A BIT OF HISTORY: "...Patrol Plane Commander Board...Pitchlocked Prop In Action - by Lcdr. Todd Kousky/ P-3 - Lcdr. Kousky is the SELRES ASO for VP-92..." Naval Safety Center WebSite: http://www.safetycenter.navy.mil/media/approach/vault/articles/2003/0563.htm [04JUN2005]

Propeller malfunctions on the P-3 Orion are considered the most dangerous and complex emergencies. The prop procedures have evolved over the years to encompass some challenging conditions which weigh conflicting requirements. In one mishap, a rotating pitchlocked propeller pumped all oil out of the gear box, which subsequently overheated, and the crew watched the 1000 pound prop melt and fall off the plane. In another mishap, a pitchlocked prop blade separated, sliced through the fuselage, securing all engines and electric power, resulting in the crew performing a forced ditch in the sea with all crewmen making it out unharmed.

It's no surprise that many Patrol Plane Commander (PPC) boards include a propeller malfunction, embellished with foreign field operations and a few other odds and ends thrown in, to allow the prospective PPC to exercise judgment and apply NATOPS procedures/CRM. The upgrading pilots often claim "that scenario would never happen", but in fact there have been enough HAZREPS and Approach articles documented over the years to prove otherwise. Recently I experienced a propeller malfunction and felt like I was living out one of these PPC board scenarios. In my case, there was no dramatic outcome like a prop melting off or a ditch into the sea, but never the less there were a few challenges along the way.

In April/May of 2003, I was the second pilot of Patrol Squadron 92's crew 7, detached to FOL Manta Ecuador to conduct counter-narcotics operations. We remained vigilant throughout our detachment ops because we were operating at a relatively new location that had no terminal radar and were dealing with air traffic controllers who spoke very little conversational English. On the day of the emergency, we were fueled for a standard 10-hour mission. About 45 minutes into the flight while descending to our operating area, our number four engine oversped to 103.5%. That is the range, for which on certain malfunctions, the propeller may pitchlock fixing the blade angle of what is normally a variable pitch prop to prevent further change. Sometimes the overspeed may be caused electronically by the propeller synchrophaser and, if not pitchlocked, the overspeed may be corrected simply by turning off the sync switch. The prop procedures are written to encompass numerous malfunctions and are written after an "if-then fashion". If you "have this, do that"; if you "have this go to step so and so".

The incident occurred while in a descent to onstation. Immediately we stopped the descent and leveled off while initiating the propeller malfunction procedures. We did not know at this time that the prop was indeed pitchlocked. As we leveled we observed the RPM come back to 100% from 103.5%, with a fuel flow of 580 pph and engine turbine inlet temperature (TIT) of 600 deg C, all text book indications of a propeller that has decoupled from the engine's power section. We reached the point in the procedures where we determine if the prop is pitchlocked.

Now, only 30 seconds into the procedure, our CRM had broken down. The propeller was pitchlocked, but remained coupled to the engine. By coincidence, we initially had indications that the engine and prop were decoupled. Exercising the procedures, the pilot and copilot realized the prop was coupled, but the flight engineer (FE) still believed it was decoupled. In the P-3 the FE reads the procedures from the NATOPS manual and he began to proceed down the decoupled propeller section. After reading a few paragraphs, the Plane Commander realized that the cockpit crew had gone in two different directions so he stepped back to get the cockpit crew on the same page.

After reaching a stabilized condition, we turned toward base and remained VFR. We dumped the fuel that we could jettison from the center fuselage tank to reduce our landing weight. We began our coordination with the foreign controllers and the comms were exceptionally smooth. Next we had to decide whether or not to hold over the field and burn our fuel down, or to land at a maximum overweight of 114,000 pounds. The runway was long, 10,000 feet, and dry. The calculated landing ground roll distance was 4000 feet. We also checked climb performance, for a mildly sloping terrain upfield, in the event of a waveoff in the hot environment and overweight condition. Considering that prop blades may separate with certain pitchlocked malfunctions, the NFO's did not sit at their stations, which are in the propeller 'plane of rotation'. Weighing all the factors and utilizing good CRM, we decided to land at the max landing weight while conditions were relatively stable vice burning down to a lower weight and risking some unforeseen complication developing down the road.

With a pitchlocked prop the procedure calls for fuel chopping the engine prior to landing at a position far enough from the runway that power and control changes can be established prior to touchdown. There are three possible outcomes. The prop may reach certain conditions indicating enough prop fluid remaining to feather the propeller; it may windmill in the airstream (like a pinwheel) coupled to the engine; or it may windmill decoupled. We decided to fuel chop the engine just prior to the turn to a long ILS final. Our prop remained coupled to the engine and windmilled. The PPC made a standard approach and landing experiencing minimal control difficulty. The prop had been fixed at a very large (favorable) blade angle, and stopped rotating after landing rollout. Maintenance quickly determined that an internal failure of the propeller control had caused all propeller fluid to enter the atmospheric sump.

