USN HT's a calamity

[Pags]

Dumber question: What's that in the context of this discussion?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-recurring_engineering

NRE is the work of developing a project; taking it from paper to a no-kidding production representative article. It's usually paid for by RDTE money. Depending on what you want to buy the costs can be very high. For instance, the NRE costs for the JSF have been astronomical. USN doesn't want and probably can't pay huge NRE costs for a trainer but if they insist on something that doesn't exist in a single motor IFR certified Helo then they're going to incur a lot of costs to make that happen. If instead they buy an off the shelf Helo that needs minimal mods and an orange and white paint job then the NRE costs will be lower.

 

[DanMa1156]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-recurring_engineering

NRE is the work of developing a project; taking it from paper to a no-kidding production representative article. It's usually paid for by RDTE money. Depending on what you want to buy the costs can be very high. For instance, the NRE costs for the JSF have been astronomical. USN doesn't want and probably can't pay huge NRE costs for a trainer but if they insist on something that doesn't exist in a single motor IFR certified Helo then they're going to incur a lot of costs to make that happen. If instead they buy an off the shelf Helo that needs minimal mods and an orange and white paint job then the NRE costs will be lower.

Ah. Got it. I understand development costs vs. buying something COTS; just was totally unfamiliar with the term NRE. Thanks for the explanation.

 

[Uncle Fester]

Here's what I see happening - the Navy will continue to put this in the 'do later' pile until the H-57s are just finally too tired to fly safely any longer. Then they will either try to push a IFR-rated single-engine waiver through the FAA, or relent and go for a dual-engine COTS solution, or go with something really stupid like 'single-engine VFR COTS helo and we'll do all the instrument work in a simulator'.

 

[RobLyman]

If you've received the same brief from the army safety center and come up with a different opinion I'm honestly surprised. I've seen that video twice, and have come to a similar conclusion both times.

I work with a dude from that unit so, I'm not totally disconnected
If you think that accident was anything but preventable and those pilots were anything but negligible, you're out to lunch. They killed themselves, their crew and 7 Marines. They should have followed their playmates lead and knocked the fuck off. Don't be an apologist for this kind of decision making.

I have a friend of a friend whose sister knows a guy....

Seriously? You guys know I am in the ARNG, right? Every year I go out of state to get a maintenance evaluator evaluation. Yes, I go to Louisiana sometimes. Do you not think I have been to and flown with people in that unit? Taken and given check rides to some of their pilots? Deployed with some of them? Yes, I have seen the safety center briefs, and more...and more than just twice. I never flew with any of them, but many in my ACT class audiences have flown with members of the accident crew.

I don't recall apologizing for their actions. But if slamming the crew by calling it homicide makes you feel better as a person, I guess I have already expressed my opinion about that.

Also, I never said there wasn't negligence. But anything but negligent? WTF?

 

[Pags]

Ah. Got it. I understand development costs vs. buying something COTS; just was totally unfamiliar with the term NRE. Thanks for the explanation.

Just to clarify on NRE: it doesn't only refer to the development of a new system. The term also applies to the integration of something new on to an existing system. For instance if you want to add a replacement box (radio, EGI, IFF, etc) to an sxisting system then the term for the work to integrate that new box would also be NRE. To sum up: NRE is a generic term for work you need to do once.

 

[Pags]

something really stupid like 'single-engine VFR COTS helo and we'll do all the instrument work in a simulator'.

I don't necessarily see this as a terrible idea. Plenty of aviation groups do a good chunk of their training in a modern sim and the results have been good. Why not just train SNAs the basics of Helo flight in a VFR Helo and then do all RIs in the sims? You could even probably figure out a way to do the RIs in a 60 sim so the skill set would be more transferable to the fleet. you could still do BIs in the aircraft and BIs are far more important to a Helo driver than RIs. To this end I'd be interested to see an analysis of how often fleet pilots actually file IFR flight plans. Based on my experience I'd be surprised if the numbers weren't very low (I think I filed once during two fleet tours). I can see this resulting in a bit of teeth gnashing, especially from the HT IP crowd. I'm sure the argument would go something along the lines of a self licking ice cream cone: "if we don't train them right at the HTs then they won't get the e perience in the fleet and how can we make them HT IPs?"

