Herk-Gouge.com

Planning Checklists

2010-07-23T23:31:00.005-05:00

I swear I had this posted somewhere. Some of the planning checklists I have are more up-to-date, but in the interest in getting what I have out there quickly I have a zip file of checklists I created a couple years ago.

This should help in mission planning. Like any good "gouge" checklist -- these are simply points of departure. Adjust and edit as necessary for your own use. I'll try to post updated and better ones as I have time.

link

-RC

Turning Approaches

2010-03-08T07:47:00.003-06:00

Turning approaches are not only tactical, but they are a fun way to develop airmanship during training. When the design of the approach demands max performance, it's not just max performance of the airplane but of the aircrew as well. Turning approaches and run-ins require extra crew study and more CRM. Use the linked Turning Approach / Run-in Briefing Guide to not only conduct a mission briefing on the procedure but to help you plan the approach itself.

link

-RC

New Website

2010-03-03T19:53:00.003-06:00

As you can see, the Herk-Gouge website has changed. I apologize for the extended downtime of herk-gouge.com. Moving the site to this blog, should allow me to keep you better informed. I occasionally post my thoughts on various subjects...thoughts influenced by some of my smarter friends, and I'll let you know when I post new gouge.

I store all of my gouge at gouge.mabrooks.com. You can find it there right now. Eventually I'll create some pages on this blog to break down the gouge into categories or subjects, so until then please be patient as I work to improve the organization of the new herk-gouge.com.

-RC

C-130E Ops Limit Flash Cards for the iPhone

2009-12-04T00:22:00.006-06:00

Life is too busy to keep up with it all. The iPhone is pretty cool but can be a time suck, taking you away from other important endeavor's.

I know that some of the C-130 Ops Limits numbers started to fall off my iceberg, so I've used the iPhone's gFlash+ application to help me relearn those important bits of info. I took C-130 Ops Limits and entered them into a spreadsheet and uploaded that file to Google Docs. gFlash+ (free) or gFlash Pro ($5) allow you to important that data from Google Docs and into the mobile app. gFlash is also available for Blackberry and the new Android phones. Use the following file, upload it to your own Google Docs account and get that knowledge back on your iceberg, where it belongs.

C-130E Ops Limits on Google Docs

-RC

Using PowerPoint in Planning

2009-10-26T12:33:00.004-05:00

Power Point isn't the end all - be all of programs out there, but many of us find that we use it a lot. Power Point should be there to make planning easier, quicker. It shouldn't be a time suck, but not everyone has the same level of Power Point skills. I've created a short PPTX file that will provide resuable objects for sticks and presentations, a guide to creating timelines , and a list of keboard shortcuts that will make planning in Power Point, less of a chore.

If you have questions about other things you can do in Power Point, let me know. I'll see if there's a faster way.

v/r

RC

2-Step Assaults

2009-09-24T12:00:00.001-05:00

Originally posted 4/5/08 (this is an update)

I would venture to say that most pilots prefer normal glide path assaults these days. What normal means is relative to each pilot, but somewhere between 2.5 and 3.5 degrees. Some times terrain or other factors bring you in at a higher altitude, closer to the field.

At those times a 2-step approach is required. I have created an Excel worksheet to calculate a two step approach's initial required glidepath and VVI to arrive at a 3° glideslope at 100'AGL & 2000' feet from the threshold.

In the worksheet you can actually choose your 'normal' glideslope and the desired altitude you want to be at when you intercept it.

I'd like a little feedback on this worksheet. The math should be good, but I'd appreciate on any feedback. If you find this useful, I will post a cleaned up final version and a checklist sized tab data for common speeds and approaches.

Click on the title above to download the worksheet.

UPDATE: I got to thinking today... This works pretty good for straight line 2-step assaults, but what about for a turning approach? Say off the perch or desent to final. What is my required VVI to intercept my desired final? I added some of that math at the bottom of the worksheet to add that feature. Let me know what you think.