This event serves as a testament to successful CRM training, NATOPS procedures, and overall P-3 in-flight and simulator training. With a complex malfunction and confusing indications, good CRM skills kept our flight station coordinated. NATOPS states that it, "cannot cover every conceivable malfunction" and allows for PPC judgment, especially if faced with conflicting requirements. Judgment, CRM and headwork are some of the skills evaluated on PPC boards. We create scenarios to mirror this real world incident. In the boardroom the scenarios are academic and may seem far-fetched, but sometimes these complex events really do happen.

A BIT OF HISTORY: "...TSC changes hands - By JO1 Jeremy Allen, NAR PAO - 10/19/2003 7:30 AM EST - Naval Reserve NAS Brunswick, Maine http://reserves.navy.mil/ Public/ Staff/ Centers/ Forces+Command/ Centers/Naval+Air+Reserves/ Centers/ Brunswick/ WhatsNew/ ReservistNews/ TSC+CoC.htm..." [25APR2005]

NAR BRUNSWICK—Saturday September 20, at a ceremony held at the Surface Reserve Center the Naval Reserve Tactical Support Unit (TSC) 0197 changed their leadership.

Cmdr. Darwin Webster, who is heading for the NR Commander, Submarine Development Squadron Twelve Detachment 101 unit in New London, Conn., was replaced by the new Commanding Officer Cmdr. Gregory Brown, who is coming from VP-92.

"To me the best thing is being a part of the U.S. Navy," said Cmdr. Darwin Webster, while reflecting on his ceremony. "It has less to do with the particular billet or unit, although I could not have asked for a better assignment. I honestly believe that the U.S. Navy is composed of the most professional and dedicated people in the world. Just having the opportunity to work with the Selected Reservists and the active duty personnel assigned to Commander Patrol and Reconnissance Wing Five (CPRW-5) has been my greatest reward. A close second would be the privilege of helping junior people advance in their careers."

Thou these two men will come from different backgrounds they now share the one thing in common. Leading the men and women of TSC 0197.

"I've been a reservist since early 1994," said Cmdr. Gregory Brown who hails from Newton, Mass., "Being selected as the new commanding officer was obviously a great honor. I hope to be able to rise to the high standard of professionalism and dedication the members of the TSC have already set."

When asked what he will miss most about his post, Cmdr Webster had this to say.

"Hopefully, very little," said Cmdr. Webster. "I plan to continue to maintain contact with many of the great people that I have worked with over the past two years. It really doesn't get any better than this."

The new commanding officer has already set his sites on a new goal.

"I would like to make recruiting and retention a priority during my two years here," said Cmdr. Brown, of what he would like to do first. "Of course serving CPRW-5 in the best possible way is our first priority. But I'm looking forward to the next two years."

A BIT OF HISTORY: "...Noel Davis Trophy Winners Announced - Story Number: NNS030408-02 - Release Date: 4/7/2003 6:57:00 PM...http://www.news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=6710..." WebSite: Navy NewsStand http://www.news.navy.mil/ [08APR2003]

Noel Davis Trophy Winners Announced
Story Number: NNS030408-02
Release Date: 4/7/2003 6:57:00 PM
From Commander, Naval Reserve Force Public Affairs

NEW ORLEANS (NNS) -- Commander, Naval Air Force Reserve recently announced the winners of the 2002 Noel Davis trophies, an award which signifies battle efficiency.

"Your outstanding achievements reflect tremendous teamwork and dedication to the Naval Air Reserve team," said Commander, Naval Air Reserve Force Rear Adm. Dan Kloeppel to the winning squadrons.

Naval Reserve squadron winners were:

- Helicopter Combat Support Squadron (HCS) 5 of NAS Point Mugu, California, currently deployed to 5th Fleet in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. HCS-5 operates HH-60H helicopters in combat search and rescue operations.

- Patrol Squadron (VP) 92 of NAS Brunswick, Maine. VP-92 is engaged in anti-submarine warfare, flying P-3C Orion aircraft.

- Fighter Squadron (VFA) 201 of NAS Joint Reserve Base Fort Worth, Texas, currently deployed on USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71) engaged in Operation Iraqi Freedom. VFA-201 flies F/A-18C Hornet strike fighters.

