Not really...just a bunch of nerds talking about problems with aligning their flux capacitors or something like that.Holy shit this was a fascinating thread that fell right off the fuckn cliff.
Not really...just a bunch of nerds talking about problems with aligning their flux capacitors or something like that.Holy shit this was a fascinating thread that fell right off the fuckn cliff.
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.Holy shit this was a fascinating thread that fell right off the fuckn cliff.
"So you're telling me they're not always that exciting?"The best part is he had absolutely zero idea it was abnormal, until he had a good shot under his belt.
Good thing he didn’t eject!
That's a crap ton of awards (meh) and free beer (alriiiiiiiiight!) for the helo guys who get the rescues.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.
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.
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.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.
That is intriguing. I wonder how much a “slick” E-2 (cockpit and engines) would cost.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).
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?I wonder how much a “slick” E-2 (cockpit and engines) would cost.
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?
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.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.
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.While I was deployed in 2019, a VX-23 crew came aboard to re-hack our PALS cert amidststandardnumerous 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.