Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Rotorheads
Reload this Page >

AH-64 Apache

Rotorheads A haven for helicopter professionals to discuss the things that affect them

AH-64 Apache

Old 31st Oct 2002, 09:59
  #21 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 580
BBC have got it wrong!

We don't have enough QHI's to fly the beast.

Because once again the "we are not worthy!! Bow Bow to QHI! fraternity are clearly not good enough!

Without the line, there is no Corps!

mutleyfour is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2002, 10:06
  #22 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Northern England
Posts: 112
Perhaps they should let the taxpayers who have paid for them (ie ourselves) lookafter them for the next few years.... I am sure that we can find some use for them!
Draco is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2002, 11:22
  #23 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 62
Blame and politics?

Sounds like the private training contractors are being 'setup' to take the wrap.

Smells fishy...

My understanding is that there are trained type instructors - but that they were trained 'over there' and as such are not 'recognised' over here.

Understandable since obviously the yanks can't actually fly.

Terminal buck passing, perhaps?
Q max is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2002, 11:28
  #24 (permalink)  
Beady Eye
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,519
This seems like farce, until you realise its being orchestrated by the MOD! Its surely not beyond the bounds of possibility to send our pilots to use the simulators in the USA, much as we did when the RAF Harrier force was grounded by the kapton wiring problem in the early nineties?
Or is that too pragmatic a suggestion?

Of course it does make monetary sense to buy and store the choppers now, 'cause in the next few years the price is certain to rise! And putting aircraft into storage is a very cheap thing to do NOT!
BDiONU is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2002, 11:32
  #25 (permalink)  
Posts: n/a
All very old news i'm afraid. This was raised many moons ago circa 1999 i seem to recall when discussions were afoot on how to best crew and train these persons. It was said at the time that you just cannot take Cpl Bloggs and throw him into an Apache and that we should have utilised the US Army trg facility at Ft Hood to get QHI's et al up to speed. But god bless one of the PFI companies, headed by an ex-AAC chap i seem to remember who managed to convince and pull the wool overthose who did not no otherwise.

All i can say is told you so! Looks like another part of the IDM loop is pardon the pun, out of the loop. My other quesion is have they actually figured out how they are going to be able to support the beast in the field yet?
Old 31st Oct 2002, 12:41
  #26 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 54
Just a quick question about the Apache. I'm RAF and heard in the crewroom this morning when disussing this latest debacle that the Apache is only going to be piloted by commissioned types; is this true? If so I would be amazed as it seems to me most of the AAC's experienced flyers are SNCOs or was the information I was given just crewroom blah?
escapee is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2002, 12:43
  #27 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: London
Posts: 49
Offering assistance

I'm a H269c and R44 rated PPL and would be willing to help out if required. It's a JAA licence so I could fly abroad, although I'm not sure if I'd be legal in Iraq (not in JAA, are they?)
Helo is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2002, 12:52
  #28 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: SPTA
Posts: 7


You and your crewroom are wrong.

We have just completed the first course and a Warrant Officer has finished in fine style. Actually several SNCOs started the course but were commissioned on the way, which indicates the quality of the AAC SNCO Pilots. The next course has a shed load of SNCO pilots on it.

Last edited by RFHO; 31st Oct 2002 at 13:04.
RFHO is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2002, 13:06
  #29 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: The Mysterious East
Posts: 381
Red face

More here:



Oh well...

Last edited by LXGB; 31st Oct 2002 at 13:12.
LXGB is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2002, 13:33
  #30 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 54
Cheers for that I thought it was probably bull; I should have known better, the person who told me will now be treated with suspicion and a DQI of zero.
escapee is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2002, 13:50
  #31 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: wales
Posts: 8
As i understand the situation, the problem lies with the PFI. The US export agreement didnt allow private contractors access to the classified information needed to build the simulators. Since the order was placed the company that builds the sims has been bought out and the MOD has had to re-apply to the US for an export licence for the new contractor.
cpmafia is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2002, 14:15
  #32 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: SE England
Posts: 275
Pardon my civvie ignorance on this one, but, errr, what are they for?
I have no doubt they are very nice machines, but does the UK have the means or the perceived need to deploy the beasties? Are they a cold-war 'must-have' capability that just never got re-assessed.
Smoketoomuch is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2002, 14:18
  #33 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Pewsey, UK
Posts: 1,911
So no offers of a go then ?

All I would need is a basic type conversion to fly it without bending it, no need to learn the weapons kit tho . . .

Having said that, this is the same guy who mis-calculated his heading on Tuesday and only twigged in the air when it all looked a bit wrong, so maybe I'm not the best person !
The Nr Fairy is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2002, 14:25
  #34 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Pewsey, UK
Posts: 1,911
I think that's the same situation which applies to any MD ( couldn't spell it longer than that ! ) product. When Boeing bought them out, the security requirements changed.