- Adversary Fighter Squadron (VFC) 13 of NAS Fallon, Nevada. VFC-13 flies F-5 Tiger aircraft.

- Fleet Tactical Support Squadron (VR) 53 of Naval Air Field Washington. VR-53 operates C-130T Hercules, a heavy-lift aircraft.

- Fleet Tactical Support Squadron (VR) 56 of NAS Oceana, Virginia, which operates the C-9B Skytrain medium-lift aircraft.

- Fleet Tactical Support Squadron (VR) 61 of NAS Whidbey Island, Washington, which also operates the C-9B Skytrain. All of the VR squadrons are currently rotating aircraft through worldwide deployments.

Circa 2002

A BIT OF HISTORY: "...UNITAS Atlantic Phase Hones Readiness Level of Multinational Naval Force - Story Number: NNS021122-17 - Release Date: 11/25/2002 5:00:00 AM - By LT. j.g. Ligia Cohen, U.S. Naval Forces Southern Command..." Navy News Stand http://www.news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=4711 [02MAR2005]

SALVADOR, Brazil (NNS) -- The complexities of 12 surface combatants, two submarines, and several helicopters and fix-wing aircraft from six nations operating together as a combined force was the hallmark of UNITAS Atlantic Phase.

Hosted by the Brazilian Navy, naval forces from Argentina, Spain, Uruguay, Venezuela and the United States spent 20 days engaged in exercises designed to improve interoperability and to foster understanding among the naval forces of the participant nations.

Rear Adm. Vinson E. Smith, Commander U.S. Naval Forces Southern Command, commands the UNITAS task force and is in charge of all the U.S. naval forces participating in the four phases of this annual exercise. UNITAS Atlantic phase concluded this year's cycle, which started in February with the Caribbean phase hosted by the United States. In July, Chile hosted the Pacific Phase, while the amphibious phase was conducted bilaterally with several South American nations during a four-month deployment of USS Portland (LSD 37) and the embarked 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force.

Under the operational command of Capt. James L. Martin, Commander Destroyer Squadron 6, the U.S. task group engaged in training and operations in electronic, anti-submarine, anti-surface and submarine warfare. Communications, air defense and maritime interdiction operations were also heavily emphasized during UNITAS.

The U.S. participation included guided-missile cruiser USS Thomas S. Gates (CG 51), guided-missile frigate USS Simpson (FFG 56), P-3C aircraft from VP-92 and VP-61, two SH-60B helicopter detachments, a Fleet Maritime Patrol Mobile Operations Control Center, a detachment from Fleet Composite Squadron (VC) 6 and a communications assistance team.

"The wide range of naval operations covered in UNITAS Atlantic phase presented a great opportunity for participants to operate and train in a multiship environment," said Martin. "It's not just the surface portion, but also submarine and air exercises keep the crews focused on areas not normally exercised in this area of operations."

The at-sea portion of the exercise started off with demanding close-range tactical maneuvering operations. At times operating as close as 250 yards, the ships executed different types of formations for war fighting and practiced ship handling during evolutions, such as underway replenishments, restrictive waterways transit and air defense.

"These exercises allowed me to experience the challenges of working in extremely demanding situations and creating successful solutions," said Lt.j.g. Denise Garcia aboard USS Thomas S. Gates, homeported in Pascagoula, Miss. "Every (bridge) watch brought a new scenario and helped sharpen my problem-solving skills."

A series of opposed underway replenishments, vertical replenishments and refueling at sea operations were carried out to hone a key element in the ability of naval forces to sustain operations at sea, and the procurement of goods and supplies. During the exercise, the multinational force was refueled at sea by the Brazilian ship BNS Almirante Gastao Motta (G 23) and by the Venezuelan ship ARBV Ciudad Bolivar (T 81), while the air safety of the ships was ensured by the Brazilian ship BNS Bosisio (F 48), which was responsible for identifying and clearing all aircraft approaching within 50 nautical miles of the task group.

"The exercises tested the task group's ability to conduct replenishments at sea while under simultaneous attacks by diesel submarines, fast patrol boats and fighter aircraft," said Chief Operations Specialist (SW) Frederick Warren from U.S. Naval Forces Southern Command.

Thomas S. Gates led the training on maritime interdiction operations (MIO). These evolutions are widely conducted during coalition operations to fight illegal traffic and maintain the safety of the sea-lanes. During the MIO training, the Thomas S. Gates team boarded the Spanish ship SRS Reina Sofia.

"During a boarding, the team has three main goals: take control of the bridge, the engineering plant and the crew," said Senior Chief Gunner's Mate Dionicio Delgado, the MIO/ VBSS (visit, board, search and seizure) boarding team leader. "MIO boardings are inherently dangerous operations, and the training allows us to focus in the safety aspects of the evolution."

