army aviation digest - sep 1978

7/27/2019 Army Aviation Digest - Sep 1978

1/52

UNITED ST TES RMY SEPTEMBER 978VI TION GEST

SO YOU RE N I P page


2/52

VO U tfAV TioNY iGEST NUMBER* *rigadier General Ca rl H. McNa ir Jr. Major General James C. SmithCommander Brigadier General James H. PattersoDeputy Commanderrmy Aviation Off ice rODCSOPS, Headquarters,Department of the Army U.S. Army Aviation CenterFort Rucker, Alabama U.S. Army Aviation Center

page 2

page

Richard K. TierneyEditor

Fort Rucker, Alabama

1 The Need For Instrument Training For ArmyAviators, MG James C. Smith andCPT Omer L. McCants2 Are You Really An IP?6 Vacat ion Is Over, CW3 John A. Bauer8 Rescue On Rainier, CPT Thomas F. Stewart11 Night And Adverse Weather Training, LTC MatthewR. Kambrod13 AVNEC Part IV: Army Aviation Personnel AndTraining Problems, MAJ Glenn G. Rother16 Update On Attack Helicopters Office of TSM-AH22 OPMS Corner: Promotion Board ReflectionsBG Jack Walker24 Blowing Snow Whiteouts28 Not Knowing Your Pilots30 Views From Readers40 PEARL'S42 It's The One You Don 't See That Will Get You,MAJ Lucas D. Lowery Jr.44 JAWS, MAJ Joe Beach48 ATC Action Line

Inside Back Cover: Army Aviation Systems ProgramReview (AAPR-78)Back Cover: Introduction To JAWS

ABOUT THE COVERHow do you stack up as an IP? To find out,see article beginning on page 2.

page

page 4

page 4

The mission of the U S Army Aviation Digest is to provide information of anoperational . functional nature concerning safety and aircraft accident prevenfion. trai ning. maintenance . operatio ns. research and deve lopme nt . aviati onmedicine and other related data.

Thi s p ub licat io n ha s been approved b y Th e Ad jutant General , HeadquartDepart ment of the Army. 22 June 1978 , in accordance wit h AR 3 10-1 .Active Army uni ts receive distribut ion u nde r t he pinpo int d istribution systas outlined in AR 310-1 Complete DA Form 12-5 and send d irec tl y to CDAG Publicati ons Center. 2800 Eastern' Boulevard, Bal t imore. MD 21220 .any change in distribution req u irements . in iti ate 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 Avia ti on Center . Ph otos are U.S. Ar my unless otherw isespecified Materia l may be rep ri nted provided credit is given to the Dige st andto the author , unless otherwise indicated .Articles, photos and items of interest on Army av iation are invited. Directco mmunication is authorized to: Editor, U S Army Aviation Diges t Fort Rucke r,AL 36362 .

National Guard and Army Reserve units under p inpo int distributio n ashould submit DA Form 12-5. Oth er Nat ional Guard units shou ld submitques ts th rough thei r state adjutant genera l

Those not elig ible for off icia l distribution or who desire personal copiesthe Digest can order the magaz ine from the Super inte nden t of DocumeU S. Gove rn ment Printing Office . Washington. DC 20402 . Ann ual su bscr ip trates are 17 .00 domestic and 21 .25 overseas


3/52

]TH 10 o 12 0 . 0 0 0)NEED(9 q t;JlIoFOR INSTRUMENTTR ININ FOR

RMY VI TORS lMajor General James C Smith

CommanderU.S. Army Aviation CenterFort Rucker, AL

Captain (P) Omer L McCantsTraining Developments OfficerDirectorate of Training Developments

Fort Rucker, AL

This article discusses the Army s need for instrument ratedaviators and the training program which supports this require-ment. It examines why there is a requirement for Army aviatorswho possess instrument capabilities the background of theinstrument training program and the current instrument training

to include equipment and cost

ON TOD Y'S battlefield, Army aviators will notonly face those obstacles posed by the threatand the terrain, but they also must be equipped andqualified to operate day and night under marginalweather conditions. When Army aviation's marginalweather capability is coupled with its mobility andfirepower, this element of the combined arms teamis recognizably an invaluable asset to commandersin accomplishment of their missions.

The threat is the most important factor affectingmission requirements. FM 90-1 Employment of ArmyAviation Units In A High Threat Environment ,states: In the future Army aviation units will fightas a part of the combined arms team in a high threatenvironment . This foundation doctrine se ts forthcon cept s of employ ment for Army aviation unitsagainst a sophisticated enemy who will confront uswith highly advanced air def ense and elec tronic war-fare th reats. ,.

SEPTEMBER 1978

It has been said of computer war games that thebalance of combat power in the European scenariomay well be the attack helicopte r It is essentialthat Army aviation elements be able to provide formovement of troops , logistical support and reconnaissance and surveillance for the ground tacticalelements at all times. This includes ma rginal weathe rday and night .Tactical situations may require commanders at anylevel to use their aviation assets within the threat environment without limiting their consideration of useto fair weather. A typical combat mission profile willlook like this (figure 1, page 32). The threat will requireaviators to fly below acquisition altitudes of theenemy's air defense weapons while terrain obstaclesdictate the minimum altitude when marginal weatheris encountered. The aviators then must resort to in-strument flying, either standard or tactical. Aviators

Continued on page 3

1


4/52

SO YOU RE AN P

2 U S RMY AVIATION DIGEST


5/52

NTENTIONALLY or unintentionally, we all influence others, and they, in turn, influence us. Astudent aviator will develop safe habits and attitudeswhile in flight school based on his experiences thereand the kind of influence exerted upon him. And theindividual who will influence him the most is the IP.

For the most part, the IP's role in a formal schoolenvironment appears to be cut and dried. All facetsof training are organized and all activities plannedand supervised from start to finish. In performing hisjob, he follows an established curriculum sequentiallyfrom one phase to the next. This, coupled with bythe-book regimentation, leaves the student little chanceto acquire unsafe habits. Yet, despite these safeguards , unsafe habits can be transmitted to the student and done so by the least likely of all individuals-the IP himself.

Looking back over the years , we find numerousexamples. In one instance, the IP involved was ayoung, robust individual. During a training flight in atandem fixed wing aircraft, he told his student tobegin a series of climbing turns. Promptly afterwards ,the instructor passed out. When he regained con-sciousness , the altimeter needle was crossing the12 OOO-foot mark. Unaware his instructor had passedout, the student was dutifully performing climbingturns, pending further instructions .

On reporting to the flight surgeon, the IP was admitted to a hospital where, after undergoing a batteryof tests, he was found to be suffering from exhaustion.A bachelor,he had eased into the habit of staying uplate, frequenting night clubs where he drank moder-ately but regularly, and smoking excessively. Over aperiod of time even his strong youthful body couldnot cope with the stresses imposed on it. A change ofhabits soon had him back in shape and he had nofurther problems.

Nevertheless, what effect did his former lifestylehave on those students aware of his personal habits?How did they relate his actions with the lectures theyreceived concerning physiological factors and safety?While no one can say with certainty, we can be surethe impression transmitted was not one harmoniouswith safety.In another instance, following numerous reportsof students buzzing local lake and land areas, spotterplanes were dispatched to identify violators. Embar-rassingly, the first to be caught was an IP on aproficiency flight. No, he wasn't doing it for thrills.

SEPTEMBER 1978

t t ~ ~U S V S

He was an avid fisherman who, by his own admission,often used the aircraft as a means for checking theconditions of area lakes. But despite his intentions,not only were his actions in violation of regulationsbut they also served to entice others to follow suit.

Sometimes, even the best intentions can backfirewhe re safety is concerned. One such case involvedan IP who , in an effort to promote safety conscious-ness among his students, embarked on a procedurethat almost produced the opposite results. It allstarted when a student questioned him intently as tothe turbulence associated with thunderclouds and itsseverity. After describing the hazardous winds associated with thunderclouds as well as he could, heproceeded to skirt around the edges of a relativelysmall, billowy cloud. His intent was to implant in thestudent's mind that if the amount of turbulence theyencountered could be found outside a small inactivecloud, the student might well imagine the devastatingforces present within a towering cumulonimbus.

The demonstration proved so effective the IPunofficially adopted it as a part of the curriculum.And all went well until one day, while rounding acloud in a similar demonstration, he met a solostudent skirting the same cloud from the oppositedirection. Needless to say, the near miss put a stop tothis practice. However, this experience does pointout how fast word can travel and the vast amount ofinfluence that rests in the hands of IPs.JUDGMENT L ERRORSUnfortunately, IPs are sometimes guilty of initiatingunsafe acts by exercising poor judgment. Basically, itinvolves taking chances, especially with respect toinclement weather. It usually works this way. The IPand his student are operating out of an auxiliary fieldaway from their home station when the weatherbegins to deteriorate. Suddenly, the IP must make adecision to either land and remain at the auxiliarysite until the weather conditions improve or head forhome. f he elects to land, it may mean a delay ofseveral hours before flight can be safely resumed.Consequently, the decision to get home is commonlymade. All too often this results in their encounteringweather more severe than anticipated. and some-times, in an accident. But even when the flight terminates safely, as is more often the case, what effectdoes such a decision have on the student'? Someday,will he be enticed into making a similar choice and maybe guess wrong?

