The 45 degree approach to the deck seems to take in account both worlds of straight in and sideflare and is pretty fast.
-
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
The 45 degree approach to the deck seems to take in account both worlds of straight in and sideflare and is pretty fast.
The sideflare, while a lot of fun, is not the answer to all your vertrep needs. Other approaches have their time and place, depending on the positioning of ships, winds, obstructions, and the weight of the load. With a monster load on, you're not going to be doing aggressive sideflares. More than likely, you'll be doing straight ins.
Here's an old school phrog vertrep video:
Look for the shots of the ships doing conrep. That's when the sideflare is at it's best and you can get glimpses of "The Dance". You can see that they have 2 helos moving supplies between the two ships. When one helo is picking a load on the supply ship, the other is dropping it on the Inchon. As the helo with the load picks (privileged a/c) transitions from the supply ship to the big deck, the other, non-loaded (burdened a/c) helo takes the long way back to the supply ship to hook up the next load. This process gives you an almost continual flow of loads between the two ships, far outpacing the ability of the shoes to send crap over the wire.
Look for the shots of the ships doing conrep. That's when the sideflare is at it's best and you can get glimpses of "The Dance". You can see that they have 2 helos moving supplies between the two ships. When one helo is picking a load on the supply ship, the other is dropping it on the Inchon. As the helo with the load picks (privileged a/c) transitions from the supply ship to the big deck, the other, non-loaded (burdened a/c) helo takes the long way back to the supply ship to hook up the next load. This process gives you an almost continual flow of loads between the two ships, far outpacing the ability of the shoes to send crap over the wire.
As a vet of a USNS det (an HC det at that 
since it was before HSC was introduced on 1APR2005), we did 7 months of cruise. Being honest, and not trying to display "the swagger" of an HC det "of old"...
Recently got a chance to watch an ammo offload evolution with mostly straight in approaches. Took a ridiculous amount of time (approx. 1-1.2 loads/min) as opposed to the sideflare approach that we used (approx. 1.8-2 loads/min).
I understand as well that the sideflare doesn't compliment the cracks on the airframe, but the limits were demonstrated as safe.
2 questions for those in the "know" (since it's been 4 years since I've looked at a MH-60S NATOPS):
1) Did they remove the sideflare manuever from the NATOPS? and 2) Did they remove the 45 KIA sidewards flight limit?
If the answers to the above are "no", have commanding officers stated that there will be no "sideflares" in the aircraft in their SOPs?
since it was before HSC was introduced on 1APR2005), we did 7 months of cruise. Being honest, and not trying to display "the swagger" of an HC det "of old"...Recently got a chance to watch an ammo offload evolution with mostly straight in approaches. Took a ridiculous amount of time (approx. 1-1.2 loads/min) as opposed to the sideflare approach that we used (approx. 1.8-2 loads/min).
I understand as well that the sideflare doesn't compliment the cracks on the airframe, but the limits were demonstrated as safe.
2 questions for those in the "know" (since it's been 4 years since I've looked at a MH-60S NATOPS):
1) Did they remove the sideflare manuever from the NATOPS? and 2) Did they remove the 45 KIA sidewards flight limit?
If the answers to the above are "no", have commanding officers stated that there will be no "sideflares" in the aircraft in their SOPs?
If it makes you feel any better, we typically refer to the Sierra as "Sideflare" (kind of an unofficial call sign - and a term of endearment - for the HSC dets).
Unfortunately, I haven't seen much of the sweet sideflare action (as demonstrated in the Pags video) from the Sierra types.
HC-11 (now HSC-21) used to use "Sideflare" as their VFR callsign...probably the originator of that lil' tradition. Ahhh...memories.
As a vet of a USNS det (an HC det at that
Recently got a chance to watch an ammo offload evolution with mostly straight in approaches. Took a ridiculous amount of time (approx. 1-1.2 loads/min) as opposed to the sideflare approach that we used (approx. 1.8-2 loads/min).
I understand as well that the sideflare doesn't compliment the cracks on the airframe, but the limits were demonstrated as safe.
2 questions for those in the "know" (since it's been 4 years since I've looked at a MH-60S NATOPS):
1) Did they remove the sideflare manuever from the NATOPS? and 2) Did they remove the 45 KIA sidewards flight limit?
If the answers to the above are "no", have commanding officers stated that there will be no "sideflares" in the aircraft in their SOPs?
No to all of the above.
I can appreciate why you don't want to hear it, but outsourcing can save a ton of money. VERTREP is the main cause of fatigue in Sierra airframes, so any VERTREP they don't do means more flying down the road (see the Airframe Fatigue Enhancement Update from SAC/299 if you have access).
More importantly, you have to keep in mind that manpower is the single largest cost-driver for the military. Every detachment we don't send out (and thus don't man/train/equip) represents a significant savings to the military. Don't get me wrong, I would never bet my own money that the Navy took those billets and flight hours and did something "better" with them, but at least they can.
The argument about being faster is pointless - VERTREP only has to be fast enough, there is little tangible benefit to going faster (yes the Boss on a CVN might be happy that he can get back to other flight ops faster but let's face it, if VERTREP was really impacting combat ops they'd just tell you to come back later).
Then I'm sideflaring.
Well, I guess things have changed. This wasn't the main cause when I left in 2006 (but could be now I guess).
It's not the boss. It's the CVN CO (at least it was him at the other end of the phone while I was standing HCO that day). And when VERTREP is the only mission of the day, ie on/off loads, for which there is no contract for, it was indeed about speed (well, and safety). Again, only talking from my perch 7 levels above the CVN flight deck.
Which really goes back to what I questioned before. If VERTREP/Sideflares/flying sideways causes "significant and verifyable stress" in any way shape or form, it should be a prohibited manuever. Otherwise, seems like we just theorize a lot of what "could" be a cause of a complicated manufacturing defect.
Any maneuver is going to cause stress in an airframe. It's just the case of balancing the needs of the fleet vs. the need to maintain the life of the airframe. One day some kid is not going to be doing a sideflare and have the aircraft fold up around him. Bert can speak to this better than I can, but if that were the case, NAVAIR/299 would have said "no" to this practice along time ago.
I hope that never happens, due to the CPMI that has been in the works since 2004. The Wings and COs, however, always have the SOP that can trump the NATOPS if it was truly a concern though. I'm sure the east coast would initiate that instruction first.
Which goes back to: How serious is Pax River/Sikorsky about preventing "undue" stress on the MH-60S? I found the sideflare more effective in controlling airspeed than "looking cool" and we could, indeed, get VERTREPs done quicker moving faster which benefited the entire ship (especially USNS's masters that are so concerned with overtime/meal pay).
