Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Contracted Heli Training

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Contracted Heli Training

    Would there be any merit in the AC considering a similiar type of arrangement which would free up experienced pilots & techs to ensure the operational fleet is so.


  • #2
    Except it would it would be used as an excuse to get rid of the EC135s and more importantly the pilots and techs

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by DeV View Post
      Except it would it would be used as an excuse to get rid of the EC135s and more importantly the pilots and techs
      The article states the Germans found EC135 "to have been too complex for ab initio pilots", surely their experience isn't unique? With a grand fleet of two, it would seem sensible to try and preserve them - and they do have a role beyond training as any of the ARW ex videos illustrate.

      From memory the AC does send trainees abroad to complete sim training before tackling the EC135.

      Comment


      • #4
        The EC135 was required by the Air Corps after a serious incident involving the GASU heli (Then a twin engine squirrel), when pilot training was considered a contributing factor. One of the main recommendations was that the Air Corps pilots needed other similar type to train on when not flying the operational GASU aircraft. (At the time AC pilot kept current on the GASU aircraft only when it was available, and otherwise flew the Gazelle or Alouette, (Both single engined) when the only other twin engined aircraft in use was the Dauphin, then wholly committed to SAR duties.
        When GASU switched to the EC135, it followed that the AC would also purchase the type for training. While the engines are different, from the front office, both types are identical.
        For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

        Comment


        • #5
          Ich habe gar nicht gehört das die EC135 zu komplex war. Die heeresflieger sind sehr zu Frieden mit die EC135.

          Sorry, the German Army and Navy are more than happy with the EC135. It has been the main training helicopter for years. The BO105 were being used for attack helicopter training, to prepare pilots for the Tiger.

          Contracts with service providers are normal as gap fillers, where the Heeresflieger does not have enough capacity .
          Last edited by EUFighter; 19 March 2017, 02:18.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by pym View Post
            The article states the Germans found EC135 "to have been too complex for ab initio pilots", surely their experience isn't unique?
            it would appear it is unique

            With a grand fleet of two, it would seem sensible to try and preserve them - and they do have a role beyond training as any of the ARW ex videos illustrate.
            You'd think so

            From memory the AC does send trainees abroad to complete sim training before tackling the EC135.
            which would be normal because flight hours are expensive and they don't have their own sim

            Comment


            • #7
              The nearest RAF unit equivalent to the Ac is 84 Sqn which is an SAR unit based in Cyprus doing ATCA/ATCP ops with Griffins which are leased in with maintenance supplied by contractors with RAF flight and mgt crews. We are told of chronic shortages of personnel in the AC which act as a glass ceiling to ops as recently unfolded.
              There is little point in acquiring aircraft that cannot be used when needed.
              Is it time to sub out some training and maintenance aspects to allow usable resources to be concentrated on ops.

              Comment


              • #8
                Over here the majority of our rotary wing instruction is contracted out as is a lot of the maintenance. Most of the FI's are retired or exer's contracted on as civvie instructors, and incidentally so are the majority of the SERE School staff, nearly 90% contract.

                US Initial Entry Rotary Wing (IERW) training is transitioning to the EC 145 (or Lakota as the Army calls it). The overwhelming majority of the pilots I know describe this as a giant leap backwards due to the complexity of the aircraft. Most of them make a very strong case for IERW to continue in the Bell Jet Ranger ( or the TH-67 Creek) as a means to learning the basics in a simple aircraft before graduating to more complex machines. As a non-pilot that makes sense to me, but the Army has decided otherwise.

                Either way, at Ft. Rucker, the overwhelming majority of the flight, maintenance and maintenance training is contracted out. It preserves Army pilots for Army flying and can be expanded or contracted as needs arise. And, yes, it's a 24/7 contract.

