Army Aviation Digest - Aug 1978

8/12/2019 Army Aviation Digest - Aug 1978

1/52


2/52

VOLUME

7 J : ~ UNITED STATES ARMY [ AUGUST 978~ ~ I i V I A T I O N GEST NUMBER 8

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

page

page 8

Richard K. TierneyEditor

458

11121516192022242628303324044454648

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

Army Aviation- Getting Ready,BG Charles E. CanedyAVNEC Report , MG James C. SmithAVNEC Part III: How To Fight-Defense,MAJ Kenneth H. BardotIf It Feels Good, Fly It, MAJ Walter J. ProbkaCrew Rest In Reserve/Guard Components,J. Scott BondThe Aerial Observer Team And TACFIRE,MAJ Gary N. GrubbViews From ReadersReporting FinalFort Rucker Activities DayWhy Air-To-Air Missiles On Attack Helicopters,MAJ Lonnie S. BeasleyTraining Developments and Methodologies: ISO,A. Frank RushtonWOC-DDES Report To The FieldATM: A Better Way To Train, CPT Ronald CoxAmerican Legion Valor AwardsEPMS Corner. Career Management Individual Files,SFC George L. AlstonOPMS Corner: Update-Officer Specialty Code 71MAJ Richard G. LarsonThink About The Unthinkable, CPT Charles F NowlinThe Threat: The SA-9 GaskinYou Wanna Hear From Me?PEARLATC Action LineInside Back Cover: M49C Refueling Tanker On FireBack Cover: Second Air-To-Air Symposium

ABOUT THE COVERThe Army aviator on the cover reflects thegetting ready theme of the article on page 1 byBrigadier General Charles E. Canedy who takes acomprehensive look at Army aviation today andwhere it is headed.

page 12

page 2

page 46

The mission of the U.S. rmy Aviation Digest is to provide information of anoperational , functional nature concerning safety and aircraft accident prevention , training. maintenance , operations , research and development, aviation

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

Active Army units receive distribut ion under the pinpoint distribution systemas outlined in AR 310-1 . Complete DA Form 12-5 and send directly to CDR.AG Publications Center, 2800 Eastern' Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21220. Forany change in distribut ion requ irements , initiate a revised DA Form 12-5.

medicine and other related data.The Digest is an offic ial Department of the Army periodical published monthly

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

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

Those not eligible for official distribution or who desire personal copies ofthe Digest can order the magazine from the Superintendent of Documents,U.S. Government Printing Off ice , Washington, DC 20402. Annual subscriptionrates are $17 .00 domestic and 21 .25 overseas


3/52

GETTINGREADY

Brigadier General Charles E. CanedyDeputy Director of Requirements

and rmy Aviation OfficerOffice Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans

Department of the rmy

SINCE I BECAME your Aviation Officer in Augustof 1975, I have had the privilege of working withfor countless individuals, both military and civithat have and will continue to put forth a maxieffort towards achieving a goal of complete

Army aviation. From the young peopleentered 67Y (AH-l Helicopter Repair) train

at the Transportation School and Center at Ft.the Senators and members of Congress,support our budget requests- I applaud

can assure you, however, even though we are, we are not ready.In hopes of providing you some additional insightthe total Army aviation picture, let 's dis

some of our more significant aviation programswhy we feel they are important to the Army anddespite my previousis prevalent.

Flying Hour ProgramOu fiscal year (FY) 78 flying hour program remajor revisions in our aviation trainingand constituted the Army's best effort to effec

modernize its flying hour program. Our FY 79continues this effort with a goal of enhancaviation readiness.

The number of flying hours we are allowed to fly, continues to be a major concern. As you

recall, the aircrew training manuals established ourfirst pilot training hours that vary from 228 hours ayear for our scout pilots to 46 for our fixed wingutility pilots. The manuals were tested during Marchthrough August 1977 and the final versions are scheduled for distribution to the field by 1 October. (SeeATM: A Better Way To Train, page 28.)I am convinced that our new task and event orient

ed training hour requirements provide us with avehicle to directly correlate flying hours to readiness,and therefore, will not only reduce the aviator mishapand fatality rate, but equally important, improve thecombat readiness of our aviation units. Congress cutour FY 78 program by 13 percent and, obviously,this is impacting on our readiness. We have solicitedtheir full support for our 79 proposal of 1,617,880hours.

Flight SimulatorsT he flight simulator program continues to beone of the bright spots in Army aviation. Forecasted ,

This article was prepared by General Canedy prior to his departurefrom Washington for a new assignment (see Reporting Final, page 161978


4/52

as well as actual, flying hour reductions and monetary savings are once again extremely encouraging.During FY 77, using flight simulators, the Armyachieved a cost avoidance of 30.1 million - representing 115,997 flying hours. t is anticipated thesesavings will increase in FY 78 and FY 79. Additionally,while I cannot relate empirical results, I feel the useof these simulators provided significantly increasedproficiency in instrument and associated proceduresfor our young aviators.

There are currently 16 UH-1 Huey simulators operational and by October there will be 22. The majorityof the savings just stated can be attributed to thefielded UH-1 simulators. This simulator also uses 1 1preprogramed inflight emergencies; at least one ofwhich so far has saved five lives. The CH-47 Chinooksimulator prototype has completed testing and nowis being used in aviator transition training. The AH-1Cobra prototype was accepted by the Governmentlast April, with operational testing to be completedin January. This will be our first total systems simulator, simulating visual, instrument and all weaponsystems.

Research and development for the UH-60 BlackHawk and AH-64 attack helicopter simulators hasbeen funded. The UH-60 simulator will test the computer generated imagery systems of visual displaythat we hope will solve our nap-of-the-earth (NOE)simulation problem and significantly reduce the costof these devices.

Special Task Force (STF) Studying WarrantOfficer And Officer AviatorsW e have organized a task force designed to evaluate the warrant officer aviation program and toassess and review the management of our commissioned aviators. Although Brigadier General DickSweet, Deputy Director of Military Personnel Man

agement (DCSPER) and I have cochaired this effort,our real working director of this task force studyingaviation warrant officer and officer specialty 15 management has been Colonel Ron Hill who has donejust a super job. I will give you a quick overview ofthe issues that are of primary concern to the Army

2

and particularly to Army aviation.As a result of the Warrant Officer Aviator STF,we have: initiated a promotion policy that will result insignificantly improved promotion opportunity for allwarrant officers; strengthened the attractiveness of the regularArmy warrant officer program; initiated a selected continuation process so thatwe can retain warrant officers in critically shortspecialties; increased the initial flight training obligation fromthree to our years.These actions are designed specifically to improvethe overall aviation warrant officer program, to provide for an increased return on our training dollarinvestment, and to enhance Army aviation readiness.In regards to readiness, our task force also provedits worth. As currently written, our tables of organization and equipment (TOEs) essentially reflect oneaviator for each cockpit seat. This rat io will not sustain a European level of combat. As we increase thecapabilities of aircraft to be flown 24 hours a day inall types of weather and reduced visibility, the crewsbecome the limiting factor in the combat power ofthese units. The U.S. Army Training and DoctrineCommand TRADOC) currently is revising our crewratios to optimize the performance of the aircraftas new technologies increase performance andcapabilities.In the officer aviator field we determined that asa result of the high and continued demand for Armyaviators during the Vietnam conflict we now findourselves with too many senior major and lieutenantcolonel aviators. To compensate, the Army was directed to reduce training input and in 1977 we werepermitted only 1 commissioned aviators. As a result,commissioned officers programed for training duringthe next 5 years will not meet the Army's companygrade aviation requirements - 365 officer trainees inthe FY 79 budget.

The shortages , if not corrected, would require 1percent use of our commissioned aviators in aviationpositions, thereby prohibiting assignments in careerdeveloping basic entry skills. The Department ofDefense (DOD) philosophy on training and usingcommissioned aviators is significantly different fromthe Army's. It is only fair to add, however, that llour problems do not stem from training input constraints, but involve the proper use of our officersonce they become aviators.

