Hot new helicopter/rotorcraft news

[Stingerhawk]

Not sure where you are going with this - but believe you made a wrong turn in Albuquerque:

1) you are overstating the # of EPs needing autos - If you count TR EPs as one monolithic entity, the number of auto EPs can be counted on one hand. This is small a small number compared to the rest of the EPs, not to mention mission system troubleshooting.

2) despite what your parents may have told you, $ makes the world go round. I suspect it played a heavy role in the T6 decision and will play a similarly heavy role in the helo trainer selection.

3) 6 months from Whiting to night fleet ops? Try a year - for FRS, move times, and to make 2P is in an exped squadron. Maybe quicker in a CVW, but then you fly as a PQM with a larger pool of experienced pilots.

I flew 4 diffent T/M/S. All twins and one aircraft had 3 engines. We can quibble over the exact number of Ep's that end in an Auto (counting in failures in a hover of course) but my simple point was that no helicopter exists that doesn't have a full autorotation as a final step of an Ep. Autorotations arer an essential helicopter pilot skill and intital helicopter training is where you build that solid foundation that does help you the rest of your career.

Your point about the T-6 helps make my point again. Cost IS a factor as well as simplicity. A twin would also add addtional syllabus flights since you would have to teach OEI as well as total engine failures.

6 months or a year...... point is flying over water at night as an inexperienced H2P demands comfort flying in IFR or IFR-like conditions. Something Naval Helicopter training treats as an essential capability, like full autos.

 

[Stingerhawk]

The skill you learn/use over 3 weeks of flying - in an aircraft that is completely unlike fleet aircraft - translates into career-long confidence?!

Its actually around 30 weeks in the HT's and not 3 weeks, and the goal of Undergraduate Advanced Helicopter Training is to establish a solid foundation in a helicopter that bulids skills that translate to combat aircraft. The problem is that the TH-57 only marginally provides any continuity of learning. For example the analog cockpit is obsolete and students have to learn an analog scan just for the TH-57. They start in glass in the T-6B, then go to the analog TH-57, then back to glass in 90% of the fleet helicopters. The TH-57 rotorhead is also not representative of the flight and autorotative characteristics of any fleet helicopters any longer. So your statement "in an aircraft that is completely unlike fleet aircraft - translates into career-long confidence?!" is EXACTLY why the TH-57 needs to be replaced. Lack of continuity of training.

The confidence part of the training.....yes. Successfully landing dozens of full-autos does create a level of confidence that you can do it when neccessary. Again, it happened to me on a maintenance check flight and only had a crewchief in the co-pilot seat. I directly attribute getting the aircraft safely on the deck to skills learned in flight school as a 2nd LT even though I had been out of flight school for 6 years.

 

[jtmedli]

For example the analog cockpit is obsolete and students have to learn an analog scan just for the TH-57. They start in glass in the T-6B, then go to the analog TH-57, then back to glass in 90% of the fleet helicopters. The TH-57 rotorhead is also not representative of the flight and autorotative characteristics of any fleet helicopters any longer.

The confidence part of the training.....yes. Successfully landing dozens of full-autos does create a level of confidence that you can do it when neccessary. Again, it happened to me on a maintenance check flight and only had a crewchief in the co-pilot seat. I directly attribute getting the aircraft safely on the deck to skills learned in flight school as a 2nd LT even though I had been out of flight school for 6 years.

You're making WAY too big of a stink out of the 'analog' gauges. If you can't get through the TH-57 instrument syllabus because you had to learn to move your eyes around more then you shouldn't be wearing wings. Needles are needles and learning how to read them and know WTF is going on is pretty essential. If anything, being able to do partial panel and no-gryo stuff in the 57 enhanced my IFR piloting skills about 5x over. I know plenty of retards who probably shouldn't even be pilots and still got through it just fine.

A lot of people on here have bitched about "not needing to do full autos" but there's DEFINITELY some solid merit to a full auto not being some mythical thing that you'll magic out of your ass when the shit hits the fan.

