Army Aviation Digest - Apr 1976

8/12/2019 Army Aviation Digest - Apr 1976

1/50


2/50

UNITED ARMY AVIATION

MG William J. Maddox Jr.COMMANDER

U. S. ARMY AVIATION CENTERA major activity of theS. Army Tratning and Doctrine Command

COL Norman W. PaulsonCOMMANDERS. ARMY AGENCY FOR AVIATION SAFETYA major activity of theInspector General and Auditor Generalof the U. S. Army

Richard K. TierneyEDITOR

U. S. ARMY AVIATION DIGEST

ABOUT THE COVERThe cover is p h of ahigh resolution v . systemon the CH47FS the ter-rain model lightb try witha mounted color TV oamera. Itsets the SFTS - SYnthetic FUghtTraining System - theme forthl menth. The DIGEST thanksthe Simulation Products Dlvlslon of the Singer Company for .the photograph. See articles beginning on page. 1, 2, 13 and 18.

APRIL 1976 VOLUME 22 NUMBE

ANew Approach To Flight Simulator Acceptance LTC Robert L Catron . ..NATO Views On Employment Of Airborne Assault ForCeS Professor . . . . . .Colonel MBeloyRemote Set Fuzing For 2.75 Inch Rocket. Alexander Janushevich . . . . . . . . .Night Aircraft Maintenance, MAJ Ted A Cimral and CPT L Allyn Noel. . . . . . . . SFTS: The Shape Of Things To Come CW2 Thomas K Equels . .. .. ..Tactical Training In The SFTS MAJ Elmer ECurbow and MSG Thomas McGuireViews From Readers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Case Of Mistaken Identity, Rush RWicker.. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. ...The FAA Military Competency Exam Edward A Ewell . ... . . . .. Why Pilots Make Errors, William CMcDaniel.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Who Killed George? David GHolmes. .. . . .. . . . .. . . . . . .. . ... .. .. . . . ..Heroes Or Villians?, LTC Curtis MSanders Jr. . . . .. . ... .We'll Make AWeather Check Ted Kontos. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Unqualified Passengers Arnold Rambert. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Briefs That Teach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Pearl. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .USAASO Sez . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Feedback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inside Back C

The mis.ion of the U.S. ARMY AV,AflON DIG.S is to proviel. inform en of on o , ' r o t , lor functionol natu .e con e,nlne .ofety and aircraft accldant prevention. troln;. . , m a l l n t .op.rotion., r . . . ch and cI.velopment bViotlon m 'icfn. ancl oth.r retot ' d.ta.The DlGfSr it an oHicia' D.partm.nt of tho Army pe,iocIical publish . . monthly uNll,,.upervl.lon of the Commancling G.ne,.1. U.S, Arlny Aviation Cent.r. Vi.w . . . . . . . . . dare not nec . . nly tho of tt\t.D t- of the A,mynor theU.S. ArmyPhotos r U.S. Army unte . 6th. ecmad. Material M.y b . reprint' ... ......._ .... iv.n to the DIG r ancl to the .uthor OIl oth.rwise Indicot_.Articl phatOI, and iteme a y avi.tion . re Invit . . . Di,ect Cftft' .. ..authoriz.d to: Editor, U.S. A, 'ort Ruck.r, AL 36362.Thi. publication hos been Ottprov Acllutant Gen.ral, H . rt.n;the Army, 23 Dec.mb.r 1975, it) ace with AI 3U).I.Actlv. Army units rec.iv. .. the pin . . . . d J ' ' : . ' : ~ = : ~ ~ ~ = ~AI 310-1. Complet. DA form 12-$ .ncI . ditoctly to Cf1It, A

.m loul.vard, laltimo .... MD 21220. o r any chone. in d i s t ' r . ~ . , . r i " ' l r f t ur.v; . . . DA 'orm 125.National Guarcl and Army v . unlts uncl.r p i n l " ' ~ l f . . ..... Jori 110form 125. Oth.r National Guard units .houlcl n.ral.T o.e not elieibl. for official di lbution or W ' ' ' h : o : : ~ : : t t . t ~ . : : =o .... tho mati_in. from the Sup.rint.nd.nt of DW on, D.C. 20402. Annual .ub.crip.ion rote . $15i c . . . . . or. $1.3S.


3/50

1976

PREVIOUSUH-l H 2824)CH 47 2831)AH-l Q 2833)UTTAS 2838)AAH 2840)ASH 2839)

NEWUH1FSCH47FSAH1FSUH60FS or UH61 FSAH63FS or AH64FSASHFS

MG WILLIAM J MADDOX JRCommanderU S Army Aviation Center


4/50

A Ne\N pproach To

THE MOST important aspect.of the Army's helicopter night

simulator program is credibility.The user must be given a systemthat he accepts as the best-onethat he says, nies like the aircraft.To achieve credibility in its nightsimulator program the Army hastried a new approach in establishingperformance standards for its CH-47 Chinook cargo helicoptersimulator. To fully appreciate thenew system it first is necessary toreview the previous program,specifically that which was used todevelop the UH-\ Huey UH 1FS(formerly 2B24) simulator. Therewere problems.When the Huey simulator firsthit the field , a lot of people got awrong first impression. It initiallydidn't perform as it should. Thiswas unfortunate because thegreatest impact on the credibility ofa system its developers and its con-tractors occurs when it is deliveredto the field. It is imperative that asystem satisfies the u ers from thebeginning.Under the typical night simulator program-as was used with theU H- l-definitive data completelydescribing an aircraft's handlingcharacteristics under all nying conditions, throughout all night regimes, often is not available intime for the simulator manufacturer. To understand this problem,I will brieny review the typical aircraft development program we havebeen using and the evolution of thedata which represents the aircraft'scharacteristics.Design begins wi th the engineerconfiguring the aircraft anddeveloping a mathematical modelof it. He then gathers all existingdata available to support his systemand modifies the data to representthe new aircraft configuration.

2

FlightSimulatorAcceptanceLieutenant Colonel Robert L Catron rmorProject Director S TS Programrmy Training Device Agency Orlando FL

This, then, becomes the predictedflight characteristics or data of thenew aircraft.The accuracy of the predicteddata is improved by the next step inthe development process: windtunnel tests. Scaled models of theexact aircraft configuration are installed in wind tunnels and directmeasurements of various coefficients are taken . Thesemeasurements are used to upgradethe coefficients and more accuratedeterminations of aircraft performance can be made.

The last step in the designprocess is the night test. In an idealnight test program ideal from thestandpOint o f the simulator user afully instrumented test aircraftwould be nown everywhere in itsnormal and abnormal flightregimes.The night test program is themost crucial step in the process ofestablishing data for high fidelitysimulator designs. The night datacould and theoretically should serveas the standard of performance foracceptance of the simulator. Thecoefficient data derived from thenight test program should serve as

the basis of simulator design andpermit the mathematical representation of the aircraft-as implemented in the simulator-toduplicate night test results. Our experience indicates that this idealsituation is seldom obtained inpractice. Let's look at some of thereasons why not.First, developing a precise, accurate mathematical representationof his aircraft is not a primary goalof the airframe manufacturer.

Second, even when a fairlyrigorous flight test program hasbeen conducted, it is frequently thecase that there are holes in thedata. I n particular high speedlateral and rear night, ground effecton medium and high speed night,autoration, slope operations andmalfunctions are areas where accurate night test data normally arequite sparse.Third, the evolutionary processwhich characterizes many aircraftdevelopments often makes nighttest data obsolete.The UH-l Huey was the firstArmy helicopter to be simulated.This prototype system was completed in 972 and is in production.

U.S. ARMY AVIATION DIGEST


5/50

The CH47 helicopter simulatordesignated CH47 S Operationalflight tr iner is shown without vi sual displ ay inst ll ed

is an instrument and emergencytrainer. The fouroperate on a 5-degree

motion base throughThese systems are

more than 97 percenttoday and completely

the flying characteristicsf the UH-IH. However, this was

always the case. We had ourand the reputation of a

simulator suffered. Let methe traditional ap proach

took in establishingperformance and

the H uey simulator.The simulator contractor had

responsibility for the acquisiof aerodynamic data . Hed the data that wasa ble the coefficient datal the ai rcraf t manufac

re r ta bulated the data in aria report and submitted it fora l to the procurement agenThe a pproach which was

did not represent an enof the accuracy of theit was instead, an agreementthe data package submitted by

contractor was a complete comof all known available

The simulator contractor thenthe test procedures and

report. This report containedof the test procedures and stan

eventually used in evaluatingaccepting the simulator.

Th e acceptance test procedure wasby utilizing the coefdata from the criteria reportoff-line computer programs to

performance and flyingThe test procedures and results

also was submitted for apby the contracting agency.of this report did

se nt user-pilot conwith the accuracy of the

1976

report s contents; it was an agreement that the acceptance testcovered each paragraph in thetrainer specification to assure thatthe simulator complied with thespecification.