The Army philosophy regarding its commissionedaviators, I might add, is not complex. We believe ourcommissioned aviators must be equally skilled inground as well as aviation warfare. They must notonly possess skills as an attack or assault helicopter

U.S. ARMY AVIATION DIGEST


5/52

OriginalapabilityGroups

Figure ommonalityEvolvedapabilityGroups

Evolution of Helicopter Commonality

T J M2

3RH 53X

5YE R

member or leader, but also must be well trainedas Armor Infantry and ArtilleryThe Congress and Office of the Secretary ofin the Army, shouldArmys aviation leaders be suffi

competent so that they can ensure Army airare employed in such a manner so that they arepart of the ground battle.Unlike our Air Force or Navy counterparts, thermy aviators war does not center around the airraft they fly or those they control. Instead, our wars the ground battle into which the aircraft we control

ust be interwoven-if they are to be effective.our task force has recommended: training rates be increased from 465 commis

and 465 warrant officers per year to combat arms officers serve a I-year specialtyualifying assignment in their basic entry specialtyprior to assignment to flight school. aviators serve 4 years in an aviation utilizationassignment after graduation from flight school. aviators in the grade of captain serve in at least

one primary/ entry specialty qualifying assignment. that the Officer Personnel Management System(OPMS) General Officer Steering Committee consider specialty 5 to be an alternate only and that 0-4aviation company level commanders be centrallyselected.978

LIGHT

MEDIUM

MEDIUM-HE VY

HE VY

Aviation Requirement For TheCombat Structure Of The ArmyARCSA III)A s you may recall, ARCSA III, a study specifically designed to improve the aviation force structureof the Army, was approved by the Army Chief ofStaff and implemented last February (see July 1977Digest . Our emphasis is to place the bulk of theArmy s combat aviation assets into the hands of ourdivision and corps commanders where they can be

most effectively and efficiently used. ConcurrentlyContinued on page 34

3


6/52

4

VNECR PORT

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

Fort Rucker, AL

EtIS IS THE third of four articles which cover the main portions of the ArmyAviation Employment Conference (AVNEC) hosted at the U.S. Army Aviation Center,Ft. Rucker, AL last March. Part I Standardization and Interoperability, appearedin the June issue of the viation Digest and Part II, How to Fight-Offense, followed in July. As indicated in the previous articles, the purpose of the conferencewas to achieve a consensus regarding the employment of Army aviation and toprioritize aviation systems as a prelude to the Army Aviation Systems ProgramReview (AAPR) scheduled for 4 and 5 December. The participants at the conferencerepresented a cross-section of general officers within the Army. Of significance isthe fact that the majority of the participants were not rated aviators.Prior to convening the conference, the participants were assigned to one offour workshops and provided issue papers relative to their particular workshop'sarea of interest. During the workshop discussion, the participants were invited toarrive at conclusions and recommendations for each issue paper as well as prioritize aviation equipment. The resulting conclusions and recommendations from theworkshops have been forwarded to the Combined Arms Center (CAC) and otherorganizations for appropriate action. The resulting equipment prioritization is underreview at the Aviation Center and will be developed into discussion topics for theforthcoming AAPR. More information about the AAPR can be obtained by contacting Major Frank Peterlin, AAPR Project Officer, Directorate of Combat Developments,Ft. Rucker, t 36362-or by calling Major Peterlin at Commercial 205-255-3702or AUTOVON 558-3702.

U s ARMY AVIATION IGEST


7/52

VNECP RTlIT

Ho W To Fight Defense

As A CONTINUATION ofthe Digest s coverage of the ArmyAviation Employment ConferenceAVNEC), this article provides anoverview of the conclusions andrecommendations developed by theHow to Fight- Defense workshop.The workshop discussed issue pa-pers pertaining to the employmentof Army aviation in the coveringforce area, the main battle area andthe attempted breakthrough sector.Issues on the employment of thejoint air attack team, counteringthreat helicopters and employmentof Army aviation during special mis-sions also were examined.AUGUST 978

Major Kenneth H BardotForce Development Branch

Directorate of Combat DevelopmentsFort Rucker L

Since the preeminent mission ofthe Army today is to provide forthe successful defense of westernEurope, the defense workshop dis-cussions were most appropriate. Be-cause of the significance of U.S.Army Europe USAREUR) theworkshop discussion centered large-ly upon a European scenario andwas viewed in a 1978 as well as 1985timeframe. Furthermore, the dis-cussion focused on employment ofArmy aviation as a member of thecombined arms team and empha-sized the integration of aviationmaneuver units into fire and maneu-ver plans, as opposed to aviation

units operating as a separate entity.The workshop concluded gener-ally that aviation roles will notchange dramatically in the 1985timeframe. Then as now the basiccontributions of Army aviation willimpact on combined arms operations in the covering force area, themain battle area and the criticalbreakthrough sector. These contri-butions would have application invarying geographical areas and cli-matic conditions.

To highlight some of the contribu-tions discussed, the attack helicopterunits were considered to providethe force commander the capability

5


8/52

to thicken the defense rapidly andintegrate antiarmor firepower onkey avenues of approach. Also, thefirepower and mobility of attackhelicopter units could be exploitedto compensate for a lack of reserveforces and contribute to the maneuver aspects of the battle. Air cavalry troops would perform screening, reconnaissance and economyof force functions. Finding the enemy by air cavalry units was thoughtto be an important contribution inaddition to providing combat in-formation.By the same token support aircraft in the combat support aviationcompany (CSAC) were consideredto provide a means to thicken defenses. The CSAC would provideair movement of antitank guidedmissile and Redeye/Stinger teamsto critical sectors, and deliver minesand unattended ground sensors.Also the CSAC occasionally would

6

transport units to critical defensivepositions such as builtup areas orstrong points.

Other support aircraft in mediumhelicopter units would shift criticallogistical support and would support forward area refueling andrearming operations. Other aviationroles considered by the workshopincluded intelligence gathering andcommand and control. Electronicwarfare and intelligence gatheringaircraft of the Combat ElectronicWarfare Intelligence units were considered to perform functional rolesfor commanders at all levels. Command and control (C&C) aircraftwere considered to provide commanders with a means to traversethe battlefield as required.

The use of C&C aircraft doesnot imply that they will be operatedin the same flight envelopes or perform the same functions as theyperformed in Vietnam (i.e., high

orbit with command and controconsoles). But rather these aircrafwould provide commanders the capability to move abou t the battlefield in terrain flight modes andfacilitate the accomplishment ofcommand functions . These rolesand contributions of Army aviationwithin the combined arms team arecontained in FM 90 1 Employmentof Army Aviation Units In a HighThreat Environment ; FM 17-50Attack Helicopter Operations ;and FM 100-5 Operations.The workshop discussed otherspecial considerations for the employment of aviation units. Due to

the extended frontages in Europeand the lack of air cavalry unitswithin USAREUR, covering forcecommanders may by necessity haveto employ attack helicopter unitsto defend in sectors, and to perform reconnaissance and screeningmissions. In the breakthrough sector force commanders will experience additional logistical requirements as attack he licopter unitsconsume large volumes of class IIIand class V supplies. The attackhelicopters' capability to rapidlymass tank-killing firepower can beoptimized in the target rich breakthrough sector. The air cavalry unitsare suited for economy of forceroles to fill gaps created by themovement of other forces to thickendefenses in the critical sector.

The workshop's examination ofthe issue regarding employment ofthe joint air attack team focusedupon air space management andsuppression of enemy air defensesystems. The joint air attack teamconcept consists of an attack helicopter team and U.S. Air Forceclose air support element attackinga given target array at the sametime. The workshop concluded thatthe joint air attack team is a viableconcept which should be exploitedin the breakthrough sector. Airspacemanagement was considered not tobe a problem in the forward combatareas since there is little need tomaintain positive airspace control

u.s. ARMY AVIATION DIGEST


9/52

in these forward areas. Suppressionof enemy air defense systems andartillery was considered importantto the survivability of the joint airattack team. Existing Army systemsand procedures were thought to beadequate for the bulk of coord inanation required. The workshopfurther identified the training requirements necessary to effect thisconcept.

The workshop s deliberation onthe issue of countering threat helicopters indicated that there was apotential for air-to-air engagementsbetween helicopters during threatairmobile assaults into rear areasand during chance or meeting engagemen ts along the forward edgeof the battle area. The workshopconcluded that the problem of countering threat helicopters was anArmy problem as a whole, not specifically applying to aviation. Theresponsibility for resolving this problem belonged to the Air DefenseCenter. The discussion of the concept of countering threat helicopterswas concluded with the recommen-dation that further investigating andtesting should be conducted in orderto define aviation requirements,roles, capabilities and responsibilities.Some areas of interest for furtherdoctrinal development were suggested by the workshop. There is a needfor development of tactics for existing weapon systems to combat thepotential air-to-air and ground-toair engagements with threat helicopters. Foremost, however, there is aneed to develop doctrine and procedures for the employment of laserguided weapons and laser designators. Recommendations were provided for the resolution of thesedoctrinal concerns.

Since it is difficult to discuss tactics without discussing systems, numerous equipment requirements anddeficiencies were surfaced duringthe workshop discussion. There wastotal agreement that the advancedscout helicopter (ASH) is an immediate field requirement. The ASHwas viewed as essen tial to properAUGUST 978

employment of the AH-64 attackhelicopter and Copperhead systems.To achieve greater capabilities

at night, it was recommended thatthe CH-47 Chinook and UH-60 BlackHawk helicopters should have nightvision capabilities comparable tothose provided by the pilots nightvision system being developed forthe AH-64. In the nuclear, biological,chemical (NBC) area it was notedthat the Army faces a serious deficiency. Aviation-peculiar equipmentis required to promote continuousoperation in an NBC environment.

The aerial mine dispenser wasviewed as a current and future tactical requirement. The present aerialmine delivery system, the M-56 minedispenser, is an interim system applicable only to the UH l Huey helicopter. t was suggested that therequirement for an aerial deliverymine system be evaluated on thebasis of developing a new system

with application to all support aircraft. During operations in mountain, desert and jungle areas it wascor .:luded that there would be anincreased aircraft workload and arequirement for greater aircraftpower such as will be provided bythe UH -60 Black Hawk once itreaches the field.

The defense workshop accom-plished its goals for the conferencein reaching a consensus regardingArmy aviation doctrine, tactics andemployment concepts. With muchof our current thinking oriented onconducting a successful defense, wewill have to master a fundamentalprincipalwhich was reiterated during the workshop discussion - thatbeing the need for combined armsoperation in combat. Aviation canbe a valuable member of the combined arms team and its capabilitiesshould be recognized and integrated into combined arms operations.


