RAN MH-60R crew safe after ditching

[SpazSinbad]

RAN MH-60R Seahawk helicopter ditches in the Philippine Sea 14 Oct 2021Three crewmembers of a Royal Australian Navy MH-60R Seahawk helicopter are safe after ditching their helicopter in the Philippine Sea during a routine flight overnight.

The aircraft was operating from HMAS Brisbane as part of a Regional Presence Deployment with HMAS Warramunga, when the crew conducted an emergency landing in the water.

HMAS Brisbane deployed sea boats and rescued the crew approximately 20 minutes later. The crew received first aid for minor injuries upon their return to HMAS Brisbane.

Commander of the Australian Fleet, Rear Admiral Mark Hammond, commended the crews of both ships involved for their quick response to the emergency.

“The successful rescue is credit to the devotion to duty and skill of the officers and sailors of HMAS Brisbane,” Rear Admiral Hammond said. “Their immediate actions ensured the survival of the aircrew, validating the significant training undertaken in the event an emergency of this nature occurs.”

Both ships continue to search the area for any debris, which will aid in determining the cause of the incident.

“With the aircrew safe, investigating the circumstances that led to the helicopter ditching is the priority at the moment,” Rear Admiral Hammond said. “As a precaution, we have temporarily paused flying operations of the MH-60R Seahawk fleet.”

Defence says it is reviewing the impact of the incident on Brisbane and Warramunga’s current deployment.

The RAN currently operates 24 MH-60R Seahawks - including the helicopter involved in this incident - in the naval combat helicopter role, sufficient to provide eight flights (of a single helicopter) at sea and concurrently deliver shore based training and operational tasking. They are shore-based at HMAS Albatross, near Nowra and serve with 725 and 816 Squadrons.

The US State Department recently approved the potential sale of an additional 12 MH-60R Seahawk naval combat helicopters to the RAN, valued at US$985 million.

The additional helicopters, while still able to be reconfigured for the ASW role if required, are being acquired to replace the Navy’s current NHI MRH 90 Taipans in the shipboard logistics role.

https://www.australiandefence.com.au/news/ran-mh-60r-seahawk-helicopter-ditches-in-the-philippine-sea

[evilroy]

Good to see the boys and girls are OK. First Australian loss of a Seahawk.

[SpazSinbad]

I don't know if this 'severely damaged' ROMEO was brought back to service? Perhaps someone knows?

Damaged Romeo helicopter could be a write-off | South Coast Register | Nowra, NSW (https://www.southcoastregister.com.au/story/5002044/navy-romeo-damaged-in-transportation-mishap/) 20 Oct 2017

[rattman]

I don't know if this 'severely damaged' ROMEO was brought back to service? Perhaps someone knows?

Damaged Romeo helicopter could be a write-off | South Coast Register | Nowra, NSW (https://www.southcoastregister.com.au/story/5002044/navy-romeo-damaged-in-transportation-mishap/) 20 Oct 2017


Found this on N48-020

Delivered 06/2016
Noted as Gauntlet 20 with 725 Sqn at Nowra.
Deployed on HMAS Ballarat 06/04/17.
Noted at Canberra 02/08/17 as in Service 816 Sqn RAN as Tiger 20.
On 09/10/2017 N48-20 was aboard HMAS Warramunga when it broke away from its lashings during a rough passage across the Great Australian Bight en-route to the Middle East.
There was a replacement helicopter placed aboard HMAS Warramunga so that it could continue its mission.
Noted repaired and flying at the RAAF Edinburgh Airshow 10/11/2019

[SpazSinbad]

Thanks - 'forgot' about that page (one day I'll figure out formatting) :* : ADF Serials - MH-60R Seahawk (http://adf-serials.com.au/n48.htm)
ADF-SERIALS Australian & New Zealand Military Aircraft Serials & History
RAN N48 Sikorsky MH-60R Seahawk

[junior.VH-LFA]

No small feat getting out of a Cab at night let alone getting picked up by the ship within 20 minutes.

Outstanding result.

