US Navy awards Contractor Only Pilot Training – Rotary to The Helicopter Institute,

[chopper2004]

In a historical move, the US Navy is outsourcing parts of their rotary wing training, under COPTR program to The Helicopter Institute, thus cutting out traditional fixed wing intiial phase with the Becch T-6C Texan II

https://www.airmedandrescue.com/latest/news/helicopter-institute-awarded-us-navy-training-contract?fbclid=IwAR288e9_WuxGuvteitbqIvv_xxkLcqswAFIvZ6UJt9 oopyXYw4ZebkrI0bc

https://scontent-lcy1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/385914705_910776530530994_1103343737559300771_n.jpg?_nc_cat= 104&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=5614bc&_nc_ohc=UTxeF0O013cAX8h2qK-&_nc_ht=scontent-lcy1-1.xx&oh=00_AfB2qQnP_YaBwzgxejf2PdtzR_QrZ8IlVqW9Mzfi0yNoBQ&oe=6525C02F

[212man]

In a historical move, the US Navy is outsourcing parts of their rotary wing training, under COPTR program to The Helicopter Institute, thus cutting out traditional fixed wing intiial phase with the Becch T-6C Texan II

https://www.airmedandrescue.com/latest/news/helicopter-institute-awarded-us-navy-training-contract?fbclid=IwAR288e9_WuxGuvteitbqIvv_xxkLcqswAFIvZ6UJt9 oopyXYw4ZebkrI0bc

https://scontent-lcy1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/385914705_910776530530994_1103343737559300771_n.jpg?_nc_cat= 104&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=5614bc&_nc_ohc=UTxeF0O013cAX8h2qK-&_nc_ht=scontent-lcy1-1.xx&oh=00_AfB2qQnP_YaBwzgxejf2PdtzR_QrZ8IlVqW9Mzfi0yNoBQ&oe=6525C02F
I think a bad move. I think all RW pilots should have FW experience too - if they operate anything sophisticated anyway. Half the problems with RW automation use stem from the fact that RW (only) pilots don’t understand trim and stability.

[Doors Off]

I think a bad move. I think all RW pilots should have FW experience too - if they operate anything sophisticated anyway. Half the problems with RW automation use stem from the fact that RW (only) pilots don’t understand trim and stability.
That is somewhat of a big generalization. The are quite a few nations who successfully skip all FW for Rotary only training, Germany being a prime example.

As for stability and trim, RW requires more knowledge, as they are inherently unstable and secondary effects of controls are amplified in RW v FW.

As for Automation knowledge and use by RW, perhaps the issues you describe or a fearful of, are due to poor instructional technique?

Let’s be honest, FW flying is much easier than RW. As the saying goes, the hardest part of flying an aeroplane is telling your Dad that you prefer the company of a fellow man of a night.

[212man]

That is somewhat of a big generalization. The are quite a few nations who successfully skip all FW for Rotary only training, Germany being a prime example.

As for stability and trim, RW requires more knowledge, as they are inherently unstable and secondary effects of controls are amplified in RW v FW.

As for Automation knowledge and use by RW, perhaps the issues you describe or a fearful of, are due to poor instructional technique?

Let’s be honest, FW flying is much easier than RW. As the saying goes, the hardest part of flying an aeroplane is telling your Dad that you prefer the company of a fellow man of a night.

I think you miss my point.

[megan]

Deary me, what a let down, when we went through it was 25hr T-34, 140hr T-28 (including carrier qualification), 20hr TH13M, 52hr H-34. Taken all the fun away.

Currently Oz Army get 60hr PC-21, 87hr and 77hr simulator in the EC135 helicopter and full mission flight simulator.

[funfinn2000]

Congrats to Randy and his Team, well deserved.

[SASless]

We. have to consider backgrounds when we read other's opinions re whether FW training is required in order to produce a well trained and capable RW Pilot.

All here are products of their environment (meaning source of training and the standards used therein).

Training too narrowly sourced is poor training and by being so....produces a poor product.

It fills cockpit seats with an adequately trained pilot for that limited type of operation but once one steps outside that narrow focus....the lack of breadth of training quickly becomes apparent.

