• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

Ht-28???

Squid

Squid

F U Nugget
pilot
phrogdriver said:
I hear they're also going to have a correspondence course on MCI where you can learn to fly helos in about a month via the mail.
Click to expand...

Well hell, I may as well just take the test at the end and get my qual.

As long as the birds aren't the issue, good on ya!

Here... well... the birds are the issue. In the tracom it was the ability to turn jets/mx/contractor issues if I recall...

I'll be the first to say helos scare the SHlT out of me.
 
ChuckMK23

ChuckMK23

FERS and TSP contributor!
pilot
Ditto what Phrog said.

A glass cockpit would be a great upgrade but it would be expensive and take forever to introduce.

I think the fleet's needs would be better met with a full NVG syllabus - get the cockpit lighting everywhere - even the Bravos. Give the FRS a pilot who has the basics of NVG flying down - offload those fundementals away from the FRY syllabus. Get the HT's beyond just producing good commercial level pilots and get the war fighting basics down similar to what Army and AF do in their rotary wing pipelines.
 
skidkid

skidkid

CAS Czar
pilot
Super Moderator
Contributor
ChuckMK23 said:
Ditto what Phrog said.

A glass cockpit would be a great upgrade but it would be expensive and take forever to introduce.

I think the fleet's needs would be better met with a full NVG syllabus - get the cockpit lighting everywhere - even the Bravos. Give the FRS a pilot who has the basics of NVG flying down - offload those fundementals away from the FRY syllabus. Get the HT's beyond just producing good commercial level pilots and get the war fighting basics down similar to what Army and AF do in their rotary wing pipelines.
Click to expand...

A glass cockpit would be nice but since it will probably be online long before most of the fleet aircraft have them save some of the new 60s those kids are going to be really dissapointed when they hit the fleet.

Flight schools job is not to teach "war fighting basics" in any way shape or form. You claim that HTs produce commercial level pilots and nothing more, I disagree. HTs do what they are supposed to do, produce a guy with basic aeronautical skils: insturments, form, basic monkey skills and serve as a screening period that's it.
The HTs are not equipted or informed on the the day to day tactical changes to even attempt to give a grounding in "basic warfighting"; and what form should this "warfighting" training take: the missions are too diverse across the spectrum of Naval Aviation.
Dont look to the Army as a model on how to produce Naval Aviators.
 
Gatordev

Gatordev

Well-Known Member
pilot
Site Admin
Contributor
To tag on to Skid's post... There is a full NVG syllabus in place now, and it starts in the HTs. The locals here can correct me, but the last I heard from studs was that everyone was going through the training now, and not just the Marines.
 
Flying Low

Flying Low

Yea sure or Yes Sir?
pilot
Contributor
Everyone goes through NVG's (Cat IV). Well not sure about allied studs? Glass cockpit is coming as well some other upgrades. I don't know about specific dates for those. I did some asking around about the number of A/C. As mention above they are going to 3 more efficient squadrons vice 2 overloaded ones.
 
H

Heloanjin

Active Member
pilot
Flying Low said:
As mention above they are going to 3 more efficient squadrons vice 2 overloaded ones.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how two squadrons are overloaded while three will be efficient. There will be the same total number of IPs, civilians, a/c, and flight hours to work with. 20 years ago the HTs were training about 2x the current student load and didn't seem to have trouble with it.

Yes, there were more IPs and a/c back then. But adding a 3rd squadron doesn't increase the number of IPs or a/c. It does, however, increase overhead (more IPs will be out of the cockpit for squadron level meetings/paperwork).

Besides a claim of efficiency, the EMBA study cited above claimed safety would be improved since the CO/XO would have a smaller staff to observe and manage. A couple helo mishaps last year kick started this initiative (it had been talked about for many many years) based on the safety claim. I don't buy it. Again, citing historical performance, in the 80s when the HTs were producing 2x the current student output, safety was no more an issue than today.
 
ChuckMK23

ChuckMK23

FERS and TSP contributor!
pilot
skidkid said:
A glass cockpit would be nice but since it will probably be online long before most of the fleet aircraft have them save some of the new 60s those kids are going to be really dissapointed when they hit the fleet.

