G120TP
BEagle …
I think you have hit one of the nails firmly on the head with your comments about Glass/LED instrumentation and the need for Tyro Bloggs to develop from Day 1 a good lookout/instrument scan technique. To a lesser extent I recently wondered at the sensibility of some mounting Glass/LED instrumentation in something like a C172 … there seemed to be a disproportionate amount of time ‘Head In’ than ‘Head Out’. No harm moving to more sophisticated instrumentation once the basic skills are instilled.
Background Noise …
It’s probably just terminology, but I understand the G120TP is to cover Elementary Flying Training where as the T6C is for Basic Jet Training under the MFTS model. I accept that the JP was used for ‘all through’ jet training, but the RAF did return to the use of a fixed undercarriage airframe for Tyro Bloggs be he or she FJ, ME or RW streamed. It might just be my memory … but I think the SIAI Marchetti/Alenia Aermacch SF260 was once considered by the RAF as an Elementary Trainer but rejected by CFS because of the retractable undercarriage concern and the fact that the SF260 was considered comparatively easy to enter an ‘unintentional spin’.
Trying not to be too cynical … I wonder if we are seeing the first signs of attempting to train ‘Systems Operators’ as opposed to ‘Pilots’ (that’s pilot in the conventional sense most members will identify with). I recall seeing some marketing guff for the F-35 recently saying something along the lines of … ‘the technology is there to free the pilot from piloting allowing him or her to focus on the battle scene, enemy engagement and ordinance delivery’ …
All perfectly logical but how long before the ‘Accountants/Bean Counters’ push this philosophy down the training line with the aim of saving money. Greater use of so called ‘Synthetics/Simulation’ followed by a bit of actual airborne learning reinforcement … all quite scary really. I’m sure the vast majority of members wouldn’t disagree that there is no substitute for learning to fly with a few 000’ feet under your bum. Simulators have their place but no matter how ‘real’ the virtual experience … it isn’t flying.
It will be interesting to see what the MFTS Elementary Training course profile looks like in terms of the training mix.
Phenom 100
I’ve not seen the Phenom close up, but based on the imagery I have seen, I wondered at it’s ability to offer a reasonably challenging learning experience as far as asymmetric flight is concerned. Whilst outwardly similar but smaller than say the HS125/Dominie T1 the fan nacelles appear closer to the fuselage centerline and closer (more forward) to the (estimated) CofG. Also having in mind that the airframe is predominately for Civil Single Pilot/Owner operation (for those that can afford it), I would have thought asymmetric handling might be a bit benign by design ?
Given the mix of ‘Heavies’ the RAF now has and expects to acquire in the future … a good asymmetric training airframe seems to be an absolute necessity.
T6C
On paper (public domain stuff) the T6C appears a good feed-in to the Hawk T2. But in this brave new MFTS World FJ Bloggs won’t have got his or her hands on a jet as yet. So if the T6C is to replace the Hawk T1, will there be a need to start FJ Bloggs earlier on the Hawk T2 … ergo more Hawk T2’s will be needed ?
Enough for the moment … What are the views of others ?
Cheers …
Coff.
Last edited by CoffmanStarter; 2nd Jan 2016 at 06:05.