army aviation digest - mar 1972

8/12/2019 Army Aviation Digest - Mar 1972

1/68

UNITED STATES ARMYVIATION

What do these twoen have in commonSee the back cover

USAARLSCI SUPPORT CENTERPOBOX 620577

FORT RUCKER AL 36362 0577MARCH 972GES


2/68

UNITED 5 A R M Y AVIATION1 G E S 7

AVIATION AC SFOROF THE ARMY

BG W i ll ia m J Ma dd ox Jr U . S. ARMY AVIATION SCHOOLMG Al l en M . Burdett Jr .

COMDT U . S. ARMY AVIATION SCHOOLCOL Hu bert S Campbell Jr

Richa rd K. Tier ney Ed ito rCPT Tom Gr ee neCW2 Mi ke lo p e zW i l l iam H . SmithJohn Maru si chLinda McGow a nBe tty S. WallaceDianne Horn eJuli e Martinez

ARTS SUPPORTHarry A . PickelDorothy l Crowl eyAng e la A . Akin

OFFICER U . S. ARMY AGENCYAVIATION SAFETY

COL Eug ene B. ConradAND GRAPHICS DIV

Pi e rc e l Wigg in ChiefWill i a m E CarterJack De lo n eyTed Konto sCharl es Mo biusPatsy R. Thomp sonArnold R l a mbe rt

MARCH 1972 VOLUME 18Views From ReadersLooking I nto The FutureFrom Plan To RealityA Management ChallengeUpdating The Flight Excusal ProgramInstrument CornerGermany Tests Airborne TOWAeromedic-The Life Support EquipmentRetrieval ProgramNational Guard Aviation Prepares ForReadiness RoleClosed-Circuit Refueling SystemProblems-Solutions-SafetyArmy 18923, FL 400Maintenance MattersMutual Support In Army AviationAccident BriefsI Heard It From A Reliable SourceBroken Wing AwardForest FirefightingAviation Accident Prevention ForumPearl sThe Most Important ManWho s In Control?Spring FashionsRide Em CowboyUSAASO SezTornado

NUMBER

111222333344455566Inside Bac


3/68

JEWSROME DERS

Sir:Being r e ~ p o n s i b l e for the s u c c e s ~ ofArmy aviation in the Idaho NationalGuard has taken on a new and tremendou"ly increased ~ i g n i f i c a n c e In "hort.the program almo'\ exploded in ourface. Having heen an aviator for the past?7 'years. I am particularly i n t e r e ~ t e d inaviation safety doctrine and the management techniques which will result in ourultimate success.In di'icussing the recent growth ofArmy aviation with "orne of my colleages. I find that they are having thesame growing pain" that we in Idahohave recognized. A i the active Army i ireduced in "ize and the Reserve Component-. take on greater respon


4/68

Looking Into The FutureBrigadier General William J Maddox Jr.Director of Army Aviation

Although Vietnam served as the proving grounds for the air-mobility concept, Army aviation must continue to strive tomeet new goals, adapting itself to new tactical environments,adding advanced military technology to techniques of warfare.The aircraft at right, a SMASH Southeast Asia multisensorarmament system for the HueyCobra equipped Huey-Cobra, is one with advanced technology being employedduring air cavalry combat brigade testing at Ft. Hood, TX

LAST YEAR S MEDALS andlast year s war stories,while interesting, are not necessarily conc1usive. What we didlast year may have increased ourqualif icat ions and made usstronger and more confident asindividuals, but they are not afree ticket to the future. Theyare only a prologue to the future. What we do on a daily basis counts far more than what ispast.

This thought applies particularly to Army aviation. Those ofus who w r Army aviation during the heavy combat days ofVietnam proved the concept ofairmobility. But airmobility doesnot become permanently established at that point. Those of uswho rem in in Army aviationmust continue to strive and tomeet new goals. We must consider new thoughts and we mustadapt to new conditions becausewarfare and military technologydo not stand stil1.

Therefore, we wiJ talk aboutwhere we are at present, as apoint of departure, and wherewe are going. The entire Army isslimming down fo]]owing a period of expansion and intensecombat activity. This is normal2

fo]]owing a war. t is also normal for the Army to take stockof itself and adjust itself to thenew situation. We in the Pentagon are busy at this right now.

Organizationa]]y, we are assessing our combat lessons andthe advances we have made intechnology. We are studyingnew combinations of force suchas the Triple Capability Division(TRICAP) at Ft. Hood, TX. Andwe are testing, over the periodof the next several years, a division with an armored brigade, anairmobile brigade and an aircavalry combat brigade. The latter brigade could we]] be a separate organization. t is the last ofthe major new organizationsrecommended by the HowzeBoard in 1963. Becau se therewere insufficient people and aircraft to test it while the th AirAssault Division/1 st CavalryDivision was being evaluated. itstesting was postponed.Tactically, we find that therequirements of an Europeannon-nuc1ear type battlefield willbe substantially different thanthe low intensity of Vietnam.We expect that potential enemies will be equipped with heavier weapons which may we]] be

radar directed and armed withseeker heads. Our thinking andour techniques are subject togreat change. Our gunships thatcould cover light observationscout helicopters from above, aswas done in Vietnam. must learnto operate in a nap-of-the-earthmode. The location of the commander in a scout/gunship teamprobably will shift from the gunship or special command andcontrol aircraft to the LOH. Thescout will have a greater understanding of the battlefield thanits covering gunships.

While we were able to getalong with a tactical instrumentcard and a minimum instrumentcapability during the war. therequirements of an Europeanbattlefield wi]] be for a fu]] instrument capability by a]] aviators.Such changes in our organizations and tactics will require thatwe re-think our whole way ofdoing business. We can c1earlysee the need for 1) the development of fresh tactics: 2) a concentration on proficiency: and3) the enhancement of effectiveness as we work with othermembers of the ground team.

Note that I have avoided theU. S. ARMY AVIATION DIGEST


5/68

use of the word profess iona l-ism. We are professional andhave been profes , ional since thebeginning. Our dedication toduty is be yond question. Wh atwe need to do is incre ase ourqual ificat ions.Accordingly, early this yearthe Dep a rtment of the Army willes tablish a series of goals whichwe must strive to meet. The fir stgoal is that every av iator mu sta tt a in a s ta nd a rd in st rumentticket by the end of thi s yea r. Ina para llel ac tion the Army willundert ake to make all of its tactical helicopters instrument qualif ied. his wil l r equ i r einstrument a tion, nav iga tionequipment and, on certain aircraft , the addition of a secondgenerator.By the end of FY 73 the onlytactical fixed wing aircraft remaining in the active Arm y andReserve Components will be theOV-I Moh aw k and the U-8/ 21command aircraft . Rot ary wingaircraft will acco unt for over 9MARCH 1972

percent of the inventory. Thismea ns that in the past decadewe have moved from a fixedwing to a he licopter fleet. Astime goes on a nd technolo gycontinues to favor us, the proportion could well incre ase.Th erefore , a goa l will be e tabi shed that every av iator be rotary wing qualified by the end ofFY 75. Preliminary planning isthat fixed wing only aviatorswill be cross qualified in helicopter s during norm al changes ofstation or as the y are required tofl y rot ary wing aircraf t. Individuals qu alified in both rotary andfixed wing aircraft should be instrument qualified in the aircraftthe y are expected to fly for proficiency.An additional goal is that allav iators not excused from, orprohibited from , flying will attaina full 80 hour s of proficiencyflight each yea r. nits will beexpected to subdivide this timeand to supervi , e the proficiencyflying so that individuals po sses

a night and day and adver seweather (VFR) capabilit y. A lowlevel nap-of-the-earth capabilityutilizing pilotage nav igation mu stbe possessed by all.While the Department of theArmy can se t goals and presc ribe subsidiary requirement s,it rem a ins for th e individu a lcommander and av iator to understand the goals and to imple ment them in a positive fashion.f the individual doe s not havein hi s he a rt the de s ire to behighl y qu alified, he will detrac t

from the Army 's to t a l effort.What the avi a tor did in the lastwar will not full y qu alify him forthe nex t wa r. Rather , our effortsmust be channeled in the direction of the overall Army traininggoal: To ac hieve a degree of individual and unit profici e nc ywhich exploit s the full tac ticalpotential of Army aircraft andequipment. If you have a nypiece of the av ia tion ac tion, thi sis your challenge.

3


6/68

From Plan o Reality

rmy viation ReserveIn ever- increasing numbers Army aviation per sonne l leaving active duty are discoveri ng theyca n co nt i nue their careers in an expandedArmy Reserve aviation program And for somethat program also mean s civil ian employment

Major General J . Milnor RobertsChief Army Reserve

DURING THE PAST year alot has happened to Arm yReserve aviation. The promise sof 1970 became t h e reality of1971. Where before the ArmyRe se rve aviation program had tolimp along with obsolete a ircraft,and with few of them , tod ay theodds are that no m a tter whatkind of bird you flew or maintained on active duty you ' ll findthe sa me kind of bird in theArmy Reserve inventory.

And where the aviation program existed almost on a mInImal qualification level , today'sArmy Reserve aviators are en gaged in a robust flying program ,fully upported and augmentedby extra paid flying periods.Additional fulltime flying andmaintenance po ition have beenauthorized at Army Re se rveaviation facilitie s to s upporttheir higher leve l of activity.