                I submit the IAC could do same for the reasons above, keep IAC pilots flying missions, techs keeping operational birds in the air and have the civvies do the training. More cost effective & better use of personnel.
                A

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by irishrgr View Post
                  Over here the majority of our rotary wing instruction is contracted out as is a lot of the maintenance. Most of the FI's are retired or exer's contracted on as civvie instructors, and incidentally so are the majority of the SERE School staff, nearly 90% contract.

                  US Initial Entry Rotary Wing (IERW) training is transitioning to the EC 145 (or Lakota as the Army calls it). The overwhelming majority of the pilots I know describe this as a giant leap backwards due to the complexity of the aircraft. Most of them make a very strong case for IERW to continue in the Bell Jet Ranger ( or the TH-67 Creek) as a means to learning the basics in a simple aircraft before graduating to more complex machines. As a non-pilot that makes sense to me, but the Army has decided otherwise.

                  Either way, at Ft. Rucker, the overwhelming majority of the flight, maintenance and maintenance training is contracted out. It preserves Army pilots for Army flying and can be expanded or contracted as needs arise. And, yes, it's a 24/7 contract.

                  I submit the IAC could do same for the reasons above, keep IAC pilots flying missions, techs keeping operational birds in the air and have the civvies do the training. More cost effective & better use of personnel.
                  A
                  More pilots would leave to take up those better paid posts

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    A problem that will exist regardless of the contracting out of AC training.

                    Seems to me near future budgets must concentrate on attracting and keeping skills in the AC (and the rest of the DF) then expanding later.
                    Bottom line, unless defence spending is at least doubled over the next very few years, there won't be a DF to maintain.
                    Last edited by expat01; 23 March 2017, 11:21.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by expat01 View Post
                      A problem that will exist regardless of the contracting out of AC training.
                      Disagree, even if the instructor slot was the exact same pay, the contractor would have much better terms & conditions

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by expat01 View Post
                        A problem that will exist regardless of the contracting out of AC training.

                        Seems to me near future budgets must concentrate on attracting and keeping skills in the AC (and the rest of the DF) then expanding later.
                        Bottom line, unless defence spending is at least doubled over the next very few years, there won't be a DF to maintain.
                        I'm afraid that to a large degree, this argument is looking at the wrong problem.

                        The current, and projected, roles of the AC mean that aircrew will do nothing that civilian aircrew on better T&C's, regardless of the pay issue, will do.

                        The AC is merely one civil contractor competing for employees in a world of other civil contractors offering a better deal. Unsurprisingly it fails to compete...

                        The USP of a military air arm is that you get to do really cool stuff in really dangerous places, you get to fly in a way that you'd never get to fly by getting a job flying race horse owners around.

                        The AC's problem is not the pay not meeting the civil level, it's that the job matches the civil job, but with crap pay and crap conditions.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by ropebag View Post

                          The AC's problem is not the pay not meeting the civil level, it's that the job matches the civil job, but with crap pay and crap conditions.
                          Unintentional contradiction there?

                          Still seems that the answer is either cool toys in a cool playground, or keep the same few toys but pay your staff above contractor rates.
                          Because failing a massive glut of pilots on the market, the end result of what is described is either no air corps or you're left with the people nobody else wants.
                          Last edited by expat01; 23 March 2017, 14:08.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by expat01 View Post
                            Unintentional contradiction there?..
                            Not really, good people will do a challenging, difficult, exciting job even if the money is less than they'd be getting elsewhere doing a much less challenging, much more vanilla job. What they won't do is a vanilla job with rubbish T&C's when they could do a vanilla job with much better T&C's by walking over the road.

                            The rest of your point i agree with...

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Its true. I once traned with a Man who was current on aircraft types the Air Corps were only then hoping to have, having worked his way from PPL up to flying those racehorse owners around europe in an AW 139 at the age of 30, for twice the money he would get flying ministers around in a green painted aircraft of the same type. He also still had time for the Reserve defence force at the end of it.

                              The Problem (one of) with the current Air Corps system, is most of its inventory is to train pilots to a level they could easily reach with a civilian operation, and nothing beyond that, except far lower pay.
                              For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X