3


6/52

SO YOURE AN IP

4

Such judgmental type errors are the predominancauses of mishaps involving IPs. Recently, an IP oa cross-country flight got in a hurry. Nevertheless, hperformed all inspections and checks of his fixewing aircraft by the book, omitting nothing. Aftelanding at his destination, he again performed achecks required. But because of his anxiety to returhome, he elected not to take the time needed trefuel. Having visually inspected his fuel tanks, hestimated the fuel supply to be more than adequateHe was wrong. It wasn't.SPECIAL SET OF PROBLEMS

We can readily see the impact the IP has on aviation safety. As a matter of fact, he is probably inbetter position to enhance safety than any otheindividual. But unlike the IP in a formal school environment, the unit IP faces a special set of problemsHere he is dealing with other professional aviatorwho are his peers. s he going to give in to anpressure for leniency or is he going to demand professionalism? Is he going to be Mr. Nice Guy or MrBad? While this, of course, is an exaggeration , evernewly assigned unit IP has to face this question isome form.

If for example, during a check ride, he finds hicommander weak in some area of flying proficiencyis he going to pass him with the admonition to brusup on that particular weak area; or is he going tchalk up that flight as one of training and insist thcommander be scheduled for additional training flightuntil he is proficient in all areas? It's a tough decision. How does one handle it?PSYCHOLOGIST ND FRIEND

This points out another aspect of an IP's jobBeing knowledgeable and able to communicate inot enough. He must also be a psychologist andfriend as well as judge and jury. Different IPs wihandle this type of problem in different ways, and doso with equal success. One unit IP did it this way. Inhis words (paraphrased): In my case, it reallywasn't difficult. The worst part was that I was newfrom another unit-so I had to feel my way arounda bit. Actually, the group was a good one. They tooktheir flying seriously, and there was no horsingaround. This made my job easy.I had respect for the responsibilities each hadand I felt they, in turn, would respect mine. Consequently, regardless of who the individual was, whenwe climbed into the cockpit, I suddenly acquired a

U.S. ARMY AVIATION DIGEST


7/52

case of amnesia. I didn't remember his face, rank ortitle; and his name rang no bell. He became anotherindividual who was to demonstrate his ability to flya particular aircraft. But one thing I never forgot wasthat he was a person-with feelings-just like me.And that's how it was. f he was proficient, hepassed. If I felt he needed more work, we scheduledadditional training flights until I knew he was readyfor the big one

This IP's system must have worked; for later, at hissuggestion to his commander, an agreement wasmade with a neighboring unit to give each other'spilots check rides. Of course, it was impossible to dothis with all the pilots, but the two units did manageto swap out about one-third of their aviators, includingtheir commanders and safety and maintenance officers. This prevented any hard feelings and eachknew he had to be proficient. Although only onethird of the pilots would be given check rides by theother unit's IP, no one knew who would be scheduled.Consequently, there was a lot of book work andbrushing up on procedures on the part of all flightpersonnel. The result was topnotch pilots in bothunits.However, not everything worked out this smoothly.One particular pilot was having some trouble withemergency procedures and was getting a bit peevedat not taking his check ride, feeling he was ready.But the IP wouldn't budge an inch. Finally, he madeit. Nevertheless he harbored a certain amount ofunspoken resentment against the IP. Coincidentally,not long afterwards, this pilot had an in-flight emergency that tested his proficiency for real. He passedthat test, too. It was then that he told the IP about hisresentment -and thanked him. That was the day

the IP graduated. He had been accepted as one ofthe group, and had done so by earning their respect.But gaining acceptance is only one hurdle a unit IPhas to clear. There are others.

What does an IP do when he knows an experiencedand knowledgeable pilot is intentionally performingsome unsafe act in conjunction with flying, whetherone of commission or omission'? For example, whatdoes he do about a pilot who carries his checklist inhis head instead of in his hands'? Does he go to thecommander or the safety officer with the problem,or does he handle it himself? Hopefully, he willexercise his authority and handle the matter himself.Does this sound petty? Well, it hasn't been too longago that a fixed wing pilot began a takeoff with twoother crewmembers on board. This man failed toSEPTEMBER 978

follow his checklist. Although he checked to see thatthe external gust locks were in the aircraft, he failedto ensure all had been removed. The one on the leftelevator had not. Then, after performing engineoperational checks, he failed to ensure freedom ofmovement of all controls. He was in a hurry. Andthat's how he began his flight. The aircraft crashedon takeoff, killing all aboard. The pilot in questionwas an outstanding IP with literally thousands ofhours of flying time in that type aircraft.SET TH EX MPLE

This brings up another major point: setting anexample. No IP can afford to act in any unsafe manner. He must set an example. As a matter of fact,under no conditions can such personnel as commanders, key supervisors, safety officers, and especially IPs afford to perform any unsafe acts relatedto flying.

An IP, then, is much more than a teacher. He is aleader who establishes guideposts, setting standardsby example. He is a policeman who ensures our aviators measure up to standards. He is an enforcer responsible for upgrading pilots to professional standards. He is the safety officer's right hand, whomotivates pilots to abide by regulations and SOPs,and monitors their actions.

To accomplish his job, he must not only be knowledgeable and skilled in all aspects of flying bu t alsomust possess additional skills needed to work effectively with others. He must be understanding, patient,tactful yet firm, and possess the ability to communicate with others. He must be confident in his ownabilities and capable of helping others develop confidence in themselves. Most of all, he must be dedicated to his job.Yet, the IP is not an island unto himself. He needssupport. Further, he is not infallible. Consequently,he, in turn, must be monitored. This is where thecommander comes in. t is not enough for him toselect the proper individual for IP duties. He mustconstantly monitor him for any weaknesses and support him in his responsibilities.Along with the commander, safety officer, andother key supervisors, the IP is not merely an aid inthe unit safety effort. He is especially vested with theresponsibility for promoting safety consciousness amongaviators. As a matter of fact, the authority thatassigns him this responsibility is AR 95-63.How do you stack up? On a scale from one to ten,how would you rate yourself? Are you really an IP?

5


8/52

Vacation Is

T S TIME FOR the annual writagain. Those words can makethe strong cry or the weak faintBe that as it may, the writ has arrived again and we all must take it.

The Army Aviation Written Examination was started in 1954 as atest designed to ensure that all aviators possessed an adequate workingknowledge of subjects critical tothe safe and effective use of Armyaircraft. Subjects such as regulations,navigation, map reading, aircraftperformance and combat tacticswere included.

Over the years instrument flyingbecame more and more importantand the annual writ slowly evolvedinto the Army's secondary instru-

6

OverYear's nnual Writ

Just Came n The MailCW John A auer

Department of Flight TrainingFort Rucker L

ment flight rules (lFR) proficiencyexamination (the annual instrumentrenewal checkride being primary,of course). Bit by bit, instrumentprocedure type questions appearedand by 1972, 90 percent of the testwas IFR related.So, now that we're all preparedfor our second largest IFR quiz ofth e year, it's time for a change. Surprise Surprise This year no morethan 40 percent of the questionsare IFR orientated The fiscal year(FY) 8 version of the writ has largesections devoted to visual flight rules(YFR), procedures and practices.

This year a variety of subjectsthat are either new or very hazy tomost of us are included. Aeromedi-

cine, night vision devices and techniques, threat identification and capability, and revised performanccharts head the list. The list of references that go with these subjects imighty impressive too and a few othe publications included will be aunfamiliar as the subjects. How manyof us have had an opportunity tobrowse through FM 30-20, "AeriaSurveillance and ReconnaissanceField Army"? With a show of handnow, how many have even heard oor seen it before?

The writ has undergone a fewother changes as well this year. Iwill no longer be given en masseduring the last three months of thefiscal year. Each aviator will take i



9/52

anytime during the 90-day periodpreceeding his or her birthday inconjunction with the annual standardization flight evaluation. Examnotification will be given in advanceon a standardized letter which provides the aviator with the date, timeand location to report for examination. This letter also provides a description of the examination, a listof references, and sample questionswith appropriate answers. The traditional study guide will not accompany this notification since they aretoo expensive to produce and distribute and experience has shownthat most aviators never used it.Study for the annual writ is nowup to the individual aviator. Youcan obtain a great deal of assistancein determining how best to preparefor the examination by contactingyour unit standardization officer.In general, the best method of preparing for the annual writ is to fa-miliarize yourself with the publications in the list of references. Thisfamiliarization should include reading the table of contents of eachArmy regulation, field manual, technical circular and training manualused for the exam. You also shouldread the legend in each Departmentof Defense (DOD) flight publication and on the tactical map. Ifduring the review, you discover material which is unfamiliar, a briefstudy period will prove beneficial.

The Reference Data Booklets(ROBs) will no longer be issued toeach person as a throwaway itembut will be issued instead to a unitcustodian (usually the operationsofficer) who will be responsible forkeeping them in a readable and current condition for use from year toyear. The reason for this is simplycost effectiveness. Twenty thousandor so copies of any book are expensive to publish and distribute. TheROBs will be updated as needed inmuch the same manner as ARs, TMs,etc. are updated; that is throughprinted or TWX changes. Oh well,no more crib sheets inside my ROB.

SEPTEMBER 1978

Last but not least, this year s writwill have a different exam for eachmission type aircraft in the inventoryand aviators will be tested accordingto their duty positions. These categories are: utility helicopter, attackhelicopter, observation/ scout helicopter, cargo helicopter, utility airplane, and surveillance airplane.Each test category will have two

versions, so you ll only get two shotsat earning a passing grade insteadof the usual three or four.As you can see from the list ofsubject areas covered and referencematerials used (see accompanyingfigure) a lot of time and effort willbe required of each aviator. GoodLuck and remember - now is thetime to start studying, not next week.