During the pa . t year much ha sbeen written (see AVIAT ION DI GEST, July 1971) about th e seaggressive and far-reaching plansto expand and modernize Armyaviat ion within the Army Reserve. The purpose of thi s article is to give you a progressreport on how these plans havebecome or are becoming rea li ty,and how you can be a part ofthe reality of Army Reserveaviatio n .4

As part of the Army' . policyof pl ac ing incre ase d relianceupon it. Re se rve Components inthe advent of war a nd for meeting its pe ace time obligations, theArmy Re erve ha s been re s tructured to contain the pecificnumber a nd type unit s, includingaV Ia tIOn, necessary to upportthe Arm y's contingency a n dmobiliza tion plans. Not only hasthere been s ome changes intype s of a viation unit- , but a l 0unit in the Army Re erve havebeen converted to the currenttable of organization and equipment (TO E) in effect for the active Army. So tod ay, no matterwhether an assault support helicopter comp any i organized int h e active Army or the ArmyRe erve, it contain 6 CH-47Chinooks and one UH-I Huey.

The day s of the 1 B ird Dog,OH-23 Ra ven a nd other s uchcreatures a re gone. It is a re a litythat Army Re erve uniL a rereceiving UH-I s, OH-58 a ndCH-47s at an accelerated ra te.And it is good equipment, too;many of the aircraft are bra ndnew , direct from the ma nufacturer. , or come to u . direct fromdepot overhaul.

U nit a re no longer faced withhavi ng to make do with ju s t afew of t heir authorized a ircraft.They a re being fi lled with air-

craft to their full a uthorization.Programed deliverie of aircraftdur ing the coming year w illnearly double the number of aircraft we had onhand in the fallof 1971. A in the active Army,most of our aircraft are choppers; however , we w ill hav esome fixed wing.

The very nature of the ArmyRe erve is geographical with3 ,500 unit s located throughoutthe nation in orne 1 019 ArmyReserve training center . We tryto locate our aviation fac ilitiew h ere the people are . Thus ,many units are in major metropolitan areas, usually far removed from active Army

Conti nued on page 32U . S. ARMY AVIATION DIGEST


7/68

The Depa rtment of the Armyis presently taking action toassist units in resolving someof the problems identified inth is article. For exp la nationof some of the actions bei ngtaken see LTC Jones ' article

National Guard AviationPrepares for Re adiness Role on page 18. Also readersshould be aware that asample aviat ion accidentpreven t ion p rogram maybe ob ta ined by writingto: Commanding O ff icer,U. S. Army Agency forAviat ion Safety , ATTN :E&P , Ft . Rucker , AL 36360

MARCH 1972

rmy viation n The National GuardManagement hallengeThe Reserve Components have generally lived with a staticArmy aviation program since 1965. They now find that theyare to playa bigger and much more meaningful role in termsof readiness) in the total Army aviation mission. This newresponsibility presents a great variety of problems tothe Army National Guard and one which will require thebest in expertise the Guard can muster. It is a refresh-ing and welcomed change. It is a sobering challenge

Brigadier General James S BrooksChief of Staff, Idaho Army National Guard

I N DISCUSSING THE recentgrow th of Army av iationwith some of my colleagues, Ifind that they are h av ing thesa me growing pains that we inId aho have recognized. As theac t ive Army is reduced in sizea nd the Re erve Componentstake on greater responsibi lit y, itsee ms to me that there is no single area of our concern whichdem a nd s more at tention th a nArmy aviation. The followingcomments, while ba sed on theArmy av iation program in Id aho,are typical I feel of the problem sw hich the Guard face . Theyare, therefore, subm itted asbeing of po ss ible intere t to a llre ade r . I am sure there are others who have a br o ader view ofthe tot al program than I: however. there is no one who ismore concerned about the futureof Army av ia tion in the Guard.

From 1965 to 1970 there wanot one new na me added to thero ster of av iators. During thissame period there wa , not onene w a ircr a ft a dded to the 14I st generat ion observation

aircraft (OH-13E. OH-23 a nd 0-1A) a nd the queen of the fleet -one U-6, 1954 , with radio . On IJanu ary 1970 there were 23 av ia-tors ass igned . While a bit boredthey loved their jobs . t h eyworked h ard a nd the . ix me-

chanics. one parts specia li st andone flight in s tructor ll thingsto a ll aviators-could just aboutdo their jobs without ac tu a ll ybeing pre se nt for duty.I well remember a questionthat came up during the 1967annual writ for aviator. About15 minute s af ter the 4-hour e -sion started, one of the aviatorsasked the av iation advisor (admini ste ring the test) , Que stio n14 refer to a UH-l , what ' sthat? That a rne year our repairp a r t s budge t for a i r c r a ftamounted to $ 2,648 .

From the mi ss ion st andpointwe really had it made. Duringthe winter month s the weatherwas ma rginal enough to precludeany se r iou s commitment (fewpeople were really in trumentrated anyway). In the ummertime the den s it y altitude wasbetween 4,000 and 6,000 feet , somany mission s were rejected abeyond the capabi lit y of the OH-13. It really was kind of easy tomanage the progra m. The totalAy ing hour program for thatyear, and others to follow, was2,600 hour . One yea r we spentalmost $7, 000 for POL and thecomptrol ler ra i se d Cain witheveryone, as we had only budgeted $6 ,265. That sa me yearour one Aight inst ructor took offfor 9 week to at tend a pecial

5


8/68

instrument cour e at the U. S.Army Aviation School at Ft.Rucker, AL, and no one missedhim.

From September 1965 throughJuly 1969 there wa not evenone quota to Ft. Rucker or Ft.Wolters, TX, for primary flighttraining. No other Guard orReserve unit got quota . either,as the Army had its hand fullmeeting its terrific requirementsfor Sou thea t Asia.

Through the lean years of thelate 1960s the Reserve aviatordid their be t to maintain individual proficiency in the aircraftavailable. There never really waa meaningful capability for unittraining. At our annual aviationsafety conferences-yes, onlyone a y e a r w e were hardpressed to spark real participation. One crew chief asked ifhe would be given any specialcon ideration on his MOS test ashe had never seen a turbine engine and the only knowledge hehad of torque was what he readon the dial of a 4 inch wrench.

The aviators were 0 far removed from what wa . reallygoing on in Army aviation thatthey wondered if the Armywould ever need a real hot pi-lot in a 95 model helicopterthat had to have the balla tweight moved fore or aft depending on the weight of thepa senger.

Had it not been for the loyaland eager people involved, whoomehow or other were willing

to understand and plug on,there wou ld not have been anArmy aviation program in theGuard. Thanks to the cooperat ion of the U. S. Avia t ionSchool, . S. Army Agency forAviation Safety (formerly USABAAR), the Director of ArmyAviation, the Department of theArm y and the Chief , NationalGuard Bureau, we were at leastable to keep a program goingduring those lean years. While

6

my de cription of conditionsmight suggest that the wholeprogram was a wa te of time, itwasn't. That thin line of continuity ha proven invaluable as weet about building a really big

show.At the annual budget formula

tion e sion of our Army Guardstaff we went through the routine procedure. It wa April 1970and we were working on the FY7 budget requirement . After a20-minute pre entat ion of thecommand guidance, each principal member of the staff wasasked to give a preliminarycomment on the FY 7 requirements a he aw them:

he director of operations andtraininR said a 10 percent in crea e in funds would take careof the school requirements.he director of personnel saidhe would not need a fulltimerecruiting officer to maintainstrength becau e of th e . electiveservice pres ures.

The director of supply saidnormal increases to account forinflation would do.he director of maintenance(DM) said that our old equipment wa wearing out and that a20 percent increase in repairpart funding and some additional maintenance personnel

would be justified. Then peaking a the a\ iation officer (anadditional duty) the DM said,

In the aviation program I needa 300 percent increase in everything.he comptroller laughed.

Little did we know or appreciate that the DM's statementwa very much on the conservative ide. Of course, a 300 perc e n t i n c r e a s e w a no tprogramed, but by the middle ofthe year it was evident that re-gardless of the ridiculou soundof uch an increase, it was morethan justified.

When April 97 came alongand the aviation officer wasagain asked for e . t imates heaid, I need a 300 percent in-crea . e in all areas for 1972 andyou need a fulltime aviationofficer.

This t ime there were nolaughs. It has become clear thatmanagement was already a stepbehind the growing aviation program.

In retrospect, we must admitthat we had had several officialindicators that aviation in theArmy Guard was to grow-andvery fast. On the fir. t day ofJuly 97 an analysi revealedthat we had already had a 150percent increa e in aviators in 8

SP5 Charles Matthews checks OH 58 avionics at Jacksonville L


9/68

months. We had received in anas is condition 8 CH-34 heli

copters and 9 H -23 Ds as replacements for the OH-13s. (Thefirst CH-34 periodic inspectionwe performed took 1,050 manhours.)

We had 25 new aviators directfrom active duty who had neverflown anything except a turbinepowered helicopter. We didn'thave a mechanic who had everworked on a U H-I and the firstD model Huey which was scheduled to arrive in August actuallyarrived 4 months early.

The basic load of tool sets forthe UH-I was to cost twice ourbudget for tools for the entireyear. Our maintenance hangar built with all the vision of anant-wouldn' t even accommodate 1 percent of the aircraftfor which we had mechanics. Ifit hadn't been for our friends inthe Air Guard, we wouldn't havehad enough jet fuel to support aweekend flying session.A quick look at our qualified instructor pilots (IPs),standardization and transItIOnprograms, and instrument examiners revealed another dollarshort and day late situation.From July through Novemberjust 5 months of 1971-we weregiven a complete aircraft re placement schedule. From 24obsolete aircraft of five differenttypes and models, we were programed to go to 48 UH-I andOH-58 helicopters in a I-yearperiod. From a support force of17 (16 mechanics and 1 groundsupport man) the program hasalways been a year behind untilFY 7 2 -we went to 33 in 5months with 48 scheduled by 1July 1972.

