MFTS

[Rho Tarbled]

With less than a year to run to the start and aircraft rolling off the production line, it appears that the RAF have decided the EC135 is unsuitable for rearcrew training due to it's small cabin and lack of a crashworthy seating arrangement unless you are a PORG. Will be interessant to see what Ascent do about that bombshell!

Then the EC145 destined for SAR trg at Valley has such a long winch bracket that the winchop can't lean far enough out of the cabin to hold the winch wire. How can this sort of stuff keep happening so late on in the process?

[GipsyMagpie]

With less than a year to run to the start and aircraft rolling off the production line, it appears that the RAF have decided the EC135 is unsuitable for rearcrew training due to it's small cabin and lack of a crashworthy seating arrangement unless you are a PORG. Will be interessant to see what Ascent do about that bombshell!

Then the EC145 destined for SAR trg at Valley has such a long winch bracket that the winchop can't lean far enough out of the cabin to hold the winch wire. How can this sort of stuff keep happening so late on in the process?
Where are you getting that from?

[Rho Tarbled]

Horses mouths:ok:

[[email protected]]

Oh dear, just as well there is a plan B.........................oh hang on..

[Could be the last?]

It's not like the 412 was particularly spacious, or allowed for much movement in the cabin. Therefore, It would be an interesting read to see where cabin requirements and role equipment were prioritised in the KURs for the replacement ac. More importantly, who signed them off as being fit for purpose - pilot, engineer civil servant?

I expect that suitably qualified and experienced rear-crew were part of the decision process at all stages of the requirements process and subsequent competition................

[Just This Once...]

Some facts that were known about from the beginning with lots of folk hoping that the problems would magically go away or someone would 'hold the risk' as a way of keeping the costs down.

The FW ME side looks dreadful too. WSO training on a laptop down the back, but with a rather limited crew compliment, looks generous when compared to the positively asthmatic single engine performance. Most SIDs will be well out of reach with a engine pulled back and the achievable ground track is horrendous.

[Basil]

Well, as an old plank who understands less than 50% of what you are talking about, that sounds truly shocking!
Seems very successful in the rôles for which it is suited.

[Just This Once...]

Still, they were seeding the new lawn outside of that very big new building on the Cranwell waterfront this week, so something will grow.

[BTC8183]

http://www.airbushelicopters.com/website/docs_wsw/img/x1000/RUB_151/press_1912/EXPH-1564-148.jpg?t=&tS=8Seems standing on the skid is the airbus technique!http://http://www.airbushelicopters.com/website/docs_wsw/img/x1000/RUB_151/press_1912/EXPH-1564-148.jpg?t=&tS=8

[DunWinching]

So is the number of winch op students and instructors gathered on the starboard skid limited by port cyclic authority? Presumably if anything goes wrong there will be an unseemly rush for the (small) door. Elderly Masters first!

[DaveW]

It's not like the 412 was particularly spacious, or allowed for much movement in the cabin.

It was a damn' sight better in that respect than anything else offered up in '96 for the competition.

B412EP, BK117, MD900, SA362N2 were your options.

[[email protected]]

Let's see which DDH is happy to sign off students standing on the skids as a safe way to train.............................

Is there any news about MFTS that doesn't point to a slow-motion train crash?

[juliet]

Out of interest what do you heli types consider to be the gold standard?

[[email protected]]

Wessex:ok:

[[email protected]]

Probably the 139 since you can winch easily from it, the cabin is fairly roomy (just not very high but same with 212) and it has good single engine capability (at training weights) by all accounts.

[John Eacott]

Let's see which DDH is happy to sign off students standing on the skids as a safe way to train.............................

Is there any news about MFTS that doesn't point to a slow-motion train crash?

The rest of the world doesn't seem to have a problem with that, crab@, and it's quite normal. However the view from inside the H145 winching seems to tell a different story?

http://www.airbushelicopters.com/website/docs_wsw/img/x1000/RUB_151/press_1912/EXPH-1564-43.jpg

Granted it's a poxy little door for retrieval (I reckon this photo is actually a BK117, but Airbus credit it to the 145), but the 145 has a markedly bigger access than my BK117 and that is still used around the traps in Oz. The original setup for the winch (from MBB) was on the port side and never too easy for the pilot (Dauphin was the same) but locally a stbd side winch was set up some 15-20 years ago and to keep the lateral CoG in limits, the battery was shifted from the nose bay to beneath the port engine exhaust. The rigid rotor has some fairly tolerant limits anyway.

