UK MFTS RW - Airbus H135/H145 selected

[chopper2004]

Just got email press release confirmation that Airbus is supplying H135 and H145 for UK MFTS,

cheers

Selection confirms H135/H145 family as the UK military training helicopters of choice · Airbus Helicopters on course to support more than half a century of military helicopter pilot training in the UK

Airbus Helicopters in the UK has been selected by Ascent
as the Aircraft Service Provider for the UK’s Military Flying Training System (
UKMFTS)
. The contract, worth £500 million over 17 years, will see Airbus Helicopters
deliver aircraft and an integrated support solution over the course of
18 months, ready to start training in April 2018.This will involve the manufacture of aircraft in addition to developing the support infrastructure and training initial crews and maintenance personnel


http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/longranger086/H135_SN2001_AV1_20160316_View_02_copy%20Copyright%20Airbus%2 0Helicopters_zpskb3nz3bi.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/longranger086/H145_20111_AV1_20160316_View_03_copy%20Copyright%20Airbus%20 Helicopters_zps8lzjuvaw.jpg

[TBM-Legend]

RAN/Army using same H135 and paint scheme for helo training from NAS Nowra..

[Davef68]

Lots of time on type when folks PVR to Police/Air Ambulance flying!

[KPax]

Has anyone seen how many frames are in the contract.

[chopper2004]

29 H135 and 3 H145 training aircraft

cheers

[DITYIWAHP]

Poor handling qualities (optimised to be flown on autopilot) and a shiny cockpit instrument set. Did MFTS try any of these aircraft before signing a contract?

[Sloppy Link]

Who is doing the engineering? AHUK?

[PlasticCabDriver]

Is there a rationale behind moving away from the SE/ME route straight to all-ME?

Apart from money?

[KPax]

I heard several Instructors talk about why they had persisted with SE when apart from the odd Gazelle there were no SE types left in service. In particular the teachings of EOL's took up a slice of the course that wasn't felt pertinent to current types in service.

[TBM-Legend]

US Navy regime uses single for basic training and twins for IFR ... big tender out now.

[chopper2004]

TBM,

Nope the USN / USMC just use TH-57C Sea Ranger only for primary and advanced rotary wing and IFR and no twins used at all,

Cheers

[Arm out the window]

In particular the teachings of EOL's took up a slice of the course that wasn't felt pertinent to current types in service.


I'm perhaps a product of my era, but I reckon any helicopter pilot needs to be at least rudimentally proficient at doing an auto ...

[[email protected]]

But the more of that basic pilot-type handling you can remove from the syllabus, the more you can move to the simulator and the cheaper the training becomes.

It's crap but it's driven by bean counters and career officers, not pilots and instructors.

Eventually all the fun will be taken out of flying and no-one will be any good at it any more.

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

the more you can move to the simulator and the cheaper the training becomes


and safer. For the training provider at least.


Is there a rationale behind moving away from the SE/ME route straight to all-ME?


It's safer?


It's crap but it's driven by bean counters and career officers, not pilots and instructors.

Eventually all the fun will be taken out of flying and no-one will be any good at it any more.


Just like happened with that disastrous decision to replace Mil SAR with Bristow ;)

Now, how do I change my handle to AscentWannabe?

[Thomas coupling]

Arm out the window:
It's EOL's their stopping not autos. Big difference.

It's now showing evidence in civvy street that a lack of EOL training will inevitably result in another skill base perishing. QED Strathclyde and the Clutha accident.
Not saying the lack of EOL training was the cause - far from it...but that pilot flew Chinooks for ages and then the EC135 for ages - none of which practiced EOL's.
And now we see the further demise of handling skills by procuring ME's that will forever prevent future pilots from experiencing the differences between an EOL and an auto. Coupled with more sim training and lo and behold - we blindly follow our FW brethern down the road of automation where modern pilots need degrees in systems management rather than spatial acuity and handling skills.
Perhaps there are statisticians and mathematicians out there who have advised the industry accordingly and the future does not require these skills any more - it belongs to redundancy and back up systems to guide you safely home:rolleyes:.
Try telling that to the AirFrance 320 passengers whose crew lost the plot a few years ago.