An FY 70 repair parts budgetof 46,708 had gone to 180,000in fiscal 72. The maintenanceshop space will be tripled in1972 and we now have 4 flightinstructors authorized for the 65aviators onboard. Just recentlyMARCH 1972

the distribution of gun kits wasannounced and no one has hadtime to think about a gunnerySOP, let alone a training program. To cope with the expansion the principal military unitinvolved has been doubled insize. This requires a very aggressive recruiting effort (this timewithout much help from selective service) and a very specialized training program.

Truly, the Guard is going fromfamine to feast in aviation. Thereal challenge is to management.For the first time in my 24 yearswith the Guard, we are gettingthe funding support required,including the money to buy special tools for the new aircraft.Qualified aviators, ground support personnel and techniciansare generally available as manyare being released from activeduty with the Army.

But what about management?Do we have the talent to resolvethe maintenance versus operations conflicts that always existin aviation? Do we have the talent to budget and program thehundreds of thousands of dollarsrequired for the flying hour program (9,000 hours in FY 73), forparts, tools, facilities, POL andtechnicians? Do we have the talent to organize what has generally been a weekend flyingprogram into a 4, or 5, or even a7-day-a-week program? Do wehave the talent to determinewhat facilities are required tosupport our aircraft operations,maintenance and t rainingrequirements? Who is an expertin gunnery? Who can maintainthe gun kits? Who will write anew and meaningful SOP forsafety? How do we get aviatorstransitioned to new aircraft?How many IPs and instrumentexaminers do we need? Howmany mechanics need to beretrained? Can we get the moneyto train them (the Guard has to

pay for all school training)

and can we get the schoolquotas? And most important ofall, are we able to solve theseproblems and do our job withoutbecoming a USAAAVS accidentstatistic? This is the real challenge.

While these questions andtheir implications are food forserious thought, I feel that ourchances of solving t h em safely-are very good indeed.The one Army principle, sodeliberately developed over recent years, gives us in the Guardaccess to all the expertise of theactive Army if we are just alertenough to ask for it. Our ownsystem has produced some ofthe most stable and qualifiedmanagers in their fields. Now isthe time to work them overtimeif necessary. Yes, the challengesare great. The stakes are highbut the morale and will are alsohigh. There is no reason why wein the Guard cannot produce astrong and meaningful aviationprogram. But to do it we mustconcentrate on first things first.Some who fly may find themselves spending more time thanthey like solving problems onthe ground, but it must be doneif we are to produce the resultsthat are expected of us.

For those who are managers itis time to get our heads out ofthe cockpit and into the problems. A proficient pilot is notnecessarily a proficient manager,and while we need both it istime that the requirements ofcoordination, planning, budgeting and decision-making takeprecedence over the more enjoyable task of flying. For theGuard aviators who have beencharged with the responsibility,it 's time to manage now-f lylater.

7


10/68

Updating The FlightExcusal Program

Colonel William R Ponder

The epa rtment of efe nse hasstudied a revised proficiency flyingprogram It is anticipated that thenew program will be implemented

ow MANY AVIATORS doyou know who are leaving

the Army next year? How manyare in designated flying assignments and are required to meetthe 80 hours minimum flyingtime even though there is noactual requirement for them tofly?A new look should be taken atthe Army s flight excusal program due to early-outs, the re-duct ion in force (RIF) andpassover policies. Expansion ofthe current flight excusal program should be considered dueto austere funds, old aircraft andincreased emphasis on forcereadiness. Basic objectives ofthis program should be to conserve resources, improve training and identify (early) aviatorswho have demonstrated the re-quired professionali sm to joinReserve Components upon completion of active duty.

The basic point is, Why trainand require expenditures of8

this month

money, aircraft and personnelon known losses from Army andReserve Components? The solution may be excusal of aviatorswith known release dates frommeeting flying minimums. Anexception may be to requireArmy aviators who do not have5 years rated service to fly 4

hours per month for pay. n ad-dition, aviators with 5 yearsrated service, with a known re-lease date, shall be excusedfrom all flying requirements ifnot actually assigned to flyingduties.

Many Army aviators haveelected to return to civilian lifeupon completion of currenttours. t appears that certainothers have been or will be notified of their second passover ormandatory retirement date. naddition, other personnel actionswill require release of manyaviators from active duty. tappears that the Department ofthe Army (DA) could give an

installation commander the authority to waive all annual flightminimums when an aviator notdirectly involved in flying dutiesis notified of his release fromactive duty.Many aviators in staff positions have 5 years flying experience and are excused from flyingfor pay purposes but are stillrequired to meet flight minimums(AR 95-1). At the same timethere are many aviators assignedto aviation military occupationalspecialties (MOSs) performingother duties. For example, awarrant officer assigned to a ta-ble s) of organization and equipment (TOE) cavalry squadron isassigned an MOS of flying duties; however , he actually performs theater officer or gamewarden duties. He is getting outof the service within 6 monthsafter arriving at his new dutystation, but he must still meetthe annual flying minimums.This is the type situation in

U. S. ARMY AVIATION DIGEST


11/68

which many aviators leaving theservice find themselves. Aviationunits and individual aviators willbe better trained if these avia-tors are excused hom flying andthose aviators who remain onactive duty receive more andbetter training.There is another loss to theArmy when considering theoverall requirements of the current flying program viewed un-der combat-readiness flyingprogram and aircraft availablefor aviators to fly. The majorityof aviators are rotary wing quali-fied; therefore, let 's look at atypical flying day of Captain

M obtaining his 4 hours in anOH-13. Due to safety requirements and fuel available, both inthe aircraft and at a military air-field, most OH-13 flights are of2-hour duration. This means thatCaptain M is away from hisoffice duties 6 hours to obtain 4hours flight time. Captain Mis returning to civilian life inabout 8 months, but he is stillrequired to meet the annualflying requirement 80 hours) tomaintain his instrument rating. Isthe expenditure of these scarceresources-meeting annual flightrequirements-worth the costfor known losses to the Army?Is there a better way to improvetraining for aviators remaining inthe Army at less cost?

There is always the problemof What if? A big What if?in the expanded flight excusalprogram may be the impact onReserve Components. It wouldappear that Reserve Componentsshould be trying to obtain theyounger aviators of lowergrades-not those with over 20years a_ctive duty, the two-timepassovers nor others eliminatedby DA board action.

One method of improvingaviation training, reducing theflying hour program and possiblyidentifying (early) those aviators

MARCH 1972

that have demonstrated the re-quired professionalism to joinReserve Components is to: Authorize the installationcommander the right to waive allminimums and instrument re newal for aviators who meet thefollowing requirements: a) aviator(s) not directly involved inflying duties be excused fromflying minimums upon notifica-tion of his release from activeduty (except 4 hours per monthfor pay for aviators with lessthan 5 years flying time, if re-quired by law); and b) aviatorswith more than 5 years ratedservice be totally excused fromflying, if not directly involved inflying duties. Authorize the installationcommander the right to allowaviators with release dates tomeet annual minimum requirements if they sign a statement of

intent to Jom Reserve Components upon release from activeduty. Authorize the installationcommander the right to discontinue flying for those aviatorswith known release dates if theyhave not demonstrated the re-quired professionalism.

The statement of intent ofaviators to join the ReserveComponents and letters of re-fusal of aviators disallowed tocont inue flying can be sentthrough the Office of PersonnelOperations (OPO) to ReserveComponents headquarters. Thisaction can assist Reserve Components in obtaining qualifiedaviators.

Now is the time to review,update and streamline the flightexcusal program to align it withthe early-out, RIF and retirement programs.

INSTRUMENT ORNERQ. I've noticed that in the new issue of FLIP, Section II, 6Jan 72) under "Additional Reports" on page 11-72 that report-ing out of an assigned altitude, when cleared for an approach,is now required. I think this is great However, it proves to beone more point of controversy between what is required ~FLIP, Section II, and the Airman's Information Manual, Part I.In particular the Airman's Information Manual, Part I, re-quires the time when reporting leaving a holding fix or whenleaving a final approach fix inbound on final approach. FLIP,Section II, does not require the time. What is actually re-quired and what should be included in these two reports?A. These two publications were in agreement until the wordsthe time appeared in the May 1970 issue of the Airman'sInformation Manual, Part I. Apparently these differences havecaused much controversy. A meeting was held on 30 Novem-ber 1971 at the Federal Aviation Administration headquarterswith members of all services present to discuss this particularproblem. An agr,eement was reached and the February 1972issue of the Airman's Information Manual, Part I, will have thewords the time deleted. Therefore, unless the controllerspecifically asks for more information the only requirement isto report the fact that you are leaving these fixes. Reportingout of an assigned altitude when cleared for an approach isalso being considered for inclusion in the Airman's Informa-tion Manual, Part I.Reference: USAASO

9


12/68

Germany Testsirborne TOWHughie J Mclnnish Jr.

Mr. Mclnnish, a DAC, is TOW Tube launched,Optically tracked, Wire guided) missile projectofficer at Redstone Arsenal, AL. During the Ger-man tests he was the U. S representative on siteat Buckeburg, Germany. The author also headedthe American support team comprised of personnelfrom Bell Helicopter Co and Hughes Aircraft Co.

SPRING CAME slow ly lastyear to northern Germany.When our four-man Americansupport team arrived at Buckeberg in early March, we wereassured by the natives that thecold winds and snow we wereexperiencing were ' the last blastof winter. From the Army Missile Command, Hughes AircraftCompany and Bell HelicopterCompany, we had come to help10

the German Army Aviat ionSchool in its evaluation of thesuitabi lity of the TOW missilefor use in an airborne role.Being from Alabama Californiaand Texas, we were eager to believe the weather assessment.