In support of one of the main goals of the exercise, to develop the force ability to coordinate attacks and battle group defense, the ships conducted a variety of live fire evolutions ranging from .50-caliber guns to surface-to-air missiles. The U.S. flagship Thomas S. Gates scored an impressive skin-on-skin kill on the first pass of the remote-controlled BMQ-64E aerial target drone launched by VC-6. On its part, the Mayport, Fla.-based frigate USS Simpson displayed readiness by successfully engaging the target.

"We got everything together and demonstrated how a successful missile shoot is done," said Fire Controlman 2nd Class (SW) Drew Holm, the weapons console operator aboard Simpson. "It was very exciting when I saw birds affirm and when I got batteries release."

"Once the bird leaves the rail, there is a combined feeling of relief and pride knowing that you got your job done," added Fire Controlman 1st Class (SW) Jason Fowler, Simpson's weapons control officer.

Later during the exercise, the participating ships conducted a three-day freeplay scenario, which involved a combined multinational response to enforce international sanctions similar to existing U.N. resolutions, which the Navy has been upholding for the previous decade.

"Submarines, aircraft and surface combatants combined to enforce an embargo. They established a no-fly zone and conducted a naval blockade against the aggressor," said Warren. "Additional challenging exercises conducted include a coordinated helo (penguin) attack, surface gunnery firing and a choke point transit exercise."

More than 60 operational events were completed during UNITAS Atlantic Phase. Each event was designed by naval experts from all nations involved to resemble to real-world situations.

"The Brazilian navy was a great host and put together an excellent schedule of events," said Commodore Martin. "This phase of UNITAS was extremely beneficial for the defense cooperation among all the participating countries."

After 59 years of existence, UNITAS, the premiere naval exercise in the region, continues to be a uniting force, bringing nations together to enhance the region defense and military interoperability.

---

Circa 2001

A BIT OF HISTORY: "... Elite Venture 2001 Tests Reservists for Drug - By Kerry Morrow..." WebSite: NAVSEA http://www.navsea.navy.mil/ featurestories_content.asp?txtDataID=1089&txtType ID=4 [07FEB2007]

Naval Reservists from Pennsylvania and Michigan shed their civilian attire in early June for a chance to suit up for some hard core simulated drug-interdiction training.

Elite Venture 2001 was held at Selfridge Air National Guard Base in Michigan to test the skills of Reservists who could find themselves assigned to a drug-interdiction mission.

Every aspect of Elite Venture, hosted by Tactical Support Center (TSC) 1173, an element of Naval Air Reserve Activity Center (NARA) Detroit, Mich., was planned to mirror real-time missions.

Active-duty personnel from Mobile Operation Control Center (MOCC) NAS Willow Grove, Pennsylvania, arrived a few days prior to the exercise to help the Reservists train for drug-interdiction scenarios.

Reserve aircrews from the Fixed Wing VP-92, NAS Willow Grove, Pennsylvania, brought a P-3-II plane to fly mission scenarios over Lake Superior, Lake Huron and Michigan's Upper Peninsula.

"Our yearly MOCC is the best training evolution we do here in Michigan," said Cmdr. Anthony T. Bell, TSC 1173's commanding officer. "We're so happy the Willow Grove VP-92 unit is flexible enough to come to Michigan to help us train."

The communications equipment and aircraft were protected 24-hours a day throughout the exercise by members of Force Protection Law Enforcement Security Unit (FP LEPSU) 0192, NARA Detroit. Elite Venture provided LEPSU personnel with valuable watch-standing experience. Each mission began with an intelligence briefing from Joint Forces Intelligence Command (JFIC) 0846.

Scenarios included a simulated "black list" of freighters suspected of dumping drugs overboard for pickup, and locations of possible drug processing labs.

Flight crews were instructed to make up to two attempts to identify a freighter, and if unable to do so, request permission from the watch commander for additional passes.

Aircrew would communicate a freighter's identity and location to personnel from TSC 1173 and TSC 0273, also based at NARA Detroit.

TSC Sailors plotted the position and course of each contact and logged the information into a computer database. Coordinates of hypothetical drug labs located deep in a Michigan forest were also logged. A debriefing was held after each mission to evaluate results.

Since 1998, the TSC units at NARA Detroit have held similar annual training exercises.

Exercises such as Elite Venture provide the valuable training needed to fulfill the unit's support mission with the Fleet's drug interdiction and Anti-Submarine Warfare activities.

---

"VP-92 History Summary Page"

---

---