L L

7 35

0 25

1

- 21

387

75

94

0 0

25

-132

1953

85

R

R

4

0 29

-

2 21

267

- -

0 0

25

-132

138

Tabl

e B

-8.

Con

tinue

d.

Loc

al

Tim

e E

vent

N

o.

Typ

e E

volu

tion1

PAC

Se

at2

Ldg

Sp

ot

WO

D

Dir

ec.

(deg

. R

)

WO

D

Spee

d (k

ts.)

Lau

nch

PRS

Rec

over

y PR

S

Air

craf

t G

ross

W

eigh

t (lb

s.)

Avg

. T

Q

(%)

Max

. T

Q

(%)

Avg

. Pi

tch

(deg

.)

Avg

. R

oll

(deg

.)

OA

T

(deg

. C

)

Hp

(fee

t)C

omm

ents

1953

86

L

R

4 0

29

1 -

2126

7 -

- 0

0 25

-1

32

20

00

87

R

R

4 5

24

- 2

2114

7 -

- 0

0 25

-1

32

20

00

88

L R

4

10

24

1 -

2113

7 -

- 0

0 25

-1

32

20

03

89

R

R

5 10

24

-

2 21

097

- -

0 0

25

-132

2004

90

L

R

5 10

25

1

- 21

087

- 10

8 0

0 25

-1

32

20

06

91

R

R

6 10

25

-

2 21

047

- 97

0

0 25

-1

32

20

07

92

L R

6

10

25

1 -

2102

7 -

108

0 0

25

-132

2010

93

R

R

7

10

24

- 2

2099

7 -

- 0

0 25

-1

32

20

10

94

L R

7

10

25

1 -

2095

7 -

- 0

0 25

-1

32

20

23

95

R

R

4 10

22

-

2 20

917

- -

0 0

25

-132

2023

96

L

L 4

5 22

1

- 20

877

- -

0 0

25

-132

2027

97

R

L

4 10

20

-

2 20

747

75

80

0 0

25

-132

2027

98

L

L 4

10

22

1 -

2070

7 75

10

5 0

0 25

-1

32

2031

99

R

L

4 10

20

-

2 20

667

80

85

0 0

25

-132

2035

10

0 D

_

4 10

20

-

- 20

667

- -

0 0

25

-132

C

ompl

ete

nigh

t DLQ

s Pe

riod

3 (3

1Aug

00) -

Eve

nt 6

in T

able

B-1

(Day

Env

elop

e E

xpan

sion

)

12

48

101

E -

4 0

8 -

- 21

517

- -

0 0

26

-144

1254

10

2 L

R

4 33

0 6

1 -

2147

7 85

10

5 0

0 26

-1

44

13

09

103

R

R

4 5

31

- 1

2129

7 73

84

0

0 26

-1

44

13

10

104

L R

4

8 30

1

- 21

257

85

104

0 0

26

-144

1312

10

5 R

R

5

10

30

- 1

2123

7 -

82

0 0

26

-144

1314

10

6 L

R

5 10

30

1

- 21

217

79

106

0 0

26

-144

1315

10

7 R

R

6

10

29

- 2

2118

7 79

85

0

0 26

-1

44

Lat w

orkl

oad

1316

10

8 L

R

6 10

30

1

- 21

177

78

102

0 0

26

-144

1317

10

9 R

R

7

10

29

- 2

2115

7 70

84

0

0 26

-1

44

139

Tabl

e B

-8.

Con

tinue

d.

Loc

al

Tim

e E

vent

N

o.

Typ

e E

volu

tion1

PAC

Se

at2

Ldg

Sp

ot

WO

D

Dir

ec.

(deg

. R

)

WO

D

Spee

d (k

ts.)

Lau

nch

PRS

Rec

over

y PR

S

Air

craf

t G

ross

W

eigh

t (lb

s.)

Avg

. T

Q

(%)

Max

. T

Q

(%)

Avg

. Pi

tch

(deg

.)

Avg

. R

oll

(deg

.)

OA

T

(deg

. C

)

Hp

(fee

t)C

omm

ents

1317

11

0 L

R

7 10

30

1

- 21

147

80

100

0 0

26

-144

1324

11

1 R

R

4

25

20

- 1

2104

7 75

79

0

0 26

-1

44

13

25

112

L R

4

25

23

1 -

2102

7 80

10

4 0

0 26

-1

44

13

26

113

R

R

5 25

26

-

1 21

017

80

86

0 0

26

-144

1326

11

4 L

R

5 25

25

1

- 21

007

84

103

0 0

26

-144

1328

11

5 R

R

6

25

25

- 2

2098

7 85

94

0

0 26

-1

44

Lat/l

ong

wor

kloa

d

1328

11

6 L

R

6 25

25

2

- 20

977

90

104

0 0

26

-144

Po

sitio

n ke

epin

g ov

er

spot

(la

t/lon

g w

orkl

oad)

13

30

117

R

R

7 25

25

-

2 20

957

90

100

0 0

26

-144

1330

11

8 L

R

7 25

25

2

- 20

947

90

108

0 0

26

-144

1342

11

9 R

R

4

50

10

- 2

2074

7 85

92

0

0 26

-1

44

13

43

120

L R

4

50

10

1 -

2073

7 90

10

3 0

0 26

-1

44

13

45

121

R

R

5 40

10

-

2 20

727

85

96

0 0

26

-144

G

lide

slop

e m

aint

/alti

tude

con

trol

1345

12

2 L

R

5 50

10

2

- 20

707

84

110

0 0

26

-144

Tq

man

agem

ent

1347

12

3 R

R

6

49

11

- 2

2067

7 95

10

4 0

0 26

-1

44

Lat w

orkl

oad

1347

12

4 L

R

6 55

9

2 -

2065

7 93

11

1 0

0 26

-1

44

Tq m

anag

emen

t

1349

12

5 R

R

7

50

9 -

2 20

647

82

94

0 0

26

-144

1349

12

6 L

R

7 50

9

2 -

2062

7 84

10

4 0

0 26

-1

44

Ref

uel

1351

12

7 R

R

4

45

10

- 2

2158

2 80

90

0

0 26

-1

44

14

03

128

L R

4

40

10

2 -

2154

7 93

10

6 0

0 26

-1

44

1417

12

9 R

R

4

130

5 -

2 21

357

86

96

0 0

26

-144

Pi

tch

attit

ude

on d

ecel

/FO

V (

15 d

eg

nose

up)

1418

13

0 L

R

4 11

5 5

2 -

2132

7 85

12

0 0

0 26

-1

44

Tq m

anag

emen

t; se

ttled

to

deck

edg

e le

vel

on d

epar

ture

with

win

d be

hind

su

pers

truct

ure

1419

13

1 R

R

5

115

6 -

2 21

297

88

96

0 0

26

-144

4

per v

ibes

on

final

(VA

R-5

) 14

20

132

L R

5

110

6 2

- 21

287

95

117

0 0

26

-144

Tq

man

agem

ent o

n de

partu

re

140

Tabl

e B

-8.

Con

tinue

d.

Loc

al

Tim

e E

vent

N

o.

Typ

e E

volu

tion1

PAC

Se

at2

Ldg

Sp

ot

WO

D

Dir

ec.

(deg

. R

)

WO

D

Spee

d (k

ts.)

Lau

nch

PRS

Rec

over

y PR

S

Air

craf

t G

ross

W

eigh

t (lb

s.)

Avg

. T

Q

(%)

Max

. T

Q

(%)

Avg

. Pi

tch

(deg

.)

Avg

. R

oll

(deg

.)

OA

T

(deg

. C

)

Hp

(fee

t)C

omm

ents

1422

13

3 R

R

6

115

6 -

2 21

257

88

98

0 0

26

-144

Pi

tch

attit

ude

on d

ecel

/FO

V (

12 d

eg

nose

up)

1422

13

4 L

R

6 11

5 6

2 -

2123

7 10

0 11

5 0

0 26

-1

44

Tq m

anag

emen

t on

depa

rture

14

24

135

R

R

7 12

0 4

- 2

2121

7 90

10

6 0

0 26

-1

44

1424

13

6 L

R

7 11

5 4

1 -

2119

7 90

10

6 0

0 26

-1

44

Dep

artu

re o

ver

elev

ator

hel

ps w

ith t

q m

anag

emen

t 14

30

137

R

R

4 11

0 3

- 2

2110

7 90

10

9 0

0 26

-1

44

Tq m

anag

emen

t 14

34

138

L R

4

145

4 2

- 21

067

85

108

0 0

26

-144

Tq

man

agem

ent/s

light

settl

ing

off d

eck

1444

13

9 R

R

5

180

6 -

2 20

947

95

110

0 0

26

-144

Tq

m

anag

emen

t; 4

per

rev

on

final

(V

AR

-6)

1444

14

0 L

R

5 18

0 4

1 -

2092

7 90

10

3 0

0 26

-1

44

14

46

141

R

R

6 18

0 3

- 2

2090

7 95

10

6 0

0 26

-1

44

14

46

142

L R

6

190

4 2

- 20

897

90

112

0 0

26

-144

Tq

man

agem

ent

1448

14

3 R

R

7

210

5 -

2 20

857

85

106

0 0

26

-144

1448

14

4 L

R

7 21

0 5

1 -

2084

7 85

10

0 0

0 26

-1

44

14

50

145

R

R

4 21

0 8

- 1

2082

7 84

99

0

0 26

-1

44

4 pe

r rev

on

final

(VA

R 5

) 14

51

146

L R

4

220

6 1

- 20

797

92

102

0 0

26

-144

1454

14

7 R

R

5

230

5 -

2 20

757

88

106

0 0

26

-144

4

per r

ev o

n fin

al (V

AR

6)

1455

14

8 L

R

5 24

0 5

1 -

2072

7 88

98

0

0 26

-1

44

14

57

149

R

R

6 24

0 5

- 2

2069

7 85

98

0

0 26

-1

44

14

57

150

L R

6

230

6 1

- 20

687

86

99

0 0

26

-144

1458

15

1 R

R

7

240

7 -

1 20

677

88

98

0 0

26

-144

1459

15

2 L

R

7 25

0 6

1 -

2065

7 87

94

0

0 26

-1

44

15

01

153

R

R

4 25

0 6

- 1

2058

2 85

98

0

0 26

-1

44

15

05

154

D

- -

250

6 -

- -

- -

0 0

26

-144

141

Tabl

e B

-8.

Con

tinue

d.

Loc

al

Tim

e E

vent

N

o.

Typ

e E

volu

tion1

PAC

Se

at2

Ldg

Sp

ot

WO

D

Dir

ec.

(deg

. R

)

WO

D

Spee

d (k

ts.)

Lau

nch

PRS

Rec

over

y PR

S

Air

craf

t G

ross

W

eigh

t (lb

s.)

Avg

. T

Q

(%)

Max

. T

Q

(%)

Avg

. Pi

tch

(deg

.)

Avg

. R

oll

(deg

.)

OA

T

(deg

. C

)

Hp

(fee

t)C

omm

ents

Peri

od 4

(05S

ep00

) - D

ay a

nd N

ight

VE

RT

RE

P

-

-

1745

15

5 E

- -

340

16

- -

- -

- 0

0 15

-1

45

1752

15

6 L

R

5 34

5 12

1

- 17

582

70

- 0

0 15

-1

45

Com

men

ce D

ay V

ERTR

EP Q

uals

(200

0 lb

load

) 17

54

157

R

R

6 35

5 20

-

1 -

- 95

0

0 15

-1

45

17

55

158

L R

6

360

20

1 -

- 70

-

0 0

15

-145

1758

15

9 W

O

R

9 36

0 20

-

- -

- -

0 0

15

-145

1800

16

0 P

R

9 0

24

2 -

1751

0 74

10

0 0

0 15

-1

45

18

00

161

DO

R

9

0 23

-

2 -

- 10

0 0

0 15

-1

45

18

02

162

P R

9

0 25

2

- -

72

90

0 0

15

-145

1805

16

3 D

O

R

9 0

25

- 1

- -

90

0 0

15

-145

1807

16

4 P

R

9 0

25

2 -

- -

90

0 0

15

-145

1808

16

5 D

O

R

9 0

25

- 2

1732

0 70

10

0 0

0 15

-1

45

Nos

e hi

gh, t

ail l

ow o

n de

cel

1810

16

6 P

R

9 0

25

1 -

- -

90

0 0

15

-145

1811

16

7 D

O

R

9 0

25

- 1

- 65

-

0 0

15

-145

1815

16

8 P

R

9 0

24

2 -

- -

- 0

0 15

-1

45

18

17

169

DO

R

9

0 27

-

2 -

70

- 0

0 15

-1

45

Nos

e hi

gh, t

ail l

ow o

n de

cel

1818

17

0 W

O

R

- 0

27

- -

- -

78

0 0

15

-145

1824

17

1 P

R

9 0

27

1 -

- 70

78

0

0 15

-1

45

1826

17

2 D

O

R

9 0

27

- 1

- 0

75

0 0

15

-145

Lo

ad fe

ll ap

art;

bega

n w

ith 5

00 lb

load

1828

17

3 P

R

9 0

27

1 -

- 62

-

0 0

15

-145

1829

17

4 D

O

R

9 0

27

- 1

1708

0 -

- 0

0 15

-1

45

18

31

175

P R

9

0 27

2

- -

- -

0 0

15

-145

1834

17

6 D

O

R

9 0

26

- 2

1701

0 -

- 0

0 15

-1

45

18

36

177

P L

9 0

24

1 -

- -

- 0

0 15

-1

45

142

Tabl

e B

-8.

Con

tinue

d.

Loc

al

Tim

e E

vent

N

o.

Typ

e E

volu

tion1

PAC

Se

at2

Ldg

Sp

ot

WO

D

Dir

ec.

(deg

. R

)

WO

D

Spee

d (k

ts.)

Lau

nch

PRS

Rec

over

y PR

S

Air

craf

t G

ross

W

eigh

t (lb

s.)

Avg

. T

Q

(%)

Max

. T

Q

(%)

Avg

. Pi

tch

(deg

.)

Avg

. R

oll

(deg

.)

