• 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

For PPCs, you have to have 700 pilot hours (waiverable to 650, but very rare). The nice thing about your set up is that it's all A time, for us we don't get it until we make PPC (although again, you get A time without being in the seat, i.e. the rack). But there's also screw (special crew) time which really doesn't count towards anything.
 
Helo World- I had 700 USN hours and 500 H-60 hours before being allowed to make HAC, to give a baseline.
E-2s- 690 E-2 hours before making PC, and another 20 or so before CAPC.

Big difference is I did a shit ton of E-2 2P-2P flights, starting at probably about 600 E-2 hours. (E-2s have a 3P designation, but only carry two pilots.. Don't ask why, they don't know).

The E-2 NATOPS checks are the same for 3P/2P/PC/CAPC. Only different one is the "Super Stan" for ANIs/NIs.
Same for 60Bs as well.

I'm just not seeing the complexity difference in the P-3 over the E-2. Yeah, two more engines, and some accessory stuff on the motors is different. Pretty much a mechanical flight control plane? Check. Complicated as fuck FOUO procedures? Check. All sorts of evil shit the props can do to you? Even more with the NP2K.

Just not seeing the need for the P3 3P to be a borderline functional wing leveler, vice a pilot who would be more than likely OK if the PPC died of a massive heart attack in either seat.
 
So with a FOUO EP, is the idea that someone could actually locate said fire, reach it, and put it out in-flight? Has this happened?
 
xj220 said:
As for the O2 mask, I've always wanted to wear the jet type, but we don't wear helmets. The masks we have do have visors, but they're hard rubber and general fit. I liked the ones in the T-44 where you press a button and they inflate automatically, unlike the rubber strips you need to clamp down on your head..
Click to expand...

I have a good friend flying for United who had an IFE with smoke and fumes in the cockpit last year. He said the smoke watered his eyes right away and he and the Capt donned their 02 smoke/fume masks and it was instantly clear and comms were not a problem. Hopefully you'll get the same thing in the P-8 and not some bastardized Navy system.
 
Machine said:
There are 2 NATOPS quals for pilots in the P-3: Pilot and Copilot. The FRS produces Copilots for CAT-1 students. This is all that's required, because there's always going to be a NATOPS-qualified Pilot on every sortie.
Click to expand...

Does your 2P count as that pilot? I realize that the chance of the PPC being incapacitated to the point of not being able to fly would be slim, but considering that it is possible for that to happen, is it considered feasible for the 2P and 3P to land the plane in any emergency?
 
xj220 said:
A lot of us like the idea of having the pilots coming as 2Ps to the squadron and essentially get rid of the 3P desig, but that'd cost way too much money and with the reduction in flight hours, age of platform, lack of equipment, etc. students would be there way too long.
Click to expand...

but you've got to separate the two (think Offspring circa '94)... Fleet flight hour $ is different than FRS flight hour $. So who's money and time do you want to spend? If the problem is training capacity on the fleet end - then get more done on the FRS's dime. The question to be asked is if students dicking around with for a while longer in Jax is better than dudes who are still students, just wearing with fleet patches, dicking around with pattern work in one of the limited fleet BuNos?

PropAddict said:
That includes tactics. We frequently wonder why they can't at least do the whole 2p syllabus at VP-30 (which means basically all systems and EP trng), then just get smart on tactics at the squadron. Haven't heard a good answer yet, except that it would mean a huge backlog of getting RP's to the fleet initially and would mean a big jam up for guys getting to 30 to class up.
Click to expand...

Is there an equivalent to the VFA SFWTP or VAQ PWTP in the VP world?
 
MIDNJAC said:
.. we also have our initial NATOPS check and begin logging A/C Commander time for jets after about 8-10 flights in the syllabus depending on how skeds works it (at least for the majority of flights which are solo). This makes me wonder if, possibly, the road to signing for an aircraft has to be so long. Granted when I sign, I'm signing for myself and myself only, and not 10 or 40 or 100 other dudes in the back.
Click to expand...

