Comparing the PATCH and MATCH

For the next dozen or so posts, my discussions will be specific to the MH-60T helicopter. Although a capable platform, multiple avionics upgrades have created some idiosyncratic characteristics worth noting for future operators. In the MH-60T, PATCH (precision approach to a coupled hover) and MATCH (manual approach to a controlled hover) are the two methods pilots utilize to establish themselves in a hover referencing only the instruments. These maneuvers have evolved over the decades, and because of the changes, their names are no longer accurate and can now be misleading. The PATCH is far less precise than the MATCH and the MATCH can (and in many cases should) terminate in a coupled hover. Here is a comparison of the two maneuvers: 

MATCH pros: 

• If the MATCH is well flown, it is precise. FD cues provide guidance to a specific location which can be critical in an environment with static/not moving obstacles (e.g., terrain in close vicinity to target hover location).   

• MATCH can be flown out of the wind line with a course to track over the ground. 

MATCH cons: 

• Although the pilots are harnessing flight director cues, the flight director is not coupled to the flight controls so the approach is hand flown, which decreases overall situational awareness as one pilot must focus on controlling the aircraft manually. 

• Set up is static and relatively involved. Programming the MATCH in the FMS takes a proficient pilot a minute. Double checking work and making any changes (approach course, location of hover, groundspeed, hover height, etc.), will take a few more minutes. If the target is moving (e.g., a ship), by the time the MATCH is set up and the helicopter is in a position to affect the instrument approach, the hover position is invalid.   

PATCH pros: 

• The PATCH is flown by the autopilot, which increases overall situational awareness, as both pilots are backing up the computer. 

• It automatically terminates in a coupled hover, making the transition from approach to controlled hover seamless. 

• It is simple and set up is efficient. All that is required is adjustment of the two potentiometers and then a push of a button. 

• It is dynamic and can be adapted moment to moment using real-time RADAR returns. The helicopter can be maneuvered into the wind in relation to a radar contact while the gate and heading are adjusted throughout.  

PATCH cons: 

• The PATCH is flown using a gate (distance from a hover point adjusted for wind). However, it is not precise (more to follow, but in my humble opinion, the gate is too close for most cases these days – it has never been corrected for increases in hover capability with minimal visual cues – EGI derived hover bars and NVDs). 

• The helicopter does not fly the PATCH well out of the wind line. The autopilot/AFCS wants to turn the helicopter into the wind, which requires pilot control intervention, decreasing precision and increasing pilot workload.  

• The PATCH was originally designed by the Navy to aid their helicopter pilots flying visual approaches to a hover. As a result, the deceleration is lower and more dynamic than what is ideal for an instrument maneuver, requiring a sound knowledge of the profile for timely detection of anomalies.