OA

T

(deg

. C

)

Hp

(fee

t)C

omm

ents

1838

17

8 D

O

L 9

0 24

-

1 16

970

- -

0 0

15

-145

1840

17

9 P

L 9

0 24

2

- -

- -

0 0

15

-145

1842

18

0 D

O

L 9

0 25

-

2 -

- -

0 0

15

-145

1843

18

1 P

L 9

0 24

2

- -

- -

0 0

15

-145

1846

18

2 D

O

L 9

0 24

-

1 -

- -

0 0

15

-145

1847

18

3 P

L 9

0 24

2

- -

- -

0 0

15

-145

1849

18

4 D

O

L 9

0 25

-

1 -

- -

0 0

15

-145

1851

18

5 P

L 9

0 25

1

- -

- -

0 0

15

-145

1853

18

6 D

O

L 9

0 24

-

1 16

880

- -

0 0

15

-145

1856

18

7 R

L

4 0

24

- 1

- -

- 0

0 15

-1

45

Ref

uel

1909

18

8 L

R

4 0

25

2 -

- -

- 0

0 15

-1

45

Com

men

ce n

ight

VER

TREP

Qua

ls

1933

18

9 P

R

9 35

5 20

1

- -

- -

0 0

15

-145

1936

19

0 D

O

R

9 35

5 20

-

1 16

510

- -

0 0

15

-145

1937

19

1 P

R

9 35

5 20

2

- -

- -

0 0

15

-145

O

vera

ll w

orkl

oad,

vis

ual c

uing

-de

spite

lig

hter

load

19

38

192

DO

R

9

0 20

-

1 -

- -

0 0

15

-145

1940

19

3 P

R

9 0

22

1 -

- -

- 0

0 15

-1

45

19

42

194

DO

R

9

350

20

- 2

- -

- 0

0 15

-1

45

19

44

195

P L

9 35

0 20

2

- -

- -

0 0

15

-145

1946

19

6 D

O

L 9

0 23

-

2 -

- -

0 0

15

-145

1948

19

7 P

L 9

0 25

2

- -

- -

0 0

15

-145

1951

19

8 D

O

L 9

0 22

-

2 -

- -

0 0

15

-145

2006

19

9 P

R

9 0

20

2 -

1608

0 -

- 0

0 15

-1

45

20

07

200

DO

R

9

0 20

-

2 -

- -

0 0

15

-145

2009

20

1 P

R

9 35

0 20

2

- -

- -

0 0

15

-145

2011

20

2 D

O

R

9 35

0 20

-

2 -

- -

0 0

15

-145

143

Tabl

e B

-8.

Con

tinue

d.

Loc

al

Tim

e E

vent

N

o.

Typ

e E

volu

tion1

PAC

Se

at2

Ldg

Sp

ot

WO

D

Dir

ec.

(deg

. R

)

WO

D

Spee

d (k

ts.)

Lau

nch

PRS

Rec

over

y PR

S

Air

craf

t G

ross

W

eigh

t (lb

s.)

Avg

. T

Q

(%)

Max

. T

Q

(%)

Avg

. Pi

tch

(deg

.)

Avg

. R

oll

(deg

.)

OA

T

(deg

. C

)

Hp

(fee

t)C

omm

ents

2013

20

3 P

R

9 0

20

2 -

- -

- 0

0 15

-1

45

20

16

204

DO

R

9

0 20

-

2 -

- -

0 0

15

-145

2018

20

5 P

L 9

0 21

2

- -

- -

0 0

15

-145

2020

20

6 D

O

L 9

0 20

-

2 -

- -

0 0

15

-145

2022

20

7 P

L 9

0 20

2

- 15

820

- -

0 0

15

-145

2024

20

8 D

O

L 9

355

20

- 2

- -

- 0

0 15

-1

45

20

26

209

P L

9 35

0 22

2

- -

- -

0 0

15

-145

2028

21

0 D

O

L 9

355

21

- 1

- -

- 0

0 15

-1

45

20

30

211

P L

9 35

5 20

2

- -

- -

0 0

15

-145

2033

21

2 D

O

L 9

355

22

- 2

- -

- 0

0 15

-1

45

20

36

213

R

R

7 34

5 20

2

- 15

582

- -

0 0

15

-145

C

ompl

ete

VER

TREP

Qua

ls

2039

21

4 D

-

- 34

5 20

-

- -

- -

0 0

15

-145

Peri

od 5

(06S

ep00

) - E

vent

7 in

Tab

le B

-1 (D

ay E

nvel

ope

Exp

ansi

on)

1509

21

5 E

- -

155

5 -

- 21

567

- -

0 0

20

-145

1514

21

6 L

R

7 14

5 4

1 -

2156

7 88

10

7 0

0 20

-1

45

15

30

217

R

R

4 0

37

- 1

2134

7 65

80

0

0 20

-1

45

15

31

218

L R

4

0 40

1

- 21

327

68

95

0 0

20

-145

1532

21

9 R

R

5

355

40

- 1

2131

7 70

80

0

0 20

-1

45

15

32

220

L R

5

350

39

1 -

2130

7 68

96

0

0 20

-1

45

1533

22

1 R

R

6

350

39

- 2

2128

7 70

84

0

0 20

-1

45

AO

B

to

cont

rol

clos

ure

rate

; la

t w

orkl

oad

1534

22

2 L

R

6 35

0 37

1

- 21

267

74

92

0 0

20

-145

1535

22

3 R

R

7

350

39

- 1

2124

7 78

88

0

0 20

-1

45

15

36

224

L R

7

2 40

1

- 21

217

0 0

0 0

20

-145

1543

22

5 R

R

4

2 45

-

1 21

147

59

64

0 0

20

-145

1543

22

6 L

R

4 0

40

1 -

2112

7 70

92

0

0 20

-1

45

144

Tabl

e B

-8.

Con

tinue

d.

Loc

al

Tim

e E

vent

N

o.

Typ

e E

volu

tion1

PAC

Se

at2

Ldg

Sp

ot

WO

D

Dir

ec.

(deg

. R

)

WO

D

Spee

d (k

ts.)

Lau

nch

PRS

Rec

over

y PR

S

Air

craf

t G

ross

W

eigh

t (lb

s.)

Avg

. T

Q

(%)

Max

. T

Q

(%)

Avg

. Pi

tch

(deg

.)

Avg

. R

oll

(deg

.)

OA

T

(deg

. C

)

Hp

(fee

t)C

omm

ents

1544

22

7 R

R

5

355

40

- 1

2110

7 65

75

0

0 20

-1

45

15

45

228

L R

5

357

41

1 -

2109

7 73

95

0

0 20

-1

45

15

46

229

R

R

6 35

6 41

-

1 21

077

68

70

0 0

20

-145

1546

23

0 L

R

6 0

40

1 -

2105

7 73

94

0

0 20

-1

45

1548

23

1 R

R

7

355

48

- 2

2103

7 70

77

0

0 20

-1

45

AO

B

to

cont

rol

clos

ure

rate

; la

t w

orkl

oad

1549

23

2 L

R

7 3

49

1 -

2100

7 70

96

0

0 20

-1

45

15

55

233

R

R

4 15

40

-

1 20

937

65

79

0 0

20

-145

1556

23

4 L

R

4 13

40

1

- 20

917

73

92

0 0

20

-145

1557

23

5 R

R

5

15

42

- 2

2090

7 70

82

0

0 20

-1

45

Lat/p

ed w

orkl

oad;

mod

erat

e ch

op o

ver

spot

(V

AR

6);

airf

ram

e bu

ffet

@ 1

Hz

(+/-

5 de

g ya

w)

1558

23

6 L

R

5 23

43

1

- 20

887

85

93

0 0

20

-145

La

t/ped

wor

kloa

d; m

oder

ate

chop

ove

r sp

ot (

VA

R 6

); ai

rfra

me

buff

et @

1H

z (+

/- 5

deg

yaw

)

1559

23

7 R

R

6

10

42

- 2

2087

7 75

78

0

0 20

-1

45

Lat/p

ed w

orkl

oad;

mod

erat

e ch

op o

ver

spot

(V

AR

7);

airf

ram

e bu

ffet

@ 1

Hz

(+/-

5 de

g ya

w);

som

e ya

w c

hop

on

deck

)

1600

23

8 L

R

6 10

46

2

- 20

867

80

92

0 0

20

-145

Lat/p

ed w

orkl

oad;

mod

erat

e ch

op o

ver

spot

(V

AR

7);

airf

ram

e bu

ffet

@ 1

Hz

(+/-

5 de

g ya

w);

som

e ya

w c

hop

on

deck

)

1601

23

9 R

R

7

10

44

- 2

2083

7 75

80

0

0 20

-1

45

Lat/p

ed w

orkl

oad;

mod

erat

e ch

op o

ver

spot

(V

AR

6);

airf

ram

e bu

ffet

@ 1

Hz

(+/-

5 de

g ya

w)

1602

24

0 L

R

7 7

40

1 -

2081

7 85

95

0

0 20

-1

45

Lat/p

ed w

orkl

oad;

mod

erat

e ch

op o

ver

spot

(V

AR

6);

airf

ram

e bu

ffet

@ 1

Hz

(+/-

5 de

g ya

w)

1607

24

1 R

R

5

0 37

-

1 20

747

- -

0 0

20

-145

145

Tabl

e B

-8.

Con

tinue

d.

Loc

al

Tim

e E

vent

N

o.

Typ

e E

volu

tion1

PAC

Se

at2

Ldg

Sp

ot

WO

D

Dir

ec.

(deg

. R

)

WO

D

Spee

d (k

ts.)

Lau

nch

PRS

Rec

over

y PR

S

Air

craf

t G

ross

W

eigh

t (lb

s.)

Avg

. T

Q

(%)

Max

. T

Q

(%)

Avg

. Pi

tch

(deg

.)

Avg

. R

oll

(deg

.)

OA

T

(deg

. C

)

Hp

(fee

t)C

omm

ents

1618

24

2 L

R

5 5

33

1 -

2158

7 74

10

0 0

0 20

-1

45

Ref

uel

1637

24

3 R

R

4

23

39

- 2

2147

7 -

- 0

0 20

-1

45

16

38

244

L R

4

22

41

1 -

2144

7 -

109

0 0

20

-145

1639

24

5 R

R

5

15

40

- 2

2143

7 -

78

0 0

20

-145

Mod

erat

e ve

rt bu

ffet

, lat

cho

p an

d V

AR

6

on s

hort

final

and

ove

r sp

ot;

glid

e sl

ope

mai

nt

diff

icul

t sh

ort

final

; la

t w

orkl

oad

in a

hov

er (

+/-

3/4"

@ 2

-3

Hz)

. 16

39

246

L R

5

25

39

1 -

2142

7 -

105

0 0

20

-145

1641

24

7 R

R

6

28

40

- 2

2141

7 80

90

0

0 20

-1

45

Mod

erat

e ve

rt bu

ffet

, lat

cho

p an

d V

AR

6

on s

hort

final

and

ove

r sp

ot;

glid

e sl

ope

mai

nt

diff

icul

t sh

ort

final

; la

t w

orkl

oad

in a

hov

er (

+/-

3/4"

@ 2

-3

Hz)

. 16

42

248

L R

6

25

43

2 -

2138

7 -

108

0 0

20

-145

1644

24

9 R

R

7

25

44

- 2

2135

7 80

90

0

0 20

-1

45

Mod

erat

e ve

rt bu

ffet

, lat

cho

p an

d V

AR

6

on s

hort

final

and

ove

r sp

ot;

glid

e sl

ope

mai

nt

diff

icul

t sh

ort

final

; la

t w

orkl

oad

in a

hov

er (

+/-

3/4"

@ 2

-3

Hz)

. 16

45

250

L R

7

30

43

2 -

2134

7 -

113

0 0

20

-145

Tq

man

agem

ent;

late

ral w

orkl

oad

1640

25

1 R

R

4

40

35

- 2

2125

7 -

- 0

0 20

-1

45

16

41

252

L R

4

41

30

1 -

2121

7 80

11

3 0

0 20

-1

45

Tq m

anag

emen

t on

depa

rture

1643

25

3 R

R

5

45

35

- 2

2120

7 -

100

0 0

20

-145

La

t wor

kloa

d (+

/- 1/

2"@

2 H

z); V

AR

6

on fi

nal a

nd in

hov

er

1644

25

4 L

R

5 45

31

2

- 21

197

80

114

0 0

20

-145

La

t w

orkl

oad

(+/-

3/4"

@

3

Hz,

oc

casi

onal

1

1/2"

in

put);

Tq

m

anag

emen

t on

depa

rture

1646

25

5 R

R

6

37

30

- 2

2113

7 -

90

0 0

20

-145

La

t wor

kloa

d (+

/- 1/

2" @

2 H

z); V

AR

6

on fi

nal a

nd in

hov

er

146

Tabl

e B

-8.

Con

tinue

d.

Loc

al

Tim

e E

vent

N

o.

Typ

e E

volu

tion1

PAC

Se

at2

Ldg

Sp

ot

WO

D

Dir

ec.

(deg

. R

)

WO

D

Spee

d (k

ts.)

Lau

nch

PRS

Rec

over

y PR

S

Air

craf

t G

ross

W

eigh

t (lb

s.)

Avg

. T

Q

(%)

Max

. T

Q

(%)

Avg

. Pi

tch

(deg

.)

Avg

. R

oll

(deg

.)