10/52

8

\ \ ~I I

/ \ II ~ \l >If,II '

c g 1 D i ~U S V S ajor Walter J Probka

u s RMY VI TION DIGEST


11/52

AUGUST 1978

LOOK HERE SON SHEHOVERS JUST FINE.

IF ITFEELSGOODLY IT

T HERE I WAS, right out of flight school aridscheduled to fly ,with 'Pappy' Hightime. Pappyknew Otto and Igor personally" and what he didn'tknow about flying jlJ,st w : : i ~ n t worth knowing. Youname it, he's flown it. Heni was my G h a n c ~ to reallyl e a ~ n frOll1 ,an ,t;,xpert.At the mission briefing I learned that \} e were tobe ,met ::it 0 4 ~ UJ-I:IH by five troops and 1,075pounds of tools and spare parts. We were to fly to atraining ~ i t e unload, and return. It sounded easyenough, so I decided I'd impress Pappy by planningthe fligl}t while he was 'swapping lies' over a cup ofcoffee with a , ew ;good gl' boys. I copied down thetgtal aircraft weight from the' DD 365f, added inour p a ~ l o a d p ~ ~ n d s and got worried. Ourtakeoff gross weight turned out to qe 9,5c.50 pounds. Iw'aited :while ,Pappy finished a story and the laughterdied down to telbhim about it. 'No big thing; Pappy

s ~ i d f pwn ",hat bird overgross before. Besides,we'll burn off most of that 9n start and runup.' As I\yalkt:;,9 away, I wasn't sure if they were laughing atme or at another of Ppppy:s jokes."We met on the flight line that afternoon. I hadtrouble keeping up 'Yith Pappy in the -lOCL as hezipped through preflight, start, and runup procedures,but itlooked lilfe he got it all. He eased it up to a lowhover and said, 'Look here, S o n ~ she hovers just fine,

~ g t s p o t o ~ e r the red line, and we've got a littlemargin of stick travel.' Since I still looked uneasy,Pappy sh()wed me the ultimate test-a left hovering360-degree turn. Y9u kl]pw w ~ a t I always say, Son.I f iJ feels good, fly it.' Pappy eased itforward, and offwe went.The flight proceeded lineventfullyuntil,the landingat our d e s t i n ~ t i o n . Pappy let me fly en route, but


12/52

I IT F LS GOOD LY ITtook the controls back for the approach into a smallclearing surrounded by trees. We were just belowtreetop level when 1 heard the low rpm warning.'Hang on,' Pappy said as we settled in. He gave onefinal pitch pull as we neared the ground, but the rpmwas so low that it didn't seem to do much good.When the dust cleared, Pappy surveyed the brokenplexiglass and bent cross tubes and said, 'I can'tfigure it out; it just lost power.' There are many variations of the somewhat fictitious story told above, but they all end the same way:1 just ran out of power, or I just ran out of pedal,or both. The above flight was destined for a hardlanding or worse before it ever left the groundbecause the crew just didn't understand the importance of proper mission planning.In the first place, the crew should have realizedthat power for hover OG E would be req uired in thatconfined area. In fact, the operator's manual statesthat if the type of surface/ terrain over which hoveringis to be conducted is known to be steep, uneven, orcovered with high vegetation, or the type of terrainis unknown, the mission should be planned to provide OGE hover capability. Next, figures 14-21 and14-22 in the UH-I0 / H operator's manual should beused to determine mission allowable gross weightbased on performance. (Ninety-five hundred poundsis a structural, not a performance, limit.) To obtainpressure altitude for use in the charts, our crewcould have dialed 29.92 into the altimeter's Kollsmanwindow to get the pressure altitude at the takeoffpoint. To get the pressure altitude at the LZ theyshould have simply added the elevation difference(obtained from a map). Applying a lapse rate of 2C ./ 1,000 feet to the OAT at the point of takeoffwould have given them the LZ temperature. At theLZ (27 C., 3,000 feet) their UH-l H could have hovered OGE at a maximum weight of 8,900 pounds.Carrying the minimum amount of fuel to completethe mission, our crew could have arrived weighing8,740 pounds instead of their 9,275 pounds. Thesefigures, in turn, could have alerted our crew that,

10

although with reduced fuel they apparently wouldhave had enough power for this mission, the marginwould be slim, and other factors must be considered.These factors include varying engine performance,winds, inaccurac ies in reading instruments and charts,and humidity. Of these, the effects of humidity arethe most overlooked.As the temperature of air increases, so does itsability to hold moisture. When it's hot and humid,water vapor can account for up to 10 percent of theatmosphere, which would cause a 4- to 5-percentreduction in air density. Since density altitude is altitude corrected for nonstandard density (temperatureand humidity effects), the effect of this reductionmight be 1,000 feet or more of increased densityaltitude. Since rotor blades and engines are less efficient in thin air, less payload can be carried. Howmuch less'? For a utility helicopter, the error in neglecting humidity can be more than 1 pound of torqueor over 200 pounds of lift capacity .

For planning purposes, our crew would have had a160-pound lift capacity margin with minimum fuelon board. Most of this would be eliminated considering humidity (all of it and more on a hot, humid day.The operator's manual performance charts are basedon dry air). Keeping in mind the other sources oferror mentioned above, and the fact that it takesmore power to terminate to a hover than to hover,it is questionable whether or not this mission couldbe safely performed. Without this type of carefulplanning, I f it feels good, fly it, often is follow'edby, I can't figure it out; it just lost power.

MAJ Walter J . Probka an aerospaceengineer recently graduated from theCommand and General Staff CollegeFt Leavenworth KS. Currently assign-ed to the Education and EvaluationDivision Directorate for Plans Opera-tions and Education U.S Army Agen-cy for Aviation Safety he teaches tech-nology subjects in the Aviation SafetyOfficer Course.



13/52


14/52

The Terial and CFbserver IR

Team E. . . . . ~

RTILLERY AERIAL observa tion tactics have evolved fromthe sedentary balloon to th e modern, highly mobile rotary wing aircraft of today. Throughout this development, various tools have beenintegrated for use by the FAAOteam from both aviation and weapons research Now the 1st CavalryDivision Artillery FAAO has available the speed and efficiency of thecomputer through the T ACFIRESystem.

TACFIRE is an electronicallyintegrated command and controlinformation system capable of performing both technical and tactical fire control The system is composed of central computers andcomputer access remote terminals.The functions or programs availablewith TACFIRE are extensive andcomplex.Functions

Ammunition and fire unit pro-12

Major Gary N. GrubbAviation Officer

1st Cavalry Division rtilleryFort Hood TXgrams maintain current unit loca- similar with only slight differencestion and ammunition status by type, in program availability. The divisionnumber and fuze. Amount of am- artillery computer has a larger memmunition on hand constantly is com- ory unit, expanded display capabilityputed and updated and greater communications capa- The tactical fire control func- city than the battalion set. On thetion is concerned with selection of other hand, the division artilleryunits to fire. computer is limited to tactical fire Technical fire control is the control command and control funcdetermination of the ballistic gun- tions) while the battalion unit cannery solution with the final product perform both tactical and technicalbeing fire commands to the firing fire control specific firing data).unit. These computers interface with

The total time elapsed between a variety of remote devices employedtransmission of the fire mission by by members of the artillery system.observer and receipt of fire com- . The digital message devicemands at the guns can be less than DMD) is used to input fire missions15 seconds, and the system can pro- and combat intelligence.cess 30 simultaneous missions. The variable format messageThe central computer located at entry device YFMED) is used todivision artillery and the computer both transmit and receive informaat each field artillery battalion are tion.

u s ARMY AVIATION DIGEST


15/52

The 1st Cavalry Division Artillery The Red Team) recently completed Operational TestIII of the TACFIRE system and summarizes their experience with the field artillery aerialobserver FAAO) and the Tactical Fire Direction TACFIRE) ystem

A battery display unit (BDU)is located in each firing battery toreceive fire commands.The aerial observer assigned tothe division artillery headquarters,like the ground fire support team(FIST) counterpart at the artillerydirect support battalion, is equipped with the DMD to permit a datalink with a central computer. TheDMD is a small, lightweight, remoteunit used by the FAAO and theFIST to transmit, over standard radio nets. fire mission requests, intelligence reports. and other dataused by the fire direction center.Under the ARCSA (AviationRequirements for the Combat Structure of the Army) organization concept. light observation helicopters,formerly organic to the division artillery. are now centralized in thedivision aviation battalion. The onceseparate aviation section becomesthe division artillery support platoon assigned to the division aviationcompany. The division artillery platoon provides the second teammem-ber and the aircraft to permit accomplishment of the FAAO mission.All platoon pilots in command PIC)must be thoroughly proficient inaerial observation and artillery adjustment procedures before beingassigned FAAO team missions.

The FAAO s ability to traversethe battlefield rapidly and use multiple observation areas has placedincreased demand upon the artillery fire direction center responsetime. The speed of digital frequencymodulated (FM) communicationsand the TACFIRE computer system have provided the requisite immediate response.

