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.

...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'

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

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

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

CG

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!!!)

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!

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.

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.

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..

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???

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.

maybe on another planet...;)

H135/145
 

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?.

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.

How about the RN and Army? You do realize that RW training has been tri-service for over two decades now?

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.

All true, but it's also horrendously expensive to buy and operate.

Exactly - see above.

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.

So what?
How dare you.

Why do I find myself thinking of the heady days of Soteria and Hank Semi?
Best left to the Cypriots? 139 trumps Griffin on every count, and we don't have to pay for it!

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.

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.

You haven't seen their SAR have you? Would you let them do a multiple ejection scenario???

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

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