The U.S. Army is launching an overhaul of its pilot training program aimed at restoring fundamental flying skills and improving safety, Defense News reported.
The changes come as Army leaders have acknowledged growing concerns about pilot readiness following fatal incidents—including the Jan. 29 collision between a U.S. Army Black Hawk helicopter and an American Airlines jet near Washington, D.C.
According to Defense News, as part of the revamp, the Army is shifting away from current LUH-72A Lakota training helicopters and instead replacing them with simpler, single-engine aircraft like the Robinson R66 or Bell 505 to improve basic stick-and-rudder skills and reduce costs.
The Army is also exploring a contractor-owned, contractor-operated (COCO) model, where private industry would take over day-to-day training responsibilities. Companies like Bell and Lockheed Martin have already shown interest.
While the Army currently spends roughly $1.5 billion annually to train some 1,350 pilots, the new model is expected to reduce long-term costs, improve pilot competency and address maintenance and readiness challenges tied to complex aircraft like the Lakota.
A request for proposals is expected by late 2025, with the new program potentially launching by early fiscal 2027.
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 treats them like separate stories, but once you step back, the pattern jumps out.
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?
How would you know without investigating?
Females have been flying and dying for over a century:
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.