TOW (Tube launched, Optically tracked, Wire guided) s a50-pound antitank missile whichhas recently been deployed withU. S. infantry forces. n 1967

five prototype airborne launchingsystems were built for testing onthe UH-IB. These systemscalled XM-26 used three of thesame missiles developed for theinfantry, mounted in each of twolaunch pods on either side of thehelicopter. The left nose of theship was modified to accommodate an inerlially stabilized telescope sight which was operatedby the copilot/gunner in the left



13/68

eat. With the e sy terns thegunner acqu ire the target in hi sight and fire the mi ile. Themis ile then flie into the field ofview of the ight which en esthe position of the mi ile andi automatically guided down theline of ight to the target. Thegunner po Itlon and hold thecro hair of his sight on thetarget and the mis ile hits whatever he is a iming at.

Although these prototype s hadundergone considerable engineering testing, they were nevergiven to the Army for servicete t ince the main developmental effort was shifted to the moreadvanced AH-56 Cheyenneweapons system. The Germansthen were to be the fir t militarypeople to test the XM-26.A we unloaded the U. S. AirForce C-141 which had transported the UH-l B a nd some 7tons of support equipment fromCalifornia, we were informedthat the base of operations forthe first pha e of the test wouldbe moved nort to Itzehoe, 30miles northwest of Hamburg,with the firing mis ion beingflown again t targets at the Mel-dorf range located on the NorthSea.

But ir t the helicopter had tobe reassembled, the electronicequipment checked a nd thecrew trained. The rea semblyand checkout went moothly,but winter s last bla t pre enteda evere challenge to crew training. Contending with high windrain and snow it wa difficult toac hieve the required proficiencyin the time avai lable. Using a

UH-IB cockpit modification for T Winclude:1) sight unit stabilized telescope2) Sight unit hand control3) Arm rest, unit hand control4) Control armament - TOW

MARCH 1972

target with an infrared ourcemounted at the center, togetherwith measuring and scoringequipment on the helicopter, itwa po ible to mea ure a gunner s proficiency and progress.In spite of the bad weatherwhich re ulted in the po tponement of the fir t scheduled fir-ings the Germans got the fir sttwo hots off 3 weeks after ourarrival. The purpose of thesetwo hot was to confirm thatthe y tern was functioning nor-

mally and this they did.With thi mile tone behind u

we proceeded to Itzehoe andprepared for the firings to beconducted at the Meldorf range.Because of the hortage of reale tate for te t ranges in Europe,the Meldorf range utilize tidalflats extending into the NorthSea. The e tidal flats are imilarto the area later reclaimed fromthe sea in Holland and are, together with the target underwater at high tide. The dry end of


14/68

the range is shared with thehundreds of sheep which grazethe forward rim of the dike.

Unfortunately though at thismoment the last surge of winterwa moving acros the NorthSea area. For the fir t week ourso le occupatiop wa walttngwaiting for the weather to improve enough to see the target.Occasionally the weather wouldimprove enough for a few hoursto s hoot , but invariably thatwould be when the tide was highand the target wa underwater.But bad luck never lasts foreverand finally, though the weatherwas still marginal, we could atleast see the target. At Meldorfwe fired 5 missile , not in theplanned 2 weeks but in 3 days.With the conclusion of thifirst phase of the firings the operations returned to Biickeburg,and the nearby range at BergenHohne and Mun ter Lager. Thefirings at Meldorf were conducted under the auspices of theMinistry of Defense test agency,but the responsibili ty nowshifted to the German Army.Based at the Heere ftiegerwaffenschule (Army AviationSchool), the Ft. Rucker of Germany, the tests were under theleadership of Lieutenant ColonelBender, the project officer . LTCBender is an erstwhile Stuka pilot (more than 500 missions onthe eastern front) and had apenchant for early operations.Typically our team would ariseat 0430 and report to the airfieldat 0600 for a 0615 takeoff assuming no more than moderaterain, sleet or snow) for therange. The ranges were sharedwith tankers doing their practicefirings and with other weapons

2

Test helicopter for T Wa three missile capacitypad on either side notethe telescope protrudingfrom the left nose of thesh ip- the copilot s side

firings. Because of the heavyuse, the scheduling was tight andwe seemed to con istently drawthe early slot.During the Army portion ofthe test a total of 40 mi sileswere fired and they were u uallyintere ting to observe. The testsconducted in the U. S. hadshown that the XM-26 wa anextremely accurate and effectiveweapon ystem when employedin a conventional manner. TheGermans, however, were notcontent to test merely the knowncapabilities of the system, butsoon made known their intentions to push forward the stateof-the-art in tactical employmentas well.

The XM-26 ha always been

con idered a broad daylight system but the Germans tested it atsun et and well after. One oftheir favorite tests was to re quire the gunner to fire the missile toward a certain target and,after the mis ile wa on it way,

change hi mind and hift to anew target. This is particularlychallenging when the new targetis outside the field of view of theoriginal target and the gunnermust hunt for and find it beforethe missile reaches the target.For member of the U. S. team,accustomed as we were to amore conservative test philophy prevalent at home, such testconditions were decidedly hairraising.

But the Germans howed that


15/68

videnceof the final day live warheads used against t nk hulks positioned on therange qu lit tive summary if the crew can see the t rget they can usually destroy it

it could be done. With air speedsfrom zero to cruise, at altitudesfrom near the ground to wellout-of-ground effect, and in conjunction with a variety of postlaunch eva ive maneuver theyconsistently hit both fixed andmoving targets from minimum tomaximum range. As a concisequalitative ummary of the German tests it can be aid that ifthe crew can see the target theycan generally be expected todestroy it.

Apart from the technical succe s of the test the Americanteam found the project highlyeducational. Most Americans onduty in Germany are stationedwithin a small American community, but not so with us. Wewere et down square in themid t of the natives. In such cir-cumstance a usually simplematter su ch as placing a long-distance phone call becomes aMARCH 1972

frightening experience. Learningthe German words for the numbers was a high-priority task inorder to overcome thi ob tacle.

Another small task usuallyconsidered mundane by u butwhich proved to be somewhatmore ceremonious in Buckeburg,involved reproduction of data.In the habit of sending the girldownstairs to the Xerox machineto get the needed copie wehanded over a sheaf of paper toour German colleagues with areque t that we be provided copies. Two days later two men inlong, white coats appeared andwith characteri tic great courte y ubmitted the proofs forour inspection. We selectedtho e which eemed best and wewere shortly given our copiesin very high quality.

Most of the mis iles used inour program had dummy warheads, but for the final day VIP

and visitors from several countries were onhand to ob erve thefiring of six missiles with livewarheads which had been savedfor the occasion. These werefired from various ranges andflight conditions against actualtank hulk positioned on therange. With their fireball finale atthe end of each mi sile' s flightthey made an impressive climaxto a very succe sful programand provided an effective demonstration of the potency of air-borne TOW.

When the la t shot had beenfired on that day in late May wemounted our helicopter s andflew back to home ba e atBuckeburg for the la t time. Aswe walked from the ramp to thehangar we had to hurry. A chillwind was stirring and on the horizon we could see, moving toward the field the last blast ofwinter.

3


16/68

4

The life support equipment retrieval pro-gram is mainly the responsibility o theflight surgeon. However all air crewmenshould be familiar with its purpose andprocedures. This is especially 0 for officerswho may participate in aircraft acci-dent investigations and for others in-volved in .the p{ staccident handling ordisposition o life support equipment


17/68

The Life Supportquipment Retrieval ProgramLTC Dona Id F Miller LTC John D Albriqht MAJ Thomas D Casey

The first flight surgeon/s report written bythe first Army flight surg on CPT RobertJ. unt r dated 31 May 191 8 read asfollows: Investigated the three accidentsoccurring since I came here. None of thesewas fatal. One was due to inexperience topography of the country and mechanicaldifficulties. Second: Uncertain cause butpatient thinks he hit his head on the cowlwhile doing a loop. Third: Machineout of control while chasing a c row .Provided by the Society of u S. Army Flight Surgeons

SOUNDS PAINFULLY familiar doesn't it? Fifty years ofsophisticated aerospace technology haven't changed things asmuch as we would like to believe. The lack of an adequateflight helmet which apparentlycaused the second accident, inwhich it is believed Lieutenant

H a p Arnold was the pilot,demonstrates that personal protective equipment or life support equipment has been anintegral part of the problems ofArmy air crewmen from the beginning. (As a matter of fact, wecontinue to observe an occasional accident resulting fromchasing c ro w s -o r waterbuffalo-or Hondas-but that'spart of another story.)

During the early decades ofaviation, life support equipmentwas generally improvised fromthe infantryman's standard gearor from sports equipment suchas football helmets. In fact,prior to 1941 only about 7,000

MARCH 1972

military aviators had beentrained since the invention of theairplane and no organized lifesupport equipment effort hadbeen made. During World WarII out of necessity, intensiveefforts were made to provideadequate life support equipmentfor the Army Air Corps. As aninteresting note in passing, theLuftwaffe issued standard steelhelmets for flak protection earlyin World War II, but soon dis- \continued this practice when ithey noted that the heavy helmetcaused more deaths due to broken necks during crashes andeven hard landings than had /head injuries due to hostile fire. /

The Army air crewman hasgenerally used equipment designed for his Air Force or Navycounterparts until recently whenhe received a Nomex flight suitand the SPH-4 protective helmet. However, there remainsroom for improvement in Armylife support equipment.

In FY 71. 719 accidents oc curred in Army aviation, resultIng In 314 deaths. The U. S.Army Agency for Avia t ionSafety (USAAAVS) recentlycompleted a study of all accidents during 1965 through FY69. They found that 93.5 percentof those accidents were survivable as defined by AR 95-5. Inspite of the high number of accidents which were survivable,39.4 percent of all fatalities occurred in the survivable accidents.