[[email protected]]

John - as Baldeep highlights, the training needs to be representative of the front-line task and it isn't. Also what might be acceptable for operational use is not guaranteed to be acceptable for training use.

Remember, you need a trainee and his instructor perched on the skid which doesn't leave much room for the winchman and makes a stretcher entry impossible.

I heard that an Ascent 'expert' was heard to say that stretcher entry wouldn't be a problem because the Air Ambos do it every day - then someone pointed out that they do it shut down on the ground and not in the hover...........Doh!

Oh dear, did the military go for the cheapest bidder??? That always works out fine...........

[Could be the last?]

I am assuming that the Duty Holder chain for DHFS is the Stn CDR, AoC 22gp and CAS. Therefore, as stated previously, the ability to operate the ac 'safely' will be scrutinised extensively, with any significant risks annotated in the platform risk register (or similar document), which is informed by the operators, including CFS. So it would be interesting to see how the risks associated with rear-crew trg and specifically whinch sorties on the new ac are articulated, and at what level those risks are accepted?

As an aside, a few years previous I observed a safety/risk mtg whereby the duty holder chain was not aware that one of the Gp's ac was operated by personnel who spent the majority of the sortie on their knees - the risk being associated with MSI and long-term injuries etc. Now I could almost forgive that due to the FJ background, but within 22 Gp there are enough Snrs with RW experience to not make these type of fundamental mistakes - and have been around long enough to have reviewed the lessons identified when we switched from Wsx to Griffin.

I am also assuming that the Release to Service organisation will have an input to the way in which the ac is cleared for use, or does that go through a different process now?

[RAFEngO74to09]

In my opinion - admittedly as a non-helicopter specialist - the gold standard in military helicopter rescue training would presumably be that used by the US Coast Guard.

Largest, single focus task in the world.

Arguably most severe weather conditions.

They use the MH-60T Jayhawk (qty 42) and MH-65 Dolphin (qty 100) - much more expensive pieces of kit ($17M and $9M respectively).

USCG Advanced Helicopter Rescue School: https://www.uscg.mil/d13/sectcolrvr/otherAstUnits/advhelorescueschool.asp

MH-60T: https://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg7/cg711/h60s.asp

MH-65C/D/E: https://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg7/cg711/h65s.asp

[Rigga]

I can't help think that the 'traditional' thinking displayed here doesn't quite fit in with the 'step changes' being put in place by MOD. Especially since the types purchased/proposed are already in use for the designed tasks by other organisations, be they civil or military.
I don't think the RAF/Navy/Army has Seakings or Wessex anymore and neither do MOD have a SAR role anymore. What you seem to be suggesting is that only Chinooks or Merlins in these training roles will do...do you need to update your views?

[alfred_the_great]

The MoD does have a SAR role; just because it's not done by Yellow RAF helicopters, doesn't mean the role has gone away.

[Rigga]

...but, as I understand it, CSAR is a different role again and must be trained for on those operational types - and I wouldn't argue with that. But 'basic' winching and Loadie training by MFCS must, surely, be just that; basics. Not really any different from us older riggers being trained on Hunters/JPs/Vixens for the 'state of the art Bucc's/Vulcan's/toom's for which we would get additional courses.
Don't forget that the WHOLE training regime is changing to cover new needs - and new needs are different from old needs....Just sayin'

[Bob Viking]

We all fear change. Ascent did not cover themselves in glory at their first attempt but improvement is not impossible. I know nothing of SAR but what I can say is that at Valley they are now delivering pretty well.

I realise I will be shouted down but we needed new training aircraft in all areas and the government weren't going to pay for them. PFIs may not be the best idea but they're here now. We can all complain about it and let the world crumble down around us or those in positions to do something about it can pitch in and make it work.

