UH-72 to Rucker ? What's the Army thinking?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Sky
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UH-72 to Rucker ? What's the Army thinking?
I have never flown a UH-72 (EC-145) but its a twin with a rigid rotor system and non-standard tail. I have no first hand experience on the aircraft. Will this really make a good primary helicopter trainer? Does anyone else in the world fly it in this role as an initial trainer? I am having a hard time understanding the logic of a complex, twin engine helicopter in this role.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
From last month's Rotor & Wing:
No (the USNTPS has five, but not for Initial); the closest is probably the German Army, which uses the BO105 as its initial trainer (likely to be replaced by the EC135 as the 105 retires). The Australian Defence Force is also about to replace the Kiowa with a twin (reportedly the EC135) as its sole RW trainer, following in the footsteps of the JMSDF, which is in the process of replacing its OH-6Ds with the TH-135.
I/C
Training Role for Lakotas
“The TH-67 fleet has no dollars to sustain it,” revealed [Maj. Gen. Kevin Mangum, commanding general of U.S. Army Aviation], “so we need to do something different.” The way he had asked the [Army's joint budget planning team] committee was to think in terms of how Army Aviation was comprised – and that came to no single-engine aircraft. “Flight school has not changed significantly since the 30 years I went there,” said Mangum, referring to the actual flight training not the synthetic systems, which have seen dramatic improvement. “If we don’t have a single-engine aircraft in the fleet, how many touch-downs and auto-rotations do we have to do? The [Airbus Helicopters] UH-72 Lakota will fit if we change our flight school model and the digital cockpit will help our young pilots transition to the digital cockpits they will have to fly [when they reach their units].”
But these new aircraft would have to be taken from both the active and reserve components to fill the Fort Rucker, Ala., requirement (Army Aviation Center of Excellence). “The good thing is that they are bought and paid for. This will reduce logistics support for the distributed fleet and the op tempo we will put on the fleet will reduce the dollars per hour in the long run,” he said. The plan was to take half of the requirement each from the Army and National Guard, although the 100 LUHs equipped for border guard missions would stay where they are.
“The TH-67 fleet has no dollars to sustain it,” revealed [Maj. Gen. Kevin Mangum, commanding general of U.S. Army Aviation], “so we need to do something different.” The way he had asked the [Army's joint budget planning team] committee was to think in terms of how Army Aviation was comprised – and that came to no single-engine aircraft. “Flight school has not changed significantly since the 30 years I went there,” said Mangum, referring to the actual flight training not the synthetic systems, which have seen dramatic improvement. “If we don’t have a single-engine aircraft in the fleet, how many touch-downs and auto-rotations do we have to do? The [Airbus Helicopters] UH-72 Lakota will fit if we change our flight school model and the digital cockpit will help our young pilots transition to the digital cockpits they will have to fly [when they reach their units].”
But these new aircraft would have to be taken from both the active and reserve components to fill the Fort Rucker, Ala., requirement (Army Aviation Center of Excellence). “The good thing is that they are bought and paid for. This will reduce logistics support for the distributed fleet and the op tempo we will put on the fleet will reduce the dollars per hour in the long run,” he said. The plan was to take half of the requirement each from the Army and National Guard, although the 100 LUHs equipped for border guard missions would stay where they are.
Originally Posted by Stinger10
Does anyone else in the world fly it in this role as an initial trainer?
I/C
No (the USNTPS has five, but not for Initial); the closest is probably the German Army, which uses the BO105 as its initial trainer (likely to be replaced by the EC135 as the 105 retires). The Australian Defence Force is also about to replace the Kiowa with a twin (reportedly the EC135) as its sole RW trainer, following in the footsteps of the JMSDF, which is in the process of replacing its OH-6Ds with the TH-135.
I/C
I/C
RNZAF - A109 Light Utility Helicopter
Like the rumor I heard at HAI 2013, and confirmed in the article a few months back,
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/cd482ee4bf70
Going back to an article in Shephard Press, Defence Helicopter several years ago, a training special about the DHFS. The then CO who was AAC, aired out that graduates go onto multi-engined platforms and potentially the School could just have a sole multi engined trainer as with the current Bell 412. He also stated in his day, as with the Gazelle, he did all his primary and advanced on the type he went to after competing the APC.
