Helicopter underslung mission
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: India
Age: 50
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
thanks and more food for thought
thanks everyone. This is valuable. My concern is that if I have a torque gauge and an on board computer telling me what i should be hovering at, what use is the load cell. My Go/No Go will always be my torque meter.If my load cell says I have 1.8 tons while my hover calculations show that it is 1.2 ton, which would I believe? Isnt it just an added complexity for information that adds very little value to the mission? Has this load indication proven so valuable to anyone that he would not do without it? Are there people out there who have this system but could not care less if it was not there?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: India
Age: 50
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
thanks SJ. Doesnt this utilisation reduce the helicopter to the status of a weighing machine? Doesnt the torque gauge give you the same answer- with deeper implications on flight safety?
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: South East Asia
Posts: 430
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ashkash: Some may say that the fitment of an external load weighing system does indeed "..reduce the helicopter to the status of a weighing machine?" But when you need to know the weight of a load and have no other means of dertermining what it is, then.......
"Doesnt the torque gauge give you the same answer- with deeper implications on flight safety?" Absolutely yes, but here you seem to be assuming that external load work always takes place at MTOWA (for external loads), this is usually the case, but not always. If you're operating at less than MTOWA and still need to know the weight of the load, how are you going to achieve this? Remember, as the pilot you're required by law to know the weight of your aircraft at take-off (I'm assuming, from the subject of your post, that you're a civil pilot with a commercial operator).
As others have said, an external load weighing systems has its limitations, especially with large-area loads in the down-wash, and these must be understood when using such a system.
Perhaps if you would fully explain exactly what you're task is then we all can help you to achieve it in a safe and professional manner.
"Doesnt the torque gauge give you the same answer- with deeper implications on flight safety?" Absolutely yes, but here you seem to be assuming that external load work always takes place at MTOWA (for external loads), this is usually the case, but not always. If you're operating at less than MTOWA and still need to know the weight of the load, how are you going to achieve this? Remember, as the pilot you're required by law to know the weight of your aircraft at take-off (I'm assuming, from the subject of your post, that you're a civil pilot with a commercial operator).
As others have said, an external load weighing systems has its limitations, especially with large-area loads in the down-wash, and these must be understood when using such a system.
Perhaps if you would fully explain exactly what you're task is then we all can help you to achieve it in a safe and professional manner.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Eastbourne
Age: 74
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Load Measuring
Hi Ashkash,
I worked with HAL to develop and supply the underslung load measuring equipment (LME) for the ALH/Dhruv that they finally bought.
The idea was to give pilots a fairly accurate indication of the load being attached to the airframe. In high altitude operations I would imagine that the pilot would wish to have confidence that he was not being asked to lift more than the recommended load. The pilot has the ultimate responsibility for the aircraft, as a pilot myself and being ex RAF, I feel I would not rely or trust completely anybody on the ground to ensure I was not overweight as they would probably not be facing the BOI in the event of any 'incident'.
I worked with HAL to develop and supply the underslung load measuring equipment (LME) for the ALH/Dhruv that they finally bought.
The idea was to give pilots a fairly accurate indication of the load being attached to the airframe. In high altitude operations I would imagine that the pilot would wish to have confidence that he was not being asked to lift more than the recommended load. The pilot has the ultimate responsibility for the aircraft, as a pilot myself and being ex RAF, I feel I would not rely or trust completely anybody on the ground to ensure I was not overweight as they would probably not be facing the BOI in the event of any 'incident'.
Picture this - island off Borneo and Army wants a load of ammo moved to Tawau using a Beverly.
RAF Movements Officer accepts the load as offered by those nice Army mates and duly loads the stuff into the lower deck of Blackburn's finest.
The take-off roll should have given a clue that all was not well and the aircraft, having used up almost every inch of the runway, staggers into the sky and climbs straight ahead. The transmissions between the aircraft captain and ATC are quite interesting and the captain decides that he won't take the direct route over the hills to Tawau but will rather fly all the way around the coast. At the other end a precautionary overweight landing ensues before the load is check weighed.
The 'back' calculations confirm that the Beverly got airborne at 7000 lbs over max auw.
Accepting loads from anybody, without an assurance of its true weight is as close to a fatal game of liar dice as one can get.
Mind you the Movements Officer had 'previous'. He and I were on the same officers' course, when he put several rounds from a sten gun over the range wall!!!
O-D
RAF Movements Officer accepts the load as offered by those nice Army mates and duly loads the stuff into the lower deck of Blackburn's finest.