TACFIRE uses existing commu-nications equipment and networkswithin the artillery organization.

ockpit view of T CFIRE equip-ped F O team during fire missionprocessing

AUGUST 978

Application of the DMD to the OH-58A Kiowa requires only the installation of an external radio harnessto the intercommuncation system(ICS) unit located in the passengercompartment. This cable is thenpassed around the center post tothe observer station. providing amatching of the DMD with the aircraft FM radio.Digital radio transmissions varygreatly from standard voice communications and require more precise radio alignment for reliablepassage of traffic. A typical digitaldata message is encoded in a specialformat. then changed to an analogvoltage for transmission. When received, the voltage is converted intodigital data. the format decoded andthe message passed to the displaydevice in use. The transmission ofboth voice and digital traffic on thesame radio net can at first be confusing and distracting. Digital trafficwill override voice. Training. patience and familiarity with the artil-

lery system will ensure effective communications. Using the current family of FM avionics. reliable digitalmessages have been transmitted fora distance of 2 to 4 kilometerswhile operating in the nap-of-theearth (NOE) flight profile. Extendedtransmission ranges required increased altitude to permit digital communications.

The DMD does not eliminate theneed for voice communications between the observer and the fire direction center. SHOT and SPLASHalert information is transmitted bynormal voice procedures. This practice enhances the team effort byinforming the PIC of the status offire mission processing and servesas an invaluable aid when positioningthe aircraft within the observationarea.Assigned aerial observers receivedgeneral TACFIRE system instructionand detailed DMD operator traininglast August. The U.S. Army Electronic Command fabricated one ex-


16/52

perimental DMD aircraft installation cable which was evaluated successfully by af FAAO team for theCommunications, Research andDevelopmen t Command (CO RADCOM) on October. FAAO teamtraining was initiated immediatelyand integrated into division artillerycommand post exercises (CPXs) andfield training exercises (FTXs) conducted biweekly throughout theperiod October through December1977. Both voice and digital firemissions were practiced at varioustransmission ranges and terrain flightconfigurations. Training missionsincluded both simulated and liveartillery adjustment. Forty-eighttraining missions, encompassing 30hours of aircraft use, thoroughlyprepared the FAAO teams for Operational Test (OT) III. Periodicground DMD operator refresher exercises were included to ensure observer TACFIRE hardware proficiency, and provide the PIC with abetter understanding of observerduties during the conduct of firemission processing.The only significant departurefrom established F AAO teamworkroles as a result of TACFIRE occurs

during the conduct of fire while inthe observation area. The displaysurface on the DMD is subject toglare and requires the observer'sfull attention whenever transmittingor receiving a message. During avoice mission the observer generallycan direct attention outside the aircraft, even when transmitting corrections or making reports. However,a digital fire mission requires thatthe DMD be monitored continuouslywhen traffic is in progress. This predominant in the aircraft visual environment causes spatial disorientation and nausea even among experienced observers. With the observer's attention directed towardthe DMD, the PIC must assumeeven greater responsibilities regarding aircraft exposure, detection byenemy air defense artillery and obstacle clearance during the mostcritical phase of the flight. Bothteammembers must be trained extensively with respect to crew coordination techniques.Plans include The Red Teamtesting the Battery Computer System(BCS) which replaces the BDU andcompletes the final link in the TACFIRE system. BCS places a technical

When a digital fire mission s in progress the observer must monitor the M ex-clusively This requires the PIC be even more vigilant to avoid detection by theenemy yet ensure obstacle clearance

fire control computer at each firingbattery, thereby permitting digitalfire requests to be transmitted directly to the firing element. This concept will not only reduce the transmission range for fire mission processing, but also reduce the amountof traffic on the digital net. Theintegration of BCS into the artillerycomputer system will further increasethe responsiveness of TACFIRE andprovide faster, more efficient firemission processing. This increasedresponsiveness and greater battlefield effectiveness translates to thecockpi t as, getting more firepower,quicker thereby reducing exposuretime and enhancing survivability.TACFIRE as fielded for OT-IIIposed some problems relative tothe FAAO team. These have beenidentified and possible solutions havebeen recommended. TACFIRE isnot a black box with all the answers, but merely another tool responsive to the initative, judgmentand decisions of the user. Whatevertools are adapted for use by theFAAO team, surely the basic concept of survival through teamworkbetween artillery troops and aviatorsremains paramount. {


17/52

Vi WSFRomRE DERS

Editor:I am the Aviation Safety Officer of abrigade aviation section. We have fourOH-58 aircraft. Enclosed you will findseveral photographs that you may havefor your files.During a 300-hour periodic inspection, the vertical panel on the aft sideof the center support column was removed and we discovered that a birdhad somehow managed to becomelodged under the interconnecting bellcrank. lPhoto below.]The bird was easily crushed so nocontrol problem was encountered. Ourfeathered friend must have been a superNOE pilot to get himself into this area.

CW3 John M. Parry4th BDE, 4th INF DIV (MECH)APO New York 09358

Editor:Joint Uni ted States Military AdvisoryGroup duties require that we possessthe latest information available on accident prevention. The U S rmy Avia-tion Digest is an excellent publicationand has helped us considerably in providing valuable insight about accident

prevention which we in turn pass to theRoyal Thailand Air Force (RTAF).The RTAF is equipped with aircraftthat our military still have in active service and they are purchasing new air

craft from U.S. manufacturers. To enable this office to better help the RTAFwith their aviation safety program,please establish distribution for fivecopies of your fine publication per publication cycle. Our safe and sincerethanks for your assistance.Lt Col John C Waresh, USAF

Headquartersloint U.S. Military Advisory Gp,ThailandAPO San Francisco 96346

We do not handle distribution inthis office. The Digest is a DA maga-zine with all distribution controlled inWashington. To subscribe it will be necessary for you to submit a remittanceof 817.00 to: Superintendent of Docu-ments, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402.Editor:I want to applaud Captain Littlejohnon his article, Airborne Air Defense

Artillery Weapons Systems" (March1978 issue). His analysis of the requirement for more effective air defense onthe next battlefield is well done, especially the requirement for air defenseweapons mobility.Although many of us may disagreewith the title of a proposed air defensesystem," I believe there is user consensus concerning the threat. t would beirresponsible to ignore the potentialthreat armed helicopter force, not tomen tion high performance aircraft. TheArmy and Army aviation are behindthe power curve concerning this problem; we must do better. Again, welldone, Captain Littlejohn

Editor:

COL John C BahnsenTSM Attack HelicoptersFt. Rucker, AL 36362

I am researching and writing a bookon the employment of Army aviationin Indochina during the decade 1962to 1972. The thrust of the book focuseson the flying and fighting qualities ofboth the aircraft and the aircrewmeninvolved. Of special interes t are photosof aircraft with unit insignias clearlydisplayed.I would be interested in hearing fromanyone who believes he has anythingof interest to contribute in the way ofphotos, art, poems, songs and information. Duplicate copies of material shouldbe sent to ensure against inadvertentloss. Credit will be given for materialused although no remuneration can bemade. . . please mail items to P.O. Box8-9015, Mountain View, AK 99508.

LTC W F. Gabella804 St. Louis Rd #3Collinsville, IL 62234

15


18/52

Late Ne'W s FrOlll rll lY viation ctivit iesFROM THE PENTAGON, UGUST 978New rmy Aviation Officer Brigadier General CarlH. McNair Jr. recently assumed duties as DeputyDirector of Requirements and Army Aviation Officerfrom Brigadier General Charles E. Canedy. BGMcNair is no stranger to the Pentagon and Armyaviation, having just left the position of ExecutiveOfficer, ODCSRDA and served earlier as the Deputyfor Aviation to the Assistant Secretary of the Army(R&D). Entering active duty from the U.S. MilitaryAcademy in June 1955, he has served in a variety ofcommand and staff assignments within his infantry,Aviation and R&D specialties. A Master ArmyAviator with fixed wing, rotary wing and multiengine

qualifications, BG McNair completed flight trainingat U.S. Army Aviation Center, Ft. Rucker, AL, in1956. He brings with him a great depth of combatand peacetime aviation experience. During theVietnam conflict he served successively as Commander, 121st Assault Helicopter Company (SOCTRANG TIGERS); S3, 164th Combat AviationGroup; and Commander, 145th Combat AviationBattalion. More recently BG McNair commanded theAviation Brigade at the Aviation Center, 1974 to1975. He and his wife, Jo Ann, have three children.BG Canedy's new assignment is as Assistant DivisionCommander, 3d Armored Division, Germany.ODCSOPS)

Fire Resistant Hydraulic Fluid Recent hydraulicfluid fires clearly underscore the importance ofexpeditiously converting all Army aircraft to fireresistant hydraulic fluid. DA has directed that allArmy aircraft be converted to MIL-H-83282A FireResistant Hydraulic Fluid not later than 31 December1978. Conversion should be accomplished in

16

accordanc,e with specific instructions contained inTB 55-1500-334-25, Conversion of Aircraft to FireResistant Hydraulic Fluid, dated 2 May 1975, withchanges 1 and 2. Maintenance personnel shouldensure that converted hydraulic systems are notdiluted with MIL-H-5606. Commanders, if youcannot meet the conversion suspense date, a requestfor extension--giving justification--must be submittedto HQDA, ATTN: DALO-AV, for action. DALO-AVpoint of contact is LTC Dick Thompson, commercial(202) 697-0487, AUTOVON 227-0487. ODCSLOG)

Direct Flying Hour Costs HQDA DALO-AVmessage, DTG 151515Z Jun 78, subject: AircraftDirect Flying Hour Costs, announced major changesto both Army fixed wing and rotary wing reimbursement rates. This message supersedes the FY 78Flying Hour Costs that were published 22 December1977. Cost categories, by rotary wing and fixed wingaircraft, as revised are:Rotary Wing -- 1. DOD2. Non-DODFixed Wing -- 1. DOD2. Non-DOD, U.S.

