Rotary Wing Roundup (Helos at work in Maritime Environment)

[MasterBates]

Much of what has been said, also goes for the E-2 Community.

Spend 2+ years to wings, (Strike may be longer on paper, but E-2/C-2 is longer in reality from my experience), CQ by yourself.

BAM! Off to VT-120 where you are taught that you can not as much as start an engine without a 30 second brief. I know some of the justification has been "the -2 is a bear behind the boat".. True, but so is the Prowler, and so was the Intruder, Tomcat and a host of other stuff JOs flew fresh out of the RAG.

TRA is the single biggest thing keeping things how they are. Hell, other countries fly helos single pilot with an "NFO" in the other seat. It's been talked about for the E-2D, but I don't see that happening.

 

[KBayDog]

As a "senior 2P", on the cusp of HAC, I can say in hindsight, that as a 350TT new 2P, I was little more than a competent sand-bag. I was fully capable of flying the helicopter, knew the basics of the systems and EPs, knew procedurally how to fly VFR/IFR etc, but honestly, if ANYthing happened I don't know (in hindsight) if I'd have made the right decisions. Ultimately that's all HAC is. Stick skills come with time, and you'll never have the experience going on a det you've never been on before, but being a HAC, you've "practiced" having experience through training/scenarios and boards to make good decisions. Sort of a "fake it til you make it" premise. The difference between being a new 2P at 350-400 hours and 500 hours has been a HUGE metamorphosis.

Not arguing the validity of the increased knowledge/SA of someone with more time and hours in the aircraft.

That said, if hours and experience = safety and solid decisions, Marine WTIs (and the Navy equivalents) should have absolutely zero mishaps, and should have records of absolutely flawless decision making.

Has history shown that to be the case?

 

[phrogpilot73]

Has history shown that to be the case?

Nope.

Hell, other countries fly helos single pilot with an "NFO" in the other seat.

British Jungly helicopters fly with two pilots. However, the 2P can start the aircraft, refuel and reposition (via air taxi if need be) while the HAC is getting the flight brief. 2Ps will also fly while the HAC unstraps and goes in back to instruct in aerial guns.

 

[bert]

A large part of the reason why the rotary wing Navy operates the way it does is because it can. Our manning supports the ability to launch every aircraft with at least one senior/more experienced pilot instead of two newbies. Since the helo world has that luxury, there is no good reason to send out the j.v. when more experienced personnel are available.

Don't get me wrong; if you send out two junior H2P's together on a regular basis, they will gain experience faster, but there are two issues with that. First, that experience they gain may not be positive - if they only have each other to learn from, there is no guarantee that they are learning anything useful. Second, there is the question of how much additional risk is justified by that potential increase in the H2P's learning curve. Would the gains across the Navy be worth one extra mishap in decade? What about 1/year? (Personally, I like to think the number would be closer to that first example rather than the second, but we won't know until we try...).

That is how the various front offices will look at it, and unless manning changes make the current HAC/H2P system unsustainable I don't see it changing. As a good for instance, the on again/off again fascination with putting NFO's into Romeo's is a perfect example. Our friends across the pond have made that work for years and there is little reason to believe that we couldn't do the same thing, but that would require a major revision of the aircraft commander concept in the rotary wing world. (And yes, their mishap rate is higher than ours, but how much of that you can attribute to the pilot/NFO setup rather than the many other differences between our operations would be debatable).

 

[KBayDog]

Don't get me wrong - I'm not arguing for sending two H2Ps out for a LLL R&S insert or anything, nor am I advocating having every flight be H2P-H2P.

However, if the opportunity presents itself for some pattern work, FCLPs, instruments, etc., why not send two co-pilots up? These FAM-type flights might even speed up the learning curve, and perhaps put an end to the 350-hr sandbags.

 

[Jim123]

Aren't you glad you opened this can of worms Paddles?

 

[BACONATOR]

I have heard often that section lead for jet types is the "HAC equivalent". Compare and contrast all you want, but OPNAV views aircraft commander in ONE light. Yes, they are going to be CONSTANTLY flying with their section lead, who is a senior LT at a minimum, BUT they still have to get the bird down on deck if something goes wrong (albeit with a bit of help from their section/division). I was simply noting the TTT based on when the various communities make you an aircraft commander. Helos/Maritime probably end up being quite a bit longer than jets. I mean helicopters are inherently harder to fly than fixed wing, but I think a lot of it has to do with the Fleet requirement for 2nd pilots, and the community culture of grooming a pilot for HAC. I won't try to speculate any more as to why.

 

[Gatordev]

I mean helicopters are inherently harder to fly than fixed wing...

If that were true then helos would be much harder to get out of Primary. It may be more complicated to make them fly, but with all those modern gee-whiz black boxes, I'm not buying your statement.

Here's some food for thought... As a HAC, you're expected to be able to, on any given day, go to a CV, a LHA, A Air Capable Ship or do ops with a submarine (in theory, anyway). A jet guy has to know how to go to a CV. That right there is a lot more knowledge and more importantly, experience to accrue than a FW guy. The jet guys make up for that with their TTPs, but (again, in theory) the helo guys have to know that stuff, as well.

I agree w/ what others have said. We could make it happen, but I just don't see it being a practical change any time in the near future. And Kbay already covered the individuals who went HTs and NEED a copilot, but that's a whole other issue.

 

[Recovering LSO]

I won't try to speculate any more as to why.

why stop now?

