MoD looking for new training helos - DHFS

[chopper2004]

UK MoD begins training helicopter acquisition - 9/10/2014 - Flight Global (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/uk-mod-begins-training-helicopter-acquisition-403559/)

Cheers

[Thomas coupling]

I'm guessing a fleet of 635's. Ready for glass cockpit Chinook's / Merlin and Puma.

[RVDT]

I'm guessing a fleet of 635's. Ready for glass cockpit Chinook's / Merlin and Puma.

So long as touchdown auto's (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/auto-rotation-training-drives-german-army-light-twin-400749/) are off the agenda.

[jayteeto]

The twin doesn't need to do touchdown autos, just the single.

[hueyracer]

But the military needs to do touchdown autos-lots of them!

[Marly Lite]

Maybe, maybe not. Could do flare recoveries live and full autos to the ground in the sim, if the overall package makes a wholly twin route more attractive.

[hueyracer]

Absolutely not the same-everybody telling you otherwise doesn´t know what he´s talking about it.

The sim is a great procedural trainer-but not good when you get close to the ground…..and that´s the most important part of the auto…

I have been there-in the military, and in the civil world…..there is no way around autos "all the way"……

Get a "cheap" piston of SET-and let them do it over and over and over again….

[AAKEE]

The twin doesn't need to do touchdown autos, just the single.

Like the Police 135 in Scottland ?

Or if loosing tail rotor or driving of ?

[[email protected]]

The point of a twin engine helo driver doing full touchdown autos is so that in the very unlikely event of having to do one for real, it will be survivable - in this case a decent simulator is fine for teaching it.

In the case of a single engine helo driver - in theory at least - the likelihood of having to do an EOL is increased; practice in a real aircraft is probably more desirable. It could be argued either way but somewhere along the line you have to retain an experience base of EOL skill and technique, even if it is only in your instructor cadre, so a basic SE trainer still makes sense.

A single engine trainer at least lets ALL pilots experience a real EOL in their training such that whatever they fly, they will have a pretty good idea of what to do and when.

The problem is in identifying a robust SE trainer that the manufacturers agree can be used as such - rather than procuring an aircraft that is then severely limited because what it actually needs to be used for doesn't match the manufacturers or contractors planned fatigue vs cost planning - and/or the contract is poorly worded.

[The Sultan]

Bell's have always been superior trainers with excellent autorotation capabilities. In the initial OH58D manufacturer training for the Army approximately 2400 full touchdown autos were done, many at night. None of the four ships were damaged. The Bell 407/407GX continue this heritage as superb trainers with the characteristics needed to train the next gen. The Germans recently showed the same is not true for Airbus products.

The Sultan

[Um... lifting...]

Bells have always been decent, basic trainers with benign autorotation capabilities that do not provide much carryover to anything besides other Bells. Fixed that for you.

In the initial OH58D manufacturer training for the Army approximately 2400 full touchdown autos were done, many at night. None of the four ships were damaged. Thanks for proving my point.

The Bell 407/407GX continue this heritage as superb trainers with the characteristics needed to train the next gen. The Germans recently showed the same is not true for Airbus products.

Non sequitur. Benign autorotation characteristics don't necessarily translate to a robust training experience. I trained in Bells, I learned a lot, but a Bell does not make one a complete helicopter pilot simply because they are easy to autorotate (and they are, no argument there). Bell has consistently recreated the Huey for the last 50 years while the battlefield and the marketplace both have changed around them.

Your credibility on these forums is suspect, The Sultan, because you cherry-pick characteristics and extrapolate unsupportable conclusions from them. That's not unusual for employees of any OEM, but you take it to a ludicrous extreme that is unparalleled.

Does your purported employer know what your handle is here? They should, because you damage Bell each time you set fingers to keyboard.

[Bravo73]

Your credibility on these forums is nil, The Sultan

Fixed that for you. ;)

[Thomas coupling]

Crab: Two things:

1. Well said - I totally agree.

and
2. Get a new handle - more closely resembling your new job old boy ;)

[zorab64]

Crab has it right.