It's not ideal but whinging solves nothing. I bet (hope) in a few years time there will be people like me saying how it has actually worked out alright in the end. If I'm wrong I'll admit it when the time comes but we could just give it a chance?

BV

[DunWinching]

MoD didn't pay for the current ones, I think they are leased.

[charliegolf]

I have worked with many USCG exchange pilots over the past 30 years and they were all superb chaps...and very Average pilots. Bare in mind a nation sends its' very best on exchange. The USCG are v good but not a patch on the RAF SAR force that was. They all required a huge amount of training and guidance to achieve the standards required by the RAF - this is a statement of fact. However, it is somewhat off topic...



...and at first reading, sounds like an opinion, not a fact!

CG

[juliet]

So a 139 (or presumably new 412s?) would work for advanced pilot training and rear crew training. Is the 135 ok for the initial pilot training parts?

I'm not a heli guy so just comparing to my multi background where after a piston single we went to the Jetstream and then front line. It seems like capability wise the heli route requires far more advanced aircraft prior to going to operational types. Relatively I see the 145 as being more capable in its field than the Jetstream or Kingair. Going to something like a 139 would seem to be encroaching on front line capability in many regards.

Is it just the nature of the beast that to train new pilots and crewmen you need such large and advanced types?

(Genuine questions, not trolling!!!)

[Rigga]

The 135 and the 145 have similar avionic fits so that makes transition between them more easy within the new training fleet. Also, I believe, their avionics is far more like newer mil types too. (I imagine this might avoid the shock of moving from, say, gazelle to merlin avionic standards)
There are Slope handling differences on the 145 - but that is just another type's quirks, right?
If it's any help, I was a crew-chief for a few years and I had just the same type of arguments some years ago when moving from 355's to 145's. You probably wouldn't like what was told to the operators then!

[[email protected]]

What we are watching is the dismantling and dumbing down of a really great military training system.

Not because it is better or offers higher quality training but because it looks cheaper on paper.

Rigga - sounds like CRM and listening to the crews wasn't part of the company philosophy - just telling people to get on with it when there are safety concerns doesn't fit with the way the MAA does business nowadays.

Juliet - the aircraft haven't been selected for their suitability for pilot training (or rearcrew), they are just what was offered. The Squirrels have done an excellent job as a basic trainer, you want something that is reliable, relatively easy to fly with no vices and simple to operate and fix.

DHFS didn't need fixing - it wasn't broken but someone decided to do it anyway.

[jayteeto]

Reliable- 135 is superb
Simple - ditto
Easy to fly - yes
No vices - yes, but not much different to squirrel
Simple to operate and fix - even better than squirrel, everything is modular.

[KPax]

All 3 flying today, on a different subject any idea what will happen to SAR in Cyprus, I imagine there will be a continued need for SAR with all that is going on in that region..

[[email protected]]

jayteeto - yes the 135 has been very reliable in the AA and police roles but what about when it is started up first wave and then flown for 7 hours a day, every day.

Simple - the students won't even get to start it so they won't know.

What's it like to teach basic and advanced autos/pfls to an absolute basic student? The QHI has to select the engines to idle after entry and back to flight before go around - that won't cause any problems.............

What's it like on sloping ground?

I'm not saying it is a bad helicopter, quite the opposite, but as a basic trainer???

[pr00ne]

It's most probably the most widely used military training helicopter on earth, get over yourselves!

[GipsyMagpie]

It's most probably the most widely used military training helicopter on earth, get over yourselves!

Really? I would suggest numbers don't agree with you. The aircraft is probably a little too expensive for many countries (I personally think it's going to be mostly ok if extraordinarily expensive for basic training).

Here's a quote from Flight Global (I'll save you the Maths - that's a grand total of 36 as a military trainer):

Since the programme started, the airframer has delivered a little over 1,220 examples of the helicopter to 350 customers in 75 countries.

Half of the operational fleet is engaged in emergency medical services (EMS) operations, 17% in business and commercial transport, 16% in public services (typically law enforcement), 10% in military missions, 4% in offshore operations (typically wind farm inspections), and the remaining 3% in military training.