The U. S. Army AeromedicalResearch Laboratory (USAARL)and USAAA VS are concernedwith the prevention of death orinjury to Army air crewmen.Both organizations are concerned, among other matters ,with life support equipment.Such equipment is designed toprotect the air crewman frominjury and death, and we mustcontinually evaluate the effectiveness of that equipment.

15


18/68

Much research has been doneusing sensitive instrumentation,animals and human subjects.

It is in an actual aircraft accident, however, that personalprotective equipment experiences its moment of t ruth.Since accidents will occur inwhich soldiers will be injuredand killed, we believe that theleast we owe to the victims ofthese tragedies is to attempt tolearn as much as possible fromtheir unfortunate experiences.

The life support equipmentretrieval program is a jointUSAARL-USAAAVS programdesigned to determine throughmedical, engineering and statistical analysis the strengths andweaknesses of life suppor tequipment and to design improved equipment based on thatknowledge.

DA message 250208Z November 1971 sets forth the procedures which accident boards andflight surgeons will follow pending publication of Change 3 toAR 95-5. AR 735-11 defines procedures which supply personnelshould use when such equipmentis shipped to the USAARL.

We hope that flight surgeonswill exercise good judgment inforwarding selected items ofsurvival related equipment. Weare concerned with equipmentwhich appears to have preventeda death or injury, equipmentwhich was damaged in an accident , and equipment whichfailed to prevent a death or injury, even if the equipment itselfis not damaged. Such equipmentworn by each individual shouldbe labeled to indicate the individual's name, rank, SSAN, location and duties in the aircraftat the time of the crash. Injuredpassengers' clothing, if of government issue, should also beforwarded with the same information. It would be helpful toplace each individual's gear in6

Life support equipment has come a very long way since the days of WilbmWright and L T Selfridge . The top left photograph shows the aviator's helmetas it was 30 years ago. In comparison, the top right photograph shows an SPH-4helmet worn by a pilot of the aircraft during the accident depicted in the hottomphotograph . The helmet is credited with preventing serious injury b)attenuating the crash impulse forces that completely destroyed the helicopter

an individual plastic bag such aspoly-bag, FSN 8105-655-8286

prior to packing for shipment.W e a t U S R L a n dUSAAA VS are convinced thatthis program will result in engineering data necessary to im

prove the protective equipmentof the Army air crewman. Whatwe learn from these deaths andinjuries should prevent manytragedies in the future. The program will be successful onlywith the full cooperation of

commanders, safety officers,flight surgeons and accident investigation boards. We believethat we will'receive that cooperation.Note for the flight surgeon: Hereis the text of the unclassified DAmessage DAFD-AVS 250208ZNovember 1971:

Subject: Submission of LifeSupport Equipment lSE) forLaboratory Analysis.1. Pending publication ofChange 3 to R 95-5 the fol-U. S. ARMY AVIATION DIGEST


19/68

lowing will be implementedupon receipt of this msg:A Life Support and PersonalEquipment which is in any wayimplicated in the cause or prevention of injury and is damaged or partially damaged will

be collected and itemized onDD Form 200 or DA Form 444,as prescribed in AR 735-11dated May 1971. These formswill be used to hold individualspecuniarily liable or relieve allconcerned from accountability.This equipment includes but isnot necessarily limited to helmet s, fli g h t sui t s, g I0 v e s ,boots, oxygen equipment (e.g.,masks and hoses), parachutes,and life preservers. Body armor will not be itemized.B. The f l ight surgeon willcarefully examine the life support equipment belonging tothose individuals both crewmembers and passengers involved in the mishap. If anyitems are involved in injurycausation or prevention, allrelated components should besent; for example, if a helmetmicrophone is damaged, theentire assembly might also bedamaged. Damage to the outershell, compressible liner andrestraint webbing is not alwaysreadily apparent through normal visual inspection.C. Items being shippedshould be individually taggedand annotated as to date andlocation of the wearer onboard the aircraft; i.e., pilot,copilot, crewmember, etc.

D When an accident investigation is completed, the presiden t o f the a c c i d e n tinvestigation board will arrangefor shipment of the equipmentfor laboratory analysis toCommanding Officer, U. SAeromedical Research Laboratory, P O Box 577, Fort Rucker, Alabama 36360.

(1) Equipment items sent to

M A RCH 1972

USAARL for laboratory analysis will be noted within thereport of the accident investigation in Item 11 of DA Form2397-10, Personal ProtectiveEquipment Restraint Systemsand Seats.(2) DO Form 200 or DA Form444, as prescribed in AR 735-11, dated May 1971, will beused to hold individuals pecuniarily liable or relieve all concerned from accountability.For problem situations contactUSAARL Au tovon 558-3001/5107 or TWX CO,USAARL, Fort Rucker, Alabama 36360.2 This is a joint projectconducted between USAARLand USABAAR [USAAAVS].T he fo ll ow in g is a n ex tr ac tf r o m U B R s[USA A AVS s \ l g/1t Sll rgennsNewsletter 1 Dec e mbe r 197 1:

This message and the pending change to AR 95-5 that itreferences represent the beginning of a long-planned jointproject between USABAAR[USAAAVS] and USAARl.In this project, we will worktogether to identify and propose solutions to problems inthe life support and personalpro t e c t ivee qui pmen fi e I d .Here's how it will work:(1) USABAAR [USAAAVS]receives the crash facts message immediately after theaccident and assigns a caselog number to it.(2) USAARL receives theequipment involved identifiedy name and SSAN ofuser/wearer, in addition to theidentification required in paragraph Ie of the message). Thisequipment is then related tothe accident case log humber.(3) The equipment is sub

jected to engineering testingand analysis at USAARL todetermine modes of failure,yield strengths, etc.

(4) USABAAR [USAAAVS ]receives the results of thisanalysis, correlates it with theinjuries suffered by the user asfound in the accident reporton DA Form 2397-11 (MedicalInformation) and stores thedata.(5) When sufficient informat ion has been gathered, thedata will be analyzed and recommendations for improvements to items of Life SupportEquipment made.This analysis and correlationshould permit the identification of patterns and trends ofinjury and failure of protectiveequipment, which are far moreeffective in obtaining neededchanges than any single case,no matter how illustrative ortypical.Your help is essential. Sendthe equipment in to USAARL(don't forget the name andSSAN ). Be detailed and specific about equipment failureson the 2397-10, and aboutinjuries on the -11.Your fir s th a nd ob se rv a ti o n sof what happ e ned to th e ma nand h is eq uipm e nt are v ita l Ph o-to gra ph s are priceless. Sugges-ti o n s f ro m yo u co n ce rnin gequipm ent improve ment w ill bewe lcom e at an y time. JiiiilF

You Have ABuilt-in Safety Device

Use It17


20/68

National Guard viationPrepares

For Readiness RoleLieutenant Colonel Charles R JonesChief, Army Aviation BranchOrganization and Training DivisionDirector of Army National Guard

D ISTRIBUTION of new aircraft to the Guard is meeting published dis t r ibut ionschedules however , some majorchanges have resulted subsequent to original plans; full TOErequirements of aircraft are nowprogramed for the Guard insteadof full training requirements.This means CH-34 aircraft previously planned to remain indefinitely in at least five states , willbe eliminated from inventoriesby the end of FY 73.One exception to the receiptof full TOE equipment requirements is the twin-engined aircraft. None are now available,but even this will likely be resolved. OH-6 and OH-58 aircraftate in Guard units ; updated distribution plans avoided mixingLOH types in the states divisions and in armored cavalryregiments.

Another major change was theannouncement that aircraftweapons systems would be distributed to the ARNG. Unitsauthorized UH-I C/M armed helicopters and air cavalry troopLOH aircraft will receive appropriate M-5, XM-156 and XM-27systems. The M-23 M-60 doorgun) subsystem utilized on otherUH-I aircraft will not be is sued18

National Guard units accordingto current plans .All states are now involved ina mass exchange of aircraft asthey turn in 0-1 U-6 , OH-23B/C/D and OH-13E/G aircraftand , in turn pick up newly issued CH-54 ; CH-47 ; UHIB/C/D/H/M; OH-58; OH-6 ;OV-l ; and U-IO TOE aircraft.The inventory at midye a r exceeded 1 600 aircraft; full re quirements exceed 2,200.

Prior to the present buildup inARNG aviation there were 1,640aviators on flying status. Aviatorstrength now exceeds 3,000.Some states have filled all aviator spaces while several stillhave vacancies and are continuing to recruit. Those states having more th n 30 vi torvacancies include: Connecticut ,Maine Maryland Massachusetts , New York North Carolina, Ohio , Pennsylvania Virginiaand Wisconsin. It is planned tohave all 3,900 authorized spacesfilled by the end of FY 73 .Fixed wing aircr a ft will besoon sharply reduced in theGuard except for OV-l Mohawkunits in Georgia Special Forcesunits and each state AG TDA ;so the word is out to some 200fixed wing only Guard aviators

The photo above of the Army AviationSupport Facility at Forbes AFB, KN,pictures some of the newer equip-ment to enter the rmy NationalGuard s inventory. Photograph by SSGBob Bellinder, .Kansas National Guard

*States which have filled aviator spaces: Arizona Arkansas California ColoradoFlorida Indiana LouisianaOregon a nd South Da kota



21/68

to qualify in rotary wing.As the totals of aircraft in theinventory increase, authorizedenlisted flying positions increase.Currently, about 500 enlistedmen EM) are on crewmemberor noncrewmember flying status.More than 1,900 flying statusspaces will be authorized whenfull aircraft requirements aremet. The publication of EMflying status orders will be measurably accelerated due to aprocess recently implemented bythe director of the Army Na-

MARCH 1972

tional Guard. Temporary flyingstatus orders for EM may beissued by the chief of the National Guard Bureau, based onmessage request when conditions of the service precludesaccomplishment of processingthe request in time to prevent anundue reduction of unit readiness.

