-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
That's flipping gay. We should get vertrep back! :p
- Thread starter BACONATOR
- Start date
Sad but true ...
Pumas. Are. Ugly.
Pumas. Are. Ugly.
And allegedly, aren't nearly as fast, or effective at doing VERTREP than we are.
When I was on the Arctic in 2008, we got to work with the Pumas on some of the other supply ships. Those guys are super fast at VERTREP, although not quite as accurate considering they only have mirrors and no crewman. My OIC knew a couple of the pilots because they were retired Phrog skippers, so they had a shit ton of hours and experience (making them super fast). They also don't give a shit about crew day, maintaining day/night/NVG DLQ currency, SAR training, gun shoots, flight hours or any of the other baggage associated with a traditional SAR DET.
All in all, they seemed to be the way of the future considering the headache they saved the USNS logistically.
Plus, for those out there who are trying to push the CSAR mission into the HSC community, somebody has to sling loads (a job the 60 isn't that well suited for anyway).
All in all, they seemed to be the way of the future considering the headache they saved the USNS logistically.
Plus, for those out there who are trying to push the CSAR mission into the HSC community, somebody has to sling loads (a job the 60 isn't that well suited for anyway).
But they're cheaper. And that's what The Man cares about.
On a more constructive note ...
Out on the Bataan, we VERTREPed as much as the Pumas did. I don't know if this is the standard for a Gator Det, but we probably had one operational VERTREP every three to four weeks, and it was almost like we alternated with the Pumas on who did it (most likely due to the fact that we were getting services from different supply ships!) Photographic proof: here's me picking some retro from the Big 5 a few months ago.
Out on the Bataan, we VERTREPed as much as the Pumas did. I don't know if this is the standard for a Gator Det, but we probably had one operational VERTREP every three to four weeks, and it was almost like we alternated with the Pumas on who did it (most likely due to the fact that we were getting services from different supply ships!) Photographic proof: here's me picking some retro from the Big 5 a few months ago.
Cheaper, yes. And that is always the bottom line, but it doesn't mean I can't want a VERTREP det aboard a sweet USNS vessel!
And as for wlawr.. I'm just repeating what was seen by guys who have "BTDT". Puma can't carry as much weight as we can. When they DO have a load, they can't sling it around/sideflare it like we can (due to being near max gross) and they aren't as fast/accurate because they don't have the crewman etc.
First off, I love a good vertrep as much as any other HSC bubba. That being said, Big Navy cares very little for the hurt feelings of HC bubbas who don't get to vertrep as much anymore. With so many ships having organic H-60 assets, there's not as much need for dedicated vertrep assets. Sure, a 60B or 60F can't sideflare and it can't carry quite as much as a 60S, but it can carry enough to get resupply a small boy. Back in the day we had specialized helos. H-2s and H-3s couldn't vertrep squat. So you needed a dedicated vertrep helo. Not so much anymore. And for the Puma guys, instead of having to pay for 6 pilots and 6 crewman per det and all of their associated costs, the Navy doesn't have to pay as much for a Puma Driver. Big Navy doesn't care about sideflares, buttonhooks or how close you got the load to the T line. They care about results (ship supplied? yes or no) and money. And if the results are the same, the decision is made based on money not my or your budding love of vertrep.
Learn to love your MTS and EWS. There's a lot more future there.
That's fine...just remember that when you have the aux tank rigged your max load goes to shit (unless you want to get gas every 1+45) and "slinging it around" led to "cracked airframes". Unfortunately, the sideflare swagger that we all loved about HC and the -46 is gone. Every tail rotor aircraft blows at VERTREP once the winds get up there anyway.
Nowadays there is so much interchanging of HS and HC mentality that I'm afraid even the esprit d'corps associated with the VERTREP DETS of old will soon be missed.
No, it's not. We still do it. Or, at least, they are still teaching it at the RAG.
And as I understand it, the cracks were not serious or threatening to down the aircraft, were not a result of VERTREP and have since been mitigated.
The Sideflare is a NATOPS maneuver. It's still in there, and we still do it.
Sir, I understand the sideflare is a NATOPS manuever and its applications in the aircraft. My point was that the swagger has been lost. At least some guys who have "BTDT" told me so.
I don't know... it seems that every time the topic comes up with an IP, they get a glint in their eye and proceed to talk about how "Badass" it is.... if that's not swagger I've been seeing, I'd be curious to see how they used to act in HC...
Dude, calm down and slow your roll.
Wlawr is a prior Sierra crewchief and has done more than his fair share of sideflares and vertrep. I'd hazard to guess that he's done a few more sideflares than you did in the RAG. What he meant was the swagger that comes from an old school HC vertrep cruise.
The cracks were serious enough to down each aircraft that had a crack. Then each aircraft had to go through a long repair process that kept the aircraft from flying for months. I never heard if they found a precise cause of the crack, but everything I read on the cracks when I was writing multiple hazreps for our cracked birds indicated that cyclical loading/unloading from landings, takeoff, and vertrep loads coming on and off was a leading contender for the cause. Sideflares themselves didn't cause the cracks, but the vertrep the sideflares were part of might have caused them.
Misunderstanding due to the internets and my poor reading comprehension. I am aware that wlawr was a crewchief and I know he knows wtf he's talking about.
All cleared up now.
EDIT: As for the cracks, I am reading through a slideshow, as we speak, from the then-HSC-3 NATOPS program manager, which is where I was getting my claims from the cracks before. I just assumed it was a valid source. Perhaps a faulty assumption.