army aviation digest - aug 1979

8/12/2019 Army Aviation Digest - Aug 1979

1/52


2/52

' '

VOLUME f ,tllvI TioNY IGEST NUMBER 8* *

rigadier General RichardD.

KenyonArmy Aviation OfficerODCSOPS , Headquarters ,

Department of the Army

Major General James H . MerrymanCommanderU.S. Army Aviation Center

Fort Rucker , Alabama

Brigadier General CarlH.

McNairDeputy CommanderU.S. Army Aviation Center

Fort Rucker , Alabama

-

page 6

page 14

Richard K. TierneyEditor

16

812

1416

U.S. Army 's Astronaut, LTC Richard L HorvathSelf-Deployment of CH-47 Medium Lift Helicopters

to Europe, LTC James B . ThompsonFlight Simulator Reflections, MAJ Louis Scipioni Jr .Survival Is Life - Before and After,

SGT Charles H. Jackson IIIDES Report To The Field: Weight & BalanceThe Threat: Soviet Airmobile Operations

1718

Space Shuttle Orbiter Columbia, Ruth Jackson page 21A Professional Look at Professionalism

2122

2427

28

When Go Should Have Been NooGolPut It Down; Lea ve It DownWhat's New In Aviation Training LiteratureEPMS Corner: Personnel Changes At Branch,

SFC Douglas E. AllenTactical Instruments: Close Encounters Of The

Meteorological Kind, MAJ Bruce S . Beals31 Views From Readers32 Shipping Helicopters, SP4 B ill Branley34 National Guard Aids Injured Hunter, SP5 Dail M . T. Adams page 2838 Reporting Final40 PEARL's42 What Is Night Flight Off-Center Vision?

CW2 Robert L Portman44 Tracking And Balancing Helicopter Blades,

Claud C. Ruthven47 OPMS Corner: Grading of Warrant Officer Positions ,

MAJ Taylor C . Harvey48 ATC Action Line

r.ll. . '41'Inside Back Cover: You, The News Media And page 4

Aircraft Accidents

Cover: Major Robert Stewart, the Army 's astronaut and ~ ;the subject of this month 's cover story, prepares for an

early morning flight at NASA 's Johnson Space Center ~ i j i j ~ ~near Houston , TX. The story begins on page 1. (Coverphotograph by SP4 Manuel Gomez)

The mission of th e U.S . rmy v iat ion Digest USPS 415 -350) is to provideinformation of an op e rational , functional nature concerning sa fety and aircraftaccident prevention, training , maintenance , operations , research and development , aviation medicine and other related data .

This publication has been approved by The Adjutant General , Headquarters,Department of the Army , 23 February 1979 , in accordance with AR 310 -1.

Active Army units receive distribut ion under the pinpo int d istribution systemas outlined in AR 310-1 . Complete DA Form 12 -5 and send directly to CDR.AG Publications Center , 2800 Eastern Boulevard , Baltimore , MD 21220 . Forany change in distribut ion requirements , initiate a revised DA Form 12-5 .

The Digest is an oHicial De partment of the Army per iodical published monthlyunder the supervision of the Commanding General , U.S . Army Aviation Center .Views expressed herein are not necessarily those of the Department of theArmy nor the U .S . Army Aviation Center . Photos are U .S . Army unless otherwises pe cified . Material may be repr inted provided credit is given to the Digest andto the author , unless oth erw ise indicated .

ArtiCles , photos and items of interest on Army aviation are invited . Directcommunicati on is authorized to : Editor , U.S . Army Aviation Digest, P.O. Drawer P ,

Fort Rucker , AL 36362 .

National Guard and Army Reserve units under pinpo int distribution alsoshould submit DA Form 12-5 . Other National Guard units should submit reQuests through their state adjutant general.

Those not eligible for official distribution or who desire personal copies ofthe Digest can order the magazine from the Superintendent of DocumentsU.S . Government Printing Office , Washington , DC 20402 . Annual subscription

rates are 17 .00 domestic and 21 .25 overseas .


3/52

Major Robert L Stewart

LTC Richard L Horvath

VIA TION HAS come from

. . lying at Kitty Hawk to pilotingthe Concorde - from nap-of-theearth flying to outer space - andspace is the next step for Armyavia t ion s Major Rober t L.

Command Information Division

Office of The Secretary of the ArmyWashington DC

Stewart.MAJ Stewart, an Army aviator,

is one of 35 astronaut candidatesse lec ted by the N a t i o n a lAeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to train as a

Photography by SP4 Manuel Gomez

AUGUST 1979

mission specialist for NASA s spaceshuttle program. The 37-year-old

pilot , who has logged more than4,200 hours in 38 different aircraft ,will be responsible for satellitedevelopment, retrieval operations ,payload oriented extravehic ular act iv i t ies and e x p e r i m e n t a loperations while in space .

For Bob Stewart it was not aneasy road to NASA s JohnsonSpace Center at Clear Lake , TX, 5

miles southeast of Houston.MAJ Stewart started his flying

career in 1960 while in high school ,as a jack-of-all trades for EnglishFlying Service in Hatties burg , MS.At S o u t h e r n i s s i s s i p p iUniversity, Bob purs ued a degree inmathematics, while continuing hisflying - fire patrols, power line inspections, charters and flightinstruction.

Following graduation , com-missioning through the ROTC program and his first assignment with

32d NORAD Region Head-quarters , Bob completed helicoptertraining at Ft. Wolters , TX and Ft.Rucker , AL.

Then came a tour in SoutheastAsia where he logged 1 ,000 combathours as a fire team leader in anarmed platoon of an assault helicopter company. He earned th r eeDistinguished Flying Crosses , a


4/52

Bronze Star Medal, 33 Air Medals ,the Army Commendatio n Medaland two Purple Hearts as a result ofhis Vietnam service.

MAJ Stewart returned to F t.Wolters as a helic opter instructorand then we nt to Ft. Bliss , TX to

attend the Guided Missile Systemscourse. like a 4-year en gin eering degree stuffed int o 3 0 weeks , hesa id, . . . a certain pe rcentage of

people are given the opportunity togo on for an advanced degree . 1was one of those people .

