Military flying technique v Civilian PPL

[tartare]

In a discussion with an old knuck I learned that:
*PPL's fly box circuits - knucks fly downwind then turn at a constant rate onto final
*PPLs climb and then abruptly level off - whereas its a gradual curve for a knuck
*Knucks set cruise using attitude
*Knucks can also do things in the circuit a PPL cannot i.e. buzz and break
*For a knuck set 300 knots cruise means just that - not 299 knots or 301 knots
In what other ways are basic military flying techniques different from civilian?
Please... no smart arse replies...

[BEagle]

The main reason why a military circuit is 'racetrack' shaped rather than rectangular is that a 'racetrack' circuit is more appropriate for a low wing aeroplane - in the 2 continuous turns you have a good view of any other traffic inside your turn. Whereas a rectangular circuit allows highwing aircraft to conduct 4 quick turns, during which the wing effectively blanks the view of other traffic ahead. Whereas 2 continuous turns would mean a longer period of blindness.

Attitude flying is a core aspect of all correctly taught flying training. 'Select, Hold, Trim' is taught right from the start and is not unique to civilian training.

Civilian circuit patterns do not necessarily require the pilot to level off before starting the crosswind turn as you seem to think - the local circuit pattern may have noise abatement requirements though. These will be forced on the aerodrome operator to the detriment of proper training - whereas the military rarely accepts such nonsense at a flying training station.

Flying an accurate speed with a fixed-pitch propellor is far more difficult than with a constant speed propellor due to the effect of IAS on blade angle of attack requiring the pilot to control IAS in level flight with indirect corrective use of the throttle lever. Whereas with a constant speed prop, power can be controlled directly by adjusting MAP with the power lever and the prop corrects as required to maintain the set rpm. Hence 'set 2250 and accept the speed' is often easier and safer (more time for l00kout than chasing ever-elusive speed fluctuations every time vertical air movement is encountered. Flying an accurate speed in a jet is really much simpler - just the one thrust lever per engine and no damn propellor to screw things up!

The run-in-and-break, flown correctly, is a very safe and practical way of entering a visual circuit. The original notion meant that a military aircraft could maintain tactical speed for as long as possible before scrubbing off the speed in the break and deceleration to final. For example, allied tactical air force operations from a forward aerodrome were often threatened by lurking enemy fighters in the latter days of WW2 - so pilots needed to maintain fighting speed for as long as possible. The unfortunate design of the otherwise excellent Me262 obliged it to fly a long approach as it had no speed brakes and poor engine response - so slowing the thing down to a safe approach speed wasn't easy. The Luftwaffe lost quite a few 262s on the approach to allied fighters and resorted to covering the approach route with intense AA cover.

Other military differences? 'Point and power' visual approach technique which is way better than the technique taught to most PPL students. But if taught to PPL students, they usually solo an hour or so earlier as it is such an obvious and intuitive method of controlling the approach. Another difference is 'Standard Closing Angle' on visual navigation exercises - which makes cross-country navigation so simple that many old dinosaurs won't use it; they prefer copious unnecessary mental arithmetic, it would seem.

Military flying training teaches pilots to operate their aircraft confidently to the corners of the approved flight envelope - whereas PPL flying merely teaches students sufficient skills not to kill themselves when flying from A to B for a £100 cup of tea.

[tartare]

Outstanding... tks v. much.

[Double Zero]

Beagle,

Thanks for that, I have been an aerial photographer and sometime unofficial pilot ( a little knowledge is a dangerous thing ) and you've answered a few of my queries.

One remains though, as I used to work at Dunsfold alongside the Instrument Calibration dept; even with their modern counterparts' best efforts, my engineering training says ' how the hell does one think it's 300 knots not 299 or 301 ?!

I agree that's the mid range and ideal for calibration, but even so...

I've also wondered about the U-2 ( TR something ) as it's said the pilot at altitude needs to keep within a 3 knot margin; either it has a much better pitot system than I've ever seen - Harrier mainly - or it's a fairy story.

I come across the same calibration problem with yachties; just because their depth-sounders are now digital, they trust it to the last decimal point then wonder why they've run aground.

[charliegolf]

I've also wondered about the U-2 ( TR something ) as it's said the pilot at altitude needs to keep within a 3 knot margin; either it has a much better pitot system than I've ever seen - Harrier mainly - or it's a fairy story.


