PDA

View Full Version : Phenom


LincsFM
26th Jul 2018, 18:06
I hear there has been a cracking start in RAF service for the shiney new Phenom!
One on jacks in a Hangar at Waddo and rumours of another being involved in an incident
Oh well I'm sure Affinity Flying Training will keep us posted :oh:

NutLoose
26th Jul 2018, 19:46
Civi wise the always struck me ( on the ones we had here ) as not being that robust, they struck me as built to a price rather than for longevity, but then again I initially thought that of the Puma.

horatio_b
26th Jul 2018, 20:02
If they need any spares, there's been a Phenom stuck in the hangar at Blackpool for the last three years:

https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/aaib-investigation-to-raytheon-390-premier-i-g-oomc

Lima Juliet
26th Jul 2018, 21:35
‘Snap’ on the rumour. Apparently 2 poorly aircraft from the same sortie.

Evalu8ter
26th Jul 2018, 21:50
Can't be going that well….https://www.pilotcareernews.com/l3-to-provide-bespoke-training-for-raf-pilots/

LincsFM
26th Jul 2018, 22:26
‘Snap’ on the rumour. Apparently 2 poorly aircraft from the same sortie.

Yep rumour is that the other frame may have to move out by road!

StopStart
27th Jul 2018, 01:02
So am I to infer that L3 are taking multi-training off Ascent? I suppose losing “close” to 40% of the fleet in one sortie is going to limit their ability to deliver training.....

treadigraph
27th Jul 2018, 07:07
If they need any spares, there's been a Phenom stuck in the hangar at Blackpool for the last three years:

https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/aaib-investigation-to-raytheon-390-premier-i-g-oomc

Um, that's a Beech Premier 1, bit different to an Embraer Phenom! :}

Dominator2
27th Jul 2018, 08:40
HS125 would be a great trainer. Built like a BBSH, cabin high enough for most to walk round in, great capacity to run VIPs around Europe ir required. Phenom was the wrong aircraft from the outset. There was enough sound advice from experienced aviators that was totally ignored by those who, apparently, knew better!

BEagle
27th Jul 2018, 09:03
Stoppers, the reason is more likely to be as the result of the delay in Arsescent being able to meet the RAF's requirements.

One wonders who will pick up the tab for the L3 interim solution?

As for 40% of the Phenom fleet now being unavailable, one also has to wonder what the heck happened if both aircraft became 'poorly' on the same sortie....

Regarding other airframes, I do wonder why the Jayhawk wasn't proposed - a civil design specifically modified for the military training role.

Davef68
27th Jul 2018, 10:29
.
Regarding other airframes, I do wonder why the Jayhawk wasn't proposed - a civil design specifically modified for the military training role.

£££££ probably, but then it's also a 25 year old design which hasn't been in production since 1997

sangiovese.
27th Jul 2018, 10:35
Doesn't surprise me. The aircraft is designed for point to point biz jetting (although the 300 is a better aircraft). That it does very well, I've flown both and they're very nice For flying training its just not robust enough. King Air with proline 21 is much more suitable (look at the number still being sold for hard grafting jobs)....oh and as for the jayhawk/beechjet/Hawker 400/Mitsubishi Diamond..omg don't go near one of those! Quite possibly the worst designed aircraft I've flown (outflow valve in front of the pilots so all the smoke goes through the flight deck when its evacuated....spoiler for roll control, yaw damping issues the list goes on!)

Bouff01
27th Jul 2018, 14:34
BEagle, apparently both became "poorly" simultaneously and on opposite wing tips.

Tip-to-tip at low level...allegedly...

Ken Scott
27th Jul 2018, 16:34
Rumour has it that adequate separation failed to be maintained during a formation sortie....

Chris Kebab
27th Jul 2018, 17:50
...at least they weren't QFIs.......oh, hang on....

BEagle
27th Jul 2018, 17:52
Ken Scott wrote:Rumour has it that adequate separation failed to be maintained during a formation sortie....

You are surely kidding? WTF were they doing flying formation in those things? Or is that now a part of ME student training due to the abject dumbing-down of BFT these days?

Bring back the BFT course of the '70s for all military pilot students! Core skills learned at Cranwell / Linton / Leeming, FJ / ME / RW skills learned at AFTS... :ok:

Bob Viking
27th Jul 2018, 18:01
ME students have gone straight from EFT to Multis at least as long as I have been in the RAF (1999). They have not done BFT in that whole period.

EFT included formation flying. I can’t speak for the present day EFT.

I know your gripes but you don’t have to go as far back as the 70’s to find a system that worked well.

As much as there were benefits to the system where everyone flew the JP it was hardly cost effective, or certainly wouldn’t be nowadays.

Please, sometimes, instead of harking back to a bygone era just accept that your modern day counterparts are doing the best they can with what they have. It may be different but that doesn’t automatically make it wrong.

It just doesn’t help anyone to say “bring back the flying training system of 40 years ago”.

Anyone can find problems. It takes a really clever person to find solutions. Real ones. That work. In 2018.

On a separate note, I find it a little unsavoury the way people salivate at the thought of the flying training system failing or being proven right that the Phenom may or may not have been the right jet for the job (I know nothing of multi engine aircraft so won’t offer an opinion either way). It’s the only system we have.

As your Mum used to say, “if you haven’t got anything nice to say...”

BV

Ken Scott
27th Jul 2018, 18:14
ME Students now do, I believe, an abbreviated EFT cse (Aeros & spinning no longer covered?) followed by an abbreviated MELIN (Multi-engine Lead-in) cse, (which itself was reduced by something like 15 hrs so that the sponsor could get promoted for saving money). Their ME cse is therefore essentially their BFT in old terms so things such as formation & low-level need to be covered then. Their OCU Cse, which they can start with a grand total of around 150 hrs, is now therefore effectively AFT.

After 2-3 years as a co-pilot & maybe 1000hrs TT they will be ready for captaincy. Allegedly.

Looking at the view from the cockpit of the Phenom it is hard to see how you would teach ab-initio formation but apparently Ascent cleared it as suitable. I don’t know if they are reviewing things in light of recent events.

NutLoose
27th Jul 2018, 18:58
Looking at the view from the cockpit of the Phenom it is hard to see how you would teach ab-initio formation but apparently Ascent cleared it as suitable. I don’t know if they are reviewing things in light of recent events.



I wouldn't be surprised if they are reassessing that.

At least they have spares if it's just the tip, take it off the good wing and fit it to the other aircraft ;)

I agree with what has been said re the HS125, built like the proverbial, and a proven type in RAF service.

Lima Juliet
27th Jul 2018, 19:44
BV

Normally, I agree with the majority of things you say, but...

On a separate note, I find it a little unsavoury the way people salivate at the thought of the flying training system failing or being proven right that the Phenom may or may not have been the right jet for the job (I know nothing of multi engine aircraft so won’t offer an opinion either way). It’s the only system we have.

...this I do not agree with. The whole MFTS thing has been a ‘train crash’ slowly evolving in front of our eyes. The NAO have been crawling all over this, EFT with Prefect has not exactly gone well - late by at least 3 months on the start date and the student output has been well below the planned numbers, with the aircraft too small to fit the the talker pilots who have to go to Tutor. There are numerous problems with the airframes - cracks as reported on Prune and engines being overtorqued by ham fisted students mean that availability from such a tiny fleet is low, which leads to slower output of studes. At Turweston there was a Juno that had reportedly cooked its avionics because we painted them black but didn’t pay for air con. The Juno is also too small for crewman training. The Hawk availability at Valley has been poor with around half on the line on a good day and then there was the widely discussed incident that stopped Hawk flying for a while. Now we have the Phenom, with only 5 bought and 2 allegedly bent, which means that again the small numbers with no planned resilience to quickly tap into, means that this is also not going well. With 10 Texans coming to replace a fleet of around 60 Tucanos, you can only imagine how that is going to go!

The outsource is a blessing actually as it means that there is some resilience. Don’t forget that MFTS was designed for SDSR10 with the low numbers required for that plan, but SDSR15 means that more ME pilots are needed for P8 and various assets being run on. So the outsource programme is there to service the extra requirement from SDSR15 with a suitable uplift of money to pay for it. Personally I think the DA42 with Garmin 1000 is a better aircraft for ME training than the Phenom. They would do well to use the Phenoms for 32 Sqn duties and buy double the number of DA42s to deliver ME pilot training.

The proof is in the pudding with some significant holding periods for the aircrew students waiting for this apparent debacle to start running smoothly.

But I don’t want to be accused of being negative talking down the new training system!

So of course it is all wonderful ;-)

NutLoose
27th Jul 2018, 19:57
Good post LJ.

BEagle
27th Jul 2018, 20:01
Lima Juliet wrote: The whole MFTS thing has been a ‘train crash’ slowly evolving in front of our eyes.

Indeed. But will it ever improve? Despite Anglesey Bob's protestations, I very much doubt it.

When the whole farce of MFTS falls over, as it surely will, how many of us old farts who predicted this nonsense will say "We told you so...."

Ken Scott
27th Jul 2018, 20:21
It is rather tragic to think that only a short time ago the RAF could provide its own training in-House, using QFIs that had recent frontline experience (although there were a few that had skulked around Lincolnshire seemingly for ever!) A QFI tour was a ‘rest’ from the frontline & continuous deployments & afterwards you returned able to take on instructional duties on the OCUs.

Now the training system has ground to an almost total halt, the often unsuitable aircraft provided in tiny numbers unable to cope with any surge in aircrew numbers. Students in the system are facing years of holds, even prior to EFT, so are VWing as a result. Meanwhile outflow is accelerating as the airlines up their recruitment & the effects of restrictions on flying pay (sorry, retention pay), pensions & below inflation pay rises come home to roost.

Almost a ‘perfect storm’ in aircrew numbers is in prospect and the RAF has seemingly lost the ability to do anything training-wise to solve it.

NutLoose
27th Jul 2018, 22:39
Personally I think the DA42 with Garmin 1000 is a better aircraft for ME training than the Phenom.

If you're thinking Turboprop, the Twotter is a nice aircraft.


https://www.vikingair.com/twin-otter-versatility?gclid=EAIaIQobChMInfyByJ_A3AIV7Z3tCh2HmwRpEAAYAS AAEgI0IfD_BwE

rlsbutler
28th Jul 2018, 03:21
Twotter very nice and ten times more interesting to learn on. Yet it is 30% more expensive (or thereabouts) and I would have thought a lot more expensive than that in life costs.

Bob Viking
28th Jul 2018, 05:02
Firstly let me say that the part of MFTS that I have experience of is working fine. A decent sized fleet of new jets with a huge new building, decent sims and new engineering facilities is not a terrible place to work.

Secondly I should add that I am not qualified to comment on any of the other areas of MFTS so my optimism may well be misplaced.

My final point which I keep trying to make, poorly it seems, is that I personally will take no joy in seeing MFTS fail if it comes to that, I don’t think anyone should. It is the only training system we have right now and the hopes of hundreds of aspiring pilots and the future of the Air Force rests on it. Not to mention that a lot of my tax pounds have been spent on it and if it fails we won’t get them back.

BEagle it is not just you old farts who can see the problems. Us young(er) folk can see them too. It’s just that, for those of us that work in the system, I feel there is no point complaining or pointing out the faults when it won’t change anything. It just makes people go to work feeling miserable.

So, in summary, excluding the FJ aspects which I do know about you are almost certainly right about the other bits but I for one will not sit and rub my hands with glee at the prospect of its impending failure.

BV

NutLoose
28th Jul 2018, 10:41
Twotter very nice and ten times more interesting to learn on. Yet it is 30% more expensive (or thereabouts) and I would have thought a lot more expensive than that in life costs.

665 dollar Canadian per hour

https://www.vikingair.com/twin-otter-information/operating-costs#Per-Hour


and a lot more versatile.

VinRouge
28th Jul 2018, 11:40
Personally I think the DA42 with Garmin 1000 is a better aircraft for ME training than the Phenom

Horrid little aeroplane that refuses to maintain level despite being trimmed to the extent handling I think is taken out by the ability to plug in a pretty reasonable autopilot. Taxiing is a nightmare too, no tiller and easy to read up tyres with a poor rudder/brake pedals design. I would say, the Bling air 350 was a very nice aeroplane with adequate performance and mass to be a decent step between EFT aNd the FL.

Very very reliable engine the PT6 too.

Bob Viking
28th Jul 2018, 11:53
This thread is in danger of getting a bit like a Volvo driver trying to convince a VW driver which car is best now!

Maybe Ascent/Affinity just got bored of all the opinions thrown at them and drew a name out of a hat.

Next up let’s all try to agree on the best fighter aircraft ever built.

BV

Deliverance
28th Jul 2018, 12:02
I, like BV, would like MFTS to work. What does seem odd though are the decisions made. It seems a missed opportunity to think afresh and streamline the training. Why not all start on T-6C for example?

As for the Prefect, why chose an aircraft you can over-torque so easily? And the Phenom feels like you are wrestling it across the sky (perhaps that’s how all ME ac fly?).

