CH-53 stuck gear - apply usual procedure

[Algy]

New video to me. (http://shock.military.com/Shock/videos.do?displayContent=161927&ESRC=dod.nl) Don't think it's done the rounds.

[206Fan]

Yea it was posted in another topic, think i posted it a while back.. I wouldn't be standing under that nose thats for sure, awsome skill by the pilot all the same!

[Brian Abraham]

Had the same problem in a 76. Built a pile of sandbags, lower the nose and shutdown. Don't use the rotor brake.

[ShyTorque]

The Germans used to keep piles of mattresses at their CH-53 operating fields for exactly this eventuality.

On the Puma we had a "sandbag plan" on board. We were supposed to give it to groundcrew who then went off searching for sandbags to place on it. Don't think it ever came in handy though. The only time I might have had call for it, sod's law said we had no fuel left....... total loss of ALL hydraulic fluid, including the reserve can - thankfully when it went "Bang!" I was quick enough to get three greens before it all blew off. The other time they dug holes in the ground for the aerials and landed all gear up. We all watched from a safe distance. Not so easy to dig on board ship though.

[[email protected]]

Not very bright by the engineers - they had no protection at all if the pilot twitched the nose forward. There must have been some piece of equipment they could have pushed under the nose just to stop themselves getting squashed. Not one of them was on intercom either (unless they have wireless headsets) and without one of them relaying handsignals or similar to the pilot they were very poorly placed in the event that anything else went wrong.

One of those situations when the rush of blood and adrenaline stops you thinking about safety procedures and afterwards you consider all the what - ifs.

[skadi]

But isnt it usual to have a kind of DeckLandingOfficer with handsignals in front of the helicopter? In this video he might be standing outside of view from the camera?
Also the solution with sandbags would be a little bit difficult onboard a ship....
I remember a vid ( Florida? ) with a small airplane and one stuck main gear. They solved the problem from a pickup driving down the runway and a mechanic fixed it from there during the short lowlevel flight...

skadi

[before landing check list]

All I will say is it is easy to second guess after the fact, especially when you were not there. And as far as commo goes, you have to know the air crew was talking to someone on the radio the whole time so they were not clueless as to the status of the ground crew. They did a fine job, all of them.

[excrewingbod]

Interesting video.

I've heard of similar tales with S61's, with an engineer releasing a stuck main gear from the sponson, whilst the crew held the aircraft in a low hover.

Mind you, I've watched an engineer change a main wheel on a Super Puma, whilst the aircraft was hovering/balanced on the other main wheel.

[Whirlygig]

Didn't something similar happen to a Chinook at Abingdon Air Show a few years ago?

Cheers

Whirls

[[email protected]]

None of the ground crew look to the FDO for clearance out from the helicopter and none of them look anywhere except at the undercarriage during the procedure. Judging by the twitching in the hover before landing and the movement in pitch as the groundcrew run in, I would say the conditions are not as benign as they look.

Before landing - the aircrew did not have direct comms with the ground crew under the nose - a simple intercom lead to the team leader would have been sufficient. Had the pilot sneezed or twitched and a crewman been injured, the posts here would be full of condemnation for not taking adequate safety precautions.

Just putting a Flight Safety Officer's opinion on the video, that is all.

[before landing check list]

Crab, we were not there, nor (at least I do not think so) we have the official report to study at our leisure and in the comfortable confines of our cushy chair on a deck that is not moving. We don’t KNOW if there was no commo do we? Nope. Do we know the fuel state of the helicopter or how much of a hurry they were in? Nope. Do we know how far they were from a proper maintenance facility? Nope again. I am positive there could have been a plethora of other factors we can only guess about. I still say we need to be less prone to condemn when we do not know all the facts. I am still trying to learn that myself.

[JohnDixson]

I have been surprised that old time 53A pilots have not contributed to this string, as the centering mechanism on the early production and test ships was occasionally " reluctant".
During that time at the factory in Stratford, we had a crewchief, John Godwin and his trusty 6 ft length of 2X4 at the ready. The scene looked pretty much as depicted in the 53E video. While John would apply his considerable strength to prying the nose gear around into an aligned position ( at which point the hydraulics takes over ), either another crewman on a long ICS cord or a truck with a radio would coordinate the affair. All the pilot has to do is touch the mains on the ground and hold position. The 53 hovers nose up so there is plenty of room to work the 2X4.

I am certain this manuever was accomplished a 'few" times by USMC crews!

