• 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

Another helo vs the world thread (moved from helmets)

insanebikerboy said:
Both are wrong, just close your eyes on short final and listen to the crewman, when he says you're in the circle, bottom the collective.

60% of the time, it works all the time :)
Click to expand...

Life's easy when you have a landing area the size of a circular montana to land in. Smilies and stuff.
 
bert said:
A few of us (R and S for me). Honestly only the tactical quals should be different - they could easily have a single NATOPS qual.
Click to expand...
The only reason there isn't is because of communities protecting their own pieces of the pie. There are provisions for a multi-series NATOPS qual, but it's become more of a pain than it needs to be, IMO.

SAR and ASW stuff for the 60R shouldn't be a required part of a NATOPS check, but again, that's just one man's opinion. Mechanically the aircraft are largely identical and fly almost exactly the same.
 
If anyone really wanted to be efficient and effective and leverage the benefits of common cockpit, we would have a helo advanced and have them flying block 0 Sierras. Then everyone leaving Whiting would be qualified in Model. FRS footprints could be reduced and consolidated. Romeo selects would need a couple of FAM flights to figure out where the tail wheel is and the navigation stuff isn't. The FRS could focus on Level 100 tactical stuff and the CAT others.
 
SH-60OB said:
If anyone really wanted to be efficient and effective and leverage the benefits of common cockpit, we would have a helo advanced and have them flying block 0 Sierras. Then everyone leaving Whiting would be qualified in Model. FRS footprints could be reduced and consolidated. Romeo selects would need a couple of FAM flights to figure out where the tail wheel is and the navigation stuff isn't. The FRS could focus on Level 100 tactical stuff and the CAT others.
Click to expand...
I'd say that consolidating and reducing the FRS for the Navy (remember, other services train in the HTs) would not be worth the cost of replacing several 60's after student mishaps. TH-57Bs are cheap, in the six figure column. TH-57Cs are cheap as well, just over $1M a copy. How much is a barebones 60? Yeah, I guess you could consolidate and reduce the FRS for the Navy 60 community, but you wouldn't do away with the HH-65, CH-53E, UH-1N/Y, AH-1W/N FRS. Also, I'm guessing you couldn't reduce the Coast Guard's HH-60 FRS, since their mission is so very different.

Methinks the juice wouldn't be worth the squeeze.
 
phrogpilot73 said:
I'd say that consolidating and reducing the FRS for the Navy (remember, other services train in the HTs) would not be worth the cost of replacing several 60's after student mishaps. TH-57Bs are cheap, in the six figure column. TH-57Cs are cheap as well, just over $1M a copy. How much is a barebones 60? Yeah, I guess you could consolidate and reduce the FRS for the Navy 60 community, but you wouldn't do away with the HH-65, CH-53E, UH-1N/Y, AH-1W/N FRS. Also, I'm guessing you couldn't reduce the Coast Guard's HH-60 FRS, since their mission is so very different.

Methinks the juice wouldn't be worth the squeeze.
Click to expand...

I like the idea, but agree it wouldn't really make sense, fiscally.

Also, I'm guessing you couldn't reduce the Coast Guard's HH-60 FRS, since their mission is so very different.
Click to expand...

This is where you lose me. He's not saying you get them PQM and mission qualified, ready to report to the fleet, just winged and ready to go learn what a Tango flies like (and then the associated mission). It would be no different than the current setup where they leave the Navy training (in a -57) and go learn how the CG does it, just with a much more expensive training platform.
 
I'm not talking about getting rid of 57's. Merely making them intermediates and Sierra's advanced. Sierra RAG goes to nearly nothing. 10 month Romeo RAG gets cut to 6. Reduce to single site FRSs for both models.

Your concern for pranging birds makes my point. We spend 4 Months bouncing guys in Romeos. Talk about cost. How much are we incurring keeping full mission capability in a bird we use for pattern work? P-3 FRS has bounce birds they use for patter work, why not leverage the common cockpit and lighter bird for the Fam stuff?
 
But HSC and HSM could get FAM's through NATOPS/inst check done together and cheaply. And CVN based squadrons could interchange co-pilots as required.
 
bert said:
But HSC and HSM could get FAM's through NATOPS/inst check done together and cheaply. And CVN based squadrons could interchange co-pilots as required.
Click to expand...
Before there was a 60S FRS, prospective 60S IPs were sent to HSL RAGs to complete their NATOPS check and then they came back and flew the 60S.