A bit of training in a Sim quickly identifies short comings in ability and background.....and serves as a measure of the. quality of prior training the Student brings with him.

An example....if all one has experienced is offshore rig flying....the leap to Longline Forest Fire fighting or Utility flying is a HUGE leap that some find beyond difficult.

Helicopter flying is not fixed wing flying....and despite some thinking the transfer of skills either way is not universal.....and with only limited benefit.

Torque in an airplane is only comparable to torque in a helicopter in very limited ways.

It is difficult enough to correctly respond to the differences between a Left Turning Rotor system and a Right Turning Rotor system so no need to mix it up further with suggesting a Pilot know about torque handling on multi-engine airplanes.

[[email protected]]

The RAF went through this many years ago, chopping and changing the amount of hours and on what aircraft pilots flew in an attempt to streamline training and cut costs.

FW is cheaper than RW and if you don't give pilots any FW training they will start RW training with less airmanship so you will have to give them more RW hours to meet the same standard.

FW are easier to fly (inherently stable) and therefore easier to assess pilots ability since less time is spent trying to master the machine.

Unless your 'civilian' instructors are ex-mil then you won't be able to do much beyond basic PPL level flying.

[SASless]

Crab.....have you ever heard of the US Army and other US Military forces?

They do operate helicopters and train their own pilots and have done so for quite a while now.

You might read up on its training system and how it came to be.

Even Bristow Helicopters trained their own Cadets without using airplanes....and they did so too far beyond PPL level as you well know.

Those Students started in the 47 or Robbie and ultimately found themselves as Captains on 61's, Super Pumas, or 225's.

The RAF is but one organization that teaches helicopter flying and does not have the unique path to salvation in that enterprise.

Exactly why does being assessed on a simple machine to master equate to a proper assessment on one that is more difficult?

It is not unheard of for a Student to go Solo on a helicopter in under Ten Hours.....not much more than for the same in an airplane.

So what is the quantum leap between an airplane and a helicopter that demands learning to fly an airplane should be done first before venturing into learning to fly a helicopter?

Now when it comes to something like a V-22 Osprey or the 609 (if it ever reaches production). there might be a benefit if one is to be pipelined into that type aircraft.

[[email protected]]

Crab.....have you ever heard of the US Army and other US Military forces?

They do operate helicopters and train their own pilots and have done so for quite a while now.

You might read up on its training system and how it came to be. Trying to see the point of those few sentences, what an inane question.

The US Navy clearly did things a different way and are now changing for reasons other than following the US Army I suspect.

Bristow were not a military force last time I looked so no surprise they do things the way they do, following the CAA/FAA licence structure just like other civilian flying training outfits.

With military training you want to assess potential and it is cheaper and easier to do that on fixed wing, especially if you are an outfit that operates more than just helicopters.

You don't assess potential by dropping people into the deep end of a complex aircraft type and seeing if they sink or swim as some people take longer than others to assimilate new skills.

Of course you can go solo in a helicopter in the same hours as a FW that isn't the point.

The point of the FW hours is to teach airmanship on a cheaper and easier platform.

​​​​​​​But then what do I know, I've only been a QHI for 30 plus years........

[JohnDixson]

After 39 years in a group that was composed of all 4 uniformed services, along with their disparate training paths, I’m not touching this discussion! However, after a lot of domestic and international marketing demonstration flights with everyone from WWII fighter pilots ( German ) to big iron aircraft, there was only one thing that was repeatable: non helicopter pilots with jet fighter experience became comfortable with the cyclic very very quickly, while the transport folks had a lot of trouble. And yes, this isn’t al all germane to the discussion. Personally, I did it backwards: when hired in at Sikorsky from Vietnam, I was told I needed a FW rating and a FW instrument rating because the US Gov’t rules required all test pilots needed instrument currency and at Sikorsky, they didn’t have a dedicated training helicopter, thus the instrument currency was done in FW. Easier or harder this way? Dunno. But it had it advantages: we could use the FW instrument time to get cheap alcohol in volume at New Hampshire state liquor stores and big containers of really excellent Cape Cod Clam Chowdah.

