Search results

If it is any consolation, more than one of us were bemused at why we and HS would have a different syllabus when we would be combining shortly regardless. The intent was that having a prior-established syllabus would help create a 'merger of equals'. What we actually did was create a culture...

I meant subsequent changes - unless you can subscribe to an auto-update feature of some sort?

That assumes, of course, that HS was the be all and end all of tactical training.

I would caution anybody with a downloaded .pdf of a NATOPS that they need to keep their eye out for changes. And much to my amusement, I was approved for a TS/SCI and rejected for an airworthiness account in the same week (though I did eventually talk them into it).

Not being a tease brother, but just realistic that the days I grew up in are gone and my experiences frankly aren't that applicable to anybody starting out. I totally understand where hscs is coming from in his comments. I think if he had a little more perspective on those (us) -46 dinosaurs...

Don't take my comment that the HSC community was very much changed compared to what we old -46 guys experienced as an endorsement of what HSC now is or what it is heading for. Different isn't necessarily good or bad, sometimes it is just different. One thing I will offer to folks in advanced...

As a one time HC -46 guy, I would warn against listening to any of us old HC -46 guys talk about HSC. HSC is already a different animal, and getting more so.

It isn't that hard to argue that our current representatives in Congress (both parties) seem to lack even a basic understanding of history in general and warfare in particular. Having said that, to argue that either side genuinely believes that they can personally benefit from deliberately...

Which is why it isn't a bad idea to answer "FRS Instructor" when your CO asks you what your goals are on your check-in interview.

It isn't only timing, they don't send only #1/#2 guys to the FRS because they don't want Blue on Blue with their community players. Of course, the fact that they are picking so many of their future CO's after only one tour is a whole different argument.

Barring an increase in resignations, I can't see HSL's numbers being as good as 70% next year. That being said, 70% seems bleak to a guy who couldn't have avoided a DH tour, so it is all about perspective. Gatordev makes a good point about your front office - many will try and steer you to a...

One of my guys will be up for DH in HSL next year and the numbers are pretty bleak for them as well. I don't know how many DH non-screens are ending up heading out on IA's, but I would suspect that is getting higher on the list of options.

Of course it won't be better than the rate to O-4, but it wasn't that long ago that there wasn't a DH screen at all. Plus you have to remember that DH isn't a statutory board - if your community wants you then you will be fine.

In most communities, DH screening is tighter than the cut to O-4. At last years board, plenty of folks picked up LCDR with little chance of screening for DH.

In the greater scheme of things I don't think the difference between them matters. One note is that it is generally viewed as being easier to break out in a VT because their retention is supposedly lower (I didn't do either, so I am just passing on an impression). A competitive EP in either...

One caveat with that list (especially in regards to WTI): don't forget how as little as 5 years ago they were touting an OOD underway letter as essential to an aviator's career. Now it is barely a tie-breaker and JPME is the 'one thing'. Things can change between you taking orders and a board...

For helo guys, NPC has an 'unofficial' but very real pecking order of 1st shore tour jobs. Admiral's aide is one of the few non-instructor jobs that is competitive - but obviously the risk/reward of that job depends entirely on which one you work for.

No, there is no separate designator for safety guys. As a side note, going to the Safety Center as an O-3 is WAY out of the box as far as first shore duty goes. That would be pretty far down the pecking order to a DH screen board.

While there have been folks who lost their flight status for medical reasons who have picked up AEDO, a voluntary termination under your circumstances will likely preclude that option. If you are serious about redesignating then talk to your XO/CO and get a recommendation for your new community...

I hate to admit it, but there was a time when I would 'fight the power' on those things. I am truly grateful that I am brighter than I used to be.

TQL did teach us something valuable though: all jack-$ss, three-letter acronym management fads will fade with time (and a change of command) - you just have to wait them out....

http://www.seabeecook.com/history/25th_ncr/action_report/action_report_body.htm Try that to start, then try the below into google (no quotes). Lots of good stuff. "111th Construction Battalion omaha d-day"

Not only do the ear cups work great for sound attenuation, but when you combine them with the zeta liner you will see a huge difference in comfort - especially with NVD's after you hit the fleet. I agree with skidkid, I don't care for the CEP's, but others swear by them. Regardless, start with...

But if you do want to be impressed by something, check out their funding line. JSF was plowing through $10 mil/day last FY.

That is a problem mostly gone with the R - though from your pic that isn't a worry for you anymore.

Towards the end, the utility hydraulic pump/flamethrower started to scare me. That and the fact that they once took pieces out of my xmsn filter that you could read part numbers off of...

Should have been that. They used to come down to HC-3 and one of us RAG tools (errr, instructors) would run them through their annual sims. The general nature of the procedure was to make no control inputs and wait for the universe's general benevolence to kick in.

The Canadians actually had a Synch Shaft failure EP. For Navy phrogs we didn't even bother.

There are some good lessons learned in that SIR. Well worth the read.

The sims did a good job of modeling tail rotor failures, and the instructors were top notch. Unfortunately I traded my kool aid for a box lunch so I am a bit of cynic when it comes to the helo master plan.

No doubt. Not to worry though, it will all be fixed with the R. Money will flow like wine to the downtrodden of the rotary wing world, and there will be rejoicing throughout the land.

Unfortunately, the 60S sim is not sophisticated enough to model drive or control failures well. I had a chance to work with RAF-types in their (very excellent) 101 simulators and walked away even more disappointed with what we are teaching.

It is also a little unrealistic to think the PAC will be directing the shutoff of the PCLs. Hopefully he is a bit more occupied with hitting level...

The arbitrary cut-off of 500'/80kts comes from the fact that there are two Loss of Tail Rotor Drive EPs. One for alt/airspeed sufficient to enter an auto, and one for not. The problem comes from people taking the 500' minimum for practicing autorotations as a minimum for performing an auto.

Nothing like taking a foolish position and defending it to the death. I'm glad I was a CAT II so I could give a polite "no thanks" to their theories.

I never understood how people could brief that. You could get some interesting verbal gymnastics out of 60S instructors when you asked them to justify using the 'hover' procedure for loss of drive from the 90 at Imperial Beach. You already don't have enough energy: no sense throwing what you...