HeliFOs

[S.O.B.]

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.

Again this is the same argument.. I actually agree with you. I’m just participating in the discussion but it makes sense to me that if the Brits have been able to do it safely why couldn’t we. The 53 is no more difficult to fly then 60s and I would imagine no more difficult then the Merlin. The tow mission is demanding as I'm sure ASW is. I really don’t know much about P3s... apparently the mission definitively requires two pilots.. good thing there’s no shortage of P3 bubbas.

 

[bunk22]

What about a COD?

About 2 years ago, a pilot in a COD couldn't get aboard or at least gave up trying. The other pilot got aboard the first try. Back in 01, pilot in left seat becomes ill, pilot in right seat swaps seats and lands on the boat. The C-2 is kind of difficult to land, even on a long 8,000' runway, let alone the carrier. The COD is meant for two pilots..(of course aircrewman as well). An NFO has no business in it.

 

[Flash]

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?).

P-3 NFO's have an Instrument rating and have to do an instrument check every year, I think only if you have a Nav qual (not sure if that is the case). It was basically an idiot check to make sure that the Nav knew what was going on and paid attention to the what the pilots where doing, especially on instrument approaches and in terminal areas. The best way to describe the Nav's role was as an 'interested observer/common sense check' when it came to the pilots, sitting back and being quiet while making sure that the they didn't do anything stupid. Like try and do the wrong approach, which I have seen. And we do have a basic set of intruments at the Nav station, the main instrument lacking is a gyro.

The ECMO instrument checks were much more involved, but still just your basic Instrument qual that I never heard of anyone failing, even after doing the wrong approach.

 

[zab1001]

SOB:

Yeah I definitely read hostility/belief in the argument from you, my mistake.

I'd be curious to know how much time to train it takes to produce a "solo capable" Merlin pilot. I'd guess it's A LOT.

"no shortage of P3 bubbas..." hey I can tell you, there's ONE less...

edit: if any fellow Mods want to split this, please do. I'm in class right now and too much clicky clicky tips off my Professor...

 

[bert]

As a side note to the above discussion, the Merlin's AFCS is designed differently than the 60's and cuts pilot workload significantly. The Brit's training/syllabus is significantly different as well as is the way they divide cockpit workload.

As a side note, if you want to understand why they would/would not put an NFO in a 60 then you need to look at the cost of the manpower. Over a 20 year career the additional cost of training a pilot vs. an NFO is insignificant. Both seats go flying anytime the aircraft does so cutting a squadron to half NFO's will not save any O&M. If you are going to make helo NFO's a viable career path then you have to let them be DH's/XO/CO's as well which means that you need another fully qualified (read HAC) pilot to take their place to maintain the correct number of crew's in the proper readiness level. This isn't a problem for the Brit's because they look at officer career progression differently than our "ticket punching" mentality.

Long story short - it wouldn't cut billets, which means it wouldn't save money. The other argument, of course, is that in an R (for instance) if having a second pilot saved only one aircraft one time, then you just saved $40+ million.

 

[Flash]

As a side note to the above discussion, the Merlin's AFCS is designed differently than the 60's and cuts pilot workload significantly. The Brit's training/syllabus is significantly different as well as is the way they divide cockpit workload......This isn't a problem for the Brit's because they look at officer career progression differently than our "ticket punching" mentality.......Long story short - it wouldn't cut billets, which means it wouldn't save money. The other argument, of course, is that in an R (for instance) if having a second pilot saved only one aircraft one time, then you just saved $40+ million.

Very good points, I am aware that the RN has much 'looser guidelines' when it comes to general career progression. They are also working with much smaller numbers, their helo fleet is only a fraction of teh size of ours. And simply re-engineering our training pipeline would be an enormously expensive proposition alone, not to mention the cultural change that would have to take place. Additionally, we have enough problems trying to recruit NFO's now, adding that huge requirement would compund the problem.

But if you looked at countries that operate like us, the Brits are one of the few countries that operate in as widespread an area, with very similar missions and are generally just as competent as US forces. And from what I have seen, their accident rate is very similar to ours.

So do I think it is realistic for the US Navy to switch to RN model? Probably not. But I am not buying the argument that having two piloted helos is a necessity or even really helps the US Navy much at all. Simply put, I think we are too far down the path we have taken to change now. As a bonus, NFO's don't have to worry about getting stuck with helos, just E-2's!

 

[S.O.B.]

As a bonus, NFO's don't have to worry about getting stuck with helos, just E-2's!

True...Getting stuck with helos would definitely suck........ but at least when folks claim they "fly" the ac, there would be a set of flight controls in front of them.

 

[S.O.B.]

SOB:

Yeah I definitely read hostility/belief in the argument from you, my mistake.

I'd be curious to know how much time to train it takes to produce a "solo capable" Merlin pilot. I'd guess it's A LOT.

"no shortage of P3 bubbas..." hey I can tell you, there's ONE less...

edit: if any fellow Mods want to split this, please do. I'm in class right now and too much clicky clicky tips off my Professor...