Hope they sort it all out.

NutLoose
28th Jul 2018, 13:02
Firstly let me say that the part of MFTS that I have experience of is working fine. A decent sized fleet of new jets with a huge new building, decent sims and new engineering facilities is not a terrible place to work.

And in that, as it does as with the Tanker contract make one wonder why, if a company can build a new facility, and supply and operate a training regime while making a healthy profit on the length of that contract, why the RAF could not do the same where no profit is required both cheaper and with service personnel.

Bob Viking
28th Jul 2018, 13:12
Jam today versus jam tomorrow.

We needed new training aircraft across the spectrum. I have no idea how much Phenoms, Prefects, Junos and Texans cost but I have a fair idea how much Hawks cost.

If we’d managed to afford new aircraft I would bet good money we would have been operating out of manky old buildings in perpetuity.

No government wants to stump up billions in one go. Spreading the cost (even if it turns out to be far more expensive in the long run) is how governments work.

You know all of this as well as I do.

BV

NutLoose
28th Jul 2018, 13:35
I agree Bob, but the company involved with the Phenom is probably leasing them, or if purchased has factored in those costs.

Easy Street
28th Jul 2018, 15:11
No government wants to stump up billions in one go. Spreading the cost (even if it turns out to be far more expensive in the long run) is how governments work.

You know all of this as well as I do.

Thankfully, PFI is now largely discredited (http://archive.is/DqmzI) - and rightly so, as governments always could borrow far more cheaply than businesses. Unfortunately it was discredited slightly too late in the day to stop the AirTanker and MFTS contracts, the latter signed when IPS was at a historic low, and as you rightly say we are stuck with the consequences.

Firstly let me say that the part of MFTS that I have experience of is working fine. A decent sized fleet of new jets with a huge new building, decent sims and new engineering facilities is not a terrible place to work.

The only test of that is whether FJ OCU slots are being filled on time with suitable candidates...

Lima Juliet
28th Jul 2018, 15:29
BV

As ever a reasoned and balanced post. My concern on what I hear about Valley and what the spotters would seem to back up are the low numbers of actual jets that fly from the line on a day to day basis. On some spotter sites it states it is as low as 6 aircraft. Now seeing as we bought 28x Hawk T2s and less than half of that seems to be the ‘batting average’, are you really that confident on that rosie picture you are painting?

Here is the spotters log on 13 Jun which was described as an exceptionally good day recently:
Locals all Hawk T.2
ZK028/S, ZK013/D, ZK010/A, ZK011/B, ZK029/T, ZK026/Q, ZK024/O, ZK022/M, ZK012/C, ZK018/I, ZK020/K, ZK037/AB, ZK035/Z, ZK036/AA, ZK031/V, ZK025/P, ZK015/F

Even 17 out of 28 isn’t exactly amazing I would offer?

Now with all of the Saudis, Qataris and other nations buying training courses, plus our own pilots, then QFI workups and everything else like STANEVAL going on, are we really convinced that 17x Hawks on a daily basis is going to crack it? Not forgetting that the RN are also needing FJ pilots in reasonable numbers also.

BTW - I agree that our training system is the future of the Service, so why have we allowed it to slowly decline into a training fleet The NAO grilled the MOD on this 3 years ago: https://www.nao.org.uk/report/military-flying-training/

The video is here: https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/805c0f8e-c528-45ca-8c41-168735a1b10b

deltahotel
28th Jul 2018, 15:36
Not sure that the Phenom windows are much different to the Jetstream and that was used for formation on METS for years

Ken Scott
28th Jul 2018, 21:11
As I recall on the Jetstream you could see your wingtips at least, I would imagine that would be less likely to be possible on a swept wing jet like the Phenom. Add in the throttle lag of a jet & I can’t see it as being an ideal ab-initio formation trainer.

Dominator2
29th Jul 2018, 09:07
Ken,

When I was taught formation flying, or indeed taught others on Fast Jet OCUs one never looked at your own wintips for reference. If one could manage to formate (and AAR )in the British F4 and Tornado F3 (Bypass engines) both with a lot of throttle lag it would not be a problem in the Phenom. Having done hunderds of hours of formation in the Dominie the problem is always loosing sight, especially cross cockpit. Formation flying should be taught to ALL pilots at Basic Flying Training prior to streaming, but that is another story!

VinRouge
29th Jul 2018, 09:16
Ken,

When I was taught formation flying, or indeed taught others on Fast Jet OCUs one never looked at your own wintips for reference. If one could manage to formate (and AAR )in the British F4 and Tornado F3 (Bypass engines) both with a lot of throttle lag it would not be a problem in the Phenom. Having done hunderds of hours of formation in the Dominie the problem is always loosing sight, especially cross cockpit. Formation flying should be taught to ALL pilots at Basic Flying Training prior to streaming, but that is another story!

Id prefer the time and money spent landing something like a king air to train the guys to land on grass or dirt and the changes it makes to the planning cycle, considerations, risk management. The closest you operationally get to other multis aircraft is battle/fighting wing. Close multis formation seems to be a hang up from cold war days. Not sure it's necessary in this day and age.

BEagle
29th Jul 2018, 09:42
ME aircraft which require air-to-air refuelling in the receiver role have to be flown in close formation. Fewer types are so equipped these days, of course.

Teaching night close formation to new VC10 co-pilots who hadn't had the benefit of traditional BFTS training was often quite demanding...

Dominator2
29th Jul 2018, 11:20
Equally challenging on Tornado F3. Night close formation F3/F3 was probitited until NVGs. Consequently, taking a first tourist for their first night AAR was an experience. There was also no requirement to be dual so required a Nav with a good line in chat. On one occassion it took 30 minutes (one full slot) just to get the abo into the waiting position.

I still believe that ALL military pilots should be taught, and have the basic skills in ALL facets of "Military Aviation" of which formation is one. We are not talk Reds standard but a knowledge of the fundimentals and a rudimentary skill level.

There can be no doubt that the present ME students are "short changed" in their training. Those who have graduated in recent years do a very credible job having recieved the absolute minimum throughout their Cranwell flying training!

VinRouge
29th Jul 2018, 11:53
ME aircraft which require air-to-air refuelling in the receiver role have to be flown in close formation. Fewer types are so equipped these days, of course.

Teaching night close formation to new VC10 co-pilots who hadn't had the benefit of traditional BFTS training was often quite demanding...

Fair point Beags. Misssed AAR in my thought process.

BEagle
29th Jul 2018, 12:01
I'm surprised that F2/F3 night close formation was banned without NVGs. It was certainly included on the Bucc and F-4 OCUs. Rather easier on the F-4 as the formation references were more obvious.

Dominator2 , I certainly agree that ALL military pilots should be taught, and have the basic skills in ALL facets of "Military Aviation" of which formation is one.

Pity the poor souls who're only getting 'ME' EFT these days. Around 65 hrs total, but only around 3 hrs solo.... No solo sector recce, no solo aeros, no solo PFLs - just a first solo, one circuit consol. trip...and a solo ML navex.

But what do we old dinosaurs know....:rolleyes:

Dominator2
29th Jul 2018, 12:53
BEagle,

Due to the poor external lighting provided by BAes and the variable geometry of the aircraft, the TPs decided that the references were not adequate for a "line pilot" to be able to formate safely!

There is no doubt that it was not as easy as the F4 but correctly taught it was viable. Obviously, on NVGs it became a regularly practiced discipline.

ollie135
29th Jul 2018, 12:58
Pity the poor souls who're only getting 'ME' EFT these days.:[/QUOTE]

Forgive my ignorance, but does that mean that students are being streamed before EFT? And if so, on what basis?

EXFIN
29th Jul 2018, 22:53
I well remember in RAFG prior to GW1 only 3 crews per Squadron were AAR qualified for the Goose Bay deployment Jets, too difficult apparently! Once the proverbial hit the fan, it was easy enough for everyone! I remember the relatively easy non NVG flying was night line astern close formation. You could see the ’red’ jetpipes easily enough, mind you, no one was shooting at you!

airpolice
29th Jul 2018, 23:28
Not really thread drift...

One of our clients has a collection of Porsche 911 Supercars. Each of them is a top of the range, in the era it was built.

The 70's car is his favourite, the 90's is the best looking, and the new one... he dismisses as "That's really just an Audi." when he talks about it. He tells me that the rest of the Porsche drivers in his club feel the same about them.

I wonder if the same can be said of the Pilots being produced by/for the RAF today.

In five years time, will the RAF still be the chosen supplier of aircrew for the rest of the worlds expanding air forces? Will it have become obvious to those who buy/rent such talent, that the foundations were weakened and the output, competent or not, is based on sand by comparison to how it was?

Older and very experienced Saudi pilots might see that the standard of guys arriving to teach their sons at Tabuk, are not of the same experience as they guys who did that job 20 or 30 years earlier.

I'm sure we all understand Bob's desire to keep quiet and smile; that's how you get paid. We also understand that the blame, and the solution, are on the desks of people in London.

Keeping quiet is not really helping anyone except Bob, and of course the folk cashing the cheques.

airpolice
30th Jul 2018, 00:01
that’s pretty harsh air plod, and I am not sure BV deserves what you’re implying. Of course, you have a bit of previous with BV though don’t you?




Yeah, we do have previous. I suggested that there was a dangerous fault with the operation of the Hawk T2 and he said it was fine. The T2 stopped flying, things were changed and it's all gone quiet now, because, as Bob tells us, there's no point in talking about it.

I'm not implying anything. I'm stating that it's not in Bob's own interests to be saying that things are not good.

Dominator2
30th Jul 2018, 09:15
May I stop any further thread drift now? This thread started with the problems with the Phenom and impact on ME pliot training.

Two questions:

First, what is the RAF doing to rectify the problems with it's ME pilot training. Clearly the MFTS solution will NOT produce either the required quality or numbers? Doing nothing is not an answr?

Secondly, when will the RAF accept that streaming too early and not teaching core Military Aviation flying skills to ALL pilots will never produce the quality of pilots required at all levels. If the RAF is to survive some of the poor decisions concerning Flying Training must be reverserd. Short Terminsm and finance must not be allowed to over-rule common sence and good practice.

Treble one
30th Jul 2018, 12:29
This thread is in danger of getting a bit like a Volvo driver trying to convince a VW driver which car is best now!

Maybe Ascent/Affinity just got bored of all the opinions thrown at them and drew a name out of a hat.

Next up let’s all try to agree on the best fighter aircraft ever built.

BV

A much easier one BV. The Spitfire of course. :-)

Dominator2
4th Aug 2018, 11:15
Is anyone able to help?

What is the RAF doing to rectify the problems with it's ME pilot training. Clearly the MFTS solution will NOT produce either the required quality or numbers? Doing nothing is not an answer?

airpolice
4th Aug 2018, 12:40
Is anyone able to help?

Doing nothing is in fact, not only the answer, it's the only option.

Soon with so few airframes and instructors... doing nothing is all the system will be capable of.

sangiovese.
4th Aug 2018, 15:31
Lease back some of the old king airs, give the qfi’s some new pens and magi-boards?

or maybe not.....

airpolice
4th Aug 2018, 15:50
Lease back some of the old king airs, give the qfi’s some new pens and magi-boards?

or maybe not.....

You might be on to something there...

Maybe what's needed is for a VSO to establish, say, an Urgent Operational Requirement, for MEFT and contract it out. A new company staffed by recently released QFIs, flying recently released aircraft. They could of course operate from somewhere that's quiet nowadays, like Cranwell perhaps.

Such a company would of course need to charge top end market rates, in order to pay the staff enough to tempt them back (away) from where they have settled. The attraction of flying without a blue suit / secondary duties and the prospect of not being posted, might appeal to enough of them.

I'm sure that would not be cheap, but it would be effective, in a very short timescale. Feed them just some of the hundreds of trainee Pilots already in the holding system, and things are looking up already.

aw ditor
4th Aug 2018, 16:23
There's a Varsity in very good nick' at the Museum at Newark?

A and C
4th Aug 2018, 16:26
Each time I see one of these threads telling me the new aircraft is always tech and not fit for purpose I can’t help thinking about the introduction of the Airbus A320 into British airways service, the cynics told us that the aircraft just a French joke and so unreliable that they would never be more than the original ( B Cal order ) of ten aircraft in British airways service.......................... That prediction went well !

sangiovese.
4th Aug 2018, 16:58
You might be on to something there...

Maybe what's needed is for a VSO to establish, say, an Urgent Operational Requirement, for MEFT and contract it out. A new company staffed by recently released QFIs, flying recently released aircraft. They could of course operate from somewhere that's quiet nowadays, like Cranwell perhaps.

Such a company would of course need to charge top end market rates, in order to pay the staff enough to tempt them back (away) from where they have settled. The attraction of flying without a blue suit / secondary duties and the prospect of not being posted, might appeal to enough of them.

I'm sure that would not be cheap, but it would be effective, in a very short timescale. Feed them just some of the hundreds of trainee Pilots already in the holding system, and things are looking up already.