In parallel with this effort thesimulator design activities continued. Trainer tolerances andcurves depicting trainer performance and flying qualities were included in every simulator contract.I n the case of the H uey simulator,the tolerances were written in thetrainer specification. The measuredtrainer performance standards werenot being compared against flighttest data but against standards in atest procedure report which havebeen based on the available coefficient data. If the coefficient data

is accurate and complete, this is asatisfactory approach and thesimulator will fly like the aircraft.f not the simulator will not fly like

the aircraft.I t was not until the start of the inplant preliminary inspection thatArmy aviato rs had their first opportunity to judge how well theHuey simulator flew. The pilotevaluations during this inspectionperiod uncovered numerous di screpancies between simulator andaircraft performance. Immediatefixes during inspection were possible in some cases; however otherswhich required more time for correction could not be properly addressed during the inspectionperiod because of ready for training

ontinued o page

3


6/50

4

This is a translation of a 3=part article t h ~ recently appearedin RED STAR . Portions of it are reprinted from TRANSLATIONS ONUSSR MILITARY AFFAIRS No. 1181. JPRS 65691 dated 16 Sep 1975

Above Small arms I and wi th the assaul t forces. Below The sel f-propelled and towed version of Vulcan Air Defense System

1

Professor Colonel M BelovDoctor of Mi litary Science

P ART 1 Personnel and Weapons. Foreign armed forcepractical experience in military organizational development attests toan increasingly intensive move toward extensive airmobility that isthe massive adoption and diversified utilization of aircraft technical and organizational adaptationof troops for transport by air. Thiobjective process has led to theestablishment of diversified socalled vertical maneuver forces inground forces operations: militarytransport and army aviation; combined units units and subunitstrained to operate as airborneassault forces; airmobile troops organized into fundamentally newcombined-arms antitank and reconnaissance combined units andunits; other air-transportable combined units and units .

The armed forces of the NATO[North Atlantic Treaty Organization] member nations are continuing to improve and perfect forcesand weapons employed as assaulforces as well as equipment totransport them. The composition oairborne assault forces s dictatedby the quantity and quality of available airborne assault equipment -aircraft and airborne assault hardware as well as quantity and quality of troops trained for airborne

U S ARMY AVIATION DIGEST


7/50

w

The compositionassault forces is also determinedFollowing World War II heli

morefor transporting airassault forces. These aircraft

of views onnature of warfare. The loadaccommodat ion, rangespeed of fixed-wing and rotaryaircraft have increased.Simultaneously there has oc

airbornehardware , particularlyof delivery of an assault

making itdrop zone anda rapid rate. For example, con

are be

have beenare being utilized forcargo weighing more than

supplies and combatm ent from a height of 5 to 1platforms and

systems have beenthe magazine INTERA VIA

ontinued o page 2

1976

n mp ym n ou r

Above-The XR 311 dune-buggy with the TOW missile systemBelow-The 105 howitzer

5


8/50

2.75 Inch Flechette Warhead Functioning

In the past, using fixed delayfuzes, pi lots were I mited to onestandoff distance from the target . This reduced the versati lityof the flechette round. With thedevelopment of the X 439 cockepit settable variable time delayfuze employment distance canbe selected up to 4 km withoutlosing effectiveness. This provides rocket launch alternativesnot previously avai lable. in creasing his capability to avoidenemy antiaircraft positions

Remote Set uzing for2.75 INCH ROCKET

Alexander JanushevichFuze Development Branch

Ammunition Development andEngineering DirectoratePi cati nny ArsenalDover, NJ


9/50

HRO UGHOUT THE courseof the Southeast Asia conflicthelicopter playedincreasingly important role in

of the combat arms. Theinch rocket was the most poweapon employed by helicopgu nships. Maximum tactical efwas limited, however, byof capability by the pilot tofuzing functionhis ordnance just prior to target

Early recognition of this problemto the development, at PicatinArsena l, Dover, NJ, of a cockpit, multioption fuzing systemthe .gu nship pilot can use tovariable delay after imun itary high explosivewarheads, or timed airburstoptimum stand off of cargo type(flechettes, submunitions,

A thorough evaluation of variousset techniques was conductresulting in selection of an eleccapacitance (RC)

time delay concept. This approachprovides simple, rapid remote setting, without requiring a batterypower supply in the fuze. Ruggedness and small size are other attractive featu res.As a result of in-house efforts todevelop a new capability for airburstfuzing for air-to-ground weapons,Picatinny Arsenal estab lished thefeasibility of using an analog electronic timer, overcoming its inherent inaccuracy with a novel techniqueoriginated by Baldwin Electronics,Inco Laboratory analysis was confirmed in 1966 by successfu l fie ldtest firings.Two 2.75 inch rocket system deve lopment programs were orig in al

ly authorized: one for developmentof an airburst fuze, and a multioption impact time delay fuze (XM-433) for the M-) 51 and M-229 HEwarheads. Picatinny was given complete system responsibility by theProject Manager for Aircraft Weaponization to develop, in stall andqualify a remote set, firing su bsys-

attack helicopter flying nap-of.targets of opportun ity veryThe time available to make a decision as

course of action is minimal. Theof the mi ssion depends upon the capabi I tythe system to allow the pi Iot to sel ect propering mode of the onboard ordnance. The XM-remote fuze setter subsystem and 2 75 inchwith XM-433E1 and XM-439 fuzes providecapability. Upper right-HE rounds fired intoXM-433E1 fuze-set to bunkerLower Ieft-HE rounds fi red agai nst gun

set to super quickLower right-HE rounds fired into buildingsM-433E1 fuzes set to tree hei ght mode

tem in both UH-IC Huey and AH-1G HueyCobra helicopters.The XM-433 jun gle canopy fuzeand remote set subsystem was qualified, flight safety certified and successfully tested in Panama by December 1969. A quantity of these fuzesand two fully equipped Cobra helicopters were shipped to SoutheastAsia (SEA) by the end of December)969 for operation evaluation. TheX M-432 was safety evaluated andfurt her development temporarilydeferred.Following a highly successful SEAevaluation, engineering development was authorized and funded bythe project manager for the 2.75inch rocket system in late 1970 toimprove producibility of the XM-433 fuze and repack age the nosemounted XM-432 in a base configuration (X M-439) for flechette warheads. Development was completedand the combined DT/ OTII (developmental/operationa l service use

Continued o page 6


10/50

NIGHT AI CRAFTMAINTE ANCE

.

Major Ted A CimralU. S. Army Transportation SchoolFort Eusti s V

Captain L llyn NoelU. S. Army Logi sties Center

Fort Lee, V

Figure 1 Tran sportabl e Hel icopter Enclosure

N OON WHO HAS beenaround aviation for anylength of time doubts that Armyaircraft can be maintained at night.Look at our accomplishments inthe Republic of Vietnam; as Lieutenant General John J. Tolsonnoted in his Department of theArmy (DA) publication, irmQ-bility 1961-1971: The maintainers achieved the miraculous. Highbirds in the brigade were getting140 to 150 hours a month piledon them when they were programed for only 70, and the average UH-I was going over 100.This overflying was in direct conflict with the desired availability

8

rate of 75 percent, but our maintenance detachments met both goals .Crewchiefs flew all day and workedon their birds all night. The sightaround the average company maintenance detachment when the birdsstaggered home in the evenings wasa sight to behold. The maintenancecrews rolled out, turned on the lights,worked with flashlights, worked byfeel worked any way, in the rain,in high winds and dust storms, allnight long if necessary to patch upthe aircraft, pull the required inspections, correct deficiencies and getthem back on the line by the nextmorning. Night test flights, whichare prohibited under peacetime con-

ditions, were the rule rather than theexception.Recall, however, that the low intensity conflict in Vietnam, with itsabsence of a significant enemy airor artillery threat, permitted the useof semi fixed installations with welllighted hangars and ramp space fornight maintenance operations.What if the Army were facing asophisticated enemy in the MiddleEast or in Central Europe andsemifixed installations were notavailable and the use of TOE (tableof organization and equipment)floodlights and light sets in the openwas not permitted? Could the maintainers also achieve the miraculous



11/50

The answers to the above-andmany other questions-are forth

in the Concept of NightMaintenance (CONAM)being conducted

of the Army LogisticsFort Lee, Y A, and its assoTransportation School'sCommandant for Combat

Training Developments office.The CONAM study will deter

the doctrine, organization,and materiel requirements

support night maintenancein non-nuclear convenwarfare environments. Dur

the current timeframe nature ofCONAM study, recommen-

pertaining to materiel must,necessity, address those itemsavailable for inclusion inTOE documents.

Two materiel categories have abear ing on nightand lighting

The Army's TOE aircraftenclosure, the 32-foottent, is too small forArmy aircraft. This enclosurewas designed as a mediummaintenance shelter for use in

repair of tracked and wheeledR 3lO-34 states, This isbulky item requiring considerableto erect and disassemble. TOEshould use discretion in

1976

authorizing the item to units whosemission requires rapid or frequentdisplacement. This shelter, whichhas a blackout capability, will remain as the only a irc ra f tmain tenance enclosure u n ti Idevelopment and distribution of thetransportation helicopter enclosure(TH E) shown in figure 1 and therelocatable maintenance hangar(RMH) shown in figure 2

Required operational capability(ROC) documents have been submitted by the TransportationSchool, Fort Eustis, Y A, for theRM H and THE, but developmentis not expected until FY80. Thoseaircraft not protected by thecurrent 32-foot enclosure will be ex-

posed to the elements, which insevere environments, such as thedesert or the arctic, could poseserious difficulties to an effectivemaintenance program.

