Coming from an era of aviation similar to SASLess and LW50, I felt compelled to comment. Our services should look to exactly what they are attempting to achieve with their pilot training curricula. My era we flew 4 different aircraft each more complex as we progressed through each phase. During basic training in the T-34 we were not even required to communicate on the radio. We then advanced to the T-28B/C where I believe the task was intimidation. (i.e. blower shift going through 12,000 ft IFR under the hood) was more than intimidating. Then on to helicopters. The TH-57A humbled an aviator with almost 100 flight hours but achieved a transition to an ability to hover. We finished up with the TH-1L. Many like me flew the UH-1D. This provided a feel for an operational machine, while also providing IFR training. Yes, IFR in a machine with only a stab bar. The UH-1D didn’t even have a turn needle and ball in front of the instructor. This system met the requirements of the times.
Today is different. The entire fleet is comprised of only heavy multi-engine complex machines. The curricula has not kept pace with this transition. Look to Lufthanza’s facility in Phoenix. They provide very specific training in machines specifically equipped to meet their operational requirements. The US government needs to follow this model. By comparison, the operational costs of most fleet machines, machines like the EC-135/145, Bell 412/429 or even an S-76 are a drop in the bucket when compared to the cost of operating any aircraft in the fleet. The end product would be better equipped to handle today’s fleet with less time required at the final transition.