Flight schools job is not to teach "war fighting basics" in any way shape or form. You claim that HTs produce commercial level pilots and nothing more, I disagree. HTs do what they are supposed to do, produce a guy with basic aeronautical skils: insturments, form, basic monkey skills and serve as a screening period that's it.
The HTs are not equipted or informed on the the day to day tactical changes to even attempt to give a grounding in "basic warfighting"; and what form should this "warfighting" training take: the missions are too diverse across the spectrum of Naval Aviation.
Dont look to the Army as a model on how to produce Naval Aviators.
Click to expand...

Dude - I understand where you are coming from but when I got to be the Navy rep on the Army helo training system upgrade - basically what became the TH-67 - I got an earful from out rotary wing UPT counterparts in the Army and AF. And in the end I came away that they were on to something. I still think that but recognize the cultural differences - and how our FRS model differs. But still - the Army and AF think warfighting skills are critical to undergraduate pilot training - and they kind of look down at the Navy / Marine system as a little old fashioned.

It's a total different syllabus and approach but it had a lot of appeal and I don't think quality was really any different. I think the HTR's focus too much on the "basic commercial copilot" skills - and count on the FRS to give them combat skills.
 
ChuckMK23

ChuckMK23

FERS and TSP contributor!
pilot
gatordev said:
To tag on to Skid's post... There is a full NVG syllabus in place now, and it starts in the HTs. The locals here can correct me, but the last I heard from studs was that everyone was going through the training now, and not just the Marines.
Click to expand...

I think in the Army/AF rotary wing UPT syllabus only 20% of all night flying is done unaided. Doesn't that tell you that Navy and USMC are doing something wrong in their teaching in the HT's?
 
skidkid

skidkid

CAS Czar
pilot
Super Moderator
Contributor
ChuckMK23 said:
Dude - I understand where you are coming from but when I got to be the Navy rep on the Army helo training system upgrade - basically what became the TH-67 - I got an earful from out rotary wing UPT counterparts in the Army and AF. And in the end I came away that they were on to something. I still think that but recognize the cultural differences - and how our FRS model differs. But still - the Army and AF think warfighting skills are critical to undergraduate pilot training - and they kind of look down at the Navy / Marine system as a little old fashioned.

It's a total different syllabus and approach but it had a lot of appeal and I don't think quality was really any different. I think the HTR's focus too much on the "basic commercial copilot" skills - and count on the FRS to give them combat skills.
Click to expand...

100% agree with the need to have goggles on when flying at night but disagree with the rest.
The Army treats it as an emergency when in a cloud per some previous threads. This is incompatible with shipboard operations regardless of TMS, there needs to be a strong insturment backround. The strong focus on insturment flying and procedures provides the foundation for a successful Aviator. There is very little you can do "tactically" in a TH-57 that is going to help you in combat operations other than to have developed a solid foundation in basic airmanship.
The Army can "look down" on our program all they want, the results are pretty damn good and I believe produce a much more well rounded aviator. Most of the Army IPs are now contract types anyway so who exactly is teaching these "warfighting skills"
 
B

bert

Enjoying the real world
pilot
Contributor
If nothing else, this is good for the Navy helo world because it is another SM CO slot and a 50% increase in "winners" come FITREP time.
 
Gatordev

Gatordev

Well-Known Member
pilot
Site Admin
Contributor
ChuckMK23 said:
I think in the Army/AF rotary wing UPT syllabus only 20% of all night flying is done unaided. Doesn't that tell you that Navy and USMC are doing something wrong in their teaching in the HT's?
Click to expand...

But 20% of what? How much actual night flying is required in the syllabus? I'm too lazy to go look it up, but I doubt it's much, and goggles don't help when you're under the hood. I get your point, but if all you need is, say, 10 unaided hours (a number I'm making up) and much of that is also during instruments, I just don't see the need to make the curriculum that much longer when they can get it in the RAG as part of their tactical curriculum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top