 

[DanMa1156]

I don't necessarily see this as a terrible idea. Plenty of aviation groups do a good chunk of their training in a modern sim and the results have been good. Why not just train SNAs the basics of Helo flight in a VFR Helo and then do all RIs in the sims? You could even probably figure out a way to do the RIs in a 60 sim so the skill set would be more transferable to the fleet. you could still do BIs in the aircraft and BIs are far more important to a Helo driver than RIs. To this end I'd be interested to see an analysis of how often fleet pilots actually file IFR flight plans. Based on my experience I'd be surprised if the numbers weren't very low (I think I filed once during two fleet tours). I can see this resulting in a bit of teeth gnashing, especially from the HT IP crowd. I'm sure the argument would go something along the lines of a self licking ice cream cone: "if we don't train them right at the HTs then they won't get the e perience in the fleet and how can we make them HT IPs?"

Sea Story time...

To that end, I think there's still that old "we're helo's we don't need IFR" mindset that is going away with the older folks nowadays. Every night in San Diego you know a maritime layer is coming in. Every night dudes would go out to East County to shoot and lase and their OPS teams don't give them enough time to re-fuel at El Centro (or, more likely, El Centro's pits are closed) so they come back and the weather is crap and now they don't have much fuel to miss and go alternate anyway. Before I made H2P, I saw my Skipper (I guess ironic as I said previously it was the old guys' way of thinking) as wing file with an FSS and come back IFR meanwhile, my HAC, a Weapon Schooler said "nah, it will be good experience for you to night TERF anyway." Kept going lower and lower and lower until he finally screamed chicken and we immediately climbed into the clouds above MSA and busted San Diego Class B. Fortunately, the controller didn't lose his cool, and didn't give a flight violation, but that was a great lesson for me and I routinely would break up the flight and come back home IFR after filing with the FSS out in East County (Riverside Radio?). Years later, as a HAC, doing the same thing, my new XO refused to file coming back home, had to delay, delay, delay and hold due to approach being slammed with everyone and their mom trying to come in IFR to NASNI, meanwhile, I came in direct with vectors for the PAR 36, broke out at 220'. He made it in eventually and confessed at an AOM later if he went missed he didn't have enough fuel to divert and would have been in a real pinch. I've always thought my instrument training was valuable and I hated when guys in the helo community would refuse to use it. Only weeks earlier did the same thing happen to my OPS-O who eventually got down to min fuel to shoot one approach at NASNI and divert; he went missed, and boogied his way down to Brown Field which had been calling better weather. Had Brown not been marginally better, then who knows what could have happened.

 

[Jim123]

The sims never faithfully replicate the madness that is other traffic, real controllers, and real weather. The weather part maybe, the technology exists if the right people working in simulator procurement give a shit to make sure it gets done right. Seeing as we institutionally can't even get things like obogs right, I'm not holding my breath that we wouldn't cheap out on simulators. Pun intended (too soon?)

 

[HokiePilot]

Yep, you pulled up the only argument I had. Training at the HTs is just a self licking ice cream cone. I remind you the the JO IPs in flight school did not create the syllabus. They do not make the decision about what gets taught or not.

Sorry, but studs need real experience talking to ATC. Airlines can to a type rating in a sim because pilots already have 1500 flight hours and instrument tickets. Presumably, they are used to talking to ATC. I can't see a way to replace that in a sim.

 

[ChuckMK23]

If you guys read the RFP for the Advanced Helo Training System you will notice there is a provision for a two aircraft solution - so this could get interesting.

 

[Gatordev]

I have a friend of a friend whose sister knows a guy....

Seriously? You guys know I am in the ARNG, right? Every year I go out of state to get a maintenance evaluator evaluation. Yes, I go to Louisiana sometimes. Do you not think I have been to and flown with people in that unit? Taken and given check rides to some of their pilots? Deployed with some of them? Yes, I have seen the safety center briefs, and more...and more than just twice. I never flew with any of them, but many in my ACT class audiences have flown with members of the accident crew.

I don't recall apologizing for their actions. But if slamming the crew by calling it homicide makes you feel better as a person, I guess I have already expressed my opinion about that.

Also, I never said there wasn't negligence. But anything but negligent? WTF?

Every SIR I've read with any remote knowledge of the situation has been 100% correct. There has never been any bias or institutional inertia involved. All SIRs are sacrosanct, indisputable, and perfectly crafted. That's why I base all of my aeronautical decisions on them








not.

