Jets v Helos

[mb1k]

Try 3-a-day's from a 100+ degree ramp @ Tyndal when 40 years "young" .... then we'll talk.

Your method is wrong. I suspect you are spending too much time in the gym and not taking enough medicinal alcohol after the final debrief. It aids in acquiring a good night's sleep with the resultant recovery.

LOL!! Yeah ...I used to do a safe for solo check in the morning and then two PAs early morning to afternoon. Those were only twice a week, and a permanent sniv in ops. That was when I was 33-years old! 10X's a week ...man I was young!

 

[mb1k]

Wow. Instructor pilots are short of gear. That is unsat.

You know I've dumped 10000 pounds of gas immediately after coming off of a tanker to buster back for an unexpected charlie. That cost the taxpayers how many thousands of dollars? Yet in the same deployment I had to wait over a year for a flight jacket due to "lack of funds".

I'm staff right now, so it's not that bad. The PRs have said on many occasions that they would set me up with my own set of minty-new gear. But I felt bad having it sit on the rack for weeks at a time when someone flying each day could use it.

I'm going to tw0-$h1t you on the fuel dump story. I just took off at max weight and no sooner than 15 mins into the climb-out we get word from AWACS that the VUL is CNX for sandstorms over the AOR. You know how long it takes to dump 70,000 gals of fuel? Got the cheap thrill of watching our vapor trail as we orbited "... ooooo, aaaaah, oooooo. Ok I'm bored now."

 

[mb1k]

What's a G-Suit?

You're not allowed to talk anymore...

:icon_wink

 

[puck_11]

Thanks fly, it was actually my sister who took the picture, and I cropped the heads off. But thanks for looking

 

[Gatordev]

Does that have anything to do with the det nature of the community?
(Would that stand to change with HSM?)

Could be. Maybe that, in concert w/ the wing doing their own inspections before cruise. Then again, you'd think the same thing would happen in HSC/HC, but they seem to be more laid back. I don't know if historically it was the same thing, but it might have to do w/ being a community that has a bunch of tactics to learn and weapon systems to employ but then never quite gets the chance to use them. As a result, the occasional (and it's not everybody) tool box comes along and makes everyone's life miserable because there's nothing better to do. I have no idea about HSM, and will probably never find out unless I read it here.

 

[mb1k]

Could be. Maybe that, in concert w/ the wing doing their own inspections before cruise. Then again, you'd think the same thing would happen in HSC/HC, but they seem to be more laid back. I don't know if historically it was the same thing, but it might have to do w/ being a community that has a bunch of tactics to learn and weapon systems to employ but then never quite gets the chance to use them.

That's always bothered me too... I mean the question of "why us"? I wasn't like that in HSL when it was H-2s! When the SH-60B came along it seemed to bring with it some innate anal-retentiveness and P-3'isms. Being in a composite squadron of both SH-2s and 60Bs I could see the night and day difference in the HSL-37 wardroom.

 

[tlord82]

I have to ask: Why do the prop and helo communities put such stress on systems knowledge down to such nitnord (sp?) detail? Case in point my buddy on his first flight in the Cobra RAG had to brief the electrical system and do the "follow the electron" dance. Is there that much more that can be controlled from the cockpits than in jets? Of course systems knowledge is crucial, but I do not have near the detailed knowledge of the Hornet that my buddy has of the Cobra. (and I consider myself a good RAG student having memorized NATOPS)

 

[Flash]

I have to ask: Why do the prop and helo communities put such stress on systems knowledge down to such nitnord (sp?) detail? Case in point my buddy on his first flight in the Cobra RAG had to brief the electrical system and do the "follow the electron" dance. Is there that much more that can be controlled from the cockpits than in jets? Of course systems knowledge is crucial, but I do not have near the detailed knowledge of the Hornet that my buddy has of the Cobra. (and I consider myself a good RAG student having memorized NATOPS)

I have asked my self this same thing many times, and I keep going back to what an older EP-3, previously H-3, pilot told me. To paraphrase what he said "P-3 pilots need something to differentiate themsleves from each other, like boat guys have the greenie board, and systems knowledge does that." I still have yet to hear of a better explanation.

 

[Harrier Dude]

I have to ask: Why do the prop and helo communities put such stress on systems knowledge down to such nitnord (sp?) detail? Case in point my buddy on his first flight in the Cobra RAG had to brief the electrical system and do the "follow the electron" dance. Is there that much more that can be controlled from the cockpits than in jets? Of course systems knowledge is crucial, but I do not have near the detailed knowledge of the Hornet that my buddy has of the Cobra. (and I consider myself a good RAG student having memorized NATOPS)

In my opinion, there are two reasons.

1) They don't have an ejection seat. Whatever happens, they are going to have to deal with it until landing, even if it's at 10000 FPM rate of descent. If what they memorize helps them do that or makes them feel better, then it works for them.

2) It's harder to break themselves out as pilots in a squadron. They're flying ability isn't a easily distinguishable quaility. They build their reputation largely based on what they know about the aircraft. That's how they seperate the players from the non-players.

I'm sure there will be much wailing about #2 above, but it wasn't meant as an insult. It's just the way it appears to me.