OA

T

(deg

. C

)

Hp

(fee

t)C

omm

ents

1647

25

6 L

R

6 40

37

2

- 21

137

- 11

1 0

0 20

-1

45

1648

25

7 R

R

7

40

35

- 3

2112

7 -

104

0 0

20

-145

Mod

erat

e ve

rt b

uffe

t, la

t ch

op a

nd

VA

R 7

on

shor

t fin

al a

nd o

ver

spot

; gl

ide

slop

e m

aint

diff

icul

t sh

ort

final

(a

brup

t lo

ss o

f 10

-15

ft, 5

0 yr

ds f

rom

de

ck -

up 1

" co

llec

to a

rres

t de

scen

t);

lat

wor

kloa

d (+

/-3/

4"

@

3 H

z,

occa

sion

al 1

1/2

" in

put)

16

49

258

L R

7

39

35

2 -

2110

7 -

114

0 0

20

-145

Tq

man

agem

ent;

late

ral w

orkl

oad

1650

259

R

R

7 40

35

-

3 21

047

- 10

0 0

0 20

-1

45

Mod

erat

e ve

rt b

uffe

t, la

t ch

op a

nd

VA

R 7

on

shor

t fin

al a

nd o

ver

spot

; gl

ide

slop

e m

aint

diff

icul

t sh

ort

final

(a

brup

t lo

ss o

f 10

-15

ft, 5

0 yr

ds f

rom

de

ck -

up 1

" co

llec

to a

rres

t de

scen

t);

lat

wor

kloa

d (+

/-3/

4"

@

3 H

z,

occa

sion

al 1

1/2

" in

put)

16

59

260

L R

7

35

35

2 -

2102

7 -

112

0 0

20

-145

Tq

man

agem

ent;

late

ral w

orkl

oad

1700

26

1 R

R

4

55

21

- 2

2101

7 -

112

0 0

20

-145

La

t/lon

g w

orkl

oad;

ya

w

buff

et

shor

t fin

al a

nd o

ver s

pot (

VA

R 6

)

1701

26

2 L

R

4 55

21

2

- 20

937

- 11

5 0

0 20

-1

45

Tq m

anag

emen

t; la

tera

l wor

kloa

d

1702

26

3 R

R

5

58

24

- 2

2089

7 -

100

0 0

20

-145

La

t/lon

g w

orkl

oad;

ya

w

buff

et

shor

t fin

al a

nd o

ver s

pot (

VA

R 6

) 17

03

264

L R

5

60

21

2 -

2088

7 -

115

0 0

20

-145

Tq

man

agem

ent;

late

ral w

orkl

oad

1704

26

5 R

R

6

62

24

- 2

2085

7 -

97

0 0

20

-145

La

t/lon

g w

orkl

oad;

glid

e sl

ope

mai

nt

(col

lect

wor

kloa

d) w

ith b

uffe

t (V

AR

6)

1705

26

6 L

R

6 60

22

2

- 20

807

- 11

2 0

0 20

-1

45

Tq m

anag

emen

t; la

tera

l wor

kloa

d 17

19

267

R

R

4 50

28

-

2 20

647

- 0

0 0

20

-145

1720

26

8 L

R

4 35

28

2

- 20

627

- 11

3 0

0 20

-1

45

Tq

man

agem

ent;

late

ral

wor

kloa

d;

refu

el

147

Tabl

e B

-8.

Con

tinue

d.

Loc

al

Tim

e E

vent

N

o.

Typ

e E

volu

tion1

PAC

Se

at2

Ldg

Sp

ot

WO

D

Dir

ec.

(deg

. R

)

WO

D

Spee

d (k

ts.)

Lau

nch

PRS

Rec

over

y PR

S

Air

craf

t G

ross

W

eigh

t (lb

s.)

Avg

. T

Q

(%)

Max

. T

Q

(%)

Avg

. Pi

tch

(deg

.)

Avg

. R

oll

(deg

.)

OA

T

(deg

. C

)

Hp

(fee

t)C

omm

ents

1722

26

9 R

R

6

40

24

- 2

2155

7 -

100

0 0

20

-145

La

t/lon

g w

orkl

oad;

glid

e sl

ope

mai

nt

(col

lect

wor

kloa

d) w

ith b

uffe

t (V

AR

6)

1739

27

0 L

R

6 55

21

2

- 21

537

- 11

8 0

0 20

-1

45

Tq m

anag

emen

t; la

tera

l wor

kloa

d

1741

27

1 R

R

4

50

25

- 2

2151

7 -

98

0 0

20

-145

La

t/lon

g w

orkl

oad;

glid

e sl

ope

mai

nt

(col

lect

wor

kloa

d) w

ith b

uffe

t (V

AR

6)

1742

27

2 L

R

4 60

25

1

- 21

497

- 11

2 0

0 20

-1

45

17

43

273

R

R

5 65

25

-

1 21

457

- 10

0 0

0 20

-1

45

1755

27

4 L

R

5 70

21

2

- 21

367

- 12

1 0

0 20

-1

45

Tq

man

agem

ent

and

settl

e of

f de

ck

behi

nd su

pers

truct

ure

1757

27

5 R

R

4

65

17

- 2

2133

7 -

103

0 0

20

-145

1758

27

6 L

R

4 65

17

2

- 21

327

- 12

0 0

0 20

-1

45

17

59

277

R

R

5 62

20

-

2 21

307

- -

0 0

20

-145

La

t/lon

g w

orkl

oad;

glid

e sl

ope

mai

nt

(col

lect

wor

kloa

d) w

ith b

uffe

t (V

AR

6)

1800

27

8 L

R

5 65

20

2

- 21

297

- 11

3 0

0 20

-1

45

Tq

man

agem

ent

with

qu

arte

ring

tail

win

d

1823

27

9 R

R

4

310

26

- 2

2091

7 -

- 0

0 20

-1

45

Lat

wor

kloa

d an

d A

OB

to

m

aint

ain

clos

ure

rate

and

glid

e sl

ope

1823

28

0 L

R

4 31

0 27

2

- 20

897

- 90

0

0 20

-1

45

1825

28

1 R

R

5

310

28

- 2

2088

7 -

70

0 0

20

-145

La

t w

orkl

oad

and

AO

B

to

mai

ntai

n cl

osur

e ra

te a

nd g

lide

slop

e 18

25

282

L R

5

305

27

2 -

2087

7 -

80

0 0

20

-145

1826

28

3 R

R

6

305

25

- 2

2086

7 -

78

0 0

20

-145

La

t w

orkl

oad

and

AO

B

to

mai

ntai

n cl

osur

e ra

te a

nd g

lide

slop

e 18

27

284

L R

6

315

32

2 -

2084

7 -

80

0 0

20

-145

1829

28

5 R

R

7

315

30

- 2

2083

7 -

- 0

0 20

-1

45

Lat

wor

kloa

d an

d A

OB

to

m

aint

ain

clos

ure

rate

and

glid

e sl

ope

1829

28

6 L

R

7 31

0 27

1

- 0

- -

0 0

20

-145

1840

28

7 R

R

4

290

25

- 2

2063

7 -

- 0

0 20

-1

45

Lat

wor

kloa

d an

d A

OB

to

m

aint

ain

clos

ure

rate

and

glid

e sl

ope

148

Tabl

e B

-8.

Con

tinue

d.

Loc

al

Tim

e E

vent

N

o.

Typ

e E

volu

tion1

PAC

Se

at2

Ldg

Sp

ot

WO

D

Dir

ec.

(deg

. R

)

WO

D

Spee

d (k

ts.)

Lau

nch

PRS

Rec

over

y PR

S

Air

craf

t G

ross

W

eigh

t (lb

s.)

Avg

. T

Q

(%)

Max

. T

Q

(%)

Avg

. Pi

tch

(deg

.)

Avg

. R

oll

(deg

.)

OA

T

(deg

. C

)

Hp

(fee

t)C

omm

ents

1840

28

8 L

R

4 29

5 23

1

- 20

637

- 90

0

0 20

-1

45

1843

28

9 R

R

5

295

29

- 2

0 -

85

0 0

20

-145

La

t w

orkl

oad

and

AO

B

to

mai

ntai

n cl

osur

e ra

te a

nd g

lide

slop

e 18

44

290

L R

5

295

29

1 -

2059

7 -

79

0 0

20

-145

1845

29

1 R

R

5

315

29

- 2

2058

7 -

85

0 0

20

-145

La

t w

orkl

oad

and

AO

B

to

mai

ntai

n cl

osur

e ra

te a

nd g

lide

slop

e 18

46

292

L R

6

290

30

2 -

2055

7 -

78

0 0

20

-145

1847

29

3 R

R

6

290

25

- 1

2054

7 -

83

0 0

20

-145

La

t w

orkl

oad

and

AO

B

to

mai

ntai

n cl

osur

e ra

te a

nd g

lide

slop

e 18

48

294

L R

7

315

27

2 -

2053

7 70

80

0

0 20

-1

45

1850

29

5 R

R

7

310

27

- 2

2052

7 -

87

0 0

20

-145

Not

es:

1 Laun

ch (L

), R

ecov

ery

(R),

Enga

gem

ent (

E), D

isen

gage

men

t (D

), Lo

ad D

rop

(DO

), Lo

ad P

ick

(P),

Wav

e O

ff (W

O)

2 Rig

ht S

eat (

R),

Left

Seat

(L)

149

Tabl

e B

-9: U

SNS

CO

NC

OR

D (T

-AFS

5) D

ata

Shee

ts

Loc

al

Tim

e E

vent

N

o.

Typ

e E

volu

tion1

PAC

Se

at2

Typ

e A

ppr3

WO

D

Dir

ectio

n(d

eg. R

)

WO

D

Spee

d (k

ts)

Lau

nch

PRS

Rec

over

y PR

S

Air

craf

t G

ross

W

eigh

t (lb

s.)

Avg

. T

Q

(%)

Max

. T

Q

(%)

Avg

. Pi

tch

(deg

.)

Avg

. R

oll

(deg

.)

OA

T

(deg

. C)

Hp

(fee

t)

Com

men

ts

Peri

od 1

(11S

ep00

) - E

vent

s 9 a

nd 1

0 in

Tab

le B

-1 (D

ay D

LQ

s and

Env

elop

e E

xpan

sion

)

13

52

1 E

- -

335

17

- -

2188

7 -

- 1

2 28

-1

40

Com

men

ce D

LQs

1357

2

L R

S

335

18

1 -

2150

7 88

10

9 1

2 28

-1

40

13

59

3 R

R

S

340

18

- 1

2146

7 90

96

1

2 28

-1

40

14

00

4 L

R

S 34

0 18

1

- 21

457

90

102

1 2

28

-140

1402

5

R

R

S 34

0 18

-

1 21

437

90

100

1 2

28

-140

1403

6

L R

S

340

18

1 -

2141

7 90

10

1 1

2 28

-1

40

14

04

7 R

R

S

340

18

- 1

2139

7 90

10

0 1

2 28

-1

40

14

05

8 L

R

S 34

0 18

1

- 21

387

92

111

1 2

28

-140

1406

9

R

R

S 34

0 16

-

1 21

367

88

100

1 2

28

-140

1407

10

L

R

S 34

0 16

1

- 21

357

92

109

1 2

28

-140

1409

11

R

R

S

340

17

- 1

2133

7 92

10

0 1

2 28

-1

40

14

09

12

L R

S

340

17

1 -

2131

7 92

10

8 1

2 28

-1

40

14

20

13

R

L P

35

18

- 1

2115

7 -

- 1

3 28

-1

40

14

21

14

L L

P 35

18

1

- 21

127

90

100

1 3

28

-140

1423

15

R

L

P 35

18

-

1 21

117

85

100

1 3

28

-140

1424

16

L

L P

35

18

1 -

2109

7 85

10

4 1

3 28

-1

40

14

25

17

R

L P

35

18

- 1

2106

7 90

10

8 1

3 28

-1

40

14

27

18

L L

P 35

18

1

- 21

057

90

112

1 3

28

-140

1428

19

R

L

P 35

18

-

1 21

017

85

100

1 3

28

-140

1429

20

L

L P

35

18

1 -

2100

7 90

10

4 1

3 28

-1

40

14

32

21

R

L P

35

18

- 1

2096

7 85

10

0 1

3 28

-1

40

14

33

22

L L

P 35

18

1

- 20

947

85

108

1 3

28

-140

1435

23

R

L

P 35

18

-

1 20

917

87

101

1 3

28

-140

150

Tabl

e B

-9.

Con

tinue

d.

Loc

al

Tim

e E

vent

N

o.

Typ

e E

volu

tion1

PAC

Se

at2

Typ

e A

ppr3

WO

D

Dir

ectio

n(d

eg. R

)

WO

D

Spee

d (k

ts)

Lau

nch

PRS

Rec

over

y PR

S

Air

craf

t G

ross

W

eigh

t (lb

s.)

Avg

. T

Q

(%)

Max

. T

Q

(%)

Avg

. Pi

tch

(deg

.)

Avg

. R

oll

(deg

.)

OA

T

(deg

. C)

Hp

(fee

t)

Com

men

ts

1436

24

L

L P

35

18

1 -

2090

7 85

10

8 1

3 28

-1

40

End

DLQ

s 14

46

25

R

L P

0 13

-

1 20

757

85

101

1 3

28

-140

B

egin

Env

elop

e Ex

pans

ion

1447

26

L

L P

0 13

1

- 20

727

90

107

1 3

28

-140

1449

27

R

R

S

0 12

-

2 20

707

90

100

3 5

28

-140

La

t pos

ition

kee

ping

14

50

28

L R

S

0 10

1

- 20

657

90

101

3 5

28

-140

1459

29

R

L

P 0

20

- 1

2053

7 85

95

3

2 28

-1

40

15

00

30

L L

P 0

20

1 -

2052

7 90

10

4 3

2 28

-1

40

15

02

31

R

R

S 0

20

- 1

2049

7 90

11

2 3

2 28

-1

40

15

02

32

L R

S

0 20

1

- 20

487

90

106

3 2

28

-140

1505

33

R

R

P

0 20

-

1 20

457

- -

3 2

28

-140

R

efue

l 15

17

34

L R

S

0 24

1

- 21

547

94

104

3 2

28

-140

1521

35

R

L

P 0

25

- 1

2147

7 90

10

2 2

2 28

-1

40

15

22

36

L L

P 0

25

1 -

2147

7 90

10

7 2

2 28

-1

40

15

26

37

R

R

S 5

27

- 1

2143

7 92

10

0 2

2 28

-1

40

15

27

38

L R

S

5 27

1

- 21

417

89

108

2 2

28

-140

1536

39

R

L

P 0

30

- 1

2128

7 78

94

2

2 28

-1

40

15

37

40

L L

P 0

30

2 -

2124

7 85

11

6 2

2 28

-1

40

Tq m

anag

emen

t; V

AR

-5

1539

41

R

R

S

0 30

-

2 21

207

86

102

2 2

28

-140

G

lide

slop

e m

aint

enan

ce o

n sh

ort f

inal

15

40

42

L R

S

0 30

1

- 21

187

92

106

2 2

28

-140

1548

43

R

L

P 34

5 27

-

2 21

077

75

92

2 2

28

-140

M

oder

ate

yaw

ch

op

(5-1

0 de

g hd

g ch

ange

s); l

at d

irect

iona

l con

trol

1549

44

L

L P

345

27

2 -

2104

7 88

10

2 2

2 28

-1

40

Mod

erat

e ya

w c

hop

in h

over

; VA

R-5

in

hove

r 15

52

45

R

R

S 34

5 28

-

1 21

007

88

100

2 2

28

-140

1553

46

L

R

S 34

5 28

1

- 20

987

92

101

2 2

28

-140

1600

47

R

L

P 33

0 20

-

2 20

897

84

94

2 2

28

-140

La

t pos

ition

kee

ping

(+/-

3/4"

@ 1

/2 H

z)

1601

48

L

L P

330

20

2 -

2087

7 85

10

7 2

2 28

-1

40

Mod

erat

e ya

w c

hop

(10-

15

deg

hdg

chan

ges)

151

Tabl

e B

-9.

