Wingovers at DHFS

[[email protected]]

I was told yesterday that wingovers have been removed from the syllabus at DHFS - anyone know when and why that happened?

They were formally taught from 1990 following a crash at Bishop's court because Sqn pilots would end up flying the manoeuvres anyway and it was sensibly deemed far better for them to be shown how to do it properly instead of experimenting and scaring themselves (not to mention trashing the aircraft).

[RODF3]

RTS limits on the Griffin prevent them being taught.

[ShyTorque]

I thought if you did a wingover badly and trashed the aircraft you got promoted? :confused:

:E

[Mick Strigg]

RTS limits on the Griffin prevent them being taught.

But surely Wingovers should be taught to all 3 services on the Squirrel? Failure to do so is bound to result in more accidents.

[Turkeyslapper]

Why remove them from the syllabus?

Good for coordination,
Good for confidence bulding,
Useful tool in the belt for some applications,
They are fun :ok:

And yeh, teach them how to do a wingover properly before they teach themselves and do it anyway.

Turkey

[Fareastdriver]

If you know the pilot isn't allowed to do wingovers or anything out of the ordinary it makes it a lot easier to predict where he will be when your bullets arrive.

[Thud_and_Blunder]

Interesting development - it just means it'll be up to OCU/Sqn QHIs to teach the appropriate technique on type. AAC had a similar experience - my first job on reaching my exchange Sqn was to teach the approved wingover method after some numpty made a pigs ear of just such a manoeuvre in Canada. Unfortunately for the pilot, he wasn't distracted at the top of climb by "terrorist activity" so he didn't get promoted afterward.

Actually, doing it at a later stage in training might not be a bad idea. What works in a Squirrel may well be totally inappropriate in a Merlin.

[vecvechookattack]

RTS limits on the Griffin prevent them being taught.


Are you seriously saying that we are training our future pilots on an aircraft that cannot do wingovers...??? You'll be telling me next that Torque turns are also banned..

[Paul Chocks]

Quite aside from the fact that wingovers may be seen as fun (Hence fun police removal from syllabus), they are a useful tool for teaching conversion of energy from kinetic to potential and vice versa.

They can even be used on occasion as an escape technique in some circumstances.

[Data-Lynx]

VV. Me thinks your question is rhetorical. Isn't it a shame that TQ-Turns did not re-appear when the Gazelle and its fenestron were paid off. Those were glorious days in the Wessex and a good TQ-Turn was a rite of passage for a young scrote.

[airborne_artist]

A mate joined the Dark Blue already in possession of his PLP user's tie thanks to a torque-turn. He went on an acquaint visit to a Wasp-equipped frigate, and as he was FAA-bound, the handsome driver, rotary, took him for a ride. Proceeded to overcook the T-T, and they splashed, so he had to deploy his recently-learned survival skills.

Used to get a few funny looks at CU when he was a 705 sprog wearing the tie :ok:

[Tuckunder]

What are CFS doing about this sad state of affairs. No helicopter pilot worth his salt could possibly argue against teaching wing overs. It is similar to flying a fast jet close to its limits. When students can do them half competently it does wonders for their confidence and just might get them out of a tricky situation one day. Absolutely unbelievable.
Tuck

[Gnd]

H&S I bet - no Gonads at the top anymore. 'Oh ,Johnnies folks will be cross with me if I mess his hair!!!!' - No matter, I can't do them anyway!!!!

[Coupling Gearbox]

They were formally taught from 1990 following a crash at Bishop's court

It wasn't a wing over. It was a turn at the end of a climb. They saw something suspicious.:rolleyes:

not to mention trashing the aircraft

Sod the aircraft. What about the crewman they, sorry sleezy messed up. Still, Sleezy got promoted so at least some good came out of it. Is he still with PAS? I wonder if he still has that ridiculous teddy bear.:ugh:

[Lima Juliet]

Surely on a helicopter it is a "Bladeover"? :}

[Floater AAC]

Wingovers are still taught on Squirrel at Shawbury unless they have been removed in the last 2 days. They are taught in the run up to FHT.

[RODF3]

What are CFS doing about this sad state of affairs.

I don't think CFS hold any sway with Mr Bell. If he says his civvy helicopter cannot do something or he will invalidate the warranty, then the owner/operator has to listen.