 

[Pags]

Yep, you pulled up the only argument I had. Training at the HTs is just a self licking ice cream cone. I remind you the the JO IPs in flight school did not create the syllabus. They do not make the decision about what gets taught or not.

Sorry, but studs need real experience talking to ATC. Airlines can to a type rating in a sim because pilots already have 1500 flight hours and instrument tickets. Presumably, they are used to talking to ATC. I can't see a way to replace that in a sim.

Good points by you, @DanMa1156, and @Jim123. The one about airline sims being used by guys with 1500hrs is a good one and that cones need to talk to ATC.

However, still not sure there's the need for as much of an RI syllabus as I went through (and hopefully it's changed). Shooting NDBs and failed card work was time wasted and hopefully those cards are gone from the syllabus. We all spent a good chunk of hours learning all about RIs like we were airline pilots flying the airways and shooting arcing TACANs as though someone's not going to give us vectors to final.

Helo pilots ABSOLUTELY need to know how to fly IFR to avoid killing themselves running scud as @DanMa1156 mentioned. But an IFR pickup to radar vectors is what most will end up doing.

 

[insanebikerboy]

I think the one thing not mentioned about helo IFR is the physical sensations that come with flying instruments in an actual helo vice in the sim. The 60F sim is tricky to handle but I've never gotten vertigo in the sim. I have gotten it several times in a helicopter while flying instruments.

When you add in the seat of the pants feel with what your instruments are telling you in the aircraft, which oftentimes provides conflicting sensations to the inner ear, it's something that just can't be replicated in a sim.

(or, more likely, El Centro's pits are closed)

The bigger question than filing an IFR flight plan back from East County, why in the world would you go to El Centro when Imperial is next door and the FBO there treats you so well?!?

 

[HokiePilot]

Good points by you, @DanMa1156, and @Jim123. The one about airline sims being used by guys with 1500hrs is a good one and that cones need to talk to ATC.

However, still not sure there's the need for as much of an RI syllabus as I went through (and hopefully it's changed). Shooting NDBs and failed card work was time wasted and hopefully those cards are gone from the syllabus. We all spent a good chunk of hours learning all about RIs like we were airline pilots flying the airways and shooting arcing TACANs as though someone's not going to give us vectors to final.

Helo pilots ABSOLUTELY need to know how to fly IFR to avoid killing themselves running scud as @DanMa1156 mentioned. But an IFR pickup to radar vectors is what most will end up doing.

The NDBs are gone from the syllabus for the most part. You can still shoot them if you want but the NDB 35 at PNS is the only one I can think of. I only ever flew it once.

As to the failed card, I disagree. About 2 years ago, we had an IP and student on a cross country had to shoot a failed card ILS to 200 ft after water got in the gyro. Also they had radio troubles also because of water. As long as the helo only has one heading gyro, you need a familiarity with how to fly failed card.

 

[Jim123]

The NDBs are gone from the syllabus for the most part. You can still shoot them if you want but the NDB 35 at PNS is the only one I can think of. I only ever flew it once.

VFR I used to also use the PT portion of the CEW ILS 17 to LOC mins, using only the LOM. But LOMs are getting few and far between these days...

As to the failed card, I disagree. About 2 years ago, we had an IP and student on a cross country had to shoot a failed card ILS to 200 ft after water got in the gyro. Also they had radio troubles also because of water. As long as the helo only has one heading gyro, you need a familiarity with how to fly failed card.

Partial panel to mins is fun to practice but could get sporting in real life.

That gyro in that aircraft has at least a couple of failure modes. One is that it freezes, that's the easy one and the one that 99% of crews practice to. Another one is swaying back and forth about 30°, but that's easy to eliminate if you flip the switch to DG only (isolate the magnetic flux input).

A third failure mode that I saw in an old 60 is the compass card just spinning around and around. (That one was actually a maintenance induced failure, as the ATs had swapped the gyros as part of their troubleshooting, plugged something in wrong, and resulted in both failing.)

The instruments in the glass panel 60 have had a few interesting surprises the last ~15 years.

As long as the rest of your avionics don't get F'ed up by water intrusion then real world failed card (i.e. compass card does not give accurate heading information) needn't be overly difficult with GPS track. But... you just never know.

The HT instrument syllabus should keep up with the times, but I'd like to see it stay as challenging as ever. Because... you just never know.