US Navy awards Contractor Only Pilot Training – Rotary to The Helicopter Institute,
Thread Starter
US Navy awards Contractor Only Pilot Training – Rotary to The Helicopter Institute,
In a historical move, the US Navy is outsourcing parts of their rotary wing training, under COPTR program to The Helicopter Institute, thus cutting out traditional fixed wing intiial phase with the Becch T-6C Texan II
https://www.airmedandrescue.com/late...yXYw4ZebkrI0bc
https://www.airmedandrescue.com/late...yXYw4ZebkrI0bc
Last edited by chopper2004; 6th Oct 2023 at 18:56.
In a historical move, the US Navy is outsourcing parts of their rotary wing training, under COPTR program to The Helicopter Institute, thus cutting out traditional fixed wing intiial phase with the Becch T-6C Texan II
https://www.airmedandrescue.com/late...yXYw4ZebkrI0bc
https://www.airmedandrescue.com/late...yXYw4ZebkrI0bc
As for stability and trim, RW requires more knowledge, as they are inherently unstable and secondary effects of controls are amplified in RW v FW.
As for Automation knowledge and use by RW, perhaps the issues you describe or a fearful of, are due to poor instructional technique?
Let’s be honest, FW flying is much easier than RW. As the saying goes, the hardest part of flying an aeroplane is telling your Dad that you prefer the company of a fellow man of a night.
That is somewhat of a big generalization. The are quite a few nations who successfully skip all FW for Rotary only training, Germany being a prime example.
As for stability and trim, RW requires more knowledge, as they are inherently unstable and secondary effects of controls are amplified in RW v FW.
As for Automation knowledge and use by RW, perhaps the issues you describe or a fearful of, are due to poor instructional technique?
Let’s be honest, FW flying is much easier than RW. As the saying goes, the hardest part of flying an aeroplane is telling your Dad that you prefer the company of a fellow man of a night.
As for stability and trim, RW requires more knowledge, as they are inherently unstable and secondary effects of controls are amplified in RW v FW.
As for Automation knowledge and use by RW, perhaps the issues you describe or a fearful of, are due to poor instructional technique?
Let’s be honest, FW flying is much easier than RW. As the saying goes, the hardest part of flying an aeroplane is telling your Dad that you prefer the company of a fellow man of a night.
Deary me, what a let down, when we went through it was 25hr T-34, 140hr T-28 (including carrier qualification), 20hr TH13M, 52hr H-34. Taken all the fun away.
Currently Oz Army get 60hr PC-21, 87hr and 77hr simulator in the EC135 helicopter and full mission flight simulator.
Currently Oz Army get 60hr PC-21, 87hr and 77hr simulator in the EC135 helicopter and full mission flight simulator.
The following users liked this post:
The following 2 users liked this post by funfinn2000:
We. have to consider backgrounds when we read other's opinions re whether FW training is required in order to produce a well trained and capable RW Pilot.
All here are products of their environment (meaning source of training and the standards used therein).
Training too narrowly sourced is poor training and by being so....produces a poor product.
It fills cockpit seats with an adequately trained pilot for that limited type of operation but once one steps outside that narrow focus....the lack of breadth of training quickly becomes apparent.
A bit of training in a Sim quickly identifies short comings in ability and background.....and serves as a measure of the. quality of prior training the Student brings with him.
An example....if all one has experienced is offshore rig flying....the leap to Longline Forest Fire fighting or Utility flying is a HUGE leap that some find beyond difficult.
Helicopter flying is not fixed wing flying....and despite some thinking the transfer of skills either way is not universal.....and with only limited benefit.
Torque in an airplane is only comparable to torque in a helicopter in very limited ways.
It is difficult enough to correctly respond to the differences between a Left Turning Rotor system and a Right Turning Rotor system so no need to mix it up further with suggesting a Pilot know about torque handling on multi-engine airplanes.
All here are products of their environment (meaning source of training and the standards used therein).
Training too narrowly sourced is poor training and by being so....produces a poor product.
It fills cockpit seats with an adequately trained pilot for that limited type of operation but once one steps outside that narrow focus....the lack of breadth of training quickly becomes apparent.
A bit of training in a Sim quickly identifies short comings in ability and background.....and serves as a measure of the. quality of prior training the Student brings with him.
An example....if all one has experienced is offshore rig flying....the leap to Longline Forest Fire fighting or Utility flying is a HUGE leap that some find beyond difficult.
