RAF Flying Trg System - How good

[Mike RO'Channel]

When I went through the trg system it was reputedly the best in the world. How does it compare now?:confused:

[BEagle]

You only ever get what you pay for..........

Personally I think that the 'old' Chipmunk/JP wings course, followed by AFTS on the Gnat/Pig/Whirlwind, then (for fighter pilots - we didn't use the silly term 'FJ' in those days) TWU on the Hunter was an excellent system. It was, however, expensive....

Now we don't have jet basic training, ME and RW pilots don't even fly the propeller-driven Tucano. Elementary training isn't even on military aeroplanes.......

You only ever get what you pay for.........

[AllTrimDoubt]

Beags

Elementary may not be on "mil" aeroplanes anymore, but depending on the cut of your cloth, the one you might fly is far more "military" in performance and ability than the more numerous "other" EFT version. Get my drift?

Rgds

[Iron City]

Many moons ago (more than I care to think of) did some comparison work on the curricula (curriculiums?) of the different air forces (lower case, includes navys) around the world. While this was curriculium only and didn't begin to get into the numerous other things that make a training program when you
compare French, British, Australian, Italian, Russian, German, USAF and USN curriclaa for tactical jets from ab initio to OCU/FRS/TRU whatever you call it the curricula were all remarkably the same in terms of total flying hours and proportion of hours spent in different subject matter areas.

The other thing that was good for a laugh was the USAF argument that the T-38 and whatever replacement there would ever be must be supersonic because of the curriculum requirement. When you looked at the flight sylabus they had 1 supersonic introduction hop (instructor drives, student watches) and 1 hop where the student drives and instructor watches) Of course this 3 hours in the whole program drives a heavier, thirstier, more maintenance intensive jet and costs mucho dinero over the life cycle. We decided to use a button to make the ASI go supersonic on instructor option and save the money to buy more aircraft and use them more.

[BEagle]

ATD - I'm not sure which of the 2 glider-based civil aeroplanes with dismally poor roll rates you're referring to - the plastic pig which isn't allowed to fly IMC or the one with the cloth-covered ailerons which is......

[DB6]

ATD, not from this time next year. It was confirmed yesterday that JEFTS Church Fenton will close, the task being absorbed into two or more UAS Direct Entry flights. The Navy and Army will continue to be trained at Barkston/Cranwell and Middle Wallop but the RAF has decided to save a couple of quid to spend on the various well run programs that appear elsewhere in these forums. Time will tell.

[AllTrimDoubt]

BEagle

I refer to the yellow of course! Whilst the roll rate may be disappointing the 260 does give our budding aviators a bit of grunt for a light piston to contend with and master. And IT never stopped flying in cloud...! 250' would have been nice for navs, but you can't win 'em all.

[BEagle]

Correct interpretation of Rule 5 would actually allow you to fly as low as you liked - so long as you were not less than 500' from people,vehicles, vessels and structures....e.g. in a suitable military low level training enclave.

That'll be the yellow peril based on the Fournier RF6 motorglider then. The same aircraft as the US withdrew from military flying training service........

Surely someone in UK plc can design a decent affordable military elementary trainer which isn't hampered by glider roll rates? Perhaps a development of the Europa might fit the bill?

[Audax]

The system can only be as good as the people in it. Fortunately, I firmly believe the QFIs (military & civil) are just as good as they ever have been---and I've seen many over the years. There are some shortcomings with the a/c but, as ever, economy rules and the studes will be taught behind a propellor for a long time yet.

So yes, the system is still fine; it will never be perfect but it's still pretty damned good.

[STANDTO]

What ARE you all worrying about?

Come Typhoon, UAS will be on the Commodore 64 or Amiga, EFTS on the PS2, TWU on the XBOX with ASDL datastream turned on and OCU will be on the BAE simulator.

Problem sorted

Training airfields can be sold for squillions for houses to be built on and we can all have a pay rise with the profits.