The P-3 is also not designed to be easy for one person to fly. I think I mentioned this in another thread. The P-3 simply is not ergonomic and while an experienced pilot can make the WarPig dance quite well for what she is, at the end of the day it still isn't an "easy" plane to fly. A Hornet, as I have been lead to believe, is fairly easy to fly. Employing weapons, landing on the boat aside, it is designed to reduce the flying workload on its single pilot. I work with a bunch of F22 guys and they've said the same thing of the Raptor and as most of them have transitioned from other platforms, they've said the same of their previous rides.

The P-3 is built on 50+ years of varying technology, instrumentation, and is not easily flyable by one person. As such, I think there's a bit of an attitude in the community that a pilot can get the basics at VP-30 and then hone his skills in the several hundred hours he'd be sitting second fiddle anyhow. When someone leaves VP-30 they can land the plane safely (safely =/= well) and handle most any emergency with the assistance of the FE - in the event the other pilot is incapacitated or says "fuck this" and bails out.

I'm not saying a P-3 pilot is better than anyone else because a P-3 is harder to fly. But I will say that our per diem checks are bigger and girls like big per diem checks.
 
Maybe it's just a community specific thing about what constitutes a PQM and a NATOPS check.
I have been told by numerous helo bubbas who have gone VR that former P-3 guys are the worst NATOPS evaluators. (5 separate folks all said the same thing)
Mostly I was told that NATOPS checks were more "stump the chump" about obscure aircraft trivia rather than procedural knowledge.
Granted VR does have a lot of "tactics" that you can do during NATOPS check (like SAR) but all of them said that it seemed to them that the former P-3 folks seemed to place more value on knowing unimportant facts (like psi of the main mounts or the contents of the first aid kit) rather than actual operating parameters of the aircraft.

I report this second hand, but since the topic of NATOPS checks between the communities is being discuss I felt it was relavent.
 
helolumpy said:
Maybe it's just a community specific thing about what constitutes a PQM and a NATOPS check.
I have been told by numerous helo bubbas who have gone VR that former P-3 guys are the worst NATOPS evaluators. (5 separate folks all said the same thing)
Mostly I was told that NATOPS checks were more "stump the chump" about obscure aircraft trivia rather than procedural knowledge.
Granted VR does have a lot of "tactics" that you can do during NATOPS check (like SAR) but all of them said that it seemed to them that the former P-3 folks seemed to place more value on knowing unimportant facts (like psi of the main mounts or the contents of the first aid kit) rather than actual operating parameters of the aircraft.

I report this second hand, but since the topic of NATOPS checks between the communities is being discuss I felt it was relavent.
Click to expand...

You'll get no argument from me on this. However, I think the community started to get a lot better while I was still in it. But there was still a lot of that crap. One of my favorites, which I was dinged for, was, "what is the HF frequency for the PRT-5 survival beacon?" To which I replied, "whatever the manufacturer set!" Well, this was NOT the right answer...even though you couldn't change it if you wanted to. Totally useless trivia but it was considered important by this particular evaluator...
 
MIDNJAC said:
So with a FOUO EP, is the idea that someone could actually locate said fire, reach it, and put it out in-flight? Has this happened?
Click to expand...

Can't speak to what happens on DFWs, but at least for flights with us tube types involved, our gear tends to get really really hot. We have lots of electronic racks. If something overheats, in theory the flight station gets an annunciator light and a light on the rack will show something in it is hot, but in reality it happens with somebody going, "hey, you smell that?"
 
insanebikerboy said:
Does your 2P count as that pilot? I realize that the chance of the PPC being incapacitated to the point of not being able to fly would be slim, but considering that it is possible for that to happen, is it considered feasible for the 2P and 3P to land the plane in any emergency?
Click to expand...

The 2P and PPC have the same NATOPS qual -- Pilot. So yes, that should be theoretically be feasible.
 
During one of the crew drills on my AC route check, my evaluator put it to me this way: When you have a 2P in the seat with you, and your dealing with a tube fire, you should be able to let the 2P get the aircraft on the ground with very little direction, allowing the AC to help co-ordinate the EP with the rest of the crew. I think that really demonstrates the difference between how we treat 3P's and 2P's. I can expect that the 2P will be able to handle the jet and the comms and whatever else if I tell him to. Not so much with the 3P.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top