US Navy awards Contractor Only Pilot Training Rotary to The Helicopter Institute,
Whatever the system the end product is fit for purpose in my limited exposure.
Jeeezzze Crab, you really are a condescending 
! Quote: "Unless your 'civilian' instructors are ex-mil then you won't be able to do much beyond basic PPL level flying""
I do agree with you about the cost savings by flying fixed wing first, But, that's about the only advantage by saving some time in a more expensive rotary machine. In regards to building one's skillset, If one learns rotary from scratch to go on to fly rotary then there is nothing that would gained from any fixed wing flying, in respect to making oneself a better rotary pilot.
I have taught many guys and girls from scratch with no fixed wing involved and they have all had/having very successful careers, and are some first class pilots.
B.
! Quote: "Unless your 'civilian' instructors are ex-mil then you won't be able to do much beyond basic PPL level flying""I do agree with you about the cost savings by flying fixed wing first, But, that's about the only advantage by saving some time in a more expensive rotary machine. In regards to building one's skillset, If one learns rotary from scratch to go on to fly rotary then there is nothing that would gained from any fixed wing flying, in respect to making oneself a better rotary pilot.
I have taught many guys and girls from scratch with no fixed wing involved and they have all had/having very successful careers, and are some first class pilots.
B.
Megan,
My roommate in Primary Flight Training at Fort Wolters went on Chinooks straight out of flight school as I did....we wound up in sister units in our Chu Lai based Battalion....and he went on to be a USAF Colonel, U-2 Squadron Commander...retired and became a United Airlines Captain as was his Father.
He was a product of a system that did not include any fixed wing training.
I would suggest it is not the system itself alone that produces a superior product but that individual ability and demonstrated performance by that individual has a great deal to do with the outcome.
One observation about that training we received....during the instrument phase we practiced Tactical Figure Eight approaches to an NDB or FM Tactical Radio....a lot....a whole lot......and I never heard of anyone ever doing one for real...ever.
At that time the US Army issued what was known as a Tactical Instrument Rating (the only difference was no ILS training that was required for the Standard Instrument Rating). A few hours less spent on the Figure Eight spent on IlS approaches and we would have gotten the Standard Instrument Rating.
As a result of that decision.....after Vietnam....the system returned to doing the Standard Rating for all pilots with all of us receiving a few hours of training or a full Instrument flying course and completing check rides for that Standard Rating.
I suppose no system is perfect and each is tailored to its end use requirements and that among other issues determines the methods used.....and why they tend to change over time.
I am old enough to still remember the old air way method of low freq ranges (only a very few remained), coffee grinder ADF's with manual Loops, NDB Approaches, and steam gauges, paper charts only....and no SAS or Auto Pilots.
My Standard Instrument Check Ride in a Huey concluded (successfully) with a no gyro's fixed card NDB hold and approach to Cairns AAF....my UK IF Check Ride concluded (again successfully) with an ILS to Aberdeen in an S-58T.
Time moved on technology has changed....so should training by using new methods and technology to make training more efficient and useful for the student and the end user of those students.
Why use actual airplanes or helicopters when Sims can do the same thing far cheaper.
Is it not the transfer of knowledge that is the key to the process?
My roommate in Primary Flight Training at Fort Wolters went on Chinooks straight out of flight school as I did....we wound up in sister units in our Chu Lai based Battalion....and he went on to be a USAF Colonel, U-2 Squadron Commander...retired and became a United Airlines Captain as was his Father.
He was a product of a system that did not include any fixed wing training.
I would suggest it is not the system itself alone that produces a superior product but that individual ability and demonstrated performance by that individual has a great deal to do with the outcome.
One observation about that training we received....during the instrument phase we practiced Tactical Figure Eight approaches to an NDB or FM Tactical Radio....a lot....a whole lot......and I never heard of anyone ever doing one for real...ever.
At that time the US Army issued what was known as a Tactical Instrument Rating (the only difference was no ILS training that was required for the Standard Instrument Rating). A few hours less spent on the Figure Eight spent on IlS approaches and we would have gotten the Standard Instrument Rating.
As a result of that decision.....after Vietnam....the system returned to doing the Standard Rating for all pilots with all of us receiving a few hours of training or a full Instrument flying course and completing check rides for that Standard Rating.
I suppose no system is perfect and each is tailored to its end use requirements and that among other issues determines the methods used.....and why they tend to change over time.
I am old enough to still remember the old air way method of low freq ranges (only a very few remained), coffee grinder ADF's with manual Loops, NDB Approaches, and steam gauges, paper charts only....and no SAS or Auto Pilots.
My Standard Instrument Check Ride in a Huey concluded (successfully) with a no gyro's fixed card NDB hold and approach to Cairns AAF....my UK IF Check Ride concluded (again successfully) with an ILS to Aberdeen in an S-58T.
Time moved on technology has changed....so should training by using new methods and technology to make training more efficient and useful for the student and the end user of those students.
Why use actual airplanes or helicopters when Sims can do the same thing far cheaper.
Is it not the transfer of knowledge that is the key to the process?
That was a dog whistle response brutal - you well know I am talking about low level, NVG, tactics etc etc etc which you would have to train your civilian instructors to do first but they still wouldn't have any operational depth of knowledge to bring to the party.
Again, I'm not saying you have to fly FW first but flying training in the mil is about speed, quality and cost of each and every hour so if you can gain by using cheaper FW then why wouldn't you?
Again, I'm not saying you have to fly FW first but flying training in the mil is about speed, quality and cost of each and every hour so if you can gain by using cheaper FW then why wouldn't you?