Repair of aircraft at night outside of lightproof shelters impactson the amount of light that unitsmay use to effect maintenance. Theobvious difference between day andnight operations is the amount oflight available. On the sophisticatedbattlefield, too much light at nightcould spell destruction and too littlelight may prevent the successful accomplishment of maintenancetasks.How much light is adequate? No

one knows for sure. However,Modern Army Selected SystemsTest, E v a l ~ a t i o n and Review(MASSTER) conducted a 7-weeknight aircraft maintenance exerciseduring November-December 1974at Fort Hood, TX This exercisewas directed toward evaluatingselected aircraft maintenance andsupply functions of a typical int eg r a ted direc t s ~ p p r tmaintenance (I DSM) element in atactical night environment usingvarious night lighting options (TOElighting, chemiluminescent lights,head lantern and the AN/PYS-5night vision goggle). The exercisedetermined which night lighting option now available to the Army per-

mits the highest degree of production and quality with the lowestdegree of signature and vulnerability. The exercise also gavemaintenance planners a handle onthe degree of degradation inproductivity when working at night.Currently, doctrine acknowledgesthis degradation but does notstipulate what it may be. This sbecause the maintenance request(DA Form 2407) does not separatethe manhours expended into dayand night maintenance task ac

c o m p l i ~ h m e n t sTraining, both individual andunit, appears to offer the greatest

opportunity for improvement in the

9


12/50

A TOOLBOXAT 3 FEET

N OILDRUM T1 FEET

A 747 JETT 3 000 FEET

A HINOOKAT 1 000 FEET

Figure ight Vision Hazardsshortest period of time. But, nightmaintenance training is totally in-adequate. Not only is there nohands-on night maintenance training in our service schools today, butalso Army training tests (ATTs)and field exercises usually are ofsuch short duration that units rarely are required to perform nightmaintenance under field conditions.Aircraft capable of being repairedin the field often are flown to theunit's fixed base hangar facilitiesfor repair.

The Army has been emphasizingnight tactical operations at theU. S. Army Aviation Center;MASSTER; and the CombatDevelopments ExperimentationCommand, Fort Ord, CA. But upto this point there has been nosimilar emphasis on night logisticaloperations.Training for night maintenanceoperations requires more than turning off the lights. Personnel mustbe shown the different techniques touse at night. This includes instruction and practical demonstrationson the loss of depth and colorperceptions, as well as the loss ofthe cones in the eye which results ina night blind spot. This night blind

1

spot creates severe safety hazards(figure 3) unless personnel are in-tensively trained in the proper wayto see at night. Individual and unitconfidence in the ability to functionat night can be built up only afterextensive periods of night training.As the then Brigadier GeneralGeorge P. Seneff Jr. said in 1965,The only way to get good atoperating in the dark is to go out

and operate in the dark. The bestapproach is to reverse the trainingday for concentrated periods fromti me to time.

Many aviators and aircraftmaintenance personnel maywonder why the Army must have anight maintenance capability. Theanswer is that maintenance re-quirements in a conventional conflict environment against an enemythat possesses considerable air,missile and sensor capabilities willincrease dramatically over what weexperienced in Vietnam. n order tomaintain aircraft availability ratesat or above DA standards, aviationand aircraft maintenance unitsprobably will find themselves working day and night.Another reason for nightmaintenance will be the mobility

requirements of future conflicts.Unlike Vietnam, in which Armyaviation operated from enclaves,conventional conflicts will require amuch higher reliance on base campmobility to avert destruction.

The doctrine of our potentialenemies emphasizes continuousoperations, and they practice whatthey preach.

Several corrective actions arereadily available as documentedand recommended in CONAM:

First require that aviationrelated officer and enlisted per-sonnel be intensively trained atArmy service schools in both nightlogistical operations (in both gatrison and field environments) andin camouflage and deceptiontechniques.

Second require that aviationrelated units intensively train atnight in field environments thatrequire camouflage and dispersion .

Third provide a wartime secondshift augmentation of personnel toaircraft maintenance units' TOEs.

Fourth equip hel i optercrewchiefs, maintenance contactteams and aerial recovery personnelwith the AN jPVS-5 night visiongoggles (since it's the best currentlyavailable).

Fifth equip remaining personnelwith battery-operated electric headlanterns (unit cost: 6.49) fittedwith red or green filters.

Sixth the development of in-dividual aircraft enclosures whichprovide environmental, camouflage, anti-infrared and lightproofprotection features needs to be in-itiated. I n addition, shop shelterswhich are highly mobile and ofstandard configuration need to befielded.

The U. S. Army has a long wayto go before it will be able tooperate logistically in an effectivemanner at night. The implementation of these few recommendationsshould give the Army aviation community a baseline from which im-provements can be rapidly made.



13/50

ght Simulator cceptancerom p ge

and contrac tual conMany problems dea ling with perwere uncovered during

of the trainer. Keep incontractor held up his part

the deal-he met the specificaand conformed to the datawas supplied to him. The data

just not good enough for a simHuey simulator discre

The unfortunate part was cred-t has taken years for the

accepted-andare still some people whodoesn't fly like the aircraft.credibility looms as a major

the new approach toperformance standards

CH-47 simulator.This trainer simulates all flighthover dynamics of the CH -4 7It s the first helicopterwith a visual system and

simulator to the best of ourto employ this new ap

to establishing perforLet me describe what I believe to

simul tor contractor still hadinitial responsibility for the ac-of aerodynamic data. Hedata and incorit in the criteria report

submitted to the Governfor approval. He still proceedsimulator desigrt based onn the criteria report.

But, here the Army's newfrom the old.the Army established a pilotteam to providethe

performance prior to thexampl e of the vi sualdisplay used with thissimul ator Model board

adds to trai n ng real i sm1976

start of formal acceptance testing.Each phase was a joint, constructive work session. The participantswere two Army aviators, the NTEC(Naval Training EquipmentCenter) project engineer, and thecontractor design engineers. In thefirst phase, gross flight handlingand steady-state performance discrepancies were noted by the pilots.Discrepancy reports (DRs) werewritten and worked out by the participants. The second and thirdsessions were quite similar. OldDRs were re-evaluated; new DRswere written; both old and new DRswere jointly worked on, correctedand approved. By the end of the second session the simulator was flying very much like the aircraft andthe team's efforts were starting toconcentrate on the more subtleaspects of handling qualities. By theend of the third session, the pilotswere unable o identify any significant discrepancies between thesimulator and the aircraft performance and flying qualities. At leastone different pilot was used duringeach of these evaluations.The second departure from the

old procedure had to do with flighttime for contractor engineering personnel. At the beginning of the program, contractor personnel wentalong on routine CH-47 training flights for orientation purposes.The trips included discussionsbetween Army instructor pilots andcontractor personnel about aircraftflying qualities, pilot techniques,sounds, malfunctions and manuals.

The third departure from theolder procedure was related to thetest procedures and results report.This report, as indicated earlier,normally had been based onoriginal coefficient data. This sameprocedure was followed initially onthe Chinook simulator program,except that the quantity of test conditions was kept relatively small.This limited test procedure wasthen used by the contractor for internal test purposes prior to thefirst evaluation phase. Changes insimulator performance could onlybe achieved by modifying theoriginal coefficient data stored inthe simulator computer. That is,the tailoring process instigated bythe evaluation team dictatedchanges in simulator performancewhich required changes at theaerodynamic coefficient level.


14/50

simulator cockpit;note instructor station at left.simulates all flight andhover dynamics of CH-47

The result ing coeff icientsdiffered substantially from thoseoriginally supplied to, and utilizedby, the simulator contractor.Under these circumstances, it isobvious that a test procedure reportbased on the original coefficientshad no meaning. In our newprocedure, therefore, the results ofthe evaluat ion p h a s e s a smeasured on the simulator-wereincorporated into the appropriatesections of the test proceduresreport, since those results

represented our best determinationof performance and flying qualities.

The Chinook simulator s initialdesign was based on coefficientdata supplied by the aircraftmanufacturer and supplemented bythe simulator manufacturer inareas of missing data. Using this in-itial data base, the simulator wasflyable but only marginally stable.These changes had to be made: Longitudinal and directionalsensitivity Angle of attack and speed

RESUL TS OF CH47FS APPROACH

2

A fully accepted trainer by Fort Rucker instructorpilots A high fidelity simulator that- f l ies l ike theaircraft A simulator that will be presented to the user with ahigh degree of confidence that i t wi II do the job

No expensive or time consuming TCPs

stability plus positive stickgradient Trim long stick position as afunction of airspeed Adjustments to match dash 1(Operator s Manual) hover,speed and climb performance Coordinated turns with lateralstick only Two wheel taxi with propercontrol application Autorotational flying qualities Acceleration and decelerationcharacteristics

Collective pitch on rate ofclimbKeep in mind that we aresimulating the C model Chinook. Itcomes as no surprise that we had to

make changes in the data stored inthe simulator computer. All thesediscrepancies have been corrected.As a result of the Chinook

simulator approach to traineracceptance, we have a cost effectivesimulator that will enhance the Army s flight training program.



15/50

. . . . . . . . . . : ~ . ~ ~

SFTS

theshapeofthingstcome

CW2 Thomas K EquelsProject Officer

U S Army TRADOC Avi ation Study GroupU S Army Avi ation Center

1976

I N J U N E OF 1973 I was a fresh graduate of theinstrument instructor pilots course at the U. S.Army Aviation Center. Eager to pick up my first students and begin training, I received orders that, at thetime, disappointed me. I was to report to Pratt Hall,on Fort Rucker, for a I-week instructor transitioninto the Synthetic Flight Training System (SFTS).Immediately I conjured up visions of a blue canoe the 1CA 1 synthetic instrument trainer (Link). [SeeThe Missing Link, January 1961 DIGEST ]

When I arrived at Pratt Hall, I was pleasantly surprised. Far from being a replica of the blue box, theSFTS was a massive and complex conglomeration ofcockpits, computers, consoles, ladders, lines andlights. The gargantuan size and apparent complexityof the SFTS prototype initially made me apprehensive, and to a degree, doubtful of its operationalcapabilities. After about 1,000 hours of instructor experience in the system, any doubts I once harboredhad been allayed. I would like to share the benefits ofthis experience and research into the system with you,for in my opinion, simulation is the shape of things tocome.