I believe it's more 12-15Kts. Not a lot, I'll grant you, but a bit more of a ballpark to stay inside!

CG

[kluge]

Wonderful stuff. Variations to what BEagle states:

Initial attitude flying - aka "select a dot on the windshield that is YOUR horizon for straight and level"

then:

APT = Attitude, Power, Trim (same as Select, Hold, Trim)

and for approaches (Point and Power which is a better acronym) -

Constant Angle controlling Speed with Power (side slipping for x-wind)

Military flying training teaches pilots to operate their aircraft confidently to the corners of the approved flight envelope - whereas PPL flying merely teaches students sufficient skills not to kill themselves Spot on.

A wonderful school in Bankstown, Sydney used to teach this ethos and with aeros from day 1. The instructors were ex RAAF/RAF.

[Piltdown Man]

The average PPL flies differently to a military bod is because of the reason for his flight. After he's earned enough money to pay for his flying (and yours) he'll be flying for fun. The performance of their aircraft so low that any level offs might appear to be abrupt but in reality, less fierce than most military ones. Circuit shapes are the ones that the old military instructors gave us and also what other users would be expecting. "Runs & Breaks" whilst good fun are frowned on, are often illegal and would almost certainly pee of those living close the airfield. Also, with a pull-up entry speed of less than 200 Kts with a very fast PPL type aircraft, it would also be visually rather unimpressive. So they are not done. Rather amazingly, a cruise is set up by applying a both pitch and power setting, adjusting as appropriate to be "knot perfect" whilst simultaneously keeping a damn good lookout for people in green and grey aircraft burgling the circuit.

As for other differences, well it depends on who they are and what and where they fly. The wealthiest may be out in their Extra's, Malibus and Mustangs. The poorest in their microlights, the traditionalist in their Luscombs. The important bit is, they'll be there enjoying themselves, respecting other people in the the air. The biggest thing to accept is that they have the right to be there.

But I have a question. What aircraft in the RNZAF aircraft does 300kts in the circuit? ...and why?

PM

[Neptunus Rex]

Similar to the RAF Run-and-Break, but normally flown at circuit height. (Low Fan Pitch is closer to the RAF version.)
However, one night I was returning to RAAF Pearce from a night navex with my stude in a Macchi, and he requested an Initial and Pitch at the statutory distance out. Without missing a beat, ATC replied,
"XYZ, clear rejoin, number eleven."
By the time we had identified the rest of the circuit traffic, we were getting close to the boundary for Perth International! No sweat, and happy days.

http://www.augk18.dsl.pipex.com/Smileys/flyer.gif

[Hamish 123]

I sense something pejorative about Beagle's " . . . whereas PPL flying merely teaches students sufficient skills not to kill themselves when flying from A to B for a £100 cup of tea" comment . . . .

[BEagle]

Nothing pejorative at all, I can assure you. But I guess to the truly paranoid, all comment must seem critical......:hmm:

Having reasonably extensive experience of both PPL and RAF UAS instruction (that's real UAS, not sodding drones), I know full well, for example, that it isn't necessary to teach maintenance of the buffet nibble in a max rate turn whilst looking over his shoulder to a student pilot who will only ever want to potter quietly around the countryside on touring flights to different aerodromes - and there's nothing wrong with that.

300KIAS at 300 ft, then a climbing break. That's what I was taught as a baby pilot on the JP5 at SORF Leeming - and grand fun it was too! But those who try to fly VRIABs in unsuitable aircraft at small civvy aerodromes are often a danger to everyone including themselves......:\

[Double Zero]

Hello Beagle & co,

As far as I can make out no-one has actually answered my question, as in why do pilots, amateur or pro', think their instruments are calibrated and correct to within 1 knot ?!

I'd suspect such things as the Harrier are calibrated to very low airspeeds ( or at least I hope they are ) as that's the critical regime; other aircraft have other requirements, though as someone commented entering the circuit at 300 sounds a bit demanding on air tragic, though I get your meaning - I could not photograph Harriers ' clean ' below 270 kts, but I'd have thought unless posing one would be a lot slower and at least thinking about getting flaps & gear down etc...

So the thrust ( 'scuse that ) of my question is, how accurately calibrated are your IAS instruments, ie no-one flies low on tactical op's on baro' alone, so why is the pitot - subject to AoA etc, apparently regarded as gospel to closer than the figures on the dial ?!