Shock horror - pilot who hadn't flown FW turned out to be a great guy on the sticks............and the point is?
Moving training into the simulator is another way of reducing costs - the quality of modern simulators means that the quality and relevance of the training has improved massively in the 40 years I have been flying.
Is it a real substitute for actual flying? Sim instructors and those selling those services would have you believe so but even the best sims are a computer game - great for introducing concepts and ideas but not fully representative of the real environment.
Sims do certain things really, really well but a full motion sim isn't cheap either and FSTDs all have their limits.
Moving training into the simulator is another way of reducing costs - the quality of modern simulators means that the quality and relevance of the training has improved massively in the 40 years I have been flying.
Is it a real substitute for actual flying? Sim instructors and those selling those services would have you believe so but even the best sims are a computer game - great for introducing concepts and ideas but not fully representative of the real environment.
Sims do certain things really, really well but a full motion sim isn't cheap either and FSTDs all have their limits.
No Crab, that might be what you were thinking, but it was certainly not what you wrote...Outside of the military there is no need for 'Tactics". So use ex mil instructors for that part of the training. The rest, including NVG's that are used extensively now in the civilian world, and I.R.s etc, then this can be taught perfectly well by civilians, well above PPL level, you know, that other thing called "commercial standards"? (which by the way, I have seem more than one immortal QHI fail in the Sim and aircraft)?
B.
B.
Outside of the military there is no need for 'Tactics". So use ex mil instructors for that part of the training.
The DHFS (now MFTS) model at Shawbury has been running since 1995 and of all the QHIs who have taught there I suspect precious few are not ex-mil - simply because of what has to be taught to mil pilots. That was what I meant (even if you interpreted it differently) in my comments.
If you wanted to make an argument that civ pilots could teach procedural IF as well as, if not better than, a mil QHI you would be right but why limit your instructors skill set, that lacks flexibility in a training setup.
Mil or ex-mil pilots should be teaching newbie mil pilots, not just for the flying but for the ethos and the operational experience they bring.
Yes, NVGs are used by plenty of civilian pilots but not for the same things as a mil pilot
And of all the IR failures you have seen in the sim, what proportion are ex-mil QHIs?
The RAF has used non-military instructors in the past....American Civilian Flight Instructors at that....at seven flight schools all privately owned in the USA....including the use of Link Blue Canoe flight simulators.
Seems the concept is not all that new.
The US Navy is using the concept for early training and the students move on to later training operations as part of their progression.
https://militaryhistorynow.com/2016/...-s-during-ww2/
Seems the concept is not all that new.
The US Navy is using the concept for early training and the students move on to later training operations as part of their progression.
https://militaryhistorynow.com/2016/...-s-during-ww2/
Join Date: Jul 2021
Location: Southern United States
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 60 Likes
on
30 Posts
For whatever its worth, I dont think the scope of this training program encompasses tactics. That will be taught once the students graduate out of this program and then proceed to Whiting Field and begin flying the TH-73(Aw-119).
Further tactical instruction would be provided upon transition to whatever advanced airframe they are assigned after completing that course.
FltMech
Further tactical instruction would be provided upon transition to whatever advanced airframe they are assigned after completing that course.
FltMech
The RAF has used non-military instructors in the past....American Civilian Flight Instructors at that....at seven flight schools all privately owned in the USA....including the use of Link Blue Canoe flight simulators.
The USN has paid its money and made its choice - US taxpayers will have to hope it is a good choice.
This is where my argument lies Crab. You said this thread is about military training...however, basic training, fundamentals of rotary flight,, I.R. and type training is not any different whether taught by civvies contractors or the military Someone learning auto's, dealing with engine malfunctions, confined area's ,instrument flying etc etc is exactly the same whether mil or civvies (and yes I've taught both). It's only when you specialise for military differences I.e Tactics etc is when you need people with these skills.Which as someone had already pointed out is going to be carried out elsewhere.
B.
B.
You forgot the whole ethos thing Brutal, it needs to be there from the word go, not introduced after basic flying and for that you need uniforms, rank structure, discipline and experience given by those who know what the students will be doing in the future.
Yes you can teach basic skills, almost regardless of your background, but what is the point when you are supposedly creating military aviators?
Remember basic flying skills are only a small part of what military pilots will be expected to do in their careers.
Yes you can teach basic skills, almost regardless of your background, but what is the point when you are supposedly creating military aviators?
Remember basic flying skills are only a small part of what military pilots will be expected to do in their careers.
Granted, there is also "helo centric" tactical flying in the syllabus at Training Wing 5, and has been since I flew Hueys there. Confined landings, section work, tactical approaches, and there was for a while a barge to do deck landings on. (need to check on that, see if it's still there).
For Megan:
In order to save money, and to cut down on 'does this person always puke when they leave the ground' the Navy, back in the early 00's, formalized a 14-20 hour "fly a Cessna" kind of screening program that one must complete before beginning primary training. Various civvy flight schools in Northern Florida got contracted to do that.
I'll have to ask around some of the old hands and see if they are still doing that.
LW 50 - yes we used to have Flying Selection in the Chipmunk for 15 hours both to assess potential and to highlight the 'sickies'.
Farnborough used to run a desensitisation course for sickies - have breakfast, strap into a bang seat mounted on a hydraulic ram, go up and down until you puke, rinse and repeat on a daily basis hoping the time to chunder got longer until you built up a tolerance.
Farnborough used to run a desensitisation course for sickies - have breakfast, strap into a bang seat mounted on a hydraulic ram, go up and down until you puke, rinse and repeat on a daily basis hoping the time to chunder got longer until you built up a tolerance.