The SFTS can trace its ancestry back to the originalLink flight trainer built in 1929 The state-of-the-arthas slowly made progress, gradually becoming morecomplex and realistic. The development of advancedcomputer systems gave the necessary impetus forrapid growth and development resulting in the presentSFTS. The UHI FS (formerly called the 2824), thedesignated nomenclature of the UH-l H simulator,sets a worldwide standard in helicopter simulation. Itprovides such a high degree of realism and efficiencythat simulator training is not only feasible, it also ispreferable The UH 1FS mirrors the cockpit environment, mechanical and flight characteristics, andoperational environment of a UH-I H in instrumentconditions. The system operates with such a highdegree of exactitude that successful initial entry, transitional and proficiency training can be accomplishedwith ease.

There are many advantages in using simulation as atraining media. Simulation provides high qualitytraining that is economical. The average cost of 1hourof U H-I H flight training is about 250. Compare thisto the approximate cost of 65 cost per hour of theUHI FS and the system virtually pays for itself. Thesystem is nonpolluting, unlike the aircraft, andreduces the military demand for petroleum-basedfuels. The simulator provides a degree of dependability unobtainable in the actual aircraft.

Training availability is not affected by refueling,The young lady pictured above is Jennifer Waldmann. Ourthanks to her uncle, LT Reid Aaron, for sending us Jennifer spicture

13


16/50

time, adverse meteorological conditions or extensiveperiodic maintenance. The instructor also has a greatbenefit in being able to control environmental con-ditions. By pressing a button the instructor pilot canchange the turbulence level, wind velocity, wind direc-tion, barometric pressure, temperature, and he alsocan induce ice accumulation. At the instructor s dis-cretion, singular or mUltiple aircraft malfunctions canbe produced with complete safety.

The U HI FS can be programed with five malfunc-tions at once. And, there are 104 realistic emergenciesfrom which to choose. This provides for essentialtraining in that many of these malfunctions could notbe demonstrated in flight due to the great risk in-volved. The system also provides a great deal of flex-ibility for the instructor who can freeze the trainingenvironment and repeat the lesson for reinforcementof a problem.

The CRT, a cathode ray tube located in the cockpit,provides a vis able readout on ground track, airspeed,altitude and indicates points where the student exceedsflight parameters. The advantages in the areas of safe-ty, flexibility, control, dependability and economy

should have a great impact on our future training en-vironment.

The UH 1FS is the only simulator now operationalin the U. S. Army inventory. Each UHIFS systemconsists of a complex of four simulated cockpits, thecommunal brain being a hybrid digital analog com-puter system. Each of the cockpits has five axes of mo-tion. The following simultaneous motion capabilitiesare provided: pitch, roll, yaw, vertical translation andlateral translation.

The motion systems are driven by their ownhydraulic power source under a pressure of 1,500 psi(pounds per square inch . The motion of the cockpitoccurs along realistic aircraft body axes and impartsproprioceptive cues that detail the sensations ex-perienced in normal and abnormal flight conditions.The hybrid digital analog computer complex is therelay that translates cockpit cues into hydraulic ac-tion. The basic characteristics of the system are asfollows: sound and motion; flight control responsethrough 5 degrees of motion; digital computer system;more than 100 radio navigational aids; complete con-trol of meteorological environment; control of aircraft

he 1CA1 Li nk BI ue Canoe

4 U.S. ARMY AVIATION DIGEST


17/50

UH FSSYSTEM DIAGRAM

UH I COCKPITPERIPHERAL ~ELECTRONICS

I r.------ ~ IOCKPIT 2~ IEAL TIME COCKPIT 3INPUT/OUTPUTDIGITAL COMPUTER SYSTEMDDP 516 COMPUTERS 2)

---- f: ::I ISR 35 TELETYPEWRITERS 2) COCKPIT 440K CORE MEMORY3.6 MEG WORD DISK 2)PAPER TAPE READER/PUNCH INDERS ADDS/9OO ~ ~ CONSOLECRT DISPLAYSYSTEM

I

ions; control of weight and balance; grounddisplay; 5-minute action playback capability;of UH-l H cockpit in

and the aircraft is always in instrumentThis basic description is

The delivery of SFTS UH 1FS devices to inof Fort Rucker is underway. The

or 24 cockpits. FortKY, received one device in March 1975.United States Army Europe) received aat Hanau, Germany.

are Fort Lewis,A; Hawaii; Fort Stewart, GA; and Fort Bragg, NC,that order. Fort Hood, TX; Fort Riley, KA; Fort

Gap, PA; and FortGA , will receive their UH-l flight simulator1977. The U I FS will be used primarily for inrefresher and combat readiness training atsites.

The UH 1FS system can measurably increase theeffectiveness of certain combat ready aviationIt can adjust its

1976

J VERSATEC IPRINTER PLOTTER256-square mile gaming area training area) to sj.litany geographical location. The computer system canrealistically duplicate any area to include elevationsand establish navigational aids. Tactical beacons alsocan be simulated with precision. The system canduplicate airdrops of portable beacons and do so in atime sequence. Tactical NDB nondirectional beacon)or GCA ground controlled approach) into temporaryairfields can be simulated with ease.This capability gives a great deal of flexibility in thetesting of contingency plans that require IFR instrument flight rules) flight. The commander can ensurethat his aviators are familiar with proposed contingency areas, and are able to react effectively when theplan is actually put into effect.

The simulator also allows aviators to experimentwith tactical instrument techniques. Instrument flightas low as 200 feet can be practiced-and in a safemanner. Testing of tactical techniques can be made ata lower cost and smaller risk factor. Radar altimetersystems and new navigational equipment developedfor the tactical atmosphere can first be tested in theSFTS .

15


18/50

The effectiveness of the UH 1FS as a primary usageinstrument trainer has been proven through its successin initial entry instrument training. Statistically thestudents"-J 1tioed jn the SFTS environment are equalto, or slightly better than, previous trainees not receiving the benefIts of simulator training. To exemplifytfils point some statistics compiled ' by the HumanResources Research Organization prove inter'esting.An eXQerimental group of 16 students in the U SArmy Aviation Center's Officer Rotary Wing AviatorCourse was randoml sel ed. They had no previousinstrumen Ight experience; however, all hadprevious flight experience.

The experimental group received all instrument instruction ' in the UH 1FS with a short (averaging 4hours) transition into the actual aircraft. The resultsareas follows: mean average of individual trainingtime was 44 hours and 12 minutes; meaI1 checkridetime was 2 hours and 15 minutes; total flight time inthe instrument phase was 46 hours and 55 minutes; thecheckride average was 82 with a high of 90 and low of70.All test subjects were passed with only one requiringa reexamination, which was successful. The resultsclearly indicate that t h ~ simulator can be b e n ~ f i c i l inobt lining standard instrument rating proficiency.

The future holds a great deal in store for simulationin Army aviation. SFTS simulators now underdevelopment are: CH-47C operational flight trainerCH47FS (2831); AH-IQ operational flight trainerAH 1FS (2833); advanced attack helicopter (AAH)operational flight trainer; and the utility tacticaltransport aircraft system (UTTAS). The developmentof the CH47FS and AHIFS devices has passed theplanning stage and is expected to be operational in1976. The AAH and UTT AS are still in the conceptphase of development.

The simulators duplicating the CIi-47C and AHlQ ' are scheduled to be flying this August. However,they will not be moved to Fort Rucker until thebuilding to house them is completed. Similar d ~ v i c e swill be going to the field in the future if all goes well.The interesting point about the CH47FS and AH 1FSis 'that they are operational trainers, and the pilots flyfrom visual cues. Simulation has left the "blue box"far behind.The CH47FS trainer has a simulated CH-47Ccockpit containing authentic replicas of the pilot andcopilot stations. As in the UH 1FS, as much originalequipment as possible is used. The system S on a 6-degree-of-freedom cockpit motion system thatprovides the standard motion sensations plusacceleration-deceleration effect and a hover sensation.The CH47FS has a visual system that consists of: acamera-model image generation system; syntheticterrain and ground symbol generator; and an infinite

16

Instrument Training Program oalsProgram Goal CostStep 1 SFTS 7.5 hrs $ 286.50UH-l 42.5 hrs 10,115.00

Total 50.() hrs 10,401.50Savings per 1,785.00student

Step 2 ~ T S 20 hrs 764.00UH-l 30 hrs 7,140.00Total 50 hrs 7,904.00Savings per 3,996.00studentOptimum SFTS 40 hrs 1,528.00UH-l 20 hrs 4,760.00Total 60 hrs 6,288.00Savings 5,612.00

image display system mounted in the cockpit. TheCH47FS uses a digital computation system and themotion systems are driven by hydraulic pumps. TheCH47FS has the capability ' of programing 200different malfunctions and these preciselyduplicated to allow training in malfunctions rangingfrom a generator failure to hydraulics-off flight.

The AH 1FS system can be used for both transitionand weapon's training. The system has two separatecockpits, one for the pilot and the other for thecopilot gunner. Both of these are driven by the samedigital computer complex. Both cockpits operate onindependent six axes motion systems. Visual displaysystems are contained in each cockpit to providerealistic visual simulation. The two cockpits can beused for independent crew training or for integratedsystems training, at the discretion of the instructorpilot. .

