It's all what you're used to. If I had to come to Oceana tomorrow and lead a division SES, my head might explode trying to negotiate "real" course rules again.
-
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
NVGs at the boat?
- Thread starter herbarnold99
- Start date
There are not enough olives in Provence to make doing the reverse transition - going from all NVG flying to never having them - a fun experience. Cherish those little green wonders.
[QUOTE="Gatordev, post: 839589, member: 10"
Again, procedures changed. With Superhawk, you could get away with just looking at the ship since the approach didn't really start until .5 DME. At .5, even a FFG on a dark night is slightly more than a dot and by .3, it's large enough to fly off of.
However, the original approach had you start at 1.2 DME. If you tried to fly it visually, even on goggles, you could quickly get yourself settling into the black hole, as the ship is nothing more than a (at best) amber/red dot.
Again, I say all of this as someone who was never a fan and barely a user of the SGSI, just giving some perspective. After settling into the black hole one scary night as a new H2P, I would always just use my 400/1.2, 350/1.0, 275/.7, etc numbers and they kept me dry while also identifying when my copilot might getting off profile to the point of a positive correction/control swap.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I think that's the other part of it. HSC never used what I'll call the "HSL Approach" and I think NATOPS called the primary or standard approach. We used the "alternate" approach where you started the approach at 200'/50 kts/.5 DME and then descended/deceled 30'/10kts per .1dme. Was an easy approach to fly/backup.
Again, procedures changed. With Superhawk, you could get away with just looking at the ship since the approach didn't really start until .5 DME. At .5, even a FFG on a dark night is slightly more than a dot and by .3, it's large enough to fly off of.
However, the original approach had you start at 1.2 DME. If you tried to fly it visually, even on goggles, you could quickly get yourself settling into the black hole, as the ship is nothing more than a (at best) amber/red dot.
Again, I say all of this as someone who was never a fan and barely a user of the SGSI, just giving some perspective. After settling into the black hole one scary night as a new H2P, I would always just use my 400/1.2, 350/1.0, 275/.7, etc numbers and they kept me dry while also identifying when my copilot might getting off profile to the point of a positive correction/control swap.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I think that's the other part of it. HSC never used what I'll call the "HSL Approach" and I think NATOPS called the primary or standard approach. We used the "alternate" approach where you started the approach at 200'/50 kts/.5 DME and then descended/deceled 30'/10kts per .1dme. Was an easy approach to fly/backup.
Maybe its a dumb question, but what would the scenario (other than you fucked up and didnt bring goggles) be that you would fly without goggles these days? Your NVDs go down and so does the backup? I feel like a lot of things would have to go wrong that you would have to fly unaided. Speaking from a junior pilot's perspective, where aided flying is still a growing skill, I think I would rather use those few hours unaided 'for proficiency' to further my proficiency aided.
Yes, stay proficient - but no need for unaided night formation anymore.
Much more important is staying proficient on instruments. Had one friend (retired military) flying medevac get caught in IIMC, crashed and died. Likewise, was flying one night doing night instrument approaches with a student in Mobile and listened over approach control as a civilian airplane got vertigo, panicked and fatally crashed. Just in Pensacola last year, an Army Blackhawk got caught in fog, crashed in the water and killed 10+. Maintain your basic instrument skills - they might save your life one day. Remember the Oscar pattern?
I'm preaching to the choir here, but you never know what stupidity might happen outside of home guard 2.5s. Lots of times you don't bring them on a simple day thing that goes sideways.
CCX ferry to AUTEC/Fallon/whatever? Get delayed in that second stop for a partially broken aircraft in your section, and all of a sudden your daytime flight pushes into night and you don't have NVDs. Or you did bring them, but are you going to wear them for the last 20 minutes of a 12 hour day that's technically after sunset.
Log run to tbe beach that gets rolled right. Are you going to RON on the beach because you didn't bring NVDs?
I get these are silly HAC board type questions, but they've happened to me or friends of mine. NVDs are a great tool and I'd never purposely do a night hop without them, but the helicopter won't burst into flames without them after the sun sets.
I was in the habit of always taking NVDs if I was out on operational missions for the reasons you mention. There's little to no reason to not bring them. They're small, light, easy to Cary, and easy to store. You bring a flashlight with you all the time, why not NVDs?
It sometimes got weird looks in the brief when I'd mention it but no one ever fought it.
Agree 100% Like I said, it's a contingency you might not foresee, and especially when you get away from home plate. Some of my best learning experiences have come from flying away from home guard or the boat.
For the 18 types having a clear JHMCS visor is a good reason to not be flying aided.
I left South Whiting at the end of 2012. As an IP, you had to have 6 hours of unaided night in the last 90 days to go on a cross country. True story - was planning on going from PCola to SC. Records called and said I had not flown enough night time. I replied, "what are you talking about - have flown 12 hours at 0% illumination in the last week.". Was told NVG's do not count - you need 6 unaided night hours in the last 90 days. Counted my logbook and showed them, ok - here is 7.5 unaided night. Was told that I missed counting Feb 29, that would be 5.5 in the last 90 days, 7.5 in the last 91 days. Did the cross country but on the Saturday had to meet another IP at Columbia airport and fly 1 hour of night in the pattern before flying back on Sunday afternoon/night.
These are questions? You are an instrument rated naval aviator and can not fly straight and level to a boat and make a night landing without the use of goggles? You gotta be $hitting me Pyle.
For perspective - in the offshore oil industry, there is always a night crew standing by - and we do not use goggles. Have had to make multiple runs at night in bad weather 100+ miles offshore to a oil platform. Likewise, we flew unaided night in the Puma (vertrep det) to the boat.
Goggles are great - but not having them is no reason not to fly in a non-tactical / no terrain environment.
Quick thread jack - did the Navy or Marines ever wise up and get load cells to measure the weight of external loads on the hook or are y'all still simply looking at the torque gauge?
@Randy Daytona
All those stories ended up with happy endings, but the point remains that people need to get out of their comfort zone and take some small "risks" to learn. I say "risks" because it's just stuff they might not have done recently (like actual IMC or night without goggles) or ever because flight hours are drying up and we're trying to do more with less every day. It's stuff you might laugh at, but I get the legitimate fear of a JO to do something "different" and get stomped for it.
Oh, and straight TQ for vertrep.
All those stories ended up with happy endings, but the point remains that people need to get out of their comfort zone and take some small "risks" to learn. I say "risks" because it's just stuff they might not have done recently (like actual IMC or night without goggles) or ever because flight hours are drying up and we're trying to do more with less every day. It's stuff you might laugh at, but I get the legitimate fear of a JO to do something "different" and get stomped for it.
Oh, and straight TQ for vertrep.
We always had each load weighed with calibrated strain gauges in fork trucks when loads were staged on deck. TQ was a nice backup. T5 was always monitored for engine degredation from salt spray.
And everywhere else
I would suggest that naval aviation take a cue from those who do externals for a living - the load cell is a great thing. You instantly know if the load was weighed incorrectly (and it often is.) It does not cost much at all and only weighs a few pounds. We would lift in the Puma: 3,000 on the hook, 5,000 on the hook - 8,000 on the hook???!!! Put it down!!! Of course, then the 60 would come over and try to lift it.... If the stripped down Puma will not lift it, a regular 60 is very doubtful.