-RC

Using Winds to Adjust Slowdown Point

2009-09-03T23:24:00.001-05:00

Min slowdown approaches seem to be the bain of the Tactical Airlifters existence. It's not that difficult to understand. When we do penetration descents, we adjust our descent point for a ballastic wind. When we CARP an airdrop we adjust the release point based upon a ballistic wind. In both cases, the time that the wind affects that object determines how much we offset for that wind.

Similarly we look at the time that a wind affects us during slowdown to adjust that point of initiation. How do we do this?

Let's assume we're doing a level slowdown from 250 KTAS to 150 KTAS. Experience (and nothing else) has shown us that the C-130 will slow down in 0.25 NM for each 10 knots of airspeed lost. Using that rule of thumb, it will take 2.5 NM to slow to my desired speed. Based on an average speed of 200 KTAS, it will take me 45 seconds to complete the slowdown.

The wind is either pushing me faster or slower during that time. Wind doesn't change my true airspeed, so the time and distance to complete the slowdown don't change. Only my resultant position over the earth changes with the wind. The stronger the wind the more it will affect me. Wind probably won't affect me too much until at least 10 knots, so I want to know how much the wind will affect me for each 10 knots of a direct headwind or tailwind.

If I convert 10 knots into 10 NM / 3600 seconds, I can multiply that by 45 seconds (the time required to complete the slowdown). The result is 0.13 NM. If I had slowdown to 120 KTAS, the wind would have had more time to affect me and would result in 0.18 NM change for each 10 knots of wind.

The average is around 0.15 NM. Funny enough, this is the number that the Combat Planning guide tells us to use for adjusting the slowdown on a Straight-In approach.

Since our FMS only shows us distances to the first decimal place (i.e. 5.2), I recommend the following technique: Round up for tailwinds and round down for headwinds. This a more conservative way to apply. For a 30 knot tailwind I would execute the SD .5 NM earlier.

Refer to the excel spreadsheet for the calculations. Change the SD factor in the file to switch from J to E/H Model C-130.

Excel Sheet

-RC

Designing Tactical Approaches

2009-08-28T23:32:00.000-05:00

Designing tactical approaches is really not all that cosmic. It is simply applied mathematics. Working from the end of the approach backwards and breaking each part of the approach into smaller math problems makes the task easy.

Use the Teardrop Approach Primer (draft) to see if you can follow through the process. This is just a draft. I intend to break it down a little further and show the flow better. Until then take a look and see if you can follow along.

New IRC MQF CBT

2008-07-26T16:04:00.001-05:00

The 2007 February IRC MQF is now available on herk-gouge.com. Since you cannot use the MQF during testing, you can use this CBT to more easily memorize the questions (and answers, of course). Good Luck.

-RC

Why all the Conversions?

2008-06-25T11:40:00.001-05:00

If you've ever had to convert feet to nautical miles or been asked how fast you fly, you probably start to wonder why we have all these different units of measurement. The 23 June 2008 Democrat-Gazette has an article that sheds a little light on NM, miles, and KM.

Don’t know why a mile is 5,280 feet? You’re not alone
BY MARSHALL BRAIN MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS

