Army EFT
Thread Starter
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 79
Likes: 8
From: Lincolnshire
Army EFT
The AAC is considering 'binning' EFT and starting straight through Rotary after sitting in a Gazelle - not flying but observing! There is an experimental Course trying it out at the moment.
Discuss.......
Discuss.......
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
From: UK
I believe the first course to go straight so Shawbury direct will do so very soon, as a test to see what happens. The Army still have a contract with Babcock at Barkston Heath, to train there, with at least a year to run so no sudden departure. EFT teaches airmanship, IF, Nav, capacity and ability to learn. Mincing around in the back of a Squirrel won't help these. It's an experiment at a cost and time saving measure which I don't think will be successful. Savings on a relatively cheap Firefly per hour will quickly be blown on a turbine heli. If one of the pilots being sent straight to Shawbury on this new scheme is chopped, I'm sure they would be entitled to demand to be sent to Barkston for the same training their predecessors recieved.... more incurred costs. I think it's a bad idea but who knows without trying and seeing what happens. The Army are already ahead in terms of training without holdovers so who knows what they might achieve.
, or are the Navy pulling out of Barkston too?
Red On, Green On
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 6,490
Likes: 2
From: Between the woods and the water
RN EFTS, then we would have gone full circle
Oh, and the aircraft should have a service reg, be made of metal, painted like a service a/c and low flying conducted at 250 agl, not in the upper atmosphere.
Red On, Green On
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 6,490
Likes: 2
From: Between the woods and the water
Interesting thread on Rotorheads about spatial disorientation/recovery. One of the key features of a FW EFT is being able to experience aeros and recovery from unusual attitudes in a safe environment.
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 390
Likes: 0
From: UK
Very good point.
The trouble is, as professionals, we all know it takes time (& £££) to train a pilot. And then more time frontline as he gains experience and becomes not just useful, but an asset. Military aviation is inherently risky and so we need safety borne of training and experience.
There appears too much of a culture today - fuelled by beancounters @ the Ministry perhaps (but not rebuffed by those aspiring to make their mark and brass hat in some cases) - that is determined to produce instant "boil-in-a-bag" aircrew.
I prefer eating at restaurants!
The trouble is, as professionals, we all know it takes time (& £££) to train a pilot. And then more time frontline as he gains experience and becomes not just useful, but an asset. Military aviation is inherently risky and so we need safety borne of training and experience.
There appears too much of a culture today - fuelled by beancounters @ the Ministry perhaps (but not rebuffed by those aspiring to make their mark and brass hat in some cases) - that is determined to produce instant "boil-in-a-bag" aircrew.
I prefer eating at restaurants!
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
From: Tracy Island
Dendmar
I think we are the only NATO member that takes its potential rotary pilots through fixed wing before rotary. Why bother with the extra expense? Why do the Navy bother with it for that matter? The Army only want dedicated helo pilots the majority of whom will fly only helos for the rest of their army career, so what is the point of spinning and stalling in a firefly? Discuss.
I think we are the only NATO member that takes its potential rotary pilots through fixed wing before rotary. Why bother with the extra expense? Why do the Navy bother with it for that matter? The Army only want dedicated helo pilots the majority of whom will fly only helos for the rest of their army career, so what is the point of spinning and stalling in a firefly? Discuss.
Thread Starter
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 79
Likes: 8
From: Lincolnshire
Army EFT
FEBA
I do not disagree with your comments but....it is cheaper to weed out the no-hopers during the Fixed wing Training, than all through Rotary.
In today's constraints, the bean counters rule and there is no doubt that initial fixed wing training is considerably cheaper than Rotary. Plus all the benefits of Airmanship, which applies to both skills.
I do not disagree with your comments but....it is cheaper to weed out the no-hopers during the Fixed wing Training, than all through Rotary.
In today's constraints, the bean counters rule and there is no doubt that initial fixed wing training is considerably cheaper than Rotary. Plus all the benefits of Airmanship, which applies to both skills.
