I agree, but I think the idea of not giving someone a HAC cruise is just so anathema. Sending them to do 2P jobs as a HAC isn't doing anything different in the long run, but I imagine the thought is that it keeps guys competitive for VT/HT slots. But I'm just speculating as it sounds like another example of kicking the can to the next guy.
-
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
The great Helo debate
- Thread starter PhrogLoop
- Start date
All the best parts of the model
If they just made the weapons schools HSCWSL and HSCWSP and gave them birds or used RAG birds and plussed up the RAG's manning and aircraft, then TAD'ed guy's there for their Level III or II quals I think we could solve the problem. Send guys that were up for LVL III to the weapons school TAD to focus on only that for 3 weeks or whatever and come back qualed. They could determine the number of quals that were required an allocate those to the squadrons to send their guys to the WS to get that qual. If NAVAIR said you need X number of LVL III HACs to deploy it would be on the WS to make that happen. There wouldn't be a dissimilarity between what the HSc squadrons could accomplish and the HsC squadrons could accomplish. It would all come down to funds, and the higher ups could only blame themselves if they weren't getting the numbers they wanted.
I have so many Hac's due to sequestration. My det was supposed to deploy last summer on a USNS. Once the cuts came and carrier deployments got moved, we fell next in line for det. It just happened to be the one bird det in Italy. We had to balance getting a Hac det with getting a chance at a post cruise Hac job. The other issue is you just don't know for sure when the squadron is going to get a det. In the past month we just picked up an LHD det. That changed all the ground jobs for my Hac's after det.
On a side note, part of the change the wing is trying to make is to have DH's get their level 3 qual while they are still in the FRS. That alone will make a big difference and already we are seeing more DH's show up with lvl 3 quals across the board just from their previous quals. Unlike me who showed up with nothing since I was an H-3 guy.
On a side note, part of the change the wing is trying to make is to have DH's get their level 3 qual while they are still in the FRS. That alone will make a big difference and already we are seeing more DH's show up with lvl 3 quals across the board just from their previous quals. Unlike me who showed up with nothing since I was an H-3 guy.
How so? I've always wondered why the AF would send guys to us for primary and then to you guys for helos.
They may be 'admin' but they're not something that you get good at handling or remain proficient at by sitting around talking about them.
Of course we do, but I think it goes without saying that "the sim doesn't fly like the real thing" in pretty much in real flight regime (autos, approaches, etc..). Fine example being that you can give a RAG student 30 sims before he/she gets in the real aircraft and they (i.e. me, at the time, or pretty much anyone) still can't really do a single engine approach or auto worth a damn.
It's interesting to watch (from these various threads) the HSC community slowly come to grips with tactics and the "cost" associated with getting the quals. A lot of this stuff was (and still is) the same things HSL went through 10-12 years ago as they embraced ACTC and stuff. I know it's apples and oranges (since the missions are different), but on the HSL/HSM side, the OIC is required to be LVL 4, and all the HACs have to be LVL 3. None of that is meant as a dig, just an observation.
Also, I keep hearing about how short the HSC (exp) guys get with airframes and how it's hard for everyone to get quals/upgrades. Just know it's not just your community. As a new JO, I saw the same problem with a 10-plane squadron 12 years ago. It also sucked owning the only two up aircraft in the squadron as the Det MO while everyone else was deployed. We would always have a flier, but we also always seemed to be working weekends to make that happened.
It probably won't impact the UPT system at all, I was referring to in unit progression training. Basically as it stand now there is very little structure to the day to day flight experience of a squadron co-pilot. He may get scheduled with an imaginative Flight lead who has all sorts of cool training tricks up his sleeve, or he might get the guy who just plans to go out and waste time flying circles in the sky. Then after a certain number of hours he gets looked at for Aircraft Commander. Wash rinse repeat, look at for flight lead, repeat some more, look at for Instructor. Training progression ends up looking like a staircase with several very large steps, some folks handle those steps easily because they had the fortune of flying with shit hot mentors, some it's a very large jump, some are just idiots. Basically we're questioning why the system is several very large steps instead of lots of little ones.