[Mike RO'Channel]

Standto may have a point. Perhaps we could export all fg trg to the simulator and only have a 'real-world famil' at the end of each course? Whither the 'pucker factor' of ****e wx, qfi patter, emergencies and ATC other ac interference?

[DB6]

BEagle, I try to bite my tongue and not rise to the bait but after a couple of libations it becomes very hard. What ARE you talking about? I assume from your various previous posts that you are well aquainted with EFT but, that being the case, exactly where in the syllabus is a roll rate of 360 degrees per second called for? The Firefly is used for elementary training and grading/selection, yes? What is the roll rate of the C130, the Merlin, the C17? Eh?
Alan Wade won the display sword at RIAT recently in a Firefly with his routine, so don't tell me the aircraft isn't capable. The same aircraft is fully IFR certified and airways equipped and will climb to 10,000 feet in as many minutes. The Firefly 260, for the job it has to do and the constraints placed upon it, is one of the best aircraft available. (To be fair the Grob, once its problems are ironed out, will be OK as well but the Firefly is better).
Your comment about the US Military does not show you in a good light. If you knew anything at all about the whole sorry saga you would not raise it in support of your argument; that you evidently do not means you would be better advised to hold your own counsel.
Yours always :D

[BEagle]

DB6 - a few points:

1. The increased availability of RAF QFIs due to better manning balance figures is the only reason that I postulate more becoming QFIs and hence more going to UAS DE flights with a decreased need for JEFTS. Nothing to do with any 'quality' issue concerning JEFTS FIs.

2. In my opinion, we do need to train pilots in a aircraft with good agility in roll. F260 might indeed have a big engine and high climb rate as a result (to give the Firefly which would have operated from C Springs the same performance as the F200 at sea level), but to achieve rapid roll rates does it not require autorotative manoeuvring in the roll plane? All the F260 display aerobatics I've seen seem to concentrate on vertical, looping and 'flick' manoeuvres. Nothing else we fly in the RAF requires 'flick' manoeuvring as part of normal manoeuvring - so such trick flying is somewhat irrelevant.

3. The T-3A had a poor history in the USAF; The T-3 fleet was grounded in July 1997, following an inexplicable engine failure in Colorado. Three instructors and three students were killed in crashes since the plane went into service in 1994. Two crashes were the result of pilot error, while a third occurred because of a stall condition from which the pilot was unable to recover. The predecessor T-41 had no fatal accidents in 30 years of flight, although the T-41 was incapable of performing the aerobatics and spins that were the hallmark of the T-3. The T-3's engine had failed 66 times at takeoff or landing, and the Air Force grounded 57 of the planes on 10 occasions due to problems with the engines, fuel systems and brakes.

4. I agree that the T67 F260 is a better aeroplane for its task than the plastic pig although I consider that a Bulldog 260 would have been better than either! It is the task it is being required to be used for with which I have concerns.

[DB6]

Dear BEagle,
1) I was not aware that the manning balance figures had improved significantly. The UAS's are having to take on dedicated ground instructors to release QFIs in order to achieve something like the projected sortie rate that JEFTS currently manages. I believe they will have great difficulty and the projected financial economies will not materialise.
2) I don't agree. As a current competition aerobatic pilot (albeit at the bottom of the ladder at the moment) I would love a better roll rate from the Firefly, however it is not necessary at EFT level. Future FJ pilots will get all they need on the Tucano and onwards; rotary and multi are well served by the Firefly.
In one sentence you talk of requiring flicking for display flying and in the next imply that this is normal manoeuvring. Hmmmm.
3) Fine, so what does that have to do with its UK service? The (Lycoming) engine failures I understand have a lot to do with being operated at 7-8000 ft high airfields, not exactly Concern No.1 here. As you say, two cases of pilot error and one from which the pilot could not recover. I understand the latter case reflects more on deficiencies in the US training syllabus than on the aircraft. I've never flown the Bulldog but do you think our transatlantic cousins would have fared any better in a Bulldog 260? There have been no significant problems with the Firefly in UK service.
4) Opinions differ as to the task and I can't offer a first hand opinion on the Bulldog but I have spoken to several pilots who, while they rate it highly, prefer the Firefly 260 for the EFT task. A Bulldog 260....who knows, but it's not an option is it?

