Mk 2 eyeball

[jiffni]

Rumour No 1.

Under new NVG rules being introduced for rotorheads in the UK, it would appear that fisheads can continue not to recce before flying low on NVG, unlike the rest of us. Perhaps they should share their top secret Mk 2 eyeballs and then pongos and crabs could save time, resources and wasted flying hours as well. I doubt it though.

Perhaps it is just a rumour though.

[jiffni]

You speak a lot of sense JHC. I am merely after the same as the navy. Let us crack-on, without having to recce for all the reasons you quote. We use the same eyes. Navy have no weather limits, have no recce requirement ... hmmm i spot an inconcistency among the JHC brethren.

Lets just all work to the same rules ... for the JHC.

All rumour of course.

[The Bonk]

Sorry Jiffni,

But the simple answer is that they are better at it than us. They get more practise due to their serviceability and from speaking to friends fresh out of the RN training squadron they are trained from day one of joining a Sqn to operate to what you and I know as CAT 3. If you do something your whole career, with experienced people in the left hand seat who have done it all their careers, then it becomes second nature. Also mate, you can't get away from the fact that they do it world wide and not just in one or 2 areas throughout their careers. I was in Belize when these guys were supporting a Royal Marine exercise last year and they just got into the theatre and cracked on....night CASEVAC through the jungle canopy on goggs. I take my hat off to them. We certainly could not have done that (apart from the fact that we did not have a winch....DOH...DOH!) The same goes for the weather stuff...from day one they see pants weather, fly in pants weather and therefore get use to it and manage to work round it. They either land on if it gets that bad, sit in a hover or just bang out IMC (With the IFR kit to allow a proper recovery or letdown over the sea). I would agree with JHC it appears natural to them because that has been their ethos for yonks (and being involved in nearly every operational deployment since the 60'S the operational reality caption combined with what appears to be a strong loyal bond with their customer, means that they just do the job)

Somehow I think that our lords and masters couldn't swallow the increased risk to progress down this route (although the treasury would love it!!) Lets be totally honest Jiffni, how many experienced guys have you got on your Sqn to start this process, all the experienced QHIs I know of are currently in the AH vacuum at Wallop, holding for their course. Sadly, lets look at 654's Lynx on SSII...and that was on an NVG take off for christs sake.....what hope would there have been for an NVG desert landing!!

No gonads on table to cover the 'Duty Of Care' tree hugging, cotton wool wrapping commanders, then unfortunately no new rules for us. Thank god the RN have taken jointery in all the good faith, played the game but when it came to the crunch of effecting their Service ethos and operational ability, someone did have the guts and the spine to stand up and be counted. Well done. I wish that someone would do it for us....I am all in favour of jointery but it appears too many people are trying to expand their own careers on the back of it, rather than striving for best practise. :( :confused: :(

[ 14 October 2001: Message edited by: The Bonk ]

[HeliAviator]

Different rules, are we not a joint force (or should that be farce!). I have wiorked along side the Navy a few times now, off boats (or ships if you like), desert, snow etc. Yes they are good, but then there is not much to bump into over the sea apart from another boat or helo is there. Surely the rules should be the same for all three services and we (RAF and Army) should wake up smell the coffee and learn from the Navy.

Badger

"Any landing that you walk away from is a good one".

[Hydraulic Palm Tree]

The problem is that our Lords and Masters think that flying on NVG at 100ft is more dangerous than at 250ft. Perhaps if they actually went and tried to fly on a 0.2 mLux night at 250ft in the hills of Wales, and then compared it to the much better texture and appreciation/anticipation of vertical features one gets at 100ft, then we might get some sense. No-one can deny that the RN have got it right, but the SH force needs to realise that they might need to slow down to SeaKing speeds on the darkest of nights to let them fly safely at Cat3/A Cat. Some might say the SH boys only fly 40 kts faster than SKs, however this is a heck of a percentage speed increase and DOES make a difference.

[jiffni]

Bonk: I think we disagree. Navy pilots are trained at the same school as others. They see the same weather as we all do. They have the same eyes as we do. Since NVG started, goggles have improved, cockpit lighting has improved, techniques and experience across the services have improved. If its safe not to recce for them, its safe for us not to. Whether you learn to fly in formation on NVG or you wait for the first 100 hours+, that has nothing to do with being able to see wires, masts or other obstructions in your path. Is it safe to fly un-recced on NVG? It depends on the light levels, the weather, the terrain and the crews ability. It comes down to captaincy, supervision, training and SOPs. Nothing i have seen in my short military career has shown me any of our 3 services are better. Look at the incident signals, flight safety magazines and national press, it all averages out. As to the gulf mk9 crash, rumour has it they were doing a mortal take-off, now that takes balls in the sand and dark.

