• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

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

hscs

hscs

Registered User
pilot
Fester -- it is the second pilot that they have thought about replacing with an NFO -- the AW(s) would stay. This is how the Brits do it. Not really a bad idea, but it is sure nice to be able swap controls whenever you want. I really think the impetus behind the idea was money -- cheaper to train one pilot and one NFO vice two pilots.
 
hscs said:
Fester -- it is the second pilot that they have thought about replacing with an NFO -- the AW(s) would stay. This is how the Brits do it. Not really a bad idea, but it is sure nice to be able swap controls whenever you want. I really think the impetus behind the idea was money -- cheaper to train one pilot and one NFO vice two pilots.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure that it would really be that much cheaper to train an nfo v. pilot. I would be interested to see how the numbers work out, though.
 
alabama_matt said:
I'm not sure that it would really be that much cheaper to train an nfo v. pilot. I would be interested to see how the numbers work out, though.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure the Brits only do it for their ASW/AEW helos. I know for a fact that the "Junglie" H-3's fly with two pilots. It's single piloted though, so a WTI (pilot) will get out of the cockpit in flight and instruct on aerial gunnery in back. Also, while the HAC is briefing for a mission, the 2P will be starting up the aircraft and repositioning it as necessary. The do things a little different over there.
 
The Helo-FO thing was inspired by the way the Royal Navy helo bubbas do it, from what I heard, and nudged along when they were trying to figure out where to put all the S-3 NFOs. The response from both the helo and Hoover dudes was a resounding "eh..."

There is this magical qual called Naval Co-Pilot. It's a NATOPS designation that essentially quals two-anchor types to fly in the right (helo left) seat of dual-piloted aircraft that otherwise don't have FOs as a normal part of the crew. It originated in the S-3 world and it's used nowadays mostly as a get-around so that FOs can bag hours and legal time at the controls in C-12s, helos, etc.

The trading-off-the-controls thing isn't an issue; S-3 FOs routinely took the controls. It's just a matter of training and community attitude. The Hawkeye world has the same catch-22 attitude with FOs in the right seat; they don't train FOs to be copilots because FOs aren't trained to be copilots.

That being said, unless the idea finds a high-level (one star or more) booster in the helo world, I don't see helo-FOs happening any time soon.
 
It would actually be cheaper to train one NFO and one pilot -- we had a Brit NFO go through HSC-3 on his way to VX-1. I think he had like 5 flights.
 
Depends on what you mean by "cheaper to train". Do you mean that the NFO pipeline is cheaper per stud than the pilot pipeline? I guess that's possible, but I doubt it - one T-34/T-6, one stud and one IP cost the same no matter who's got the controls. And if Big Navy suddenly decided to create Helo-FOs, my guess is that they'd branch them off after Primary (same time as the P-3/E-6 guys) and send them to Whiting for helo-centric Intermediate/Advanced.

The Brit you mentioned, sounds like he was really just getting orientation, "this is how we do things" rides. For a full-time helo dude, I can't see Big Navy buying off on two anchors in the left seat without pretty extensive training time at the controls both at the HTs and at the 60 RAG. So I don't really see where there would be cost savings.
 
Uncle Fester said:
Depends on what you mean by "cheaper to train". Do you mean that the NFO pipeline is cheaper per stud than the pilot pipeline? I guess that's possible, but I doubt it - one T-34/T-6, one stud and one IP cost the same no matter who's got the controls. And if Big Navy suddenly decided to create Helo-FOs, my guess is that they'd branch them off after Primary (same time as the P-3/E-6 guys) and send them to Whiting for helo-centric Intermediate/Advanced.

The Brit you mentioned, sounds like he was really just getting orientation, "this is how we do things" rides. For a full-time helo dude, I can't see Big Navy buying off on two anchors in the left seat without pretty extensive training time at the controls both at the HTs and at the 60 RAG. So I don't really see where there would be cost savings.
Click to expand...

Without even getting into the minutiae, the NFO TRACOM pipeline often takes about 1 year, pilots take twice that. You tell me which one costs more.

Brett
 
Well, yeah, I see your point, but what I was saying is that if there were to be helo-FOs, Big Navy would probably create a pipeline for them that took as long or nearly as long as a helo pilot pipeline does now. I'm not sure what they would cut out of the syllabus for FOs. I couldn't see the helo community saying "oh, just work the radios".

Whatever, it's academic, it ain't happening in the forseeable future.
 
Fester,
The First of all the helo pipeline is the shortest pipeline for pilots, and it still takes twice as long as the longest NFO pipeline. Really if they wanted an NFO helo pipeline all the SNFO would need is primary (about 1/3 the time of pilot pipeline) and then a very short advanced, propably very similar to the new P3 NFO sylabus at Jax, before wings and the rag. Maybe with a basic "intermediate" thrown in there where they go up to whiting and get a few bravo flights (similar to the time flight docs get). So yes it would be much cheaper to train a fo than another pilot. But, in my nugget opinion it would proably mean it would cost way more to train the pilot. After wings we first qualify PQM (approx 6months) which means ok your more than jsut a sack of potatoes in the right seat you can go on to your fleet squadron. Then we qualify H2P (another 6 months to a year) which means you are somewhat compatent but still not much. Finally you qualify HAC after having 500+ hours and now your responsible for the bird and its enitre crew and pax (sometimes up to 50 people). So if you wanted a newly winged avaitor to essentially be a HAC right out of the FRS he/she would need a lot more solo time in the th-57, and a lot more time in the 60/53 at the FRS and that would end up costing an a$$ton more. Yes they do it in jets, but those guys have an ejection seat if stuff hits the fan, in helos it takes a long time to learn and understand your aircraft and putting a junior guy up there without another pilot flying stab/servos off at night to the boat with just an NFO there to help him controll the aircraft is asking for trouble.
Joe
 
illinijoe05 said:
Fester,
The First of all the helo pipeline is the shortest pipeline for pilots, and it still takes twice as long as the longest NFO pipeline.
Click to expand...

I'm curious to know what you believe the numbers for the longest NFO pipeline to be.
 
alabama_matt said:
I'm curious to know what you believe the numbers for the longest NFO pipeline to be.
Click to expand...

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
 
illinijoe05 said:
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
Click to expand...

I'd say that from starting API to wings it takes about 7-8 months for maritime nfos and about 12-14 for carrier types. I was just curious to know what you were using as a reference.
 
The trading-off-the-controls thing isn't an issue; S-3 FOs routinely took the controls.
Click to expand...

It's a very different environment, though. Not better, not worse, just different. I don't need someone to take the controls while I'm opening up my horse-cock sandwich, but I do need someone to take the controls when I've fallen into the black hole behind the boat. Yes, I understand the fixed-wing guys can say the same thing, but the approach is different. Now, could an NFO do these things and save the day? Sure, but the impetus isn't going to be what CAN they do, but what's normal procedure. And if you qual the NFO to fly and land the helo, well, you've just made another pilot out of him and you're back where you started.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top