norskman
-
Posts
63 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Downloads
Wiki
Posts posted by norskman
-
-
On 8/3/2022 at 8:16 AM, tac airlifter said:
Valid, and my reply wasn’t exactly to you. Imperfect communication on a message board, the struggle is real!
I’m personably less concerned about the transition to single pilot ops (although it will require training) than using a TW. It’s not rocket science, but it’s counterintuitive juxtaposed against T6 training, incurring risk to force. A surmountable challenge, but one requiring deliberate effort.
Locking tailwheel on these rigs. Got a few buddies that fly tractors. They say these things are a breeze to fly. The only difference from tricycle is the variation of pitch on takeoff and landing.
-
Helo rescue guy turned UPT IP here....
As we continue to watch the "Special Military Operation" unfold in Ukraine and the importance of the armed overwatch execution, it clearer now more than ever the AF gets this right. I can't help but notice the minimal overhead and footprint of all the Ag sprayers (aka crop dusters) in northern Mississippi operating out of dirt strips or even fresh cut hayfields and still be able to do their job everyday covering thousands of acres, all with a just a few guys.
I think this starts with the correct hardware. IMHO the 802 has the most intangibles going for it. Most predominately, its ability to launch and recover in pretty nasty runway conditions. As a former helo driver, operating on unprepared surfaces is our bread and butter, why can't we do the same with a FW thats capable of it?
spears.....
-
Get some HH-60 drivers to fly that thing.
They’re generally familiar with most SOF mission sets, in particular CSAR,CAS and SCAR.
Plus, Rolling landings/takeoffs in a HH-60 are extremely similar to tail dragger pitch pictures and airspeed envelopes and something they train to often.… and obviously austere field ops.
-
1
-
-
21 hours ago, jazzdude said:
What if the CSAR platform was unmanned?
https://www.flightglobal.com/military-uavs/cormorant-uav-aces-medical-evacuation-trial/128285.article
Have a similar drone to the one in the link navigate to the CSEL position, and have the isolated person crawl into the back and hit the "go home" button. Added bonus for not putting additional personnel into harm's way, though that ride home could get exciting for someone who's already had a bad day.shack....sadly
-Helicopter Pilot
-
40 minutes ago, Lawman said:
Honestly what you guys need to be investing in is quality boots, socks, and underwear.
2
PR is a primarily a time-based problem
-
10 hours ago, pbar said:
The Air Force is thinking of using a XCub bush plane for CSAR? Wow. Would be sporty to fly that into hostile airspace.
From that article, I think the goal is just to update current NVD capes with it. Not tracking any update for PR iron (exception being the HH-60W).
However, if we're talking off-the-wall airlift solutions, I submit the Murphy Moose. Basically a 75% scaled Dehavilland Beaver.
Floats, skis, or boats....it doesn't matter. If it fits in the cabin or even strapped between the floats, it will still fly (probably).
https://www.murphyair.com/detail/moose.html
-
On 11/10/2020 at 7:03 AM, JeremiahWeed said:
supposedly experienced leadership involved in this squadron completely failed this pilot. What an absolute clown show!
This.
Gone are the days of your typical 2000-2500 hr seeing-eye dog line IP in the squadron. Can't speak for the pointy nose dudes, but I know in other parts of the CAF (specifically helos) folks are upgrading to instructor with ~500 hrs. Even a 1000 hr pilot is hard to find and considered super experienced.
As others have eluded too, this decay in experience has a multitude of secondary effects and is exposed by certain outcomes.
-
1
-
-
18 hours ago, alwyn2d said:
Had no idea if a helo driver could be a T-6A IP at SUPT. The rest is a little history and future predictions.
Yep, ~2 or 3 in PIT right now.
2 hours ago, raimius said:Helo only track is to satisfy the bean counters, not make the AF better. The AF already has troubles not understanding/forgetting about helicopters...this will only make it worse.
Quoted for truth.
-
On 10/9/2020 at 8:42 AM, alwyn2d said:
Since AF helicopter pilots attend the T-6A phase in SUPT, are they allowed to be T-6A IPs further along in their career?
The Navy/Marines has this policy in place for their helo/VSOL drivers.
38 minutes ago, alwyn2d said:AF Helo Single track started at Ft Rucker in 1971 to the early 90s. With the new additions of the MH-139 and the HH-60W in the near future, the AF is program to train almost twice as many helo drivers annually. That being the case, a helo track only will allow more T-6A available in hopefully producing more fighter slots in the T-7A.
What exactly is your question?... it seems like you’re already attempting to answer your own original question.
-
2 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:
Unless said
stealthtanker has expeditionary capability (short, rough field with minimal support) then it doesn't really fit in the agile concept employment./arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-mco.s3.amazonaws.com/public/OMUYRIO555CA3BWKKZQK4AO4BY.jpg)
Refit with boom
-
On 8/26/2020 at 9:11 AM, Danger41 said:
I’m not personally a fan of the C-172 and similar as companion trainers because they’re just so different in performance than the assigned MWS. It’s better than nothing though.
Dreaming here.... My vote for a companion trainer would be a tail dragger (ideally a Husky). Certified Day/night VFR/IFR. Airmanship-wise - anybody with any TW time on here can tell you the importance of using your feet for BAC! Still able to enter into your nearest Class B on IFR clearance and on VFR RTB hit a few grass strips to practice STOL. Again, dreaming here...
-
2
-
1
-
-
16 hours ago, raimius said:
Also a great way to make helicopters even more the red-headed stepchildren, who will struggle to work with fixed-wing dudes for lack of background.