Two personnel actions whichwill give great assistance to theARNG aviation program involveapproval for flight surgeon section for most state TDAs, andthe approval of aviation safetyofficers at several levels in theGuard.

Especially important is establishment of an aviation safetyofficer position at the NationalGuard Bureau to oversee theentire ARNG aviation safetyprogram. Additionally, approvalhas been given for an aviationsafety officer on each state TDAand one at each aviation facility.This facility safety officer position results from redesignatingone of the standardization in structor pilot positions.

Most states had ramp spaceavailable to accommodate expanding aircraft inventories andhad hangar space sufficient tomeet maintenance work spacecriteria; however, several didnot have the additional requiredspace at their Army aviationsupport facility AASF) or flightactivity AAFA). Each state hasas a minimum one AASF whichis a centralized airfield operatedby fulltime Guardsmen-civil service technicians. These technicians, officer and enl is tedprovide both supervision offlying training and direct suppprtaircraft maintenance.

The AAFA is an auxiliary fieldto AASF; it is manned withfewer fulltime personnel andgenerally does only organizational maintenance. There arecurrent ly 63 AASFs and 9AAFAs in the states, Puerto

The Army National Guardaviation program contin-ues to show excellentprogress as it exp nds

nd prep res for in-creased reliance and in-creased readiness roles.This article updates previ-ously published informa-tion o the ARNG aviationprogram and includes thestatus of aircraft distribu-tion personnel station-ing aircraft maintenanceand unit training.

Rico and District of Columbia.Changes in stationing includeapproval of AAF A at Spokane,WA; AAFA at Winston-Salem,NC; moving Nevada AASF fromReno to a larger facility at Stedairfield; construction of a newfacility at Shelbyville, IN; relocation and construction of a newAASF at McIntire Air ForceBase, SC; and relocation of theCalifornia facility at Long BeachAASF to Los Alamitos.

ARNG takes justifiable pridein an aircraft maintenance program which has proven to beunparalleled. Notable additionsto the Guard aviation maintenance program were made inJuly 1971 when approval wasreceived for the ARNG to perform its own general supportmaintenance at the three existingtransportation aircraft repairshops along with approval of the4th Theater Army ReplacementSystem established at Gulfport,MS. Also, the addition of theGuard aviation logistics centerALC) will assure quality main

tenance as it assists the NationalGuard Bureau and states inmanagement of the large aviation maintenance program. TheALC is to be located at DavisonArmy Airfield Ft. Belvoir, VA,and manned by 4 Guard technicians.

9


22/68

National Guardviation Prepares

For Readiness Role

Prior to the current Armyaviation buildup the Guard hada small percentage of authorizedaircraft and a large percentageof substitute aircraft. A realtraining challenge was presentedas new aircraft systems flowedquickly into the inventories. Amassive aircraft qualificationprogram for both aviators andmechanics s still n progress.Formal schools are a must forpilot qualification n CH-54 andCH-47 aircraft; but for OH-58OH-6 and U H-\ helicopters, pilot training plans call for Guardinstructor pilots to be schooltrained, then to conduct localtransition training n each state.School quotas for instructorpilots have not always matchedreceipt of aircraft in somestates; the U. S. ContinentalArmy Command CONARC) andArmy area commanders haveresponded to calls for assistanceby providing qualified active instructor pilots and ground schoolinstructors and, n some cases,have provided aircraft on anexchange of funds basis.

Experienced former activeaviators now n the ARNG haveprovided the nucleus of qualifiedpersonnel in aircraft systemsand n gunnery, while unit aviators are undergoing transitiontraInIng. Aviation mechanictraining in the new aircraft systems also s being conducted at

Above left: Georgia NationalGuardsmen plan a surveillancemission while below membersof the Alabama National Guardpull routine maintenance on theirrecently acquired UH l Hueys



23/68

Photo right: An OH-23B, for manyyears an integral part of the ArmyNational Guard aviation fleet, willsoon be retired from the NationalGuard. Below: Florida Army NationalGuardsman checks avionics equipment on a new Florida N OH-58 Kiowa

formal aVIatIOn schools as wellas within the unit by using mobile assistance teams and training t eams f rom Army areamaintenance sections.

Formal schools take the longest time to produce qualified in-dividuals and the courses includematerial already familiar to ex perienced ARNG mechanics.Therefore, Ft. Eustis is tailoringmaintenance courses to matchthe need for pure aircraft systemtraining.

Emphasis on airmobile training is appearing in both aviationand ground unit training; thistraining was made necessarysince aircraft capable of conducting airmobile operationswere previously in only a fewstates. To ensure airmobile training for ground commanders andaviation unit commanders whowill be controlling airmobile ex ercises, CON ARC has established a I-week course whichcovers the latest airmobile concepts.

Without question the ARNGaviation program is steadilygrowing and expanding as itabsorbs new aircraft systemsand melds Vietnam returneeaviators and enlisted men into itsranks. The ARNG response tothe tremendous tasks involved inpreparing for new readinessroles was given in a re entspeech by Major General Francis S. Greenlief, Chief, NationalGuard Bureau, and a dual qualified Army aviator when he said,

We have a dramatic program inARNG aviation. I t is a challenge. It is a challenge we wel-come t . .MARCH 972


24/68

Closed Circuit Refueling SystemMajor Frederic H. Stubbs

The author is the project officer in the Office ofAssistant Chief of Staff for Force Development forfielding the new closed circuit refueling systemwhich is now being incorporated into the rmy

RE YOU SICK and tired ofaviation fuel dripping or

spilling on you from a leakynozzle or sudden overflow?What about that moment ofsheer panic when there is anunexpected surge of fuel pressure that almost knocks the hoseout of your hand or the nozzleout of the aircraft fuel receiver?Have you experienced that completely helpless feeling when anaircraft burst into flames because of a refueling accident?Well, help is on the way in theform of a closed-circuit refuelingsystem. t is a relatively simplesystem composed of two mainpieces of hardware: a receiverportion which replaces the present filler neck and cap on theUH-l/AH-IG aircraft and a specially designed nozzle to complete the closed circuit. Theclosed-circuit nozzle assembly isoperable under all environmentalconditions.

Experience in the Republic ofVietnam clearly indicates thathot refueling (engines running)will more than likely be the order of the day in any futureconflict. This means expeditiousrefueling in the most forwardpositions. The constant threat offires during refueling has alwaysbeen a matter of grave concern.When you add the inherent dangers of -spillage during hot refueling under the pressures of

22

combat you have automaticallymultiplied these dangers and disasters can be only a few dropsaway.

The closed-circuit refuelingsystem is a welcomed safety feature; one that is long overdue.We cannot take hot refuelinglightly. The record is a bit toogrim for complacency. Duringthe period of January 1967 toAugust 1971, the Army experienced 30 fires associated withhot refueling. These consisted of3 UH-ICs, 1 UH-IH, 4 AH

IGs, 1 CH-47B and 1 OH-13Sresulting in 1 fatal injury, 4 serious injuries, 4 minor injuriesand a total cost of 2,397,526.

The closed-circuit automaticshutoff capability of the closedcircuit refueling system is atechnique to preclude fires during hot refueling. The closedcircuit refueling system is designed for fueling under pressurewith optimum speed, minimumloss of fuel and a high safetyfactor. t virtually eliminatesspillage, waste, fire hazards,contamination and the toxiceffects of jet fuel on fuel handling personnel. There is noweight penalty or loss of usefulpayload and the cost is minimalfor the gains realized.

The receiver becomes a partof the airframe and is compatible with the crashworthy fuelsystem. Both depot overhauled

and new production UH-l/AH-1G aircraft are now incorporating the new receiver unit. Modification work order 55-1500-206-20/3 (Modification to InstallClosed-Circuit Spillproof Refueling Receiver for UH-l C/D/H/M,dated 3 August 1971) is now inthe field to modify the fuelingreceptacles on the remainder ofthe fleet. This is a very simplemodification which can be applied by organizational maintenance in about 1 manhour usingonly one man.

The operation of the system isreally quite simple. Nozzleconnection is accomplished by astraight push to automaticallylatch the nozzle to the aircraftreceiver. The handle is a twoposition (flow up and no flow

down ) lever which controlsthe flow of fuel through the nozzle. The nozzle should be connected to the aircraft receiverwhile the handle is in the noflow (down) position. Once thenozzle has been connected,move the' handle to the flow (up)position. Automatic shutoff wiJIoccur in the aircraft at completion of fill. The handle should beplaced in the no flow (down)position after completion of fill.

The nozzle is disconnectedfrom the receiver by pulling theactivating ring lanyard. Emergency disconnect during refueling operations, while the handle



25/68

is in a flow position, may beaccomplished by pulling the activating ring lanyard and the fuelflow will stop regardless of thehandle position. The nozzle maymodulate on and off to top offtanks where the aircraft usesmultiple fuel tanks.

The nozzle assembly must bekept free of ice, snow, mud anddirt which could prevent retraction of the activating ring. Thisis easily accomplished by thedust plug. The dust plug shouldbe replaced after each refuelingin order to keep contaminatesfrom entering the fuel system.A t the time of this writing thenozzle is to be used only withjet fuel (lP-4). t has been determined that MOGAS has a deteriorating effect on the bondingmaterial used on the seal in thenozzle; however, the concept isgood and the system is com-

MARCH 1972

Closed circuit refueling systempletely reliable when used withjet fuels. The Army and themanufacturer are testing othermaterials which would enablethe nozzle to be used with allliquids. Preliminary results of anew seal appear to be favorable.