Bob , his wife Mary , whom hemarried in 1963 , and daughtersRagon (1965) and Jennifer (1968)were sent to Arlington, TX , where

Bob attended the University ofTexas - Arlington (UTA). 1 thinkthe reason was UT A wasconcentrating on low-speed aero-

ABOVE Army Major Robert Stewart works n glove ftt e ercl elna negative preslUre device at JohnlOn Space Center

BELOW The Army l only astronaut candidate nspects sleeveassembly of the shuttle space lUll n the Johnson Space enter

BELOW RIGHT Major Stewart packaging hll Iult

dynamics - helicopter aero-dynamics - which was what theArmy wanted, he said .

My primary instructors wereoutstanding , MAJ Stewart recalls.

Don Seath and Jack Fairchildcould 'stick and rudder ' withsomebody like me or discussequations with someone theoretically oriented .

Following a tour in Korea, theastronaut candidate continued hisdesire for flying and was acceptedinto the U. S. Naval Test PilotSchool at Patuxent River, MD.After graduation, he was assignedto the Army element at EdwardsAF B, CA , as an engineer test pilot.

Edwards was a good tour, herecalled. flew in two utility and

two attack helicopters the Armywas testing at Edwards. t wasthere that Bob decided he met thequalifications for tra ining as a spaceshuttle crewmember and applied.But it wasn't quite that easy.

The Army alone had 180applicants competing for the 35NASA slots. MAJ Stewart madethe first cut of 33 the Army recommended and was one of the sevenArmy applicants NASA calledto Houston for final interviews.That alone was a significantaccomplishment considering therewere more than 8,000 applicants.

2 U.S. ARMY AVIATION DIGEST


5/52

Looking back on thoseinterviews and the testing atJohnson Space Center, Bob recallsthinking, what am I doing here?Everyone in the final group of 207candidates seemed more qualifiedthan I was.

But finally on 16 January 1978 -a year after he forwarded hisapplication-MAJ Stewart wasinformed that he was one of the 35new guys. His reaction was

echoed by his 34 companion candidates last January when they heldtheir first a nnual Who Me? party.

The 35 new guys include 14civilians, 1 Air Force, 9 Navy, 1Marine and MAJ Stewart , theArmy's only astronaut. Of the 35,six are women, three are black andone is oriental.

What about the 35 new guys atJohnson? How did the older, moreexperienced astronauts view thefledglings? What was their regimenafter coming on board?

Bob related, They were reallyglad to see us here - someone toshare the work load with. There is alot to do in preparation for the firstshuttle flight in 1980.

Our first 3 months wereextensive in academics. Wenormally spent a full 8-hour day oneverything from NASA organization to the shuttle system. We alsohad such short subjects as geology,astronomy and material science,he recalled. Our biggest emphasisnow is our own projects. But theregimen is not restricted toacademics . Bob main ta insproficiency in the art of flying highperformance aircraft by loggingtime in the T -38 supersonic j ettrainer.

MAJ Stewart 's project is tomonitor development of the reentryflight control system. Reentry iscomplicated by the fact that thereare two control systems - one forspace and one for earth's atmosphere. We start out at about 15miles in a space environment, hesaid, but you really don't enter asensible atmosphere until the 75-

AUGUST 1979

Major Stewart working with N S engineers on shu le problemsat Johnson Space Center

mile level. So you control with jetsand phas e in aerodynamic controls.

He spoke candidly concerningqualifications of future Armycandidates, Look for a broadbackground . Selection shouldnever be on records alone. Thecandidate should not be overly

specialized. Experience in theproblem solving process isparamount. Do not sacrificeexperience for a Ph.D. A solidmaster's degree is suitable. An important factor is the psychologicalcompatibility to work with otherpeople for 3 days or longer in aspace vehicle.

3


6/52

Major Stewart contemplates the futureMockup o space shuttle In backgroundINSET: Bob trains In shutt le simulator


7/52

As for more Army candidates,the U. S. Army Military PersonnelCenter has stated that for the firsttime, applications from the ArmyNational Guard and the U S. ArmyReserve, as well as the active Army,will be encouraged.

The term 35 new guys is a selfcoined title the astronaut candidates have adopted. I t appears on ablue and white T-shirt depicting ashuttle and 35 caricatures ofastronauts in varying degrees ofsymbolic work in and around theshuttle. Below the space craft is theabbreviation TFNG (thirty-fivenew guys) and their slogan, Wedeliver.

Perhaps a good omen, theStewart's home was first owned byastronaut Thomas Stafford, nowan Air Force Lieutenant Generaland Deputy Chief of Staff for AirForce Research, Development andAcquisition. Stafford was in thesecond group of astronauts to participate in space operations. I fthese walls could only talk , MAlStewart said.

A set of unique avia tion wings siton one of the shelves in MAlStewart's living room. This setshows a shooting star through aring and is the official astronautinsignia. Bob says, I won't pinthem on until I return from my firstflight. The wings were presented toMAl Stewart shortly after hisselection to the program by MSGTMartin D. Wright, a quality controlNCO in the Army element atEdwards.

The whole story of how theStewarts feel about husband, fatherand Army aviator standing on thethreshold of space is summed up byhis oldest daughter Ragon , It's

really cool.

Major Stewart s astronaut wings

AUGUST 1979

ABOVE: Size of the space shuttlelsevident In this photograph of ArmyMajor Stewart Inalde the cargo

bay mockup

LEFT: Another view of the apaceahuttle trainer

LT C Richard L Horvath Is S P 4 Manuel Gomez wasChief, Print Media Branch, assigned to the CommandCom man i n o r mat Ion I nformatlon Division, Office,Division, Office, Chief of Chief of Public Affairs as aPublic Affairs, Department of photoJournalist In April hethe Army. A Journalism was selected as the Militarygraduate from the University Photographer of the Year.of Detroit, he earned Master s Since leaving the service inDegrees In management and June, he has been a free lancepublic administration from photographer In the WashWebster College. During a 4- Ington area

year break In service from959 to 963 he wasemployed by the ChryslerCorporation Missile Divisionworking as a technical writerand manuals analyst on theJUPITER and REDSTONEmissile systems


8/52

el Deployme t o 47edi m

toft Helicoptersurope

of he li -copters to E u rop e is not a new

idea. This has been discussed andtests cond ucted ove r water forextended distances, bu t the conceptor idea has nev e r bee n brought tofruition for reas o ns too numerousto mentio n . Now th e tides havechanged, an d se lf-d eployment ofArmy airc raf t to E urope to supportmobilizati on is ga ining considera ble e mphas is a nd momentum.

