Army Aviation Digest - Oct 1978

8/12/2019 Army Aviation Digest - Oct 1978

1/52


2/52

VOLUME 1

* *rigadier General Carl H. McNair Jr.Army Aviation OfficerODCSOPS, Headquarters,Department of the Army Major General James C. SmithCommander Brigadier General James H. PattersonDeputy Commander

page

page 17

Richard K. TierneyEditor

U.S. Army Aviation CenterFort Rucker, Alabama U.S. Army Aviation CenterFort Rucker, Alabama

1 The Army National Guard Aviation Program,MG E. H. Walker7 The 997th - Arizona National GuardSGT Phil Andrews

10 Helicopter l ightning Strikes, CW4 Phillip D. Pettit14 What Training Guarantees Results?Col. Warren G. Lawson15 Jumping From The Crane, SP5 Charles Drake17 ARNG Multi-Media Program, CPT Kenneth O. Boley20 OPMS Corner: Personnel Update, MAJ Jacob B.

Couch Jr.21 Aircrew Training Manuals, MAJ Paul V. Brennan22 Views From Readers24 Fight Outnumbered - Not Outmanned ,LTC Jerry Hipp26 DES Report To The Field30 20 Yea rs Later36 Reporting Final38 PEARL's41 Hover Power Check, Pat Wall45 You Can Help Equip the ASH, Maj Mike McClellan

Inside Back Cover: ATC Action LineABOUT THE COVER

Cover design suggested by P. R. Taddeo, NationalGuard Bureau

page 3

page 8

page 45

The mission of the U.S. Army Aviation Digest is to prov ide information of anoperational , functional nature concerning safety and aircraft accident prevention , training, maintenance , operations , research and development, aviationmedicine and other related data.

This publication has been approved by The Adjutant General, HeadquarterDepartment of the Army. 22 June 1978. in accordance with AR 310 -1.

Active Army units receive distribution under the pinpoint distribution systemas outlined in AR 310-1 . Complete DA Form 12-5 and send directly to CDRAG Publications Center. 2800 Eastern' Boulevard . Balt imore. MD 21220 . Foany change in distribution requirements, initiate a revised DA Form 12-5.The Digest is an official Department of the Army periodical published monthlyunder the supervision of the Commanding General , U.S. Army Aviation Center.

Views expressed herein are not necessarily those of the Department of theArmy nor the U.S. Army Aviation Center. Photos are U.S. Army unless otherwisespecified. Material may be reprinted provided credit is given to the Digest andto the author , unless otherwise indicated .Articles, photos and items of interest on Army aviation are invited . Directcommunication is authorized to : Editor , U.S. Army Aviation Digest Fort Rucker,AL 36362 .

National Guard and Army Reserve units under pinpoint distribution alsshould submit DA Form 12-5 . Other National Guard units should submit requests through their state adjutant general.

Those not eligible for official distribution or who desire personal copies othe Digest can order the magazine from the Superintendent of DocumentU.S. Government Printing Office, Washington. DC 20402 . Annual subscriptiorates are $17 .00 domestic and 21 .25 overseas


3/52

t h e r m ~ational r uard~ v i a t i o n p .og .am

DRAMATIC expansion of~ r y National Guard (ARNG)few yearsproduced one of the most dy

structure of today smy. With more than 50 percent ofCommand s (FORSCOM s)part the Guardin the planning of national sestrategy becomesBefore re

the operations, safety andics aspects of the ARNG aviarestatement of the

the NaGuard is in order.ual les The unique dual-roleof the National Guard is destructurally to allow suc

both itsl mission and its secsupport to the. As stated in appropriate reg

the dual mission of theis defined as follows: Federal To provide trained

of warnational emergency in supportthe Army s war plans and at suchtimes as the national securityof the

Federal or State To provideized, equipped and trainto function efficiently at existingprotection of lifeproperty and the preservation

order and pu blic safetyTOB ER 1978

Major General E H WalkerDirector rmy National GuardNational Guard BureauWashington DC

under competent orders of Federalor State authorities.ARNG Aviation Operations Abrief overview of pertinent ARNGaviation statistics will serve to illustrate the magnitude of the programand provide a point of referencefrom which major activities of theprogram may be appropriately addressed.Currently there are 106 aviationunits and 184 aviation elements andsections in the ARNG force structure. Upon completion of AviationRequirements for the Combat Structure of the Army (ARCSA III) reorganization implementation, therewill be 99 aviation units and 72 aviation elements and sections assignedto the ARNG. Of 5,010 aviators authorized, 5,006 are assigned (figure1 . More than 80 percent of aviatorsin the Guard ~ a v e cqmbat experience and the average flying timeexperience for all Guard aviatorsis above 2,500 hours.

The ARNG has 85 aviation in-stallations which provide for thecentralized control of Army aviation assets within the States. Themajor segment of these assets includes the ARNG fleet of morethan 2,500 aircraft and is comprisedof practically every category, typeand model currently in the activeArmy s inventory. There are however, a few instances where trainingto meet readiness requirements forcertain unit tables of organizationand equipment (TOE) missions hasbecome extremely difficult because

of some equipment shortages.Ac-tions are being taken to resolvethese problems and particularly inthe aerial gunnery units. In fiscalyear (FY) 1979 three of the highpriority ARNG attack helicoptercompanies have been earmarkedto each receive seven AH-IS Cobraaircraft with which to commencequalification training for aircrewsand maintenance personnel. Thebulk of aviation qualification andproficiency is centered around theaviation support facilities which arestaffed by ARNG technicians whoprovide operations training andmaintenance support to assignedunits and personnel. During FY1977, the ARNG had flown 337,611hours of 327,320 hours programedfor a completion rate of 103 percent. This was possible due to fundssaved as a result of a remarkablylow aircraft mishap rate and a highlyefficient aircraft maintenance program. In the first half of FY 78,124,046 hours have been flown of132,076 hours programed for a 93.9percent completion record (figure2).Provided with background information on ARNG aviation programstatistics, we should look at howthe Guard performs its dual mission.

he State Mission Respondingrapidly to the call of the governorconcerned, each state s ARNG aviation elements have amply demonstrated their outstanding capabilitiesto provide essential support in atimely, professional manner. In a1


4/52

myriad of natural disasters acrossthe Nation during FY 77, ARNGaviation accomplished in excess of1,000 support missions while flyingexceeded 10,000 hours. Throughoutthe first half of FY 78 at someplacein the United States, Guard troopswere called up every day to copewith disasters or other critical emer-gency situations.Dealing with floods, fires, strikes,tornadoes, blizzards, civil disordersand many other such natural or ci-vil situations required relatively thesame basic elements applicable tocombat operations. Namely, possess-ing and employing a highly disci-plined force with centra l commandand control, close coordination andteamwork, and being capable offully exercising its resources to ac-complish successfully the mission.This in effect is the unique advan-tage enjoyed by the Guard in meet-ing this important facet of its dualresponsibility to serve the States aswell as the Federal Government.

The ability to perform the vitalfunctions as a backup force to aug-ment civil authorities in the Statesis chiefly a result of the trainingthe ARNG undergoes to maintainreadiness for its Federal mission.In measuring cost effectiveness ofthe Guard s dual mission capability,it is most noteworthy that no othersegment of the defense establish-ment provides more service perWhen heavy rains caused extensiveflooding , rizona s Governor WesleyBolin called on National Guard troopsto help in rescue operations. These pho-tographs show a rescue operation onthe Salt River in Phoenix by pilots CW4Robert Delker and CW2 Ross Hill andcrewchief SSGT rthur Forsythe

2

dollar cost directly to the Nation scitizens than the ARNG.The Federal Mission. Operationalexperience gained by ARNG avia-tion personnel under adverse condi-tions while performing missions insupport of State disaster operationshas proved extremely valuable in

the conduct of readiness traininto meet Federal mission requirements. ARNG aviators use a combination of the new Aircrew Training Manual (ATM) and the ArmTraining and Evaluation PrograARTEP) as training tools to acomplish individual and unit read

Figure 1: Aviators authorized and assigned in RNG6000 . r __.

5000

40003839

3000

2000

AUTHORIZED

3891

48194347

43361ASSIGNED

5010 50104878 500

1000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - -1Y 73 74 75 76 T 77 ST 2ND 3RD 4

78 OTR

u.s. ARMY AVIATION DIGES


5/52

ness training objectives.FORSCOM-directed aviationtraining programs such as instrument, nap-of-the-earth, aerial gunnery, and night tactical operationsare being accomplished by theARNG as expeditiously as resourcesand time permit. Today, more than90 percent of ARNG aviators onflight status are instrument qualified. More than 75 percent of thoseaviators requiring NOE qualification have completed the prescribedtraining and it is anticipated that

this figure will surpass 95 percentduring FY 79. All aviation units assigned gunnery elements have successfully fired all armament subsystems during the past 2 years.Thirty percent of the annual programed flying hours in the ARNGis being devoted to the conduct ofvarious phases of night tacticaltraining.Keeping in step with the new Department of the Army DA) directed ATM event-oriented programthe ARNG has directed its efforts

THOUS3 5 0 ~ 3 1 9 6 6 8 ~ = = - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~

308795 327320300 293710312146 302183 291730250200150

- PROGRAMMED- ACTUAL100

95362--5 95000O ~ ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ - - ~ - - ~ - - ~ - - - - ~ - - ~ - - ~

FY 73 74

97.6 97.8

75 76 7T 77 1ST99.3 101.3 100.4 103 19

2ND 3RD 4THFY 78 OTR38

PGM 94 94Figure 2: RNG aviation flying hours programed and completed

Figure 3: The goal for National Guard trainingOCONUSTRAINING

iElD TRAINING EXERCISEJOINT READINESS EXERCISE

RMY TRAINING ANDEVALUATION PROGRAM

NIT TRAINING

DVANCED INDIVIDUAL TRAINING

ASIC INDIVIDUAL TRAINING

OCTOBER 1978

toward accelerating individual training through use of a total aviationtraining program. Structurin g individual training and measuring aviator combat readiness will enhanceimprovement of unit combat readiness. The ultimate goal in this building block process is to have ARNGaviation units and elements complete ARTEPs participate in fieldtraining exercises/joint readiness exercises and undergo training in anoutside Continental U.S. OCONUS)environment figure 3).Flying a wide variety of aircraftto provide support for a wide rangeof missions, ARNG aviation is working closer than ever before with active Army units. Whether performing MI missions throughout CONUSwith OV-1 Mohawk aircraft or airlifting Infantry elements with theUH-1 H Huey in support of activecomponent exercises, Guard Aviation has consistently demonstratedits unique versatility and professional capability to perform in an outstanding manner figure 4).

