TH-73

[Uncle Fester]

There's no practical reason we couldn't consolidate primary flight training, and others have said, there was a serious effort at it for most of the early 2000s. However comma truly consolidated training also means the services give up some degree of control over their syllabus and training philosophy, which nobody wants to do. In practice, CNATRA and AETC still kept hold of the wheel for their respective units and the "joint" training squadrons really wound up just being Navy squadrons with some Air Force guys assigned and vice-versa. I recall some IPs grumbling about having to "un-train" the Vance graduates when they showed up at the Advanced VTs.

Personally I think cross-pollination is healthy and it never hurts to learn how the other guy does things. My VT-10 on-wing was a KC-135 major and it was interesting hearing him talk about how the AF runs (plus it kept him talking on long XCs and not asking NATOPS trivia). But the ostensible purpose of joint training - efficiencies, etc - I don't think ever really came to fruition.

 

[Griz882]

I think consolidating primary type training would be cost effective. To get from hatchling to able-to-solo in either a fixed wing or helicopter could be accomplished with some ease and savings and then each service could take them through advanced matching their services needs.

 

[Gatordev]

I recall some IPs grumbling about having to "un-train" the Vance graduates when they showed up at the Advanced VTs.

It was more than that. SNAs also struggled with the "free-range" type of training that happens at the beginning of Advanced, at least on the HT side. While the process needed to be improved (and eventually was), it required a lot of personal initiative to get your training pre-reqs done before actually classing up. On average, the Vance guys needed a little more hand-holding for that (much of it done by other SNAs, which can be a positive and a negative).

I think consolidating primary type training would be cost effective.

I don't think anyone is arguing that. But there's a reason why each service has a different kind of set of wings.

 

[kejo]

There will be two “helo only” test programs that will run sequentially. The first, which has already been discussed here, is COPT-R, Contractor Only Pilot Training - Rotary. Students will TAD to Ft Worth and receive approximately 50 hours of mostly contact and some instrument training. When they are complete, they will come to South Field and complete the standard TH-57 syllabus. After this first test class of 48 students completes, HT-28 will begin the “home grown” version of this, CORPS (Copter Only Rotary Pilot Syllabus). This will essentially be a super beefed up TH-57 syllabus with an additional 30-40 hours in contacts and instruments. This second group will also comprise 48 volunteers. COPTR and CORPS, for these first two groups, are only USN and USCG. Marines are taking a “wait and see” stance.

Due to the “variables” in the TH-73 at the moment, these first two groups will only fly in the TH-57. I won’t go too deep into the white paper analysis done for this, but it looked at everything from cost savings to career timing implications, CNAF requirements for HAC hours, and the implications to Primary IP manning in 5-6 years when these students come back for their production tours (since half of primary IPs are rotary). Honestly, I think these programs have to potential to make a better helicopter pilot, since that’s all they’ll know, but I’m sure there are second and third order effects that we haven’t thought of. Always are.

Interestingly, we were digging through some old documents from the mid-late 70’s and discovered this isn’t the first time this has been discussed. There was a plan being worked in the 70’s to move all Navy rotary training to Mother Rucker, but it looks to have died on the vine. We’ve been throwing shit at walls for as long as there’s been shit and walls. COPTR/CORPS is new and different, but in a way it’s neither.

 

[Griz882]

There will be two “helo only” test programs that will run sequentially. The first, which has already been discussed here, is COPT-R, Contractor Only Pilot Training - Rotary. Students will TAD to Ft Worth and receive approximately 50 hours of mostly contact and some instrument training. When they are complete, they will come to South Field and complete the standard TH-57 syllabus. After this first test class of 48 students completes, HT-28 will begin the “home grown” version of this, CORPS (Copter Only Rotary Pilot Syllabus). This will essentially be a super beefed up TH-57 syllabus with an additional 30-40 hours in contacts and instruments. This second group will also comprise 48 volunteers. COPTR and CORPS, for these first two groups, are only USN and USCG. Marines are taking a “wait and see” stance.

