Glass cockpit vs Analogue trainers

[Bakelite]

Just a thought but does anyone else think that the rush for glass cockpit trainers is just another way of WOS fleecing the defence budget of more cash?

If these trainers are so radical/necessary why is the Valley product still winning places on single seat OCUs?

Or if the training over here is just as good then doesn't this prove that we don't need/can do without the gold plated solution?

[Capt W E Johns]

Speaking from another theatre, and without knowing any of the background to your suggestion, it seems to me that if pilots are going to fly with a certain type of equipment it makes sense to train them to use it.

There's more to a glass cockpit than simply representing analogue dials on a CRT / LCD screen - multi-function displays are now the norm on all modern aeroplanes, and pilots, being the simple folk they are, require training in their use. It's far more economical to teach someone to use that equipment on a $100/ hr training airframe tha it is to take a $2000/hr operational asset out of service.

The modern generation of digital flight displays is more reliable, efficient, accurate and cheaper to run than their analogue equivalents. So if someone is looking to make money out of the fit, the only place they will get it is in the initial purchase price. After a few years in service, they pay for themselves. Ask the civilian light aeroplane drivers - there's plenty of digitial displays in service now, and not for their training benefits.

[Greenleader]

Bake

Valley is still producing single seat candidates cos the OCU's need them, albeit in reduced numbers right now. Valley will shortly be getting said glass cockpit trainers, as with Typhoon now eventually about to come in and with JSF on the horizon, the studes need to know what they are letting themselves in for. Kit management is a big part of successful operation of a modern fast jet, and should be taught early, on cheaper platforms.

Capt J - I concur.

[Bakelite]

Capt J

If you are going to replace sorties from the OCU with ones flown by the new trainers then I can see that the cost savings are obvious, but is that how it will work?

I imagine that the Typhoon OCU syllabus assumes non glass cockpit training. With the introduction of the 128 are they planning to reduce the numbers of sorties? I doubt it. So where is the saving?

If we are moving towards glass cockpit trainers because they are cheaper, which I doubt, to operate long term thats one thing. But lets not pretend that using INS/GPS and HUDs are difficult. A few hours in a sim practising is all you need for that.

[Chronic Snoozer]

Fishing anyone?

[mbga9pgf]

Bakelite, Think you will find thats why the majority of the Typhoon course will be run in the sim and not in the real jet... What is the bonus of perfecting stopwatch map and compass when what the stude really needs is to perfect is management of the many systems that will be integrated on modern jets, as well as leading large packages into the target. Synth airborne training aids can now go as far as varying the workload depending upon the pilots previous performance, allowing more systems to become "online" and can simulate multiple bvr engagements, something far more suitable than basic max rate turn at the merge. By that stage in the real world, i would suspect that with modern missiles, the stude will be dead.

The aim of flying training surely has always been to prepare the student for the next stage of flying and to this end, in my personal view, modern glass cockpits and synthetic airbourne training is definately the way ahead.