NFO flight time

[ea6bflyr]

Was he senior to the guy who he bumped? After six months of getting his crew back aboard for rats, the least one could do is hook the guy up with a ride home. Especially if he was senior. Gonna have a senior JO pilot walk off while a young ECMO walks off and potentially gets home sooner? Seniority should be blind to designators.

I have no problems letting a SENIOR ECMO take my seat. Seniority amongst crew positions is different than lineal number. If you aren't qual'd in that position, then it's not your seat to take. It takes Pilots a heck of a lot longer to get to the fleet vs. NFOs, so you want to hold that against us?

In the example above, the LSO was flown from the boat to Lemoore in a Prowler, and then the third NFO seat was EMPTY from Lemoore to Whidbey. That's a serious party foul in my book.

Agreed, that the LSO's work hard to get aircrew aboard, but then again, if you are on CAG staff, you are on your dis-associated sea tour and that doesn't give you or anyone the right to steal a operational squadron seat that you are not qualified to sit in.

-ea6bflyr

 

[a-6intruder]

To log the time the aircraft has to require two crew members and you have to have conducted three take offs and landings within the previous 90 days (as I recall) and demonstrate a V-1 cut, engine failure on take off. I hardly think that was done by any BN from the right seat reaching across to the stick. Since the Intruder is multi engine it would also require a multi engine rating with at least a center line thrust restriction.


All my War Hoover time was logged as SCT for back seat sorties and Copilot for front seat flights. The only reason for that was to differentiate between the experience gained in the different skill sets used in either position. This was particularly useful when on cruise and we wanted to track a guys front seat experience around the boat. It had nothing to do with NATOPS or FAA flight time logging.

Understood, but I'm sure guys aggressively tried to parlay that "co-pilot" time from the military log book when they went to FAA to get their log book verified.

Could the V-1 cut be demonstrated in a sim? Or are you telling me your guys practiced engine failures on takeoff in the plane? I recall lots of single engine practice landings (w/ the "bad" engine at idle), but never a practice engine failure takeoff in the aircraft. Then again, perhaps FAM 1-4 took care of that when it was pilot / pilot in the aircraft.

Also, the A-6 was granted multi-pilot mins to shoot precision approaches down to 100'. Clearly that was a stretch given the lack of stick/throttle on the right side, but perhaps that was the rationale they were able to use. Like I said, I know of at least 5 A-6 B/Ns from my time frame who are now flying UAL, Continental, and Delta, and it wasn't solely based on their couple hundred -172 or Bonanza hours.

 

[wink]

Understood, but I'm sure guys aggressively tried to parlay that "co-pilot" time from the military log book when they went to FAA to get their log book verified..

I am sure it happened. They just bull shitted a local FSDO guy that didn't know anything about the military.

Could the V-1 cut be demonstrated in a sim? Or are you telling me your guys practiced engine failures on takeoff in the plane? I recall lots of single engine practice landings (w/ the "bad" engine at idle), but never a practice engine failure takeoff in the aircraft. Then again, perhaps FAM 1-4 took care of that when it was pilot / pilot in the aircraft.

VS pilots did take off engine failures in the sim. I don't recall any of our guys even having a motor pulled to idle on take off during training or check. As far the the FAA is concerned, they can be done in an "approved" sim. I suppose all the Navy full motion sims would qualify. Of course if you wear one anchor and have a NATOPS check it is all good.

Also, the A-6 was granted multi-pilot mins to shoot precision approaches down to 100'. Clearly that was a stretch given the lack of stick/throttle on the right side, but perhaps that was the rationale they were able to use.

That may have been their rationale, but it was not legal. The Viking used multi pilot mins as well. That was because some one was up front with a clear view to help with the visual break out at mins. Had nothing to do with having a stick. Lord knows not many NFOs could fly a pilot out of vertigo at 200' on a GCA even with full controls.

 

[Pugs]

Also, the A-6 was granted multi-pilot mins to shoot precision approaches down to 100'. Clearly that was a stretch given the lack of stick/throttle on the right side, but perhaps that was the rationale they were able to use.

Yep, same in the Prowler as ECMO 1 can help acquire the runway environment, although IIRC the mins were always 200 1/2.

 

[A4sForever]

....Agreed, that the LSO's work hard to get aircrew aboard, but then again, if you are on CAG staff... that doesn't give you or anyone the right to steal a operational squadron seat that you are not qualified to sit in.

-ea6bflyr

Seen it happen before -- in my experience , it was usually an "accommodation" from a kiss-up CO to a receptive CAG.

I never saw the initial overture to ride someone's seat to the beach made on the part of the LSO. I know I never did it.

 

[A4sForever]

....Also, the A-6 was granted multi-pilot mins to shoot precision approaches down to 100'. Clearly that was a stretch given the lack of stick/throttle on the right side, but perhaps that was the rationale they were able to use.....