[PPRuNeUser0211]

IIRC the conversation went broadly like this:

CFS: "We'd like to change the way we do wingovers in the Griff to make them a little more sporty. What do you think FBH?

FBH: Well, we'd have to check with Bell first obviously, but shouldn't be a drama...

FBH>Bell: Bell, this customer of ours currently does Xdeg AOB wingovers, and would like to increase that slightly to Ydeg. Is that a snag?

Bell: Sorrry, you do WHAT with our aircraft? We've never tested it beyond 50deg AOB! You may want to replace all the important components that you've done this to!

FBH> Red faces all around

RAF: Much reading of contracts and sales pitches to ascertain responsibility and blame!

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Wingovers are still taught on Squirrel at Shawbury unless they have been removed in the last 2 days. They are taught in the run up to FHT.


They are also taught on the CFS(H) course so that QHIs en route to any fleet know how to teach them.

[[email protected]]

pba target - thanks for that - I wondered what had driven the change.

It sounds like the Sea King - no RTS over 30 deg AoB, what a joke for any helicopter. Does it fall out of the sky if you exceed it? er no (allegedly:))

A properly executed wingover does not fatigue the aircraft any more than hovering on the edge of ETL or doing autos to FFR and, unlike in level flight, the amount of AoB used does not increase the load factor appreciably. There is bugger all difference in load factor between 50 and 90 deg AoB at the top of a wingover. There will be more fatigue doing punchy quickstops than wingovers.

Advanced handling is an absolute neccessity - the time to discover what you and your aircraft can do is not when you are facing the enemy or trying to get out of a difficult situation - we wouldn't dream of suggesting a FJ pilot shouldn't be taught aeros until he gets to the front line.

[minigundiplomat]

They are also taught on the CFS(H) course so that QHIs en route to any fleet know how to teach them.


Possibly so they can teach them on OCF/Sqn's where the guys can get a feel for their chosen (or nominated) steed.

I dont think the outcry is justified. They will still be taught, just at a different point.

[Roadster280]

Interesting. My intro to wingovers was courtesy of a 30 year old German Huey. I now know why they have windows on the roof. Looking through them at the ground was not something I expected...

And the 412 can't do them... right.

[Dundiggin']

Reading between the lines it may be part of the 'fallout' from the Catterick Puma crash? :hmm:

[[email protected]]

MGD - I don't suppose it will feature on any OCU syllabus as they are pretty full already - if you only teach them on the squirrel and then the pilot doesn't see one again until the front-line, he/she will have forgotten everything about them and you will be starting again from scratch.

If you reinforce the Squirrel training on the Griffin (just like all the other exercises) the pilot is more likely to retain some of the skills so that the front-line training is a refresher. After all they were in the syllabus until Bell (it would appear) put their oar in.

Dundiggin' - I would have thought the Catterick crash is exactly the reason to teach pilots how to do this stuff properly rather than the 'look what I got shown last week by the Sqn ripsh*t' technique of passing on handling skills.

Unfortunately many Sqn pilots who start to throw the aircraft around do so based on little knowledge or practise and think that helicopter aeros need to be flown in the same brutal and unsympathetic way that they are shown on FW.

All helicopter aeros, from wingovers in a Sq to backflips in a Lynx (no I'm not suggesting backflips go on the syllabus) can be flown smoothly and the handling skills need to be taught all the way through training.

[AllTrimDoubt]

helicopter aeros need to be flown in the same brutal and unsympathetic way that they are shown on FW

I can assure you that any student demonstrating brutal and unsympathetic handling - aeros or otherwise - on FHT is going to struggle to get to a rotary course!

[Turkeyslapper]

I was a little intrigued by the AOB limit that was mentioned earlier for the Griffin, so I had a look at prohibited maneouvres in my 412EP FM today and all it says is that aerobatics are prohibited........this has probably been done before but wtf is the definition of aerobatics in a helicopter????

Turkey

[oldbeefer]

Advanced wingovers on the Squirrel 60deg nose up then 90deg bank. Limited on the Griffin because Bell haven't 'tested' beyond 30 AOB, so won't approve more. Crab - Bell didn't put their oar in - if I recall correctly, someone at Sy made the mistake of asking Bell their opinion - usually a bad move!