The question might be raisedas to why the Army didn't comeup with a system comparable tothe local service station automatic shutoff system rather thanhave the receiver protrude sodeeply into the fuel cell. TheArmy did look at this system butit proved to be completely unreliable. The system neither prevented spillage thereby deceasing the chance for a fire nordid it prevent snow, ice, rain ordust from entering the fuel cell.

The closed-circuit refuelingsystem is being fielded and inorder to stop the hot refueling

mishaps it is now up to each unitin the field to requisition nozzlesmishaps it is now up to each unitin the field to requisition nozzlesfor refueling trucks and forwardarea refueling pumps. The Nozzle Assembly Kit Closed-CircuitRefueling, FSN 4930-478-5728should be requisitioned from theSharpe Army Depot . Unitsshould requisition the nozzle ona one for one basis with thestandard gravity fill nozzles presently authorized. The st andardgravity fill nozzle should be retained for contingency purposesin refueling aircraft not equippedwith the closed-circuit receivercap. Once the items are onhandevery petroleum specialist, crewchief and pilot should becomethoroughly familiar with the useand handling of this piece ofequipment. Let's stop needlessaccidents with hot refueling.

3


26/68

4

Managers Come In Different Sizes

James R Woods DACAviation Safety Officer

Atlanta Army epot

emsa

M ANAGERS COME in different sizes andshapes. Their attitudes vary in relation tohow they view a situation and their individualresponsibility To some any situation requiring adecision becomes a problem. This keeps themawake at night and sometimes during the day too But if we wanted to place two commanders intoa stereotype configuration and examine their reac-tions to a need for action we could view from adistance the actions of two commanders-Commander Excitable and Commander Decidable Towatch these two birds in their lair we need tofeather the nest with some situation and some ac-tion

First we observe Commander Excitable as hepaces his office floor bemoaning his poverty andcircling his desk with the rug nap tickling his an-kles We can hear his gentle voice as he bellows

U S ARMY AVIATION DIGEST


27/68

ndTheir ttitudes Vary

for his executive officer, Hey, Joe, what's withthis Captain Nitpick? We appoint him aviationsafety officer and this aviation survey report hejust filed looks like it should be processed by thechaplain. Hasn't he ever heard of our base safetyoffice? We're not always getting a lot of junk likethis from those people. Why is Nitpick filing suchreports ?

With Old Joe, the XO, just s tanding thereCommander Excitable continues to roll on non-stop. Nitpick is complaining that we don't sup-port the ASO. Why, it was just last month that Icalled and told the base safety officer thatwanted complete coordination between the safetypeople and the maintenance people. and thatincluded the ASO.

Now here is another of these surveys and heis complaining about the police of the area. WhatMARCH 1972 5


28/68

the devil does policing the area have to do withaviation safety anyway? Nitpick should be able toget with the hangar chief and get the area policedup. Why send this junk on up to me? I have better things to do. I guess he wants me to jump intomy staff car and run down and police the areamyself.

And look here, Nitpick is complaining aboutnot running up the engines every 3 days. f thelubrication system is so inadequate that we can'tlet an engine set for a week, we need some newengines or some new oil. I know the manual saysto nm them up every 3 days but that is nonsense.

I don't run my car engine every 3 days when I goon TDY for a couple of weeks. I guess I ought tohave him run over to the house and turn it overfor me.

But Commander. . . , the executive officerstarts to say and never finishes as CommanderExcitable rambles on, Look here at this jazzagain about batteries not being disconnected whilethe birds are in the hangar. How are we going toget our aircraft in and out of the hangar with anyflying time if we have to connect and disconnectthe batteries every time we park one? That's justlike this comment about empty and partiallyempty fuel cells in aircraft parked in the hangar26

for a little maintenance. We don't have time tokeep draining those tanks all the time and it suredoesn't make good sense to me to keep them fullwhile they are sitting around for some wrenchbender to play with. "Old Commander Excitable is really getting upto flying speed now. And look here, he expounds waving papers, Nitpick is back on thattire thing again. He wants them rotated every 48hours or else blocked up to relieve the load onthem. What are tires for if they don't support theload? Maintenance has enough to do now withoutspending all its time pampering Nitpick.

The executive officer is sitting down now andjust shaking his head because he knows this willbe a long afternoon. He'll just have to wait untilCommander Excitable runs down.

Commander Excitable hovers by his desk andgrowls, Nitpick must be a misfit. He can't seemto understand what's going on. Here he is complaining about Lieutenant Colonel Fuzz not takinghis regular physical examination and not getting inhis flying time. Fuzz has more time getting intoand out of aircraft than Nitpick has in the service.I have had Fuzz working overtime on our budgetand Nitpick wants him to go practice flying.Hell's bells , Fuzz can fly in his sleep better thanmost of these yardbirds we call pilots can flyawake. Fuzz is a Senior aviator and has beenflying for years

Commander Excitable's voice trails off as hereads with amazement showing in his face. Lookat this Now he wants orientation and standardization rides. He claims they are not being conducted. What does he want-guided tours? Thatbunch of characters we have as pilots have beenflying for years. Why, even most of our youngones have had two tours in Vietnam. Now if Nitpick wants someone to learn to fly we can arrangefor a short tour, starting say like with a PCS forNitpick. "

And look here, he's not even consistent. Hereis a typical gripe. Lieutenants Morehours andEagerbeaver were in the air all day on the 20th onassigned missions, then they pulled some assignednight flying time and set down about 2400. Nowjust because they cut out again at 0800 on the 2 stfor cross country, Nitpick is having a fit. Thosetwo birds would have been up to 2400 or betterchasing some babe or playing cards anyway.Anyhow, you have to hogtie them to keep themout of the air.

Commander Excitable sort of calms down as heremembers some of his younger days as a juniorgrade officer-shavetail style-and then he starts



29/68

in again, And this incident business thosefour near-accidents. . . he c1aims we had fourprecautionary landings in the last 6 weeks and hec1aims this indicates a need for more commandemphasis on aviation safety. I'm behind safety allthe way; tell him that every month when hebrings the subject up. What we need is mechanicswho know a box end from an open end.Nitpick is going to make an old man out ofme, grumbles Excitable. Here he is in a lathercomplaining about pilots failing to listen to in-structions from air traffic control (ATC). We havesome hot pilots in this outfit. He is complainingbecause Lieutenant Taxifirst did not contact thetower before starting to taxi on the 25th and al-most c10bbered a fuel truck. What the devil is afuel truck doing in the middle of the taxi runwayanyhow? Check on that truck driver for me andsee if he has a driver's license. He ought not tohave one if he is going to run all over the place ina tank truck.And this crack about the ATC boys wi justknock your hat into the creek. He c1aims TowerController Sad Sam sounds like he has a mouthfull of cold grits and is using poor phraseology,doesn't speak c1early and distinctly and talks toofast for c1ear copy. Then Nitpick c1aims Old Samgets mad when the pilot asks him to say againsome transmission. just don't believe Nitpickhas a happy family life. He just does not seem tolike anyone. We got to do something about thatboy

By this time you probably have had enough ofOld Excitable, so let's slip over to where Commander Decidable is reviewing his aviation surveyreport. As we slide over into our approach we canhear him addressing his executive officer, Charlie, have just gone over this aviation resourcesmanagement report our ASO, Captain Smal1point,filed. He pointed out some four near-incidentsand/or precautionary landings in the last 6 weeksalong with other items that make me think hadbetter take a look at our safety and maintenancepractices.

We have some repetitions on failure to run upengines and you know what that does to the hydraulic systems as wel1 as to engines. Also, someof these hotshots we have don't realize that thebest way to pop a wheel on a landing is to fail torotate tires or to take the load off them if theycan't be rotated every 48 hours. Let them pop atire on a cross wind landing and they'l1 wish theyhad paid some attention.

Yes, we made a right choice when we putCPT Smal1point down as our ASO. He doesn'tMARCH 1972

miss much, but what he calls incidents I call indi-cators and they indicate had better take a lookbecau se somebody is getting careless. want toget some where when and whys answered before

have to start filling out a lot of letters answeringquestions on a real accident. Now, here is whatwant you

So, as we leave Commander Decidable andhead for home we should consider that no one isalways completely right and no one is alwayscompletely wrong. We want to be a lot c10ser toright than wrong though. So, if you are a commander or aviation safety officer or pilot orwhatever your position, where do you fit into thecurrent scene? We all have a part to play; thequestion is just how well do we play it. fIIIiJ

27


30/68

VER HEAR AN Army aircraft report 40,000 feet?CW2 Thomas G. Yoha reportedFL 400 (flight level 40,000) toHouston Center during an international record setting flight inArmy OV-IC 67-18923.

The 293d Aviation Company(SA), 55th Aviation Battalion(Cbt), Ft. Hood, TX, conductedflights on 8 and 9 June 1971which represented the first attempts ever made by an Armytactical unit to establish officialworld performance records. Previous records set in Army aircr f t were l imited to jo intmilitary/manufacturer attempts.CPT Richard J. Steinbock wascopilot on the flights which successfully culminated 4 months ofeffort in coordinating, planningand preparing for the historicalevents.In accordance with AR 95-28 arequest for authority to establishperformance records was forwarded by the 293d on 29 February 1971. Reasoning, as stated in

28

Houston Center, Army 18923 FL 400 starting de-scent. Request clearance to Robert Gray AAF. Aportion of the report on how an Army tactical unitby its resolve established new world aviation recordsfor climb, sustained flight and maximum altitude

Major Brownie D West

the request , was to carry outDepartment of the Army andDepartment of Defense policy ofinforming the people of the continuous advancement in UnitedStates engineering and technological capabilities. Final ap p r o v l w s g r n t e d tDepartment of Defense, Officeof Public Affairs.

