removed most of those capabilities. Now, we’re putting that tail-folding capability back in. Whether the aircraft have the equipment and can actually do that will depend on where they’re stationed or are aboard ship. The MH-65s will continue to deploy, I
expect, throughout their lifetime. We’re using 60s for airborne use of force and are looking for them to perhaps take on some of those other armed missions that we’ve used the 65 for in the past.
How long might it be before the fleet change takes place? I don’t have particular time frames. I would say the MH-65 is still planned to be flown into the mid-2030s. It’s going to be close to a 50-year-old aircraft when we’re done flying it. And we’ll drift the number of MH-65s down as we bring more H-60s into the fleet, which I see staying indefinitely. As we expand the fleet, we do have older airframes, but we’re getting new, 20,000-hour airframes. And we’re doing a modified service life extension program [SLEP] where we get used airframes from the Navy, and then we convert those to Coast Guard airframes. So we do have a
means of refreshing the 60 fleet. And again, future vertical aviation will inform what we’re going to do beyond the 2030- to-2035 time frame.
Your district includes Oregon and Washington, known for treacherous seas and weather. The Coast Guard used to have the mentality that you have to go out on a mission, but you don’t have to come back (survive). How have you changed that mindset in the Coast Guard? I’ve been doing this for 30-plus years and flying well over 20 years. And I’ve had my fair share of harrowing cases, events, and weather situations. That mantra really is old-school. I think we’ve matured as an organization as we’ve endured some mis- haps along the way. We have a robust and committed
safety management system within the Coast Guard, particularly within aviation. We took a real hard look at ourselves, I would say in the 2007 to 2015 time frame, where we had a rash of mishaps that was a little surprising for us. We looked hard at aviation and purposefully changed that philosophy. As an aviator, I always approached
every case like it was my mom or brother out there, and I can say, I’ve lived the change of that mantra. We were authorized to press the limits of the aircraft, even damage the aircraft if there was a likelihood of saving lives or reducing pain. But then, the underlying responsibility you have to your crew and really to the American public is to be good stewards of those resources, bring the crew back, bring your aircraft back so you can go out and go again. If you go out and lose an aircraft and a
crew, you’re done—and I would consider that a mission failure. There’d be those times, too, where I’d have to look critically, and I’d say, even if it was my mom or my brother, “Not today. We have to live to fly again.”
One of the biggest problems facing commercial rotorcraft aviation is pilots who fly into IMC. Coast Guard pilots are known for being safe. How does the Coast Guard prepare its pilots to work in adverse weather, and what can the commercial industry learn from you? It’s interesting, because I think we’re learning as much from the commercial
SEPTEMBER 2023 ROTOR 23
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68
