RAN MH-60R crew safe after ditching
Not that it mattered much. The air frame might float for a while, but fizzed whilst doing so, and disappeared almost before your eyes.
The Wasp kit was also OK at floating (if fitted), and better at staying upright, but with the head nearly submerged.
N
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: SW
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hadn't heard anything about fuel, but my contacts have said it was a completely controlled water landing, so possibly the running out of fuel was true. If it was a fuel miscalculation then the would not ground the fleet. If it was a fuel supply ie pump failed and couldn't get the fuel out of a tank then that might be a reason to ground the fleet
and I didn't disagree with you, what ever reason they had enough time to put it down for a soft water landing but not make it back to the ship. I have heard it was an almost complete hydraulic failure of the aircraft, if it was fuel they wouldn't have grounded the whole fleet and they would know fuel was short and would have had the a crash boat / RHIB already launched
and I didn't disagree with you, what ever reason they had enough time to put it down for a soft water landing but not make it back to the ship. I have heard it was an almost complete hydraulic failure of the aircraft, if it was fuel they wouldn't have grounded the whole fleet and they would know fuel was short and would have had the a crash boat / RHIB already launched
Last edited by evilroy; 14th Oct 2021 at 22:27. Reason: Spelling correction
I have heard it was an almost complete hydraulic failure of the aircraft
The navy not wanting the MRH-90 is not so much a preformace / maintainence issues. Its a sustainment at sea issue, its hard to get parts for them while at sea, that why they want a single type on the warships and if the army deploy to canberra/adelaide its then up to the army to supply the parts. The only real was question was were they going to S or R and we now know that answer
Unconfirmed reports suggest the aircraft was on a night approach to the ship when an unexpected light source caused the pilots’ Night Vision Goggles to ‘bloom’, denying them all visual reference. The Seahawk struck the ocean some distance astern. The ship deployed its boats and the helicopter’s crew of three was rescued with what have been described as ‘minor injuries’ about 20 minutes after the event.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,577
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
A few days back got this e-mail but asked not to publish until confirmed - so here goes: "...they were doing approaches onto the ship using NVG. They had made several successful approaches when they were blinded by a light, apparently from the ship, got disoriented and crashed astern into the sea. ..."
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,577
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
I was TARDY downloading the current FLYBY PDF [FAAAA monthly newsletter]. Here is the news as outlined by 'megan' above:
"RAN Seahawk Ditches - FLYBY Vol 51; Nov 2021
One of the RAN’s Seahawk ‘Romeo’ helicopters has been lost after ditching in the Philippine Sea during a routine flight on 13 October. It was operating from HMAS Brisbane. Unconfirmed reports suggest the aircraft was on a night approach to the ship when an unexpected light source caused the pilots’ Night Vision Goggles to ‘bloom’, denying them all visual reference. The Seahawk struck the ocean some distance astern. The ship deployed its boats and the helicopter’s crew of three was rescued with what have been described as ‘minor injuries’ about 20 minutes after the event.
Following the incident the remaining Romeo fleet of 23 aircraft was grounded as a precaution, pending an investigation into the cause of the accident. They are now cleared. We will bring you more information as it becomes available."
https://www.faaaa.asn.au/wp-content/...1-Nov21-v3.pdf (4Mb)
"RAN Seahawk Ditches - FLYBY Vol 51; Nov 2021
One of the RAN’s Seahawk ‘Romeo’ helicopters has been lost after ditching in the Philippine Sea during a routine flight on 13 October. It was operating from HMAS Brisbane. Unconfirmed reports suggest the aircraft was on a night approach to the ship when an unexpected light source caused the pilots’ Night Vision Goggles to ‘bloom’, denying them all visual reference. The Seahawk struck the ocean some distance astern. The ship deployed its boats and the helicopter’s crew of three was rescued with what have been described as ‘minor injuries’ about 20 minutes after the event.
Following the incident the remaining Romeo fleet of 23 aircraft was grounded as a precaution, pending an investigation into the cause of the accident. They are now cleared. We will bring you more information as it becomes available."
https://www.faaaa.asn.au/wp-content/...1-Nov21-v3.pdf (4Mb)
Glad to hear the crew are all out and OK.
I see a few of you complaining about the flotation. Interesting.
Flotation was problematic when the B was introduced (Early 80's). (And don't get me started on the blade fold system
)
Vague memory of discussions regarding the float interfering with the window removal.
Takeaway: make sure windows jettisoned before floats are deployed ... I'd need to go and find a B NATOPS manual to refresh that memory.
By the early 90's, word on the street in the LAMPS community was that the floats were not reliable. (Not sure when they got pulled off, memory does not serve).
The typical discussion in our ready rooms was
"If you need to ditch and you go to inflate, and only one inflates, there you are, HEEDS bottle time all over again. Don't be surprised if that's what happens to you!"
(@helopat, if you can add anything to that from memory it would be great).