The take-off roll should have given a clue that all was not well and the aircraft, having used up almost every inch of the runway, staggers into the sky and climbs straight ahead. The transmissions between the aircraft captain and ATC are quite interesting and the captain decides that he won't take the direct route over the hills to Tawau but will rather fly all the way around the coast. At the other end a precautionary overweight landing ensues before the load is check weighed.
The 'back' calculations confirm that the Beverly got airborne at 7000 lbs over max auw.
Accepting loads from anybody, without an assurance of its true weight is as close to a fatal game of liar dice as one can get.
Mind you the Movements Officer had 'previous'. He and I were on the same officers' course, when he put several rounds from a sten gun over the range wall!!!
O-D
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Tennessee - Smoky Mountains
Age: 55
Posts: 1,602
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
When I was doing the "ground party" bit on MAOTs, it was noticeable that I never, ever, saw a set of scales issued for weighing loads!
There were the concrete drums at Upavon with weights marked on them, and of course JATE had schemes for just about anything to be underslung (or tied down). But they can only be estimations of the "normal weight" of say a Land Rover.
Away from the RAF, back in my own Corps, I can tell you that a "normal" FFR Land Rover can have one radio/piece of comms kit, or 10. Each weighing 50lbs or more. Tanks full or tanks empty. Trailer full of mast kits, fuel, water, tentage etc - very heavy. Trailer full of tables & chairs - not so much. I can easily see an underslung FFR Land Rover and trailer varying by 1000 lbs. I can't recall if the JATE scheme allowed for this, but I would be surprised if it did.
There were the concrete drums at Upavon with weights marked on them, and of course JATE had schemes for just about anything to be underslung (or tied down). But they can only be estimations of the "normal weight" of say a Land Rover.
Away from the RAF, back in my own Corps, I can tell you that a "normal" FFR Land Rover can have one radio/piece of comms kit, or 10. Each weighing 50lbs or more. Tanks full or tanks empty. Trailer full of mast kits, fuel, water, tentage etc - very heavy. Trailer full of tables & chairs - not so much. I can easily see an underslung FFR Land Rover and trailer varying by 1000 lbs. I can't recall if the JATE scheme allowed for this, but I would be surprised if it did.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,068
Received 2,939 Likes
on
1,252 Posts
I watched to odd episode of Ax Men and the ability to weigh the load appeared to be very useful, as they lifted the trees out of the forest they were able to accurately come up with a weight and thus value each tree, along with ensuring they could lift it ok in the first place.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK East Anglia
Age: 66
Posts: 678
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ash,
Clearly a serious question but mixed response as usual. Thatz PRuNe!
Try the link to Onboard Systems
ONBOARD SYSTEMS | Home
They have a UK Office in East Sussex.
I am not sure if Breeze Eastern are also in the game.
I have no vested interest in either (they may have given me a pen or a LED torch at an exhibition)
On the UAV front, Kaman did some work with the K Max with the US Army which was autonomous. did away with fat noisy aircrew of both persuasions altogether. Not sure if I am allowed to post the data as I have not seen it in the public domain.
JATE certainly were/are the centre of excellence for such stuff in the UK. I think Onboard and Drallim Industries took on Design Authority for some of the JATE designed kit.
Clearly a serious question but mixed response as usual. Thatz PRuNe!
Try the link to Onboard Systems
ONBOARD SYSTEMS | Home
They have a UK Office in East Sussex.
I am not sure if Breeze Eastern are also in the game.
I have no vested interest in either (they may have given me a pen or a LED torch at an exhibition)
On the UAV front, Kaman did some work with the K Max with the US Army which was autonomous. did away with fat noisy aircrew of both persuasions altogether. Not sure if I am allowed to post the data as I have not seen it in the public domain.
JATE certainly were/are the centre of excellence for such stuff in the UK. I think Onboard and Drallim Industries took on Design Authority for some of the JATE designed kit.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,068
Received 2,939 Likes
on
1,252 Posts
Drag, if you look, this thread originated back in 2010!
One thinks he will have sorted it by now.
One thinks he will have sorted it by now.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Did I Tell You I Was A Harrier Pilot
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Who needs a winchman / gadgets etc when you have years of experience and the knowledge that you haven't crashed (yet?)?
Last edited by DITYIWAHP; 25th Mar 2015 at 23:58. Reason: spolling.
Years and years ago when Aldershot had some industry a factory was built with the normal tall chimney. This was a brick built structure with a large fabricated brass ring at the apex. Time marched on; the factory became redundant and eventually became to being demolished. The chimney would normally have been felled to cheers from onlookers but the Army had sensitive communication systems close by so the crump of a thousand tons of brickwork hitting the ground was considered unacceptable. As a result it was going to have to be dismantled brick by brick but the brass ring was a problem.
