HeliFOs

[Uncle Fester]

I'm just saying that it would be feasible and there would be advantages to having INFOs in the clown jets. That being said, I'd have to agree that those advantages probably aren't worth the time and effort it'd take to change the syllabi.

However comma it sounds like someone in CNATRA has decided that it's the "right answer". So assuming you're in the jet VTs and you've got INFOs coming, and that they're from VF/VFA/VAQ land...how would you make best use of them?

I'm not saying it's harder or easier, but I can think of at least three -60s that went in the water at the back of a small-boy in my short career. I haven't heard of that many ramp-strikes. Again, I don't think it's because it's "harder" (whatever that means), but when two pilots let an aircraft go into the water, taking one of the pilots away doesn't seem to make sense.

You kinda lose me with your argument there. I don't claim to be any kind of authority on helo CRM, but an NFO can read an altimeter, VSI and meatball as well as a pilot (I'm assuming PRK/glasses here :icon_tong ). As well as yelling "POWER!"

 

[MasterBates]

If only small-boys had a ball....

We had AWs to sit in the back and hawk the altimeter and yell POWER

 

[Gatordev]

You kinda lose me with your argument there. I don't claim to be any kind of authority on helo CRM, but an NFO can read an altimeter, VSI and meatball as well as a pilot (I'm assuming PRK/glasses here :icon_tong ). As well as yelling "POWER!"

To add on to what MB is saying... We have the AWs to help w/ the calls. In my experience (and from talking w/ others), when people get into the black hole (and it's when, not if), it often requires the other pilot to take controls. Not always, but often the flying pilot has lost the bubble at that point and their brain just doesn't figure it out quick enough w/ the descent rate that builds up. Operating on a third axis (the hypothetical Z-axis...muhey) and starting at the lower altitude is what got me and gets others.

Again, the debate of which is harder is pointless (and covered in another thread), but when two pilots can't keep an aircraft out of the water (be it skill, CRM, or whatever), removing one doesn't seem to be the answer.

Which leads me a question: who has more mishaps behind the boat, CVW or HSx? After reading this thread, it got me to wondering, so I've submitted a request to the Safety Center to see what the numbers say. Stay tuned, though it will take a few weeks to get the answer.

 

[S.O.B.]

Which leads me a question: who has more mishaps behind the boat, CVW or HSx? After reading this thread, it got me to wondering, so I've submitted a request to the Safety Center to see what the numbers say. Stay tuned, though it will take a few weeks to get the answer.

That's a great point. I know this has come up before. What was the big Navy reason for keeping NFOs out of HELOs?

 

[Uncle Fester]

That's a great point. I know this has come up before. What was the big Navy reason for keeping NFOs out of HELOs?

From what I heard 'round the campus, I don't think it was so much a decision to "keep them out," as that it wasn't worth retooling the pipeline for them. Sounded like it was mostly an idea to make sure all the Hoover FOs found new homes, not so much a response to a need.

Okay, not a meatball, but don't the small boys have some sort of VSI, glideslope indicator type thingy? Or did I dream it?

Interesting discussion here. Lots to learn.

 

[Gatordev]

From what I heard 'round the campus, I don't think it was so much a decision to "keep them out," as that it wasn't worth retooling the pipeline for them. Sounded like it was mostly an idea to make sure all the Hoover FOs found new homes, not so much a response to a need.

Okay, not a meatball, but don't the small boys have some sort of VSI, glideslope indicator type thingy? Or did I dream it?

Interesting discussion here. Lots to learn.

The small boys have a SGSI, which is a tri-colored GS indicator. Or it attempts to be. The intent is to ride the amber/red interface for a proper glide slope. The reality of it is that it's hard to see at 1.2 or 2 miles (where the respective approaches begin) and it may not be all that accurate on any given ship. It's also worthless on goggles for obvious reasons. Personally, I never really used it. Unless it was a really bright night, I just flew the numbers inside the cockpit and then at a 1/4 mile popped my head out and flew to the perch visually. From my experience, guys would get in trouble (myself included) when they wouldn't fly the closure numbers and/or they would try and peek out too early and fly the pin-point of light visually. The challenge of the approach isn't the altitude control (as long as your smooth), but to manage the closure and hit the wickets so you're not at 200 feet and trying to hover or at 50 feet and going 50 knots on the fantail. To do that, you have to fly a combination of both airspeed and groundspeed.

 

[S.O.B.]

What about the VP community, couldn't they get by with one single anchor guy?

 

[Flash]

What about the VP community, couldn't they get buy with one single anchor guy?

Longer flights.

 

[Single Seat]

What about the VP community, couldn't they get by with one single anchor guy?

Probably none...

Man if I read another approach article about a THREE engine approach to an ILS I'll slit my wrists! :icon_tong

 

[S.O.B.]