Indeed it’s not as if the principles of teaching anyone to fly a ME aircraft have changed significantly without an IT based underpinning overarching solution based paradigm changing solution that was contracted about 10 years ago and isn’t even slightly working for ME training

I find it quite incredible how a perfectly functioning system was dismantled without fully implemented replacement. That takes a level of serious ineptitude

airpolice
4th Aug 2018, 22:44
Indeed it’s not as if the principles of teaching anyone to fly a ME aircraft have changed significantly without an IT based underpinning overarching solution based paradigm changing solution that was contracted about 10 years ago and isn’t even slightly working for ME training

I find it quite incredible how a perfectly functioning system was dismantled without fully implemented replacement. That takes a level of serious ineptitude

I'm not at all convinced that inept is a good description, avaricious, rapacious, devious, money grabber or fiscally greedy might be better.

There's nothing in any of this that makes me think it was an accident. What we had was swapped for a great spending of money with other people, and by design, not carelessness.

Lima Juliet
5th Aug 2018, 08:49
As I understand it, the contract to run on King Air was expensive and it was cheaper and less risky to use a high-quality commercial training provider for multi-engine training. Especially the extra pilots needed now following the expansion of aircraft numbers under SDSR15. So a competitive was run and L3 won. The plan is to do EFT and then an enhanced lead in course doing more close formation and low level before going to the commercial school. Now seeing as L3 have Boeing and Airbus sims for MCC then the graduates of this program could actually be a better product for Voyager and P8 (and Wedgetail if we buy it). All announced here: https://www.pilotcareernews.com/l3-to-provide-bespoke-training-for-raf-pilots/

L3 Commercial Aviation has been selected by the Royal Air Force (RAF) to support the training of future RAF multi-engine pilots in a three-year contract.

L3 will provide a bespoke training course for approximately 100 trainee pilots.

Trainees will undertake a course similar to a Commercial Pilot License (CPL) with Instrument Rating (IR) as well as the Multi-Crew Cooperation (MCC) course to supplement the RAF’s own training.

“This agreement showcases our ability to offer tailored, cost-effective solutions to meet existing and new customers’ bespoke training requirements. We look forward to working with the RAF for many years and welcoming their pilots to our U.K. training facilities,” said Robin Glover-Faure, President of Commercial Training Solutions, which is part of L3 Commercial Aviation.

Group Captain David Catlow, from the RAF Directorate of Flying Training, added, “This agreement with L3 will help us to deliver more world-class pilots to our operational front line in the timescales we require.”

The trainee pilots will start with Officer Training and Elementary Flying Training with the RAF, then carry out the tailored course on multi-engine aircraft before progressing to the MCC course using L3’s flight simulators. The first class of students will begin training with L3 in August 2018.


Oh, and I suspect it is a lot cheaper than running a small bespoke outfit of ex QFIs with some airframes at a MOD airfield as a top up to MEPT on UKMFTS as has been suggested above. Using the capacity in L3’s extant global training system is far better and likely much cheaper.

This course will run in parallel with current UKMFTS MEPT offering the extra numbers of pilots needed for the extra demand of SDSR15.

Cows getting bigger
5th Aug 2018, 12:22
Is it true that some chaps may be going to an orange branded LoCo for part of their training?

(Rumour heard in an FTS bar the other day).

NutLoose
5th Aug 2018, 12:59
Do they do formation flying?

Remember the Station sign changed to training pilots for them, how true it's becoming.

Ken Scott
5th Aug 2018, 16:35
I hope that 22Gp have ensured that none of the students will get a commercial licence out of this training - imagine what might happen if they did?! Pilots might stay to the end of their service rather than working in their own time & jumping ship as soon as they have the license in their hand.

Maintaining the current system of obstructing the attainment of professional licences has certainly proved to be a winning policy for retention.

airpolice
5th Aug 2018, 16:58
Is it true that some chaps may be going to an orange branded LoCo for part of their training?

(Rumour heard in an FTS bar the other day).

I thought it was already an established practice, that Easy Jet Captains should go to the Royal Air Force for part of their training.

Lima Juliet
5th Aug 2018, 22:26
I hope that 22Gp have ensured that none of the students will get a commercial licence out of this training - imagine what might happen if they did?! Pilots might stay to the end of their service rather than working in their own time & jumping ship as soon as they have the license in their hand.

Maintaining the current system of obstructing the attainment of professional licences has certainly proved to be a winning policy for retention.


Nothing to do with 22Gp and everything to do with the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). Military flying trg does not meet the EASA or ICAO standards required and so EASA deem any UK military trained pilot to be a “3rd Country” and so only small amounts of accreditation. The only way to fix this is for all military fg trg to be done iaw EASA syllabi, examination criteria and an approved trg organisation.

Will they get a CPL? Nope, as to complete a modular EASA CPL you need a PPL, 150hrs and have completed the CPL or ATPL exams. The baby pilots may have a PPL but are unlikely to have the other - EFT is now around 50-60hrs. The ME lead in is between 15-20hrs. Only qualified service pilots are exempted the Theoretical Knowledge trg before they sit the sit the EASA exams and even then they normally attend a ‘crammer’ package to prep them for the exams to ensure success. The baby pilots would need to do the full part-time ~18 month learning groundschool or the 4-5 month taught EASA ground school.

So I hope you can now understand why this is not a 22Gp blame issue?

:ok:

PS. Military ground school is now about 2 months overall with EFT, MELIN and MEPT, so someway short of the civvy one.

cessnapete
6th Aug 2018, 04:47
As long as you have done the civil exams the Airtanker Voyager conversion course gets you an EASA A330/ A350 Type Rating on your new ATPL. Useful for a future career!

BEagle
6th Aug 2018, 07:25
Lima Juliet wrote:
So I hope you can now understand why this is not a 22Gp blame issue?

Wrong! It is everything to do with 22Gp! During a pre-EASA roadshow at CAA Gatwick, I asked whether the hard-won credit policy secured for QSPs under JAR-FCL would be maintained under EASA. The spokeswoman confimed that they could - and the CAA Head of Licensing nodded in agreement.

It has to be remembered that the original credit for those with 2000TT of which 1500 as PIC recognised not just knowledge and skill, but also experience. Hence any gaps in military theoretical knowledge training would certainly have been resolved by the time pilots had achieved the 2000TT minimum.

But 22 Gp totally failed to understand this; they were more interested in gaining some credit, miniscule as it was, for those poor folk who were booted out of the training system after passing the courses, because yet another panic reduction in pilot numbers couldn't accommodate them.... Hence the JAR-FCL credits were binned and the present day situation is the result.

So instead of staying in until they've gained 2000TT / 1500 PIC, many QMPs are now thinking "What's the point" and are studying for ATPL exams, gaining a CPL with ATPL theory credit and banging out as soon as they can. For which you can certainly blame 22 Gp!

Wander00
6th Aug 2018, 11:44
All be irrelevant next March when we are out of the EU, and EASA, and for a while out of the skies....rant over, f

Cows getting bigger
6th Aug 2018, 13:25
Do they do formation flying?



If they do, it will probably be better than CFS. :)

Lima Juliet
7th Aug 2018, 00:15
So instead of staying in until they've gained 2000TT / 1500 PIC, many QMPs are now thinking "What's the point" and are studying for ATPL exams, gaining a CPL with ATPL theory credit and banging out as soon as they can. For which you can certainly blame 22 Gp!

Beags, that is not correct. The exit rate is no higher than it has been for some time. The problem that we have is that the training pipeline is now producing at such a slow rate that growth is S. L. O. W and hence we are short having undershot the numbers. But the exit rate is no different pre or post JAR at present, so I have no idea where your facts are coming from?

Also, as you know, the difference between EASA Part-FCL and the previous JAR regs are significant. The comment on being treated as a “3rd county” came from the person in the Authority that looks after this stuff - that is just not in 22 Gp’s gift and the CAA are only allowed to apply the rules within the spirit of the EASA regs. Hence the accreditation for UAS pilots to credit towards a NPPL was also recently lost - not a fault of 22Gp but because EASA no longer allow the training for NPPL in EASA aircraft and you can’t train on an Annex II aircraft for your LAPL/PPL. There is a case put forward for some accreditation for UAS pilots towards a LAPL with the Authority right now. You can’t blame that on 22 Gp either :rolleyes:

Ken Scott
7th Aug 2018, 00:20
LJ: the mil students will be attending an approved training school that trains non-mil students from zero to CPL/ frozen ATPL, so it would be possible to make the RAF abbreviated course compliant to achieve a licence. Yes, it would probably be longer than the 'special', non-licence Course that L3 have been contracted for but in the longer term the graduates will likely give more service in return as they won't have to self-fund & work for their licences - when they've got it the strong temptation is to leave & use it. Far better to give them a licence out of training & bond them for the cost if they leave early, everyone accepts that type of contract when they join an airline so why should the RAF be any different?

I don't think I've ever come across anyone whose stated aim was to join the RAF as a 'quick way to get to the airlines', everyone joins because they want to do military flying and time/ experience convinces them that leaving is a better option than staying in. This is only exacerbated by the graft of ATPL studies & having done it why waste it? The current situation of making it difficult to obtain civil qualifications is clearly not putting off many people from leaving, time perhaps for a carrot rather than the well used stick?

BEagle
7th Aug 2018, 07:52
Lima Juliet wrote: Hence the accreditation for UAS pilots to credit towards a NPPL was also recently lost - not a fault of 22Gp but because EASA no longer allow the training for NPPL in EASA aircraft and you can’t train on an Annex II aircraft for your LAPL/PPL.
Wrong on both counts. UAS credit towards an NPPL remains in place and training on Annex II aircraft is acceptable towards the LAPL / PPL in the UK.

The Conversion Report for military accreditation could have remained in place under Part-FCL as it was under JAR/FCL. Sadly 22Gp chose not to argue the case - so you're stuffed with the present system.

airpolice
7th Aug 2018, 09:01
I'm not looking for a fight, I am just asking, if, and I know it's by no means certain... the UK leaves EASA, would the CAA be responsible for deciding which courses & exams are suitable for the issue of an ATPL?

Lima Juliet
7th Aug 2018, 19:58
Wrong on both counts. UAS credit towards an NPPL remains in place and training on Annex II aircraft is acceptable towards the LAPL / PPL in the UK.

Nope. According to the Aircrew Regulation, if you wish to fly any EASA registered aircraft then you must hold an EASA licence and relevant medical. The deadline for GA pilots converting to an EASA licence was 08 April 2018, which would have restricted National licence holders to 'Annex II' aircraft only. However, the UK CAA have issued an exemption delaying this deadline until 07 April 2019 for licences already in issue. NPPL (SSEA or SLMG) must have been issued by the UK CAA before 8 April 2018 to convert to an EASA LAPL(A) or PPL(A). So the UAS exemption is next to useless now as you cannot use it to convert to LAPL or PPL. Very few clubs have Annex II aircraft for hire and the NPPL will not get you on your way to professional licences as you will need to convert it to an EASA one and that window is now closed for new NPPLs.

The “3rd country” description came straight from the Authority; this is the person who deals with this and his initials are JO. He is the lead on military credits at the Belgrano and he said that it was the fact that the military needed to be treated as a 3rd Country meant that any accreditation would need to meet Part-TCO requirements. So again, 22Gp don’t write these regs - EASA do!

@Ken Scott, getting the studes an EASA PPL(A), 150hrs TT, TK and the exams to do a modular CPL is just too lengthy and expensive to bear. We want our pilots to flow EFT through MELIN/MEEC to MEPT or Outsourced as quickly as possible. Granted it’s a bit messed up at present but when it runs smoothly it should be a better route to a military OCU entry standard. I do agree with you about the professional recognition piece though.

BEagle
7th Aug 2018, 20:40
Lima Juliet, I work with the chap to whom you refer on a regular basis and we also attend certain EASA licensing meetings. Which are pretty tedious events!

The recent amendment to Opinion 08/2017 may well prove of significant benefit with regard to the future of the NPPL; the only problem now is that the amended Basic Regulation is forcing an editorial review of all recent Opinions due to changes in cross-referencing. EASA's lawyers have no interest in expeditious work, hence many details agreed several years ago have still to be progressed into EU law.

NutLoose
7th Aug 2018, 21:15
I'm not looking for a fight, I am just asking, if, and I know it's by no means certain... the UK leaves EASA, would the CAA be responsible for deciding which courses & exams are suitable for the issue of an ATPL?