This applies to slower, light aircraft as well as military, but I have been involved in Flight trials, when at medium subsonic speed a Test Pilot was congratulated if he kept within +/- 50 kts, and of course relying on Radalt but still varying a fair bit; how does this tie in with " 300 kts, not 299 or 301 " ?

[tartare]

Some context around the knots issue.
I think the point my old knuck was making was that precision in adhering to requested airspeeds is critical when flying a military aircraft... especially so in the case of a fast jet. One would not wnat to arrive at a waypoint too early, or too late...
R/e the RNZAF... it was back in the days of Macchis and A4's.

[Tourist]

Double Zero

The point is not what speed you are actually flying at, but whether you can keep to the requested indicated speed.
It is a microcosm of the quest for perfection expected of Military aviators.

[Double Zero]

Tartare,

Thankyou & I know what you're saying, I've been on flights ( and lots of sails ) where waypoints were critical;

This does not answer my question, how exactly calibrated are IAS indicators ?

I would think a wise pilot would allow a few knots +/-, please someone tell me if I'm missing something !

[Trim Stab]

Tourist:


It is a microcosm of the quest for perfection expected of Military aviators


I thought you regarded forgetting to do your checklists as acceptable to military aviators?

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/401945-accountability-post5443079.html#post5443079

[tartare]

Can't answer that double zero... I'm just a humble PPL and plane spod who has had the privilege of riding backseat in a Macchi with the RNZAF, and a Hawk with the RAF through the Mach Loop.
Needless to say... I was also allowed a little fly myself on both occassions :E
The other trick they do (which us humble bugsmashers never will) is rolling inverted at very low altitude to go over the top of a hill (we did this in the Macchi) - presumably to keep as low as possible and avoid a red-out through a high G pushover.
Any knucks... is there a name for this manouvere?

[BEagle]

Any knucks... is there a name for this manouvere?

Yes, it's called 'stupidity'. Or 'showing off'. It is not something which is (or should I say, was) taught.

A pity you've only flown in the JP6 - or 'Hawk' as it's called. You should have tried the A5 pass in Mr Folland's pocket rocket - that was low level flying!

[tartare]

Beagle... are you referring to the Gnat?
I found the Hawk quite a handful - especially when asked to fly a loop, and pulled up way too hard, loading us up with a large amount of G which got me a bollocking from the front seat... not realising that the wing loading on the Hawk was a lot less than the Macchi...
Having said that, there is almost nothing like looking back over the top of an ejection seat and seeing the ground rolling over underneath you... bloody amazing - will remember it for the rest of my life.

[Tourist]

Trim Stab,

Under certain circumstances everything and anything is acceptable, except for not striving to be better, of course.

[old-timer]

If you have a choice ; personally I'd say go for the RAF route, training par excellence bar none (IMHO) - Before I fly into a flak barrage (it's on the radar already !!!) you will of course also receive excellent training going for a PPL & you may even be lucky enough to get an ex Mil' instructor, just (IMHO) that if you go for the RAF route you'll have a wider choice of kit to operate & at more extremes unless you have strong feelings about being shot at, or operating live weapon systems in theatre.

[X767]

Beagle

You may not have been taught, or instructed your own students, in this particular manoeuvre, but certainly, during my JP3/Gnat/Hunter/Jaguar experience the method of keeping a low profile over hill crests was not "stupidity" but an essential technique to keep low level visibility to a minimum. Perhaps the instructors we had were older and bolder - yes I know, they aren't supposed to go together !!

X767

[tartare]

X767,
I wondered that, because I'd actually seen pictures of Tonkas using that manouvere as well.
What was it called... and how did they teach you to maintain situational awareness?

[Farfrompuken]

I think the fundamental difference is that in the RAF one learns to fly one's aircraft as a platform rather than to fly for the sake of it.

That means a full focus on accuracy, attitude selection and maintenance, and operation of weapon systems whilst subconsciously flying high performance a/c.

The civil route, I guess having never done it, will regard the operation of the aircraft as the end in it's own right. That is at the PPL level as far as I see it.

Neither is wrong. Just different ends, I guess.

I think, and I'd be confident in saying, that my commercial friends who have witnessed out techniques would regard us as very well trained professionals. Just doing a subtly different job.

Simples. Innit.