T he nee ded push to go beyondwhat ha s been done to date came

about as a res ult o f AAPR 978 .The proceedi ng s conclud ed thatbecause of the critical s tre ss on ai rand surface trans po rt ation asse ts to

LTC James B ThompsonReq u irements Directorate

ODCSOPSHeadquarters Department of the Army

transport combat units during theearly stages of mobilization, CH-47Chinook , UH-60 Black Hawk andAH-64 attack helicopters should beself-deployable to Europe , and themeans to achieve that capabilitypursued.

A conceptual study of CH-47Cself-deployability conducted by theU . S . Army Transportation School,Ft. Eustis , V A , determined thefea sibility of self-deploying ArmyCH-47C / D models to theEuropean theater from ContinentalU . S . CONUS) bases. This study

stat es that the CH-47C with addedfu el capab i l i ty , e x p a n d e dna vigational equipment , and withother requirements which the study

identifies , is deployable fromCONUS to the continent of

Europe. The recommended routesare across the northern part of theAtlantic Ocean with intermediatestops in Canada , Greenland ,Iceland and Scotland for fuel andrest.

A Department of the Army DA)message dated 6 February 1979tasked Training and DoctrineCommand TRADOC) , ArmyMate r i e l Development andReadiness Command DARCOM)and Army Forces Command

FORSCOM) to plan for , test andultimately self-deploy CH-47Csand units to Europe. The overallconcept outl ined in the DA messagewas directed toward ongoingefforts to expand the medium lifthelicopter forward deployedcapability in Europe through bothincreases in the number of helicopters from 6 to 24) assigned , tothe present three units in Europe ,and by later deploying the 179th ,132nd and 243rd Medium Lift

Helicopter Companies to Europeas directed by Aviation Requirements for the Combat Structure ofthe Army ARCSA III).

Under current requirements the

An added safety factor which makesself deployment of the CH-47 practical s its water landing capability


9/52

Internal fuel tanks ensure sufficientrange for route selection that willenable CH 47C self deployment

movements of combat and combatsupport units necessitates that CH -47C s toge th e r with uni t pe rso nn e land equipment , be delayed untiltransportation means are madeavailable. However, the uniqueresupply capabilities of medium lifthelicopters will be urgentlyrequired by ground commanders.Their arrival must coincide withthat of combat units and ancillaryc o m b a t power i f g r o u n dcommanders are to have what isrightly theirs, i.e., a viable mediumlift helicopter capability that can bedepended upon.

The self-deployability of mediumlift helicopters and units is criticalto winning the first battle and alsothose that follow. The Army mustmake sure that this capability isavailable as soon as possible toground commanders at all levels.The need is there; something mustbe done, now

TRADOC In Progress Reviews(IPRs) of ongoing efforts indicatethat the Army will achieve the

means to self-deploy CH-47Cs toEurope by the end of fiscal year1979. This is only to be achieved asa result of the totally dedicatede ffo r t s o f the T R A D O C ,DARCOM , FORSCOM and U. S.Army Europe aviat ion communities. The status of all actionsrequired to achieve the selfdeployment objective has beenextremely encouraging, especiallyin light of the short amount ofplanning and programing time

available so far in this major effort.Well - where are we? Here iswhat's happening:

TRADOC (The TransportationSchool) prepared a Draft ConceptEvaluation Plan for CH-47C / DSelf-Deployability to Europe.Generally, the plan resulted in fourCH-47C helicopters deploying toEurope this month to test and

AUGUST 1979

validate the concept. The planidentified the flight routesdescribed in the Self-DeploymentStudy and has specific testobjectives , some of which are:

E v alua te c re w tr a i ningrequirements for self deplo ym entoperations in Europ e.

Evaluate performan ce andcharacteristics of systems installedin CH 47C aircraft for self-deployment operations .

Provide information on safet yand human fa ctors related to self-deplo yment o f CH 47Cj D heli-

copters . Identif y coordination require-

ments with the other Ser vices andAllied nation s for overflight andsuppor t during CH 47Cj D self-deplo y ment operations.

Evaluate logisti cal require-ments for CH 47C j D s elf-deplo y ment operations.

Validate flight routes andcompatibility of these routes forself deplo yabilit y o f CH 47C j Daircraft .

The aircraft were identified ,equipment selected , and the scopeand context of the test published.The crews for the aircraft consistedof active Army , Army Reserve andArmy National Guard pilots .Enlisted personnel came from the179th Medium Lift HelicopterCompany , Ft. Carson , CO. TheCanadian Forces also participated

in the test . Ca nad ian militarypersonnel ha ve participated in theIPRs condu cte d to date. They haveexpressed a st rong interest since theCanadian go vernment s facedwith the sam e transportationproblem as is t he U. S. for its fleet ofCH-47s . The ir participation andsupport lends invalu ab le assistancein this test effo rt.

Training of crews f o r specialnavigation eq u i p ment, International Civ il Av iat io n O rganization (ICAO) proc edu res, s ur vivaltraining for o verwat er flights, col d

weather operatio ns, and othe rreq uir ed training was completedin m id -Jul y. Thanks to some goodlu c k , some money, and continu ed support from those whohave a vested interest in the conce p t a fl ig h t of four CH-47C helico pt ers o n the 20th of August repo rt ed th e European coast in sightove r the North Sea. At that time,th e d ream of many Chinookbelievers wa s ac h ieved. Theyrealized the pe r sonal s a tisfaction of

saying , I to ld you i t could bedone. Con c u rren tl y, Armyaviation has ach ieve d a nother milestone. It ca n report that the meansto achieve self-d eployment of CH-47Cs to Europe ha s bee n vali d atedand that th e conc ept i s an effec t iveand time sensitive me t h od fo r rapi dmovement of CH -47Cs an d theirunits to Europ e. . . , .

