Stupid Questions about Naval Aviation (Part 3)

[ChuckMK23]

FCFs had to be really challenging on those birds

Track and balance of rotor systems was as much black-magic as science - despite having solid state strobe light based tracking and accelerometers feeding a computer and software designed for the task. A successful FCF was a day of multiple ground runs, hover checks and finally in-flight runs. A single H2P and a crewman could do the ground and small number of the hover checks - the rest had to be with a designated FCF pilot/HAC.

 

[DanMa1156]

Track and balance of rotor systems was as much black-magic as science - despite having solid state strobe light based tracking and accelerometers feeding a computer and software designed for the task. A successful FCF was a day of multiple ground runs, hover checks and finally in-flight runs. A single H2P and a crewman could do the ground and small number of the hover checks - the rest had to be with a designated FCF pilot/HAC.

Interesting. The 60 nowadays has some really nice software and sensors built in, but everything, and I mean everything including preflight has to be completed/signed off by an FCP.

 

[SynixMan]

Track and balance of rotor systems was as much black-magic as science - despite having solid state strobe light based tracking and accelerometers feeding a computer and software designed for the task. A successful FCF was a day of multiple ground runs, hover checks and finally in-flight runs. A single H2P and a crewman could do the ground and small number of the hover checks - the rest had to be with a designated FCF pilot/HAC.

I’m loving the idea of shoving off ground turns and hover checks to an H2P. Would never happen in todays risk adverse culture.

 

[SteveHolt!!!]

I’m loving the idea of shoving off ground turns and hover checks to an H2P. Would never happen in todays risk adverse culture.

I guess I’ll take the polar opposite stance of we make fcp way too easy in h60 land. If it was just vibes with imds, I guess I could see the h2p approach. But ground turns almost always include other checks to make sure the aircraft is working properly. We have plenty of mishaps and hazreps showing how possible it is to mess those checks up and break the aircraft or people.

I’m generally a “we’re too risk adverse” guy but there’s also plenty of examples where some risk aversion compared to our predecessors is prudent.

 

[DanMa1156]

I guess I’ll take the polar opposite stance of we make fcp way too easy in h60 land. If it was just vibes with imds, I guess I could see the h2p approach. But ground turns almost always include other checks to make sure the aircraft is working properly. We have plenty of mishaps and hazreps showing how possible it is to mess those checks up and break the aircraft or people.

I’m generally a “we’re too risk adverse” guy but there’s also plenty of examples where some risk aversion compared to our predecessors is prudent.

Both HSC squadrons I've been in I genuinely think we did a good job of screening who made FCP and who didn't and when they made it. The only difference in the squadrons was that Squadron 1 you couldn't get any FCP signoffs until you made HAC; in the other squadron you could start on them day 1. I thought the first approach of having to wait until HAC worked better as the "FNG meat in the seat copilot" on an FCF has no idea what he/she is actually getting signed off on. Did people take a little longer to make FCP? A little. Were they consistently focused on FCP post HAC though? Yes. Could I tell a quality difference between the two products? No, but I still think the first method was better.

 

[SteveHolt!!!]

Both HSC squadrons I've been in I genuinely think we did a good job of screening who made FCP and who didn't and when they made it. The only difference in the squadrons was that Squadron 1 you couldn't get any FCP signoffs until you made HAC; in the other squadron you could start on them day 1. I thought the first approach of having to wait until HAC worked better as the "FNG meat in the seat copilot" on an FCF has no idea what he/she is actually getting signed off on. Did people take a little longer to make FCP? A little. Were they consistently focused on FCP post HAC though? Yes. Could I tell a quality difference between the two products? No, but I still think the first method was better.

I mean, as always, “In h60 land” really just means “in the squadrons I’ve been a part of.” Even within those, I’ve seen ebb and flows of quality. Like any qual, there’s a balance in getting the qual and learning once you have it. I think we err on giving the qual too soon, but it isn’t one of my stronger opinions.

I can really nerd out on the topic of fcp training, but I suspect most people will find that excruciating. I like your first method.

 

[croakerfish]

I mean, as always, “In h60 land” really just means “in the squadrons I’ve been a part of.” Even within those, I’ve seen ebb and flows of quality. Like any qual, there’s a balance in getting the qual and learning once you have it. I think we err on giving the qual too soon, but it isn’t one of my stronger opinions.

I can really nerd out on the topic of fcp training, but I suspect most people will find that excruciating. I like your first method.

When you need an FCP who hasn’t conducted any of the FCF to do QA after completing it, it makes it pretty tough to limit who gets FCP, especially on an exped detachment.

 

[DanMa1156]

When you need an FCP who hasn’t conducted any of the FCF to do QA after completing it, it makes it pretty tough to limit who gets FCP, especially on an exped detachment.

This is definitely becoming a thing in carrier squadrons now too that there are only 18-19 pilots at any given time. When you lose 3-5 qualified JO's at a FITREP opportunity. it's a HUGE hit to the overall squadron health (consider you have 2x front office HACs, 4x DH's, and 1x Train-O; then you get into 11-12 first tour JOs and at any given opportunity, 3-6 of them are HACs. Of all those numbers, you probably have 8-10 FCPs, so losing 3-5 of them at any given time nearly all at once is a big deal, let along just the HAC qual).

 

[SteveHolt!!!]

When you need an FCP who hasn’t conducted any of the FCF to do QA after completing it, it makes it pretty tough to limit who gets FCP, especially on an exped detachment.

