Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

RAN MH-60R crew safe after ditching

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

RAN MH-60R crew safe after ditching

Old 14th Oct 2021, 20:07
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: east ESSEX
Posts: 3,996
Maybe Sikhorsey/RAN should talk to WHL/Leonardo about the flotation gear fitted to RN Wessex..
sycamore is online now  
Old 14th Oct 2021, 20:28
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Somerset
Posts: 96
Originally Posted by sycamore View Post
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
Bengo is offline  
Old 14th Oct 2021, 21:31
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: SW
Posts: 198
Originally Posted by rattman View Post
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.
switch_on_lofty is offline  
Old 14th Oct 2021, 22:24
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: aus
Posts: 376
Originally Posted by switch_on_lofty View Post
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
rattman is offline  
Old 14th Oct 2021, 23:26
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Nowra, NSW, Australia
Posts: 140
Originally Posted by rattman View Post
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.

Last edited by evilroy; 14th Oct 2021 at 23:27. Reason: Spelling correction
evilroy is offline  
Old 14th Oct 2021, 23:43
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Aus
Posts: 1,208
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.
43Inches is offline  
Old 15th Oct 2021, 22:38
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: N/A
Age: 44
Posts: 84
Originally Posted by sycamore View Post
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”….
casper64 is offline  
Old 15th Oct 2021, 23:39
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: aus
Posts: 376
Originally Posted by casper64 View Post
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
rattman is offline  
Old 1st Nov 2021, 07:35
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 4,188
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.
megan is offline  
Old 1st Nov 2021, 08:25
  #30 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 73
Posts: 1,996
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 is offline  
Old 1st Nov 2021, 10:46
  #31 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 73
Posts: 1,996
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/...1-Nov21-v3.pdf (4Mb)
SpazSinbad is offline  
Old 1st Nov 2021, 14:47
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 62
Posts: 5,674
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 )
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.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 1st Nov 2021, 20:22
  #33 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 73
Posts: 1,996
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/d...token=v0ZZNl3p
SpazSinbad is offline  
Old 1st Nov 2021, 20:54
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: australia
Posts: 174
Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50 View Post
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 )
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/docu...s-notification
golder is online now  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.