Chris Down Under Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 We are looking at the C130H-1-1 graphs and trying to work out strip lenghts and weights as compaired to the new civil -1-1 performance manual. In the Take off field length decision tree in the mil -1 -1 . It gets to a point about is crew Assault Qualified ? So what is Assault Qualified? is it just TAC trained ( Airland / Low Level) as apposed to a Basic Quall? or is it more of a Spec Ops role? Chris PS also has anyone crunched the numbers for the new LM 382-1-1 and seen how restrictive it now is? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Wilson Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 Assault qual. comes in under the standard trash hauler "Tactical Qual" and no Special Ops kinda qual. involved. NVG's may be a different story, I am not sure if that is now a standard Tac Qual. or not nowadays. Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
US Herk Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 For some strange reason, the USAF has decided that max-effort/assault landings are a "tactical" event instead of a "qual" event. From a pilot's perspective, the skill set involved is 100% qual - can you fly the plane? Regardless, even airland-only (non-low-level qualified) guys had to maintain their currencies to keep their assault qual. I remember when the 53rd used to be the 16th and was airland only - some of their guys were assault qualified, and some weren't. Assault qualified effectively means you've done a checkride to a zone. AFSOC now implies that you can do it on your qual check, but doesn't come right out and say it. I did one on my qual check once a couple years ago just for grins. Technically, my MSN check that year only required an NVG landing & not an assault landing, but I did an NVG assault anyway. Assault = max-effort Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMPTestFE Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 Well I think you have to start your baseline qualification criteria on your lowest common denominator, which would be folks like the EC-130Hs, where they aren't qualified to put those on the zone. Sure, the airplane is just as capable, but there's no need for them to do it, so they are your basic qualification crews. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KJamison Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 I have always thought of it like this. A Assault crew would be someone trained to rotate at actual Refusal with no corrections made for Vmca while a Tactical crew can do an assault take off but has to correct for Vmca. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
US Herk Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 I have always thought of it like this. A Assault crew would be someone trained to rotate at actual Refusal with no corrections made for Vmca while a Tactical crew can do an assault take off but has to correct for Vmca. Not sure I would agree with this definition. What you are trained to and what your MAJCOM lets you do are two different things. In this case, a max-effort landing/takeoff is the same procedure regardless of the safety pad your MAJCOM mandates. I have rotated as low as 80-ish knots with the RAF and as high as 110+ when Vmca was higher a couple years ago. What I did was all the same, just the speed changed and the risk exposed to. Assault = max-effort and all tac-trained USAF guys should be qualified. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xzoomie32065 Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 If I remember correctly our crew based at Mactan was listed as "Short Stop Qualified". We went into places other crews were not allowed to land. It seems like the 463rd had to have a certain amount of these crews in-country at all times. Of course things change over the years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamMcGowan Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 Originally, assault landing - or "short stop" - was qualification to land on very short runways, runways much shorter than today's requirements. When the USAF first started operating C-130s in SEA, they were limited to 3,000 foot runways by 315th AD. TAC was using 2,000 feet. Eventually Col. Howe compromised and made it 2,000 feet plus a 500 foot safety margin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GVS Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 Originally, assault landing - or "short stop" - was qualification to land on very short runways, runways much shorter than today's requirements. When the USAF first started operating C-130s in SEA, they were limited to 3,000 foot runways by 315th AD. TAC was using 2,000 feet. Eventually Col. Howe compromised and made it 2,000 feet plus a 500 foot safety margin. Col. Howe was up to speed on short T/O and assault landings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobdaley Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 Old brain cells, but normal assault qual was 3500 (3000 feet plus 500 for the zone). Short stop was max effort landing distance or max effort take off distance plus 500 feet. Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamMcGowan Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 Old brain cells, but normal assault qual was 3500 (3000 feet plus 500 for the zone). Short stop was max effort landing distance or max effort take off distance plus 500 feet. Bob Bob, I think you're essentially right but I believe it was landing distance plus 500 feet. The issue is discussed in Ray Bowers' TACTICAL AIRLIFT. The 2,000 feet was minimum landing distance. As for "short stop," that was a PACAF requirement, at least it was by my experience. At Pope there was no "short stop" qualification. ACs were qualified for assault landings and takeoffs during Phase II (tactical) training. All combat ready crews were qualified for assault landings. PACAF and 315th had different criteria because it was getting pilots from other commands who were lacking in the tactical experience common in TAC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamMcGowan Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 Also, the 2,000 + 500 was the requirement for establishing C-130 airfields in South Vietnam. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
US Herk Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 The RAF still use 2500' I think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.