[tartare]

Agreed.
Did HUET training in another life.
Bad enough being dumped in a cold, still swimming pool in the cage, blindfolded, then flipped upside down and having to find the doors and swim to the surface.
But open seas, night time... crikey.

[golder]

Lucky guys. the USN lost one last month with 5 fatalities
https://news.usni.org/2021/09/04/navy-ends-search-for-5-missing-after-helicopter-crash-sailors-presumed-lost-at-sea (https://news.usni.org/2021/09/04/navy-ends-search-for-5-missing-after-helicopter-crash-sailors-presumed-lost-at-seaFive)
Five sailors missing after a helicopter went into the sea after crashing on the deck of an aircraft carrier on Monday are now presumed dead. U.S. 3rd Fleet identified the sailors on Sunday. The MH-60S was on the deck of USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) when an unspecified mishap caused the helicopter to fall into the Pacific about 60 miles off the coast of San Diego, Calif., on Aug. 31 at 4:30 p.m. local time.

[rattman]

They recovered the a 5 missing americans

[SpazSinbad]

Navy Recovers Helicopter, 5 Sailors Killed in Crash that Prompted Pause in Flight Operations 12 Oct 2021
https://news.usni.org/2021/10/12/navy-recovers-helicopter-5-sailors-killed-in-crash-that-prompted-pause-in-flight-operations

[SpazSinbad]

This is a RUMOUR about the RAN Romeo Loss so please treat as a RUMOUR by e-mail with NO attribution: "Indications are the Seahawk ran out of fuel and ditched. Apparently the ship it was flying from had changed position and the hello couldn’t find it again and due to fuel starvation it ditched. The ship rescued the crew within 20 minutes but apparently the helo sank."

[golder]

https://www.nasc.gov.tw/eng/News_Content.aspx?n=824&s=143716
Due to the history of the SH-60B/F and HH-60H floating systems, engine reliability improvements and MH-60R/S project upgrades, the floating system is not installed in the MH-60R and MH-60S. The integration of floating systems raises some safety risks, including the blocking of flight crews' emergency escape routes. Because of these risks, the MH-60R has never been designed to contain a floating system.

The MH-60R is followed by the development of the MH-60S, and the floating system is not considered. The survival rate of the shipwreck was basically the same before and after the system was removed. Finally, the SH-60B/F floating system installation location is now the location of the MH-60R and MH-60S active vibration control system power generators.

[junior.VH-LFA]

This is a RUMOUR about the RAN Romeo Loss so please treat as a RUMOUR by e-mail with NO attribution: "Indications are the Seahawk ran out of fuel and ditched. Apparently the ship it was flying from had changed position and the hello couldn’t find it again and due to fuel starvation it ditched. The ship rescued the crew within 20 minutes but apparently the helo sank."

Can't find the ship but a RHIB can pick you up in 20 minutes? Doesn't sound right.

[SpazSinbad]

Like I said 'it was a RUMOUR unsubstantiated'. However taking some guesses at the RUMOUR one may GUESS that perhaps the helo nav equipment became faulty; or the ship did not have good beacon equipment. Once a HELO is in the water I'll imagine a rescue beacon would make locating the HELO / survivors easier. Aircrew with helo experience could imagine better scenarios, I'm just an old fixed wing chap from wayback.

[switch_on_lofty]

If you haven't got the fuel to get back it's better to have a controlled ditching than an uncontrolled one when the fuel gives out. At max ship's speed it could have been 10ish miles away. You're either sure you've got 5 mins' fuel or you're not.

[rattman]

If you haven't got the fuel to get back it's better to have a controlled ditching than an uncontrolled one when the fuel gives out. At max ship's speed it could have been 10ish miles away. You're either sure you've got 5 mins' fuel or you're not.

Hadn't heard anything about fuel, but my contacts have said it was a completely controlled water landing, so possibly the running out of fuel was true. If it was a fuel miscalculation then the would not ground the fleet. If it was a fuel supply ie pump failed and couldn't get the fuel out of a tank then that might be a reason to ground the fleet

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Lucky guys. the USN lost one last month with 5 fatalities
A big difference between ditching and falling over the side.