Thanks
John Dixson

[206Fan]

Heres one of a chinook with a missing aft wheel..

http://youtube.com/watch?v=6LAEw7dEcxg

[before landing check list]

There you have it. Thanks John.

[[email protected]]

Just because they did it lots of times doesn't make it a safe procedure.

[jolly girl]

What no one has pointed out so far is that is the procedure per the manual...

[SASless]

I reckon we can see the difference between Air Force pilots and Navy pilots....eh, Crab? Anyone can operate from a concrete airfield or heliport....but put them on something bobbin' in the oggin and there is a world of difference.

Same procedure I have seen used on 61's at Aberdeen.....must be a lot of ex-matelots there.

[John Eacott]

ISTM that there are an awful lot of assumptions being made by Monday morning umpires :rolleyes:

SASless has made quite a good point :p

[[email protected]]

Some of the worst examples of attitudes to flight safety are appearing here;

1. It was safe because they had done it lots of times before - luck in getting away with something does not make it safe or right.

2. It was the procedure in the manual - so no-one has ever questioned the manual because it might be wrong?

3. Operational pressures overrule safe operating - that is doing the enemy's job for them

4. Navy pilots are better than Air Force pilots - perlleeeese....exactly the machismo attitude that engenders unsafe and risky practices.;)

[John Eacott]

Crab,

Sometimes you do come across as a bit of a prat :rolleyes:

Watch the video again: the groundcrew, see those funny things they all have on their heads? Headsets, with radio comms.

See the crewman in the doorway, watching the procedure? Bet he's not there for fun.

Out of sight, for'd of the pilot? LSE, giving guidance to the pilot.

Out of sight, behind the camera? Flyco, with the Air Boss (we used to have Little F and Wings, but I hope I have the USN term right) in radio comms with the airframe drivers and the groundcrew.

Last guy out when the wheel is unlocked? He seems pretty much in charge around the machine, bet he's the maintenance crew chief, and is following SOP's for this event. And guess what? He's on comms with a headset :eek:

You've had a lot of advice on this thread, none of which seems to have sunk in.

Except SASless' bait, which seems to have been swallowed whole ;)

[[email protected]]

Unusual for you to degenerate a thread into name calling John - just because you don't like my point of view.

As to the video - the ground crew have helmets on - that doesn't mean radio comms - all flight deck crew have to wear helmets. How many of your deck crew had comms with each other let alone comms with flyco or wings? I have done a few deck landings in my time and none of the handlers ever had intercom.

Why send 5 guys, yes 5, to do one risky job - it needs one under the nose and possibly one other if they really have all the comms you claim.

What exactly is the crewman in the door going to do if the stab drops out or the ship pitches or the pilot sneezes? He may shout a warning but it will be too late to save a crushed groundie. You're not going to tell me there isn't a peice of ground equipment that could have been positioned quickly under the nose for protection.

The aircrew must have announced the problem, before they got to the deck because they arrive with the mains down and the nose up - they presumably therefore had cockpit indications of a gear malfunction which is why the deck team were ready for them.

All I am trying to point out is that the procedure followed is unneccessarily risky (they are not exactly under fire are they) for normal ops and could be made safer with a bit of thought (especially since it seems to be a regular occurrence on the 53)

[John Eacott]

Crab,

The main players on the Flight Deck always had wireless comms (through a loop system) in the dark ages (early 70's), and since then more of the deck crew are online for comms. I'll lay a farthing to Threadneedle Street that the guys working on the 53 were on comms to Flyco and to each other.

Why send 5? I don't know, nor do you. I'd take a random guess that the SOP for this has dictated the number, and also that the SOP has been through the food chain both up and down, and nutted out for OH&S.

Why no GE under the machine? No idea, but if there wasn't anything available (as I'd guess, being a ship) then the SOP would have been written accordingly.

We don't know a lot about the background to this (fuel state?) but I think it quite wrong to throw uneducated guesses and turn them into surmised facts, thus judging an evolution as intrinsically wrong. At least, that's what it seems to me that you are doing: but I may well be miss reading your intent, being half a world away and only able to read what I see.

Could be a totally different POV over a decent pint down the pub :ok:

(ps apologies for the name calling!)

[Tailspin Tommy]

What's the problem! 45 seconds to go out, get the gear down. That was a well executed response (and I sure practiced many times) to an abnormal procedure. Well done!

[NickLappos]

Lots of critique from armchair heroes, IMHO.

I don't think the USMC has a problem taking applications for those who have that vast wealth of knowledge to impart on them, so that the Corps can be even better with their expertise!

