• 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

Hot new helicopter/rotorcraft news

Gatordev

Well-Known Member
pilot
Site Admin
Contributor
The 145 has French doors on the back of the fuselage. The 135 doesn't?

It does, but if you're on the side of a cliff or overwater (two places where Station SAR operates), those doors won't do anything for you if you have to pull someone up in a litter. Once on deck, yeah, the doors are great...as long as the person isn't more than about 310-330 pounds. In this case, girth is bad.
 

ChuckMK23

FERS and TSP contributor!
pilot
It does, but if you're on the side of a cliff or overwater (two places where Station SAR operates), those doors won't do anything for you if you have to pull someone up in a litter. Once on deck, yeah, the doors are great...as long as the person isn't more than about 310-330 pounds. In this case, girth is bad.
+1. Two obese humans in the back of a BK-117/H145 is a non starter. Loading with these doors is great however even two skinny victims/patients makes the medical crew revert to the two bulkhead rear facing seats - access to head and airway only. And if someone is obese/rotund, forget it - I’ve left many a second victim in the LZ despite having the power.
 

phrogdriver

More humble than you would understand
pilot
Super Moderator
Does anyone here have first-hand knowledge of the differences at Rucker from the TH-67 to the Lakota?
 

RobLyman

- hawk Pilot
pilot
None
Does anyone here have first-hand knowledge of the differences at Rucker from the TH-67 to the Lakota?
How first-hand do you want? I spent 8 weeks there last fall going through the instrument flight examiner course in the Lakota sim. Some of my classmates were IPs at Rucker. I have friends who teach out there. What do you want to know?
 

phrogdriver

More humble than you would understand
pilot
Super Moderator
How first-hand do you want? I spent 8 weeks there last fall going through the instrument flight examiner course in the Lakota sim. Some of my classmates were IPs at Rucker. I have friends who teach out there. What do you want to know?

If they’ve had problems accomplishing normal training in the Lakota compared to the Creech. Did they have to change the skills covered in the syllabus? I’ve heard some maneuvers that were previously done by studs are now IP only, for example. Are they having issues with maintaining a twin with fam students abusing it? Positives as well, though any brand new aircraft should beat a 40YO one.
 

Jim123

DD-214 in hand and I'm gonna party like it's 1998
pilot
Some good arguments, but I think the author missed a few points and criss-crossed basic trainer and primary trainer a couple times.

Nothing in there about the cost per flight hour of the T-6 but I think it's worse than the Bell 206 trainers (and if it isn't rated as more expensive then that is because the TH-57 fleet is worn out and shitty, not because the 206 is a more expensive platform). The T-6 is also far from a "simple" platform for new pilots to cut their teeth- it's a beast (there is a lot to be said to this approach to pilot training, but that's another argument and school of thought). I think he's working a bit too hard to prove his point when he writes, "...the Cessna 172, Cirrus SR-22, Diamond DA-20, and Piper Comanche are simple, reliable, and inexpensive. Many trainers can also easily hold four people." Hehehe, the Diamond has two seats and I wouldn't say the 172 can "easily" hold four people with very much gas.

Still, it's good that he is advocating for high quality training at Rucker.
 

RobLyman

- hawk Pilot
pilot
None
If they’ve had problems accomplishing normal training in the Lakota compared to the Creech. Did they have to change the skills covered in the syllabus? I’ve heard some maneuvers that were previously done by studs are now IP only, for example. Are they having issues with maintaining a twin with fam students abusing it? Positives as well, though any brand new aircraft should beat a 40YO one.
Chuck's reddit post is fairly accurate. The article in smallwarsjournal, not as much. The author doesn't appear to have hands on experience with brand new aviators coming out of Rucker. My disagreements with the article warrant a separate post.

One big difference is the maintenance program. It is an FAA/Eurocopter program. For Rucker, it has different impacts than it does for "the fleet" that flies 72s. As a QC supervisor that covers CH-47Fs, HH-60Ms and LUH-72s, I can say that the LUH is SIGNIFICANTLY the biggest pain in the ass. It is our one square peg that the Army insists that we fit in a round hole, even though THEY chose the shape(square) when they bought/contracted it. In this case, it's not the airframe, it's the program.

Autos are getting less focus with the 72, but that is also happening in the 60s. The story about the cracks is true. Not necessarily because they are being abused, but because it was never meant to be a primary trainer. The cost per flight hour is definitely higher. We just came off state active duty. I'll ask the LUH guys what they we "billed out" at. For comparison, the CH-47 is $8-10k per hour. The H-60M is $4-6k. It would not surprise me if the LUH is upward of $3k. Cheaper than a Blackhawk, but a lot less capable except the IFR suite and the MEP sensor package.
 

