Anyone know anything about BLUH?

[FJJP]

Can we please drag this topic out of the slanging match it has become and get back to the original question.

It is really tiresome when individuals get ensconced in a personal insult throwing game. Can we now please stop it, or Mr Moderator censure the individuals or pull the thread out of PPrune.

[Forgot]

Future of SHF

Asking a dumb question, why does the RAF retain the SHF anyway? Why did we end up with JHC rather than simply gifting the SHF to the AAC as the RAAF did inthe 80s?

Not trying to have a go, just curious.

Forgot

[SilsoeSid]

FJJP
You have summed all this up for me, thanks.

You lot don't like it back, so "pleeeze Mr Moderator stop them being nasty."

Mr Moderator censure the individuals or pull the thread out of PPrune.

In other words, don't let the oiks have their say.

I tried to have this on Jet Blast, but one of 'your lot' has seen that we are unable to upset you all.

[Echo 5]

FJJP,

Now let's be fair here. At one time or another some of us,myself included,go somewhat OTT with our banter.However the individuals who are on the receiving end invariably deserve what they get.
You will recall that quite recently an individual who as it happens is posting on this thread initiated a thoroughly despicable attack on one of our number.Fortunately this happened in the early hours of the morning and after three or four of us kicked of big style,yourself included(and if I am mistaken I apologise) the thread was removed by the Moderator and rightly so.
You will note that even the originator of this thread ended his very first post with some facetious comment but was quite rightly slapped down by BEagle a gentleman most of us have the utmost respect for.
The moral of the story is therefore: If those in the red corner behave themselves then so shall we !!
Regards
E5

[KENNYR]

If we had kept the Westland Scout (Ahhhhhhh God bless her) we would not have needed the Apache!! In fact, do we even need the Apache??? Will it fit in the back of a Herc without a major strip-down? Who will it be used against? Why not use the Lynx as BLUH, its a proven airframe, right?

With regards to the childish AAC/RAF/RN/FAA chest thumping.....it really does become tiresome after a while. Can we never agree that each has a major role to play in the defense of our country?

[Bootneck]

While we witter on about who has the biggest todger, old Buff Hoon is busy binning the Puma, Gazelle and Seaking fleets..........................to be replaced with Merlin. However Merlin is in the shed at present, and may well spend a while sulking. So what will he announce next?
If they want to save money why buy a multi million pound sleek baby which cannot get dirty from Westland, when the Yanks have been producing much cheaper proven cabs for donkeys years.
When the EH101 was first mooted I went to Redhill and sat in their (Westland's)mock up, it was quoted at 12.5 million. At that time we could have bought 3, three, trois, Black Hawks for the same price.
Save our industry, give me a break!

[ShyTorque]

AST401 (?) included BlackHawk years ago, as a possible replacement for Puma & Wessex.

One point to bring back into the equation: BlackHawk is a two pilot aircraft, which increases the real operating cost. Have the AAC sufficient manpower to achieve this and if not, are MOD willing to fund the necessary increase?

[SilsoeSid]

Good point ShyT,

Perhaps one way round this would be to have one Pilot and perhaps someone else up front performing P2 duties, without actually having to go through a complete pilots course.

They could be called something like mmmmm......
......aircrewmen and maybe just wear one wing on their brevet.

[brandnew]

The Air Corps has had a two pilot concept since the late 80's.

The only Single Pilot Ops around are some of the more specialised Gazelles in Ireland and elsewhere, and 8 Flight.

There would be no problem at all with the army providing two Pilots for each Blackhawk.

Crewmen did, and I believe in Ireland, do exist in the Air Corps; however, Door Sliders they are not: they accompany Aircraft Commanders on Single Pilot Ops and sit in the Left Hand Seat.

Our Door Gunners / Door Sliders are Private Soldiers. The Air Corps has never seen the need to give someone three stripes and entry into the Sgts Mess just because then can operate a Door Handle. We have Pilots of that Rank and below!

However, I believe this might change and we might recruit L/Cpls from elsewhere in the Army to become permenant Door Gunners. There's no way we can justify making these people Sgts.

Any more reasons for not giving the Air Corps a decent size BLUH helicopter?

[ShyTorque]

Silsoe Sid and Brandnew,

Fine, perhaps you guys know better. My only qualification is that I have the type on my licence and flew them for some time in a foreign air force. The S-70 flight manual calls for two PILOTS, not one pilot plus an air crewman. The aircraft is more complicated than other smaller types such as Gazelle and Lynx.

The only time single pilot is normally authorised is during some types of ground runs, when the pilot sits in the left seat.

[SilsoeSid]

Fair enough ShyT, if thats what the manual says then that's that I suppose, ordinarily.

The Gazelle and Lynx are single pilot helicopters anyway, so I can see Shy T s point there, in the crewing requirement for the more 'complicated' aircraft. (please explain)

However the definition of 'pilot', possibly can be what the 'service' decides it to be surely?

brandnew,

Our Door Gunners / Door Sliders are Private Soldiers. The Air Corps has never seen the need to give someone three stripes and entry into the Sgts Mess just because then can operate a Door Handle. We have Pilots of that Rank and below!