Probably none...

Man if I read another approach article about a THREE engine approach to an ILS I'll slit my wrists! :icon_tong

I agree. If there's any community that could handle using NFOs as pseudo pilots it would be the P3 guys. What does the non-flying guy do anyway? The radios and NAV? Sounds like a FO to me.

 

[zab1001]

I agree. If there's any community that could handle using NFOs as pseudo pilots it would be the P3 guys. What does the non-flying guy do anyway? The radios and NAV? Sounds like a FO to me.

Why would you put an NFO up front where that's all he could feasibly do? There are no systems in the front end that are FO specific. He can't designate buoys or select weapon stations.

A FO does not have the time to study and understand the normal and emergency checklists. A prop malfunction (6 pages of procedures that need to completely understood) can go from bad to shit without solid knowledge and CRM between 2 pilots and the FE. Unlike one pilot/one FO platforms, the NFOs in VP barely touch on the mechanical systems in the aircraft, and with good reason, it takes long enough to train the front-end guys, adding that to the FO syllabus would just make it even worse. P-3 pilots are systems nazis for a reason.

Yes, a FO can fly straight and level, even airways nav, I've put them in the seat plenty of times.

12 hour burner, 200 feet, 3 engines, yanking to toss buoys requires 2 PILOTS. One guy flying, one guy punching buttons and standing by to assume the controls. As I'm sure you have in the -53, I've had to take the controls more times than I liked.

The time to train would be way too long, and simply not bring enough to the table.

 

[Harrier Dude]

Do P-3/E-2 NFOs have instrument ratings? If so, how does that work? I understand what an ECMO or WSO does in the goo (I think....don't have one), but the P-3/E-2 guys can't really see outside or access the flight instruments (or can they?).

 

[zab1001]

Do P-3/E-2 NFOs have instrument ratings? If so, how does that work? I understand what an ECMO or WSO does in the goo (I think....don't have one), but the P-3/E-2 guys can't really see outside or access the flight instruments (or can they?).

I'll defer to an NFO here. I've actually had the Nav do something during an approach maybe 3 times [windshear reported, backup an unfamiliar missed approach (and that was with a sub-par Nav who I was pissed at for ineptness, the TACCO and I decided to hammer him)].

Anyone else think this discussion ("Why not have just one pilot in everything?") deserves a split?

 

[S.O.B.]

A FO does not have the time to study and understand the normal and emergency checklists. A prop malfunction (6 pages of procedures that need to completely understood) can go from bad to shit without solid knowledge and CRM between 2 pilots and the FE. Unlike one pilot/one FO platforms, the NFOs in VP barely touch on the mechanical systems in the aircraft, and with good reason, it takes long enough to train the front-end guys, adding that to the FO syllabus would just make it even worse. P-3 pilots are systems nazis for a reason.

Yes, a FO can fly straight and level, even airways nav, I've put them in the seat plenty of times.

12 hour burner, 200 feet, 3 engines, yanking to toss buoys requires 2 PILOTS. One guy flying, one guy punching buttons and standing by to assume the controls. As I'm sure you have in the -53, I've had to take the controls more times than I liked.

The time to train would be way too long, and simply not bring enough to the table.

That's the same argument: blah , blah, blah....what we do is so difficult we must have a pilot ready to take the controls at a moments notice...is that more difficult then Jet to the boat at night or Merlin to the back of a small boy?

 

[zab1001]

That's the same argument: blah , blah, blah....what we do is so difficult we must have a pilot ready to take the controls at a moments notice...is that more difficult then Jet to the boat at night or Merlin to the back of a small boy?

1. The aircraft is DESIGNED for 2 pilots.

2. Jets have ejection seats.

3. Why make it that much more complicated/unsafe?

4. I've flown the P-3 single seat. By single seat I mean a barely qualified FE and 2 true No-Ps (as in 8 hours in type, 6 basic procedural sims), at night, ASW prosecution, 200 feet (foreign), with a nugget TACCO and NAV. It sucked ass. I had to do everything, and after 12 hours which ended in a max crosswind night approach to mins at one of the most notorious fields in South America, I was exhausted. Absolutely an unsafe situation that I accepted due to operational requirement.

I've also done 13 hour real deal burners with another experienced guy, and that sucked almost as much, even able to swap the controls.

Are those cases the norm? Not at all, but why establish a system where the potential to be thrown into them exists?

By your logic, why don't the airlines fly single seat? Hell, "all they do" is take off, A to B, and land.

For that matter, why can't a -53 fly truly single piloted?

What about a COD?

The better question is, "we have the mechanisms necessary to avoid doing it, why would we?" Fuck macho, I like living and taking every reasonable measure to assure the safety of my crew and aircraft.

I already know I'm not going to change your mind. I also know nothing is going to change regarding this scenario.