[Lonewolf_50]

In a historical move, the US Navy is outsourcing parts of their rotary wing training, under COPTR program to The Helicopter Institute, thus cutting out traditional fixed wing initial phase with the Beach T-6C Texan II. This is a terrible idea. Teach them fixed wing first, you'll be able to save in instrument events in the helicopter which costs more per flight hour to fly. Also, using fixed wing as a vetting process has worked pretty well for about seven decades. (Spent more than one tour in the IP world, but will say no more. New Navy, New Ideas (right!) new ways to fcuk up).
Don't object to contractor IPs, though. Been working well in the sims for years.

[SASless]

But then what do I know, I've only been a QHI for 30 plus years........



I have seen QHI's in the Sim (and in the air)....and some have proven they put their trousers on one leg at a time just like ordinary folk.

[[email protected]]

That's because QHIs are normal folk - just well trained ones - usually.

All I was trying to do was pass on what another military training system had experienced - not start a fight in phone box.

[trim it out]

The British Army Pilot Course is rotary only now, saves time getting the people through the sausage factory as the whole course is managed by one organisation/location. There is no FW left in the Army so there is little risk of the wrong muscle memory being learnt (something I struggled with going from FW to RW).

[Robbiee]

Flying airplanes always made me nauseous, but flying helicopters does not. So, I guess its a good thing the civilian world doesn't insist on fixed first, otherwise I'd of never gotten my wings.

[megan]

The point of the FW hours is to teach airmanship on a cheaper and easier platformAgreed, but you don't need a PC-9 class aircraft to do it in, just thinking costs. Other than the carrier work everything we did in the T-28 could have been done far cheaper in the T-34.

The helicopter portion was rather restricted in as much besides getting you solo in the TH13M the H-34 portion was conversion to type, one confined area landing, one sling load lift, and concentrated instrument, after you got your wings you would be learning the necessary skills for the particular aircraft and its role once you got to the RAG. Intensive instrument/flying the airways and formation had previously been done on the T-28.

Flew with a whole bunch of Fort Rucker graduates, some teenagers straight out of high school, flying slicks and no adverse comments from me for the product turned out. Regard some of them the best I've had the enjoyment of working with. Whatever the system the end product is fit for purpose in my limited exposure.

[Lonewolf_50]

Agreed, but you don't need a PC-9 class aircraft to do it in, . You can thank the USAF for the ejection seat requirement, and the expense, of JPATS. (T-34C was a lot cheaper to operate, but yeah, it got long in the tooth; it replaced the T-28 and was a lot cheaper to operate than that. The T-34B you flew is not in the same class).

JPATS (Now the T-6) came from the same brain fart that led to the overpriced JSF (now known as the F-35).

The USN needs three different kinds of pilots; Carrier pilots, Multi Engine fixed wing pilots, rotary wing pilots. The Primary syllabus helps place pilots in the right pipeline.

[megan]

The Primary syllabus helps place pilots in the right pipelineAt the time the streams were, after everyone had finished primary,

1. Jets (Buckeye) or T-28

After T-28

1. Helicopter
2. Multi (S-2 Tracker)
3. Jets (Cougar)thank the USAF for the ejection seatTowards the end of our T-28 time there was talk of fitting the aircraft with an escape system, rocket motor that lifted you out of the seat by straps to preclude danger of striking the tail plane on bail out, particularly for the rear seater, very prescripted procedure was emphasised in the manual.

The rocket system (Stanley YANKEE system) was apparently used on some COIN T-28's besides retro fit to A-1 Skyraiders. Designer of the system was of interesting background, ex USN aviator Bob Stanley who flew the USA's first jet flight as Bell's Chief Test Pilot, oversaw the design of the X-1 and X-2 and developed the idea of dropping the aircraft from a B-29.

[[email protected]]

Trim it out - I'm sure you know but in the 80s and 90s when the whole of AAC training was done at Middle Wallop, they started on the Chipmunk and then went on to the Gazelle - this process was completed in a year for most pilots before being sent front line - only Lynx jockeys stayed on for their course after getting wings on Gazelle.

It was a very efficient system with a high throughput.

I believe it was only the length of the JEFTS FW training that put the AAC off doing FW first.