If you live in the United States, you know all about miles. We measure any long distance in miles, and we also have things like miles per hour and miles per gallon. A mile is 5,280 feet. But where did this unit of measurement come from? Why is it so bizarre? And what is the difference between a statute mile, a nautical mile and a kilometer? Let’s explore how these different measurements work. It is pretty obvious where the “foot” came from. It started with the length of a person’s foot. Anyone wearing a size-10 shoe has a sole that is almost exactly a foot long. Having a unit of measurement attached to your body is obviously quite convenient, so this unit stuck. But putting 5,280 feet into a mile is more obscure. To understand the number, you have to understand the furlong, which the English have used for measuring parcels of land for centuries. A furlong is 660 feet. A mile is 8 furlongs. Eight times 660 is 5,280 feet. In other words, the length of a mile is totally arbitrary, but at least you now understand where the obscure number came from. You might ask, “Why did the English want a unit of measurement that was about 5,000 feet long?” That’s because the Romans, who once ruled the English, had a unit called a mille passuum, which measured 1,000 paces. A pace was five feet. So a Roman mile was 5,000 feet. Since the furlong was an important unit of measurement in England, it appears that the British chose a furlong-based system when defining their own mile. And 5,280 feet was pretty close to 5,000 feet. What about a nautical mile? Instead of being based on human anatomy, a nautical mile is based on the circumference of the Earth. If you were to cut the Earth in half at the equator, you could pick up one of the halves and look at the equator as a circle. You could divide that circle into 360 degrees. You could then divide a degree into 60 minutes. A minute of arc on the Earth is 1 nautical mile. This unit of measurement is used by all nations for air and sea travel. A knot is a unit of measure for speed. If you are traveling at a speed of 1 nautical mile per hour, you are said to be traveling at a speed of 1 knot. (Sailors used to measure knots using a length of rope weighted with a log. The rope was knotted at regular intervals. The sailors would toss the log overboard and count how many knots played out through their hands as the log drifted away behind the boat. They used sandfilled hourglasses to measure the time.) And then there is the kilometer. A kilometer is also defined using Earth as a standard of distance. If you were to take the Earth and cut it in half along a line passing from the North Pole through Paris, and then measure the distance of the curve running from the North Pole to the equator on that circle, and then divide that distance by 10,000, you would have the traditional unit for the kilometer as defined in 1791 by the French Academy of Sciences. A kilometer is 1,000 meters. Today the scientific community uses the metric system. The meter has been defined as the distance that light will travel in a vacuum in 1/299,792,458th of a second. So a mile is now defined as 1,609.344 meters. To travel around the Earth at the equator, you would have to travel (360 x 60) 21,600 nautical miles, or 24,857 miles, or 40,003 kilometers.

Shackle Math

2008-03-05T22:59:00.001-06:00

It's taken me awhile (and a lot of help from some friends) but I've finished my Shackle tabulated data. I'll finish the caculator at a later date, but feel free to use the tab data now. Remember, this has an assumption of a 4 second roll into angle of bank. More to follow. Click the title to download or see my Kneeboard Gouge at http://www.-herk-gouge.com/

-RC

Summary of 60:1 Rules & Formulas

2008-02-22T12:56:00.001-06:00

Just posted on http://www.herk-gouge.com/. This is a summary of the 60:1 rule found in AFMAN 11-217 Vol 2., Chapter 6. It's more applicable to the C-130 than other airframes.

Jim, an instrument ground school instructor as Arizona State University, brought an error to my attention. In my attempt to type up my paper gouge, I accidentally transposed the Standard and Half-Standard Rate Turn formulas. He must be a good instructor, because his class pointed out my error. Remember, "You Live and Die by the Gouge," but thanks to people like Jim and his class...we can live another day. I appreciate all feedback to any gouge posted on this blog, on my website herk-gouge.com or The Air Force Portal's "The Herk Zone". Thanks.

The 60:1 Summary has been updated.
-RC

Turn Rate & Radius Tab Data

2008-01-20T14:44:00.000-06:00

I didn't realize how much planning you could do with simple turn radius and turn rate data. Unfortunately the charts in the 3-3 CMG are not the easiest to use. Using the formulas that created those charts, I've created tab data. They are more accurate than some of the tab data out there. The Turn Rates have been rounded to the nearest hundredth and the Turn Radius to the nearest 50.

Download the pdf file by right clicking on the title above or by visiting herk-gouge.com and clicking on the Gouge Index

-RC

Quick TAC Review

2008-01-06T11:50:00.002-06:00

Do you ever get rusty between TAC flights? If you do, you might like "Omar" Bradley's two page TAC Refresher. It's a quick review of some TAC numbers and concepts.

I havent' reviewed the data for complete accuracy. There are some elements in which I plan to reuse for future versions of my gouge.

Click on the title above to download (this is an Office 2007 document).

Instrument Departures

2008-01-05T22:52:00.001-06:00

We often fly in pretty good weather. When we are face with SKE in actual IMC, it's a challenge. When the weather is really bad, we often find ourselves getting into books to make sure we're doing things legally....and safely. Most of us remember the Weatherman's Phone Number, but we often forget many of the details.

