Hot new helicopter/rotorcraft news

[Gatordev]

Most of the FRS aircraft aren't link-16 capable.

To be fair a lot of this may be a factor of AOR. San Diego has very limited L16 capability compared to Jax because of other assets. Norfolk/-2 may suffer from the same problem. It was rare I ever had L16 capability at the SD FRS, but if I have correctly loaded cards (and an all-US crew), then I can theoretically have L16 on every flight in Jax.

 

[DanMa1156]

To be fair a lot of this may be a factor of AOR. San Diego has very limited L16 capability compared to Jax because of other assets. Norfolk/-2 may suffer from the same problem. It was rare I ever had L16 capability at the SD FRS, but if I have correctly loaded cards (and an all-US crew), then I can theoretically have L16 on every flight in Jax.

Fair, but what I mean is that, when I went through the HSC FRS, there was literally one aircraft that literally had a MIDS terminal. One. I imagine that number is probably around 4 now unless they've upgraded a lot of the older ones, which I doubt.

 

[Randy Daytona]

Just some perspective from the commercial helo side of the house: my first assigned aircraft in the GoM (a 206L1 with the C-30 engine) had 29,000 hours. As we stayed offshore half the time, you can imagine corrosion control was important. That said, it is an apples to oranges comparison as they were not bounced around like the 57B's nor did they have the IFR components like the 57C's.

All of the remaining semi-rigid rotor systems were on the Marines older Cobra/Hueys. I think all of these have been retired in favor of the new Y/Z's which have rigid rotor systems. Perhaps one of our resident skid pilots can confirm that.

 

[croakerfish]

My 2 cents:


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

+1. The last thing the fleet needs is people coming from the FRS with less NATOPS experience. If there's one thing I care about FNG #X doing right, it's the basics. If your Hellfire sim mode button-ology is on point, that's great, but not if you suck at actually flying, and I have to spend an inordinate amount of attention hawking your every move.

If we want HT's to teach more tactical basics (and I think that would be great) you could have a post-selection top-off syllabus like they theoretically had for Strike guys out of the T-6. No need to trim Basic Instruments (I think we can all agree that at some point, whether we realized it or not, the BI syllabus saved our lives). Marines and HSC can do an NVD TERF/NOE and formation syllabus of maybe 5 flights. I can't speak to what HSM or the CG might care about.

 

[Hotdogs]

All of the remaining semi-rigid rotor systems were on the Marines older Cobra/Hueys. I think all of these have been retired in favor of the new Y/Z's which have rigid rotor systems. Perhaps one of our resident skid pilots can confirm that.

Still around for a couple years. Only east coast and reserve legacy Cobras are still flying semirigid systems right now.

Marines and HSC can do an NVD TERF/NOE and formation syllabus of maybe 5 flights. I can't speak to what HSM or the CG might care about.

TERF in NW Florida would be a F’ing joke. TERF is also not an area that the average pilot struggles. Probably better used on something else.

 

[Gatordev]

Fair, but what I mean is that, when I went through the HSC FRS, there was literally one aircraft that literally had a MIDS terminal. One. I imagine that number is probably around 4 now unless they've upgraded a lot of the older ones, which I doubt.

Well, that's just 'cause you guys are weird.

 

[ChuckMK23]

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

If you skip to 1:27 - CNATRA adresses this - and legistlative changes are in work to allow a lease. My industry friend at BHT said CNATRA was blown away by Bell's offering. So stay tuned.

https://livestream.com/wab/nha/videos/156521044

 

[SynixMan]

That was ~May. My understanding is they are back to “buy” with a 2020 target date.

 

[ChuckMK23]

First nail in the coffin

 

[BACONATOR]

First nail in the coffin

View attachment 17731

The second-order effect of this is: how many helicopter pilots are used in UPT to instruct in the T-6A? I mean, I knew a couple when I was at Vance, so maybe the answer is: "we won't hurt for IPs". But it's still a question that needs an answer, and maybe it's a quick one. Obviously this type of solution wouldn't work in the Navy without a significant reduction in the T-6A fleet and upping the advanced helo organization. But for the Air Force, it's obviously feasible. It makes perfect sense, but it seems a bit sad to lose out on the fixed-wing experience, and become a bit more like the Army.

 

[hscs]

The second-order effect of this is: how many helicopter pilots are used in UPT to instruct in the T-6A? I mean, I knew a couple when I was at Vance, so maybe the answer is: "we won't hurt for IPs". But it's still a question that needs an answer, and maybe it's a quick one. Obviously this type of solution wouldn't work in the Navy without a significant reduction in the T-6A fleet and upping the advanced helo organization. But for the Air Force, it's obviously feasible. It makes perfect sense, but it seems a bit sad to lose out on the fixed-wing experience, and become a bit more like the Army.

And more wear and tear on the TH57s to get SNAs their mins for an instrument card.

 

[fc2spyguy]

And more wear and tear on the TH57s to get SNAs their mins for an instrument card.

If you're flying with a rated aviator, can't you make the official rating something further down the line and just use single pilot mins? I know the instrument card is a requirement right now, but is it necessary out of advanced?

 

[hscs]

If you're flying with a rated aviator, can't you make the official rating something further down the line and just use single pilot mins? I know the instrument card is a requirement right now, but is it necessary out of advanced?

You could - but you start buying risk. My bet is CNAF actual would have to sign off on it because you have to change a lot of pubs. You might also shift a training burden to the FRS. The higher you go - the harder it will be.

Another option would be to push more Inst events to high fidelity sims.

 

[ChuckMK23]

OK what do you think of this proposal?

1. Eliminate Helo track intermediates in the T-6

2. Remanufacture current TH-57C's to a lower cost per flight hour "Helo Basic" - configiuration. Basically a lighter weight aircraft that will displace the current TH-57B fleet. I would do 40-50 aircraft in this configuration. Use this aircraft for a "Helo Basic" syllabus.

3. New "Advanced Helo" syllabus in either the Air Force TH-1H Huey II or the TH-72 Lakota - everything we do in the TH-57C part of the syllabus today.

Seems like we coudl save a little money this way and improve the syllabus - and improve the downstream product to the FRS. Avoids development of a new aircraft.

 

[hscs]

I think two programs of record could end up costing you more in the long run. A smaller buy of a new airframe will keep unit costs higher, and remanufacturing could underestimate rehab cost.

I would pick one or the other.

USCG did do a hell of a job on their -60T upgrades, so a remanufacture program isn’t an off the wall idea.

As for Intermediate, I don’t remember why it is in the pipeline for helo bubbas other than for inst time. I would bet SNAs get enough time without intermediate, but could be horribly wrong.