Rotary Wing Roundup (Helos at work in Maritime Environment)

[Recovering LSO]

In an effort to expand my horizons beyond the world of fixed wing I've been lurking and following this conversation - what is the risk of a 2P-2P flight? are they not both NATOPS qualified? I could see not sending 'em out on a particularly complex or sporty event, but they should be able to be trusted to get airborne, do something, and get back right? Maybe just a difference in community culture?

I remember my first flight over Iraq being the senior dude (had been a LT for about a year), with two JGs. Obviously apples and oranges due to the single piloted nature of my experience. Just seems UBER risk averse, unless the typical 2P can't keep the aircraft out of the water..?...

Just trying to understand how the other half lives.

 

[Jim123]

what is the risk of a 2P-2P flight?... they should be able to be trusted to get airborne, do something, and get back right?

You would think so. We send (non-winged) flight students on aerobatic, formation, and IFR (to include actual IMC) sols. <shrug>

Maybe just a difference in community culture? ... Just seems UBER risk averse

I think that's pretty much it.


One of my friends and I did a PQM-PQM ground turn (for something mundane like a leak check). It was at AUTEC and all the other greensuiters were either flying or sleeping off hangovers... and the Chief told us he needed two pilots to turn up one of the aircraft. We didn't exactly try to hide it but I don't think the word ever got back to homeguard. That was probably just as well as there would have been lots of harumphing about it.

The same guy and another one of my friends also flew a PQM-PQM flight (1.0 in the home field pattern) but that due to was a clerical error: the CO signed the flight schedule but didn't get around to signing their brand new H2P paperwork in time... oops.

 

[phrogpilot73]

Just trying to understand how the other half lives.

With better parties, and hotter wives...

In all reality, I think it probably ties into the "jittery" mindset of all helo pilots. If something hasn't gone wrong yet - it's about to.

 

[KBayDog]

In all reality, I think it probably ties into the "jittery" mindset of all helo pilots. If something hasn't gone wrong yet - it's about to.

I'm going to call SHENANIGANS!

HT students "solo" with another stud on a helicopter that is much harder to fly than any fleet bird (none of the whiz-bang electronics that make fleet birds easier to control) after just a few hours of instruction. Why do we have greater trust and confidence in non-designated pilots who aren't even NATOPS qualified to fly the TH-57?

Fleet H2Ps are designated Aviators, and designated co-pilots, who are NATOPS qualified in model. They have already had a check ride, conducted by a model manager-designated NI or his trained ANI, by which they have demonstrated the knowledge and skills required to safely fly the helicopter. (In fact, how many of them have been reminded that they need to be ready to take command of the aircraft if their HAC takes one through the running lights?) There is absolutely nothing that should prevent two designated H2Ps from safely executing the missions they have been trained and qualified to complete.

That said, if we don't trust them or trust in their abilities to safely fly the missions we have trained them to conduct, perhaps we need to look at OUR practices and procedures for training our pilots? Sounds like a training and leadership failure on our part. (As you can tell, I am NOT a fan of "HAC-Buts."

No, the reason H2Ps don't fly with each other is simple: Nobody wants to have to answer questions or put their own careers on the line.

 

[BACONATOR]

I'm going to call SHENANIGANS!

HT students "solo" with another stud on a helicopter that is much harder to fly than any fleet bird (none of the whiz-bang electronics that make fleet birds easier to control) after just a few hours of instruction. Why do we have greater trust and confidence in non-designated pilots who aren't even NATOPS qualified to fly the TH-57?

Fleet H2Ps are designated Aviators, and designated co-pilots, who are NATOPS qualified in model. They have already had a check ride, conducted by a model manager-designated NI or his trained ANI, by which they have demonstrated the knowledge and skills required to safely fly the helicopter. (In fact, how many of them have been reminded that they need to be ready to take command of the aircraft if their HAC takes one through the running lights?) There is absolutely nothing that should prevent two designated H2Ps from safely executing the missions they have been trained and qualified to complete.

That said, if we don't trust them or trust in their abilities to safely fly the missions we have trained them to conduct, perhaps we need to look at OUR practices and procedures for training our pilots? Sounds like a training and leadership failure on our part. (As you can tell, I am NOT a fan of "HAC-Buts."

No, the reason H2Ps don't fly with each other is simple: Nobody wants to have to answer questions or put their own careers on the line.

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.

That being said, do I think even new 2Ps can take a bird around the HG pattern and be fine? Yeah, absolutely. But at sea, I'd be a little more wary to send out two 2Ps. As stated above, if they were two 2Ps going into their HAC boards, sure. But two new 2Ps, out to sea? I don't think I'd be comfortable doing that, as a hypothetical authority figure.