[Jim Dean]

Turkeyslapper, i'd check your amendment state. My limits section, Rev 27 Oct 07!, says
"Intentional maneuvering (sic) resulting in roll attitudes in excess of 50* angle of bank, or pitch attitudes lower than 15* nose down or higher than 30* nose up are prohibited".
It also adds 4* nose up or down on sloping ground.

[Turkeyslapper]

Thanks Jim...best I do. Hmmmmmm amendments, I have heard of those unfortunately I doubt my current workplace has. GPS data cards expired in 2004 amongst others.

Cheers

Turkey

[[email protected]]

Alltrimdoubt - I have seen plenty of FW aeros where two hands on the stick, rapid full deflection inputs and stacks of G are the techniques used - that is brutal and unsympathetic when tried in a helicpter:)

[heights good]

Guys this is very old news, 6 years ago when I was just about leaving Shawbury they introduced this limit. Been around for years.

HG

[idle stop]

IIRC, the FAA/Bell definition of Aerobatic Manoeuvres was discussed with the IPT before FBS/FBH was awarded the DHFS contract, and has thus been known about since before DHFS as set up. At the same time, the manufacturers were shown the course content, and the likely fatigue spectrum for use of the aircraft in the RAF training role was assessed and approved.
The likely problem currently is possibly the need to reinforce the teaching, and do more wingovers, etc, than was originally assessed. This may be compounded by the fact that many MoD/Bell/CAA/FB people involved in the original technical negotiations have moved on, and the history has been lost. And there is sometimes a reluctance to ask some of the old and grey for their advice, in case it costs money....
I don't recall ever having been taught wingovers on my AFTS course on the Whirlwind (though doubtless OldBeefer may correct me!) but doing them in the Puma came naturally to anybody who had been through the Chipmunk/Bulldog and JP mill!

[AllTrimDoubt]

[email protected] - I agree. I too use both hands on and full deflection in the FW world when necessary But....having taught and displayed one of our more agile helicopters in the last millenium I am only too aware of the delicate touch needed and look for some degree of empathy with the a/c when assessing a student's handling skills.

[oldbeefer]

"though doubtless OldBeefer may correct me" - no, I don't think we did - not intentionally anyway (other than that some student's attempts at recovery from IF UPs came pretty close!).

[[email protected]]

Alltrimdoubt - yes the Lynx at MW was a perfect tool for teaching smooth handling on wingovers, partly because it was so responsive and partly because they had G meters fitted. Many pilots snatch the pull-up into a wingover, partly due to adrenaline and partly due to lack of finesse whereas a squeeze followed by a progressive pull is much smoother and the G meter was there as proof of the pudding for the studes.

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

the Catterick crash is exactly the reason to teach pilots how to do this stuff properly


I'll try to pick my words carefully...

All the information available suggests that the Catterick crash was not caused by the crew not knowing how to do wingovers properly.

[Mmmmnice]

About the only thing my flying was not called was "brutal and unsympathetic"
but, whether or not they were taught how to do one correctly, I never met a sqn pilot who didn't have a go at a wingover.......and they can be mighty interesting done at low level in a helo! Hoping that drivers will shy away from overly dynamic manoeuvres if they are not taught them is real cloud cuckoo land stuff - esp when it is the sort of flying that may well keep them alive in the desert - train the way you expect to fight?

[SARREMF]

I think you will find the issue started when the update came in got to be 6 years ago. When it was realised this would restrict the syllabus questions were asked.

Such as "how come we have been doing it for so long". So, the audit trail was traced back and "idle stop" is absolutely correct in that the FAA definition of aerobatics was discussed, the syllabus was shown and it was all accepted. The first RTS clearly stated non aerobatic as defined by FAA [or words to that effect.

A weee time later an update to the RTS happened and the definition got shortened to non aerobatic. Which if your in the military means go check in - at the time JSP 318 and now JSP 550 the definition "less than 90 in all directions - again or words to that effect". So by that little shortening of words a world of staff officer pain occurred.

So for a period ladies and gents crews were flying the 412 perfectly approved [by the military] outside what the manufacturer intended. When it came to light, the question was asked - as it had to be - the rules were put back to what they should have been and ....... well I dont know I was posted at that point so what ever happened next I presume led to this thread starting now.

Of course this leads to a lot of other questions. Such as why did crews not use the RFM. Well at the time only a few could have told you what RFM stood for because they solely used the military docs. A certain amount of cross checking of information then came out of it.

