Umm. Maybe I'm wrong. I can't say I paid too much attention to that part of the Wing SOP in recent years but I seem to recall that being the rule.
-
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
Stupid Questions about Naval Aviation (Part 3)
- Thread starter Top_Gun_1_0_1
- Start date
Not a NATOPS prohibition IIRC, just a Wing SOP one, but one I (thought?) I saw on both coasts.
Our wing SOP allows it, as long as it’s Day/VMC/non-tactical and we have permission from ship and squadron CO
I'd like to see the real risk analysis on, "Well what if the HAC has a heart attack or gets shot on short final?" Something performed after 1973. The advantages of reducing crew are so great, that someone needs to actually figure out how likely it is, vice community "what ifs." 10 to the -6 or better? Go for it.
Is your point being that other people die if the pilot dies? That's true for most NFO platforms. The USAF is likely to proceed with SP ops in tankers on an experimental basis, as well.
I don't buy the workload argument, at all, having flown 46s and 22s. The next generation of AFCS and landing modes take away our excuses about hovering being so special.
I think the "what if the pilot is shot on short final" might be the last remaining argument. Given modern tactics and threats, I'm not sure it's as sound a rebuttal as it once was.
My argument is mostly to your last point. Threats and tactics evolve, yes, but I don’t see an easy way to mitigate the physical risk to the pilot (especially from small arms) to the point where single piloted ops are acceptable as long as we’re anticipating a requirement for an aircraft to insert to a potentially hot zone. I am 100% with you from a workload perspective.
We’ve had 20 years of more or less continuous tactical helicopter ops. There should be enough data out there to see how many aircraft would’ve crashed but for the second pilot taking over for an incapacitated PAC.
Impossible. Data will be at best anecdotal.
Off the top of my head I can think of one specific instance. UH-1N in Iraq where PAC was shot in eye by small arms at low altitude. FNG co-pilot semi-recovered aircraft after the Huey went into weird attitude after PAC was struck, and basically crash landed it. The crew was scooped up by dash-2.
I think the question that is unanswerable by data in helo world is how many mishaps were prevented by a second pilot in last 20 years.
I don't think I could be convinced that an aircraft that can carry 24 or so pax into harms way, that it could have a single point of failure up front.
Just my opinion from my experience.
FWIW, some of the Commonwealth air arms that typically fly with Observers (WSO/NFO types) in their left seat as a COTAC-equivalent can and do flex to dual-piloted crews when it's deemed appropriate for the mission. Doesn't seem like it needs to be a one-size-fits-all solution.
Good point. Back in the old scout helicopter days the aero-scout was an enlisted man who knew enough to help out with cockpit duties.
When we say "saved by the second pilot," do we mean something like "PAC got vertigo" or "PAC died?"
The first one should be less of a factor as controls improve. Why aren't F/W guys going into unusual attitudes in IMC, where they spend 70% of their time?
The second one is something we can put some analysis into. There are records of who's been wounded in combat. We can figure out how many missions happened versus how often PACs were hit by gunfire. The advantages of reducing crew come out in increased aircraft performance and lower cost throughout the NAE. This is really Fight Club liability math.
I don't think things will swing that way for a while. I suspect there will be "optimal piloting." Tactical or overwater missions will have 2 pilots. FCFs and other low-demand flights will have 1. Ferry flights could have 0--the aircraft will tank themselves across the Pacific. The pilots ride in a jet and meet their aircraft ready to commence flight ops. This option doesn't increase performance--you still need 2 seats and life support, but you do get more flexibility and can reduce T/O by maybe 25%.
Independent of the various other points and arguments here...
Because they spend 70% of their time there. Meanwhile recently a fully IFR-capable rotary aircraft with a supposedly IFR-rated crew (x2) on an IFR flight plan couldn't keep it upright.
I agree with your point that an automated system can combat the need for a second pilot in some sort of low-viz environment. But directly comparing how F/W does one thing so rotary should be able to do the same because "technology" is an unfair over-simplification. That doesn't mean the end result isn't still a success, but I'd argue there's more granularity (proficiency being a big part of it).
Because they spend 70% of their time there. Meanwhile recently a fully IFR-capable rotary aircraft with a supposedly IFR-rated crew (x2) on an IFR flight plan couldn't keep it upright.
I agree with your point that an automated system can combat the need for a second pilot in some sort of low-viz environment. But directly comparing how F/W does one thing so rotary should be able to do the same because "technology" is an unfair over-simplification. That doesn't mean the end result isn't still a success, but I'd argue there's more granularity (proficiency being a big part of it).
The technology does make a difference--flying IFR in the V-22 was cake, especially compared to the CH-46, where keeping it upright was actually an issue. Coming back from a mission and going into the CCA for recovery was SO much less nerve-wracking than sneaking in under the goo.
IFR is a good thing, and a much safer option, if you can do it right. There's no reason vertical lift shouldn't do it when it's tactically sound to do so...and train to do it.
Train to it and use it. Civil helo operators fly SP IFR all the time. So do doctors and lawyers in C172s. It's a little embarrassing to have professional aviators treat IFR like it's an EP.
In addition to all of this remember that fixed wing aircraft are dynamically stable and helicopters are dynamically unstable. As robust as the 60's AFCS is - and it is fantastic - it does have its gremlins (anyone who's done an A or a D profile has almost certainly seen some of them!) and it still isn't as easy as "power, attitude, trim" a certain number of inputs for exactly expected outcomes of airspeed/climb rates/ etc.
Worked briefly for the PAC you mentioned. He’s a fine American. Got his eye replaced with a glass one with a 169 emblem 🤘.
Re:IFR - I agree to the points folks have made, but it’s important to recognize the limitations of many current RW platforms and where we operate. MEAs over the mountains to and from the Yuma ranges aren’t really tenable WRT icing for a good portion of the year, for example. And putzing about on the SoCal coastal airways when it’s SKC isn’t gonna replicate the same skillset when it’s critical, unfortunately.