Then lets look at the Gulf war. Any of the airfields that were used against Iraq were under threat of Scud attack by HE, chemical, biological, or nuclear attack. Many of the bases were fired upon. This went on for nearly 6 months for some units prior to the start of the airwar. These guys lived in tents in the desert among a bzillion flys and heat going over 120 degress not to mention the threat of attack.
I do hope your knowledge of modern helicopter develpment is better than your knowledge of Gulf operations and events.
I read Jeremy's point of view and would disagree with his statement that he thinks stress is easier due to technology or that pilots don't have to look outside all the time anymore.
I believe that there are public records of UK MoD studies that say almost *exactly* what Jeremy has been saying. I know such studies exist in Japanese too.
I would point out here that pilot's are constantly looking outside the canopy...especially flying low level or nap of the earth.
What do US pilots (or the USAF or whatever) call low level?
A more recent test that we conducted with a Comanche aircrew on a typical Zone reconnaisance mission lasting only 1 hour...the crew pressed over 3000 buttons during the course of the mission with the non flying pilot performing about two thirds of these. Thats averaging about 17 presses a minute for the pilot and 34 for the copilot...pretty intense.
If this were true then you have a massive design failure. Maybe you should have subcontracted the eletronics interface to a Japanese company?
I base a lot of my opinions on personal experience and those fellow pilots I have personally known over the last 28 years...not just what I read...and of course I do that a lot too. But I honestly believe that there are some things in life that people can not fully appreciate or understand until they actually experience it themselves, civilians in general are pretty naive when it comes to actual military life.
(I was a sneaky guy)
Sabre21
Galaxy far away? I believe it.
------------------------------
I will now proceed to entangle the entire area
Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.
To answer the easy question..US Army helo pilots consider 200 feet AGL and below as low level. NOE flight is basically obstacle avoidance meaning as low as possible without hitting things. Flying below treetop level is common in this mode of flight.
As for maintaining your eyes outside...very important for survival at these altitudes. That's why comprehensive helmet displays and voice alerts are being made for aircrews...and not just army pilots either.
Which portion or is it all of Jeremy's statements that you believe there are studies that validate his response. I would like to see these studies and read them myself.
The complexity of mission packages on board aircraft these days require pilots to interact with more systems than ever before. It is Jeremy's second paragraph that I mostly disagree with. Simply stating that all the pilot has to do is receive an alarm on an enemy's presense and that countermeasures will take care of the problem indicates to me watching to many movies and a very naive understanding of what attack flying is all about. Warnings as he understands them are only good for radar and laser type weapon systems emitting a signature that the aircraft recognizes. If the enemy changes the spectrum of their electronic signal (isn't an easy thing with older systems), then it is possible the aircraft will not detect it. But this still doesn't take into account optical systems or simply the guy on the ground with a gun. Also ASE systems are not full proof. Many modern weapons have ECCM capabilities.
I have been working with these engineers from the aviation industry for about 6 years now...some are gifted and talented and motivated, some need to find another line of work, the majority though..to them it's just an 8 hour job. Sometime's it's hard for me to comprehend that...and it's mostly from this interaction that I have formed my opinion on most civilians..biased maybe...but I haven't seen anything yet that disproves what I have learned.
One last thing..what part of the Desert Storm statement did you have a problem with??
Andy, I think I can gladly return your offer to lay down the swords. I don't think that a duel with someone whose call sign is sabre is smart, anyway -maybe I should have followed my grandad's lead? Dad liked to tell a story where my grandfather accepted an offer of a duel but as the challenged party he chose hip boots and a muddy field. Somehow I find it all hard to believe, but it makes a very amusing thought...
Military history is such an intriguing subject that it arouses passion among it's students. It is good to see that the passion can be tempered with diplomacy (much as the subject matter?).
I will now bow out of this thread. It seems that Andy and I understand each other, and as far as my knowledge of the modern stuff - it's minimal at best (better than the average citizen, but the subject just don't lift my kilt). Hey, at least I'm closer to it than my dad was - his specialty was the 17th-18th century era.
Simply stating that all the pilot has to do is receive an alarm on an enemy's presense and that countermeasures will take care of the problem indicates to me watching to many movies and a very naive understanding of what attack flying is all about.
--------------------
Yeah, uh-huh, and God bless you, God. I harbored some small hope that these forums would not be inhabited by small-minded ego-trippers who trot out pseudo-knowledge and unverifiable assertions of personal experience for self-gratification, but I guess I was mistaken.
**sigh**
I guess I'll choose my forum reading more carefully in the future.
Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.
To answer the easy question..US Army helo pilots consider 200 feet AGL and below as low level. NOE flight is basically obstacle avoidance meaning as low as possible without hitting things. Flying below treetop level is common in this mode of flight.
I was meaning fixed wing pilots, not the taxi drivers.
The complexity of mission packages on board aircraft these days require pilots to interact with more systems than ever before.
I agree. I see that as a design failure. Pressing 3000+ buttons an hour during flight is a massive design failure: either someone doesn't know how to automate processes very well or the pilots are being presented with more information than they need.
One last thing..what part of the Desert Storm statement did you have a problem with??
The whole 'we were under threat and were attacked and lived in tents and we were so manly' line. Most of the bases were not under threat, nor were many under attack at *any* point nor were most pilots living in tents for six months+.
US Army Field Manuals that pertain to all operations...lift, attack, reconnaissance...describe in detail what altitudes are considered what. 200 feet and below is low level. The Air force usually stay above 300 feet for seperation purposes but it is very common to go below that if the Threat requires it.
Also reconnaissance operations are some of the most difficult to perform. Stating that there is amassive design failure is a pretty general statement. If you are familiar with the Apache longbow or kiowa warrior you will see that their design is much more cumbersome and switch intensive. While i will say that 3000 button presses is extensive...that's what design process is all about. New mission requirements such as operating UAV's from within the cockpit, utilizing digital communications, satelite networking...not to mention the multitude of weapon systems has increased the workload from previous designs. Automation can only handle so much..the pilot needs to be in the loop on many of the decision making processes that occur. If you would like to get into a discussion on avionic system automation, I would be more than happy to do that. I wouldn't mind hearing your ideas.
As for Desert Storm...yes...many Army pilots did in fact live in plain tents...especially the first few units to arrive, some eventually got the larger air conditioned ones later on compared to the standard GP mediums that they deployed with. Once the ground war started, the tents went away. As for being under threat of attack..I never said they were all attacked..the Scud variant the Iraq used reaches out to Isreal. That put most locations in Saudi within range. A few bases were attacked too..say that to the 28 Pennslyvania NG that were killed in one of the attacks. We can look back with hindsight at what occurred..but at the time no one for certain what Saddam was capable of doing, fortunately the vast majority of the Scud's were shot down and there weren't nearly as many attacks as had been anticipated. Casualalties from the war were expected to exceed 10000, again, fortunately, only around 400 or so allied killed.
Now Pasternaski..it's pretty uncalled for do get into name calling on a public BB. People disagree or agree on issues on these things all the time. If I use a personal experience to back up my point rather than print in a book..there's nothing wrong with that. Telling someone they are naive on a particular subject matter is not a negative thing nor was it intended as such. All of us are naive or lack an understanding on many subject areas..I have no clue how to build a house, run a small business, or raise hogs to name a few...but when it comes to attack helo and reconnaissance operations..that has been my life for the last 28 years..so I know a bit more about this than many. I do not care to nor will not get into name calling. Your posts up until the last few have been pertaining to the subject, and just because we disagree on a few points doesn't call for the latter responses.
