I spent over 20 years flying army helicopters. Most of my time is in UH-60’s, but I’ve also flown UH-1, OH-58, and AH-1’s. I was in several AVIM and AVUM units as a maintenance test pilot. That got me in a lot of different cockpits.
My observations are simple. I’ll take durable, easy to fix, but maybe a little slow over flashy, complex, fast, but fragile. Aviators want to fly and need many hours in the cockpit to become effective. I didn’t say proficient, I said effective. A chronic lack of flight time plagues the service, in every branch. Commanders are worried about their OR rates more than anything. The best way to have a high OR rate (Operational Readiness) is to limit your flight time.
I know lots of Apache pilots. All have way less actual flight time that UH-60 and OH-58 guys. Barely getting or needed a waver to make your semi-annual minimums sucks.
Great points!
As usual, common sense prevails from hands on folks that KNOW what the heck is REALLY needed!
Quite true. There is a point on the tooth to tail ratio scale when diminishing returns kick in. The more complex the system usually means higher turn around times between flights for aircrews to train/perform. Having extra bells and whistles doesn’t necessarily equate to a better product. Hope this platform design and acquisition process doesn’t follow the same path as the costly and failed Comanche program.