7


10/52

The opinions expressed in this article are those of theauthor and do not necessarily reflect the views of theDepartment of the Army or th U S Army AviationCenter

light imul O R ;flectio11$louis c:u;nun

Directorate of r ~ : a l n i i n[ ) F l V F ~ l n n n A l r n ~Fort H I I ~ k , : ~ r

The innova-

advances which have been ,,.,.t,.,,,,,,,,,,,1 1

and I havedelivered. These multimillion

dollar . u u . ument or in openLtI()n,the mostsimulator fleet

there still' u,,,.,, in

characteristics' U ~ ' J ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' H' and the actual

This is rather difficult tothe astound-


11/52

Regardless of these credentials,there are perceptible differences inthe performance of these devicesand the various aircraft they simu-late.

During the aerodynamic simu -

lation development and testing.the Army relies on the subject-.ive evaluation of a small groupof pilots (one to three). This is ahighly subjective procedure andtheir evaluation reflects onlyperceived differences between theperformance characteristics of thesimulator and that of the aircraft.There are a number of pIoblemswith this approach .

First, differences that areperceived may not exist asperceived. For example, a pilotmight feel that control forces aretoo high to produce a given roll

rate. What bothers the pilot is per-ception of control force , but theproblem may not be one of in-correct control forces at all. It could

e that cyclic stick def lections is toolittle for a given force or that aero-

dynamic control poweris

too little.In other words, the pilot canidentify what surfaces in sensoryperception are a problem, but willlikely be unable to identify thesource of such problems.

Second , a pilot might identify aproblem that is really not a problemat all , or the pilot may exaggeratethe extent of a perceived problem.What is happening is that the pilot'smemory is not total ; the pilot'smemory is playing tricks. This isnot as far fetched as one mightimagine . Doing away with tweak-ing by making direct objective

light simulator cockpit re

AUGUST 1979

comparisons, however, easily over-comes this shortcoming of thetweaking approach to testing.

Tweaking is referring to aprocedure used in adjust ingsimulator responses based on

SUbjective evaluations. The adjust-ments can be made to either hard-ware or software . In eithe r case, thisprocedure does not ensure fidelitynor does it ensure the adjustmentwill not affect other systemssimulation. Tweaking does notproduce highly repeatable results.The lack of repeatability is due inpart to individual differencesamong pilots and in part to thecomplex interrelationships of thevarious facets of simulation.

In an effort to ensure high fidelitysimulation, the procurementcontract requires the contractor todevelop an acceptance test plan foruse during Government acceptancetesting. This plan is submitted tothe Government for approval andultimately is approved. Thecontractor developed acceptancetest plan basically is designed toconf i rm tha t the s imula torfunctions identically to the way theArmy contract specificationsintended it to function and as it wasprogramed. These procedures in noway demonstrate that the con-tractor s aerodynamic simulation is

a high fidelity simulation of theactual aircraft.

There is an attempt to compareactual aircraft measurements orperformance values with thosebeing simulated. In most instancesengineering or actual flight data areused to develop the aerodynamicsimulation, but this will notnecessarily assure high fidelity

simulation. In order to assure thatthe contractor s acceptance testprocedures are absolute, and themateriel developer s desire toconvince the user of the simulator sacceptability, the simulator pro-ponen t av i a t ion cen te r isencouraged to develop useracceptance test procedures.

The user test subjects the

9


12/52

light simulator terrain board

simulator to various flight profilesin which the user believes thesimulator should be capable ofperforming dur ing training.Naturally, this test is as subjectiveas is the contractor's. The ironicaspect of the user test is that it isbased on the subjective evaluationsof the same small group of pilotswho assisted the contractor intweaking the simulator prior to

delivery.Although the present approach

to simulator fidelity ensures theArmy receives an operationalsimulator which "seems" to fly likethe actual aircraft, we cannot emphatically state whether or not ahigher f idel i ty s imula tor isrequired. f simulator fidelity is theissue, then is greater fidelity

required in simulators used for thebeginning aviator than is needed forthe more experienced? Is simulatorfidelity critical in certain flightparameters or is it required for totalsystem simulation? Regardless ofthe perceived magnitude of thesimulator doesn't fly like the aircraft" controversy, we have agreater problem to overcome inrespect to flight simulators. This

problem is basically how to usethem in training.

The first reaction to this is adefensive one with profound statements a bout how the U H 1 FS isproviding instrument proficiency tothe aviator mass, how the CH-47FSis being used successfully in the CH -47 Aviator Qualification Course,and the envisioned use of the A H-

FS in training. True, they are asuccess and are cost effective , butwe continue to use them in trainingas a substitute aircraft. We do notapproach the flight simulator as atraining medium an d , therefore , do

not reap additional benefits whichpossibly could be obtained bychanging our i n s t ruc t iona lmethodology based on empiricalresearch.

Too many instructional featuresof the flight simulator lie dormantand are never used. The reason forthis lack of use cannot be attributedto the instructor pilot (IP) and theindividual aviators. The reason is ,frankly , that we don't know how tointegrate these features into thetraining program. Our instructorpilot methods of instructions(MOl) do not teach the IP to use theflight simulator as an instructionaltool. It merely teaches the IPsimulator operation coupled withadditional aircraft MOL The endresult is an IP capable of operatingsophisticated flight simulatorswhile using it as a substituteaircraft.

Based on the above contentions,the next defensive reaction is,"We've got to get the training developers on track to revise the program of instruction to eliminate theproblem " Wrong The training developer does not have the answerseither. The training developer canidentify tasks for training in thesimulator based on the terminallearning objectives. To develop theanswers we need, it will require extensive research by agencies whichhave that capability.

The questions which are beingraised are concerned with how and

when the capabilities of the flightsimulators should be used duringtraining. Present and future flightsimulators are and will be capableof automatic demonstrations andins tant replay. Should thedemonstration feature be used tointroduce the tasks or should theinstructor introduce the tasks?Which is more effective? What

10 U.S. ARMY AVIATION DIGEST


13/52

sequence should be used tointroduce the tasks? When shouldthe instant replay be used in lieu of averbal critique by the instructor?Will the proper use of these featurescoupled with prope r task

introduction and sequencingproduce a better product at areduced cost? These questions onlyscratch the surface of investigativeareas, and it will take a long periodof research to provide answers.

