Army flight school - what’s old is new (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 5/28/2025 10:08:31 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Morgan321][Edited]
|
10 years ago Army aviation restructured - kiowas were out and Lakotas were in for flight school because all army aircraft were now complex, multi engine, glass cockpits, etc. Skilled pilots and even the media talked about how this shortchanged the skills new pilots would leave flight school with. Now Army aviation is transforming - they are looking at a cheaper and simpler training chopper so that students can better learn stick skills because those are lacking in younger pilots these days. Of course I know the Army over reacts and is cyclical, but when you spend hundreds of millions on running a flight school you’d think they would look to the previous 100 years of Army flight training to see what works. Nope, come up with a knee jerk reaction and go with it! I’m also eagerly anticipating all the Robinson hate that will come up in this thread. https://www-army-mil.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/www.army.mil/article-amp/284812/flight_school_students_lead_change_for_the_future_of_army_aviation |
|
Originally Posted By TimeOnTarget: Orange Flight 91-01 Originally Posted By TimeOnTarget: Originally Posted By BigBadDad: Red flight chuckles! Orange Flight 91-01 They ditched the hats for berets when we were in instruments. Everybody had to buy a beret which pissed most people off. It was really hard to find your class at the bus stop before sunrise! |
|
Originally Posted By esa17: From a civilian perspective having flown everything from a Brantley B2B to an R-66, the R-66 seems like a solid training platform. If the goal is to teach people stick and rudder skills at a low hourly cost then it's light years better than a lakota! It will have to contend with perception - ie. many people consider it a toy rather than a "real" military aircraft. It's also not a "sexy" choice. I'm on team little bird for a trainer - US made by a US company, small/simple/cheap, quirky handling characteristics that are great for developing stick skills, and are already made with steam gages (primary) and garmin cockpit (instruments). The md530f already has Army airworthiness at gross weights that would easily allow three people and a full tank of gas. It's mechanically the same as a mh6j from the 90s so the Army already owns extensive data needed to allow higher gross weights, extend maintenance intervals, or any other idea Rucker might come up with. Plus they look cool and have history in the Army. TH-6 all the way! |
|
Originally Posted By TimeOnTarget: Orange Flight 91-01  Orange Flight 95-13… Hueys for primary and BCS, so much fun. Still flying and instructing Army RW/FW. While I’m not a huge fan of the R series, the R66 is a better choice than the Lakota. The latest generation of pilots do not have a control touch… at all… “what is this trim interrupt you speak of?” 60M pure pilots have been the worst. Training Coupled/Autopilot flight in the traffic pattern is fundamental to poor piloting. Don’t get me started on FMS/CPLD flight management in the 60M… All that said, it may be too little too late. Unmanned is coming and for those that go FVL, it’s going to be very automated and RW skills may not transfer to tilt rotor… we’ll see. Looking forward to retirement in a few years. |
|
Originally Posted By Morgan321: If the goal is to teach people stick and rudder skills at a low hourly cost then it's light years better than a lakota! It will have to contend with perception - ie. many people consider it a toy rather than a "real" military aircraft. It's also not a "sexy" choice. I'm on team little bird for a trainer - US made by a US company, small/simple/cheap, quirky handling characteristics that are great for developing stick skills, and are already made with steam gages (primary) and garmin cockpit (instruments). The md530f already has Army airworthiness at gross weights that would easily allow three people and a full tank of gas. It's mechanically the same as a mh6j from the 90s so the Army already owns extensive data needed to allow higher gross weights, extend maintenance intervals, or any other idea Rucker might come up with. Plus they look cool and have history in the Army. TH-6 all the way! I rebuilt a TH-55 about twenty years ago along side an OH-58 that we used to fly that was donated by DOD. The TH-55 isn't a whole lot better than a R-22 in that regard. Truthfully, I cut my teeth on Robbies and I think they are good helicopters. They're honest aircraft and have a specific envelope you have to respect, i.e. make the thing do what you want without killing yourself. TH-6 isn't fair! That would be too much fun to fly from start to finish. I'd love to let one of those rip at tree top level. |
|
Originally Posted By simpletoms: Orange Flight 95-13… Hueys for primary and BCS, so much fun. Still flying and instructing Army RW/FW. While I’m not a huge fan of the R series, the R66 is a better choice than the Lakota. The latest generation of pilots do not have a control touch… at all… “what is this trim interrupt you speak of?” 60M pure pilots have been the worst. Training Coupled/Autopilot flight in the traffic pattern is fundamental to poor piloting. Don’t get me started on FMS/CPLD flight management in the 60M… All that said, it may be too little too late. Unmanned is coming and for those that go FVL, it’s going to be very automated and RW skills may not transfer to tilt rotor… we’ll see. Looking forward to retirement in a few years. I am so glad that the Huey was my first helicopter. I was UH-60 Multi-track which was a great program. |
"I will leave when I have your wounded." MAJ Kelly
|
