A thought about the RAF and no C17 simulator

[herkman]

Has consideration and any discusions taken place with the RAAF about using its simulator whilst the fight goes on about if and when you will get one.

Whilst Australia is some distance compared with the USA, I suspect that the one at Amberley would not be fully utilized.

Nice posting for some RAF instructors, nice weather most of the time and not a bad bunch to work with.

One of the outcomes of our fatal 707 crash, was our government takes flying safety with the degree of urgency.

Our C17 simulator must be close to being commissioned.

Just a thought which might benefit all.

Regards

Col

[polyglory]

Good idea Col,

Wonder if the MOD ever thought of that, methinks not.

[Uncle Ginsters]

Col - in a nutshell, the answer is no.

All of the C17 sims are run by Boeing. They sell their sim hours to us. That would be the case even if we had a sim here in the UK. It is already a crew-intensive business using the sims in the US - 6 days away for a 2-sim schedule. Using the Aussie sim would amplify that. It would also strain our already restricted T&S budget to breaking point!

Whilst a nice idea to post RAF instructors there, all instruction in the sim is done by Boeing staff, apart from a week at the end of the OCU. In the current climate, I can't see posts being created unnecessarily.

As the UK C17 numbers grow, it is a safe assumption that a UK C17 Sim is under constant review. The NATO C17 program in Hungary can only help our case as Boeing may now also have further Europe-based customers for a UK sim.
It's a simple case of supply & demand.

Uncle G

[skaterboi]

Are we not entitled/required to have a UK based C-17 Sim if we have a fleet of 8 ac? Had heard that one floating about but I've no idea if it's true or not!

[nigegilb]

That is correct, 8 aircraft triggers the Sim.

[Uncle Ginsters]

nigegilb That is correct, 8 aircraft triggers the Sim.


You say that with some certainty Nige - do you know something that FSAST IPT, UK C17 IPT and 99 Sqn don't?

[vecvechookattack]

Having worked at FSaST I can assure you that the number of Airframes is irrelevant. The requirement as to how you train crews on any aircraft will be as a result of the TNA. If you have 1 aircraft and the TNA states that you need 3 synthetic training devices then so be it.

[nigegilb]

Well,if you get another, you'll find out if I'm right :ok:

I got interested cos someone brought it to my attention that there had been an incident or two (one serious), going into Kandahar. It was being suggested that it would be extremely useful to have a UK based Sim, not least, so that C17 crews could practice Afghan approaches with crosswinds etc to their heart's content, instead of learning on the job. The other training issue brought up was the extremely limited NVG training crews were receiving before being cleared for NVG approaches operationally.

I did a bit of digging and have it on very good authority that 8 aircraft would automatically trigger funding for a UK Sim.

I was in Brussels last week and chatting about this pooled resource for C17s for smaller EU countries. The subject of Sims came up again. Seems daft to me that you don't have one already, but I am sure that those in high office would argue that it is desirable but not necessary. The thrust of the argument being the training provided in America is more than adequate. I know this because I have already had the discussion...

[Uncle Ginsters]

Nige,
On that basis you may very well be right - but what you're talking about is declaring a further training requirement over and above that which already exists. In an ideal world, with money no issue, of course that's what the Sqn would want. However, trying to create a training requirement when none is perceived to exist at the moment (i take it the KDH issue you refer to is the wing oscillation dink several years ago now, linked to a known software issue that has since been rectified).

The UK's C17s now operate on a very regular basis into theatre without, touch wood, any major incidents that such a lack of training to which you refer might suggest.

As i said earlier - the sim procurement is based upon making sufficient use of the hours that it would provide. It's not the same as the C130/VC10/FJ sims where they are effectively owned and controlled by the Sqn. We could always fill the hours with quality training, but that would cost by the hour. Funding in the MOD is so scarce at the moment that i would challenge anyone to find hard cash for something that isn't deemed to be of the highest operational imperative - we can't even afford biscuits for the AOC for Christ's sake!

As you said "desirable, not essential", sadly. :sad:

I would love, however, to be proven wrong and see the C17 training expand to cover all eventualities, tactics, theatres, contingencies and emergencies on a regular but basis.

