Pilot Training Cited In Military Crashes

[megan]

From Avweb

By Mary Grady

Military pilots aren’t flying often enough to be as proficient as they need to be, Lt. Gen. Jon Davis, the head of Marine Corps aviation, told reporters in Washington, D.C., recently. "We're about three hours per pilot per month better than we were [in May 2015], but that's not good enough," Davis said, according to military.com. "We're still shy of our target.” In the last year, 11 Marine Corps aircraft have been lost in crashes, with 14 crew members killed. "They're still being investigated, but there was nothing wrong with those airplanes, mechanically," Davis said. "These were -- they were qualified, they were proficient -- these were crews that had been flying a fair bit, flying in some pretty challenging conditions."

Davis said the military needs access to more basic aircraft for pilots to fly to build flight time and proficiency. He added that since today’s aviators don’t fly as much as pilots of the past, “We just have to be more structured and more pedantic about how we fly." Investigations are continuing into most of the crashes. But Davis said that, so far, results show that there is no “material failure component,” adding: “It's mainly human error."Do you think the suggestion of hours in a more basic aircraft would enhance skills and proficiency? If so, what sort of aircraft, and would it depend on the pilots main type and role?

Just putting it out there.

[Rhino power]

Do you think the suggestion of hours in a more basic aircraft would enhance skills and proficiency?

I speak only as an 'enthusiast' but, using a 'more basic aircraft' to enhance/maintain basic airmanship maybe, but skills and proficiency must surely be type related?

-RP

[Sloppy Link]

OK, here we are spotty youth, the keys to a Morris Minor. Driving it 4 times a week will make you a better driver for the one time a week you drive a McLaren.

Utter tosh, even the most modern simulator cannot replicate the rock, shock, smoke and awe of the real aircraft.

[Pontius Navigator]

But there is basic and basic.

An example is the NATO AEW Force. Rather than pound the circuit in an expensive, in all senses, NE3A they procured similar 707 aircraft which offered the dual capability of their own organic transport aircraft to service FOB and FOL and also for pilot continuation training.

A similar effect might be achieved for a high performance fighter by using a similarly configured aircraft without the full mission avionics suite. That would reduce maintenance bill and probably increase its flight line availability too.

[Evalu8ter]

There's a difference between "airmanship" / academic flying and systems proficiency. Elements of both can be emulated or delivered synthetically. The corner we're boxing ourselves into is buying exquisite platforms that we cannot afford to fly due to maintenance costs, nor crash due to high unit cost meaning fewer numbers - and it's the same arguments with weapons and sensors. With unlimited budgets we'd have more frames and hours. Without, we need to be creative. Full Dynamic Mission Simulators have a part, as do "part task trainers". Having an analogous aircraft to keep proficiency is nothing new. The T-38 was used both by NASA and the SR-71 community as their "prime aircraft" were simply too expensive to fly often - the highest timed SR-71 guy got about 1400hrs (and the NASA pilot with the most Shuttle missions has 5 as CDR and 1 as pilot - so 5 real landings...). The art is to pull together all of the threads to provide a cohesive package, not just using off-aircraft training or surrogacy to merely save money, which minimises "negative training" and leaves the crew best placed to do their job. Don't forget that training isn't merely a preserve of the crew; often that aircraft is there to provide a service to troops on the ground, and they need to train too - with F35 being such a large part of the future SA picture, but unlikely to turn up on many Land exercises due to numbers/costs/crew proficiency needs, a surrogate that replicates F35 capability realistically for the ground Users is essential....same with UAVs when the troops train somewhere they're not allowed to fly.

[Martin the Martian]

Time to bring back the station -or even squadron- hack, perhaps?

[SASless]

If you cannot afford to fly the real machine....well there is the problem.

Have the machines gotten too complex and too expensive....thus too few.

Is there failure in the grand scheme being caused by this?

If the Opposing Forces flood the sky with reasonably cheap and fairly capable aircraft with experienced crews flying them....at what point does that trump the few, expensive, less experienced crewed aircraft?

There are only so many Dollars (Pounds Sterling/Franc's) to go around.

Finding training solutions that closely duplicate the real thing and as accurately as possible reflect the reality of the real thing seems the only answer.

Lots of hours in a ground based Simulator that accurately duplicates the processes and procedures despite not providing the G Forces etc....has got to be good money spent wisely.

Taking a wander about the Highlands in a high performance Jet Trainer, but not a Typhoon, must also have some value.

[MACH2NUMBER]

Pontius,
You make an interesting point. However, the so-called 707 Trainer Cargo Aircraft for the NAEW&C fleet were actually under-used for pilot training both basic and continuity. They were used very much more for cargo and the transport of personnel, where it had great utility. Aircrew did not favour it as a trainer because it differed in cockpit configuration and performance to the E3. I believe its diminished use as a trainer and the availability of commercial logistics support led to its demise. Also, as a small fleet, of old aircraft, they had an increasingly expensive upkeep bill, similar per hour to the E3 itself.

[Rick777]

This isn't a new problem. When I was flying KC 135s in the 70's there was a program for copilots to fly T37s to simply get flying and airman ship experience. I spent my entire 16 year flying career on tankers and averaged about 12 hours a month because most of my time was spent on alert.

[sharpend]

Interesting that 'when I was on Jags' (WIWOJ), QFIs from CFS came down to give us spin training in the JP. The Jaguar did not recover from a spin, so I suppose they came to refresh us on incipient spinning. Good fun for all and I remember taking a QFI up in a T2. Maybe a good idea for each Typhoon Sqn to have a few Hawks?

[MACH2NUMBER]

Sharpend,
Good call. As a WIWOL we spun every year in the JP. Good idea because the recovery was almost identical to the Lightning, which most of us spun, and most successfully recovered. I think the JP was definitely useful in this role. As for those aircraft with other recovery procedures, I am not so sure. Repeating spin actions for your own aircraft while spinning another may be negative training.

[West Coast]

The Jaguar did not recover from a spin,

As in not at all or particularly hard to recover? I'd imagine that had to weigh heavily on crews during certain types of maneuvering.

[EAP86]

As in not at all. The Jag is pretty much impossible to recover without a proper anti-spin 'chute (and the brake 'chute won't work for this purpose). It was such a regular issue in the early days I think they produced a dedicated training video to explain it all but unfortunately I couldn't find it on youtube.

EAP

[BossEyed]

There's some footage of Jaguar spinning trials in this video, part of the BBC "Test Pilot" series from about 1986.

ycJ1m0PRYEM

[EAP86]

Yes. Wasn't it the 'falling leaf' spin mode? Many years ago someone (who probably knew far better than me) told me that particular bit of film was actually of a scale model. As evidence he pointed out the absence of the anti-spin 'chute without which recovery was almost impossible.

EAP