Heads Up! Fighter Pilot: The Real Top Gun

[Warmtoast]

Fighter Pilot: The Real Top Gun - 9pm, ITV 20th August

In the first of an exciting three-part documentary, clever camerawork and commentary relayed from in-helmet microphones combine to capture the thrills and drills of the cockpit. Three trainees at Britain’s elite fighter pilot school (including the establishment’s only female student) graduate from propeller planes to learning how to fly the F35 Lightning II, the RAF’s most advanced jet fighter, in a tough competition that involves dizzying rolls, whiplash 4G turns and hair-raising “treecutters”. And, yes, they really do quote Top Gun to each other.

[SASless]

Sounds like all the limbs on the family tree are right up there at the tip top of the stalk.

I would have thought there might be some sort of Joint Training with other F-35 users with far more experience in the aircraft.

[MPN11]

New: Fighter Pilot: The Real Top Gun

ITV (Channel 3 if you prefer), 2100-2200

This three-part documentary series spends a year inside Britain's elite Fighter Pilot School, following three recruits as they compete to become the best of the best. Ep1

[charliegolf]

What's a tree cutter? In this context?

CG

[unmanned_droid]

Only 4G?

UD

[MPN11]

My popcorn is loaded, and we will both be glued to the small screen. Sick-bags also available if needed. ;)

[MG]

Ten minutes in and I’m finding it quite painful. Plenty of whooping and hollering.

[MaxR]

And calling instructors "mate" - when did that happen? Don't answer that, I'm old, I'm very old, I can tell that by how young they look. I don't even recognise the flying suits any more.

[tubby linton]

Is it the same production team as the easyjet series? I felt embarrassed watching the latter and this one seems to have shared a few of its let's try and be cool cutaways.

[ExAscoteer]

4G? Four ******* G? Christ on a bike, JP5A was 5.5G without a bloody G Suit!

[MG]

Nope, given up after 30 minutes.

I realise that I’m not the target audience, but it seemed disjointed and far, far too much faux jeopardy. And when did formation turn calls go all Red Arrowey? Horrible.

Time for my Horlicks and bed!

[MaxR]

You missed the line "strong winds could blow him off". I might be old but that doesn't mean I've grown up.

[MG]

If I’d have known that it was full of smutty innuendo, I’d have stuck with it! Sadly, I suspect that it was said with an entirely straight face.

.....and lots of annoying music.

[Timelord]

If I’d have known that it was full of smutty innuendo, I’d have stuck with it! Sadly, I suspect that it was said with an entirely straight face.

.....and lots of annoying music.

Well, it was Miss Moneypenny so it probably was innuendo!

[Lima Juliet]

I quite enjoyed it actually - well done to Puppy and Butch and their respective teams. :ok::ok:

The narrator was also Moneypenny, if I’m not mistaken? Which links in nicely to the name of the new Bond film - No Time To Die... sounds like my RAF career so far! :p

[sharpend]

Just watched it. As an ex TWU instructor (1980 - 83) I was amazed how much has changed. Not for the better. For a student to state 'I have a problem with authority' to calling the instructor 'mate'. My mind boggles. I suppose it is all part of the nice 'touchy feely' modern armed forces. And don't they carry maps anymore?

[H Peacock]

Hmmm

Sedge - get a bloody haircut!

Doesn't the Hawk T2 look just stoopid taxing with its canopy open!

[EXFIN]

Well, an Instructor saying ‘sweet’ was different. However, in his defence if when I went through Brawdy in the mid ‘80’s an Instructor had said ‘jolly good show bloggs’ I might have thought ‘that’s different’! Times change!

[AR1]

Enjoyed it oneself. One thing stuck out. They played hovering like at never been done before and no mention of the "H" word.

[Odanrot]

Mmmmmmm? Don’t post too much, normally wait for Beagle to tell me what I think.

Having been a stude, instructor and standards Flt Cdr at Valley, as well as spending my RAF life shifting soil I think I have some problems with what I have just watched.

I did a lot the flying for the first series back in the 80s and saw first hand how, if the story wasn’t going the way the director wanted it to go then problems ensued. Generally the RAF won the argument and “ W....k..s did not fly on your wings.” (Well done Dan)

Now, is this “Mate, touchy-feely, everybody’s name ends in “ers” bollocks for real?

This lot worried me, maybe because I’m old, but being in the front seat, now only seat, of a fast-jet hasn’t changed, less knobs and tits but with computers that talk back. However, personally, an airliner on the RT never added any stress to an IP to Tgt run. The only saving grace was when the F35 said NO and the fix was the same one I used this IPAD, switch it off, kick the s...t out of it and turn it back on.

Something has changed and IMHO not for the better.

Hope I’m wrong

[Specaircrew]

As an ex graduate of No 1(Hunter) Cse I found myself reminiscing about those halcyon days of my youth. Drunken Sundays at the 'Sandymount Club' at Rhosneigr, paddling across the lake on a Sabre drop tank etc. Not sure that I remember being distracted by ATC on an IP to Tgt run or calling my instructor mate though!

The F35 stuff was interesting, I'm ex 617 too! Hopefully it'll encourage a few more millennials to give it a go......even if they do think 4G is 'awesome' !

[Lima Juliet]

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/244x204/image_39f9a6efdd05bfcc10977c418f9e4b137c425dd5.gif
Good grief...PPruNe really is the home of old fossils...

[Tankertrashnav]

4G? Four ******* G? Christ on a bike, JP5A was 5.5G without a bloody G Suit!

I'm only an ex nav so what do I know but I certainly remember 6g in a JP5 when doing a low level nav course at Linton (sans G suit). As for calling your instructor "mate"!!! :*

TTN (proud to be an old fossil ;))

[just another jocky]

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/244x204/image_39f9a6efdd05bfcc10977c418f9e4b137c425dd5.gif
Good grief...PPruNe really is the home of old fossils...

Thank goodness none of us still serving care what they think of us.

[4everAD]

So can Pruners tell m e what they expect the students to call the instructor? They were both equivalent ranks (OF2) and no doubt got on well from the bits I saw, It certainly doesn't call for a sir, maybe staff?

[Bob Viking]

I haven’t seen it (and I’m not in it) so can’t and won’t comment on its content.

What strikes me as funny though is that the series that was made in the 1980s attracts much comment on how bad the instruction was (also never seen it so can’t comment). It also led to adverse affects for some of its participants. The new series has already attracted comment for how it is not like the good old days.

So my question is, are some people ever going to be happy with any documentary? Also, when exactly were the good old days? And if people don’t like what’s on show now, didn’t like what was on show 35 years ago when exactly was instruction to their liking?

Would I be right in thinking that, since this is a documentary for the masses and probably to aid recruitment, it is not targeted at long retired RAF members?

Yes I have opened myself up to yet more criticism from the usual suspects. I am beginning to care less and less though.

BV

[[email protected]]

Is it me or is the course size really small nowadays - is this a MFTS thing or were they just cherry-picking the most media-friendly students?

Bleating Betty seems a big distraction at low level - isn't there an audio inhibit?

Nice to see the progress made with the F35. Harrier mates used to do a hovering course at Shawbury before the OCU, does this happen for the F 35?

Overall - some cringy bits and some good bits (the flying)

[Lima Juliet]

Before this descends into Monty Python’s Yorkshireman Sketch of “Luxury...we had it tough...”
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VKHFZBUTA4k

Let’s answer some of the ‘outrage bus’ questions.

1. The 4g to 5g sortie was a famil trip - no point in pulling the wings off of the jet, it’s there to familiarise the student in the aircraft before the harder stuff starts (ie. to ease them in).
2. Where are the maps and charts? You will have seen the Mission Planning Aid in the TV programme and oddly enough we plan electronically these days - colour printed maps and IP/Tgt runs are still carried in case the kit stops playing.
3. 6g in a JP? Really? I don’t recall more than 5g for most of my JP flying.
4. Calling instructors ‘Sir’ on Advanced Jet Training (AJT) - this is equivalent of a little bit of the old AFT and TWU - I don’t recall calling my instructors “Sir” on TWU or even on 4FTS. So I suspect that some folks’ memories are playing tricks on them, as I can’t recall calling any of my instructors “Sir”, unless a Sqn Ldr/Wg Cdr/Gp Capt, and I have been flying in the RAF for 30 years.

So how about looking at the positive stuff - we still have a fast jet flying training system that other countries pay good money to use, we now have a far lower ‘chop’ rate as we actually teach and test these days, it is a far healthier learning environment, we have a modernised trg aircraft that now reflects the FL type they will go to (with airborne electronic threat simulation that instructor can bring up during the sortie), we now have a fast jet trainer with a basic collision warning system and the aircraft that we are training them to fly on the FL are far more capable than any than went before - 9g Typhoons and 5th generation F35s. So let’s just enjoy the filming and the insight to a trg system that is vastly different to even the one 15 years ago. The only real criticism I have over this trg system is the fact that we didn’t plan enough capacity in it from SDSR10/SDSR15 and so now we have too little capacity/aircraft for what we really need.

Finally, the young men and women that will be the future of the RAF and FAA are still very fine individuals indeed - there are still very few “w**k*rs on your wing” - probably as many, by percentage, as there ever were. It’s just that this new breed are culturally different, but underneath they still have what it takes to do what is asked of them.

[Bob Viking]

Great post. I must go flying now. Toodle pip.

BV

[Specaircrew]

Thank goodness none of us still serving care what they think of us.
So....are you like.....disrespecting us? Hashtag Ageist Hashtag Weeandbiscuits ;-)

[Hamish 123]

NINE years into an RAF career before you even got into a Hawk??? I'm assuming the pilot quoted hadn't switched branches either. Is that length of time typical these days? 10+ years before you're combat ready?

[sharpend]

Lima Juliet, Well maybe we are a bunch of old fogies, but personally I have found a sea-change in attitudes over the years caused by lack of discipline & respect for authority/elders, all across the whole spectrum of society. . The whole point of the armed forces is to fight and that means sometimes telling soldiers to do unpleasant things. Without discipline and respect for authority (one of these students said he had a problem with authority; FFS), soldiers will do as they please. Sadly, we are in a touchy-feely society today; drill Sgts cannot shout as students etc etc. I could go on mentioning the softening of rules etc... but ultimately the RAF is a fighting force; disciple, respect and standards are vital. But what do I know, I'm just an old fogie.

[muppetofthenorth]

Lima Juliet, Well maybe we are a bunch of old fogies, but personally I have found a sea-change in attitudes over the years caused by lack of discipline & respect for authority/elders, all across the whole spectrum of society. . The whole point of the armed forces is to fight and that means sometimes telling soldiers to do unpleasant things. Without discipline and respect for authority (one of these students said he had a problem with authority; FFS), soldiers will do as they please. Sadly, we are in a touchy-feely society today; drill Sgts cannot shout as students etc etc. I could go on mentioning the softening of rules etc... but ultimately the RAF is a fighting force; disciple, respect and standards are vital. But what do I know, I'm just an old fogie.
Society is shaped by the people in it.
The people you bemoan are the ones your generation created. So who's to blame?

[sharpend]

Society is shaped by the people in it.
The people you bemoan are the ones your generation created. So who's to blame?


Not me personally. This generation is shaped by the media, the internet and social media.

[Asturias56]

"drill Sgts cannot shout at students " ... and you wonder why no-one wants to join up

these days you EXPLAIN what you want and why and hope the trainees will use their intelligence to achieve the results - in fact that approach often leads to better outcomes as they can adapt to changes in circumstances rather than blindly "Obey orders" or freeze and have to call back in for new instructions

The days of blind obedience are long gone

[Nige321]

Lima Juliet, Well maybe we are a bunch of old fogies, but personally I have found a sea-change in attitudes over the years caused by lack of discipline & respect for authority/elders, all across the whole spectrum of society. . The whole point of the armed forces is to fight and that means sometimes telling soldiers to do unpleasant things. Without discipline and respect for authority (one of these students said he had a problem with authority; FFS), soldiers will do as they please. Sadly, we are in a touchy-feely society today; drill Sgts cannot shout as students etc etc. I could go on mentioning the softening of rules etc... but ultimately the RAF is a fighting force; disciple, respect and standards are vital. But what do I know, I'm just an old fogie.

Judging by Channel 5's recent documentarys on the Household Cavalry and the Paras, I'd say that's completely wrong...

[Stuff]

Harrier mates used to do a hovering course at Shawbury before the OCU, does this happen for the F 35?

The Harrier hover course was highly entertaining but of fairly questionable value. For a start the cyclic operates in the opposite sense to the throttle (pull for up vs push for up). Much of the requirement for the Shawbury hours came from the Harrier sim's low-fidelity visuals and lag from the eye tracker. I would assume, but I don't know, that the F35 sim should be able to display everything needed for hover training, obviating the need to use a helicopter.

[Tankertrashnav]

The days of blind obedience are long gone

Instant obedience has a purpose. Father in law, a REME staff sergeant, was pinned down by sniper fire in Normandy when his team were attempting a tank recovery. His corporal thought he would pop up and have a look and try and locate the sniper. FIL shouted to the corporal to get his head down. "Hang on staff, I think I can see the bugger --- bang. Corporal no longer had much of a head to get down. Shame FIL didn't have time to give the corporal detailed reasoning for his order!