[oldbeefer]

As a QHI who instructed for years at Shawbury, I always felt that there was a place for EOLs in the syllabus as long as single engine helis were being used. If all twin from now on, as long as the student/pilot can manoeuvre in auto to the flare/check/level point, then I'd suggest he would walk away from the subsequent 'landing' following a real double engine failure.

[Genstabler]

In my day we practised autos and EOLs at night. Actually not that difficult provided you knew you were over an airfield with no obstacles.

[[email protected]]

Presumably the 145, as the advanced trainer, is destined to replace the 139 at SARTU (or whatever it will be called) for basic SAR trg.

ISTR the Met Police wanted to do winching with the 145 but the aircraft didn't have the OEI performance to allow training in a 'Safe Single Engine' condition.

Will we have the comedy of military winching training only conducted when the wind is strong enough to meet OEI hover performance?

I can't imagine any DDH, ODH or SDH signing off the risk to life to operate live winching when an OEI hover (or safe flyaway) can't be achieved.

[Davef68]

I thought SARTU (Now 202 (R) I beleive) used Griffons for RAF students and the 139 were for 'overseas' pilots?

[turboshaft]

The MFTS H145s are significantly different from the Met's EC145s: the new FADEC'd donks offer 30% more OEI power.

Defense News says they'll be used for maritime and mountain crew training.

[[email protected]]

The MFTS H145s are significantly different from the Met's EC145s: the new FADEC'd donks offer 30% more OEI power. let's hope so:ok:

I presume someone has done the maths and performance calcs for a full SAR role fit with 2 pilots, 2 winch ops and 2 winchmen and at least an hour's fuel though.

Dave - yes, quite right, the Griffon is used for DHFS stuff rather than the 139 - don't know if they will continue with 145 and 139.

[jayteeto]

Why 6 crew? Crewman training could be one pilot one QHCI and one or two students.
Possibly need to forget how "we always did it like that"

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Why 6 crew? Crewman training could be one pilot one QHCI and one or two students.
Possibly need to forget how "we always did it like that"


Agree with the sentiment Jayteeto but I'm not sure it's simply nostalgia dictating the crewing. The idea of 6 POB is so that one flight can tick off a syllabus sortie for a student pilot, student winch op and student winchman. You need two QHCIs to achieve this, because one is needed upstairs to ensure that the student winch op doesn't kill everyone and the other one is the survivor (partly to give the student winchman someone to rescue, and partly to get a good view of what the student winchman is doing).

If you reduce the crewing you would need to fly more sorties, even if it's a dedicated crewman sortie with a single staff pilot up the front.

[[email protected]]

Possibly need to forget how "we always did it like that" or remember why we 'always did it like that' - as TOTD points out, it is a very efficient way of training and, whilst there will always be the need for some 'dedicated' sorties for any one discipline (especially with struggling students and staff training) getting 3 training trips out of one sortie just works well.

[Molesworth Hold]

The local rag says that Cobham have just signed a four year contract for rear crew training. Aerospace firm Cobham signs new Shropshire helicopter training deal « Shropshire Star (http://www.shropshirestar.com/shropshire-business/2016/08/05/aerospace-firm-cobham-signs-new-shropshire-helicopter-training-deal/)

Will the Griffin continue until 2022 ?

[chopper2004]

The local rag says that Cobham have just signed a four year contract for rear crew training. Aerospace firm Cobham signs new Shropshire helicopter training deal « Shropshire Star (http://www.shropshirestar.com/shropshire-business/2016/08/05/aerospace-firm-cobham-signs-new-shropshire-helicopter-training-deal/)

Will the Griffin continue until 2022 ?
No as the H135 Juno and H145 Jupiter are completely replacing the Squirrel and Griffin...

More than likely they will use the H145 for rear crew training,

cheers

[KPax]

I got the impression the H145's were going to Valley, I assumed the Navy will require SAR training for when the Carriers are operational.

