That's flipping gay. We should get vertrep back! :p

[bert]

Well, I guess things have changed. This wasn't the main cause when I left in 2006 (but could be now I guess).
...

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.

It isn't sideflares, it is the loading/unloading cycle of the VERTREP itself (or any repetitive loading/unloading) especially as the load or gross weight grows. Straight in vs. sideflare really doesn't make it much better. Get a copy of the brief I mentioned and look at the finite element analysis conducted by SAC and you can see why a lot of us maintain that sideflares are not the issue.

I'm really on your side in this - I agree that losing VERTREP (even if not all of it) sucks. If you argue that outsourcing is bad for pilots I completely agree. To argue that it is bad for the Navy is a lot tougher. And if you look at the post I made earlier, I certainly don't advocate banning sideflares or lowering the sidewards flight limits, I was just pointing out that it would be very easy for the powers that be to do so whether the analysis justifies it or not. Remember, there are no shortage of senior officers from non-HC backgrounds that don't care for the maneuver anyways.

 

[Pags]

It isn't sideflares, it is the loading/unloading cycle of the VERTREP itself (or any repetitive loading/unloading) especially as the load or gross weight grows. Straight in vs. sideflare really doesn't make it much better. Get a copy of the brief I mentioned and look at the finite element analysis conducted by SAC and you can see why a lot of us maintain that sideflares are not the issue.

I'm really on your side in this - I agree that losing VERTREP (even if not all of it) sucks. If you argue that outsourcing is bad for pilots I completely agree. To argue that it is bad for the Navy is a lot tougher. And if you look at the post I made earlier, I certainly don't advocate banning sideflares or lowering the sidewards flight limits, I was just pointing out that it would be very easy for the powers that be to do so whether the analysis justifies it or not. Remember, there are no shortage of senior officers from non-HC backgrounds that don't care for the maneuver anyways.

While not a significant sampling of data, the birds that cracked in my old squadron were all Block I birds that had a lot of VERTREP time. None of the Blk IIs had any cracks in them. But the different blocks were subjected to different stresses. Our Blk IIs were flying straight and level flights with few landings over a 4-6hr period and were doing miniscule to no vertrep. Blk I aircraft were going on USNS and Gator SAR cruises. The VERTREP birds were doing numerous VERTREPs over 6mo cruises. If you figure 1-2 loads/min, each one of those VERTREP aircraft is being cycled 100 times per 2hr bag. For a full day of vertrep, that could be close to 1000 cycles. Those cycles are going to happen regardless of whether you're doing straight-ins or sideflares. That's a lot of cycles and therefore a lot of fatigue after a cruise. All the birds went through the required ECPs and came back flying. Since the ECPs were finished and when I left, we hadn't had anymore airframe cracks. But we also hadn't sent out any other VERTREP dets. Like I said, not necessarily significant, but anecdotal.

 

[HeyJoe]

Goddamnit. I deserved this.

What? Your threadjack gets a life of its own on a topical subject? Be proud....

 

[ChunksJR]

Like I said, not necessarily significant, but anecdotal.

And isn't this the semi-annual cracks discussion...

What happened to the theory that it was the anti-ice and blade folding mechanism's/weight on the head that was never fully vibrationally (I think I made up a word) tested on the H-60A frame that was causing it? By the time that the block IIs came out, they were already adjusting the production line (I thought) because of these significant differences...hmmm...

Just wonderin'

 

[HeyJoe]

Here you go (Otto: hi res version available for your wall)

091012-N-9132C-023 PACIFIC OCEAN (Oct. 12, 2009) An MH-60S Sea Hawk helicopter, assigned to the Blackjacks of Helicopter Sea Combat Squadron (HSC) 21, loads cargo onto the flight deck of the aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76) during a vertical replenishment. The Ronald Reagan Carrier Strike Group is on a routine deployment to the U.S. 7th Fleet area of responsibility. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Oliver Cole/Released)

 

[wlawr005]

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.

When I checked into HC-8 in 2003, there were 2 -60's and 8 -46's. A LOT of the guys in that video taught me A LOT about helicopters.

And isn't this the semi-annual cracks discussion...

What happened to the theory that it was the anti-ice and blade folding mechanism's/weight on the head that was never fully vibrationally (I think I made up a word) tested on the H-60A frame that was causing it? By the time that the block IIs came out, they were already adjusting the production line (I thought) because of these significant differences...hmmm...

Just wonderin'

Those big, beefy bifilars on Blk II's are supposed to be one of the modifications that helped with that issue.

 

[HeyJoe]

More Puma action

091013-N-9123L-181 INDIAN OCEAN (Oct. 13, 2009) The guided-missile destroyer USS McCampbell (DDG 85) conducts a vertical replenishment with an AS332 Super Puma helicopter from the Military Sealift Command dry cargo ammunition ship USNS Richard E. Byrd (T-AKE 4). McCampbell is underway as part of Amphibious Force U.S. 7th Fleet, providing humanitarian assistance and support for earthquake relief efforts at the request of the Indonesian government. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Byron C. Linder/Released)

 

[Screamtruth]

Not to stray from the point; and a little off topic, but we are seeing more Pumas in the Gulf of Mexico. Era helicopters has a hard on for them for some reason, while PHI has been keeping up the Sikorsky side going with 76's and 92's.