[Toadstool]

Lima Juliet, Well maybe we are a bunch of old fogies, but personally I have found a sea-change in attitudes over the years caused by lack of discipline & respect for authority/elders, all across the whole spectrum of society. . The whole point of the armed forces is to fight and that means sometimes telling soldiers to do unpleasant things. Without discipline and respect for authority (one of these students said he had a problem with authority; FFS), soldiers will do as they please. Sadly, we are in a touchy-feely society today; drill Sgts cannot shout as students etc etc. I could go on mentioning the softening of rules etc... but ultimately the RAF is a fighting force; disciple, respect and standards are vital. But what do I know, I'm just an old fogie.

The whole point of the armed forces is to fight and that means sometimes telling soldiers to do unpleasant things - Still happens

Without discipline and respect for authority (one of these students said he had a problem with authority; FFS), soldiers will do as they please - Soldiers and Airmen will still do as they please when they please, should they be so inclined, as they used to do when I first joined up in the 80s. Soldiers and Airmen still have respect and discipline now, as I can attest to on a daily basis.

Sadly, we are in a touchy-feely society today; drill Sgts cannot shout as students etc etc - Yes they can and yes they do. Perhaps things are slightly different, but its called Emotional Intelligence. Times change.

ultimately the RAF is a fighting force; disciple, respect and standards are vital. - Op TELIC, Op Herrick, Op Ellamy and Op SHADER proved the RAF was a fighting force and still is. If you remember AP 1, Respect, Integrity, Service and Excellence is still extant.

Happy to discuss via PM.

Regards

[Timelord]

Had to laugh though when Bally couldn’t log into his jet. Who controls that database I wonder?
“You want me on the boat over Christmas? Not if you ever want your jet to start again”

I bet when the instructor asked the cameras to leave he gave Bally his own log in!

[muppetofthenorth]

Not me personally. This generation is shaped by the media, the internet and social media.
No, just your peers.
And you do know that there are people on the other end of the media, the internet and social media, right? And that the overwhelming majority of those are being controlled by, again, your peers.

[[email protected]]

I bet when the instructor asked the cameras to leave he gave Bally his own log in! or the SECRET password recovery - 123456 - or simply Password1*:)

[dead_pan]

Strewth, one throwaway/flippant comment by one of the trainees and apparently the whole of society is crumbling around our ears... (and did I spot a woman amongst their number?? Arrgghhh!!)

​​​​​​Persoanlly I though the prog was rather good - despite being on the third channel

[Davef68]

NINE years into an RAF career before you even got into a Hawk??? I'm assuming the pilot quoted hadn't switched branches either. Is that length of time typical these days? 10+ years before you're combat ready?

Was going to ask if it had really long ad breaks to simulate holds.

[DCThumb]

From the original book chapter on Brawdy: ‘The students call the instructors by their first name, they are no longer Sir’

However, I admit I was inwardly cringing at matey, buddy etc...yoof of today eh?

[jindabyne]

This old fossil, and ex-Valley Hunter QFI, enjoyed the programme. I did cringe at some of the early airborne front/back seat dialogue, but hey, things move on. Encouraging to see the quality and character of the studes is little changed. Looking forward to seeing their transition to the F35.
From my armchair, the Valley runways and approaches were as yesterday (well, a tad longer than that).

[MPN11]

I know the world has changed, but I’m still struck by how long the training is these days. One wonders how front line sqns in the 1960s acquired their generous complement of fg offs! Between Nos. 20, 45, 74 and 81 there must have been about 2 dozen at Tengah.

[jindabyne]

I believe the training time is very similar MPB11; it's the holding times, generally speaking, that are horrendously wasteful. In my case (old fart hat on), Feb 62 - Jun 64 was join date to arrival on 8 in Aden; that included a two-month hold. That was the norm.

[graham house]

Ultimately the RAF is a fighting force; disciple, respect and standards are vital. - Op TELIC, Op Herrick, Op Ellamy and Op SHADER proved the RAF was a fighting force and still is. If you remember AP 1, Respect, Integrity, Service and Excellence is still extant.

Really? RISE still extant as you state? Not sure at the moment.....my memory serves me well, but I, and many who are legislated to have a view, no longer share your optimism, below only a week or 2 back....? We are not talking about complaints about rations either....so one the one side of the coin we have serious complaints being covered up, and on the other side of the coin we have malicious complaints against someone in authority whose decision one does not like, leading to all being entangled in a process badly exercised for years which simply erodes operational effectiveness......

07 August 2019Neither the individual Armed Forces, nor the system for their independent oversight headed by the Service Complaints Ombudsman, Nicola Williams, has yet succeeded in establishing an effective and efficient system for handling grievances by serving personnel.

Within the Services, the key performance target of resolving 90% of complaints within 24 weeks has never been met, whilst decisions on the admissibility of complaints – supposed to be made within a fortnight – have taken up to 86 weeks to complete.

At the oversight level, the burden on the modestly-sized office of the Service Complaints Ombudsman has been disproportionate to resources ever since it superseded the office of the Service Complaints Commissioner in 2015.

This was largely because its role was widened to include 'the duty of re-examining the substance of complaints – rather than just ruling on the adequacy of procedures followed and time taken by the Services in handling them'.

The result has been 'large backlogs and unacceptable delays'.

The Defence Committee learned that, instead of looking on the Ombudsman as an asset, the Ministry of Defence took almost seven months to produce a 5-page response to her 2017 annual report.

It also failed to supply her with the results of internal Service reviews about high levels of complaints by female and ethnic minority personnel.

Government Legal Department lawyers were not always available to give advice when required, and delays in clearance by the Security Vetting service led to skilled applicants for posts in the Ombudsman's office looking elsewhere for employment.

The Committee concludes that the only solution that will have a lasting effect is for the individual Services to improve their own complaints procedures and practices, and not to rely upon the Ombudsman's office to make up for their own shortcomings.

It expresses concern at suggestions that pressure has been put on some complainants not to proceed, and demands a list of the provisions currently in place for each Service to monitor and record withdrawn complaints.Chair’s commentsDefence Committee chairman, Dr Julian Lewis MP, says:

[QUOTE]"It is essential that Service personnel have a fair, effective and efficient complaints system to deal with valid grievances, but the Service Complaints Ombudsman has consistently reported that this does not exist.

[graham house]

That said, FWIIW, I thought the production was excellent. A useful reminder of the exceptional qualities of those who serve their country today, and the need to ensure that they are not let down during their period of Service nor beyond. Am up north tomorrow to see a 12 Sqn techie who has been let down....so let us not forget (not that you are..) those behind the jet that make Air Power work?

[orca]

I think the series will go down well. If I could wish for two improvements:

1. I think the programme makers should explain what they’re talking about. It would take 10-15 seconds to show high grade animations/CGI of a battle turn or rotate...and another 2 to say that it’s a way of manoeuvring a formation and maintaining mutual support.

2. I think all the filler footage should be relevant. The programme reused the same VRIAB or flat turn footage to accompany various bits of verbage. It was a little lazy to have the aeroplane turning different ways in the cut from HUD to external view.

I can only assume the somewhat progressive comm between cockpits was supplied by the ‘youthful’ instructor rather than the two ‘experienced’ gentlemen.

[[email protected]]

And they must surely have a technical advisor who can spot when the words spoken on the RT or intercom aren't correctly reproduced on the subtitles - reminded me of W1A:)

[Dominator2]

Quite enjoyed the programme but a few bits were very annoying. The "progressive comm" was appalling and did not show the RAF in a good light. Is 4 Sqn full of Ex Harrier "mates"?

We used to have to wear flying gloves and have covered arms for fire protection. Is there no longer a fire risk or is discipline so lax that not wearing flying gloves is ignored?

So much more could be made of the programme to show the RAF in a good light.

Showing the F35 failing to load personal software was not a great advert for our newest fighter. Surely the RAF PR guys should have said no to that being shown. There must be so much better footage available from Beaufort?

[just another jocky]

BV and Toadstool....well said! :D

And none of the old codgers spotted the ridiculous subtitle (mis-)quote "c/s finals, go down"

I'm surprised the outrage bus didn't stop by the side of the road for a pee break.

[Tankertrashnav]

We used to have to wear flying gloves and have covered arms for fire protection. Is there no longer a fire risk or is discipline so lax that not wearing flying gloves is ignored?

Are you saying that some of them were flying without gloves? My reaction to blokes calling each other "mate" is just to harumph a bit and shrug my shoulders. Dispensing with gloves when flying a fast jet, though, is just unbelievable. I once attended a talk by a retired USAF VSO who had been a fighter pilot in the Korean War and had been in a crash when his aircraft caught fire. He had gloves on but rolled down so that his wrists were exposed. One wrist was so badly burned in the fire that he was in danger of losing that hand which was only saved by means of some very clever surgery. After that I never flew without ensuring that my gloves were pulled right up and securing my flying suit sleeves around them, a lesson these "mates" need to learn, it seems

[just another jocky]

Are you saying that some of them were flying without gloves? My reaction to blokes calling each other "mate" is just to harumph a bit and shrug my shoulders. Dispensing with gloves when flying a fast jet, though, is just unbelievable. I once attended a talk by a retired USAF VSO who had been a fighter pilot in the Korean War and had been in a crash when his aircraft caught fire. He had gloves on but rolled down so that his wrists were exposed. One wrist was so badly burned in the fire that he was in danger of losing that hand which was only saved by means of some very clever surgery. After that I never flew without ensuring that my gloves were pulled right up and securing my flying suit sleeves around them, a lesson these "mates" need to learn, it seems

Although I never flew with exposed arms or hands, I always considered that if there was a cockpit fire, the lack of fire extinguisher to hand meant that I would eject quite quickly after discovering said fire and certainly before I got burnt. The only other reason for covering skin would be the MDC. Of course, it's a totally different story in a non-ejection seat equipped aircraft.

Didn't notice the exposed arms/hands whatever it was. Was it Hawk or F35 or both. Do both have MDC (before another outrage bus sets off)? You often see non-MDC US FJ pilots flying with exposed skin so context is everything.

[alfred_the_great]

Let me get this right: Pilots are "Mates", but are not to be addressed as "mates", unless you reach some level of "Mate".

And that in direct contradiction of evidence from continued conflicts, the use of mate by non-Mates to Mates has resulted in a precipitous decline in the RAF's ability to do its job.

[Homelover]

That’s right ‘mate’ !! I blame Baywatch. He started it...

[BEagle]

1. The 'Top Gun' references were puerile meeja nonsense, as was the 'fighter pilot school' meme, 'fast jet driving test' and the like.
2. 'Oxford and Cambridge of fighter pilot training'? Daft comment - meaning only the rich and privileged are likely to make it to Valley.
3. F-35B - I cannot imagine anyone NOT wanting to fly it! OK, so there was some personal Sw loading issue, but watching the stability in the hover and the enthusiasm everyone had - what an amazing jet.
4. Age. What a criminal shame that it's taking such an age for trainees to reach Valley. That means that they're more likely to have family commitments at a time of life when their predecessors were thinking of little except flying, beer, flying, sports cars, flying and chasing girls...
5. 'G'. How does anyone develop routine 'G' tolerance with such little flying and with such gaps in their training progress. I guess we old fossils were lucky in that the JP certainly helped in that respect.
6. Staff / student interaction. Perhaps much of the 'intercom chat' was aimed at the TV audience, as in the '80s series. I was lucky enough to be on the first of the 'new' Chivenor courses and reckon that sharpend and his colleagues had it spot on at the time. We could be pretty informal on the ground, but in the air things were a bit more formal. OK, things might have changed a bit since then, but was what we saw last night typical of today?
7. Valley's infrastructure has improved immeasurably since my day!
8. Interesting to see how 'Danners' planned that low level trip with a modern planning system. Lucky her! No-one can convince me that the faffing with map guillotines, gorilla snot glue and nav rulers of my era was better!

The 617 sequences were vastly better than the Valley sequences, to my mind. Overall it looks like being a good series which is somewhat overdue.

[Dominator2]

BV and LJ,

I am not offering any criticism but trying to explain some misunderstandings.

YES, in 1972 we certainly did call our instructors Sir at AFTS whenever at work, on the ground or in the air. In the Mess or socially elsewhere it was first names for all (or nearly all) JOs. Once at TWU it was first names except when in the Sh1t. In those days very few had Flying Nick names. They really appeared from the USAF in the late 70s when the F15 and A10 appeared in Europe. I was lucky enough to teach in the air until 2011 and even then neither instructors nor students used such facile language as that used at the beginning of the programme.

As to the standard of instruction in the 70s and 80s. Personally my instruction in the early 70s was outstanding at Linton, Valley and TWU. It was a different era when things were done differently. The proof was in the outcome of the product. Operating a Cold War jet was a totally different proposition to operating a 5th Gen aircraft in 2020. The threat which was ever present put a totally different emphasis on Flight Safety. People were expected to take far greater risks than is acceptable today. Consequently, they viewed fast jet aviation in a totally different way. Still professional but operating in an Air Force with different expectations of it's fighting men and woman (or course no women in fast jets in that era).

Don't become too dismissive as there is always something to learn. Non of us has ownership of being right all of the time, although some may be correct for some of it!