[Whoosh]

DB6,

I think you will find that the introduction of a ground training instructor on UASs has very little to do with releasing QFIs to fly more hours. It has a little more to do with the fact that on UASs there are other branches representedas well as the pilots and the role of the UASs is to provide an element of officer and adventurous training too. In my experience, the QFIs do tend to provide this training at the moment but it is done in their own time rather than at the expense of flying.

Regards,

Whoosh

[dudly]

Iron City,

I went through T-38 training over 35 years ago. If memory serves me, I went super in the aircraft at UPT maybe once. Going super is no big deal but the handling characteristics of the T-38 were nearly identical to the several century series fighters I flew, albeit much more docile and light. Initial training in the T37 was much like flying a cessna 172, no big deal. Initial flights in the T-38 were quite different however. I later taught air to air in the T-38 against most of our then front line fighters. It represented itself admirably. Which aircraft is best for training? Beats me, but what a great time it was.

[Skylark4]

Beagle,
We all know that you are involved with a Flying Training School / Club so would you like to tell us just which British built, 300 horsepower, all metal, 360 deg./sec. roll rate, +/- 9g aircraft you are using for training your ab initios.

Neither of the current aircraft are glider derived. Both are built by people who do or did make gliders, one still makes very good gliders, the other hasn`t made one in donkeys years, was always behind the times and usually had someone else design it.

The Grob is perfectly capable of IFR flight with the right instrument fit, as was suggested to the RAF by the manufacturer. Unfortunately, it seems that the RAF knows better and specified all electric instruments which they could have got away with if the a/c were RAF owned but is not acceptible to the CAA. Anyway, it is being put right now and some a/c have already been modified.

When are we going to get away from these archaic engines. Air and fuel cooled, magneto ignition, noisy, polluting (100LL). They`ve had sixty years to refine the design and they still fail.

Mike W

[BEagle]

Hi Sky4!

Horses for courses, I'm afraid. Regrettably I only need a relatively pedestrian trad-spamcan to conduct PPL training - although I'd really love to be able to have a fleet of bigger-engined Bulldog GTi s if we had the dosh and didn't mind the fuel burn!

Add to your list of observations about the ancient engines we have is their expense! The last one I bought cost us over £16K including the labour. What happened to that Avgas burning neo-diesel that was being proposed? It was supposed to be quieter, cheaper and far more fuel-efficient.

I'm glad to hear that the Grob is at last going to be equipped so that it can fly in IMC. Up through winter cloud to teach S&L 1 with a ruler straight horizon, then back down for a quick ILS. That's what we used to do in the British-built all-metal military trainer with a respectable roll rate when training UAS students - including a certain charming young lady geology student - at that aerodrome near where you live!

[StopStart]

Charming lady students indeed :rolleyes: I don't recall any of them being charming.........

[BEagle]

Well they were charming to their QFIs, but they probably weren't quite so charming to hormone-laden male undergraduates who were usually too pi$$ed to notice.......or care!

[Cooperman]

Mike RO'C,
to answer your original question rather than get into the question of whether or not the foundation of our airborne military might is dependant on a trg aircraft's roll rate-

Flying with instructors from other nations right now I would say that we do it just as well as we ever did and we are definately capable of getting the most from our students on whatever aircraft type/capabilities we may have. RAF students are pushed further and are expected to achieve more than many other nations' students at the same stage of training. I can only speak of FJ (especially for you BEagle) training but we train our boys to lead from day one - so far I have not encountered another air force that expects their first tourists to lead.

As for the RAF system - it really hasn't changed that much. Sure, contractors are involved far more now but so what? I know for a fact that it works extremely well at Valley; BRAMA are doing a great job. As for synthetic training God forbid it replaces too much flying but inevitably it will replace some.