ARNG Aviation Safety. Since theimplementation of an aggressiveaviation safety program at all levels,the ARNG has experienced a significant reduction in aircraft accidents. To orchestrate this programthe ARNG Aviation Division, andmore specifically the ARNG Aviation Safety Office, was establishedin 1972 in 1976 it became ARNGSafety Office to include Occupational Safety and Health Act OSHA)and surface operations) to provideguidance and assistance to the several states to help in the achievement of a zero accident rate.How has the ARNG fared in thisendeavor? The ARNG aircraft accident rate figure 5 is indicativeof the success the program has enjoyed from FY 71 to FY 77.

The 6.45 ARNG aircraft accidentrate for the first half of FY 78, basedon 8 accidents and 123,951 flyinghours) still compares very favorablywith the other Army componentsand armed services, but indicatesa renewed emphasis on aviation

3


6/52

FY 69 FY 70 FY 71 FY 72 FY 73 FY 74 FY 75 FY 76 FY 1T FY 77 FY 781st QTR 1603 1st QTR 1639 1st QTR 2232 1st QTR 2982 1st QTR 3715 1st QTR 3903 1st QTR 3963 1st QTR 4392 4767 1st QTA 4724 lsi QTR 5006

AVG # OF 2d 1612 2d 1702 2d 2387 2d 3163 2d 3764 2d 3917 2d 4191 2d 4596 2d 4861 2d 5032PILOTS FOR 3d 1647 3d 1774 3d 2557 3d 3197 3d 3843 3d 3967 3d 4238 3d 4706 3d 4946WHICH FLY 4th 1640 41h 2087 4th 2826 4th 3617 4th 3839 4th 3981 4th 4336 4th 4767 4th 4984HRS AAE Total 6502 Total 7202 Total 10002 Total 13259 Total 15161 Total 15768 Total 16728 Total 18461 Total 19515PGMD

6502 4= 7202 + 4 = 10002 + 4 = 13259 + 4 = 15161 + 4 = 15768 + 4 = 16728 + 4 = 18461 + 4 = 19515 + 4 = 10038 + 2 =1626 1800 2500 3315 3790 3942 4182 4615 4767 4878 50191st 891 lsi 1379 1s1 1772 lst 2053 1st 2237 1st 2479 2593 lsi 2581 1st 25502d 944 2d unk 2d 1749 2d 2154 2d 2269 2d 2558 2d 2571 2d 2531

AVG # OF 3d 1055 3d 1650 3d 1785 3d 2208 3d 2321 3d 2569 3d 2560 3d 2528ACFT 898 OH Ind 4th 1218 41h 1690 4th 1925 4th 2230 4th 2423 4th 2599 4th 2564 41hOPERATED 4th QTR Total 4108 Total 4719 Tolal7231 Total 8645 Total 9250 Total 10205 Tolall0276

4108 + 4 = 4719 + 4 = 7231 + 4 = 8645 + 4 = 9250 + 4 = 10205 + 4 = 10276 + 4 = 5081 + 2 =7991 8981 1027 1573 1808 2161 2312 2551 2593 2569 2540# OF FLYHRS 87.2 89.4% 100.5 98.0% 97.6% 97.8% 99.3 101.3% 101 .3 103% 94%

USED 175,449 179,841 221,254 281,886 312,146 302,183 291,730 324 ,064 95,352 337,611 124,046BUDGETED 201,263 201,250 220,000 287,590 319,668 308,795 293,710 320,000 95,000 327,320 132,076

# OF FLYHRS PER 107.9 99.9 88.5 85.0 82.4 76.7 70.9 70.2 20.2 69.2 24.7PILOT# OF FLYHRS PER 219.6 212.1 215.4 179.2 172.6 139.8 129.1 127.03 38.0 131.4 48.8ACFTFigure 4: Ove rall look at National Guard pilots , aircraft and flying hours forthe past 10 years

Mld-Ylar TotalsIncludll Tlmp TDA Positions

ACCIDENTS PER100 000 FLYING HOURS

2

515 2.78 3.26

0 4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~FISCAL YE R7 72 7 74 75 7 77Figure 5: AR NG aircraft accident rate for fiscal years 1971 to 1977

safety at all levels must take place.Figures 6 and 7 depict the 1st and2nd quarter, FY 78 ARNG aircraftaccident statistics.During the first half of FY 77the ARNG met its objective of azero accident rate There is nomystique involved to accomplishthis objective. Emphasis throughout

the ARNG aviation program isplaced on professionalism. Thisprofessional attitude is accomplished by the exchange of informationduring annual state and nationalsafety conferences, the use of multimedia training aids, and throughliaison/ assistance visits, directives,newsletters, publications and rele-

vant safety schools to establish welltrained safety personnel in everystate;More than 90 percent of the as:signed state Army aviation safetyofficers in each state and the in

structor pilot/ safety officer technician at each ARNG flight facilityare school trained aviation safetyofficers-trained either at the University of Southern California orthe Aviation Safety Officer (ASO)Course at Ft. Rucker, AL. In addition to this , most of the unit safetyofficers and specialists have attended at least one formal aviationsafety course. An attempt also isbeing made again to reestablish anARNG Senior Officer s SafetyCourse for battalion commandersand above. Education is considered one of the keys to establishingthis professional atmosphere.

Another positive aspect of theARNG safety program is the presentation of safety awards to deserving units and individuals. In977 , 39 U.S. Army Aviation Accident Prevention Awards of Excellence for the completion of 72 ormore consecutive months of accident free flying were awarded tomajor ARNG aviation units and

4 U.S. ARMY AVIATION DIGEST


7/52

FIRST QUARTER FY 78AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT RATE PER 100,000 FLYING HOURS = 9.7ACCIDENTS: 6 INCIDENTS: 4

MAJOR MINOR

FATALITIES AND INJURIES

5

FATAL SERIOUS MINOR

12 ~ ~8

34o

0 1 -OCT NOV DEC

DOLLAR COST IN MILLIONSMAJOR. MINORS. INCIDENTS

1 5 - - r - - - -- - - - - - - - -

1 0 TOTAL: $744 .283.5

O L ~ ~OCT NOV DECo $336 .256 $ 08 .027

SE ONQUARTER FY 78AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT RATE PER 100,000 FLYING HOURS = 3.22ACCIDENTS: 2

20

MAJOR MINOA

INJURIES

FATAL SERIOUS MINOA

OCTOBER 1978

12

8

40

INCIDENTS: 4

JAN FEB MAR

DOLLAR COST IN MilLIONSMAJOR MINORS, INCIDENTS

1 5 'T ' - ------------- ,TOTAL : 1 691,830

1.0.5

JAN FEB MAR$3,333 1 061 015 $627.48

facilities. In addition another 77received the award of honor and69 the award of merit for 36 and12 months respectively of accidentfree flying. ARNG aviators also received 18 ARNG Well Done letters and seven Broken Wing Aviation Safety Awards for exceptionalperformance during inflight aircraftemergencies. Many states have likewise established individual aviationsafety awards for accident free flying.

Another prevention effort initiated by the Chief National GuardBureau has been the policy of pe rsonally reviewing all major aircraftaccidents with the Adjutant Generaland Army Aviation Officer of thestate concerned along with selected staff members of the ARNGAviation Division. This policy wasestablished as an attempt to learnfrom the aircraft accident in orderto prevent a recurrence from thesame causes.

The aviation accident preventionefforts of the ARNG are created atthe top. These are the people whoset the pace establish the mood ,and by example and leadership foster the attitude among all ARNGpersonnel that mission accomplishment and safety go hand-in-hand.It is shown in this manner that aneffective accident prevention program is not predicated on luck, buton hard work by every individualinvolved in the ARNG aviationprogram.

