The break

[Brett327]

I meant forward, are you a shoe? And I would argue that breaking .5 upwind is a lot easier than snapping off a sh*t hot at the round down, even in a five wet! It takes practice and a little dedication to expand your skills behind the boat. Dont take this the wrong way, but if you think a simple break is dangerous then the rest of the stuff we do must scare you to death?

Brett

 

[chiplee]

I meant forward, are you a shoe? And I would argue that breaking .5 upwind is a lot easier than snapping off a sh*t hot at the round down, even in a five wet! It takes practice and a little dedication to expand your skills behind the boat. Dont take this the wrong way, but if you think a simple break is dangerous then the rest of the stuff we do must scare you to death?

everyone knows how to do a $hit hot break bro, I'm surprised anyone is still impressed. You sailors keep perfecting it though while the Marines in your airwing keep walking away with the top 5 patches every line period. At least that's how it was in my airwing. :sly_125:

why would I take that the wrong way? Your's is the typical response. but to clarify, I said a "SLOW" break is dangerous. I'll tell you the same thing I told Brett via PM. It's more an arguement for dropping the 350knot handcuffs than anything man. But trust me, I'm not alone. The ASO in my squadron has voiced very similar concerns and he is safety school trained. He is also considering a HAZREP. The arguement "FOR" faster breaks really boils down to how the Marine Corps/Navy justifies what we do. They've imposed a speed limit on the break in the name of safety, and FLE. But the break is not legal according to the FAR/AIM. We get around that the same way we get around climbing out at 300 instead of 250. Our climb out speed isn't for fuel efficiency, it's for visibility over the nose. Supposedly the break is a required phase of flight to "safely and expeditiously recover aircraft," which justifies going faster than 250 below 10k in the recovery phase as well as the climb out phase. Well my point is, where do we draw the line? Why not break at 250, and really just drop our gear and turn downwind? Why accelerate just to decelerate? Why not do straight-ins? Again, my arguement is FOR fast breaks or no breaks, that's all. So do I think we'll see a mishap resulting from a 350kt break, no. But will we see a mishap resulting from everything we do that's questionable? of course not.

 

[Brett327]

everyone knows how to do a $hit hot break bro, I'm surprised anyone is still impressed. You sailors keep perfecting it though while the Marines in your airwing keep walking away with the top 5 patches every line period. At least that's how it was in my airwing. :sly_125:

why would I take that the wrong way? Your's is the typical response. but to clarify, I said a "SLOW" break is dangerous. I'll tell you the same thing I told Brett via PM. It's more an arguement for dropping the 350knot handcuffs than anything man. But trust me, I'm not alone. The ASO in my squadron has voiced very similar concerns and he is safety school trained. He is also considering a HAZREP. The arguement "FOR" faster breaks really boils down to how the Marine Corps/Navy justifies what we do. They've imposed a speed limit on the break in the name of safety, and FLE. But the break is not legal according to the FAR/AIM. We get around that the same way we get around climbing out at 300 instead of 250. Our climb out speed isn't for fuel efficiency, it's for visibility over the nose. Supposedly the break is a required phase of flight to "safely and expeditiously recover aircraft," which justifies going faster than 250 below 10k in the recovery phase as well as the climb out phase. Well my point is, where do we draw the line? Why not break at 250, and really just drop our gear and turn downwind? Why accelerate just to decelerate? Why not do straight-ins? Again, my arguement is FOR fast breaks or no breaks, that's all. So do I think we'll see a mishap resulting from a 350kt break, no. But will we see a mishap resulting from everything we do that's questionable? of course not.

Boys, boys. Let's all play nice. There's so much wrong with this post, but I'm not going to go there. Ultimately (as I discussed w/ Chiplee via PM), NAVAIR is going to place restrictions on how we operate for various reasons - in this case FLE issues. At the end of the day, they have good reasons for doing what they do, and there's precious little that a couple of whining JOs can to do to change it. I can see it now, "But, but ADM Zortman, the FAR/AIM says..." Seriously?

Brett

 

[chiplee]

Boys, boys. Let's all play nice. There's so much wrong with this post, but I'm not going to go there. Ultimately (as I discussed w/ Chiplee via PM), NAVAIR is going to place restrictions on how we operate for various reasons - in this case FLE issues. At the end of the day, they have good reasons for doing what they do, and there's precious little that a couple of whining JOs can to do to change it. I can see it now, "But, but ADM Zortman, the FAR/AIM says..." Seriously?

Brett

Yes, seriously, and please do us all a favor and go there. I think everyone is playing nice so far.

 

[Schnugg]

I'm telling you some of the instructors when I was in the RAG, liked to bring 600knots into the break on a regular basis? they would also tell studs to bring as much heat as the could handle. since when can you drill into the overhead level at break altitude?. The initial is always 1500+ and where I was talking about it's 2500+ "tanks" is the call or maybe "slammer" and yes, if you light the cans and dive from 2500 feet to 800 feet starting at around 350kts a hornet will easily break not just 600kts but the number, especially an EPE hornet.