Going back even further to the German Heeresfliegerwaffenschule at Buckeberg, in the late 90s, who went a radical way changing their training. They retired their Alouette II, and went into more emphasis on PC based and the 4 axis flight simulators and EC135. Their view was with the introduction of the NH90 and Tiger, the pilot' / gunner would become more of a mission manager.
W.R.T to the RNZAF (here's my pic from Farnborough '10 ) was a (first) NZ exchange instructor pilot to Buckeberg a few years back
in the art of learning to tech M/E so he could take the experience home in preparation for the Power and NH90 entering service.
Cheers
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/cd482ee4bf70
Going back to an article in Shephard Press, Defence Helicopter several years ago, a training special about the DHFS. The then CO who was AAC, aired out that graduates go onto multi-engined platforms and potentially the School could just have a sole multi engined trainer as with the current Bell 412. He also stated in his day, as with the Gazelle, he did all his primary and advanced on the type he went to after competing the APC.
Going back even further to the German Heeresfliegerwaffenschule at Buckeberg, in the late 90s, who went a radical way changing their training. They retired their Alouette II, and went into more emphasis on PC based and the 4 axis flight simulators and EC135. Their view was with the introduction of the NH90 and Tiger, the pilot' / gunner would become more of a mission manager.
W.R.T to the RNZAF (here's my pic from Farnborough '10 ) was a (first) NZ exchange instructor pilot to Buckeberg a few years back
in the art of learning to tech M/E so he could take the experience home in preparation for the Power and NH90 entering service.
Cheers
They are not thinking. This is the Utility and Attack PM's protecting their programs which are under threat of being downsized at the expense of the warfighter. No one can deny the 206 is the best entry level trainer and no one can deny the 58D has shown to be the best ground troop support helicopter in the Army. With the new laser guided 2.75's there is really no need for the 64 unless someone can find a few hundred tanks to launch an attack. If they do they will probably have an easy time as the 64 will be in system checks while the front line is overrun.
Those who care about the warfighter should try to save the 67, the 58D and tell the Air Force to save the A-10.
The Sultan
Those who care about the warfighter should try to save the 67, the 58D and tell the Air Force to save the A-10.
The Sultan
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Below Escape Velocity
Posts: 416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No one can deny the 206 is the best entry level trainer
Other than the 67, how many semi-rigid underslung rotor systems is the Army flying these days, Sultan?
How many steam-gauge helicopters is the Army flying these days, Sultan?
You could make the same argument for the 57 at Whiting and you'd be equally wrong.
Both those machines have been overtaken by technology, no matter how robust the airframes and how good the customer support from Bell.
The entire training model needs to be reviewed, because the 206 variants are no longer cutting it, because you can't train how you fight in them, in any service.
I'm guessing you never worked in a training command, but you've been at Bell a long time.
Sorry, Lifting, I think you're completely off on this one.
This is not about dog fights but basic training, i.e. learning to hover etc, etc.
Even an R44 would suffice.
$3000 of tax payers money per hour for hover practice ?
This is not about dog fights but basic training, i.e. learning to hover etc, etc.
Even an R44 would suffice.
$3000 of tax payers money per hour for hover practice ?
Both those machines have been overtaken by technology
Someone with experience in "training command" should understand the value of "steam gauges" and simple airframes/rotors to teach basic rotary wing airmanship (without spending a fortune on flight time and risking hugely more expensive assets with zero-hour RW pilots)
Navy and Army have to decide how to do their instrument training and primary rotary wing training, if the venerable 206 is getting long in the tooth and support costs continue to go up.
Problem is, do you buy a "one size fits all trainer" as the Navy has now gotten? The TH-57 used to be a VFR only bird, with the TH-1E/TH1L being the instrument / advanced bird. In the 80's the Navy got a mod to some the TH-57's for instrument training. IIRC, it was a military cert.
Getting a civil certified instrument bird to replace the TH-57 will be an interesting exercise in both acquisition and requirements re-definition, but I think that's where the Navy has to go as the support for that old version of 206 fades, or just gets too expensive per hour.