ARNG Aviation Logistics. Allaircraft maintenance on ARNG aircraft, up to and including aviationintermediate maintenance (AVIM),is the responsibility of the ArmyNational Guard. Maintenance notperformed by TOE maintenancepersonnel during training periodsis accomplished by members of theNational Guard in their techniciancapacities. In order to accomplishthe day-to-day technician maintenance there are 68 Army aviationsupport facilities (AASF), at leastone in each state which has anaviation unit maintenance (AVUM)capability plus AVIM is performed

5


8/52


9/52

Phil ndrewsDetachment

rmy National GuardPhoenix Z

UH 1 HUEY helicopter pilotedby CW4 Robert Delker and, swung out over theand came to aover a tiny sliver of rocky

from which a single tree prothe tree was atrapped there by the rising

rootsand those were givingay quickly to the muddy torrent.gave away

Arthur Forthe man from his dan

perch into the Huey.The scene was Phoenix, AZ, inMarch 1978 , when heavy down-

1978

pours turned the normally dry SaltRiver into a raging flood, and thePhoenix area into a flood disaster.The rescue was the first of 39 to beperformed during the next week bythe aircrews of Phoenix 997th Aviation Company of the Arizona ArmyNational Guard AZARNG).The unit later evacuated 41 persons from flooded areas, and airlifted more than 21 tons of suppliesin support of relief operations conducted by the Guard. Other aircrewsfrom the unit were sent to the sprawling Navajo Indian Reservation innortheastern Arizona where theyflew 100 missions delivering 14 tonsof food, 1,100 bales of hay and 150sacks of coal to Indian familiesstranded by the rains.Some of the unit s rescue attempts

were unsuccessful; a late night callfrom the sheriff s office reported aman and two children trapped in apickup truck swept away in theflooded Agua Fria River, a tributary of the Salt. A helicopter in theair was sent, but when it arrived inthe area, the truck had vanished.A UH-IH flown by CPT DavidTalbot and CW3 Norm Conners,with crewchief SGT Perry McCully,rescued 20 persons stranded byflood waters on the top of a building in an industrial park betweenPhoenix and suburban Tempe. Flying in almost total darkness, throughdriving rain, the crew of the UH-1evacuated the people off the building in two hops to police cars waiting on dry ground.

The 997th also shared credit for7


10/52

saving a bridge, which was then theonly land-link between Phoenix andTempe. A 60 OOO -gallon industrialwater tank made of quarter-inchthick steel had washed away froma plant upstream. Civil authoritiesfeared that if the tank were allowedto float on down river, it would crashinto the bridge and take away someof its supports.CPT Steven A. Hermann of the997th, who was an explosive ordnance demoli tion (EOD) officer before becoming a pilot, and anotherGuard officer with demolition experience, COL John L. Johnson Jr. ,of Headquarters, AZARNG, wereset down on the tank by helicopter.They placed 16 pounds of C4, aplastique explosive, on the tank insmall charges connected by fuse anddetonating wire. After the chargeswere placed, the two Guardsmenwere lifted off the tank by the helicopter, which had hovered nearby.Minutes later, the charges were detonated, punching enough largeholes in the tank's sides so that itcould not float.

These operations are out of theordinary, even for the 997th, but itindicates the depth of varied experience in the unit, which observers agree makes it a top outfit.According to MAJ Frederick E. Ferguson, commander of the 997th, theunit's pilots average 3,000 hours flying experience, and 90 percent ofthem have been in actual combat.Nobody has yet counted the numberof Air Medals worn in the 997th,but various members of the unithave been awarded 1 Medal ofHonor, 2 Silver Star Medals, 32 Distinguished Flying Crosses, 44 BronzeStar Medals and 3 Purple Hearts.

The experience wasn't just inVietnam, either, MAJ Fergusonsaid, we also have veterans of Korea, and even World War II.CW4 John Middleton flew theHump in C-47s in the China-Burma-India Theater in World WarII, while at the same time, CW3 MikeO'Leary was flying F6Fs from aNavy carrier in the Pacific Theater.When you have men who havebeen around aviation that long, it's

Photographs by Kevin Scofield courtesy of rizona Republic

bound to have a POSItIve effect,commented MAJ Ferguson.

MAJ Ferguson himself wrotsome of the Army aviation historduring the Tet Offensive in 1968When Hue fell to the enemy, MAFerguson flew his helicopter up thPerfume River under fire from botbanks and river boats to a tiny, abandoned Army of the Republic oVietnam compound where five survivors from a crashed helicopter hataken refuge. Landing in almoszero visibility from dust and debrithrown up by a savage mortar barrage, MAJ Ferguson brought thfive Americans out the way hcame in , despite severe damage this helicopter, and increased firfrom the river banks. For this rescue he was awarded the Medal oHonor (see Stay Clear of Hue,April 1970 Digest .Despite their combat experienceor perhaps because of it, the aviators of the 997th do not belong tthe derring-do school of flying.one word comes to mind abouthem, it is steady. The unit hathe safety awards to prove it, woin more than 6 years and 35,00hours of flying without an accidentDuring that time, the unit has received just about every safety awaravailable to a Guard unit, includina special award this year from SixtU.S. Army in recognition of its 6year record.

There is an intangible qualitof 'esprit' in the unit, MAJ Ferguson said. You get it from the crewchiefs, mechanics and clerks, as weas the pilots. You very seldom hea'that's not my job' here but 'we'do it, somehow' instead.T ypical of the ground crewSFC Ed Collins, Armament Section Leader for the unit's gunshiplatoon. He has developed a tesstand for the gunship's minigunthat allows them to be tested in thshop. Before, the miniguns had tbe mounted, and the helicopter fireup. SFC Collins' stand is now beinstudied for adoption Armywide.High morale is evident from th

8 U.S. ARMY AVIATION DIGES


11/52


12/52


13/52

N ARTICLE in the May 1978 issue of AEROSPACESAFETY discussing lightning and aircraft generateda great deal of interest in aircraft lightning strikes.This article and many others have increased awareness of possible hazards of lightning strikes to fixedwing aircraft, but little has been published about the addedhazards to helicopters. The assumption that hazards existingfor fixed wing aircraft are the same as those for rotary wingaircraft is not entirely correct. Due to somewhat differentoperating environments and complexity of systems, the hazardof a lightning strike to a helicopter can be much greater.With helicopters composing 90 percent of the Army aircraftinventory, there is reason for serious concern.Lightning strikes to helicopters are increasing each year

because of the large numbers of helicopters in use and thevast amount of hours flown. Fortunately, the damage is usuallyminor and has not resulted in a major maintenance problem .Occasionally, though , damage has been severe and at leastone confirmed catastrophic helicopter lightning strike hasbeen recorded by the USAF. The potential for damage is alsobeing increased with new nonconducting skin materials androtor blades such as fiberglass and special materials to reduceradar and infrared signatures.DESTRUCTIVE POTENTIALLightning ranges from 1,000 feet to 100 miles in length ,with the most common type about 1 mile long. The energycontent of a typical stroke is about 400 million horsepower(hp). Lightning striking the earth each day generates 3,456trillion hp - enough to lift to a height of 100 feet a weightequal to 200,000 aircraft carriers. The return stroke, thevisible part of lightning, travels at 100,000 meters per secondand has a temperature of 50,000 F , five times hotter thanthe sun s surface.

Contrary to appearances lightning is not a simple flash,but a complex series of events. The tremendous potential(l0-100 million volts) that builds up is strong enough to ionizethe air and develop into a chain reaction. A zigzagging ionizedpath called the stepped leader is formed. The leader zigs orzags about 50 meters in


14/52


15/52


16/52

We all know that TEC can do the jo but TEC isn tdOing the job well enough when it isn t being used tothe maximum through simple ignorance of its existence

What TrainingGU R NTEESesultsColonel Warren G. Lawson

Director of Training ProgramsU.S. Army Training Support CenterFort Eustis VA

TEe training is more ef fectiveth an conv entional train ing TEe tra ined S oldiers re tain theirskills better after 8 wee ks than con -ventionally trained Soldiers do only1 day afte r instruct ion TEe training can raise Soldierskills by 2 7 perce nt base d on acomparison with base line trainedSoldiers TE e pretests and p os tlests p ro vethat only one exposure to a TEelesson can improve Soldier pe lj or-mance by 9.4 perce nt .' TEe use rs score higher on theirskill qualtfication tes ts (SQT) thannonusers

These are some of the findingsof the Army Research Institute(ARI) which recently completed anintensive study of the Training Extension Course Program, more popularly known as 'TEC.

The purpose of the study was todetermine TEC cost and trainingeffectiveness and TEC usage. Inshort, does TEC really teach welland at' reasonable co st ; and doesthe Soldier use it? Soldiers from 24combat arms battalions both active

Army and reserve components partic ipated in the TEC effectivenessstudy. These 660 Soldiers represented eight different military occup a tional specialties (MOSs) innumbers proportionate to the totalnumber of Soldiers Armywide holding these MOSs.

11 B InfantrymanC Indirect Fire Infantryman13B Cannon Crewman13 E Cannon Fire Direction/

Fire Support Specialist16P Chaparrel Crewman16R Short Range Air DefenseArtillery Crewman190 Armor Reconnaissance

Specialist19E Armor CrewmanSelected groups were given instruction in subjects related to their

combat arms branch - Armor, Artillery (ADA and FA) or Infantryand one subject common to Soldiers of every branch. Some Soldiers were taught using TEC lessons and others by their normalconventional live instructors. OtherSoldiers received regular routinetraining in order to develop a baseline group against which performance could be scientifically measured, following pretesting, instruction and posttesting.

TEC came out ahead in all categories, proving conclusively that theTEC trained Soldier learns betterand remembers more of what hasbeen learned even 8 weeks later.The conventionally trained Soldiercouldn't perform as well, only 1day after receiving instruction

Soldiers from 32 ContinentalUnited States (CONUS) active Armybattalions, 6 reserve battalions and7 Training and Doctrine Command

(TRADOC) installations participated in the TEC usage study. Thestudy of use patterns ,attitudes andproblems involved 27 CONUS and3 United States Army Europe (US

AREUR) active Army battalionsand 26 CONUS reserve componentbattalions.

TEC users scored significantlyhigher on their skill qualificationtests (SQTs) than did nonusers. Soldiers and unit trainers who usedTEC regularly praised TEC and 65percent of the Soldiers and 87 percent of the trainers wanted TEC tocontinue to grow and to expand.