Damn. I went in during lean years. Started in a TH-55 and moved up to Huey’s where most had Bondo patched bullet holes from prior service in Vietnam. Felt like we were players when we moved up to newer models for NVG’s. Those were the first that I flew that were younger than me! Also remember running out of money and having training stop until the buget was approved. Too be young again and in the “quarterback club!” |
|
For those of you with relatively recent experience in the Lakotas, I would love to hear more. I don't fly, but I have heard it was a little too much and too nice of a helicopter for initial flight training. I guess we would have to ask the AL Congressional delegation why that came to pass, but oh well... |
|
Has more to do with cost than anything else, no matter what is said. Training fleet is old and in need of overhaul soon. Those overhauls based on current cost structure are more expensive than just buying a simpler, easier / cheaper to maintain airframe. Army overcommitted on the LUH from day one and had more than they knew what to do with, hence they go to the school house. The folks who made that decision are not the folks making today’s decision. Different times, different problem sets, different solutions. As mentioned, this new trainer is not best suited for training folks for unmanned, optionally manned or FVL aircraft. Manned rotary wing will be drastically different 10 years from now, and the new trainer aircraft is based on the last 10. A cheap replacement will at least be an easier pill to swallow when divested in the future, as it will be obsolete… |
|
89-08 Grey Flight Huey Track The TH-67 trainers (Bell 206 JetRanger) were very cost effective to operate. Should have kept some. Maybe they will go with the Bell 505. R66? No way they go that route. Too fragile. MD530? Probably not. Too much fun to fly. Whatever they decide, it won’t be cheap. I sure do miss flying Huey’s. |
|
Originally Posted By Morgan321: 10 years ago Army aviation restructured - kiowas were out and Lakotas were in for flight school because all army aircraft were now complex, multi engine, glass cockpits, etc. Skilled pilots and even the media talked about how this shortchanged the skills new pilots would leave flight school with. Now Army aviation is transforming - they are looking at a cheaper and simpler training chopper so that students can better learn stick skills because those are lacking in younger pilots these days. Of course I know the Army over reacts and is cyclical, but when you spend hundreds of millions on running a flight school you'd think they would look to the previous 100 years of Army flight training to see what works. Nope, come up with a knee jerk reaction and go with it! I'm also eagerly anticipating all the Robinson hate that will come up in this thread. https://www-army-mil.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/www.army.mil/article-amp/284812/flight_school_students_lead_change_for_the_future_of_army_aviation Nick |
If the enemy is range, so are you.
Don't mind Sylvan, he's fond of throwing intellectual Molotov cocktails.
Don't mind Sylvan, he's fond of throwing intellectual Molotov cocktails.
|
Originally Posted By ColtAR-15: R66? No way they go that route. Too fragile. Maybe it will create a new generation of military-trained helicopter pilots who actually don't dump on Robbies! |
|
Originally Posted By aa777888-2: Too fragile? In what way? How aircraft are treated in a civilian flight school vs a military flight school is incomparable. Three big differences that I see offhand: - Little bird skids are indestructible. The cross tubes are independent (ie. all four legs are separate and each has an oleo strut). The skids and legs ("cross tubes" to some) all articulate to match the contour of the landing surface. They allow landing on terrain other skidded aircraft could never land on and, most importantly, are very forgiving of poorly executed autorotations. - Little bird has a small edge in max weight but also a much smaller rotor diameter so it fits into smaller areas, has disc loading comparable to military helicopters, has higher wind limits, has higher Vne, etc. - Articulated rotor head gives vastly better control authority, better handling, and much wider slope landing limits when compared to a teetering rotor head. Another possibility is that you can put a cargo hook and a collimated gunsight and weapons on a little bird with existing hardware that is already airworthy and inexpensive. This would let you do "tracks" like the Army used to do - Apache pilots can train fixed forward shooting, chinnok pilots can train slingloads, and blackhawk pilots can train their assault skills. All for $1k/hour of flight time rather than $5-10k/hour for a big helicopter. The r66 wouldn't be a bad military trainer, but I believe a little bird would be a better one. Either will produce pilots with better stick skills than a lakota. Both are also designed and built in the US by American companies which I think is a big deal for military hardware. |
|
Hats are back since the beginning of 2024. Let me know when they bring back the colored hats. |
|
Originally Posted By Morgan321: I haven't seen an r66, but little bird is a military design and is proven extremely durable and highly survivable. How aircraft are treated in a civilian flight school vs a military flight school is incomparable. Rotor diameters: the 500 is 26 feet, the R66 is 33 feet. That's not a huge difference. No question the 500 series are much more capable than the 66 in many ways. The question is whether that capability is necessary for primary flight instruction? |
|
Originally Posted By LaminarFlow: Hats are back since the beginning of 2024. Let me know when they bring back the colored hats. 