@Golder: MH-60R was lost in this incident, but MH-60R is not (as regards the USN recent loss) an MH-60S (which grew from the CH-60S replacement for the Phrog/CH-46) and is based off of the Blackhawk (L model) not the Seahawk (B/F model).
Two substantial differences (among numerous others):
a. R (Originally SH-60R, re-designated MH-60R due to USN internal issues) has the Small deck landing gear + RAST (Tail wheel much farther forward); S has that all-the-way-in-the-ass tail wheel as a Blackhawk does, and no RAST.
b. R has the Radar, and a substantial mission and avionics suite internally whereas the S has a lot less stuff internalyl. S went from cargo to Combat SAR Mission during its early introduction.
A third point: as I look through my S model notes, you see the lack of the four ESM antennae (B and R have them, F did not, H did not, S does not).
Question for the Aussies: did your Navy buy the data link (AN/SRQ-4) that USN Seahawks/ships/LAMPS system use as a part of the kit, or, was that one of those bits that didn't make the final export sell?
I remember in the early 90's there was some question as to which version of the ESM antennae was supposed to be loaded onto the RAAN export version but it's been years and memory is a bit foggy.
I see a few of you complaining about the flotation. Interesting.
Flotation was problematic when the B was introduced (Early 80's). (And don't get me started on the blade fold system
)Vague memory of discussions regarding the float interfering with the window removal.
Takeaway: make sure windows jettisoned before floats are deployed ... I'd need to go and find a B NATOPS manual to refresh that memory.
By the early 90's, word on the street in the LAMPS community was that the floats were not reliable. (Not sure when they got pulled off, memory does not serve).
The typical discussion in our ready rooms was
"If you need to ditch and you go to inflate, and only one inflates, there you are, HEEDS bottle time all over again. Don't be surprised if that's what happens to you!"
(@helopat, if you can add anything to that from memory it would be great).
@Golder: MH-60R was lost in this incident, but MH-60R is not (as regards the USN recent loss) an MH-60S (which grew from the CH-60S replacement for the Phrog/CH-46) and is based off of the Blackhawk (L model) not the Seahawk (B/F model).
Two substantial differences (among numerous others):
a. R (Originally SH-60R, re-designated MH-60R due to USN internal issues) has the Small deck landing gear + RAST (Tail wheel much farther forward); S has that all-the-way-in-the-ass tail wheel as a Blackhawk does, and no RAST.
b. R has the Radar, and a substantial mission and avionics suite internally whereas the S has a lot less stuff internalyl. S went from cargo to Combat SAR Mission during its early introduction.
A third point: as I look through my S model notes, you see the lack of the four ESM antennae (B and R have them, F did not, H did not, S does not).
Question for the Aussies: did your Navy buy the data link (AN/SRQ-4) that USN Seahawks/ships/LAMPS system use as a part of the kit, or, was that one of those bits that didn't make the final export sell?
I remember in the early 90's there was some question as to which version of the ESM antennae was supposed to be loaded onto the RAAN export version but it's been years and memory is a bit foggy.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,577
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
AIR 9000 Phase 8 - Project Name FUTURE NAVAL AVIATION COMBAT SYSTEM 2011-12
"Uniqueness
The Australian MH-60R helicopter has been acquired as a MOTS [Military Off The Shelf] product, in the same baseline configuration as the USN aircraft. A limited number of Australia unique design modifications are being incorporated now that all aircraft have been delivered. The USN will develop the modifications for incorporation in Australian and USN MH-60R aircraft. The MH-60R is being acquired as a maritime combat capability. It will have limitations in utility roles such as passenger or cargo transfer."
ANAO-MPR-2016-17-PDSS6-Seahawk.pdf (0.5Mb) https://www.anao.gov.au/file/26961/d...token=v0ZZNl3p
"Uniqueness
The Australian MH-60R helicopter has been acquired as a MOTS [Military Off The Shelf] product, in the same baseline configuration as the USN aircraft. A limited number of Australia unique design modifications are being incorporated now that all aircraft have been delivered. The USN will develop the modifications for incorporation in Australian and USN MH-60R aircraft. The MH-60R is being acquired as a maritime combat capability. It will have limitations in utility roles such as passenger or cargo transfer."
ANAO-MPR-2016-17-PDSS6-Seahawk.pdf (0.5Mb) https://www.anao.gov.au/file/26961/d...token=v0ZZNl3p
Glad to hear the crew are all out and OK.
I see a few of you complaining about the flotation. Interesting.
Flotation was problematic when the B was introduced (Early 80's). (And don't get me started on the blade fold system )
Vague memory of discussions regarding the float interfering with the window removal.
Takeaway: make sure windows jettisoned before floats are deployed ... I'd need to go and find a B NATOPS manual to refresh that memory.
By the early 90's, word on the street in the LAMPS community was that the floats were not reliable. (Not sure when they got pulled off, memory does not serve).
