Flying Warrant: A success or failure?

[wlawr005]

Ironic that you are complaining about getting away from "basic" flying when you have a picture of a Hellfire shoot as your avatar. Time to grow as a community, and things like being able to land on a boat need to be automatic as a helicopter pilot.

I never complained about the type of flying we did...I was only pointing out that the type of training we conducted was not the type of deploying we were doing. I was a Level3/HADGI/NVGI/etc when I left the fleet and loved supporting NSW missions, but I never felt at any time that I was actually going to use any of that stuff. When I left, the SWTP wasn't a la carte (as stated above), and there were serious concerns at the wing, weapons school, and squadron level about the amount of information and type of flying we were forcing on guys right out of the RAG (pilots and aircrew). The overwhelming majority of guys I flew with thought they would like to get a better feel and more stick time before they were thrown into a Level 2/3 syllabus, especially considering they were deploying soon.

And I still think the type of flying you do during sustained operations out to sea is different than the flying you do supporting NSW. Both are perishable skills, and it seems like it's tough to do enough of both. When our NSW gurus and tactics wizards would take the night off attacking Norfolkistan and actually requal at the boat, they would make the same argument during the NATOPS brief and let everyone know they might be a little rusty. Being great at one always seemed to mean being average at the other. A lot of them thought it was a lot to pile on the nuggets too...

 

[wlawr005]

FWIW, the 160th didn't seem to have any trouble operating off a small boy on short notice.

They probably didn't, but there is something to be said for "pulling it off" versus sustained operations day in and day out.

 

[insanebikerboy]

First off is money. There was a fight to get this capability years ago. The SEALS (and SOCOM) were saying they just wanted dedicated helos. The Navy says it will be a "SOF peculiar" capability (new squadrons and career path) therefore SOCOM will have to pay with MFP-11 money. SOCOM balked at paying the bill.

So, the SEALS do not get dedicated helos.

I was under the impression that SOCOM had decided to take on (as in fund) 84 and 85 as organic SOF assets? The line item funding isn't there yet as of this fiscal year but the rumor I hear trickling down is that it's soon.

 

[insanebikerboy]

I never complained about the type of flying we did...I was only pointing out that the type of training we conducted was not the type of deploying we were doing. I was a Level3/HADGI/NVGI/etc when I left the fleet and loved supporting NSW missions, but I never felt at any time that I was actually going to use any of that stuff. When I left, the SWTP wasn't a la carte (as stated above), and there were serious concerns at the wing, weapons school, and squadron level about the amount of information and type of flying we were forcing on guys right out of the RAG (pilots and aircrew). The overwhelming majority of guys I flew with thought they would like to get a better feel and more stick time before they were thrown into a Level 2/3 syllabus, especially considering they were deploying soon.

And I still think the type of flying you do during sustained operations out to sea is different than the flying you do supporting NSW. Both are perishable skills, and it seems like it's tough to do enough of both. When our NSW gurus and tactics wizards would take the night off attacking Norfolkistan and actually requal at the boat, they would make the same argument during the NATOPS brief and let everyone know they might be a little rusty. Being great at one always seemed to mean being average at the other. A lot of them thought it was a lot to pile on the nuggets too...

I'll argue that one needs more practice in the terf environment than in the VERTREP environment. It's a lot easier to slow down a VERTREP cycle (just how important is it to get a perch on someone?) than terfing. The hardest night flying I've done yet was in a night CSAR in Fallon during a snowstorm with 0% illum, and I've also landed on pitching small boys with an almost 0% night.

Now, that said, VERTERP'ing is just pure fun.

 

[RotorHead04]

Well if you have guys that are unsafe at the boat, then that's a bigger issue. HSC (exp or cvw) isn't going to be all VERTREP and SAR anymore, and we have to train to that. If you build your flying abilities around dynamic training events, whether it's night terf, HVBSS, ASU etc it makes you a more well rounded pilot and makes the routine stuff easier.

Can't hack-it pilots are identified regardless of the training program. SWTP just happens to do it really quickly.

Regarding the issue of dedicated SOF Dets, my squadron's very recent venture into that was a storied success until it came time to actually deploy. The workups were a great opportunity to establish strong rapport with the Troop, fill in the gaps from the NTTP, and train our aircrews to a new level of NSW proficiency. No one wanted to have to fight the fight with Big Navy about deploying helos under the command of a SPECOPS commander, and it was blatantly obvious that Big Navy would rather give a ship's CO his taxi cab than support our guys on the ground where the real work is getting done.

The sad reality is TF-160 is busy ... really busy. They don't have a lot of hours to spare for the "vanilla" SEAL teams. HSC-84/85, even once at full strength, is only able to support two four-plane dets. SEALs greatly outnumber the dedicated SPECOPS air support assets. Meanwhile, we are still putting two bird dets on USNS ships and big-deck gators when we know that the carrier could handle VERTREP for the battle group and the Marines could handle their own SAR if we asked them to ...

