• 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

Useless aviation knowledges/Helo NATOPS Potpourri for $200 Alex

Jim123

DD-214 in hand and I'm gonna party like it's 1998
pilot
You're not allowed to instruct on a checkride, but the difference between a good check pilot and a great one is that you learn something on your checkride with a great one.

The difference between good check pilot and a mediocre one is that the good one understands this, even if they don't yet have the skill or experience to make that happen. The bad ones have no idea this is even a thing and they tend to be dogmatic about their knowledge (hence my sarcasm about the overused "written in blood" cliché, never mind the ubiquitous change bars that grace the pages of the manuals for mature aircraft). They've probably never been to a natops/curriculum/etc. conference where people argued about dumb stuff to change.
 
Last edited:

Gatordev

Well-Known Member
pilot
Site Admin
Contributor
I get "verbatim..."

I really don't. At the end of the day, the success and measure of good training is results-based, not written-test based. If someone understands and completes the intent of the wording (with success, of course), then great. Now if they misunderstand and execute the incorrect procedure based on a misunderstanding, then they can be remediated and learn something, like Jim is saying.

I think a big part of my issue with verbatim is seeing the same EP change numerous times over a career, when the change is only the order of the procedure and some word-smithing. What is actually done in the cockpit never really changed.

You're not allowed to instruct on a checkride,

Honest question...where does it actually say that? I understand there is a grading standard to meet for the actual maneuver, but if the maneuver or procedure is done incorrectly, why can't it be instructed on the spot (ie, remediation, like the FAA allows) and then redo the maneuver to standard? That seems much more efficient than UQ'ing someone, going home, then having to refly again another day.

Obviously I'm talking smaller things that might result in something to be out of Chapter 20 standards ("CTI" if you will) and not complete failures at a maneuver.
 
Last edited:

Pags

N/A
pilot
You're not allowed to instruct on a checkride, but the difference between a good check pilot and a great one is that you learn something on your checkride with a great one.

The difference between good check pilot and a mediocre one is that the good one understands this, even if they don't yet have the skill or experience to make that happen. The bad ones have no idea this is even a thing and they tend to be dogmatic about their knowledge (hence my sarcasm about the overused "written in blood" cliché, never mind the ubiquitous change bars that grace the pages of the manuals for mature aircraft). They've probably never been to a natops/curriculum/etc. conference where people argued about dumb stuff to change.
When flying the fleet should treat NATOPS as though it's written in blood and comply with the document. However, the fleet also needs to understand that it's not really written in blood; it's written in MS Word after being argued over by lots of people and is many ways represents an agreed to compromise between operational, technical, and various positions. But once the change is promulgated, the fleet needs to treat the new guidance as though it's written in blood. In general, NATOPS is written so that if you follow it and stay within the multi-dimensional box it defines you'll mostly be ok and even if you do screw the pooch you can at least say you were operating within the approved envelope. Also, folks should realize that if they do break NATOPS (46deg AOB, starter cycle times, backup pump on or off during head enagement) that the a/c won't always instantly explode killing everyone*. Some NATOPS limits are there because of physics, some because of how much testing was done, some because it contributes to component lifetime, and some because someone had a wild hair and wanted it back the way they remember it.

*in some other cases, breaking NATOPS can quickly get you in to trouble and could cause the a/c to explode and kill everyone. that's why the fleet should always endeavor to follow NATOPS as close as possible because you don't know where that line is until after you cross it. And even if you cross it and nothing bad happens that doesn't mean you should keep doing it the wrong way because of your own opinions. At the end of the day professional aviators follow NATOPS the best they can regardless of their opinion.
 
Last edited:

Pags

N/A
pilot
Honest question...where does it actually say that? I understand there is a grading standard to meet for the actual maneuver, but if the maneuver or procedure is done incorrectly, why can't it be instructed on the spot (ie, remediation, like the FAA allows) and then redo the maneuver to standard? That seems much more efficient than UQ'ing someone, going home, then having to refly again another day.

Obviously I'm talking smaller things that might result in something to be out of Chapter 20 standards ("CTI" if you will) and not complete failures at a maneuver.
Could it be a difference between an VT/HT checkride* guidance and a NATOPS checkride? Both are checkrides but they aren't the same. I can understand why you might not want to provide instruction during a "final exam." In that case you should grade as appropriate and then re-fly if needed. But CQing a maneuver during an annual checkride is different and seems like a good case for some technique and a chance to try the technique.

*something from a flight school instruction/SOP becoming dogmatic guidance in the Fleet?! Say it ain't so! See also leather jackets in the cockpit and SIGMETs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IKE

squorch2

he will die without safety brief
pilot
But once the change is promulgated, the fleet needs to treat the new guidance as though it's written in blood. In general, NATOPS is written so that if you follow it and stay within the multi-dimensional box it defines
aviation-as-linear-programming
 

Gatordev

Well-Known Member
pilot
Site Admin
Contributor
Could it be a difference between an VT/HT checkride* guidance and a NATOPS checkride? Both are checkrides but they aren't the same. I can understand why you might not want to provide instruction during a "final exam." In that case you should grade as appropriate and then re-fly if needed. But CQing a maneuver during an annual checkride is different and seems like a good case for some technique and a chance to try the technique.

My question is specifically about NATOPS checks, not flight school. I'm guessing Jim is talking about the same thing. I agree, CTI/MPTS/FTI/xx90 flying is certainly different, though it always bugs me when someone interjects one into the other when it's not related.
 

RobLyman

- hawk Pilot
pilot
None
When flying the fleet should treat NATOPS as though it's written in blood and comply with the document. However, the fleet also needs to understand that it's not really written in blood; ……..