I can email you a pdf of the application, crab!

[[email protected]]

How many times have you seen an SOP or standard procedure which was less than perfect make it into the order books? Lots I would guess, despite being staffed up and down the chain. If they were all so perfect we would never have to review or change them but that happens all the time. Hiding behind the 'I was just following SOPs' excuse when there is clearly a risk involved (unacceptable or otherwise) is selecting ostrich mode when faced with an inconvenient truth. I believe one of the functions of the Flight Safety aware is to question something when you think it could be done better and this is what I am doing here.

Everyone can be wise AFTER the event.

Even the mighty USMC are not beyond doing things wrong (they crash and bend aircraft just like the rest of us) but if they injured someone carrying out this procedure, they would investigate it and doubtless change the SOP. Or maybe Nick would rather they bare their hairy chests and say 'well we only lost one guy in 30 years, it must be OK' before returning to the way they have always done things.

Finally - if you had to design a procedure for getting a stuck nosewheel on a helo down at sea - would it be the same one they are using? Or could you come up with something better/safer?

[before landing check list]

Geez guys, get over it. There was a problem with the gear. THAT we know right? It was apparently a successful operation. THAT we know right? There was a myriad of other things we do not know about. You Monday morning quarter backs should just relax and say it was a job well done and done in a professional manner. YOU were not there. No blood, no foul no error. However since there has been some critique here, how would YOU have handled it and what would you have needed to accomplish it YOUR way?

[[email protected]]

befoe landing - how do you know it was a job well done in a professional manner? You have only the same piece of video to go on yet the conclusions you draw are somehow superior to mine but equally unsubstantiated.

[before landing check list]

Good question crab. It appears to have been successful since the gear did come down. And as far as professional I may be jumping the gun also. We do not hear the prior planning that went on over the radio or the commo between the ground crew and the air crew just the apparent choreographed movements of the ground crew to go on. It did look good since there was not a whole lot of wasted movement by anyone. In and out, all done. Not bad on a moving deck eh? Not superior to yours at all, it is just that I am less prone to criticize if I was not there and not knowing ALL the facts.

[SASless]

I must quit pprune fishing....I must quit pprune fishing....I must quit pprune fishing! There I said it......the flesh is strong but the spirit is weak I am afraid.:E

[ShyTorque]

Crab, sometimes it's best just to shut up when it's obvious from the start you ain't going to win the argument.

As we should all know, the USMC are second to none when it comes to aviation knowledge, skill and bravery ....and er SOP's.

And there are lots of them so their personnel are expendable.

It's obvious to me why there were so many of them under the aircraft. One of them was the crew chief, right? The others were just load spreaders, sandbags on legs.

:E

[jolly girl]

Crab and Shy you do bring up good points
Is it safe because we’ve done it before, because it’s in the manual, because no one has been hurt so far, because we don’t have the time or desire to come up with something better?
If someone asked one of us to do a quick repair to the underside of his car with the engine running, gears engaged and a foot on the brake we would think they were nuts but we applaud the efforts when it is done with a –53. Why do we accept something as “normal” on a helicopter (wipers that scratch windows, nuisance door open lights, sticky nose gear doors) when if the same thing happened with our car we would be at the dealer screaming? It can’t be because helicopters are safer and more reliable than our cars….

[before landing check list]

Nobody here as of yet have come up with an alternate plan, however lots of spear throwing.....could it be because you do not know all of the situation? It is easier to point fingers no?

[ShyTorque]

A few sandbags piled on the deck beneath the aircraft would have meant that had the ship pitched up, or the helicopter pitched down, the personnel underneath might have less chance of having their grapes pressed. Apart from that, it's a good plan as far as I see it; the S-76 u/c failure procedure in the checklist we used was similar except we stayed in the low hover due to less u/c height. We practiced it a few times and it worked fine.

I don't see see any great advantage in having everyone in radio contact as long as visual signals could be used instead.

[SASless]

Perhaps we ignore that sometimes risk is a necessary event when trying to achieve a goal. No risk means nothing gets done. Life is an art and not a science thus sometimes the Nanny Government mentality deprives us of the ability to do something. The risk to the aircraft, crew, ship and mission sometimes requires a non-Nanny style way of business.

Shy,

There are not that many Marines that they will casually risk a life....however they will accomplish the mission assigned to them and accept the risks that accompany that.

What if we applied today's Nanny State mentality to Dunkirk? Would the British Navy be what it was in the Falklands?

