Helicopter/Cyclone discussion (split from HMCS Fredricton thread)

[Navy_Pete]

Yah you can find it on the DWAN.  The engineering community is all over it, especially at DC School and Sea Training.

Nope, there have been bits and pieces fed out about what happened, but there was never anything comprehensive to come out of the BOI that would be useful for lessons learned and also for fixing the underlying habits that led to the fire. The videos that they have pumped out are useful in understanding what the crew was dealing with, but totally different from what you would get out of a proper BOI result. For a good example, see the Westralia BOI below. You can find similar public reports for a lot of the USN incidents where they break down timelines and try to understand what people knew when they made the decisions, and that's the useful and important bits. You need the full context of what they knew and what they were thinking at the time to understand the decision; generally 'mistakes' make perfect sense after the fact when you understand that, and can help you correct it to prevent it happening in the future. There are still a huge amount of misinformation of fitted systems that prevent them from being used in a timely manner, and things that we know have led to fires still happen.

One thing I found working with the det was that, even when someone does something stupid, it's looked at as a learning opportunity and no one is blamed. Because of that underlying culture, they take the opportunity to learn from it and widely distribute the report. Also, part of their routine was to review every air safety report and make sure they didn't repeat the same mistakes.

Aside from the PRO fire, there were also BOIs for the PRO/ALG collision, when PRE allided into the Irving floating drydock, and a few other fires. AFAIK, none of those have an unclass summary of events available, and unless you know a guy, you'll never see the actual reports, as they are still treated as a 'need to know'. Tech Investigations are even worse; they get done, filed away (in a number of unlinked, limited access databases) with folks very rarely seeing the actual results. I had the full engine room halon bank fire off on me without warning that was on Environment Canada's radar due to the amount (which can result in massive fines directly to crew members if they are found to be negligent) and didn't see anything about it until nearly two years later when it was finally finished, and the author forwarded me the results as a courtesy (faulty PGA on the main cylinder). If I hadn't known him would never have seen a copy, and wouldn't be able to see where it was logged.

Westralia BOI: https://s0.whitepages.com.au/d73ef9ce-8c9c-4d2b-becb-975402164fac/collaery-lawyers-document.pdf

 

[Baz]

For the aircrew, the Maritime Warfare Standard course was great. But it seems to be gone now. I have long advocated that one aircrew attend each serial of the ORO course. That would go along way to fixing the knowledge issues on both sides.

I had a SAC working for me as part of P91... it was really good, as he was connected back into the Fleet. One of the ideas we bandied around was having SACs in both Pat Bay and Shearwater, and remote radars to them.  That way operational sqn COREXs could be briefed by them, and then they could control them.  Reinforce the interaction, and get them control time.  There are far too many C and D SACs in the fleet.

There was also something else in the works for P91, but we just never got there.  Use TCDL to connect back to the same place as the radars are remoted from, and use it for both a sim net and to monitor the crew.  In other words, you could see and hear what the crew were doing (the Tacplot and ICS), and you could control onboard simulations from the ground.  So, for instance, you could create an underwater track that isn't really there, and have two helos track it.  Or you could create above water tracks the same way. It would also open the door for plug in sim functions for the aircraft... it could be a sim sitting in the hangar.  We could do that for development of P91.

At that point it would then make sense to somehow get the Ops Room officers involved as well... maybe have a deployable sim cell that can go on exercises, controlling the helos sims from one or more of the ships, or even use an MCDV or Orca as the sim cell. At one time I read the US Navy had (or has) the capability to plug into a ship pierside with a tractor trailer, and in effect make the ships combat system a simulator.  More of that, integrate it together.

We also need to get HLA working (and, as part of that, a West Coast Sim). More time in the box, 443 doesn't have to fly back, and we can connect East and West coast for standardization and tactics development.  Also connect into the Navies Ops Rooms sims (or plug in sims if we can make that work). Get the crews and ship's fighting without the cost of going to sea. And have full warfare scenarios, that take days and include crew cycles, not just one sortie. MH crews don't come to the fight cold.

Make the harbour link exercises more common (they used to be weekly) and ensure there is Wing involvement.  Maybe put an antenna on the mission sims?  Or maybe use the antenna at Caldwell Rd to join the avionics lab to those once it moves to Halifax.

And for all of this, good virtual mission brief and debrief.  Have the sim cell and warfare cells from CFMWC do good wash ups. Not just drive bys, but actual opportunities to have extended warfare discussions.  You're not at sea so there are no pressures from the flex.

But the most important part is a warrior mentality...