Government3. FMS and Non-U.S.GovernmentIt should be noted that for rotary wing aircraft, FMScases, Corps of Engineers civil works projects, otherU.S. Government agencies and non-U.S. - Government users are now treated as non-DOD users.Questions concerning these new reimbursementrates should be directed to DALO-AV, LTC DickThompson, commercial 202) 697-0487, AUTOVON227-0487. ODeSLOG)

U S RMY AVIATION DIGEST


19/52

Commissioned Officer Aviation Positions in TDA.ODCSPER recently tasked major commands and DAagencies/ activities to submit written justification forall TDA commissioned officer aviation positions (LTCand below) by the end of August. The 1,900 +justification statements will be reviewed by a boardto determine how these positions are to bedocumented in The Army Authorization DocumentsSystem (TAADS). This effort is being undertaken tosatisfy statutory provisions of the Aviation CareerIncentive Act of 1974 and is directed toward ensuringprudent and economical use of flying hours as well asother Army aviation resources. The ODCSPERreview is further intended to parallel Defense AuditServices (DAS) recommendations to the Office ofthe Assistant Secretary of Defense (ManpowerReserve Affairs and Logistics) that the uniformedservices reappraise their aviator requirements in aneffort to:

Properly identify operational flying requirementsas those positions where the incumbent mustperform actual cockpit duties as a necessarydimension of the assignment. Determine which positions require aviationexpertise but do not require the performance ofactual cockpit duties. Determine which positions require only a generalknowledge of Army aviation but do not requireincumbency by a rated aviator. ODCSPER)

R 95 33. Attention aviation commanders andoperations personnel Interim Change 1-1 to AR95-33 Army Aircraft Inventory, Status and FlyingTime, dated 8 June 1978 changed the monthlyreporting period for submission of DA Form 1352(Aircraft Inventory, Status and Flying Time).Effective with the September 1978 report, thereporting period for DA Form 1352 will commenceon the 16th of each month and continue through the15th of the following month. To ensure all time isreported during transition from the old reportingperiod (21st to 20th of following month) to the new,the report rendered in August 1978 will be for theperiod 21 July through 20 August while theSeptember report will cover the period 16 Augustthrough 15 September--a 4-day overlap. Septemberand subsequent reports will address the newreporting period. Personnel having questions regarding submission of DA Form 1352 are encouraged toread the interim change to AR 95-33 or contactDALO-AV, MAJ Tom Walker, commercial (202)697-0487, AUTOVON 227-0487. ODCSLOG)

UGUST 978

Advancing Blade Concept ABC) Helicopter.Developed by Sikorsky Aircraft for the Army, theABC has completed much of the preliminary workleading to the high speed flight testing. Tests in thepure helicopter configuration were completed in thespring of 1977, attaining speeds up to 170 knots. TheNavy and NASA have joined with the Army to fundthe high speed flight tests, expected to achievespeeds up to 300 knots. The test aircraft has beenfitted with thrusting engines (J-60s loaned by the AirForce) in order to achieve the high forward speeds.Conceptually, the ABC system combines theadvantages of a helicopter with those of a highspeed aircraft without using a wing. (ODCSRDA),

Rotor Systems Research ircraft RSRA). Beingbuilt by Sikorsky Aircraft under a joint Army/NASAcontract, the RSRA made its flight in the compoundconfiguration in April 1978. The RSRA is, in effect, aflying wind tunnel which will be used by the Armyand NASA to assist in the development of new rotorsystems with improved performance and reducedvibration, noise and required maintenance. Thecompound configuration adds t vvo TF-34 auxiliarypropulsion engines and a 45-foot span wing to thebasic RSRA helicopter configuration in order togreatly expand the operating envelope in which rotorsystem testing can be done. ODCSRDA)

7


20/52

Late News From rmy viation ct ivi t ies

General Officer and Colonel Aviation Positions. InJune ODCSPER published an approved list ofgeneral officer and colonel aviation positions. The listincludes 16 colonel aviation positions designated asoperational flying (incumbent must perform actualcockpit duties as a necessary dimension of theassignment)' plus nine general officer and 58 colonelpositions designated as nonoperational flying. Thelatter designation specifies that incumbents arelimited to flying under visual flight rules (VFR) andonly when accompanied by an Army aviator orinstructor pilot current in the type of aircraft beingflown. The list of approved general officer andcolonel aviation positions is updated by HODA on asemiannual basis. Subject aviation positions aremonitored carefully to stress adherence to theAviation Career Incentive Act of 1974 (ODCSPER)

ircraft Assignment Priorities. The assignmentpriority for new tactical aircraft into the active andreserve components is based upon the Departmentof the Army Master Priority List (DAMPL). Thoseunits having the highest DAMPL are issued newtactical aircraft first. Those units forward deployed toEurope and Korea traditionally have had priority fornew tactical aircraft based upon the DAMPL.Unfortunately, procurement authorizations will notallow immediate issuance of new tactical aircraft intoboth the active and reserve components cOncurrently. However, in the case of utility and attackhelicopters, provisions have been made to providefirst line aircraft at the earliest date. Since thereare no plans to provide all active and reservecomponent units new advanced attack helicopters(AAH) and UH-60A (Black Hawk) helicopters, theArmy will retain the UH-1H and AH-1 serieshelicopters thru the 1990s HODA is currentlydeveloping plans to provide the National Guard anumber of AH-1 S Cobra/TOW helicopters. Thepurpose of the plan is to provide more advancedtechnology attack helicopters to the National Guardso as to advance the training level in National Guardunits and to facilitate the transition of our attackhelicopter capability from peace to war. The8

experience level of National Guard aviators is wellrecognized and is intended to be used to its fullpotential should the n e ~ arise. (ODCSOPS)

XV 15 Tilt Rotor Research Aircraft. Being developed jointly by the Army and NASA, the XV-15 hasjust completed full scale wind tunnel testing inNASA's 40 X 80 foot wind tunnel at Ames ResearchCenter, CA. The aircraft used for the tunnel tests isthe first of two which will be built by Be HelicopterTextron under this joint program. This aircraftpreviously had been flown for 3 hours in hover andlow speed air taxi and will resume flight testing afterbeing refurbished. The second of the two XV-15aircraft is expected to make its first flight later thisyear. The planned flight test program includes theexploration of potential Army and other servicemission applications for this concept which combines the hover characteristics of a helicopter withthe cruise characteristics of a turboprop fixed wingaircraft. (ODCSRDA)

U S ARMY AVIATION DIGEST


21/52

ortRuckerctivitiesDay

FORT RUCKER opened its doorsto the public 10 June 1978 toallow its civilian neighbors an opportunity to become better acquaintedwith the U.S. Army, U.S. Army aviat ion and Fort Rucker. Known asFort Rucker Day the observancewas a joint celebration of Armed

Forces Day, Flag Day, the U.S.Army's 203rd birthday, U.S. Armyaviation's 36th birthday and the FirstAviation Brigade's Organization Day.In addition, Fort Rucker Day served to increase the morale , providerecreation and enhance the welfare

Soldiers from Company C 509th Infantry ( Pathfinder/Airborne) give a rappelling demonstration at the Army AviationCenter parade field 10 June as part ofFt. Rucker Day activities. The post'sbig celebration was in observance ofArmed Forces Day, Flag Day, ArmyBirthday, Army Aviation Birthday and1st Aviation Brigade Organization Day

AUGUST 1978

General officers who participated in Fort Rucker Activities Day help cut theArmy aviation birthday cake 10 June at the Fort Rucker Officer's Club. The offi-cers are: (L-R) LTG William R. Peers (Ret); BG Jack W. Hemingway (Ret); MGJames C. Smith , Fort Rucker 's commander; LTG Harry W. O. Kinnard (Ret),guest speaker; LTG John J. Tolson III (Ret), former commander of Fort Ruckerand MG George S. Beatty (Ret). In the background is COL Robert A. Bonifacio,president of the local chapter of the Army Aviation Association of Americaof active duty military and depen-dents at the installation .Static displays, rides in flightsimulators and demonstrations involving military personnel andequipment highlighted the day's activities. Personnel from units, departments and activities throughoutFort Rucker participated in the daylong festivities.

~ r i n g this same period , eightr e t i r ~ general officers visited FortRucker for a briefing on the resultsof the Army Aviation EmploymentConference which was held duringMarch 1978. The officers providedtheir insight and recommendationsfor incorporation into the ArmyAviation Systems Programs Review(AAPR-78) scheduled for Fort Rucker on 4 and 5 December.The retired officers who participated were: Gen John R. Dean;LTG Harry W O. Kinnard; LTGWilliam P Peers ; LTG John 1 Tolson III; LTG Robert R. Williams;MG George S. Beatty Jr . ; MGJerry B Laver and BG Jack W.Hemingway.