No...I definitely think that it would be retarded and probably dangerous.

 

[NozeMan]

True...Getting stuck with helos would definitely suck........ but at least when folks claim they "fly" the ac, there would be a set of flight controls in front of them.

zing!

 

[Flash]

True...Getting stuck with helos would definitely suck........ but at least when folks claim they "fly" the ac, there would be a set of flight controls in front of them.

Since when was flying a helo really 'flying'?

 

[Gatordev]

I think we're all ending up w/ the similar conclusions, but one point of contention...

Very good points, I am aware that the RN has much 'looser guidelines' when it comes to general career progression. They are also working with much smaller numbers, their helo fleet is only a fraction of teh size of ours. And simply re-engineering our training pipeline would be an enormously expensive proposition alone, not to mention the cultural change that would have to take place. Additionally, we have enough problems trying to recruit NFO's now, adding that huge requirement would compund the problem.

But if you looked at countries that operate like us, the Brits are one of the few countries that operate in as widespread an area, with very similar missions and are generally just as competent as US forces. And from what I have seen, their accident rate is very similar to ours.

These two statements seem incongruous to me. If they're smaller, then they physically can't operate at the same level as the U.S. They may have similar skills and abilities, but this is exactly what I was referring to regarding availability. They physically can't operate as much as we do just due to numbers, as such, the argument could be made (though I have no facts to back it up) that having two pilots in the aircraft helps w/ the high availability and the relatively low mishap rate.

But I am not buying the argument that having two piloted helos is a necessity or even really helps the US Navy much at all.

I still haven't heard how one pilot makes VERTREP-ing "safer." I'd be curious to hear from a HC/HSC dude about the feasibility of cross-cockpit REP-ing to the foc'sle. From my limited experience, I'd say it's not optimal.

Simply put, I think we are too far down the path we have taken to change now.

Regardless of yours or my other comments, I think that's probably the real world answer.

True...Getting stuck with helos would definitely suck........ but at least when folks claim they "fly" the ac, there would be a set of flight controls in front of them.

Not necessarily. I'm pretty sure the Lynx only has one set of controls in their operational RN models.

 

[S.O.B.]

Since when was flying a helo really 'flying'?

touche

 

[Flash]

These two statements seem incongruous to me. If they're smaller, then they physically can't operate at the same level as the U.S. They may have similar skills and abilities, but this is exactly what I was referring to regarding availability. They physically can't operate as much as we do just due to numbers, as such, the argument could be made (though I have no facts to back it up) that having two pilots in the aircraft helps w/ the high availability and the relatively low mishap rate.

I think you misunderstood what I was arguing about their ops. Out of all the other countries, ally and other, you could probably argue that only the British military comes close to operating in as many places, with roughly similar capabilites and with personnel just as well trained as ours as we do. Possibly only the French can close to making that claim. The RN operates regularly in as diverse conditions as we do, and even a few the US Navy doesn't, just in smaller numbers. And from what I have seen, they don't seem to be hurting because they generally operate single piloted.

What I meant by availability was in terms of rates, not scale. No one can match our numbers, they don't even comes close, so there is no one that we can sompare to when it comes to that. But I was referring to availability rates, not the number available, which we can compare. Like in 70%instead of 70 aircraft.

As for their accident rate, I would assume they have an equivalent to our Saftey Center but I have no idea how to get their numbers. But I would assume that their accident rate is not significantly different than ours, just from operating with the Brits in the past. Maybe it is a good research idea for someone's master's thesis!

I do agree on the point that this is all an exercise in theory and that the reality of the US Navy's way of operating helicopters will not significantly change. Just trying to make the point that just because we do things one way doesn't mean it can't be done just as well another, as a close ally has demonstrated for years. Especially when it invovles FO's!

 

[S.O.B.]

The other argument, of course, is that in an R (for instance) if having a second pilot saved only one aircraft one time, then you just saved $40+ million.

Exactly the way the Navy should approach more decisions , i.e. the R not having an ILS: if we lose one aircraft over thirty years the cost savings of going without is gone.

 

[Gatordev]

Copy all...fully onboard w/ how the Admiralty still has capability and skills.

What I meant by availability was in terms of rates, not scale. No one can match our numbers, they don't even comes close, so there is no one that we can sompare to when it comes to that. But I was referring to availability rates, not the number available, which we can compare. Like in 70%instead of 70 aircraft.

I was referring to the same thing, ie rates. Generally, HSL has had the highest rates when compared to the other countries in theatre. Someone has keep the 'trons going while the airwing gets its beauty rest. My assertion was that the combination of both a high availability rate and a relatively low mishap rate were both related to having two pilots only going in the drink occasionally as opposed to the hypothetical one pilot possibly going in the drink more often.

It's been a long time since I've seen a SORTS (or whatever Ops minutia says such things), so I'm basing my availability rates on admittedly old data.