They would have to be as far as I can tell, same with my Engineering licences, my best guess is they will simply cross out EASA on my licence and add CAA, then work from there, I forsee a commonality between the two being retained, I already hold a CAA licence under Annex 11 as well as my EASA one that was converted over from my CAA one to an EASA one under Grandfather rights.
Remember the CAA issued Licences before we joined all of this, indeed a UK EASA licence by the CAA is looked upon in the rest of the world as the favoured ones for employing people, hence why a lot of other people tried to convert their EASA licence issued in XYZ country to a UK one... The CAA vetoed that though.

airpolice
8th Aug 2018, 00:02
They would have to be as far as I can tell, same with my Engineering licences, my best guess is they will simply cross out EASA on my licence and add CAA, then work from there, I forsee a commonality between the two being retained, I already hold a CAA licence under Annex 11 as well as my EASA one that was converted over from my CAA one to an EASA one under Grandfather rights.
Remember the CAA issued Licences before we joined all of this, indeed a UK EASA licence by the CAA is looked upon in the rest of the world as the favoured ones for employing people, hence why a lot of other people tried to convert their EASA licence issued in XYZ country to a UK one... The CAA vetoed that though.

So, where I am going with this, is that if the UK leaves EASA and simply replicates (initially) EASA rules and requirements, they could then change it, bit by bit, to suit what they are told by Parliament to do.

Having the CAA change what recognition is given to the CFS approved output might be easier than getting Europeans to accept it.
That of course would just be the tip of the iceberg, and do wonders for retention, if say a time period for a return of service was a sure fire way to a civvy licence.

Ken Scott
8th Aug 2018, 10:57
That of course would just be the tip of the iceberg, and do wonders for retention, if say a time period for a return of service was a sure fire way to a civvy licence.

My point entirely. For longer than anyone can remember the RAF has been trying to put barriers in the way of people leaving, maybe they should try incentivising them to stay - an unfrozen licence at the end of their service for example.

This is what happens in the FAF & BAF as I understand. They don’t have a retention problem. There would need to be changes made to our training system to make it compliant but given that an increasing proportion of it is now being delivered by civilian organisations that ought not to be so very difficult. All that’s lacking is the will to reverse a policy that’s abjectly failed. The extra costs would more than be covered by the extra service of those retained for longer.

BEagle
8th Aug 2018, 11:42
Ken Scott, that is precisely why the pre-2006 scheme was launched in more sensible times - as a recruiting and retention scheme.

If you were a pilot on something like a TriStar, VC10 or Hercules, if you had been in the RAF for long enough to amass 2000hrs TT, of which 1500 were as PIC, all you had to do was arrange for a CAA Examiner to observe an IRT, pass the ATPL Air Law exam, fill out the form and pay the dosh - and a few weeks later your ATPL appeared.

All lost now, thanks to 22Gp.

airpolice
8th Aug 2018, 12:45
Ken Scott, that is precisely why the pre-2006 scheme was launched in more sensible times - as a recruiting and retention scheme.

If you were a pilot on something like a TriStar, VC10 or Hercules, if you had been in the RAF for long enough to amass 2000hrs TT, of which 1500 were as PIC, all you had to do was arrange for a CAA Examiner to observe an IRT, pass the ATPL Air Law exam, fill out the form and pay the dosh - and a few weeks later your ATPL appeared.

All lost now, thanks to 22Gp.


So... if Brexit can bring that back, would you still be a remainer?

BEagle
9th Aug 2018, 08:47
If the utter stupidity of the EU referendum was extended to the UK no longer being an EASA MS, it is rather doubtful that there would be another MCWG prepared to reopen the question of military accreditation.

HMG has yet to deliver any concrete proposals for future EASA membership; however, Mother MayDay is on record as having stated that it is the government's intention to do so.

NutLoose
9th Aug 2018, 11:37
So, where I am going with this, is that if the UK leaves EASA and simply replicates (initially) EASA rules and requirements, they could then change it, bit by bit, to suit what they are told by Parliament to do.

Having the CAA change what recognition is given to the CFS approved output might be easier than getting Europeans to accept it.
That of course would just be the tip of the iceberg, and do wonders for retention, if say a time period for a return of service was a sure fire way to a civvy licence.

That's how I see it eventually panning out, on my side of the fence ( Engineering ) part 145 was brought out in the EU to bring about commonality, prior to that each aviation body, the CAA etc, had different requirements, modifications, airworthiness directives etc, so the likes of Airbus were having to build subtle variants of each aircraft to suit each country, something that was stupid as they all would fly in each others airspace etc, therefore Part 145 came into being and it was one supposed standard across the EU. ( personally I feel that the system was dumbed down at the time to the lowest country, as it was easier to dumb it down than to raise up their standards)
The US have also adopted / moved towards a version of Part 145 to bring standardisation between the EU and the US, this in turn has spread the world over and most countries like New Zealand and Australia have a similar version to Part 145, so like it or not I cannot see the UK going it alone and doing their own thing, Part 145 is here to stay in my eyes and we will probably adopt most if not all of EASA's dross.

The problem comes in that the CAA is now a shadow of it's former self having passed most of the tasks to the EASA and a lot of the skilled and qualified through industry engineers etc have left to be replaced by fewer college graduates and clerks, none of which have the skill set I believe they need.

S-Works
9th Aug 2018, 15:38
I knew an accident was going to happen, I did not expect it to be this soon but it was inevitable and it won't be the last one. Way too much time playing in the sim and no time on the aircraft and then wanting to go off an "play" with no proper training or experience on type doing stuff that it was not designed for and had only been briefly attempted during the proving trials. The aircraft is very difficult to fly in close formation because of the way it accelerates and decelerates which makes statin keeping very difficult. Combine that with doing 60 degree turns and inexperienced on type QFI and the holes in the swiss cheese line up quickly.

The Phenom is a great aircraft but it is not a great primary ME trainer and was a really bad choice for the job. The guys doing the job at the coalface are top notch guys who just want to deliver the best but the rest is just not joined up properly. Its just a civilianised version of 45 Sqn headed up by a load of ex military who jumped ship to take the jobs and have no understanding of how to operate in the civilian world both from the poor management of staff to a total lack of understanding of civilian regulation.

More than one person has quit in protest at the situation.

BEagle
9th Aug 2018, 16:56
Accident, bose-x?

How many Phenoms are actually on the line at Cranwell these days...…??

TEEEJ
9th Aug 2018, 22:38
Accident, bose-x?

How many Phenoms are actually on the line at Cranwell these days...…??

Noted from the spotters logs at Cranwell, 8th August.

Phenoms ZM333, ZM334 and ZM337 noted at Cranwell. ZM335 and ZM336 at Waddington and reported as not flown since 3rd July.

NutLoose
10th Aug 2018, 10:55
Port wings of both of them parked up at Waddo not showing anything I can see, but then it might not the tip that's probably of concern, the wing root and attachment might be.

https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9022750

https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9013687

airpolice
10th Aug 2018, 18:20
Port wings of both of them parked up at Waddo not showing anything I can see, but then it might not the tip that's probably of concern, the wing root and attachment might be.

https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9022750

https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9013687

I don't think it will be the same wing on each aircraft, that has a problem.

NutLoose
10th Aug 2018, 23:18
.Errrrr you probably never thought that through....... to hit the port wing against the port wing of the other aircraft you would be practising head on close formation flying, one aircraft has had to hit the port wing against the other jets stb wing.... Or their stb wing against the port wing of the other...... Either way at least one port wing would be involved and neither of those look bad unless it was upper surface against lower.... Or vice versa.

LOMCEVAK
13th Aug 2018, 17:43
I have followed this thread and am slightly bemused by some of the comments written about flying the Phenom, particularly in formation. I have flown it from the left seat in close formation (echelon left and right and close line astern in wing overs and turns up to 60 deg bank angle), albeit against a Kingair and not another Phenom. I thought that the field of view was satisfactory in all positions and that the thrust and drag characteristics allowed good fore and aft positioning. There has been criticism in some posts of both of these aspects which surprised me. However, I am quite surprised that there have been no comments on the high pitch control forces at stabilised high bank angles. Perhaps opinions depend on formation experience and recency.

One MFTS aspect that needs to be considered with the Phenom is the number of different types that ME pilot students from the course may fly. This is far greater and more varied that any of the other MFTS types and so whatever type is used for ME pilot training will always be a compromise.

Pure Pursuit
13th Aug 2018, 19:18
There’s an awful lot of crap being written here. If you’ve read the DASOR, you’ll know what happened. If you can’t, I’m sure news will feed out soon enough.

Im with Air Plod on the quality of training across the RAF. standards have lowered, corners are being cut and it’s becoming a numbers game. Are the Typhoon pilots the best in the air to air business? Absolutely not, Lakenheath have that accolade by quite some margin. Is our engineering training still producing technicians that are regarded as the best at what they do? Sadly not. Training has been diluted and it’s being manifesting itself on the front line for a few years now.

The RAF is slowly becoming a mediocre force and our reputation is already suffering. A sad fact but, it is true.

Mr. Vice
13th Aug 2018, 19:23
Pure Pursuit,

Typhoon pilots Vs Lakenheath Pilots is probably not a comparison you can make. Debate the capabilities of the platforms and flying hours by all means, but until you have fought every pilot from both fleets I would suggest your claims are made on shaky ground.

Mr Vice.

NutLoose
13th Aug 2018, 19:55
Agree with him engineering wise, there always was a requirement in civi street for the highly qualified and skilled workforce that used to flow from the RAF, with both the reduction in both numbers and quality companies have been forced to train up their own civilian staff to replace them.

Cazalet33
13th Aug 2018, 20:05
The RAF is slowly becoming a mediocre force and our reputation is already suffering. A sad fact but, it is true.

That, right there, is truly awful.

Ghastly.

pr00ne
13th Aug 2018, 20:52
Opinion masquerading as fact.

airpolice
13th Aug 2018, 21:26
Opinion masquerading as fact.

Well, if the standard has not dropped, how are they managing to maintain it with a lot fewer hours for Pilots?

airpolice
13th Aug 2018, 22:02
For the benefit of those who doubt the opinions expressed above:

I understand that with this being an anonymous forum, so data can be hard to verify, but for those who know people... ask around.

Which units are getting anything like enough hours in the air to be even half competent?

Reds: Probably.

Front line Typhoon and Tornado, including QRA: nothing like it.

Phenom: Who knows, given the shortage of airframes, and the flying needed to get their QFIs (the ones who haven't yet left) to the standard, what the long term picture is?

Transport & Tanking: Apparently some, but some of them are civvies, the rest of them are run into the ground on ops. The A400 pilots were struggling to achieve 200hours/annum. Not sure if this is still the case?

Hawk T2: No, advanced high tech sims are not the same thing. Great for as well as, but not instead of. I hear the convex for QFIs is taking well in excess of 12 months, at a very slow rate. Output rate, albeit with some overseas customers to satisfy, is blocking up a 2 year plus hold for baby pilots with no likely refresher. 'Downloading' training needlessly from Typhoon, and pilots lacking basic fast jet handling skills.

Hawk T1: No idea, but they seem busy enough.

ISTAR: No idea, but imagine RJ and E3D crews must be struggling, due to high unserviceability rates.

Rotary: Training; Students are flying, and Instructors are doing an awful lot fewer (P1) hours in the air than they used to. Ops; Previously flown to exhaustion, which is as bad as not flying enough. Now showing large reductions.

Prefect: Too early to say, but probably not. Have they resolved the over torque issues yet? That's not exactly care free handling.

Texan: Ask me in 2019, when it just might have permission to fly in the UK.

Air Cadets: Don't make me laugh.

If standards haven't dropped, why is it that Air Command now say that "flight training is now to be to an acceptable minimum standard at the cheapest contractual price"? The previously used term "excellence" has been dropped.

That looks to me, as if even 22 Group have decide to settle for less.

Bob Viking
14th Aug 2018, 04:18
Please don’t take this as a continuation of previous spats between us but you need to be able to quantify your statements.

Out of all the types you mentioned above, you are unable to state for certain what hours their pilots are getting on a monthly basis. You are just guessing based on hearsay or vague information.

I’m in the RAF and I have no idea what monthly hours pilots are getting outside of my own unit. Can you be so sure that GR4 and Typhoon pilots are getting so few hours? Or are you basing your supposition on old information? Genuinely, I have no idea but I wouldn’t guess and then pretend on here that it’s a fact.

As for QFI training times, are you absolutely certain your information is bang up to date?

As I said, I’m not trying to start a fight and I obviously have no idea who you are. You could be AOC 22 Gp for all I know. Just please, stick to known facts to reinforce your point. It will help your credibility.

BV

BEagle
14th Aug 2018, 08:09
Back when retention seminars were held at RAF Waddington, one of my QFI colleagues told the 4-star chairing the session was that the reason he was PVR-ing was "Because we've been told that the RAF no longer trains for excellence, just for adequacy".

"Whoever told you that?" asked the 4-star, clearly unimpressed.
"OC Staneval, sir" my colleague replied.


Colleague is now a Virgin Atlantic captain - and the 4-star himself took early retirement!

50+Ray
14th Aug 2018, 09:14
Rumour only - dent in cabin roof of one of the Phenom cabs at Waddo. Cat ?

airpolice
14th Aug 2018, 11:10
Please don’t take this as a continuation of previous spats between us but you need to be able to quantify your statements.

Out of all the types you mentioned above, you are unable to state for certain what hours their pilots are getting on a monthly basis. You are just guessing based on hearsay or vague information.