A youngster tries his hand at f lying aflight simulator 10 June during the Aviation Center's Fort Rucker Day


22/52

Y Air-To AirMissiles nAttack Helicopters

T HE TITLE WOULD indicatethat I'm going to attempt toexplain why. Not s I'm asking why?While reading a recent article concerning this subject, I got my dander up and decided to express apersonal view. First of all, I'm surethe author meant well and normallyI would just read the article and goabout my business. However, thisparticular author has something todo with doctrine at the U.S. ArmyAviation Center, Ft. Rucker, AL.The word doctrine always getsmy attention. Not that one articlemakes an Army, but it concerns meto a degree. Therefore, I believe theother side of the house needs to beheard, i.e., a Soldier in the trenches.First, I don't claim to be an expert in air cavalry or the attackhelicopter business, but I do havesome personal experiences. Duringthe past 7V years, 62 of which Ihave spent at Fort Hood, TX, Ihave mostly been in either air cavalry or attack helicopter units. I'vecommanded three troops, to includean attack helicopter unit, and havebeen an S-3. As I said, I'm not anexpert, but because of Fort Hood'sinvolvement in this area these past

20

Major Lonnie S easleyOffice of DeputyCommanding General

U.S. Army Forces CommandFort McPherson GA

72 years, I couldn't help but pickup a tidbit here and there.I have seen or been part of ournew attack helicopter doctrine fromits inception. Yes, I was here whenwe hit trees in excess of 100 knotsand had the gall to call it nap-ofthe-earth (NOE) flying. I was herewhen we discovered the magic number of a 3/ 5 mix in attack helicopterunits. I was here when the AH-lCobra platoon leader was the battlecaptain and rode with the scout (anissue still kicking around in somecircles and worth considering). Mypoint is we're still doing a lot ofsearching.No one has been able to convinceme that we're completely on track.For example: Why a 3/ 5 mix (4/7 platoon)'?

Who should be the battle captain? Scout? Which Scout? Attackplatoon leader'? Where should the forward aircontroller (FAC) ride'? Why do weneed one'? Why ARCSA III ISee DigestJuly 19771? Why not more Air Combat Cavalry Brigades (ACCBs), i.e.,concentration of forces'? Why 8 tube-launched, optically-

tracked, wire-guided (TOW) missiles versus 6 or 10 or any othernumber'?There's only one thing I'm sureof and that is all aviators need toremember and never forget thatwhen you are in air cavalry or theattack hel icopter business, your sole

purpose for existence is to supportthat ground commander as a partof the maneuver force. I f you allowyourself to waiver from that role ,we'll all be losers- primarily theArmy.

To think of air-to-air combat asso important that it requires a ded-icated weapons system, i.e., air-toair missiles, is pure bunk That statement about hanging air-to-air missileson the advanced attack helicopter(AAH) must have been made by aperson far removed from thetrenches. Granted it will raise applause from within the aviator ranksbecause, on the surface, it soundslike it might improve the aviator'schances for survival. However, inreality, the way you survive is byusing sound tactics and proper flighttechniques and by being a partof a ground commander's overallscheme of maneuver. I'm not say-



23/52

ing forget the possibility of meetingup with an unfriendly chopper; andmaybe designing the turret. whichis almost useless anyway, into asuppressive weapon which wouldallow you to evade (I didn't say the30 millimeter (mm) gun was theanswer); but don't take rockets,TOW or endurance time away fromthe ground commander.Right now, I truly believe the attack helicopter can assist the groundcommander in winning, but whenyou start hanging air-to-air missileson it, you've given us another mission. Like it or not. that what you'vedone. You've got people lookingskyward-dividing their attention.You've got people looking for a fewenemy attack aircraft while 20,000tanks roll under your belly.

Which do you shoot if faced withenemy helicopters and enemy tankssimultaneously? Think about it Theattack helicopter can't do it all.We've got to depend on cooks with.50s I machineguns 1and the Soldierswith M-16s rifles I We've got todepend on combat air patrols andother USAF goodies. Our mission:We've got to kill tanks and othermechanized vehicles.

Some people have said you'd onlydedicate one or two aircraft out of

AUGUST 1978

his article represents the opinion of theauthor nd does not necessarily re-flect the position of any Department of Defense Agencya 3/ 5 mix to this role, i.e., capableof engaging enemy air. It'd be myluck that it would be the one downfor maintenance or that my air-toair tactician would be on sick call,or the enemy would choose thewrong flank, or, in the heat of battlethe gunner would choose wrong andshoot a TOW at an enemy chopperand a Stinger (missile) at a tank.I don't mean to sound like I'mtaking the enemy air force lightlyI think it would be a real threat. I'mjust saying that I feel my survivalwill depend to a great extent on thewisdom of the ground commanderand the air commander, and not toa great degree on the aggressivenessof enemy attack helicopters. I don'tthink the enemy is dumb enough tohover over enemy ground forceswhile engaging enemy attack helicopters any more than we would.I've always felt my biggest threatwas that Soldier with a pistol, bleeding beside a tank, wanting to get offjust one more shot for the motherland.So I ask, Why Why air ta airmissiles? I f we accept this thought,

then why not a capability for counter battery artillery- artillery is areal threat and there's more of it.What if we meet Infantry troops(which I feel is more likely thanmeeting enemy air)-do we need alittle gun dedicated to them'? Whynot a weapon which is integratedinto a useful ground system thatcan do a little of all, i.e., provide adegree of protection at no cost toyour primary arsenal. Let's don'tput on the Red Baron scarves sosoon after 1970 when aviation finallywoke up and realized it was justanother maneuver force to be utilized by the ground commander.This article probably will irritatefolks who are determined to changethe AAH into a Batmobile - itseems we continue to try hard tocome up with a sophisticated weapon system that only tends to confuse folks. One thing for sure though,the article I've been referring tohas got to make all attack helicopterpilots happy in one respect: Nolonger do they have to worry abou tthe scout aircraft becoming a scout/gun platform- it would never getoff the ground.

which do you shoot iffaced with n my tanks andhel icopters s m u taneously

21


24/52

A rank RushtonDirectorate of Training Developments

Fort Rucker LW ITH INCREASING emphasis on exportabletraining, procedures for systematic design ofmilitary instruction assume even greater importance.Whether under systems engineering or other names,the military training community has long recognizedthe requirement for a systematic approach to thedesign of instruction. Because of accelerating n-flation and associated budget constraints, maximizingresults from resource expenditures s absolutelyessential.

To successfully address this situation, those whomanage the design and delivery of instruction mustattain progressively higher levels of precision in meeting their responsibilities. One tool with which tosuccessfully reach this goal s Instructional SystemsDevelopment (ISO), a set of interrelated proceduresdesigned specifically for application 'to military instruction. The ISO concept s based on what s knownabout how the various kinds of learning take place.ISO's effectiveness has been proven in applied research during development, and by real world applications since publication.

22

ISO has not been represented by its developers asa one-stop panacea or answer to all training issues.On the contrary, ISO requires an environment inwhich command support s seen as both real andapparent.

Under the direction of Dr. Robert K. Branson,principal investigator. the ISO procedures were developed at Florida State University'S Center for Educational Technology. ISO manuals and workshopmaterials were formatively evalua ted three times during development. Effectiveness was established withrespect to target population representatives, includingsenior noncommissioned officers, officers and civilianeducational specialists.

At its beginning, ISO was monitored by the Army'sCombat Arms Training Board under a contract withthe Center for Educational Technology. Subsequentto quadservice recognition of ISO's training benefits,the monitoring board was expanded to include representatives from the Navy, Air Force and MarineCorps. The monitoring board, designated as the Interservice Committee for Instructional Systems Oevel-



25/52


26/52

Saturday, 29 July 1978Dear Mom and Dad,I realize that I should have written to you much sooner than this, butI have not had much free time since I started training in the WOCProgram. I have just completed the first 2 weeks of my training and I ambeginning to get fully accustomed to all that is going on around me.The Army seems to use a different language than I am used to. Forexample, the course that I am taking now is officially called the WarrantOfficer Candidate Military Development Course which is abbreviated asWOCMDC, but everybody calls it WOC-D.

WOC-D is something that the Army has just recently added to theWarrant Officer Flight Course and I have been told that it is supposed toprovide us with the instruction that we will need to become better officers.This may be so, but what I am really looking forward to is learning howto fly helicopters.

Our class has a "TAC" officer assigned to it; his name is CW2 Pottmanand sometimes I think that his first prior ity in life is to make us miserable.He wakes us up at 0500 every morning and expects us to be ready for PTat 0510. In those 10 minutes, we have to get dressed, make our bed andbe in formation, ready for PT. Not many of us were able to do it the firstfew days but now we seem to have a couple of extra minutes to spare.

24

I never believed that I would ever be able to get going as fast as that inthe morning. Mom, you would be proud of the way I am keeping myroom. Mr. Pottman inspects it almost every day and if there is one thingout of place or if there is one speck of dirty anywhere, we get demeritsfor it. Everybody gets some demerits but the object is to get the leastamount that you can.