Here's hoping that a decision on UK8 isn't too far away and we'll find out for sure.:D


Uncle G.

[nigegilb]

No, the incident I am referring to is a C17 which landed short of the runway quite recently.

The suggestion of a shortage of training came from the crews themselves. (not I hasten to add the crew involved in this incident). They didn't think 3 UK NVG training sorties were adequate either. But the party line is that it is not required. Don't want to step on any toes here, merely relaying what I was told.

You eloquently repeat what I heard in my previous conversation explaining the desirability of a UK Sim, versus the harsh reality of the economic climate.

I hasten to add that an aircraft, crew and passenger load is also extremely expensive.

[VinRouge]

Nige,
There isnt an aircraft type that operates to that location that hasnt landed short there.

Including the types that have sims.

"Missing the box" shouldnt happen, but still does from time to time. Dare I say its not too big a deal in the grand scheme?

[A and C]

8 Aircraft sounds about right for the cost break even point for a simulator The number of aircraft vs Sim break even in the last airline I worked for was I am told 11.

So I guess it depends on how the RAF's numbers pan out, as for using the RAAF's sim, I should think that a rugby scrum has already formed at the door of the postings office!

[nigegilb]

Vin Rouge, I guess it depends on how much you miss the box by!!

[herkman]

I am afraid your information is wrong and can be confirmed with a Google search on RAAF C17 simulator.

Our simulator was bought and paid for under the FMS system and was installed in a specially built building again paid for by the Government. Later this year we are to take delivery of the cargo compartment section of the simulator.

The RAAF really led the way in simulator purchases with them being bought for the C130A, E,H and J models. After the loss of the 707 VIP airplane the government relented and fast tracked one of them. With the sale of the last three 707 tankers to Omega this simulator was sold to them.

Boeing may be supplying the staff to run the C17 simulator at this stage, but I suspect that further down the track the staff will either be ex RAAF or RAAF. I do know that some of the instructers are ex RAAF.

I cannot see how it is being operated to maximum capacity.

However there are rumblings, which all would understand that we want to buy another two frames, Still alot short of the magical eight figure quoted.

Would be nice to see more RAF operating experiance shared down under.

Regards

Col

[VinRouge]

Nige, it does indeed. Miss it by too much, I think the phrase is "CFIT"! :ok:

[The B Word]

Nige et al

The Sentry has a Flt Deck Sim and a Mission Sim for only 7ac. Surely, it is the number of crews that generate the requirement not the number of ac?

Just a thought

The B Word

[Uncle Ginsters]

Our simulator was bought and paid for under the FMS system and was installed in a specially built building again paid for by the Government

A Government with money to pay for things outright?

You're clearly not giving the immigrants enough benefits down there!:ugh:

B Word - it's a factor of all things, in this case it's the number of training hours required. Obviously that's related to number of crews which, in turn, is related to the number of ac. It's also related to the number of trg hrs per crew which is very difficult to justify increasing.

[nigegilb]

B word, you could well be right, I would still claim to be technically correct if the eighth aircraft acts as the trigger for the crew requirement!! :ok:

I am willing to have a small wager..

[Union Jack]

If the dark blue may chip in, it's somewhat reminiscent of the situation in 1906 when the Conservative Party, aided and abetted by the then First Sea Lord, Admiral Jackie Fisher, campaigned for more DREADNOUGHTs with the slogan "We want eight and we won't wait".:ok:

Jack

[A2QFI]

When I worked in Oman we had 24 Jaguars and it was considered economic to fly every Jaguar pilot to UK (Coltishall or Lossie) twice a year to do 5 x 2 sim trips, rather than buying and maintaning a flt sim in country.

[bitsleftover66]

Sorry Nige but the 'trigger' isnt aircraft in this case, its how many sim hours can be consumed and at the present time it isnt even close. The utilisation could be less of an issue if a 3rd party provider should wish to take the risk of selling spare sim capacity to for instance, NATO crews. That option is very much alive....I believe. Incidentally, the sim costs in the USA are incredibly cheap, making the BC for a UK sim even harder to get past the first post.