It's a terrible idea, IMO. It will reduce quality (flight experience) and introduce cultural problems wrt "big AF."Absolutely correct. Also, from my understanding, the FWF course at Vance has long since been shut down for RW bubbas. Anyone have data on that?
-
43 minutes ago, Scooter14 said:
Copy, but I’m not sure I buy it.Yeah, neither do I. Sarcasm here. I can't imagine how cutting a pilot syllabus by 115 hrs (~56%) will make someone better.
-
5 hours ago, Scooter14 said:
Zero fixed wing time?
Sounds like a good way to make sure someone can’t ever leave the helicopter community...Correct. The goal of this program is to make a better pilot though.
-
22 hours ago, hindsight2020 said:
*spits out drink* 20!? Try 50, plus a heck of a lot less solos, night and cat checks, between my generation's year groups (TAMI/no-fighter lost decade days) and the FY18 benchmark that was used on the last email chain we exchanged on the topic in Jan 2019.
UPT-H (Fort Rucker) has a current SGTO executing an ~88 hr syllabus (students have no prior IFT or T-6 time) that was reduced from a little over 100 hrs. The goal in the reduction was to make a better helicopter pilot.
https://www.airforcemag.com/helicopter-pilot-training-experiment-skips-fixed-wing-courses/
-
27 minutes ago, Lifer said:
Last FY was tied for the lowest number of aviation fatalities with two fatalities (one of which was a parachutist) and the least number of destroyed aircraft in USAF history. Just wanted to through that out there.
That does not negate the fact that we have had a heinous May-July '20. We have a trend now. The item in question now is defining the threshold of mishaps before *they* do something to tacitly address it ($/time).
-
On 7/12/2020 at 8:58 AM, SocialD said:
"We send our worst pilots to helicopter training..."Helicopter pilots...
The sad part is that USAF management actually views that as truth data...reference our ACP, the gutting of UPT for helo drivers, the ops tempo, etc.
-
1 hour ago, Bender said:
Line pilots still do the staff work, even if they aren’t on staff...
Sent from my iPad using Baseops Network mobile appshack
-
5 hours ago, Danger41 said:
If the AF goes helo direct, how would they select guys that are actually sure that’s what they want?
Great question, I fear that we would be "Plan B" for most dudes in the commissioning pipeline. The default would be UPT, followed by UHT for the vast majority no doubt.
22 hours ago, Breckey said:
The Air Force also looses flexibility with a T-6 track. RW pilots would have to have a FWQ course in order to transition to other airframes that don't have spinny wings.
Also, this. We have had plenty of dudes in the past couple of years flow back into FW assets.
-
5 hours ago, jazzdude said:
What benefits (to the operational units) come from having fixed wing training prior to rotary training? Aside from it's easier to teach a stud that already has flight time in a formal training pipeline?Airmanship. T-6 training is designed to take a dude with zero flight time and get them to be comfortable in a turbine powered machine flying in close proximity to other aircraft IMC.
At Rucker, we take that baseline understanding/knowledge and build on it with a RW perspective (for example, training "wingman consideration" in helo form).
Also, the intangibles should not be forgotten. FW training makes our community more understanding when we integrate with assets like HC-130s, A-10s, F-16s, etc. A baseline to integrate upon, if you will.
Edit: I.E. FW energy management (sight pictures, stalls/spins considerations, pattern flow), FW limitations, FW advantages (f/ mission command upgrades).
Edit #2: Forgot to mention earlier, HH-60 and CV-22 both train ACM and build on fundamentals of aerobatics. We cannot execute any g-related training due to system limitations of the H-1.
-
1
-
-
On 5/1/2020 at 10:42 AM, Breckey said:
There's a test case going through Rucker this summer. They've been trying to kill T-6s for helos for at least two years now. Nobody thinks it's a good idea but that extra T-6 capacity is precious I guess.
Ft Rucker IP here....the entire instructor mafia here thinks it is a terrible idea. Additionally, we have seen a noticeable decrease in student's SA/ task management/airmanship with the change of ~95 hours in the T-6 to the ~75 they get now.
-
Anyone here on 19AF staff I can PM?
-
On 8/8/2019 at 5:13 PM, BashiChuni said:
folks its not rocket science. cut T-6 flying, cut T-38 flying...of course you're getting a worse product than 10 years ago! more with less is meeting the breaking point. OH WAIT WE'RE OK WE HAVE VIRTUAL REALITY TO REPLACE FLYING HOUR SYLLABUS CUTS!
Shack.
Basic math folks. As a current UPT instructor, I contend there’s no substitute for seat time in aircraft. Thus, by reducing time we are reducing experience, albeit SP experience..but the point still stands.
Again, this is simply a mathematical issue.
-
8 hours ago, VMFA187 said:
There is nowhere near the level of SA and understanding that a bomber pilot/crew has, especially regarding air threats, when conducting any type of large force, deep strike scenario that requires fighter escort when compared to their fighter brethren. I’m sorry if that hurts, but it’s the truth. I witness it every day.
And there is nothing particularly difficult with releasing smart weapons, particularly the GPS-guided variety.
I get that you’re now part of Big Blue... but it’s poor form to comment and critique SUPT considering you did not attend....there’s something to be said for being a graduate of a course and thus being familiar with the intangibles...
-
3
-
CV-22 down off the coast of Japan
in General Discussion
Posted · Edited by norskman
I taught Luke at Rucker when he was a stud. I remember one particular NVG flight with him where it was like CT with your bro. He was a tremendous dude with a phenomenal attitude. He worked hard and was super willing to learn. He finished the program really strong. Luke, we will miss you dude.