The visual system was of particular interest to me inthat the visual simulation must be adequate enoughfor ~ h e pilot to control the aircraft in all six ~ x e s ofmotion. The basic system, for both Cli47FS andAH 1FS, consists of terrain display boards; a television camera gantry system; closed circuit televisionelectronics; and related image processing circuitry.The CH47FS provides both forward window andchin bubble visual displays for pilot and copilot. Itsterrain boards have two scales, 400: 1 or 1,500: 1depending on the aircraft maneuvers that are desiredto be taught. . .People who have viewed demonstrations of thevisual system commented that the 400: 1 scale was excellent and very realistic and the 1,500: 1 scale wassatisfactory.

The AH 1FS provides forward display in the



19/50

The UH FS Synthetic I ight Training System

cockpit. The pilot has forward and leftthe telescopic

TSU). The AH 1FS terrain board hasone scale, 1,500: 1

The AH 1FS can simulate most visual flightweapons exercises. The instruc,tor can140 malfunctions, giving essential training in.pbns systems malfunctions and other hazardous

Some of the visualare low level autorotation, steep dives;

takeoff and a wide range of lessThe weapon,s systems will be integrated through theto the camera-model. The system providesvisual scene, targets, visual trajectory information,

of the 7.62 mm minigun and 40 mm carithe TOW tube-launched, optically-tracked,

are also simulated, and there isof impact and detonation. The weaponseven duplicate tracer fire and the

range from hang fires to circuitmalfunctions.

1976

The use of sophisticated simulators as a trammgvehicle is the wave of the future. The adjustments inthe initial entry instrument program since UH IFSacquisition is evidence of this trend. initial entryrotary wing lERW) program goals that now are being put into effect are in the figure on page 16.

The savingS realized through use of SFTS canamortize the initial investment cost of the system injust a few years.t is clear that military aviation can make muchmore extensive use of the SFTS in initial entry, combat readiness training and transitional training. Armyaviation is progressing toward successful use ofsimulator systems. Army aviators should find theSFTS invaluable as an instrument proficiency trainer,and as the aviator becomes familiar with simulatorsystems a greater appreciation will develop. The longrange plan is for SFTS to include a simulator subsystem for each of the helicopters in the expectedArmy inventory. In future days of escalated flightcosts the simulator will become a way of life for themilitary pilot.

17


20/50

Tactical Traini nn

T HE CONCEPT OF teaching, students to fly instruments ina helicopter wifFlout gettIng olithe ground is a daily routine atthe United States Army AviationCenter's Pratt Hall. That conceptnow is beginning to expand and willhave a tremendous impact on pilott r a i i n ~ ~ i ~ ~ l eon t h ~ t b ~ a k ~ son .newer and m o ~r e ~ n s i b i l i t i ~ .Army aviation is engaged in acontinuing battle to move troops,materiel, and furnish firepowerfaster and in larger quantities thanever before-regardless of terrain,weather conditions or enemycapabilities. This requires atechnology of the highest order.However, technology capable ofdeveloping the aviator tactics andhardware necessary to win in thehigh threat environment costsmoney, time and sometimes lives.One can readily visualize that thetotal effort needed to attain such astate of readiness will be indeed amost expensive venture. The construction, development and operation of such complex systems cannot be entrusted to men that are notproficient and adequately trained.As in almost any endeavor, theprogress and success of Army aviation rests heavily on the trainingand proficiency of its people. It is tothis end that the field of flightsimulation strives. Whether theaviator of the future is operating ina tactical exercise, nap-of-the-earthmaneuver or a high threat environment, his level of proficiency andsuccess will be influenced and determined largely by the trainingreceived in the birds that neverfly .18

the S TSMajor Elmer E CurbowChief, SFTS Branch MSG Thomas McGuireCh i ef Instructor, SFTS Branch

Department of Academic TrainingU. S Army Aviation CenterThe value of simulation is virtually immeasurable and all encompassing. In civilian industry, aircraft are being designed, flown

and redesigned through the use ofsimulators and computers beforethe first weld joint is made. In theArmy , new ideas, tactics, concepts,maneuvers, tests and evaluationscan be tried with a high degree ofaccuracy in the accident-safesimulator. When the cost of a singlehelicopter such as a UH-I H Huey,CH-47 Chinook or AH-I HueyCobrais contemplated , it readily can beseen that m u l a t i o n is t l : l e~ t e s t m d t e c t l v red uct ion - J 1 I : - O ~ e s - - b e . ~ ~, tcfaY:- .

The use of simulation in supportof student training at the Aviation, Center has many advantages. Tostart with, the simulators allow fora much greater degree of flexibilityin employing the existing helicopters in the Army inventory. Approximately 50 additional helicopters would have been needed to flythe same number of hours that wereflown in the UH I FS (formerly2B24) simulator last year. However, thanks to the UH I FS, that's50 helicopters the Army can use tobolster its combat power. Also,it's 50 fewer helicopters in the training fleet which means the AviationCenter can have more space onits airfields; less extensive groundsupport facilities; and decreased airspace congestion. There is anotherbig plus . Under a mobilization

type training schedule, the numbeof hours flown in the U HI FS lasyear could be doubled, thereby replacing about 100 aircraft insteadof 50.Synthetic Flight TrainingSystems (SFTS) are now in theprocess of being sent worldwide toall areas where sufficient trainingrequirements exist. Some of the advantages of using the U HI FS at theAviation Center already have beendiscussed. Most of these also applyat field sites. Then, there is anotheadvantage that the U HI FS affordtactical units at field sites .,Historyhas shown tha.t .unit lroilJ n-dividual p r o f i i ~ ..JJ a 1e rier e ~ n e s s and the teamww.ls.... 2f-tJzecombined arms team are critical at-tributes In wInnIng the firSf5att1e o, ~ next war h ~ ~ n dwill playa maJo( o l ~ . n developIngana maIntaInIng each of these attribUtes.I he first and last attributes ment i oned un i t training andteamwork of the combined armsteam are closely related. By usingthe capabilities of the UH 1FS, farmore people can be involved (trained) in employing the overall coordinated efforts of the entire team.The complexities of command posexercises (CPX) now can be expanded to include and better trainmore members of the team. For example, when a division receives aCPX mission, air traffic control(A TC) personnel are broughdirectly into the play of the exer-



21/50

The ATC unit brings the corpsthe divi

through a detailedanalysis, and in coordinationother staff sections, the

isand includesairstrip.far the ATC unit and theunits are interacting (train

just as they would in a realsituation.At this point, the tactical airwayis programed into the1FS computer. As the CPX

supportprocessed through actual

S-2/G-2 air or S-air; through the divisionthe

At the unit level theoffice schedules the1FS) and crew. The

are briefed on their misand fly it.

Tactical training in simulatorsacqu i res real ism through ter -rai n mockup w ich the trai nee, 'overfl i es

1976

To add even more realism to theproblem, the real world (CPX) environment can be built into thesituation. The crew comes up withits loading plan and computes theactual gross weight, center of gravity, fuel requirements, power requirements, anticipated performance, etc. The temperature,altitude, wind, turbulence, etc. canbe quickly changed to fit any givensituation. After this real worldplanning, the crew flies via the tactical airway system to the brigadeforward airstrip and shoots anADF (automatic direction finder)approach. It then reports to thebrigade commander that his aerialresupply has been affected andreturns to the division airstrip,shooting a GCA (ground controlledapproach) or perhaps continuing toanother forward airstrip as requiredby the mission.

To enhance the overall eam effort, all friendly and enemy indirectfire and direct air support is plottedas required. Since the exact position of the U HI FS aircraft isalways known, the effect of the

friendly artillery fire upon the aircraft is analyzed to see if propercoordination has been conducted.

In this one simple example,almost everybody directly or indirectly related to aviation supportis required to perform his mission.The unit training is enhanced, individual proficiency is improved,the overall team effort of the combined arms team is exercised, andlastly, since the entire mission isconducted in a U HI FS, the actualaircraft are undergoing requiredmaintenance, thereby improvingthe materiel readiness posture ofthe unit.Truly, it seems that the onlylimitation on the SFTS is the imagination of the user. And, sinceArmy aviators are noted for theiropen-mindedness and innovativethinking, new ideas for using thecapabilities of the SFTS are coming in on a nearly routine basis.

Future simulators will add moresophistication to the devices andresult in increased training benefits.I nnovations that are in the offinginclude such features as a cameramodel/terrain board visual system;computer generated imagery; integration of aircraft simulatorswith weapon systems replete withsimulated enemy ground fire andair-to-air combat; formation flighttraining; simulated high threat environment and counter techniques;and interfacing the heavy lifthelicopter , advanced scouthelicopter, utility tactical transportaircraft system and advanced attack helicopter to allow simultaneous simulation that will provideconcerted training in coordinatingand conducting an air assaultexercise.

Thanks to simulators, Armyaviators soon will have at theirfingertips training capabilities noteven dreamed possible a few yearsago. Yes, in the simulators oftomorrow, aviators will be able toperform everything that is possiblein the aircraft and then some-withone small exception-actually fly.

9


22/50

N TO iewsContinued from page 5make it possible to drop from aircraft combat equipment andsupplies weighing more than 20tons.A control entity for the U.S.XVIII Airborne Corps has been established for the purpose of directing the combat operations of alarge airborne assault force. Inpeacetime it deals primarily withthe combat training of airbornetroops, which presently include the82nd Airborne Division and threespecial airborne groups. U.S.military leaders are working ondelivery without landing of a fullairborne division, while working inparallel on an airborne assaultoperation involving landing the aircraft. The division's combatcapabilities are being improved insuch basic components as firepower(particularly against tanks and airtargets), mobility and survivability,and striking power.

