[MilCom] Army 524 Flight of 6

[Ken]

Please see comments below:
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steven William Hines" <swhines at pipeline.com>
To: "milcom" <milcom at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 8:10 PM
Subject: Re: [MilCom] Army 524 Flight of 6


>
> If you compare the time elapsed between the two posts (14 hours), the
> distance between myself and Daniel (approx. 1200 miles),  a Blackhawk
> cruising at 155 knots could cover that distance in under 7 hours.  Take 
> into
> account that the aircraft could have been 50 or 100 miles west of me and
> that elapsed time is even less,-letting the group get some sleep on the
> overnight.

COMMENT:  It's highly doubtful they would have flown for 7 hours straight, 
they would have stopped for awhile at about the 3 to  3.5 hr mark (probably 
for about 1 hour).   NO one else reported helo traffic coming up from MS!!! 
It would seem that 6 helos flying in formation would have attracted some 
attention along the way, even from some general scannerland types!!! :) ;) 
(who would have signed onto the list and asked about the 6 helos!!! :)  )

>
> The transmissions I heard did not have the usual "hum' of a commercial
> aircraft or the "mask" sound of a fighter...it sounded more like a  helo
> headset.  They 'checked in" twice using a Blue Angel like cadence"One-Two-
> Three-Four-Five Six-"-definitely six different voices- first similarity to
> Daniels' post.

COMMENT:  What I monitored was what appeared to be two people that might 
have been talking from the "same cockpit" (via intercom through 1 radio) & a 
third one chimming in.  These were probably the higher altitude aircraft 
that were joking around including sound effects!!!!.  over the last 3 to 4 
days, its' been pretty much the same characters with the rubber ducky, 
trucker's type language 1 day BEFORE your monitoring report.

> What I heard wasn't informal chit chat.  Their CO would have blown a fuse 
> if
> he heard what they were saying-sounded more like CB channel 19, than
> aeronautical point to point.  I don't think they went out of there way to
> use the freq-it's just a civilian channel that doesn't have the military
> 'oversight' of a tac channel.

COMMENT:  You'd be suprised what is said on the tactical freqs at times, 
sorry BUT I just don't buy into your theory on this, since my monitoring 
experience is they stay on their tactical freqs & don't normally stray into 
civil aero & yes some of the informal tactical can be less than military!!!

> I wasn't monitoring ATC at the time.  Conversely, due to the class 
> airspace
> near NYC, many helo (civilian and military) bounce from tower to tower 
> when
> they are low (2,000 ft or less??)  They don't use ATC, they use the tower 
> or
> self announce on a CTAF.  Those weren't real callsigns -they were more 
> like
> "cb handles"
COMMENT:  NO way would those helos have been flying VFR last evening.  It 
was IFR conditions  -- You dont' fly tower to tower in IFR conditions!!! 
It's unlikely in the NY area that aircraft would be allowed to operate under 
special VFR conditions.

>
> Given last nights nor'easter, when no sane pilot should be flying,  it 
> makes
> more sense that this group I heard WAS military.
COMMENT:  I highly doubt that UH60 helicopters were flying in the weather 
here in the northeast last evening.. Lots of wind sheer, icing, turbulance, 
& rain.   They couldn't have even flown MARSA in those conditions.
It just isn't logical for US Army assets to take such a chance flying in 
this type of weather for just training!!!   Again WHERE did the helos land? 
(Stewart, Groton?)...    I think that it's highly likely those helos that 
were in MS actually were heading back to Ft Rucker AL & that's were the 
flight stopped!!!

I might also add that I took a quick look at the passur radar yesterday 
evening for the NY area, and didn't see anything that would indicate 
helicopter ops during the monitored time period.

However, thanks for a bit of "intrigue"!!!

Ken