SUBJECT AREASIFR Planning and ProceduresWeatherTactical InstrumentsTactical EmploymentNight FlightThreat IdentificationAircraft Systems OperationsAircraft Performance ChartsAerodynamics

REFERENCES FOR FY 78 WRITAR 40-8 dtd Aug 73 Temporary Flying Restrictions Due to ExogenousFactorsAR 95-1 dtd 30 Nov 76 Army Aviation: General Provisions and Flight RegulationsAR 95-16 dtd Jul 74 Weight and Balance - Army AircraftAR 95-63 dtd 13 Dec 76 U.S. Army Aviation Standardization and InstrumentProgramFM 1-1 dtd Oct 75 Terrain FlyingFM 1-5 dtd Mar 76 Instrument Flying and Navigation for Army AviatorsFM 1-30 dtd May 76 Meteorology for Army AviatorsFM 1-50 dtd Feb 76 Fixed Wing FlightFM 1-51 dtd May 74 Rotary Wing FlightFM 30-20 dtd Feb 72 Aerial Surveillance and Reconnaissance Field ArmyFM 90-1 dtd Sep 76 Employment of Army Aviation Units in a High ThreatEnvironmentTC 1-4 dtd Sep 76 Helicopter GunneryTC 1-88 dtd Mar 77 Aviators Recognition ManualTC 1-28 dtd Feb 76 Rotary Wing Night FlightTC 17-17 dtd Dec 75 Gunnery Training for Attack HelicoptersTC 30-79 dtd 15 Jan 76 OV-1 Mohawk SurvivabilityDOD Flip Low Altitude Enroute ChartsDOD Flip IFR SupplementAircrew Training ManualAppropriate Aircraft 10

All material needed for the writ ence Data Booklet with the excephas been extracted from the above tion of AR 95-1, 95-63, TC 1-88,publications and bound in the Refer- and appropriate aircraft -10.

7


10/52

43r d viationM S T rescueseight climberscl imber killedFou r in juredR E S C U E ORA IN IER

8

aptain Thomas F StewartAdjutant1 th Aviation Battalion Combat)Fort Lewis, WA / Mountainier

U S RMY AVIATION DIGEST


11/52

T HE INDIANS called this giantTakhoma The Mountain, andfeared the worst for all who trespassed her mighty glacier coveredlopes. Mount Rainier stifles one'simagination and lures the hardy totackle her summit. The first recorded climb was in 1870 and since thattime it has been used as a final testingarea for assaults on Mount Everest.

eamwork is the key to climbingthe mountains and also is the wordthat describes a daring rescue thatoccurred the 7th of last September.

In the early morning hours, peoplewere nearing their final assault onthe Ingraham Glacier of Mount Rainier. They had been greeted by amagnificient sunrise and from GrayArmy Airfield at Ft. Lewis, WA themountain was capped by a perfectlenticular cloud.

While the party was ascending asmooth, icy, 35-degree slope at the13 OOO-foot level, one of the climbers lost his footing. Frantic attemptswere made by the climbers to burytheir ice axes into the ice, but to noavail. They slid, bounced and dragged each other at a very high rateof speed down the glacier, with nochance of saving themselves.

As the members fell over a ledge,their rope was fortunately snaggedby a serac, which kept them fromfalling further. Their equipment continued to fall and alerted a team ata lower level to the possibility of anaccident. The lower party discovered the victims and dispatched amessenger to Camp Muir at the1O,000-foot level.

The fall, which terminated at the11,600-foot level, left one dead andtwo seriously injured. A radio message was sent out from Camp Muirto the National Park Service, whichset the rescue into mot ion by notifying 54th Medical Detachment (Helicopter Ambulance) at Fort Lewis.National Park personnel also werequick to recognize that the altitudeand winds might require the capabilities of a CH-47 Chinook helicopter which was requested from Searchand Rescue at Fort Lewis, WA.SEPTEMBER 1978

As the Military Assistance to Safety and Traffic (MAST) helicoptera UH-l Huey-departed Fort Lewis,the pilots noticed a Chinook fromthe 243rd Aviation Company departing for a flight to Yakima FiringCenter. Since the CH-4Ts flightwould take it near Mount Rainier,the MAST pilots alerted the Chinook crew to the possible need fortheir assistance. After informing appropriate authorities, the Chinookfollowed the Huey to the park whereit landed and the crew offloaded itsinternal cargo which was destinedfor aerial door gunnery practice atYakima Firing Cen ter.While the Chinook crew was offloading at the Paradise Ranger Station, the MAST ship with the mountain rescue team leader from theNational Park Service on board, flewahead to make a reconnaissance ofthe site. The pilot of the MASTship reported extreme turbulenceand down drafts exceeding 3,000feet per minute. He made a seriesof approaches to locate the safestroute for the Chinook.

Injured climber Chelsea Kortestated, I cannot relate to you thefeeling of elation as we saw, sometime later, an Army Huey rising fromthe cloud far below and flying towardus. My eyes were glued to it with anintensity and apprehension thatcame from an unvoiced dou bt I hadthat a helicopter would be able tonegotiate either the strong gusts of

wind present on the mountain, ormaneuver into the tiny plateau wherewe were.As I watched, the bird got closerand I could hear the sound ofthe rotors that had become so familiar to my ears in Vietnam, and as Iwatched, the ship suddenly listedto her side and dropped rapidly forwhat appeared to be several hundred feet. She then flew slowly backdown into the clouds below anddisappeared.

The thought of being hand-carried down that icy slope in a basketfilled me with anxiety and fear offalling again.The MAST ship returned to Paradise and the pilot briefed park per

sonnel and the Chinook pilot. TheUH-l crewchief volunteered to assistthe Chinook crew in locating thevictims. The Chinook departed forthe rugged rescue area with its crew,an aidman from 10th Aviation Battalion, the MAST UH-l crewchief anda six-man rescue team from the National Park Service. The pilot ofthe MAST aircraft knew the crewwas in danger of being blown intothe side of Mount Rainier by theerratic wind currents.

The Chinook pilot reported moderate turbulence enroute to the accident site while following the recommended flight path. The Dustoff(MAST) crewchief aided the crewin locating the site without difficulty.

Mr. Korte described the Chi-9


12/52

nook's approach, There it was, fly-ing slowly, steadily toward us. Brightcolored equipment had been set outon the sloping plateau as a markingfor the Huey.While the space available wouldscarcely have sufficed for the Huey,there was no chance at all that aChinook could land. The steepnessof the slope, together with the strongly gusting wind seemed surely topreclude even the possibility of itshovering, owing to the whirring ofthe blades so close to the uphillside of the slope.

While the huge helicopter continued to maneuver toward us overthe crevasse, I kept waiting for theinevitable realization by the pilotthat the situation was impossiblebut he didn't break off the rescueat all.

The pilot, with the aid of the crew,initially tried to set the aircraft downside-slope on an area 20 to 25 yardswide. This proved to be unstable,as the Chinook started slipping downthe slope in the 30 to 35 knot winds.The pilot stated, I picked the Chinook up and turned the tail facinginto the edge of the plateau farenough forward so that the bladeswould not contact the 45 to 60 degree ice fall directly behind andabove the narrow plateau. I haveno idea how close the blades wereto the ice-fall, only that the crewdid a fantastically outstanding jobin keeping us clear and in updatingus on the situation.

Since the edge of the plateaudropped off rapidly, about 60 degrees or so, and descended 2,500 to3,000 feet, I had to look out my leftdoor to maintain flight reference tothe aircraft's altitude. I could pickout rocks and cracks in the ice andreference them to the frame of thewindow to keep the aircraft as levelas possible.

The copilot physically assistedon the controls and a flight engineer peered over their shouldersassisting in the monitoring of theaircraft's instruments. The two othercrewmembers provided guidance

10

from the rear of the aircraft to thepilots. The six-man rescue team exited and brought the injured to theaircraft, where they were loadedand cared for by the MAST crewchief and aidman.

The semi-hover lasted about 15minutes. Mr. Korte said, With whiteclouds below and white snow allaround, there seemed to be almostnothing upon which the pilot coulduse to guide himself and hold theaircraft steady. Rescue personnelrushed out of the back of the bird,but I had my eyes riveted to thehelicopter for the crash I was certain was coming. I was the last to beput onboard, and still waited for itstiff with anticipation. It never came.With a tremendous roar and groanshe slowly lifted off and drew away.Against all odds they had done it.

The Chinook, with the injuredclimbers aboard flew back to Paradise where the patients were transferred to the awaiting MAST air-

craft for the trip back to St. JosepHospital in Tacoma, WA

The superior flight capability othe Chinook crew and professionateamwork demonstrated by all thpersonnel involved, may have savethe lives of the two seriously injuredMinutes after the Chinook left thsite, the area became obscured bweather. The selfless and heroiefforts of the men of these units artruly a great credit to themselveand to the uniform they wear, saidthe seriously injured Mr Korte. Thmembers of the 243d Aviation Company (ASH) who participated in threscue and the crewchief from th54th Medical Detachment (Helicopter Ambulance ) have been awardedAir Medals for their roles in therescue.

Teamwork is the key to the performance of any mission and greacredit goes to all of the individual(see figure) involved in this daringrescue. . .