Helicopter flying is not fixed wing flying....and despite some thinking the transfer of skills either way is not universal.....and with only limited benefit.
Torque in an airplane is only comparable to torque in a helicopter in very limited ways.
It is difficult enough to correctly respond to the differences between a Left Turning Rotor system and a Right Turning Rotor system so no need to mix it up further with suggesting a Pilot know about torque handling on multi-engine airplanes.
The following 2 users liked this post by SASless:
The RAF went through this many years ago, chopping and changing the amount of hours and on what aircraft pilots flew in an attempt to streamline training and cut costs.
FW is cheaper than RW and if you don't give pilots any FW training they will start RW training with less airmanship so you will have to give them more RW hours to meet the same standard.
FW are easier to fly (inherently stable) and therefore easier to assess pilots ability since less time is spent trying to master the machine.
Unless your 'civilian' instructors are ex-mil then you won't be able to do much beyond basic PPL level flying.
FW is cheaper than RW and if you don't give pilots any FW training they will start RW training with less airmanship so you will have to give them more RW hours to meet the same standard.
FW are easier to fly (inherently stable) and therefore easier to assess pilots ability since less time is spent trying to master the machine.
Unless your 'civilian' instructors are ex-mil then you won't be able to do much beyond basic PPL level flying.
Crab.....have you ever heard of the US Army and other US Military forces?
They do operate helicopters and train their own pilots and have done so for quite a while now.
You might read up on its training system and how it came to be.
Even Bristow Helicopters trained their own Cadets without using airplanes....and they did so too far beyond PPL level as you well know.
Those Students started in the 47 or Robbie and ultimately found themselves as Captains on 61's, Super Pumas, or 225's.
The RAF is but one organization that teaches helicopter flying and does not have the unique path to salvation in that enterprise.
Exactly why does being assessed on a simple machine to master equate to a proper assessment on one that is more difficult?
It is not unheard of for a Student to go Solo on a helicopter in under Ten Hours.....not much more than for the same in an airplane.
So what is the quantum leap between an airplane and a helicopter that demands learning to fly an airplane should be done first before venturing into learning to fly a helicopter?
Now when it comes to something like a V-22 Osprey or the 609 (if it ever reaches production). there might be a benefit if one is to be pipelined into that type aircraft.
They do operate helicopters and train their own pilots and have done so for quite a while now.
You might read up on its training system and how it came to be.
Even Bristow Helicopters trained their own Cadets without using airplanes....and they did so too far beyond PPL level as you well know.
Those Students started in the 47 or Robbie and ultimately found themselves as Captains on 61's, Super Pumas, or 225's.
The RAF is but one organization that teaches helicopter flying and does not have the unique path to salvation in that enterprise.
Exactly why does being assessed on a simple machine to master equate to a proper assessment on one that is more difficult?
It is not unheard of for a Student to go Solo on a helicopter in under Ten Hours.....not much more than for the same in an airplane.
So what is the quantum leap between an airplane and a helicopter that demands learning to fly an airplane should be done first before venturing into learning to fly a helicopter?
Now when it comes to something like a V-22 Osprey or the 609 (if it ever reaches production). there might be a benefit if one is to be pipelined into that type aircraft.
Crab.....have you ever heard of the US Army and other US Military forces?
They do operate helicopters and train their own pilots and have done so for quite a while now.
You might read up on its training system and how it came to be.
They do operate helicopters and train their own pilots and have done so for quite a while now.
You might read up on its training system and how it came to be.
The US Navy clearly did things a different way and are now changing for reasons other than following the US Army I suspect.
Bristow were not a military force last time I looked so no surprise they do things the way they do, following the CAA/FAA licence structure just like other civilian flying training outfits.
With military training you want to assess potential and it is cheaper and easier to do that on fixed wing, especially if you are an outfit that operates more than just helicopters.
You don't assess potential by dropping people into the deep end of a complex aircraft type and seeing if they sink or swim as some people take longer than others to assimilate new skills.
Of course you can go solo in a helicopter in the same hours as a FW that isn't the point.
The point of the FW hours is to teach airmanship on a cheaper and easier platform.
But then what do I know, I've only been a QHI for 30 plus years........
