Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

MFTS

Old 28th Apr 2017, 06:39
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Whanganui, NZ
Posts: 227
Originally Posted by GipsyMagpie View Post
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.
kiwi grey is offline  
Old 28th Apr 2017, 07:09
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 277
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?
juliet is offline  
Old 28th Apr 2017, 08:01
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,796
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.
Tiger_mate is offline  
Old 28th Apr 2017, 08:14
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 277
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.
juliet is offline  
Old 28th Apr 2017, 09:10
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,796
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.
Tiger_mate is offline  
Old 28th Apr 2017, 15:23
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 8,782
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.
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 28th Apr 2017, 17:14
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: North of East, South of West
Posts: 35
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!
Squat switch is offline  
Old 28th Apr 2017, 19:24
  #68 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,796
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.
Tiger_mate is offline  
Old 29th Apr 2017, 04:39
  #69 (permalink)  
GipsyMagpie
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by juliet View Post
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
 
Old 30th Apr 2017, 07:57
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: South
Age: 59
Posts: 44
Contingency plan unveiled!

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!
BTC8183 is offline  
Old 30th Apr 2017, 16:04
  #71 (permalink)  

Gentleman Aviator
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Teetering Towers - somewhere in the Shires
Age: 72
Posts: 3,535
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

Gazelle/Wessex

Squirrel/Griffin

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........
teeteringhead is offline  
Old 30th Apr 2017, 17:20
  #72 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 8,782
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.
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 1st May 2017, 13:07
  #73 (permalink)  

Gentleman Aviator
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Teetering Towers - somewhere in the Shires
Age: 72
Posts: 3,535
[email protected]
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.
teeteringhead is offline  
Old 2nd May 2017, 12:29
  #74 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Among these dark Satanic mills
Posts: 1,192
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.
TorqueOfTheDevil is offline  
Old 2nd May 2017, 12:44
  #75 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Richard Burtonville, South Wales.
Posts: 2,088
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!
charliegolf is offline  
Old 2nd May 2017, 15:42
  #76 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 8,782
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.
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.