-
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
Career Reflections by Pickle
- Thread starter picklesuit
- Start date
Umm, no. Landing 3-engine isn't hard at all.
MasterBates
Well-Known Member
I've been single engine to the boat at least 19 times.. 14 as a plan. 5 as a "oh, the other spinny thing.. no longer spining"
Harrier Dude
Living the dream
I've done it a Hell of a lot more than that. No spinny thing, though.
MasterBates
Well-Known Member
Yeah, but you have the Oh-Shit Handle.
phrogpilot73
Well-Known Member
Harriers take off with at least two emergencies every time they leave the boat - min fuel, and single engine. Those boys have balls... Especially when they were having a lot of rollbacks...
Same rule applies to us WRT the engine pulls. Three engine landings are a non-event with us, though. The only time we get any pucker factor is if we lose our rudder and one of the outboard engines, or we lose more than one on the same side. We practice both scenarios in the jet during 2P and AC upgrades, but never to a landing. I've heard of guys flying home from Cali on three engines because the WX at Travis was shitty. The blurb in the 3710 about four engined aircraft with a precautionary shutdown has saved us alot of ass-pain. Lose an engine doing bounces at Lincoln for something precautionary in nature? You'll still sleep in your own bed that night (probably).
Just some philosophical thoughts on advanced quals, community SOP, community dogma, and flight hour budgets-
Yes, it hurts everyone when there are restrictions on what the stick monkeys are allowed to practice. The community pays a price on collective proficiency by doing that to stretch old aircraft and keep them flying for a little longer, a little longer... so how do you balance that?
Speaking as someone with a decent amount of experience in instructing experienced pilots on advanced emergencies, I "get" the institutional approach of "airframe/community X"'s standardization program that restricts practicing certain maneuvers and emergency procedures to advanced qualifications. Here is why:
Good or bad pilots, with about a few years of flying and about several hundred hours, while training on how to instruct advanced emergencies, are capable of getting the aircraft into trouble in ways that... umm... that can get far more "sporting" faster than you realize how deep a hole you've just dug. They can also do so in ways that put the exciting mistakes of new guys (flight students, nuggets, etc.) to shame. The right time to abort some particular advanced maneuver might actually be while it doesn't seem all that messed up and there is only a subtle hint. 99% of instructing a someone on how to handle any given emergency is not all that much different from when you were the new guy and learning that EP, but- it's that other 1% of the time that can really sneak up on you. So it makes different sense to community X or Y on whether to restrict emergencies A, B, or C and who is allowed to demo, introduce, practice, or simply never attempt them.
I maintain that any newly minted aircraft commander could train to an acceptable standard to instruct just about any emergency that is in your aircraft's playbook. It's not a question of brains or hard work. It's not a question of "you don't know what you don't know" - someone else already knows what you don't know, it's written down somewhere, and you can learn it. It's a question of where the community wants to spend the money and the time.
(Last thought- it never hurts to have a look over the fence at how community Z does business...)
Yes, it hurts everyone when there are restrictions on what the stick monkeys are allowed to practice. The community pays a price on collective proficiency by doing that to stretch old aircraft and keep them flying for a little longer, a little longer... so how do you balance that?
Speaking as someone with a decent amount of experience in instructing experienced pilots on advanced emergencies, I "get" the institutional approach of "airframe/community X"'s standardization program that restricts practicing certain maneuvers and emergency procedures to advanced qualifications. Here is why:
Good or bad pilots, with about a few years of flying and about several hundred hours, while training on how to instruct advanced emergencies, are capable of getting the aircraft into trouble in ways that... umm... that can get far more "sporting" faster than you realize how deep a hole you've just dug. They can also do so in ways that put the exciting mistakes of new guys (flight students, nuggets, etc.) to shame. The right time to abort some particular advanced maneuver might actually be while it doesn't seem all that messed up and there is only a subtle hint. 99% of instructing a someone on how to handle any given emergency is not all that much different from when you were the new guy and learning that EP, but- it's that other 1% of the time that can really sneak up on you. So it makes different sense to community X or Y on whether to restrict emergencies A, B, or C and who is allowed to demo, introduce, practice, or simply never attempt them.
I maintain that any newly minted aircraft commander could train to an acceptable standard to instruct just about any emergency that is in your aircraft's playbook. It's not a question of brains or hard work. It's not a question of "you don't know what you don't know" - someone else already knows what you don't know, it's written down somewhere, and you can learn it. It's a question of where the community wants to spend the money and the time.
(Last thought- it never hurts to have a look over the fence at how community Z does business...)
You know, I would like to get all pissy pants, go VP about this....but I really can't...