[sharpend]

Are you saying that some of them were flying without gloves? My reaction to blokes calling each other "mate" is just to harumph a bit and shrug my shoulders. Dispensing with gloves when flying a fast jet, though, is just unbelievable. I once attended a talk by a retired USAF VSO who had been a fighter pilot in the Korean War and had been in a crash when his aircraft caught fire. He had gloves on but rolled down so that his wrists were exposed. One wrist was so badly burned in the fire that he was in danger of losing that hand which was only saved by means of some very clever surgery. After that I never flew without ensuring that my gloves were pulled right up and securing my flying suit sleeves around them, a lesson these "mates" need to learn, it seems

Anyone who flies without gloves, be it a puddle jumper or a F35, is an idiot and thinks 'it will not happen to me'. I am always appalled to watch fools fly light aircraft in t-shirts and shorts; some with flip-flops. On a track day, it is mandatory to wear long trousers and long sleeved shirts. If one comes off, there are always marshals to help egress you. Not so in any aircraft incident. If anyone feels different than I do, just read Richard Hillary's book 'The Last Enemy'. He did not wear gloves for perhaps the same reason as others don't. He died. Oh, by the way; 'The Last Enemy' is death.

[Lima Juliet]

Unfortunately, yesteryear’s flying gloves can be incompatible with today’s touch screens and ever more complex HOTAS. Have a look on YouTube and you will see many ‘modified’ gloves with fingers and thumbs missing on modern Fighter Jock’s gloves. I agree, MDC splatter is probably the worst risk, but then again many canopies go ‘in a oner’. There is supposed to be a mod inbound for gloves to be painted with something to help with touchscreens - that doesn’t aid the HOTAS issue though. Maybe we should go back to the ergonomic slums of cockpits, that you could operate with club-hand and stumps, of the Lightning, Harrier GR3, SHar, Hunter, Bucc or Phantom (other slums were available!).

As for length of time in training. Yes, MFTS has been a bit of cluster, but it is nearly where it should be (I would say 80%). However, for these students then you need to cast your minds back to 2010 when the SDSR effectively sacked 170x RAF student pilots; those who survived endured a 2-3 year hold waiting for EFT, but when they got there the props kept falling off the Tutors that introduced more delay, then Tucano went slow for a bit and finally Hawk T2 had a few moments (remember the loss of power incident) - it all adds up for an unfortunate few for Flying Training edging out to 9 years from start to finish OCU. We also have students holding a year or so at the moment (reducing fast), and that is a different matter of changing 5x training aircraft types inside 2 years - that has not gone as well as planned, but is finally starting to deliver as planned. However, that is at the rate required by the SDSR in 2010 and the enhancements for the growth dictated by the SDSR 2015 is still being rolled out and will take up to another couple of years or so. So as ever, we can all chuck spears at the contract, but the requirement has changed so many times that the program never really stood a chance of instant success - not helped by a rather odd set of choices in aircraft types!

Of course, for those caught up ‘in the holding pattern’ in the middle of this transition, it is pretty bloody frustrating. But then again, they will have one of the best jobs in the world when they get there and I would hope it is worth the wait. There are also people working on several significant improvements to the training pipeline and this should increase capacity and bring the length of time training well back under control. Time will tell if we should have a shared optimism that these improvements will do the job. :ok:

[sharpend]

[QUOTE=BEagle;10550953]
6. I was lucky enough to be on the first of the 'new' Chivenor courses and reckon that sharpend and his colleagues had it spot on at the time.

How true https://www.pprune.org/images/icons/laugh.gif I always thought Beagle was rather smart.

[sharpend]

Unfortunately, yesteryear’s flying gloves can be incompatible with today’s touch screens and ever more complex HOTAS.


Quite true. I cut 1 cm off the tops of one finger on each glove to use when using my iPad in flight. However, given the cost of an F35 helmet, I'm sure technology could design a glove to work with a touch screen. Mind you, have you ever try to operate touch screens in turbulence?

[Herod]

Please explain to an aged sky-god (?). The young lady is on a low-level mission requiring precise timing and concentration. The "distractions" of ATC, include an airline pilot (guilty) contacting the handling agent reference his disabled passengers. On VHF?

[Lima Juliet]

In those days very few had Flying Nick names.

”Laddie” Lucas, “Ginger” Lacey, “Cats-Eyes” Cunningham, “Dinghy” Young, “Aggy” Agazarian, “Bee” Beaumont, “Bomber” or “Butch” Harris, “Boom” Trenchard, “Boy” Wellham, “Bunny” Currant, “Sailor” Milan, “Cocky” Dundas, “Cobber” Kain, “Hogey” Carmichael, “Johnnie” Johnson, “Winkle” Brown, “Mick” Mannock, “Mutt” Summers, “Paddy” Finucane, “Sandy” Lane, “Stapme” Stapleton, “Stuffy” Dowding and “Taffy” Leigh-Mallory might all have a different opinion on that!

:ok:

PS. Plus lots of “Spud” Murphy, “Tug” Wilson, “Hoppy” Hopkinson, etc...

[Video Mixdown]

F-35B - watching the stability in the hover and the enthusiasm everyone had - what an amazing jet.




I too was stunned at how effortlessly stable the aircraft seems in the hover. The thing looks as though it's been nailed to the sky, and when descending it looks like it's coming down on a lift. A truly impressive fusion of mechanical, hydraulic, electronic and computer systems that appears to give its pilot so many options and advantages.

[sharpend]

Herod, I'm sure that the TV company put that rubbish in. As if the pilot would be able to monitor that frequency.. I wonder what else was 'put in'

[Lima Juliet]

Please explain to an aged sky-god (?). The young lady is on a low-level mission requiring precise timing and concentration. The "distractions" of ATC, include an airline pilot (guilty) contacting the handling agent reference his disabled passengers. On VHF?

I lost count the number of times in Hawk and Tornado I would say to the other mate in the cockpit “Off Guard” when someone started using it for chit-chat, practice pans or “Securite, Securite...”. I would say it is distracting and also means you can’t speak/hear your formation or talk to anyone else in your aircraft that is flying 250ft MSD at 420-540kts with a whole bunch of other hazards trying to kill you. I also suspect that the TV producers made it out to be slightly worse than it actually was - but that is media/journalism for you.

[handleturning]

BV and LJ,

I am not offering any criticism but trying to explain some misunderstandings.

YES, in 1972 we certainly did call our instructors Sir at AFTS whenever at work, on the ground or in the air. In the Mess or socially elsewhere it was first names for all (or nearly all) JOs. Once at TWU it was first names except when in the Sh1t. In those days very few had Flying Nick names. They really appeared from the USAF in the late 70s when the F15 and A10 appeared in Europe. I was lucky enough to teach in the air until 2011 and even then neither instructors nor students used such facile language as that used at the beginning of the programme.

As to the standard of instruction in the 70s and 80s. Personally my instruction in the early 70s was outstanding at Linton, Valley and TWU. It was a different era when things were done differently. The proof was in the outcome of the product. Operating a Cold War jet was a totally different proposition to operating a 5th Gen aircraft in 2020. The threat which was ever present put a totally different emphasis on Flight Safety. People were expected to take far greater risks than is acceptable today. Consequently, they viewed fast jet aviation in a totally different way. Still professional but operating in an Air Force with different expectations of it's fighting men and woman (or course no women in fast jets in that era).

Don't become too dismissive as there is always something to learn. Non of us has ownership of being right all of the time, although some may be correct for some of it!

Agree that things are very very different from Cold War training. However, there is one key difference, those of us who flew in the Cold War hoped we’d never go to war, by and large most didn’t. Today’s generation can pretty much guarantee they will. This is a war time RAF and I have a great deal of respect for anyone who elects to serve.

[Lima Juliet]

I too was stunned at how effortlessly stable the aircraft seems in the hover. The thing looks as though it's been nailed to the sky, and when descending it looks like it's coming down on a lift. A truly impressive fusion of mechanical, hydraulic, electronic and computer systems that appears to give its pilot so many options and advantages.

I’ll let you into a little secret - the aircraft pretty much stabilises itself and the Jet Jockey just steers it where they want to go. The same goes for the modern Chinook that went to the aid of the dams recently - that has DAFCS that effectively flies it for you whilst you monitor/adjust it.

The Digital Advanced Flight Control Systems (DAFCS) installed on U.S. CH-47F Chinook helicopters is helping pilots make safer desert landings.

The Common Avionics Architecture Systems (CAAS) glass cockpit, DAFCS "provides the pilot with heightened situational awareness and safety," said Mark Ballew, Boeing’s senior business development manager for tandem rotor aircraft. "For instance, you can plug the data for an instrument landing at a specific airfield into DACFS, and the system will execute it for you. If you have to break off a landing and do a go-round, DACFS can be set to automatically execute the go-round."

DACFS is proving itself in Iraq and Afghanistan, where 26 CH-47Fs are equipped with the system. "DACFS can help you deal with brownouts during landing," Ballew said. "You can program the system to level off in a stable hover at 15 feet, then to lower you a foot at a time to the ground automatically." A helicopter pilot who served in Desert Storm, Ballew knows what it is like to get disoriented by blowing sand during touchdown. "DAFCS was designed to deal with such problems," he said. "We’ve had a lot of feedback from pilots serving in Iraq and Afghanistan who say the DAFCS system has made their landings much safer and more predictable."


As I keep saying to those that flew 2nd and 3rd generation military aircraft - these 4th and 5th generation machines are something else. That is why they can do what they do with reduced numbers in the cockpit. However, the thinking now is what else could they do with an extra brain, set of eyes and hands/feet if they had a second seat? That is why Team Tempest is looking at ‘optionally manned’ with 0, 1 or 2 aircrew in this future aircraft (or system of systems).

[jindabyne]

I'm sure that if we were all in the bar having these conversations, there 'd be a sprinkling of 'What the f**k are you on about'.

[jindabyne]

Are we all done 'til the next episode?

[Homelover]

It just sounded gash and unprofessional... Faux American Accent... "Ok buddy, let's doooooo this" as they got airborne. How embarrassing, I thought FJ instructors were better than that.

Viz

The sortie where the instructor said that was a Famil trip. The aim is to put the student, who is sitting in the back seat, at ease and ensure his first Hawk trip is an enjoyable one. If the instructor chooses to use some slightly less formal language in order to achieve this aim then what is the harm in that? FJ Instructors use a range of styles during teaching. All have been judged effective by the CFS agents , otherwise they wouldn’t be flying with studes; They are the experts. What are your credentials??

personally I liked the program, and I’m looking forward to the next one.

And what Jindabyne said.:ok:

[Flugplatz]

I was a bit confused about the length of time they were said to have waited to fly the Hawk, but didn't most of them seem to already have their 'wings' and I took it that they were transferring over from some other type, to fly FJ (like 'Danners' was ex-helicopters). That might explain some of the more informal cockpit chat if both were already serving pilots?
I got a bit confused about who was flying for which service (and I can't even rely on a beard to tell)
Flug

[Odanrot]

What he said,

spot on viz

[Lima Juliet]

Homelover,

The point of a famil is also an introduction to SOPs, to set the scene and show the student the importance of the course to come. It's obviously a very difficult, intensive course and I believe that getting airborne for the first time with a 'YeeHah, let's do this" attitude sets the wrong tone, as does calling your student 'mate' and also allowing him or her to do the same to you.

Maybe that's just me. My credentials, as you asked, are that I passed CFS 25 years ago and have been an A2 QFI for the past 20 years. Please tell me yours.

The F4 ‘mates’ that I flew with nearly 30 years ago as a basic stude on the JP certainly exuded some of this “wrong tone” you refer to. Indeed, one guy I can remember (sadly no longer with us) used to call us ‘honey bun’ or ‘sugar lips’ as a term of amusing endearment whilst airborne. The “tone” that these guys set compared to the po-faced ‘holier than thou’ types from the other fleets, that got far less out of us than the F4 types that treated us with humour and fun in the most professional of ways - it was never in doubt who was the instructor and who was the stude. Indeed, I was so inspired by that attitude that I took much of it to my own job as an instructor on a FJ OCU - oddly enough, achieving A2 myself with a similar attitude 11 years after flying with them. No need to be mean, po-faced, humourless and down right nasty even in the most trying of circumstances; I always tried to remember the very best instructors I had in my time as a stude (“Major”, “Uncle”, “M2”, “Tug”, “Slam”, “Cheesey”, to name but a few...oddly all with callsigns/nicknames in the very early 90s!). Don’t forget most F4 mates were not known to suffer fools gladly when their studes screwed up, too! I also tried to remember just how cr@p I probably was when I took Aircrew out to a Tornado for their first trips; being humble and friendly at that point often worked miracles with the most nervous of studes. I also had no issue calling them ‘mate’ and vice-versa nearly 20 years ago - again, only I would decide whether they had made the grade in each syllabus sortie for them to pass onto the next (calling me ‘mate’ would neither pass or fail or trip - nor, even as a Sqn Ldr, using a sycophantic ‘Sir’ in the cockpit neither!). So there was never any doubt who was instructor and who was stude...simple as...

[sharpend]

Homelover,


Maybe that's just me. My credentials, as you asked, are that I passed CFS 25 years ago and have been an A2 QFI for the past 20 years. Please tell me yours.

Agreed. Mind you I am now a dinosaur; I passed CFS 49 years ago and do not recognise the RAF of today. Here is a little bit from my book:

'However, for me the fun seems to have mainly evaporated. The Air Force has a job to do and a serious one at that. Fifty years ago our Air Force was very much the archetypal flying club and we enjoyed enormous Esprit de Corps. This was definitely true of my Near East Air Force Squadron. Rules were indeed few and far between, we were not very professional, medals were non-existent and operations were something we only practised for. Of course we were happy despite a distinct lack of facilities and amenities. There was no such thing as personal computers, microwave ovens, Internet, e-mails, iPads, iPods, digital cameras, mobile phones, DVDs, satellite TV, VCRs, PDAs, station exercises, MOTs, breathalysers or drink/drive regulations. GPS and inertial navigation systems were fitted only to Sputniks. Hence navigators were a necessary evil (only joking).'