Con

tinue

d.

Loc

al

Tim

e E

vent

N

o.

Typ

e E

volu

tion1

PAC

Se

at2

Typ

e A

ppr3

WO

D

Dir

ectio

n(d

eg. R

)

WO

D

Spee

d (k

ts)

Lau

nch

PRS

Rec

over

y PR

S

Air

craf

t G

ross

W

eigh

t (lb

s.)

Avg

. T

Q

(%)

Max

. T

Q

(%)

Avg

. Pi

tch

(deg

.)

Avg

. R

oll

(deg

.)

OA

T

(deg

. C)

Hp

(fee

t)

Com

men

ts

1603

49

R

R

S

330

22

- 2

2085

7 90

99

2

2 28

-1

40

Lat/l

ong

wor

kloa

d; A

R-5

16

04

50

L R

S

330

22

1 -

2082

7 85

10

0 2

2 28

-1

40

1610

51

R

L

P 31

5 13

-

2 20

717

85

95

2 2

28

-140

La

t w

orkl

oad

on

lineu

p sh

ort

final

; m

oder

ate

yaw

cho

p; A

R-5

for

4 p

er r

ev

vibe

1613

52

L

L P

315

14

2 -

2070

7 85

10

6 2

2 28

-1

40

Tq m

anag

emen

t be

hind

sup

erst

ruct

ure

on ta

keof

f

1614

53

R

R

S

315

14

- 1

2067

7 85

10

3 2

2 28

-1

40

16

15

54

L R

S

315

14

1 -

2066

7 90

10

2 2

2 28

-1

40

16

26

55

R

L P

300

9 -

2 20

477

99

95

2 2

28

-140

La

tera

l pos

ition

kee

ping

on

land

ing

1627

56

L

L P

300

9 2

- 20

477

99

104

2 2

28

-140

TQ

man

agem

ent

1628

57

R

R

S

300

10

- 1

2043

7 92

97

2

2 28

-1

40

16

29

58

L R

S

300

10

1 -

2043

7 96

95

2

2 28

-1

40

16

31

59

R

R

S 30

0 10

-

1 20

427

94

89

2 2

28

-140

1635

60

D

-

- 30

0 10

-

- 20

387

- -

2 2

28

-140

Sh

utdo

wn

and

refu

el

Peri

od 2

(11S

ep00

) - E

vent

11

in T

able

B-1

(Day

Env

elop

e E

xpan

sion

and

Nig

ht D

LQ

s)

18

49

61

E -

- 10

18

-

- 21

547

- -

2 2

28

-140

1855

62

L

R

S 10

20

1

- 21

517

98

100

2 2

28

-140

1900

63

R

R

S

5 20

-

1 21

437

95

102

2 2

28

-140

1900

64

L

R

S 10

20

1

- 21

417

95

110

2 2

28

-140

1910

65

R

L

P 5

20

- 1

2129

7 86

10

4 2

2 28

-1

40

19

10

66

L L

P 10

20

1

- 21

277

88

108

2 2

28

-140

1920

67

R

R

S

20

27

- 2

2111

7 89

10

4 2

2 28

-1

40

19

21

68

L R

S

20

28

2 -

2107

7 98

10

8 2

2 28

-1

40

19

24

69

R

L P

15

30

- 2

2104

7 83

10

8 2

2 28

-1

40

19

25

70

L L

P 15

30

2

- 21

047

88

110

2 2

24

-150

1941

71

R

R

S

350

17

- 1

2080

7 85

10

0 2

2 24

-1

50

Com

men

ce n

ight

DLQ

s

152

Tabl

e B

-9.

Con

tinue

d.

Loc

al

Tim

e E

vent

N

o.

Typ

e E

volu

tion1

PAC

Se

at2

Typ

e A

ppr3

WO

D

Dir

ectio

n(d

eg. R

)

WO

D

Spee

d (k

ts)

Lau

nch

PRS

Rec

over

y PR

S

Air

craf

t G

ross

W

eigh

t (lb

s.)

Avg

. T

Q

(%)

Max

. T

Q

(%)

Avg

. Pi

tch

(deg

.)

Avg

. R

oll

(deg

.)

OA

T

(deg

. C)

Hp

(fee

t)

Com

men

ts

1942

72

L

R

S 35

0 17

1

- 20

777

89

100

2 2

24

-150

1945

73

R

R

S

345

17

- 2

2073

7 85

96

2

2 24

-1

50

Vis

ual c

uing

19

47

74

L R

S

350

15

1 -

2073

7 88

10

8 2

2 24

-1

50

19

49

75

R

R

S 34

5 15

-

2 20

677

85

92

2 2

24

-150

1950

76

L

R

S 34

5 15

1

- 20

657

85

107

2 2

24

-150

1953

77

R

R

S

350

15

- 2

2061

7 85

95

2

2 24

-1

50

Vis

ual c

uing

19

56

78

L R

S

350

15

2 -

2057

7 90

10

5 2

2 24

-1

50

Vis

ual c

uing

19

59

79

R

R

S 35

0 15

-

1 20

537

- -

2 2

24

-150

2000

80

L

R

S 35

0 15

1

- 20

527

- -

2 2

24

-150

2004

81

R

R

S

350

15

- 1

2049

7 -

- 2

2 24

-1

50

20

04

82

L R

S

350

15

1 -

2048

7 -

- 2

2 24

-1

50

20

16

83

R

L P

45

11

- 1

2045

7 -

- 2

2 24

-1

50

20

16

84

L L

P 45

11

1

- 20

437

- -

2 2

24

-150

2020

85

R

L

P 45

10

-

1 20

437

- -

2 2

24

-150

2020

86

L

L P

45

10

1 -

2039

7 -

- 2

2 24

-1

50

20

24

87

R

L P

45

10

- 1

2036

7 -

- 2

2 24

-1

50

20

24

88

L L

P 45

11

1

- 20

337

- -

2 2

24

-150

2028

89

R

L

P 40

13

-

1 20

307

- -

2 2

24

-150

2028

90

L

L P

40

12

1 -

2028

7 -

- 2

2 24

-1

50

20

31

91

R

L P

40

13

- 1

2025

7 -

- 2

2 24

-1

50

20

31

92

L L

P 45

12

1

- 20

227

- -

2 2

24

-150

2036

93

R

L

P 45

12

-

1 20

207

- -

2 2

24

-150

2046

94

D

-

- 40

12

-

- 20

177

- -

2 2

24

-150

En

d ni

ght D

LQs

Peri

od 3

(12S

ep00

) - E

vent

12

in T

able

B-1

(Day

Env

elop

e E

xpan

sion

)

83

9 95

E

- -

300

5 -

- 21

537

- -

2 2

18

-100

844

96

L R

P

300

6 2

- 21

517

88

112

1 1

18

-100

Tq

man

agem

ent;

settl

e on

tran

sitio

n

153

Tabl

e B

-9.

Con

tinue

d.

Loc

al

Tim

e E

vent

N

o.

Typ

e E

volu

tion1

PAC

Se

at2

Typ

e A

ppr3

WO

D

Dir

ectio

n(d

eg. R

)

WO

D

Spee

d (k

ts)

Lau

nch

PRS

Rec

over

y PR

S

Air

craf

t G

ross

W

eigh

t (lb

s.)

Avg

. T

Q

(%)

Max

. T

Q

(%)

Avg

. Pi

tch

(deg

.)

Avg

. R

oll

(deg

.)

OA

T

(deg

. C)

Hp

(fee

t)

Com

men

ts

847

97

R

R

S 30

0 6

- 1

2148

7 88

10

3 1

1 18

-1

00

84

8 98

L

R

S 30

0 6

2 -

2147

7 90

11

5 1

1 18

-1

00

Tq m

anag

emen

t 85

0 99

R

L

P 30

0 6

- 2

2142

7 98

11

6 1

1 18

-1

00

Lat/l

ong

wor

kloa

d ov

er sp

ot

852

100

L L

P 30

0 6

2 -

2140

7 10

2 11

8 1

1 18

-1

00

Tq m

anag

emen

t 90

3 10

1 R

R

S

280

4 -

1 21

277

90

98

1 1

18

-100

903

102

L R

S

285

4 1

- 21

257

92

104

1 1

18

-100

905

103

R

L P

280

4 -

1 21

227

95

107

1 1

18

-100

906

104

L L

P 28

0 4

2 -

2120

7 10

3 11

7 1

1 18

-1

00

Tq m

anag

emen

t 90

7 10

5 R

R

S

270

4 -

1 21

177

88

110

1 1

18

-100

908

106

L R

S

270

4 1

- 21

157

89

106

1 1

18

-100

910

107

R

L P

265

4 -

2 21

117

93

109

1 1

18

-100

A

ltitu

de c

ontro

l/glid

e sl

ope

mai

nten

ance

on

sho

rt fin

al (

rapi

d 1"

up

colle

ctiv

e re

quire

d)

911

108

L L

P 26

5 4

2 -

2110

7 10

0 11

9 1

1 18

-1

00

Tq m

anag

emen

t

913

109

R

R

S 26

5 4

- 2

2107

7 89

10

4 1

1 18

-1

00

Lat

wor

kloa

d ov

er

deck

an

d du

ring

touc

hdow

n; V

AR

-5 d

ue t

o bu

rble

on

shor

t fin

al

913

110

L R

S

265

4 1

- 21

067

90

110

1 1

18

-100

916

111

R

L P

265

4 -

1 21

037

95

102

1 1

18

-100

917

112

L L

P 26

0 4

2 -

2101

7 10

5 11

4 2

2 18

-1

00

Tq m

anag

emen

t 92

7 11

3 R

R

S

250

5 -

1 20

867

90

100

2 2

18

-100

927

114

L R

S

250

5 1

- 20

847

90

104

2 2

18

-100

930

115

R

L P

250

5 -

2 20

807

100

108

2 2

18

-100

Lo

ng p

ositi

on k

eepi

ng o

ver

spot

with

ta

il w

ind

931

116

L L

P 25

0 5

2 -

2078

7 97

11

4 2

2 18

-1

00

Tq m

anag

emen

t

942

117

R

R

S 24

0 4

- 2

2064

7 93

11

0 3

5 18

-1

00

Lat p

ositi

on k

eepi

ng o

ver

spot

(+/

-3/

4"

@ 2

Hz)

; bur

ble

on sh

ort f

inal

(VA

R-5

) 94

3 11

8 L

R

S 23

5 4

1 -

2062

7 90

11

0 3

5 18

-1

00

154

Tabl

e B

-9.

Con

tinue

d.

Loc

al

Tim

e E

vent

N

o.

Typ

e E

volu

tion1

PAC

Se

at2

Typ

e A

ppr3

WO

D

Dir

ectio

n(d

eg. R

)

WO

D

Spee

d (k

ts)

Lau

nch

PRS

Rec

over

y PR

S

Air

craf

t G

ross

W

eigh

t (lb

s.)

Avg

. T

Q

(%)

Max

. T

Q

(%)

Avg

. Pi

tch

(deg

.)

Avg

. R

oll

(deg

.)

OA

T

(deg

. C)

Hp

(fee

t)

Com

men

ts

945

119

R

L P

235

4 -

2 20

587

95

111

3 5

18

-100

La

t/lon

g w

orkl

oad

over

spot

94

6 12

0 L

L P

235

4 2

- 20

557

88

115

3 5

18

-100

Tq

man

agem

ent

947

121

R

L P

235

4 -

2 20

537

85

105

3 5

18

-100

Lo

ng p

ositi

on k

eepi

ng o

ver

spot

(+/

-3/

4" @

2-3

Hz)

; 4 p

er re

v on

sho

rt fin

al

(VA

R-5

) 10

0 12

2 L

L P

350

22

1 -

2154

7 94

11

0 3

5 18

-1

00

10

12

123

R

R

S 19

0 4

- 1

2138

7 92

10

5 3

2 18

-1

00

1014

12

5 R

L

P 20

0 4

- 2

2133

7 95

10

5 3

2 18

-1

00

Long

pos

ition

kee

ping

ove

r sp

ot (

+/-

3/4"

@ 2

-3 H

z); 4

per

rev

on s

hort

final

(V

AR

-5)

1015

12

6 L

L P

200

4 1

- 21

307

97

111

3 2

18

-100

1023

12

7 R

R

S

160

4 -

2 21

187

95

119

3 2

18

-100

Tq

man

agem

ent

1023

12

8 L

R

S 16

0 4

2 -

2118

7 93

11

5 3

2 18

-1

00

Tq m

anag

emen

t; m

oder

ate

yaw

cho

p (+

/- 5

deg

@ 2

Hz)

1026

12

9 R

L

P 16

0 5

- 2

2113

7 90

10

0 3

2 18

-1

00

Glid

e sl

ope/

clos

ure

rate

mai

nten

ance

; 13

deg

nose

up

(FO

V is

sues

) 10

26

130

L L

P 16

0 5

1 -

2111

7 95

11

2 3

2 18

-1

00

1035

13

1 R

R

S

145

4 -

2 21

007

92

102

3 2

18

-100

G

lide

slop

e/cl

osur

e ra

te m

aint

enan

ce; 1

3 de

g no

se u

p (F

OV

issu

es)

1036

13

2 L

R

S 14

5 4

2 -

2099

7 93

11

0 3

2 18

-1

00

Tq m

anag

emen

t; m

oder

ate

yaw

cho

p (+

/- 5

deg

@ 2

Hz)

1037

13

3 R

L

P 14

5 4

- 2

2095

7 88

10

0 3

2 18

-1

00

Lat w

orkl

oad

over

spo

t; 13

deg

nos

e up

on

shor

t fin

al (l

oss o

f FO

V).

1038

13

4 L

L P

145

4 2

- 20

927

95

120

3 2

18

-100

Tq

man

agem

ent

1045

13

5 R

R

S

105

3 -

2 20

837

85

104

3 2

18

-100

G

lide

slop

e/cl

osur

e ra

te m

aint

enan

ce; 1

5 de

g no

se u

p (F

OV

issu

es)

1046

13

6 L

R

S 10

5 3

2 -

2082

7 94

10

7 3

2 18

-1

00

Glid

e sl

ope/

clos

ure

rate

m

aint

enan

ce;

VA

R-5

on

shor

t fin

al

1048

13

7 R

L

P 11

0 3

- 2

2079

7 90

10

0 3

2 18

-1

00

Lat

wor

kloa

d ov

er s

pot

(+/-3

/4"

@ 2

H

z)

155

Tabl

e B

-9.