I mean, sure, but that's every qual in exped dets, starting at PC and going up to LVL IV. As OIC, I had an unofficial policy that my FCP qual was a "break glass in case of emergency" qual, and I never had more than 2 (and sometimes 1.5, if you catch my drift) other FCPs. So basically, I had an unofficial "you start it, you finish it" FCF policy. Not always a very realistic policy.

I don't think we should limit who gets FCP, per se, but I do think FCP often draws the short straw in the qual competition because it is so locally controlled. My experience was that bad culture combined with the pressures you mentioned on a det can lead us to giving the qual a little too early because it's easier than managing the pain of limited FCPs.

This is definitely becoming a thing in carrier squadrons now too that there are only 18-19 pilots at any given time. When you lose 3-5 qualified JO's at a FITREP opportunity. it's a HUGE hit to the overall squadron health (consider you have 2x front office HACs, 4x DH's, and 1x Train-O; then you get into 11-12 first tour JOs and at any given opportunity, 3-6 of them are HACs. Of all those numbers, you probably have 8-10 FCPs, so losing 3-5 of them at any given time nearly all at once is a big deal, let along just the HAC qual).

I mean, we're really in the weeds at this point (and I love any time airwarriors devolves into HSC nonsense nobody else cares about, really I do). As a career exped guy, I have nothing to comment beyond "welcome to our world!"

 

[ChuckMK23]

Along the lines of this thread and risk adversity..

Are H2P flights a thing currently?

By this I mean where two H2Ps are paired on a training sortie - typically instrument training sortie or Day DLQ rehack or a "good deal" XC. The 2P's would alternate being the PIC.

This was a very common practice in HC (in my day) - across all airframes. H-46, H-3, H-1, and even H-53.

Great confidence building and development on the journey to HAC.

Thanks.

 

[Odominable]

Along the lines of this thread and risk adversity..

Are H2P flights a thing currently?

By this I mean where two H2Ps are paired on a training sortie - typically instrument training sortie or Day DLQ rehack or a "good deal" XC. The 2P's would alternate being the PIC.

This was a very common practice in HC (in my day) - across all airframes. H-46, H-3, H-1, and even H-53.

Great confidence building and development on the journey to HAC.

Thanks.

Happened a ton in HMLA. We would use slightly different verbiage (“Pilot Qualified in Model”), but 2 x PQM FAM lines were very common and a good way to stretch what you were getting out of a single tail and get some good experience for the crew.

 

[croakerfish]

Along the lines of this thread and risk adversity..

Are H2P flights a thing currently?

By this I mean where two H2Ps are paired on a training sortie - typically instrument training sortie or Day DLQ rehack or a "good deal" XC. The 2P's would alternate being the PIC.

This was a very common practice in HC (in my day) - across all airframes. H-46, H-3, H-1, and even H-53.

Great confidence building and development on the journey to HAC.

Thanks.

Occasionally but it’s not typically anything besides fam work.

 

[JTS11]

Happened a ton in HMLA. We would use slightly different verbiage (“Pilot Qualified in Model”), but 2 x PQM FAM lines were very common and a good way to stretch what you were getting out of a single tail and get some good experience for the crew.

Don't y'all come out of the FRS as PQM? H-1s can be single-piloted, which I believe is the major differentiator between the PQM vs H2P designators. Basically the same besides that distinction. I could be wrong though...

IIRC correctly, the 53 NATOPS allowed for H2P/H2P day VFR, and I'd heard of it happening prior to my career (2002 and on), but not since. TBH, with all the competing training reqs, I wouldn't really see the benefit in our community, and there'd be few CO's signing up for the risk.

A few squadrons I remember had a ground turn syllabus where an H2P was qualified to go do a maint ground turn with another 2P, which I think was fine and beneficial.

 

[Roger_Waveoff]

Along the lines of this thread and risk adversity..

Are H2P flights a thing currently?

By this I mean where two H2Ps are paired on a training sortie - typically instrument training sortie or Day DLQ rehack or a "good deal" XC. The 2P's would alternate being the PIC.

This was a very common practice in HC (in my day) - across all airframes. H-46, H-3, H-1, and even H-53.

Great confidence building and development on the journey to HAC.

Thanks.

Speaking from a purely Miramar perspective, it started being a thing in V-22s around 2022-2023. A bit of a revival among our CH-53 squadrons, too. The reality is that both T/M/S are in such a bad spot right now in terms of readiness that it's taking so long to get pilots real signing experience. Thus, "PIC" flights in which people can go runway-to-runway in Day VMC.

 

[Odominable]

Don't y'all come out of the FRS as PQM? H-1s can be single-piloted, which I believe is the major differentiator between the PQM vs H2P designators. Basically the same besides that distinction. I could be wrong though...

IIRC correctly, the 53 NATOPS allowed for H2P/H2P day VFR, and I'd heard of it happening prior to my career (2002 and on), but not since. TBH, with all the competing training reqs, I wouldn't really see the benefit in our community, and there'd be few CO's signing up for the risk.

A few squadrons I remember had a ground turn syllabus where an H2P was qualified to go do a maint ground turn with another 2P, which I think was fine and beneficial.

Yes, and now that you point that out I’m sure that’s the reason for the difference in terminology. Learn something new every day! Yeah, you leave the FRS as a PQM, and depending on the FRS CO may even get to sign with a buddy there as the final thing you do, but squadrons will generally wait until the first fleet NATOPS check prior to giving anyone the keys.

Aside from the training/confidence benefits the main reason it’s usually scheduled is to either pad flight hours or facilitate hot seats if the morning event can’t quite stretch it to a later line.