This is where the RAF stepped in.
The ring was estimated at about 1,500 lbs, well within the capability of a Puma. To facilitate its release from its mortar bed the brickwork was chipped away so that there were only four small pillars supporting it. Access for the crewman who was going to hook it up was provided by the scaffolding built within the chimney itself. The plan was, the crewman would nip up the chimney supervised by demolition staff, hook the already rigged ring on to the Puma’s hook, there then would be a pause whilst the crewman and staff shinned down the chimney and out of the firebox and finally the Puma would lift the ring and place it inside an adjacent skip.
The squadron commander was soon to hand over the squadron so he decided to take on this task. He considered that he was probably not the most experienced USL pilot on the squadron so he had the most proficient in the left hand seat flying shotgun.
The bewitching hour came and off we went.
The aircraft landed and we confirmed the final details with the organisers and waited until we got the signal from our crewman at the top of the chimney. Despite his lack of practise the boss had no problem positioning the aircraft at an 80 ft. hover with little outside references. The aircraft crewman was pattering away and came the time where it was hooked up and we were waiting for everybody to clear the structure.
Then one of the pillars started collapsing.
This was probably a result of the vibrations from the aircraft as the hover was steady enough. The hooker and his support staff were now fleeing down the chimney hotly pursued by bricks and rubble from the collapsing pillars. It was then that it was apparent that the estimated weight of the ring was hopelessly optimistic and full power was only just holding it in position. It couldn’t be jettisoned because it would have brought down the whole chimney and everybody in it. We listened to the helicopter crewman’s commentary until we heard him declare that they were out of the chimney and clear.
It was then dragged off sideways. As soon as it cleared everything started descending and with a combination of luck and skill the boss plonked it into the skip.
This is where the RAF stepped in.
The ring was estimated at about 1,500 lbs, well within the capability of a Puma. To facilitate its release from its mortar bed the brickwork was chipped away so that there were only four small pillars supporting it. Access for the crewman who was going to hook it up was provided by the scaffolding built within the chimney itself. The plan was, the crewman would nip up the chimney supervised by demolition staff, hook the already rigged ring on to the Puma’s hook, there then would be a pause whilst the crewman and staff shinned down the chimney and out of the firebox and finally the Puma would lift the ring and place it inside an adjacent skip.
The squadron commander was soon to hand over the squadron so he decided to take on this task. He considered that he was probably not the most experienced USL pilot on the squadron so he had the most proficient in the left hand seat flying shotgun.
The bewitching hour came and off we went.
The aircraft landed and we confirmed the final details with the organisers and waited until we got the signal from our crewman at the top of the chimney. Despite his lack of practise the boss had no problem positioning the aircraft at an 80 ft. hover with little outside references. The aircraft crewman was pattering away and came the time where it was hooked up and we were waiting for everybody to clear the structure.
Then one of the pillars started collapsing.
This was probably a result of the vibrations from the aircraft as the hover was steady enough. The hooker and his support staff were now fleeing down the chimney hotly pursued by bricks and rubble from the collapsing pillars. It was then that it was apparent that the estimated weight of the ring was hopelessly optimistic and full power was only just holding it in position. It couldn’t be jettisoned because it would have brought down the whole chimney and everybody in it. We listened to the helicopter crewman’s commentary until we heard him declare that they were out of the chimney and clear.
It was then dragged off sideways. As soon as it cleared everything started descending and with a combination of luck and skill the boss plonked it into the skip.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 461
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Helicopter Operational Data Recorder (HODR)
Back in the mid-late 80's on the good old Mk1 Chinook, 3 aircraft were fitted with HODR's so that fatigue could be monitored and data collected for future use.
Each of these a/c had strain gauges on the cargo hooks as part of the fit, among a plethora of other sensors, accelerometers and transducers.
it soon came to light, that, nets with 6 pallets of simulated Ammunition (simmo) that were supposed to weight within the 6800Kg limit, did in actual fact weigh considerably more due to the fact that the sand within had become very wet. Only after removing 2 pallets from each net were we able to lift said pallets, resulting in more nets being required for the job so that we could lift on multiple hooks. The weight for 6 pallets turned out to be just over 8000Kgs.
We also found that, in the Falklands, trying to lift a half-ISO container of sand from a beach, we could only lift the container and approx 3000Kgs of sand due to the suction created under the container on the beach.
As the aircraft transitioned, there was an increase of up to 25% of weight until the transition ceased and we were at constant forward speed.
We also had one case of lbs being converted to Kgs on a load that was supposed to weigh only 9000lbs when in fact it actually weight just under 9000Kgs! Within the capacity of the Chinook, but not with full fuel at the time!