And I doubt if the pilots featured in the current series would recognise the RAF that I joined. But an interesting topic to discuss would be 'Would they cope without computers. calculators, mobile phones, GPS, sat nav etc etc? In fact, would I now cope? I wonder.

[Homelover]

Homelover,
Maybe that's just me. My credentials, as you asked, are that I passed CFS 25 years ago and have been an A2 QFI for the past 20 years. Please tell me yours.

Viz
An A2? I’ll give you some credit. But I’m guessing not an A2 on FJ? I am, on 2 types:Hawk and Tornado. StanP on Tornado. OC CFS Flt on Hawk. I’m comfortable that I have allowed a variety of instructional styles to graduate. They’ve all made good instructors, even if they have occasionally used imperfect English. Crivens! The thought of it.

Can we we stop the willy waving now?

[Homelover]

LJ

My experience of those F4 mates was similar to yours. Flying with M2 made me want to be an AD mate at a time when everyone wanted to fly the jumping bean. God rest his soul. Brilliant guy.

[Lima Juliet]

Would they cope without computers. calculators, mobile phones, GPS, sat nav etc etc?

No computers then an aircraft like F35 is going no-where - the Aircrew can, but the jet isn’t. No calculator - oh please, they do teach basic non-calculator maths at GCSE and certainly enough to do basic MDR and fuel/time/distance calcs. It is also still a significant part of the Computer Based Aptitude Tests (CBAT). No mobile phones - there are still land lines at some locations, but believe it or not GPTN is being phased out to VOIP at most military stations in the next couple of years. Now GPS (in fact GNSS) and sat nav is the really interesting one - this is what would likely happen if GNSS failed to perform these days:

1. The UK along with most of the world would go bankrupt in around a fortnight. The world’s banking systems use the time signal from GNSS to synchronise trading these days.
2. Agriculture and fisheries are heavily reliant on GNSS for a number of things. So be prepared to go hungry fast!
3. Civil Emergency Services are now tasked via datalinks (synched to GNSS time signals) and using positional data from sats.
4. Most large countries use GNSS time signals to synchronise the frequency of power station output on their ‘national grids’.
5. No cash machines, no debit card machines, no online shopping.
6. No digital radio or TV.
7. No live travel info on public transport and the rail network ceases.

More info in this document on how the loss of GPS/GNSS would affect the UK and the wider world - wondering how a few FJ pilots would cope is a little out of touch, I might be so bold to offer?
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/619545/17.3254_Economic_impact_to_UK_of_a_disruption_to_GNSS_-_Showcase_Report.pdf

There is a reason why everyone is getting excited about space - it is something that nearly all nations rely heavily upon and so we need to think more widely than about how a few Jet Jockeys would cope! :ok:

[Lima Juliet]

LJ

My experience of those F4 mates was similar to yours. Flying with M2 made me want to be an AD mate at a time when everyone wanted to fly the jumping bean. God rest his soul. Brilliant guy.

Yup, one of the biggest losses I have known in my time. He inspired and educated a new generation. Sadly, never a ‘household name’ outside of the few hundred of us that were lucky enough to receive his wisdom.

[Trumpet trousers]

But an interesting topic to discuss would be 'Would they cope without computers. calculators, mobile phones, GPS, sat nav etc etc? In fact, would I now cope? I wonder.
Excuse the slight thread drift, but as a truckie introducing the C130J into service in the 90’s, my training partner during our manufacturer’s ‘convex’ in the USA wondered how the ‘kids of the day’ would cope with all this new-fangled computer driven stuff, as he was struggling to keep up.
He didn’t take kindly to the suggestion that the ‘play station generation’ would take it in their stride, unlike him....

[Tankertrashnav]

Some good points in your post Beagle, but I have to take issue with this one

2. 'Oxford and Cambridge of fighter pilot training'? Daft comment - meaning only the rich and privileged are likely to make it to Valley.

Miss TTN went to Oxford, and she was neither rich nor privileged (I'm her dad so she can't be!). What she is is bright and hard working, just like those young men and women going through Valley

[sycamore]

Is there any particular reason why the F35 comes to a hover at ~100 ft then lets down ...?If it`s so clever why not just drive on down to 15-20 ft..easier references,less power used.....?

[Lima Juliet]

Is there any particular reason why the F35 comes to a hover at ~100 ft then lets down ...?If it`s so clever why not just drive on down to 15-20 ft..easier references,less power used.....?

Dunno, why not send a suggestion to LMCo for a future software drop? :ok:

[[email protected]]

Possibly in preparation for deck ops where the heave could easily be 10 -15'.

Perhaps it allows more time for ejection if there is a power problem in the transition to the hover.

[Bob Viking]

What the hell is all the whining about?!

Viewing it through neutral eyes I thought it was bloody good. If it’s intention is to aid recruitment then I think it’s bang on the money.

If it doesn’t appeal to people of previous generations then I don’t think that’s a problem.

I could go on all day about previous replies but I’ll try to minimise my inputs.

Regarding the question of whether the pilots of today could cope without computers I say of course they could. I started my instructional career on 19 Sqn on the Hawk T1 (pre GPS). Students coped then. Students cope with the Hawk T2 as well. Either group of students could cope with either aircraft if they were taught to.

Would it be appropriate if I said that pilots of yesteryear could never fly modern fighters because they couldn’t cope with the computers? Personally I think that statement would be just as ridiculous as saying modern students couldn’t cope without them.

As for those that think I’m on a crusade to disrespect my forebears I say please stop and think.

On this site it seems that some people believe it is perfectly acceptable to criticise the current generation with impunity. However, for the reverse to happen is apparently disrespectful. Why must these things be a one way street?

I am more than happy to admit when I’m wrong. I can take criticism on the chin. Is that true of everyone on here?

As to the guys and gal on the programme I say bloody well done.

Personally I avoid TV cameras like the plague.

I have flown with many of the staff and students on both fleets (not in an F35 obviously) and I thought they all came across well. Clearly whatever they do they will attract criticism from some people so more kudos to them for being brave enough to talk to the cameras in the first place.

Whether you agree with the instructional methods on show is largely immaterial. In 2019 the methods work very well. There is more effort to accommodate learning styles and more understanding of actual teaching methods than was true many years ago.

Before you get all huffy just consider that I have been a QFI for 12 years on the Hawk (A2 on several variants) and spent four years qualifying as a teacher before I joined the RAF. I do know a thing or two about the intricacies of imparting knowledge.

Standards of instruction now are as high as they have ever been. The methods are just different to days gone by.

So, one episode in and it gets a thumbs up from me. Let’s see what next week brings.

BV

[Homelover]

BV

Well said. And it reinforces my point to viz, which was - why the hell does it matter if the staff-mate calls the stude-mate ‘mate’ ? (See what I did there;))

Is anyone else tiring of the fact that any post to defend the current system by us ‘relative youngsters’ instantly generates long diatribes of outrage from those who might be getting slightly confused in their dotage. :ugh:

[Easy Street]

Is there any particular reason why the F35 comes to a hover at ~100 ft then lets down ...?If it`s so clever why not just drive on down to 15-20 ft..easier references,less power used.....?

As well as the aforementioned reasons, the down wash is so brutal that it needs to stay high until it’s over a suitably prepared surface. Those are expensive; you wouldn’t want to make them any bigger to allow for expansive low-speed manoeuvring at 20ft.

[MPN11]

I believe the training time is very similar MPN11; it's the holding times, generally speaking, that are horrendously wasteful. In my case (old fart hat on), Feb 62 - Jun 64 was join date to arrival on 8 in Aden; that included a two-month hold. That was the norm.Yes, that's what I figured. Horrendously wasteful, isn't it!

[pr00ne]

Just watched the first episode.

I went through a very different system in a vastly different RAF that had a totally different operational environment for those who made it through.

I came away from watching the first episode with a tremendous feeling of pride for both students and staff.

If that was any way typical of today’s RAF then I have a great deal of confidence in its ability to do the job, with warmth, humour, efficiency and skill.

And do the job is so significant. My generation only ever practiced, we never did it for real. The young people featured in this programme know that they are going to have to do what they are training for for real, and most probably sooner rather than later.

I took great delight in their attitude and approach, and my admiration for them knows no bounds.

I would have been proud to call any of them mate.

[NutLoose]

As well as the aforementioned reasons, the down wash is so brutal that it needs to stay high until it’s over a suitably prepared surface. Those are expensive; you wouldn’t want to make them any bigger to allow for expansive low-speed manoeuvring at 20ft.



Then call me old fashioned but what is the point of the vertical jumping F35 if it needs a prepared strip to put it on, surely the reason in having a vertical capable aircraft such as the Harrier was its ability to operate off rough uneven unprepared ground, If you need a slab of concrete to take off from, does that not just defeat the point?..

An observation made when the Harrier doing its debut at Paris all those years back had the engine failure and crash landed onto the French Jump jets specially prepared concrete base when they were showing the advantages of the Harrier over the opposition.

see 40 seconds in

https://www.britishpathe.com/video/paris-straight-up-plane-crash/query/Lightning

[hoodie]

T...what is the point of the vertical jumping F35 if it needs a prepared strip to put it on, surely the reason in having a vertical capable aircraft such as the Harrier was its ability to operate off rough uneven unprepared ground...
Pretty sure I've seen ships mentioned in the limited amount of media coverage there's been on the UK F-35B purchase. Might be wrong, of course.

[langleybaston]

We old f*rts do not like being called mate ....... even by mates. It is, however, unavoidable in deepest Lincolnshire.
Sunday best, hat, shiny shoes do not ward off the mate greeting.
My wife suffers from m'duck ................

Worse things happen at sea.

'appen!

[NutLoose]

Pretty sure I've seen ships mentioned in the limited amount of media coverage there's been on the UK F-35B purchase. Might be wrong, of course.


Yes, but then the carriers were big enough to actually have supported a conventional through deck facility, so what exactly does this vertical capability bring to the table as all the lift engine is doing is taking up valuable fuel and munitions capability, remember this is / was slated at being the Harrier for the 21st century, if it has lost the ability to operate ashore dispersed in a war time situation from unprepared sites, then surely the logic behind giving it the ability to hover in the first place is flawed.


As for all the chat about the training regimes and cockpit banter etc and not in my time and a lot of yours too, all I can say it may have changed, yes, and the time before getting to the front line is ridiculous,
BUT they must be doing something right, because the Gulf Wars, Libya, Syria and Afghanistan are testaments to the professionalism, dedication and skills of those currently serving in harms way and is there for all to see,
so to all those detractors, the proof of the training establishments achievements is written in their ability to provide combat proven pilots.

[Tay Cough]

Thread creep. Would it have been better to have had cats, traps and a whole load of F-18s?

I know there’s a conventional F-35 but is the cost/capability difference from the F-18 (quantity has a quality all of its own) worth it?

[jindabyne]

prOOne

My generation only ever practiced, we never did it for real. The young people featured in this programme know that they are going to have to do what they are training for for real, and most probably sooner rather than later.

What an utterly contemptible view. All generations enlist knowing that they may have to pay the ultimate price. As you did. And I did.

[beardy]

prOOne



What an utterly contemptible view. All generations enlist knowing that they may have to pay the ultimate price. As you did. And I did.
As did many of our colleagues. The accident rate and numbers were much higher in the cold war than now.

[Bill Macgillivray]

I thought it was a good programme overall (remembering that it is aimed at the general public and not us!) and look forward to the remainder. We had a very different lifestyle in my day but I would suggest that todays RAF pilots are just as competent as we were and just as dedicated! I personally sympathise with them on the current length of training, but that is hardly their fault! Times change but it is my guess that the guys and girls are just as keen and competent as we were and will give all they can to their chosen career. Let us move on, I have had a great flying career and just hope the present incumbents are lucky enough to have the same!

Bill

[Lima Juliet]

I would suggest that todays RAF pilots are just as competent as we were and just as dedicated! I personally sympathise with them on the current length of training, but that is hardly their fault! Times change but it is my guess that the guys and girls are just as keen and competent as we were and will give all they can to their chosen career. Let us move on

Amen, Sir :ok:

[pr00ne]

Jindabyne,

I stand by what I said as it is factual. We never had to do it for real, and there was never any risk of having to do it for real.
That is not the case today, so why on earth you think that attitude contemptible is beyond me.

Sorry if you can’t handle the truth,

[Tankertrashnav]

and there was never any risk of having to do it for real.

Tell that to the blokes who were on QRA in October 1962. I was at school at the time but I have flown with lots of men who genuinely thought that they were never going to see their families again. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

[FODPlod]

I really enjoyed the first episode and found it entertaining, informative and highly relevant in the 21st Century. The characters displayed the same skill, professionalism and passion for flying as any of their forebears but came across as openly honest human beings, not deferential, hide-bound automatons.

Roll on the next episode.

[MG]

I’ve now watched the second half, having given up on the day, and it either improved, or I was less grumpy today (undoubtedly the latter). I still have criticisms and they’re all to do with the production, rather than the subjects, but as I said, it’s not made for me, it’s made for others and has to compete with the likes of Love Island (yes, that series has finished this year, no idea how I know that! :O), so what do you expect!

[FODPlod]

Given the programme's references to 'Top Gun', it's quite appropriate that the Fleet Air Arm was responsible for creating the original US Navy ‘Top Gun’ school at Miramar Naval Air Station near San Diego.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/5032158/American-Top-Gun-fighter-pilot-academy-set-up-by-British.html

[Treble one]

I enjoyed the programme-its very different to the Fighter Pilot Series of the 80's when I was dreaming of a Bucaneer/Tornado cockpit for myself.