[herkman]

On Monday our time, the first of the continuation traing commences at Amberley for crews that are already qualified to operate the C17.

This will mean that no longer will crews have to go to the USAF for simulator rides.

On February 1st the first students to convert through the simulator program will undertake simulator instruction. A big step forward for 36 squadron.

Initually the RAAF sent I think it was five crews to the USA for training (bearing in mind we only originally took delivery of one airframe. The USAF also sent an instructor pilot to Australia and we also picked up at least one qualified captain who had been on exchange duty with the USAF.

In regard to Loadmasters the initual ones came from C130 squadrons. The loadmaster chief instructor is ex Air Force and works for Boeing under their contract to do the simulator training for the C17.

It also appears that the Loadmaster training part of the simulator is in place and enables the student to perform all his pre flight duties.

As I indicated previously the simulator is owned by the RAAF and Boeing is there to provide the staff to allow it to be operated.

It does appear that the simulator being made available to the RAAF was part of the agreement when purchase of the airplane was contracted.

Perhaps some ;lateral thinking by the RAF/RAAF could turn into a win win situation, where the RAaF could train new Loadmasters for you, and maybe provide RAF simulator requirements for all crew positions.

The benefit for the RAAF other than more efficient use of the simulator, would be the exchange of operational and other experiences coming from the RAF.

Of course your shortage of Loadmaster training slots, could be by either exchanging staff or by sending Loadmasters to Australia fro training.

Now that should open up the old Chestnut of airman aircrew.

A thought

regards

Col

[Squirrel 41]

Union J

Indeed, with Churchill's famous dictum:

"The Admiralty's analysis said six; The Treasury said four; We settled on eight."

Perhaps he had a point. Can't see it working today, though. Perhaps we'd have more success with UK8 with the "Spirit of Delta" model (Delta Heritage Museum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit_of_Delta#The_Spirit_of_Delta)). A day's pay each peeps? I'm in, as it's the only way we're going to get the damn jet..

Interestingly, UAE is now up to six. Quite why is anyone's guess. Racehorse transports?

S41

[GreenKnight121]

My understanding is that UAE either has been or is wanting to play a bigger part in UN Peacekeeping & humanitarian operations.

Since they don't have very many troops, their goal is to provide transport for the troops/equipment/supplies for other Arabic, African, etc nations that are supplying troops/equipment/supplies.

[Squirrel 41]

GK121,

Hmm, possible. But will believe it when I see it. Or in a few years could be some low-hour airframes that have been lavished with care and attention going cheap - sounds like the perfect RAF acquisition strategy.....

S41

[Gainesy]

Slight thread meander:

They are all spiffing and v clever, but these days do we really need the umpteen degrees of motion and super duper graphics of the latest sims ?

All adds to the price for aircrew who, in the main, will be fairly experienced to be selected for the C-17 and, dare I say, know pretty much what a cloud looks like.

[VinRouge]

Gainsey, full motion is a legal requirement for instrument ratings. Seeing as the RTS does not permit Assy work (as I understand it, can someone on 99 confirm this?) without the motion and uber graphics, they would end up still going to the states once a year (or at least every 13 months) for IRs.

A procedural sim I imagine would be handy, but the training you can achieve is very limited.

Also, if we were to get a sim, we would have the option of full mission sims, potentially linked another sim, if 400M gets ****canned, they have an expansion of the C-17 fleet and start to operate tactically for 30 tonne single pallet airdrop, block 40 CDS and throwing the entirety of D Sqn out the back in a single run!

[Union Jack]

I'm in, as it's the only way we're going to get the damn jet

Interesting, Squirrel, and reminds me how tanks in WWI and aircraft in WWII used to funded by public collections, the latter often taking place alongside static displays in public places, such as, I believe, a Mosquito by the Scott Monument in Princes Street Gardens in Edinburgh.

Jack

[fallmonk]

Can i ask a daft Question ?
Much does a C-17 sim cost to buy ?
and wot are the general running cost's per anum?

[herkman]

Umm!

Interesting concept just do not let our Labour government down here find about that idea, we would find ourselves with yet another levy.