[43Inches]

Being lost, yet only 20 minute recovery doesn't make any sense. To be that close the ship would be visible to the helo, there's also a big mast strobe on most of those things. This ain't WW2 where they use mk 1 eyeball to find shipping, and 20 minutes from mother by surface craft that were launched can't be far. Sounds more like something time critical happened that they rather put down under control rather than risk losing control trying to make it a short distance back to ship. Hydraulics, oil loss, fuel feed, flux capacitor or thronomister, something we may never know. Maybe it brushed against the same object the Connecticut hit.

[SpazSinbad]

ROMEO Seahawk has no floatation equipment unlike the older B model in the RAN FAA (according to this message received):
"Yanks put avionics in the spaces we used to have floats, and we weren’t allowed to change it for our needs. So, no floats. The Danish did develop with Sikorsky a big arse float/raft that can be carried in a canister on a stores station. We were supposed to be getting that, however, I have no idea if that has even materialised. This might fast track that now. Based on my understanding, when’s Seahawk hits the water, and begins to sink, aircrew effectively only have a max 15secs to be out, or they’re pretty much dead. Yanks lose so many people in their Seahawk ditchings."

[212man]

when’s Seahawk hits the water, and begins to sink, aircrew effectively only have a max 15secs to be out, or they’re pretty much dead. Yanks lose so many people in their Seahawk ditchings."
Even with STASS/HEED? Or, is it related to the depth, buoancy etc? The accounts of the survivors of the 2006 accident are harrowing, and refer to non-inflation of LSJs due water pressure, and HEED being exhausted before reaching the surface. (I know it wasn't a controlled ditching.....)

[sycamore]

Maybe Sikhorsey/RAN should talk to WHL/Leonardo about the flotation gear fitted to RN Wessex..

[Bengo]

Maybe Sikhorsey/RAN should talk to WHL/Leonardo about the flotation gear fitted to RN Wessex..

OK if you like floating upside down. A PITA for chocks and weapon loads to ground crew.

Not that it mattered much. The air frame might float for a while, but fizzed whilst doing so, and disappeared almost before your eyes.

The Wasp kit was also OK at floating (if fitted), and better at staying upright, but with the head nearly submerged.
N

[switch_on_lofty]

Hadn't heard anything about fuel, but my contacts have said it was a completely controlled water landing, so possibly the running out of fuel was true. If it was a fuel miscalculation then the would not ground the fleet. If it was a fuel supply ie pump failed and couldn't get the fuel out of a tank then that might be a reason to ground the fleet
If you read post 11 you'll see a rumour about not having enough fuel to reach the ship. That's what I was referring to.

[rattman]

If you read post 11 you'll see a rumour about not having enough fuel to reach the ship. That's what I was referring to.

and I didn't disagree with you, what ever reason they had enough time to put it down for a soft water landing but not make it back to the ship. I have heard it was an almost complete hydraulic failure of the aircraft, if it was fuel they wouldn't have grounded the whole fleet and they would know fuel was short and would have had the a crash boat / RHIB already launched

[evilroy]

and I didn't disagree with you, what ever reason they had enough time to put it down for a soft water landing but not make it back to the ship. I have heard it was an almost complete hydraulic failure of the aircraft, if it was fuel they wouldn't have grounded the whole fleet and they would know fuel was short and would have had the a crash boat / RHIB already launched
To be fair, grounding of the fleet is a pretty standard reaction until a cause is known.

[43Inches]

I have heard it was an almost complete hydraulic failure of the aircraft

That was along my thoughts, something that would make control difficult so putting down on a ship almost impossible and dire enough that putting down in limited time available was a better option. Hydraulics failing or such fits the bill. If it was that than a controlled ditching may have even been a harder than normal event for the crew.

[casper64]

Maybe Sikhorsey/RAN should talk to WHL/Leonardo about the flotation gear fitted to RN Wessex..

or about the one on the MRH they are ehhh “ditching”….