|
"I will leave when I have your wounded." MAJ Kelly
|
Originally Posted By aa777888-2: Even for primary flight training? Not necessarily abused, but rode hard and put away wet - the hours rack up very fast on trainer aircraft at Rucker. As an example, a big problem when the Lakotas were new to Rucker was unscheduled inspections they incurred due to student pilots exceeding torque or mast moment limits. When the AM flight incurs even a simple inspection that aircraft is down for the PM flight period and maybe the night flight depending on maintenance manning levels and how busy they are. Simply logging the minimum required hours for flight school to progress normally when the Lakotas were new was a big problem. The scale of Rucker is difficult to comprehend. There are roughly 600 aircraft at Rucker alone and they fly nearly 1/4 million hours per year. Around 1200 students start flight school every year - 50 students per class with a new class starting every two weeks. When conditions are good an aircraft will fly AM, PM, and night flights every day to reduce the overnight maintenance required. 3 hours per period is typical, so around 45 hours per week on a primary trainer aircraft when things are going well. That’s 2500 hours per year - that pace can’t be maintained all year, but it was nothing for the jet rangers to fly 1k hours in a year. Every year. And it never stops until the aircraft is crashed or scrapped. Low maintenance and some level of durability is enormously important to keep Rucker cost effective. |
|
Originally Posted By Morgan321: Not necessarily abused, but rode hard and put away wet - the hours rack up very fast on trainer aircraft at Rucker.  One has to wonder if overspeed inspections are easier on a 66 vs. a 206? I can tell you that gear (skid tube) changes are easy on a Robinson. Not because of anything I've ever done! . RHC has a specification for how much "smile" is allowed in the crosstubes, and it's a rare training machine that doesn't have a little bit of a "smile" showing.Never been to Rucker. I've been privileged to work on a couple of things at Eustis  It's going to be very, very interesting to see how the R66 holds up. RHC has to be super-motivated to make a good showing given the potential for future sales & support. |
|
Originally Posted By Yea-Right: I was Red Flight in 87. Now I have to go dig out some paperwork...... Originally Posted By Yea-Right: Originally Posted By BigBadDad: Red flight 87-07. Still have your nickel? I was Red Flight in 87. Now I have to go dig out some paperwork...... I was Red Flight....87-16. And yes I still have my nickel. |
ARFCOM Philosophy--Do you consider the magazine half full or half empty?
The world's most average shooter, or worse
Joined:
Nov 2010
Posts:
42488
EE: 100% (1)
SC, USA
|
Originally Posted By TimeOnTarget: Let me know when they bring back the colored hats. It's all so tiresome... They have had the colored hats for over a year. My son's class was red. ETA They hated the 72s with A/C because it never worked and just added 300# to the planning. Even when he was going through CC about a year ago there was talk of going to the R66 in the near future. |
Leave me alone. I’m a libertarian. ARFCOM GD hates everything so don't freak out if you catch grief for what you like. Unless you like AKs, then GFY.
|
Originally Posted By RattleCanAR: They hated the 72s with A/C because it never worked and just added 300# to the planning. Even when he was going through CC about a year ago there was talk of going to the R66 in the near future. The jet rangers had an AC kit that could be installed. It never worked and they were generally removed. See what I mean about what's old is new? The lakotas weren't put in flight school because they were the best choice, they were put in flight school because jet rangers were out of production and they needed more choppers. The Army already owned the lakotas and had production contracts in place and funded, so sending them to flight school was "free". Now the much higher operating costs and maintenance-induced delays of the lakotas have come home to roost, so they are already talking about the next training aircraft. There are currently severe delays and backlogs at Rucker now, all caused or aggravated by aircraft maintenance issues. I heard the wait time for the Apache course is almost 1 year. ETA: Apparently the r66 thing is an actual contract they are doing to hash out a possible future flight school setup where primary/instrument training is contracted out and the students get their FAA commercial stuff and then go to military-run course for their aircraft. The Army has done this through STRI for countless dozens of foreign nations' pilot training programs. This is also how the Army has done fixed wing training for many decades. Click To View Spoiler |
The world's most average shooter, or worse
Joined:
Nov 2010
Posts:
42491
EE: 100% (1)
SC, USA
|
I don’t think the 64 wait is a year. My son wasn’t terribly delayed while in the 60 course due to maintenance non deliveries. It only happened a few times and graduated within a week of his projected date when he started the 60 course. He talked doom and gloom based on the very stuff discussed here but the issues really didn’t materialize. He was on hold between SERE and CC for over a month and about 3 weeks between CC and the Black Hawk. I don’t see this as outrageous. His longest hold was waiting 3 months for SERE. |
Leave me alone. I’m a libertarian. ARFCOM GD hates everything so don't freak out if you catch grief for what you like. Unless you like AKs, then GFY.