[chopper2004]

I got the impression the H145's were going to Valley, I assumed the Navy will require SAR training for when the Carriers are operational.
Yep the H135 predominantly at Shawbury - and all the 145 at Valley.

cheers

[Could be the last?]

Going back to the need for 6 crew for the sortie - it could be argued that it is not ideal to have a student winch man being provided a service from an U-T winchop whilst also being assessed..........? Or, have things changed now?

[Davef68]

But will rear crew training for the mk 2 Griffon for 84 still be needed? Or are they being replaced soon too?

[chopper2004]

But will rear crew training for the mk 2 Griffon for 84 still be needed? Or are they being replaced soon too?
I thought I saw the 84 contract was going to put out to tender this summer.....

Cheers

[chopper2004]

https://www.airbushelicopters.com/website/en/press/Full-speed-ahead-on-UK-MFTS_1995.html

Demanding targets are being met in the build-up to delivery of Airbus Helicopters’ commitment to the UK Military Flying Training System (MFTS).

Today, the company has carried out the first flight of the initial UK MFTS aircraft, bringing delivery one step closer.

With 12 UK MFTS aircraft already in production at the company’s site in Donauworth, the programme is meeting the challenging deadlines by delivering key programme events to time including production ramp up and initial ground runs of the first UK MFTS H135, which took place at the end of June.

Airbus Helicopters will deliver 29 H135s and 3, hoist-equipped H145s to the UK MoD. These aircraft will be factory fitted with wire cutters and Safran’s Arrius 2B2Plus and Arriel 2E turbines for the H135 and H145 respectively. The schedule will see early deliveries in the latter part of this year, the majority of aircraft delivered during 2017 and final aircraft in early 2018.

The aircraft will be delivered to the company’s UK headquarters for completion, which will see the aircraft fitted with the final configuration of equipment, including communications, sensor and access equipment to meet the customer’s requirement, before handover to the customer in time to meet the delivery of flight hours for Ascent’s UK MFTS’ training schedule.



(images below courtesy of Airbus Helicopters)


http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/longranger147/H135_SN2001_UK_MFTS_Firstflight_2016_07_29_003_zps7c4p7a6h.j pg





http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/longranger147/Visit_UK_MFST_Demoflight_H145_2016_07_21_002_zps3bpx5y0x.jpg

[[email protected]]

So - training for the front-line - no wheels - unlike Puma, Merlin, Chinook, Apache, Lynx and Wildcat.

No conventional tail rotor - unlike Puma, Merlin, Lynx, Apache and Wildcat (plus 212 and 412).

Next to no room in the back to allow doors-open voice marshalling/winching/USLs - with the exception of the 3, yes count them, just 3 145s at Valley - unlike Puma, Merlin, Chinook, Lynx and Wildcat (plus 212 and 412).

A cheap (maybe) training solution that will just push more training onto the OCUs (different budget) - is this really the best option?

How well did the 3 139s cope with the workload and environment at Valley??? Not very well so what lessons were learned there?

I believe the 'common' syllabus has already fragmented with each service wanting different elements (no change there then)!

[Martin the Martian]

The Gazelle seemed to be able to do the job without wheels or a conventional tail rotor, asd I recall.

[minigundiplomat]

The Gazelle seemed to be able to do the job without wheels or a conventional tail rotor, asd I recall.


Yes - when we had skidded Lynx and Gazelles in Service. The rearcrew training was conducted on the Wessex.


This is budget driven training....

[Lonewolf_50]

As a QHI who instructed for years at Shawbury, I always felt that there was a place for EOLs in the syllabus as long as single engine helis were being used. If all twin from now on, as long as the student/pilot can manoeuvre in auto to the flare/check/level point, then I'd suggest he would walk away from the subsequent 'landing' following a real double engine failure. Our autos to the ground were only in the training command when I was in the Navy (USN).
Once I got to the fleet, all of our autos were to a power recovery(flew all twins) This goes back to the mid 80's when I was flying SH-2F's. All power recovery for training autos.


