Hot new helicopter/rotorcraft news

[ChuckMK23]

A pretty senior Bell (Textron) contact shared with me one of the latest proposals - a dual aircraft solution - all owned by a Bell entity and leased to Navy on per hour basis. Bell would purchase every TH-57 from Navy inventory as part of the deal (to do what with is not clear).

Bell 505 JetRanger X for contact / FAM
Bell 429 IFR for everything else - with 429 level 1 sims.

This fits with the original "draft" RFP that permits a dual aircraft solution.

 

[Uncle Fester]

A pretty senior Bell (Textron) contact shared with me one of the latest proposals - a dual aircraft solution - all owned by a Bell entity and leased to Navy on per hour basis. Bell would purchase every TH-57 from Navy inventory as part of the deal (to do what with is not clear).

Bell 505 JetRanger X for contact / FAM
Bell 429 IFR for everything else - with 429 level 1 sims.

This fits with the original "draft" RFP that permits a dual aircraft solution.

Apparently the 429 is the RAN's advanced helo trainer.

 

[ChuckMK23]

Question for current/recent HT folks - are there still 5 TH-57C Trans—Fam events in the syllabus? (TF 1-5)

 

[Gatordev]

I believe the correct term now is "Neutral Fams."

 

[DanMa1156]

A pretty senior Bell (Textron) contact shared with me one of the latest proposals - a dual aircraft solution - all owned by a Bell entity and leased to Navy on per hour basis. Bell would purchase every TH-57 from Navy inventory as part of the deal (to do what with is not clear).

Bell 505 JetRanger X for contact / FAM
Bell 429 IFR for everything else - with 429 level 1 sims.

This fits with the original "draft" RFP that permits a dual aircraft solution.

I'm under the impression that someone in Congress or the Pentagon put the kaibosh on trying to lease aircraft.

Question for current/recent HT folks - are there still 5 TH-57C Trans—Fam events in the syllabus? (TF 1-5)

4 and a checkride, so 5, in a sense. 2 when they first start flying C's, then 2 in the middle of their Instrument Syllabus to keep them fresh on helicopter contacts, then the "C" check sometime before their Inst Check.

 

[rotorhead1871]

A close friend of mine in our Stan Department flew them. She loved the Bell 429 but seemed to think the AW-119 was the most appropriate and ready to train student aviators. She was blown away at just how much better all of them were compared to the 57. But, alas, until someone budges, either the FAA or the Navy, I can't see this getting fixed anytime soon.

To recap as I understand it:
Navy: we want a single-engine IFR certified aircraft.
Industry: That doesn't exist (yet).
FAA: We're not certifying helicopters without dual redundancy. -- and I think this is referencing electronics and hydraulics, neither of which the 57 has. (The standby generator is connected to the engine... just like the normal generator).

At the Captains of Industry Panel, one of the "Captains" (I forget which company) said that we are no closer to a replacement than we were 4 years ago, (largely due to indecision on the Navy's part is how I interpreted it). The others on the panel seemed to agree. In general, what I gathered was that Airbus is pushing for us to go twin engine to totally revamp our syllabus - removing autos in favor of greater tactics (as in, "look how much time you spend teaching one increasingly unlikely maneuver that's practiced even less in the fleet; yet your Commodores complain HT students don't have an equivalent "strike" syllabus heavy on tactics so they show up to the fleet unprepared. You need to take a hard look at what you're teaching and the efficiency of it; a twin engine helicopter will bring you to a next level of training"). On the other hand, I got the impression that Bell and Augusta Westland/Leonardo seem to think (this is speculation) they will get their single engine helos FAA Certified for IFR... one day. Then, of course, there's the internal rumors of us going with something that is "capable" but not certified... which, as I understand it, would limit us to actual VFR at all times, but has the avionics to shoot approaches.

cant believe they would think of.....consider.....or accept?? a single engine airframe in this day and age......the H57.....world is over....USN needs to get on board. Ellison has been closed a long time....

 

[ChuckMK23]

Well the argument is "we lived with a single engine aircraft this long" - and the statistics for true engine failures related mishaps are very small. But I agree that a true advanced trainer will have two motors. But thats me.