In the meantime , there are severalactions that can be taken toimprove the situation. First, we canbegin orienting our aviator force tothe fact that the flight simulator isan instructional medium andshould be treated as such. Second,we

can take a different approach toassuring the flight simulator is ahigh fidelity simulation of the aircraft . The Air Force has developeda new approach to testingsimulators, and it would be in ourbest interest to follow suit. This newapproach is called verisimilitudetesting.

Verisimilitude testing is anapproach to testing of a simulatorthat permits determining just howclosely the simulator appears to be

true or real. In order to avoid thepro blems inherent in tweaking, theverisimilitude approach to testinghas been developed. This approachhas both a quantitative side and asubjective side. The objectiveportion of verisimilitude testingbegins with test plan written toallow extracting data from thesimulator that can be compared toavailable aircraft data. This testplan must be written to takeadvantage of flight test results fromthe simulated aircraft.

The subjective portion of verisimilitude testing involves the preparation of a subjective questionnaire and the selection of testsubjects. In order to producemeaningful results from thequestionnaire, it is necessary toachieve response repeatability andto eliminate random responses.

Essentially, verisimilitude test-

AUGUST 1979

ing offers a more objectiveapproach to simulator evaluation.Actual flight data are compared tothe simulated flight data of thesimulat o r. A s discr e pancies ar enoted, appropr ia te software

changes are executed instead ofusing the tweaking technique.In those areas that actual

performance values cannot be usedor are not available, SUbjectiveevaluations are used. In this area,rather than using a small group ofpilots that assisted the contractor indeveloping the simulators, a representative cross section ofaviators are used in conjunctionwith a questionnaire. All of thisrepresents a more effectiveapproach to ensuring simulatorfidelity.

t is apparent that the Army has

progressed substantially in procurement of sophisticated flightsimulators . At the same time, it isapparent that their developmentand use of flight simulators as aninstructional medium have not pro

gressed at the same rate as havetechnological developments. Theprogress that has been made hasproven to be both cost and trainingeffective, but there are greaterstrides to be made before we trulymaximize f l igh t s i m u l a t o rcapabilities. . . .

*Quotes in this article are from apaper presented to the 9th NavalTraining Equipment Center Industry Conference in Orlando, FL,by Major James A. Richmond,USAF, on 9 November 1976.

CH 47 flight simulator


14/52

SURVIVAL S LIFEBEFORE AND AFTER

SGT Charles H. Jackson IIITroop 0 3rd Squadron 5th Cavalry

Fort Lewis WA

A N IDEA Survival was the main topic of discussionone day in the flight planning room at Troop D, 3 / 5Cavalry, Ft. Lewis, W A. The di scussion concerneddeveloping a mission that would task all aviators andcrewmem bers in survival skills while beinginstructional in nature. The discussion then moved

Wounded crewmember is transported down mountainsidein litter made from limbs boot laces straps and string

12

into a plan of action. WO I Kenneth Johnson thetroop survival officer, and I began scouting for asuitable site for the mission we had in mind.

The Cascade Mountains and Mount RainierNational Park provides countless opportunities forsurvival situations - intentional or otherwise. Oursearch for a potential survival area took us in and outof the national park. We evaluated several areas, butrejected m ost as being too unrealistic for instructionalpurposes. As the unpredictable weather around thesemiextinct volcano forced our aircraft back towardFt. Lewis, we spotted a small glacier-fed lake justbelow us. Coincidentally it was named Johnson LakeIt was an ideal site.

With the site selected, we began developing survivaltasks, emergency backup support and lesson plans forsurvival classes. The goal was to instill as muchauthenticity and realism into the traini ng situation aspossible. The key was to establish the peak personalchallenge while being closely monitored by qualifiedsurvival personnel. The chall enge was to use one s witsand survive on those items found in the environmentand in the standard cold weather survival kit.

Many subjects were prepared for instruction:Building shelters, living off the land, procuring foodthrough fishing and snares, building and maintainingfires, field first aid and transportation by litter, andsignaling and associated skills. These preparatoryclasses were given to the aircrews. Survival techniqueswere discussed in detail; however, the crews wereunaware that they would soon be in an actual survivalpractical exercise.

Search and rescue is one of the troop missions, sowhen this mission came down the only unusual aspectwas the number of crews required. Eight aircraft crewswere alerted, briefed and scrambled. When the crewswere prepared to lift off at Gray Army Airfield,

u s ARMY AVIATION DIGEST


15/52

With Mount Rainier n the backgroundsurvivors fly back to base camp area

selected crews were consolidated into two aircraft.They brought with them the survival gear intended forthe original mission. They were lifted to Johnson

Lake dropped off and briefed on the situation theywere to encounter.

When we arrived at the base camp at Johnson Lakethe crews were divided into two member teams andassigned to different a reas around the perimeter of thelake. Each group was assigned a different intermediatetask which included erecting solar stills snares signalsand shelters. Mr. Johnson and I moved from site tosite assessing simulated casualties and instructing thesurvival efforts as necessary.

As night closed in around the lake the survivorsbegan to gather fuel for their fires and upgrade theirshelters. The only sounds were the night birds

crackling fires and muffled voice sounds that seemedto carry for miles in the crisp air. Just at nightfall anOH-58 Kiowa from the troop circled the area of

Troops take a break during exercise

AUGUST 1979

Johnson Lake to ensure that the exercise was stillsimulated and controlled. Simulating a non-landingarea the pilot indicated that a move had to be made.The simulated rescue pilot gave the survivorsinstructions on the survival radio administrativefrequency indicating by map coordinates where thepickup was to be made.

With that information the survivors settled down totheir rations - fish that could be captured or caughtfrom the lake and survival rations - and prepared fora chilly night in the new environment. The night wasdark windy and rain pelted the pine bough shelters wehad constructed. A few teams had to reinforce theirshelters with additional boughs but in all the survivorswere reasonably protected from the weather.

The following morning the survivors beganplanning for the move to the pickup area. Thesimulated casualties were provided transportation bysurvival litters constructed of limbs boot laces strapsand string. Backpacks were constructed of similar

materials to transport personal gear leaving handsfree for climbing. The move was made across about 2cross-country miles to the pickup zone. Travel timewas about 4 hours. The pickup was completed 3hours after the first notification of alert.