[ShyTorque]

SAS, If that was meant to be some cheap sort of a jibe, it passed me by. Please read my post again; I said it was a good plan.

We've all "done our bit", you more than I. However, I'm not a believer that the best medals are those posthumously awarded. As far as aviation in an operational environment goes, obviously it's sometimes necessary to operate under a different rule book, or even without a rulebook - I've been there too and been on quite a few "jobs" where I thought we might be walking home if we were lucky, at best, and come very close to it on a number of occasions.

However, I am a believer that even in wartime own goal casualties are unacceptable and should be minimised. I don't see that taking a few minutes to pile a few sandbags would make much operational difference - but an accident would stop the show, at least for a while and tie up many more resources. Of course, it may have been the case that aircraft might have been out of fuel and couldn't wait; we don't know the circumstances.

Doesn't mean to say that an SOP can't be reconsidered and changed, does it?

It's nothing to do with a "Nanny state" which I deplore, btw, more to do with keeping Mrs. Miggin's son Johnny fit to to carry out his duties through his tour (peacetime or wartime) and safely back home to his mother, wife and kids et al.

Sometimes it's easy to blank out a real risk because of a perceived threat from another direction. Sadly, I have unneccesarily lost military colleagues and friends in situations where more valid assessment of the real risk might have kept them all alive. In the early 1990s, because of an increasingly poor flight safety record in one operational theatre, more experienced crews were called to a meeting and invited by the RAF's "machine" to put forward ideas to improve things in this respect. I was amongst them and had just come back from that theatre. I voiced my concern that something being done by some crews because of a perceived risk was likely to be the cause of a terrible accident and should be reconsidered. I was shouted down by one particular pilot. Only a few months later, exactly what I feared occurred (a night mid-air collision over a main operating base) and members of two crews and some passengers were very badly injured and some died in horrific circumstances. I never said "told you so" (the full circumstances were unclear) but I've often regretted that I didn't shout back.

BTW, over 75% of British WW2 aviation losses were not due to enemy action; hugely wasteful of men (and women), effort, money and machines and hardly conducive to winning a war.

I'm saying no more on this (again, I did say it was a good plan) or this will probably soon degenerate into the usual "my balls are bigger than yours" rubbish we see posted here all too often.

[John Eacott]

Shy,

I think that it's already been pointed out that most grey funnel liners tend not to have much of a supply of full sandbags lying around.

The nearest alternative would be Damage Control timber, I suspect, which would be a major evolution to build on a flight deck. In fact, it would probably be more of a hazard in the downwash to have billets of timber ready to be blown around.

Again, we are Monday morning umpires. I wasn't there, no one here seems to have been there, and I think that we are being too smart for our own good to insinuate that we know more than the USMC and the USN about how to carry out this procedure.

[SASless]

An Amphib ship will have lots of sandbags in storage for use ashore....the question would really be where do they go for the sand to fill the things up.

The handier items aboard ship would be mattresses....to cushion the aircraft as it settles to the deck. But then you have to find a way to jack the aircraft up as the jack points are covered by the mattresses.

Perhaps it winds up better to have someone run out and pull the gear down as it only takes a moment or two.

Shy,

No jibe meant for you.....just tried to suggest there aren't all that many Marines today. Probably I missed the tongue in cheek aspect of your comment intended for someone else.

[albatross]

"The handier items aboard ship would be mattresses....to cushion the aircraft as it settles to the deck." QUOTE SASless

"Quick as a bunny now Bloggins! Take this mattress and run towards that hovering CH-53!"
"Bloggins! Quit fooling around - This is no time to take Para sailing lessons!"

"Oh well so much for Bloggins. Mark Bloggins on report as AWOL! Next Man - front and center!"

Sorry SASless: It was too easy a shot.
Mattresses - 100 Knot downwash - 30 Knot wind over the deck Just couldn't resist. Can you imagine the scene - high comedy in the wake. The Capt having a fit on the bridge. Visions of 1950's style military comedy movies.
Made my evening - thanks.

[[email protected]]

Shy - a very good post expounding my own sentiments better than I did - as ever:) I must remember that people are often too willing to take offence to a criticism and go on the defensive rather than accept that the criticism may have some validity.

However, I will continue to pass critical comment where I see fit as I think it is far better than the high-fiving and mutual backslapping when someone just does the job they are paid for - a pastime that often pervades these pages.

PS SASless - the winking smilie in my post about Navy pilots was intended to convey a lack of biting - maybe a bit too subtle for the USMC maybe:)