54TH MEDICAL DETACHMENTHelicopter Ambulance)CW2 Dennis Patterson - Pilot UH-1CW3 Doug Decker - CopilotSGT Robyn Porath - CrewchiefSP5 John Hallmark - Medical Attendant2430 AVIATION COMPANY ASH)CW3 Roger Sesna - Pilot CH-47CW2 Steven C Stjohn - CopilotSSG Gregory J. Hembree - Flight EngineerSSG John Lynn - Flight EngineerSGT Michael Zimmerman - CrewchiefSP6 Daniel W Evans - Medical Aidman10th Avn Bn)NATIONAL PARK SERVICE RESCUE TEAMRick Kirschner - Team LeaderLee HenkleFred HemphillJohn ConoboyKirk StorerSteve KnoxGreat thanks to Chelsea Korte for his contributingstatements.



13/52

i htdve eWeatherrainin

LTC Matthew R ambrodC o m m ~ n d e r 7th Aviation Battalion

CA

T ODAY IF ONE were to read any number of. 1970 to 1974 periodicals addressing deficienciesn Army aviation, repetitive emphasis would be foundon the inability of aviation units to sustain 24-hour or

adverse weather combat operations. This emphasisr ~ s u l t e d in a focus on research and developmentdirected at improving hardware technology to assistthe naked eye in functioning at night. While hardwaretechnology moved ahead in the development of

s ~ p h i s t i c a t e d optics, training technology addressingmght and adverse weather combat operations re-mained stagnant.

This article addresses the issue of Army aviation straining requirements to meet night and adverseweather combat operations. The issue, though sur-faced often, was never resolved in the early 70s andremains with us today.

The Army currently has two excellent tools withwhich to manage and assess aviation training. Thesetools are: The Aircrew Training Manual (ATM) The Army Training and Evaluation Program(ARTEP).

f we are to make substantial gains in the conductof training at night and in adverse weather, we muststructure these types of training in terms of both theATM and the ARTEP conjunctively. To this endboth are extremely compatible, but in a real worldsense their potential is not maximized insofar as itrelates to night and adverse weather training today.

The current ARTEP for a combat aviation battalion in an infantry division provides three separatelevels of standards against which performance canbe measured, level 3 being least difficult, advancingto level l:SEPTEMBER 1978

Level 3 training and evaluation programs ad-dress tasks oriented toward company through crewechelons; Level 2 establishes standards of performancefor battalion echelons; And Level 1 combines the diagnostic effort insummation and outlines battalion through crew echelons.

The point which needs to be made at this time isthat virtually no night requirements are identified tobe accomplished by individual aircrews, sections,platoons or companies, until the level 1 ARTEP isbr.oached. Th.is also is true for air cavalry with somemmor exceptions. This must change if we are to beh ~ m e s t with ourselves in wanting to improve ourmght and adverse weather capability.A different situation from the ARTEP exists withthe Aircrew Training Manual. The ATM tasks thecommander with the responsibility to evaluate andimprove ~ n i v i d u ~ l aviator readiness by achievingand sustammg a high level of proficiency in aircrewperformance. Aviation commanders require that alevel of proficiency be maintained by pilots andtranslate this proficiency into tasks performed quarterly to ensure retention of essential flying skills.

The real world inconsistency lies in the fact thataviation unit commanders develop night and adverseweather training requirements as defined, not by

D ~ p a r t m e n t of the Army through Training and Doc-trme C?mmand (TRADOC) development of require-ments n an ARTEP, but rather by the commandersthemselves through their own assessment of theirunit s need. This results in a total lack of standardization in definition of night and adverse weathertasks to be accomplished by aviators in tactical units.

What is determined necessary by one commandermay be viewed as nonessential by another. Particu-larly since priority of training will go to those taskswhich are explicitly designed to satisfy or meet ARTEPstandards. Since level 3 and 2 ARTEPs call for nonight operations, ATM night tasks and adverseweath.er ~ t i v i t i e s tend to be assigned varying degreesof prIonty established solely by the commander.Priorities may vary from zero to 100 percent supportfor night activities.Finally, to carry the discussion one step further,definition of tasks in the ATM program which relateto level 1 ARTEP requirements demand only a verylimited capability in, for example, an aviation batta-lion. The only requirement in an aviation battalion sARTEP levell for night operations is a night combatassault.Likewise, adverse weather addresses only emergency procedures should a pilot enter the clouds orfog inadvertently. This is the root of the problem.

t is understood that in ARTEPs other than a combat aviationbattalion some night tasks are identified.

11


14/52

The ARTEP defining the standards against whichwe measure our combat effectiveness has tragicallyfew tasks developed demanding the performance ofnight combat or adverse weather operations. Wecannot be satisfied with these standards. I suggestthe following actions be taken as solutions for theproblems in question: ARTEPs for aviation units be revised to reflectnight and adverse weather requirements at all levels,3 through 1

The level 3 ARTEP should reflect a heavy concentration (platoon level) of basic night tasks such assingle ship logistical missions, night target identification and acquisition, night low level emergencyprocedures, and contour flight at aircrew, sectionand platoon level. On the other hand, an air cavalrylevel 3 ARTEP might address, for example, basicmovement of scouts and guns, establishing and manning listening posts or observation posts with aircraftconcealed nearby. Likewise, the use of tactical instrument flight should be introduced early as anARTEP standard for subsequent adverse weatheroperations.

A level 2 ARTEP should provide diagnosticstandards to assess the capabilities of a battalion's/separate companies to conduct as a minimum logistical missions and combat assaults at night. This is anamplification of aircrew, section and platoon activities found in level 3. Likewise , using simulators as anARTEP tool, tactical instrument flight can be incorporated as a standard for evaluation within separate companies. A level 1 ARTEP should be developed to assessthe ability of a battalion to conduct night battalionsized operations, i.e., multiple company lifts and acomposite of tactical missions spanning the normalrange from night resupply to combat assaults atnight or under reduced visibility conditions. Limitedreverse cycle operations should be introduced in thislevel in recognition that in a tactical environment,24-hour operation should require the selection ofseparate crews for night and day combat operations. Finally, consideration should be given to theestablishment of a fourth level ARTEP assessing anaviation unit's capability to perform its mission solelyat night. This would be the highest level of performance in the sense that it would be most difficultand it would measure the surge capability of a unit tooperate solely during hours of darkness.All aspects of night operations could be addressedin the fourth level, to include, for example, aircraftmaintenance, forward area refueling, night displacement, night hot refueling and so on. The fourth levelARTEP, however, should demand far more thanconsidered in the past. We should include the development of night standards integrating combined arms

12

such as the adjustment of fires at night from nap-ofthe-earth (NOE) altitudes , or even combat assaultsby infiltration or suppression with fire support rollbacks. These are extremely difficult activities in daylight, let alone night. This fourth level clearly wouldestablish the necessary emphasis on the total programconcept of night operations.Once standards are defined in all four ARTEPlevels, commanders developing training programsto meet these standards will of necessity establishATM tasks which correspond to the level of ARTEPtoward which their units are training. Varying thefrequency per quarter of each night and adverseweather task will assure the commander that properattention is devoted toward a given level of pilotproficiency. When night requirements and standardsare established for the most basic level ARTEP, thereis immediate assurance of the introduction of relatedtraining into the ATM. Since this is not now done,we cannot expect night combat readiness in ourunits until the basic requirements are changed. Thetroops do best what the boss checks. In this case the'boss is the ARTEP standard once defined.

A final benefit of this approach ties directly to thequalification of readiness. Once tasks for ATM implementation are established which correlate to aparticular level ARTEP, a capability exists to equatethe respective training requirement to dollars. In thecase of fundamental night qualification of aircrewsto meet level 3 ARTEP requirements , a known 34-hour per pilot figure, recognized as a basic requirement for night qualification according to TC 1-28,can be applied to a unit's ATM training hour figure.The hours needed per aviator multiplied by thenumber of pilots requiring the specific night trainingcoupled to the cost per flying hour all provide thetraining manager a final dollar value for basic nightqualification. This effectively quantifies a cost forinitial night combat readiness. This is an extremelyuseful tool in budget justification since it factuallyputs a price tag on readiness, a heretofore nearimpossibility.

In summary. the restructuring of ARTEPs at eachlevel will force emphasis to be placed on night andadverse weather training throughout all tactical aviation commands. The revised ARTEP and the ATMemployed conjunctively will ensure that combat readiness requirements are fully met and that the Armyhas the capability to confront and defeat the knownor existing threat at night and under adverse weatherconditions. The demands currently placed on Armyaviation assets to perform in night and adverse weatherare not nearly what Army aviation is capable of producing. This must be changed - and soon - if we areto maximize our combat power in support of groundforces.



15/52

AVNEC P RT][This is the final article of the Aviation Digest s four part series covering the Army Aviation Employment Conference AVNEC) hosted last March by the Army AviationCenter. There were 29 general officers and civilian equivalents plus more than 20colonels attending to discuss Army aviation training, doctrine and equipment. Lessthan half of the attendees were aviators. Nonaviator general officer attendees represented CONUS divisions and USAREUR tactical commands and high level staffs.Others represented major TRADOC Centers/Schools. Results of the conference willbe used to help develop an appropriate agenda for the Army Aviation Systems Program Review AAPR) scheduled for 4and 5 December 1978. Copies of the first threearticles covering the AVNEC conference can be obtained upon request. Write:Aviation Digest, Drawer P, Ft. Rucker, AL 36362; or call commercial 205) 255-6680;AUTOVON 558 6680.