So whilst strain gauges / load cells are accurate, they opened up a can of worm regarding accuracy of weighing systems on the ground.
Prior to these events, we had been applying torque (up to 88% dual engine IIRC or 98% Mast Torque). Within the aircraft limitations but potentially exceeding the rigging equipment limits.
Each of these a/c had strain gauges on the cargo hooks as part of the fit, among a plethora of other sensors, accelerometers and transducers.
it soon came to light, that, nets with 6 pallets of simulated Ammunition (simmo) that were supposed to weight within the 6800Kg limit, did in actual fact weigh considerably more due to the fact that the sand within had become very wet. Only after removing 2 pallets from each net were we able to lift said pallets, resulting in more nets being required for the job so that we could lift on multiple hooks. The weight for 6 pallets turned out to be just over 8000Kgs.
We also found that, in the Falklands, trying to lift a half-ISO container of sand from a beach, we could only lift the container and approx 3000Kgs of sand due to the suction created under the container on the beach.
As the aircraft transitioned, there was an increase of up to 25% of weight until the transition ceased and we were at constant forward speed.
We also had one case of lbs being converted to Kgs on a load that was supposed to weigh only 9000lbs when in fact it actually weight just under 9000Kgs! Within the capacity of the Chinook, but not with full fuel at the time!
So whilst strain gauges / load cells are accurate, they opened up a can of worm regarding accuracy of weighing systems on the ground.
Prior to these events, we had been applying torque (up to 88% dual engine IIRC or 98% Mast Torque). Within the aircraft limitations but potentially exceeding the rigging equipment limits.
Last edited by WASALOADIE; 26th Mar 2015 at 11:55. Reason: added text
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Borderline England
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Merlin has a fairly decent load weight display on its CCU (computer gizmo thingy). This came in handy once at the Bastion load park when attempting to lift a supposed 1 ton load which weighed in at over 5 tons, putting the account 2.5 tons over MAUW.
Another handy bit of kit was FLIR. Swivelling it 180° allowed the front enders to monitor the load and the crewmen could man the guns while transiting over bad lands.
Another handy bit of kit was FLIR. Swivelling it 180° allowed the front enders to monitor the load and the crewmen could man the guns while transiting over bad lands.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 429 Likes
on
226 Posts
Ah, "SIMMO"!
I recall a multiple aircraft, night lift where the problem was caused by the underslung loads of "SIMMO" being too light, rather than (the usual) too heavy.
The loads ("cleared loads" courtesy of JATE) were prepared as per the AP1105, Carriage of USLs manual). However, whoever prepared these loads (Army) failed to realise that the boxes should have been ballasted to their normal weight, rather than left empty for training.
About five Pumas arrived at the remote load pickup point, with the correct (reduced) fuel load to take the first load. The Puma HC1 was usually short of fuel even when it took off with full tanks, so this put us on the back foot to start with.
As we took off with our first load we realised that the weight was considerably less than expected, so much so that it would only fly at about 55 - 60kts before it became totally unstable (should have been about double that, IIRC). Problem was, there was a very strong headwind and at one stage we had less than 20 kts groundspeed!
Were supposed to shuttle three loads each. From comments on the RT it was obvious that everyone else was having a similar problem. I think we were one of only two crews that were brave (or stupid) enough to go back for the third one. Aircraft were dropping out of the task and diverting left and right due to fuel shortage. We all landed with fuel low lights on. A bit of a shambles all round but good character building stuff.
I recall a multiple aircraft, night lift where the problem was caused by the underslung loads of "SIMMO" being too light, rather than (the usual) too heavy.
The loads ("cleared loads" courtesy of JATE) were prepared as per the AP1105, Carriage of USLs manual). However, whoever prepared these loads (Army) failed to realise that the boxes should have been ballasted to their normal weight, rather than left empty for training.
About five Pumas arrived at the remote load pickup point, with the correct (reduced) fuel load to take the first load. The Puma HC1 was usually short of fuel even when it took off with full tanks, so this put us on the back foot to start with.
As we took off with our first load we realised that the weight was considerably less than expected, so much so that it would only fly at about 55 - 60kts before it became totally unstable (should have been about double that, IIRC). Problem was, there was a very strong headwind and at one stage we had less than 20 kts groundspeed!
Were supposed to shuttle three loads each. From comments on the RT it was obvious that everyone else was having a similar problem. I think we were one of only two crews that were brave (or stupid) enough to go back for the third one. Aircraft were dropping out of the task and diverting left and right due to fuel shortage. We all landed with fuel low lights on. A bit of a shambles all round but good character building stuff.