Our daily PT is usually over by 0545 and we must be showered andshaved by 0600 so we can be in the messhall by 0630 for breakfast. Ourclasses begin at 0730 and are usually over by 1530 or 1630 (that's 3:30or 4:30 in civilian time). Once we have finished classes for the day we goback to the company area for more instruction from Mr. Pottman. Wehave a study hall every day and it is very important to learn all of thematerial. We are studying leadership, dismounted drill, management andunit administration. We are also learning how to give briefings and howto counsel people. We were even taught how to listen effectively and howto write so that people will understand what we are trying to say.Mr. Pottman told us that we will need to know all of the subjects thatare taught in WOC-D if we are to succeed in the Army as warrant officeraviators. I had expected to learn about nothing but flying here at FortRucker, but we will not receive any instruction about Army aviation untilafter WOC-D. Mr. Pottman told us that WOC-D will teach us thefundamentals of being an officer. I must admit that during the first fewdays I was wondering i f all of this was going to be worth it, but now I ameven more determined to get through this program. Our class startedwith 33 people and two guys quit the very first day. I don't think that theyreally wanted to be in the program if they quit that easily.I will write to you again in a week or two.

Love,Tom

wDear Mom and Dad

. Well, I'm over half-way~ n x l O u s to start flying. Our s lrst weeks. We are kept bu" struction continues to be chdisturbances, management te

~ r m y They even had a classfina".ces (and you know howour first test. I am a little disadone ~ t t e ~ than the 87 I recewho faded It are in real troubl

W ~ had another guy quit he dldn t seem to belong hered,:velopment training continuethmk that the WOC-D phase isth d do s ~ m IVI uals that won't beehmma e them from the progrThiS last week was one of short course in military justicelot of training on the Army ma

c o m ~ n d and staff, customs anrelations. We aren't becommb g to OJ d on once we graduate. I should tell you more aboofficer, by the way, stands for TMr. Pottman seems to be everywwe make and immediately makeWe have another phrase for thewe know that he won't hear us.~ h e n we have done something rIt but we finally managed to pleadone a good job it made us all feof the most demanding people thsecond best or a half-hearted effsh. t is getting late and I have ame my boots and brass and ge



27/52

Saturday, 12 August 1978

and I am gettingnow as it w ~ s theThe a c a d e ~ l ~learned about cIVildifferent roles of theto manage our personal

week we hadbecause I could havesome people fail it Thoseabout tt.believe it But you know

our officerflight program., I.as early as possible,, ff das a warrant 0 Icer anwe have had Ye had atrammg and a

We also learned aboutof the Army and u m ~ n

have a good foundatIOnMr. pottman. TACand Counselling officer.

He sees every mistake that. "the spot c o r r ~ c t l O n sbut we only u se t whenthat he does IS tell usmy flight 3 weeks to dohe told us that we had

pottman has got to be oneHe will not accept

of like that.to do and then I have to

AUGUST 1978

Love,Tom

Saturday, 19 August 1978Dear Mom and Dad,Well, I finally made it I finished WOC-D and will start preflighttraining tomorrow. I thought that the first month was tough but it wasnothing like these last 2 weeks. I have never been so pressed inall my lifeWe have had three exams and a one-and-a-half day performancecheck at the company. The three tests covered map reading, roles of thewarrant officer, and nuclear, biological and chemical training. Theperformance check was a 10-hour affair that really covered everythingthat we have learned since the start of WOC-D. All of the classes thatMr. Pottman gave us were tested to include the conduct of an inspection,peer rating, dismounted drill, and leadership training. We also had anin-rank inspection, conducted by the senior TAC officer, CW4Grenovich, that was unbelievable. Mr. Pottman has been giving usin-rank inspections two or three times a week since we started and Ithought that he was tough but Mr. Grenovich s inspection was demandingas all get out. We also had a barracks inspection that took 3 hoursand a PT test. We had one man fail the performance test and he willprobably be put back to another class because he just isn't ready tobegin flight training yet.

When we started training 6 weeks ago we had 33 people in ourclass. But now there are only 27 people in our flight. We had three peoplequit and three people just couldn t make the grade. When I startedWOC-D, I thought that all I would have to do to be a good warrantofficer was to learn to fly but I have learned that there is much more toit than that. WOC-D was one of the most difficult things that I have everdone and I wouldn't like to do i t again, but all of the effort has beenworth it. When I finally graduate from flight school I know that I will bemore than a helicopter pilot, I will be trained to be a warrant officerwith enough of a background in military leadership to help me get startedtoward a good career in the Army. I know that there is still a letthat I have to learn and that with time and experience I will be able tobe like Mr. Grenovich and Mr. Pottman, who are professional Soldiersas well as Army aviators.I am going to cut this letter short because this is the first weekendthat we have been able to earn a pass and I am going to take advantageof it

Love,Tom

Editors NoteThese letters are fictitious but they are e p r e s e ~ t i ~ ~ e O ~ ~ ~ ~that WOCs might write to their parents to descn e ddt dents complete WOC-O. they face an a I~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ h ~ intensive flight and academiC instruction.This is in2 addition to a continuing officer e ~ e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ; ~ -that does not end until the students are gra ued warrant officers.

25


28/52

u s RMY Directorate of Evaluation StandardizationR[P RT T TH[ fl[LODES welcomes your inquiries and requests to focus attentionon an area of major importance. Write to us at: CommanderU.S. Army Aviation Center ATTN: TZQ-ES Ft. Rucker t36362; or call us at AUTOVON 558 3617 or commercial 205255 3617. After duty hours call AUTO VON 558 6487 or com

VI TIONST ND RDIZ TION

mercial 205 255 6487 and leave a message

ave ou TOLD Any Lately?RMY AVIATORS may be more familiar withthe term performance planning data than with

the title acronym TOLD ; but, as new operators'publications come out and revisions continue, thisterm will be used more and more. Takeoff and Landing Data is the acronym's meaning, and it will replacemost Army fixed wing performance planning cards.Our T-42 and C-12A planning cards are designatedTOLD, and the remainder of the fixed wing fleet willfollow in the near future. Also, a study to develop arotary wing TOLD card is in the mill.

Although performance planning is discussed inmost Operator's Manuals let's take a brief look atwhat factors we're talking about on the TOLD cardand how the information is used. We'll address thefixed wing community first and then close with somerotor wash.

Most fixed wing Operator's Manuals have a blurbon the beginning page of the performance planningsection that goes something like this: This card isprovided to assist the pilot in recording data applicable to the mission and may be reproduced at thelocal level. The data card provides readily availableinformation for takeoff, takeoff emergencies andarrival. Data required to complete the card can becomputed from performance charts and tables contained in this manual and from existing conditions atthe time of takeoff or landing. The takeoff and land-ing data shall be computed prior to the takeoff as aprecaution against emergency conditions which coulddevelop after takeoff.

That paragraph is not only very easy to understand, it clears up the question most often asked:Do I have to fill out one of these things for eachmission? Of course, the answer is yes; so without

further adieu, let's see what can be derived from theinformation blocks on the TOLD card.At the top of the card, there are several lines to be

completed, which indicate the prevailing conditionsunder which the data will be computed. The conditions include pressure altitude, outside air tempera-ture (OAT), winds, runway conditions, takeoff weight

26

and estimated landing weight. With these blocksfilled out, you're ready to obtain the data from theperformance charts. Don't forget temperature andweight change throughout the mission day, so environmental data and weight will vary for subsequentlandings.First, we have Takeoff Power (torque, manifoldpressure, revolutions per minute (RPM), etc.) which,once determined, lets you know the minimum powerindications that you should accept when adjustingpower for takeoff. Correct engine performance willassure the proper acceleration to achieve liftoff atthe predetermined distance. It also may be the decision maker in aborting a takeoff prior to reaching acritical distance or speed. Remember that, althougha multiengine aircraft can takeoff with one or bothengines developing below-rated power, it may not beable to continue flight under this condition i anengine fails after liftoff.Takeoff Ground Run data may be used to deter-mine if sufficient runway length is available for a safedeparture. I f obstacles are involved immediatelyafter liftoff, the Takeoff Over X Feet Obswcle willallow you to determine if safe clearance can beachieved after liftoff.

Rotation (Vr) and L ~ f t o f f V l o f ) speeds are important as target speeds to ensure that desired performance is obtained. The use of these speeds providesthe aviator with safe margins above single enginestall speed and single engine minimum control speed.Velocity at X Feet indicates you're acceleratingproperly. Most Army aircraft use the 1,000 feet distance marker to check computed speed. This speedcheck could be the deciding factor in aborting i runway length is critical.

Minimum COnlrol Speed (VMC) is determined toalert you to the minimum speed at which you canmaintain directional control of the aircraft with thecritical engine failed and takeoff power on the remaining engine. (Configurations vary in accordancewith Operator's Manual.)Knowing the Single Engine Climb Speed (Vyse) is



29/52

most useful in the transItIon period immediatelyafter liftoff until accelerating beyond it, as this speedprovides for the best one-engine-out rate of climb.

ccelerate SlOp Diswnce gives you the distancerequired to accelerate to Vr, lose an engine andstop. Could be a very definite consideration factoron short runways.Most cards also have best rate of climb (Vy) andbest angle of climb (Vx) lines which are used toestablish initial climb speed (Vy) or obstacle climbspeed (Vx after liftoff.

That pretty much covers most of the data requiredto "get off," but what about an emergency immediately after liftoff or closed traffic work after takeoff(weight permitting)? Well, we have two more blocksof data with two entries each: pproach Speed andanding Ground Roll immediately after takeoff and

pproach Speed and anding Ground Roll at completion of mission. The approach speed obtainedfrom the chart is the indicated air speed (lAS) to beachieved at about 50 feet above ground level (AGL)over the landing threshold. The landing ground rolldistance is the amount of runway needed to land andstop using normal technique. Don't forget wet or icyrunways lengthen this distance.

