UK MFTS RW - Airbus H135/H145 selected
The 135 might just surprise you in its ability to stay serviceable.
Are civvy 135s at 1000hr service intervals yet? Can't imagine that continuing.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 60
Posts: 2,051
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes
on
6 Posts
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
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: London
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Anyone seen the breakdown of training hours, sim and 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.
the inside word is that the proposed common course has already been fragmented - I am well aware what has been done in the past.
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?
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Shropshire
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Juno and Jupiter arrive in UK
Thread Starter
Thread Starter
Overwater Winching
A first for Valley based 202 Sqn yesterday as they conducted the first overwater winching exercise ..
cheers
cheers
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Pastures New
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
A case severely weakened by the fact that the majority of the senior Ascent folks were senior ex UK military...