[[email protected]]

most widely used military training helicopter on earth maybe on another planet...;)

[BTC8183]

Interestingly, the German Army consider the 135 as unsuitable for ab initio training.
See- http://helihub.com/2017/03/17/motorflug-starts-german-military-training-contract-with-jetrangers/
Another thread on this forum, regarding the US Army UH-72(145),was reporting that 'Touchdown autorotations and anti-torque manoeuvers are prohibited'.
Cobham bid for UK RW FTS was AW109/139, i believe?.

[Roland Pulfrew]

It's most probably the most widely used military training helicopter on earth, get over yourselves!

Interestingly the US military have over 200 Bell 206s listed as "training aircraft", somewhat more than the 36 listed by Flight.

If we are talking fleet size, the US Army alone has over 2000 S-60/S-70 helos on inventory.

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

it appears that the RAF have decided the EC135 is unsuitable for rearcrew training
How about the RN and Army? You do realize that RW training has been tri-service for over two decades now?

However the view from inside the H145 winching seems to tell a different story?

Reliable- 135 is superb
Simple - ditto
Easy to fly - yes
No vices - yes, but not much different to squirrel
Simple to operate and fix - even better than squirrel, everything is modular

I bet (hope) in a few years time there will be people like me saying how it has actually worked out alright in the end. If I'm wrong I'll admit it when the time comes but we could just give it a chance?
Please don't come on here with facts and actual experience, or a request to be reasonable. This bandwidth is reserved for whingers and naysayers, dontcha know.

Probably the 139 since you can winch easily from it, the cabin is fairly roomy (just not very high but same with 212) and it has good single engine capability (at training weights) by all accounts.All true, but it's also horrendously expensive to buy and operate.

Going to something like a 139 would seem to be encroaching on front line capability in many regards.Exactly - see above.

DHFS didn't need fixing - it wasn't broken but someone decided to do it anyway.Well, apart from flying ancient aircraft with twist-grip throttles, analogue cockpits and (in the case of the Griffin) poor availability and serious performance limitations.


makes a stretcher entry impossible


So what?
do you need to update your views?
How dare you.


I expect that suitably qualified and experienced rear-crew were part of the decision process at all stages of the requirements process and subsequent competition................
Why do I find myself thinking of the heady days of Soteria and Hank Semi?

any idea what will happen to SAR in Cyprus
Best left to the Cypriots? 139 trumps Griffin on every count, and we don't have to pay for it!

[[email protected]]

How about the RN and Army? You do realize that RW training has been tri-service for over two decades now? errr no - tell me how long the AAC have been sending their rearcrew to DHFS - or the RN.

TOTD - of your quotes about facts and actual experience, only one is valid and that is jayteetos.

All true, but it's also horrendously expensive to buy and operate.
so by that logic, all mil trg should be done on R22/44/66.

It is about designing down to a price rather than up to a standard.

It's expensive to buy a full motion simulator, but if you want to replace actual aircraft flying with synthetic, you need a proper sim.. What have ascent got???? Not a FMS but just FTDs, a poor substitute and even less like the real aircraft to fly than a FMS.

Best left to the Cypriots? 139 trumps Griffin on every count, and we don't have to pay for it! You haven't seen their SAR have you? Would you let them do a multiple ejection scenario???

[jayteeto]

Two ways to look at this Crab. The two things you mention have already been highlighted by myself. Autos can be exciting with NR control and sloping ground with an aircraft that has no MRH is easy to mess up. What it means is that the students will have to get good at it before solo. It may take a while longer than before, but so will twin engine factors as well. As for running them all day..... why? It's so quick and easy to start, you don't have to run it all day

[jayteeto]

In summary for me:

I would not have chosen 135, the 350 has been ideal and remains a good choice.
However....... the 135 is a great aircraft for pilots. Simple, ultra ultra reliable, economical and has superb avionics. Part of the simplicity is the lack of rotor head, it simply doesn't have one! This means autos and sloping ground are difficult. Difficult, not impossible for students. For crewmen?? Two doors, small cabin and low roof. Not ideal. You will need minimal kit and alpha helmets to reduce back and neck problems.
The 145? Older mechanical technology giving a smoother ride and easier handling. Fabulous avionics. If that winch is too far out, has anyone suggested a modification? Anything can be done if someone pays.
These aircraft have many cons and more pros. They will do, and in the current financial climate they will have to do.
Many of these arguments were put forward about aircraft choices when DHFS was formed and you all coped admirably, you can do it again. Give them a chance, then complain if you need to