Organic to the U.S. airbornedivision for the performance of firemissions, in addition to small arms,are the following: 54 105 mmhowitzers, 127 106.7 mm and 8mm mortars; 66 M551 Sheridanlight tanks armed with a 152 mmhowitzer firing artillery shells or theShillelagh antitank missile; 7 firesupport helicopters armed with anautomatic cannon, as well as TOWantitank missiles or 70 mm rockets.Presently organic to the division areDragon antitank missiles. 40 mmgrenade launchers (a total of 1,536in the division) are employed todestroy machinegun nests andsmall concentrations of enemy personnel on exposed terrain and entrenched. Foreign periodicals notethe capability of rapid on-loadingof all these weapons into aircraft,rapid readying for action after being dropped or landed in the objective area, as well as their highdegree of battlefield mobility. Forengaging hostile aircraft, the divi-

20

sion is armed with 48 6-barrelVulcan antiaircraft guns and 63Redeye antiaircraft missile units.Low-flying enemy helicopterswould also be destroyed by smallarms fire, antitank missiles, and insome cases by conventional artillery.

The maneuver capabilities of theairborne division have been enhanced by the inclusion of the abovementioned 66 Sheridan tanks, 88helicopters, and more than 2,000units of airlifted motor transportvehicles. Considerable importanceis attached to the adoption of selfpropelled 105 mm howitzers. Thetanks and self-propelled howitzersincrease the degree of protection ofassault force equipment againstnuclear weapons, while the helicopters and motor transport vehicles promote swift dispersion tominimize the effects of a nuclearstrike. Future plans call for a further increase in the number of armored vehicles in the division. Themagazine A VIATION WEEK ANDSPA CE TECHNOLOGY has mentioned the possibility of futureassault force personnel employment of portable flying devices,increasing the individual soldier'smobility and survivability on thebattlefield.

Helicopters have proven to be aqualitatively new means of assaultforce delivery in comparison withfixed-wing aircraft. Helicopterutilization does not require expensive airborne assault hardware andextensive troop special training. Inaddition, much less time is requiredto ready an assault force, for it is nolonger necess ry to p ckparachutes and parachute systems,and to ready personnel, combatequipment and supplies for thedrop. The assault force is landed inthe same tactical grouping in whichthe combat mission is to be carriedout, that is the force lands with ahigh degree of combat readiness.All this makes airborne assaultoperations a more mass means ofwarfare.

Due to the differing capabilitiesof fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft, there has occurred, as it werea distribution of zones of airborneassault employment. Militarytransport aircraft would deliverassault forces (from a brigade toseveral divisions in size) to a depthof from 100 kilometers to a globaldistance. Helicopters would deliverprimarily battalion-size forces, andsometimes brigades, to a depth ofup to 50 and 100 km respectively.

Part 2, Views on Utilization, somitted. It discusses the U S . stan-dard classification o airborneassault forces general proceduresfollowed n preparations deliveryof airborne assault forces behindenemy lines and the nature ofcom-bat operations It deals withparachute delivery o airborneforces. Part 3, Plans and Predictions, follows. It encompasses air-mobile employment of airborneassault forces.

Taking into consideration thedevelopment of the diversified components of vertical maneuverforces, Western military theoristsare endeavoring to define the roleand place of each in warfareapplicable to present-day conditions as well as in the future.Practical experience abroad indicates that the solution to thisproblem has been far from easy.Bourgeois military experts havebeen engaged in stormy debate onthe dominant role of a given component, and various suggestions areadvanced pertaining to proportionin their development as well asdelineation of tasks and missionsamong them.

Today nobody denies the factthat military transport aviation andairborne troops have ceased being



23/50

in executingin ground forcesof the leadihg roleairborne assault forces. Basingon past experiencewell as the increasing capabilitiesmilitary transport aircraft andnuclear missile

of the rebirth of airborne arof conducting air

of unprecedentedAs is well known, attempts to

in World War II. Forin 1944 an Anglo-Ameri

ofcasion - the dropping of a largein Holland1944This operation was conducted

of absolute Alliedon the ground. Its effectiveness

expediency are variouslyof a draft

new airborne armies, as isU.S.Airborne arfare declare

the effectiveness of the air-

borne army was proven by the entire course of the Dutch Operation.Many such armies will be needed.According to another view, thisoperation did not produce anysigni fican t operational-strategicresults which would justify theenormous expenditures involved.The operation was counting moreon producing a political than purelymilitary effect.Many military theorists in theWest come to the conclusion thatthe attempt to revive the idea of airborne armies is a consequence ofthe inertia of thinking on the partof its advocates rather than a resultof an objective need. One's attention is drawn to the fact that whenonly one airborne division isemployed as an airborne assaultforce, it is necessary to employ extremely large numbers of militarytransport aircraft, fighters, fighterbombers and bombers, as well aslarge quantities of other forces andfacilities. Other utilization of allthis personnel and hardware couldexert greater influence on thecourse of a battle than the droppingof an airborne division. One'sattention is also drawn to the factthat with modern air defenseweapons, which are exceptionallyeffective against targets at the middle and high altitudes from which adivision is usually dropped in an

The Sheridan Shillelage annored reconnaissance vehicle

1976

The Redeye missile launcher

airborne operation at considerabledepth, losses in the air may provemuch greater than allowable.In view of the increased threat ofheavy losses in personnel andequipment during delivery to theobjective area, there have appeareddoubts about the advisability andpossibility of a massive delivery ofairborne troops behind enemy linesunder conditions of nuclear warfare. Advocates of this view claimthat in a nuclear war the employment of airborne troops will boildown primarily to the delivery ofsmall assault forces and raidingparties. According to the magazineMILITARY REVIEW the brigadeis considered for the future as anoptimal combined unit of airbornetroops.Another reason for modest estimates of the future of airbornetroops was the appearance and extensive utilization of combined unitsof the airmobile type - organI-

2


24/50

cally adapted to transport by air.With establishment in the UnitedStates in 1963 of the first suchcombined unit, * further development of airborne forces, development of the theory and practiceof employment of airborne assaultforces is taking place within theframework of a sharp debate onwhere preference should be given:to airborne or airmobile trqops.Following extensive experimentsthe Pentagon converted the 11 thand 1 1 st Airborne divisions intoairmobile divisions.** In the opinion of Western military experts, under the conditions of Indochina,airmobile divisions possessed anumber of advantages over otherground forces combined units . Themagazine ARMY also expresseddoubt as to the expediency of

maintaining airborne troops in thepresent day.In contrast to airborne troops,airmobile troops execute repeatedmoves by ai r , utilizing organicequipment, and operate in a singleunified attacking or defendingforce, and consequently are provided cover within the overall friendlyair defense system. They penetratehostile air defense not only with theaid of weapons and facilities underthe higher echelon but also employing their own organic equipment enroute, particularly helicoptercarried weapons. Advocates of airmobile combined units also focusattention on the fact that suchunits, in contrast to airbornetroops, are equally essential andcan be successfully employed bothin offensive and defensive*This refers to the II th Air Assault Division(Test) organized IS February 1963 to testconcepts recommended by the Army Tactical Mobility Requirements Board (HowzeBoard) which was convened in 1962.**On I July 1965 the I st Cavalry Division(Airmobile) was activated largely fromelements of the disbanded II th Air AssaultDivision . The 1 t Cavalry ceased to be anairmobile division on 2 February 1975 , theday the 6th Cavalry Brigade (Air Combat)was activated. On 4 October 1974 the IO I stofficially became the IO I st Airborne Division (Air Assault).

22

engagements.At the same time there is an in

creasing number of military expertsabroad who feel that each of thecomponents of vertical maneuverforces possesses advantages anddrawbacks, and consequently [eachpossesses] a specific place withinthe structure of modern armedforces and within the system ofarmed combat, as well as a quitedefinite future. They list as the principal and very important advantages of airborne troops theirgreater strategic mobility and theiradaptation to rapid delivery by airhundreds and thousands ofkilometers.

The existence of global weaponssystems dictates the scope of combat on a worldwide scale and thenecessity of possessing groundforces which are specially adaptedfor swift maneuver by air over pract ically necessary distance.Proceeding from this, U.S. militaryleaders, according to the magazineARMY believe that until othermeans of delivering conventionaltroops to remote areas are found, itwill be necessary to maintain airborne units in the strategicreserve.At the same time, within theframework of ground forcesoperat ions , NATO mili tarytheorists are showing increasingpreference for airmobile troops andarmy aviation, as well as the adoption of new forms and methods ofcombat based on the above.

We must note that flight of fantasy in elaborating plans frequentlyruns far ahead of the realisticcapabilities of the facilities andresources available in the NATOcountries. For example, someWestern military theorists proposeorganizing airmobile corps ad aptedboth for delivery on a strategicscale by military transport aircraftand for the conduct of airmobileoperations in a designated combatarea with utilization of organichelicopters and other aircraft.Others propose the idea of es-

tablishing corps which, operating inthe operational-tactical zonewould constitute a supermobileforce moving on the ground and inthe air, capable of delivering swifand deep attacks. The combaoperations of such a force, states themagazine MILITARY REVIEWwould assume unusual forms, basedon swift detection and determination of targets, fast closing withthe enemy, maneuver and devastating application of pressure.