The ARI study recommendedthat commanders, trainers and Soldiers make more use of TEC, tomake it even more cost effectivethan it is today.With the SQT and the Army Training Evaluation Program (ARTEP)so closely linked with individualand team performance , TEC use issure to grow. We know that TECcan do the job and the ARI studyproves it. However, TEC only workswhen it is used and the study recommended that Soldiers surveyedwho had never heard of TEC shouldget with the program - the TEC program that is. Remember, TEC is"Guaranteed To Teach "

Comments from the field on TECusage and individual or unit performance are welcomed. Addressyour questions or comments toCommander U.S. Army TrainingSupport Center, ATTN: ATTSCTP-ATECP-TECSPT, Fort Eustis,VA 23604. The point of contact isMAJ Bullock, AV 927-2141/3728.



17/52

JU Parachutes of the 82nd Airborne Division photo here and below)billow out like mushrooms after the Airborne Soldiers exited a CH 54Skycrane over Normandy Drop Zone at Ft Bragg, NC

c

MpIfromth NG

Story and Photos bySP5 Charles DrakePublic Information Office

ort Eustis V

ET HEY ARE BIG, powerful and ugly, but accord-ing to people who crew the monsters they cando just about anything from the sky. The monstersare better known as the CH-54 Skycranes from the355th Transportation Company (Heavy Helicopter)based at Ft. Eustis, VA .

The Skycranes are the only Army heavy lift helicopters on the Eastern Seaboard, and that meansthey are usually asked to do a lot of the heavy workthat ground Cranes and CH-47 Chinooks can t do.Being rare means the CH-54s attract a lot of atten-tion wherever they fly A week in the field at Ft.Bragg, NC proved that point once again. The Craneslanded unannounced on 29 March , in the middle ofan infantry tactical operation. On 31 March about450 airborne jumpers recorded jumps from the backdoor of the Crane s people pods , while 200 specta-tors watched.

The jump was part of a field training mission forthe Crane pilots assigned to the 355th TransportationCompany Heavy Helicopter) from Ft Eustis, VA


18/52

Soldiers from the 82nd Airborne Division load intoa people pod carried by a CH-54 Skycrane at Ft.

Our main goal was to get different types ofmissions, which we will be required to perform n atactical environment, said Major Emitt Wallace,355th commander. Fort Eustis doesn't have any artillery pieces and the marine engineer equipment atFort Eustis' Third Port s not what we should be lifting, because some of it s delicate and not designedfor sling loading.As an additional requirement, we accepted themission of flying for 82nd Airborne Division jumpers.Major Wallace continued, We have never flownjumpers, and the airborne division has never jumpedfrom the Cranes, although the concept has beentested.Additionally the U.S. Army Aeromedical ResearchLaboratory, located at Ft. Rucker, AL sent a team totest the toxic gas levels inside the people pods, whenflying with doors open.

Major General Roscoe Robinson , 82nd AirborneDivision commander, turned out to inspect the Skycrane jump, then took his turn at jumping from thetail of the pod, said Major Wallace.

Chief Warrant Officer James Ross, 355th air mis-

Bragg , NC

sion commander, said, Flying was the easy part;rigging the pods with static lines and safety clampswas probably the most important for us. We followedguidelines outlined n an 82nd Airborne Division circular. Most of the work was done by flight andmaintenance platoons.

When pilots land, they have mission briefings andflight plans to file, said Sergeant Jerry Gravile, acrewchief . Enlisted crews stay with the bird, to pullmaintenance, refuel, put on or take off people podsor other equipment.

We were putting the pods on as late as 1100 hoursthe night before the mission, said Staff SergeantJaun Bosquez, flight engineer for Crane number 468.Most of the flying time during the first few days ofthe field operation was done by 468, while a secondCrane sat helpless on the sandy airstrip waiting foranother engine from Ft. Eustis. The turbine enginehad been damaged by a foreign object passing throughthe intake blades.

Changing the engine n the field was the first timen a long time that it had been done by the 355th,said SP4 John Ramsey, a senior mechanic. SP4 Ramsey was one of a half dozen mechanics swarming

over the Crane trying to get the engine changed andthe bird back into the air.

From start to finish t took about 8 hours tochange and make adjustments to ensure it was running right, said SP4 Ramsey. 'Workhorse n theSky' might be painted on the front of all the Skycranesbelonging to the 355th, but t s the ground crew whowork like horses to keep them flying, he said.

SP4 John Ramsey, a senior mechanic for the 355th Transportation Company Heavy Lift , leansover a turbine engine of a CH-54 Skycrane to tighten some retaining bolts, while SP4 DeWittTuttle lends a hand


19/52

Captain Kenneth O oleyrmy National Guard Aviation Division

Fort Rucker LPREMOBILIZATION readiness is-sues a challenge for well designed,meaningful, cost effective training.The National Guard Bureau Aviation Division's Multi-Media Programis accepting this challenge by managing an audiovisual program dedicated to supporting both the ArmyNational Guard (ARNG) Aviationand Safety Programs. This missionentails a charter to develop and distribute audiovisual packages thatincorporate the latest instructionalmethods and techniques availablein the Department of Defense (DOD)structure. The program is directedat supplementing the aviation andsafety training effort throughout the50 states, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands and the District of Columbia.During 1972 National Guard Bureau representatives laid the groundwork for the formation of an ArmyNational Guard Media Group tobe located at Ft. Rucker, AL. On24 August 1973, an Intraservice Support Agreement was signed givingthe ARNG Aviation Division MultiMedia Group official sanction atFort Rucker. In addition to providing physical support arrangements,the agreement allows the group towork directly with Fort Ruckeragencies in preparing instructionalmaterials. The group is under theoperational control of the Chief,Army Aviation Division, NationalGuard Bureau.Staffing is provided in the formof a manager, training specialist,safety specialist, media specialist,illustrator and administrative spe-

OCTOBER 1978

cialist. The six individuals, all Na- several audiovisual lesson packagestional Guard technicians, provide in support of current ARNG trainthe needed technical knowledge ing programs using these various in-and skills to acquire and produce structional formats.audiovisual materials. For example, aviators can now

The heart of the Multi-Media practice proper air traffic controlProgram has been the establishment communication procedures by lis-of a close-knit network of training tening to the cassettes in conjunctechnicians and safety specialists tion with handout materials. An exthat work with the media program tension of the cassette lesson is thewithin the States. To support this sound slide format of presentation.network , more than 500 different This format uses 35 millimeter slidesinstructional presentations pertain- coordinated with the cassettes toing to aviation and safety are stock- cover lesson material. U-8 Seminoleed. Users are able to order individual training in the ARNG has been enpresentations to suit local training hanced by the development of arequirements by a reprograming, sound slide program that covers allredistribution system managed by the aircraft s major systems. Thethe Multi-Media Group. Emphasis program has been made availablehas been placed on self-paced, in- to states with U-8 assets. In additiondividualized instruction that is used to U-8 training, an exportable infor proficiency oriented training. strument flying refresher package

To support this network more consisting of 14 lessons has beenthan 80 standardized Mini-Learn- mailed to the field. To improve ening Centers physically were incor- listed crewmember proficiency, nuporated into the ARNG aviation merous sound slide lessons on thefacility structure. These small learn- various maintenance requirementsing centers have been provided the of ARNG aircraft have been exportnecessary tables of distribution and ed and are in use.allowances (TDA) audiovisual equip- The use of television in the trainment to operate, with each learning ing environment adds the importantcenter having a complete sound feature of motion to instruction.slide and closed circuit television Motion enhances the learning procapability. All adopted equipment cess by allowing complicated andmeets Department of the Army technical procedures to be perform(DA) audiovisual standards. ed in their entirety, thus reducingLesson material is available in lengthy and complex explanations.one of three formats: audio-cassette, Special television ground schoolssound slide or television-cassette. have been made available that satuThe material is updated continually rate certain subject areas. Theseto provide the ARNG crewmember complet e audiovisual programs cothe latest in training doctrine and ver the various ARNG aircraft, aeritechnique. The group has produced al weapon systems and safety aware-Innovation by the media group in audiovisual aids s evidenced in the r t w o ~ kdeveloped Photographs by SSG Jules Hobble


20/52


21/52

The group has the capacity to mass reproduce the instructional materials toensure the needed quantity s available for the fieldbattery and tailrotor have beenexamined. The intent of the totalprogram is that these short presentations will be incorporated into thepilot's briefing before flight.

With an eye to the immediate u-ture, Multi-Media is gearing up tosupport the Aviation Requirementsfor the Combat Structure of theArmy (ARCS A III) reorganization 'and implementation within ARNGaviation. Emphasis is to be placed

on ARNG attack helicopter companies and the AH-l S Cobra aircraft. Night tactical training and incorporation of the new DA directed .aircrew training manuals event-oriented program ,are t r g ~ t e d forspecial attention. ' ,An abundance of guidance in-formation and instructional materialhas been released by the MultiMedia Group in support of ArmyNational Guard aviation programs.