Con

tinue

d.

Loc

al

Tim

e E

vent

N

o.

Typ

e E

volu

tion1

PAC

Se

at2

Typ

e A

ppr3

WO

D

Dir

ectio

n(d

eg. R

)

WO

D

Spee

d (k

ts)

Lau

nch

PRS

Rec

over

y PR

S

Air

craf

t G

ross

W

eigh

t (lb

s.)

Avg

. T

Q

(%)

Max

. T

Q

(%)

Avg

. Pi

tch

(deg

.)

Avg

. R

oll

(deg

.)

OA

T

(deg

. C)

Hp

(fee

t)

Com

men

ts

1048

13

8 L

L P

110

3 1

- 20

777

92

108

3 2

18

-100

1056

13

9 R

R

S

75

6 -

2 20

667

82

105

3 2

18

-100

G

lide

slop

e/cl

osur

e ra

te m

aint

enan

ce; 1

5 de

g no

se u

p (F

OV

issu

es)

1057

14

0 L

R

S 75

6

2 -

2063

7 87

10

4 3

2 18

-1

00

Mod

erat

e ya

w c

hop

on d

epar

ture

(+/-

10

deg

@ 2

z)

1058

14

1 R

L

P 75

6

- 2

2061

7 95

10

2 3

2 18

-1

00

Lat w

orkl

oad

over

spo

t; 13

deg

nos

e up

on

shor

t fin

al (l

oss o

f FO

V).

1103

14

2 D

-

- 80

5

- -

2060

7 -

- 3

2 18

-1

00

Pe

riod

4 (1

2Sep

00) -

Eve

nt 1

3 in

Tab

le B

-1 (D

ay E

nvel

ope

Exp

ansi

on)

1325

14

3 E

- -

330

15

- -

-

- 3

2 30

-3

0

1336

14

4 L

R

P 25

24

1

- 21

437

88

106

3 10

30

-3

0

1342

14

5 R

R

S

35

23

- 1

-

- 3

10

30

-30

13

56

146

L R

S

5 23

1

- 21

222

88

103

3 10

30

-3

0

1404

14

7 R

R

S

25

23

- 2

2112

7 87

95

3

10

30

-30

Lat w

orkl

oad

1404

14

8 L

R

S 25

23

2

- 21

127

88

106

3 10

30

-3

0 D

irect

iona

l w

orkl

oad;

+/-

10 d

eg y

aw

kick

s in

burb

le o

ver d

eck

(VA

R 5

)

1407

14

9 R

L

P 25

23

-

2 21

067

85

90

3 5

30

-30

Col

lect

ive

wor

kloa

d on

des

cent

to

spot

(1

" rap

id u

p co

llect

ive

requ

ired)

14

07

150

L L

P 25

23

1

- 21

047

80

105

3 5

30

-30

1412

15

1 R

R

S

30

20

- 2

2096

7 78

10

1 3

5 30

-3

0 O

vera

ll w

orkl

oad

with

bur

ble

over

dec

k (V

AR

5)

1413

15

2 L

R

S 30

20

2

- 20

967

89

102

3 5

30

-30

Lat/d

irect

iona

l w

orkl

oad;

+/

-10

de

g ya

w k

icks

with

mod

erat

e ch

op (+

/-3/

4"

peda

l inp

uts @

2 H

z); V

AR

5

1415

15

3 R

L

P 30

20

-

2 20

947

85

95

3 5

30

-30

Glid

e sl

ope/

clos

ure

rate

mai

nten

ance

on

shor

t fin

al

(11

deg

nose

up

); la

t w

orkl

oad

over

spot

14

15

154

L L

P 30

20

1

- 20

917

95

108

3 5

30

-30

156

Tabl

e B

-9.

Con

tinue

d.

Loc

al

Tim

e E

vent

N

o.

Typ

e E

volu

tion1

PAC

Se

at2

Typ

e A

ppr3

WO

D

Dir

ectio

n(d

eg. R

)

WO

D

Spee

d (k

ts)

Lau

nch

PRS

Rec

over

y PR

S

Air

craf

t G

ross

W

eigh

t (lb

s.)

Avg

. T

Q

(%)

Max

. T

Q

(%)

Avg

. Pi

tch

(deg

.)

Avg

. R

oll

(deg

.)

OA

T

(deg

. C)

Hp

(fee

t)

Com

men

ts

1419

15

5 R

R

S

35

18

- 2

2088

7 80

10

5 3

5 30

-3

0 G

lide

slop

e/cl

osur

e ra

te m

aint

enan

ce o

n sh

ort

final

(1

3 de

g no

se

up);

lat

wor

kloa

d ov

er sp

ot

1419

15

6 L

R

S 35

18

2

- 20

867

85

104

3 5

30

-30

Lat/d

irect

iona

l w

orkl

oad;

+/

-10

de

g ya

w k

icks

with

mod

erat

e ch

op (+

/-3/

4"

peda

l inp

uts @

2 H

z); V

AR

5

1421

15

7 R

L

P 35

18

-

2 20

847

85

96

3 5

30

-30

Glid

e sl

ope

mai

nten

ance

on

shor

t fin

al;

long

/lat w

orkl

oad

over

spo

t (+/

-3/

4" @

2-

3 H

z)

1422

15

8 L

L P

35

1 1

- 20

837

90

108

3 5

30

-30

1433

15

9 R

R

S

40

8 -

2 20

667

88

101

3 5

30

-30

Clo

sure

/clo

sure

ra

te

mai

nten

ance

; 15

de

g no

se u

p (F

OV

issu

es)

1437

16

0 D

-

- 45

7

- -

-

- 3

5 30

-3

0

Peri

od 5

(13S

ep00

) - E

vent

14

in T

able

B-1

(Day

Env

elop

e E

xpan

sion

)

13

23

161

E -

- 28

0 15

-

- 21

547

- -

5 5

29

80

13

33

162

L R

S

5 30

1

- 21

457

88

106

5 5

29

80

13

35

163

R

R

S 5

31

- 1

2142

7 88

10

1 5

5 29

80

1336

16

4 L

R

S 5

31

1 -

2140

7 90

11

1 5

5 29

80

1338

16

5 R

L

P 5

32

- 2

2138

7 90

10

0 5

5 29

80

G

lide

slop

e/cl

osur

e ra

te m

aint

enan

ce

1338

16

6 L

L P

5 32

2

- 21

357

90

120

3 6

29

80

Tq m

anag

emen

t 13

43

167

R

R

S 5

35

- 2

2130

7 85

10

6 3

6 29

80

La

t wor

kloa

d w

ith sh

ip ro

ll 13

44

168

L R

S

5 35

2

- 21

287

88

109

3 6

29

80

Ove

rall

wor

kloa

d w

ith sh

ip ro

ll

1346

16

9 R

L

P 5

38

- 2

2125

7 90

10

0 4

10

29

80

Glid

e sl

ope/

clos

ure

rate

mai

nten

ance

; 13

deg

nose

up

(F

OV

is

sues

); ov

eral

l w

orkl

oad

with

ship

roll

1348

17

0 L

L P

5 38

2

- 21

207

100

108

4 10

29

80

La

t wor

kloa

d w

ith s

hip

roll;

15

deg

yaw

ki

ck in

to re

lativ

e w

ind

on d

epar

ture

13

52

171

R

R

S 25

37

-

2 21

167

80

95

5 8

29

80

Lat w

orkl

oad

with

ship

roll

157

Tabl

e B

-9.

Con

tinue

d.

Loc

al

Tim

e E

vent

N

o.

Typ

e E

volu

tion1

PAC

Se

at2

Typ

e A

ppr3

WO

D

Dir

ectio

n(d

eg. R

)

WO

D

Spee

d (k

ts)

Lau

nch

PRS

Rec

over

y PR

S

Air

craf

t G

ross

W

eigh

t (lb

s.)

Avg

. T

Q

(%)

Max

. T

Q

(%)

Avg

. Pi

tch

(deg

.)

Avg

. R

oll

(deg

.)

OA

T

(deg

. C)

Hp

(fee

t)

Com

men

ts

1353

17

2 L

R

S 25

37

2

- 21

127

80

105

5 8

29

80

10

ft lo

ss

of

altit

ude

on

depa

rture

; m

oder

ate

yaw

ch

op

on

trans

ition

th

roug

h bu

rble

1355

17

3 R

L

P 25

37

-

2 21

097

80

95

5 8

29

80

Ove

rall

wor

kloa

d w

ith sh

ip ro

ll 13

56

174

L L

P 25

37

2

- 21

067

85

92

5 8

29

80

Ove

rall

wor

kloa

d w

ith sh

ip ro

ll

1404

17

5 R

R

S

40

32

- 2

2095

7 80

90

5

8 29

80

M

aint

aini

ng l

ine

up o

n fin

al w

ith l

eft

peda

l (14

% re

mai

ning

)

1407

17

6 L

R

S

40

33

3 -

2093

7 88

11

8 5

8 29

80

O

n tr

ansi

tion

to f

wd

flt,

10-2

0 de

g ya

w i

nto

rela

tive

win

d (1

2% p

edal

re

mai

ning

) 14

10

177

R

L P

40

33

- 2

2088

7 80

90

5

8 29

80

La

t w

orkl

oad

(+/-

1/2"

@2-

3 H

z), l

ong

wor

kloa

d (+

/- 3/

4" @

2-3

Hz)

-ov

er

spot

1412

17

8 L

L P

40

34

2 -

2086

7 78

92

3

5 29

80

La

t w

orkl

oad

(+/-

1/2"

@2-

3 H

z), l

ong

wor

kloa

d (+

/- 3/

4" @

2-3

Hz)

-ov

er

spot

1415

17

9 R

R

S

45

33

- 3

2083

7 84

96

3

5 29

80

Rep

eat

of 1

75 W

OD

con

ditio

ns;

on

tran

sitio

n to

fw

d flt

, 10

-20

deg

yaw

in

to

rela

tive

win

d (1

0-12

%

peda

l re

mai

ning

)

1416

18

0 L

R

S

40

33

3 -

2078

7 85

12

1 3

5 29

80

O

n tr

ansi

tion

to f

wd

flt,

10-2

0 de

g ya

w i

nto

rela

tive

win

d (1

4% p

edal

re

mai

ning

) 14

29

181

R

R

S 40

30

-

2 20

607

83

100

5 5

29

80

1431

18

2 L

R

S 40

28

2

- 20

587

80

108

5 5

29

80

Ove

rall

wor

kloa

dw

ith s

hip

roll;

18%

le

ft pe

dal r

emai

ning

1433

18

3 R

R

S

45

28

- 3

2052

7 85

99

3

5 29

80

Lar

ge l

eft

peda

l (1

-2")

req

uire

d to

m

aint

ain

airc

raft

he

adin

g on

tr

ansi

tion

to

hove

r (1

0-12

%

rem

aini

ng)

158

Tabl

e B

-9.

Con

tinue

d.

Loc

al

Tim

e E

vent

N

o.

Typ

e E

volu

tion1

PAC

Se

at2

Typ

e A

ppr3

WO

D

Dir

ectio

n(d

eg. R

)

WO

D

Spee

d (k

ts)

Lau

nch

PRS

Rec

over

y PR

S

Air

craf

t G

ross

W

eigh

t (lb

s.)

Avg

. T

Q

(%)

Max

. T

Q

(%)

Avg

. Pi

tch

(deg

.)

Avg

. R

oll

(deg

.)

OA

T

(deg

. C)

Hp

(fee

t)

Com

men

ts

1447

18

4 L

R

S 50

20

2

- 21

547

90

107

3 5

29

80

10-1

5 de

g rig

ht y

aw i

nto

win

d lin

e on

de

partu

re (1

/2" l

eft p

edal

requ

ired)

1450

18

5 R

R

S

45

22

- 3

2150

7 88

10

5 3

5 29

80

Lar

ge l

eft

peda

l (1

-2")

req

uire

d to

m

aint

ain

airc

raft

he

adin

g on

tr

ansi

tion

to h

over

; m

omen

tari

ly h

it pe

dal s

top

1452

18

6 L

R

S 45

22

2

- 21

487

90

116

3 5

29

80

5-10

deg

rig

ht y

aw i

nto

win

d lin

e on

de

partu

re (1

/2" l

eft p

edal

requ

ired)

1455

18

7 R

L

P 40

23

-

2 21

437

92

102

3 5

29

80

Lat/l

ong

wor

kloa

d ov

er s

pot

with

shi

p m

otio

n

1456

18

8 L

L P

40

23

2 -

2142

7 95

10

8 3

7 29

80

La

t/lon

g w

orkl

oad

over

spot

with

shi

p m

otio

n 15

00

190

L L

P 55

18

1

- 21

337

95

100

3 6

29

80

15

08

191

R

L P

65

15

- 1

2122

7 95

10

5 3

6 29

80

1509

19

2 L

L P

65

15

1 -

2121

7 95

10

2 3

6 29

80

1517

19

3 R

L

P 34

0 27

-

2 21

067

90

100

3 6

29

80

Lat w

orkl

oad

over

spot

with

ship

mot

ion

1520

19

4 L

L P

340

27

2 -

2104

7 92

11

2 3

6 29

80

Tq

man

agem

ent;

mod

erat

e ya

w c

hop

(+/-

5 de

g @

2 H

z)

1523

19

5 R

R

S

340

30

- 2

2100

7 88

11

4 3

6 29

80

Tq

man

agem

ent;

over

all w

orkl

oad

1524

19

6 L

R

S 34

0 28

2

- 20

987

90

128

6 5

29

80

Tq m

anag

emen

t w

ith l

arge

dec

k he

ave

and

burb

le o

ver

spot

(2"

up

colle

ctiv

e re

quire

d)

1530

19

7 R

R

S

345

30

- 2

2091

7 90

10

8 3

4 29

80

La

t wor

kloa

d ov

er sp

ot w

ith sh

ip m

otio

n

1531

19

8 L

R

S 34

5 29

2

- 20

887

92

112

3 4

29

80

Dire

ctio

nal

wor

kloa

d ov

er s

pot

with

sh

ip m

otio

n

1539

19

9 R

L

P 33

0 25

-

2 20

807

75

108

3 4

29

80

Ove

rall

wor

kloa

d ov

er s

pot

(+/-

1/2"

pe

dal

@ 1

Hz,

+/-

3/4"

lat

/long

@ 2

-3

Hz)

1540

20

0 L

L P

330

25

2 -

2075

7 87

12

6 5

6 29

80

Tq

man

agem

ent;

mod

erat

e ya

w c

hop

(+/-

5 de

g @

2 H

z; r

equi

red

+/-

3/4"

@

1-2

Hz)

)

159

Tabl

e B

-9.