[rattman]

or about the one on the MRH they are ehhh “ditching”….

The navy not wanting the MRH-90 is not so much a preformace / maintainence issues. Its a sustainment at sea issue, its hard to get parts for them while at sea, that why they want a single type on the warships and if the army deploy to canberra/adelaide its then up to the army to supply the parts. The only real was question was were they going to S or R and we now know that answer

[megan]

Unconfirmed reports suggest the aircraft was on a night approach to the ship when an unexpected light source caused the pilots’ Night Vision Goggles to ‘bloom’, denying them all visual reference. The Seahawk struck the ocean some distance astern. The ship deployed its boats and the helicopter’s crew of three was rescued with what have been described as ‘minor injuries’ about 20 minutes after the event.

[SpazSinbad]

A few days back got this e-mail but asked not to publish until confirmed - so here goes: "...they were doing approaches onto the ship using NVG. They had made several successful approaches when they were blinded by a light, apparently from the ship, got disoriented and crashed astern into the sea. ..."

[SpazSinbad]

I was TARDY downloading the current FLYBY PDF [FAAAA monthly newsletter]. Here is the news as outlined by 'megan' above:
"RAN Seahawk Ditches - FLYBY Vol 51; Nov 2021
One of the RAN’s Seahawk ‘Romeo’ helicopters has been lost after ditching in the Philippine Sea during a routine flight on 13 October. It was operating from HMAS Brisbane. Unconfirmed reports suggest the aircraft was on a night approach to the ship when an unexpected light source caused the pilots’ Night Vision Goggles to ‘bloom’, denying them all visual reference. The Seahawk struck the ocean some distance astern. The ship deployed its boats and the helicopter’s crew of three was rescued with what have been described as ‘minor injuries’ about 20 minutes after the event.

Following the incident the remaining Romeo fleet of 23 aircraft was grounded as a precaution, pending an investigation into the cause of the accident. They are now cleared. We will bring you more information as it becomes available."
https://www.faaaa.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/FlyBy-51-Nov21-v3.pdf (4Mb)

[Lonewolf_50]

Glad to hear the crew are all out and OK.

I see a few of you complaining about the flotation. Interesting.
Flotation was problematic when the B was introduced (Early 80's). (And don't get me started on the blade fold system :mad: )
Vague memory of discussions regarding the float interfering with the window removal.
Takeaway: make sure windows jettisoned before floats are deployed ... I'd need to go and find a B NATOPS manual to refresh that memory.
By the early 90's, word on the street in the LAMPS community was that the floats were not reliable. (Not sure when they got pulled off, memory does not serve).
The typical discussion in our ready rooms was
"If you need to ditch and you go to inflate, and only one inflates, there you are, HEEDS bottle time all over again. Don't be surprised if that's what happens to you!"
(@helopat, if you can add anything to that from memory it would be great).

@Golder: MH-60R was lost in this incident, but MH-60R is not (as regards the USN recent loss) an MH-60S (which grew from the CH-60S replacement for the Phrog/CH-46) and is based off of the Blackhawk (L model) not the Seahawk (B/F model).
Two substantial differences (among numerous others):
a. R (Originally SH-60R, re-designated MH-60R due to USN internal issues) has the Small deck landing gear + RAST (Tail wheel much farther forward); S has that all-the-way-in-the-ass tail wheel as a Blackhawk does, and no RAST.
b. R has the Radar, and a substantial mission and avionics suite internally whereas the S has a lot less stuff internalyl. S went from cargo to Combat SAR Mission during its early introduction.
A third point: as I look through my S model notes, you see the lack of the four ESM antennae (B and R have them, F did not, H did not, S does not).

Question for the Aussies: did your Navy buy the data link (AN/SRQ-4) that USN Seahawks/ships/LAMPS system use as a part of the kit, or, was that one of those bits that didn't make the final export sell?
I remember in the early 90's there was some question as to which version of the ESM antennae was supposed to be loaded onto the RAAN export version but it's been years and memory is a bit foggy.