The true debate over what the product of CNATRA Helo pipe line should be, and specifically what the HT's should produce vs FRS has been an epic debate. Its worth a separate thread in itself. Countless NHA flag panels get the same questions. Do we set the bar too low? Do we spend too many hours on IFR skills learned in Primary/Intermediates? Should a mission/combat skills mindset be cultivated in the HT's? Etc etc.

Some disruption would be healthy for Navy rotary wing aviation. But we tend to go with what we've known.

 

[hscs]

Do we spend too many hours on IFR skills learned in Primary/Intermediates? Should a mission/combat skills mindset be cultivated in the HT's? Etc etc.
Some disruption would be healthy for Navy rotary wing aviation. But we tend to go with what we've known.

Problem is HTs have a very diverse customer base - much more so than VT advanced. You can't really develop a tactics syllabus when you need to teach SAR to everyone minus USMC, TERF to USMC/HSC, ASW to HSM, and weapons delivery to everyone minus USCG.

Personally, I would want someone PFPS / JMPS proficient, who can fly in formation, navigate, and land in all weather / environments. Anything else, and you are wasting resources.

To meet the tactical requirements, we would be better off shifting NATOPS flight hours to tactical flight hours in the FRS like our fixed wing brethren do.

 

[Hotdogs]

I would be interested to see what a HSC/HSM tactical HT syllabus would look like. There probably is room for an assault support type of flight to learn the basics of reverse planning weight and fuel requirements and the spider diagram shenanigans that can occur when assault support events goto shit. I imagine that skill set would be transferable to multiple communities. As far as weapons delivery stuff, I can’t think of a mass produced aircraft outside of the 407 that could come close to replicating H-1 attack patterns weapons delivery profiles let alone teaching the mechanics of maneuvering to a stud who barely knows how to fly the aircraft or formations yet.

 

[Uncle Fester]

Problem is HTs have a very diverse customer base - much more so than VT advanced. You can't really develop a tactics syllabus when you need to teach SAR to everyone minus USMC, TERF to USMC/HSC, ASW to HSM, and weapons delivery to everyone minus USCG.

Personally, I would want someone PFPS / JMPS proficient, who can fly in formation, navigate, and land in all weather / environments. Anything else, and you are wasting resources.

To meet the tactical requirements, we would be better off shifting NATOPS flight hours to tactical flight hours in the FRS like our fixed wing brethren do.

That's basically 31/35's dilemma, though, isn't it? Diverse customer base with different syllabi requirements. How do they handle it? Do advanced multiengine studs get much in the way of tactics?

 

[Gatordev]

To meet the tactical requirements, we would be better off shifting NATOPS flight hours to tactical flight hours in the FRS like our fixed wing brethren do.

Except that it takes your average CAT 1 the time it currently takes to get to their NATOPS check and not fail it. Sure, some get it sooner than others, but overall, they're barely hanging on with all that's required (SAR, Dip, EPs, basic Fams) after their 14 flights (at least in HSM land). You could probably kill one of those flights from an aptitude point of view, but you still need the event to get the requisite approaches for an Inst X. San Diego has it worse because transit times are longer for the non-Fam events (unless the Mexican Dip Areas have opened back up, which would help).

I can see the benefit of teaching a light twin at the HTs, but that also adds cost to the training (fuel, maintenance x2, etc). Multiply that across all of the communities/flights that hscs mentioned, and that adds up. Can we go virtual construct? Sure, but this is initial, primary helo training. We've got to get them that real-life exposure before they hit the fleet and then spend significantly less time on the admin/pilot stuff.

And at least on the Navy side, we're not very good at that. We can push buttons like no one's business, but the pilot stuff has greatly atrophied, in part due to fiscal constraints, which has driven more virtual events.

 

[Uncle Fester]

Mexican Dip Areas...

Mmmmm....

 

[ChuckMK23]

So staus quo for now it seems. Perhaps TH-57 ops costs will hit an inflection point of increase or some safety related event will force a pivot. But there are 8000 Bell 206B variants out there and the high time airframe is like 30,000 + hours. So in the next 10 years, Navy can sit and do nothing and run status quo.