[L J R]

....aaah Beags, reminds me of my QFI days of past.........they were so much fun.....but now, as a UAV pilot, I have to modify every aspect of my Instruction....Lookout Bloggs .. . . eeerrr I mean, ereerrr , I mean...well just Trim,,,no,!! it does it by itself...no I mean lookout, no trim, no ,....gggrrr...!!!...welcome to the new millenium....now where is that cup of coffee...(at least I know it hasn't been spilt in all that indecision):D


....at least an unmanned aircraft flies a constant base turn as well.....(well, mine does anyway.:8)


.....and aircraft attitude is everything..

[BEagle]

X767, there was only one QFI who showed off demonstrating that completely unnecessary manoeuvre to me. He did so in a JP5 (in the old LFA17) and it was highly dangerous.

An urban rumour insisted that the TSR2's TFR system was programmed for such a manoeuvre - which it wasn't.

That JP QFI later killed himself whilst showing off in a different aeroplane type a few years later; fortunately no-one else was involved.

[Farfrompuken]

Beags, it is acceptable (to a limit) to apply roll to allow the nose to drop to avoid cresting over a ridgeline. Inverted would not be acceptable.

[Blind No Joy]

Wow, my first post on PPRuNe, feel somewhat like a virgin on her wedding night, and in true internet forum tradition I'll "contribute" something that's not asked for or desired!

tartare the answer to your question is "ridge rolling", and it is certainly not a "completely unneccessary" manoueuvre as BEagle describes it. It is a good way of minimising ballooning over ridges while preventing an early climb (good for staying low throughout in other words). And it is also completely within the rules.

Doublezero / charliegolf, I've also heard it is a fairly narrow band, but I've also read an interview with one of the pilots that says they plug in AP after take off and leave it on till fairly late. The landings, however, are well worth watching, with another pilot in a chase car on the runway providing a vinegar strokes talk down. Google James May's visit to them, there's a great video of the recoveries.

All non-cretinous replies welcome! Peace!

[tartare]

Ahhh... Ridge rolling... tks.
And out of curiosity... what is that angle of bank... or is that classified?

[BEagle]

Farfrompuken / Foghorn Leghorn, yes, some overbanking is of course acceptable, I will certainly agree. But not the '180 deg and pull' that some would profess - like that late Jet Provost QFI over the 'buttertubs' in Yorkshire.

Even in the old tin triangle, AoB >90 was used by some - except that the lower deck would whinge about 'Doppler unlock', whatever that was....

I vaguely recall that we used 110 deg AoB on instruments during the initial recovery from the Bucc toss manoeuvre as part of the IRT - to exit at 180 deg from the inbound course at 500 ft above the inbound height?

[L J R]

135 AoB is good to limit the RoC when crossing a ridge, but the technique of starting a mild (relatively level) bunt at some time prior to the ridge crest is more tactical and actually kept you lower through the entire manoeuvre. 180 AoB ridge cresting is useful if the other side of the ridge is a F**ing big drop...if not, you generally end too high either prior to the roll, or end up too high after the ridge crest manoeuvre....I won't even go into the wing glint 'give-away' or radar cross section of the manoeuve....that too would involve tactical discussions...:ugh:


...and god I wish I could spell manoeuvre....:=

[kluge]

Interesting thread.

Rolling inverted over a hill would minimize -ve g exposure to the pilot and an airframe carrying stores.

Is -ve g an issue in this scenario or just bs once heard a long time ago?

[Tester07]

I'm surprised that no Jaguar pilots have entered the arena here, to talk of autorotative roll when pushing over ridgelines, which I believe killed a few people. As a result I believe that they were specifically taught the technique of rolling and pulling to crest ridge lines.........can anyone clarify?

[BBadanov]

135 AoB is good to limit the RoC when crossing a ridge

You are right LJR, this is what we used in the Bucc and also in recovery from toss manouevres to get the nose below the horizon and limit ballooning.

I think the 135 AoB recovery was the same too in the -111 from toss/loft events - nose down, roll wings level, re-engage TFs.

[Double Zero]

Farfrompuken,

" to apply roll to allow the nose to drop to avoid cresting over a ridgeline "

If you avoid cresting the ridgeline, one way or another, doesn't that mean you're having a very bad, curtailed day ?!

I once discussed the TFR on the Tornado with a Test Pilot I worked with, who agreed if the kit was really clever it might invert instead of bunt, but at such speeds & heights it wasn't practical.