I hate em....................wish we could just have 412's like we used to.

 

[HeyJoe]

A bit of commercial VERTREP history or Where did those Pumas come from?

If you think the Puma is ungly, how the K-MAX that got the notion of Commercial VERTREP considered in the first place?

Back in 1995, the Military Sealift Command was approached by Kaman, builders of the spunky little SH-2 Seasprite LAMPS helo and a novel very simple one-man VFR only logging helicopter they thought might be an affordable alternative VERTREP workhorse for the Military Sealift Command. Kaman kept making their case until they got a chance in 1995 when the Sealift Command asked for bidders to propose their solutions. By then, Sikorsky and a Boeing/Westland team smelled opportunity and responded as well to snatch the prize of a two month at sea demo. Sikorsky bid their H-60 while Boeing teamed with Westland and offered the EH101.

The prize was a succession of seven field trials comprising the range of VERTREP missions using only two helicopters. If successful, the Navy would consider a follow-on of two year evaluation. Due to extensive prep work by the founder of Kaman Aerospace himself and simplicity and low cost of the K-MAX(R) proposal, Kaman was awared the initial trial period and then the option for a further 180-day at sea demonstration aboard USNS Niagara Falls out of Guam. Kaman provided the pilots, maintenance crew and logistics support under a charter lease concept.

However, when MSC decided to expand the lease, Evergreen was awarded the $4.5M contract in 1997 to Evergreen for a six-month deployment aboard USNS Saturn in support of 6th Fleet OPS. Evergreen had proposed to use Sikorsky S-61A helicopters, but had yet to acquire them prior to contract award announcement. When the award was announced, they found the helicopters it planned to acquire from Louisiana Pacific had been sold to another firm, which necessitated a switch to a combination of a Bell Textron 212 and 214ST variants.

In 1999, an expanded lease worth $20.3M was competed and out of virtually nowhere, a much smaller Colorado based company, Geo-Seis Helicopters was awarded the 3 three year contract for VERTREP missions aboard three (T-AFS)-class combat stores ships. Geo-Seis provided two Eurocopter SA-330J Pumas for deployment aboard USS Sirius and then transitioned to USS Saturn.

 

[squorch2]

Which probably, although not definitely, shows it's not what you know...

 

[llnick2001]

If the answers to the above are "no", have commanding officers stated that there will be no "sideflares" in the aircraft in their SOPs?

As a recent HSC-3 grad and a member of the most recent transitioning HSc squadron I'll tell you what our thinking (at least as I see it) is. I don't think any of us take issue with the sideflare as a maneuver used at the appropriate time and place (both our skipper and xo have said something to this effect to the wardroom at different times). What I take issue with is when I see some jackass doing the 50ish knot "oh I'll be under 45 by the time I'm sideways" shit hot overshooting sideflare into pad 10 for the pits. You don't see the guys from HS-10 doing button hooks to the pad, though it is a completely legal maneuver.

 

[phrogdriver]

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.
.

Swagger? You're carrying pallets. Really?

 

[Pags]

Swagger? You're carrying pallets. Really?

I was attempting to explain someone else's use of the word. VERTREP is fun but when you boil it down it's just Helo 101 and any monkey can do it. It takes very little tactical skill to do the mission, but it does teach you to maneuver the aircraft and at the end of the day it does leave you feeling like you accomplished something because there's a tangible result.

 

[Pags]

As a recent HSC-3 grad and a member of the most recent transitioning HSc squadron I'll tell you what our thinking (at least as I see it) is. I don't think any of us take issue with the sideflare as a maneuver used at the appropriate time and place (both our skipper and xo have said something to this effect to the wardroom at different times). What I take issue with is when I see some jackass doing the 50ish knot "oh I'll be under 45 by the time I'm sideways" shit hot overshooting sideflare into pad 10 for the pits. You don't see the guys from HS-10 doing button hooks to the pad, though it is a completely legal maneuver.

Overshooting is never good. Can't do that shit at the boat. At the best, you'll have the Boss yelling at you* at the worst you'll kill yourself. I've seen plenty of folks come booming into a pad, quick stop late and look ugly that way too. I've heard of folks dragging stabs because they wanted to look awesome. It looks awesome until you fuck it away and then you just look like a dumbshit who doesn't know his own limits.

*A buddy of mine was ordered to shut down and come to the bridge following an approach the carrier's captain didn't agree with. After the Captain chewed his ass, the Nav (HC guy) chewed his ass and then the HS skipper had a bite as well.

 

[bert]

... It looks awesome until you fuck it away and then you just look like a dumbshit who doesn't know his own limits.

...

As a side note, that can apply to any maneuver where the pilot can choose how fast to enter and how long to carry that speed. We've all seen people exceed their abilities on normal approaches, let alone more complex maneuvers.*



*Having said that, the only rational response to the question of why you would want to be carrying 145 kts on the tower transition at NASNI is because it can't go any faster.