Since Army has a platform already bought and paid for, and is trying to save money by eliminating an entire TMS (and since Bell and other vendors are not exactly supporting the old airframe with any enthusiasm) their decision makes sense from the level of "don't need to go through that acquisition cycle again." Their biggest issue will be long term, and the cost per hour increase GoodGrief mentioned. That and how many sims to buy, what mix, etc.
I imagine one could get into a two tiered training system, with the first 10 or 15 or 25 hours in a Robinson to teach people how to hover and do basic helicopter flying things ... then off into the land of turbine driven twins.
But I don't think the Army wants to buy another new line of aircraft, so Mr Robinson's order book probably won't get that massive spike such a move would see.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
$3000 of tax payers money per hour for hover practice
Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50
Mr Robinson's order book probably won't get that massive spike such a move would see.
I/C
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Below Escape Velocity
Posts: 416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I certainly could be wrong, I often am.
LW covers a few of my thoughts on procurement and some other things I thought about as well in his post that appeared while I was hammering out this abomination. I too think the solution for the Navy will be off-the-shelf. I also think it will be a single-engine turbine, and it will be bigger than the 206 and less than 7000 pounds, articulated or rigid head, with skids. The cabin will be able to seat 4. It will have at least some glass in it. There's my prediction.
GoodGrief-
Sorry, but you're mistaken there. The reasons are too many to put here, but it's not going to be Robbies across the board, and I'd be happy to lay a few hundred €, £, $ or other legal tender of your choice (or a splendid dinner) on it. The airframes are simply not robust enough and the drive train on the recips are too flimsy. If you know the physical training model (where the airfields are located, maintenance model, fueling locations, and other logistics), there are a dozen other reasons why Robbies won't be chosen. These are not sleepy flight schools with a half-dozen aircraft. These are airfields with 100+ airframes putting out 250-300 helicopter sorties per day using a system of stage fields scattered over a broad area.
Now you could be partly right, but only if a two-tier curriculum as LW mentions is developed for the purpose of teaching basic helicopter airwork, perhaps by civilian instructors. I suppose that's possible, but I couldn't say how likely that might be. My guess would be not likely, but that's only a guess.
Sans-
I am personally somewhat in agreement and sympathetic with you here, but the facts don't really care whether you and I agree. Steam is very nearly dead in Naval Air, and that is a major consideration, rightly or wrongly. The 53D is done, the 46 is done, all the Marine Corps machines are now partly or mostly glass. The Navy is all glass in the 60 community, mostly glass in the 53E. All new fleet procurements are glass. Whatever new trainer goes to the Navy (and probably the Army) will have some form of glass in it.
When I was fresh out of the training command as a student, I likely would have been more in agreement with each of you as to what was needed, because that was what I knew. When I had spent some time there many years later, I recognized that fleet needs had changed and were not being met (though nothing actually changed substantially in fact during my time there).
I can't speak in an informed fashion to Army needs, but my guess is that the Army is thinking somewhat along similar lines, but also probably has a surplus of UH-72s they can't quite figure out what to do with and they're coming up with justification for a twin because that's what they have on hand and they know very well how long the procurement process takes. What they may do with their TH-67s is a good question, as they are somewhat younger than the Navy's TH-57s.
I quite deliberately didn't say what machine I thought was best (or if I even have an opinion), but I do know what's being looked at, and it's not the R-44, and I seriously doubt they'll spin up the 206 production line again with all the powertrain and other grounding issues the TH-57 has been having.
As to the T-6, I have a passing familiarity with the T-6 and know why it was chosen and the compromises that were made during the process by the two very different primary customers in the interest of a common airframe. I know who wanted a jet, and who wanted a turboprop and why. Lots of heated arguments during that process by intractable parties. Nobody got all they wanted.
The TH-57 is the ONLY current primary or advanced training aircraft in Naval Air that is not glass and doesn't include a FMS, to include the T-6. Just because the T-6 has a spinner on the nose doesn't mean it's not a big technological leap from the T-34. It is. The TH-57 is also the only turboprop or turboshaft in the Navy training mix that is not PT-6 powered.
Rotary is the only pipeline where the students make a retrograde technological step when they move to advanced training.