And in the spirit of "how's that Warrant working out for you" -- our's is awesome. He's one of the best JO's in the squadron, arguably one of the strongest pilots, and he's a fantastic influence to the enlisted folks on the ground. What's his secret? Aside from giving a shit and not rolling around with a chip on his shoulder, he was also a LVL III HS aircrewman prior to becoming a Flying WO. Coincidence ... I think not.

 

[wlawr005]

I'm not advocating starboard D...more like single engine approaches to the ass end of a single spot in a Sierra at night, etc. Those are different scenarios than a brownout in the desert, and should be treated accordingly.

Rotorhead and I came from the same squadron, and I'm not a great storyteller, but I'm sure he's familiar with some of the growing pains we experienced when teaching the news guys NSW and boat stuff at the same time. It's hard to take it all in sometimes. I agree that the "tactical" stuff may be harder, but just because you teach someone to run doesn't always translate into them being an expert at walking. The approches you fly into an LZ are completely different than the pattern around the DDG at night, with greater room for error.

As for the warrant at Rotorhead's sqadron, good dude IMO, and I haven't heard any of the crewman complain about his stick abilities or his leadership.

 

[Pags]

Every different mission set you expose yourself to is going to make you a better pilot. And every mission set has some overlap in to others. The stick skills for HVBSS and VERTREP are pretty much the same. If you can fly a shit hot vertrep pattern, then you can TERF. Flying is flying. At the end of the day it's all just getting the aircraft on to a specific profile and adjusting. The skills I learned while vertrepping and flying tactical flights even have overlap into towing. Increased exposure to a diverse set of missions just makes HACs more confident and expands their knowledge thereby increasing their judgement.

What the SWTP taught me more than aything was how to plan for a complex mission. You don't get that vertrepping. If all you want do is sling loads go fly for the heli-loggers. Your wings should mean that you have some sort of tactical ability.

With limited flight hours it is imperative that crews maximize their training in all areas. DDAs, while a nice break, don't make you a proficient pilot. If you can't land on the boat, you're useless. If you can't shoot a good auto, you're useless. If you can't shoot a good ILS, useless. I can go on and on. There are very limited training opportunities and squadrons, and most importantly, the HACs and Flight Leads need to make the most of them.

The ham fist or the slow pilot is always going to be there. The chances of that guy getting kicked out are INCREDIBLY slim. He or she will just become another "leadership challenge" for the squadron and maybe a "HAC, but".

 

[scoolbubba]

The ham fist or the slow pilot is always going to be there. The chances of that guy getting kicked out are INCREDIBLY slim. He or she will just become another "leadership challenge" for the squadron and maybe a "HAC, but".

We bitch about not having enough flight time to go around, but we never attrite anyone, and we never hurt anyones feelings by saying "maybe this just isn't for you," especially not after dragging them kicking and screaming thru the TRACOM (which is generally a pretty good warning sign).

We continue to make plenty of aircraft commanders who can never sign for the bird. Maybe our priorities are a little screwed up. Why the institutional aversion to kicking people who can't hack it out? Maybe we wouldn't need flying warrants if we just sent the bad sticks where they can succeed...elsewhere.

 

[insanebikerboy]

What the SWTP taught me more than aything was how to plan for a complex mission.

Excellent point.

 

[Jim123]

but we never attrite anyone, and we never hurt anyones feelings by saying "maybe this just isn't for you," ...

(good words)

Uh, actually, we do. Attrition ebbs and flows over the years, but it's never simple or straightforward. But yeah, you got the "institutional aversion" thing right- that's just human nature to hope things will get better. Nobody likes to face the idea of "sunk costs" and "cutting your losses," especially when attrition is the million dollar question.

 

[Jim123]

What the SWTP taught me more than aything was how to plan for a complex mission.

Excellent point.

I thought that was flight school RIs?

(Well, they do, just at a different level. It's all relative.)

 

[helolumpy]

We bitch about not having enough flight time to go around, but we never attrite anyone, and we never hurt anyones feelings by saying "maybe this just isn't for you," especially not after dragging them kicking and screaming thru the TRACOM (which is generally a pretty good warning sign).

We continue to make plenty of aircraft commanders who can never sign for the bird. Maybe our priorities are a little screwed up. Why the institutional aversion to kicking people who can't hack it out? Maybe we wouldn't need flying warrants if we just sent the bad sticks where they can succeed...elsewhere.

Back in the late 90's we complained that the FRS was getting crap from the VT/HT's and wondered why Pensacola was not doing its job and we had to fix all these crappy pilots.

I'm sure if you ask HAL or A4's, they'll tell you have the pilots that came after them were crappy due to decreased standards, bad instructors, rush to complete by end of fiscal years, etc.

My point is every generation has complained that those who followed are not up to the standards that their generation had to meet to make it there.

Back in the mid-90's every squadron had "HAC-Buts". (He's a HAC, but he can only fly with another HAC or H2P, no nights, no weapons, only PG, etc) I heard that term from my XO at the time, so it is not a new issue.

Hell, I would even bet that Ted Ellyson bitched that John Rogers and John Towers had it sooooooo much easier getting their wings and wondered what happened to the standards!!!!