Survivors gained valuable experience andconfidence in their ability to survive in theenvironment which we all flew over on a daily basis.Additionally we gained a healthy respect for theimpact of the elements and the value of maintaining acool head. The hour to hour existence learning to beboth self-sufficient and to rely on others whenrequired and surviving in an environment totally

foreign brought an interchange of experiences skillsand opinions which will assist the simulated survivorof this exercise when confronted with the real thing.

Lake ohnson survival site

13


16/52

Last month four lines were transposed in the DES article, page 25. The lasttwo paragraphs should have read: Thorough preflight briefing, early demonstration of IP positioning during flight,and elimination of reluctance to take

the flight controls should success be indoubt, should result in a significant reduction In accidents Involving IP errors.

solution directed toward the reductionof aircraft mishaps during flight training.It Is emphasized that safety and standardization in training are Inseparable inArmy aviation. DES would like to hearcomments on this subject.

The above discussion Is not Intendedto assume this to be the only IP mishapproblem. On the contrary, It offers one

u s . RMYDirectorate of Evaluation Standardization

RPORTTOT f f I LUVI TION

ST ND RDIZ TION

DES welcomes your inquiries and requests to focus attentionon an area of major importance . Write to us at : Commander U .S . Army Aviation Center ATTN : ATZQ -E S Ft . Rucker AL36362; or call us at AUTO VON 558-3617 or commercial 2 5255 36 7 After duty hours call AUTO VON 558-6487 or

J \ CCURATE WEIGHT and balance~ n f o r m t l o nIs essential for the safeconduct of all air operations. The pilot Incommand (PIC) Is responsible for ensuring

that the aircraft loading arrangement Iswithin allowable weight and center-ofgravity limits. Are you as an Army aviatorfamiliar with all facets of weight and balancecomputations, and can you apply this data toyour particular needs? Commanders andInstructors - are weight . and balanceplanning special topics In your trainingprograms?

Let s look at the two parts - weight andbalance

Weight limits are those Imposed by theaircraft operator s manual, modified byatmospheric conditions as they affectaircraft and engine performance throughoutall fl ight profiles.

Balance limits are those Imposed by theaircraft operator s manual, modified by theallowable weight and the loading andunloading requirements of the mission.

14

205-255-6487

Both the weight and the balance must bewithin specified limitations for the safe flightof an aircraft. Let s look at examples whereone of the limits were exceeded, and note the

results.

Weight: A helicopter was on a routines . pply mission with a 4-man crew, 4passengers and 5 cases of C-ratlons. ThePIC was at the controls on an approach to apinnacle. The landing area was cluHered

U S ARMY AVIATION DIGEST


17/52

with stumps and bunkers. As the approachwas being terminated to a hover the copilotInformed the PIC tha t the torque reading washigh and the rotor rpm was decaying.

The PIC attempted a go-around but theleft pedal became increasingly ineffective.The helicopter was not able to continue Inthe intended direction; it spun to the rightand downward until impacting in the trees onthe side of the pinnacle. On impact one ofthe crewmembers was thrown from theaircraft and died en route to the hospital. Theremainder of the crew and passenges wereinjured.

Balance: The hel icopter was on a logisticsmission to resupply troops In a smallconfined area which was surrounded bytrees. The area was too small to land In so theplan was to hover over the clearing and kickout the supplies. The helicopter was loadedwith about 1 000 pounds of cargo 3crewmembers and 2 loadmasters. The PICmade a visual reconnaissance of the areaand started his approach into a headwind of

Sto

10 knots. As the PIC terminated hisapproach to a high hover he noticed that anexcessive amount of aft left cyclic wasrequired to maintain control. The PICapplied forward cyclic regained effectivetranslational 11ft and executed a go-around.

Another approach was attempted alongthe same axis as the first. The PIC advisedthe crewchief to have the loadmasters ready

AUGUST 979

to kick out the cargo as soon as the aircraftwas In posi tion. As the helicopter neared thehover pOint the PIC again noticed that anexcessive amount of aft left cyclic wasrequired to maintain control. The PIC wasunable to stop the aircraft t a hover over theresupply site.

Meanwhile the loadmasters unbuckledand moved forward to kick out the supplies.This repositioning further aggravated theforward center-of-gravlty condition and the

ircr ft continued Its slow movementforward and started an uncont rollab le turn tothe right. The PIC attempted a go-around;however the aircraft continued Its right turnand slowly settled into the trees.

The PICs In both examples did not display

f mili rity with weight nd b l nceconsiderations or chose not to apply theconsiderations to their situations. One PICattempted a mission with his aircraft loadedbeyond its weight limits the other flew animproperly loaded aircraft; the results Inboth cases were inevitable.

In summary proper planning coupledwith the knowledge that the aircraft is beingoperated within Its weight n d balancelimitations will give the PIC the degree ofconfidence necessary for safe missionaccomplishment. Proper weight and balanceplanning can preclude the needless loss ofvaluable human and materiel resources.

5


18/52

T H E

T H R E TSoviet irmobile perations

I R M O B I L E operat}ons by Soviet ground forces loaded into each helicopter.are a battlefield contingency in the Soviet offensive On arriving at the landing zone, troops depart thebattle plan that should not be overlooked by opposing helicopter only when permission is given by the heli-forces. Although airmobile operations are not new to copter flight crew. Procedures are highly regimented tothe U S Army, it goes without saying that one of the get the troops , equipment and cargo off the helicopterfirst defenders to encounter a Soviet airmobile and away from the loading zone in minimum time. foperation may be the Army aviator. In order to sufficient landing space is unavailable, troo ps may exitrespond effectively, Army aviators should be aware of by using rope ladders or simply jumping.when, how and where the airmobile operat ion is likely The airmobile force is organized into two groups - ato take place in the Soviet offensive battle plan. seizure group and a covering group containing about

