Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Naval air ops no more?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • na grohmiti
    replied
    no.

    Just no.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Usual Suspect
    replied
    See: Future Common Helicopter Fleet AC/CG/NS/Ambulance/Garda



    Over on: Defence Forces > Air Corps > Future Common Helicopter Fleet AC/CG/NS/Ambulance/Garda

    Leave a comment:


  • TangoSierra
    replied
    US Navy experimental MALE UAV

    http://www.c4isrnet.com/story/milita...-uas/77971304/

    Leave a comment:


  • na grohmiti
    replied
    With regard to Naval Air Ops, sometimes even those doing it daily for years get it terribly wrong.

    http://www.navytimes.com/longform/mi...zrep/29162991/

    The instructions given ship handlers were inadequate and even hazardous, said a former Navy official with direct knowledge of the investigation, who spoke on condition of not being named. The body of evidence points to the repeated warnings from pilots about low-freeboard flight decks, he noted.

    "We have been flying helos in all conditions and in all speeds and areas of the world, and this is first time there was a fatal accident, and the CO of the ship is supposed to know, somehow, that maybe NATOPS is wrong?" the official said. "If a unit does what big Navy tells them to do, to the letter, and bad things happen, then someone beside the unit following lawful and legal orders and procedures needs to step up."

    The safety investigation report found a systemic failure, concluding that aviators were allowed to fly with conditions that many had warned against and urged to be changed.

    "HAZREPs and [safety investigation reports] dating as far back as 1985 recognize and document conditions that cause deck wetness, damage to FD nets and ocean waves/swells impacting aircraft on the FDs of low-freeboard DDGs and FFGs," the mishap board ruled.

    Between 1983 and the Lawrence incident, at least 13 HAZREPs were reported to the brass about waves damaging helos and flight deck nets aboard destroyers and frigates
    If the USN can't get it right...
    The aircrew was working to stow the Seahawk in the hangar, but the South China Sea wasn't cooperating.

    Nine-foot-high waves were sending the destroyer Lassen rocking from side to side, 13 degrees to starboard, then 13 degrees to port, making the task of straightening the MH-60R to pull it into the hangar that much more dangerous. The destroyer settled on a new course that reduced the rolls to 6 degrees, within the guidance for straightening operations, which includes using chains and flight systems to get the shutdown helo in line for the hangar.

    But as the crew worked, the rolls picked up. The landing safety officer ordered the helo immediately chained down. No sooner had it been secured than a wave broke over the flight deck, damaging the safety nets and the helo's tail rotor.
    Makes for shocking reading.

    Leave a comment:


  • ancientmariner
    replied
    leadership effects on operational potential

    Originally posted by X-RayOne View Post
    Interesting point about comparing NS productivity, resourcefulness and VFM to that of AC.

    Seems to be a common point that is raising across a number of threads on the forum at the minute, and one which I've commented on in a thread myself.

    Seems to be the AC is more and more looking like the weak link in any of the services moving forward with any type of combined ops.
    Units that do things with a variety of high cost equipments, eg., Ships, Airplanes, Artillery, Armour, High-Tech Communications etc. need to have an ambitious drive to get involved and keep demanding and seeking ways of being relevant to the battlefield or theater. It all stems from slightly naive leaders who see no obstacles and keep banging on the door with plans and proposals. They then must put what they have acquired to good and constant use. With ships dispatched on 21/28 day Sailing Orders, the crew are on their own, and set out to make themselves relevant to the task. If there is a possibility to have a multi-detention of illegal vessels then they go for it even though it is going to be of some inconvenience for boarding teams. WHO DARES WINS. Sit on your bum and you get fat!!

    Leave a comment:


  • hptmurphy
    replied
    Murph, would you really put an untrained, non-sailor on a watch? To do what??!
    not specific to the AC, anyone not standing watches including dusty's , stewards and the like were graded as passengers with unmerciful pisstaking.

    Its a different world, you only gain acceptability when you stand your watches,even the officers were acceptable as they stood watches.

    Must have sickened the AC officers to find out that NS enlisted had double the normal annual leave entitlement while posted to a ship, not that you could ever get leave!

    Leave a comment:


  • GoneToTheCanner
    replied
    Murph, would you really put an untrained, non-sailor on a watch? To do what??!!........... Dev, pilots at the time were already well paid and, compared to Army Officers, had the highest rates of pay in the DF and had such luxuries as twice the leave days of enlisted personnel. They had a seriously priviliged existence and were regarded as milking it. Some of them got quite a culture shock when they went to the airlines and found that life was not rosy out in the real world, especially when they had to pay for things previously unpaid for. Such as real-world expenses like pilot medicals,license costs, training costs and all the mundane shit that goes with real life. Some of them got a serious eye-opener and actually wanted back in!

    Leave a comment:


  • hptmurphy
    replied
    As for the boat, the Donners didn't want it from day 1 and hated being on the ship, which was not helped by the attitudes of some of the NS personnel, some of whom went out of their way to be unpleasant.
    Have to say , while we didn't mix much when they joined I was always quite civil and found those who came with us to be a little out of their element, which can often come across badly and probably prompted reaction.
    Some of the corporals had issues as they messed with lower rates on ship where they felt they should be messing with sergeants, which wasn't a option.

    There were issues like this that did create conflict and got peoples back up.

    Ships are a strange place for those unused to them. If the crews and techies had remained a constant maybe relations might have improved but to many faces and unfamiliarity brings their own problems especially among a tightly knit crew.

    Crews have a tendency to declare all those who do not stand watches as 'passengers' and can be resented for being so.