Major General James C. SmithCommander,U.S. Army Aviation Center

ArInY Aviat ion Personne land ra in ing ProbleInsMajor Glenn G. Rother

Directorate of Combat DevelopmentsU.S. Army Aviation CenterFort Rucker, AL

ON OF THE MAJOR areasdiscussed during AVNEC was ArmyAviation Personnel and TrainingProblems. This area's workshoplimited its discussion to six specificissues affec ting the Army aviationcommunity. The following para-graphs discuss these issues and u m ~marize conclusions and recommendations reached by the workshop'smembers.Th e first issue management ofaviation specialty 15 focused on assignment requirements within specialty 5 that will meet Army missionrequirements and enhance officercareer development. It consideredthe Department of the Army assignment and education priorities thatmust be interfaced with the AviationCareer Incentive Act (ACIA) of 1974established by Congress. It consid-SEPTEMBER 978

ered the insufficient numbers oflieutenant entering flight school tomeet future Army requirements andaddressed "the inherent feeling fromthe field that officers are requiredto maintain proficiency in theirbasic branches if different from theirprimary and alternate specialties inorder to enhance career development. Additionally, the group evaluated whether aviation assignmentsshould be based on skill, back-ground , and quality, or on basicbranch qualification (i.e., air cavalrytroop and attack helicopter company assignments reserved for Armor officers).

Workshop members concludedthat a requirement does exist forspecialty 5 to be an OPMS specialty.They also concluded that there is arequirement to reduce field gradespecialty 5 overstrength. Additionally, it was reemphasized that theimplementation of ARCSA III (seeDigest July 1977 will have a majorimpact on specialty 15.

The following recommendationsrepresent a general consensus ofthe workshop participants concerning the management of the aviationspecially 5 issue: Flight school training ratesshould be increased to meet ARCSAIII requirements.

The information ~ o n t i n e din this arti.cle is an executivesummary and does not reflect current Army policy.While the Aviation SpecialTask Force (STF) producedthe same recommendationsit should be noted thar theChief of Staff of the Army} has directed a further ODCS-'PER/ MILPERCEN evalua-;'tion of certain specialty 5questions before approvaldisapproval of the STF'srecommendations.

3


16/52

Combat arms officers shouldreceive a minimum I-year specialtyqualifying assignment prior to flightschool attendance. Officers should receive a 4-yearaviation utilization assignment following flight training.

Aviation captains should receiveone primary/ entry specialty qualifying assignment. A mechanism should be established to review field grade aviatorpotential for future specialty 5 utilization. Reduced overstrength at thefield grade levels will allow for moreflight school input at the companygrade levels.

The MILPERCEN AviationModel should be updated annuallyto provide accurate aviator attrition rates. Uniform aviator coding guidance should be implemented thatwill allow TOE.;;/ MTOEs to be filledby using more than the first twoidentifying specialty code digits (i.e.,l1A15) through TAADS.

A review should be conductedto determine if specialty 5 shouldbe an alternate specialty only. When possible, aviation unitsshould be manned by officers ofthe particular branch which has propenency for that type unit. An examination of the aviationTOE / MTOE and TDA structurein the context of ARCSA III shouldbe conducted to determine if specialty 5 should be an entry specialty.In this respect, specialty 5 officerswould be trained to serve as members of the combined arms team,rather than be required to serve ina combat arms branch.

The second issue investigated theincentives necessary to retain aviation crewchiefs and maintenancepersonnel in the Army. The grou pevaluated the psychological factors(i.e., money, travel, adventure, acquired skills) that stimulate enlistedpersonnel into these MOS careerfields and considered how to retainhighly qualified aircraft maintenancepeople in the Army. t was observedthat the reenlistment and retention

4

rates within the scout and attackhelicopter maintenance career fieldswere below the desired Armywiderates during fiscal year 1977.

Workshop members concludedthat an infeasible grade structureexists within the 67 career management field which creates poor promotion opportunity for Soldiers fromE5 to E6 and forces them at reenlistment to select another MOS forpromotion opportunity. Additionally, airplane and scout and attackhelicopter crewchiefs should receivesome form of incentive (not necessarily flight pay) commensurate withtheir responsibilities to place themon a comparable level with utilityand medium helicopter crewchiefs.

The workshop recommended areview of the maintenance conceptfor all Army aircraft oriented towardthe component systems approach.And also that a task force shouldbe formed to review the TOE /MTOE, TDA and grade structureof Army aviation units in order todetermine if an adequate and appropriate structure exists.

The third issue focused on theArmy aviation interface requirements that will enhance combinedarms training effectiveness withinU.S. forces. Additionally, it evaluated the Army aviation employmenttraining conducted at service schoolsbecause this is the source of combat development and doctrine, andan important means of teaching leaders and trainers the tactics and techniques which contribute to battlesuccess. To defeat the threat, U.S.forces must develop training thatclosely matches the modern battlefield. This can be accomplished byconducting realistic and effectivecombined arms team operations.

Workshop members recommended that aviation-related training within existing advanced courses andcommanders' orientation trainingshould be increased. While considering the use of liaison officers andthe S-3 air, a determination shouldbe made on how best to integrateaviation into the combined arms

team planning mission. Through theproduction of a combined arms training how to fight manual, moredefinitive guidance as to the who,what, where, when and how of combined arms training should be provided. Additionally, efforts to establish national training areas shouldbe continued in order to provideadequate space to train the combined arms team.

The fourth issue addressed theArmy aviation training requirementsto meet night and adverse weathercombat operations, focusing on bothindividuals and collective trainingrequired to train Army aviators. Consideration was given to the psychological preparations (i.e., men tal conditioning) needed to conduct thattraining as well as the maintenanceand administrative functions to support it. The human factors aspectof night flying (i.e., night vision adaptation) also was addressed.

The Aviation Center recently restructured its night and adverseweather training programs to provide more realistic training to thestudent aviator undergoing initialentry rotary wing flight training.However, to make substantial gainsin the conduct of training at nightand during adverse weather, unittraining must be structured in termsof current guidance prescribed inaircrew training manuals. ATMs areArmy aviatibn's most recent advancement in the individual aviator andaviation unit training technology.

t was recommended by the workshop members that Army Trainingand Evaluation Programs (ARTEPs)should be modified to emphasizenight and adverse weather training.Additionally, it must ensure that allATMs are effectively integrated withcorresponding ARTEPs and modified to emphasize night and adverseweather training while ensuring consistency with readiness reporting.

he lth issue addressed the adequacy of aviation TO E/MTOE personnel authorizations to conductsustained combat operations. During surge operations, personnel re-



17/52

quirements may exceed those authorized. The current and future aviatorto-aircraft ratios in the attack, combat support and medium helicoptercompanies were analyzed. The abilityof maintenance personnel to perform their missions in a timely manner was reviewed, as this dictateswhether or not the primary missionof the unit can be accomplished.

To conduct sustained combat operations in support of the groundforces, sufficient personnel must beau thorized and provided to allowfull use of all aviation assets.Army Regulation 95-1, ArmyAviation: General Provisions andFlight Regulations, restricts crewmembers to 140 flight hours permonth. Actual flight time tolerancehas not yet been determined withcurrent and future tactics, techniques and equipment. Currently, theU.S. Army Research Institute in conjunction with the Surgeon Generalof the Army is researching the flighttime tolerance level for aircrew performance. The results will be usedto determine aircrew budgeting andstaffing ratios to meet current andfuture needs.Aircrew staffing for sustained 24-hour) operations should provide fullyqualified aviators at a ratio greaterthan one crew per aircraft with theratio to be determined based uponmission requirements. This must bedone early to provide adequate leadtime for procurement, training andbudgeting. Current ALO-l authorizations of maintenance personnelshould be augmented to maintain a24-hour mission capability.

he sixth and final issue reviewedthe causes for aviation personnelshortages in the Reserve Components (RC). Workshop members analyzed the recruiting efforts, IERWcourse outputs, and attrition ratesof the active force and RC organizations. Based on future RC aviatorrequiremer.ts, it addressed the adequacy of procedures used to identify, locate and recruit former Armyaviators. It considered enlisted maintenance personnel shortages in theSEPTEMBER 1978

Reserve Components.FORSCOM has proposed and received DA approval for staffing Reserve Component aviation units upto 150 percent of their current authorizations. In conjunction withthe Office of the Chief of Army Reserve and the Army National Guard.FORSCOM is developing a plan touse RC personnel as fillers duringfuture conflicts.

They also proposed that ReserveComponent input to the IERWcourse should continue to be supported. Lastly, they recommendedthat adequate enlisted training spacesfor the RC maintenance personnelshould continue to be provided.

Workshop members recommended that the Reserve Component Personnel Administrative Center shouldcontinue with its efforts to identifyand pre-assign aviation personnel.

While the recommendations discussed in this article are potentiallyfar reaching in their impacts onArmy aviation, additional staffingand study will be conducted to ensure that implementation of theAVNEC findings achieve the desired purpose of improving Armyaviation's overall mission capability.