The Soviets have studied U S. Army airmobile six platoons (180 troops). Attached to the seizureoperations in complete detail. They have determined group and the covering group is a sapper platoon, twothe balance between the capabilities and limitations in- platoons of manpacked antitank missiles (sixherent in helicopter operations. This has resulted in launchers), two platoons of shoulder-fired surface totheir acceptance of the airmobile concept into the air missiles, (SAMs), and a section (two guns) from aSoviet ground force offensive battle plan. The ability 23 mm antiaircraft battery. The seizure group and theto quickly concent rate and disperse combat troops and covering group can be further subdivided in order toequipment within a large area, unconstra ined by land on either side of a water barrier.intervening obstacles on the ground, is becoming more The covering group blocks the approach to theappealing to the Soviets. They also recognize that the seized objective and prevents the enemy fromvulnerability of helicopters to air defense systems and determining the disposition of the airmobile force.air attack by defending fixed and rotary wing aircraft, This group digs defensive strong points which coverand the limited payload of helicopters in relation to the avenues of approach to this area.requirements of the ground combat force limits the size The airmobile operat ion relies heavily on air andand scope of airmobile operations. artillery support. However, suppression of enemy

To cover all aspects of airmobile operations, the forces in the landing area is conducted by the troopSoviets have increased helicopter a rmaments for carrying helicopter force itself. Because the airmobilesuppressing hostile ground fire, and have mounted unit inserted into the enemy rear area may be attackedmissiles on their helicopters to reduce vulnerability to from any and all directions, it is likely to require more

the aircraft. Additionally, they have installed armor external fire support than a motorized rifle unit or aplate at vital points on their comb at helicopters and similar size force in standard configuration.have incorporated other passive defensive measures in Helicopters approa ching the landing zone coveraircraft design and battlefield tactics. each others off-loading opera tion with antit ank

The Soviet objective normally is expressed in terms guided missiles, free flight rockets (both antipersonnelof terrain and / or enemy unit to be neutralized. The and armor piercing) and machinegun fire. The fireobjective selected usually will be small, easily power of the helicopters is augmented by theaccessible and lightly defended. The ground force automatic weapons of the troops being transported.comm ande r will designate the objective, one or more The duration of the mission is determined by thelanding zones at or near the objective, and a depar ture arrival and linkup on the scene of a friendly groundroute for the helicopters. force. (Historical examples suggest that the survival of

Ground troops are prepared for emba rkat ion before the airmobile force may not be required for thethe arrival of the helicopters in the pickUp zone. successful accomplishment of the mission.)

Ground forces provide the labor force for loading An airmobile opera tion is but one of many Sovietcargo placed 10 to 15 meters from the expected offensive courses of action considered by opposingposition of the helicopter receiving the load. Personne l forces. t is the responsibility of all personnel in directto be loaded form a single column at a similar distance or indirect contact with the enemy to understand theand helicopters consuming the most loading time land complexities of modern warfare on a fluid battlefield.first. (Final briefing of the troops and flight crews The ability to survive and accomplish your mission asincludes recognition signals to be used between units an Army aviator requires a working knowledge of alland the place for linkup between friendly forces.) The aspects of the threat. f you do not know what schief of staff prepares, coordinates and has approved happening, where nd when, the element of surpriseby higher authority a detailed list of what will be belongs to the opposition. Q:---

16 u s ARMY AVIATION DIGEST


19/52

Space Shuttle Orbiter

~ O I U m b i n

Unexpected Y i S i t O O l r ~ , t h e ~ ; m ~ ~ ~ ~ = : : ; ' : : : : ~ : ~ : ' : : :Xt after US CC air traffic- n ita unscheduled landing there

S4 RICK 1\1 Kaser , 7th Signal Command

air traffic controller at Fort Bliss, TX, recently had the time of his life. He was on duty inthe tower when a call came through that thespace shuttle orbiter Columbia, securely fastenedto the top of a 747 would change course andland at his airfield.

I was so excited, he said. I wasn't nervous- just excited. I t looked 'huge.' You could see itway out. They called from 40 miles away that theflight plan had been changed. Instead of goinginto EI Paso Airport it would be putting downhere.

The tower crew had known about the possibility well in advance b e ~ a u s ethe flight planhad been scheduled and changed several timesdue to weather.

That was the biggest thing I've ever seen. Welanded it on the long runway and it used all but2,000 feet of that 13,555-foot strip, SP4 Kasersaid.

The crew of the orbiter were en route fromEdwards AFB, CA to San Antonio, TX, but hadto divert to EI Paso because of deterioratingweather. ,

AUGUST 1979

Ruth JacksonU S rmy 7th Signal Command

Fort Ritchie MD

Photo by SP5 Jack Susin

17


20/52

professional lookt professionalism

The following article isadapted from an articlewritten by Cliff L. Stout atDouglas Aircraft. The article,entitled Professionalism, wasdistributed to all Douglas Aircraft pilots. t was laterpublished by the InternationalAir Transport Association andrecently in AEROSPACESAFETY magazine. Mr.Stout 's comments certainly

apply to military aviation.Take a few minutes and givethis article your attention.

O K A Y SO EVERYONEwants perfection. Well, no othersegment of the transportationindustry has ever come so close toit. Yet even the critics mustrealize that we can only strive forit. And that's where the troubleis That's what the uproar isabout. Are we, you and I andeveryone else, really striving forperfection? Or are we sitting onour duffs, settling forconsiderably less than perfectionand just standing by to become astatistic?

f you as a pilot haven't heardthe phrase complacency in thecockpit in recent months, youmust be the only one who hasn't.It's a distasteful phrase, projectingthe image of a smug know-it-allwho has forgotten about thepitfalls of flying. In so doing hehas become one himself. By notconstantly trying to do better, toeliminate every chance for an

error, he accepts a 10weriI} g of hisstandards and prepares himselfpsychologically for sub-parperformances. This casualapproach to a demanding taskhas unquestionably resulted in thedeaths of some of the casualapproachers as well as many ofthe not-so-casual passengersriding behind them.

Professionalism or thelack of it

The phrase complacency in thecockpit seems to imply that theoccupants of that space havebecome so well satisfied with theirskill, judgment, excellentequipment, ability to cope andoverall superiority that they canlet down a bit and still do just asgood a job. Like the BostonCeltics playing the Podunk HighB team. While occasionally this

may be true, it is more likely thatit overstates the case. Rather thana conscious letdown, what weappear to have is a lack ofcontinuing effort to improve.