 

[hscs]

6 months or a year...... point is flying over water at night as an inexperienced H2P demands comfort flying in IFR or IFR-like conditions. Something Naval Helicopter training treats as an essential capability, like full autos.

Unless things have changed - HTs does not get folks ready for IMC in the fleet, IMHO. HTs get you to fly in the airway structure in IMC. Yes, you learn how to scan but Fleet IFR is different - mainly in that you spend far more time very close to the ground, have concerns like the black hole effect, and different terminal areas.

 

[Gatordev]

Autorotations arer an essential helicopter pilot skill and intital helicopter training is where you build that solid foundation that does help you the rest of your career.

Then why can't CAT 1s do autos on their first try? I get what you're trying to say, and I'm not anti-full-auto, but at least on the Navy side, knowing how to do a wicked sweet full-auto in a -57 will actually hinder your success in doing any auto in a -60. It's something I constantly have to unteach for CAT 1s and I've seen this damn near fail a CAT 2 on a NATOPS check after coming from a HT IP tour.

Its actually around 30 weeks in the HT's and not 3 weeks, and the goal of Undergraduate Advanced Helicopter Training is to establish a solid foundation in a helicopter that bulids skills that translate to combat aircraft.

Keep in mind there are many of us here with Orange and White on our resumes, so we understand the mission statements...and how they may or may not always match the realities of training.

 

[Stingerhawk]

Unless things have changed - HTs does not get folks ready for IMC in the fleet, IMHO. HTs get you to fly in the airway structure in IMC. Yes, you learn how to scan but Fleet IFR is different - mainly in that you spend far more time very close to the ground, have concerns like the black hole effect, and different terminal areas.

The instrument syllabus in the HT's (per OpNav inst) are to make you a professional helicopter pilot and a certified Instrument rated helicopter pilot. Of course IMC in the fleet was and is different. Navy helicopter training is all about the foundation of skills. If you meet the standard and they pin wings on your chest, its a statement about your skill level when you check into the FRS. Navy places, and rightfully so, a large emphasis on strong IFR skills and its due to the environment that the Navy, USMC, and USCG fly in frequently. Why having a comfort level in IMC is important. There have been numerous accidents in DoD (and civil aviation too) due to aircrews avoiding (lack of confidence and comfort) leveling the wings and climbing into IMC and picking up an approach, ultimately choosing to go lower and lower until.....

 

[Stingerhawk]

Then why can't CAT 1s do autos on their first try? I get what you're trying to say, and I'm not anti-full-auto, but at least on the Navy side, knowing how to do a wicked sweet full-auto in a -57 will actually hinder your success in doing any auto in a -60. It's something I constantly have to unteach for CAT 1s and I've seen this damn near fail a CAT 2 on a NATOPS check after coming from a HT IP tour.



Keep in mind there are many of us here with Orange and White on our resumes, so we understand the mission statements...and how they may or may not always match the realities of training.

It's not to fire off a mission statement at those of us who have been in that environment, but to explain the importance of WHY its the mission statement. There is a lot of discussion right now about helicopter training and where its heading. Much of it is born out of the rationalization the Army used to place a square peg in a round whole at Rucker with the UH-72s but decisions have consequences and I would hate to see the Navy pay the same price they are paying at Rucker because they got the wrong tool for the job (ie. No touchdown autos or sliding landings, no takeoffs or landings by the students until they are well into the IERW syllabus.......)

If you look back, I have been saying that the TH-57 has a negative learning attribute right now in both the analog cockpit (because glass cockpits are about info management and not a physical scan) and the twin bladed, under slung, teetering rotor head with auto characteristics that are very different from any fleet helicopter (as you captured well above).

Its time to update the Navy's helicopter training system to something that is not an anachronism and that doesn't compromise the core elements of the Navy helicopter training.

