Stupid Questions about Naval Aviation (Part 3)

[JTS11]

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.

Ahhh, makes total sense.

I tried back in the day to get in front seat of an AH-1W FCF with @skidkid while on 31st MEU, but it never worked out. Would have declined with the UH-1N though...😄

 

[Meyerkord]

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.

Technically legal, but I've never heard of it happening amongst my peer group. We would joke with our skipper or OICs about doing them and they would just laugh it off. I haven't met someone who would actually consider it.

 

[Griz882]

Ahhh, makes total sense.

I tried back in the day to get in front seat of an AH-1W FCF with @skidkid while on 31st MEU, but it never worked out. Would have declined with the UH-1N though...😄

OK here is my stupid question. If a USMC pilot is designated as a gunner in the Cobra/Viper is that person always a gunner? Or…are the positions interchangeable?

 

[Gatordev]

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.

I had to politely ask the front office to fire a FCP at one point (which they essentially did), so I tend to agree.

Technically legal, but I've never heard of it happening amongst my peer group. We would joke with our skipper or OICs about doing them and they would just laugh it off. I haven't met someone who would actually consider it.

That's too bad. We would do them at sea on Det, usually. It would be at the end of cruise on the way home, so it wasn't a tactical mission. Personally I didn't get to do one since I was only 2P on Det, but the 2Ps on my HAC cruise got to do it.

 

[phrogdriver]

OK here is my stupid question. If a USMC pilot is designated as a gunner in the Cobra/Viper is that person always a gunner? Or…are the positions interchangeable?

There aren’t “gunners” in Marine AH-1s. The front position is usually occupied by the copilot and the rear by the aircraft commander, thought that’s not mandatory and can be switched for training.

There are some layout differences between the seats, but the aircraft can be flown and the weapons operated from either position.

 

[Odominable]

OK here is my stupid question. If a USMC pilot is designated as a gunner in the Cobra/Viper is that person always a gunner? Or…are the positions interchangeable?

Interchangeable and no quals attached to either seat position. Especially in the Z the two cockpits are nearly identical. Just personal preference. Lots of dudes found shooting rockets easier from the back, for example, so whoever was primarily going to be the pilot flying that day would sit in the back, but again nothing written in stone.

 

[DanMa1156]

Technically legal, but I've never heard of it happening amongst my peer group. We would joke with our skipper or OICs about doing them and they would just laugh it off. I haven't met someone who would actually consider it.

Yeah, everyone else talking about it happening... I've never seen it or heard of it happening in 60 land but I did have a Skipper genuinely look for opportunities with the right mix of H2Ps.

 

[ChuckMK23]

On the topic of Functional Check Pilot qualification at the squadron level - I'll give some "old guy" perspective on how it was.

In HC, the Quality Assurance Officer was generally reserved for the top rated first tour LT in the squadron. This position reported to the MO and the QAO was generally someone with two cruises under their belt, made HAC right on target and still had a year or more remaining in their tour. QAO had the job of selecting, training and recommending FCP candidates. There was no defined syllabus or PQS per se - but memory and my logbook reminds me that a week of flying full card FCFs with the QAO, an open book test that was locally generated and then designation letter by the skipper. I think the majority of the work was simply finding the right people - post cruise HACs with the right personality and skills. You had to have the mindset that the FCF process was the final chain in delivering a product out of maintenance - and that you had your fellow crews in mind and the willingness to get the aircraft to its highest state of performance - whether its flying qualities or performance and that you wouldn't be the one to cave to the Maint Chief because everyone wanted to go home early.

Anyways - finding the right people to be an FCP who generally were interested in the designation and "how the sausage gets made". I always found it rewarding. Typically at any one time - in a squadron of 12 aircraft there were 6-8 FCP's - one per DET and one or two FCP's for Home Guard. The designation also entailed picking up aircraft out of Depot and ferrying to a squadron which was fun. (by the mid 80's dedicated Ferry Squadrons were decommissioned).

You assembled your FCF checklist from a variety of NATOPS and additional procedures developed by the Model Manager. In addition I worked of a laminated checkflight checklist with grease pencil while conducting the test flights and later transposed values to the official FCF card. Fun times!