 

[Good2Golf]

Has there ever been an MH GO in the Naval Staff?  The Army has embedded RCAF (TH) GOs in the past into its staff, and The RCAF embedded an Army Col into a COS position in 1 CAD HQ; both ways to enhance Air-Land Integration (ALI) efforts.  MH senior leaders embedded (and vice versa) would likely achieve similar benefit and operational and institutional understanding between RCN and RCAF.

:2c:

Regards
G2G

 

[Baz]

Has there ever been an MH GO in the Naval Staff?  The Army has embedded RCAF (TH) GOs in the past into its staff, and The RCAF embedded an Army Col into a COS position in 1 CAD HQ; both ways to enhance Air-Land Integration (ALI) efforts.  MH senior leaders embedded (and vice versa) would likely achieve similar benefit and operational and institutional understanding between RCN and RCAF.

:2c:

Regards
G2G

Yes.  At times the commander would have been; when we had Naval Air.

There's a reason the MARCOM badge has an albotrose in it.

The ComdMAG used to perform that function, !CAD certainly doesn't, and neither MAC(A) or MAC(P) very well.  And the disappearance of MAG E&R is to weep...

This is the real meaning of modern seapower.  Seapower without airpower is nothing.  Airpower without sea
power is nothing.

https://books.google.ca/books?id=X04EAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA109&lpg=PA109&dq=%22seapower+without+airpower%22&source=bl&ots=x63P1uzQXY&sig=ACfU3U1uDBY7E8Kuvmgj-COIjkTjhCN8IQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj83reT3bPpAhWjgnIEHYaBD4QQ6AEwAHoECAMQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22seapower%20without%20airpower%22&f=false Lide magazine, Dec 1st, 1941.  6 days before Pearl Harbour.

We've forgotten that.

 

[Baz]

In addition to that, we need them to sit down and do actually training with the OROs. After learning about ASW tactics and the capabilities of the cyclone, we did a tour of 423 Sqn, and discovered that not only did we have a different idea of tactics, our understanding of cyclone capabilities was off, and in some areas, significantly off.

Mind you, even within 423, we got different answers on some questions between an AESOP, a Capt pilot, and a Maj ACSO.

Tactics development is in the early stages right now.

 

[Navy_Pete]

For the Naval Officers, (NWOs and Engineers), we seem to handle most of their air ops training by OJT. Good luck with that if you never get sent to a ship with a HELAIRDET. Most of the problems we have seen lately are on the Engineering side. Aside from the frigates just getting old, entire regimes of inspections and certifications have just been lost or forgotten. And, contrary to what the RCN hopes for, they cannot wish away inspections and certifications (or documenting those inspections. If it wasn%u2019t documented, it never happened) with Airworthiness implications. All CAF (notice I did not say RCAF) Airworthiness issues are ultimately a Ministerial responsibility. They are not in a Service Chief Silo. So, maybe, airworthiness needs to be taught to NWOs and Naval Engineers.

I agree with you, and to add to the context, usually the air inspections come up when the ship is being reactivated, so you have minimal crew, newly jammed together, and you are running around trying to just get the ship safe to get off the wall. If you are lucky you have an experienced flight deck ET and stoker who can pick away at the air det stuff, and if you are really lucky you have a few more senior MS or POs that did the job previously that can lend a hand (if they have time while not trying to duct tape things together). So at best, you have maybe a half dozen techs with experience; worse case you have two with the package done, limited real experience, and the manuals to go off of.

Normally the OPSCHED has at least a few ships fighting for priority, and odds are good that you won't get any for air equip until the 11th hour, and only then when it's critical.

At some point when you are doing this, you will randomly get a visit from sea training to hammer your bag about the air readiness, but you probably won't care because toilets aren't working, there isn't hot water, and you are working 7 days a week to try and get the ship to be able to go to the basin to do some basic workups without sinking. The air equip is a problem for future you.

Eventually future problems become the problems of now, but you are still trying to figure out how to get the ship off the wall safely and get six months of work done in six weeks, with three weeks worth of resources. On top of that, you now have air workups scheduled at the start of the full workups, even though none of your systems have had their set to work finished, and you won't get JP5 until a few days before, so best of luck.

I was lucky and had a few sets of AirWUPs and multiple AirDets as a trainee, so understood the air safety requirements reasonably well, and knew how much it was going to hurt, but it was still a nightmare on my HOD tour. Having an air det fly in from the opposite coast at the last minute didn't help, but the lack of shore support ahead of time and how much was pushed to the ship was crazy. Even once it was all up and running, keeping it going involved a lot of lost sleep and extra work.