I flew the JP and then the Hawk - it was a good system but it's better now. Is it the best? If it isn't I'd like to know which one is. As for the 'good ole days' with the Gnat and Hunter all I would say is: BEags, you're holding on too tight, let it go, let it go.

:D

[BEagle]

Perhaps. I certainly won't deny that training is very demanding for FJ pilots. When the Hawk came in, the pressure appplied to students was different to the pressures of the Gnat. The Gnat was difficult to fly, had short legs and complicated systems. The Hawk was much, much easier to fly, had simpler systems and much longer legs. So the students were given more difficult tasks to load them with pressure - the result being that they 'employed' the aircraft more thoroughly, rather than just kept it in the air safely for 1 hour! Which probably graduated a better pilot.

I am not sure that the quality of ME training has improved though - some of the output arriving for training on a certain 4-jet is frankly very weak. But a reminder is about to be issued to Cranwell to advise them that cost-saving measures will mean that very little 'flex' can be granted any more.....

[Cooperman]

Yep, I can't argue with that. You have perhaps unwttingly posed the question of whether or not we use simple training aircraft to fly and demand more from the student or difficult aircraft with a more simple syllabus - but is there a difference in the type of product you get? We seem to manage to send guys to the Harrier after having proved themselves capable of hooting around Wales with only a map and stopwatch yet it would seem more sensible to give them a glass training jet that was tricky to fly in the cct - but would it make a difference? I can't honestly answer that.

As for ME trg I take your expertise on that one - what do you think has changed?

[BEagle]

coops - basically the fact that ME pilots don't do a real BFTS course any more as all the Tincanos are used for FJ training. The 'old' JP course gave a thorough grounding in military flying to all pilots; only the FJ trainees are now so equipped.

There is a limit to what can be covered in the light aeroplane and Jetstream course pre-ME OCU now that the BFTS course has been omitted - the gaps in knowledge and experience exhibited by some recent trainees have been quite astonishing to anyone who was trained on the old 125 hr 'wings' course!

[teeteringhead]

I would certainly endorse BEags' point about non-FJ aircrew from the rotary point of view. Studes who were post JPs or Tucanos were often very good, general military aviation awareness and SA not so good now having only come from civilian type light aircraft (it's not as if they have been flying Chipmunks or even Bullfrogs).

The best rotary studes seem to be those who have done some Tucano or Hawk (alright - those who got chopped on Gp 1).

Stands by for response by outraged straight-through rotary .....:) :)

[AllTrimDoubt]

BEags-

Fully agree with you re standards and the lack of "grounding" that today's student gets in the streamlined system. ANY exposure to flying training can only enhance a student's overall airmanship and "awaremanship". Even if the job he finally ends up doing is on a totally diffent airframe from his earlier training.

I personally think the RAF are standing into danger by further reducing these qualities as they rmove EFT students from a total (albeit contractorised) aviation environment and farm them out to UASs (Note: Am NOT commenting on the standards achieved @UAS, but we stand to lose a lot of the "course" benefits by pushing studes through in small groups)

I wonder what your comments will be on the standard of ME studes in 3 years time?

[Perky Penguin]

DB6. 10,000 feet in 10,000 minutes sounds like just what we need!

[AllTrimDoubt]

:D :D :D At least it gives time to get the patter in!

I know what he meant tho'!

[flipster]

Only my second post - but I have to agree with Beags on the output of ME fg trg.

I was a QFI on a UAS and am now an instructor on a certain 4 Eng ME ac. I would say the following about entrants to the OCU/front line sqns to amplify Beags points:

1. The straight-through ME co-pilots (ie EFTS/MELIN/METS/OCU/Sqn) only have about 170-200 hrs total when they hit the OCU.