I’m in the RAF and I have no idea what monthly hours pilots are getting outside of my own unit. Can you be so sure that GR4 and Typhoon pilots are getting so few hours? Or are you basing your supposition on old information? Genuinely, I have no idea but I wouldn’t guess and then pretend on here that it’s a fact.

As for QFI training times, are you absolutely certain your information is bang up to date?

I am sure you have read

As I said, I’m not trying to start a fight and I obviously have no idea who you are. You could be AOC 22 Gp for all I know. Just please, stick to known facts to reinforce your point. It will help your credibility.

BV

Bob, I don't want a fight with you, I just want everyone to know the truth.

I am of course long since departed for civvy street. You don't know who I am, but I know who you are. That's not really relevant.

You are still serving, and you are very close to the action, particularly regarding the T2. So consider this; anything that you can say, about the T2 fleet and the flow of students, should be taken as either absolute truth or malicious lies, intended to deceive. That's based on the premise that you would know, wouldn't you?

So, if you can tell us on here about what happens in the T2 fleet, why do think that I don't know people on the other fleets who can tell me the same thing?

How many hours a month have you flown in the last year?

The next time you speak to a Typhoon Pilot, ask him the same question. Ask any of the Reds how many hours a month they averaged last year. Ask any of Beagle's vintage how many hours a month they used to do, and whether or not they think they would be as comfortable doing the current hours. I an sure that you will have read National Audit Office report on Military Flying Training 2015 (https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Military-Flying-Training.pdf) which, although three years old, tells a sorry tale of seven years from joining the RAF to getting combat ready. I'm not say that the report is pleasant, I'm not even saying it's accurate, as much like some AAIB stuff I have been reading recently, the (lack of) attention to detail is shocking, and the numbers don't always add up.

Even so, despite all of the promises and money that has been committed to the new world order in training, the RAF are certainly no better off. The flying hours have been cut for the students, the duration of training has been cut and people are arriving at the OCU without the same level of experience that they used to have. Most shocking in that for me, was that the Audit discovered that the failings and lack of experience, was not a culture that was being recorded or fed back.

Here we are 11 years after the contract was awarded, and even you couldn't honestly say that it has gone well.

Three years since that report came out, a rethink of how the business would manage to turn things around, a collection of new plans and timetables.. here we are, still short of bodies and a backlog in the holding system.

I recall a time when the output from the OCU was the best of the people who had applied. Nowadays it looks like it might just be those who have had the patience to stick around long enough.

Bob Viking
14th Aug 2018, 11:39
Fair enough. I shall concede. I have nothing left to say on the issue.

All I can say is that my logbook for the last year looks pretty healthy.

BV

BEagle
14th Aug 2018, 15:04
airpolice wrote: Ask any of Beagle's vintage how many hours a month they used to do, and whether or not they think they would be as comfortable doing the current hours.

Mate, you have to remember that the aircraft I flew were decidedly mandraulic compared with today's FJs. On my brief time on the F-4 I think we got about 20-25 hours per month; also the simulator wasn't much use for practice intercepts. Even in training, the Gnat used most of one's mental capacity trying to stop it from killing you and it didn't have enough fuel for more than about 50 min airborne time.

The Hawk was much easier to fly, so students were stretched by longer, more demanding trips. At TWU, weaponeering was simpler in the Hawk; we didn't have the Hunter's GGS, but neither did we have those infernal cine mags. But course progress at Brawdy was worse than at Chiv, because we did level bombing rather than SNEB and were less hampered by cloudbase at Pembrey. Nowadays I gather that there is no live weaponeering at Valley on the Hawk T2 and most applied flying is synthetic. OK, the simuators are probably a lot better than the one we had, but applying yourself at 1g is a lot different than at the normal 4g we used for low level manoeuvring or 6-7g for doggers. Pre-RAFFT too, so most people weren't iron-pumping gym queens and found they were quite fit enough to cope with ACM without any 'fitness routine'.

I'm told that the Typhoon is easy to fly, but quite complex to operate in many environments. So hardly surprising that less airborne time is required nowadays. But how will Typhoon and F-35B pilots maintain g tolerance with low airborne time?

Anyway, back to the Phenom. Is 40% of the fleet still U/S? As for the cause, that's bound to leak out one day and I'm surprised that the press haven't already reported it. But why on earth do Phenom pilots need to be taught to fly at anything more than 30 deg AoB in formation, given that's about all any of the RAF's ME fleet needs to use as singletons.

S-Works
14th Aug 2018, 15:56
Fair enough. I shall concede. I have nothing left to say on the issue.

All I can say is that my logbook for the last year looks pretty healthy.

BV



Clearly not flying the Phenom unless you are referring to sim time..... ;)

S-Works
14th Aug 2018, 16:08
Anyway, back to the Phenom. Is 40% of the fleet still U/S? As for the cause, that's bound to leak out one day and I'm surprised that the press haven't already reported it. But why on earth do Phenom pilots need to be taught to fly at anything more than 30 deg AoB in formation, given that's about all any of the RAF's ME fleet needs to use as singletons.

Because the military QFIs wanted to do it because they had always done it on the Kingair and the "reasoning" was that one day they might be flying something that was air refuelled but mostly because it was fun to do. It was pointed out to them by a now departed Civilian Instructor that it was inappropriate and would end up in a crash........ In fact there was no need for formation flying at all (and they wont be getting it with L3) and that it should be left to OCU. Unlike flying a Kingair where station keeping is simpler because of the noise and feel and visual aspects of the turboprop, the Phenom is just too slippery and not designed for the task. There were numerous crashes in the sim practicing it as well which is when it became pretty obvious that it was not appropriate. Now the inevitable has happened and they have had a prang. The next thing that comes assuming they ever get operational will be students with no time on type being sent of on consolidation flights without an Instructor as is planned and banging one in. Mark my words.....

Cows getting bigger
14th Aug 2018, 18:58
I see where Bose is coming from. Jumping from a Jetstream/King Air into a pocket rocket like a Phenom is a biggish step. If you don't adapt your training syllabus enough, you're going to be bitten. The issue is not unique to the RAF; I've come across a number of people who think that a BE350/200 Type Rating can be easily morphed into an Eclipse 550 TR.

FixClrEnt
14th Aug 2018, 20:35
The next thing that comes assuming they ever get operational will be students with no time on type being sent of on consolidation flights without an Instructor as is planned and banging one in. Mark my words.....

I doubt there will be anyone, let alone students, flying consolidation flights with no time on type! Or was that another poorly worded post where you meant low time?

The Phenom is not a pocket rocket, it's a relatively simple - certainly very easy to fly - small twin. The transition from the Prefect to the Phenom will be very straightforward and far easier when compared to previous airframe changes such as: Chipmunk-JP, JP-Hawk, Gazelle-Wessex to name but a few.

If you want a pilot who can only operate within quite a narrow environment (take off, transit, land), stay well clear of any limits, operate rigidly iaw very restrictive SOPs then perhaps the civilian CPL type course is the way to go. However, if you want a pilot who needs to be able to fly perhaps at LL, air-air refuelling, para drop, ISTAR or tanking to the absolute limit of your endurance, as part of a multi-aircraft package, with aircrews from other nations and using very different SOPs, to the extremes of your aircraft's accepted limits, then I would argue the CPL route doesn't work. You need a pilot that's had exposure to various skills - including basic formation - and most certainly on a few carefully considered sorties 'solo' ie without an instructor on board.

I've seen both systems close up, each have their pros and cons; but please don't think that sending a pair of well trained students, thoroughly briefed, on a well planned local sortie is unwise. It's an essential part of the military pilots' training and confidence building.

Just This Once...
14th Aug 2018, 20:42
I don't get what Bose is saying at all. Virtually all our M/E fleets have a requirement for close formation and it would be utterly ridiculous to take an RJ, E-3D or P8 out of operational service to teach multi-engine formation trip 1. Formation flying gets harder as aircraft size increases - in IMC and on the wing your eyes can be a long way from the fuselage you are formatting on. Add in heavy aircraft inertia, large turbine engine spool-up time or turboprop effects on trim and lift you can have a lot going on.

If the Phenom is not up to the task (and that is a very big if) the solution is not to kick the can down the road and try and teach formation basics on an even more expensive and challenging aircraft.

S-Works
15th Aug 2018, 11:46
If you don't adapt your training syllabus enough, you're going to be bitten.


Thats what happens when you cut and paste the old Kingair Training manuals to make new ones......

Cows getting bigger
15th Aug 2018, 12:24
If you want a pilot who can only operate within quite a narrow environment (take off, transit, land), stay well clear of any limits, operate rigidly iaw very restrictive SOPs then perhaps the civilian CPL type course is the way to go. However, if you want a pilot who needs to be able to fly perhaps at LL, air-air refuelling, para drop, ISTAR or tanking to the absolute limit of your endurance, as part of a multi-aircraft package, with aircrews from other nations and using very different SOPs, to the extremes of your aircraft's accepted limits, then I would argue the CPL route doesn't work.

I think you're being a bit generalist there and somewhat disparaging of the civil world. Like you I've seen both sides (23 years light blue, 12 years 'gold bars') and the ethos are indeed quite different. But your assertion that you need to follow the military 'higher risk' ethos may be flawed. Personally, I now fly to far lower and sometimes more complex limits than the RAF ever authorised (try asking the RAF for fixed wing authorisation to 35ft MSD :) ). To date I haven't pranged an aircraft so I'm guessing that the civil training and oversight system is currently working. :)

The real difference ins in how the two worlds approach Risk and that was the driver behind my previous comments. To quote you:

The transition from the Prefect to the Phenom will be very straightforward and far easier when compared to previous airframe changes such as: Chipmunk-JP, JP-Hawk, Gazelle-Wessex to name but a few.

That is exactly the way the civil world would NOT approach risk. It would not assume that today's transition is easier than previous generations. It would look at the issues with a completely clean sheet of paper. It would wonder why the FJ world thinks it needs to transition from Prefect to Hawk T2 via Texan with nothing similar for the ME world.

The reality is that the RAF have managed to scare themselves (and probably incur a few unplanned costs) by nudging together a couple of Phenom. For sure someone at Abbey Wood will be looking at it in depth, but one question should be "When did we last have a formation mid-air, what did we do about it and what has changed to affect our original mitigation?". The follow-up question should be "How did we manage that change?".

PS. You touched on JP-Hawk transition. Back in the heady days of the Cold War, a young CGB had about 180hrs JP time before being pushed-off to Valley. I'm guessing the equivalent number is far less now.

S-Works
15th Aug 2018, 13:12
What should have happened with the ME training is they should have gone for something like DA42 for the ME and then the Phenom for advanced transition training before moving onto OCU. This is being done very successfully in Finland for example. Instead you have very inexperienced pilots going from the Grob TP to the Phenom with the majority of the hours in the sim. We have to ask if the MAA are actually maintaining proper oversight of this?

Bloodhound Loose
15th Aug 2018, 16:43
Thats what happens when you cut and paste the old Kingair Training manuals to make new ones......

IF (big if?) that’s what’s Ascent has done then it’s extremely naughty. Especially if they’re billing the taxpayer for the plagiarism.

Bose-X, have you flown the Phenom in close formation?

VinRouge
15th Aug 2018, 17:07
I don't get what Bose is saying at all. Virtually all our M/E fleets have a requirement for close formation and it would be utterly ridiculous to take an RJ, E-3D or P8 out of operational service to teach multi-engine formation trip 1. Formation flying gets harder as aircraft size increases - in IMC and on the wing your eyes can be a long way from the fuselage you are formatting on. Add in heavy aircraft inertia, large turbine engine spool-up time or turboprop effects on trim and lift you can have a lot going on.

If the Phenom is not up to the task (and that is a very big if) the solution is not to kick the can down the road and try and teach formation basics on an even more expensive and challenging aircraft.
How many ME fleets pemit the copilot to fly AAR (well, are not supposed to the copilot fly AAR)? My experience it was a commander only thing. So by the time bloggs gets a first go, by my reckoning, he should have 3+ years under his belt on a large heavy. Plus, for high gain flying such as this, a full motion SIM often does an excellent job at preparing them for AAR. Does the phenom training package include a level D SIM like most of our heavy fleets possess?

BEagle
15th Aug 2018, 21:03
We had an AAR prodding programme in the full motion VC10 simulators. As it was 2-D and had no 'g' simulation, it was utterly useless and made pilots think that they'd never be able to cope with real prodding. A total waste of time and we refused to use it as it was simply of negative training value; as an AARI, I never came across a VC10 pilot who couldn't cope with the real thing far more easily.

BUT they needed to have had some basic formation training to understand the basics (forward, up, in etc.) and to feel reasonably comfortable flying in close echelon or line astern. Co-pilots needed this too; although they were only allowed to prod if flying with an AARI on an opportunity basis, they had to be able to take control if the other pilot were to become incapacitated.

Close formation in a Phenom at up to 30 deg AoB I can understand. More than that is just risky showboating.