I've redrawn the diagrams in Section 8 of AFI 11-202V3 and made them checklist sized. When I have some more time I'll include info from AFI 11-2C-130V3 and simplify everything. For now, this can be a guide to carry in your planning checklists to aid in mission planning.

Click on the title to download the file.

Kneeboard Gouge (Little Rock E-Model)

2008-01-01T12:32:00.002-06:00

I'm in the process of updating my kneeboard gouge. I'm making both an E and H3 Model checklist. This isn't the final version, but when the final versions are done, I will post them here. Click on the title to download the current version....includes new Pen-D tables.

Stall Speeds

2008-01-01T12:23:00.001-06:00

I've looked through the new and the old Combat Mission Guide, only to find that there are no Stall Speeds for 60° of bank. I went through the 1-1 and addeded them. When in doubt, I rounded up. Click on the title to download this file.

-RC

New & Improved Penetration Descent Tab Data

2007-12-01T12:26:00.000-06:00

Download the Tab Data: E-Model Version (pdf) or H-Model Version (pdf)

Penetration Descents seem to be the bane of many a Herk Pilot. There's lots of gouge out there--some good and some just plain wrong. That said, even with perfect numbers, you may find yourself down early or late. What I wanted to do was give people an even playing field to start with. If you’re not going to run the chart from the 1-1 each time, that means good tab data.
Those dual qualified probably realize the E-Model and H-Model use different charts. Ideally, you'll use your FE to calculate the descent distance from the appropriate 1-1. That's not always practical. Those flying "The Pain Train" know what I'm talking about. Many often go to rules of thumb or the various gouge that's out there.

The problem is that rules of thumb don't always apply universally and some of the gouge is only a wag at best. The problem I see with a lot of gouge is that it is based upon "altitude to lose" instead of pressure altitudes.

What's the big deal? I'll give you an example; Think of flying into Bagram. You ingress from FL250 and land somewhere around 5000' MSL. That's 20,000' altitude to lose. If we run just 20,000 “altitude to lose” in the chart, we get 26.3 NM. On the other hand, if we use double entry and run both pressure altitudes, we get 36.6 - 6.3 = 30.3 NM. That's a 4 NM difference from the single entry. Four nautical miles can easily turn a straight-in to an overhead or go-around.

Most of the airfields in Iraq are closer to sea level, so Pen-D's attempted there (using single entry numbers) often don't reveal the problems associated with "altitude to lose" gouge. That said…double entry is still the way to go.

Note: The new 3-3 is out and it has a great section on Pen-D's, but the associated tables in the Combat Mission Guide are misleading. The numbers are more or less straight from the 1-1, but the table is listed as "Altitude to Lose.” If you run the numbers, you’ll see that they’ve calculated it (single entry) using pressure altitude down to sea level. To get an accurate distance, you'll have to subtract the pressure altitude you are leveling off at (usually 1000’ above field elevation) from the number on that chart. Since the 3-3 chart doesn't go down to 1000' MSL or 2000' MSL, that's difficult to do using only that chart. Hooray for the 3-3 writers though--at least they included charts for both the E and H.

How I constructed the Tab Data (E-Model Version) (H-Model Version)

I scanned the Time & Distance Penetration Descent charts from the E & H Model 1-1s. Then, using digital measuring equipment, I calculated the descent distance from a given altitude for a given gross weight. For gross weights between the black lines on chart, I averaged the distances from the surrounding weights (e.g. for 130K gross weight, I averaged the distances I calculated from the 120K and 140K lines). I did this for both the E and H Model.

The second table (for a given gross weight) represents how many feet per nautical mile the aircraft will descend from one pressure altitude to another. It is calculated using the difference in pressure altitudes divided by the calculated descent distance. This represents an average rate over the entire descent. Obviously, those familiar with Pen-D's know the initial descent gradient will be greater than the rates achieved at the bottom of the descent.