[[email protected]]

Jayteeto - as I understand it, the flying programme, which is computer generated, and will be run by a non-pilot or QHI, will be so tight that running changes will be the norm (as it is on 412 at the moment) using a 'taxi-rank' system.

As for the 145 winch, the length of the arm appears to be determined by the skid with to avoid rubbing against it so not much option for change.

I agree there has to be some adaptation but when something clearly isn't right, do we really have to let it fail and say I told you so? This will waste a lot of taxpayer's money.

[GipsyMagpie]

Interestingly the US military have over 200 Bell 206s listed as "training aircraft", somewhat more than the 36 listed by Flight.

Should have gone to Specsavers old bean - Flight is talking about EC135 being used as military trainers not Bell 206.

[GipsyMagpie]

...so by that logic, all mil trg should be done on R22/44/66.



More sensibly the Cabri G2 which has a similar single indicator for engine performance. As cheap(ish) as an R22. For basic training up to the IF stage it would have been great. But no where near as flash as an EC135

[DunWinching]

Possibly a case could be made for a (relatively) cheap / simple single to teach basic rotary handling including wariness of downwind ops, limited power margins etc. Some years ago Cobham did an unsolicited bid to replace the current fleet with 119 Trekkers and 169s. At least the cabin would have been big enough for rearcrew training. The bid partly failed due to EU competition regulations.

[Roland Pulfrew]

Should have gone to Specsavers old bean - Flight is talking about EC135 being used as military trainers not Bell 206.


Really? https://www.flightglobal.com/asset/14484 To save you time its on Page 17 :rolleyes:

[[email protected]]

I see Baldeep's last and rather damning post has been removed - anyone know why (apart from some of it probably being commercial in confidence)?

[charliegolf]

I see Baldeep's last and rather damning post has been removed - anyone know why (apart from some of it probably being commercial in confidence)?

They're ALL gone Crab...

[[email protected]]

Oooh, someone's been given the gypsies warning for telling the truth then..

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

someone's been given the gypsies warning for telling the truth then..


Or for spouting bolleaux. While, unfortunately, plenty of Baldeep's post was accurate, plenty else was wide of the mark (to put it mildly!). Yes there are significant challenges for Ascent to overcome in the next year or two, but they have (with one obvious exception) got some very good people on the RW team who will spare no effort to make it work. Will it work? Probably. Will it be perfect ? No. Is the current set-up perfect? No. Does it matter? Not really.

[Squat switch]

If the 135 is deemed unsuitable, who wrote the requirements for the RFP?
Who then decided that the 135 met those requirements?

It appears that someone has decided that training ab-initio pilots straight onto a twin is a good idea because 'we only fly twins/multis' it seems others are finding this is folly and the studes need to have a basic platform to do the initial stick and pedal stuff.

Maybe DHFS should have 120 with a glass cockpit for the basics including initial rear crew nav/map reading, and the rear crews then head off to their respective service for conversion to front line type and appropriate rope dangling/door sliding training.
Pilots then move onto a simple procedural IF platform 355NP/109E, they don't necessarily need a full conversion to type just enough to fly the thing under the hood and down the approaches. Then with those basic skills they head off for front line type conversion.

As always the KISS principle applies.

It will be interesting to hear what is made of the 145 for winch training, the 117 it is based on has low speed/angle of bank limitations that [/U]MAY[U] hold issues.

[[email protected]]

Will it work? Probably. Will it be perfect ? NoAnd this is acceptable for a 21st century, multi-million pound contract??? With no transition period between contracts and the expectation to have no reduction in output, there is a lot of self-delusion going on.

[charliegolf]

I'm trying to avoid a, 'back in the day', way of asking this but...