Autos aren't just for engine failures. As a gentleman in an Apache showed in Afghanistan somewhat recently, you fly an auto if the tail rotor/tail rotor drive takes the rest of the day off while you are flying ...

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

So - training for the front-line - no wheels - unlike Puma, Merlin, Chinook, Apache, Lynx and Wildcat.


Have the skids fitted to the Griffin caused any issues with trainees going on to wheeled types?

No conventional tail rotor - unlike Puma, Merlin, Lynx, Apache and Wildcat (plus 212 and 412).


Does a different type of tail rotor on front line types cause problems for trainees? Should we have a tandem rotor trainer for those destined for the Chinook?


A cheap (maybe) training solution that will just push more training onto the OCUs (different budget) - is this really the best option?


Have you seen the courses Ascent are proposing?

How well did the 3 139s cope with the workload and environment at Valley??? Not very well so what lessons were learned there?


How well have the 3 Griffins coped with the workload and environment at Valley for the last 19 years?

I believe the 'common' syllabus has already fragmented with each service wanting different elements (no change there then)!


Not true - all three services do an identical course on the Squirrel (unlike some years back where each service did a different course). There never has been a common syllabus on the Griffin.

But apart from that, incisive as ever ;)

[[email protected]]

Have the skids fitted to the Griffin caused any issues with trainees going on to wheeled types? Of course not - because the training is carried out on the much more expensive OCU aircraft. As you well know, ground taxying has to be taught (a new skill) and the techniques for things like sloping ground with wheels (using brakes, oleo compression, wheels slipping etc) all have to be taught on the front-line aircraft - all basic stuff that could be covered during basic training on wheeled aircraft.

Does a different type of tail rotor on front line types cause problems for trainees? Should we have a tandem rotor trainer for those destined for the Chinook? No, again any differences (exposed TR awareness for CAs and trooping) have to be taught on the more expensive OCU aircraft. You just have to take the hit with Chinook because it is so different. Fenestrons have different handling characteristics to conventional TRs too.

Have you seen the courses Ascent are proposing?
the inside word is that the proposed common course has already been fragmented - I am well aware what has been done in the past.

How well have the 3 Griffins coped with the workload and environment at Valley for the last 19 years? very well but it is an old and proven design not a shiny new plastic helo - that was my point about the 139 - it didn't cut the mustard despite being touted as the great white hope.

In creating a cutting edge and greatly improved training empire as MFTS is supposed to be when compared to DHFS, there will be plenty of training that will still need to be done on front-line types which are far more expensive to fly - how is this a way forward to a smarter, joined-up, end-to-end training solution?

Like a Citroen, it seems to have been built down to a price-point rather than up to a quality standard.

[jayteeto]

Whilst I understand some of the sentiment, the aircraft are NOT shiny new plastic. The 135 might just surprise you in its ability to stay serviceable. After 3000 hours/12 years, I have nothing but praise for a brilliantly designed airframe. The 145 is quickly becoming very very popular, by the time you get yours it will be very well established. The new avionics fit is state of the art and user friendly. The fenestrons are no different to tail rotors except in failure situations, where your ability to make a safe landing in an area of your choosing is a massive bonus.
Please, give them a chance. They are different to now, but they are not bad, really!!

[[email protected]]

Jayteeto - I agree the aircraft are pretty sound but will the 145 survive in the very harsh maritime environment of North Wales spending much of its time over the water enveloped in salt spray? The 139 definitely had issues with it.

I guess you didn't see the Airbus safety note about the different control responses and handling qualities with Fenestrons. In essence it describes the non-linear thrust levels with pedal positions compared to a conventional TR - part of the reason for the myth of Fenestron stall.

[MightyGem]

The 135 might just surprise you in its ability to stay serviceable.
Not once the military get hold of it. :E

Are civvy 135s at 1000hr service intervals yet? Can't imagine that continuing. ;)

[jayteeto]

We now 'spread out' the smaller servicings giving mucho less downtime. Most jobs take under 2 hours meaning the likes of shawbury could achieve very high 90s percent servicability. The squirrels were pretty good, I see 135s improving on that

[Davef68]

I know this is 'new concept' training, but presumably this mean that what used to be 'basic' and 'advanced' training will all be on the H135?