2. This compares to 250-300 on the old Gp2 Phase 1 on JP/Tucs

3. This missing 50-100 hrs is a heck of a percentage of experience plus the lack of proper (240-300kt) LL and formation are important gaps in a pilot's 'armoury'.

4. The airmanship of these straight through pilots can be poor - but no real fault of theirs!

5. The OCU instructors have little or no flex with which to work on the gaps in the new co's knowledge and skills.

6. Therefore, the Sqn qfis spend the first 6 months coaching the new cos the basics (on the most expensive ac) before they are officially regarded as CR by the Sqn execs (whatever the output std of the OCU). (FYI - Our sims are no great use for piloting skills)

7. It is difficult/impossible to chop anyone anymore but a number of cos have been NCR'd and retrained ON THE SQNS.

8. The ex Tucano/Hawk/rotary guys/gals generally have much more airmanship and capacity than their 'straight-through' cousins. This may be an ability or confidence thing but I am sure it is mainly an experience thing.


The officer-quality/intelligence of young cos is high at the moment (well on some Sqns!) - I am surrounded by top class young JOs who have improved from when they were top-class studes of mine on the UAS. These people have coped admirably with the deficiencies of the system. However, I believe the ME fg trg system has let them down (not the instructors or OCUs per se, who have their hands tied, but the bean-counters who are only interested in ££££s)! As the RAF and ME fleets get short of pilots in the next few years, will we see less capable JOs emerge fm IOT who we will then have to chop off the OCUs/Sqns when a little more trg on cheaper ac would give the OCU/Sqn qfis something to work with??

I believe we have reduced the fg trg hrs available (on ME ac at least) BELOW the bare minimum. I would recommend that we re-introduce a Gp 2 Ph 1 cse on Tucano again (supposedly being considered) or a longer, more demanding EFTS/MELIN/METS with new ac.

This is even more important as we introduce more technically demanding front-line ME ac such as C130J, C17, A400M and FSTA, Nimrod 200? etc. Even the C130K Sqns are both tactical sqns and there is no fail-safe of strat/route only. All co's must have the potential for demanding Tac ops - ditto for VC10s and tanking!

[EESDL]

Any views from Linton-on-Booze QFIs....how's it working at your level?
The Tin-can had an awful start to fg trg....is it any better?
I speak as someone who had a piece of Tin-can come off in my hand (Guv), it was just a shame that it was the control column!!

(any 3-4 bed, detached properties for sale up there?)

[DB6]

Perky,
Good point, well made!

[aw ditor]

Interesting and valid comments from Flipster, when the Jetstream replaced the elderly Varsity at Oakington some 27 years ago(!) we (in TCHQ) were having the same arguments with our then masters' They seemed to regard the ME stream as the " won't need much training", "they'll get it in the right hand seat".portion of the then TC output.
The civilian co-pilot can be put in the right-hand seat of a 737 to learn their job progressively after extensive line-training. I'm not knocking airline training: it by and large does a good job but there's a difference in job spec.between a 737 First Officer and a Nimrod Co-Pilot. It would seem the argument continues nearly 30 years on!!

[Orange Whip]

Many valid comments I feel.

Yes, the flying trg system we still possess is a world beater - it's the bits that we no longer have that let us down.

The FJ world should not have noticed much of a difference, maybe even a slight improvement since the studes are now streamed prior to Linton. However, the ME and RW OCUs must have their work cut out trying to compensate for 100+ hrs loss of trg.

It was always the case, and I think that it still is, that the majority of Linton QFIs are not from a FJ background; traditionally, this never proved to be a problem - although there may be a few dissenters out there - but it can't be too long before baby QFIs arrive at Tucano CFS who have never flown the ac or the syllabus before.

[2 TWU]

EESDL.

From my position I can only say that the system at Linton worKs well but you have to bear in mind that the studes are streamed before arriving at BFJT so in theory Linton just sees the best from EFT.

That said, I am in total agreement with previous remarks that all RAF pilots should go through a Tucano type course to inculcate that great unquantifiable aspect of military flying---airmanship.