Have to say though, this was not a contractor mistake it was .... well you can figure the rest.

[PPRuNeUser0211]

Although interestingly on that last point SARREMF (I was involved on the fringes at the time cross-checking paperwork and getting the old contracts and tenders out of TNT storage and reading through them) the feeling was that the request stated "We want an aircraft that can do this syllabus: xxxxx Wingovers yyyyy" and FBH provided a helicopter that was technically unable to do so. The problem was that, as you say, during the "cross checking" of what the aircraft was able to do vs what the syllabus asked, someone got their wires crossed and assumed that a "wingover" did not meet our own definition of an aerobatic manoeuvre, vice the FAA. So some might say the contractor is not entirely blameless, but it's the RAF's fault for taking them at their word! (Basics some might say!)

[[email protected]]

SARREMF - can you be whiter than white and say you never exceeded 30 AoB in a Sea King:)?

[idle stop]

pba:
May I suggest you re-read carefully the first paragraph of my Post?
I was there: not 'on the fringes'. What I wrote is a true summary. The MoD 'view' at the time was that the FAA definition of aerobatics would not unduly restrict the Griffin syllabus.

[bast0n]

AAHHH

The happy days of the Whirlwind 7 when you had a manual throttle to wind it around the top of the turn....................Torque turns............Oh yes!

The subsequent recovery of RRPM, attitude et al if you got it slightly wrong was perhaps even more interesting.

We learned about flying from...............etc etc. Laughs? Oh yes:ok:

[Fareastdriver]

The happy days of the Whirlwind 7

You had it easy with Sikorsky hydraulics.. Try it on a Sycamore with manual controls.

[Two's in]

This story is strangely reminiscent of the AAC Gazelle display back in IIRC about 1991. Despite clear instructions in the POH that all pitch and roll manuoevres were limited to 90 degrees, for a least one season the AAC Gazelle was flying an immaculate display including a full loop. When the dots finally got joined back at Puzzle Palace central in Middle Wallop, three Gazelle airframes had to be rebuilt due to alignment errors and a bunch of other stuff. Needless to say, not under the manufacturer's warranty. Again, the display had been signed off and everyone and his dog in MW had seen it, but somehow the "detail" of it being outside the RTS never got picked up.

PS.
I never met a sqn pilot who didn't have a go at a wingover.......and they can be mighty interesting done at low level in a helo! Hoping that drivers will shy away from overly dynamic manoeuvres if they are not taught them is real cloud cuckoo land stuff - esp when it is the sort of flying that may well keep them alive in the desert - train the way you expect to fight?

...Unless it's the Saudi Desert in GW 1 and the Gazelle Stunt Team let Sooty do the recovery at the bottom of the wingover - or not.

[PPRuNeUser0211]

Idle - apologies, missed your para. Mine related to the kefuffle in more recent years, not the original award, and the views held in the office at the time. This is obviously one issue with everyone changing post every 3 years, unless everything is very clearly documented, and those documents easy to find, such discussions are often lost in the ether! And apparently the same happened at the Bell end, if they approved our syllabus!

[SARREMF]

Crabb.

One reason I was very involved with the 412 was because I was on record, and on film, of exploring the JSP 318 definition. It went something like " Sir, here is a new promotional video of SARTU we think its rather good". I have to say it was not my first episode with Senior Officers going various colours of the rainbow but this one was mildly funny! The cover picture was actually not me - JH - but it was a 412 at 89 deg nose down - just when the new restrictions had come into force. I then had to prove its was technically legal - it was - although the OEM wouldnt like it!

As to the Sea King, you know full well I am blacker than coal in a coal skuttle rather than whiter than white as I loved doing wing overs in anything I flew! Still do too! Which brings me on to my point where we I think agree. They should be taught not because they are needed but because they bring confidence and can teach sympathy for the airframe - a well flown wing over should feel like it hasnt put that much strain on the aircraft. Of course without measuring it .....

I do believe Boscombe did measure this at one point I was told by, I think TALL SAR, that they found the most stress was actually lifting to the hover - makes sense. Closely followed by an auto to a full flare recovery. The wing over didnt even come close.

30 degrees AOB in a Sea King! Was that really the limit! Tut tut must have missed that page.