Originally published at: U.S. Army Overhauls Pilot Training Amid Safety Concerns - AVweb
The U.S. Army is overhauling its pilot training program to improve safety and restore fundamental flying skills after a string of aviation accidents.
The Army’s flight training revamp and the DEI investigation in aviation might look unrelated, but they follow a similar pattern. Both take complex problems like readiness issues or airspace collisions and pin them on modern systems, whether it’s advanced tech or inclusion policies. Then they push a return to “back to basics” methods as the fix.
In the Army’s case, they are ditching the high tech Lakotas for simpler helicopters like the R66 to sharpen core flying skills. They are also looking to hand off training to private contractors like Bell or Lockheed.
Meanwhile, the administration is spending $2 million to see if DEI hiring somehow led to safety lapses, despite zero evidence tying DEI to any crashes. It is more about narrative than data.
Different lanes, military training and civilian aviation, but the same idea. Blame the new stuff. Bring in the old stuff. Shift control outside the government.
AVweb covers them like separate stories, but if you step back, it’s clear they’re part of the same pattern.
Pity the world leader in private contractor military pilot training, Babcock International is British, not American.
Know tarifs have not hit services – yet.
But will be in the front of any investors mind if they have any sense.
Babcock have had French airforce pilot second stage training, in Pilatus turboprops, contract for a while now and everyone seems happy…
Have not heard that the Lakota is particularly difficult to fly, but there you go.
Strange too that single engined helicopters are thought safer for pilots to train on – know they are cheaper but one engine is one engine and auto rotate is always stressful, even for the most experienced pilots.
Interesting. Was that a poem?
…despite zero evidence tying DEI to any crashes.
How would you know without investigating?
Exactly. Many would love to just skip an investigation so they can continue to say there is zero evidence. There is going to be no evidence without an investigation and there MAY be none after the investigation but I think it’s better to know for sure.
Well, I would think it’s safe to say the crash is DC was NOT a technology issue. The Blackhawk crew had at least 3 altimeters including Radar Altimeters so they SHOULD have known they were twice as high as they should be in that corridor. So it’s safe to conclude there was a piloting issue and we need to know what was the cause of the crash. I would think an investigation would help tell us if it was it a training issue or some other issue that caused 2 supposedly qualified pilots to fly directly into an airliner. It’s hard to fix the problem without understanding it. Just sayin!
Females have been flying and dying for over a century:
- Bessie Coleman died when her mechanic mishandled the airplane in a test flight
- Candice Loving died when her DC-9 crashed in the Everglades because hazardous cargo ignited tires in the forward hold
- OTOH, a female pilot found out the hard way why her shortcut was not an authorized route: too little room for error.
Lockheed is licking it’s chops thinking about training pilots. Cost overruns, delays, administrative fees, change orders you name . A license to steal.
Army helicopter training begins in a dual engine Lakota? Piot trainees can handle dual engine flight from the getgo? I thought training starts with a single engine and basic controls until mastering flight, then moving on to multi engine and loaded instruments. Air Force pilots don’t begin training in dual engines, do they?
Well, AF pilot trainees used to start training with about 12 hours to solo a T-41, a 180-hp Cessna 172. That was really to cull out those without the aptitude. After that it was into the twin-jet T-37, followed by the twin-jet, supersonic T-38, each of which took about a dozed hours to solo before getting into the meat of aerobatics, think air combat, and instrument flight, think everything else.
In all articles of this subject matter, I keep hearing terms like DEI and “inclusion”. Seems to me that a lot of apparently intelligent folks lose it when they think of inclusion. Ability and fitness for a particular job should be the only determining factors. There are plenty of folks of both sexes and all ethnic groups that have the ability to do the job. Inclusion only brings in sub par individuals simply to make the numbers look good. The current and previous administrations are both guilty of trying to look good at the expense of the mission.
Army heli training starts in the Lakota, correct. It has stability augmentation so they never really learn to hover. And they cost $3000 an hour to run.
Everything in aviation, like many skills, always comes back to practicing the fundamentals to progress or maintain proficiency. This is true at all experience levels. If the fundamentals aren’t hammered home right away when learning that skill (law of primacy), they are increasingly hard to teach and learn. Many, many accidents, including ones where complacency was factor, can be traced back to a lapse in a fundamental skill or concept.
This idea is also why it is easy to transition up to a more complex aircraft than transition down to a less complex aircraft. Less complex aircraft require strong fundamental flying skills. These skills erode quickly, and automation in aircraft contributes to this. Therefore, as we gain experience in aviation and fly more complex aircraft, we should be practicing the fundamentals more, not less.
Bravo to the Army for understanding this.
I don’t believe this is a question of whether women can be safe, competent pilots–we all know that’s the case. This is a question of whether DEI policies resulted in selecting and retaining UNSAFE, INCOMPETENT pilots.
Actually, the USAF first used the basic no frills C172 (T-41A) for that intro, training done by civilian instructors. Still had the stock O-300. It was so basic, the back seat was removed. I was based at Vance at the time. Tornado came through and wrecked a bunch which a few were given to the Aero Club for repair. We did and I got my Commercial in one. The Army went with the T-41B which was fancier, 210 hp I believe and a constant speed prop. All a who cares, but brought back memories.
You hit the DC helicopter crash on the head, Bob. The DC crash occurred because a female who was trained to be a helicopter pilot was detailed into a ceremonial job in the political world and not receiving enough recurrent training to be competent doing her PRIMARY Army job. She may well have been a good pilot had she only been flying vs. dressing up in her ceremonial uniform and squiring VIPs around. Coupled with too few total hours, an ATC personnel problem in the tower and using two intersecting runways in VERY complex airspace AT NIGHT, a perfect storm occurred and took many lives unnecessarily. ALL branches of the military expect the members to be jacks of all trades which is inconsistent with doing one job well. Was DEI involved, I dunno? MY going in position is that it was a contributing factor but not a primary factor.
This topic was automatically closed after 7 days. New replies are no longer allowed.