AAPRACIAALO-lARCSAIII

ARTEPATMAVNECCONUSDAFORSCOM

GLOSSARYArmy Aviation Systems Program ReviewAviation Career Incentive Actauthorized level of operationAviation RequiremeQ

of the ArmyArmy Training and Evaluation Programaircrew training manualArmy Aviation Employment ConferenceContinental United StatesDepartment of the ArmyForces Command

IERW initial entry rotary wingMILPERCEN Military Personnel CenterMOSMTOEOPMSRCTAADSTDATOETRADOCUSAREUR

military occupational specialtyModification Table of Organization and EquipmentOfficer Personnel Management SystemReserve ComponentThe Army Authorization Documents Systemtable of distribution and allowancestable of organizationariq equipmentTraining and o c t r i n e ~ o m m a n dU.S. Army, Europe

15


18/52

UPDATE ON ATTACKHELICOPTERSThis article was compiled by Colonel Bahnsen while stillTRADOC Systems Manager for the attack helicopter e isnow commander of the 1st Aviation Brigade at Ft Rucker

HE TRADOC System Manager for Attack Helicopters (TSM-AH) Office was formed on 1 July1977. Its primary purpose has been to represent the

user community in all actions concerning attackhelicopter development, both the AH-l Cobra andAAH (AH-64, advanced attack helicopter). This article is a I-year update concerning those areas of significant actions in attack helicopters. Hopefully, theTSM team has represented the overall user forcefaithfully. f this is not the case, we need to hearfrom you.

The TSM works for the Commander, U.S. ArmyTraining and Doctrine Command (TRADOC), Ft.Monroe, VA, under the direct supervision of theCommander, U.S. Army Aviation Center, Ft. Rucker,AL. He coordinates all that he does with the Commander, U.S. Army Armor Center, Ft. Knox, KY.The Ft. Rucker/Ft. Knox day-to-day link-up hasbeen a key to the TSM s first year. Additionally, theTSM office has an almost daily interchange with theprogram manager, AAH and the project manager,Cobra.

COL John C Bahnsen

The TSM office is staffed with five officers and agood-looking, super efficient secretary. All the officers are attack helicopter pilots. Their respectiveresponsibilities are shown in figure 1.TR ININGTRAINING IS an area of great concern to everyone

16

LTC Joe Moffett in the aviator force. We have devoted considerableeffort in this field (figure 2, page 18 . The challenge offilling the shaded area between lines A and B is monumental and it grows with the complexity of equipment.One goal of the TSM-AH is to ensure the necessarytraining programs are completed to help correct thissituation with both the AH-64 and Cobra.IT T In August 1977, the first step was taken bystating a user requirement for acquisition of inte-grated technical documentation and tr ining (ITDT)for the AH-64 and AH-IS. In December 1977, part ofthis requirement was validated and Department ofthe Army directed that ITDT become part of theHughes Helicopters' AH-64 contract. Final negotiations were concluded in May 1978 and AH-64 ITDTwill become a reality. Simply stated, ITDT is maintaining while training. Expected benefits of ITDTare increased readiness and reduced life cycle costs.



19/52

Glossarypage 21

Cobra ITOT presents a dilemma In September1977 the joint TRAOOC / OARCOM General OfficerITDT steering committee, recommended the Cobrabe given ITOT priority for a "fielded" aviation system. However, because of the various Cobra configurations and other more pressing requirements, theCobra will be resubmitted as an ITDT candidatenext year.Training Devices The users have recognized theneed for a family of attack helicopter training devices. The Aviation Center was tasked to developtraining device requirements to support this need.This is no small chore and requires some real brainstorming by the entire attack helicopter communityto provide worthwhile training devices.

A part of this family will be a series of threat airdefense train ers which can be used by both fieldunits and in the institution. These devices will belightweight, hopefully low cost, easy to maintain ,and most important - portray the necessary threatsimulations to ensure training to increase survivability.

Gunnel) . Dec reasing monies, higher cost maintenance and higher training ammunition costs dictatethat the Army find a more cost effective method toteach aerial gunnery. One answer to this problem issimulation. Over the years, the Synthetic Flight Training System (SFTS) has more than proved its worth inteaching instrument flying. Recent improvements insimulator technology make the SFTS look like the"Blue Boxes" of the 1940s. The devices of today arecalled combat mission simulations (CMS) and that'sexactly what they do.

When a crew "returns" from a tactical missionflown in these devices, they are thankful to be alive.The realism is th ere The TSM Office, in conjunctionwith Armor Center, Aviation Center and PM-TRADE,are procuring the best available devices and moreimportantly the number required to keep our attackcrews combat ready. There are many things that canbe taught in simulators that cannot be done realistically in actual aircraft: among them are missileavoidance techniques and various inflight emergencies.

The preliminary step in crew integration is to ensure that crewmembers are proficient in their stations.To minimize valuable time in th e CMS, part-tasktrainers to instruct the pilot and gunner independentlyare required. Aviation Center and Armor Cente r aredeveloping these requirements for attack helico pters.Once fielded, these trainers will effectively teachgunners to accurately employ their organic weaponswithout actual expenditure of expensive ammunition. Simultaneously pilots can be learning emergencyprocedures, night flying using the Integrated Helmetand Display Sighting System (lHADSS) and conducting nap-of-the-earth (NOE) navigation. Once the crewis individually proficient , the CMS can be used toattain crew proficiency at minimum cost. The AH-64air crew evaluator, a snap-in, snap-out device withvideo recording and playback capability, can beused by unit commanders to evaluate crew weaknesseslstrengths and develop meaningful training programs.

One of the weakest links in attack helicopter operations is the lack of an Armywide standard gunneryprogram. Armor Center, Aviation Center and TSMoffice cooperated in writing FM 17-40 (Draft), "Attack Helicopter Gunnery," May 1978. This was acombining of TC 17-17, "Gunnery Training for AttackHelicopters" and TC 1-4, "Helicopter Gunnery,"plus some new slants in preliminary gunnery trainingand range firing. FM 17 -40 is the first step in a longmarch to get attack helicopter gunnery to the highlevel we will need on the next battlefield. This docu-ment is in the field now for comment.

Comments should be in to the Armor Center byOctober and a final product to the field in early 1979.FM 17-40 provides a step-by-step gunnery programfor both active and reserve attack helicopter units.Additionally, the viation Digest has an ongoingsolicitation for ideas on how gunnery is being taughtby successful attack helicopter units. User input willbe used to refine the techniques and programs contained in FM 17-40. In particular. the Army needs toknow how to realistically score gunnery, especiallyrockets and guns. In the past this area has not been

Figure 1 KEY TSM ACTIONSLT Joe MoffettTRAININGITDTSIMULATIONDEVICESGUNNERYRANGES

SEPTEMBER 1978

LT Jerry HippPERSONNELORGANIZATIONVISIONICSFATIGUE- PILOT SELECTION/RATIOS

MAJ Chuck CrowleyLOGISTICSLSAFARRPILS

MAJ Joe BeachTEST EVALUATIONACEJAWSJ CATCH

17


20/52

Figure OPERATOR MAINTENANCER QUI R M NTS

~ ~ ' ' ' ' ' ' ' - i O P E R TOR M ~ T NCESKILL CAPABILITY~

197 975 9C:::::::::=SO======:J 985T MEgiven sufficient visib ility to ensure that the Army hasviable gu nnery range scoring devices.Aerial Gunnel) Ranges. Adequate attack helicoptergun nery ranges a re practically nonexistent forcewide. The users agree that ranges must presentrealistic threat arrays in the mann er found in battle.Seldom will attack pilots ex perience the luxury of afull 90 degree deflection shot. More than likely atwisting, turning, fleeti ng glimpse will be what o nesees and engages.

The Aviation Center commander has directeddevelopment at Ft. Ruck er of an 11.000 meter multipurpose range which will accommodate the H ELLFIRE missile , 30 mm cannon and 70 mm rockets .This range should be the model for future attack

8

P RSONN LINITIATIVESLT Jerry Hipp

helicopter gunnery ranges. Additionally, a study isongoing to provide Ft. Rucker a fully instrumentedrange which can be used for tactics developmentexercises TOEs) and other projects requiring datacollection.

Future requirements for air-to-air gunnery trainingis a whole new problem we are just now beginning toconsider. Commanders worldwide need to look intothis rather complex problem.In sum, training is in the spotlight. The thrust ofou r efforts is directed toward providing the field withthe simplest. most up-to-date and cost effective methods of preparing attack crews to fight as membersof the combined arms team in any env ironment.anywhere in the world.

FUTURE ATTACK helicopter organizations requirea 24-hour a day fighting capability. Most strategistsagree that we will require additional authorizationsto crew adequately our attack helicopter fleet anddedicated day and night crews are being seriouslyconsidered. The results of the Attack HelicopterOrganization Study, 1985 ATHELO), to be available early in 1979, hopefully will substantiate increasedaircrew projections and spawn new initiatives insolving manning deficiencies.