[[email protected]]

Whatever the system the end product is fit for purpose in my limited exposure. yes, that isn't the issue, it is how long you have to make your training to achieve that standard and at what cost - you know bean counters rule the world.

[Brutal]

Jeeezzze Crab, you really are a condescending :mad: ! Quote: "Unless your 'civilian' instructors are ex-mil then you won't be able to do much beyond basic PPL level flying"":ugh:

I do agree with you about the cost savings by flying fixed wing first, But, that's about the only advantage by saving some time in a more expensive rotary machine. In regards to building one's skillset, If one learns rotary from scratch to go on to fly rotary then there is nothing that would gained from any fixed wing flying, in respect to making oneself a better rotary pilot.
I have taught many guys and girls from scratch with no fixed wing involved and they have all had/having very successful careers, and are some first class pilots.

B.

[SASless]

Megan,

My roommate in Primary Flight Training at Fort Wolters went on Chinooks straight out of flight school as I did....we wound up in sister units in our Chu Lai based Battalion....and he went on to be a USAF Colonel, U-2 Squadron Commander...retired and became a United Airlines Captain as was his Father.

He was a product of a system that did not include any fixed wing training.

I would suggest it is not the system itself alone that produces a superior product but that individual ability and demonstrated performance by that individual has a great deal to do with the outcome.

One observation about that training we received....during the instrument phase we practiced Tactical Figure Eight approaches to an NDB or FM Tactical Radio....a lot....a whole lot......and I never heard of anyone ever doing one for real...ever.

At that time the US Army issued what was known as a Tactical Instrument Rating (the only difference was no ILS training that was required for the Standard Instrument Rating). A few hours less spent on the Figure Eight spent on IlS approaches and we would have gotten the Standard Instrument Rating.

As a result of that decision.....after Vietnam....the system returned to doing the Standard Rating for all pilots with all of us receiving a few hours of training or a full Instrument flying course and completing check rides for that Standard Rating.

I suppose no system is perfect and each is tailored to its end use requirements and that among other issues determines the methods used.....and why they tend to change over time.

I am old enough to still remember the old air way method of low freq ranges (only a very few remained), coffee grinder ADF's with manual Loops, NDB Approaches, and steam gauges, paper charts only....and no SAS or Auto Pilots.

My Standard Instrument Check Ride in a Huey concluded (successfully) with a no gyro's fixed card NDB hold and approach to Cairns AAF....my UK IF Check Ride concluded (again successfully) with an ILS to Aberdeen in an S-58T.

Time moved on technology has changed....so should training by using new methods and technology to make training more efficient and useful for the student and the end user of those students.

Why use actual airplanes or helicopters when Sims can do the same thing far cheaper.

Is it not the transfer of knowledge that is the key to the process?

[[email protected]]

That was a dog whistle response brutal - you well know I am talking about low level, NVG, tactics etc etc etc which you would have to train your civilian instructors to do first but they still wouldn't have any operational depth of knowledge to bring to the party.

Again, I'm not saying you have to fly FW first but flying training in the mil is about speed, quality and cost of each and every hour so if you can gain by using cheaper FW then why wouldn't you?

[[email protected]]

Shock horror - pilot who hadn't flown FW turned out to be a great guy on the sticks............and the point is?

Moving training into the simulator is another way of reducing costs - the quality of modern simulators means that the quality and relevance of the training has improved massively in the 40 years I have been flying.

Is it a real substitute for actual flying? Sim instructors and those selling those services would have you believe so but even the best sims are a computer game - great for introducing concepts and ideas but not fully representative of the real environment.

Sims do certain things really, really well but a full motion sim isn't cheap either and FSTDs all have their limits.

[Brutal]

No Crab, that might be what you were thinking, but it was certainly not what you wrote...Outside of the military there is no need for 'Tactics". So use ex mil instructors for that part of the training. The rest, including NVG's that are used extensively now in the civilian world, and I.R.s etc, then this can be taught perfectly well by civilians, well above PPL level, you know, that other thing called "commercial standards"? (which by the way, I have seem more than one immortal QHI fail in the Sim and aircraft)?