In the U.S., fast-mover training prior to award of wings involves two distinct aircraft (three, actually). Helicopter training in the Navy system involves two distinct airframes, only one of which is a rotorcraft. That rotorcraft is currently configured in two different ways. One is a basic VFR configuration, the other is a non-conforming and uncertifiable IFR configuration that is running out of spares.
A significant portion (about 7%) of the curriculum is tied up in transitional flights between helicopter airframes, and a significant portion of the FRS for fleet helicopters is tied up in familiarization with FMS and glass because a very large portion of the advanced rotary curriculum has to be retaught in the fleet. The rotary curriculum also involves a fair bit of time in the cruise transitioning to a number of stage fields in a helicopter that can carry two pax at best.
Anyway, all that transition & familiarization stuff has to be done somewhere, in something. So you can pay for that with a ground trainer, sims, and a moderately expensive aircraft at the training command or you can do that at the fleet level with a larger pilot pool making use of the order-of-magnitude more expensive hardware. But you do have to pay for it at some point. It's just a question of when and what it will cost.
Not all these issues are resolved, so far as I am aware, and my finger is definitely not right on the pulse, but that's how I see it shaping up. Again, I could be totally wrong. I guess in a few years we'll see if any of us are right.
But at the end, if you don't know what the end customer (Naval or Army Air) wants, you can't back track to determine the appropriate tool to deliver that end product in the form of an aviator.
LW covers a few of my thoughts on procurement and some other things I thought about as well in his post that appeared while I was hammering out this abomination. I too think the solution for the Navy will be off-the-shelf. I also think it will be a single-engine turbine, and it will be bigger than the 206 and less than 7000 pounds, articulated or rigid head, with skids. The cabin will be able to seat 4. It will have at least some glass in it. There's my prediction.
GoodGrief-
Sorry, but you're mistaken there. The reasons are too many to put here, but it's not going to be Robbies across the board, and I'd be happy to lay a few hundred €, £, $ or other legal tender of your choice (or a splendid dinner) on it. The airframes are simply not robust enough and the drive train on the recips are too flimsy. If you know the physical training model (where the airfields are located, maintenance model, fueling locations, and other logistics), there are a dozen other reasons why Robbies won't be chosen. These are not sleepy flight schools with a half-dozen aircraft. These are airfields with 100+ airframes putting out 250-300 helicopter sorties per day using a system of stage fields scattered over a broad area.
Now you could be partly right, but only if a two-tier curriculum as LW mentions is developed for the purpose of teaching basic helicopter airwork, perhaps by civilian instructors. I suppose that's possible, but I couldn't say how likely that might be. My guess would be not likely, but that's only a guess.
Sans-
I am personally somewhat in agreement and sympathetic with you here, but the facts don't really care whether you and I agree. Steam is very nearly dead in Naval Air, and that is a major consideration, rightly or wrongly. The 53D is done, the 46 is done, all the Marine Corps machines are now partly or mostly glass. The Navy is all glass in the 60 community, mostly glass in the 53E. All new fleet procurements are glass. Whatever new trainer goes to the Navy (and probably the Army) will have some form of glass in it.
When I was fresh out of the training command as a student, I likely would have been more in agreement with each of you as to what was needed, because that was what I knew. When I had spent some time there many years later, I recognized that fleet needs had changed and were not being met (though nothing actually changed substantially in fact during my time there).
I can't speak in an informed fashion to Army needs, but my guess is that the Army is thinking somewhat along similar lines, but also probably has a surplus of UH-72s they can't quite figure out what to do with and they're coming up with justification for a twin because that's what they have on hand and they know very well how long the procurement process takes. What they may do with their TH-67s is a good question, as they are somewhat younger than the Navy's TH-57s.
I quite deliberately didn't say what machine I thought was best (or if I even have an opinion), but I do know what's being looked at, and it's not the R-44, and I seriously doubt they'll spin up the 206 production line again with all the powertrain and other grounding issues the TH-57 has been having.
As to the T-6, I have a passing familiarity with the T-6 and know why it was chosen and the compromises that were made during the process by the two very different primary customers in the interest of a common airframe. I know who wanted a jet, and who wanted a turboprop and why. Lots of heated arguments during that process by intractable parties. Nobody got all they wanted.