Also, folks should realize that if they do break NATOPS (46deg AOB, starter cycle times, backup pump on or off during head enagement) that the a/c won't always instantly explode killing everyone*. Some NATOPS limits are there because of physics, some because of how much testing was done, some because it contributes to component lifetime, and some because someone had a wild hair and wanted it back the way they remember it.

*in some other cases, breaking NATOPS can quickly get you in to trouble and could cause the a/c to explode and kill everyone. that's why the fleet should always endeavor to follow NATOPS as close as possible because you don't know where that line is until after you cross it. And even if you cross it and nothing bad happens that doesn't mean you should keep doing it the wrong way because of your own opinions. At the end of the day professional aviators follow NATOPS the best they can regardless of their opinion.
LMAO. 60 degrees AOB for Army H-60s! But we do PPCs for every flight, so sometimes 60 degrees exceeds max AOB for blade stall at cruise.
 

insanebikerboy

Internet killed the television star
pilot
None
Contributor
LMAO. 60 degrees AOB for Army H-60s! But we do PPCs for every flight, so sometimes 60 degrees exceeds max AOB for blade stall at cruise.

The H-60 airframe can handle doing rolls, it’s just pikot skill in rolling a helicopter that limits it. Beyond 60 AOB is gets real squirrrely.

No personal experience going past 60, of course. Smiles!
 

IKE

Nerd Whirler
pilot
The H-60 airframe can handle doing rolls, it’s just pikot skill in rolling a helicopter that limits it. Beyond 60 AOB is gets real squirrrely.

No personal experience going past 60, of course. Smiles!
As I understand it, the 60° limit is for lateral cyclic control authority. If you go hard to 60°, and you're heavy, you might not be able to stop the roll. The Navy 45° limit is to ensure a long life on the PCRs or other head components (minimize blade stall).

I've been to 90° in a 15k lb UH-60L, but didn't stay there long. It takes about twice as much stick displacement to get back to level as it does to get to 90. Not the most fun of feelings, but a good lesson.

Edit: you've also saturated SAS by the time you get to 60°, so the cyclic goes from a rate controller to an acceleration controller.
 

DanMa1156

Is it baseball season yet?
pilot
Contributor
As I understand it, the 60° limit is for lateral cyclic control authority. If you go hard to 60°, and you're heavy, you might not be able to stop the roll. The Navy 45° limit is to ensure a long life on the PCRs or other head components (minimize blade stall).

I've been to 90° in a 15k lb UH-60L, but didn't stay there long. It takes about twice as much stick displacement to get back to level as it does to get to 90. Not the most fun of feelings, but a good lesson.

Edit: you've also saturated SAS by the time you get to 60°, so the cyclic goes from a rate controller to an acceleration controller.

Also, aren't the R/S more top heavy than the Army birds because of automatic blade fold which makes them even tougher to roll back and easier to gain a rolling momentum? I was under the impression that was part of the limit.

Side story: we got to bring some Army H-60 pilots onboard the aircraft carrier for a couple days and show them around, and even got a couple of them some night small boy DLQs. But, I remember the first night I was told to take them up to Vultures' Row, and they could have cared less about the tailhook aviation going on - all they wanted to see was an automatic blade fold - and I couldn't get through to them how boring it actually is to watch. Sure enough, to their amazement, it was even more awesome than they had imagined. It was literally like watching kids in a candy store. I guess you really don't know how good you have it sometimes!
 

IKE

Nerd Whirler
pilot
Also, aren't the R/S more top heavy than the Army birds because of automatic blade fold which makes them even tougher to roll back and easier to gain a rolling momentum? I was under the impression that was part of the limit.

Side story: we got to bring some Army H-60 pilots onboard the aircraft carrier for a couple days and show them around, and even got a couple of them some night small boy DLQs. But, I remember the first night I was told to take them up to Vultures' Row, and they could have cared less about the tailhook aviation going on - all they wanted to see was an automatic blade fold - and I couldn't get through to them how boring it actually is to watch. Sure enough, to their amazement, it was even more awesome than they had imagined. It was literally like watching kids in a candy store. I guess you really don't know how good you have it sometimes!
They also don't have a rotor brake, so I imagine they were impressed by how quickly you can shutdown.
 

Pags

N/A
pilot
Also, aren't the R/S more top heavy than the Army birds because of automatic blade fold which makes them even tougher to roll back and easier to gain a rolling momentum? I was under the impression that was part of the limit.

Side story: we got to bring some Army H-60 pilots onboard the aircraft carrier for a couple days and show them around, and even got a couple of them some night small boy DLQs. But, I remember the first night I was told to take them up to Vultures' Row, and they could have cared less about the tailhook aviation going on - all they wanted to see was an automatic blade fold - and I couldn't get through to them how boring it actually is to watch. Sure enough, to their amazement, it was even more awesome than they had imagined. It was literally like watching kids in a candy store. I guess you really don't know how good you have it sometimes!
The 60 blade fold seems ho-hum...until you've seen the H-1Y/Z blade fold. And then the 60 blade fold seems like the best thing ever. Even if done by a cheater box. Same same for a shipboard shutdown without a rotor brake.
 

SynixMan

HKG Based Artificial Excrement Pilot
pilot
Contributor
I asked the Sirkorksy engineers at the factory why the Blade fold box is still the same straight up electrical relays and fairly simple logic from the OG Bravo. Answer: We offered to upgrade it but they Navy didn’t want to pay. So we kept making the same box. ??‍♂️
 
Top