Due to the “variables” in the TH-73 at the moment, these first two groups will only fly in the TH-57. I won’t go too deep into the white paper analysis done for this, but it looked at everything from cost savings to career timing implications, CNAF requirements for HAC hours, and the implications to Primary IP manning in 5-6 years when these students come back for their production tours (since half of primary IPs are rotary). Honestly, I think these programs have to potential to make a better helicopter pilot, since that’s all they’ll know, but I’m sure there are second and third order effects that we haven’t thought of. Always are.

Interestingly, we were digging through some old documents from the mid-late 70’s and discovered this isn’t the first time this has been discussed. There was a plan being worked in the 70’s to move all Navy rotary training to Mother Rucker, but it looks to have died on the vine. We’ve been throwing shit at walls for as long as there’s been shit and walls. COPTR/CORPS is new and different, but in a way it’s neither.

This makes sense.

 

[Griz882]

I don't think anyone is arguing that. But there's a reason why each service has a different kind of set of wings.

I don’t necessarily disagree, but the reasoning for that is quickly fading away against the tide of technology as is apparent with the end of carrier quals in jet advanced.

 

[Roger_Waveoff]

I don’t necessarily disagree, but the reasoning for that is quickly fading away against the tide of technology as is apparent with the end of carrier quals in jet advanced.

Or hell, even the end of CQs for rotary and big wing aviators at all. I figure I could have taken away the same lessons and experience in AETC T-1s as I did in CNATRA T-44s. And I didn’t land on a ship for the first time until my 3rd year in the fleet and already an aircraft commander!

 

[ChuckMK23]

I've had 2 active duty AF colleagues who were IP's at VT-3 - and both lamented that while their respective experiences as individuals were awesome, the divide in service cultures were significant barriers. AF AETC pushed hard for fundamental changes in training ops and syllabus and apparently fell on deaf ears at CNATRA.

I think a dedicated DOD primary Helo track has a lot of merit - given that all the services agree that in an age where the AF is 2800 pilots short, doing a General Aviation flight screen plus initial training in a T-6 is a luxury in 2023 that isn't justified from a pilot production or quality standpoint.

I'll make a friendly wager that a unified DoD primary helo schoolhouse gains traction.

 

[Gatordev]

I don’t necessarily disagree, but the reasoning for that is quickly fading away against the tide of technology as is apparent with the end of carrier quals in jet advanced.

It's not technology, nor the act of landing on ships. Every service does that, to varying levels of precision. It's a mindset. Griz, I know you have lots of various and valuable experiences with the services, but you haven't been in a fleet Navy squadron for a career. There's a fundamental difference in dealing with a Navy fleet (or CNATRA/RAG) JO compared to dealing with an Army Warrant. I've seen it when flying with the Army in Guatemala, I've seen it interacting with Army guys that spent time with us on the boat (twice), and I deal with it now at my current job where a lot of Army-isms reign supreme (some of them to the frustration of the former Army guys who are now IPs).

That doesn't mean one is better than the other, in and unto itself. Each training and service mindset works within each service. But I'd be disappointed if the Navy gave up a little bit more of its identity in the name of saving a dollar.

 

[ChuckMK23]

I've seen it when flying with the Army in Guatemala, I've seen it interacting with Army guys that spent time with us on the boat (twice), and I deal with it now at my current job where a lot of Army-isms reign supreme (some of them to the frustration of the former Army guys who are now IPs).

Share some detail - this in genuinely good stuff. I'm curious.

 

[KODAK]

I've had 2 active duty AF colleagues who were IP's at VT-3 - and both lamented that while their respective experiences as individuals were awesome, the divide in service cultures were significant barriers. AF AETC pushed hard for fundamental changes in training ops and syllabus and apparently fell on deaf ears at CNATRA.

I think a dedicated DOD primary Helo track has a lot of merit - given that all the services agree that in an age where the AF is 2800 pilots short, doing a General Aviation flight screen plus initial training in a T-6 is a luxury in 2023 that isn't justified from a pilot production or quality standpoint.

I'll make a friendly wager that a unified DoD primary helo schoolhouse gains traction.