Discussion: The 3-3 Pen-D tab data gives an "Average FT/NM" for 120K, 130K, and 140K. Our missions these days will often have us landing with less than 110K, so I've included more weights in these tables. But even within those weights, the 3-3’s average ft/nm is misleading. I'm not sure what it really means. If you take a C-130H at 120K and descend from 30'K to 10'K, that's 20'K altitude to lose. It will take 34.6NM overall or 578 ft/nm. From 20'K to Sea Level it takes 26.3NM or 760 ft/nm to lose the altitude. I'm not sure if using their average of 770 ft/nm can be universally applied. The 3-3 says it's a close approximation, but at lighter weights the difference between extreme ends of the spectrum can exceed 300 ft/nm. I agree with the 3-3 that crews should use altitude gates to back up the Pen-D, but I encourage crews to calculate one using the differences in pressure altitude divided by the calculated distance to descend. Again, this requires double entry.

Note: Have you ever considered the effect of the difference in altitudes when switching from QNF to QFE? Dial up the airfield altimeter prior to descent to see the difference. I've seen as much as 500' difference. If the field altimeter setting is lower than 29.92, you'll get down early. If it is higher than 29.92, you might find yourself behind in the descent. It's normally not a big deal, but knowing about this little discussed phenomenon may explain some of your 'screwed up' descents and help you adjust for it in the future.

Final Thoughts

One thing I often see missing from Pen-D gouge is L/D max information. The Dash-1 tells us to pull the throttles to flight idle and descend at L/D Max until 20,000 feet. Passing 20K, you push the nose down and accelerate to and maintain 250 KIAS. It’s hard to know what L/D Max is without the FE getting out the 1-1, unless it’s included in your gouge. I’ve included it in my tab data for your convenience.

This data should be constant. Unless the 1-1 changes, I do not foresee any changes to it. You can find checklist size tab data as well as the full size on http://www.herk-gouge.com/. Just look for the Pen-D files on the Kneeboard Gouge Page. Note that there is a 1 knot difference between -15 engines with and without the Rosemount system. If you're flying an H3 your L/D Max will be 1 knot faster than those Herks without the Rosemount (exception, at 140K you're still 170 KIAS).

SKE Check (Echelon) Turns

2007-02-18T18:06:00.001-06:00

I created this instruction aid over a year ago. I had forgotten that I had posted it. You'll find it on the www.herk-gouge.com website under the instructor gouge section. I combined it with the tieme control training aid.

I saw another echelon/check turn guide on baseops.net. The one is geared more towards planning purposes, I think. I updated mine, visually...but it's still geared towards instruction. I hope it's helpful.

The link to the new one can be found by clicking on the title above or by going to www.herk-gouge.com

Little Rock AFB & Adams Field Terminal Area Instrument Chairflying Guide

2007-01-23T06:13:00.002-06:00

I uploaded a new chairflying guide to Herk-Gouge.com and the Herk Zone today. Use this terminal area chairflying guide to help plan your LPS or checkridge profile and gain some situational awareness, before you go fly.

I drew it to scale--with some minor deviations when PFPS and the FLIP pubs conflicted. It still can help you determine how to best build your profile and how to enter holding or procedure turns.

Just remember my favorite quote, "The airplane is no place to think." Print out this guide, draw your profile, add notes, and doing most of your thinking on the ground.

Good luck.

MB

The Herk Zone & MQFs

2006-12-02T20:37:00.001-06:00

I've created online practice MQFs for both AETC and AMC pilots at Little Rock AFB. You can download them from my gouge website at http://www.herk-gouge.com/

You can also find them on the newly created AF Portal Community of Practice or CoP, The Herk Zone.

The great thing about the Herk Zone is that it is participatory. You can add you own gouge and even collaborate on it. There are forums where you can discuss anything from aircraft systems to various techniques. I hope you'll find these MQFs and the Herk Zone helpful.

-RC

UPDATE: I ONLY HAVE AMC MQFs AT THIS TIME.

Understanding Runway Visual Range (RVR)

2006-11-11T18:23:00.001-06:00

Runway Visual Range (RVR) has always been confusing to me. I think I've only heard it on ATIS once in my whole flying career, but since it is the preferred method to measure visibility, it is important to know. If the airfield has RVR capabilities, it will be included in the ATIS or in reports from ATC. When RVR equipment is available, it is required to be reported when the visibility is below 1500 meters. All operational RVRs will be included in the report (i.e. RVR for touchdown, midpoint, and rollout) and can be reported in both meters and feet.