NutLoose
15th Aug 2018, 21:14
If you want a pilot who can only operate within quite a narrow environment (take off, transit, land), stay well clear of any limits, operate rigidly iaw very restrictive SOPs then perhaps the civilian CPL type course is the way to go. However, if you want a pilot who needs to be able to fly perhaps at LL, air-air refuelling, para drop, ISTAR or tanking to the absolute limit of your endurance, as part of a multi-aircraft package, with aircrews from other nations and using very different SOPs, to the extremes of your aircraft's accepted limits, then I would argue the CPL route doesn't work. You need a pilot that's had exposure to various skills - including basic formation - and most certainly on a few carefully considered sorties 'solo' ie without an instructor on board.

Cobhams Cpl Pilots do not seem to have a problem on the Falcon fleet. I realise a lot are exmilitary, but not all

https://www.aerosociety.com/news/flying-for-the-dark-side/

FixClrEnt
15th Aug 2018, 21:40
Close formation in a Phenom at up to 30 deg AoB I can understand. More than that is just risky showboating.

Oh dear me! Where does your hard 30 deg AoB essential trg / showboating cut-off come from? Not sure if you've done much airborne instruction BEagle, but if we use your hard 30 deg limit for students then that means they'll be operating to their limit during, say, a routine pairs departure or radar-to-visual recovery. Surely wiser to expose them to slightly wider limits when specifically manoeuvring so they're back within a more comfortable zone during departure/recovery.

In addition, I'd want to know that a Phenom QFI doesn't have to break-out every time he takes control and the bank gets to 31 deg! I'm going to want him to be able to cope reasonably well at say 45 deg AoB.

BEagle
15th Aug 2018, 23:26
Not sure if you've done much airborne instruction BEagle

On ME aircraft, several thousand hours as an A2 QFI, IRE, AARI on the VC10 & VC10K, thank you very much. And you, FixClrEnt?

ME aircraft do NOT fly 'routine pairs departures' or 'radar-to-visual' recoveries in close formation. 30 deg AoB is quite adequate for AAR manoeuvring as it gives a slight margin over the standard max bank angle of 25 deg; higher bank angles are simply not required. They also pose the risk of exceeding buffet boundary limits or g limits.

There is NO need for the Phenom to be flown in close formation at higher bank angles, although some experience as a singleton at higher bank angles may be of benefit for those who will later fly the A400M or C-130J in the tactical role.

FixClrEnt
16th Aug 2018, 00:18
On ME aircraft, several thousand hours as an A2 QFI, IRE, AARI on the VC10 & VC10K, thank you very much.

Ah, that's impressive, I've not met many military guys with several thousand hours total never mind several thousand as logged instructional time. That must put you comfortably well over 10,000hrs military total so hats off! A rare breed indeed.

So, are you suggesting that for any formation sorties the Phenom is limited to 25/30 deg AoB in a snake climb, then splits for individual recoveries? And as a singleton 'some' experience at higher bank angles only for those going tac? Does that kybosh any thoughts of abo student ME pilots regularly flying steepies in the Phenom; perhaps just a select few towards the end of the course?

BEagle
16th Aug 2018, 08:32
FixClrEnt wrote: So, are you suggesting that for any formation sorties the Phenom is limited to 25/30 deg AoB in a snake climb, then splits for individual recoveries?
Yes.
And as a singleton 'some' experience at higher bank angles only for those going tac? Does that kybosh any thoughts of abo student ME pilots regularly flying steepies in the Phenom; perhaps just a select few towards the end of the course?

ME pilots do not need to fly at bank angles in excess of 30 deg AoB in the aircraft at all. If necessary, they can do that in the simulator.
.

beardy
16th Aug 2018, 09:25
BEagle

Would not your proposal lead to adequate training rather than training for excellence?

BEagle
16th Aug 2018, 10:12
I don't think so, beardy, it's questionable whether there is any need at all for Phenom pilots to fly in close formation. But if they do, it should be limited to the types of formation appropriate to large ME aircraft.

Higher risk activity can be flown in the simulator and any role-specific needs should be taught at the relevant OCU.

beardy
16th Aug 2018, 10:33
ME pilots do not need to fly at bank angles in excess of 30 deg AoB in the aircraft at all. If necessary, they can do that in the simulator.

I was thinking of aircraft handling, not specifically formation flying. Confidence is born and nurtured in the aircraft itself. I know that the unfortunate Air France pilots had flown their simulator in extreme conditions, it's part of the Airbus programme used by Air France which trains adequately, but not to excellence and for routine operations, not combat operations.

SATCOS WHIPPING BOY
16th Aug 2018, 12:08
Has anyone been able to confirm/disprove the rumour mentioned earlier reference a dent in the cabin roof? (Post #99)

I can't find anything around the usual sites.

ExAscoteer
16th Aug 2018, 13:34
ME pilots do not need to fly at bank angles in excess of 30 deg AoB in the aircraft at all. If necessary, they can do that in the simulator.
.

Really? Nimrod routinely did.

AnglianAV8R
16th Aug 2018, 14:08
Really? Nimrod routinely did.

As would any self respecting 4 engine interceptor

Every rule has an exception

LOMCEVAK
16th Aug 2018, 17:57
One problem with a simulator is that the pilot does not get any normal acceleration cues to his body (ie. g). If you have an aircraft that needs to fly at more than 30 deg of bank and the manoeuvre stability is such that you need to trim into the turn (Phenom and Nimrod), the pilot will use g cues, albeit subconsciously, when flying the task. Therefore, training for these tasks really needs to be flown in the aeroplane and not just in the simulator.

S-Works
16th Aug 2018, 18:26
Has anyone been able to confirm/disprove the rumour mentioned earlier reference a dent in the cabin roof? (Post #99)

I can't find anything around the usual sites.

Funnily enough I skill tested a pilot on a turboprop earlier today who saw them the other day and confirmed the damage.

Timelord
16th Aug 2018, 20:00
One problem with a simulator is that the pilot does not get any normal acceleration cues to his body (ie. g). If you have an aircraft that needs to fly at more than 30 deg of bank and the manoeuvre stability is such that you need to trim into the turn (Phenom and Nimrod), the pilot will use g cues, albeit subconsciously, when flying the task. Therefore, training for these tasks really needs to be flown in the aeroplane and not just in the simulator.

A simulator In a centrifuge is being commissioned at Cranwell right now. It has interchangeable cockpits although I don’t think any ME types are included.

FixClrEnt
16th Aug 2018, 20:10
A simulator In a centrifuge is being commissioned at Cranwell right now. It has interchangeable

I suspect that any centrifuge will only be able to apply gz in response to its change of rpm and therefore not able to respond quickly enough to any simulator changes of g. Furthermore, it won't have any ability to provide the other forces that a normal 6-axis flight sim replicates.

SATCOS WHIPPING BOY
17th Aug 2018, 09:08
A simulator In a centrifuge is being commissioned at Cranwell right now. It has interchangeable cockpits although I don’t think any ME types are included.

As FixClrEnt says, that will be of limited benefit. Sounds more like a fancy fairground ride than anything which will come close to substituting for real flying time.

@Bose-X. Thank you. It will be interesting to see how that damaged was caused.

Lordflasheart
17th Aug 2018, 09:34
It will be interesting to see how that damaged was caused.

On current striking rate, it'll be a couple of years perhaps, for the SI Final Report to be made public ?

One hopes the - ahem - 'formation practice' was properly briefed and authorised.

In the mean time, will the L3 RAF ME candidates (100 over three years) be getting any formation exposure on their L3 type, which looks as if it's the DA42 ...... or will they have to wait until they transition to the Phenom ?

LFH

............

Typhoondriver
29th Aug 2018, 21:18
Fair enough. I shall concede. I have nothing left to say on the issue.

All I can say is that my logbook for the last year looks pretty healthy.

BV



Hello Bob,

You've made a concerted effort on a number of different threads in recent months, to convince the assembled forum that all's 'fine and dandy' at MFTS (North Wales branch).

I just wondered whether or not it was true that a number of satirical posters had recently appeared in various Valley locations, expressing apparent student discontent with the current 3 year hold, and if so, hoped you might give us all 'your take' on the sentiment&issues highlighted?

I appreciate you have a healthy logbook over the last 12 months, what about everyone else?

airpolice
29th Aug 2018, 22:14
Hello Bob,

You've made a concerted effort on a number of different threads in recent months, to convince the assembled forum that all's 'fine and dandy' at MFTS (North Wales branch).

I just wondered whether or not it was true that a number of satirical posters had recently appeared in various Valley locations, expressing apparent student discontent with the current 3 year hold, and if so, hoped you might give us all 'your take' on the sentiment&issues highlighted?

I appreciate you have a healthy logbook over the last 12 months, what about everyone else?

TD, can you explain the 700% figure? I didn't get the joke.

Bob is a company man, so don't expect any real insights in his response, if any, but you could maybe ask him how many students graduated on the most recent T2 course, and how many were chopped.

The same question about the current course would, I am sure, enlighten the people who have been holding for years.

p.s. How many students in total, have been chopped from the T2 since the new management took over a few years ago?


I don't know (of) anyone in a better position to answer those questions than Bob Viking.

Easy Street
29th Aug 2018, 22:57
How many students in total, have been chopped from the T2 since the new management took over a few years ago?

Someone will be along to tell you that the decrease in chop rate is because the RAF can afford to be pickier about its candidates at selection given the gradual decrease in annual requirement and the increase in population, and because standards of instruction have improved (the same argument trotted out when GCSE and A-Level results were on their relentless rises a few years back, before some rigour was reintroduced). Well, the recent glut of pilot recruitment should tell us whether that’s true in a few years’ time. Personally I don’t find it credible that OASC, EFT and BFJT have simultaneously improved outcomes so noticeably. What I do find credible are tales of an incentive structure that encourages the contractor to chuck additional Hawk hours at students that would have been chopped in days gone by, especially when those tales come from Valley’s prime ‘customer’.

Big Eric
3rd Sep 2018, 17:34
ZM335 departed Waddington this afternoon as CWL45.

MPN11
3rd Sep 2018, 17:40
ZM335 departed Waddington this afternoon as CWL45.
Huzzah! The ‘RAF’ now has four!

Still no news on how/what?

Lordflasheart
3rd Sep 2018, 18:58
There seems to be some low-level muttering about the RAF multi-engine cadets at L3 (who are apparently on the DA42 at Bournemouth ) allegedly getting flying priority over the L3 civvie studes - who have to pay upwards of £80k for their ATPL courses.

..................

Wander00
3rd Sep 2018, 21:29
And for more accommodation costs if their course takes longer than planned

Ken Scott
4th Sep 2018, 20:10
Are the ‘mutterings’ because the RAF students aren’t paying for their training whereas the civvy students are? Do they think the former are getting it for free? The taxpayer is picking up the tab and presumably at a price that L3 are content with. Maybe there’s a clause in the contract that penalises L3 for delays in the RAF courses? As a taxpayer I’m delighted that a contracted-out service is not being strung out but that the operator is getting on with things.

It does make a sharp contrast with that other contractor, Ascent....

airpolice
5th Sep 2018, 00:02
Are the ‘mutterings’ because the RAF students aren’t paying for their training whereas the civvy students are? Do they think the former are getting it for free? The taxpayer is picking up the tab and presumably at a price that L3 are content with. Maybe there’s a clause in the contract that penalises L3 for delays in the RAF courses? As a taxpayer I’m delighted that a contracted-out service is not being strung out but that the operator is getting on with things.

It does make a sharp contrast with that other contractor, Ascent....


There is a tough choice here for the passengers on the outrage bus.

RAF Students have gone through a different process to "qualify" to be on that course. Did they get it free, or have they committed other aspects of their lives, rather than take the financial hit of borrowing the money to pay for their training?

How do you put a fiscal value on the lifestyle restrictions of a Junior Officer and the commitment of deadly ops in the future, against the fact that that civvy students "only" have to borrow the money, and nobody at the schools cares what tattoos or previous convictions a student might have?

The military selection process, certainly when I served, demanded a standard of personal values which the civilian, business model, is immune from.

That, to my mind, makes them different. Not necessarily better, one way or the other, just different.

However, we have now drifted into dangerous waters where both streams (pun caption on) of students are mixing in a training environment.

Perhaps any unhappy civvy students need to just accept that deeper pockets bring shorter courses. On the other side, the chances of actually flying an aircraft, after completion of the course, seems much higher for the civvy people.

aw ditor
5th Sep 2018, 10:30
Not the first time in recent history the ME Stream was contracted out'. When 5 FTS at Oakington closed in the mid 70s' and with the then Jetstream engine problems and eventual mothballing' the Stream was closed down for 'ab initios'; it was retreads only' at Hamble on Beech Barons.. Stream eventually re-started at Leeming ISTR.

A.D.

Lordflasheart
5th Sep 2018, 10:50
............
Judging by the respective dates involved - “The first class of students will begin training with L3 in August 2018.” and the likely relative numbers – ‘100 trainee pilots over a three years contract’ this may be less to do with the small RAF element and more to do with the very large number of civvie studes and a possible organisational shortage of flying hours.