As for the Tucano itself, basically it is a good aircraft and over the years many of the problems have been ironed out; but, the initial build quality was pretty dire and that still shows through at times. For myself, I would still prefer that the studes were taught on a pure jet; this would help teach fuel awareness, give a more representative response in formation and get rid of the never-ending need to trim the blasted rudder. The bottom line is of course money, the Tucano is cheap to run compared with a jet so that is what the RAF is stuck with (unless of course MFTS comes up with something different---v. unlikely).

Lastly, I agree with a comment made previously, the QFIs at Linton are generally pretty good and have the right attitude; long may it remain so.:cool:

[BEagle]

Well, I'm heartened to note that it's not just me who thinks that the current ME/RW pre-AFTS (I won't dignify it by calling it BFTS) system is totally inadequate.

Thanks for you posts, chaps. But will the bean counters listen.......

Interestingly, the one pilot we had who had received pre-ME OCU training on my PA28s, a few hours on PA-34s and a tour on the VC10 as a navigator never had any trouble doing a straight through VC10 co-piglet's course.......then they made him top up his training on the wretched Jetstream.

Bring back the basic wings course, I say!

[AllTrimDoubt]

...and how(e) would that good chap be doing at the moment? Well, I hope!

[MOA]

Agree with everything that has been said. I was lucky enough to go through the Tincan course and half of Valley. After failing miserably to add one and one whilst at LL in the Hawk, ME was the route destined for me.

The extra 150 hours flying I had helped me no end on the OCU. Not in aircraft handling, a 4 engine jet was new to all of us, but just bum in seat experience was invaluable.

Those who had taken the ME direct route found life that little more difficult. All was ironed out by the time they achievd CR but as mentioned previously this was done on a 4 engine jet, not a single Brazilian turboprop built by Irishmen.

In the frozen wasteland, we have been told to expect a drop in the standard of pilots turning up to the OCU. This is due to the good guys going 130J or C17. We wait to see what happens:confused:

[BEagle]

ATD - no, not Stavros - he's destined for the TriShaw.

Other bloke is doing well - he's on the next Capt's course!

[AllTrimDoubt]

BEagle-

Glad to hear it. Chap in qstn was a top bloke and stood out in a "dark blue" world when he came thro.

[Iron City]

Dudley: T-38 great aircraft, no doubt about it, for FJ training, aggressor, and various other things you need a go fast for. Relatively (compared to contemporary Century series and later designs) easy and inexpensive to operate and maintain, very good to great flying qualities. Do they ever run out of airframe life? variations on the J-85 are around to keep them engined, new radios and take it easy on poling them around and they could last forever.

FJ curricula around world were fairly similar in terms of hours with high 200s or so sylabus hours in FJ added to primary training as I recall. Reflys and warmups added to flying hours the student graduated with, typically in the 400s somewhere.
In that vein, in the civil world there are some spikes in the accident rate curve at 40-100 hours and again in the 250-400 hours if I recall properly and after that point things settle down. With people at the end of primary training any extra hours they can get that are even halfway efficiently utilized must make a world of difference in airmanship and "air sense"

Are you still laboring (labouring?) with the Link Miles built Hawk simulators? I could not believe how they were designed and then accepted with little control or quantitative testing in maintenance of flying charaacteristics.

When Hawk was turned into T-45 it was a classic cockpit, but plans were in the works even then for a glass cockpit, and it was kept in the program as a product improvement.

[Creamie]

Hello all,

Some interesting views on EFT, just wandering if you boys have any on AFT. For what it's worth, I agree with DB6. I flew Bulldogs with Yorkshire UAS (the finest) and I can't see how having the roll rate it did provided any real benefit. As I understand it, the Firefly can still perform all the basic manouvres required on an Elementary course, with additional power to boot. So what are you all arguing about? Whats more important in my mind is why we are still flying around in a 1970s cockpit at Valley when the frontline of the near future requires guys with a very different training.