No doubt, but the fact remains being really really really good at flying a single engine approach to a spot with a #2 Hydraulic system leak has zero impact on mission accomplishment.
I asked because we only have simulators at Kirtland, not at the units. While the sim doesn't really fly like the real thing, being able to practice the CRM and problem solving aspect of things without eating into aircraft availability is huge. We need to really look at what is the sim good at, and what does it suck at, if it's something the sim is good at, don't waste time doing it in the air, as an example a sim is more than adequate to train to DEC malfunctions. Another example, I'm not going to set this EP up, you're just going to fly with the pilot assist module disabled, then we're going to do 4 autos at the end of this TAC sortie, you can setup contextual EPs in the sim.
I completely agree with you here. 99% of a CATM-EX (ASU flight) where we're doing SCAR or ASU could be taught in the SIM if we just took the SIMs more seriously and they were more readily available. Seems like most of the learning that occurs on these tactics flights, for me anyways, is just figuring out how to talk on the radio/comms and manage the flight which doesn't have much to do with flying the aircraft (monkey/stick skills) so the SIM would be a fine place for that stuff. I think the problem is that we only get SIM time every now and then and it's typically used for instrument proficiency flights or checks or something along those lines. And when we do use it for tactics cards, it kinda gets blown off as a dick-around time or something which isn't how it should be.
I don't know where you guy are at as far de-brief. But I know, in my world, your average line squadron sucks at debrief. If you brief for close to an hour then fly for two, why in the hell don't you spend at least close to an hour of time examining how you did in debrief?
I'll agree with @busdriver, a lot of the time the most important aspect of an EP is the CRM and decision making involved in them. I'd say that sitting around critically talking and thinking about EPs can actually be incredibly beneficial. The monkey skills are important, but lots more flying and the feel it develops and confidence in the aircraft you get with more hours is probably far more important than flying a million autos from 1000'.
From a Boss perspective, most EPs will give you ample time to set the deck and give the EP aircraft what they need. I could easily get the boat into the wind and accelerating in about two minutes.
From what I know about HSL and HSC squadrons, it seems that det based squadrons can have a hard time due to the availability of dets. If it's a slow time, a whole group of guys can get screwed.
This is a good post. It's interesting that your unit level training is so informal for a community with an actual mission. It sounds very much like how the old navy HC community syllabus used to work. that's since been replaced by a far more rigorous system with specific objectives per flight.
Some of it willbe instructor specific, but for a syllabus card, a thorough debrief that covers all aspects of the flight including planning should be the norm. You can expect to be debriefed on every point of CRM across the DAMCLAS perspective. You can also expect to have your brief torn to shreds to include number of "ums", how you pointed at the screen, and capitalization. When you're in the syllabus it seems stupid and worthless, but in hindsight that model really did a lot to prepare me as a professional .
Yup, very true. While they're mostly a non-issue now, IAs screwed a lot of people, as well. I know a guy who showed up to the VTs as an IUT with [Ed Rooney voice] niiine [/voice] HAC hours.
I agree, though I think you could argue that it may be exactly because they have a mission that it's like that. "Let's get this thing moving and go deploy. We know what we need to do." I'm not saying that's necessarily the efficient way of doing it, but I can understand it.
It's funny this topic went from equipment to manning/training so quickly. As an HSC (CVW) bubba, the view that it's all rainbows and butterflies on this side of the house is laughable. We have the same issues everyone does. My point was largely that the Sierra can sometimes be the wrong tool for the job that we're training to do, but helicopters are a low priority for NAVAIR and anything that even sounds risky as an acquisition program won't leave the womb.
Until you actually have to do it. I've lost my #2 hydraulics 3 times, twice to a single spot ship. Once unaided at night to a ship. Those hand flying skills and EPs can save your life and should be a given before you are even considered for HAC.
Agreed, I'll put it another way though, if all your training system allows is being really good at EPs and hand flying skills and a perfunctory look at a tactical mission, you're probably not going to be very successful at doing that mission. Either that's acceptable or you shift focus or find a way to be more efficient.