Not really...just a bunch of nerds talking about problems with aligning their flux capacitors or something like that.
-
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
No more CQs?
- Thread starter phrogdriver
- Start date
Speaking of off the cliff...So I’m standing on the LSO platform in a moment of quiet, looking up the deck and watching one of our meathead USMC students go into tension for his first ever catshot. It was soft.
My instruction to him in training was that you won’t know if your first shot ever is good or bad, so just set the nose 10 degrees above the horizon and ride it out. That’s exactly what he did, even as he disappeared below the bow.
The boss yelled “EJECT, EJECT, EJECT”. Supposedly there was all kinds of spray coming up as he sagged into low ground effect. Everyone waited for the big splash. But God and thrust were on his side, and he flew up and away. Finally the boss comes up and says, “612, don’t eject.”
The best part is he had absolutely zero idea it was abnormal, until he had a good shot under his belt.
"So you're telling me they're not always that exciting?"
Good thing he didn’t eject!
I remember watching a film during my NFO training in the T-2 about proper radio procedures. The example of a bad radio call was “Aircraft off the cat eject!” The film showed 4 F-4s launching almost simultaneously off all 4 cats, the radio call, 4 crew ejecting, 8 parachutes and 4 F-4s splashing into the ocean.
That's a crap ton of awards (meh) and free beer (alriiiiiiiiight!) for the helo guys who get the rescues.
Once upon a time, I was a Cat I ECMO on a complete boondoggle of a RAG CQ det to North Island. Got put on an FCF backseat with a couple of instructors, and we man up and launch off to the W-291. Instructors are going through the card up front, I'm minding my own business on circuit breaker watch in the back. Interspersed with that, all three of us were shooting the breeze about I can't remember what anymore, when over Beaver control freq . . .Good thing nobody else did either.
"Eject." Clear as day.
WTF?? ICS goes silent as a freaking grave. Everyone checks everything inside and outside the jet and verifies that none of us said the "E" word. Jet was 4.0. We pipe up to Beaver. Wasn't them. They didn't hear it, but all three of us sure did. We finish the card and head home. Only thing I can think is maybe some weirdo with a transmitter seeing if he (it sounded like a he) could say the magic word, turn on the news, and hear about a jet in the drink, maybe. Definitely on the short list of weird stuff I've had happen in the air.
I feel like this is in line with "It was probably nice that his first CQ wasn't in a fleet aircraft". The original point of the topic.. I'll still concede that the smarter guys that stayed in and are making this decision surely know far more than me; I just don't see how for the E-2 guys, it makes much sense. Seems much cheaper to do loads of FCLP and first CQ in the T-45; even if maybe CAT-1 E-2/C-2 guys came less frequently and in larger bunches as a result (ie reduce T-45 CQ to the ones going fatties if F-18/35 guys don't need it, and have like 1/6 the CQ dets, which would still free up a lot of Carrier rotations. Obviously it's not that simple as they'd have to keep those ready for the boat constantly current, or ramp up the entire group when it comes time). Eh, time will tell! Hopefully it's a smooth transition.
Edit: Or buy some more plain-ass birds with mainly only front-end operability as FCLP machines for the RAG. I can't speak to current readiness there, but it always seemed like somewhat of a struggle (through admittedly a student's lens, which isn't always accurate) when I went through there to have up birds for even that mission. The entire RAG FCLP/CQ syllabus was basically a 2-week det (2 flights a day 6 days a week), and that was for folks that had been to the boat before in the T-45 with the hundreds of passes back then (motor skills don't translate, but a lot does, IMO).
Last edited:
That is intriguing. I wonder how much a “slick” E-2 (cockpit and engines) would cost.
Not exactly apples to apples, but on my IA in U-28’s; the 319th had a bunch of PC-12’s that they trained new pilots in before they flew the mission birds.
Given that the E-2 is already the scariest thing behind the ship, I'm really curious what the pro-cancel T-45 CQ crowd has to say about the effect on their training track. PLM can't help them...
While I was deployed in 2019, a VX-23 crew came aboard to re-hack our PALS cert amidststandard numerous C5F extensions. I sat down with the guys in WR3 one night, and not surprisingly, this topic of conversation (CQ) came up. I made the "confidence and experience" argument for not eliminating T-45 CQ from the syllabus. One of them immediately shot that idea down as a "legacy" argument. Made me feel like an old man, even though he was only 2-3 years junior to me. They were both FIRMLY onboard with the idea of eliminating CQ for SNAs.
I personally feel the end-for-end aspect of CQ is important to get earlier in the syllabus. PLM is fantastic, and will pay for itself many times over (if it hasn't already) in saved FCLP and relaxed currency requirements for aviators already in the fleet. However, when starting from zero, I think it's important to get the reps and sets, plus learn admin around the ship to increase aviator confidence and reduce a steep learning curve in the FRS.
While I was deployed in 2019, a VX-23 crew came aboard to re-hack our PALS cert amidst
I personally feel the end-for-end aspect of CQ is important to get earlier in the syllabus. PLM is fantastic, and will pay for itself many times over (if it hasn't already) in saved FCLP and relaxed currency requirements for aviators already in the fleet. However, when starting from zero, I think it's important to get the reps and sets, plus learn admin around the ship to increase aviator confidence and reduce a steep learning curve in the FRS.
I never saw a student DQ’d for their actions on the deck or on the cat, it is all about the overhead and the pass. So what if we split the difference and only did touch & goes in the VTs?
Back in mid-80s they had a TE-2C floating around, with weights instead of the mission package. It went away, so I guess the bean counters decided no. But C-2s ought to be close enough that they could be used?
Touch and goes are the current plan, although I think that's only a temporary argument to bolster support for the move away from T-45 CQ. I'm also not sure students not DQing for something is reason enough to eliminate it. But that's just, like, my opinion, man...
The C-2 flies quite differently from the E-2, according to a couple of pilots I've talked to who have flown both. The vertical stabilizer design is different between the two, and the C-2 doesn't have the big flying saucer over the wing, which generates quite a bit of lift and significant changes in handling qualities. It's worth consideration, but I don't think they're similar enough to warrant a common qual, if that's what you're suggesting.
C-2s are also old as hell, and increasingly hard to keep running.
Last edited:
The E-2 RAG has a "T-Bird" that has no mission systems. Good for a little extra gas behind the boat. Might be a good alternative to scrapping the old Group II's that are currently getting replaced.
I wasn't there, but were they firmly on board or just spouting a party line? Because whether they're right or wrong in the end, "it's a 'legacy' argument" isn't an argument. It's an informal fallacy called an appeal to novelty. If something new is better, it's not better because it's new. It's better for other reasons extraneous to the fact that it's new. If something is old, it's not bad just because it's old. It's bad for other ancillary reasons.