The Top Gun thing is a little cringeworthy to be honest, but Joe Public will identify with that more (and after all this programme is aimed at Joe Public, not current or ex-mil pilots).

And yes, the instructional technique does rather seem to have changed since the John McRae era, but its a different world with different students, and as long as the finished product is fit for purpose for the front line, then who cares?

I'm not sure the but about logging into the F-35 was particularly good PR though....although the other insight into operating the jet was very interesting.

[pr00ne]

Jindabyne,

Please stop sending me rude and offensive private messages.

If you can’t tolerate opinion or sustain an argument I suggest you avoid rumour and news sites.

[falcon900]

I have just watched the programme, having recorded it, and having been conditiioned by reading this thread beforehand. I get the part about it having been dumbed down to make it accessible to the general public, and I don't have any conceptual difficulty with this. My only gripe is with the extent of the dumbing down, exemplified by the recurring references to "fast jet driving tests". Surely even the dimmer elements of the general public deserve something a bit more thought provoking and insightful than this?
The programme makers seem to have been given some pretty special access, particularly in the US, but appear to have squandered it producing something with marginally less gravitas than the "epic" Eddie Stobart series.
Heres hoping episode 2 is a bit more substantive.

[weemonkey]

Jindabyne,

Please stop sending me rude and offensive private messages.

If you can’t tolerate opinion or sustain an argument I suggest you avoid rumour and news sites.

To be fair, I'd have imagined there's a fair few who thought the same from time to time...

[BEagle]

In the 1970s, fast-jet pilots learned to fly the Gnat at Valley, then did a short Hunter refresher course before going to TWU at Chivenor or Brawdy. The courses at Valley were very much 'Training Command' and a lot of time was occupied learning how to stop the Gnat trying to kill you! There was NO 'tactical' formation flying; indeed, the TWUs wanted to teach that from a clean sheet.

Moving to TWU, you went into Strike Command. No more read-and-white trainers, you flew green and grey fighters - and the ethos was very different. Hard work, it is true, but very rewarding with lots of low level, simulated attack profiles, live strafe, bombing and rocketing at Pembrey range.

But when the Hawk appeared on the scene, it replaced Gnat/Hunter at Valley AND Hunter at TWU. A lot of savings could therefore be made in type conversion. But Valley was still 'flying training' and TWU was still 'tactical training' That changed further when the rather despised 'mirror image' scheme started, Chivenor closed and everything went to Valley. Which meant a lot of wasted time with detachments at St Athan for weaponeering at nearby Pembrey.

Along came more technologically advanced front line jets and training on the Hawk T2. 'Fast jet driving tests' apart, flying the aircraft isn't as demanding as the Gnat / Hunter as it is safer. has vastly better cockpit ergonomics and systems and live weaponeering is no longer deemed necessary. So no waiting for the cloud to lift at Pembrey any more, or for someone to shoot the flag off the back of Puddy's Meteor ending the air-to-air range sortie at Hartland . Synthetic training systems are in greater use - all we had at Brawdy was a Hunter sim and bits from crashed aircraft nailed together to teach gunsight control etc.! Low level planning now uses an automated system rather than paper maps and gorilla snot glue; also I would doubt whether 'sight piccy' drawings are necessary given the HUD symbology now available. No-one could possibly prefer the faff of sorting out half a dozen Hunter cine mags on the way to the range, of that I'm sure!

So yes, the new era training is hugely different to that of previous years. Whether students and staff really interact in the air as they did in the programme I do not know. Lucky blighters will eventually fly F-35B or Typhoon; the failure rate is quite reasonable these days but hard work is still needed, albeit with a different emphasis.

It's just such a pity that the RAF has been forced into MFTS though - but I suppose that'll give instructors greater opportunities to gain instructional experience than if they were merely biding their time champing at the bit to get back to the front line.

[BEagle]

Jindabyne,

Please stop sending me rude and offensive private messages.

If you can’t tolerate opinion or sustain an argument I suggest you avoid rumour and news sites.

pr00ne, old horseman, surely such a post would be better sent as a Private Message?

And get a haircut! ;)

[chinook240]

I’ve now watched the second half, having given up on the day, and it either improved, or I was less grumpy today (undoubtedly the latter). I still have criticisms and they’re all to do with the production, rather than the subjects, but as I said, it’s not made for me, it’s made for others and has to compete with the likes of Love Island (yes, that series has finished this year, no idea how I know that! :O), so what do you expect!

MG,

As you’re now based at a secret training establishment, I hope you will encourage your customers to call you mate, while discussing Love Island in the sortie briefs.

ps, your profile shows in Hampshire?

[sharpend]

prOOne

What an utterly contemptible view. All generations enlist knowing that they may have to pay the ultimate price. As you did. And I did.

Actually, maybe I am naive (don't answer that), but I joined to fly aeroplanes and never gave war a thought. War was something that happened before my time. It would never happen to me. Years later, after a career practicing for war in FJs, I moved over to VC10s. When I arrived as a bumped up Jag mate, I was told in no uncertain terms by the 'Old Guard' that the VC10 would never go anywhere near a war zone. 13 years later I found myself flying into the FEBA, at night and with no nav aids (apart from a wonky IN) and no lights, wearing AR5, whilst Scuds flew over the top. I actually had a good war, even though I had been shot at by nasty missiles (there and previously in the Balkans). But my point is that I definitely did NOT enlist knowing I might have to pay the ultimate price. Like many of my young generation, I knew nothing, I thought nothing and peace time flying was the only thing on the menu. Maybe I had Baldrick's bullet :)

[sharpend]

In the 1970s, fast-jet pilots learned to fly the Gnat at Valley, then did a short Hunter refresher course before going to TWU at Chivenor or Brawdy. The courses at Valley were very much 'Training Command' and a lot of time was occupied learning how to stop the Gnat trying to kill you! There was NO 'tactical' formation flying; indeed, the TWUs wanted to teach that from a clean sheet.

Moving to TWU, you went into Strike Command. No more read-and-white trainers, you flew green and grey fighters - and the ethos was very different. Hard work, it is true, but very rewarding with lots of low level, simulated attack profiles, live strafe, bombing and rocketing at Pembrey range.

But when the Hawk appeared on the scene, it replaced Gnat/Hunter at Valley AND Hunter at TWU. A lot of savings could therefore be made in type conversion. But Valley was still 'flying training' and TWU was still 'tactical training' That changed further when the rather despised 'mirror image' scheme started, Chivenor closed and everything went to Valley. Which meant a lot of wasted time with detachments at St Athan for weaponeering at nearby Pembrey.

Along came more technologically advanced front line jets and training on the Hawk T2. 'Fast jet driving tests' apart, flying the aircraft isn't as demanding as the Gnat / Hunter as it is safer. has vastly better cockpit ergonomics and systems and live weaponeering is no longer deemed necessary. So no waiting for the cloud to lift at Pembrey any more, or for someone to shoot the flag off the back of Puddy's Meteor ending the air-to-air range sortie at Hartland . Synthetic training systems are in greater use - all we had at Brawdy was a Hunter sim and bits from crashed aircraft nailed together to teach gunsight control etc.! Low level planning now uses an automated system rather than paper maps and gorilla snot glue; also I would doubt whether 'sight piccy' drawings are necessary given the HUD symbology now available. No-one could possibly prefer the faff of sorting out half a dozen Hunter cine mags on the way to the range, of that I'm sure!

So yes, the new era training is hugely different to that of previous years. Whether students and staff really interact in the air as they did in the programme I do not know. Lucky blighters will eventually fly F-35B or Typhoon; the failure rate is quite reasonable these days but hard work is still needed, albeit with a different emphasis.

It's just such a pity that the RAF has been forced into MFTS though - but I suppose that'll give instructors greater opportunities to gain instructional experience than if they were merely biding their time champing at the bit to get back to the front line.

Your post Beagle merely shows how young you are. Or does it prove that I really am a dinosaur :)

Signed, your Gramps.

[NutLoose]

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/788x470/formalneglectedcougar_max_1mb_d51e526bd079d6e68c112488264569 9953759e5c.gif

[Wander00]

Did a stude actually say it had taken NINE years to get form attestation to Valley - is that all I the training machine or is he a transfer fro another branch or commissioned from airman service. If true makes a nonsense of the age limitations for entry to aircrew training

[Meester proach]

9 years to get through ?
surely they won’t get much FJ time out of them at that age.

How old is too old to be pulling, what , 8G in a pointy one or a hovery one?

[SPIT]

I always thought that 617 squadron were a BOMBER squadron so why is it called Fighter Pilot ????

[Easy Street]

Did a stude actually say it had taken NINE years to get form attestation to Valley - is that all I the training machine or is he a transfer fro another branch or commissioned from airman service. If true makes a nonsense of the age limitations for entry to aircrew training

Yes, we need to lower the age limits on entry to 9 to 14.5 so that we can get 2 or 3 full-on tours out of them in their twenties before they acquire families and start thinking about leaving!

[Lima Juliet]

Did a stude actually say it had taken NINE years to get form attestation to Valley - is that all I the training machine or is he a transfer fro another branch or commissioned from airman service. If true makes a nonsense of the age limitations for entry to aircrew training

Yes, and in post #63 of this thread I explained why that might be likely: https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/624763-heads-up-fighter-pilot-real-top-gun-4.html#post10550960

[langleybaston]

Jindabyne,

I stand by what I said as it is factual. We never had to do it for real, and there was never any risk of having to do it for real.
That is not the case today, so why on earth you think that attitude contemptible is beyond me.

Sorry if you can’t handle the truth,

From when until when was there "never any risk of having to do it for real"? Just a couple of dates please.

[wiggy]

And do the job is so significant. My generation only ever practiced, we never did it for real.


Apologies for being late on parade and late aboard the minor outrage bus but even though my generation (in my case front line in the eighties) didn't fight a war "for real" as I recall it in the fast jet world at that time we were losing roughly an airframe a month, probably more, and perhaps a dozen aircrew a year, much of that down to the standard of the "kit" we had to work with, the tasks we were set and the nature of the operation, so please don't play down what we/you did.

That is in no way meant to trivialise what current men and women in the front line now do - and TBH as an ex driver, F-4, Air Defence, with a vague understanding of a B-Scope , I'd give my right thingy 'ollcky thing to have a go in the F-35.

[Lordflasheart]

...

I stand by what I said as it is factual. We never had to do it for real, and there was never any risk of having to do it for real. About pr00ne - Biography - Ex-RAF FJ driver turned lawyer

Dear Pr oo ne,

I’m fascinated …. I wasn’t in the RAF, and it would take me a while to assemble a proper list, but ….. OTTOMH I can’t think of a single year since 1945 when some of our military aviators were not facing a real risk of being shot at or having to shoot up some other SOB, with the purpose of making him die for his country, rather than our guys dying for mine (and yours.)

Even if there was no actual shooting, surely you cannot be unaware that many more of our chaps ‘died for our country’ just practicing for the actualite.

It doesn’t really matter what they thought when they volunteered (or were conscripted), by the time they were qualified, most of them would have realised what might happen during their service, and continued serving in that clear knowledge. The few who did not like that thought, were sensible and left. And my great respect to them for doing so.

So please forgive me for suggesting that you (you did write “we” - and “there was never any risk”) must have had a very sheltered “-RAF FJ” (your profile claim) existence.

Knowing (by honest and/or genuine repute, if not personally) several of the chaps you are word-jousting with, as a matter of honour, I really could not let this history-jousting go without some kind of challenge.

So could I please politely inquire as to what time scale or “-RAF FJ” position you had in mind for your “fact” that “we” (whoever you are) “never had to do it for real, and there was never any risk of having to do it for real.”

Yours respectfully, .......... LFH

nb crossed with wiggy and LB - same sentiments.


...

[Herod]

May I remind some of the people on this thread that the RAF isn't just fast-jets? Some people (rotary come to mind) have been "doing it for real" for many years.

Incidentally, I believe that since 1.4.1918 there has never been a day when the RAF were not on active service somewhere in the world. A record to be proud of, whatever role.

[wiggy]

May I remind some of the people on this thread that the RAF isn't just fast-jets?


Sorry Herod..My apologies, I should have known better since one of former drinking chums used to regale me with an eye watering tale of bullet holes appearing in a Wessex..:ooh:.

[BVRAAM]

I loved the programme, it was awesome.

I love the F-35, it's a stunning jet. My only complaint is they have not shown anything relating to Typhoon training - there are two frontline jets in the RAF, showing only one is biased.

As for calling an instructor "mate," consider that the holds are so long, there's simply no such thing as a Fg Off turning up to Valley, anymore. They're all Flt Lts/Lts and the majority of the pilots instructing at Valley, are themselves, Flt Lts/Lts, so from a seniority point of view, they're on the same level...

[Tankertrashnav]

BVRAAM - it could get really silly at nav school when I was going through. Not only did we have to address all instructing staff as "sir", this applied irrespective of rank. So you would get the crazy situation of a flying officer student nav calling his flying officer staff pilot "sir" while the sergeant FE who flew on the Varsity addressed his pilot as Fred (or whatever). We also had a flight lieutenant stude on my course who was expected to address the flying officer educator who took us for maths revision as "sir". On reflection it might have been better if we had all called each other "mate"!