AAKEE - Re Glasgow, I'd strongly suggest you await the AAIB report, when I think you'll find other considerations, completely unrelated to twin auto currency, will come to the fore. :ugh:
Off-thread a little, please indulge me - Whilst TRDS failure will not always require an auto (as there are many modern machines that can be landed very satisfactorily, depending on point of failure) it's also likely that preparations can be made before entering auto, preferably to an airfield, rather than un-expected entry, as would appear to have been the case in Glasgow.
TR failure is another matter but, again, depending on point/time of failure, one would hope to have enough time to plan it a little? That said, I'd opine that the majority of T/R failures have happened shortly after application of power, or following some sort of strike? (Yes, I know about the Police machine in Wales!) :ok:

[Lonewolf_50]

Maybe the MoD could phone up the Naval Air Systems Command over in Maryland and ask them how to cock up a training helicopter acquisition. :mad:

Then, do the opposite. :E MoD might get a great program and a good helicopter as a reault.

[jayteeto]

AAKEE. That's a below the belt comment taken totally wrong by you.
The twin DOESNT need to do full EOLs as long as the skills can be gained in a single. Glasgow is totally irrelevant to this argument. A pilot needs to learn to do full autos, he doesn't need an expensive twin to do it in

[jayteeto]

PLUS!! The design of an EC135 allows for multiple options for a tail rotor malfunction. An autorotation is not the only option thesedays

[The Sultan]

Um

I am devastated, but I treat your input as insignificant as SASLASS and Neek!'s were when they hogged the thread with V-22 lies.

Relative to autorotation's maybe those two can explain why all but one could not survive the loss of tail rotor drive on the Cougar 92. Was that because they did not train it, or its capabilities were equal to its 30 minute run dry.

Failure to do full to ground autorotation training in a "benign" aircraft will leave a gap in the skill sets of future pilots. Even if the aircraft they fly is "not benign" it gives them a chance.

The Sultan

[tottigol]

Sultan, I hope you are being (unnecessarily), sarchastic regarding the S-92 tragedy.
Tell uschow well did the Bell test pklots autorotated their wanna be 525 when the TR drive went?
Anyway, Bells=http://amandeleine.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/lemons1.jpg

[Um... lifting...]

I am devastated, but I treat your input as insignificant as SASLASS and Neek!'s were when they hogged the thread with V-22 lies.

Oh, dear. The Sultan again misses the point, gets the wrong end of the stick, choose your metaphor.

Well, color me surprised.

My training included lots and lots of touchdown autos, in Bells. The training I've administered has included lots and lots of touchdown autos, in Bells. Valuable? Yes. The be-all & end-all? Did it prepare me for the type from another OEM I transitioned into a quarter-century ago? The answer to both of those questions is no, not by any stretch.

The requirements gap a number of years later when I instructed in Bells had widened even further, and there was no change in the training platform.

On to today. The requirements gap between what skill sets can be gained in a Bell trainer and what military training needs are from now into the next decade or two is far wider than that wide gap I encountered back when I started and when I instructed and worked in needs analysis. And Bell has not kept up. Dump on other OEMs all you want, but that, dear fellow, is fact.

There is nothing particularly wrong with a Bell (be it a 206 or a 407) as a trainer, but it is, as I said, a basic machine, even the gee-whiz GX. Technologically, Bell is a generation behind most other OEMs in pure rotorcraft. Bell has comfortably rested upon customer support and government inertia for decades, and that is troubling on many levels.

This isn't a thread about either the S-92 (the Cougar crash has been analyzed in great detail and once again you demonstrate a lack of understanding of what happened) nor the V-22, so I guess I don't understand why you keep bringing those up, though I suppose it may be because getting down to cases isn't something you're prepared to do.

Again, you damage Bell every time you attack other OEMs, because of the way you do it. Whether you discount my input or not is immaterial, because once again, that is fact.