However, as this same magazineemphasizes, existing facilities andresources do not provide thepossibility of conducting suchoperations.In spite of this fact, a number obourgeois military theorists continue to consider modern airmobilecombined units and units as aprototype of airmobile armies othe future. In their opinion such armies would be capable of deliveringswifter and deeper attacks thanhave been possible in the past. Theywill constitute, states the magazineARMOR a prerequisite fordevelopment of the concept oblitzkrieg warfare on a new and

higher level.Such are the plans and predictions. In actual practice, as was

demonstrated in the two precedingarticles, NATO military leadersassign airborne assault forces animportant place within the systemof warfare for execution of theiaggressive schemes. Airbornetroops delivered to the objectivearea by military transport aircrafare viewed by them primarily as as t r t eg ic means. On theoperational-tactical scale increasing attention is being focusedon airmobile troops and army aviation.

Counting on the potential of increasing air transportability and theutilization of various verticamaneuver forces, Western militarytheorists are developing the idea oa new variant of blitzkrieg warfare.



25/50

VFR

JEWSROME DERS

Sir:After , experiencing a bird strike inwhich all three UH-l crewmembers werecaught after dark with tinted visors up by theentry of a high flying Night Hawk into thecockpit, I find myself wondering whatprogress, if any, has been made towarddevelopment of an effective day/night visorsys tem for the SPH-4 helmet. The presentapproach of changing len ses from clear totinted and back again is a big project on theground and virtua lly impossible in the airwhere the need for either visor may occursuddenly due to changes in available light.The most apparent remedy is to use the clearvisor at all times, wearing sunglasses duringthe day However, this solution does awaywith the fine tinted lense and increasespilot fatigue from the pressure of ear piecesunder th e ear cups an d higher noise levelsto the less effective sea l This approachlso tends to encourage the use of sungl asseslone with no visor protection .We are all aware of the problem and alsosee th e logic behind the stock answerhat dual visor systems employed by otherwi ll upset the critical balance ofthat we ve entered the eraheavy

The U S Army in VietnamA Pictorial Record

The Center of Military History is preparing a pictorial volume in the Army sofficial history of the Vietnam War andwould welcome photographs illustratingthe following subjects: Viet Cong andNorth Vietnamese Army activities, moraleand discipline in U.S. Army Republic ofVietnam, Vietnamese life in the cities andon the outskirts of U. S. bases, battledamage and combat. All contributionsprints only, no slides-should be sent to:

Dr. Joel MeyersonU.S. Army Center of Military HistoryForrestal BuildingWashington, DC 20314(202) 693-5375; (Autovon) 223-5375

1976

emphasis on NOE , night flying and the in-creasing potency of ground to air weaponry,effective protection of crewmember eyesightsee ms even more important. How abo ut aprogress report on just where we stand inthe deve lopment and adoption of a reallysa fe , simple and effective visor system?

CPT Robert D. Mabey396th Aviation Company (Army)Utah Army National GuardBountiful, UT 840 10 The DIGEST received the followingresponse to CPT Mabey s letter from theU.S. Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory (USAARL):A field survey of aviators conductedduring May 1975, revealed that 30 percent

of the 900 that answered the survey madeunsolicited comments regarding their desirefor a dual visor system.USAARL is working with a prototypedual visor system mounted on an SPH-4helmet. (see photograph). There are problems of adding a dual visor system to theSPH-4 helmet as you mentioned in yourletter. It adds additional weight, and helmetcenter of mass is affected. The adoption of adual visor system is to be one of many topicsof discussion during an In-Process Review(IPR) which has been requested by the Surgeon General since January 1975, but asof yet has not been called.A recommendation, based on personalexperience, to alleviate both the comfortproblem and the loss of noise attenuationwhen wearing issue sunglasses with theSPH-4 helmet, is the replacement of theplastic covered temple with the below described temple:NSN: 6540-00-926-9013Noun Nomenclature: Temple, SpectacleDescription: Gold filled comfort cabletype, 61/ 2 inches.This item is available through the supply system and requires only minutes to accomplishthe change. Regular changes of the earphoneseals, which harden, also will aid in alleviating the above mentioned problems.

/

Pertinent requisitioning data for the earphone seals is: seal, earphone, NSN8415-00-143-8577.

Sir :

Prototype Du al Vi sor SPH 4 el-met developed by USAARL andGentex Corporation

The following is an announcement of ourSpecial Summer Program which we believemay be of interest to readers of U S ARMYA VIA nO DIGEST:Air Transportation Systems AnalysisMassachusetts Institute of Technology

/2 /3 Ju ly /976The program is concerned with air transportation in its broadest sense. The technological , operational and economicalaspects of problems in a ir transportation are

addressed concurrently . The program ispointed toward aiding the ai r transportationsystem by identifying the effects of newtechnologies, studying current and futureproblems, and describing new methodologiesfor analysis of operational and economicproblems.For further information , please contact:Director of the Summer SessionRoom E19-356, M.LT.Cambridge, MA 02139Robert W SimpsonDirector

23


26/50

M OST OF US have beenembarrassed by speakingto someone we thought was an oldfriend. This person may havelooked like that friend at firstglance, but a closer look revealedotherwise. It s a case of mistakenidentity. How could a person makesuch a mistake? Did the person shair look the same or was the walksimilar?People tend to identify personsand objects using these and manyother visual cues which are learnedby association. As ari Army aviatoryou rtnist be able to identify enemyequipment or terrain features, es-peCially at night during terrainflight.During daylight hours the enemyuses camouflage to minimize detec-

tion from the air. To detectcamouflaged targets, aircrews mustuse proper observation techniques.During night operations the aii -crews ability to identify objects ismore difficult.

To overcome limitations ofdarkness, aircrews must understandfaCtors affecting terrain interpreta-tion at night and learn visual cuesthat aid in identification. Thelikelihood of detecting a natural ormanmade feature at night dependsprimarily on the following factors: Object size t is extremelydifficult to perceive small objects atnight. Large structures and terrainfeatures (such as churches, watertowers and rivers) are more easilyrecognized in darkness than aresmall objects (such as a tank ortruck) which becomes lost in the en-vironment. Identifying the smallerobject requires a longer viewingtime and a shorter viewing distance. Object shape That tank, how-ever, which could not be recog-nized because of its relativelysmall size in relation to the environ-ment, is easily recognized whenviewed from the side because of itsdistinctive silhouette. A natural ormanmade object is identified atnight by its shape or the silhouetteit forms. Familiarization with the

24

THE C SE OFarchitectural design of buildingsassists in recognition of structuresat night. Also; shape assists in iden-tifying objects that are difficult torecognize because of their smallsize. Shape of terrain features alsoprovides a means of identificationat night. Open fields which areshown on the map as triangularshaped provide positive identifica-tion when viewed from thehelicopter. Landmarks such as abend in the river or a prominenthilltop provide a distinct shapewhich aids in terrain interpretationat night. Viewing distance Because theviewing angle becomes smaller asthe distance from the object in-creases, large objects which are dis-tinctive in shape may not berecognizable from a great distanceat night. This, combined with poordepth perception at night, leads tofaulty judgment of size. Also, ob-jects lose form as the viewing dis-tance increases. A church buildingviewed at dose distance at nightappears as a large structure with adistinctive high roof; however,viewed at a great distance itresembles a family dwelling. Thisphenomenon occurs when viewingmilitary targets or terrain featuresat a great distance. The distance atwhich interpretation of an objectbecomes unreliable is also depen-dent upon the ambient light level.An object that is identified by itsshape and .size at a distance of up to1,500 meters, during a high lightcondition, might be unrecognizableat 500 meters during low light con-dition. Contrast Identification of ter-rain features by contrast is depen-dent upon the available ambientlight, the color and texture of theobject being viewed and itsbackground.

ETr

U SThe ambient light level affectthe degree of contrast that existbetween objects. The higher thlight level, the greater the contrastThis is because the reflectance isconstant percentage of illuminanceTherefore, as the illuminance leve

increases, contrast or absolutdifference between objects increases. Each object possessesdifferent reflectance due to thnature of its reflective surface. Athe ambient light increases, morlight is reflected causing a shadchange. Objects with a poor reflective surface appear black duringlow light levels and dark gray during high light levels. Objects o

dentification by object siz


27/50

IDENTITYl i st

terrain features possessing goodreflective quality appear a muchlighter gray under all conditions ofambient light.