B.

[[email protected]]

Outside of the military there is no need for 'Tactics". So use ex mil instructors for that part of the training. This thread is exactly about military training - you seem to want to extend my arguments into civvy stuff as well which is definitely not what I wrote.

The DHFS (now MFTS) model at Shawbury has been running since 1995 and of all the QHIs who have taught there I suspect precious few are not ex-mil - simply because of what has to be taught to mil pilots. That was what I meant (even if you interpreted it differently) in my comments.

If you wanted to make an argument that civ pilots could teach procedural IF as well as, if not better than, a mil QHI you would be right but why limit your instructors skill set, that lacks flexibility in a training setup.

Mil or ex-mil pilots should be teaching newbie mil pilots, not just for the flying but for the ethos and the operational experience they bring.

Yes, NVGs are used by plenty of civilian pilots but not for the same things as a mil pilot

​​​​​​​And of all the IR failures you have seen in the sim, what proportion are ex-mil QHIs?

[SASless]

The RAF has used non-military instructors in the past....American Civilian Flight Instructors at that....at seven flight schools all privately owned in the USA....including the use of Link Blue Canoe flight simulators.

Seems the concept is not all that new.

The US Navy is using the concept for early training and the students move on to later training operations as part of their progression.

https://militaryhistorynow.com/2016/01/22/the-raf-in-american-skies-how-british-pilots-trained-in-the-u-s-during-ww2/

[60FltMech]

For whatever it’s worth, I don’t think the scope of this training program encompasses tactics. That will be taught once the students graduate out of this program and then proceed to Whiting Field and begin flying the TH-73(Aw-119).

Further tactical instruction would be provided upon transition to whatever advanced airframe they are assigned after completing that course.

FltMech

[[email protected]]

The RAF has used non-military instructors in the past....American Civilian Flight Instructors at that....at seven flight schools all privately owned in the USA....including the use of Link Blue Canoe flight simulators. WW2 flying training - how pertinent to modern military training...........

The USN has paid its money and made its choice - US taxpayers will have to hope it is a good choice.

[Brutal]

This is where my argument lies Crab. You said this thread is about military training...however, basic training, fundamentals of rotary flight,, I.R. and type training is not any different whether taught by civvies contractors or the military Someone learning auto's, dealing with engine malfunctions, confined area's ,instrument flying etc etc is exactly the same whether mil or civvies (and yes I've taught both). It's only when you specialise for military differences I.e Tactics etc is when you need people with these skills.Which as someone had already pointed out is going to be carried out elsewhere.

B.

[[email protected]]

You forgot the whole ethos thing Brutal, it needs to be there from the word go, not introduced after basic flying and for that you need uniforms, rank structure, discipline and experience given by those who know what the students will be doing in the future.

Yes you can teach basic skills, almost regardless of your background, but what is the point when you are supposedly creating military aviators?

Remember basic flying skills are only a small part of what military pilots will be expected to do in their careers.

[Lonewolf_50]

For whatever it’s worth, I don’t think the scope of this training program encompasses tactics. They had already implemented Tac Form in Primary/Intermediate in the T-34C, before the T-6 took over, back when I was still on active duty. (the 00's)
Granted, there is also "helo centric" tactical flying in the syllabus at Training Wing 5, and has been since I flew Hueys there. Confined landings, section work, tactical approaches, and there was for a while a barge to do deck landings on. (need to check on that, see if it's still there).

For Megan:
In order to save money, and to cut down on 'does this person always puke when they leave the ground' the Navy, back in the early 00's, formalized a 14-20 hour "fly a Cessna" kind of screening program that one must complete before beginning primary training. Various civvy flight schools in Northern Florida got contracted to do that.
I'll have to ask around some of the old hands and see if they are still doing that.

[[email protected]]

LW 50 - yes we used to have Flying Selection in the Chipmunk for 15 hours both to assess potential and to highlight the 'sickies'.

Farnborough used to run a desensitisation course for sickies - have breakfast, strap into a bang seat mounted on a hydraulic ram, go up and down until you puke, rinse and repeat on a daily basis hoping the time to chunder got longer until you built up a tolerance.