Back in the day, crewmen didn't do winching at Shawbury on the Wessex, nor on the Puma OCU. My first winching trips were on 33 before going to Belize. We did some more out there, including a few real episodes. Some time later, it was noticed that I wasn't being mucked about nearly enough for an abo Sgt, so I was sent off to Valley for 2 weeks more winching. Of course, there's no SARTU any more (I assume). I also assume if I said that at SARTU on the long course, I'd probably have to do it again!

So, whilst you knowledgeable rotary boys are not only appraising the whatsit as a winching platform, why the panty bunching over winching? Why not do it on the OCU type, and then prior to deployment? The Puma winch was an abortion anyway, and rarely worked- has that changed?

CG

PS, winching is a hard skill when you don't know your arse from your elbow: it's a lot easier for a D/LCR crewman with 100 hours on the squadron, I'll wager.

[sycamore]

Ahhhh, but really `back in the day`,before crewmen were `legalised`,pilots were expected to do mutual turns `below stairs` doing u/s loads,roping and winching on convex to the WW...and so the `patter` for wet drums would be..`ahead 20,down 2, 10,heights good,8,6,..543 ,2,1,steady,err,back 5 and left 5`....meanwhile other Bloggs up front was in manual throttle...cursing, and Master Roy Bates(winch instructor) was rolling on the cabin floor in fits of laughter....
All good fun,and good intro,especially later ,longlining(200 ft.) certain`chaps` out of
the jungle..

[oldbeefer]

Really think the way ahead would be Sioux (Bell 47) for the basic phase. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who can fly one of those well, and is competent on an iPad, would have no problems with a twin with glass cockpit!

[GipsyMagpie]

Really? https://www.flightglobal.com/asset/14484 To save you time its on Page 17 :rolleyes:

I think you have misunderstood. What I quoted in Flight was that they said of the 1220 EC135 in service round the world, only 36 were being used for military training. That's a pretty small number which is at odds with a comment that are in service as trainers widely. You said:

Really? https://www.flightglobal.com/asset/14484Interestingly the US military have over 200 Bell 206s listed as "training aircraft", somewhat more than the 36 listed by Flight.

Yes 200 is more than 36 but you're talking about apples and pears. The number of B206 has nothing to do with my numbers.

But anyway, I think Ascent have diligently met the requirement outlined by the MOD. If that requirement was wrong, it's not Ascent's fault. The reason for the twin being used is probably due to risk mitigation related to instrument flying. You would have to do some serious trials to get a single engine aircraft certified in EASA or on the mil register if it isn't already. And in terms of safety it's streets ahead. I'm just glad it's not an A109E. Diabolical aircraft!

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

But anyway, I think Ascent have diligently met the requirement outlined by the MOD. If that requirement was wrong, it's not Ascent's fault.


Nail, head, go!


And this is acceptable for a 21st century, multi-million pound contract??? With no transition period between contracts and the expectation to have no reduction in output, there is a lot of self-delusion going on.


Again, not Ascent's problem.

[KPax]

I believe SARTU is still running, someone has to train people going to Akr.

[[email protected]]

Again, not Ascent's problem. I agree that poorly stated requirements and poorly worded contracts must come down to the MoD but why applaud a contractor who screws the nut and delivers a training system not fit for purpose?

Yes, I know we can't say it isn't fit for purpose until it actually starts but there is clearly great concern about what we are going to end up with.

[jayteeto]

Whoa there!
They haven't delivered a system that isn't fit for purpose.
They have met the spec requested.
Don't blame Ascent

[[email protected]]

They have met the spec requested. how? in not providing an aircraft suitable for rearcrew training??

[GipsyMagpie]

how? in not providing an aircraft suitable for rearcrew training??
And the million dollar question comes out. Did the contract writing team include any crewmen?

[kiwi grey]

And the million dollar question comes out. Did the contract writing team include any crewmen?

Don't be silly.
The contracts will have been written by someone hundreds of miles and many, many organisational levels distant from the nearest crewman. And the contract-writing skills required would probably be possession of a BA LLB, with demonstrated ability to act as SLF between Gatwick and Nice being a desirable, but not necessary, skill. :ugh:

[juliet]

Can someone clarify the need for two different types?

