-
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
Hot new helicopter/rotorcraft news
- Thread starter Randy Daytona
- Start date
Oh and Site 8 is now officially closed! Many memories there.
And the I see pic of the CO of NASWF .. and what in fresh hell is the survival ensemble he is wearing?
That vest/flotation combo - while maybe suitable for fleet over water ops is an ergonomic nightmare in the cramped confines of a TH-57. Is that worn routinely in the HT's?
We wore the old USAF SRU-21 packed with only the most bare essentials - signalling, first aid, etc.
If you were in HT-8 you wore nothing other than a flight suit and helmet.
Considering I've flown a Bell 206 in shorts and a T-shirt the ensemble of the CO here seems a little much...
And the I see pic of the CO of NASWF .. and what in fresh hell is the survival ensemble he is wearing?
That vest/flotation combo - while maybe suitable for fleet over water ops is an ergonomic nightmare in the cramped confines of a TH-57. Is that worn routinely in the HT's?
We wore the old USAF SRU-21 packed with only the most bare essentials - signalling, first aid, etc.
If you were in HT-8 you wore nothing other than a flight suit and helmet.
Considering I've flown a Bell 206 in shorts and a T-shirt the ensemble of the CO here seems a little much...
When I first went through the HITU (helo instructor course) in 2004, the word was that Site 8 would be closing "in a few years" so it looks like the Pensacola Chamber of Commerce finally got their way. Several years ago, they got a lot of the land around their from the local 4-H. The whole place will be part industrial park and part subdivisions. That's just how urban sprawl goes.
In return, the local powers-that-be traded Site 8 for some land for a new "super OLF" right under one of the inner reporting points on the north field course rules- logistically inconvenient for everyone. Santa Rosa County and Whiting Field have worked well together for years. Escambia County, on the other hand... IMHO the movers and shakers in Escambia County railroaded the Navy into this deal years ago.
That vest has been the fleet standard since around '03 or so. The SV-2 got phased out from the fleet about then; I can't remember how long we had serviceable SV-2s (loaners) in the south field paraolft. It's, um, okay, generally speaking, but it's pretty clunky in the TH-57. The "fishing vests" (I never knew the official name was SR-21) have gone away and come back a few times in the last several years. The then-CNATRA admiral decreed c2010 that no TRACOM IP would fly without flotation after one of the primary VT IPs drowned in Lake Pontchartrain. Never mind that half the HT flying was within fifteen miles of home field and only crossed rivers and streams, but some good folks pushed back up the chain of command and we got some sensible concessions on that rule. But that's another story...
I dunno what the current version of the rule is. For a while it was the big vest if you were flying to Site 8, since you had to cross the Escambia River to get there (Escambia River is too tall to just stand up, unlike Pond Creek, Coldwater Creek, most of the Blackwater, Dick Pond, etc. Maybe that's still the rule. I flew with Paul Bowdich a few times when he was on the PXO track for his squadron tour- great guy and I was thrilled to see him get slated for base CO.
In return, the local powers-that-be traded Site 8 for some land for a new "super OLF" right under one of the inner reporting points on the north field course rules- logistically inconvenient for everyone. Santa Rosa County and Whiting Field have worked well together for years. Escambia County, on the other hand... IMHO the movers and shakers in Escambia County railroaded the Navy into this deal years ago.
That vest has been the fleet standard since around '03 or so. The SV-2 got phased out from the fleet about then; I can't remember how long we had serviceable SV-2s (loaners) in the south field paraolft. It's, um, okay, generally speaking, but it's pretty clunky in the TH-57. The "fishing vests" (I never knew the official name was SR-21) have gone away and come back a few times in the last several years. The then-CNATRA admiral decreed c2010 that no TRACOM IP would fly without flotation after one of the primary VT IPs drowned in Lake Pontchartrain. Never mind that half the HT flying was within fifteen miles of home field and only crossed rivers and streams, but some good folks pushed back up the chain of command and we got some sensible concessions on that rule. But that's another story...
I dunno what the current version of the rule is. For a while it was the big vest if you were flying to Site 8, since you had to cross the Escambia River to get there (Escambia River is too tall to just stand up, unlike Pond Creek, Coldwater Creek, most of the Blackwater, Dick Pond, etc. Maybe that's still the rule. I flew with Paul Bowdich a few times when he was on the PXO track for his squadron tour- great guy and I was thrilled to see him get slated for base CO.
We can wear dry vests for BIs, Bravos/Trans-Fams, and Low Levels mainly. At night, on RIs or cross-country it's the full loadout.
Is the official RFP posted anywhere?
Link embedded in this article
https://www.dsjournal.com/2019/01/2...licopter-training-system-ahts-th-xx-aircraft/
For many years the wet vest was mandatory for all flights - and the subject of innumerable ASAPs/HAZREPs.
Best one I remember is IP-IP flight, hotseating left seat IP’s vest snags the collective, resulting in a couple inches of flight before the right seat could slam it down.
Best one I remember is IP-IP flight, hotseating left seat IP’s vest snags the collective, resulting in a couple inches of flight before the right seat could slam it down.
My money is on the Leonardo. Who really thinks we're going to fork out the fuel costs for a twin? This is the service that pulled ELTs out of the Sierra rather than pay money.
harold was closed for awhile so site 8 was the go to tactics spot. i guess that navy federal finally won this battle.
Except for the T-39 as well.
Leonardo has already mentioned this. Although it sounds nice I never thought it was a technically astute sales pitch; the three versions of the engines are more like distant cousins than close relations- KA uses a small family PT6A, T-6 a large PT6A, and the Koala a medium PT6B.
Whatever happens, it will be sad to say goodbye to the faithful Allison turbofan [sic] engines of the Bell 206: https://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=1200&tid=600&ct=1
Last edited: