NVGs at the boat?

[Gatordev]

I remember as a helo dude VFR was norm and IFR was scary.

Like was said (and good on Synix for doing something "different"), it's what you know. What I love about aviation is that there's always something out there to challenge you, you just have to volunteer yourself to practice.

I was always amazed when flying other VT IPs who were helo dudes that wouldn't want to fly IFR. It's so much easier! Just follow along on the GPS and chart and ATC tells you what to do.

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.

We actually used that one as well, but I want to say that when I was a JO, that it wasn't technically in kosher. I want to say it didn't make it into NATOPS until Superhawk, but it might have been before that. Regardless, it wasn't an "approved" approach when I was growing up (or rather, it was "JO approved"). On top of which, sometimes it was good to get H2Ps to fly the full 1.2 so they could get a scan going for the practice.

One more, slightly unrelated thing about NVD approaches. I've flown more than one approach to the back of a small boy where wearing NVGs allowed you to see a green screen full of static instead of a black abyss. On those nights, I was always glad I had the standard or alternate approach in my back pocket and could fly it by the needles because the damn NODs weren't helping until inside .3.

 

[Pags]

One more, slightly unrelated thing about NVD approaches. I've flown more than one approach to the back of a small boy where wearing NVGs allowed you to see a green screen full of static instead of a black abyss. On those nights, I was always glad I had the standard or alternate approach in my back pocket and could fly it by the needles because the damn NODs weren't helping until inside .3.

At the end of the day NVDs are but one tool in your kit. They're not a miracle device that turns night in to day. If there's no ambient light to amplify then all they'll show you is green fuzz. At that point it's back to the gauges which is where you should have been anyways because NVDs aren't primary instruments. BIs are the most important skill set for aviators who spend a lot of time over water at night. No one wants to fly an Oscar pattern after they get wings but they're good for you to stay sharp on.

Obviously you know all this but for the nuggets reading who might mistake me for some sort of fount of knowledge.

 

[SynixMan]

I think most folks posting here are in vehement agreement, which is refreshing. On the note of flying at the black hole of the DDG spot, that's something we talk about a lot in DLQ briefs. .5-.2 DME looks very similar and you need to be putting in a decelerating attitude when the boat looks stationary to not way overshoot when fidelity comes back in super close. Trust those instruments.

 

[RobLyman]

I think most folks posting here are in vehement agreement, which is refreshing. On the note of flying at the black hole of the DDG spot, that's something we talk about a lot in DLQ briefs. .5-.2 DME looks very similar and you need to be putting in a decelerating attitude when the boat looks stationary to not way overshoot when fidelity comes back in super close. Trust those instruments.[/QUOTE]
That's what I try to emphasis with my fellow Army aviators. If all you have seen is the DLQ training in Pensacola Bay you think you are a God at shipboard landings. The black hole is hard to describe to someone who has never seen it.

 

[ChuckMK23]

Amen Rob!

 

[phrogdriver]

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.

The V-22 will tell you the load on the hooks. Then again, I always say doing externals with a V-22 is like towing a boat with a Ferrari--technically feasible, but not the optimum use of resources.

 

[Pags]

The V-22 will tell you the load on the hooks. Then again, I always say doing externals with a V-22 is like towing a boat with a Ferrari--technically feasible, but not the optimum use of resources.

I get what you're saying, but V-22=Ferrari? Hmm... I'd say it's like a super expensive sports mini van. At the end of the day it's still a mini van.

 

[phrogdriver]

I get what you're saying, but V-22=Ferrari? Hmm... I'd say it's like a super expensive sports mini van. At the end of the day it's still a mini van.

Can we just say Porsche Panamera and stick with the analogy?

 

[ChuckMK23]

You got it @phrogdriver Panamera it is

 

[Alto53]

My '88 Westpac, the whole ACE (no F/W) were on goggles for mission execution, and of course the ARG wasn't NVG compatible, so all launches and recoveries were unaided! Made for an interesting transition on recovery, which isn't to say a lot of the non-flying pilots weren't goggled-up just in case of a wave-off, or comfort level! Army R/W certainly led the way in NVG utilization, but USMC R/W was trying to quickly catch up in the mid 80's. As mentioned earlier, Navy R/W was very resistant to the change and I would have thought that after Operation Earnest Will (Kuwaiti Oil Tanker escorts in '87-88) they would have been a bit more receptive. Basically embarking USA Spec Ops birds aboard the small boys, they simply gave the 'Day mission' to the HSL folks and then darkened ship while the Army boys handled the 'Night mission'. Certainly interesting to be an 'Ole-timer' and experience/watch the transition in technology & tactics.