Someone sometime advancedthe theory that an airline pilot'sperformance could be graphed.During his career he faces manychallenges and, if he is tosuccessfully continue that career,he must rise to meet each one. Atthe beginning, his level ofperformance is low, but as heapplies himself it rises. After afew years it peaks, levels off, andas self-confidence, perhapsboredom, maybe evendissatisfaction grows, it begins aslow decline.

With a change to newequipment he is challenged againand the cycle is repeated.Upgrading to capta n is probablythe sternest test and usually

18 u s ARMY AVIATION DIGEST


21/52

results in the most prolongedclimb in the quality of hisperformance. Eventually it peaks,however, and again decline setsin. One can easily picture such acurve on a graph. Occasionallythere will be brief excursionsfrom the norm, minor variationscaused by incidents whichshocked, scared or otherwiseinstructed the pilot and resultedin a temporary change of

direction. But in the long run theshape of the curve will vary little.

Obviously a far more desirablecurve WQuid be one whichreflected the normal variationswhen challenges are met, but didnot peak and then decline after afew months or years. Rather itshould reach a plateau, not a flatone, but one which slopes slightlyupward.

How does one achieve such aperformance pattern? By being a

full-time professional. You saythat's what you are? Then youknow why Heifetz still playsscales on the violin, why JackNicklaus walks directly from the18th green to the practice tee,why Rich Little entertains himselffor hours doing imitations infront of a mirror. A full-timeprofessional continually seeks toimprove by eliminating mistakes.

Preparation for flightbe professional

Reliance on someone else,whether it be the other pilot, adispatcher or the Almighty, for aweather briefing or a review of

AUGUST 1979

field conditions can be hazardous.The first two might misssomething which you considersignificant and the third may notbe on your side. It's better toarrive early and devote thenecessary time to a thorough lookat conditions.

You reply, We're going to goanyway. Maybe and maybe not.Don't assume anything. Get inthe habit of making a complete

preparation for every flight,regardless of the weather. Then itwon't sneak up on you. But ittakes a conscious effort todevelop the habit. That's what aprofessional does.

Get to the airplane early, notlate. Complete preflightinspections and checklists aheadof time. Last minute rushingcauses mistakes and professionalsshouldn't make mistakes inanything as simple and basic as

checklists.Preparation for flight alsoincludes being physically ready,maintaining one's health andgetting proper food and rest. Apilot reporting for a flight in llhealth, insufficiently rested orhung over places an unfairburden on his fellow pilot andjeopardizes the safety of theflight. He is not actingprofessionally.

Checklists - be professionalThe checklist helps you to

make sure that certain things areaccomplished, correctly, everytime. Both pilots share theresponsibility for the completionof the checklist, but the one

reading the challenges has thelarger share. He must first makesure that he doesn't skip anyitems. He should consider thatthe other pilot is doing somethingbesides waiting to hear his dulcettones. He should be sure he hasthe man's attention before readinga challenge. And he should readthe challenges as they are written,every time. Colorful individualinterpretations with rhymes and

clever patter thrown in may beenjoyable to the author, but mostpilots don't use them. Most usethe phrases as written. Hearingsomething else when you areex pecting the standard challengeis distracting, confusing, andleads to errors. The professionalway is the right way, the way thateliminates errors.Communications

e professionalA professional radio operator

knows that communicationmeans the transmission ofinformation and it implies thereception and understanding ofthe information. Otherwise it hasnot been communicated. Aprofessional knows how tocommunicate most effectivelywith a minimum number ofexchanges. He uses conventionalterms and standard phraseologyin the proper sequence toeliminate repeating ormisinterpretation. He also

9


22/52

A PROFESSIONAL LOOK AT PROFESSIONALISM

observes regulations concerningATC contacts such as reportingaltitude on initial call, reportingleaving altitudes and listening toand reporting the reception of theATIS.

He does these things becausethey reduce the repetition of callsand they eliminate errors.Precision be professionan

With the equipment now at ourdisposal, precision flying is easier

than ever before. Witness the fewmissed approaches in twohundred and one-half weather.But precision flying shouldn't belimited to approaches. Theairways should be flown just asprecisely.

A professional doesn't doanything in an amateurish way.We, as professionals, should flyexactly on course and exactly onaltitude. Noone enjoys havingATC broadcast to him and the

rest of the world that he is 5miles off the centerline. Aprofessional is precise, too, infollowing standard operatingprocedures, observing speedrestrictions and operatinglimitations without the presenceof a check pilot to inspire him. Aprofessional doesn't need acheck ride.

What else makes upprofessionalism?

Years of experience teach apilot so many things that acatalog of them would fillvolumes. However, certaingeneral topics emerge which canbe discussed in a fewparagraphs.

Beginning with A for noparticular reason, w think ofalertness. Whereas a pilot's

attention used to be focused onkeeping the wings level,maintaining altitude and courseand keeping his head on aswivel, now the autopi lot fliesthe airplane and radar controllerspoint out traffic. We hope. Ishope enough? Not enough for afull-time professional. He spendshis time monitoring instrumentsand looking around.

Being constantly aware ofexactly where one is in relation to

airways, outer markers, airportsand most important, the ground,is another form of alertness. Inthese days of almost continualradar vectoring, complete relianceon an outside agency for

navigational guidance is the easyway, but it can lead you down thegarden path or up the proverbialcreek. It is not the professionalway. Healthy skepticism of aradar controller is not an insult tohis ability; it is a tribute to yourprofessionalism.

The responsibility shoulderedby an airline pilot when hedeparts on a flight is awesome.Acceptance of responsibility ' hese

days is unusual. Thus the airlinepilot e c o m e ~unusual. Peopleexpect more of him. This becomesan additional responsibility, aresponsibility to conduct himselfat all times in a way that is acredit to him and to hiscolleagues, in a way that movespeople to look up to him, notsideways, or even down. His highprofessional standards should becarried over into his personalstandards. In a job that is of

necessity largely unsupervised, hispersonal integrity must beunquestioned. Cheating shouldnever occur to him. His reports of

on, in, out and off' times shouldbe just as precise and exact as hisILS approach with 1800 R YR.The pilot who doesn't meet thesestandards damages his ownreputation and those of hiscolleagues.

A cockpit organized alonghighly professional lines willnever have room forcomplacency. (#r-