[[email protected]]

Wiggy, Herod - quite right, I like many others was 'doing it for real' in Northern Ireland for many years while the RAFG warriors were enjoying their duty free petrol and cars:E

[Lima Juliet]

BVRAAM - it could get really silly at nav school when I was going through. Not only did we have to address all instructing staff as "sir", this applied irrespective of rank. So you would get the crazy situation of a flying officer student nav calling his flying officer staff pilot "sir" while the sergeant FE who flew on the Varsity addressed his pilot as Fred (or whatever). We also had a flight lieutenant stude on my course who was expected to address the flying officer educator who took us for maths revision as "sir". On reflection it might have been better if we had all called each other "mate"!

Thankfully, by the time I got FYY this had gone and the God-awful punitive “double deductions” were in their way out too. Both sound like they were a part of the system to make it down-right nasty; it’s hard enough to learn fly and fight an aircraft without people on your own side being nasty too!!!

[Timelord]

Did someone say : “Double deductions”? Just had a nasty flashback.Urghh! Nav School in the early 70s was effectively training Lancaster navigators for an RAF equipping with F4s, Buccaneers and Nimrods. I hated it.

The whole thrust of this thread is that training styles have to evolve. 6 FTS was a bit late with that.

[Drainpipe]

But Timelord, never miss an opportunity to teach.

(edited due to incorrect quote.)

[Timelord]

When I went back as an instructor in the 90s -If I addressed a student as “mate” - it was probably because I had forgotten his (or her by then ) name!

[Bill Macgillivray]

At basic flying trainng school I had a Flt. Sgt. pilot QFI (and he was brilliant), I was commissioned. At his suggestion first meeting of the day he would say "Good morning, Sir & I would reply good morning, Flight Sargent". The remainder of the day, on ground or in the air I called him "Sir" and he called me many things, including "mate", when I did fairly well !!

As long as the respect for knowledge and ability is recognised (both ways) I see little harm in two similar ranked people calling each other by any acceptable title (it is 2019). I guess that if a senior officer was involved (check ride, maybe) normal Service rules would apply. The students are there for one purpose, to learn the basics of air combat, and I know from several sources that it is working. I would love to give it a go again but the main objection would be the time factor, I would probably be about ninety on completion !!!!

Bill

[BEagle]

Back in the days when the RAF could afford a Refresher Training School, an Air Commodore (a bit of a tetchy old sod, it must be said) returned from a dual trip one Monday morning...

His QFI, in deference to rank, asked him if he would like a drink. Normal courtesy is that the student makes the brew, but the QFI had decided that diplomacy was necessary with this old sod. As he was brewing up The Man's tea, the QFI checked that the milk had been delivered, but it hadn't...and that which was in the fridge had definitely gone off.

"Would you like coffee mate?", asked the QFI.
"Young man, informality is one thing, but do NOT refer to me as your 'mate'", came the reply.
"Sorry, sir. The milk is off, sir, so would you like Coffeemate in your tea, sir, or would you prefer coffee, sir, perhaps with some Coffeemate, sir?"
"Tea will be fine"

Miserable old git.

[Yellow Sun]

Times change, but what goes around comes around. I recall an OASC briefing in the early 1970s when we were informed that the RAF was not attracting sufficient candidates who achieved a Board Grade 5. A suggestion from a non OASC attendee that maybe it would be worth examining the assessment criteria to ensure that they reflected societal change received short shrift. But of course we did change, and have gone on doing so. I recently read an interesting article in The New Statesman (https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/education/2019/08/great-university-con-how-british-degree-lost-its-value)which it is well worth taking a few minutes to consider. I am not for one moment suggesting that the students who feature in the programme exhibit the characteristics described in the article, but it is the background from which they are drawn and they will be different from those of us who grew up in the period immediately following the Second World War. In fact I should be rather concerned if they were not different.

YS

[jmp_6]

Don't you come around here with no agenda, being reasonable and even-handed

[Tankertrashnav]

Nav School in the early 70s was effectively training Lancaster navigators for an RAF equipping with F4s, Buccaneers and Nimrods. I hated it.


Worked well for me. After getting through nav school (1970) I spent the next six years operating kit much of which would have been recognisable to a Lancaster navigator. They never let me get near an F4 or a Buccaneer - probably a wise decision!

[Warmtoast]

BEagle

"Sorry, sir. The milk is off, sir, so would you like Coffeemate in your tea, sir, or would you prefer coffee, sir, perhaps with some Coffeemate, sir?"
"Tea will be fine"

When I was with 99 Sqn (1959 - 1963) we offered Nestea as well as Nescafe in our crew room (normally from jars left over from various route trips). Nescafe was fine, but hot Nestea was awful, so it never took the place of a proper brewed pot of tea.

Whatever happened to Nestea?
WT

[langleybaston]

It rivalled Camp Coffee as a brew to avoid.

By the way, I still wonder when the RAF piping times of peace began and ended.

It would be nice to know, just for the record.

[BEagle]

Hot Nestea sounds unbelievably vile. Wasn't some 'instant tea' mix included in Emergency Ration tins at one time?

Latterly, Nestea seems to have been a form of that unpleasant emetic known as 'Iced Tea', so beloved by those across the Pond, presumably as an alternative to other alcohol-free or virtually alcohol-free drinks, such as Budweiser?

For all its sins, apart from Earl Grey, NAAFI did at least sell the best tea bags there were at one point (those which came in an orange-coloured box). Do they still exist, or have they too fallen foul of contractorization?

[Brian 48nav]

Timelord,

Loved every minute of my 32 weeks at 2 ANS Gaydon in '66 - great Course Cdr for 88 ( Ted Mears sadly long gone ), great Flt Cdr GD Stu Ward later Sqn Ldr Ops at Gan then Akrotiri and lot of others I could name. Sadly I didn't like 1 ANS Stradishall, partly because on AL between the 2 units I started going out with a girl back in Camberley I had fancied for a couple of years - the lovely Anne, now my wife of 52 years - and also we had some right arseholes on our instructional syndicate ( mainly ex-bomber men ), 2 of whom we named Noddy and Big Ears. The latter died last year. I found it nauseating that a 40+ Flt Lt ( Noddy ) grovelled and shook in front of a 32 yr old Sqn Ldr!
Thankfully a new proper instructor arrived, the great Brian Weatherly ex-Hastings and Brits. It was he who told me that there was a possibility that someone from our course would be posted to the, as yet ,not in service Herc' and that would be me. As it turned out I was to be the first of an avalanche of 1st tourists posted onto the Herc' from '67 onwards.
So, as far as we, and those posted onto the Andover, Argosy, Twin Pioneer etc , were concerned Nav' School was doing a good job in preparing us for our roles. The not so good students were posted to be back seaters on pointy things!

[langleybaston]

Tea bags!?

On a par with gas fired BBQ, surely?

Yorkshire Leaf Tea, and not the "hard water" muck is surely the benchmark.

[Flugplatz]

Brian,

Are you saying those old 'wind dependant' empire-hopping transport types needed the services of a actual navigator more than the two-hour combat-radius of the fast zippy things?

Flug

[Warmtoast]

Brian 48nav

started going out with a girl back in Camberley I had fancied for a couple of years - the lovely Anne, now my wife of 52 years

Girls from Camberley - makes me think of the woman from Camberley who inspired the most famous middle-brow love poem of the 20th century, John Betjeman's 'A Subaltern's Love Song'

Miss J. Hunter Dunn, Miss J. Hunter Dunn,
Furnish'd and burnish'd by Aldershot sun,
What strenuous singles we played after tea,
We in the tournament - you against me!

Love-thirty, love-forty, oh! weakness of joy,
The speed of a swallow, the grace of a boy,
With carefullest carelessness, gaily you won,
I am weak from your loveliness, Joan Hunter Dunn.

Miss Joan Hunter Dunn, Miss Joan Hunter Dunn,
How mad I am, sad I am, glad that you won,
The warm-handled racket is back in its press,
But my shock-headed victor, she loves me no less.

Her father's euonymus shines as we walk,
And swing past the summer-house, buried in talk,
And cool the verandah that welcomes us in
To the six-o'clock news and a lime-juice and gin.

The scent of the conifers, sound of the bath,
The view from my bedroom of moss-dappled path,
As I struggle with double-end evening tie,
For we dance at the Golf Club, my victor and I.

On the floor of her bedroom lie blazer and shorts,
And the cream-coloured walls are be-trophied with sports,
And westering, questioning settles the sun,
On your low-leaded window, Miss Joan Hunter Dunn.

The Hillman is waiting, the light's in the hall,
The pictures of Egypt are bright on the wall,
My sweet, I am standing beside the oak stair
And there on the landing's the light on your hair.

By roads "not adopted", by woodlanded ways,
She drove to the club in the late summer haze,
Into nine-o'clock Camberley, heavy with bells
And mushroomy, pine-woody, evergreen smells.

Miss Joan Hunter Dunn, Miss Joan Hunter Dunn,
I can hear from the car park the dance has begun,
Oh! Surrey twilight! importunate band!
Oh! strongly adorable tennis-girl's hand!

Around us are Rovers and Austins afar,
Above us the intimate roof of the car,
And here on my right is the girl of my choice,
With the tilt of her nose and the chime of her voice.

And the scent of her wrap, and the words never said,
And the ominous, ominous dancing ahead.
We sat in the car park till twenty to one
And now I'm engaged to Miss Joan Hunter Dunn.

..and congratulations on 52-years of marriage!

WT

[Tankertrashnav]

Thanks WT - one of my favourite poems by one of my favourite poets. Betjeman getting in references to his beloved suburban architecture. Cant abide the drivel churned out by the present poet laureate, not helped by her flat, monotonous delivery.

Well done Brian - only two years behind you in the marriage stakes.

[Brian 48nav]

Flugplatz

I omitted to put one of those smiley things with my post - the lovely Anne, my technical adviser, wasn't around to advise me!

I have a golden rule with social media - I try never to make a comment that I wouldn't be prepared to say to someone's face in the pub. However when I was at Changi in the late 60s, 20 SQN and 74 over at Tengah flew pointy things and had no need at all of the Vasco de Gama types like me ( Hunters and Lightnings for those not in the know ) and I would imagine the navs on 45 & 81 ( Canberras ) took a fair bit of joshing in Tengah OM bar.

Over the years I think postings from Nav' School reflected 2 things; need i.e vacancies and secondly whichever fleet was 'flavour of the month' at the time. At certain times the top studes were going to V Force, other times to the Shackleton, late 60s the Herc' and from about 72' the VC10. I left at the end of '73 ( because I was always going to put my lovely Camberley Girl ahead of the RAF ) and can't comment on post then.

Warm Toast

Thank you for that poem - my Camberley Girl has just printed it off. Thanks for the congrats' too!
TTN

Many thanks too!

SORRY for the thread drifting away folks - back to my bath chair and hot chocolate.

[JENKINS]

TTN somewhat biased in his acknowledgement of Betjeman, since the Bells which summoned the poet in school days summoned also TTN in employment post-Royal Air Force. The same Bells summoned me, prior to the smell of polish in a South Cerney hut, at a salary of £620 p.a. and a very comfortable Common Room existence.

In the 1980's, a particularly good nav. student, of the original Fighter Pilot era, could manage an instructional sortie in all aspects as well as moi, and had the capability, as a former nurse, to care for me on some blasted heath should my errors result in us leaving the jet. This student did not address me as 'Sir.'

[LOMCEVAK]

Some great thread drift here! But back to the original ....

I finally found the time to watch the first episode and so watched it in the context of having read this thread first. My overriding thought regarding how QFIs and students referred to each other was whether or not due respect was shown in both directions and I felt that it was, as it was some 40+ years ago when I was at Valley. Back then it would have been disrespectful not to call your QFI 'sir' as that was the protocol of the time. Now, if the protocol is to call everyone 'mate' then so be it and, perhaps, to call ones Flt Lt QFI 'sir' may actually be disrespectful. I am still in contact with some of my QFIs from training days and we are long term friends. I am also in contact with some of the students from my first instructional tour almost 30 years ago and, again, we are friends.

When we started IOT at Cranwell (we were all Pilot Officers) the College Warrant Officer, in his first address to the course, said "Gentlemen, while you are here I will call you sir and you will call me sir. The difference is that you will mean it". It was said with the sardonic sense of humour that few other than RAF Regiment SNCOs have, and we all had the greatest respect for him for the rest of the course.

[Tankertrashnav]

Jenkins gosh how did you remember that? I have to say my brief spell at Marlborough was very happy, in marked contrast to Betjeman, who was pretty miserable there. Called in at the Polly tearoom recently and had a cup of tea, but resisted the enormous slices of cake on offer!

[Auxtank]

Is there any particular reason why the F35 comes to a hover at ~100 ft then lets down ...?If it`s so clever why not just drive on down to 15-20 ft..easier references,less power used.....?

I suspect it is clever enough to do that however, because old habits (procedures) die hard perhaps...
Whether Carrier or terrain - allows pilot to ascertain suitability of landing zone for touchdown.

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1240x1753/natops_harrier_9969f72eff686c1de5bc5edb21d3d6881d30d138.jpg

[AARON O'DICKYDIDO]

[QUOTE=Incidentally, I believe that since 1.4.1918 there has never been a day when the RAF were not on active service somewhere in the world. A record to be proud of, whatever role.[/QUOTE]

Not sure about pre WW2 but in the post war years I think 1968 was the only year we were not on active service somewhere.

Aaron.

[Brian 48nav]

Aaron,

I recall reading that 1968 was the only year since WW2 that not a single British serviceman lost their life on ops.