That is of course apart from the L/Cpls, Cpls, Sgts who are door gunners.
I realise that they are MT/Sigs on 'flying duties' with no recognition of aircrew status, associated manning plot problems and not life insured for flying duties, etc.

As for the door handle line, well you could have fooled me!!!

Anyway, where did the rank thing come into it?
You could quite easily have a L/Cpl or Cpl as the second pilot, with a suitable type rating course and ground instruction to back that up. Ticks in boxes, second pilot/navigator.
(at less cost in pay and they wont clog up the mess!)

In summary
What is the line between aircrewman and pilot?
Why does Blackhawk need 2 pilots?
Is rank an issue?

These door handles, are they the push/pull types that I always get wrong, or handles that operate a catch of some sort?

SS

[ginjockey]

Developing nicely

This thread seems to be developing nicely, lots of views and some interesting comment. A good thing that it wasn't scuttled in it's opening seconds by some senile goat telling the originator to $od off back to his dung filled trench because it wasn't entirely focused on the RAF. Good to see the AAC get a run methinks.

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

Trouble is Gin,

If you REALLY want a serious discussion then you really ought to start it off in an appropriate manner. If however you want to start a pi@@in contest then BN's opening gambit was perfect

Beag's, and quite rightly so as he has seen and heard all this old b@llocks before, tried to put an early stop to the ineveitable bun fight and has been berated for it ever since............oh I wish that I had his level of self control........... Imagine being so sad that you feel the need to start a complete thread to slag an individual off..........now how insecure is that

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

[brandnew]

Good point about not all Door Gunners being Pte's, I was quite wrong.

I believe that there is a idea being knocked about to make our rear-crew full time aircrew, especially if BLUH is a complex aircraft.

Any guess where the money is going to come from?

Apparently first tour flying pay might be axed. Still, another story.

As to Lynx being a single pilot aircraft, I would have to disagree. As I'm sure you know, some single engine emergencies do mean that the Handling Pilot can't take his hands of the controls to idle engines, turn off fuel etc.

In addition, nighttime TOW firing. Unless you can teach a crewman to high hover on goggles (difficult) while you go through the launch sequence, the you'll have to trust him with the engagement. Without sounding unfair, I do not think I could do that.

However, the Junglies fly their Mk 4's single pilot and rely on the, highly trained, crewmen to assist with the emergencies. Indeed, the Navy fly Merlin, a hugely complex aircraft, with only one pilot.

However, I believe that the main reason the Air Corps went to two pilots was so you could operate the highly successful, Aircraft Commander / Pilot principle and "bring on" brandnew pilots from the APC by pairing them up with experienced aircrew. Moreover, aircraft were beoming more complicated and required two pilots. Though I do think at one time we did day fly Lynx with only one pilot, but that was stopped fairly quickly.

In short you can quite easily fly a Lynx single pilot, but to operate it is quite different and the Air Corps has had a two pilot concept for over ten years. We have more than enough aircrew to man a large BLUH, such as Blackhawk.

ABIW..... yawn. So old, so predictable, so dull: lots of noise, no real input. Yawn.

[ShyTorque]

Sid,

This topic comes up around every 7 years or so, I remember it at least three times during my military service.

First question: The line between Pilot & aircrewman? I'm not qualified to answer that question but my immediate thoughts are educational background, experience & training. (This is highly controversial and I don't say it to provoke a slanging match or a willy-waving competition).

Second question: Ask Sikorsky and the US military for their views. However, engine malfunction handling, tail stabilator emergencies and certain hydraulics failures all spring to mind. The operational role of the aircraft may require either pilot to handle the aircraft in critical situations, even approaches and hovering, but this is of course true of all larger helicopters. Covert NVG ops complicates this even further. This is a larger BATTLEFIELD aircraft we're talking about.

Third question: Rank is NOT an issue but see question 1. The two things are directly related. Generally speaking, you won't retain a well educated, highly trained and motivated individual if you give him low rank and low pay.

Another question from myself, it's been asked before but it is always relevant. Does the Army really have the engineering backup to fully support the BLUH concept in the field, especially in these times of strict downsizing and streamlining? Despite the undoubted increase in manning levels (?) due to the imminent arrival of the Apache, a larger aircraft requires more manpower than a smaller one. The usual theory "we'll just take over the redundant RAF engineers" doesn't hold any water.

[timex]

In addition, nighttime TOW firing. Unless you can teach a crewman to high hover on goggles (difficult) while you go through the launch sequence, the you'll have to trust him with the engagement. Without sounding unfair, I do not think I could do that.

Actually you put the Aircrewman/ gunner in the LHS and let him fire the missile, he was highly qualified to do so, and his recognition skills were excellent. He could also fly the aircraft. This was the norm before the AAC changed its policy to 2 pilots in preparation for the AH programme. Being honest hovering on goggles is not that difficult.

The Navy do fly single pilot SK on certain sorties, but not on very demanding missions as the battle-field is too busy. Allied to the fact that the crewman is often manning the GPMG, navigating or handling troops and or stores.