Con

tinue

d.

Loc

al

Tim

e E

vent

N

o.

Typ

e E

volu

tion1

PAC

Se

at2

Typ

e A

ppr3

WO

D

Dir

ectio

n(d

eg. R

)

WO

D

Spee

d (k

ts)

Lau

nch

PRS

Rec

over

y PR

S

Air

craf

t G

ross

W

eigh

t (lb

s.)

Avg

. T

Q

(%)

Max

. T

Q

(%)

Avg

. Pi

tch

(deg

.)

Avg

. R

oll

(deg

.)

OA

T

(deg

. C)

Hp

(fee

t)

Com

men

ts

1543

20

1 R

R

S

330

25

- 3

2070

7 90

10

4 5

6 29

80

Ove

rall

wor

kloa

d ov

er s

pot

with

shi

p m

otio

n (+

/- 1/

2" p

ed @

1 H

z, +

/-1"

la

t/lon

g @

2-3

Hz)

; la

t PI

O t

ende

ncy

(PIO

3);

VA

R 6

1546

20

2 L

R

S 33

0 28

2

- 20

667

90

109

5 6

29

80

Ove

rall

wor

kloa

d ov

er s

pot

with

shi

p m

otio

n

1555

20

3 R

L

P 31

5 22

-

2 20

537

80

114

5 6

29

80

Lat w

orkl

oad

over

spot

with

ship

mot

ion

(+/-

1" @

2 H

z)

1556

20

4 L

L P

315

22

2 -

2050

7 90

12

1 5

6 29

80

Tq

m

anag

emen

t/alti

tude

co

ntro

l ov

er

spot

w

ith

burb

le

(pitc

hing

de

ck);

mod

erat

e tu

rbul

ence

15

57

205

R

L P

320

20

- 2

2048

7 90

11

0 5

6 29

80

Tq

man

agem

ent

(with

pitc

hing

dec

k)

and

lat/l

ong

wor

kloa

d ov

er s

pot (

+/-

1"

@ 2

-3 H

z)

1607

20

6 L

R

S 30

5 20

1

- 21

547

92

113

3 6

29

78

1608

20

7 R

R

S

305

18

- 2

2152

7 88

10

9 3

5 29

78

Tq

m

anag

emen

t/alti

tude

co

ntro

l ov

er

spot

w

ith

burb

le

(pitc

hing

de

ck);

mod

erat

e tu

rbul

ence

1610

20

8 L

R

S 30

0 18

2

- 21

517

88

114

3 5

29

78

Lat w

orkl

oad

over

spot

with

ship

mot

ion

(+/-

1" @

2 H

z)

1611

20

9 R

L

P 30

5 17

-

2 21

497

90

124

3 5

29

78

Tq

man

agem

ent/a

ltitu

de

cont

rol

over

sp

ot

with

bu

rble

(p

itchi

ng

deck

); m

oder

ate

turb

ulen

ce

1612

21

0 L

L

P

300

19

3 -

2145

7 11

0 12

8 3

5 29

78

Tq

man

agem

ent/a

lt co

ntro

l ov

er s

pot

with

bur

ble

(pitc

hing

dec

k) -

larg

e co

ll in

puts

(1-

2"@

1 H

z) r

equi

red;

di

rec

wor

kloa

d (+

/- 1/

2" @

1-2

Hz)

to

mai

ntai

n hd

g; m

od tu

rb

1620

-

WO

R

S

270

14

- -

2133

7 0

0 3

5 29

78

1623

21

1 R

R

S

270

14

- 2

2131

7 88

10

4 3

5 29

78

G

lide

slop

e/cl

osur

e ra

te c

ontro

l on

final

; al

titud

e m

aint

enan

ce o

ver

spot

(w

aved

of

f firs

t atte

mpt

)

1624

21

2 L

R

S 27

0 14

1

- 21

307

90

102

3 5

29

78

160

Tabl

e B

-9.

Con

tinue

d.

Loc

al

Tim

e E

vent

N

o.

Typ

e E

volu

tion1

PAC

Se

at2

Typ

e A

ppr3

WO

D

Dir

ectio

n(d

eg. R

)

WO

D

Spee

d (k

ts)

Lau

nch

PRS

Rec

over

y PR

S

Air

craf

t G

ross

W

eigh

t (lb

s.)

Avg

. T

Q

(%)

Max

. T

Q

(%)

Avg

. Pi

tch

(deg

.)

Avg

. R

oll

(deg

.)

OA

T

(deg

. C)

Hp

(fee

t)

Com

men

ts

1637

21

3 R

L

P 30

0 14

-

2 21

117

90

112

3 5

29

78

Ove

rall

wor

kloa

d ov

er sp

ot

1638

21

4 L

L

P

300

14

3 -

2104

7 95

11

8 3

5 29

78

Lar

ge

righ

t ya

w

(15-

25

deg)

on

de

part

ure

(1-2

" le

ft p

edal

req

uire

d) -

LT

E?

; la

rge

up

colle

ctiv

e (1

-2")

re

quir

ed

to

arre

st

desc

ent

on

depa

rtur

e (T

q m

anag

emen

t) b

ehin

d su

pers

truc

ture

16

41

215

R

L

P 30

0 13

-

3 21

047

96

108

3 5

29

78

Clo

sure

rat

e/gl

ide

slop

e m

aint

enan

ce

diff

icul

t w

ith

cros

swin

d;

high

w

orkl

oad

all

axes

ove

r sp

ot w

ith l

eft

quar

teri

ng w

inds

(+/

- 1/

2" p

ed @

1-2

H

z, +

/- 1"

lat/l

ong

@ 2

-3 H

z)

1645

21

6 D

-

- 30

0 11

-

- 21

007

- -

3 5

29

78

Pe

riod

6 (1

3Sep

00) -

Eve

nt 1

5 in

Tab

le B

-1 (N

ight

Env

elop

e E

xpan

sion

)

19

18

217

E -

- 0

24

- -

2152

7 -

- 2

2 28

10

0

1923

21

8 L

R

S 5

24

1 -

2149

7 90

10

4 2

2 28

10

0

1925

21

9 R

R

S

0 23

-

1

88

100

2 2

28

100

19

27

220

L R

S

0 23

1

- 21

467

88

112

3 5

28

100

19

30

221

R

L P

0 23

-

2 21

387

90

100

3 5

28

100

Ove

rall

wor

kloa

d

1931

22

2 L

L P

0 23

2

- 21

407

95

114

3 5

28

100

Tq m

anag

emen

t; ov

eral

l wor

kloa

d

1940

22

3 R

R

S

0 35

-

2

90

105

3 5

28

100

Glid

e sl

ope

mai

nten

ance

1944

22

4 L

R

S

0 37

3

- 21

197

92

111

3 5

28

100

Rig

ht y

aw (

10-1

5 de

g) i

nto

rela

tive

win

d on

dep

artu

re; l

arge

left

ped

al (1

-2"

) req

uire

d to

cou

nter

; hit

peda

l sto

p

1950

22

5 R

L

P 0

34

- 2

2113

7 91

10

2 3

5 28

10

0 Po

sitio

n m

aint

enan

ce o

ver s

pot

1951

22

6 L

L P

0 34

2

- 21

127

100

114

3 5

28

100

Tq m

anag

emen

t; ov

eral

l w

orkl

oad

over

sp

ot

2000

22

7 R

R

S

0 30

-

2 20

987

88

106

3 5

28

100

Lat w

orkl

oad

over

spot

161

Tabl

e B

-9.

Con

tinue

d.

Loc

al

Tim

e E

vent

N

o.

Typ

e E

volu

tion1

PAC

Se

at2

Typ

e A

ppr3

WO

D

Dir

ectio

n(d

eg. R

)

WO

D

Spee

d (k

ts)

Lau

nch

PRS

Rec

over

y PR

S

Air

craf

t G

ross

W

eigh

t (lb

s.)

Avg

. T

Q

(%)

Max

. T

Q

(%)

Avg

. Pi

tch

(deg

.)

Avg

. R

oll

(deg

.)

OA

T

(deg

. C)

Hp

(fee

t)

Com

men

ts

2001

22

8 L

R

S 0

30

2 -

2096

7 92

11

1 3

5 28

10

0 La

t/dire

c w

orkl

oad

over

spo

t w

ith s

hip

roll

2013

22

9 R

R

S

340

27

- 2

2078

7 95

11

9 5

5 28

10

0 Tq

man

agem

ent;

wor

kloa

d ov

er sp

ot

2014

23

0 L

R

S 34

0 27

2

-

92

112

5 5

28

100

Dire

c w

orkl

oad

over

spot

2017

23

1 R

L

P 34

0 26

-

2 20

717

85

100

5 5

28

100

Posi

tion

over

spo

t mai

nten

ance

(10

deg

no

se u

p at

one

poi

nt -F

OV

issu

e)

2019

23

2 L

L P

335

25

2 -

2069

7 10

0 11

2 5

5 28

10

0 O

vera

ll w

orkl

oad

over

spot

20

30

233

R

R

S 25

30

-

2 20

537

- -

2 5

28

100

Ove

rall

wor

kloa

d ov

er sp

ot

2031

23

4 L

R

S 25

30

2

- 20

507

90

106

2 5

28

100

Ove

rall

wor

kloa

d ov

er sp

ot

2035

23

5 R

L

P 25

32

-

2 20

467

85

95

3 5

28

100

Ove

rall

wor

kloa

d ov

er sp

ot

2037

23

6 L

L P

25

32

2 -

2044

7 90

10

0 3

5 28

10

0 O

vera

ll w

orkl

oad

over

spot

20

40

237

R

L P

25

32

- 2

2041

7 80

95

2

3 28

10

0 O

vera

ll w

orkl

oad

over

spot

; ref

uel

2050

23

8 L

L P

40

27

2 -

2154

7 85

98

3

5 28

10

0 O

vera

ll w

orkl

oad

over

spot

2054

23

9 R

L

P 40

30

-

2 21

497

89

- 3

5 28

10

0 O

vera

ll w

orkl

oad

over

spot

(12

deg

nose

up

requ

ired

on sh

ort f

inal

(FO

V is

sue)

20

55

240

L L

P 40

30

2

- 21

477

90

100

3 5

28

100

Ove

rall

wor

kloa

d ov

er sp

ot

2100

24

1 R

L

P 60

15

-

2 21

407

- -

3 5

28

100

Ove

rall

wor

kloa

d ov

er sp

ot

2101

24

2 L

L P

60

15

2 -

2139

7 80

11

2 3

5 28

10

0 O

vera

ll w

orkl

oad

over

spot

21

10

243

R

R

S 30

0 16

-

2 21

247

88

116

3 5

28

100

Tq m

anag

emen

t; w

orkl

oad

over

spot

21

11

244

L R

S

300

16

2 -

2123

7 92

11

0 3

5 28

10

0 O

vera

ll w

orkl

oad

over

spot

21

26

245

R

L P

330

21

- 2

2100

7 90

11

4 3

5 28

10

0 Tq

man

agem

ent;

wor

kloa

d ov

er sp

ot

2127

24

6 L

L P

330

21

2 -

2098

7 90

11

4 3

5 28

10

0 Tq

man

agem

ent;

wor

kloa

d ov

er sp

ot

2131

24

7 R

R

S

330

22

- 2

2094

7 88

10

6 3

5 28

10

0 O

vera

ll w

orkl

oad

over

spot

21

35

248

D

- -

330

20

- -

2090

7 -

- 3

5 30

10

0

Peri

od 7

(14S

ep00

) - D

ay V

ER

TR

EP

Val

idat

ion

13

31

249

E -

- 0

13

- -

1703

2 -

- 2

2 30

0

13

35

250

L R

S

0 12

1

- 16

982

60

85

2 2

30

0

162

Tabl

e B

-9.

Con

tinue

d.

Loc

al

Tim

e E

vent

N

o.

Typ

e E

volu

tion1

PAC

Se

at2

Typ

e A

ppr3

WO

D

Dir

ectio

n(d

eg. R

)

WO

D

Spee

d (k

ts)

Lau

nch

PRS

Rec

over

y PR

S

Air

craf

t G

ross

W

eigh

t (lb

s.)

Avg

. T

Q

(%)

Max

. T

Q

(%)

Avg

. Pi

tch

(deg

.)

Avg

. R

oll

(deg

.)

OA

T

(deg

. C)

Hp

(fee

t)

Com

men

ts

1340

25

1 P

R

A

355

12

1 -

1892

2 90

95

1

1 30

0

2000

lb lo

ad

1342

25

2 U

R

A

35

5 11

-

1 18

872

90

95

1 1

30

0

1344

25

3 P

R

A

350

11

1 -

1885

2 87

92

1

1 30

0

13

46

254

U

R

A

350

12

- 1

1882

2 90

10

3 1

1 30

0

13

48

255

P R

A

35

0 13

1

- 18

802

90

93

1 1

30

0

1350

25

6 U

R

A

35

0 12

-

2 18

762

85

93

1 1

30

0 O

vera

ll w

orkl

oad

over

spot

13

53

257

P L

A

350

13

1 -

1870

2 85

90

1

1 30

0

13

56

258

U

L A

35

0 15

-

2 -

78

90

1 1

30

0 O

vera

ll w

orkl

oad

over

spot

14

00

259

P L

A

350

14

1 -

- -

100

1 1

30

0

1403

26

0 U

L

A

350

14

- 1

- -

- 1

1 30

0

14

04

261

P L

A

350

14

1 -

- -

- 1

1 30

0

14

06

262

U

L A

35

0 13

-

1 -

- -

1 1

30

0

1418

26

3 P

R

A

345

11

1 -

2032

7 92

10

3 1

1 30

0

4000

lb lo

ad

1421

26

4 U

R

A

34

5 12

-

2 -

- -

1 1

30

0 O

vera

ll w

orkl

oad

over

spot

14

27

265

P R

A

34

5 12

1

- -

- -

1 1

30

0

1429

26

6 U

R

A

34

5 12

-

2 -

- -

1 1

30

0 O

vera

ll w

orkl

oad

over

spot

14

31

267

P R

A

34

5 12

2

- 20

107

- -

1 1

30

0 O

vera

ll w

orkl

oad

over

spot

14

33

268

U

R

A

340

11

- 2

- -

- 1

1 30

0

Ove

rall

wor

kloa

d ov

er sp

ot

1436

26

9 P

L A

34

0 10

1

- -

- -

1 1

30

0

1438

27

0 U

L

A

345

10

- 1

2006

7 -

- 1

1 30

0

14

40

271

P L

A

345

10

1 -

- -

100

1 1

30

0

1443

27

2 U

L

A

345

11

- 1

- -

- 1

1 30

0

14

44

273

P L

A

345

10

1 -

1991

7 -

106

1 1

30

0

1447

27

4 U

L

A

340

10

- 2

1987

7 -

- 1

1 30

0

Ove

rall

wor

kloa

d ov

er s

pot j

ust p

rior

to

drop

1447

27

5 R

L

P 34

0 10

1

- -

- -

1 1

30

0

163

Tabl

e B

-9.