Should be quite an attention getter for the cause, think a C17 would grab plenty of attention parked in front of the Palace. The Queen herself might dip into her purse and give a bit of a contribution too.

If the British public knew how little uplift capacity we both have then there would be more concern I am sure displayed by them.

Down here the press gave our ability a hammering with the situation in Timour when we had to hire from overseas more capacity.

I believe that at the end of WW2 the then USAAF had a large display of aircraft at the base of the tower, but I do not know if the flew them in or came by truck.

Regards

Col

[ZFT]

Can i ask a daft Question ?
Much does a C-17 sim cost to buy ?
and wot are the general running cost's per anum?Where Boeing's are concerned parts & data costs can be astronomical. B787 data is around US$8M!! Military data tends to be far higher. The actual FFS hardware costs pale into insignificance.

(Within the commercial world Boeing's are currently trying to introduce a 15% levy on everyone to do with anything with Boeing simulators!).

[vecvechookattack]

Within the commercial world Boeing's are currently trying to introduce a 15% levy on everyone to do with anything with Boeing simulators!Which is actually quite cheap and extremely reasonable. The Data that Airbus provided to CAE for the A380 was considerably more than 15%.

The cost of synthetic training devices is not an easy question to answer as again it will much depend on the result of the TNA. What do you want the simulator to do for instance? A civvy airliner simulator is quite cheap as the "simulation" doesn't do anything. The only thing being simulated is the aircraft and its systems. A complex military simulator such as those as Benson is very, very expensive as the "simulation" has to react to the actions of the crew. For instance, should a crew stray into the MEZ of a SAM battery then the simulation must provide for the aircraft to be shot at. The military simulation has to provide for other models of Ships, Aircraft etc which should replicate as much as possible the real thing. i.e. to be able to teach Deck landings in the Merlin / Lynx simulators requires the simulation to provide realistic sea conditions where the ship model pitches and rolls as it would for real.

As a broad rule of thumb though, the average military simulator will cost in the region of 2 or 3 of the real aircraft cost.

[nigegilb]

As I understand it at the moment, 99 Sqn are having severe difficulties securing aircraft for local flying training. Not only that, but they also had to fight off attempts to reduce allocated training hours for sqn crews. Were not talking MEZs and the like here, we are merely discussing ways to renew and refresh flying skills.

The serious incident that occurred in Afg did not involve hostile action.

I just hope, that yet again, decision makers aren't going to be wise AFTER the event. We lost a Hercules in the Kabul area that landed short some months ago, everyone walked away. Since I left the fleet experience in depth has evaporated, we can make up for it with high quality training. Without access to aircraft for local training, or the flexibility provided by in-house simulator training we are asking the squadron to balance operational imperative and risk.

Why can't they just have the training they are entitled to?

[VinRouge]

Nige,

I agree with your sentiment, but I think you are overplaying the landing short incident.

How much MCT prevents serious sink in the undershoot, as that airfield is famed for?

As I have previously stated, landing short shouldnt happen, but it does from time to time. ( I am talking about 10 yards short here, not half a mile).

All fleets are going to come under increasing pressure to reduce training allocations, due to unservacability and of course, budget. The message that needs to get across is this: People need to be proactive in flaging up if they feel that the lack of flying is getting to a stage they feel uncomfortable with. Not Unsafe, uncomfortable. People also need to ensure "btr magicery" doesnt occur and the BTR extension process is used correctly. Ultimately, it will be Station STANEVAL staffs responsibility to monitor this and more importantly, demand more hours off the station executive if they feel that is what is required.

[herkman]

What a interesting question, not helped by the answers being hidden in a pile of areas.

However in 2004 the USAF wrote congress and advised.

1. Motion simulators are now the only type of simulators to be purchased, but sought and obtained for the C141 a waiver, as they were to come out of service in 2006.

2. The price of the C17 simulator was listed at U$5M but I suspect that covered only the flight deck part. As you would know that extra parts and duties will be covered and include Loadmaster and loading training. Plus a module that deals with technical training.