The Herc' crews were involved in taking soldiers from Singapore to help deal with an insurrection in Mauritius that year and also IIRC flying Met plods to deal with strife in Anguilla. Also Andovers and Hercs' of FEAF flew lots of sorties into Saigon with Red Cross supplies - not sure if that counts as active service. On one occasion a crew returned to their U/S Herc' in the morning to find a few bullet holes in the tailplane - apparently there had been a firefight when some VC tried to get on the airport during the night. Glad I was safely asleep in Singapore!


LOMCEVAK

That's spooky you coming on board just then! My lovely wife ( have I mentioned her already? ) gave birth in Changi 50 years ago last April to a future colleague of yours at ETPS - Shaun.

B48N

[Easy Street]

I suspect it is clever enough to do that however, because old habits (procedures) die hard perhaps...
Whether Carrier or terrain - allows pilot to ascertain suitability of landing zone for touchdown.

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1240x1753/natops_harrier_9969f72eff686c1de5bc5edb21d3d6881d30d138.jpg

If it were done for the purpose of observing the landing area, then why don’t helicopters do it? As explained at post 93 (https://www.pprune.org/showthread.php?p=10551348), the high hover is not an ‘old habit’ but a practical necessity due to downwash. Your diagram conveniently illustrates that with “Minimum Altitude 150 feet until over prepared surface”. Although it should say ‘height’ :-)

[LOMCEVAK]

LOMCEVAK

That's spooky you coming on board just then! My lovely wife ( have I mentioned her already? ) gave birth in Changi 50 years ago last April to a future colleague of yours at ETPS - Shaun.

B48N
Brian, to save even more thread drift, check your PMs :)

[just another jocky]

I went through the system in the mid-80s. At the start, all QFIs were Sir, 24/7.

As we got more experienced, the younger ones were more relaxed and we were on first name terms with them, firstly in the Mess, then at work outside of the brief-debrief period.

As I progressed through the training system, the relaxation increased until by the time I reached the Tornado OCU, it was a very relaxed atmosphere because by then, there was no need for Sir in the cockpit.

I don't see how that is any different to what was on the programme.

In early training today, it's always Sir from brief to debrief, "You have control" "I have control, Sir" but outside that, there are no issues at all with first name terms, m8 or anything else. It works well.

What worked back in the 50s or 60s or later was relevant to then. It's not relevant to now. The students today are better than we were, the training is far more intense with far less time to master any given skill. And it works. Sorry if that upsets some.

[[email protected]]

There is a halfway house between Sir and Mate - they could always just use their first names - seems to have worked for me for 30 plus years instructing.

[Flugplatz]

Brian,
I wasn't taking umbrage :) just genuinely wondering about the 'art' of navigating in the 50s/60s without quite so much of the bells and whistles. About 10 years ago I took a job east of Asia flying un-pressurised aircraft in remote locations and suddenly found I needed to remember (and use) nav. stuff that I never thought I would need! (Monsoon etc.) so I have the greatest respect for anyone doing long trips with few land or sea marks and using a variety of methods to get where they need to be.

Flug

[pr00ne]

Langleybaston,

Oh, for fastjet aircrew or our equivalent, 1946 to 1981 and 1983 to 1990.

[pr00ne]

Apologies for being late on parade and late aboard the minor outrage bus but even though my generation (in my case front line in the eighties) didn't fight a war "for real" as I recall it in the fast jet world at that time we were losing roughly an airframe a month, probably more, and perhaps a dozen aircrew a year, much of that down to the standard of the "kit" we had to work with, the tasks we were set and the nature of the operation, so please don't play down what we/you did.

That is in no way meant to trivialise what current men and women in the front line now do - and TBH as an ex driver, F-4, Air Defence, with a vague understanding of a B-Scope , I'd give my right thingy 'ollcky thing to have a go in the F-35.


wiggy,

Fair point. I was really not trying to play down what my generation did, but rather express my complete and total admiration for the current crop of FJ aircrew, and indeed ANY RAF aircrew from 1991 onwards to the present day.

[pr00ne]

...



Dear Pr oo ne,

I’m fascinated …. I wasn’t in the RAF, and it would take me a while to assemble a proper list, but ….. OTTOMH I can’t think of a single year since 1945 when some of our military aviators were not facing a real risk of being shot at or having to shoot up some other SOB, with the purpose of making him die for his country, rather than our guys dying for mine (and yours.)

Even if there was no actual shooting, surely you cannot be unaware that many more of our chaps ‘died for our country’ just practicing for the actualite.

It doesn’t really matter what they thought when they volunteered (or were conscripted), by the time they were qualified, most of them would have realised what might happen during their service, and continued serving in that clear knowledge. The few who did not like that thought, were sensible and left. And my great respect to them for doing so.

So please forgive me for suggesting that you (you did write “we” - and “there was never any risk”) must have had a very sheltered “-RAF FJ” (your profile claim) existence.

Knowing (by honest and/or genuine repute, if not personally) several of the chaps you are word-jousting with, as a matter of honour, I really could not let this history-jousting go without some kind of challenge.

So could I please politely inquire as to what time scale or “-RAF FJ” position you had in mind for your “fact” that “we” (whoever you are) “never had to do it for real, and there was never any risk of having to do it for real.”

Yours respectfully, .......... LFH

nb crossed with wiggy and LB - same sentiments.


...
Lordflasheart,

As I have said previously, I was referring to the difference between the current, as in 2019, crop of FJ aircrew and my generation, which was late 60's early 70's, and I was doing it to praise the current mob and express my admiration for them. I'm sorry, but whilst not wishing to downplay the exploits of the SH lot in NI and the exploits of the AT folks during the period, my generation never woke up in the morning knowing that we were going to be outbriefing to fly against REAL SAMs, fighters, AAA that were going to be doing their best to kill us, with a sterile check against being captured and all that may have entailed FOR REAL. I rehearsed and practised it endlessly, but we never had to do it for real and we knew it.

[Timelord]

Disturbingly, I find myself agreeing with Pr00ne on this subject. This thread started with a TV programme about FJ training so FJ is what we are discussing. I know that throughout the Cold War, lots of fleets were “doing it for real”. SH in NI, various AT roles, Nimrods (as they never ceased to remind us) etc.. In the FJ world we stood Q, both nuclear and AD, but deep down we ( or I at least) never thought it would turn into a shooting war. I was a FJ back seater during the Cold War. My son is a current FJ aviator, and I can tell you that there is a world of difference between our two worlds. Whilst my generation lost an obscene number of people to accidents I submit that is not the same as spending hours and hours over parts of the world where you have the likes of Taliban or ISIS waiting fir you on the ground, and where delivering weapons on them is an everyday occurrence. I freely admit that, as a fluke of timing and posting I never did it for real. If, during that period others did; good for them.

PS. My credentials:
Nav 1972-2000
Vulcans, Buccaneers, Tornado GR1
4000 hours
Never dropped a bomb in anger.

[Wwyvern]

In the early time-scale under discussion by pr00ne, the RAF had no Fast Jets that I recall, only fighters, bombers, transports and trainers. Oh, and helicopters. In the early 60s, Hunters were involved on active operations in the Middle East and the Far East.

On 1st March 1961, Air Forces, Middle East was formed as the RAF element in a new unified command, Middle East Command. The resident Hunter squadrons were kept busy flying ground attack operations against insurgents from Yemen.

Later in 1961, Iraq made its first rumblings about taking over Kuwait, which asked for support from UK. The RAF pulled its Middle East Hunter FGA9 Squadrons (8 & 43) from Aden and 208 from Kenya to the Gulf, and eventually Gulf War minus 1 did not become active. But my guess is that the pilots believed that they were about to go active on each sortie they flew during that period. I believe that Lightnings were also involve from Saudi, with some seconded RAF pilots. Even two UK-based Hunter squadrons, 1 and 54, were involved by their pilots flying replacement aircraft to the Gulf-based squadrons.

In the first half of the 60s, RAF Hunters, and I believe Javelins, were flown on operations against Indonesian regular and irregular forces during Confrontation. I guess that there was a tightening of the muscles of the FGA pilots when they set up their live attack runs at targets in the jungle. I know of at least two awards of the DFC for operations under fire, but these were to helicopter pilots.

There is no doubt that the Cold War warriors did their duty. However, the question, "What did you do in the war, daddy", will have the response, "Which war do you mean?" from the survivors of several overseas adventures.

[Nantucket Sleighride]

For those getting upset about the chap who said he had a problem with authority, I watched it again, and he actually says "I wouldn't say I have a problem with authority" albeit the important "n't" is quite faint,
he then goes on to say, however he likes to go and de-stress on his windsurfer, so is actually to be commended for having that kind of mindset, suck it up at work and blow off steam after.
Some of you need to crank up the old hearing aids before pressing the outrage button

[pr00ne]

In the early time-scale under discussion by pr00ne, the RAF had no Fast Jets that I recall, only fighters, bombers, transports and trainers. Oh, and helicopters. In the early 60s, Hunters were involved on active operations in the Middle East and the Far East.

On 1st March 1961, Air Forces, Middle East was formed as the RAF element in a new unified command, Middle East Command. The resident Hunter squadrons were kept busy flying ground attack operations against insurgents from Yemen.

Later in 1961, Iraq made its first rumblings about taking over Kuwait, which asked for support from UK. The RAF pulled its Middle East Hunter FGA9 Squadrons (8 & 43) from Aden and 208 from Kenya to the Gulf, and eventually Gulf War minus 1 did not become active. But my guess is that the pilots believed that they were about to go active on each sortie they flew during that period. I believe that Lightnings were also involve from Saudi, with some seconded RAF pilots. Even two UK-based Hunter squadrons, 1 and 54, were involved by their pilots flying replacement aircraft to the Gulf-based squadrons.

In the first half of the 60s, RAF Hunters, and I believe Javelins, were flown on operations against Indonesian regular and irregular forces during Confrontation. I guess that there was a tightening of the muscles of the FGA pilots when they set up their live attack runs at targets in the jungle. I know of at least two awards of the DFC for operations under fire, but these were to helicopter pilots.

There is no doubt that the Cold War warriors did their duty. However, the question, "What did you do in the war, daddy", will have the response, "Which war do you mean?" from the survivors of several overseas adventures.

Wwyvern,

1961 was FIFTY EIGHT years ago!

The RAF I joined most certainly had fast jets, Group One it was called I think. We called them Fast Jets. The groundcrew called them Jets. The RAF pulled out of Aden in 1967, confrontation was over in 1967 too. The Cold War era I referred to was in Germany and the UK and it was hard work, challenging and bloody good fun, but nobody was shooting at us or trying to capture and kill us. The RAF FJ world has been on active real world operations constantly since 1991. They fly for real, they do it for real. They join up knowing that. They train knowing that. That is a vastly different world from the era of Tacevals, Minivals, Maxevals , STCAAME and 2 TAF Weapons competitions that was my lot.

I am NOT trying to deride my generation. You play the hand you are dealt. I was just a bit miffed at all the doddery old hands who were derisively having a go at the current generation they see portrayed in this TV series.

I am just mightily impressed by the current RAF FJ aircrew and all those who have served since 1990.

[Bob Viking]

I knew what you meant anyway. I agree that the current generation are doing a fine job. And are taught by very capable instructors.

I have been perceived as having a go at the older generation as well. That was not my intent either.

Nobody should think they can throw spears at a group of people and not expect return fire.

All generations have done and are doing a great job. They just may appear to be very different from each other when viewed on TV.

Anyway, let’s see what tonight’s episode brings.

BV

[langleybaston]

Langleybaston,

Oh, for fastjet aircrew or our equivalent, 1946 to 1981 and 1983 to 1990.
Thank you.
The nuclear armed Canberras in RAFG, and the V Force, were fairly fast and faced a very real threat every time the hooter went. My first two tours in RAFG were certainly not for the faint-hearted, as the invasion of Czecho by the Warsaw Pact demonstrated.

[Brian 48nav]

Pr00ne

It is a bit unreasonable for you to have a go at Wyvern, after all you gave the dates 1946-81 as a period when nothing nasty happened in the FJ world and as he pointed out there were plenty of Hunter pilots wondering what would happen to them if they banged-out over Aden. It is probably not well known that some 25-30 RAF pilots flew Sabres with the USAF in Korea. Quite a bit went on in the period you gave.

Timelord

I too 'begat' a FJ pilot son - he was on the Jag' OCU during GW1 but saw plenty of action over Bosnia and N Iraq between then and '97 when he went off to Lossie as an instructor. After he did the TP Course in 2000/01 he went to Boscombe and then talked his boss into letting him get CR ready again over N Iraq. I told him he was off his rocker - he now had a wife and 3 children at home, why put yourself in harm's way? After all he had nothing to prove! But then he never did take any notice of what his dad said! Incidentally we tried steering his younger brother towards a career in the RAF, but one day he announced he could not do what his brother did i.e. fly over hostile territory - 'Neither could I' I replied, so he followed me into civil ATC where he is paid well, has loads of time-off and doesn't have to put up with a lot of the crap associated with service life.

Flugplatz

No offence taken or meant!

Sadly so many people on PPRuNe these days just want to have a falling-out - all so bloody unnecessary!

[pr00ne]

Brian 48nav,

Fair point. 46 to 81 was indeed a bit steep, I was really referring to the RAF I knew which was late 60's and early 70's.

langleybaston,

Sorry, the nuclear armed Canberra's in RAFG did NOT face a threat as they never ever took off! The hooters were all for exercise, never for real. I was on nuclear QRA, dying of boredom was the only threat I ever faced. When the Soviets invaded Czechoslovakia there was never even the slightest concern that they were going to cross the border, and they went out of their way to make sure that Western Intelligence knew that.