Constant liaison is maintained withthe field to ensure that the mediaprogram is responsive, up-to-dateand effective. The overall goal ofproviding National Guard personnelthe latest innovations in the instructional process, coupled with qualityinstructional material to meet thetraining needs of individual readiness and professionalism, is a challenge the Multi-Media Program hasbeen meeting. '

aster audio recordings are possible with the equipment and technical skills available


22/52

DCORNERen Officer Pe lonnel manasemenlSy temECo

20

PersonnelUpdateMajor Jacob B Couch JrAviation Management Branch

Officer Personnel Management DirectorateU S rmy Military Personnel Center

Army Engineering Test Pilot ProgramA Department of the Army Selection Board adjourned on 9 August 1978 afterselecting 10 new members to participate in the Army Engineering Test Pilot Program. Individuals were selected on a best qualified basis. The number selectedwas based on Army requirements.As the selectees are brought into the program they will attend the Naval TestPilot School at Patuxent River, MD followed by a utilization tour within the Armyresearch and development field.Congratulations are extended to the following:MAJ Frederick W Dickens CW3 Loran A HaworthCPT(P) David 1 Anderson CW2 Emil A. CironeCPT Ralph Buie CW2 Ronald M. DalbyCPT Randall G. Oliver CW2 William B MorrisCPT Edward J Tavares CW2 Patrick SullivanAviation Career Incentive ct

Department of the Army Circula r Number 600-13, Aviation Career IncentiveAct Data, dated 15 August 1978 is being distributed. The new circular reflects datathat is maintained on the Officer Master File and is current through 31 May 1978.Questions concerning the circular should be directed to Commander, MILPERCEN,ATTN: DAPC-OPP-V, 200 Stovall Street, Alexandria, VA 22332.Aviation Training

There has been a marked increase in the number of aviators arriving at Ft.Rucker, AL for Graduate Flight Training Courses who lack course prerequisites asoutlined in Department of the Army Pamphlet 351-4, U . ~ . Army Formal SchoolsCatalog.Incidents of this nature cause difficult problems for both the student and thefaculty. Experience has shown that many of these students are generally marginaland must receive additional training or end up being eliminated from the course.The acts associated with these cases require that actions be taken to precludestudents from arriving at Ft. Rucker without appropriate prerequisites. It is theresponsibility of both the individual and his/her commander to ensure that prerequisites are met. Waivers for very exceptional cases may be granted on a caseby case basis. .

U.S. ARMY AVIATION DIGEST


23/52

Major Brennan is the Aircrew Training Manual ProgramManager at the U S rmy viation Centerircrew Training anualsEverything You Always Wanted o Know But Were Afraid o Ask

QUESTIONS, QUESTIONS, amI getting a lot of valid, interesting questions Since the new aircrew training manuals (ATMs) areeffective this month, let me list themost common questions I am receiving and the answers. This byno stretch of the imagination ismeant to be a panacea for all ofthe implementation questions, buta short course on the most frequentqueries.If I fly a rotary or fixed) wingaircraft in a flying activity categoryFA C) 1 position, but also am re-quired to fly the alternate category,must I also fly that s a F C I?

Some units may require, due totheir table of organization and equipment (TOE) aircraft and personnelstatus, certain members to maintainproficiency in two categories of aircraft. Paragraph Id of all ATMsstates that pilots required to fly bothfixed and rotary wing aircraft willhave a primary aircraft in both categories and fly, as a minimum, theF C 2 task list and hours from bothATMs for these aircraft. For example, an aviator currently is occupyng a FAC 1 position in anassault helicopter company flyingthe UH-l. He is stationed at CampSwampy which has a U-21 Ute , anaircraft he is an SIP in and has beentasked to fly. His requirementswould be a minimum of 96 hoursin the UH-l and the associated FAC1 tasks called for by his unit's mission. In the U-21 he would be required to fly, as a minimum, 48hours annually and the FAC 2 tasklists.OCTOBER 1978

Major Paul V. BrennanExecutive OfficerDirectorate of Training DevelopmentsUS rmy Aviation Center

What are the requirements hoursand iterations) for aviators in re-fresher or mission training?The requirements for both re

fresher and mission training aredriven by the proficiency level ofthe aviator involved. The tasks,iterations and hours called for inchapter 5 of all ATMs only becomeeffective afte r an aviator has completed either qualification or refresher training and mission training and is placed in continuationtraining.

How long can an aviator remainin mission training?This question has so many vari

ables, it is extremely sticky to answer. Common sense dictates thesooner you get a person into continuation training, the sooner thatperson can be counted for aviatorstatus reporting. Conversely, available aircraft, instructors and training areas may lengthen this time.In all cases, an untrained aviator isa deficit to the unit's ability to perform its combat mission; therefore,the sooner aviators are placed intocontinuation training, the strongerthe unit becomes.

What happens if I don completemy semiannual flight hour require-ments, but do complete my tasklist?This should not happen, since theiterations of each task and the num

ber of tasks were predicated on thenumber of hours required, but . . .under paragraph 5-4 of all ATMs,commanders have been given the

latitude to reduce only F AC 1 flighthour requirements by up to 15 percent for experienced aviators. Iteration requirements for the tasks maynot be reduced in any case.fter excluding the optional tasksthat my unit does not fly, must weperform LL the remaining tasks?No, no, a thousand times NO We

do not expect units to perform tasksthat are not dictated by the unit'smission statement. Aviator status reporting as explained in chapter 5 ofTC 1-134, "The Commander 'sGuide," informs commanders thatas a minimum aviators must complete 80 percent of the FAC 1 tasklist minus any optional tasks notflown by the unit. This does notapply to the FAC 2 task list. All aviators must complete the entire FAC2 task list. There can be no deviation from the FAC 2 list.

Since n asterisk by a task re-quires instructor pilots to test an-nually, must instrument tasks betested on the standardization flightevaluation?No instrument tasks markedwith an asterisk should only be test

ed on the annual instrument renewal.I hope til\ above will assist in solving your problems in implementingthe second generation ATMs. Thefinal copies of the ATMs will beproduced in fiscal year 1979 andshould be in your hands in the tatterpart of 1980. If more questions needanswers, please write: CDR USAAVNC, ATTN: ATZQ-TD-TL , Ft.Rucker, AL 36362; or call AUTOVON 558-4619.

21


24/52

Vi WSFRomRE DERS

Editor:The articles on the Geneva Conventions and aeromedical evacuation whichappeared in the April through July 1978issues of the nny viation Digest werevery informative. They did not , however, address the most important issueinvolved. That is: If the U.S. implements the provisions of the new Genevaprotocol as written, it will destroy theeffectiveness of the battlefield aeromedical evacuation system for the U.S. Army.In order to .comply with the provisions of the protocol , it will be necessary to remove all machine (FM securevoice equipment) and nonmachine(CEOI) crypto systems from all aeromedical evacuation helicopters that aremarked with a red cross. That meansthat an air ambulance will not be ableto communicate with anyone exceptin the clear- no encoded messages (except international codes) are authorizedby the protocol. To accomplish anevacuation mission under these circumstances, much information of intelligence value to the enemy would bebroadcast in the clear (e.g . unit callsigns, frequencies, and locations; quantities and types of injured Soldiers, etc. ).An enemy listening in to air evacuationmissions would be able to pinpoint inthe division area the location of everymaneuver battalion CP, brigade trainsarea and other key locations. The results are obvious. f U.S. forces wereto comply with the provisions of theprotocol which require notifying theenemy before a mission is flown in forward areas of the time, destination androute of flight, the enemy would noteven need to listen in on our missions ,we would be giving them the information directly.

Under the provisions of the currentGeneva Conventions, the tactical commander may make the decision to display the red cross or to camouflage hismedical assets. If camouflage is chosen,

the only thing given up is the protection afforded by recognition of the redcross emblem . If captured, medicalassets would still be provided certainprotection under the Conventions. Atworst instead of being considered retained personnel , medical personnelwould be considered prisoners of war.Under the provisions of the new protocol, however, this is not the case. Ifan ae romedical evacuation aircraftmarked with a red cross with eithermachine or non machine crypto systemsonboard were to be captured, the crewwould be considered war criminals andnot prisoners of war.I f the protocol is approved, the onlyacceptable alternative to this problemfor the tactical commander in combatis to decide to remove the red crossfrom aeromedical evacuation helicopters and to place machine and nonmachine crypto systems onboard sothat missions can be completed effectively. This of course would eliminatewhatever protection is now affordedaeromedical evacuation by the visualrecognition of the red cross. Anotherproblem with this solution is that theU.S. will have to wait until after thenext conflict starts to make that decision. It is unlikely that the U.S. wouldallow units in peacetime to practice anart which in wartime is a crime.

The only real solution to this problem is for the U.S. to adopt the protocolwith reservations which would permitthe use of onboard machine and nonmachine crypto systems by air ambulances displaying the red cross withoutloss of the crew 's protected status.

Editor:

LTC Richard 1. BerchinAcademy of Health SciencesFt. Sam Houston, TX 78234

I was just sitting around amusing my-self by burning the hairy fringes off mytrusty Nomex when the July viation

Digest arrived . After checking outPEARL, I accidently flipped over toMajor Peterlin's Offensive Attack Helicopter Operations monthly winnerarticle.

Here was an article I would havewritten were I sufficiently articulaterather than simply being the aging maddog I've become. Major Peterlin's article is the most positive, straight-forwarddiscourse I have read on this subject. Iheartily endorse his philosophy andhope that his recommendation that westart to think, train and develop equipment for offensive attack helicopteroperations is followed.A few thoughts of my own for guyswho are looking to the future: Attack helicopters, like artillery,should never be held in reserve. Attack helicopters are offensiveweapons- not defensive weapons.

Attack helicopters are the mostresponsive weapons available acorrimander. Attack helicopters need two crewsa day crew and a night crew-so theywill not be lost because of crew fatigue. Logistic support bright guys needto massage the formula:

argets to be servicedttack hel available x weapons x expenditures

ammunition missiles required at the scene Thinking should reflect the properpriority for servicing targets. Kill the

ZSU-23-4 first, then leisurely pick offthe tanks. Modify the old tank sweep operation to attack helicopter sweep soherds of attack birds can eat up a tankregiment stripped of its ZSU-23-4s. The affordability of attack helicopters is an academic debate. The bottomline is simply that destruction of enemyarmor forces is the key to victory whatever the cost in attack helicopters.Friendly armor held in reserve until allfriendly attack helicopters are expended



25/52

can then make night attacks illuminatedby burning attack helicopters nd burning enemy armor. f the aviators do theirjobs the way they should, there will notbe a great deal left for the tankers to do.Peace is hell

Editor:

LTC William W FrakerTRADOC Flight DetachmentFt. Monroe, VA 23651

A kudos to CW3 Rensvold for hisarticle Airline Pilots and Gunslingers"[See June 1978 Aviation Digest.]However, as a major from Fort Knox,I take some exception to the 'Roots' ofthe Gunslinger. All in all he is right ontarget in describing the two ludicrousextremes in the question of instrumentproficiency. In the humorous , but sadlyreal, characterizations of the extremeshe begs for a middle ground solution.