RobLyman

- hawk Pilot
pilot
None
I spend a great deal of my time working with the product produced at Ft. Rucker. It is inferior to what I flew with as an FRS instructor in the late 80s. Try as I may, I just can't chalk that up to starting in a fixed wing aircraft. It has a great deal more to do with what I believe to be a lower bar or standard. I struggle with this on a daily basis, quite literally. I fly with these young pilots most days during the week and on weekends. FSXXI in NO WAY produces RL2 aviators. They have difficulty flying in the national airspace system outside of the Ft. Rucker bubble. But the same can be said about some AD Army pilots to some degree. Most of their systems knowledge, or any knowledge, seems to have evaporated by the time they show up for the first time to fly at their unit. I admit, some of this is guard specific. Imagine finishing the FRS and then coming in only one weekend a month and trying to stay current or proficient, much less progressing to a higher readiness level. We try to bring in new pilots on orders for a month or so, but that can't always happen. And then you have those who still don't progress on orders because, well... the bar is lower.

Bottom line, much of the Army's training issues are unrelated to the airframe chosen. But, that doesn't mean the airframe choice doesn't contribute to Army training issues.
 

Griz882

Frightening children with the Griz-O-Copter!
pilot
Contributor
I spend a great deal of my time working with the product produced at Ft. Rucker. It is inferior to what I flew with as an FRS instructor in the late 80s. Try as I may, I just can't chalk that up to starting in a fixed wing aircraft. It has a great deal more to do with what I believe to be a lower bar or standard. I struggle with this on a daily basis, quite literally. I fly with these young pilots most days during the week and on weekends. FSXXI in NO WAY produces RL2 aviators. They have difficulty flying in the national airspace system outside of the Ft. Rucker bubble. But the same can be said about some AD Army pilots to some degree. Most of their systems knowledge, or any knowledge, seems to have evaporated by the time they show up for the first time to fly at their unit. I admit, some of this is guard specific. Imagine finishing the FRS and then coming in only one weekend a month and trying to stay current or proficient, much less progressing to a higher readiness level. We try to bring in new pilots on orders for a month or so, but that can't always happen. And then you have those who still don't progress on orders because, well... the bar is lower.

Bottom line, much of the Army's training issues are unrelated to the airframe chosen. But, that doesn't mean the airframe choice doesn't contribute to Army training issues.
To piggy-back, in a way, on what @RobLyman wrote my last military job was running a Pre-Mobilization Training Assistance Element. Basically I spent several months of weekends and ATs at Camp Craphole getting ARNG units ready to deploy so they wouldn’t have to spend three or four solid months at Fort Shithole getting ready to deploy. My last unit was a UH-60 battalion. They were good people, eager to do a good job, but instead of flying I was teaching them how to react to contact on the ground, IED avoidance, base defense, and other things that are good to know, but not as necessary as NVG flying, brow-out landings, and other scary aviation stuff. Sure, they got lots of work up flight hours, but the battalion commander was frustrated that many of his new guys wouldn’t be ready because they were busy spending time with training that while good to have was not as necessary as training you must have.
 

RobLyman

- hawk Pilot
pilot
None
To piggy-back, in a way, on what @RobLyman wrote my last military job was running a Pre-Mobilization Training Assistance Element. Basically I spent several months of weekends and ATs at Camp Craphole getting ARNG units ready to deploy so they wouldn’t have to spend three or four solid months at Fort Shithole getting ready to deploy. My last unit was a UH-60 battalion. They were good people, eager to do a good job, but instead of flying I was teaching them how to react to contact on the ground, IED avoidance, base defense, and other things that are good to know, but not as necessary as NVG flying, brow-out landings, and other scary aviation stuff. Sure, they got lots of work up flight hours, but the battalion commander was frustrated that many of his new guys wouldn’t be ready because they were busy spending time with training that while good to have was not as necessary as training you must have.
Off of the original topic: On a pre-mob we had to spend a day learning to inspect vehicles coming in through a security check point. I asked the SGT why we had to learn this. I pointed out that if we get to the point I have to inspect vehicles coming onto the FOB, we are in a BAAAD way. He said, "Chief, you never know when you might be the only left to do this." I asked when he got training to fly a Blackhawk. He looked at me quizzically, and said, Why would I have to do that?" Of course you know what my reply was. His response? "You got me chief."
 

Griz882

Frightening children with the Griz-O-Copter!
pilot
Contributor
Off of the original topic: On a pre-mob we had to spend a day learning to inspect vehicles coming in through a security check point. I asked the SGT why we had to learn this. I pointed out that if we get to the point I have to inspect vehicles coming onto the FOB, we are in a BAAAD way. He said, "Chief, you never know when you might be the only left to do this." I asked when he got training to fly a Blackhawk. He looked at me quizzically, and said, Why would I have to do that?" Of course you know what my reply was. His response? "You got me chief."
I would have said, “Chief, I’ll get my Blackhawk card as soon as you train me. In the meantime, you forgot to look under that truck...get crawling.”:p
 
Top