From what I can find online the US Army uses the 206, the navy the same, and the usaf Hueys. I take it they train on their respective types then go to their front line type. Is this correct?

If so how do they make that work? And if it works why does the RAF need two types?

[Tiger_mate]

why does the RAF need two types?

The optimum but very expensive solution is to train helicopter 'crews' on the aircraft they will fly operationally.

'Pilots' do not require a complex aircraft to learn the skills of rotary flight and therefore the cheaper the runnng costs, the better. Some countries use two seat helicopters for this purpose, the U.K. used Gazelle and in turn Squirrel helicopters. Both did as asked of them. All operational helicopters in the UK are multi engined and therefore it is logical though not essential to train pilots from the onset on a multi engined aircraft.

The introduction of the 'crew' must provide a platform that is not so sensitive to weight distribution that prohibits pilot - crewman - crewman instructor - winchman - 'survivor' all being on the right side of the aircraft with no counterbalance on the left. Clearly not the job for a small helicopter; and few medium helicopters can cope with deliberate imbalance as previously described. The primary risk being loss of cyclic control as the stick hits the stops, whilst lives are at the end of a wire. Typically on an instructional sortie, the student and instructor crewmen are akin to me and my shadow and so the weight change across the cabin is usually the price of two people. Freedom of movement across a cabin is essential in training for both rear crew members, as students will be allowed to make errors without instructor intervention until such time as a situation develops to the point of danger. This means that on rare occasions the two rear crew members will be crossing the cabin in opposition to one another in haste.

A footnote should be that nations of the world use their helicopter crewmen / flight engineers in different ways. Some (French - Russian) rarely leave the cockpit. The U.K. (& others) has a crew member that on many occasions have actively contributed to accident avoidance and Flight Safety, and the training syllabus that has achieved this should be nurtured, not undermined by austerity.

[juliet]

Thanks tiger mate.

So quite simply it is still cheaper to run a basic and an advanced heli trainer rather than just a basic trainer and use the operational type later on?

If the savings are significant I would have thought the yanks would go the two type route. Interesting that the two outfits go in such different directions.

[Tiger_mate]

I believe the US methodology is for the Crewman to have aircraft engineering background training, and as 'Crew Chief' when his/her aircraft undergoes deep maintenance, so the 'Crewman' contributes & oversees the work.

In the UK, Crewmen are Aircrew with only sufficient engineering knowledge to undergo turn round servicing as indeed so do the pilots. They have no involvement in offline servicing and are neither constituted crews nor aircraft supervisors. The U.K. crewman is expected to be able to deliver a briefing to their base groundcrew concise and accurate enough for a deploying ground crew party to know exactly what problem they face when deployed to a downed-bird situation brought on by technical failure.

There would be little benefit for a gunship aircrew undertaking flying training with rear crew and I assume that their flying training path is basic trainer > Apache direct.

[[email protected]]

Juliet - also understand the vast differences in scale between the US and UK military and their associated training systems.

They have a much bigger budget and much more choice plus the additional pressure to keep training types American.

[Squat switch]

With all the discussion in mind, I understand that there is a 135 flying around Shawbury and may have been there for a couple of weeks.

As the contract doesn't start for another year would this be working through some of the 'shortcomings' or Boscombe getting started on their evaluation?

Perhaps the source of the OP!

[Tiger_mate]

Although there is a Griffin HAR2 (ex Cyprus cab) based nowadays at Boscombe with RWTS; they never evaluated the Griffin prior to entry into service, and I doubt Boscombe will be involved in the introduction of the new types.

Boscombe did complete a HIRTA Assesment of Griffin HT1 when such checks were flavour of the month, but by that time the aircraft had been in service for some time.

[GipsyMagpie]

Can someone clarify the need for two different types?

From what I can find online the US Army uses the 206....