This, along with all the involved issues such as aerodynamics & intakes etc seems common sense, and as stated the ( any military ) aircraft involved is above all else a weapon delivery system, so keeping the flying relatively simple seems a better idea than getting absorbed with fancy manouvres, quite possibly losing the target in the meantime ?

There's been a recent discussion on rolling into a dive attack elsewhere on Pprune, and it was generally agreed that from any altitude, inverting and keeping positive G on was preferable, also allowing one to keep the target in sight. Stealth ( being crafty, not special aircraft ) was obviously out of the question...

Surely at ultra low level, the reverse applies ?

[X767]

Tester

As an ex Jaguar pilot, I had already entered the discussion !
However, the technique is not limited to the Jaguar. Any low level fast jet must endeavour to tactically reduce his profile to avoid detection by enemy radar or AA fire. To do this, when in hilly or mountainous terrain, requires the pilot to "ridge roll" to maintain this tactical profile. A fast jet pilot will be using the mark one eyeball to carry out this manoeuvre, so any comments regarding "TFR"," stupidity" or "showing off" etc do not apply to this type of flying. The pilot is using his skill and expertise to maintain as low a profile as possible and "ridge rolling" is part of that expertise.

X767

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Even in the old tin triangle, AoB >90 was used by some - except that the lower deck would whinge about 'Doppler unlock', whatever that was....


I think the "....." is a clue to tongue/cheek proximity; but wasn't it because GREEN SATIN needed an uninterrupted, near vertical, ground return to maintain ground speed and drift angle indications?

[X767]

00

The telling line in your post is "virtuoso strenuous flying and just getting there and back". Any front line fast jet pilot will tell you that virtuoso strenuous flying comes with the territory and getting there and back is a result of all the training and effort they put in to flying the aircraft tactically to the limit of their ability.
To return to the original premise of this thread "In what other ways are basic military flying techniques different from civilian?
Please... no smart arse replies..." - it is in the area of tactical operations that the training of military aircrew must necessarily differ from that of the world of the PPL.

[Wholigan]

For what they are worth, my views on "ridge rolling" (certainly in some types of aircraft and in some threat scenarios) are in this thread:

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/203620-f-104-accidents.html

[Easy Street]

The whole ridge-rolling thing is totally aircraft dependant. My aircraft is reluctant to depart controlled flight, and in some stores fits has a negative 'g' limit of 0g, so ridge-rolling is the only realistic way of crossing a ridge without climbing to medium level! Totally understand that other types may see things differently. That's why only a few pilots are qualified on multiple types simultaneously - and they tend not to do much tactical flying!

And of course the tactical situation will drive things as well - if Red have good radar coverage then hugging the terrain as tight as possible is the name of the game. If visual CAPs are the threat then minimising wing-flash by staying the right way up is a better policy and the 'bunt' technique would be order of the day. With a nice early climb if you have a 0g bunt limit!

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Twas only banter :confused:


*Deleted - not very well veiled sniping*

[Flap62]

Seldom,

**Deleted - definitely not very well veiled sniping**

Back to the initial point. As has been mentioned before, the key difference is that military flying ultimately teaches you the techniques to employ weapons. If you cannot fly to accurate parameters you cannot accurately employ the weapons system. This argument is slightly more valid for air to ground roles but does have carry across. Modern systems have highly reactive systems which constantly compute a weapons solution but if you cannot fly to a set of known parameters how can you assess whether your computed sight is correct? Accurate parameters is also extremely important for aircraft self damage considerations. Simplistically, too slow and the bomb can go bang too close to you.
In a tactical scenario I would accept +/- 10kts if manoeuvering, academically outside 5kts is just plain laziness.

[bcgallacher]

While driving in the Scottish borders I saw a heavily loaded Tornado roll inverted to clear rising ground and it struck me that it was a damn sight more comfortable than pulling the same amount of negative G.

[BEagle]

Wholigan and John Farley, your sage comments and vast experience on high-energy fast-jets add overwhelming value to this thread - and the questionable practice of 'ridge-rolling'.

That JP QFI who later killed himself in a Jaguar was sadly one of those whose desire to impress was perhaps not matched by his ability. Rolling inverted at low level in a Jet Provost and pulling down over a hill into a valley was thoroughly dangerous. He wasn't authorised for low level aeros either - but during one trip in LFA17 with another QFI we saw him trying an undercarriage-down barrel roll at low level....

[X767]

Wholigan

Aw !! come on Rog, thats not the hooligan I remember !

