One aspect of the DCA Black Hawk-CRJ tragedy that is notable to a civilian pilot is the low reported number of hours of both the pilot and instructor on board, i.e., 500 and 1,000. A civilian helicopter pilot won’t get anywhere near a turbine-powered helicopter until beyond the 1,000-hour mark and that turbine-powered helicopter will be a used single-engine sightseeing machine, not a $20 million Black Hawk in more-challenging air taxi service. The pilot-in-command with 500 hours had been a military aviator for 6 years, which meant that she was flying fewer than 100 hours per year, less than a lot of hobbyists.
The U.S. military seems to start with a “cost is no object” philosophy when it comes to aircraft, e.g., training new pilots in a $6 million (pre-Biden price) twin-engine Eurocopter rather than in a $400,000 (post-Biden price) single-engine Robinson. Once the magnificent machines are delivered, however, the military then seems to decide that they’re too expensive to fly casually. Why not a fleet of Robinson R44s or, if Avgas is too complicated to keep in inventory, turbine-powered Robinson R66s, that would enable Army helicopter pilots to get significant real experience flying helicopters? (Order the Robinsons without the optional SAS/Autopilot so that the Black Hawk pilots get comfortable flying without the crutch of stability augmentation. Don’t subject our military heroes to the challenge of keeping a Robinson R22 under control, though!)
On second thought, when the government operates aircraft it usually manages to spend vastly more than what civilian operators spend. So perhaps it would make more sense to give the military pilots a stipend to use at local flight schools where the retail rental price would be much lower than the military’s cost. Reuters points out that sending migrants via military planes costs perhaps 10X what it would cost to purchase economy-class tickets (even when the military operates the exact same type as an airline, the cost is vastly higher).
Aren’t military pilots are training on realistic simulators when they are not flying? Easy to program different traffic scenarios and conditions into it.
I trained in the old Hughes 269C (TH-55A),
then a transition to the UH-1H.
No accidents or incidents,
Let’s look at yearly flight hours per pilot.
Repetition aids recall.
Low hours, equals issues!
It’s probably not the cost of flying but the need to spend thousands of hours filing TPS reports. Wonder if an aviation hobbyist like Blancolirio who stays current in a tail dragger & a C310 while simultaneously flying 777’s for his day job is actually better than someone who just flies the 777. The economy is based on everyone below the CEO specializing in 1 thing. It’s really hard to get a job as a generalist.
The air force already uses this model (probably with huge savings) for initial flight training out in Pueblo, CO. They use DA20s run and maintained by civilians
https://www.l3harris.com/sites/default/files/2020-09/as-mt-datasheet-doss-arrival-Guide.pdf
Compare the Blackhawk pilot-in-command with 500 hours to the fact that to generally qualify for a domestic helicopter pilot position (e.g. medical response, commercial air-taxi), one typically must show around 1500-2000 total hours, 500-1000 turbine, 200 night and 100 instrument. For the 500 hour pilot, it is also reasonable to assume that the first 100 hours are on a relatively steep learning curve, so we are down to about 400 hours of potential experience where the pilot is presumably working on advanced skills such as flying at night, low, over a river, and through a busy approach corridor of commercial jet aircraft. I like the proposal of having the military train in R44s, but that seems unlikely. The Colgan tragedy led to the 1500 hour airline ATP rating for commercial airlines. I would be surprised to see the NTSB recommend any sort of hourly increase to the military, but we shall see.
Isn’t the military model to take a bunch of applicants and wash out those who don’t display good pilot aptitude? They have long flung promising pilots straight from trainers into very high performance aircraft with very few hours. The 6th gen fighters don’t even have 2-seat versions.
One other reason that military pilots don’t get a ton of hours is that they are usually officers and therefore also management generalists. I don’t know that the monetary cost of running the aircraft is usually the constraint. (Although maybe it should be)
Instead of adding more helicopters to the training equation, why not look at taking the existing equipment and working on the technology? SkyRyse is ready to demonstrate their fly by wire system on a Robinson R-66 (https://www.skyryse.com/aboutus). In the day of applied intelligence, how can we “not let a crisis go to waste” and advocate for adoption of more technology to prevent these types of disasters.
Once again, looks like I picked the wrong week to re-start (for the 23rd year in a row) my dream to get a helicopter pilot license. I am not sure why since I will never get to the Bell 429 or greater category, but I believe automation and drones from the ground will be the technological revolution for VTOL.
Perhaps one of our fine readers will be at Verticon and can report back on other technology developments to retrofit aircraft with enhanced components? https://verticon.org/