 

[Gatordev]

In my opinion, there are two reasons.

1) They don't have an ejection seat. Whatever happens, they are going to have to deal with it until landing, even if it's at 10000 FPM rate of descent. If what they memorize helps them do that or makes them feel better, then it works for them.

2) It's harder to break themselves out as pilots in a squadron. They're flying ability isn't a easily distinguishable quaility. They build their reputation largely based on what they know about the aircraft. That's how they seperate the players from the non-players.

I'm sure there will be much wailing about #2 above, but it wasn't meant as an insult. It's just the way it appears to me.

Both astute observations. I don't totally buy 1) completely, but there's still some truth to it. I've seen questions that have answers that have nothing to do w/ what the person in the cockpit can do, but watch out if you don't know the answer.

As I've said before, it's not everybody. We all have certain levels of anal-ness. Personally, I think it's a good thing to know what all the antennas are for. Someone else, maybe not. But I certainly wouldn't fail someone for it, and I certainly wouldn't fail someone for not knowing the microns of a fuel filter or when a pressure light comes on that I can't control. Now if the person doesn't know what to do WHEN that light comes on, that's another issue.

 

[mb1k]

tlord82,

I wish I could answer that question. I really do. The honest truth is that I don't know, and I can't rationalize even why when trying to profile myself into the minds of these HSL/P-3 plank owners that have set it up that way. Honestly.

When I jumped ship and went to the AF, my systems knowledge experience was like yours in Hornets. Big, complex, multi-engine, Jurassic era recce jet, modern electronic survelliance suite, heavy duty generator (constant speed drives) system, and Rube-Goldberg aerial refueling plumbing... didn't have to trace one drop of fuel, tron, or nuth'n. Why not?!? Isn't this huge system more complex and needing of gnats-@$$ understanding than a modern SH-60B?!?

I'm confused...

 

[Scoob]

In my opinion, there are two reasons.

1) They don't have an ejection seat. Whatever happens, they are going to have to deal with it until landing, even if it's at 10000 FPM rate of descent. If what they memorize helps them do that or makes them feel better, then it works for them.

2) It's harder to break themselves out as pilots in a squadron. They're flying ability isn't a easily distinguishable quaility. They build their reputation largely based on what they know about the aircraft. That's how they seperate the players from the non-players.

Ground job does more for #2 than sys knowledge, but it is used to identify the NATOPS O candidates.

#1 is huge - its really more useful in knowing how to work around the gremlins IOT stay in the game, and when its time to no shit call it quits, than it is about saving you from a horrible death (but it helps there, too).

 

[Gatordev]

#1 is huge - its really more useful in knowing how to work around the gremlins IOT stay in the game, and when its time to no shit call it quits, than it is about saving you from a horrible death (but it helps there, too).

Eh. I understand what you're saying, and as someone who likes to know the aircraft and know ways to trick-fuck it into working, it's good stuff, but I think it's BS to grade someone to that level. As an FCP, I could give a more detailed brief on certain systems than some O-4 HACs, but since it's FCF related stuff, one shouldn't be graded on knowing that.

Another level of it could come from the "what did you do wrong" mentality that seems to be Navy-wide. I have no doubt there's some rule or reg that I could violate even if I tried to do everything right, for no other reason than I didn't know about it/forgot it. I think there are some that get wrapped around the axle about that and take it too far. You see this all the time at the TRACOM, but since it's (generally) an environment that tends to foster learning, people get reminded, learning occurs, and everybody is better for it.

 

[phrogpilot73]

What HarrierDude says has some ring of truth to it, but truth be told with the exception of one or two EP's, there's nothing that's going to kill you immediately in helo (perfect example - there are no land immediately EPs in the Phrog).

His observation about breaking out is sort of true, but it actually is kind of easy to figure out who the good pilots are and who are shit. Coming from a community that's reputation rests almost solely on whether we drop a frag or not, that in nane systems knowledge comes in handy. Case in point - Quantico in Feb is cold, cold enough that after we started and got the rotors turning, our Tranny oil pressure is not within limits. Not even close. The needles' not moving. So we troubleshoot for a while and then it dawns on me that the pressure light is out (so the switch is working). Decide to taxi for takeoff - and by the time we hit the departure end, needle was on the move and we supported our Frag.

Other reason would be knowing just how far you can push a "Land as Soon as Possible" emergency.

That's about the only things I can think of.

 

[Harrier Dude]

Ground job does more for #2 than sys knowledge, but it is used to identify the NATOPS O candidates.

Your ground job shows what kind of officer you are. That's why I said "break themselves out as pilots", instead of officers.

In my mind, you will always be judged on 3 areas in a squadron.

1) Piloting skill.
2) Ground job.
3) Personality/bar act.

If you have two of these areas covered well, people will still want you in the squadron. You'll do fine.

If you have all three, then you are on the path to greatness.

If you only have one, no matter how strong you are in that area, you'll get shitcanned. Simple as that.

By the way, NATOPS Officer in a single seat jet squadron is usually some boot that just showed up or is a colatteral duty for the DOSS. It's an entry level JO job for us, not an all encompassing SME on minutia.