Ops-Normal.org

Oh dear, there goes a few dollars. Maybe it will buff out...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QW-HQ3Zz6oM




Anyone on the brakes? Anyone walking with chocks?

Maybe the brakes would likely just dump the helo on it's @ss, which would then slide back down the ramp anyway. I would expect that the CG is pretty close to the rear wheels to minimise forces on the nosewheel. Do you know otherwise? Once had to park my F3 on a sloping apron. Nose jumped up when I (as per SOP) started to sweep the wings back, so I shoved them back forwards sharpish.

Are you volunteering to be the guy with the chocks behind 11 tons of helo?

No - they should be walking up each side with chocks to whack in. Your point about the c of g - I have no idea about the c of g position on the CH53 but don't think it would be that far aft. It looks a steep slope though, so agree there's a possibility it would tip, but a better risk than $24m of helicopter running away!

There appear to be two guys walking alongside. With the long range tanks in place, however, the wheels don't look very accessible. The helo appears to be 6 foot back after 2 seconds, and about 12 foot after 3 seconds, which I make at least a 10% slope. Given the narrowness of the ramp and the helo pivoting, I should think the guys alongside are instinctively jumping out of the way rather than attempting to get chocks in so as to avoid being crushed. Given human reaction time, I am guessing no one did the calculations beforehand, as it would seem unwise even to have the guys there - they have no realistic chance at stopping it anyway, and a good chance of getting crushed.
Would it be the failure of the towbar pin which caused the accident? The lateral swinging of the tugs as they slip and slide up the slope may have exceeded the sheer limits on the pin. I doubt it was designed with such forces in mind.
A winch at the top of the ramp would seem to be the more sensible solution.

Yes - winching a safer option for all. My screen resolution wasn't so good so I missed the men with chocks, but they were probably accelerating to warp factor 10 very soon after the break, if the machine actually moved 6 feet in 2 seconds then as you say, at least a 10 degree slope. No doubt they will re-think their embarkation procedures but what an expensive way to find out. A military rush and maybe someone pushing hard to get the job done quickly without much fore thought.

FD2 - I can see that video being integrated into the chockheads training courses!

I can't see anyone on the brakes in the cockpit but I suppose with the combination of helo size and that slope it wouldn't have made much difference.

Fox3WheresMyBanana wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 08, 2019 12:37 am

Are you volunteering to be the guy with the chocks behind 11 tons of helo?

11 tons wow! And all held aloft when airborne just by one laccky band.

They are amazing machines and such a big step up from Sea KIngs/S61s and lesser machines!

BTW:

CH53E basic weight around 33,200 lbs and MTOW 73,500 lbs.

Sea King MTOW about 20,500 lbs!

Impressive - in flight refuelling whilst carrying underslung loads which look like two Hummers each!

I see they have dragged the hoses out wide whilst filling- must not be a lot of clearance for the actual hookup. The wikipedia entry has another AAR photo also showing an offset refueling position. Rotor diameter is 79 ft, a fair bit more than the average fighter!

I think I've posted this before ...but always worth looking at...

"So, stabilise, re-establish the references, replan the approach using lateral, vertical, then longitudinal?"
"Nah, ya pooftah, just chase the f#ckin' basket!!"

FD2 wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 08, 2019 10:35 am

ch_53_carrier_maint.jpg

James Bond escapes once again