[SilsoeSid]

I think that of all the emergencies in the FRCs the AFCS problems are far more likely to the reason for operating 2 pilot, soley for the diagnosis problems. To counteract that why not dump AFCS and land asap.
The Immediate action for any single engine problem is to establish a safe single engine flight condition, ie fly the aircraft first, then sort out the problem. I think I am correct in saying that most twins are single pilot ops, so this levers to idle and fuel shut off thing isn't the reason.
However I don't want to dwell on this and have it end up in an FRC knowledge debate.

As for the crewman having to fly NVG whilst the pilot goes through the launch sequence, I think that was well answered by Timex. NVG are/is not a secret art either.
Anyway, the Blackhawk would be a support asset mainly, as the AH would be the strike, although a role change could be available at extra cost, which I doubt the UK will need.

The system of experienced pilots bringing on 'brand new' pilots from APCs never worked better than pre CREST days. The aircrewman role was 'an apprenticeship' for the APC and the mainly excellent ACM(O) + (G) would pass out with a wealth of experience and training that just needed fine tuning.

I cannot believe that the difference between aircrewman and pilot is educational background, taken that experience and training are gained 'on the job' so to speak.
The majority of Army pilots are of the same educational background, which as it happened, was the same as the aircrewmen of the time.
The only educational differences are between commisioned and non-commisioned officers. In this case all the experience and training is higher in the less educated!

As far as pay is concerned, I think that a Cpl pilot is on a fair wage, taking into account Res PoD, clothing, food/accomodation (if in mess/quarter), medical/dental, gym/sports facilities and so on. Of course he would have to go through the full licence procedure if he/she has less than 2000hrs/1500P1 etc. retention not an issue I think, as pay increases at a fairly good rate.

I bow to the fact that operationally any future BLUH will require 2 pilots, but I believe a case for re-installing the front seat aircrewman would be strong, for financial and manpower reasons as well as being good for moral.

edited to tidy up!

[ShyTorque]

Sid,

Please note, your last post uses quite a lot of British army abbreviations that myself and others will find difficult to understand. For example, I have no idea what CREST refers to.

I wouldn't expect you to know the FRCs if you have never flown the Blackhawk. However, the tail stabilator IS part of the AFCS system on these aircraft, it is constantly motoring,even in cruise flight. Also, a failure of the collective pitch boost system requires the rapid intervention of two people to deal with, possibly even three hands on the controls due to the very high control load feedback, so single pilot ops is not a wise move. It's not just a matter of "dumping the AFCS and landing ASAP" as it is with some smaller aircraft.

Your appraisal of what is required to deal with "any engine malfunction" is over simplified in my book (I speak as an ex-military simulator project chief instructor). Have you ever dealt with an engine runaway UP? Or an oscillation? They are not nearly as simple to deal with as a failure or rundown, especially in an aircraft with such a wide cockpit with the ECLs in the roof.

Regarding your comments on crew complement, in particular the aircrewman (or pilot)/left seat occupant up front. Would he become a separate "trade" to the crew person/s down the back of the aircraft? Who would deal with USL work and pax handling?

Or would you have two aircrewmen (a P2/observer/ crewman up front and a Gunner/crewman down the back) who were dual qualified and swapped roles? This would increase the crew training and currency requirement considerably. How would the rear crewman cope with gunnery and crewman roles together or would this not be a factor for a battlefield helicopter? (This is the reason the US military and others carry two rear crew or sometimes more, the gunnery positions are NOT in the doors).

I don't understand your reference to corporal pilots. Are you saying that army pilots are corporals, or should be corporals? Or, are you just saying that the left seat occupant should be a corporal, whatever he is called?

If the latter is true, would he, being of exactly the same education and skill level as the right seat occupant, a sergeant, staff sergeant or warrant officer, be happy to be there in the first place, rather than electing to fly something himself and earn far more?

I'm not saying it can't be done, but there is no simple answer. The RAF have operated light/medium SH for years and have tried many variations on who sits LHS. However, they keep coming back to two FULLY qualified pilots up front because it works best.

[SilsoeSid]

Sorry;

CREST = crew restructure
APC = army pilots course
ACM(O) (G) = aircrewman (observer)/(gunner) front seat, second pilots, of rank lance corporal or above (non-comissioned)

I have accepted the Blackhawk requires 2 up front.

Oscillations, spool vave seizure, loss of eng oil press, battery overheat, cockpit fire, yes, but afraid no runaway up. (contain with collective)

ACM(O/G) was a seperate trade and formally taught to fly the aircraft and operate the systems, including SS11 and TOW etc.

Trade in the back is Air doorgunner, who is private rank upwards(non- comissioned). Pax handling his job, as is guns, USLs groundcrew and pilots with assistance from doorgunner. Most USL tasks carried out in British Army do not have rear crew to assist, as is mostly the case for pax sorties.

The lowest rank for Army Pilot IS Cpl and is happy to be there because he is P2 with promotion/captaincy ahead.

The aircrewman up front would be a fully qualified "first officer", albeit an NCO with the title aircrewman.

[Bill O'Average]

As of 1st April, all Cpls on pilots course get Sgt on completion.

Reinventing the wheel?

Interesting ref Blackhawk..