Nope. They are transitioning to the EC145. Leonardo are currently blocking the procurement half way through but US Army now has no plans for single engine front line aircraft so "logically" have moved to again for basic training. Some bits of interest in here.
Comment that flying the EC145 is easier for new guys but the it might be exponentially more expensive in longer term. Legacy trainers generating extra costs for helicopter pilot school (http://www.defensenews.com/articles/legacy-trainers-generating-extra-costs-for-helo-pilot-school)

[BTC8183]

R66 seen at Thruxton recently. A possible alternative 'contender'?
Might be a bit of a squeeze for the more generously proportioned rear crew applicants though!
https://scontent.flhr4-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/17098343_741235952716461_8636066085488503593_n.jpg?oh=f1cbf6 f0e8060860f6382abd064dde94&oe=59757218

[teeteringhead]

Possibly a case could be made for a (relatively) cheap / simple single to teach basic rotary handling including wariness of downwind ops, limited power margins etc.

Sioux/Whirlwind :ok:

Gazelle/Wessex :ok:

Squirrel/Griffin :ok:

Case made??

To be serious for a moment, there were always (and probably always will be) a few basic rotary students who couldn't fly rotary - even some experienced FW pilots. The cheap(er) simpler type found these out early, while the "advanced" type - latterly with 2 engines - was good for the applied stuff and for teaching the "freight deck execs".

Seems simple pour moi, but then no-one asked me........ :(

[[email protected]]

Agreed - chop early if the skills/ability aren't there or make the training easier and waste time and effort and hours by chopping once they have been most of the way through the training system and then can't cope with the higher difficulty tasks/disciplines.

Having an easy to fly trainer isn't the best way of doing things.

[teeteringhead]

crab@chop early if the skills/ability aren't there Having an easy to fly trainer isn't the best way of doing things.
Exactly so. As we know, it's lack of capacity rather than skill that leads to the chop - and if they haven't the capacity on the little one, there's unlikely to be much hope on the bigger (spelled d-e-a-r-e-r) type.

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Having an easy to fly trainer isn't the best way of doing things.
So the Juno, with its impossible autorotation/slope issues, should be ideal.


can't cope with the higher difficulty tasks/disciplines.
Best Ascent get rid of their 7 FTDs then, because the multi-aircraft scenarios which the FTDs enable might prove very effective in weeding out the weaker students.


why does the RAF need two types?
The RAF doesn't. The British military does, because of the opinion that all helicopter crews need to receive winch training (much as the Army appear to have missed the boat - geddit?), and much as Ascent might love to have one fleet, they seem to have decided that the 135 platform is unsuitable for winch training. Some have said that it's not great for basic crewman training either, but I quite enjoy perusing PPrune at lunchtime so I'm not saying that (RIP Baldeep!).


I believe SARTU is still running, someone has to train people going to Akr.
That was only ever a peripheral task which may well end with the legacy contract. Meanwhile the unit (NB identity change a year ago) is busier than ever with the steady throughput of RAF and RN pilots, observers and crewmen.

[charliegolf]

The RAF doesn't. The British military does, because of the opinion that all helicopter crews need to receive winch training (much as the Army appear to have missed the boat - geddit?), and much as Ascent might love to have one fleet, they seem to have decided that the 135 platform is unsuitable for winch training. .

When did that become policy? See post 52!

[[email protected]]

Best Ascent get rid of their 7 FTDs then, because the multi-aircraft scenarios which the FTDs enable might prove very effective in weeding out the weaker students and where will those multi aircraft scenarios be fed in? Not for any of the first few months of training - seems a much more AFT element.

The RAF doesn't. The British military does, because of the opinion that all helicopter crews need to receive winch training (much as the Army appear to have missed the boat - geddit?), and much as Ascent might love to have one fleet, they seem to have decided that the 135 platform is unsuitable for winch training. Some have said that it's not great for basic crewman training either, but I quite enjoy perusing PPrune at lunchtime so I'm not saying that (RIP Baldeep!) The RN require winch trg because of their enduring SAR role as a secondary funtion - the Army do need it but don't appear to have asked for it and the RAF could spend lots of hours doing it on Puma and Chinook when it is so much cheaper on 145.

135 doesn't have the capability to hover OEI at winching weights (crew on board) but I think the 145 can just manage it (possibly with wind assistance) hence a single fleet isn't possible.