Jayteeto - as I understand it, the flying programme, which is computer generated, and will be run by a non-pilot or QHI, will be so tight that running changes will be the norm (as it is on 412 at the moment) using a 'taxi-rank' system.

As for the 145 winch, the length of the arm appears to be determined by the skid with to avoid rubbing against it so not much option for change.

I agree there has to be some adaptation but when something clearly isn't right, do we really have to let it fail and say I told you so? This will waste a lot of taxpayer's money.

Should have gone to Specsavers old bean - Flight is talking about EC135 being used as military trainers not Bell 206.

More sensibly the Cabri G2 which has a similar single indicator for engine performance. As cheap(ish) as an R22. For basic training up to the IF stage it would have been great. But no where near as flash as an EC135

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. Some years ago Cobham did an unsolicited bid to replace the current fleet with 119 Trekkers and 169s. At least the cabin would have been big enough for rearcrew training. The bid partly failed due to EU competition regulations.

Really? https://www.flightglobal.com/asset/14484 To save you time its on Page 17 :rolleyes:

I see Baldeep's last and rather damning post has been removed - anyone know why (apart from some of it probably being commercial in confidence)?

They're ALL gone Crab...

Oooh, someone's been given the gypsies warning for telling the truth then..

Or for spouting bolleaux. While, unfortunately, plenty of Baldeep's post was accurate, plenty else was wide of the mark (to put it mildly!). Yes there are significant challenges for Ascent to overcome in the next year or two, but they have (with one obvious exception) got some very good people on the RW team who will spare no effort to make it work. Will it work? Probably. Will it be perfect ? No. Is the current set-up perfect? No. Does it matter? Not really.

If the 135 is deemed unsuitable, who wrote the requirements for the RFP?
Who then decided that the 135 met those requirements?

It appears that someone has decided that training ab-initio pilots straight onto a twin is a good idea because 'we only fly twins/multis' it seems others are finding this is folly and the studes need to have a basic platform to do the initial stick and pedal stuff.

Maybe DHFS should have 120 with a glass cockpit for the basics including initial rear crew nav/map reading, and the rear crews then head off to their respective service for conversion to front line type and appropriate rope dangling/door sliding training.
Pilots then move onto a simple procedural IF platform 355NP/109E, they don't necessarily need a full conversion to type just enough to fly the thing under the hood and down the approaches. Then with those basic skills they head off for front line type conversion.

As always the KISS principle applies.

It will be interesting to hear what is made of the 145 for winch training, the 117 it is based on has low speed/angle of bank limitations that [/U]MAY[U] hold issues.

And this is acceptable for a 21st century, multi-million pound contract??? With no transition period between contracts and the expectation to have no reduction in output, there is a lot of self-delusion going on.

I'm trying to avoid a, 'back in the day', way of asking this but...

Back in the day, crewmen didn't do winching at Shawbury on the Wessex, nor on the Puma OCU. My first winching trips were on 33 before going to Belize. We did some more out there, including a few real episodes. Some time later, it was noticed that I wasn't being mucked about nearly enough for an abo Sgt, so I was sent off to Valley for 2 weeks more winching. Of course, there's no SARTU any more (I assume). I also assume if I said that at SARTU on the long course, I'd probably have to do it again!

So, whilst you knowledgeable rotary boys are not only appraising the whatsit as a winching platform, why the panty bunching over winching? Why not do it on the OCU type, and then prior to deployment? The Puma winch was an abortion anyway, and rarely worked- has that changed?

CG

PS, winching is a hard skill when you don't know your arse from your elbow: it's a lot easier for a D/LCR crewman with 100 hours on the squadron, I'll wager.

Ahhhh, but really `back in the day`,before crewmen were `legalised`,pilots were expected to do mutual turns `below stairs` doing u/s loads,roping and winching on convex to the WW...and so the `patter` for wet drums would be..`ahead 20,down 2, 10,heights good,8,6,..543 ,2,1,steady,err,back 5 and left 5`....meanwhile other Bloggs up front was in manual throttle...cursing, and Master Roy Bates(winch instructor) was rolling on the cabin floor in fits of laughter....
All good fun,and good intro,especially later ,longlining(200 ft.) certain`chaps` out of
the jungle..

Really think the way ahead would be Sioux (Bell 47) for the basic phase. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who can fly one of those well, and is competent on an iPad, would have no problems with a twin with glass cockpit!

I think you have misunderstood. What I quoted in Flight was that they said of the 1220 EC135 in service round the world, only 36 were being used for military training. That's a pretty small number which is at odds with a comment that are in service as trainers widely. You said:

Yes 200 is more than 36 but you're talking about apples and pears. The number of B206 has nothing to do with my numbers.

But anyway, I think Ascent have diligently met the requirement outlined by the MOD. If that requirement was wrong, it's not Ascent's fault. The reason for the twin being used is probably due to risk mitigation related to instrument flying. You would have to do some serious trials to get a single engine aircraft certified in EASA or on the mil register if it isn't already. And in terms of safety it's streets ahead. I'm just glad it's not an A109E. Diabolical aircraft!

Nail, head, go!

Again, not Ascent's problem.

I believe SARTU is still running, someone has to train people going to Akr.

I agree that poorly stated requirements and poorly worded contracts must come down to the MoD but why applaud a contractor who screws the nut and delivers a training system not fit for purpose?

Yes, I know we can't say it isn't fit for purpose until it actually starts but there is clearly great concern about what we are going to end up with.

Whoa there!
They haven't delivered a system that isn't fit for purpose.
They have met the spec requested.
Don't blame Ascent

how? in not providing an aircraft suitable for rearcrew training??