 

[Odominable]

That’s more or less how it’s done today. QA will generate a test card that’s pulled from NATOPS but it’s not necessarily in the most logical order / doesn’t have the performance charts / doesn’t spell out all the procedures & gotchas, so the gouge checklists transposed to the official card are still very much a thing

 

[DanMa1156]

I'd also add in that we need 2 FCPs per det minimum, because only another FCP can sign off an FCF completed by the first FCP.

 

[ChuckMK23]

I'd also add in that we need 2 FCPs per det minimum, because only another FCP can sign off an FCF completed by the first FCP.

This requirement must have been introduced after my time. I remember signing off the aircraft and hot seating to an awaiting crew to fly on an operational sortie.

 

[DanMa1156]

This requirement must have been introduced after my time. I remember signing off the aircraft and hot seating to an awaiting crew to fly on an operational sortie.

Yeah, that isn't a thing anymore. The 2nd FCP reviews the book and ensures all the work/signoffs/math is complete and correct.

As others have said, that meant when I was on det with two FCPs (most common), if an FCP started an FCF, that FCP had to finish it because the other FCP had to not have a signature in the book other than to be the QA for it.

 

[Lionel Hutz]

Yeah, everyone else talking about it happening... I've never seen it or heard of it happening in 60 land but I did have a Skipper genuinely look for opportunities with the right mix of H2Ps.

Going to date myself, but early 2000s in Bravos, it was fairly common at the end of the det to let the 2Ps who had done well on deployment do some fam flights around the boat. It was incredibly motivating and a great confidence boost getting ready for HAC.

 

[SynixMan]

Granted it's been 8 years (ugh, I'm old) since I touched a -60, but my recollection of ground turns and hover vibes were they weren't magically difficult. I'm also scarred by spending 0300-0600 as an FCP doing ground turns on the boat to pass to another FCP at daylight for inflight.

I think too many people drank the koolaid on being able to take the bird apart and diagnose oddball shit that was put back together wrong to speak MX to speed stuff up, but in reality an H2P could've said XYZ didn't work and smart maintainers could do their magic. The loss of MX rated aircrew probably hurts this too. Ground and Hover vibes, IMDS did the magic and the computer said what to fix. If shit got weird upon engagement a H2P would stop just like a HAC would. Same for Hover vibes, if it was super weird lifting, just set it back down. What could hover vs what was "in" for forward flight was a pretty wide range anyway if IIRC.

In flight power checks, AFCS, vibes and whatnot? Sure, FCP. (FWIW I liked FCFing towards the end of my time and I think I was well regarded by MX, but some squadrons get dealt a bad hand and have to go on Det with what they have)

 

[JTS11]

Granted it's been 8 years (ugh, I'm old) since I touched a -60, but my recollection of ground turns and hover vibes were they weren't magically difficult. I'm also scarred by spending 0300-0600 as an FCP doing ground turns on the boat to pass to another FCP at daylight for inflight.

I think too many people drank the koolaid on being able to take the bird apart and diagnose oddball shit that was put back together wrong to speak MX to speed stuff up, but in reality an H2P could've said XYZ didn't work and smart maintainers could do their magic. The loss of MX rated aircrew probably hurts this too. Ground and Hover vibes, IMDS did the magic and the computer said what to fix...

Speaking of FCF track and balance, I grew up in the strobe camera era taking data at ground, hover, 90, 120, and 150...it then progressed to the IMDS era.

Like you said, the computer would a few times tell you the ground track was 'in' and ready to go fly (as you're in the cockpit watching 1 blade dipping about 6 feet and shaking like an out of balance washing machine). And you’re like, we ain't flying this thing today...I don't care what the computer says.

The stupid question I had was how did they do track and balances prior to cameras and IMDS sensors? I remember some old school sim instructors mentioning what they did.

Here's a passage from an article I looked up: 🤨🤨

In the Beginning

In BC (before computers) times...A long, vertically-held pole that had two horizontal arms protruding from it would have multiple pieces of tape (tracking flags) attached between the horizontal arms. The individual main rotor blade tips were coated with differently-colored grease pencil or chalk.

With the helicopter running on the ground, the tracking flags were moved in toward the rotor blade tips. As the blade tips made contact with the flags, each left a mark corresponding to its assigned color. If the marks were vertically separated, a pitch-change adjustment was needed to move the blade tips closer together. If the marks overlapped one another, no adjustment was required. The downside to this method is that it was dangerous and could only be done on the ground.