We were talking about the common RAG idea at work the other day. You could have one FRS that gives everyone an H-60 PQM qual. Then, studs are sent to get tactics syllabi in specific airframes. ACAT mission quals, not NATOPS designations, would determine communities. This would never happen because different communities would want to keep their piece of the pie. Additionally, some would complain about decreased command opportunities.

In my current squadron, we have both 60R and S. We had an in house program to cross train guys, but it ended up going away due to a NATOPS change. However, to increase available pilots across available airframes there has been talk of sending everyone to CAT-other syllabi so that everyone can sign for any of the aircraft. Even at the LT level I was discussing how cool it would be to have everyone dual qualled because then you'd have a much bigger manning pool for testing. If you had a 60S test coming up and nothing on the 60R side, you could still keep everyone gainfully employed. But even just spitballing around the office guys were pushing back on it; "how could a 60S guy sign for a 60R and run a radar test?!?! he doesn't have the proper ACAT qual!" Of course, most of this stuff is new gear that existing syllabi doesn't address, but it was still an uphill battle at JO level.
 
insanebikerboy said:
We were given the prototype to use and evaluate. They have since gone back to the manufacturer, I believe the production one is going to be much slimmer.
Click to expand...
Was it a head tracker? Or just a daytime version of the night HUD? Incidentally, we have no HUD whatsoever.
 
busdriver said:
Was it a head tracker? Or just a daytime version of the night HUD? Incidentally, we have no HUD whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Daytime version of the night HUD. I have no idea if there is any plan to integrate any tracking into either the day or night HUD.
 
RobLyman said:
LOL...the UH-60A/L/M has a 540 fpm limit. I really "surprised" a few IPs when I first landed the Blackhawk. That and the differences in tailwheel location (think fulcrum) makes landing the two aircraft a bit different.

Do any Navy guys fly both the S and the B,F, H or R?
Click to expand...

I was flying F, H, S for awhile. Now S only. Honestly I still don't buy that the tailwheel location buys us anything, (except the ability to be a shitty pilot and fly a jacked up profile for unpreps) but ends up costing us in the long run. ie Deck footprint, stricter landing limits, and oh by the way, airframe cracks. The worst part is that once we patch cracks in one spot, they show up in another one...

And as for setting up the HUD, thats a no brainer that takes at most 2 minutes. It takes the computers longer to boot up, or copilots longer to program a radio for HQ, or activate their nav plan that it does to program your night HUD.
 
This thread is all over the place! LOL

To chime in on the single FRS idea:

Army and Navy flight school aren't a whole lot different. To contrast Army and Navy flight school,get rid of primary fixed wing training all together in the Navy. Make a primary, intermediate and advanced helo syllabus. Then at the end, tack on an airframe specific advanced aircraft syllabus.

The Army, up until about a year ago, trained all of their 60 pilots at the end of flight school in the UH-60A. Then, those getting L qualed flew an additional flight or two at their unit in the L. The M model guys went to a "differences" aircraft qualification course (AQC) after 60As in flight school.

Now, 60 A/L pilots do their same syllabus, but 60M guys do an abbreviated syllabus in the A/L (there is still a shortage of M airframes), then finish in the UH-60M. HH-60M guys learn their mission equipment (AMOGS, FLIR, PLS, hoist, etc..) at their unit during RL progression. Additional tasks, such as hoist or fire buckets, are learned at the unit, if their are included on the pilots CTL.

Existing A/L pilots who transition go through the same "differences" course, which is the same as it used to be for flight school students. IPs and MTPs also go to an additional IP or MTP specific M course.

A single (one each coast) 60 FRS makes sense. For pattern work, any aircraft with the same cockpit instrumentation and tailwheel config would be fine. Then, during tactics, you could branch to your specific airframe. The added benefit would be a tremendous enhancement of standardization across communities flying the same airframe, something lacking in the extreme when I left the Navy.
 
RobLyman said:
This thread is all over the place! LOL

To chime in on the single FRS idea:

Army and Navy flight school aren't a whole lot different. To contrast Army and Navy flight school,get rid of primary fixed wing training all together in the Navy. Make a primary, intermediate and advanced helo syllabus. Then at the end, tack on an airframe specific advanced aircraft syllabus.
Click to expand...

Although I think that's a pretty decent idea, that would really confound the "what percent get jets" question, because now how does the Navy delineate who goes where for what platform? Could you imagine the heartburn and wanking from studs if it were based off of just API grades or whatever!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top