NEWS Big surprise, OBOGS back in the news.

[jmcquate]

Obviously not you. You're onboard for the big win!

Nice!

 

[Python]

The same reason it's in the -60S and not the -60R (for now). Money and priorities.

Which is ironic since it probably costs a ton to train PAR controllers and antiquated equipment.

 

[Gatordev]

Which is ironic since it probably costs a ton to train PAR controllers and antiquated equipment.

Yup. The irony is that the U.S. isn't even paying for ILS/VOR for the Romeo. We're just the benefactors.

 

[pilot_man]

At the end of the day it's probably about $.

I'm sure the decision can be traced to a decision to forgo an ILS because fleet jets are designed to operate from NASs and CVs, neither of which had ILS at the time the decision was made. The original decision may have been made way back in the 70s or 80s during the larval stages of Hornet development. It may have not changed during the development of the super hornet because it wasn't in the baby hornet. or maybe mid 90s was also still too early to think an ILS was necessary. Since then it probably hasn't been implemented by the USN due to competing requirements. The unfortunate truth is that the money to fix OBOGS and the money to incorporate ILS probably comes from the same PE and are probably in competition with a lot of other requirements that the fleet wants/needs.

I'm happy that the money is going towards weapons or systems and not civilian ILS. What would that really buy us? A couple of extra airfields we could land at in shitty weather on a cross country? If the weather is that shitty in Lemoore that you are cancelling training hops because you don't have a civilian ILS then it's probably not a good day to fly anyways and everyone should just take their happy asses to the bar for cocktails. It's just training. At the boat, we have what we need to land, most of the time.

Fixing OBOGS or ECS issues in general is something that we should be throwing lots of money at. When senior dudes are getting so bent that it's killing their careers then we have a problem. I know "they" have been talking about these issues for a while and to me that is what the problem is. Less talk, more do. You want to fix the problem, ground the fleet for a month. The whole fleet. That will free up a few bucks to fund the improvements needed and set the right tone. It's only a matter of time before someone doesn't remember their hypoxia training and hurts themselves.

 

[Python]

I'm happy that the money is going towards weapons or systems and not civilian ILS. What would that really buy us? A couple of extra airfields we could land at in shitty weather on a cross country? If the weather is that shitty in Lemoore that you are cancelling training hops because you don't have a civilian ILS then it's probably not a good day to fly anyways and everyone should just take their happy asses to the bar for cocktails. It's just training. At the boat, we have what we need to land, most of the time.

Fixing OBOGS or ECS issues in general is something that we should be throwing lots of money at. When senior dudes are getting so bent that it's killing their careers then we have a problem. I know "they" have been talking about these issues for a while and to me that is what the problem is. Less talk, more do. You want to fix the problem, ground the fleet for a month. The whole fleet. That will free up a few bucks to fund the improvements needed and set the right tone. It's only a matter of time before someone doesn't remember their hypoxia training and hurts themselves.

No doubt weapons systems are important and need funding. However, ILS is so freakin cheap to put in the Hornet (especially since the engineering to do it already exists), it'd be stupid not too. From the estimates I heard, VERY cheap in fact. Maybe not an every day critical thing but it will at least catch us up to 50 years ago technology. It would also probably have saved some headache for this guy:

 

[707guy]

Nice!

Same scene popped into my head...

 

[EODDave]

Civilian ILS is already in the Growlers. It's a box and antenna swap. Here is a plan. If you are flying around stateside, put the civilian ILS in the jet. When you are headed to the boat and carrierizing the jets, swap the antenna and put the ICLS box back in the jet. It's not that hard guys. It's all about the $$$. The guys making the decisions aren't in the cockpit anymore. The further removed they are from the seat, the less they seems to care. After all, it's not their ass on the line. Guarantee, if one of the holders of the purse strings was flying, got hypoxic, ended up in a chamber or almost morted, this shit would get fixed pronto. Same goes for civilian ILS.

 

[Brett327]

Civilian ILS is already in the Growlers. It's a box and antenna swap. Here is a plan. If you are flying around stateside, put the civilian ILS in the jet. When you are headed to the boat and carrierizing the jets, swap the antenna and put the ICLS box back in the jet. It's not that hard guys. It's all about the $$$. The guys making the decisions aren't in the cockpit anymore. The further removed they are from the seat, the less they seems to care. After all, it's not their ass on the line. Guarantee, if one of the holders of the purse strings was flying, got hypoxic, ended up in a chamber or almost morted, this shit would get fixed pronto. Same goes for civilian ILS.

For a little perspective on the G ILS, they were bought for the EXPED squadrons, who do not go to the boat and who do deploy to (mostly) USAF fields with ILS. There aren't enough for the boat squadrons, so we don't have them.

I'd be interested to know where civilian ILS ranked on the VFA NARG over the past 10 years. I haven't seen it, so I'm just spit-balling here, but my guess is that it doesn't break the top 3 or 4. If that's the case, you can't expect NAVAIR to program limited resources into a system that your own community doesn't cite as a priority.

 

[EODDave]

So you are saying if it was at the top of the list it would get funded?

How about OBOGs as THE number 1 issue for over 9 years? Still waiting.....

 

[Brett327]

So you are saying if it was at the top of the list it would get funded?

How about OBOGs as THE number 1 issue for over 9 years? Still waiting.....

No, I'm saying if it's not at the top of the list, then you can't really blame NAVAIR for not funding it. Granted, NARG input is just one of many factors in the decision-making process, but it doesn't seem like there's a strong demand signal from the fleet for ILS in VFA jets.

 

[EODDave]

Im fairly sure it was in the top 2 or 3 for a few years 09-10 I believe. Would have to go back and look.

So, you are saying we CAN blame NAVAIR for not fixing /appropriately funding a fix for OBOGs?

 

[MIDNJAC]

Yeah, it (ILS) was pretty high in the 12-13 timeframe as well. I would say that OBOGS and ECS/hypoxia/DCS problems should be #1 #2 and #3 though.

 

[Brett327]

Im fairly sure it was in the top 2 or 3 for a few years 09-10 I believe. Would have to go back and look.

So, you are saying we CAN blame NAVAIR for not fixing /appropriately funding a fix for OBOGs?

It's certainly NAVAIR's problem to fix. Whether the lack of solution is due to insufficient resourcing is another question that I don't think any of us can honestly answer. A better question might be whether NAVAIR's current lines of effort toward an OBOGS solution are fully funded.

 

[Randy Daytona]

LPV is not a precision approach. But don't confuse LPV with a LNAV/VNAV or VNAV approach. They use the same charts with different minimums but the electronics in the plane may be different. I doubt the F-18 will have LPV capability as it requires dual WAAS receivers and special maintenance tracking to ensure the required accuracy. Most air carriers fly LNAV/VNAV and not LPV. Most U.S. air carriers do not even have LPV authorization although the aircraft are capable.

Precision approaches are ILS, PAR and GLS (Ground Based Landing System - who, what or where, I haven't a clue). Everything else are non-precision. Within non-precision you have an Approach with Vertical Guidance (APV) subcategory. These are VNAV, LNAV/VNAV, LDA with VNAV glide path, and LPV.

I though I read in a FAA Advisory that LPV approaches could be counted (for training, etc) as a precision approach if the DA was below 300 feet? It also seems as if the FAA talks about it replacing CAT I ILS's which would logically mean a precision approach - yet I can't find anything one way or the other. If you have something definite, I would appreciate seeing it for reference.

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...units/techops/navservices/gnss/waas/benefits/

 

[HAL Pilot]

I don't know, I've never heard that.