Part of the problem as I see it is anattempt to have one size fit all." Thisis the easy, simple, but wrong approach.For the pilot whose duties require himto operate daily in the FAA environment, as much instrument training aspossible may be just enough to do hismission. At the other end of the spectrum, those pilots who operate theirmobile antiarmor missile platforms donot require the same amount of instrument expertise or training to adequatelydo their combat mission. Let me emphasize, however, that he should becapable of getting himself and his platform out of the clouds safely and with-

out undue laundry demands.I witnessed an attack helicopter teamdepart a holding area in northern Germany which had, in a very short time,been fogged in. The team departedthe area without any difficulty becausethey: (a) knew exactly where they wereand where they could go (could read1:50,000 maps); and (b) all pilots werehighly proficient in instrument (realIMC-not pretend) flight (unit had outstanding tactical oriented IFEs, a rarebreed of cat). I feel this example showsa sensible balance can be reached between two skills (lLS and Killing) whichmany feel are contradictory. Maybe anego trip?Anyway, we tailor our units, ourequipment, our TOEs to fit the combat mission of the specific unit, whynot tailor the instrument requirementsto support the combat mission and nothinder it? Thanks, CW3 Rensvold, weneeded that

Editor:

MAJ William V ChiaramonteFt. Knox, KY 40121

I would like to heartily endorse thearticle "Think About The Unthinkable,"in August's Aviation Digest especiallythe comments on the Army's nonexistent survival training.One solution (makeshift though it

may be) is to take advantage of theAir Force's expertise in this area. Bysending representatives from aviationunits to their survival school. the units

can develop a local expert. He, inturn, can establish a local survival training program to pass on the materialthat he learned.

The 227th Aviation Battalion, 1st Cavalry Division, began this program byidentifying one individual per companyfor an additional duty as a "survivalexpert." Quotas were then obtained forthese individuals to attend the AirForce Survival School at FairchildAFB, WA.Until the Army develops its own serious survival training, this method .offersa way to get a limited amount of expertise down to the unit level.

Frame J Bowers IIIU.S. Army Aviation EngineeringFlight ActivityEdwards AFB, CA 93523Editor:I am doing a great deal of researchinto the raid on the Son Tay POW compound during the Vietnam conflict.In connection with this, I was wondering if yourself, or any of your readers could provide me with any information concerning the operation. Information as to how I may be able toreach anyone who took part in the operation in any way, or was a Son TayPOW, would be especially helpful.

Thank you very much for your timeand consideration of this matter.

Cadet Robert C. Morris Jr.Box 713Virginia Military InstituteLexington, VA 24450

EURO/NATO Symposium t RuckerDURING THE period 13 to 17 November theU.S. Army Aviation Center Ft. Rucker AL willhost the fourth EURO NATO Symposium. TheEURO NATO Training Group meets semiannually and is composed of representatives fromDenmark Germany Netherlands Norway andthe United States. Observers from the followingcountries have been invited to attend: BelgiumCanada Greece Italy Portugal Turkey and theUnited Kingdom.The EURO NATO Training Group has evolvedfrom EURO/Tng which was established in 1970.The aims of EURO NATO Tng are: To improve and expand existing and as ap-OCTOBER 1978

propriate initiate new bilateral and multilateraltraining arrangements. To develop these arrangements to a pointwhere one nation might assume responsibilityfor training in specific areas on behalf of all orsome of the partners.In 1976 The Aviation Center started trainingstudents from the member nations. At presentthere are 10 instructor pilots from Germany 1from Holland and 1 from Denmark p.ermanentlyassigned to Ft. Rucker. During fiscal year 1979about 98 EURO NATO students will be trainedas initial entry helicopter pilots.

23


26/52

EVERYONE KNOWS that the U.S. Army is preparing to ight outnumbered. The warning oftactical planners, senior officers and political analysts ,"we must be prepared to fight outnumbered-andwin, reverberates in the halls of Army trainingschools. It is heard at the close-in training areas andin the commanders' spirited admonition as their tankcrews ready for tank crew qualification course(TCQC). Everyone knows we must w n outnumbered.We have to make the most of what we have . Wemust use our weapons to maximum effectiveness.

The Army programs for fielding advanced sy stems(AAH, XM-l, PATRIOT, etc) are in response to theneed to field the best possible equipment. The Army'snumber one aviation program is the AH-64 advancedattack helicopter. This aerial tank killer has beendesigned to survive on the battlefield through itsincorporated ballistic toughness, the optimization ofweapons lethality and fire control integration andapplication of sound battlefield tactics. Additionally,the reliability and maintainability features of theAH-64 will result in a considerably higher availabilityfor combat missions than exists in today's helicopters.A hard question resulting from analysis of theforegoing is whether the present system of providingone crewmember per cockpit space on tables oforganization will get the job done in AH-64 units. Ialong with many others, contend that it will be necessary to allot additional crewmembers per aircraftin order to reach maximum effectiveness with theAH-64. It is time that we, involved in aviation systemmanagement, get on with the business of substantiating a program of higher aircrew ratios within theArmy, DOD and Congress.

The Army always has organized aviation unitsbased on one pilot/one seat. This has been true evenin view of nighttime requirements There will beresistance within the Army to change this. The question then is how to show why we need additionalpilots in ur AH-64 units? Air Force fighter squadronsaircrew ratios range to two or more pilots per cockpit seat. How does the Air Force justify this'?An Air' Force computer simulation model calledLCOM (Logistics Composite Model) has been in usefor several years to provide a scientific and systematic approach to the analysis of maintenance manpowerrequirements. LCOM has further been used effectively to determine the number of aircrews requiredto fly the programed wartime sortie rates. By takinginto account the reliability and maintainability factors of the aircraft, as well as projected attrition ratesand crew rest policies, studies have been conductedshowing total aircrew requirements by weapons system in a wartime deployment environment.

The Air Force found that traditional methods ofdetermining maintenance manning and aircrew ratios

24

ight OUNot Ou

LTC ttackHe

Fo

did not always result in realistic requirements. Thespecially was true for tactical weapons systems. AForce maintenance manpower requirements historcally had been based on reported maintenance manhours per flying hour data. Data normally was colected from relatively constant peacetime operationand was unsuitable to use in determining wartimrequirements which incorporated different flyinprograms. For emerging systems, the Air Force anArmy determine initial manning based on estimateoften prepared by a contractor. These estimates callethe Qualitative and Quantitative Personnel Requirements Information (QQPRI), often are based on asumptions which are inconsistent with the mannerwhich aircraft ultimately are used. Both methods fato address, among other things, impacts caused bdifferent organization sizes, spare parts levels andifferent mobility and flying rates. The Air Forcdecided to use a new approach to establish accuramaintenance and aircrew manpower requirementThe Army is using the old methods.

The Air Force considered several new approachethe one selected was computer simulation. The formost consideration upon deciding to determine aicraft maintenance manpower requirements by computer simulation is the selection of a simulation mode

HRMS

DARCOMDODLCOMPATRIOTQQPRITCQCXM-l

advanced attack heliAircraft Reliability aArmy Materiel ReadiDepartment of DefenLogistics Compositesurface-to-air missileQualitative and Quantank crew qualificatnew main battle tank



27/52


28/52


29/52

ask yourself these questions. Canyou, in fact, preflight properly? Doyou know the name and functionof the components and systems youlook at? f not, you may be overlooking potential accident/ incidentcauses or, at a minimum, a causefor needless mission abort.

you take the top and I'll takethe bottom

Farfetched? Not at all. Considerthe following example: An OH-6Cayuse pilot with minimum UH-IHuey experience, but with a substantial maintenance background ,was assigned a mission in a UH-l.During preflight the short shaft andfreewheeling unit assembly wasmalfunctioning and the pilot refusedto fly the aircraft - a decision whichwas unpopular since there was nota replacement aircraft. After muchdiscussion, another pilot determinedthe aircraft was flyable, acceptedit flew it and crashed it. Results?Three fatalities, total loss of theaircraft and mission not accomplished. The Accident InvestigationBoard subsequently determined themajor cause factor of this accidentto be short shaft f a i l ~ r e Thoughthe checklist was used during preflight, the aviator apparently lacked

adequate knowledge of this critical component 's function and, forthat reason, made a fatal decision.Lesson learned? You bet. The crewmember's CL is only a memoryjogger, and to properly use it theaviator must know the aircraft's systems and component functions.And Don't Forget

When a flight is completed - andhome, happy hour or both beckon

Conduct fArmy Aviation

Standardization Visits

you-don't forget to postflight bythe checklist You may preventneedless maintenance down timeor injury to pride and ego shouldsome fault be discovered on youraircraft after you have departedthe flight line.In closing, I say, let's all be professionals and help checkmate avi-ation accidents through proper useof the checklist

u s RMY

VI TIONST ND RDIZ TION

HE ARMY AVIATION Standardization Programis an important part of the daily activities ofyour installation: Commanders ensure the objectivesof the program are accomplished ; aviation standardization boards (major Army commands, subordinate commands, installation and battalion) superviseand coordinate their commands' implementation ofthe program; aviation standardization officers execute staff responsibilities for the program; and instructor pilots, standardization instructor pilots (SIP) andinstrument flight examiners (lFE) actively conduct

flight trammg and evaluations of pilots, IPs, SIPsand IFEs.

