In your civvy world, you turn out instructors who have just passed their commercial licence. They only have 100 hrs more than their zero-time student. At least these instructors have probably 2 or 3 years in the squadron.

I highly doubt low hour civil instructors would be allowed to do what happened here.

Flying around about 100 hours per year is a complete joke, who can stay current doing that....

exactly
 

And how many PPLH holders are doing 100 hrs a year?
https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....b3c7c1be2b.jpg
Just hung up my boots

In my time in the military, NATO required a pilot currency minimum of 12 hours per month to retain "combat ready" status. Obviously, some 25 years later, things aren't the same.

Regarding "on average"
What the articles linked by JohnDixon and me are missing is the fact that of that approximate dozen airworthy choppers per type a significant number are on missions in foreign countries like Mali or Kosovo.
Good luck for those who are not there in terms of family life.
Bad luck for their logbook.
And they are not exactly flying training sorties there either.
One could argue that the real situation is worse than the numbers suggest.

Has there been any report released as yet?

We'll never see one ... unless there is some parlamentary discovery request.
As no civil aircraft was involved the investigation is solely handeled by the general flight safety of the Bundeswehr. The BFU is not involved. And the military never releases public reports ...

The military does sometimes - but you need to know, where to look ;-)
https://www.bundeswehr-journal.de/ta...lugsicherheit/

What I've found there qualifies as news but hardly as accident investigation report.

There was some data around a while back that accidents were more likely to occur at experience levels of 500 hours, 1,000 hours and then multiples thereof. All to do with the experience/complacency curves crossing at those points. We were definitely made aware of those points from a Flight Safety point of view. As for this accident from over a year ago, I will be duly surprised if anything new comes out from having relatively inexperienced crew flying close to the ground, unless something important fell off during a critical stage, being smited by the earth will remain depressingly familiar.

The question of hours is much the same as in the 60s. In the Navy we were rapidly expanding helicopters so the requirement for instructors meant that a lot became QHIs after only one tour. As Shy Torque #10 says, there were plenty of "incidents"" during mutual training as the boundaries were pushed (the Top Gun mentality meant you tried to be better than your buddy). That is why you were accepted for military training in the first place - fly the edge of the flight envelope or the opposition would. Typical annual hours in the FAA were 2-250 hours p.a. until the Sea King arrived. In the 70s there were multiple fuel crises and non exercise we were limited to 10 hours per month of which 5 were night. Not good if you were on a small ship in crowded European waters!
Military flying can never be 'cost effective' until called on for real so is always subject to budget restrictions. We can use simulators to save costs to maintain some handling skills but only the aircraft ever provides "experience".

Unless the report proofs that this accident had anything to do with a technical failure, I blame the military for trying to train low time pilots to become flight instructors.

At this level, they cannot even fly as Pic in a combat mission, left alone teach anyone to fly outside a helicopter traffic pattern..
This is the military - not a commercial ATO training in the pattern for 50 hours before doing cross country at 500 ft.. (exaggerating a little bit here..)

Anyone know if Creamies are still a thing in MFTS?

I think it is still, and always has been, a FW thing. You used to have to do 2 tours in the RAF before QHI and I would have been the first to do it after first tour in NI had they not need Wessex 'experience' (1000 hours in 2 year tour) in Cyprus so another colleague went QHI after one tour a few months later.

Most people who did NI as a tour in the 80s (and probably 70s and 90's) easily broke 1000 hours in their 2 years and it was all short hop, multiple take offs and landings, usually at MAUW and in ****e weather with a very real small arms and SAM threat, so brilliant training for a first tourist.

And just before anyone starts - I know it wasn't 'Nam but for a peace-time situation there was a lot of shooting and bombing going on.:)

Aviation is judged differently though. You’d have to be a bit of a throbber to genuinely mock a SAR boy or girl for having no war medals when they got out of bed to go and fly in skoshie weather when everyone else would have scrubbed.

I was sent to do the RAF QHI course at the end of 1983, after only one RW tour. “Sent“ is the word as it certainly wasn’t my personal choice. I didn’t think I had enough experience with only 1400 hours. I was later sent to do the RAF QFI course with less than 200 hours fixed wing flying.

Ah, but you Puma boys were 'special' Shy :E:)

Not sure about that. We first tourist youngsters must have been a big worry to our flight commanders, tbh.