Seriously though, I don't think the F-104 was ever initially intended to be a low level fighter, but was pressed into the role by several NATO nations. To compare it with the Hunter/Jaguar/ Tornado in the Low Level tactical role is a trifle misleading. I was certainly very comfortable with the technique, but had the good fortune to have flown some good low level steeds.

X767

[India Four Two]

You should have tried the A5 pass in Mr Folland's pocket rocket - that was low level flying!

Beagle,

I always enjoyed looking up into a Gnat's cockpit as they rolled and pulled over Ogwen Falls down into the Nant Ffrancon valley. So what was the bank angle and G?

[Easy Street]

I'll second Flap62's comments about accuracy of parameters being vital even with computed weapon aiming. On one particular weapon (used in Kosovo but no longer in service, thankfully) the computed solution was only accurate provided you flew within +/- 5 degrees of a given dive angle, and within the band 475-500 KTAS. The dive angle was OK but the speed bracket was a challenge. The jet would eventually accelerate through the speed band, even at idle power, so you didn't have the luxury of throttle control once established in the dive. Airbrakes were never conducive to accurate target marking at 500 TAS either. Basically it came down to nailing your entry parameters to within +/- 5kts and watching the speed build down the dive!

Not easy whilst also identifying and marking the target, keeping a beady eye on the height, reacting to threat indications, and being part of the general palaver of operational flying. Hence why the QWIs got so anal about parameters in the relative calm of the weapons ranges back at home.

[BEagle]

India Four Two, the famous Nant Ffrancon was probably flown at about 360KIAS and the turn at Llyn Ogwen at around 70-90AoB and 4-5G. One of the stories which went around were "You aren't a real Gnat pilot unless you get down below the road at the A5 bend". Doubtless some did indeed manage this as it is quite a steep valley... But I seem to recall that the A5 pass was deemed 'dual only' and I don't recall having been allowed through it solo.

Perhaps an ex-4FTS Gnat / Hunter QFI could give you an authoritative answer?

[Wander00]

Beagle - thanks for an overwhelming wave of nostalgia - just wiping the tears from my eyes - must be angel dust!

[noprobs]

As a new B2 Hawk QFI, I flew for the first time with a student nearing the end of the course on a low-level navex. The route ended through the A5 pass heading back to Valley. The student flew the route immaculately, impressing me with his technique. As we neared the pass (through which I had flown many times before in various aircraft) I said that I would demonstrate the way to fly it. He countered that he had already had a demonstration, so I checked that he knew what to do (overbank and pull) and agreed to let him have a go. At the bend he duly banked to 120 degrees or so (so far, so good), but then snatched 7+G. I took control for the low-speed handling check, RTB and can-carrying for the overstress.

Trust students? Not so much after that.

[safetypee]

BEages, et al, in my day, the Gnat first solo was a low level speed run around the island. The A5 pass figured in the first solo low-level navex, but most instructors had to ‘demo’ it first – well that was their excuse.
Much, much later, I had (legal) opportunity to take my (civil) four jet through the pass - at a more sedately speed (and altitude), but with a sporting bank angle, over 60 deg but within a 2g limit.

Military flight training provides a wide range of scenarios in which to gain experience, but this is gained in a controlled manner. Thus the breadth and depth of general flight training in the military is greater than most civilian organisations.
In addition, the extent (duration) of military operational training provides role orientated experience which often included activities which could never be gained in civil aviation.
At Chivenor, the Hunter pilots, dropped things in the mud, whilst the future Lightning pilots fired guns and practiced close combat, (and had to fly in cloud and at night !!!).

[Wander00]

In 1966 I did Ex 1 (or Instructors Benefit) with Max C, and of course it included Snowden at 200', invert, pull over the top and then revert to normal. 1988 or so and I am on the Command Accounts team doing the Valley inspection - on arrival a note at OM Reception to be at 1 Sqn 0900 Mon. On arrival at 1 Sqn, board says - Cxxxxxll (now Stn Cdr)/Gawn -Ex (1 Repeat). Sadly Max had other things to do, so I did it with someone else, but again GREAT FUN!! The inspection debrief was a blast! (And we did the A5!)

[BEagle]

airpolice, fantastic - I think I've just had a small 'trouser moment'....:\

[Wander00]

Blimey, was it that long ago!

[BEagle]

Bala Naidoo - what a thorough gent. One of the nicest chaps anyone could possibly fly with, he had that unique knack of making stressed students relax and do well....