The FAA is notorious for doing things when it's expedient. I suppose, in this case, the NAVY is no different.

Do you mean 200' ??? Or if 100' eek and 1/4 mile, that must have been an accommodation made to the community AFTER my departure ... I mean, we "might" have done it ("accidentally" ) when the situation required a real hard "look-see" at the runway ... but it wasn't authorized. Did you have a coupled approach capability in the A-6E + ?? An instrument approach capable "HUD", or just regular old needles ??? Even needles were in their infancy when I left the Rock and seldom worked, ship or shore.

We couldn't even take the WHALE (-100/-200 series) w/ the steam gauges to 100' in civie street -- nor wanted to ....

 

[Flash]

That may have been their rationale, but it was not legal. The Viking used multi pilot mins as well. That was because some one was up front with a clear view to help with the visual break out at mins. Had nothing to do with having a stick. Lord knows not many NFOs could fly a pilot out of vertigo at 200' on a GCA even with full controls.

The FAA approved a waiver for the Navy to consider the A-6 and EA-6 dual-piloted for instrument approach purposes, it was fully legal. That is what I was taught from day one in Prowlers and it was in our Natops.

 

[wink]

The FAA approved a waiver for the Navy to consider the A-6 and EA-6 dual-piloted for instrument approach purposes, it was fully legal. That is what I was taught from day one in Prowlers and it was in our Natops.

No No. I meant NFOs logging coPILOT time in their civilian log books, without meeting any other requirements, just because the Navy allowed mulitpiloted instrument mins was illegal as per the FARs. The S-3 had the same waiver.

 

[a-6intruder]

The FAA is notorious for doing things when it's expedient. I suppose, in this case, the NAVY is no different.

Do you mean 200' ??? Or if 100' eek and 1/4 mile, that must have been an accommodation made to the community AFTER my departure ... I mean, we "might" have done it ("accidentally" ) when the situation required a real hard "look-see" at the runway ... but it wasn't authorized. Did you have a coupled approach capability in the A-6E + ?? An instrument approach capable "HUD", or just regular old needles ??? Even needles were in their infancy when I left the Rock and seldom worked, ship or shore.

We couldn't even take the WHALE (-100/-200 series) w/ the steam gauges to 100' in civie street -- nor wanted to ....

100 and 1/4. Multi-pilot mins. We made the point of reminding the RIOs of that fact, although secretly many of us would have preferred to stay out of the treeline...

Needles and Bullseye, both worked fairly reliably. ALWAYS backed up by the ever-popular "Intruder Approach" which we were pretty confident in, and you could trick it to give you good data even below 100 feet PAR mins. Used it exclusively w/ a TACAN at NTU one night w/ dense fog and PAR inop after diverting from the boat. Would have gone missed approach the third time and gone to NAS Norfolk but some meathead fouled the runway and it was past time for us to land.

We had a coupled capability, at least in theory. I recall trying twice - both times got kicked out with a dramatic left wing down in close. Some guys might have had better luck - wasn't something we spent lots of effort on to maintain (equipment-wise) is my guess.

 

[Flash]

No No. I meant NFOs logging coPILOT time in their civilian log books without meeting any other requirements just because the Navy allowed mulitpiloted instrument mins was illegal as per the FARs. The S-3 had the same waiver.

Gotcha, sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

[A4sForever]

....Needles and Bullseye, both worked fairly reliably. ALWAYS backed up by the ever-popular "Intruder Approach" ....

Needles were a sorry joke in my day.

There was some kinda system approach mode -- I can't remember the name or whether or not the "-A" had it -- but the "-E" certainly did ... it was a good idea, it just didn't work too well as you had to have a full-up system (a fantasy in the -A model) and a really, really sharp B/N (a fantasy in the .... JUST KIDDING )!!!

A couple of my B/N's and I did it at the ship on several occasions (night ) -- it was originally designed for that -- and the results were surprisingly good -- sometimes better than what we got out of a CCA ... 'course you needed that full-up system (more likely in the -E model) and that really, really sharp B/N to make it all go 'round.

AND ... that unbelievably sharp driver to follow steering properly and connect all the dots ....

 

[nittany03]

So I take it the "Intruder Approach" had something to do with that big green TV screen that was your ADI? And something to do with ground-mapping radar?

 

[A4sForever]

So I take it the "Intruder Approach" had something to do with that big green TV screen that was your ADI? And something to do with ground-mapping radar?

More detailed than that, if I remember correctly ... ANY B/N'S OUT THERE ... ????

I think several parameters had to be entered, i.e., BRC, FB, glideslope angle amongst others ... the "key" was a good B/N w/ a tight system/radar calling glideslope & headings to the PILOT. When run properly, I got better set-ups than from the "average" CCA ...

Memory is fuzzy on the details ... I know I liked it when it worked.