Have we winged people who in a perfect world shouldn't have; yes. We've been doing it for decades (at least) and will continue in the future.
Standards are great but squadron manning is a numbers game. Until you can tie decreased standards in flight school or the RAG to mishaps in the fleet any argument will fail to gain traction with big Navy.

When a squadron goes to sea it will need "X" number of pilots/NFOs. If a squadron doesn't have the magic number its non-deployable. The Navy trusts the CO's to decide who is safe to operate the aircraft that's why H2P and HAC are squadron quals. (As I'm sure section lead in non-fling-wing aircraft squadron is)

So, then ask yourself if the pilots coming into the fleet are that crappy, why don't we have more FNAEBs?
One big reason is that pulling the wings from a guy creates a hole in squadron manning and that spot needs to be filled. (Not to mention its a real pain in the ass paperwork-wise, but I digress).

So, while I do agree with your point and it is valid, your argument has been going on for a long time and the problem will not be corrected anytime soon.

 

[NozeMan]

Every different mission set you expose yourself to is going to make you a better pilot. And every mission set has some overlap in to others. The stick skills for HVBSS and VERTREP are pretty much the same. If you can fly a shit hot vertrep pattern, then you can TERF. Flying is flying. At the end of the day it's all just getting the aircraft on to a specific profile and adjusting. The skills I learned while vertrepping and flying tactical flights even have overlap into towing. Increased exposure to a diverse set of missions just makes HACs more confident and expands their knowledge thereby increasing their judgement.

What the SWTP taught me more than aything was how to plan for a complex mission. You don't get that vertrepping. If all you want do is sling loads go fly for the heli-loggers. Your wings should mean that you have some sort of tactical ability.

With limited flight hours it is imperative that crews maximize their training in all areas. DDAs, while a nice break, don't make you a proficient pilot. If you can't land on the boat, you're useless. If you can't shoot a good auto, you're useless. If you can't shoot a good ILS, useless. I can go on and on. There are very limited training opportunities and squadrons, and most importantly, the HACs and Flight Leads need to make the most of them.

The ham fist or the slow pilot is always going to be there. The chances of that guy getting kicked out are INCREDIBLY slim. He or she will just become another "leadership challenge" for the squadron and maybe a "HAC, but".

This is exactly my point. Things overlap, so adding more tools to the toolbox by learning more missions is a good thing. The SWTP syllabus forces you to get into the pubs and prepare for more dynamic things and flex to certain situations. VERTREP, as wlawr says, is a daily thing and doesn't force to you to do the legwork. While the parameters for flying a tac no hover pattern to an LZ might be different than a DLQ pattern, they both force you to concentrate on flying the numbers. If you can do one, you can do the other. If you are sloppy about one regime of flight....you probably will be about the other.

Wlawr....can you find me a skipper that is going to let you practice single engine approaches to a single spot at night? Is that something that is more likely to happen to me than flying a tactical mission? Maybe, but don't suggest that it's reasonable to practice something like that. Also, I'd have to disagree with your point that a tactical no hover at night into an LZ has more room for error than to small deck at night. One regime you lose all reference to the horizon and deck several feet above the ground, the other you don't. I've been lucky to have the opportunity to see both scenarios on dark ass nights, and they are both challenging. Night brownout makes me a little more nervous....

 

[wlawr005]

This is exactly my point. Things overlap, so adding more tools to the toolbox by learning more missions is a good thing. The SWTP syllabus forces you to get into the pubs and prepare for more dynamic things and flex to certain situations. VERTREP, as wlawr says, is a daily thing and doesn't force to you to do the legwork. While the parameters for flying a tac no hover pattern to an LZ might be different than a DLQ pattern, they both force you to concentrate on flying the numbers. If you can do one, you can do the other. If you are sloppy about one regime of flight....you probably will be about the other.

Wlawr....can you find me a skipper that is going to let you practice single engine approaches to a single spot at night? Is that something that is more likely to happen to me than flying a tactical mission? Maybe, but don't suggest that it's reasonable to practice something like that. Also, I'd have to disagree with your point that a tactical no hover at night into an LZ has more room for error than to small deck at night. One regime you lose all reference to the horizon and deck several feet above the ground, the other you don't. I've been lucky to have the opportunity to see both scenarios on dark ass nights, and they are both challenging. Night brownout makes me a little more nervous....

You can practice anything you want at the pad at Felker...day or night. As for degree of difficulty, I was always more nervous putting my rotor 6 feet from the LSE/12 feet from the IIA hanger while keeping the tailwheel on the deck.

 

[phrogdriver]

I'm no expect on HSC, but every time I talk to someone from there it sounds as if there's another mission. You can't help but get less good at everything else every time you add another mission on the plate, assuming training flight time remains constant. You want to get better at TERF, you have to TERF. If you want to be a good shooter, you shoot. You want to be good at SAR, you practice SAR. Having many different capabilities is great--you can be a Gerber MultiTool, but that Gerber isn't as good as a real toolbox. Nothing wrong with either approach, but each one has trade-offs. As for NSW, if you want to have that be a core skill set, then that has to be the thrust of a unit's training.