OCTOBER 1978

There is one other important Army element thatfrequently supports the Aviation StandardizationProgram at your installation. It is the Department ofthe Army (DA) avia tion standardization team. Somewill argue on the contrary that the team that visitsyour installation represents the U.S. Army AviationCenter (USAAVNC), at Ft. Rucker, AL and in asense, they are correct since the teammembers areassigned to USAAVNC. However, let's see how Ft.

27


30/52

Rucker is involved in the worldwide aviation standardization mission and what an installation can expect when the DA aviation standardization teamconducts an aviation standardization evaluation orassistance visit.

DA has designated the commander of USAAVNCas proponent agent for U.S. Army aviation standard-ization. As such, one of his responsibilities is to conduct, in coordination with major Army commands(MACOMs), an active assistance and evaluation program for aviation training, to include assessing thestandardization and proficiency of aviators, IPs, SIPsand aircrews throughout the U.S. Army. Standardization encompasses aviator cockpit performance , aircrew teamwork, tactics, uniform pu blications, maintenance and safety.Now, how does the commander of USAAVNCaccomplish his aviation standardization mission? Hehas, as part of his staff, the Directorate of Evaluationand Standardization (DES) to which he has designatedresponsibility for the technical accomplishment ofthe Army Aviation Standardization Program. DES isresponsible for writing AR 95-1 and is the user'sfocal point for input to the Aircraft Operators Manual -10) and aircraft - CLs.DES augments MACOMs with aviation standard-ization evaluation teams during the conduct of theirassessment surveys (usually referred to as aviationresource management surveyor ARMS) of the commands' aviation resources. DES also conducts independent evaluations of overseas commands and provides assistance when requested by MACOMs.

The schedule for visits by the DA aviation standardization teams is coordinated at an annual squaring conference with representatives from MACOMs;DA Deputy Chief of Staff, Operations (DCSOPS);Office of the Chief, Army Reserve (OCAR); NationalGuard Bureau (NGB); the numbered armies in theContinental United States (CONUSAs); and U.S.Army Communications Command (USACC) in attendance. In April 1978 the representatives met andcoordinated the fiscal year 79 schedule of visits. Purpose is to combine the aviation standard ization evaluation schedule with the MACOM's and CONUSA'sschedules to reduce the number of visits to installations.

At this point, we wish to clear the air on a commonmisconception that the DES aviation standardizationteams that augment the MACOM survey teams arerepresenting Fort Rucker. As previously stated, theDES teams represent the Department of the Armyby virture of the proponent agency designation.

When augmenting MACOMs DES teammembersclosely coordinate with the experienced and established MACOM teammembers who possess expertisein all areas of aviation operations. Upon arrival at aunit or installation the MACOM team chief will in-

28

brief the commander or a designated representativeon the scope of the evaluation. The role of DES is toconduct flight evaluations, examine overall operationof the flight simulator when available, review individual flight record folders (IFRF) and unit aircrewtraining programs. Activities of the aviation standardization board also are checked. DES also monitors the MACOM 's conduct of the evaluation.What can the aviator expect when selected to takea standardization evaluation flight with a DES SIP?Initially, the DES SIP will review your IFRF andindividual aircrew training folder (lATF) to obtainhistorical information about your past training. TheDES SIP reviews those records to determine whenyour last standardization evaluation or training flightwas conducted and , in general, looks at the trainingand flight time you have accrued over the past several months.

The lead-in reference in chapter 6 AR 95-1, is theframework in which flight evaluation is executed.These flights are spot check evaluations and do notconstitute an annual standardization flight. Flightsare conducted with the SIP at one of the controls orin the backseat when it is necessary to observe crewteamwork , cockpit coordination and IP performance.One-on-one evaluations look at hands-on aviatorproficiency. f you belong to a tactical unit, in addition to the skills required in normal and emergencymaneuvers, expect to be evaluated on terrain flight,flight planning, knowledge and execution of the vertical helicopter recovery procedures, gunnery techniques, and tactical instrument procedures.

Everyone knows that when annual aviator proficiency and readiness test (APARRT) time comesalong, aviators dig into the 1 and other publications to prepare for the flight evaluation. Unfortunately, that level of knowledge is not always sustained over the current year and some pilots getuptight when selected for a DES standardizationflight. Pilots are not expected to be center-line perfect. They are expected to be safe and possess theability to execute those maneuvers required by theircommander s training program. Total familiarity withprocedures that require immediate actions are expected of the aviators. An understanding of appro-priate publications and how to find the answers toquestions also is required.Aviators are selected for flight evaluations on arandom basis and the selection process includes thosein various assigned duty positions at the installationsuch as instructor pilots, line aviators and staff officers maintaining flight proficiency.

The flight evaluation is not just a check on pilots;it also provides insight into the effectiveness of unittraining programs and local aviator standardizationboards. The random sampling of aviators provides a



31/52

reasonable overview of the worth and impact of theinstallation's aviation standardization program.Flight records are reviewed to ensure evaluationssuch as standardization flights, instrument renewals,etc., are documented properly and other currencyand training requirements are being met. The reviewof aviation standardization board minutes identifiescommand interest as well as the board's activities inrequired programs such as assistance visits and random no-notice flight checks.

The evaluation terminates at an outbriefing forthe installation commander, subordinate commmanders and staff officers. The briefing covers all areasof the evaluation to include major items of interestnoted in the DES portion of the evaluation. The observations and recommendations presented are subsequently consolidated in the MACOM after-actionreport as team findings to be acted upon by theMACOM commander. DES renders an annual report to DA DCSOPS covering each MACOM'sactivities.

On some occasions in the past Worldwide Standardization had acquired a lack Hal syndrome.

This resulted in a negative reaction in the field andwas not totally undeserved. Today, the mission, asperceived by the Director of Evaluation and Standardization, is a positive tasking. Evaluating and fly-ing with aviation units in the field should provide arealistic view of aviator performance as an operational pilot in his particular environment. DES SIPsdo not conduct Fort Rucker Stage Field checksduring the visits but rather orient their flight evaluation to local conditions.It should be obvious to the readers that DES aviation standardization teams spend a great deal of timeon the road. Each trip and team is tailored to meetthe needs of the installation visited. Every attempt ismade to ensure that a thorough evaluation is performed (within the co nstraints of time and the sizeof the aviation standardization teams).

The thrust of aviation standardization is readinessTherefore, commanders who have aviation assets asa part of their resources are thus afforded the management tools to assess the effectiveness of theiraviation training programs and its interface with theArmy's Aviation Standardization Program.

I

Bell XV 1SBELL'S XV-iS aircraft no. 2, the tilt rotor research aircraftdesignated t make the inflight conversion to the airplanemode later this year, has commenced ground run tests .The second XV-IS's first hover flight is scheduled for thismonth. The full conversion from helicopter to airplanemode is slated to be demonstrated before the end ofthe year.

---

The XV - IS aircraft no. 1 recently comp leted successfulwind tunnel tests at the Ames Research Center. MoffettField, CA . Bell is working under a contract with NationalAeronautics and Space Administration and the U.S. ArmyResearch and Technology Laboratories (AVRADCOM) todesign. manufacture and test two vertical takeoff andlanding (VTOL) aircraft.


32/52


33/52

-

MR URBAN: Around 500 knots maximum.PT NOWLIN: Did they have ejection seats?MR URBAN: They had the old-type ejection seats

and the harness. Some of the aircraft at that time hadexplosive-type seat belts that were time-charged toblow the seatbelt after ejection and free the pilot ofthe seat. But many of the training aircraft were notequipped with these. The one I was flying that nightwas not.

When we returned to the flight line after eating, itwas 8 o clock. We checked the aircraft, filed a flightplan, and took off. About 800 feet after takeoff, theengine failed.CPT NOWLIN: What was your airspeed?MR URBAN: Roughly 200 knots. Things were happening fairly fast and I really didn t notice the speed.When the engine quit we were over a trailer park thatwas built off the end of the runway. Further up fromthe trailer park was the town of Selma_ Normally wetook off and made a left turn in the traffic to avoideverything as far as the city was concerned. We wereright over the center of the trailer park and I knewthere was no way we could drop our fueled tip tanks.About all I could do was take over the aircraft. I toldthe student I was going to make a l80-degree turn,because continuing ahead would have put us rightover Selma. I put the aircraft back down on the runway, landing downwind. I was telling the student thathe could get unstrapped from his harness if he wantedto, but that if we went off the far end of the runway hecould end up being fairly well battered, especially ifwe stopped quite suddenly.

OCTOBER 978

D I ~U S V S

CPT NOWLIN: You mean you had enough airspeedto do a 180-degree turn back to the runway?MR URBAN: Yes. I called the tower and let themknow we had a flameout and we tried one air start.Later we found out that had we tried another air start,because of the nature of the problem, we would haveprobably blown up.PT NOWLIN: What happened next?MR URBAN: I touched the aircraft down somewhatlong and the student panicked. We were porpoisingdown the runway and the student was trying to control

the aircraft. I was not only trying to land , but I had tofight the student off the controls at the same time. Wemust instill into our students and pilots. who is incharge of the aircraft at all times.

