Simulators?
In addition to the tragic losses inflicted on the organisation, as others have alluded to the introduction of the 'simulators' is an area which I strongly feel we should be concerned about.
Firstly, they were brought in under a cloud of suggestions that a certain (deliberately nameless) person within the organisation had very strong links with the sims' manufacturer. I couldn't possibly comment, but this does seem to be some sort of 'open secret'...
More importantly, the role which they now seem set to play is almost certain to create a dangerous and toxic situation for any aspiring pilot who comes in to contact with them. Until now, they have been referred to in official terms as 'Part-Task Trainers (PTTs)'; this presumably is so that nobody would make the mistake of thinking that these were anything other than a limited-value training aid. It appears now that given the text of the parliamentary update and internal briefing note these PTTs are set to become a key part of future VGS training.
Now first of all, it can't have slipped people's attention that the thousands of pounds of the Charitable Trust's money spent on Vigilant PTTs will have been completely wasted (even if you happen to be in the camp which believes these things were a good idea in the first place). No Cadets have been trained on Vigilants since their introduction; to my knowledge so far no instructors outside of CGS have been given the opportunity to regain instructional categories. Given the likely recovery timescales (to include bringing aircraft back to flying status, requalifying crew and finally bringing Squadrons back to operational status) it looks extremely doubtful that by the 2019 retirement date that much meaningful Cadet training will have been done on Vigilant aircraft. I suppose we can just add the charity money wasted by whoever made the procurement decision on to all the rest of the catastrophic financial decisions throughout this debacle.
In terms of the devices themselves, they leave an awful lot to be desired. In the interest of balance, it's perhaps important to say that I've not had the pleasure of the Viking PTT and therefore this relates to the Vigilant from somebody experienced on type and also experienced in instruction on other types (from light aircraft to turbine) including significant simulator training in various FSTDs/FNPTs/FFSs. I would be interested in hearing the thoughts of others and also some feedback from the Viking fraternity. The major failings are:
- These devices are wholly inappropriate to the task: Ab-initio visual flying training CANNOT and SHOULD NOT be taught in a synthetic training device (particularly a low-grade one) for a whole host of reasons; not least because this task requires mechanical sympathy, control feedback, full appreciation of aircraft trimming, full outside visual reference and a strong emphasis on LOOKOUT.
- They do not accurately depict the handling characteristics, attitudes or performance of the aircraft: For instance, far less power is required to maintain level flight than for the real aircraft, airbrake use produces far less effect than for real, control co-ordination required significantly off the mark, approximately half rudder deflection required to maintain balance in a 20-30 degree bank turn, no trim change with power application or speed change, trim lever totally ineffective (seems to be decorative), constant control force on all axes at all speeds.
Furthermore, the 'generic' handling characteristics mean that the PTT's behaviour as you move further from S+L flight becomes even less realistic. For instance, you can apply and hold full aft elevator, full rudder and full opposite aileron and you won't even see an incipient spin. Equally, it's possible to perform a fairly low-speed aileron roll at the end of the runway after take-off. A G109 will crash if you try that. Yes, I would agree that these devices are not intended as aerobatic trainers, however if a FSTD is to be used for structured flying training, it must not allow pilots to operate in such a way as would kill them in real life. This is a significant danger.
- Poor/nil replication of important controls: One possible way in which the device could have been put to use would be as an emergency procedures trainer. However, various important controls have been so poorly replicated as to have a negative training value. The feathering handle, for instance, which is used to cause significant drag reduction in case of power-unit failure, in the aircraft requires a firm pull of about 12 inches, before being rotated through 90 degrees. In the PTT, it only needs to be turned through 90 degrees, can be done with thumb and finger, and (incredibly) says 'DO NOT PULL' on it. The carburettor hot air control does not need to be rotated to unlock/lock, and moves out less than half the distance needed for fully hot in the aircraft. The airbrake lever, of which one of the main training points is that it has an over-centre lock and must be positively checked to be locked when not physically being used, is not fitted with any form of lock in the PTT. Not locking in the actual aircraft could result in a serious accident. I've witnessed an incredibly near miss, I'm sure I'm not the only one. I believe this was also the suspected cause of the crash at Henlow a few years ago which was a very lucky escape.
These are just a sample of the device's shortcomings, however the possible consequences of training low-time students with such fundemental elements lacking could be catastrophic. As yet, I believe a sim training programme has not yet been implemented (although I understand one exists), however I personally am not prepared to partake in any such training as I believe it to be not only of poor value, but also dangerous. I would encourage other VGS personnel to think carefully before becoming involved in this, and if you feel strongly enough to report it through the normal safety reporting channels.
Safe flying,
A38