The TH-57 is the ONLY current primary or advanced training aircraft in Naval Air that is not glass and doesn't include a FMS, to include the T-6. Just because the T-6 has a spinner on the nose doesn't mean it's not a big technological leap from the T-34. It is. The TH-57 is also the only turboprop or turboshaft in the Navy training mix that is not PT-6 powered.
Rotary is the only pipeline where the students make a retrograde technological step when they move to advanced training.
In the U.S., fast-mover training prior to award of wings involves two distinct aircraft (three, actually). Helicopter training in the Navy system involves two distinct airframes, only one of which is a rotorcraft. That rotorcraft is currently configured in two different ways. One is a basic VFR configuration, the other is a non-conforming and uncertifiable IFR configuration that is running out of spares.
A significant portion (about 7%) of the curriculum is tied up in transitional flights between helicopter airframes, and a significant portion of the FRS for fleet helicopters is tied up in familiarization with FMS and glass because a very large portion of the advanced rotary curriculum has to be retaught in the fleet. The rotary curriculum also involves a fair bit of time in the cruise transitioning to a number of stage fields in a helicopter that can carry two pax at best.
Anyway, all that transition & familiarization stuff has to be done somewhere, in something. So you can pay for that with a ground trainer, sims, and a moderately expensive aircraft at the training command or you can do that at the fleet level with a larger pilot pool making use of the order-of-magnitude more expensive hardware. But you do have to pay for it at some point. It's just a question of when and what it will cost.
Not all these issues are resolved, so far as I am aware, and my finger is definitely not right on the pulse, but that's how I see it shaping up. Again, I could be totally wrong. I guess in a few years we'll see if any of us are right.
But at the end, if you don't know what the end customer (Naval or Army Air) wants, you can't back track to determine the appropriate tool to deliver that end product in the form of an aviator.
...the closest is probably the German Army, which uses the BO105 as its initial trainer (likely to be replaced by the EC135 as the 105 retires).
I dont think it's a bad idea to use this level of complexity if you not are going to fly older 'analog' helicopters at all. You'll miss some of the handling training, like secondary effects on the controls.
A modern heli is supposed to be easy to fly, is it possible that it 'masks' a weaker student by being so easy to fly ?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Sky
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With the Bell 206 out of production, there are a lot of good single on the market for less than $1000/hr.....Bell 407Gx, AW119Kx, AS-350, EC-120, Bell SLS ..... just to name a few. Starting to sound like the Army needs a home for the Lakota and is putting a square peg into a round hole just to make their aviation re-alignment plan work out; at the taxpayers expense.
The TH-57/67s are tired and somewhat irrelevant to DoD fleet helicopters anymore. For example; All naval aviators start out in T-6B which is a glass environment, same as 95% of DoD helicopters and tilt-rotors, and then go backwards to analog just to get through the helicopter syllabus. Not to mention the characteristics of a two-bladed rotor system, which are no longer in DoD service either, are significantly different than a multi-bladed rotor system. Both are negative learning points. So the current aircraft are an anachronism going forward.
So the Army is going to do full contact autos, and let guys with 0 hrs learn to hover in a complex helicopter that cost 5x more per/hr to fly?
The TH-57/67s are tired and somewhat irrelevant to DoD fleet helicopters anymore. For example; All naval aviators start out in T-6B which is a glass environment, same as 95% of DoD helicopters and tilt-rotors, and then go backwards to analog just to get through the helicopter syllabus. Not to mention the characteristics of a two-bladed rotor system, which are no longer in DoD service either, are significantly different than a multi-bladed rotor system. Both are negative learning points. So the current aircraft are an anachronism going forward.
So the Army is going to do full contact autos, and let guys with 0 hrs learn to hover in a complex helicopter that cost 5x more per/hr to fly?
Stinger, I went from a TH-57 to a Huey to an SH-2F.
What people do nowadays is go from the TH-57 to, for example, the CH-53E.
No intermediate step at a Huey. Oddly enough, they seem to figure it out.
The monkey skill adjustment for me was the AFCS and the weight, and the significantly worse visibility from Huey to SH-2F.
I later went to the SH-60B, and cannot say I liked to fly that as much as the SH-2F, and that is due to the trim response on the Seahawk being less agile than on the SH-2F ... just as the Force Trim system in the Huey was more agile than the AFCS on the SH-2F. You do adapt to any new aircraft, of course.