 

[Jim123]

Not sure comparing the Whiting birds with the commercial Bell 206 fleet works hour-for-hour. Not a lot of commercial 206s flying profiles like 5-6 hours, 70+ regular landings/full autos/cut guns that include running the engine back and forth between idle and full power each time... and doing that day in and day out.

Probably not a lot of "student landings" that make the rotor blades flap like seagull wings when we're talking machines that run back and forth between the rigs in the Gulf of Mexico. Not sure how many large commercial operators have serious issues with water intrusion and avionics, or doors that don't stay closed, or...

Just saying, the HT helicopter fleet is tired. I've said it before and I'll say it again, it's the dark horse in the race of who's aircraft are worn out the most. Or maybe the Aesop's tortoise.

 

[DanMa1156]

My 2 cents:

1. The HT's don't need a dual engine trainer. Flying a dual engine helicopter doesn't fly all that differently from a single engine one. It's not like dual engine aircraft. On costs alone, I can't see the Navy budging on this and I understand why. Rucker's costs are reportedly way higher than they planned for. Airbus is telling them "well, yeah, duh, but you can cut autos out of your syllabus and focus on tactics now. Autos take up a ton of flight time... cut them out to reduce costs." I wouldn't be surprised if the VT multi engine didn't teach a lot of tactics, but that's because (at least in my puny little helo mind), the flying they will do in the fleet isn't remarkably different from what they will fly save for maybe some low level overwater flying. Think about it: they will have the multi engine, opposing thrust background, will continue to land on runways, and fly profiles that aren't all that different from what they teach most of the time. Navy/USMC/USCG helo pilots though will fly remarkably different profiles from what we teach. Off the top of my head, very quickly, they will need to land on ships, operate in formation at night, TERF at night, and fly 50% faster than we fly at the HT's for their cruise speed (for 60 pilots which probably 60%+ of our students will go on to fly). Hell, we don't (can't?) even HOGE here! This is on top of the fact that when a student graduates, they get a 1 page letter in their NATOPS jacket that has all the waivers from the current-agreed-upon syllabus we have already due to some limitation.

2. What does fly different? A rigid rotor head, which is what probably 80% of our students will eventually fly, save for your Cobra / Huey guys, which are still underslung / teetering right? Maybe focus on that instead of dual engines.

3. The biggest difference in having a 2 engine mindset is single engine landings. Those can be simulated just like we simulate max gross weight. Hell, half the time in the fleet that's how we'd do it because people were pansies and wouldn't pull back an engine.

4. The bar at the HSC FRS is too low. They know this, so they added a bunch of events... but then didn't get the funding or what-have-you, so they push them to the fleet on waivers which must be completed when a CAT-1 shows up. The entire idea of a "fundamentals" syllabus in the fleet seems ridiculous to me. Most of the FRS aircraft aren't link-16 capable. A CAT-1 shows up to the fleet familiar with weapons, but not how to employ them, and knows enough to not kill him/herself overland day or night, but certainly not around the boat.

5. The bar at the HT's is probably too low. I think the current syllabus needs minor tweaking and lots of additions. Take out 2 BI flights and probably 1 of the 2 night unaided flights. Add NVG formation and have a larger academic energy management syllabus, with maybe even a FAM flight that HSC (at least used to) have. Remove ADF altogether, maybe even failed card. I swear we only teach failed card because the TH-57 is so liable to actually have failed card, not because the fleet is demanding its pilots know how to. There's

6. Concur that hours aren't apples to apples. Also, what are the Whiting hours? I flew one today that was at 13,000, but I thought that was engine hours, not airframe? Maybe I'm wrong or misread.

7. The avionics structure in the TH-57 is comical. The GTN-650 is a nice-to-have, but not super relatable to really any fleet skills and is actually more capable than anything in the fleet. Half the time, my VOR or TACAN won't work, so I end up having to use the GPS in OBS mode anyway. Fortunately, the ILS is reliable.