Your thoughts?:confused:

[BEagle]

The Gnat had an instrument system which closely resembled that of the Lightning and Buccaneer - OR946. The Hawk instruments used to be reasonably similar to the F4, Harrier and early Jag (head down) - but it's increasingly less representative of current fighterbombers.

Why no upgrade? No doubt the bean counters expect some fairy godmother to do that with the dreaded MFTS.........

Plans for the Gnat replacement were well advanced over 30 years ago - are there any plans for a Hawk replacement yet?

[flipster]

One could argue the same for EFTS/MELIN and METS with C130J,C17 and A400M being a far cry from the current instrumentation available. But I believe Tutor has some good kit (vice Bulldog steam driven stuff) but is it really still not cleared for IMC? If this is still the case, someone needs a rocket up their jet-pipe! Who is accountable for this cok-up?

[Barn Doors]

All the talk above is sound.

I'd like to offer my own perspective if I may?

The Hawk, albeit a little antiquated now, was more about teaching the main problems of FJ flying......that of prioritisation. What I mean is, if you don't prioritise, you'll run into trouble very very quickly indeed. As far as the glass cockpit debate is concerned, I agree! We are in the business of training guys/girls to fly front-line aircraft with relatively hi-tech kit. It is to the disadvantage of someone coming from the venerable Hawk T1 to a Harrier etc; compared to someone from NFTC with all that gucci LRG, MFD, blah kit experience. So, we need a training system that duly reflects the next stage of training. Glass cockpits, information management are paving the way ahead (just ask BAe how hard they're working on fusion!) Let us give our pilots the best possible opportunity.

I found it an additional challenge to master the HOTAS issue on top of the other pressures involved with an OCU, so pull fingers out and invest in a system that'll make us envious to the rest of the World. We have a second-to-none level of instruction, we just need a platform of equal credibility!

BD

[DB6]

You may be interested to learn that a Firefly is being fitted with a glass cockpit and should be on show at Farnborough this year.

[Mmmmnice]

An interesting debate - and most of it spot on (in my humble opinion)
Having done the 'old' 100 hr JP course (in 106 hrs including the chop ride), and having subsequently spent time as a QFI (Bullfrog) and QHI, I have seen the system try to save money by cutting the time taken to the front line. No matter how high the quality; if you cut down on time in the air you are shooting yourself in the foot. No-one learns airmanship, CRM and all the other up- to-the-minute touchy-feely blah in 5 mins flat. Yes, the equipment issues are important - but shortening the training system will not work no matter how swish the training aircraft are. I understand that there is a lot of work going on to introduce aircraft that do have cockpit displays and systems remotely representative of what the winged warrrior of tomorrow will look at! I live in hope

[Bassett]

I am not a QFI so I can not comment on the training system. However, I have been a 4 eng ME FI on and off for many years, both steam driven and electric. The output standard of the system has always been variable, probably due to recruiting problems and fluctuating entry standards.

It has been quite common to have to give additional training to ab initios over and above the basic conversion. However, I must say the standard of todays new co-pilots seems pretty good, certainly better than in the early 90s. Or maybe they are just sending us the better end of the market now.

I know that there is a team looking at the wet dream replacement, both interim and long term. I believe one aim is to do more training relevant to each role so that front line convexs can be more streamlined

[BEagle]

The 'additional training over and above initial conversion' which will be available from now on is going to be very strictly rationed indeed on the Vickers Funbus. If the abbos don't crack their ac cat and IRT first time there'll be very limited remedial and retesting available before they get the "What does your Mum call you, Bloggs?" chat. That's the brutal truth - we can't afford the cost in time or money to 'carry' anyone any more.

So 3FTS output needs to be to an uniform standard. None of this 'send the better guys to the 2/3-person flightdeck and the weaker ones to ac with a 4-person flightdeck where there'll be 3 others to look after them' nonsense. We train First Pilots, not V-force flap snatcher/wireless operators!

