Well like most Eurocopters the fuel cells are just big agricultural hoppers so the fuel sloshes around changing CG often. Big Army decided they could do without air conditioning.......too bad the A/C was for the avionics not the pilots so the AVI stuff fails often. Other than that I hear it is doing great from the National Guard types I asked........they miss the jet ranger.
Ive only talked to a couple Flat Iron (Local Medivac Unit) guys about it and heard the same rumors as everybody else around here. Basically the overall theme was it was a great helicopter... before the Army got a hold of it. The local Commander is apparently trying to find anybody that will listen to authorize him funding for some sort of retrofit that will allow it to carry two liters. It doesnt like the heat down here at all and they have a problem with the local DA. But hey we can do hoist ops so thats a fair trade I guess.... I like the original concept behind it. Get something to go looking for lost hikers and retarded mountain climbers in Utah and North Dakota and free up more 60's to deploy. Now there is talk from guys who are going back to Guard units with them that they may deploy anyway.
The Army says it can carry two litters and a medical attendant, is it an aircraft or an Army restriction?
My last Flight Commander was one of the first Cobra guys. Apparently they didnt have A/C in that thing either .... in South East Asia. Somebody basically said "well they dont have it on the Huey so they wont need it on the Cobra." To bad they failed to realize that you can open a window on a Huey not so much on the Cobra.
All I know is it wont in its currant configuration here at Rucker. My stick buddy is a former Crew Chief on Medevac Hawks and they have the same deal. What it says on paper and what it can actually do change due to mission equipment restrictions.
Yes. They wear the same wings as you do. In fact many of those pilots have more goggle time than you have total time. If your post was in jest, then disregard.
Dissimilar form? Unless this flight included a comparison of TTPs, a walkthrogh, a 2hr brief and an extensive ORM analysis approved by both aircraft's TYCOM then you sir are some sort of cowboy.
That's an interesting point. I wonder if, when the original rule was written, they even thought about helicopters. I'm guessing no.
What unit was he in? The system in the -60 can set up for 6, but we never do and most go with 4 if needed, although typical missions we are set up for 2, easy for the medic to attend only those 2 patients, with the backseats set up for walking wounded. Regardless of the issues with the -72, I'm looking at maybe doing a LUH transition after deployment. @Spanky-Nice shots, what kind of AFCS do you guys have in the -65 compared to the -60J/T? Besides the engines, what else was upgraded from the 65A to 65C?
I don't think it's a big deal, but somewhere buried in 3710 (I think it is) there's some "rule" by the "man" to keep us down. We formed up w/ the H-3s all the time, as well. I don't remember the exact story as to it's origins, but it was something along the lines of a T-34 forming up on something heavier and mayhem ensued. Hmmm...now that I think about it, maybe it was a TRACOM rule, but I thought it had extended to 3710, as well. Pags: save us w/ your "facts" (don't have time to dig up the 3710 right now).
Nice photos...I'm moving in @ JRB New Orleans and I've already been hearing the sweet sound of -65's launching out. Nice to see some CG pride!!
In from the south with facts.... I want to say it was a TRACOM SOP rule due to a mishap following a T-34 forming up on an F-14 for a gear check (or that's the story I heard). 3710 doesn't prohibit it, it just says you should do a brief to include the plan for the flight and everyone's limitations, etc. In my earlier post I was just being snarky about the "can't do anything that could be percieved as bad" attitude that comes down from above. God forbid if you do something perfectly kosher in your aircraft, but that doesn't jive with someone else's (usually senior) preconceived notions. Even worse if there are pictures involved.
159 Med. He said the most they ever carried was 4 but that was as needed. The 72 issue just bothers me that not more than 2 months ago we had a crash down here which was a perfectly good example of needing to carry more than one litter. The only saving grace to that incedent was that there were only two on board. Unfortunately only one of those two made it. Now we cant do SEF's and actually roll the throttle off but we can fly 3 to an Aircraft without the capability to medivac those 3 if something does happen. With all the PL's that happen on a daily basis down here... Sounds like its just the way we do buisness until somebody gets killed by it.
Just looked it up myself because it was bugging me. I hate it when one community rule transmorgifies itself in my brain into another community rule. I agree. Obviously Brett is just executing his O-4 fun-sponge mantra.
It's a both funny and annoying when TRACOM rules trickle into the fleet because people remember them as gospel, not as TW-X SOP. The classic example, of course, is the SIGMET.
Yep.. I was told "we gotta CANX for a SIGMET" by a SNFO the other day. I basically went "O RLY?" We went flying anyways. Said SNFO was kicked out of plane.
True. Another example is the belief that if you file IFR, you have to file w/ your tailcode. They even have ATC believing that here. However... From the several thousand hours/reserve point of view, is there really a reason to be flying in an active SIGMET. Sure, no problem if it's clear, but I see guys go fly when it's obviously crappy out and I have to ask what are you really accomplishing that makes it worth the potential risk. More an issue for helos than fast movers, obviously.
From what little I know about the UH-72 and from what you said, it appears to be a choice by the unit or the Army not to carry two litters and not an aircraft limitation. It is not the first time a service or a unit has limited an aircraft beyond it's manufacturer limitations or capabilities, sometimes for good reasons and sometimes for not so good.