The RAF tailored course is described as “similar to a Commercial Pilot License (CPL) with Instrument Rating (IR) as well as the Multi-Crew Cooperation (MCC) course to supplement the RAF’s own training. ............. https://www.pilotcareernews.com/l3-to-provide-bespoke-training-for-raf-pilots/

I don’t imagine that involves formal licence exams other than what is necessary to do the course flying so perhaps six months total with L3.

L3 claim business relationships with a couple of dozen airlines, in addition to those student individuals who enrol on spec, wholly at their own expense and risk. They currently have ten ground and flying training establishments since they took over CTC a year or so ago. ................hthttps://www.l3airlineacademy.com/about/academy-locations (https://www.l3airlineacademy.com/about/academy-locations)

That looks a bit too large to be disrupted by a few Acting Pilot Officers unless the RAF has pulled everyone off hold and front-loaded the contract.

Half a dozen RAF studes every two months perhaps, for, say, sixty hours flying ? Including no formation. If the first batch turned up for course induction and type conversion ground school on August 1st, they can hardly be hogging the flying before the end of the month as was suggested on the last two pages of this thread. ........... https://www.pprune.org/interviews-jobs-sponsorship/250640-ctc-wings-cadets-thread-part-2-a-242.html

That suggests there may be other reasons for any possible flying hold ups (at Bournemouth) and (of course) other reasons for the ‘mutterings.’

LFH
.....................

Big Eric
5th Sep 2018, 14:46
Huzzah! The ‘RAF’ now has four!

Still no news on how/what?

It flew back to Cranwell with it's wheels down, not much point of retracting them for such a short flight I suppose! No other news yet.

ExAscoteer
5th Sep 2018, 15:19
not much point of retracting them for such a short flight I suppose!

Even though it's a short transit you wouldn't normally do it gear down; we certainly never did on neither the Dominie nor the Jetstream.

The gear will be down, I would think, for one of two reasons: Either it won't retract or one wishes a slow, high drag, transit in the approach configuration because one has airframe damage.

airpolice
6th Sep 2018, 00:08
Even though it's a short transit you wouldn't normally do it gear down; we certainly never did on neither the Dominie nor the Jetstream.

The gear will be down, I would think, for one of two reasons: Either it won't retract or one wishes a slow, high drag, transit in the approach configuration because one has airframe damage.


Maybe the crew just had doubts about the gear coming back down if they raised it.

Dominator2
14th Sep 2018, 17:54
I'm fed up with all of this speculation concerning the incident and subsequent action. There must be someone who has seen some kind of statement from the RAF?

airpolice
14th Sep 2018, 19:21
I'm fed up with all of this speculation concerning the incident and subsequent action. There must be someone who has seen some kind of statement from the RAF?

Must? In which universe?

ShotOne
18th Sep 2018, 10:41
Do I have this right; there’s apparently been a collision. This “proves” (to the usual suspects) the training system is off to hell in a handcart and the Phenom is unsuited to its role? Presumably all the other types mentioned can be banged together without issue? As for holding, I held for about four months before BFTS which was unremarkable then (mid 80’s). Why is any such period now seen as evidence of melt-down?

Davef68
18th Sep 2018, 12:20
As for holding, I held for about four months before BFTS which was unremarkable then (mid 80’s). Why is any such period now seen as evidence of melt-down?

Even up to a year would be reasonable - Typhoondriver suggests a hold of up to three years, which seems extreme

flighthappens
18th Sep 2018, 13:08
Even up to a year would be reasonable - Typhoondriver suggests a hold of up to three years, which seems extreme

Word on the street is that the hold is is already longer than that and not getting shorter....

last i I heard is up to 2 years pre-EFT - with significant further holds before both Linton and Valley.

BEagle
18th Sep 2018, 14:23
Firstly, I don't see why the Phenom should be deemed unsuitable for ME training, provided that the course itself is suitable. Which also means that the pre-ME EFT course needs to be suitable; from what I hear, at the moment that is doubtful with less than 3 hours PIC time for ab-initio pilots.

Wasn't MFTS supposed to be the cure-all which would put a stop to long holding times?

Typhoondriver
18th Sep 2018, 14:28
Given this is a rumour website....

I'm told that some guys are pitching up for their FJ OCU with 'in excess' of 5 years served.

I'm also told that some guys are so exasperated with the state of affairs, that they are happy to leave the Service after only 1 frontline FJ tour.

I'm also told that a current FJ OCU will have to cancel courses in early 2019, because they have no student output from Valley, who they can train.

But it's all OK, because Bob Viking has a healthy logbook this month.......

Thaihawk
18th Sep 2018, 15:11
It flew back to Cranwell with it's wheels down, not much point of retracting them for such a short flight I suppose! No other news yet.

On Monday 10th September, ZM336 was still looking sorry for itself at Waddington.

There were 2 other Phenoms on the flight line at Cranwell that day, with contractors restricting flying activities there performing runway repairs.

Pure Pursuit
18th Sep 2018, 19:58
Given this is a rumour website....

I'm told that some guys are pitching up for their FJ OCU with 'in excess' of 5 years served.

I'm also told that some guys are so exasperated with the state of affairs, that they are happy to leave the Service after only 1 frontline FJ tour.

I'm also told that a current FJ OCU will have to cancel courses in early 2019, because they have no student output from Valley, who they can train.

But it's all OK, because Bob Viking has a healthy logbook this month.......

A little harsh on BV there...hardly his fault. Ascent on the other hand... wall, firing squad...etc.

i know a chap who clocked 8 years service as he completed the Typhoon OCU and won’t be staying past his option point. Not alone in that situation either. The system is completely broken and the hierarchy simply do not care. ‘Make it work!’...

MPN11
18th Sep 2018, 20:21
P P ... that’s frightening!

Ken Scott
19th Sep 2018, 14:44
I recently met a JP on a Typhoon Sqn, he said it had taken him 8 years from IOT to a FJ Sqn. As many of the RAF’s pilot entrants are graduates that’s reaching a Sqn at circa 30 yo, so what long term career/ promotion prospects do they have? Plus they’re likely to have a wife/ kids in tow by that stage so they will be understandably less keen on overseas detachments etc.

Lets not be too nostalgic about the ‘good old days’ though, holds between courses in the 90s were already getting long, I know of several people who completed Master’s degrees whilst waiting for the next stage of their training. However the current situation is far worse and the training system is well & truly broken at the moment. Whether Ascent can fix it properly & quickly will be the true test of the MFTS concept.

LincsFM
19th Sep 2018, 15:23
Well Ascent are getting a new MD and he's ex RAF. It's bound to get better ;)

Ascent Managing Director, Dave Boden, has announced his intention to depart the organisation, starting his transition from the company on 29 October 2018.

The Ascent Board is pleased to announce that Tim James will succeed Dave Boden as Ascent Managing Director on 10 November 2018, following the transition.

Tim is currently the International Business Development Director for Lockheed Martin Rotary and Mission Systems and has been with the company since 2012.

Prior to Lockheed Martin, Tim served in the Royal Air Force. During his 16-year military career, he flew Tornado F-3s and undertook two international exchange roles flying the F-16 aircraft with the US Air Force and the Royal Air Force of Oman. Tim spent a year working in Requirements Management for the UK Military Flying Training System (UKMFTS) programme.

Tim holds a BA from Henley Business School.

We would like to take this opportunity to thank Dave for his outstanding service and welcome Tim to his new role.

Easy Street
19th Sep 2018, 17:01
There’s a lot of harking back to the holding generation of the mid-to-late 1990s to (sort of) excuse the parlous state of MFTS. However a much less flattering comparison is with the state of the pipeline from about 1999 pretty much until the fateful SDSR in 2010, which is essentially what MFTS was meant to replace. It was not unknown to go from IOT graduation parade to the FJ front line in under 3 years around the turn of the millennium. Granted, EFT could be done while at UAS, but (unlike BEagle) I think that was a good system that bought back ~12 months of the ‘age penalty’ incurred by university.

I say ‘age penalty’ not because of career or promotion issues - clearly illegal these days - but because of the very real issue that outlook, lifestyle and commitments generally (deliberate emphasis!) change as the thirties are reached. By that point I’d done enough - two full tours and a ‘postgrad’ qualification - to understand what a future in the Service had in store for me and could commit myself to it. By comparison, someone facing those life choices as a first tourist has much less to go on; it’s small wonder that fewer seem to have the confidence in their future progression to stick around.

The long holds at the moment - even for EFT, for Chrissake’s! - are a waste of precious years of youth that should be spent deploying left, right and centre and gaining the experience that we so badly need. Frankly, the decision to recruit with no prospect of timely training was absurd to the point of negligence. The seniors responsible have left their successors with no good options: replacing all the holdies with fresh young recruits is probably illegal, while keeping them will make the front line into even more of a flat, we’re-slightly-too-old-to-be-enthusiastic place than it has already become. Thanks a million!

[By the way, I think the idea of getting more people out into civilian life before large pension and allowance liabilities are incurred is a reasonable one. But, you need to get your pound of flesh first... which we’re abjectly failing to]

MPN11
19th Sep 2018, 17:35
As I’ve recently been on e-mail with an old friend from 20 Sqn in Singapore, in the context of a Reunion, the potential attendance list was amazing! And ... the aircrew back then (late 60s) had a high proportion of early 20s on their first squadron tour. How did we achieve that back then, without sophisticated simulators, if we can’t do it now? My aircrew mates had probably been in for 3 years or so, and there they were on Front Line sqns whacking Hunters, Canberras and Lightnings around the tropic skies.

Aplogies for old bloke input :(

chopper2004
19th Sep 2018, 18:07
For the benefit of those who doubt the opinions expressed above:

I understand that with this being an anonymous forum, so data can be hard to verify, but for those who know people... ask around.

Which units are getting anything like enough hours in the air to be even half competent?

Reds: Probably.

Front line Typhoon and Tornado, including QRA: nothing like it.

Phenom: Who knows, given the shortage of airframes, and the flying needed to get their QFIs (the ones who haven't yet left) to the standard, what the long term picture is?

Transport & Tanking: Apparently some, but some of them are civvies, the rest of them are run into the ground on ops. The A400 pilots were struggling to achieve 200hours/annum. Not sure if this is still the case?

Hawk T2: No, advanced high tech sims are not the same thing. Great for as well as, but not instead of. I hear the convex for QFIs is taking well in excess of 12 months, at a very slow rate. Output rate, albeit with some overseas customers to satisfy, is blocking up a 2 year plus hold for baby pilots with no likely refresher. 'Downloading' training needlessly from Typhoon, and pilots lacking basic fast jet handling skills.

Hawk T1: No idea, but they seem busy enough.

ISTAR: No idea, but imagine RJ and E3D crews must be struggling, due to high unserviceability rates.

Rotary: Training; Students are flying, and Instructors are doing an awful lot fewer (P1) hours in the air than they used to. Ops; Previously flown to exhaustion, which is as bad as not flying enough. Now showing large reductions.

Prefect: Too early to say, but probably not. Have they resolved the over torque issues yet? That's not exactly care free handling.

Texan: Ask me in 2019, when it just might have permission to fly in the UK.

Air Cadets: Don't make me laugh.

If standards haven't dropped, why is it that Air Command now say that "flight training is now to be to an acceptable minimum standard at the cheapest contractual price"? The previously used term "excellence" has been dropped.

That looks to me, as if even 22 Group have decide to settle for less.

You forgot to mention UAS officer cadets :)

Whats the skinny on the T-6 having permission to operate in UK airspace? I must have missed out on that one...however this is probably not related, but there was a recent accident with USAF T-6? Both pilot and student are ok. And also this came up on my news feed:

Cheers

USAF Calls T-6 Physiological Events ?Extreme Outliers? | Defense content from Aviation Week (http://aviationweek.com/defense/usaf-calls-t-6-physiological-events-extreme-outliers?NL=AW-05&Issue=AW-05_20180919_AW-05_712&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_1&utm_rid=CPEN1000001738169&utm_campaign=16514&utm_medium=email&elq2=65ec6d01ea3742a1a3abf2cfbe335eab)

just another jocky
19th Sep 2018, 21:17
Well the UAS and AEF are flying their asses off at my local airfields. Which brings into question other 'facts'.

typerated
20th Sep 2018, 07:36
Perhaps doing a year as a AEF pilot might be a decent hold?

just another jocky
20th Sep 2018, 17:01
Perhaps doing a year as a AEF pilot might be a decent hold?

Indeed, lots of hours!

unmanned_droid
20th Sep 2018, 17:31
Indeed, lots of hours!

I recall the younger AEF pilots being a little less relaxed in the cockpit with cadets - even the week in and week out staff cadets like me. I guess the younger pilots feel the responsibility a little more keenly.

cheifofdefence
21st Sep 2018, 12:40
A friend's son has just graduated as Sgt Aircrew (aka WSOp) and has no idea where he is going next with regards to streaming. I hear on the grapevine that this may be related to a rumor that current WSOp training at Shawbury has been suspended TFN (anyone confirm or deny this?). It would seem that it is not just the Pilot pipeline that is suffering.

rlsbutler
21st Sep 2018, 13:31
Unmanned Droid I recall the younger AEF pilots being a little less relaxed in the cockpit with cadets - even the week in and week out staff cadets like me. I guess the younger pilots feel the responsibility a little more keenly.