ABSOLUTELY agree with the reasoning you bolded. That's probably the bottom line. 999/1000 times it would be a non-issue. But that ONE time, someone would do something stupid, and end up spinny side down/off the runway/pad and there would be hell to pay.

 

[squorch2]

Oftentimes it's a matter of "don't ask questions you don't want the answers to." If you send out a 2P-2P flight and something goes wrong, as you said, it implies something went wrong somewhere in the training process. Do COs want to make those examinations?

Perhaps it's community specific - and by community I mean the former 46 drivers that seem to dominate the upper echelons of HSC (exp) leadership.

 

[RotorHead04]

I'm going to call SHENANIGANS!

HT students "solo" with another stud on a helicopter that is much harder to fly than any fleet bird (none of the whiz-bang electronics that make fleet birds easier to control) after just a few hours of instruction. Why do we have greater trust and confidence in non-designated pilots who aren't even NATOPS qualified to fly the TH-57?

Fleet H2Ps are designated Aviators, and designated co-pilots, who are NATOPS qualified in model. They have already had a check ride, conducted by a model manager-designated NI or his trained ANI, by which they have demonstrated the knowledge and skills required to safely fly the helicopter. (In fact, how many of them have been reminded that they need to be ready to take command of the aircraft if their HAC takes one through the running lights?) There is absolutely nothing that should prevent two designated H2Ps from safely executing the missions they have been trained and qualified to complete.

That said, if we don't trust them or trust in their abilities to safely fly the missions we have trained them to conduct, perhaps we need to look at OUR practices and procedures for training our pilots? Sounds like a training and leadership failure on our part. (As you can tell, I am NOT a fan of "HAC-Buts."

No, the reason H2Ps don't fly with each other is simple: Nobody wants to have to answer questions or put their own careers on the line.

Agree wholeheartedly with all that you have said. Not that I want to defend the risk averse, but I know one thing that was commonly pointed out during similar arguments was that fleet aircraft are worth a helluva lot more (in our case, more than ten times more depending on the mission equipment installed). That being said, two H2Ps flying a day SAR bag at the gator or CVN is a great intermediate step to HAC, particularly when you consider how experienced those guys can be. The last pair of H2Ps we got back from a Gator det were both well over 700 hours total time.

 

[squorch2]

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.

Goddamn it, this mentality has to stop. How much total time does the average nugget coming out of -122 or -106 have? Yet they seem to be able to accomplish missions all by their lonesome without considering themselves a "sand-bag." Sack up, take charge, learn your shit, act the part of the leader of the flight.

 

[BACONATOR]

Goddamn it, this mentality has to stop. How much total time does the average nugget coming out of -122 or -106 have? Yet they seem to be able to accomplish missions all by their lonesome without considering themselves a "sand-bag." Sack up, take charge, learn your shit, act the part of the leader of the flight.

Uh... this mentality has come from decades of training progression. The pipeline spits you out as a competent pilot who takes direction from a HAC to accomplish a mission. He can tell you how/where/what to fly and you can do it. After you make H2P, you are working more and more toward running the flight and acting like a HAC so that you can become a HAC.

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.

I see your point, but I think you're misinterpreting what I was saying. I mean, would you want a brand new PQM, hopping in on his 5th fleet flight ever, shooting orders and tasking people? Just not the way it goes.

 

[squorch2]

Thank you for the lecture on helicopter training progression. How would I ever know about that stuff?

The point is not to just go along with what's been done before. The point is to make things better. Sitting on your ass, being a sandbag - that helps no one. The way that the culture and training in the helo communities gives tons of weight to HACs, which is great - but also says that you're not shit (and not contributing) until about halfway through your tour when you get qualified as HAC, Level III, whatever. After 3+ years of training.

Really? That's the best that we can do?

 

[BACONATOR]

Thank you for the lecture on helicopter training progression. How would I ever know about that stuff?

The point is not to just go along with what's been done before. The point is to make things better. Sitting on your ass, being a sandbag - that helps no one. The way that the culture and training in the helo communities gives tons of weight to HACs, which is great - but also says that you're not shit (and not contributing) until about halfway through your tour when you get qualified as HAC, Level III, whatever. After 3+ years of training.

Really? That's the best that we can do?

You asked.... (in a roundabout way)

You're right. I can only tell you what kind of HAC I'll be. That being said, I don't think it's a conscious choice. I think for the most part, it's just the genuine competency of PQMs joining the fleet. Perhaps they are groomed that way, and perhaps training could improve. But the further along I get, the more perspective I have, and I can see the other side of it, too.

 

[MasterBates]

Goddamn it, this mentality has to stop. How much total time does the average nugget coming out of -122 or -106 have? Yet they seem to be able to accomplish missions all by their lonesome without considering themselves a "sand-bag." Sack up, take charge, learn your shit, act the part of the leader of the flight.

Totally agree.