Hopefully with Deputy Engineers coming in to help the HOD, should be able to better track and manage things, but doesn't change the fact that the ships are old, the systems are old, and the maintenance resources are in short supply.  If we don't scale down the schedule, as well as load level it (so that all ships aren't fighting for the same resources at the same time, then all sailing at once so there is no work), we should look at rejigging how we provide shore support, as I would have loved nothing more then to have some floaters around to be able to turn wrenchs and check electrons for reactivating things like the bear trap and flyco. If the standard is perfect, then 'the best we can, with the time and people available' should be concerning.

Burnout is a real issue, and had to rotate a few people through the jobs as they were being driven into the ground with a busy flypro. Usually there would be a bunch of maintenance to the equipment after flying, and somehow never got scheduled for during crew rest, so my guys would usually be working for a few hours after flying, and up a few hours before flying to get it ready. It was just brutal, and never a battle I was able to make headway on.

 

[Lumber]

Tactics development is in the early stages right now.

I'm not talking about Cyclone/LFA specific tactics, I'm talking about basic/universal ASW tactics, and basic cyclone Caps/Lims.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

EITS, is this who is being quoted in the media?

It's a bit ambiguous, but it was the only person I could see they're relating to the 'expert' label. 

 

[Eye In The Sky]

In addition to that, we need them to sit down and do actually training with the OROs. After learning about ASW tactics and the capabilities of the cyclone, we did a tour of 423 Sqn, and discovered that not only did we have a different idea of tactics, our understanding of cyclone capabilities was off, and in some areas, significantly off.

How LRP, MH and RCN units all exist so close together yet never have time to 'exercise' together has always baffled me.  The one time I can remember doing co-op with a RCN Frigate and RCAF MH was on a Dynamic Manta.  Why does it seem so impossible for the 3 communities to sit/talk/learn/develop bi-annually?  I think it is more vital than some of the 'mandatory' stuff forced on us that erodes time from our work week.

Mind you, even within 423, we got different answers on some questions between an AESOP, a Capt pilot, and a Maj ACSO.

Each of those are SMEs in different areas on their crew.  Experience is a factor in 'answers', as well and that could be part of the difference in answers.  Can you give an example of a question that had variations in answers?  RADAR capabilities, etc?

 

[dimsum]

In addition to that, we need them to sit down and do actually training with the OROs. After learning about ASW tactics and the capabilities of the cyclone, we did a tour of 423 Sqn, and discovered that not only did we have a different idea of tactics, our understanding of cyclone capabilities was off, and in some areas, significantly off.

Mind you, even within 423, we got different answers on some questions between an AESOP, a Capt pilot, and a Maj ACSO.

If it's about technical capabilities, that's weird.  If it's about tactics, then it'll be different depending on the operator - there are too many variables to only use standard solutions like "when A happens, do B". 

 

[Eye In The Sky]

If it's about technical capabilities, that's weird.  If it's about tactics, then it'll be different depending on the operator - there are too many variables to only use standard solutions like "when A happens, do B".

It's not all that weird, though, is it?  Ask a NASO A Cat, a TacNav and a FO about the APS 508:

NASO:  "its a multi-mode... :blah:...and can do imaging with different polarization... :blah:...*insert random RADAR tech terms here*…this carries on until eyes glaze over or people start leaving...

TacNav:  the radar has XX range for this mode, YY range for this...they can use it for weather really well.  I do "this tactic" for "this task" because the ranges are pretty solid now that we've had it for ZZ time.  I don't know about all the PRF stuff the NASO was talking about...doesn't matter to me, I have him/her to maintain/manage that knowledge.

FO:  APS...you mean, like...the posting season?  Wha?  :dunno:


Front end should know hard aircraft stuff...important stuff about keeping it flying.  Tac's...mission / tactical SMEs.  Sensor Ops...how to operate, optimize, tactically employ and troubleshoot their systems.  (short/dirty version)

 

[Lumber]

Can you give an example of a question that had variations in answers?  RADAR capabilities, etc?

To be fair and give credit where credit is due, there are differences within the UWW, SAC, ORO and support cells within the school as well.

That being said, this was a while ago, but one that still comes to mind was "if you at the dip, with your ball deployed at max depth, how long would it take to recover and be moving again?". We got different answers from literally everyone, including different sections within the school. Obviously, I can't actually say what those answers were, but the delta between the lowest to highest number was significant.

... - there are too many variables to only use standard solutions like "when A happens, do B". 

Are you forgetting about ASW preplans?

 

[Baz]

That being said, this was a while ago, but one that still comes to mind was "if you at the dip, with your ball deployed at max depth, how long would it take to recover and be moving again?". We got different answers from literally everyone, including different sections within the school. Obviously, I can't actually say what those answers were, but the delta between the lowest to highest number was significant.

