split-NFO-Helo? 2P? Black Hole? What?

[nittany03]

For us fixed-wing types, what is the "black hole?"

 

[MasterBates]

I don't have the textbook definition, but when you get behind the boat, you think you are on glidepath/speed and (almost) fly into the water.

Remove the almost, and you have a bad night.

The takeoff gets a few crews killed every few years. Just launching into the void with no airspeed indications, just an ITO and you hope it works and you don't lose a motor or your AI

 

[Gatordev]

For us fixed-wing types, what is the "black hole?"

There's another thread from a year or two ago that talks about this (in addition to MB's post above). There's lots of details about the approach, as well as a huge misunderstanding by the tailhook crowd of what I was trying to say, apparently poorly. Can't find the thread right now...

EDIT: Not what I was looking for, but here's something about it: http://www.airwarriors.com/forum/showthread.php?t=132034&highlight=approach

 

[hscs]

I personally believe the black hole is caused by the sensation of raising the nose to slow down -- the body feels like it is climbing, so you naturally want to drop the power out.

Not a good thing to do at 100-200'.

 

[HeloBubba]

From my limited experience with the Fixed Wing navy (read- no traps- yet, but have flown the ball) versus the small-boy single spot at night world (HSL) the things that will fvck your world in the helo in a non-emergency environment are:

1- The descending, decelerating approach. You normally have the crewman calling closure, but that is not always spot on. Easy to get sucked into the black hole. I have had vertigo at night behind the boat, and its not pretty.

2-Coming in too hot due to not judging closure. Hard to do at night. Come in too hot, risk smacking the superstructure. Come in too slow, risk backing down or the black hole. Keep in mind, on a normal landing, you are ~15 feet from hitting the superstructure. (someone correct me if I am wrong)

Neither of these take into account really bad seas, stupid SWO tricks, or EPs.

Both are much safer with 2 pilots. As much as I wanted to be rid of being an ATO (think NFO), looking at it from a distance, I think two pilots is a good thing.

Certainly a moment to grab your attention is when you are approaching your small-boy deck at night and the guy up front with his hands on the sticks says "you have the controls, I have vertigo". So now the guy with the controls is on the wrong side of the cockpit. If he's good at cross-cockpit landings (which we practiced, A LOT), he sets 'er down right then, never missing a beat, and nobody is the wiser. If he isn't that good, we wave-off, ask the ship to alter course to move the wind across the deck, and come in from the other side. Not sure an NFO would handle the cross-cockpit landing.

My squadron had a Class A off of an FFG 7 class boat, working the deck at night. Two fatalities, two survivors. I knew the surviving crewman well as we went through the whole AW pipeline together. We asked him what happened and he couldn't tell us much. They picked up into the hover, slid out, dropped the nose, establish climb. Next thing he knows they impacted the water. With no known instrument failures, the nearest thing they can guess that happened was the pilot at the controls experienced some sort of vertigo or disorientation. Even with an H2P in the left seat, they couldn't avoid this one. Could an NFO in the left seat fared better?

And 15 feet sounds about right to me MB.

 

[Uncle Fester]

My point was just that there's no such thing as an absolute Fo-can-or-can't-do skill set. You could do whatever the community decides to train him/her to do and make legal per NATOPS and 3710. But communities that either don't have FOs (helos) or do but they don't have much of anything to do with driving the plane (E-2s) seem to have this idea that by virtue of your two anchors you are congenitally unable to do X, Y, Z. We talked about this sort of thing more than once when Big Navy was debating whether to make the right seat in the E-2D a FO position (the idea being that you could make a four-dude crew by moving one FO up front and save weight). I'll be the first to admit that it's really nice to have a second pilot when it's a dark-and-stormy night and the nugget in the left seat gets the leans, but "really nice to have" is different from "impossible to do without". Somehow every other tailhook community manages to make do with one pilot and a FO, and I find it hard to believe that helos (or Hawkeyes, for that matter) are really so different. It's a matter of training, quals, mixing your crew's experience levels, and community attitude, not the number of anchors on your wings.

I'm just sayin'.

 

[Gatordev]

I understand your point, and on the whole, I agree w/ the idea, but...

My point was just that there's no such thing as an absolute Fo-can-or-can't-do skill set. You could do whatever the community decides to train him/her to do and make legal per NATOPS and 3710.