Having done Primary with the Chair Farce in Enid, America, and seeing how they do business; and having taken two trips through VP-30 as a student (one as an E, one as an O) the similarities are there. Boldface EP's (memory items, chapter 11 of NATOPS), long, theoretical discussions based in conjecture (almost any "pilot training"), as well as an appreciation for the ability to regurgitate minutia (foaming space in the oil reservoir...I shit you not) sometimes it is hard to see how we train pilots actually relates to piloting...
But the actual flying we do far outpaces the Chair Farce way of practicing...lots of EP's, practice emergency landings (2-engine, 3-engine, no-flap, etc.) bailout/ditching/FOUO drills for the tube slugs...I think we do a good job of preparing for the worst and it was proven succesful during the Masirah, Oman ditching of a P-3...
http://www.vpnavy.org/vp47ditch.html
So, yes, we have a lot of self induced ass-pain, but it has a reason...
Pickle
I guess the question I keep coming back when reading these comments is "when is a NATOPS qual not a NATOPS qual?" I'm POSITIVE it has everything to do with my lack of understanding (and that will certainly be pointed out in short order), but it seems like there are a lot of "NATOPS-qual-buts". Every person who takes the controls of an aircraft should have the ability to land it safely in each of the known abnormal configurations (No flap/No Slat, reduced thrust, etc) - otherwise what is going on at the FRS? Too much time on tactics, not enough airplanes, too much time spent memorizing the amount of foaming space in the oil reservoir?
Yes, I'm writing from the perspective of being the only dude with controls in my aircraft so its admittedly apples and oranges, but it seems like young dudes with wing show at some FRSs and are immediately set back several steps instead of being nurtured and trained.... Just my two cents.
Yes, I'm writing from the perspective of being the only dude with controls in my aircraft so its admittedly apples and oranges, but it seems like young dudes with wing show at some FRSs and are immediately set back several steps instead of being nurtured and trained.... Just my two cents.
It's not a NATOPS qual when it's a Patrol Plane Copilot qual. A 3P can't sign for the aircraft and isn't expected to land in every configuration from either seat. I can see where the balancing act takes place at VP-30 with respect to EPs. I think there is a little too much minutia memorization and not enough time in the plane but I think almost any pilot would argue for more flight time. I don't know many P-3 pilots that would prefer to fly less and memorize more BS. If I had my druthers I would have loved to been introduced to all the funny landings in 30. We cover the 3 engine pretty well but everything else is only demonstrated.
As someone who has repeatedly (REPEATEDLY) been stuck behind a P-3 doing EPs in the pattern, I know you guys practice much more in the spirit of Naval Aviation than the spirit of the AF. But it's been a while since I could get a dig in at VP, and, well, the time felt right. Maybe it's been a while because I'm not currently sharing airspace with P-3s...
One thing, though. You mentioned FOUO drills. Is that a specific PQS? Do you have to get separate quals for each kind of paper shredder? What's the ORM sheet look like when practicing shredder ops? What's the boldface?
Good question and it leads to a few more: What belongs on a NATOPS qual? Why? And when does excluding certain things from a NATOPS qual, for the sake of not bending metal during training, become putting the cart before the horse?
I have an overly simplistic response- it depends on how you choose to define "known abnormal configurations" and then where you draw the line on that.
Across all of the helicopter communities we practice flight control malfunctions a few different ways- in the simulator pretty much anything but in the aircraft only specific things and those you do in only specific ways--some things to touchdown/full stop while other things terminate in a low approach--and it varies by airframe. Particularly tail rotor malfunctions, but also stuck trim, runaway trim, hydraulic system malfunctions... it depends. And the way each community might practice things in the aircraft usually only covers a specific possibility that doesn't include every realistic variation... for better or for worse. You can broadly apply that to any community for specific emergencies that are peculiar to their aircraft (fuel imbalance, split elevator designs or multiple rudders, props that don't always feather when they should...).
I agree with you though- an FRS NATOPS qual is so you can assume someone can handle a realistic problem with the aircraft... that's kinda the point of having those programs.
FOUO is Fire Of Unknown Origin. Basically you smell smoke or fumes in the tube and you activate the fire bill. It gets very chaotic, especially in the flight station because you have the most uncomfortable O2 mask on and are trying to fly the plane while running checklists and helping the guys in the back determine what could be on fire. Also, the TACCO is leading everyone in the back while they go through all the equipment racks to find out what's burning. Hard to explain how busy it gets without being in that situation but they are not fun.
One quote I've heard that I like is with one engine and an ejection seat, your decision matrix is pretty easy. With four engines and parachutes while hundreds of miles from land, it gets a little more complicated and you have to do what it takes to bring your plane back in one piece, partially because it's what's keeping you alive.
One quote I've heard that I like is with one engine and an ejection seat, your decision matrix is pretty easy. With four engines and parachutes while hundreds of miles from land, it gets a little more complicated and you have to do what it takes to bring your plane back in one piece, partially because it's what's keeping you alive.