The use of a computer simulation model to identifymaintenance manpower and aircrew ratio needs willbe applied to the AH-64. This model is based on arealistic combat scenario on a projected battlefield.The ATHELO study will apply the model in development of aircrew ratio recommendations. Future AH-64 COEA also may use the model to weigh overalleffectiveness under varying conditions and manpowerconstraints.Pilot selection for the AH-64 is an emotional issue.Only the best qualified attack pilots will be selectedfor AH-64 transition. Criteria will include specialvisual capabilities- ability to adapt to darkness, higher



21/52

Glossaryp ge 21

standards of visual acuity, perhaps no corrective future use of a Light Emitting Diode Dark Adapto-lenses will be permitted (restricting training to avia- meter to distinguish accurately both above averagetors not requiring eyeglasses), and use of contact and below average night visual sensitivity in the avia-lenses for pilots requiring glasses after AH-64 transi- tor force. Such an adaptometer has been developedtion. The highly demanding AH-64 human/ machine by LTC S L Biggs, a flight surgeon at Lettermaninterface requirements will tax the limits of the Army Institute of Research. Interestingly, the nightcrewmembers. vision capability of the current Army aviator force

Advanced visionics in the TADS/ PNVS package generally is an unknown quantity. We intend towill demand attention and require decisions. The identify weaknesses in this area and to include nightdevelopment of the IHADSS and accompanying sets vision sensitivity in future pilot selection processes.of symbology to enable the crew to fly and fight in viator Fatigue Helicopter aircrew fatigue longadverse conditions burdens the crew with further has been a ponderous question. Considerable fatiguedemands. We must select only the most capable research has been conduct.ed by NATO advisorymost competent most mentally and physically pre- groups and the U.S. Army Aeromedical Researchpared aviators to crew our AH-64s. Laboratory (USAARL) at Ft. Rucker. Results of theAs we improve the AH-IS Cobra fleet with better research have been applied to development of safetyvisionics, better night vision devices, and reliable regulations and to evaluate impact on aircrew per-NOE navigation systems, the same criteria used with formance. A major unknown however, is the impactAH-64 selection also should apply to AH-l pilot on aircrews of flying day/ night nap-of-the-earth in aselection. This is not a planned vendetta against avia- combat environment.tors with glasses. The visionics and eyepieces and NOE flying demands complete concentration, prep-glasses combination make it doubtful that all will aration and forethought. This constantly changingoperate at maximum efficiency, especially when you environment requires rapid perceptual judgmentsare in night and adverse weather lighting conditions . and extremely precise control responses. USAARLNight Operations Pilot night vision capability and is planning additional study on the NOE envelopethe ability to maximize the advance visionics of the with full support of TRADOC. Let there be no doubtAH-64 can make the difference in battle. Preliminary that physical and mental fatigue probably will be-research has determined that about 15 percent of the come the aviator's biggest limitation while operatingArmy population has exceptional night vision; about the AH-64 and that the endurance of the most physi-30 percent are marginally effective at night; and a cally fit pilot will be far less than the endurance ofnumber are essentially night blind. We anticipate the aircraft flown.

LOGISTICSM J Chuck Crowley

SEPTEMBER 1978

TSM-AH HAS BEEN involved actively in the development of the logistic support package for the AH-64. Reliability and maintainability have been primefactors in the design of the AH-64 from the start ofthe program. The TSM office working with the U.S.Army Logistics Center, Ft. Lee, VA and the U.S.Army Transportation Center, Ft. Eustis, VA, is participating in the LSA which is an intensive effort toreview each maintenance task required at AVUM,AVIM, and depot level maintenance on the AH-64.Each task is reviewed in terms of man hours, MOS,skill level, equipment and tools required to performthe task.

The purpose of the LSA is to ensure the AH-64 iscompletely supportable in the field. We also havebeen involved in improving and replacing the agingcollection of ground support equipment (GSE) currently in use by aviation maintenance units. We areendeavoring to provide a modern family of GSEwhich will meet the maintenance requirements oftoday and the demands of the future. We also areworking with other TRADOC centers and schools to

19


22/52

improve the equipment and procedures used in FARRP.In recent years there has been increasing emphasison the use of automatic test equipment for aircraftmaintenance. The fully modernized AH-IS will haveseveral items of test equipment for use at AVUM andAVIM. We recently have initiated an effort to reduceor eliminate this proliferation of suitcase type testequipment in favor of a more versatile and reliabletest equipment. This effort will determine the mosteffective way of improving the supportability of theAH-l S in the future.

The primary objectives of our efforts in the logisticarea are to ensure the attack helicopter fleet is supportable in the field and the maintenance system isresponsive to the unit's needs. Easily said, but infinitely more difficult to do.

TESTEV LU TIONSM J Joe Beach

IN ADDITION TO participating in the developmentaltests for attack helicopters, the TSM office hasplanned, supported, participated in and executedother TOEs involving attack helicopters.

One of our major concerns has been the involvement of helicopters in air-to-air engagements. ACETOE was conducted during November and December 1977 by the U.S. Army Aviation Board under thesponsorship of the TSM office. This TOE consistedof a preliminary look at an AH-1S flying against asimulated threat attack helicopter in aerial engagements. Although limited in scope , ACE providedsome valuable data that has been integrated into anew manual, soon to be distributed to the field.20

At the completion of Phase I ACE TOE, an effortis underway that will provide us with yet more detailed data in the helicopter air-to-air problem. Thiseffort known as J-CATCH, will be a Joint Army/ AirForce evaluation that will investigate the integrationof attack helicopters and high performance aircraftto destroy threat helicopters. Colonel Bob Bonifacioand his group at the Aviation Board at Ft. Ruckerare carrying the ball for the Army in J-CATCH.Upon completion, it is envisioned that the J-CATCHresults will be available to all units to assist them intraining.Because of the Army's increased awareness of airto-air battles involving helicopters, the TSM-AH office hosted the first helicopter air-to-air symposiumin October of 1977 at Ft. Rucker (see Digest December 1977). Attendees from all services numberedabbut 200. The 2-day exchange of ideas among services resulted in an integration of effort for futureprograms. In late February or early March, 1979, asecond helicopter air-to-air symposium will be held atFt. Rucker to further define where we are headed inthe air-to-air arena . Industry will be invited to this update and all services will be in attendance (see page 48).

During September and November of 1977 ColonelBahnsen acted as codirector in another TOE knownas JAWS. The TOE was conducted using an attackhelicopter team, consisting of a 4/ 5 mix, and fourA-I0 close air support aircraft against a representativethreat tank unit with all its organic air defense systems. This provided a realistic vehicle to determinethe tactics required to integrate attack helicoptersand Air Force close air support aircraf t into an effective attack team.

As a result of JAWS, a joint training manual wasreleased in draft in May and will be finalized laterthis year. This manual depicts the integration, tactics,and command and control of Army/ Air Force attackassets to defeat the armor threat. It also includes anannex for a 5-day training plan. Additionally, a JAWSmovie was produced and has been distributed to thefield. f either the movie or the TM have not beenreceived, please contact our office.

As development of the AH-64 continues, this officeis involved in the planning, training, and its impactwhen fielded. As OT test dates rapidly approach, aunique method to qualify OT aviators in the AH-64is underway. As one could imagine, the AH-64 willbe a sophisticated aircraft relative to the AH-l.Never before has the Army had to train aviators inan aircraft that will allow it to conduct day, night andadverse weather missions such as the AH-64 provides.

To adequately train OT aviators to use the TADS /PNVS, two surrogate systems will be used for trainingprior to AH-64 transition. This should reduce thenumber of flight hours required for a total AH-64



23/52

checkout. This unit will be known as the Development Test and Training Detachment DTTD). Additionally, the DTTD will have simulators availableonsite that will further increase aviator proficiencyand simultaneously reduce flight hours. As a falloutof the DTTD, Aviation Center personnel will monitorand modify the training program to ensure its adequacy/ validity for export to units.TASVAL During the upcoming year another critically important major test is planned to be conductedwith Army, Air Force and Marine Corps participation.It is known as tactical aircraft effectiveness and survivability in close air support antiarmor operationsTASYAL). Directed by the Office of Secretary ofDefense, the results of this test will be evaluated by

the Institu te for Defense Analysis IDA) and othersto determine aircraft survivability and tactical aircraft effectiveness. TASYAL may impact heavily onfuture production decisions of the AH-64. This isespecially true in view of the fact that the A-lO is in

production and the AH-64 is still in development.TSM has provided Army representation to T ASYALfrom its conception and will continue to do so untilit is final.

CONCLUSIONThis article merely scratches the surface on attack

helicopter areas that require attention. Our missioncontinues to be to provide the field with the besttotal system possible, to include hardware, personnel,training, logistics, and the tactics needed to fightthe next battle. Hopefully, we are aware of mostattack helicopter problems.

f we, the TSMAH office are not on target in presenting the us r vi w on attack helicopters, yourdirect help is not only solicited, but encouraged. Callus, write us, come see us or invite us to your location.Our address is: CDR, USAAVNC, ATZQ.TSM-A,Ft. Rucker, AL 36362; or call AUTOVON 5582108/3408/5171, Commercial 205-255-2108/3408/5171.