Another point for consideration: what is our ultimate objective here? For the Navy, the end goal of flight training is producing the very best Naval Aviators that we can who will go on to kick ass in their respective fleet platforms. The fact that we cannot seem to get our stuff together in terms of meeting production numbers is an entirely different issue and conflating the two issues becomes problematic for a number of reasons. Frankly if we are having issues making numbers we need drill down on the specific issues we face as a service/ DoD (which I think we have all discussed here at length) rather than shaking up the chess board and trying something different just because. Honestly in VT-land right now we need more parts for the aircraft and to keep IPs in their full tours if we want students out the door faster - l’m obviously skipping a couple other steps, but this isn’t rocket surgery..

While there are likely logistical and financial savings to be found (eventually) were we to somehow combine DoD primary helo flight training syllabi, the end product for Naval Aviation would suffer without question because the broader governing philosophies of each service towards aviation are just so different.

 

[Randy Daytona]

Another point for consideration: what is our ultimate objective here? For the Navy, the end goal of flight training is producing the very best Naval Aviators that we can who will go on to kick ass in their respective fleet platforms. The fact that we cannot seem to get our stuff together in terms of meeting production numbers is an entirely different issue and conflating the two issues becomes problematic for a number of reasons. Frankly if we are having issues making numbers we need drill down on the specific issues we face as a service/ DoD (which I think we have all discussed here at length) rather than shaking up the chess board and trying something different just because. Honestly in VT-land right now we need more parts for the aircraft and to keep IPs in their full tours if we want students out the door faster - l’m obviously skipping a couple other steps, but this isn’t rocket surgery..

While there are likely logistical and financial savings to be found (eventually) were we to somehow combine DoD primary helo flight training syllabi, the end product for Naval Aviation would suffer without question because the broader governing philosophies of each service towards aviation are just so different.

Is the limitation on pilot production due to aircraft availability or instructor availability or other intangibles such as field hours?

 

[KODAK]

Is the limitation on pilot production due to aircraft availability or instructor availability or other intangibles such as field hours?

I can only speak for myself, but it’s a moving target on both counts. We have fantastic maintainers and they are genuinely frustrating when they are waiting weeks for on a single part that is keeping an aircraft down. Airfield hours can complicate things although there are tons of great options in the local area where folks can go to fly on the weekend if desired. Sadly I don’t think the pre-COVID weekend hours at KNPA are ever coming back but that’s a different conversation entirely!

I’d say the broader issue is that IP orders are being written short (and then cut shorter) in order to preserve at least one year till MSR in order to PCS folks to the boat. I understand the why, but the downstream result is folks have less time in the cockpit at the VT/HT level which means we are having to train their relief sooner (who we then get for even less time). I know good folks are trying to solve it, but there doesn’t appear to be relief coming anytime soon.

 

[SynixMan]

I can only speak for myself, but it’s a moving target on both counts. We have fantastic maintainers and they are genuinely frustrating when they are waiting weeks for on a single part that is keeping an aircraft down. Airfield hours can complicate things although there are tons of great options in the local area where folks can go to fly on the weekend if desired. Sadly I don’t think the pre-COVID weekend hours at KNPA are ever coming back but that’s a different conversation entirely!

I’d say the broader issue is that IP orders are being written short (and then cut shorter) in order to preserve at least one year till MSR in order to PCS folks to the boat. I understand the why, but the downstream result is folks have less time in the cockpit at the VT/HT level which means we are having to train their relief sooner (who we then get for even less time). I know good folks are trying to solve it, but there doesn’t appear to be relief coming anytime soon.

Is the PFI program bearing fruit in Primary VTs?

 

[jollygreen07]

Is the PFI program bearing fruit in Primary VTs?

It’s not retaining talent at the right level, IMO.

The vast majority of PFIs selected are post OP DH types, so the Navy already has their hooks in them for 20.

PFI’s are used as DHs at my squadron. We fill gaps when the TAR and OP-T guys drop for whatever reason, so we aren’t crushing as many X’s as the JOs (especially as OPSO). I’d like to think we really help prevent the brain-drain that typically happens after the whole squadron has turned over every three years.