Personally I think that we'd be far better off sending all our future ME pilots to the US to do a course on the Texan II and T-1 Jayhawk pre-ME OCU than continue to fart about with Fireflies and aged old Wetdreams.

[raytofclimb]

Ref AFT and our dearly loved Hawk, I recently learned what the Yanks did with their T-45s and T-38s.

In the case of the T-45, the fleet was upgraded to almost complete glass cockpit standard for around the equivalent of £1 million per airframe, fitted and returned to service originally in 60 days which was then reduced to 25 days, within 1 year of the requirement being issued!

The Americans intend to keep the T-38 airframes until 2060 (read it again) and they too have undergone a similar upgrade and also the L159.

UKMFTS will have to decide whether we upgrade our Hawk T1 fleet or buy new, more appropriately equipped airframes. Probably something like the 128 in whatever spec. Furthermore, if we ever get modern cockpit to train our FJ pilots, what relevance has the Tucano?

In any case, we look certain to soldier on (around Wales) with map and stopwatch (and head fire) for at least another 5-8 years. What standard will the FJ OCU's require by then, bearing in mind Typhoon, JSF, GR9(!) etc?


Ray.

P.S. Creamie, methinks you live 100 yards away!

[Mowgli]

I've been wondering for a while now when we will have a modern cockpit display Hawk. Some of our guys (whenever I say guys that means girls too, OK?) are doing their AFTS (FJ) in Canada and they're flying Hawks with HUDs etc which is the way ahead for our jets at Valley IMHO. If they can build in similar systems to Typhoon, so much the better. Having said that, if you can hit the target with an iron sight, your understanding of what you're doing will stand you in good stead when using a computed sight, but with the reliability of the kit now fitted in the FJs it's a minor advantage compared with the importance of being comfortable with technology.

On the subject of ME training, I agree with those who would bring back a group 2 system. My BFTS QFI was a Kipper fleet driver, and his formation flying, low level and aeros were all very credible and I was fortunate that he was also an excellent instructor. He of course, had been the product of a system which demanded he be taught all the basic disciplines before he went to ME trg. The current system would disadvantage him as a potential Tucano QFI and make it far less likely for him to achieve a FJ crossover if he so wished.

How much formation practice has a new co had when he joins a shiney jet OCU now?

[BEagle]

Not enough! I see from my first logbook that I did 13:10 Jet Provost formation, including a few solos, on the basic 'wings' course - having never flown formation on the Chipmunk at UAS.

Now the only formation they'll have done is a bit on lightplanes and the useless Wetdream. Which means that the 1 day and 1 night formation trips they get on the VC10 are very interesting for the QFI!!

I get ever so fed up teaching basic formation station-keeping principles on the '10 - thanks to the wretched bean counters stopping BFTS training for ME pilots - but which we were all once taught on the JP!!

[Mowgli]

Which proves the point that the bean counters have moved much of the training burden downstream to very expensive ac like the 10. The argument was also extant when they shut the TWUs, saying that now we weren't in a Cold War instant response environment, you could afford to have people on sqns who were "less ready". But the premise of that argument was wrong, because all sqns are busier on real ops now and there's less opportunity to train on the sqns who are busy doing the real thing. (and there are fewer sqns).

The quality must have reduced, and BEagle is finding that. I might have hoped that the extra £3.5 billion being earmarked for defense by GB would improve the situation, but my neighbour, who is an Apache instructor, has just told me that all military flying training will be civillianised by 2007. Anyone care to confirm this? Nothing against civillians (after all, I'm one now), but it can't be a good thing for the future trying to attract quality instructors to a place like Anglesey to train our future Typhoon pilots. Where will be the recent front line experience? There were some excellent old timers at Valley when I was there, but they had to be balanced with the guys straight back from the front-line.

We've never had the best kit in the world, but our training has always given us the edge in terms of getting the most out of what we've been given. Tony Blair says "education, education, education" I say "Training, training, training". I'll agree with him that it's the investment for the future.