53s vs 60s

[HH-60H]

Negative...Neither have RAIM capability...like the TH-57C ...which I believe is the only Naval Aircraft certified for use in IFR.

~D

They've been saying that since I was flying -57s, that's when they were first installing the darn things. You would think by now some other Naval Aircraft would be able to fly GPS approaches.

 

[S.O.B.]

You can fly a GPS approach in the 53 (the needle slaves to the GPS and approaches are stored in the brick) it’s just not certified for some reason.

 

[MasterBates]

VERY humbling...scared the crap out of the PC at Whiting...as well as myself.

Flying with "Possum"...heard his stories about flying the TH-57B to the oil rigs and back everyday...

~D

POSSUM ROCKS!

 

[Gatordev]

They've been saying that since I was flying -57s, that's when they were first installing the darn things. You would think by now some other Naval Aircraft would be able to fly GPS approaches.

C-20s (or whatever they call the G IV) have certified GPSessses. They'll file K-Bay direct NPA and be above everyone. No one screws with them and they're going like a bat out of hell at about ~40K feet.

 

[BigIron]

You can fly a GPS approach in the 53 (the needle slaves to the GPS and approaches are stored in the brick) it’s just not certified for some reason.

NAVAIR has certified the MAGR GPS for enroute and terminal areas (non prec. only). I am using it tonight for an O&I.

 

[1rotorhead]

If you didn't know what the DA was, why were you trying to land? That might help you figure out how much power was required. You don't have to be trained in mountain flying to know how to punch charts. Just winging it at that altitude gets people hurt.

 

[ChunksJR]

If you didn't know what the DA was, why were you trying to land? That might help you figure out how much power was required. You don't have to be trained in mountain flying to know how to punch charts. Just winging it at that altitude gets people hurt.

I hope to god that you weren't talking to me...and if you were, I didn't fly it...another HAC on our det did. As for punching charts...they did. AND they even did the 1000' hover above the LZ as per the SAR TACAID for determining Pa going into an LZ. They had the power. It was the downdraft that hit them from the rear that made them lose headwind component and translational lift with it. No one was winging anything.

It's the experience in a mountain LZ that was lacking...and the Navy tends to "wing" sending unqualified dets into zone when it benifits their needs...but we were the closest availible assets and the Pakistani people needed help...so we did it without concern to our own lives and we'd probably do it again...I wish I was out there with them, but I was the only FCP in Bahrain, and we were still running supplies to the NAG with our 3rd aircraft...so I didn't go. Blue water assets need to get the kind of training that we've been talking about before doing something like that.

 

[1rotorhead]

Absolutely agree about the training. Flying out to Lynchburg/Roanoke and calling that a "mountain flying" hop is ridiculous, yet it still happens. Ding on the squadrons for calling that training.

 

[hscs]

Unfortunately, the SAR tacaid doesn't have the best info on power checks for an LZ -- Chapter 9 of all the H60 manuals goes into much better depth about the how you should approach a mountain LZ. The absolute minimum is 4 approaches to allow you determine wind (2 approaches), 1 as a "practice approach", and 1 last approach a landing with an option for a waveoff. Winds in the mountains are not steady, but I am sure the crew would have noticed that they downdrafts or that they were about to make a downwind approach had they used the NATOPS procedures.

The SAR tacaid is a multi platform pub -- the NATOPS gives a far better explanation on how to get into an LZ with an H60.

 

[ChunksJR]

Unfortunately, the SAR tacaid doesn't have the best info on power checks for an LZ -- Chapter 9 of all the H60 manuals goes into much better depth about the how you should approach a mountain LZ. The absolute minimum is 4 approaches to allow you determine wind (2 approaches), 1 as a "practice approach", and 1 last approach a landing with an option for a waveoff. Winds in the mountains are not steady, but I am sure the crew would have noticed that they downdrafts or that they were about to make a downwind approach had they used the NATOPS procedures.

The SAR tacaid is a multi platform pub -- the NATOPS gives a far better explanation on how to get into an LZ with an H60.

Yeah, well, I wasn't there and I'm not about to Monday morning quarterback on what they all did and did not do. Either way...glad that they didn't break themselves or the aircraft and made it to fly another day.

 

[S.O.B.]

NAVAIR has certified the MAGR GPS for enroute and terminal areas (non prec. only). I am using it tonight for an O&I.

5That settles it the 53 beats the 60 in every way possible. :icon_smil

 

[hscs]

What do you call an H-53 pilot with a 1000 hours in model?


"Skipper"

 

[1rotorhead]

Good one.

 

[S.O.B.]

Having done both I love the HC way of logging flight time. I have several 2.3s in a Sierra? I think what we have here is a hold over from the frogs where they ignored 3710 and had their own rules (due to the 8 hr limit on the head) indecently 700 53Hrs = 1100 HC hours.

As for the C.O. with a thousand hours my last one was wearing 3000 and most finish their J.O. tour with 1000-1100 total not in model. But again this is true Taxi to 5 mins after stop. Typically J.O.s also end up with close to 100 2K2 time so that means well over 1000 hours turning on deck.

 

[MasterBates]

I need a "1000 hour ground turn" patch, in the vein of the "1000 blue chair hour" patch from the HTs.