Now let's address the larger half of the Army aviation fleet, our rotary club. We'll address the UH-1Huey for purposes of explanation, but the philosophycan be used on other helicopters as well, consideringthe various performance charts available throughoutthe rotary wing inventory.

As you are no doubt aware, the GO-NO-GO placard using N 1 speeds to determine whether or not anaircraft can takeoff will be deleted from the UH-1.The following procedure using the performance chartslocated in TM 55-1520-210-10 will eventually beadopted. A power check will be performed at a 5-foot hover to determine if sufficient power (torque)is available for takeoff, hover and out-of-groundeffect (OGE) operations for the entire day's operationusing the highest pressure altitude, temperature andgross weights anticipated for the mission. A normaltakeoff may be attempted if the UH-1 can hover at 5feet without exceeding operating limits. That is thefirst of two separate GO-NO-GO checks to be employed, depending on type of takeoff planned.

For OGE or confined area departures, the secondGO-NO-GO check is accomplished by comparingthe torque indication at a 5-foot hover with the GONO-GO torque required for a 5-foot hover as derivedfrom the maximum torque available 30-minute limitchart and the hover chart in the UH-l -10. Computation of this figure is explained in StandardizationCommunication (STACOMJ Number 18, June 1977.f indicated torque exceeds the GO-NO-GO torque

OG E, confined area operations will not be attempted.

UGUST 1978

f wind is present, all power checks must be madeduring a 360-degree left pedal turn.A power check must be performed prior to thefirst takeoff and prior to each takeoff thereafterwhenever gross weight, pressure altitude or free airtemperature has changed significantly.So a departure has been completed, and a landingmust follow. Most landings that are completed underthe same general takeoff conditions will not requirecomputation using performance charts. However,let's address a case where the takeoff is to be madefrom sea level and a landing accomplished at 5,000feet pressure altitude. Again, reference to the hoverchart and anticipated gross weight at the time of landing will indicate whether or not a successful landingcan be attempted.

Continued use of the TOLD card or, for thosewithout a card, consistent logging of required information on a mission sheet or other appropriate material will provide a standard pattern for daily use,improve your knowledge of performance marginsand assist you in making safe decisions when unexpected conditions are encountered. The TOLD cardis not changed for the sake of change. It is changedfor the sake of safety

27


30/52

A Befteray

aptain Ronald OX To TrainTM Program CoordinatorDirectorate of Training DevelopmentsFort Rucker L

A I R C R E W TRAINING Manuals (ATMs) were inevitable. Whenthe enormous and highly mobilecombat power of the attack helicopter units became a key elementin our plans for the defense ofWestern Europe, the ATMs werejust around the comer. When rapidly increasing defense costs encouraged the Congress to search for abetter and cheaper way to ensureaviation combat readiness, theATMs became an urgent and practical necessity.

The ATMs are no longer justaround the corner; they h ve ar-rived This month, they are beingmailed to every U.S. Army aviationunit worldwide and should be inyour hands by next month. f youdon't have them by late September,check with your major command'saviation officer. You don't havemuch time, because the ATMs willbecome the Army aviation trainingdocuments on 1 October.The ATM is a training diet designed for aviator consumption.Like most diets, its primary purpose is health for the consumer.However, to be effective, a dietmust be edible, and it doesn't hurtto make it as tasty as possible.If the ATM is a diet, this articleis an appetizer to acquaint yourtaste buds with what you may expect in the main course. The onlydifference is that a dash of philosophy may be admixed here just forflavor, but these philosophical condiments may be rejected out ofhand as untasteworthy. It won'tharm the overall diet.

Before launching into a description of the ATM, it is helpful todiscuss their historical development .Considering the speed with whichchange takes place in our technologically and informationally overtorqued society, ATMs-or at leastthe concept - are not all that new.A report to the Congress by theComptroller General of the UnitedStates in June 1976 cited a lack ofplanning and documentation for thecombat readiness of our aviationunits. The Vice Chief of Staff directed the aviation community tocorrect this problem, and his ordergave impetus to the first generationof aircrew training manuals.A task force of U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command proponents was created in late 1976 toformulate and write aircrew trainingmanuals. The objective was to develop a system for individual taskoriented training for each majorcategory of aircraft. The systemwould be used in conjunction withthe Army Training and EvaluationProgram (ARTEP) and unit collective training programs as a systematic training management tool forcommanders.

The aircrew training manuals became the basic training documentsfor Army aviators, effective 1 October 1977. The manuals delineatedtasks, conditions and standards forall aircraft systems.

Although readiness was addressed in the first edition of ATMs, nomethod was established to quantifyreadiness and equate it to a Crating. This wasa serious shortcom-

ing. The next edition - those nowspeeding through the mails-wilinclude a quantifiable method oequating individual aviator traininwith aviation unit readiness. By assessing the training status of aaviators assigned to their units, commanders will be able [to apply formula I to compute their unitcombat readiness rating for aviatotraining.In addition to the readiness aspecof the new manuals, other existinpu blications and regulations werreviewed for information whicmore properly belongs in the ATMsAs a result aviation literature is morconsolidated, and in some instancesdocuments will be eliminated.So much for ATM history. Thaircrew training manuals are designed as a one source docum ent foindividual aviator training. Theprovide aviation unit commanderwith a precise method for developing aviation training programs talored to the specific needs of theiunits and a means of determininaviator training readiness at angiven time. Aircrew training manuals represent a major effort to measure objectively officer and warranofficer performance in the ArmyAs good as we think the ATMare, the writers are not so naive ato believe that all aviators will receive them with joyous celebrationNot everyone will be happy to learabout mandatory flying requirements; many will take umbrage athe suggestion that proficiency demands regular practice; I will leathe chorus of those who insist tha

28 U.S. ARMY AVIATION DIGES


31/52

some of these conclusions are arguable. That s one reason this editionis still a draft. Nevertheless, theATMs are excellent products andthey are long overdue.Few aviators will argue that anyarm of any other service faces a moredifficult or important challenge onthe next battlefield than does Armyaviation. Because we will be outnumbered, we must rely on quality,both in personnel and materiel, towin. We can be assured that ourequipment is at least technologicallyequal, if not superior, to the bestanywhere.

t would be nice if there were nomore to it than that, but there is agreat deal more. All the technological gadgets in the world won t helpthe untrained Soldier. Histvry is fill-ed with examples of superior forceshaving been defeated by smallerforces. Rarely were those defeatsattributable solely to inferior technology. They are most often attributable to a combination of factorswithin the control of individual commanders. These factors- some objective, a great many subjectivemeld into the decisive factor calledcombat readiness. The readiness ofSoldiers to do ba ttle hinges in largemeasure on their self-confidenceand faith in their comrades. Thisconfidence can be gained onlythrough realistic training.

This brings us to where the rubber meets the road. An aviator sitting at the controls of an aircraftfor a given number of hours guarantees nothing in terms of trainingvalue and aviator readiness. Soldiers must train like they fight andfight like they train. Only throughrealistic training in pursuit of anestablished training goal can readiness be guaranteed.Another- perhaps mundanebut powerful impetus to the development of aircrew training manualswas money. Aviation is expensive,and it becomes incumbent upon theArmy to show where aviation training dollars are going and why. TheATMs then, attempt to achieve thebest of both worlds; combat readyAUGUST 978

aviators at the lowest possible cost.To achieve this best of bothworlds, it was necessary to mandateflying hour requirements, what taskswould be practiced and how often,and at the same time provide sufficient flexibility to permit commanders to develop training programstailored to the specific needs of theirunits.Here is .fuick run-down on whatis con amed in the ATMs and howa marriage between mandatory requirements and the principle of flexibility was achieved. Pilots will belongin one of three flying activity categories (FACs). F AC 1 includes pilots who havea combat, combat suport, or combatservice support mission. FAC 2 inCludes pilots other thanFAC 1 who occupy an operationalflying position. FAC 3 includes pilots occupying nonoperational flying positions.Aviator readiness levels (ARL) areunchanged from the previous manuals; training phases also remainthe same.Each aircrew training manual contains task lists for FAC 1 and FAC 2aviators. Also included are the condition (givens), the standard (degree of exactness), and the description (how to do it) for each task.The FAC 1 task list includes alltasks that may be performed withthe particular system.

The FAC 2 task list includes thetasks which must be performed byall aviators occupying a flying position. The manual specifies the number of times each task must be performed per semiannual period.

Commanders will select thosetasks from the FAC 1 task list whichtheir FAC 1 aviators must perform.Selection is based on the unit s mission and ARTEP. In most units several tasks will be deleted becausethey are not normally performedby that unit. Once the unit FAC 1task list is chosen, all FAC 1 aviatorsin the unit will practice those tasksthe specified number of times persemiannual period.

FAC 1 aviators maintain ARL 1

if they perform at least 80 percentof the FAC 1 task list the specifiednumber of times in the specifiedtimeframe. Allowance has beenmade for those units which deleteseveral tasks because they only pertain to certain units or locations.

Those tasks have been identifiedand designated as optional by theTraining and Doctrine Commandproponent. Only those optional tasksselected by the commander will becoun

Date post:	03-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	aviationspace-history-library
View:	223 times
Download:	0 times