    Leave a comment:


  • DeV
    replied
    Originally posted by ropebag View Post
    the problem with this argument, or more correctly the logic behind it, is that the AC is conspicuous by its absence in the increase in the tempo/difficulty of its roles that both the Army and NS have very obviously undergone in the last decade.

    Chad would been unthinkable in the 1990's, as would the NS's current Med operation. moreover the AC could reasonably be said to have had the lions share of investment - would that either the Army or the NS could say that their oldest peice of major equipment was 20 years old...

    so, either successive governments of all flavours have had a wierd hang-up about pouring money into the AC but refusing - much to the howls of protest of the AC hierarchy - to let it be used to its potential, or the AC have a very different ethic to the other two services and that it keeps its head down when the other services are saying 'we can do this', and if asked 'can you do this?' comes out with an arm-long list of insurmountable problems.

    anyone want to put a €5 bet on which one is true..?
    I agree but AC bashing seems to be popular there is huge room for improve but:

    The heaviest thing I every saw underslung on a AC helo was a 120 under a Puma, other than that it was a bail under an Alouette but now the AW139s are carrying Bambi buckets, 105s and Inf bridges. The same aircraft is firing GPMGs off the side of it in the Glen

    2002 there was 81 air ambulance missions, in 2013 there was 102 air ambulance missions plus 411 EAS missions. Credit where it's due as each one would have made a real difference to someone.


    Again it's far from perfect but it's unfair to say they have done nothing.

    Leave a comment:


  • TangoSierra
    replied
    There is an exodus of enlisted techs at the moment too

    Leave a comment:


  • ropebag
    replied
    Originally posted by DeV View Post
    Ask Government!! The AC can only do as tasked (but they should volunteer at the same time!)...
    the problem with this argument, or more correctly the logic behind it, is that the AC is conspicuous by its absence in the increase in the tempo/difficulty of its roles that both the Army and NS have very obviously undergone in the last decade.

    Chad would been unthinkable in the 1990's, as would the NS's current Med operation. moreover the AC could reasonably be said to have had the lions share of investment - would that either the Army or the NS could say that their oldest peice of major equipment was 20 years old...

    so, either successive governments of all flavours have had a wierd hang-up about pouring money into the AC but refusing - much to the howls of protest of the AC hierarchy - to let it be used to its potential, or the AC have a very different ethic to the other two services and that it keeps its head down when the other services are saying 'we can do this', and if asked 'can you do this?' comes out with an arm-long list of insurmountable problems.

    anyone want to put a €5 bet on which one is true..?

    Leave a comment:


  • DeV
    replied
    Originally posted by X-RayOne View Post
    not a lot of positives considering the number and types of aircraft in use and the potential all of them have to be used much more extensively and over a wider range of roles.

    EAS is also a pilot project and the final report could very well go the way of the SAR and suggest a different entity provide airframes for the medical crew. I'm sure NAS would love the glory of operating their own machines completely under their own remit!
    Those were just 2 quick off the top of head examples (another one would have been the work on Skellig).... There are others

    I have no connection with the AC apart from having an interest and being a member of the RDF, so I don't have a vested interest, save that as a taxpayer I want a resourced tasked AC that provides excellent VFM.

    There are over 880 people (those who have been helped) who I'm sure with disagree! The EAS has successfully proven (very cost effectively) that such a service is required and there is demand (proving what a number of reports have said.



    Originally posted by Charlie252 View Post
    So by not having it as a declared asset the pressure is off!! Hardly a huge achievement for aircraft that have been in service 20 years.
    Ask Government!! The AC can only do as tasked (but they should volunteer at the same time!)

    Originally posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
    The pilot retention thing was a scam. Paying people (including several individuals who may have been pilots but had long since stopped flying for various reasons) to stay doing what they were already paid generously to do anyway,on the basis that they might go to the airlines,while the place shed techs like rainwater,who were offered no such retention money to stay.
    Who has more pull?
    It still helped bring wages up towards market rates. But people obviously worked the system (and techs probably should have got something too).



    The thing about the DF is (it has changed in someways), if a commercial organisation isn't using something they look at it as costing money, if the DF isn't using it the Government looks at it as saving money.

    Leave a comment:


  • Spark23
    replied
    Originally posted by morpheus View Post
    How come Casa isnt available 24 hrs?
    Also various hold ups with the defence logistical system in speedy ordering of spares and paying for said spares/outside maintenance

    Leave a comment:


  • GoneToTheCanner
    replied
    The pilot retention thing was a scam. Paying people (including several individuals who may have been pilots but had long since stopped flying for various reasons) to stay doing what they were already paid generously to do anyway,on the basis that they might go to the airlines,while the place shed techs like rainwater,who were offered no such retention money to stay. I recall one captain stating that techs who left were just "disgruntled exers". Did he ever wonder why??!! As for the whole SAR thing, several of the pilots,including SAR pilots who should have known better, blamed the winch ops men for the loss of SAR. As for the boat, the Donners didn't want it from day 1 and hated being on the ship, which was not helped by the attitudes of some of the NS personnel, some of whom went out of their way to be unpleasant. The Dauphins were too heavy, too finicky and were insufficiently proven when we got them and were in effect, testbeds for whatever Aerospatiale wanted.The Don was going to lose, no matter what. The NS should have had their own independent air arm, to include fixed-wing aircraft.

    Leave a comment:


  • X-RayOne
    replied
    Originally posted by DeV View Post
    (positive):CASA top cover EAS !!
    not a lot of positives considering the number and types of aircraft in use and the potential all of them have to be used much more extensively and over a wider range of roles.

    EAS is also a pilot project and the final report could very well go the way of the SAR and suggest a different entity provide airframes for the medical crew. I'm sure NAS would love the glory of operating their own machines completely under their own remit!

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X