 

[Stingerhawk]

You're making WAY too big of a stink out of the 'analog' gauges. If you can't get through the TH-57 instrument syllabus because you had to learn to move your eyes around more then you shouldn't be wearing wings. Needles are needles and learning how to read them and know WTF is going on is pretty essential. If anything, being able to do partial panel and no-gryo stuff in the 57 enhanced my IFR piloting skills about 5x over. I know plenty of retards who probably shouldn't even be pilots and still got through it just fine.

A lot of people on here have bitched about "not needing to do full autos" but there's DEFINITELY some solid merit to a full auto not being some mythical thing that you'll magic out of your ass when the shit hits the fan.

Well said wrt AUTOS. Cannot be something pilots only have done in simulation. Ground rush and stress will overwhelm and the likelihood of surviving the event goes WAY down.

The Navy actually decided that the helicopter cockpits need to be aligned with the T-6B for continuity of learning back in 2006 with the TH-57D program (which subsequently failed in 2012). Since the TH-57 is STILL analog CNATRA has had to add more training time and events in HT's and they have actually had to attrite students in the HT's because they couldn't make the adjustment. Wasted time and resources to learn a skill for that specific aircraft (TH-57) that they may never need again. They are two completely different skill sets too (Glass=info flow management vs Analog=physically having to find the information), and they are not necessarily complimentary. How many old guys with thousands of hours say they have a hard time getting used to glass? I found it easy once you stop trying to use the analog scan skills and fighting the glass, but that's what worked for me. Its similar to saying that everyone must go through a typing class before you can use a computer...... just different skills apart from the keystrokes.

 

[Gatordev]

Words...

Its time to update the Navy's helicopter training system to something that is not an anachronism and that doesn't compromise the core elements of the Navy helicopter training.

Can't really argue with any of that. And again, for the record, I'm pro-full-autos.

More words...

I found it easy once you stop trying to use the analog scan skills and fighting the glass, but that's what worked for me. Its similar to saying that everyone must go through a typing class before you can use a computer...... just different skills apart from the keystrokes.

I found it easier once I stopped assuming the user interface was designed for a human being. But that's a whole other rant about Navy/future/compromises/etc.

 

[hscs]

It's not to fire off a mission statement at those of us who have been in that environment, but to explain the importance of WHY its the mission statement. There is a lot of discussion right now about helicopter training and where its heading. Much of it is born out of the rationalization the Army used to place a square peg in a round whole at Rucker with the UH-72s but decisions have consequences and I would hate to see the Navy pay the same price they are paying at Rucker because they got the wrong tool for the job (ie. No touchdown autos or sliding landings, no takeoffs or landings by the students until they are well into the IERW syllabus.......)

If you look back, I have been saying that the TH-57 has a negative learning attribute right now in both the analog cockpit (because glass cockpits are about info management and not a physical scan) and the twin bladed, under slung, teetering rotor head with auto characteristics that are very different from any fleet helicopter (as you captured well above).

Its time to update the Navy's helicopter training system to something that is not an anachronism and that doesn't compromise the core elements of the Navy helicopter training.

Not to badger, but you do realize that budgets are pretty lean - right?

 

[Stingerhawk]

Not to badger, but you do realize that budgets are pretty lean - right?

They don't have a choice anymore. The TH-57 legacy costs are killing them and the aircraft are obsolete. According to all the media articles, the Navy is looking at unifying all the contracts involved in helo training at S. Whiting into one services contract which includes the new helicopter . Seems to make a lot of sense too instead of buying another fleet of purely commercial helicopters without a long and expensive acquisition, and the Navy still gets to supply the IP's. This services model is being used by the US Army for F/W training and used to train 1200 students a year by the USAF for IFT (old IFS). As another reader posted, the UK flight training and NATO Flight Training Canada are run this way too, and the MoD's seem to really benefit from it. Both service provider and the gov have skin in the game that way and its beneficial for both sides to make it work.