He wasn't OC 4FTS, he was OC 1 Sqn - and how he kept that bunch of tigers in check I cannot imagine.

After porking up a simulated engine seizure on my Final Handling Test, I had to do a flex GH trip and then another FHT, this time with Bala. I thoroughly enjoyed the experience - and actually passed.

One of Bala's 'make the student relax' trips I recall was with an ex-ULAS mate of mine, whose father was West Indian. Black chaps weren't that common in RAF flying training at the time and my chum had failed some 2-ship formation trip or other. In those days, 4FTS formation callsigns were weird things such as Kelvin, Motive, Lacock...and Sambar. Bala took my chum on the remedial formation trip, but used the callsign 'Sambo' rather than 'Sambar'.....much to the consternation of Air Traffic. That broke the ice, chum did fine and went on to become a top chap on Jags

[essdee]

Beagle says: "during one trip in LFA17 with another QFI we saw him trying an undercarriage-down barrel roll at low level...."

... and presumably on landing your QFI helped the cause of flight safety by pointing out to him the error of his ways. Or did you both simply look the other way and thus contribute, albeit in a minor way, to his ultimate downfall.

[X767]

BEagle

Amazing thread creep from the initial enquiry to Bala !!

I totally agree with you though - a true gentleman.

I went through Valley on the second Gnat course, before he arrived, but had the pleasure of sharing the cockpit of a B737 with him, during his time on Britannia, and consider him to be one of the finest, accomplished and courteous of aviators.
Unfortunately, he had a trying few years at the end of his time in Britannia, through no fault of his own, but still continues to be thoroughly involved in the world he loves.

X767

[Wander00]

Anyone have a better definition version of this or a similar photo, please

[BEagle]

Thanks for posting those photos - of much happier times than today...:uhoh:

essdee, I understand that the QFI I was with did indeed 'have a word' - but whether or not it had any effect, I do not know. Somehow I doubt it.

X767, very glad to hear that Bala is still enjoying himself! His sage, patient and courteous work must have helped countless students who struggled to get to grips with the Gnat.

[Farfrompuken]

Double Zero:

You know what I meant to mean!!! ;)

FFP

[Squawk7143]

Looking at the black and white photo from the Valley line in 75 above takes me back. I had a ‘weather ship’ back seat ride in XS109 '63' (pictured second in the line) in 1975. This was a mind blowing experience for a 16 year old. I flew with Brian Todd (G41). We did everything from low level in Area 10 to aerobatics at 13000 ft. We finished in the traditional way with a run in and break.

I still remember the 6.5G break ...I was awake, I could still hear everything but my eyes had gone offline and I felt as if I was being crushed. At least that's how it felt at 16. The lights dimmed just after the left break overhead 32 and I regained visual in a steep descending turn over the sea for an approach to 02. Yes 02 not a typo.

As various contributors have said, military elementary flying training has a very different objective from PPL training. I was more taken by the difference in instructing styles.

In 1979 I began a PPL and was being taught by an UGSAS QFI but to the PPL syllabus. I was learning in a brand new Tomahawk. I did 11 hours with this guy (solo in 6.5hrs). Much later I did the full PPL (JAR) with a civilian instructor.

With the RAF QFI things went much more quickly and not always in the rigid sequence of the PPL syllabus at the time. For example the PPL syllabus at the time called for 1 hour of taxing training. I met a student at the local club who actually did this. My QFI told me I’d learn to taxi on the way to and from the runway. The syllabus also called for spin training prior to 1st solo. Interestingly my instructor said UGSAS students didn’t do spin training until after 1st solo. Neither did I as it happens but we did on the very next sortie.

I was encouraged to work to my limits closely supervised by the guy in the RHS. I really noticed the difference when I had to fly with one of the local club instructors when my normal instructor was away on RAF business. The experience was like chalk and cheese; I regressed and had to have the damage repaired later. During the sortie I found myself in information overload as every minor deviation was corrected immediately. With my QFI instructor I was allowed time to recognise a deviation and correct it myself before he would intervene.

At that time I had experienced two very different approaches to the same training and knew which I preferred. When I finally did my JAR PPL in 2006 I found things had moved on in the civilian world.

Some of what I experienced is no doubt due to individual personality. I think in general military instructors perhaps because of the different ethos behave differently to their civilian counterparts.

