bunk22

I was going to say, when late, you didn't have to fess up, they were going to see it. If you wanted to see who was late at night all you had to do at was look for the jets in burner trying to hit their push time If we were late, hard to make it up in the thunder pig as we could only go so fast. I respectfully disagree with the VFR awareness being CASE I (and end result of CASE II) are VFR patterns over the boat, keeping other traffic in site as much as you can. In addition, plenty of us spend time in other aspects of flying, such as Primary or Advanced flight training as IP's and see plenty of pattern work at both military and civilian airfields.

KC10 FATboy

There have been at least two accidents/incidents (that I know of) during fighter drags where the tanker crew was unaware that the fighter's weather minimums and/or instrument approach capability was different from USAF. During the flights, the tanker crews received reports that navigational equipment had failed and/or the weather deterioated below fighter capability / mininums. Unfortunately, that information was never given to the fighter crew because it wasn't perceived to be a problem. All jets have ILS's right? No, not USN/USMC.

With the procedures and training we have in place today, this type of accident, although very preventable, can and most likely will happen again.

I must admit, the USAF seemed conservative in fighter movements whereas the USN/USMC was not. And both groups always assumed we had plenty of gas.

During one USMC fighter drag that I participated in, the fighters didn't have any divert airfields for two consecutive air refueling sessions. The first AR was over Gander (just before coasting out). There were no usuable diverts north of Maine due to an unusually strong coastal winter storm which was actually producing sustained hurricane force winds. Yet, they decided to go ahead with the fighter drag.

XHooker

OK, so I was trying not to sound like the arrogant "Naval Aviators are better than everyone else" a-hole that I really am by saying our VFR pattern awareness is lacking. I'd forgotten about the case I pattern (it's been so long I'd even forgotten the terms and what they mean). I would stand by my statement that we spend more time cross referencing instruments and the AOA indexer (or staring at the HUD symbology) in the VFR pattern than anyone else out of necessity, but you're right that I overstated how much it detracts from traffic awareness, I was just trying to downplay how good we really are (were).

USMCFLYR

Bunk/XHooker -

How about this part then? TacAir pilots lack some basic VFR flying skills and VFR flying knowledge in a general sense. For instance - asking a RP to fly around El Centro using VFR; flying back home from the working area VFR, or if you REALLY want to stump them - ask them VFR cloud clearences I was having a conversation with a long time and experienced instructor from San Diego the other day who has trained quite a few former/ex-military pilots. He stated that their instrument skills were usually very good (although not use to flying VOR, WAAS, GPS or ILS approaches), as was their SA and their ability to handle EPs. But he notices that their lack of understanding of, and flying in, the VFR system is usually evident. Personally - I like flying some VFR back to/from the R-2508 to/from El Centro and I'll even have the students use VHF freqs sometimes just so they can listen in on the rest of civilian aviation and maybe gain a better appreciation for what is happening out there in the big world outside of the local FCLP pattern and to/from the working areas.

USMCFLYR

XHooker

Believe it or not, per our operational procedures PAR minimums for naval single/tandem seat aircraft are (or at least were) usually the same as ILS minimums (if they had them). Of course all of that is dependent on the field having a PAR that is up and running (both Lajes and Kef had them).

Remember, when we launched off the boat in "blue water ops" the tanker was our divert field. Definitely a different mindset to Naval Aviation, and despite the lip service, it wasn't "safety first".

XHooker

That's my perception, as well. Funny you should mention El Sweato, because that's the first place I thought of for VFR in the Navy.

USMCFLYR

Naval single seat/tandem aircraft are 200 and 1/2. Most ILSs that I have seen are 100 and 1/4 - so our mins are a little higher.

For answering the other post - El Centro is probably the first place most tactical naval aviators first experience VFR flying if they don't have any civilian experience.

USMCFLYR

UAL T38 Phlyer

USMCFLYER:

A Cat I ILS normally has mins of 200 and 0.5. Cat II is usually 100 ft (can't remember the viz; but I think it is a quarter mile) which requires a two-man crew: one to fly the approach; one to takeover and land, and Cat III is autoland, with no Decision Altitude, and viz on the order of 600 ft (varies from carrier to carrier).

I'd say the fact the Corps is letting you go to published Cat I mins is pretty strong....the Air Force doesn't let the average fighter-pogue go below 500 and 1.50, usually, unless you're an IP. THEN they'll let you go to published Cat I mins...with Wing Commander approval!! Never happens...only in time of war.

Ironically, they let FAIPs do 300 and 1 at home-station in the T-38...which is approach Category E, and the fastest-flying final in the inventory.

USMCFLYR

Yes - the published mins on the approach plate in Lemoore for example shows 100 - 1/4 (for our C-12s for example) but we can only go to the 200 - 1/2 as stated earlier. Those are our mins for all single seat aircraft.

That is one of the differences. While in the FRS our students will have higher than 200 - 1/2 mins until they get a few hours under their belt. With an IP in the backseat the mins are 300 - 1 like you mentioned for the FAIPs; but by the time an RP leaves the FRS he goes to 200 - 1/2 right off the bat.

USMCFLYR

fiveninerzero

Thanks for the clarification. You learn something new hourly.