I then realized that it was not theglove I was tearing off, but my skin.We had a full fuel load, but if we had been able to

drop our tip tanks, the problem would not have beenas bad. With 813 gallons of jet fuel on board and wingtips flopping up and down with full tip tanks, thingsbecame a bit hairy. This was certainly not a normalsituation for the student.CPT NOWLIN: An excellent point and one that everyaviator must have settled before takeoff is who willcontrol the aircraft in an emergency. The last thingyou need is to compound your problems by having tofight for the controls plus try to deal with the emer-

Mr. Jerry Urban (left)and CPT Charles Now-lin discuss their ther-mal injuries sustainedin aircraft ccidentsand the importance ofproperly wearing lifesupport equipment

3


34/52


35/52

Photos left and above show severity of burns toshoulder and neck of Mr. Urban. Photo belowshows third-degree burns to CPT Nowlin s neck.The neck injuries would not have been so severei these aviators had been flying with their collars up.

craft, I finally got out and jumped off the wing, landing pretty much outside the ring of fire. By that timethe parachute was burning on my back and I got it offwithout unbuckling it. To this day, I still don't knowhow I did that. The investigation team asked me if Ihad bothered to rebuckle my parachute after I hadtaken it off. I told them I could not unbuckle it, muchless rebuckle itCPT NOWLIN: What was your student doing all thistime?MR URBAN: He was standing outside the area offlames, of course, and had tried to come back severaltimes. The fire unit had arrived but could not get to usbecause of the large ditch. The firefighters sat watching the aircraft burn on one side of the ditch and wewere on the other side waiting for some water.CPT NOWLIN: How far were the firefighters fromyou.MR URBAN: Maybe 75 to 100 feet away.CPT NOWLIN: All the help in the world and theycouldn't get to you because of the terrain. We are stillfaced with that problem today.MR URBAN: I don't remember them putting anywater on the aircraft. Of course I was going intoshock. They could have been pouring foam on every-

OCTOBER 978

thing for all I know. In the same manner, I don'tremember any burn sensation other than heat, butthat was also due to shock. The zippers were all thatwas left of my flight suit, so I was standing there prettymuch in the buck.CPT NOWLIN: Were you wearing a cotton T-shirtand underwear?MR URBAN: Definitely cotton Back then no onewas much into wearing synthetic underwear. So everything was cotton with me.CPT NOWLIN: How did you finally get to the hospital?MR URBAN: To get over to the ambulance was

33


36/52


37/52

MR. URBAN: That s true. Some of the numbness wasbeginning to wear off and I wasn 't feeling too well.CPT NOWLIN: What happened when you got to theemergency room?MR. URBAN: The comedy continued. The staff hadme laid out in the emergency room and I was askingfor something to kill the pain because I was definitelyhurting. But neither the nurses nor the medics couldgive me a shot of morphine without a doctor's orders.The doctor was not available because the flight linehad notified the hospital about the accident and assoon as the doctor heard about it, he went to the flightline around one side of the lake while we came aroundthe other side. He probably got to the flight line aboutthe time we got to the hospital. So I had to wait untilthe doctor figured out where we were and got back tothe hospital.PT NOWLIN: Again emphasizing the importance

of the preaccident planMR. URBAN: t would have saved a lot of time, plussome pain and frustration. The people in the emergency room were very upset. I was asking them wherethe doctor was and they were telling me he had goneto the flight line. This didn 't make me feel too securewhile lying there burned to a crisp.PT NOWLIN: Did the doctor finally arrive'?MR. URBAN: Yes. They sat me up on the operating

table because I was still fully conscious and startedtaking off the burned skin, more or less just peeling itoff. I was burned primarily on my hands and the backof my neck. At that time no one thought of putting acollar up. Of course, we had cotton flight suits, butstill it would have been an extra layer of protection.CPT NOWLIN: And 20 years later we still have toemphasize wearing collars up.MR. URBAN: Right. It's a shame so many peoplehave to learn the hard way. Another bad habit we hadwas to roll our sleeves up to the elbows when we flew.Fortunately for me, that night my sleeves were down.CPT NOWLIN: You were evacuated to Brooke ArmyHospital at Fort Sam Houston. How long were youthere?MR. URBAN: About 7 months. And I still had to goback for touchup work for months after that.PT NOWLIN: What was the extent of your burns?MR. URBAN: Coverage wise, 30 to 35 percent, deep

second- and third-degree and what they now callfourth I believe, where it actually destroys the bonemarrow. That is how I lost the middle finger on theright hand. The burn was so deep that they finally hadto amputate the finger. I had second-degree burns onmy knees because the flight suit was tight over myknees when I was sitting.Being a smoker, I carried a Zippo lighter in thatlittle pocket on the left sleeve of my flight suit. Whenthat thing got hot it started squirting out fuel and

OCTOBER 1978

burned my arm. The plastic lighters of today will alsomelt. People need to think about this before carryinglighters on themselves when they flyCPT NOWLIN: Was your scalp injured after youtook off your helmet?MR. URBAN: Yes, the hair was burned off. They saidthe ear loss was caused by the injuries plus the limitedcirculation which we have in our ears. In addition, Ihad some facial burns but they weren t nearly as badas they would have been had I not had my visor downand oxygen mask on . The visor, which will melt eventually, will protect your eyes from the initial flashburns. The oxygen mask melted, but that extra layerof protection was better than nothing.CPT NOWLIN: Were you medically retired afteryour hospitalization?MR. URBAN: Yes. I could have stayed in but itwould have been behind a desk. I would not havebeen able to fly because jet aircraft have a lot of verysmall switches which I could no longer control withmy hands. Many of the fingers were fused at thejoints, plus when the tendons shrink up, you end upwith a claw. So my fingers had to be pinned to keepthem from completely drawing down.CPT NOWLIN: What do you mean by pinned?MR. URBAN: When the tendons start drawing up, tosave the finger from completely pulling toward thepalm, the doctors run stainless steel pins through thejoints. After a period of time the joint will becomecompletely immobile and they take the pins out. Itsounds like a bad thing, but you are much better offhaving some use of your fingers rather than having aballed-up fist which you could not use.PT NOWLIN: You do have some use of your hands.Is that because of the pins?MR. URBAN: Certainly. And of course extensivephysical therapy.CPT NOWLIN: Thank you for sharing your story anda bit of aviation safety history with us. . . . .

POINTS TO REMEM ER To be effective life support equip-ment must be used correctly. The question of who is in charge ofthe aircraft in case of an emergencymust be answered before takeoff. Preaccident plans must be current andall individuals must know their jobsand understand the importance oftheir performance in the event of anaccident.

35


38/52

Late News Front r n ty viat ion ct ivi t iesFROM THE PENTAGON, OCTOBER 1978

dvanced Scout Helicopter ASH). The ASHprogram passed a major threshold in that the FY 79RDTE budget request for 5.5 million was recentlysupported by Congress. As a result HODA initiatedthe concept formulation effort with an implementingletter and cost and operational effectiveness analysis(COEA) study directive. TRADOC has established anASH Special Study Group (SSG) headed by BGJames H. Patterson, Deputy Commander,USAAVNC. DARCOM and a number of otheragencies are providing support for the study. COLIvar Rundgren has been named as the ProjectManager Designee. The Study Group will define theASH missions, functions and requirements, and thenconduct an analysis of the many alternative systemsto determine which provide the best balance of costand operational effectiveness. This study effort isslated for completion by August 1979. (ODCSOPS)

i:lviation Intensive Management Items AIM/)Prog;am. An important aspect of the Army's overallintensive management effort is the AIMI program.The AIMI program is a system for the intensivemanagement of aviation items which are determinedto be in critical status, either due to procurementvalue, cost of overhaul and/or criticality in source ofsupply. The objective of the AIMI program is to givespecial attention and management to this selectedgroup of aviation items. The basic authority forTSARCOM to establish this program is contained inAR 710-1. The program applies to aircraft component intensive management system (ACIMS) itemsplus those which are in critical short supply. Thelatter type are put on the AIMIlist at the discretion ofthe commodity manager or at the request of theAIMI customer. There are currently 78 AIMI items.(ODCSLOG) * * *ost Nation Support, Depot Level ircraftMaintenance. Host nation support in Europe hasproven to be a viable supplement to the Army's6

aircraft depot level maintenance program. Currenthost nation support is being provided for thefollowing aircraft systems: AH-10 to AH-1S Modernizatkm: HODA isproceeding with a Product Improvement Program(PIP) for 62 each AH-10 to AH-1S Cobra/TOWhelicopters to increase the capability of Europebased attack helicopters. A contract was awarded inApril 1978 to Dornier Aircraft Corporation inGermany. This agreement is the first of its kindbetween the Army and a Federal Republic ofGermany aircraft firm. Approximate transportationcost savings of 400K were attained by modifying theaircraft in Europe in lieu of sending them back tostateside contractors. The PIP will be completed inFebruary 1979. Safety-of-Flight, OH-58 Aircraft: As a result of aworldwide safety-of-flight problem on the OH-58'sT-63 engine, a host nation contract was let withMotorenund Turbine Union of Munchen, Germany.A total of 72 engines was modified (start date April78 and completion July 78 at an approximatetransportation cost savings of 80K. Authority hasnow been granted to have the remaining 280 T-63engines repaired by host nation support as a result ofthe cost savings and readiness implications of theinitial contract. Estimated completion date of thisadd-on contract in Germany is December 1979.(ODCSLOG) * *viation Safety Review Council. As a result of theaccident/mishap rate for Army aircraft, TSARCOMhas taken a critical look at the manner in whichmateriel failures can be more readily identified andappropriate action taken to reduce the numbers ofaccidents/mishaps caused by materiel failure.Toward this goal, TSARCOM also has established asafety review council which will meet monthly.Members of the council will include directors ofTSARCOM and representatives from USAAAVS,Applied Technology Laboratory, AMSSA andDALO-AV. A position, to be occupied by a dual rated(rotary wing and fixed wing) captain with a full-timeassignment as secretary to the council and



39/52

responsible for coordinating all safety actions, hasbeen approved by the commander. A black book willbe prepared each month to provide all outstandingsafety-of-fl ight modification requirements withappropriate target dates and costs. The book wil

Army Aviation Digest - Oct 1978

Documents