[SpazSinbad]

AIR 9000 Phase 8 - Project Name FUTURE NAVAL AVIATION COMBAT SYSTEM 2011-12
"Uniqueness
The Australian MH-60R helicopter has been acquired as a MOTS [Military Off The Shelf] product, in the same baseline configuration as the USN aircraft. A limited number of Australia unique design modifications are being incorporated now that all aircraft have been delivered. The USN will develop the modifications for incorporation in Australian and USN MH-60R aircraft. The MH-60R is being acquired as a maritime combat capability. It will have limitations in utility roles such as passenger or cargo transfer."
ANAO-MPR-2016-17-PDSS6-Seahawk.pdf (0.5Mb) https://www.anao.gov.au/file/26961/download?token=v0ZZNl3p

[golder]

Glad to hear the crew are all out and OK.

I see a few of you complaining about the flotation. Interesting.
Flotation was problematic when the B was introduced (Early 80's). (And don't get me started on the blade fold system :mad: )
Vague memory of discussions regarding the float interfering with the window removal.
Takeaway: make sure windows jettisoned before floats are deployed ... I'd need to go and find a B NATOPS manual to refresh that memory.
By the early 90's, word on the street in the LAMPS community was that the floats were not reliable. (Not sure when they got pulled off, memory does not serve).
The typical discussion in our ready rooms was
"If you need to ditch and you go to inflate, and only one inflates, there you are, HEEDS bottle time all over again. Don't be surprised if that's what happens to you!"
(@helopat, if you can add anything to that from memory it would be great).

@Golder: MH-60R was lost in this incident, but MH-60R is not (as regards the USN recent loss) an MH-60S (which grew from the CH-60S replacement for the Phrog/CH-46) and is based off of the Blackhawk (L model) not the Seahawk (B/F model).
Two substantial differences (among numerous others):
a. R (Originally SH-60R, re-designated MH-60R due to USN internal issues) has the Small deck landing gear + RAST (Tail wheel much farther forward); S has that all-the-way-in-the-ass tail wheel as a Blackhawk does, and no RAST.
b. R has the Radar, and a substantial mission and avionics suite internally whereas the S has a lot less stuff internalyl. S went from cargo to Combat SAR Mission during its early introduction.
A third point: as I look through my S model notes, you see the lack of the four ESM antennae (B and R have them, F did not, H did not, S does not).

Question for the Aussies: did your Navy buy the data link (AN/SRQ-4) that USN Seahawks/ships/LAMPS system use as a part of the kit, or, was that one of those bits that didn't make the final export sell?
I remember in the early 90's there was some question as to which version of the ESM antennae was supposed to be loaded onto the RAAN export version but it's been years and memory is a bit foggy.
I don't know and can only find one sale to Australia of the AN/SRQ-4. For Nuship Hobart Class destroyers. I would guess it is already in use on other platforms.
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/01/24/2020-01135/arms-sales-notification

[helispotter]

Looks like more can be learned about the loss of this MH-60R (back in October 2021) from PPRuNe than from anything official, that is if post #29 (megan) and #30 (SpazSinbad) were based on reliable sources. But that said, seems source of info in post #11 wasn't reliable.

ASN is still none the wiser:

https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/268515

I have lost track of whether or not the ADF still publish any aviation safety magazine as they once did. Perhaps lessons learned might appear in any such magazine one day? If #29 and #30 are accurate, I wonder what change of procedures have resulted?

[KRviator]

They still do, and up until recently they were publicly available. I really used to enjoy reading them in the Squadron crewroom and trying to apply their learnings to our operations. But DFSADF / DASA / Defence Flight Safety Bureau / Whatever-they-call-themselves-this-year seems to believe there's no Civvie value in letting us view them and, despite showing them on their internet site, blocks access nonetheless.

Maybe you can have better luck? Click HERE (https://dasa.defence.gov.au/dasa-publications-and-resources).

EDIT: Might have jumped the gun a bit there, some files are accessible, but not all. Not sure if its' intentional, but several return the "not authorized" message, but to me it reads as though they haven't set up the URL to the PDF magazine right. It may not be intentional...