In response to a series of fatal aviation incidents and growing safety concerns, the U.S. Army is launching a comprehensive overhaul of its flight training program—one that marks a return to fundamentals.
This major shift in how the Army trains its aviators comes at a time when leaders are grappling with the most accident-prone era in Army aviation since 2007.
Central to this transformation is a reevaluation of training aircraft, instructional methods, and the possible transition to a contractor-owned-and-operated (COCO) model.
“I think I have one sacred responsibility and that is to deliver competent aviators to the government,” said Maj. Gen. Clair Gill, commander of the Army Aviation Center of Excellence Command, during a recent Army aviation conference in Nashville. “I’m not sure that I’m doing that in spades right now.”
Here's What They're Not Telling You About Your Retirement
This sobering admission comes in the wake of the Jan. 29 crash involving a U.S. Army UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter and an American Airlines jet near Reagan National Airport. It is one of many accidents over recent years that have prompted Army leadership to reevaluate the entire training pipeline.
At the heart of the issue, Army leaders believe, is that crews are advancing too quickly—operating complex equipment without sufficient foundational training.
As then-commander Maj. Gen. Mac McCurry put it during a 2024 visit to Fort Novosel, Alabama: Army pilots were “out-driving their headlights, out-training the experience that was in their force at whatever level.”
A critical piece of the overhaul involves reconsidering the aircraft used in basic flight instruction. In 2013, the Army retired the TH-67 trainer and adopted the LUH-72A Lakota, a more sophisticated, twin-engine aircraft. While technically advanced, the Lakota may be too forgiving.
This Could Be the Most Important Video Gun Owners Watch All Year
“It is a very good helicopter,” Gill noted. “But in some cases, it assists the student in things that we wouldn’t want the student assisted in.” He explained that the Lakota’s automated flight controls eliminate some of the early flight challenges that are essential to developing proper “stick and rudder” skills.
“They don’t have that challenge in the Lakota because it helps them,” Gill said.
These high-tech features, while impressive, may hinder the development of critical manual flying skills. Moreover, the Lakota’s twin-engine setup doubles maintenance demands.
“Sometimes that means more things can break,” Gill added. At a cost of $3,000 per flight hour—nearly equivalent to that of the Black Hawk—the Lakota is proving costly. In contrast, potential replacement aircraft could operate at $500 to $1,300 per hour.
A 2020 study by the Boston Consulting Group suggested the Army could save “hundreds of millions of dollars” by switching to a single-engine aircraft. A follow-up study by William & Mary’s MBA program also concluded that a COCO model would be preferable. Boston Consulting has since been re-engaged to perform a deeper business case analysis.
This transformation is already taking root in a pilot program launched in April. Some Army flight students are now training on Robinson R66 helicopters in Gainesville, Florida, under an FAA private pilot program.
The goal: get back to core skills through solo flight experience. Students will log five solo hours—half the time required for a civilian FAA license.
“I think that flying in that unsupervised fashion is just critically important to the development of the mature aviator that we expect,” Gill said. “The FAA is doing it, why in the world wouldn’t we do it with Army aviators?”
Still, the Army is cautious. “Are we going to produce a less proficient aviator than I’m building at Fort Novosel in the UH-72?” Gill asked. “I’m very interested in what this pilot program is going to tell us.”
Should the COCO model move forward, daily burdens—such as maintenance, instructor staffing, and logistics—would shift to private industry. “The brilliance of the COCO model is that it’s not my thing to worry about,” Gill said. “Now all I say is, ‘I want 1,350 pilots at the end of the year; you figure out how.’”
Industry leaders appear ready. Robinson Helicopter CEO David Smith emphasized the value of simplified flying. “We talk about a high degree of automation in some of these products that doesn’t produce a great stick and rudder aviator,” he said.
Smith added that the R66 reduces costs because it “just doesn’t have as many things that can fail.”
Textron’s Bell, aiming to re-enter the training landscape, is offering its 505 Jet Ranger X in a turnkey COCO package.
“We’re not trying to sell the Army an aircraft. I’m trying to sell you a service,” said Carl Coffman, Bell’s vice president of military sales and strategy.
Lockheed Martin is also planning to propose a complete training solution.
Currently, the Army spends about $1.5 billion annually to train 1,350 aviators. Transitioning to a new system won’t be cheap upfront—Gill acknowledged the Army will need to keep the Lakotas in service temporarily.
However, the recent deactivation of 11 air cavalry squadrons could free up operational funds to redirect toward training.
“The challenge for the Army is, in order to do this, it costs more money up front,” Gill explained, but he’s confident in the long-term benefits. “We cannot do this fast enough,” he said.
The Army will issue a draft request for proposals this month, with a final RFP expected by late 2025 and contract awards by 2026. Full implementation is slated for early fiscal year 2027—if not sooner.
Join the Discussion
COMMENTS POLICY: We have no tolerance for messages of violence, racism, vulgarity, obscenity or other such discourteous behavior. Thank you for contributing to a respectful and useful online dialogue.