[The Bonk]

Oakeydokey Jiffni mate,

Thats your opinion and fine by me. Personally I have seen something that sets them apart (and before you Fishead types get the wrong idea I don't know anything about your so called rusty or golden rivet or whatever it is?!) As I said, I have seen them operate in Belize and also in Bosnia. Come on mate, it doesn't take the brains of an archbishop to work out that everyone reckons there the best at that kind of ****e, otherwise the RN wouldn't have been in Bos for so long. Why because, the Army hierarchy knew that if really it wanted a rotary operator to tip up and do the biz if you were in a tight spot then the navy would do it.

Jesus they had their scares if the bar talk is anything to go by (inadvertent IMC with radalt audio going with icing at max power....s0d that!)....but they gave it a go. What probably is the clincher is that when they do screw up (taking the increased risk to get the job done or just by being blunt) their bosses stand by them it appears. No witch hunts and heads bowed in shame as we seem to have if an accident happens.

Believe it or not we do agree Jiffni, I would like the opportunity to be able to do the things that the RN can and be respected in the same way that they obviously are (9 years in Bos which is essentially a land locked theatre(not too many boats for them to land on)....they were obviously flicking someones switch or keeping the local bar profits up)

So why can't I practice for war....you know...train hard, fight easy kind of ethos? That all it is mate, as I said best practice and lets up the training bill for that best practice if it means if we can produce the goods more efficiently.

Fair dinkum or am I off at a tangent on this one? Oooh is that time..taxi for one..
;)

[Mmmmnice]

I was just about to wax lyrical when the PC flipped - either way I think I was going to go along the lines of .......why not go Junglie then you will be able to dredge around v low and slow without the option to pull up and do it any other way. All very hairy chested, but not the only way of doing business. Of course it's easier down low and that's what needs pushing for but don't just move the goalposts and send the frightened schoolboys out to do it! "Red sky at night - send the Duty Crew night flying" pip pip

[FJJP]

I believe sometime in the future the Sea Harriers will be moving to Cottesmore. I wonder how it will work with the RAF and RN working to different rules?

:confused: :rolleyes:

[Robin Hood]

Bonk - The Crew of the Mk 9 in the Oman were attempting a reversionary take off. That blows your arguement out of the water.

Me thinks you miss the obvious: wires on land; no wires over the sea. We all accept that we would operate witout recce if the need arose, but we value life too much during training: waste of money - I beg to disagree. What price a fatality due to a wire strike?

[The Bonk]

Robin,

Are you always this condescending mate or does it take practice? Fair dinkum about the Mk9 accident and until the BoI is complete always wise not to speculate I know....so apologies.

However me old china, last time I flew in Bosnia it has some pretty substantial wires (Jajce-Cheddar Gorge etc), mountains (Czech Hip), trees and terra firma....and not alot of the blue fishy stuff (Hmmh-Titos lake might count)....odd big lake and the moonscape pretty similar. Then there is NITEX last year when they just cracked on over Scotland, and then there is all their amphibious stuff which, forgive me if I am wrong, has the concept of going at least 150 clicks in shore, this of course does not take into account their annual Pyss up in the emerald toilet (maybe the Xmaglen wires are removed for them or perhaps they are just tasked over the Loch?)....dunno mate you obviously know me than me but I would suggest that the navy boys operate in pretty much the same environment as you and I and the crustaceans.


As to price of life....don't be stupid there is no price....however when removing the blinkers, an increased risk now may see a significant reduction of the risk on operations. Training can still be supervised and with experienced aircrew at a graduated level until competentent. Now I never tempt fate so will not ask the tempting fate kind of question. But numbnuts, do you think the navy would let their new boys fresh out of the box pole on into an unrecced site or route if they did not feel as though the training had been given? Even if the navy were hopelessly blind, incompetent and with a significant accident rate an external authority/parliamentary question would have put it to bed yonks ago. Just a thought.

As has been mentioned before, wrap yourselves in cotton wool and mitigate risk then when you are asked to conduct operations the risk factor surely must increase ten fold. Personnally (and it is my personal limited opinion) I would prefer to increase the risk and training bill now to enable me to be more prepared for doing my job when required. It is as simple as that.
:p

[ 19 October 2001: Message edited by: The Bonk ]