The following users liked this post:
After 39 years in a group that was composed of all 4 uniformed services, along with their disparate training paths, I’m not touching this discussion! However, after a lot of domestic and international marketing demonstration flights with everyone from WWII fighter pilots ( German ) to big iron aircraft, there was only one thing that was repeatable: non helicopter pilots with jet fighter experience became comfortable with the cyclic very very quickly, while the transport folks had a lot of trouble. And yes, this isn’t al all germane to the discussion. Personally, I did it backwards: when hired in at Sikorsky from Vietnam, I was told I needed a FW rating and a FW instrument rating because the US Gov’t rules required all test pilots needed instrument currency and at Sikorsky, they didn’t have a dedicated training helicopter, thus the instrument currency was done in FW. Easier or harder this way? Dunno. But it had it advantages: we could use the FW instrument time to get cheap alcohol in volume at New Hampshire state liquor stores and big containers of really excellent Cape Cod Clam Chowdah.
Don't object to contractor IPs, though. Been working well in the sims for years.
The following users liked this post:
But then what do I know, I've only been a QHI for 30 plus years........
I have seen QHI's in the Sim (and in the air)....and some have proven they put their trousers on one leg at a time just like ordinary folk.
The following users liked this post:
That's because QHIs are normal folk - just well trained ones - usually.
All I was trying to do was pass on what another military training system had experienced - not start a fight in phone box.
All I was trying to do was pass on what another military training system had experienced - not start a fight in phone box.
The British Army Pilot Course is rotary only now, saves time getting the people through the sausage factory as the whole course is managed by one organisation/location. There is no FW left in the Army so there is little risk of the wrong muscle memory being learnt (something I struggled with going from FW to RW).
Flying airplanes always made me nauseous, but flying helicopters does not. So, I guess its a good thing the civilian world doesn't insist on fixed first, otherwise I'd of never gotten my wings.
The point of the FW hours is to teach airmanship on a cheaper and easier platform
The helicopter portion was rather restricted in as much besides getting you solo in the TH13M the H-34 portion was conversion to type, one confined area landing, one sling load lift, and concentrated instrument, after you got your wings you would be learning the necessary skills for the particular aircraft and its role once you got to the RAG. Intensive instrument/flying the airways and formation had previously been done on the T-28.
Flew with a whole bunch of Fort Rucker graduates, some teenagers straight out of high school, flying slicks and no adverse comments from me for the product turned out. Regard some of them the best I've had the enjoyment of working with. Whatever the system the end product is fit for purpose in my limited exposure.
You can thank the USAF for the ejection seat requirement, and the expense, of JPATS. (T-34C was a lot cheaper to operate, but yeah, it got long in the tooth; it replaced the T-28 and was a lot cheaper to operate than that. The T-34B you flew is not in the same class).
JPATS (Now the T-6) came from the same brain fart that led to the overpriced JSF (now known as the F-35).
The USN needs three different kinds of pilots; Carrier pilots, Multi Engine fixed wing pilots, rotary wing pilots. The Primary syllabus helps place pilots in the right pipeline.
JPATS (Now the T-6) came from the same brain fart that led to the overpriced JSF (now known as the F-35).
The USN needs three different kinds of pilots; Carrier pilots, Multi Engine fixed wing pilots, rotary wing pilots. The Primary syllabus helps place pilots in the right pipeline.
The following users liked this post:
The Primary syllabus helps place pilots in the right pipeline
1. Jets (Buckeye) or T-28
After T-28
1. Helicopter
2. Multi (S-2 Tracker)
3. Jets (Cougar)
thank the USAF for the ejection seat
The rocket system (Stanley YANKEE system) was apparently used on some COIN T-28's besides retro fit to A-1 Skyraiders. Designer of the system was of interesting background, ex USN aviator Bob Stanley who flew the USA's first jet flight as Bell's Chief Test Pilot, oversaw the design of the X-1 and X-2 and developed the idea of dropping the aircraft from a B-29.
Trim it out - I'm sure you know but in the 80s and 90s when the whole of AAC training was done at Middle Wallop, they started on the Chipmunk and then went on to the Gazelle - this process was completed in a year for most pilots before being sent front line - only Lynx jockeys stayed on for their course after getting wings on Gazelle.
It was a very efficient system with a high throughput.
I believe it was only the length of the JEFTS FW training that put the AAC off doing FW first.
It was a very efficient system with a high throughput.
I believe it was only the length of the JEFTS FW training that put the AAC off doing FW first.