3. Recently a specially built C17 load training fusalage was taken from the Boeing plant, put on a special Army ship and moved through the panama canal to Fort Bragg.

I will however warn you that searching on google on C17 simulators will more than take up a boring afternoon.

The RAAF is spending A$256M on the infra sytructure for the C17. However this is not just the simulator cost, but covers hardstands, Air movements buildings, Servicing workshops, refueling points etc on all major Australian bases.

Regards

Col

[ZFT]

vecvechookattack

Quote:
Within the commercial world Boeing's are currently trying to introduce a 15% levy on everyone to do with anything with Boeing simulators!
Which is actually quite cheap and extremely reasonable. The Data that Airbus provided to CAE for the A380 was considerably more than 15%.
Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear enough. Mr Boeing intends to introduce this levy on existing devices already in the field, nothing to do with data packs.

If you do 3rd party training on, buy a simulated spare part, update including non Boeing updates, in fact just about any activity on an existing Boeing simulator irrespective of age will attract this 15% levy.

A civvy airliner simulator is quite cheap as the "simulation" doesn't do anything. The only thing being simulated is the aircraft and its systems.Interesting statement. The art of today's simulation IMHO is the integration of the 'aircraft' into the non aircraft environment. Atmosphere, motion, visual, C/L, sound etc..

Today the airframe manufacturers tend to supply the simulator manufacturers with the aircraft systems software object code as part of the simulator data pack. The simulator manufacturers have no control over this anymore. Certainly the A380 and B787 have gone this way.

[VinRouge]

ZFT, surely CAE and the like have a set software programme which they re-use for all types, weather, windshear and the like are not independent of type... surely then its just a case of modifying the linear equations of motion for each type depending upon the output from the flight model supplied by the aircraft manufacturer?

Most of the avionics boxes thse days in modern sims are the actual boxes used in the aircraft, with software supplying the data they would expect (position, tas, SAT, TAT etc).

I dont understand where the significant levy comes from, just because its a "new" type, especially civvy. The Graphics hardware and software will be the same. Ground handling would be the only thing I can think of that would require individual modelling (hence why a lot of sims dont do a great job of recreating ground handling).

I can completely understand why it gets expensive once you start throwing airdrop/Air to Air refueling and threat response into the mix, as these are highly type specific, for example, the interaction between AAR aircraft types and the aircraft require detailed modelling to recreate the complex aerodynamics that go on. I was surprised to see the Herc sim "simulates" the pressure wave and bumbling on the flight controls as you approch the AAR aircrafts wake... very realistic.

[huwliet]

Long time reader, first or second time poster i can't quite remember but as regards to C-17's landing short in dusty places i think you might be referring to a place just up the north west of kandahar and the distance short was about 300m taking out a lot of approach lights and the like but looking at threshold tyre marks they haven't been the only ones!

[nigegilb]

Thanks Huwliet, I had been appraised of my mistake earlier by PM. As you have now done so on the thread I would like to confirm that this was the incident that I was originally referring to. Very nearly ending the same way as the "Kabul" Hercules, which wasn't so lucky. I am quite sure a simulator for C17 could be had for a fraction of the cost of a single aircraft, certainly when comparing the cost of the C130J sim.

I am grateful for your correction.

[VinRouge]

And, I ask again, how will a sim stop serious sink during short finals, as that place is famed for?

Its something that all crews there are well aware of and is overcome by two words - "Go Around!", and an automatic no quibbles go-around off a gpws warning in short finals.

Thats not to say a sim wouldnt pay its way, it would, as long as we started training for excellence once again, instead of training for competency.

[ZFT]

VinRouge,

surely CAE and the like have a set software programme which they re-use for all types, weather, windshear and the like are not independent of type

Of course non type specific modules tend to be common across all types but technology doesn't stand still and improved models are introduced quite frequently.

Most of the avionics boxes these days in modern sims are the actual boxes used in the aircraft,

No longer the case. Retargeted or rehosted avionic are the preferred solutions. EGPWS is just about the only avionics box left in a modern sim.

To restate - The Boeing 15% levy is nothing to do with new types, it is a tax on existing equipment in the field.