GLOSSARYACEATHELOAVIMAVUMCMSCOEADARCOMOTTOFARRPGSEHELLFIREIDAIHADSSILSITDTJAWS

air combat engagementAttack Helicopter Organizationaviation intermediate maintenanceaviation unit maintenancecombat mission simulationscost and operational effectiveness analysisArmy Materiel Development and ReadinessCommandDevelopment Test and Training Detachmentforward area refueling and rearming pointground support equipmentHelicopter Launched Fire and ForgetInstitute for Defense AnalysisIntegrated Helmet and Display SightingSystemintegrated logistic systemintegrated technical documentation andtrainingjoint attack weapons systems

SEPTEMBER 978

J-CATCH

LSAMOSmmNATONOEOTPM-TRADEPNVSSFTSTAOSTASVALTOETMTRADOCTSMUSAARL

joint Army Air Force evaluation of attackhelicopters high performance aircraft todestroy threat helicopterslogistic support analysismilitary occupational specialtymillimeterNorth Atlantic Treaty Organizationnap-of-the-earthoperational testproject manager for training devicesPilot s Night Vision SystemSynthetic Flight Training SystemTarget Acquisition Designation Systemtactical aircraft effectiveness and survivabilityin close air support antiarmor operc:tionstactics development evaluationtraining manualTraining and Doctrine CommandTRADOC System ManagerU.S. Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory

2


24/52

l Officer Pe lonnel manasemenlSY/temPromotion oardReflections

rigadier General Jack WalkerPresident of the 1977 lT C , AUS, APl, JAGC and CH

Promotion Selection Board

SOME MONTHS ago, ColonelBilly E Spangler authored an article in the November issue of"Commanders Call," a publicat ion of theArmy's Chief of Public Affairs. Itdealt in considerable detail with thepromotion board process and wasthe first time that I have seen suchfull coverage of the mechanics ofpromotion board operations. In myjudgment, that article contributeda great deal of understanding towhat was heretofore regarded bymany as a mysterious "black box"process. It's with that same objectivein mind, airing out the black boxes,that I share with you some observations made during a recent assignment as President of the 1977 LTC,AUS, APL, JAGC and CH Promotion Selection Board. These observations reflect the feelings of mostof the board members.First and foremost, we wish toassure you that,in our opinion, theprocess for promotion selection issound and would be difficult to significantly improve upon. I observedthat my fellow members of the promotion board were selected carefully, with consideration given tomaturity in judgment and careerexpertise. They represented as broada spectrum of specialties as couldbe reflected in a IS-member board.The board included reserve component membership, a female officer, a minority officer and an aviator. These officers serve not to actas advocates, but instead to explainto the other board members any

unique career aspects of the backgrounds of those being considered.Whole an Concept. There isno formula or predetermined rigidcriteria which board members areasked to apply to the selection process. Rather, selections are madeas a result of the subjective file review conducted by individual boardmembers and the compilation ofscores applied to each file as a resultof that review. A Letter of Instruction (LOI) from the Secretary ofthe Army is provided the board andis the single document, other thanthe officer's official military records,that influences the board's decision.I will touch on the LOI later. Fornow, let me explain the approachto file evaluation.Officer promotion boards operate on a whole man concept, whichmeans that the members weigh allthe information they have about anindividual and decide, on balance,what they think of him or her ascompared to others in the zone. It isimportant to note that officers arenot evaluated solely on the basis ofpast performances, but more importantly, on their demonstrated potential to make future contributions tothe Army in positions of increasedrank responsibility. Files are distributed to the board members alphabetically rather than by branch, aswas done in the past. This proceduretends to deemphasize branch, implement the OPMS concept andsupport the philosophy that everyjob is an important job. The key to

both success and, I might add, careersatisfaction is doing every job welland having that fact accurately recorded in your file. There is oorder ofmen t list provided. he board.Information available to boardmembers includes the Officer Record Brief (ORB), the efficiency section of the official military personnel file (OMPF) and the LO . Boardmembers have on call, for thei( review, the most current roster andstatus report of all officers enrolledin the nonresident Command andGeneral Staff College (CGSC). Abriefing on OPMS is presented tothe board prior to consideration offiles.Although the file evaluation byanyone board member for a givenindividual file may take a relativelyshort time, that file also is evaluatedby the majority of other members.Every document can be reviewedin the process. Therefore, every itemof information in your OMPF shouldbe accurate and as up-to-date asyou can possibly make it. No onecan influence this accuracy to agreater degree than the individualofficer that the file represents. Yourfile does represent you. Your visitsand calls to MILPERCEN for review and, if required, correction ofmicrofiche will greatly assist in accomplishing this essential element.Specific observations made by theboard during the selection processare presented below to provide direct insight as to those items whichour board found to be important



25/52

This article was published in the 21 April 1978 issue of Focus While deal ingwith a 1977 promotion board, the subject is important enough to warrantreprinting in this issue of the Digest Appreciation is extended to the PublicAffairs Office, U.S. Army Military Personnel Center for permission

and , more importantly, which canbe influenced by individual officers.OMPF Except for the efficiencyreports, ORB, photograph, schoolrecord, awards, and records of derogatory information, other documents in the OMPF were seldomused and tended to clutter and complicate the file review. Academicreports are useful documents in theselection process, especially whenconsidering those in the secondaryzone. The photograph is the visualportrayal of you as an officer; itmay be worth a thousand words. tshould be current and should include a date on the data plate usedin the photo.ORB This usually is the first itemused by the board members. TheORB is an excellent document thatprovides the needed information inan easy to use format that shouldpresent the officers composite career picture. It is essential that theinformation be current and accurate.t is understood that correcting orupdating of the ORB is not accomplished easily in all cases, but it isapparent also that individual officers simply do not take sufficientaction to ensure data is correct andthat such things as physical examination, assignments and level ofmilitary and civilian education arecurrent. These are commonly considered factors by all board members. Be assured that decisions topromote or not promote are notmade on the basis of an ORB alone.However, the ORB is one of thefirst and key tools that the boarduses.OER OERs are the most important group of documents in theOMPF. The board experienced difficulty in interpreting abbreviationswhich frequently appear in part IlIaand b (Duty Description) of the DAForm 67 7. Many abbreviations andSEPTEMBER 1978

acronyms do not make sense andraters / indorsers should not use them.Many descriptions have only theMOS code. OER reclamas remainin the file and, if disapproved, havea tendency to highlight a bad report.No document that we prepare ismore important than an officersOER. Each deserves the care weexpect to be given our own. Theword picture is important; do notexpect the board to analyze subtlecomments or pick up hints-simplytell it like it is.The following addi tional observations are presented to provide further insight into the items this boardconsidered as being important.Military Education Nonresidentcompletion of CGSC leve l education was given equal credit to completion of resident CGSC. f theofficer did not complete either program or was not at least an activeparticipant, expectations for promotion by this board should nothave been too high. Many assume aMasters Degree or a Doctorate ismore marketable at selection boardtime than a good record of completion from CGSC . In the opinion ofthis board, this is not necessarily avalid assumption. Civil schoolingaccomplishments in support of rec-

ognized OPMS specialties was givenfavorable consideration by the board.Physical Fitness Since annualphysical fitness scores are not,standard items recorded on OERs orORBs, current photographs, current physical profiles and OER comments contain important indicatorsof physical fitness. Physical fitnessis important. Again, OER commentson the subject of fitn.ess were ofimportance to th e board .Appearance The appearance ofmany majors in the zone for selection was below currently acceptableDA standards. This observation issu pported by photographs and isdue partially to apparent overweightconditions. Poor grooming, uniformsimproperly fitted, f i l u r ~ to correctly wear authorized ribbons and accouterments, excessively long hairand , in many cases, mustaches inappropriate to current regulationsor untrimmed , contributed to theoverall su bstandard appearance.Letters o The Board Lettersshould be limited to one page andshould state the facts Point outnew information, such as progressin the nonresident CGSC course,pursuit of enrollment in graduateschool and noteworthy qualifications in your specialties which iden-

Continued on page 9GLOSSARY

LTCAUSAPLJAGCCHLOIOPMSOROMPFCGSCMILPERCENOERMOSDA

lieutenant colonelArmy of the United StatesArmy promotion listJudge Advocate General s CorpsChaplainLetter of InstructionOfficer Personnel Management SystemOfficer Record Briefofficial military personnel fileCommand and General Staff CollegeMilitary Personnel Centerofficer evaluation reportmilitary occupational specialtyDepartment of the Army

3


26/52

~ S W ~U S V S

inter flying requires specialized techniques Awareness and trainingare two essential weapons n th battle against . .

B \Ning SnO\N\J\JHTEOUTS

4

HERE ARE MANY hazardsto operations over snow-covered terrain and one of the problems ranking highest in severity andproducing most of aviation s wintermishaps is that of rotor inducedwhiteout. Rotor induced whiteoutoccurs during operations close tothe ground, usually during takeoffor landing. The movement of airthrough the rotors of a helicoptercauses a strong air current downward through the rotor system. Whenthe airspeed is below effective translationallift, the direction of flow isperpendicular to the ground. f thehelicopter is flown in ground effect,a recirculation of the air occurs.When flight is performed over loosesnow, the movement of the air picksthe snow up and circulates it, forming a ground-level snow cloud. Visibility is reduced to zero as you descend or climb through a snow cloud.

u s ARMY AVIATION DIGEST


27/52

Severe disorientation can occurduring a whiteout condition and youmay have the sensation of movingin one direction when, in fact, youare stopped or moving in anotherdirection. This can result in erroneous con trol application and youcould then be in serious trouble.Lack of experience or training ina snow environment is the biggestcontributor to whiteout mishaps.Consider the following:WHIT OUT MSHAPS

While hovering forward, an OH-58 crew became disoriented in blowing snow and the aircraft bouncedoff the ground three times and tippedover on its right side. The pilot failedto use proper procedures for takeoff from snow. A UH-l, approaching an LZ,flew into heavy blowing snow, lostcontrol and crashed. The pilot wasnot familiar with procedures in theoperator s manual and continuedto land after encountering a whiteout condition. The crew was notadequately trained for snow environment operations. Four AH-ls were flying loosetrail formation on a training mission.A snowstorm approaching along theintended flight path prompted a discretionary landing. The formationspread ou t to land in an open field.The flight leader landed withoutincident. The crew of the No.2 aircraft experienced a whiteout condition and the front seat pilot tookcontrol and landed the aircraft. No.3 had to execute a g