Just curious... if it was a while ago, was it for the Sea King or Cyclone.  Because it wasn't that long ago that most people wouldn't know for the Cyclone.

Those numbers aren't classified, but they are ITAR.  They're not published as a time, they are published as a cable length and speed, which changes as the ball is brought up.  So, math?  :dunno:

Come to think about it, I never really thought about that much on the Sea King. It wasn't really that significant when compared to the transit and dip approach... which was always random as the pilots messed about at the gate. I guess it would have been nice to know the ball depth for the software so the dip farthest on could include the recovery time... the fact it didn't probably says we didn't care that much.

 

[Lumber]

Just curious... if it was a while ago, was it for the Sea King or Cyclone.  Because it wasn't that long ago that most people wouldn't know for the Cyclone.

A while ago means before Christmas with a million questions being asked on subjects we weren't tested on so remembering specific details/questions that we asked/discussed that day is diffcult.

I do remember, however, walking away from there with the impression that the MH community knows more about ASW and EW than the RCN does, and wanting to actually sit down and discuss tactical scenarios with them. (if x, what's y?)

 

[Sub_Guy]

I do remember, however, walking away from there with the impression that the MH community knows more about ASW and EW than the RCN does, and wanting to actually sit down and discuss tactical scenarios with them. (if x, what's y?)

Every time I worked with the RCN on ASW events, it always felt like amateur hour.  To be fair it wasn’t exclusive to the RCN, there’s been plenty of times where our tasking made zero sense. 

The ASW capabilities of the Cyclone and Aurora compliment each other nicely and when you combine the two you have what is quite possibly the best airborne ASW team in existence.

I’d like to see more linked up sim events.

 

[Baz]

My concern is that everybody wants to jump right into the advanced scenarios, without working up to them.  Couple that with the advanced scenarios are supposed to be about exercising command, not individual skills.

My seem to know exactly what to do to train team sports: individual basics (like fitness), individual skills, small team skills (like forwards acting together, etc), shift skills (ie everybody on the field at one team), whole team tactics, team strategy (like trades, etc).  Yet for arguably the biggest team sport we try to jump right to tactics; which is all the harder because the team line up is constantly changing.

 

[Underway]

Every time I worked with the RCN on ASW events, it always felt like amateur hour.

Not really that surprised.  The ships have so many other mission sets that need to get exercised, and after all those interdiction operations dring the war on terror we have a bunch of skills to relearn.  Even the RN has stated as much publically for them as well.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Why can't there be more training events close off the east and west coasts?  Seriously, it baffles me. 

Just like when we were doing IMPACT ground schools and it was all sim's.  I said "Gagetown has this HUGE training area.  gunfire, BUAs, wooded areas, roads to do veh follows, route scans...its almost pefect".  Never went there once for overland trg (outside of supporting COMMON GROUND or something).  :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:

Like DH mentioned, combined / linked sim events...follow up with a wet-ex.

 

 

[Lumber]

Every time I worked with the RCN on ASW events, it always felt like amateur hour.  To be fair it wasn’t exclusive to the RCN, there’s been plenty of times where our tasking made zero sense. 

The ASW capabilities of the Cyclone and Aurora compliment each other nicely and when you combine the two you have what is quite possibly the best airborne ASW team in existence.

I’d like to see more linked up sim events.

We did a sim event with the USN back in fall 2018 (or was it in winter 2019?) called Virtual Flag (I think) and we had an Aurora from Greenwood participate linked thru their simulator (were you a part of that?).

During the event, the Aurora started doing things (or saying that they could do things) that no one in the room knew they could do. All these LCdrs, Lt(N)s, Chiefs and PO1s, and none knew about the new and full capabilities of the Blk 3, and some we're game changers for how we wanted/expected to employ the MPA.

 

[dimsum]

We did a sim event with the USN back in fall 2018 (or was it in winter 2019?) called Virtual Flag (I think) and we had an Aurora from Greenwood participate linked thru their simulator (were you a part of that?).

During the event, the Aurora started doing things (or saying that they could do things) that no one in the room knew they could do. All these LCdrs, Lt(N)s, Chiefs and PO1s, and none knew about the new and full capabilities of the Blk 3, and some we're game changers for how we wanted/expected to employ the MPA.

When Blk 4 comes out and is used in ops, remember this conversation and talk to the Aurora folks again.  It might not change the ASW game as much as the Blk 2 to Blk 3 jump, but SATCOM, Link 16 and other stuff will definitely help in the ASuW and patrol roles.