As you said, "lean budgets", time to try a new approach to fixing a quickly deteriorating situation at S. Whiting. 55% on Naval Aviators are Rotary Wing and the demand is only going up with the Navy buying V-22. The Strike community would have never put up with a situation like this for long....... hence T-45 (which is now scheduled to be slep'd or replaced in 2025). Its literally now or never.......

 

[Stingerhawk]

Can't really argue with any of that. And again, for the record, I'm pro-full-autos.



I found it easier once I stopped assuming the user interface was designed for a human being. But that's a whole other rant about Navy/future/compromises/etc.

Right on.

 

[hscs]

They don't have a choice anymore. The TH-57 legacy costs are killing them and the aircraft are obsolete. According to all the media articles, the Navy is looking at unifying all the contracts involved in helo training at S. Whiting into one services contract which includes the new helicopter . Seems to make a lot of sense too instead of buying another fleet of purely commercial helicopters without a long and expensive acquisition, and the Navy still gets to supply the IP's. This services model is being used by the US Army for F/W training and used to train 1200 students a year by the USAF for IFT (old IFS). As another reader posted, the UK flight training and NATO Flight Training Canada are run this way too, and the MoD's seem to really benefit from it. Both service provider and the gov have skin in the game that way and its beneficial for both sides to make it work.

As you said, "lean budgets", time to try a new approach to fixing a quickly deteriorating situation at S. Whiting. 55% on Naval Aviators are Rotary Wing and the demand is only going up with the Navy buying V-22. The Strike community would have never put up with a situation like this for long....... hence T-45 (which is now scheduled to be slep'd or replaced in 2025). Its literally now or never.......

Also on the list of 'we don't have a choice anymore' -
MH53, CH53, strike fighter gap, and how we will stretch the life of the 60R/S to FVL, as well as some I am surely forgetting

Other hard facts from your former service, if I read your bio info correctly - https://news.usni.org/2016/05/13/us...aviation-readiness-a-headquarters-perspective

Lots of very hard choices out there in naval aviation, but you seem to be overly fixated on just this one for reason or another.

 

[squorch2]

Its actually around 30 weeks in the HT's and not 3 weeks

Hi. Former CAT I stan here.

Studs fly in the 57B for 3 weeks - and that first week, the vast, vast majority of them do not even think about autos beyond "holy shit that is crazy why did I become a helicopter pilot."

After that, they don't perform full autos anymore.

Furthermore, as you pointed out, there are big instructional costs associated with overcoming the primacy of auto techniques necessary for the high-inertia head in the 57.

In the end, it comes down to what works for the fleet - and the cost/benefit analysis for full autos in HTs just doesn't convince me they're required.

 

[ChuckMK23]

Hi. Former CAT I stan here.

In the end, it comes down to what works for the fleet - and the cost/benefit analysis for full autos in HTs just doesn't convince me they're required.

Also CAT 1 STAN (and CNATRA Stage Mgr) - If memory serves, autos happen from FAM 6 forward. I totally agree with the fact that the training requirements get driven by Fleet input. But Tail Rotor malfunctions were always a big ask by the H-60 community at NHA, and the risk decision was NOT to do these based on historical incident data.

The auto profile of the '57/B206 is VERY forgiving, stupidly so. Having done full auto to the ground in modern medium/light twins, the experience is very very different, and very *unforgiving*.

The auto in a 60 is there as a last resort, generally as a result of a tail rotor failure, combat damage (remember in Black Hawk Down when Clif Wolcot - played by Jeremy Piven - calls out "you going to pull those PCL's back or what?") or other major failure.

The level D sims - FlightSafety operated - for the Sikorsky S-92 have VERY high fidelity on the full auto profile - especially from flare to ground.

So there are options and there will be risks going forward - but this is all moot, since the NAVAIR RFP firmly describes the need for repeated full autos to the deck.

Now temper that NAVAIR is open to a bi-model solution, 2 different aircraft for VFR/IFR. You may very well see a light twin for IFR training, and a light single for FAM's and others...