Con

tinue

d.

Loc

al

Tim

e E

vent

N

o.

Typ

e E

volu

tion1

PAC

Se

at2

Typ

e A

ppr3

WO

D

Dir

ectio

n(d

eg. R

)

WO

D

Spee

d (k

ts)

Lau

nch

PRS

Rec

over

y PR

S

Air

craf

t G

ross

W

eigh

t (lb

s.)

Avg

. T

Q

(%)

Max

. T

Q

(%)

Avg

. Pi

tch

(deg

.)

Avg

. R

oll

(deg

.)

OA

T

(deg

. C)

Hp

(fee

t)

Com

men

ts

1503

27

6 L

L P

0 22

-

1 20

997

- -

1 1

30

0

1506

27

7 P

L A

0

22

1 -

2097

7 -

105

1 1

30

0

1509

27

8 U

L

A

0 23

-

1 -

- -

1 1

30

0

1511

27

9 P

R

A

0 24

1

- -

- 10

8 1

1 30

0

15

13

280

U

R

A

0 25

-

1 -

- -

1 1

30

0

1519

28

1 P

L A

34

5 21

1

- 20

747

- -

1 1

30

0

1522

28

2 U

L

A

345

21

- 2

2072

7 -

- 1

1 30

0

Ove

rall

wor

kloa

d ov

er

spot

in

le

ft cr

ossw

ind;

mod

erat

e ya

w c

hop

(VA

R 5

)15

25

283

P R

A

34

0 21

1

-

- -

1 1

30

0

1527

28

4 U

R

A

34

0 21

-

2

- -

1 1

30

0 O

vera

ll w

orkl

oad

over

spo

t po

sitio

ning

lo

ad

1542

28

5 P

L A

25

20

1

- 20

457

- -

1 1

30

0

1544

28

6 U

L

A

25

20

- 1

2042

7 -

- 1

1 30

0

15

46

287

P R

A

25

20

1

- 20

367

- -

1 1

30

0

1547

28

8 U

R

A

25

20

-

2 20

337

- -

1 1

30

0 O

vera

ll w

orkl

oad

over

spot

16

02

289

P L

A

35

15

1 -

2013

7 -

- 1

1 30

0

16

04

290

U

L A

35

15

-

2 20

097

- -

1 1

30

0 O

vera

ll w

orkl

oad

over

spot

16

07

291

P R

A

35

15

1

- 20

037

- -

1 1

30

0

1610

29

2 U

R

A

35

15

-

1 -

- -

1 1

30

0

1611

29

3 R

R

S

40

15

1 -

2001

7 -

- 1

1 30

0

16

25

294

L R

S

340

17

- 1

2103

7 65

80

1

1 30

0

16

27

295

P R

A

34

0 17

1

- 21

017

- 10

2 1

1 30

0

16

29

296

U

R

A

340

17

- 1

-

- 1

1 30

0

16

31

297

P L

A

340

17

2 -

2096

7 -

113

1 1

30

0 O

vera

ll w

orkl

oad

over

spot

1633

29

8 U

L

A

340

17

- 2

- -

- 1

1 30

0

Ove

rall

wor

kloa

d ov

er s

pot;

mod

erat

e ya

w c

hop

on fi

nal (

VA

R 5

) 16

37

299

P R

A

33

0 8

1 -

2086

7 -

110

1 1

30

0

1640

30

0 U

R

A

33

0 7

- 1

2081

7 -

- 1

1 30

0

164

Tabl

e B

-9.

Con

tinue

d.

Loc

al

Tim

e E

vent

N

o.

Typ

e E

volu

tion1

PAC

Se

at2

Typ

e A

ppr3

WO

D

Dir

ectio

n(d

eg. R

)

WO

D

Spee

d (k

ts)

Lau

nch

PRS

Rec

over

y PR

S

Air

craf

t G

ross

W

eigh

t (lb

s.)

Avg

. T

Q

(%)

Max

. T

Q

(%)

Avg

. Pi

tch

(deg

.)

Avg

. R

oll

(deg

.)

OA

T

(deg

. C)

Hp

(fee

t)

Com

men

ts

1642

30

1 P

L A

33

0 7

2 -

2079

7 -

113

1 1

30

0 Tq

man

agem

ent

1645

30

2 U

L

A

330

7 -

1 20

767

- -

1 1

30

0

1650

30

3 R

R

S

330

6 -

1 20

657

- -

1 1

30

0

1652

30

4 D

-

- 33

0 6

- -

2062

7 -

- 1

1 30

0

Pe

riod

8 (1

4Sep

00) -

Nig

ht V

ER

TR

EP

Val

idat

ion

18

54

305

E -

- 0

4 -

- -

- -

1 1

26

80

18

57

306

L R

S

0 4

1 -

1659

2 60

80

1

1 26

80

1858

30

7 P

R

A

10

5 1

- -

- -

1 1

26

80

19

02

308

U

R

A

10

5 -

1 -

- -

1 1

26

80

19

03

309

P R

A

10

5

1 -

- -

- 1

1 26

80

1905

31

0 U

R

A

10

5

- 1

- -

- 1

1 26

80

1906

31

1 P

R

A

10

5 1

- -

- -

1 1

26

80

19

08

312

U

R

A

10

5 -

1 -

- -

1 1

26

80

19

09

313

P L

A

10

5 1

- -

- -

1 1

26

80

19

10

314

U

L A

10

5

- 1

- -

- 1

1 26

80

1921

31

5 P

L A

5

19

1 -

- -

- 1

1 26

80

1924

31

6 U

L

A

5 18

-

1 -

- -

1 1

26

80

19

26

317

P L

A

5 18

1

- -

- -

1 1

26

80

19

28

318

U

L A

5

15

- 1

- -

- 1

1 26

80

1930

31

9 P

R

A

5 15

1

- -

- -

1 1

26

80

19

32

320

U

R

A

5 13

-

1 -

- -

1 1

26

80

19

34

321

P R

A

5

15

1 -

- -

- 1

1 26

80

1936

32

2 U

R

A

5

14

- 1

- -

- 1

1 26

80

1938

32

3 P

R

A

5 14

1

- -

- -

1 1

26

80

19

41

324

U

R

A

5 13

-

1 -

- -

1 1

26

80

19

43

325

P L

A

5 14

1

- -

- -

1 1

26

80

165

Tabl

e B

-9.

Con

tinue

d.

Loc

al

Tim

e E

vent

N

o.

Typ

e E

volu

tion1

PAC

Se

at2

Typ

e A

ppr3

WO

D

Dir

ectio

n(d

eg. R

)

WO

D

Spee

d (k

ts)

Lau

nch

PRS

Rec

over

y PR

S

Air

craf

t G

ross

W

eigh

t (lb

s.)

Avg

. T

Q

(%)

Max

. T

Q

(%)

Avg

. Pi

tch

(deg

.)

Avg

. R

oll

(deg

.)

OA

T

(deg

. C)

Hp

(fee

t)

Com

men

ts

1948

32

6 U

L

A

0 14

-

1 -

- -

2 3

26

80

1950

32

7 P

L A

0

14

2 -

- -

- 2

3 26

80

O

vera

ll w

orkl

oad

incr

ease

due

to la

ck o

f vi

sual

cui

ng

1954

32

8 U

L

A

0 15

-

2 -

- -

2 3

26

80

Ove

rall

wor

kloa

d in

crea

se d

ue to

lack

of

visu

al c

uing

1957

32

9 P

L A

5

15

2 -

- -

- 2

3 26

80

O

vera

ll w

orkl

oad

incr

ease

due

to la

ck o

f vi

sual

cui

ng

2004

33

0 U

L

A

5 13

-

2 -

- -

1 1

26

80

Ove

rall

wor

kloa

d in

crea

se d

ue to

lack

of

visu

al c

uing

20

05

331

R

L P

5 12

-

1 -

- -

1 1

26

80

20

14

332

L L

P 0

19

1 -

- -

- 1

1 26

80

2025

33

3 R

L

P 0

22

- 1

- -

- 1

1 26

80

2027

33

4 D

-

- 0

22

- -

- -

- 1

1 26

80

Peri

od 9

(15S

ep00

) - E

vent

16

in T

able

B-1

(Day

Env

elop

e E

xpan

sion

)

83

2 33

5 E

- -

330

23

- -

- -

- 1

1 24

22

0

837

336

L L

P 33

0 26

-

- 21

287

95

102

1 1

24

220

84

0 33

7 R

L

P 33

0 27

-

1 21

237

85

106

1 1

24

220

84

1 33

8 L

L P

330

27

1 -

2126

7 85

10

0 1

1 24

22

0

843

339

R

R

S 33

0 26

-

2 21

267

85

100

1 1

24

220

Mod

erat

e ya

w c

hop;

lat

/long

pos

ition

ke

epin

g ov

er sp

ot

844

340

L R

S

330

25

2 -

2115

7 85

10

0 1

1 24

22

0 M

oder

ate

yaw

cho

p; l

at/lo

ng p

ositi

on

keep

ing

over

spot

85

3 34

1 R

R

S

325

23

- 2

2103

7 85

98

1

1 24

22

0 La

t wor

kloa

d ov

er d

eck

854

342

L R

S

325

23

1 -

2102

7 85

10

7 1

1 24

22

0

856

343

R

L P

325

24

- 2

2100

7 85

10

4 1

1 24

22

0 La

rge

lat c

yclic

inpu

t (1

1/2"

) on

final

to

mai

ntai

n lin

e up

; la

t w

orkl

oad

on

desc

ent t

o de

ck

856

344

L L

P 32

5 25

2

- 20

977

85

114

1 1

24

220

Dire

ctio

nal

wor

kloa

d;

altit

ude

cont

rol

on d

epar

ture

(lo

st 1

0 ft

-re

quire

d la

rge

1" u

p co

llect

ive)

166

Tabl

e B

-9.

Con

tinue

d.

Loc

al

Tim

e E

vent

N

o.

Typ

e E

volu

tion1

PAC

Se

at2

Typ

e A

ppr3

WO

D

Dir

ectio

n(d

eg. R

)

WO

D

Spee

d (k

ts)

Lau

nch

PRS

Rec

over

y PR

S

Air

craf

t G

ross

W

eigh

t (lb

s.)

Avg

. T

Q

(%)

Max

. T

Q

(%)

Avg

. Pi

tch

(deg

.)

Avg

. R

oll

(deg

.)

OA

T

(deg

. C)

Hp

(fee

t)

Com

men

ts

907

345

R

R

S 45

26

-

2 20

817

85

102

1 1

24

220

Ove

rall

wor

kloa

d ov

er d

eck;

lar

ge l

eft

peda

l inp

ut re

quire

d to

mai

ntai

n he

adin

g (1

4% le

ft pe

dal r

emai

ning

).

908

346

L R

S

45

23

2 -

2080

7 85

11

2 1

1 24

22

0 Tq

an

d al

t m

anag

emen

t on

de

part

(beh

ind

supe

rstru

ctur

e)

913

347

R

R

S 35

30

-

2 20

727

85

95

1 1

24

220

Ove

rall

wor

kloa

d ov

er d

eck;

lar

ge l

eft

peda

l inp

ut re

quire

d to

mai

ntai

n he

adin

g (1

4% le

ft pe

dal r

emai

ning

).

914

348

L R

S

35

30

2 -

2069

7 85

10

8 1

1 24

22

0 D

irec

cont

rol a

nd m

oder

ate

yaw

cho

p on

de

partu

re

922

349

R

R

S 34

5 33

-

2 20

587

80

90

1 1

24

220

Lat/l

ong

wor

kloa

d 92

5 35

0 L

R

S 34

5 33

1

- 20

567

90

95

1 1

24

220

926

351

R

L P

345

34

- 2

2054

7 78

88

1

1 24

22

0 La

t w

orkl

oad

on d

esce

nt t

o de

ck;

larg

e le

ft pe

dal o

n fin

al to

mai

ntai

n lin

e up

927

352

L L

P 34

5 33

2

- 20

537

80

110

1 1

24

220

Mod

erat

e la

tera

l ch

op;

dire

c w

orkl

oad

on d

epar

ture

92

9 35

3 R

L

P 34

5 33

-

1 20

507

75

89

1 1

24

220

94

3 35

4 L

R

S 35

5 33

-

-

0 0

1 1

24

220

Fly

Off

N

otes

:

1 La

unch

(L),

Rec

over

y (R

), En

gage

men

t (E)

, Dis

enga

gem

ent (

D),

Load

Dro

p (U

), Lo

ad P

ick

(P),

Wav

e O

ff (W

O)

2 Rig

ht S

eat (

R),

Left

Seat

(L)

3 Star

boar

d (S

), Po

rt (P

), A

ster

n (A

)

167

Tabl

e B

-10:

USN

S SI

RIU

S (T

-AFS

8) D

ata

Shee

ts

Loc

al

Tim

e E

vent

N

o.

Typ

e E

volu

tion1

PAC

Se

at2

Typ

e A

ppr3

WO

D

Dir

ec.

(deg

. R)

WO

D

Spee

d (k

ts)

Lau

nch

PRS

Rec

over

y PR

S

Air

craf

t G

ross

W

eigh

t (lb

s.)

Avg

. T

Q

(%)

Max

. T

Q

(%)

Avg

. Pi

tch

(deg

.)