[BOMBS]

I was told that someone high up was quoting, all will be well as its going to be a twin engine syllabus, not like previous users that used a single engine syllabus!
Anyone seen the breakdown of training hours, sim and aircraft?

[KPax]

Might need them earlier as the Griffin is still grounded.

[DunWinching]

BOMBS no full motion sim, looks like a number of fixed FTDs instead.

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

As you well know, ground taxying has to be taught (a new skill) and the techniques for things like sloping ground with wheels (using brakes, oleo compression, wheels slipping etc) all have to be taught on the front-line aircraft - all basic stuff that could be covered during basic training on wheeled aircraft.


Is ground taxying a major burden for an OCU to teach or a major hurdle for an OCU student to grasp? I doubt it. And please don't suggest that sloping ground techniques depend solely on whether an aircraft has skids or wheels.


the inside word is that the proposed common course has already been fragmented - I am well aware what has been done in the past.


Doesn't answer my question.

The trouble is Crab you spent most of the last 5 years carping (from the outside) about Bristow taking over SAR, yet on the whole the new SAR empire seems to be doing fairly well. And now you are carping about MFTS (without any depth of knowledge of either the current system or the new one)...I doubt that MFTS will be perfect, but can we not give them a chance rather than simply listing endless possible drawbacks before you even know how they plan to do business?

[[email protected]]

TOTD - you forget I am still working within the military training system and painfully aware of the slow-motion train crash that will be the changeover between DHFS and MFTS.

MFTS will have to succeed since there is no plan B - much like UKSAR - but it won't be a painless transition - much like UKSAR (have they met the terms of the contract with aircraft yet???).

The start date of MFTS has already had to be slipped to the maximum which tells you a great deal - some wonder how cutting the bid to the bone with numbers of aircraft will work in practice.

I'm afraid this blinkered belief that new and shiny is always cheaper and better is one only shared by those with a vested interest and those who can't see past the sales pitch.

[Napa Valley refugee]

"I'm afraid this blinkered belief that new and shiny is always cheaper and better is one only shared by those with a vested interest and those who can't see past the sales pitch."

There's nothing cheap about the contract but it is hard to argue that newer frames are not required given that all of the relevant front line types are glass cockpit it makes sense to train our future crews on an equivalent platform.

[[email protected]]

I would have to disagree - the 135 and 145 aren't representative of any of the front-line aircraft other than having MFDs instead of analogue instruments.

We will create a generation of military pilots who just pull to the FLI without considering Tq, Ng, T4/6, Nr - very much a dumbing down when they will be expected to utilise their military craft to their absolute limits (and possibly beyond) on the front line on ops.

It will be interesting to see the fuel bill from doing all training on twins instead of most on singles.

[jayteeto]

135 uses 3.2kg an minute. What does a squirrel burn?

[[email protected]]

Don't fly it but looks like 2.4 kg/min making the 135 33% thirstier by just under 50kg/hour so quite significant with the number of hours to be flown

However that will need to be balanced against the reduction in Griffin hours - only 3 145s which are probably less thirsty than the Griffin - since more training will be done on the 135 that may well redress some of the balance.

[chopper2004]

http://www.airbushelicopters.com/website/en/press/First-UKMFTS-H135-Juno-and-H145-Jupiter-Arrive-in-Britain_2057.html

photos courtesy of Airbus Helicopters

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/2528C25292016_AirbusHelicopters_AlvaroBeteta_H145_UKMFTSTrai ning_zpskruexco3.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/MFTS_H135_H_fist_landing_Oxford-8955_zps59398j1t.jpg

[chopper2004]

https://www.raf.mod.uk/our-organisation/stations/raf-shawbury/news/another-jupiter-helicopter-will-soon-be-airborne-in-the-shropshire-skies/


https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1350x1800/088ba534_94ca_45c9_bb29_8541a28a449b_81e360c8c02d233244eb7b0 b1fc3a9c9dee35c0e.jpeg
https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1000x750/0a98333a_3e57_4689_82ed_4b8d9600df64_2fa6b2caa65fc7bc4bb0741 d56e445592d39e942.jpeg

