zaurus Posted May 29, 2016 Report Share Posted May 29, 2016 It appears in the near future, fixed wing track aviators will not receive any helo training. They will start off initially in the Grob 120 TP and complete flight school in the C-12. It will be interesting when the applicant will be told of her/his IEFW selection. Will they be informed prior to enlistment or after? If prior, civilian fixed wing experience should be a big plus, which a few will have. Not only will this save money in helo training cost, completing the IEFW pipeline should be no more than 6 months, if that long. For those who are attending IERW training prior to fixed wing conversion, enjoy your time in the rotary world. You will miss it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Creep0321 Posted May 29, 2016 Report Share Posted May 29, 2016 Outhe of curiosity where did this info come from? And any proposed timeline? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insights_STG Posted May 30, 2016 Report Share Posted May 30, 2016 total nonsense... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharyouTree Posted May 30, 2016 Report Share Posted May 30, 2016 Outhe of curiosity where did this info come from? And any proposed timeline? I understand it WAS a potential COA, but the Guard contingent killed it. States didn't want to send someone for "flight school" and only get a fixed wing aviator out of it. We like our multipurpose people. (Which is why you see so many dual or triple tracked Guard folks.) With "flight school" making you a rotary wing aviator, and then moving over to the advanced airframe (whether that be fixed or rotary), you just need an AQC in the future. Thinking about it... you'd probably have a hard time getting any Active fixed wing guys into the Guard as RW pilots, if they didn't have a RW rating... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Creep0321 Posted May 30, 2016 Report Share Posted May 30, 2016 Yeah, one of the possible COA's I'm hearing rumors of now, is post "UH-72" IERW, direct to fixed wing, with no advanced rotary wing airframe, (60, 47, 64). Again, just rumor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharyouTree Posted May 30, 2016 Report Share Posted May 30, 2016 Yeah, one of the possible COA's I'm hearing rumors of now, is post "UH-72" IERW, direct to fixed wing, with no advanced rotary wing airframe, (60, 47, 64). Again, just rumor.Coming from 'people in the know' (QAE? I think that was the acronym), that's correct. As of... More than 5 minutes ago, so it could have changed by now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zaurus Posted May 30, 2016 Author Report Share Posted May 30, 2016 Magnus017 a recent active duty IERW C-12 selectee on the fixed wing transition post mentioned the IEFW is in the near future. You can google the following article below regarding its planned implementation if you care to read it. CAE USA wins U.S. Army Contract to Provide Comprehensive Training for Fixed Wing Pilots dated June 4, 2015. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnus017 Posted May 30, 2016 Report Share Posted May 30, 2016 OO hooray! I was used as a reference! If you go on Army ATTRS you can actually see a shell for the IEFW course (no official class start dates are listed however). Now whether or not that means you start flight school flat out as a fixed wing guy, or if the IEFW course is considered an advance airframe following the UH-72 remains to be seen. I believe the next class to select will be UH-72's. It will be interesting to see if there are any C-12 slots and what the pipeline for those Lakota guys will be. As of right now I'm getting the impression the IEFW course will come after the normal rotary wing primary. The way the current fixed wing course by Flight Safety is run, it assumes prior knowledge of rotary wing aircraft and basic instruments skills. Logistically, for reasons mentioned above, as well as transportation, mileage, common Army aviation knowledge, etc, it would make more sense to have the C-12 track just be an advance airframe like the 60, 64, or 47. That's just my .02. In other fixed wing news, CAE won the Army and Air Force's new C-12 course contract with the GROB 120's, and is currently building their hangar out at Dothan Regional. Flight Safety is currently protesting but it doesn't look like that'll do much. No timeline on when the switch will take place but my guess would be early next year. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SBuzzkill Posted May 31, 2016 Report Share Posted May 31, 2016 (edited) I disagree and think they should be two separate pipelines but I guess you'd have to select fixed wing from the start. Edited May 31, 2016 by SBuzzkill 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnus017 Posted May 31, 2016 Report Share Posted May 31, 2016 I foresee three major problems with your two separate pipelines. First off, it's just that, two separate pipelines. That means the Army would have to either A. send its fixed wing pilots through air force/navy primary (not cheap) and then have additional Army aviation classes for things like AR 95-1, or B completely develop it's own full blown zero to aviator flight program tailored to fixed wing (which it currently doesn't have funding or manpower to operate). That first reason alone is enough to make it not a viable option at all. The second reason would be selection. Do people sign on to be fixed wing from the start? Different boards? Or the same boards but then it's completely luck of the draw before you even attend flight school? OML wouldn't be able to be a factor... So how would that work? Finally, the last reason, and another biggie, is the guard/reserves and/or transitioning to another air-frame. The way the system is set up now, any Army aviator can simply go to an aircraft qualification course (a few months tops) to get assigned a new aircraft. This is a big issue when active duty folks switch over to the guard and reserves because it's immensely cheaper to send an aviator through a 2 month course than to send them through the entirety of flight school. With your proposal, it would essentially be impossible for a rotor guy to switch to fixed wing, and vice versa. The guard would be PISSED, and it would most likely prematurely end numerous careers because the option to switch when changing components wouldn't be there. I'm willing to bet my paycheck that everyone will go though the normal UH-72 primary, and the C-12 will just be a qualification course like it is now. It just makes too much sense in every respect to do it that way. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharyouTree Posted June 1, 2016 Report Share Posted June 1, 2016 As I understand it, it's that second bit you said there, Magnus. The Guard said something to the effect of "We can't send people to flight school twice if we want to use them on the other side of the house" (FW to RW or vice versa). If it wasn't for that, I'd say the two tracks makes more sense. (Do separate boards. Which are you applying for? RW, FW, or "whatever you've got"? I don't think that part would be a problem). Development of the course would be a hurdle, but I think cheaper in the long run, if done properly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.