The typical discussion in our ready rooms was
"If you need to ditch and you go to inflate, and only one inflates, there you are, HEEDS bottle time all over again. Don't be surprised if that's what happens to you!"
(@helopat, if you can add anything to that from memory it would be great).
@Golder: MH-60R was lost in this incident, but MH-60R is not (as regards the USN recent loss) an MH-60S (which grew from the CH-60S replacement for the Phrog/CH-46) and is based off of the Blackhawk (L model) not the Seahawk (B/F model).
Two substantial differences (among numerous others):
a. R (Originally SH-60R, re-designated MH-60R due to USN internal issues) has the Small deck landing gear + RAST (Tail wheel much farther forward); S has that all-the-way-in-the-ass tail wheel as a Blackhawk does, and no RAST.
b. R has the Radar, and a substantial mission and avionics suite internally whereas the S has a lot less stuff internalyl. S went from cargo to Combat SAR Mission during its early introduction.
A third point: as I look through my S model notes, you see the lack of the four ESM antennae (B and R have them, F did not, H did not, S does not).
Question for the Aussies: did your Navy buy the data link (AN/SRQ-4) that USN Seahawks/ships/LAMPS system use as a part of the kit, or, was that one of those bits that didn't make the final export sell?
I remember in the early 90's there was some question as to which version of the ESM antennae was supposed to be loaded onto the RAAN export version but it's been years and memory is a bit foggy.
I see a few of you complaining about the flotation. Interesting.
Flotation was problematic when the B was introduced (Early 80's). (And don't get me started on the blade fold system
)Vague memory of discussions regarding the float interfering with the window removal.
Takeaway: make sure windows jettisoned before floats are deployed ... I'd need to go and find a B NATOPS manual to refresh that memory.
By the early 90's, word on the street in the LAMPS community was that the floats were not reliable. (Not sure when they got pulled off, memory does not serve).
The typical discussion in our ready rooms was
"If you need to ditch and you go to inflate, and only one inflates, there you are, HEEDS bottle time all over again. Don't be surprised if that's what happens to you!"
(@helopat, if you can add anything to that from memory it would be great).
@Golder: MH-60R was lost in this incident, but MH-60R is not (as regards the USN recent loss) an MH-60S (which grew from the CH-60S replacement for the Phrog/CH-46) and is based off of the Blackhawk (L model) not the Seahawk (B/F model).
Two substantial differences (among numerous others):
a. R (Originally SH-60R, re-designated MH-60R due to USN internal issues) has the Small deck landing gear + RAST (Tail wheel much farther forward); S has that all-the-way-in-the-ass tail wheel as a Blackhawk does, and no RAST.
b. R has the Radar, and a substantial mission and avionics suite internally whereas the S has a lot less stuff internalyl. S went from cargo to Combat SAR Mission during its early introduction.
A third point: as I look through my S model notes, you see the lack of the four ESM antennae (B and R have them, F did not, H did not, S does not).
Question for the Aussies: did your Navy buy the data link (AN/SRQ-4) that USN Seahawks/ships/LAMPS system use as a part of the kit, or, was that one of those bits that didn't make the final export sell?
I remember in the early 90's there was some question as to which version of the ESM antennae was supposed to be loaded onto the RAAN export version but it's been years and memory is a bit foggy.
https://www.federalregister.gov/docu...s-notification
Looks like more can be learned about the loss of this MH-60R (back in October 2021) from PPRuNe than from anything official, that is if post #29 (megan) and #30 (SpazSinbad) were based on reliable sources. But that said, seems source of info in post #11 wasn't reliable.
ASN is still none the wiser:
https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/268515
I have lost track of whether or not the ADF still publish any aviation safety magazine as they once did. Perhaps lessons learned might appear in any such magazine one day? If #29 and #30 are accurate, I wonder what change of procedures have resulted?
ASN is still none the wiser:
https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/268515
I have lost track of whether or not the ADF still publish any aviation safety magazine as they once did. Perhaps lessons learned might appear in any such magazine one day? If #29 and #30 are accurate, I wonder what change of procedures have resulted?
They still do, and up until recently they were publicly available. I really used to enjoy reading them in the Squadron crewroom and trying to apply their learnings to our operations. But DFSADF / DASA / Defence Flight Safety Bureau / Whatever-they-call-themselves-this-year seems to believe there's no Civvie value in letting us view them and, despite showing them on their internet site, blocks access nonetheless.
Maybe you can have better luck? Click HERE.
EDIT: Might have jumped the gun a bit there, some files are accessible, but not all. Not sure if its' intentional, but several return the "not authorized" message, but to me it reads as though they haven't set up the URL to the PDF magazine right. It may not be intentional...
Maybe you can have better luck? Click HERE.
EDIT: Might have jumped the gun a bit there, some files are accessible, but not all. Not sure if its' intentional, but several return the "not authorized" message, but to me it reads as though they haven't set up the URL to the PDF magazine right. It may not be intentional...
Last edited by KRviator; 14th Aug 2023 at 03:45.