[chopper2004]

A first for Valley based 202 Sqn yesterday as they conducted the first overwater winching exercise ..


https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1500x2000/6841ef09_8dc7_44ab_b367_61dbd49a2cb2_58a6e21867228afb2e65ee9 e26ba6e62cdd368e3.jpeg
https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1500x2000/53932c37_c769_400b_897b_525680ca8aaf_72468e2f95b351ab8036907 1a8fd33dac995bd7a.jpeg
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1500x2000/ef29a788_9ea1_494e_ad8e_449129a537d4_f4a0636439eca5ee5f9ebf2 c277fe6fbca551c6b.jpeg

cheers

[Just This Once...]

One winch-op, standing on the EFS bags, pretty-much fills the door area. Seems an odd way of training, requiring the student to get out of the aircraft and stand on the bags.

[Baldeep Inminj]

One winch-op, standing on the EFS bags, pretty-much fills the door area. Seems an odd way of training, requiring the student to get out of the aircraft and stand on the bags.

That is what happens when a company with no clue selects the cheapest aircraft solution, rather than the correct one. It has taken over 2 years to get to this point, and they are still not training students in winching. Compared to the DHFS with the Griffin, the failure of MFTS is staggering.

Students will stand outboard and lean against a harness, just like none of the frontline types they will fly. Such a huge step backwards from the 412.

The crews at Valley are fantastic though, and none of this is their fault. They were given an almost impossible task, and they have achieved this despite MFTS, not because of it.

[Irritable Equine]

That is what happens when a company with no clue selects the cheapest aircraft solution, rather than the correct one. It has taken over 2 years to get to this point, and they are still not training students in winching. Compared to the DHFS with the Griffin, the failure of MFTS is staggering.

Students will stand outboard and lean against a harness, just like none of the frontline types they will fly. Such a huge step backwards from the 412.

The crews at Valley are fantastic though, and none of this is their fault. They were given an almost impossible task, and they have achieved this despite MFTS, not because of it.

Not wanting to burst your bubble but...l headed SAR implementation team for the Griffin...same things were said about kneeling in the door back in ‘97 when Griffin was introduced...similar points raised about Sea King single engine capability compared to Wessex...you should know that issues with Griffin hoist delayed student training for well over a year - just checked my log book - causing much chaos and angst in SARF....but the sun still rose and the moon set.

Yes, the winch op position is different - but works for basic maritime training.

Jupiter/145 also introduces students to the hoist pendant controller increasingly used by modern helicopters, ensures OIE with 5 crew and 1:30 hover endurance at zero wind in summer, provides modern 4 axis AFCS as intro to modern types, has a glass cockpit compatible with front line and doesn’t fail the hoist if you lose an engine.

It’s not perfect - I’ve flown that at “X” times the running cost of a Jupiter and struggled to find customers willing to pay the price... - point is, Jupiter works for basic maritime training.

Yes, 412 developed into a great platform for basic maritime training...so will Jupiter

[Rigga]

Nicely put IE.
Having worked with Whirlwinds, Pumas, Chinooks, UH-1, and as senior management for AS355, EC135, EC145 and changed fleets for some of those operators, the difference between old and new fleets is that “the operators” are not used to the new fleets...yet. Mostly though, the complaints will come from those who are not to fly in the new stuff...and, to be honest, often it’s the same with the maintenance staff too.
Believe me when I say that the new operators will get used to the new aircraft and develop new remedies to replace old processes...and make them work - just like the original awful Tornado became a classic war machine...in the end.
Flying old aircraft is not a great idea in a military environment and to update the old things to ‘new’ technologies would cost the same or more as a new aircraft. These new aircraft will prove more reliable even than the redoubtable Huey, and certainly be cost effective if you fly each of them less than 7 hours a day...from my experience.

[pr00ne]

A case severely weakened by the fact that the majority of the senior Ascent folks were senior ex UK military...