Sent via my HTC EVO 4G

 

[RotorHead04]

Thank you for the lecture on helicopter training progression. How would I ever know about that stuff?

The point is not to just go along with what's been done before. The point is to make things better. Sitting on your ass, being a sandbag - that helps no one. The way that the culture and training in the helo communities gives tons of weight to HACs, which is great - but also says that you're not shit (and not contributing) until about halfway through your tour when you get qualified as HAC, Level III, whatever. After 3+ years of training.

Really? That's the best that we can do?

I agree and believe we CAN do better. And it starts down south at Whiting. They spend 6 months teaching you to fly by yourself, and then spend another 6 teaching you that you can't fly by yourself. And then you go to the RAG, and they further reiterate that you can't fly by yourself. And then you hit the fleet, and you spend another year asking for permission to make decisions. Literal progression: Upside down in acrobatics all by yourself or welded wing with your buddy to "Mother may I taxi?"

How to fix this is less obvious, I suppose, but it definitely starts in HTs.

 

[Recovering LSO]

The longest training in the Navy is not jets. 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, so ultimately, to get to the same level takes about a year longer in helicopters.

First, some background on why I care about this discussion. Working on a graduate thesis that addresses effectivenss and efficiency of naval aviation training pipelines.

I'm not 100% certain what the current timelines look like (still early in the research process), but I suspect that this statememt is not entirely true. From my own experience it was 2 years from commisioning to wings (unusually quick), and then another 14 months before hitting the fleet. This leads me to believe that, if your timeline is correct, this is more of a community specific mindset and not so much a function of hours or time-to-train.?.

 

[helolumpy]

How to fix this is less obvious, I suppose, but it definitely starts in HTs.

I feel I need to disagree here. The HT's can teach all the decision making they wish, provide you with hours upon hours of solo time, but that will have zero impact on how the Fleet employs pilots. The Fleet decides what it wants from the training pipeline and the TRACOMs and RAGs respond to that demand signal.

Regardless of the opinion of many of the folks who are posting here, until you can point to a specific incident or mishap causal factor, Naval Aviation training and operations will not change. In the eyes of many, the system works, so until you can prove otherwise (and AMB results unfortunately work best at this) the system will not change.

Can a 2P operate an aircraft safely with another 2P, yes they can. However, as we all know, sh!t happens when you fly.

What is the HAC qual really? It's getting permission from Mom and Dad to get the keys to the car on a regular basis. Do HAC boards really delve into complex tactical issues? No they don't, especially in light of the SWTI construct for mission quals. A HAC board and thus the qual is an opportunity for you to demonstrate sound judgment to your superiors.

For those of you who have never sat on HAC board, the board members have a pretty solid idea whether you will pass or not before you walk in the room; based on the impression we have in our daily interaction and previous flights with you.

Since you never know what is going to happen during a flight, the front office would prefer to have an experienced pilot in the cockpit during every mission. Doing a simple ferry flight can turn into a SAR case in bad weather very quickly.

Also remember that when you make a decision in the aircraft it may have repercussions on the front office. If two JO's are out hot-dogging and crash an aircraft, you can bet the AMB will start looking into the command climate and ask question to the CO and XO. Granted when the CO has been relieved it was due to his/her knowledge of these actions happening and failing to step in early to prevent the eventual Class A. So, when the CO signs the flight schedule he's putting his career potentially at risk if bad things start happening.

My final point is that guys fresh out of the VFA RAG generally don't fly alone for missions, they fly in sections. Who is the section lead? A more experienced pilot. (IMO section lead is the pointy nose version of HAC) Sure a nugget with less than a year in the fleet will be going feet dry into the desert, but he'll be on the wing of the CO, XO, Dept Head or senior LT. So, while he's single seat, he's still flying in somewhat of a crew concept with a more expirienced pilot.

To end, an H2P/H2P flight is a good deal, but it's not required to make better pilots. If your front office allows them, then that is at their peril. If the Wing prohibits them, there is probably a reason. It maybe the Commodores are risk averse, maybe it's because the aircraft we are operating now are irreplaceable (budgetary reasons) as are the aircrew. Maybe the leadership feels the training afforded is not worth the commensurate risk that sending out two lesser experienced pilots entails This is why I think they've frowned upon the H2P/H2P flight.

So to change the mindset of Naval Aviation it has to start in the fleet. Either from the Commodores, the CAGs or CNAF. Until the Fleet places value on a helo pilots have more experience sooner, the RAGs and HT's have nothing to justify the additional costs this additional training will mandate. Finally, if you say that no changes need to be made, except to the culture of the Fleet to allow flights like these, I will counter with my previous thought that until you can point to a mishap and state that the causal factor was lack of judgment/experience etc. in the PQM/H2P ranks, nothing will change.

Diatribe complete.