[tempesta]

and plus military crosswind technique :ok:
is " wing down top rudder" instead of ppl "crab"

[Easy Street]

and plus military crosswind technique http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif
is " wing down top rudder" instead of ppl "crab"

No, I'm afraid not (well not in the UK anyway). The RAF teaches the crab technique at Elementary Flying Training, and certainly all the way through fast jet training. I can't vouch for other types but mine is landed from a crabbed approach. The stability augmentation system even minimises the yaw-induced roll on kicking off drift, very nice thank-you.

Not sure how the multi-engine crowd are taught?

[Trojan1981]

Shouldn't you really be comparing military v CPL/ATPL?
PPL weekend warriors fly for different reasons and can't be expected to (all though some do) meet the high standards of professional aircrew.

[curvedsky]

Have a look at this extract from a mid-1960s Lockheed U-2 flight manual for the C, F, G, H series with the J-75 engine ...

From this graph, as the U-2 climbs through 70,000' altitude in a mission cruise climb – the aircraft stall speed is 94 knots IAS, and the mach buffet boundary is 100 kts IAS.

The safe flight margin is therefore 6 knots between the onset of stalling buffet or encountering high speed mach buffet. Climb speed at 70,000' is 97 knots, just 3 knots either side of buffet. The TAS is however around 400 knots.

Aircraft external mission configuration - aerials, scoops, camera windows, pods - will generally affect these numbers adversely.

:=


http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c372/fmhshoes/Lockheed%20U-2%20chart%20buffet%20boundary%201960/U-2coffincornerbuffetboundary.jpg

:ok:

[tempesta]

i'm telling you, for the U.S. Navy is wing down top rudder, no need for last second corrections more stable during flare and no swerving moment upon touchdown...who knows, maybe on a 10000 foot long Rwy the crab may work, but when you need to land "hard" and safe wing down top rudder saves your ass:mad::ok:

[Trim Stab]

no need for last second corrections more stable during flare and no swerving moment upon touchdown...who knows, maybe on a 10000 foot long Rwy the crab may work


Best to learn both methods, and use them according to aircraft characteristics and circumstances. I think the the crab technique is best for low-wing conventional undercarriage aircraft where precision is less important than smoothness, whereas wing-down top-rudder is better for high-wing aircraft, taildraggers, or when precision is primordial. Plenty of shades of grey in between though.

It is interesting to read though that the RAF are now teaching the crab method at EFT.

[tempesta]

i like what you say:ok:

[Lonewolf_50]

tempesta:

I got a wake up call a few years back flying with a Marine Col who was a Hornet driver. We were doing proficiency flying in a T-34C, which isn't carrier capable/strong. We teach "wing down, top rudder" for crosswing landings in that aircraft.

Apparently, F-18 habit is to crab, for reasons I don't know but can guess at. Given that the standard FCLP and CV landing are intended to be both main mounts at once, for obvious reasons, perhaps that's the default. Also, the non-flare nature of a standard fixed AoA approach to firm landing.

Anyhoo, as he sets up for the landing, about a ten knot crosswind, I'm sittin' back there in the back seat about to crap me pants, as we are about to land in a substantial crab. Called for waveoff, and of course he waved off, a few feet above touchdown. Asked me if he'd missed seeing something on the runway. I waited until downwind to explain to him what had me worried, to which he responded "What, you don't land in a crab?"

Knowing he needed wing down, top rudder, he flew the next approach beautifully and greased it on.

[50+Ray]

Having taught EFT since 1981 it has always been 'crab' technique in a crosswind, though point and shoot came in well after my CFS course. In the wonderful Vulcan I seem to remember that 4 degrees of bank at touchdown could scrape a wingtip, so that was crab method too!
Crashing onto a deck moving in random directions is a skill I thankfully never needed, despite teaching RN students on and off for a good 10 years, so I accept the USN may have different priorities.
R

[orca]

Just to put the record straight...

There is a big cliff to the east of Salalah, Oman, that you have to ridge roll to 180 degrees of bank as you go over it south bound. They have a UN mandate in place to make sure that you do, and I think I'm right in saying that local bye laws insist you do it in fourship wall and achieve 30 plus degrees nose down before rolling back up the right way.

Might not be a UN thing, possibly in the Thumrait FOB, or Omani En Route Sup...but I'm sure I've read it somewhere - wouldn't have authorised it otherwise!!;)

[tempesta]

Good story! Love t-34:D