Sure, the NFO can learn to do these things, and you mention a training curriculum, but now you're training the NFO to do the button pushing (what the pilot already trains for) AND how to land on the boat, which the pilot already trains for. So basically, you're training him to be the pilot. How is that saving time/resources? I have no doubt the NFO can physically do it, but is it really better that it's an NFO or a pilot.

As for the other countries using a NFO, true, but the other countries don't have anywhere near the availability and on station time that the U.S. does in theatre, so having another body w/ the skill onboard after day 32 of 6 hour bags at 2 am is a good thing.

...Somehow every other tailhook community manages to make do with one pilot and a FO, and I find it hard to believe that helos (or Hawkeyes, for that matter) are really so different. It's a matter of training, quals, mixing your crew's experience levels, and community attitude, not the number of anchors on your wings.

I'm just sayin'.

You're absolutely right, but again, it's a different approach/skillset. An E-2 or COD doesn't move sideways when doing picks, so it doesn't matter which side the pilots is on because the ship is always in the center. As for the recovery approach, it is different. I'm NOT saying the carrier approach is easier, but the small boy approach has it's own peculiararities.

Certainly a moment to grab your attention is when you are approaching your small-boy deck at night and the guy up front with his hands on the sticks says "you have the controls, I have vertigo". So now the guy with the controls is on the wrong side of the cockpit.

Not so much of an issue now since most ships and helos shoot the recovery approach from the center of the stern and not an offset approach like in olden tymes.

 

[HH-60H]

Can anyone imagine doing a left wheel pinnacle landing from the right seat? That is certainly a possibility with the 60S with doors on both sides.

 

[bert]

Can anyone imagine doing a left wheel pinnacle landing from the right seat? That is certainly a possibility with the 60S with doors on both sides.

Barring some other added degree of difficulty that shouldn't be hard - think main mount landings in a -46.

 

[HH-60H]

Barring some other added degree of difficulty that shouldn't be hard - think main mount landings in a -46.

I guess I meant some added degree of difficulty. I was thinking back to a pinnacle landing I tried up at Fallon. It was a cross cockpit wheel, and there was empty nothingness on my side. Granted I was a 2P, but even in day VFR conditions, I don't think any operators would be willing to hop out the door during the evolution.

 

[bert]

Could be that being a 2P colors your memory - if you went back now I bet you wouldn't think it was that big of a deal.

 

[HeloBubba]

Not so much of an issue now since most ships and helos shoot the recovery approach from the center of the stern and not an offset approach like in olden tymes.

Olden Tymes indeed. Can you shed any light on how/why the procedure was changed? Because way back in the far olden tymes, the offset was to help get "clean" wind over the deck.

 

[HeloBubba]

Can anyone imagine doing a left wheel pinnacle landing from the right seat?

This is why pinnacle landings were designed for skids, not wheels.

 

[Pags]

Here's a little wiki on "the black hole"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensory_illusions_in_aviation#Black-Hole_approach_illusion

basically, for whatever combination of spatial and vestibular sensing, you undershoot the approach.

 

[FLYTPAY]

From what I understood/ observed. Most jet NFOs get their wings at about 14 months, at least before you guys had the insane wait to start api, most helo guys wing as JGs (although this trend has been shifting lately). Thoeretically helo guys should be able to get done as ensigns easily ( i was one when i winged) but nothing every goes as it should

The longest NFO pipeline is the Strike Fighter pipeline which is one month longer than the Strike pipeline. I started API in July 00 and winged in the strike pipeline Aug 31st, 01. So it took about 13.5 months with no delays.
The longest pilot pipeline is the jet pipeline. I started primary Feb 5th, 07 and will wing again July 08 which is 18 months plus the 6 weeks of API takes that pipeline to 20 months API to winging.
With the helo pipeline being the shortest pipeline (I am taking a stab at 16 months API to winging), and the cost of jet fuel, I think the numbers for helo pilot training vs. jet NFO training might be pretty darned close. Also keep in mind that up until I think last year, the commitment after winging was the same for NFOs and helo pilots.
In S-3s I only knew of one NFO who would have taken the helo NFO transition. I do not see that as a very smart idea due to the difficulty in flying one of those things (respek). I know of a pilot who saved her crew by taking the controls from her 2P during an Emergency. An NFO just would not be able to do that unless they were......a helo pilot.