When I joined the AEF system in 1978, I had fairly recently been a Vulcan captain with all that implied in the Cold War. The Chipmunk role, in the event that Cold went a bit Hot, was in support of the civil power - meaning flying policemen around Yorkshire.I do not think we had holding pilots on the Flight then. So it greatly irritated me that we old hairies had no planned part in the war role and that students and/or newly-qualifieds were to be shipped from Valley to man the aircraft. Of course we flew the test or practice sorties, as it obviously made no sense to bring the youngsters in just to do that.

Fortissimo
21st Sep 2018, 18:26
You will only get holding pilots flying on the AEFs if they have reached wings standard, as you need to be QSP to carry passengers (gliders aside); unless it's changed, there was a 400hr TT requirement as well. And given that most of them will only have managed 5-10 hours solo time, I'm not sure I would want my children flying with them!

Jump Complete
21st Sep 2018, 22:46
If you’ll forgive a civvie butting in, I have just completed an Embraer 145 type rating. I have a question re the suitability of the Phenom as a ME trainer. I have quite a lot of hours in traditional multi-engine pistons and turbo-prop airliners. In comparison with, for example, an ATR, the ERJ seems to me, as a tail jet, a lot easier to keep control in EFATO senarios, (in one sim session my initial tbought was ‘It can’t be an engjne failure, it’s too easy’ until I looked at the engjne instruments) So, is a tail jet (and I assume the asymmetric effect is even less in a smaller aircraft like the Phenom?) actually demanding enough (purely in the asymmetric charactristics sense - I’m not thinking about putting a student into a fairly high performance aircraft, which I guess the military are wont to do) for an initial ME trainer?
EDIT: Yes, obviously I didn’t do my intial ME training on an ATR, but I would have thought the previously used Kingair a much better aircraft to teach the basic skills, while having the degree of relative complexity and performance a military training programe might need (I assume) as well as being a pretty tough aircraft.

S-Works
22nd Sep 2018, 09:26
The phenom is not suitable for the role. Replacing the Kingairs with new ones would have been the better choice.

The B Word
22nd Sep 2018, 09:41
Or the DA42 that pretty much every ME training school is operating these days. Oddly enough this is what the RAF ME students will be learning on with the contract with L3 at Bournemouth.

The B Word
22nd Sep 2018, 09:45
A friend's son has just graduated as Sgt Aircrew (aka WSOp) and has no idea where he is going next with regards to streaming. I hear on the grapevine that this may be related to a rumor that current WSOp training at Shawbury has been suspended TFN (anyone confirm or deny this?). It would seem that it is not just the Pilot pipeline that is suffering.

Yes, I have heard a similar rumour. In fact, the only thing that is alleged to be working as advertised is the legacy Tutor course and the ME training that has been outsourced!

Wander00
22nd Sep 2018, 10:23
Multi engine training - bring back the Canberra T4. That'll larn them

The B Word
22nd Sep 2018, 10:34
Surely it is time for the NAO to come and have another look - I don’t see much more progress since their last report 3 years ago?

https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Military-Flying-Training.pdf

AnglianAV8R
22nd Sep 2018, 13:51
Pardon another civvie if you please....

I seem to recall that this whole business of using contractors to provide training was branded as cost saving/good economy ?

So, how does it tick when it takes 8 years, as stated in an earlier post, to get to a FJ squadron ? It seems to be agreed that potential aircrew are 'holding' for inordinately longer periods as a consequence of the inflexible training system. Surely the additional cost of 'holding' ought to be factored against any claimed MFTS savings.

This just seems to be another exercise for making money, like Airtanker.

I'm sure it would be a relatively simple accounting exercise to prove that this new training business does not give value for the taxpayer.

Arty Fufkin
22nd Sep 2018, 15:02
Last time I checked, Airtanker seemed to be delivering on their contract though....

MPN11
22nd Sep 2018, 15:03
Non-aircrew, long retired, but agree entirely!

Fuzzy accounting with things stowed in different budgets? Whichever, it seems horrendously slow and inefficient.

The B Word
22nd Sep 2018, 18:14
Last time I checked, Airtanker seemed to be delivering on their contract though....



They may be, but from what I hear it is not delivering ‘value for money’...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5978229/Ministry-Defence-blows-10-5billion-jets-used-Brits-abroad.html

Comment by LORD DANNATT, former Army head

Buying something you couldn’t really afford was taken to a new level in the 1990s under the Private Finance Initiative.

The government of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown seized on the concept to produce shiny new schools and hospitals across the country, especially in marginal constituencies.

But the Voyager PFI deal has to rank as the worst of the lot. Even at face value, £10.5 billion to lease 14 aircraft does not seem like value for money.

The project was led not by an RAF officer, but by an Army brigadier, so that there was no undue service bias.

But this brigadier was so alarmed at the way it was going that he came to me in 2008, while I was Chief of the General Staff, to ask if I could try to get this deal stopped.

I asked for a briefing, having been told there were much cheaper ways to meet the RAF’s air-to-air refuelling and strategic lift requirement.

At the briefing, all other options were dismissed for one spurious reason or another, leading to the curious conclusion that the £10.5 billion procurement of 14 A330 airliners, assembled at Airbus Industrie’s factory near Madrid, was the answer.

In the end, the politics of European industrial collaboration was the winner, the MoD was the loser, and now bucket-and-spade holiday-makers are travelling to sunny places overseas at British taxpayers’ expense. Is that value for money?

Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson’s Modernising Defence Programme must put a stop to scandals like this.


Or this analysis: https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2013/05/getting-out-of-fsta/

AnglianAV8R
22nd Sep 2018, 19:04
Last time I checked, Airtanker seemed to be delivering on their contract though....


Indeed so, but I wonder what it would cost us to fit the gubbins they need to refuel E3, RJ, C17 and P8 ?

Is it not also the case that we are restrained from using A400 as a refueller under the Airtanker contractual agreement? If so, who ever signed up to that certainly didn't look after the interests of the taxpayer.

It seems that military procurement is a process designed to serve the interests of industry first and foremost. If the folks at the sharp end get a decent bit of kit or service, that's a bonus.

Wander00
23rd Sep 2018, 10:43
PFI - an off balance sheet scam which if pursued by a public company would certainly attract serious criticism. (IMHO of course)

Treble one
25th Sep 2018, 11:18
Talked to a front line FJ pilot recently. Very nice chap indeed. 10/10 for being an excellent ambassador for the RAF. I must be getting old...cos he didn't look old enough!
On his first tour with a current FJ squadron. In his first year of his tour and he's been in the RAF for 9 years. Straight through the training system (Tutor/Tucano/Hawk/OCU) with no Instructional tour.
He was happy to talk about hours/month. Hugely enthusiastic about his role/mount. Discussed his future. Thoroughly nice young man.

chopper2004
27th Sep 2018, 13:37
Saw this on Ascents LinkedIn page

‘Congrats to all the Team at RAF Cranwell!


The first student pilots graduated from Elementary Flying

Training (EFT) on 23 Aug 18 marking another momentous achievement for No 3Flying Training School (3FTS) and the new Flying Training System under UKMFTS. This followed several other exciting firsts in recent months; the opening of new training facilities at Cranwell and Barkston Heath in January, in April the first student pilots took to the skies and the first student Prefect solo was flown in May

Typhoondriver
18th Oct 2018, 05:43
So, is there any truth to the rumour that the Phenom is a Cat 5?

Also, how many aviators in this forum would categorise 2 aircraft unintentionally touching each other in flight as 'Perceived severity - Medium' to flight safety?

Just This Once...
18th Oct 2018, 17:13
Not me. Then again I was amazed there was not a more major investigation when the Typhoon and VC-10 traded paint (which I think was the most recent fixed-wing mid-air impact before this one).

MPN11
18th Oct 2018, 17:56
I assume an Airprox investigation is/was underway? Or does the ‘prox’ element get cancelled when they actually make contact, or flying in formation?

Bing
18th Oct 2018, 19:34
So, is there any truth to the rumour that the Phenom is a Cat 5?

Also, how many aviators in this forum would categorise 2 aircraft unintentionally touching each other in flight as 'Perceived severity - Medium' to flight safety?

'Perceived Severity' being at the whim of the reporter is often completely divorced from reality. The 'Assessed Severity' should, I'd hope, read High as some though would have gone into it.

LincsFM
19th Oct 2018, 14:40
Not having much luck the Phenom. Had one land at Waddo today after an ES2 due to a possible birdstrike

Onceapilot
19th Oct 2018, 19:11
Saw this on Ascents LinkedIn page

This followed several other exciting firsts in recent months; the opening of new training facilities at Cranwell and Barkston Heath in January, in April the first student pilots took to the skies and the first student Prefect solo was flown in May



Hmmmm, I recall, the entirely excellent facilities at Cranwell BFTS in 1981, The superb all-jet training on the JP5, (3 Sqns don'tchaknow!), and the great deployments to BH for 1st solo's (a few portacabins, totally sufficient, very BoB). Wouldn't have missed it for the World!

OAP

stilton
20th Oct 2018, 01:29
If you’ll forgive a civvie butting in, I have just completed an Embraer 145 type rating. I have a question re the suitability of the Phenom as a ME trainer. I have quite a lot of hours in traditional multi-engine pistons and turbo-prop airliners. In comparison with, for example, an ATR, the ERJ seems to me, as a tail jet, a lot easier to keep control in EFATO senarios, (in one sim session my initial tbought was ‘It can’t be an engjne failure, it’s too easy’ until I looked at the engjne instruments) So, is a tail jet (and I assume the asymmetric effect is even less in a smaller aircraft like the Phenom?) actually demanding enough (purely in the asymmetric charactristics sense - I’m not thinking about putting a student into a fairly high performance aircraft, which I guess the military are wont to do) for an initial ME trainer?
EDIT: Yes, obviously I didn’t do my intial ME training on an ATR, but I would have thought the previously used Kingair a much better aircraft to teach the basic skills, while having the degree of relative complexity and performance a military training programe might need (I assume) as well as being a pretty tough aircraft.


What is a ‘tail jet ? ‘

isaneng
20th Oct 2018, 06:49
Engines mounted either on or in the tail, hence the thrust line is very close to the centre-line. The resultant assymetric thrust vector gives minimal handling impact. Also allows a clean wing design.

airpolice
20th Oct 2018, 13:40
Engines mounted either on or in the tail, hence the thrust line is very close to the centre-line. The resultant assymetric thrust vector gives minimal handling impact. Also allows a clean wing design.

Exactly not like a Canberra.

Background Noise
20th Oct 2018, 14:31
Exactly not like a Canberra.

Good job we are not training Canberra pilots then. But I agree, multi-pilot training maybe, but multi-engine?

S-Works
20th Oct 2018, 20:38
I am very curious how a Cat4/5 write off managed to fly from Washington to Cranwell on the 18th........

airpolice
20th Oct 2018, 21:51
I am very curious how a Cat4/5 write off managed to fly from Washington to Cranwell on the 18th........

Waddington.

S-Works
20th Oct 2018, 22:10
Waddington.

damn autocorrect......

sycamore
20th Oct 2018, 22:24
Lincs FM, `ES2` ?

BEagle
20th Oct 2018, 22:56
Emergency State 2

Nige321
20th Oct 2018, 23:15
From Air Force Monthly:

Although not made public at the time, it’s now known that these two aircraft were involved in a mid- air collision during a practice for the RAF 100th anniversary flypast over London which took place
on July 10. The aircraft – ZM335 callsign ‘CWL31’ and ZM336 callsign ‘CWL30’ – took off from RAF Waddington, Lincolnshire, but the wingtips of the two aircraft clipped each other. Both were able to return safely to Waddington, without injury to any of the crew members. The Ministry of Defence has since confirmed that both Phenoms sustained relatively minor damage to their wings,while one also had some fuselage damage, but both are repairable. The aircraft remained grounded
at Waddington until September 3, when ZM335 was flown back to its base at RAF Cranwell, Lincolnshire, using callsign ‘CWL45’. It was expected to re-enter service after undergoing minor repairs. As of late September, the other aircraft, ZM336, remained at Waddington and was undergoing further damage assessment pending recovery.

Corporal Clott
21st Oct 2018, 10:53
So if they just “clipped wings” then how did one of them end up with “fuselage damage”?

Rumour is that one has a big dent in the roof...if that is the case then it’s damn lucky we didn’t lose them both.

stilton
24th Oct 2018, 02:33
Engines mounted either on or in the tail, hence the thrust line is very close to the centre-line. The resultant assymetric thrust vector gives minimal handling impact. Also allows a clean wing design.


Ok, a few extra words would help there
would they not ?


How about ‘tail mounted jets’



‘Tail jet’



Unbelievable