Avg

. R

oll

(deg

.)

OA

T

(deg

. C

)

Hp

(fee

t)C

omm

ents

Peri

od 1

(27N

ov00

) - E

vent

17

in T

able

B-1

(Day

DL

Qs)

13

37

1 R

L

P 70

9

- 1

2105

0 -

- 2

2 14

-4

0

1110

2

D

L -

55

9 -

- 21

050

- -

2 2

14

-40

14

31

3 E

L -

85

5 -

- 21

050

- -

2 2

14

-40

14

35

4 L

R

P 90

5

1 -

2094

5 -

- 2

2 14

-4

0

1438

5

R

R

P 80

4

- 1

2089

5 -

- 2

2 14

-4

0

1438

6

L R

P

100

2 1

- 20

895

- -

2 2

14

-40

14

40

7 R

R

P

90

4 -

1 20

855

- -

2 2

14

-40

14

40

8 L

R

P 90

2

1 -

2085

5 -

- 2

2 14

-4

0

1441

9

R

R

P 90

4

- 1

2082

5 85

95

2

2 14

-4

0

1442

10

L

R

P 90

4

1 -

2082

5 90

98

2

2 14

-4

0

1448

11

R

R

P

75

4 -

1 20

735

85

95

2 2

14

-40

1448

12

L

R

P 80

4

1 -

2073

5 89

97

2

2 14

-4

0

1450

13

R

R

P

80

4 -

1 20

695

- -

2 2

14

-40

14

57

14

L R

P

80

4 1

- 20

595

- -

2 2

14

-40

15

08

15

R

R

P 70

5

- 1

2048

5 90

95

2

2 14

-4

0

Peri

od 2

(29N

ov00

) - E

vent

s 18

in T

able

B-1

(Day

Env

elop

e E

xpan

sion

)

13

37

16

E R

-

25

15

- -

2227

0 -

- 0

0 16

-7

0

1345

17

L

R

S 25

13

1

- 22

250

95

108

0 0

16

-70

13

48

18

R

L P

30

14

- 1

2220

0 95

98

0

0 16

-7

0 V

AR

5

1349

19

L

L P

30

16

1 -

2214

5 95

10

3 0

0 16

-7

0

1350

20

W

O

R

S -

- -

- 22

100

- -

0 0

16

-70

13

56

21

R

R

S 33

5 13

-

1 21

965

95

100

0 0

16

-70

168

Loc

al

Tim

e E

vent

N

o.

Typ

e E

volu

tion1

PAC

Se

at2

Typ

e A

ppr3

WO

D

Dir

ec.

(deg

. R)

WO

D

Spee

d (k

ts)

Lau

nch

PRS

Rec

over

y PR

S

Air

craf

t G

ross

W

eigh

t (lb

s.)

Avg

. T

Q

(%)

Max

. T

Q

(%)

Avg

. Pi

tch

(deg

.)

Avg

. R

oll

(deg

.)

OA

T

(deg

. C

)

Hp

(fee

t)C

omm

ents

1357

22

L

R

S 33

0 14

1

- 21

945

95

104

0 0

16

-70

14

02

23

R

R

S 0

16

- 1

2187

5 95

10

2 0

0 16

-7

0

1402

24

L

R

S 0

16

1 -

2186

5 94

11

0 0

0 16

-7

0

1405

25

R

L

P 0

15

- 1

2182

5 92

10

0 0

0 16

-7

0 V

AR

5

1405

26

L

L P

357

16

1 -

2182

5 95

11

1 0

0 16

-7

0

1409

27

R

R

S

0 20

-

1 21

745

95

108

0 0

16

-70

14

10

28

L R

S

0 20

1

- 21

725

90

102

0 0

16

-70

14

12

29

R

L P

357

21

- 1

2170

5 94

98

0

0 16

-7

0

1412

30

L

L P

357

21

1 -

2169

5 94

10

4 0

0 16

-7

0

1415

31

R

R

S

0 25

-

1 21

645

95

102

0 0

16

-70

14

17

32

L R

S

0 27

1

- 21

635

93

104

0 0

16

-70

14

18

33

R

L P

0 25

-

1 21

605

90

97

0 0

16

-70

14

18

34

L L

P 0

25

1 -

2160

5 90

10

8 0

0 16

-7

0

1424

35

R

R

S

12

26

- 1

2150

5 94

10

2 0

0 16

-7

0

1425

36

L

R

S 15

25

2

- 21

505

93

110

0 0

16

-70

pow

er m

anag

emen

t 14

27

37

R

L P

12

25

- 2

2147

5 89

94

0

0 16

-7

0

1427

38

L

L P

10

25

1 -

2146

5 94

98

0

0 16

-7

0

1432

39

R

R

S

32

20

- 2

2133

5 95

10

6 0

0 16

-7

0 la

t/yaw

wor

kloa

d ov

er s

pot,

VA

R

5 on

fina

l

1434

40

L

R

S 35

20

2

- 21

315

95

111

0 0

16

-70

+/- 1

" @

1 H

z PE

D, +

/-0.

5" @

0.5

H

Z LA

T -i

n bu

rble

ove

r dec

k; la

t bu

ffet

in y

aw +

/-2 d

eg.

1438

41

R

L

P 30

22

-

1 21

295

89

101

0 0

16

-70

VA

R 5

/6 o

n fin

al

1439

42

L

L P

30

22

1 -

2127

5 90

11

0 0

0 16

-7

0

1440

43

R

R

S

32

20

- 1

2125

0 90

10

0 0

0 16

-7

0 V

AR

5/6

on

final

; ref

uel

1455

44

L

R

S 47

17

1

- 22

250

98

100

0 0

16

-70

yaw

cho

p on

tran

sitio

n 14

57

45

R

R

S 48

17

-

1 22

200

98

114

0 0

16

-70

tq m

anag

emen

t

169

Loc

al

Tim

e E

vent

N

o.

Typ

e E

volu

tion1

PAC

Se

at2

Typ

e A

ppr3

WO

D

Dir

ec.

(deg

. R)

WO

D

Spee

d (k

ts)

Lau

nch

PRS

Rec

over

y PR

S

Air

craf

t G

ross

W

eigh

t (lb

s.)

Avg

. T

Q

(%)

Max

. T

Q

(%)

Avg

. Pi

tch

(deg

.)

Avg

. R

oll

(deg

.)

OA

T

(deg

. C

)

Hp

(fee

t)C

omm

ents

1458

46

L

R

S 50

16

2

- 22

180

99

112

0 0

16

-70

chop

py t

rans

ition

to

hove

r; po

wer

m

anag

emen

t

1500

47

R

L

P 48

16

-

1 22

150

97

100

0 0

16

-70

VA

R 5

/6 o

n fin

al

1501

48

L

L P

45

17

2 -

2210

5 97

10

0 0

0 16

-7

0 V

AR

5/6

on

final

15

06

49

R

R

S 53

15

-

1 21

995

97

106

0 0

16

-70

VA

R 5

/6 o

n fin

al

1507

50

L

R

S 55

14

2

- 21

975

99

121

0 0

16

-70

pow

er m

anag

emen

t on

tra

nsiti

on

behi

nd su

pers

truct

ure

1510

51

R

L

P 55

13

-

1 21

925

90

101

0 0

16

-70

VA

R 5

/6 o

n fin

al

1510

52

L

L P

50

13

1 -

2192

5 95

10

6 0

0 16

-7

0

1521

53

R

R

S

345

26

- 1

2175

5 95

98

0

0 16

-7

0 V

AR

5/6

on

final

15

22

54

L R

S

348

26

1 -

2173

5 95

96

0

0 16

-7

0

1523

55

R

L

P 34

7 26

-

2 21

715

92

108

0 0

16

-70

lat/y

aw c

ontro

l; la

rge

left

peda

l re

quire

men

t (1

.5")

on

sl

ide

in

behi

nd s

uper

stru

ctur

e, o

ver

deck

; V

AR

-5.

1524

56

L

L P

350

26

2 -

2169

5 94

11

2 0

0 16

-7

0 po

wer

man

agem

ent

1528

57

R

R

S

335

21

- 1

2164

5 96

10

8 0

0 16

-7

0 V

AR

5/6

on

final

15

28

58

L R

S

335

21

1 -

2162

5 96

93

0

0 16

-7

0

1531

59

R

L

P 33

5 23

-

2 21

605

93

108

0 0

16

-70

lat w

orkl

oad;

VA

R 6

on

final

1531

60

L

L P

333

23

2 -

2159

5 93

12

0 0

0 16

-7

0 po

wer

man

agem

ent

on t

rans

ition

be

hind

supe

rstru

ctur

e 15

35

61

R

R

S 31

5 17

-

1 21

515

93

95

0 0

16

-70

15

35

62

L R

S

320

16

1 -

2151

5 95

93

0

0 16

-7

0

1537

63

R

L

P 32

0 17

-

2 21

495

95

106

0 0

16

-70

lat

wor

kloa

d ov

er d

eck

+/-

1/2"

@

2 H

z), V

AR

-6 o

n fin

al

1538

64

L

L P

320

17

1 -

2147

5 95

11

0 0

0 16

-7

0

1543

65

R

R

S

300

12

- 1

2132

5 93

10

0 0

0 16

-7

0 V

AR

6 o

n fin

al

1545

66

L

R

S 30

0 11

1

- 21

365

93

98

0 0

16

-70

170

Loc

al

Tim

e E

vent

N

o.

Typ

e E

volu

tion1

PAC

Se

at2

Typ

e A

ppr3

WO

D

Dir

ec.

(deg

. R)

WO

D

Spee

d (k

ts)

Lau

nch

PRS

Rec

over

y PR

S

Air

craf

t G

ross

W

eigh

t (lb

s.)

Avg

. T

Q

(%)

Max

. T

Q

(%)

Avg

. Pi

tch

(deg

.)

Avg

. R

oll

(deg

.)

OA

T

(deg

. C

)

Hp

(fee

t)C

omm

ents

1547

67

R

L

P 29

5 13

-

1 21

335

90

95

0 0

16

-70

VA

R 6

on

final

15

47

68

L L

P 29

5 11

1

- 21

335

92

117

0 0

16

-70

15

55

69

R

R

S 28

0 10

-

1 21

225

85

91

0 0

16

-70

VA

R 6

on

final

15

55

70

L R

S

280

10

1 -

2119

5 86

96

0

0 16

-7

0

1557

71

R

L

P 27

5 10

-

2 21

185

89

95

0 0

16

-70

lat

wor

kloa

d, A

OB

on

final

and

ov

er d

eck

to m

aint

ain

posn

15

57

72

L L

P 28

0 10

2

- 21

165

95

115

0 0

16

-70

pow

er m

anag

emen

t

1559

73

R

L

P 27

7 13

-

2 21

125

90

100

0 0

16

-70

AO

B o

ver d

eck

and

on to

uchd

own

to m

aint

ain

posn

16

12

74

L R

S

270

7 2

- 22

250

116

123

0 0

16

-70

pow

er m

anag

emen

t; re

fuel

16

14

75

R

R

S 26

5 8

- 1

2220

0 95

10

7 0

0 16

-7

0 V

AR

6 o

n fin

al

1615

76

L

R

S 26

5 7

1 -

2217

5 96

10

5 0

0 16

-7

0

1618

77

R

L

P 26

5 7

- 2

2212

5 10

5 12

6 0

0 16

-7

0 po

wer

man

agem

ent

in h

over

(tq

+/

-10%

to m

aint

alt)

; lat

wor

kloa

d (+

/- 1/

2" @

2 H

z)

1619

78

L

L P

265

7 2

- 22

085

105

120

2 2

16

-70

pow

er m

anag

emen

t 16

25

79

R

R

S 24

5 8

- 1

2198

5 95

10

4 2

2 16

-7

0

1625

80

L

R

S 24

5 7

2 -

2197

5 98

11

4 2

2 16

-7

0 po

wer

m

anag

emen

t in

sl

ide

off

deck

1627

81

W

O

L P

245

8 -

- 21

955

- -

2 2

16

-70

1629

82

R

L

P 24

5 10

-

2 21

935

105

116

2 2

16

-70

pow

er m

anag

emen

t in

hov

er (

tq

+/-1

0% to

mai

nt a

lt); l

at w

orkl

oad

(+/-

1/2"

@ 2

Hz)

16

30

83

L L

P 25

5 8

2 -

2189

5 10

5 12

1 2

2 16

-7

0 po

wer

man

agem

ent

1635

84

R

R

S

235

7 -

2 21

805

98

105

2 2

16

-70

lat w

orkl

oad

over

dec

k (+

/-0.

5" @

0.

5 H

Z); s

trong

buf

fet (

VA

R-6

)

171

Loc

al

Tim

e E

vent

N

o.

Typ

e E

volu

tion1

PAC

Se

at2

Typ

e A

ppr3

WO

D

Dir

ec.

(deg

. R)

WO

D

Spee

d (k

ts)

Lau

nch

PRS

Rec

over

y PR

S

Air

craf

t G

ross

W

eigh

t (lb

s.)

Avg

. T

Q

(%)

Max

. T

Q

(%)

Avg

. Pi

tch

(deg

.)

Avg

. R

oll

(deg

.)

OA

T

(deg

. C

)

Hp

(fee

t)C

omm

ents

1636

85

L

L P

235

9 2

- 21

765

98

95

2 2

16

-70

pow

er m

anag

emen

t (tq

flu

ctua

tion

85-1

15%

) - la

rge

burb

le (V

AR

-6)

1639

86

R

L

P 23

5 10

-

2 21

745

100

120

2 2

16

-70

pow

er m

anag

emen

t in

hov

er (

tq

+/-1

0% to

mai

nt a

lt); l

at w

orkl

oad

(+/-

1/2"

@ 2

Hz)

; st

rong

buf

fet

(VA

R-6

)

1640

87

L

L P

235

9 2

- 21

715

100

118

2 2

16

-70

pow

er

man

agem

ent;

VA

R

5;

unsc

hedu

led

fly o

ff a

fter

blow

ing

hang

ar d

oor o

ff.

N

otes

:

1 La

unch

(L),

Rec

over

y (R

), En

gage

men

t (E)

, Dis

enga

gem

ent (

D),

Load

Dro

p (U

), Lo

ad P

ick

(P),

Wav

e O

ff (W

O)

2 R

ight

Sea

t (R

), Le

ft Se

at (L

)

3 Star

boar

d (S

), Po

rt (P

)

172

173

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.

174

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.