Seems odd to me - the US end changes, but the UK end doesn't but is the one which has to re-clear security. Ah well.
The Nr Fairy is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2002, 17:59
  #35 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: S England
Age: 50
Posts: 319

Stop being a prat. There are plenty of QHIs who are waiting to start the next course, which begins VERY soon.

It would appear that you have an axe to grind with the AH Programme or QHIs or both. Grow up.
Chicken Leg is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2002, 20:20
  #36 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 7,563
In the late 90s, ATIL (the people who got the training contract) were fishing around for stuff to plagiarise (copy) to start producing their training documents. One of these was the Lynx instructors guide which in itself was a bastardisation of the original RAF Gazelle instructors guide. Now if they had just asked the RAF to do it for them in the first place........
The Boeing problem was to do with the intellectual property rights to the software and its algorithms that run the hardware. We were allowed to buy the weapon system but not the clever bits inside it - hence when the engines were changed to RR the airframe behaved differently under recoil and the cannon missed!
The higher echelons of the AAC and the big green army were so pleased to get hold of the Apache, they forgot to ask a lot of very pertinent questions about it's capabilities, the non existent simulator and the logistics of supporting it. This was not rocket science - there were many capable people, some of whom had flown it, trying to make the AAC understand what it was taking on and no-one listened to them.
Now the NAO have had their say I don't suppose anything will change and no-one will get the sack for cocking this procurement up so badly.
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2002, 21:25
  #37 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: TheDarkSide
Posts: 112
Water under the bridge me thinks..storing the AH is hardly ground breaking news. The NAO report would have been started last April to cover this financial year. MOD, Army planners and Shawbury were given heads up early 01 that this would happen.

Key question.." measures are being considered in reducing the pilot training time without compromising quality". That I have got to see!

The AAC could have:

Option A: Day VMC shoot anything in bright sunlight only crews and rip out the NVS, selling them them off to Kuwait to help cover this failed PFI. Nights could be spent at home having quality time with family or chicks.

Option B: Night VMC shoot anything that is nocturnal crews on permanent graveyard shift who are divorced or single. Days could be spent out bergan running and digging in.

Option C: Give the whole package to the RAF? Err..Eurofarce, MR4, Wot still no future transport aircraft, Airmen aircrew..Who?, Forgot to mention Merlins are in storage as well! Maybe not then.


Option D: The Navy are keeping shtum dont you think! Hoping the JSF programme doesnt go the same way..Err another UK / US aircraft project, PFI training, code sharing..eject, eject!

Option B looks good..all those bored housewives

Nice post Crab @ SAAvn...nail on head. The AAC top bananas still do not realise what they have taken on.
Muff Coupling is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2002, 23:00
  #38 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Age: 67
Posts: 1,119
How many people do you know who have been posted to their level of incompentence?
Bertie Thruster is offline  
Old 1st Nov 2002, 04:48
  #39 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 254
It gets even worse!

Apache helicopter cannot operate fully until 2012
The Army's Apache helicopter will not be capable of operating fully until late 2012, 12 years after it was due to be brought into service, it emerged yesterday. By Michael Smith, Defence Correspondent.

Half of Britain's warships in dock
Almost half the Royal Navy's 36 warships will be unavailable for operations in the Gulf because of the firemen's strike, accidents, routine refits and attempts to save money. By Michael Smith, Defence Correspondent and George Jones, Political EditorHalf of Britain's warships in dock
HectorusRex is offline  
Old 1st Nov 2002, 09:02
  #40 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 13,693
Could I suggest that there's a major misconception in some of these posts. Not in the fact that it's type of dog-up (which it clearly is), or what's specifically missing (the sim), or why (developed by beginners who weren't given access to the data they needed), but in the suggestion that it's all the fault of the Army higher-ups, or even the RAF.

Projects like this are managed by an organisation called DPA (Defence Procurement Agency), a.k.a. MoD(PE), a.k.a. Min of Tech, a.k.a. Min of Av.

The AAC or RAF are largely responsible for generating a spec and budget, which are then handed over to DPA who are told to get on with it. They manage detailed bids, specs, manufacturer oversight, spares and support contracts, the lot - to "customer" (army/RAF) requirements. If the Army was asking for something impossible it was up to DPA to inform them and modify the spec. If the manufacturer was slipping behind it's up to DPA to chase them and make it work.

This organisation has a long string of such projects in it's history, including Nimrod, Lynx Mk.1, Tornado F3, Beaurofighter (although the management of this was shared with the Germans, French and Italians), EH101, SA80, etc. etc. In which perspective, 4 years late in-service, and 8 years to full operational capability is pretty good.

The army's business is fighting wars, which if it cock's up it'll get suitable blamed. DPA's business is procuring equipment on time, budget and spec. Credit where credit's due....

I did used to work for this organisation, but haven't for several years and feel much better for it.

Genghis the Engineer is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.