|
Originally Posted By RattleCanAR: His longest hold was waiting 3 months for SERE. Originally Posted By RattleCanAR: His longest hold was waiting 3 months for SERE. No matter the details, they are putting out pilots with less skill/experience and taking more time to do it. A lot of it is added non-flight training, but the flight delays are numerous and steadily increasing. For a reference point, I started flight school on 30 September and graduated on 1 October (366 days). That included rucker sere, dunker, blackhawk qualification, and a 3 week wait for WOBC. That used to be pretty normal. These days there are a disturbing number of W2s still at rucker and that is not beneficial to the Army. Originally Posted By CFII: The Rucker bubble is character building. |
The world's most average shooter, or worse
Joined:
Nov 2010
Posts:
42492
EE: 100% (1)
SC, USA
|
Originally Posted By Morgan321: No matter the details, they are putting out pilots with less skill/experience and taking more time to do it. A lot of it is added non-flight training, but the flight delays are numerous and steadily increasing. For a reference point, I started flight school on 30 September and graduated on 1 October (366 days). That included rucker sere, dunker, blackhawk qualification, and a 3 week wait for WOBC. That used to be pretty normal. These days there are a disturbing number of W2s still at rucker and that is not beneficial to the Army. A gaggle of WOJGs running around Montgomery or PCB with m16s and blanks used to be a good time, now it's a news story! Your timing mirrors my son’s. No dunk anymore. He had a 1 week wait for the follow on course you attend following flying and qual completion for your primary airframe. |
Leave me alone. I’m a libertarian. ARFCOM GD hates everything so don't freak out if you catch grief for what you like. Unless you like AKs, then GFY.
|
Well the army will still be the army without pilots, so there is that. Funny how they have gone full circle again. The first civilian pilots were trained for the army before and during WWII. In various airplanes like the Piper Cub, now they are using R66's...with civilian flight instructors, again. Oh and when I went to Rucker in the summer of 1981, those of us in the RWQC course didn't get to wear cool baseball hats like all of the initial students. My class of 12 included a Dutch F104 pilot, three active duty Army Majors, a USAF Captain, a Delaware State Trooper, and the rest of us we Army National Guard civilian acquired skills direct appointment WO-1's. Back then it took 750 hours, an FAA Commercial/Instrument/Multi engine rating, and 18 month prior service in any branch. We trained in UH-1H's, six weeks of contact and six weeks of instruments. After that is was back to our units to finish NOE/NVG/other training. Truly a gentlemen's course, at the time I was 23 years old and the youngest guy to ever get into the program. |
Dave Funk
Past President and now a Board of Directors member Iowa Firearms Coalition.
Past President and now a Board of Directors member Iowa Firearms Coalition.
|
This test program is exactly that, a small test of concept. You will notice that there were exactly 8 student pilots in that test class. All the while, 330+ other student pilots have been in common core primary and instrument training in the UH-72. Army IERW is going to change. How, when, where, with what and by whom is still totally up in the air. |
|
Originally Posted By CFII: Im curious how these people are integrated into the overall OML for airframe selection, since their checkrides are different. I do not know but, since they are their own seperate class, I assume they will have their own aircraft selection with their own OML. |
| Growing up in Enterprise with both parents working at Rucker I can still remember when Wolters closed down and all the TH-55 training moved to Rucker. |
"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution." - Abraham Lincoln
|
Originally Posted By Bob58: I was Royal Blue 87-17. Originally Posted By Bob58: Originally Posted By Yea-Right: I was Red Flight....87-16. And yes I still have my nickel. I was Royal Blue 87-17. I knew some people in Blue Flt. Still in contact with CC who lives in Enterprise. We may know each other. IM sent. |
ARFCOM Philosophy--Do you consider the magazine half full or half empty?