The color and texture of an ob-ject or terrain feature affects itsreflective quality. This characteristic of an object or terrain featureaids or detracts in identification bycontrast. An open field h i h islight in color with no vegetationgrowth is an example of an op-timum reflective surface. Areascovered with dense vegetationprovide the worst conditions ofreflectivity. Seldom is terrain en-countered where the extreme ofboth cases exists. Knowledge of the

by object viewing distance

reflective quality of objects andterrain features aids in identifica-tion by contrast. Objects andterrain features most affected bycontrast are:V Roads Dirt roads provide ex-cellent contrast between the sur-rounding terrain and its surface.This is more pronounced where theroad is cut through heavily forestedareas. Normally a dirt road variesin soil texture and color from thatof the soil adjacent to the road. Thiscondition further improves the con-trast of the dirt road and surrounding terrain. Asphalt roads are dif-ficult to identify because the darksurface reflects very little light,reducing the contrast between theroad and surrounding terrain. Concrete highways provide an excellentreflective surface and are easilyidentified at night.v Water Bodies of waterprovide very little contrast against aland mass during low light con-ditions. Viewed from the air, lakesor rivers appear dark gray. As thelight level increases water begins tochange color, contrast increasesand reflected moonlight easily isdetected. When a surface wind ex-ists, the reflection off the water isintensified by the ripples, whichfurther aids identification. Bodiesof water are recognized more easilywhen viewed from an angle ratherthan directly overhead.Open fields Contrast is verypoor in cultivated fields. Mostcrops are a dark color and tend toabsorb light. During the harvest ordormant time of the year, the colorof vegetation becomes lighter andcontrast improves. A recently plowedfield may be void of vegetation;however, because of the coarse tex-ture of the soil caused by plow-ing) light is absorbed and very littleis reflected.

v Forested areas Heavilyforested areas do not reflect lightand appear as dark areas at night.Excellent contrast exists betweenan open field and a forested areathat normally surrounds an openfield. f flight is conducted overterrain which heavy vegetationdominates , difficulty is experiencedidentifying objects and terrainfeatures because of the lack of con-trast.v Desert The light color of thesoil and sparse vegetation growthcharaCteristic of desert terrairiprovides the best condition of detect-ing objects and prominent terrainfeatures by contrast. Militarytargets easily are recognized on thedesert due to the dark color ofbarren mountains as contrastedagainst the light color of the flatterrain.

To ensure the success of a nightcombat mission, aircrewmen mustbe aware of the factors which affectterrain interpretation at night andapply these principles during theconduct of their missions. A mis-taken identity of a friend resultsonly in embarrassment-but a mis-taken identity of enemy weaponryor a terrain feature may result indisorientation or the defeat of afriendly land force.

We have discussed basic con-siderations that aircrewmen mustbe familiar with in order to identifyobjects and terrain features atnight. Further consideration mustbe given to the environment, e.g.,terrain, seasons, visibility restric-tions, etc., prevailing at the time themission is being performed. Thiswill be the subject of a future articlepertaining to night terrain inter-pretation.

Readers of this article should beaware that a new publication, TC 128, Rotary Wing Night Flight,soon will be available for units inthe field. t establishes the basicprinciples of night rotary wingflight and should be referred to forunit and individual night flighttraining.

25


28/50

emoteSetontinued rom page

testing of both fuzes was conductedin a simulated battlefield environment, against various targets, withhighly satisfactory performance. Theengineering portion of DTll also wascompleted with satisfactory results.

The RC fuzing subsystem consists of the XM-433EI and XM-439fuzes and the XM-40 remote fuzesetter mounted on the AH-IGhelicopter.

The XM-433EI fuze, attached tothe front of the warhead, consists ofthe following modules: electronics,safe and arming (S&A) mechanism,steel housing, booster assembly, foliage sensor and umbilical assembly.The umbilical assembly s protectedby a shipping cover.

The XM-433El fuze has two postimpact electronic delay options andone super-quick option. It providesthe attack helicopter pilot with thecapability to destroy targets protected by dense forests up to 45meters tall), protected by bunkers. (up to 3 meters thick), hidden inbuildings or exposed and in openterrain. Even light armor targetsare vulnerable to warheads with thisfuze.

The X M -439 fuze consists of asimilar electronics module, S&Amechanism, and plastic housing;however, unlike the XM-433 fuze,it is mounted n the base of the XM-255 flechette warhead. This fuzecan be adapted easily to any warhead that requires airburst functionwith variable time.

The XM-439 fuze has time delayssettable manually n 250-meter increments from 500 to 4,000 metersusing the fuze control panel. Whenfire control is available on the aircraft, fuze setting can be automaticand the fuze will then be set withthe exact range to target.

The XM-40 remote fuze settersubsystem consists of the fuze control panel, a dual fuze setter andtwo J boxes to synchronize fuzesetting and rocket firing . This sub-

26

MOO C-INTERVALOMETER

FUZE CONTROL PANEL

MOD eINTERVALOMETER

XM132 ' ) BOX

Remote fuze setter subsystem (XM-40) integrated into the Army/BellAH-1 G attack hel i copter and interfaced wi th mod C rocket fi ri ngsubsystem. The fuze control panel is located next to the wingstores management panel on the pi 101 s consol e. The pi lot sel ectsthe required fuze functioning mode and delay ,using the left sideswi tch for XM-433E1 or the right side switch for the XM-439. Twofuzes of the same type are set simultaneously by the fuze setterat the ti me of rocket fi ri ng. The pi lot has onl y to set the modeor delay, and press the pickle button. J boxes provide synchronization for fuze setting and rocket firingMultioption impact time delay fuze XM-433E1 with M-151 and M-229high explos i ve warheads. Umbi I cal protruding from the fuzeprovides a communication link between pilot and the fuze viaXM-227 I auncher. Fuze cover, provi di ng protection of canopyswitch and umbilical during handling, must be removed prior toloading the round into the I auncher. Timing begins when thesensitive canopy switch impacts an object of medium density.The steel fuze body protects the el ectronic modul e and S&A mechani sm during hard target penetration



29/50

XM439 variable time delay fuze with XM 255 flechette warhead. Theumbi I cal protrudi ng from the nose of the round provides thecommuni cation I nk from the pi lot through the I auncher to the fuze.The base mounted fuze starts timing on first motion of the round

system s complimented by the rocket firing Mod C intervalometersubsystem and XM-227-19 tubelaunchers.The fuze setter is a relatively sim-

pIe device that provides the fuze capacitors with compensated chargesthat provide the desired functioningtime. The fuze setter consists oftime to airburst (or range) selector

Fuze set panel on pi lofs console of the AH1G attack helicopter.Pilot using controls on this panel sets the remotely controlled fuzesto desi red functioni ng di stance or mode prior to fi ri ng the rockets

APRIL 1976

(fuze set panel), a precision (directcurrent voltage source with controlcircuits, a voltage monitor (operational amplifier), a precision eventssequencer and analog computer.At the time of fuze setting, the timeconstant of the RC timer s compared to the reference n the fuzesetter and the capacitors are chargedwith compensated voltages to provide the desired time function.

The fuze charging s conducted inthe following manner: With thefuze connected to the fuze setterand the range selected, eitherautomatically by the fire control ormanually by the pilot adjusting therange selector on the fuze controlpanel, the voltage levels on the fuzetiming and power capacitors are established. The voltage on the timingcapacitor varies as a function of thetime delay desired and the voltageon the power capacitor stays atabout the same level.

When a rocket s launched withthe XM-439 fuze, or a rocket impacts a target with the XM-4331Elfuze, the starting switch closes andcurrent flows until the voltage onthe timing capacitor reaches zero.This condition actuates the triggercircuit, which dumps the remainingcharge of the power capacitor into adetonator, initiating the explosivetrain.Technological approaches to improve accuracy, versatility and tactical effectiveness are constantly being evaluated. For instance theautomatic setting of the XM-439fuzes has been proven using acoupled LASER rangefinder, thuseliminating the need for the pilot toset the fuze manually. Automaticfuze setting will be possible whenfire control completes development.

The RC remote set fuzing subsystem for helicopters is the onlydeveloped and proven system in existence today. Further applicationof the remote set fuzing for aerialrocketry as well as ground weaponswill greatly improve tactical effectiveness and versatility of free flightrockets.

27


30/50

THE F MILIT RYCOMPETENCY EX MIN TION

THE MILIT RY CompetencyExamination, prepared andoffered by the Federal Aviation Ad-ministration (FAA), is one of themost important and most signifi-cant civilian transitional vehiclesoffered the military aviator. Thisexamination provides the graduateArmy aviator with the opportunityto apply the skills and knowledge28

Edward A wellAvi ation Learni ng CenterU S Army Aviation Center

acquired through Army aviation forthe acquisition of the civilian com-mercial pilot's certificate. Thegraduate Army aviator who suc-cessfully completes this examina-tion is awarded the CommercialPilot Rotor Craft certificate withthe instrument rating. The com-parable civilian value to acquirethis certificate, based on today's

prices for flying time, could ex-ceed $30,000.The FAA Military Competencyexam has been offered at FortRucker since 1965 During 1968and 1969 when student training wasat an alltime high, an average of100 to 125 students per week weretested and awarded this valuablelicense. Mr. E M. Marshman,u s RMY AVIATION DIGEST


31/50

FAA representative at FortRucker, offers this examinationevery 2 weeks at the Aviation Learn-ing Center. M r. Marshman isassigned to the Air Traffic Divisionof the FAA and has been givenspecial permission by the FAA toadminister this examination. N ormally only an examiner assigned tothe General Aviation Division hasthis authority.

For those who are apprehensiveabout taking this exam, let me sayit may not be as comprehensive asyou may think. The FAA holds thatyour achievements as a graduateArmy aviator and your flightorders are prima facie evidence offlight competency. This examcovers Federa l v ia t ionRegulations (FARs), Parts 1 61,71, 91 and the National Transportation Safety Board Regulation,Part 430. You may have learned ofthese FA Rs as an integral part ofyour aviation training; however,there are no resident trainingclasses in the flight programsspecifically designed for teachingthe FA Rs. This means it is a goodidea to review the above regulationsprior to taking the exam.

The Aviation Learning Centerhas prepared a sound and slidelesson that covers important areasof the FA Rs. I t provides a comprehensive review of theseregulations to enhance your presentknowledge of the subject. It alsocovers many recent changes in theregulations. This lesson is dividedinto three parts:

Regulations concerning air-craft certification, pilot certificationand currency requirements, etc.;

Weather minimums and controll

Documents

Army Aviation Digest - Apr 1976