T-6 as a primary trainer (when I was working JPATS issues) moved quite a few instrument flights into simulators, with good results.
Any new Army or Navy follow on to the 206 based trainer would be well advised to invest money in robust sims to move some of the instrument training into the the sim and out of the aircraft. Back in the day, helicopter sims were Crap. They have improved in the last generation or so.
What people do nowadays is go from the TH-57 to, for example, the CH-53E.
No intermediate step at a Huey. Oddly enough, they seem to figure it out.
The monkey skill adjustment for me was the AFCS and the weight, and the significantly worse visibility from Huey to SH-2F.
I later went to the SH-60B, and cannot say I liked to fly that as much as the SH-2F, and that is due to the trim response on the Seahawk being less agile than on the SH-2F ... just as the Force Trim system in the Huey was more agile than the AFCS on the SH-2F. You do adapt to any new aircraft, of course.
T-6 as a primary trainer (when I was working JPATS issues) moved quite a few instrument flights into simulators, with good results.
Any new Army or Navy follow on to the 206 based trainer would be well advised to invest money in robust sims to move some of the instrument training into the the sim and out of the aircraft. Back in the day, helicopter sims were Crap. They have improved in the last generation or so.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Below Escape Velocity
Posts: 416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I went from a TH-57B to a TH-57C to a HH-65A, which had a starflex rotor that turned the other direction, a fenestron, real AFCS, crude FMS, Marconi gauges, and a wee bit of primitive monochrome glassy stuff. Other than being appallingly underpowered, it had little in common with the TH-57.
Yes, one does adapt, but the learning curve was fairly steep, as it was for my contemporaries going into Sikorsky products. It's steeper now.
The jump from a clapped-out TH-57C directly to a 60 variant or a new H-1 is fairly huge.
Sims I suspect and hope will be a big part of any new training procurement. I need to jaw with the sim boss at exciting Whiting. He owes me a beer anyway.
AAKEE makes a good point about the possibility of an easy-to-fly modern machine masking weak handling skills. I would think that will be a real issue. So too may be a loss in the ability to fly raw data from needles and DME unless it is explicitly taught, which remains a necessary skill set for lots of stuff, such as SAR and mucking about with TACANs, if such crude devices still be used.
Yes, one does adapt, but the learning curve was fairly steep, as it was for my contemporaries going into Sikorsky products. It's steeper now.
The jump from a clapped-out TH-57C directly to a 60 variant or a new H-1 is fairly huge.
Sims I suspect and hope will be a big part of any new training procurement. I need to jaw with the sim boss at exciting Whiting. He owes me a beer anyway.
AAKEE makes a good point about the possibility of an easy-to-fly modern machine masking weak handling skills. I would think that will be a real issue. So too may be a loss in the ability to fly raw data from needles and DME unless it is explicitly taught, which remains a necessary skill set for lots of stuff, such as SAR and mucking about with TACANs, if such crude devices still be used.
I went from the TH-55A to the UH-1 B/D/H to the CH-47A/B.
The step up to the Huey was ok....particularly the UH-1B.....with the side step into the D/H much easier....but it was a giant leap into the Chinook. The first time I picked the ol' Girl up to a Hover....it was intimidating. But within just a few hours it was a done deal. We have to remember we are training Pilots who will be Co-Pilots for Years...sometimes many Years before they are given command.
I will admit the hundreds upon hundreds of EOL's we practiced paid off handsomely later on. Are the Lakota's going to hold up to that kind of punishment? If they do....at what Cost?
Basic handling skills are just that....basic to helicopter flying....skip over some of them....omit some of them....and you are headed for disaster in the long run.
US Army Student Pilots never "Solo" a helicopter....they go with another Student and call it "Solo"....that is not a good thing in my book.
Simulators are fine for Instrument Training....even the old SFTS worked fine despite having no Visual Display at all. Little time in the real aircraft is needed for training....but some is needed for real world exposure but only as a validation of the training.
If the Army wants to use the excuse "but we have all these Lakota's you see....and since we got them....well you know....." then they have shed loads of Kiowa's of all models. Why not SLEP them back to Trainer Mod's and use the excuse...."but we have all these Kiowa's you see....and since we got them....well you know....".