Of course "TTT" for aircraft commander is going to be shorter when talking about aircraft with one set of controls. Your earlier point though said:

The pipelines are very different. The longest training in the Navy is not jets. Jet guys are aircraft commanders at wings (2ish years). Helicopter pilots spend 1.5-2 years to wings and then another 6 months in the RAG and year in the fleet to get to aircraft commander (not sure the timeline for Maritime), so ultimately, to get to the same level takes about a year longer in helicopters.

because....

As a "senior 2P", on the cusp of HAC, I can say in hindsight, that as a 350TT new 2P, I was little more than a competent sand-bag.

I don't think this is the result of any systemic TTT issues - I think, as others from your community have pointed out, this is a matter of personal choice. Maybe it takes longer when you think of yourself as a sandbag, competent or otherwise. Just a thought.

I think Helolumpy and others have hit on the more salient points about manning and the idea of always flying with a HAC because you can. GatorDev coming in late with the knowledges - nice.

 

[BACONATOR]

why stop now?

Of course "TTT" for aircraft commander is going to be shorter when talking about aircraft with one set of controls. Your earlier point though said:


because....



I don't think this is the result of any systemic TTT issues - I think, as others from your community have pointed out, this is a matter of personal choice. Maybe it takes longer when you think of yourself as a sandbag, competent or otherwise. Just a thought.

I think Helolumpy and others have hit on the more salient points about manning and the idea of always flying with a HAC because you can. GatorDev coming in late with the knowledges - nice.

I agree with what your saying, generally, but my point was that it is NOT a "personal choice". At the time, I didn't just throw caution to the wind, abandon the concepts of ORM/CRM and say "Eff it. I've got a HAC and crewchief!". I thought I was right where I needed to be. I thought I contributed appropriately to the mission accomplishment and was an effective crewmember. It's only in hindsight that I view myself as a "sandbag" and that is really just a dramatization. I think that that is the product being delivered to the fleet, not because we feel we are inadequate or that we ARE sandbags, but that is just the product that the FRS puts out: a competent copilot. They'll do what you tell them and not much (if anything) more. Give them a task to do, and they'll do it. Give them three, and they'll probably forget or screw two of them up.

 

[Pags]

A large part of the reason why the rotary wing Navy operates the way it does is because it can. Our manning supports the ability to launch every aircraft with at least one senior/more experienced pilot instead of two newbies. Since the helo world has that luxury, there is no good reason to send out the j.v. when more experienced personnel are available.

Don't get me wrong; if you send out two junior H2P's together on a regular basis, they will gain experience faster, but there are two issues with that. First, that experience they gain may not be positive - if they only have each other to learn from, there is no guarantee that they are learning anything useful. Second, there is the question of how much additional risk is justified by that potential increase in the H2P's learning curve. Would the gains across the Navy be worth one extra mishap in decade? What about 1/year? (Personally, I like to think the number would be closer to that first example rather than the second, but we won't know until we try...).

That is how the various front offices will look at it, and unless manning changes make the current HAC/H2P system unsustainable I don't see it changing. As a good for instance, the on again/off again fascination with putting NFO's into Romeo's is a perfect example. Our friends across the pond have made that work for years and there is little reason to believe that we couldn't do the same thing, but that would require a major revision of the aircraft commander concept in the rotary wing world. (And yes, their mishap rate is higher than ours, but how much of that you can attribute to the pilot/NFO setup rather than the many other differences between our operations would be debatable).

The other issue here is does the benefit outweigh the cost?

Sure, 2p-2p flights provide 2ps a chance to test their skills without someone watching, but in today's limited flight hour environment, what else could that 2.0 have been used for?

2.0 is a solo SWTP signoff and half way to a dual ship signoff. It's keeping someone's mins, be it ships, couplers, nights, current for another 45 days.

What gets the squadron more in terms of readiness? A 2.0 with tangible benefits, or something that contributes to a metric that people (COMMO, TYCOM) care about?

There's more to this decision than just risk aversion.

 

[MasterBates]

Never underestimate the benefit of a day dick around fam flight.

But the powers that be had theirs, so they don't give a shit about the JOs not getting theirs now. I forsee a higher mishap rate on the horizon, because it's "all quals, all the time" and guys have less time to just fly and learn.

 

[Pags]

Never underestimate the benefit of a day dick around fam flight.

But the powers that be had theirs, so they don't give a shit about the JOs not getting theirs now. I forsee a higher mishap rate on the horizon, because it's "all quals, all the time" and guys have less time to just fly and learn.

I'm not discounting the value of a day dick around flight, I'm just saying that the current flight hour budget doesn't support fuck off hours. It'd be sweet if it did, but we're not getting funded that way anymore.

When I was leaving my fleet squadron there was a lot of concern if there were going to be enough flight hours to fund required quals / currency for everyone. Right now they're talking about taking returning air wings down to tactical hard deck. Flight hours are slim. They all need to be used wisely.

 

[helolumpy]

Never underestimate the benefit of a day dick around fam flight.

But the powers that be had theirs, so they don't give a shit about the JOs not getting theirs now. I forsee a higher mishap rate on the horizon, because it's "all quals, all the time" and guys have less time to just fly and learn.

MB, while I will completely agree that the reduction in flight time across the board will have significant impact upon the flying skills of today's JO's (therefore, tomorrow's Skippers), but I think that fact has little bearing on the value/validity of an H2P/H2P flight.

Regardless of who's in the cockpit next to the junior pilot, the lack of time in the aircraft will have negative impacts felt for the next decade and possibly beyond.

 

[squorch2]

Coming soon as well - helo bubbas with 10-15% less total time at winging. Think guys showing up to the FRS with 150-ish hours. With the reduction in flight hours on the fleet side, it may make sense to have 2P-2P flights, if only because you double the flight hours going to 2Ps who are going to be low low low on total time.