Love the part about lighting the cans and diving...guess you do what it takes.

AW Smiles.

G

 

[HooverPilot]

How is "aerobatic" flight defined, and how low can we do that? What is minimum maneuvering airspeed in LATT? If at any point in a "BREAK" turn you end up below corner, then in my opinion, you weren't going fast enough when you started it, and you should have simply made a left turn, not a break turn.

Weak arguments in my opinion, but here is a few thoughts
1. The break is not aerobatic flight according to 3710 & FAR's.
2. If you "have" to be above corner after the break, what have you accomplished? You still have to slow down to dirty up and land.
3. Every Navy fixed wing aircraft flies some version of the break, yet I have heard of virtually no mishaps occuring in the break (CNATRA not included because the pilots are not winged).
4. Complaining about a 350kt break in a Hornet is weak. The mighty COD and Hummer are probably the most difficult a/c to fly a good break in, but their pilots fly them every day, and they do it without mishaps. (never tried in a P-3 so don't harrass me too much!) A jet a/c is much more stable and controllable in a manuever such as the break. By your comments, I think you would be scared sh!tless by the COD in the break.

Now the Viking, that is a dream to fly the break in....:icon_smil

 

[chiplee]

Weak arguments in my opinion, but here is a few thoughts
A jet a/c is much more stable and controllable in a manuever such as the break.

Now the Viking, that is a dream to fly the break in....:icon_smil

A fighter is inherantly unstable, that's how it gets its manueverability. And who said there had been a mishap in the break? Who said they expect one?

Let's try to recall that I simply made a passing comment that "it wasn't even safe in my opinion" And since then, at Brett's request, I've tried to explain that the point is "stop calling it a break" if you're going to tie our hands. Call it the overhead pattern. "THE BREAK" has indeed been taken from us in practice. Again, the arguement is for faster breaks, apparently I'm failing to make that clear but I don't mind clarifying.

 

[chiplee]

Love the part about lighting the cans and diving...guess you do what it takes.

AW Smiles.

G

Love the part where you decided to ignore my questions about all the other off the wall stuff you posted... guess you do what it takes too.

 

[Goober]

everyone knows how to do a $hit hot break bro, I'm surprised anyone is still impressed. You sailors keep perfecting it though while the Marines in your airwing keep walking away with the top 5 patches every line period. At least that's how it was in my airwing. :sly_125:

Try another airwing. In ours, VAW took top hook for multiple line periods and the cruise. Takes more than just 1 hotshot per squadron.

 

[Brett327]

Try another airwing. In ours, VAW took top hook for multiple line periods and the cruise. Takes more than just 1 hotshot per squadron.

This is getting good!

Brett

 

[Schnugg]

Strike One

And who said there had been a mishap in the break? Who said they expect one?

Do I smell a innacuracy...

Mishaps in the break...hmmm... I immediately can think of two I know of personally. VF-213 with Wally and Stork in the cockpit South of Singapore and a VF-211 jet that went into the landfill at NKX while I was an FRS instructor in VF-101 Det Miramar.

And don't be a d!ck. You're much too new for that around here...and no one appreciates the attitude.

You will get banned.

Cheers,
G (AW smiles...of course)...

 

[Gatordev]

A fighter is inherantly unstable, that's how it gets its manueverability. And who said there had been a mishap in the break? Who said they expect one?

I can't believe I'm still even reading this thread, but just to add fuel to the fire.... You said that:

The ASO in my squadron has voiced very similar concerns and he is safety school trained. He is also considering a HAZREP.

Perhaps you're not familiar w/ what a HAZREP is for. Paraphrased, to prevent MISHAPS. More AW smiles...

 

[HooverPilot]

Do I smell a innacuracy...

Mishaps in the break...hmmm... I immediately can think of two I know of personally. VF-213 with Wally and Stork in the cockpit South of Singapore and a VF-211 jet that went into the landfill at NKX while I was an FRS instructor in VF-101 Det Miramar.

Schnugg - I'll take the hit. I brought up that I couldn't think of a mishap in the break outside of the training command.

Chipolte - Yes a jet is inherintly unstable, therfore gaining maneuverability, but have you ever flown an E-2 or C-2? The yaw associated with the roll rate and power reduction is vastly greater than in any jet aircraft. I have flown some of both, and the props require MUCH MORE piloting/skill than a jet.

 

[Brett327]

Chipotle

Pure genius! That would make a great callsign. Can we get this guy's username changed?

Brett

 

[Screamtruth]

I am confused about the talk of mishaps and stuff. Is the break inherently dangerous? I mean, as a private pilot it's a no no, at least for me. The pattern we fly at my home base is 800 ft, and everytime I enter it, I am always on alert for anything, i.e. engine failure, that would cause a handshake with the ground. But, the 172 is a stable platform, and as mentioned before, most fighter aircraft are not, so high speed, low altitude would make me nervous. I would probably over control or bank, and correct as I hit the ground.

Still do not see how you pilots handle all of this, being a private pilot is about all I can take at this point. Would be fun though to try, if I had gone into aviation vs. the grunts.

Semper Fi