In the time of tight budgets....the Army is going to try to convince Congress operating the Lakota's is cheaper than operating Jet Rangers (Kiowa's).
The step up to the Huey was ok....particularly the UH-1B.....with the side step into the D/H much easier....but it was a giant leap into the Chinook. The first time I picked the ol' Girl up to a Hover....it was intimidating. But within just a few hours it was a done deal. We have to remember we are training Pilots who will be Co-Pilots for Years...sometimes many Years before they are given command.
I will admit the hundreds upon hundreds of EOL's we practiced paid off handsomely later on. Are the Lakota's going to hold up to that kind of punishment? If they do....at what Cost?
Basic handling skills are just that....basic to helicopter flying....skip over some of them....omit some of them....and you are headed for disaster in the long run.
US Army Student Pilots never "Solo" a helicopter....they go with another Student and call it "Solo"....that is not a good thing in my book.
Simulators are fine for Instrument Training....even the old SFTS worked fine despite having no Visual Display at all. Little time in the real aircraft is needed for training....but some is needed for real world exposure but only as a validation of the training.
If the Army wants to use the excuse "but we have all these Lakota's you see....and since we got them....well you know....." then they have shed loads of Kiowa's of all models. Why not SLEP them back to Trainer Mod's and use the excuse...."but we have all these Kiowa's you see....and since we got them....well you know....".
In the time of tight budgets....the Army is going to try to convince Congress operating the Lakota's is cheaper than operating Jet Rangers (Kiowa's).
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Basic Training on a Twin
Ref Post #9.
Not many organisations (especially those on a budget) would propose spending $3000 per hour on hover training. As noted, the RNZAF has introduced the A109LUH as it's basic and advanced RW trainer (and we have never been noted as being careless with our cash). What makes this affordable is the use of simulation. If you accept that an advanced trainer is required (as we did), you will probably also accept that simulation is a neccessity. The hourly simulator direct operating costs are lower than the dry lease cost of an R44 (I did the math). It therefore makes sense to use the simulator (which we have already paid for) to conduct basic training, as well as to support advanced (emergency, IFR, mission) training.
Had we elected to employ a separate basic trainer, we would have incurred the cost of ownership of a second fleet (or at least the operating cost of a leased fleet). Having done so, it is likely we'd only have saved about 15 hours off the current all-through course. We couldn't justify that to our taxpayers. Further, by selecting a platform that could also provide a light utility and observation capability, we got even more bang for our buck (by which, of course, I mean 'Pacific Peso').
Not many organisations (especially those on a budget) would propose spending $3000 per hour on hover training. As noted, the RNZAF has introduced the A109LUH as it's basic and advanced RW trainer (and we have never been noted as being careless with our cash). What makes this affordable is the use of simulation. If you accept that an advanced trainer is required (as we did), you will probably also accept that simulation is a neccessity. The hourly simulator direct operating costs are lower than the dry lease cost of an R44 (I did the math). It therefore makes sense to use the simulator (which we have already paid for) to conduct basic training, as well as to support advanced (emergency, IFR, mission) training.
Had we elected to employ a separate basic trainer, we would have incurred the cost of ownership of a second fleet (or at least the operating cost of a leased fleet). Having done so, it is likely we'd only have saved about 15 hours off the current all-through course. We couldn't justify that to our taxpayers. Further, by selecting a platform that could also provide a light utility and observation capability, we got even more bang for our buck (by which, of course, I mean 'Pacific Peso').
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by Stinger10
a complex helicopter that cost 5x more per/hr to fly
Originally Posted by Stinger10
Starting to sound like the Army needs a home for the Lakota and is putting a square peg into a round hole just to make their aviation re-alignment plan work out; at the taxpayers expense.
Originally Posted by SASless
In the time of tight budgets....the Army is going to try to convince Congress operating the Lakota's is cheaper than operating Jet Rangers (Kiowa's)
Originally Posted by SASless
Why not SLEP them back to Trainer Mod's
Originally Posted by Thax
$3000 per hour on hover training
Originally Posted by AAKEE
German army uses EC135/635 for basic training
I/C