The unit proposed to establishworld altitude and time-to-climbrecords in Class C-l-e, Group II.This class comprises turboproplight airplanes weighing 3,000 to6,000 kilograms (6,614 to 3 ,227pounds). The Grumman OV-ICMohawk, powered by two T53-L-15 Lycoming turbine jet en gines, weighed 11,875 pounds ontakeoff. Maximum altitude wasexpected to exceed 40,000 feet.Time-to-climb to 3,000, 6,000and 9,000 meters was expectedto be approximately 3, 7 and 2minutes respectively.

Performance record flightsmade by CW2 Yoha and CPTSteinbock were officially moni-

tored by the National AeronauticAssociation (N AA). N AA is theu S. representative to the Federation Aeronautique Internationale (F AI) of Paris, France.F AI is the international authorityfor certification of world records. N AA representative, Mr.A. Earl Hansen, observed theinstallation of equipment to register performance and he officially monitored each flight.

The Mohawk performed su perbly as anticipated. On 8 June1971 aircraft 923 took off at0650 hours from Robert GrayArmy Airfield at Ft. Hood, TX,and climbed to 3,000 meters(9,843 feet) in 2 minutes 46 seconds. An altitude of 6,000 meters (19,685 feet) was attained in5 minutes 46 seconds. A thirdclimb record was set at 9,000meters (29,528 feet) in minutes 4 seconds. At approximately 33,000 feet a compressorstall caused CW2 Yoha to shutdown 2 engine and return toRobert Gray. After a thorough



31/68

engine inspection 923 took offthe following afternoon andclimbed to a maximum altitudeof 39 880 feet. A sustained flightrecord was set at 36,352 feet.These records are not astounding when compared with recordsestablished by jet aircraft, however, the Mohawk's performance is truly significant forturboprop airplanes. The climbrecords established at 3,000 and6,000 meters surpassed previousrecords set by turboprop airplanes in all classes.

Army aviation can justifiablyboast this achievement by professional aviation personnel.From the coordination, planningand persistent efforts of CW2Y oha and PT S t e i nbockemerged approval for officialrecord attempts by an aviationcompany for the first time in thehistory of Army aviation. Theircoordination with N AA established procedures for conductingthe record flights. Coordinationwith FAA Regional Headquarters, Fort Worth, TX, and Houston Air Traffic Control Centerwas necessary for clearance tohigh altitudes. Other individualsdeserving recognition includeMr. John Mako and Mr. JackLacey, Grumman AerospaceCorporation representatives whoarlvised and assisted in planningthe attempt. They gave assistance to CPT David B. O'Hara,293d maintenance officer and tothe OV-I mechanics who prepared aircraft 923.

The OV-I mechanics removedall unnecessary equipment andinstalled a baragraph, an additional altimeter, stop watchesand movie cameras to recordperformance. Mr. James Morority, AVCO Lycoming field engi-

Crew preoxygenation 2hours prior to takeoff. L-RPT Steinbock CW3 Hal

l iburton and CW2 Yoha

MARCH 1972

neer, and Mr. Carl Herrington,field representative, assisted inpreparing the engines. The twobest L-15 engines available wereselected and installed on aircraft923. SSG Ray E. Okerson's turbine engine mechanics visuallyinspected each engine and conducted performance tests. Theyadjusted each engine for peakperformance and determined themaximum available power whichwas to be safely utilized on takeoff.

Under the guidance and supervision of LTC Thomas BirrielCarmona, chief flight surgeon,II I Corps and Ft. Hood, elaborate plans and procedures wereoutlined to prepare the crew forsafe flight into rarefied atmosphere. Air Force regulationsprohibit flights above 25,000 feetin aircraft without pressurizedcabins. OV-ls do not have pressurized cabins but boast an excellent diluter demand oxygensystem capable of supplying 100percent oxygen under pressure.

Complete physical examinations were administered andsimulated flights were made in

an altitude chamber. The chamber flights, profiled with programed climb rates to a peakaltitude of 46,000 feet, simulatedalmost exactly what the crewwould experience on actualflights. Each crewmember in haled 100 percent oxygen for 2hours prior to takeoff. Enteringthe aircraft cockpit each crewmember unplugged from portable oxygen bottles and pluggedinto the aircraft oxygen systemwith zero dilution. Preoxygenation was necessary to rid theblood system of nitrogen. Expansion of nitrogen at high altitude produces bubbles in theblood which become intolerableto the human body above 25,000feet. These preparations minimized possibili ty of physicalharm resulting from exposure upto 46,000 feet.The t rue signif icance ofachieving these records is notjust the superb OV -I performance. It took sterling performances by the individuals whoplanned, prepared and flewMohawk 923 into the recordbooks.


32/68

Aviation Fuels: Since fueling ordefueling operations representthe most frequently repeatedhandling of flammable materials,le t 's list a few do ' s and"don'ts. Always fuel in the open air,performing such operations atleast 15 feet from any type ofbuilding. Also, the fueling vehicle should not be closer than 2feet to the aircraft. Always make grounding andbonding connections beforeopening tanks. Always make sure theproper grade and quantity desired is dispensed. Always stop fueling if anyhazard becomes apparent. Always report accidents,spills and mistakes immediately. Always make sure no maintenance is being performed onthe aircraft during fueling operations.

Never leave the nozzle unattended during fueling operations nor allow the nozzle triggerto be blocked or tied open. Never carry matches or acigarette lighter during fuelingoperations. Never wear clothes that arewet with fuel.

inten nce Never carry loose articles

that can drop into aircraft tanks.The addition of the gas turbineaircraft engine into the Armyinventory makes it imperativethat the hazards peculiar to JP-4fuel be thoroughly understood. The fuel-air mixture ofvapor above the fuel level intanks and vents or from spillageon ramp, clothing or rags wil1 becombustible under most conditions of temperature, pressure

and altitude. This is in contrastwith vapors from gasoline orkerosene which would normallybe either too rich or too lean andhave a more limited combustionrange. For sea level pressure thetemperature range for combustion of JP-4 vapor is very broad,about a minus 1 degrees F . to aplus 80 degrees F.; for aviationgasoline under the same conditions the combustion range isabout 0 degrees to a plus 3 degrees F. Thus, the enforcementof no-smoking regulations becomes doubly important in areaswhere JP-4 fuel is stored ortransferred.

Bonding the aircraft to thefuel servicing vehicle and thengrounding the vehicle to the

WH N R FU LING

earth will equalize the electricalpotential between these units butwill not prevent the formation ofan electrical charge which canproduce sparks along the surfaceof the fuel. This type of chargecan be minimized by avoidingsplashing and excessive surfaceagitation during fueling operations. The possibility of staticdischarge is the most hazardoussingle source of ignition in handling JP-4 fuel.

old Those Shims: Before youwaste those hard to get shimsfor your Kiowa swashplate -HEED First, try this simpleprocedure. Adjust swashplatefriction by manipulating torquevalues from minimum to maximum starting at minimum andadjusting in 5-pound incrementsuntil satisfactory adjustment isobtained. After following thisprocedure it will be found that inmost cases new shims wil1 notbe needed at all.

ip From The Top: During ourcareers as aviation mechanicssome of us have a tendency to



33/68

attersFurnished by the Department of Maintenance T r a i n i ~ g Ft. Rucker AL

Temperature ranges in which the fuel-air mixture or vapor above the fuel level intanks and vents or from spillage on ramps, clothing or rags at sea level is flammable

15

1

5

5 JP-4become set in our ways. In otherwords, we do a certain job inour own special way. This canmean many things from usingonly our own personal tools tohaving our work area in one particular part of the hangar.All of us "older" mechanicsand supervisors have our ownlittle idiosyncrasies about theway we work. What we tend toforget, however, are the basicsthat we were taught back inschool. One thing that wastaught to us was the proper way

MARCH 972

VG Sto protect ourselves and ourclothing from becoming fouledin running aircraft components. Ihave listed just a few that Iremember. Don't wear metal taps onshoes or boots as they couldcause sparks. metal ranks insignia or unitcrest worn on the cap can c a u ~ edamage to rotor blades if blownthrough them. Sleeves should be taped(masking tape) to minimize thepossibility of being snagged by

rotating comppnents. Jewelry ~ h o u l d not be wornwhen working around aircraftbecause of the possibility ofbeing snagged by rotating components or s h r t i ~ g out the electrical systems. Clothing should never bewashed with aviation fuel.

These are just a few; there aremany more don'ts one canthink of. And there's plenty ofroom to elaborate about jewelry(wedding bands and wrist watches)Caution-All UB- Pilots: Beforeleaving the aircraft ensure thebattery switch is off and thevoltmeter selector switch is inany position except the batteryposition. f left in the batteryposition the voltmeter instrument will monitor battery voltage and drain the battery.Climbing Collective: During preflight pay extra attention to thelockplate on the underside of thecollective hub to ensure t h ~ t thescrews are installed and safetied.f the IQckplate should come offin flig1' t, the collective hub

would climb the mast causingthe pilo't to lose control of theaircraft.


34/68

rmy viation ReserveContinued from page 4installations and aviation facili-ties.It is an expensive and complex problem to acquire adequate facilities for aviationtraining , operations and maintenance. In those areas whereappropriate military facilities arenot available, leases are negotiated with civilian operators atlocal airports for use as Reserveaviation facilities. Despite thedifficulties this multifacet problem is being resolved on an al-most daily basis. We anticipatehaving it completely solved byearly spring.The Army Reserve now hasthe green light to take care ofits own aircraft. In the pastArmy Reservists performed onlyorganizational maintenance ontheir aircraft, relying on the active Army for higher level support. Now, direct support (DS)is being performed at manyArmy Reserve aviation facilities.A direct support capability isfound where the aviation unithas a direct support or higherlevel of aircraft maintenancemission;

army aviation digest - mar 1972

Documents