RVR on the Radio

If it is reported in feet you'll probably hear something like, "RVR is 2700 feet on the approach and departure ends of Runway 31."

RVR in METARS

Like the verbal report of ATIS, METAR RVR reports the entire number. The format is R(XXX) Runway Designator including (L)eft (C)enter or (R)ight /(XXXX) 4 digit visibility in feet, for example:

METAR KBNA 281250Z 33018KT 290V360 1/2SM R31/2700FT SN BLSN FG VV008 00/M03 A2991 RMK RAE42SNB42

R31/2700FT = Runway three one RVR two thousand seven hundred

Aircrew may also see the following coding:

M Indicates that RVR is less than lowest reportable sensor value (e.g. M0600FT)
P Indicates RVR greater than highest reportable sensor value (e.g. P6000FT)
V Variable If the RVR is variable between 2000 and 4000 feet for runway 6L: (R06L/2000V4000FT)
N Indicates observation is Not changing significantly (e.g. R22/P1500N)
U indicates an improvement or that the visibility is going Up (e.g. R22/P1000U)
D indicates the visibility is decreasing or going Down (e.g. R04/P1500D)

As I said, RVR can also be reported in meters. The biggest difference is that the FT suffix has been left out. You may see something like:

METAR LBBG 041600Z 12003MPS 310V290 1400 R04/P1500N R22/P1500U +SN BKN022 OVC050 M04/M07 Q1020 NOSIG 9949//91=

R04/P1500N = Runway zero four RVR one thousand five hundred meters and not changing significantly

R22/P1500U = Runway two two RVR one thousand five hundred meters and rising.

RVR on Approach Plates

Unlike the METAR report, the required RVR in an approach plate may only contain two digits. For example, 4000 feet RVR required would appear as RVR40. It's also important to note that on instrument approach plates, if the ceiling is followed by a dash (-) the visibility required is statue miles, where as if the ceiling is followed by a slash (/) the visibility required is in RVR.

	DH	VIS	HAT	MILITARY
S-ILS 14	1165 /	24	200	(200-1/2)

Finally, nothing is ever simple is it. On the approach plates, RVRs listed in feet are not followed by the suffix FT, instead it is RVRs measured in meters that have a suffix and that suffix would simply be simply the letter ‘m.’

-MB
www.herk-gouge.com

Gouge Server Operational

2006-11-11T17:09:00.001-06:00

The gouge server is back up. I'm slowly getting settled into my new job, so that means I'll soon have some time to start updating and posting gouge. If you have some that you'd like to see in the interim, send it to me. I'll post it (if it isn't a duplication)

Also, I've started a new place for gouge. Accessible from the Air Force Portal is the CoP "The Herk Zone." Look for it there. It's a great place to collaborate.

Dyess AFB & Abilene Regional Airport Terminal Area Instrument Chairfly Guide

2006-05-02T04:19:00.002-05:00

I realized while studying for my instrument check during initial pilot training, that a visual depiction (to scale) of the fixes, navaids, and runways really helped me gain some S/A prior to the actual flight. To help new pilots to Dyess, I've created a to scale diagram of the terminal area including Dyess AFB and Abilene Regional. It can help you plan your profile and see some of the relations between different approaches.

I plan to update this soon with standard climbout information to better prepare you for your LPS.

Checkback at http://www.herk-gouge.com/ for more updates. This will be updated under the Instructor section.

-MB

Instructor Stuff: New Vol 3 Chapter 9 Training Restrictions Guide

2006-04-25T20:34:00.001-05:00

Well, the new Vol. 3 is out! I know it's sick, but I've been anxiously awaiting this pub for 5 years now. It was mostly because I hated all the write in changes, but the new content is good too. While I have lots of gouge updates to do with this new change, I only have one to post today.

Not much has changed in the training restrictions summary table, but I have gone through to ensure that everything is correct. I've also included a taxi-windmill start and 3-engine work guide. A lot of the material comes from the Lockheed-Martin courseware, but I've updated any Vol. 3 references as necessary. Again, if you find any errors...let me know.

-MB
www.herk-gouge.com