Thread Starter
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 79
Likes: 8
From: Lincolnshire
Army EFT
Well known fact - Beancounters do not understand Aviation. If they had their way they would want a PPL syllabus, taught in a Flying Club, because on the face of it, it's cheap.
As far as cost is concerned, the reality is that Rotary training is considerably more expensive than Fixed Wing, in terms of capital expenditure and operating cost. This loss will be enhanced by the increased chop rate and the loss of a potential Military Rotary Pilot who might well have made it by doing a relatively cheaper EFT Fixed Wing;this will allow the slightly slower learner establishing co-ordination and Airmanship prior to Rotary Training.
As far as cost is concerned, the reality is that Rotary training is considerably more expensive than Fixed Wing, in terms of capital expenditure and operating cost. This loss will be enhanced by the increased chop rate and the loss of a potential Military Rotary Pilot who might well have made it by doing a relatively cheaper EFT Fixed Wing;this will allow the slightly slower learner establishing co-ordination and Airmanship prior to Rotary Training.
Last edited by Dendmar; 25th January 2005 at 15:50.
Red On, Green On
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 6,490
Likes: 2
From: Between the woods and the water
FEBA
Perhaps you didn't go throught the RW system? If you had I think you might have a clear idea of the benefits of a FW EFT, which was shorter for Army (60 hrs against 80 for RN) pre-jointery.
Suggest you read the disorientation thread I posted earlier, and then think whether 60/80 hrs FW EFT might make you a safer, more thoughtfull pilot, who had poling time in an aircraft designed to do aeros, recover from spins/unusual attitudes etc.
Perhaps you didn't go throught the RW system? If you had I think you might have a clear idea of the benefits of a FW EFT, which was shorter for Army (60 hrs against 80 for RN) pre-jointery.
Suggest you read the disorientation thread I posted earlier, and then think whether 60/80 hrs FW EFT might make you a safer, more thoughtfull pilot, who had poling time in an aircraft designed to do aeros, recover from spins/unusual attitudes etc.
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
From: Tracy Island
AA
I'm afraid you get max points for completely missing the point.
One can assume from this quote that our American army colleagues flying rotary are all unsafe and less thoughtful than the boys from Middle Wallop.
I'm afraid you get max points for completely missing the point.
FW EFT might make you a safer, more thoughtfull pilot,
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
From: Anywhere there's ships and aircraft available
Interesting in all the debates here is the fact that the RN are the only Service not to have continually messed about with the Flying Training system. We may have moved it around and changed a contractor or three but the course now is very close to the one I did 16 years ago. Oh! and it still works.
Joined: Apr 2004
Aviation Qualifications: Military
Posts: 2,376
Likes: 195
From: Richard Burtonville, South Wales.
One can assume from this quote that our American army colleagues flying rotary are all unsafe and less thoughtful than the boys from Middle Wallop
CG
Red On, Green On
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 6,490
Likes: 2
From: Between the woods and the water
FEBA
In June 2004 (in a similar thread that you initiated) you wrote:
"That would involve a separate fleet of aircraft (hopefully not Grobs). I take it you support my views on the folly of EFTS straight to rotary."
Have you trained RW with RN/RAF/Army?
My experience of US Army RW pilots goes back nearly 30 years, and yes, I'd say they were not as good (in the main) as UK pilots, despite the experience the system could have picked up from Vietnam.
Waltzer
The Ternhill BOI hasn't concluded (and won't publicise) its work, but since the lad pretty much walked away, we can assume that his training was fairly successful!
In June 2004 (in a similar thread that you initiated) you wrote:
"That would involve a separate fleet of aircraft (hopefully not Grobs). I take it you support my views on the folly of EFTS straight to rotary."
Have you trained RW with RN/RAF/Army?
My experience of US Army RW pilots goes back nearly 30 years, and yes, I'd say they were not as good (in the main) as UK pilots, despite the experience the system could have picked up from Vietnam.
Waltzer
The Ternhill BOI hasn't concluded (and won't publicise) its work, but since the lad pretty much walked away, we can assume that his training was fairly successful!
Last edited by airborne_artist; 26th January 2005 at 19:11.