I agree that life in RAFG was at times hectic and busy. But at no stage did I ever feel that I was going to be shot down, captured or tortured.

[Imagegear]

Also, early 70's was Belize and the Harriers. Nasty lot just over the border who were not averse to setting jungle fires upwind of the "base". Ever tried getting a mobile AR1 on its wheels and pushing it away from the oncoming flames?

IG

[BEagle]

At the risk of starting some 'my war was more serious than yours' drift, in 1990 I was sprung from being a UAS QFI back to captaining the VC10K, as a reinforcement crew for GW1. So I found myself in KKIA as the shooting war started in January-which included a fair number of Scud attacks...

On about Day3, I was getting ready to go in to fly when we had another air raid warning. Then the usual boom-thump as the Patriot battery hoofed off their rockets. But soon after, my room-mate announced that they'd just tannoyed 'NBC Black'...

"It's Black", he yelled.
I was contemplating my knees on the porcelain throne at the time, so replied "I doubt it - but it's certainly Black in here!".

NBC state was soon downgraded - it seems someone had driven a truck too close to a CAM, which after one sniff of the exhaust went nuts. But the alternative NBC detectors were still chirping happily in their cage (yes, really - a pair of LPO'd canaries!), so the excellent Kiwi Ground Defence Cdr realised the 20th century kit wasn't as reliable. Good chap that Kiwi Warrant Officer - he once said to OC KKIA "Sir, perhaps you ought to arrest me now - because if that idiot doesn't shut up, I'm going to deck him!". He was referring to a panicking Sqn Ldr mover who thought he knew more about Ground Defence matters than he did - merely because he was a Sqn Ldr...:rolleyes:

And now back to our regular broadcast!

[Meester proach]

Only just caught up with the first one.

I actually thought it was good. Yes there’s more “ mate “ , “ buddy “ than in older times, but the young instructor looked about 25 and the studies about 20 ( other than the poor bugger who’d taken 9 years to get that far ). And it’s Generation Y/Z of course.

Id have liked a bit more gen on the F35 training prior to Bally’s solo, as they didn’t mention that it’s a single seater , and seeing the sim would have been of interest.


I’m sure they’ll do a fine job either way.

[langleybaston]

Quote:
The hooters were all for exercise,

Not true. I was on night duty at EDUO when the hooter went for Czecho.
... any Int shared with the West had not filtered very far down.

[pr00ne]

langleybaston,

But nobody flew, nobody was scrambled and nobody faced a threat. Defence cuts continued, down sizing was not halted and don't forget that the 1968 RAFG had NO conventional attack capability whatsoever, it was pure Nuclear QRA, recce and AD. The conventional capability only arrived with the F-4, Harriers and Buccaneers in 1970.

[hoodie]

But nobody flew, nobody was scrambled and nobody faced a threat.
And nobody on the squadrons knew they wouldn't be at the time.

Bit of an important point that, I'd say.

[pr00ne]

hoodie,

The only option was nuclear in Germany in 1968. I bet folk DID know that they weren't going anywhere.

[langleybaston]

I believe that 19 and 92 Lightnings manning Battleflight at Gutersloh policed the IGB fully armed. Nobody who was scrambled knew what he would find.

[DODGYOLDFART]

In the 1950's and early 60's all RAFG Battle flight aircraft flew fully armed. This gave rise to a near blue on blue when I think a 14 or 20 Sqdn. Hunter fired a short burst at his buddy but fortunately missed.

[Quietplease]

From 58 to 61 13 Sqn had a monthly milk run out of Aden. Mocha-Hodeida-Sana-Taiz. There was nothing they had to trouble us but it would have been a long walk home if things went wrong. In the 61 Iraq- kuwait confrontation 13 flew numerous sorties over Iraq. I was on my way home by then but my nav got caught up in it.

[xray one]

Things have changed a bit re tanking since my day. Into the waiting position, references, bit of power and 'jobs a gudun' It now seem you have a 'mad stab' and if you miss perform DACT with the tanker...

[Phantom Driver]

Just watched episode 2 ( will have to catch up on # 1).. It was a pretty good effort all round ; excellent aerial shots , a likeable bunch of guys and gal , commentary not over the top , nice nostalgia (RAF Valley , and what looked like the good old A5 pass recovery to same ) . AAR brought back memories of similar embarrassing misses ; credit to the producers for highlighting that even the aces get it wrong at times ; they could have shown edited shots of a first time in prod .

Re Hawk ACT , I do wonder about the distractions of those aural warnings in the middle of a dogfight . In the old days on the Jag , out in the desert , the main distraction in air combat was the stall warning ; we usually turned it off (non standard of course) . Also marvel at all that stuff floating around in the Hawk HUD ; have to hand it to the folks making head or tails of that lot . The LCOSS on the F4 was about all any fighter pilot should be asked to look through .

Looking forward to # 3.

[PapaDolmio]

I must admit I've enjoyed it up to now, and agree it's for the wider audience rather than us lot.

On the related subjects that have surfaced as a result (from a non aircrew perspective):

Agreed that today's generation are more likely to fly operationally, but remember in Cold War days normal flying was hazardous enough. As a young airman (ATC/Ops) in the 80s/90s it seemed that hardly a week went by without SAROPs On in UK or there was news of RAFG losing a jet.. OK, we were a bigger air force then but cold war flying was not without risk.

I was fortunate during my career to spend the majority of my career on Squadrons operating in a variety of roles, either as a posting or OOA. I never worked with the maritime fleet or AD but did do time with Tornado GR1/4, Jaguar, C130, Chinook, VC10 AAR and SAR Seaking Squadrons. All fleets were different but there was a noticeable difference in the way crews spoke and interacted with one another and non flying types. The way a Tornado GR1 Sqn in 1987 went about its day to day business was markedly different at all levels to a Tornado GR4 Sqn in 2007. I could talk and interact with the guys (and girls) in 2007 in a totally different way to 1987, admittedly partly due to rank but the respect was always there. Times change.

[AR1]

Enjoyed the content but the repitition in the commentary is doing my head in. Every time we jump locations and after every break. "Knock it off"

[pr00ne]

In the 1950's and early 60's all RAFG Battle flight aircraft flew fully armed. This gave rise to a near blue on blue when I think a 14 or 20 Sqdn. Hunter fired a short burst at his buddy but fortunately missed.

Langleybaston,

You are of course right about Battle Flight QRA, that WAS for real as were every equivalent before and since, but they have never resulted in anything remotely resembling deadly combat.

And I have to agree that the hooter going in 1968 WOULD have created a sense of urgency and alarm, of course. My point that I have struggled to make, and inadvertently set off this chain about alerts etc, concerns the current and recent post 1990 generation of FJ aircrew and the vastly different real world ops scenario that they face that was totally unknown to my generation. That is all.

[MPN11]

The Hooter. Waddington, early 80s, and the hooter went for a Station exercise. Things happened as they should, but at the debrief one of the Sqn Cdrs observed that it had taken him a considerable time to determine it was 'only an exercise'. The Stn Cdr replied, "And what difference should that have made?" Embarrassed silence ensued.

[sycamore]

Attaching a `wig`,black,blonde,or red ,to the basket will usually improve the chances when tanking......

[Dominator2]

Enjoyed the programme, however;

When was AAR one of the most dangerous aspects of fast jet flying? AAR used to be very much the domain of the Air Defence squadrons until the late 80s when every tactical squadron was expected to be AAR Qualified (if aircraft were AAR capable) I must agree with,
Things have changed a bit re tanking since my day. Into the waiting position, references, bit of power and 'jobs a gudun' It now seem you have a 'mad stab' and if you miss perform DACT with the tanker.
Each attempt shown last night demonstrated poor technique that could lead to a spokes at the worst possible time. I do hope the F35 has a very robust probe tip?

I tried to listen carefully to the ACT action but found the instruction difficult to follow. I loved the fact that aircraft on sticks are still a valid teaching tool. I would have thought that the Educators would have insisted on something more up to date?

There was great emphasis on "flying to the buffet" which is great to gain a feel as to the aircraft's performance. I was, however, surprised that the T2 has no Audio AoA. I assume that F35 has Audio AoA as it is such a benefit when performing the aircraft close to limits.

I thought that some of the Audio Warnings were distracting. What does the "Avionics" warning mean. Also, was the "Traffic" warning for the bandit or was there conflicting traffic in the area? What ever happened to the RAF Bubble which was 1000ft head and beam, 500ft in the stern?

A gripe to the film makers, continuity in places is very poor. Countless times, lining up as a single on the Centre-line and then showing a pairs takeoff. In the text box for R/T showing Maverick 2, 2 instead of Maverick 22. Small details but whey do RAF PR not ensure that it is correct?

[dead_pan]

Takeaways so far: T2 avionics are sh*te and the Lightning is far too complicated for us mere mortals.

A gripe to the film makers, continuity in places is very poor

Indeed - the sub-titles are a bit irritating. On a related note, I re-watched Quantum of Solace this weekend and Bond was asked to read the tail number on a suspect's bizjet - "Golf Zero Bravo..." How did this pass muster??

[Davef68]

J
Re Hawk ACT , I do wonder about the distractions of those aural warnings in the middle of a dogfight .

In that respect, it was interesting that the task saturation was such that the Scottish RN student missed the 'Bingo!' warning. Although that's part of learning too.

[alfred_the_great]

I believe the audio warnings are in the name of flight safety.

Anyway

watched this episode, and as ever a minority of the old and bold are, well, raging at clouds and shouting for the kids to get off the lawn.

I've nothing but admiration for all the pilots shown - I certainly couldn't do their job,

[XR219]

Anybody else notice that for some reason they decided to obscure the serial numbers on all the Hawks?

[Bob Viking]

I haven’t seen the episode yet so can’t comment on some aspects. I also haven’t engaged in AAR for quite a few years so I’ll leave that to more current individuals.

Dead pan

The Hawk T2 avionics are bloody great. I don’t know which aspects of the programme made you say that they are ****e but from someone with 1000+ T2 hours I can assure you that is not the case.

Davef68

I personally prefer people not to use the bingo warning (hearing is the first thing to go when people are maxed out and if you are waiting to hear an audio warning to remind you to check fuel that is bad practice).

Dominator

The T2 AoA audio is only active with the gear down. I wouldn’t want to have to listen to it during air combat (the Jag had one but then buffet wasn’t such a reliable medium and the effects of over AoA’ing were so dramatic I wouldn’t want to chance it anyway).

As for ‘avionics’ warnings, they are usually generated by the TCAS tripping off as it’s attitude or AoB limits are breached, ie in every dynamic manoeuvre.

‘Traffic’ warnings are from other formation members. Annoying yes, but since the Moray Firth accident it is very hard to convince a duty holder that TCAS should ever be set to standby whilst airborne. Could you imagine if formation members collided and the SI reported that the collision avoidance system had deliberately been turned off?!

I’m not saying I agree with the stance but them’s the rules.

As I said, I haven’t seen the episode in question so I don’t know why you question the RAF bubble.

And yes, fighting sticks are still the best teaching tool for BFM/ACM.

As for editing issues, that is beyond my remit to comment. Annoying, perhaps, but hardly worth getting your panties in a knot over.

BV

[SATCOS WHIPPING BOY]

Anybody else notice that for some reason they decided to obscure the serial numbers on all the Hawks?
Strangely not all were masked. Some were smudged out and others were clearly shown, so I have no idea as to the criteria used for masking airframe ID.

As an outsider with some knowledge of the system looking in at this process and having a son who is on the inside looking out ( almost at F-35 training) we as a family thoroughly enjoy this insight into what he does. The trainee pilots come across very well and on the whole it is as good as you will get from a program that has to strike the right balance with the viewers.

I take my hat off to all involved, the instructors, the support teams but especially the young trainees who are dedicating vast amounts of time and effort into achieving their aims. 7-9 years quoted from start to F-35 and the threat of getting chopped hanging over them at almost every turn; Now that is dedication.
Looking forward to episode 3.

[BEagle]

The F-35B segments were very interesting, although the 'difficulty' of AAR was rather overplayed. Given that there's no 2-sticker, even after the best brief there is, single seat AAR will at first inevitably involve an element of 'teach yourself jousting'. The only Fast Jet I ever saw being downright dangerous was a Luftwaffe Tornado ECR, who I nearly sent home. After some inter-Tornado chat on their back boxes out in echelon, he was adequate the next time. It turned out that he was their boss, who hadn't actually attended the brief!

The Valley segment was better than in the first episode, but emphasis on pass/fail criteria was probably only there to keep the programme makers happy? What was VERY interesting was the radical change in ACM teaching. I was lucky enough to have done TWU on the Hunter at Brawdy and later a further TWU on the Hawk T1 at Chivenor. In those 4 - 5 years, ACM teaching had changed radically, but was still 'guns-centric'. Whereas the T2 teaching is in a wholly new league and the benefit of mission debrief replay is huge. It seem to be very much more fluid with missile parameters rather than guns perhaps being the goal. No more 'base height brawls', grunting away on opposite sides of a circle on the buffet nibble for the other aircraft to make an error - now it's clearly aimed at Typhoon / F-35B ops. Quite rightly. I'd love to have a go - who wouldn't!

But missing a Bingo.... :eek: The Hawk T1 had a simple enough fuel gauging system, so I cannot imagine that it is worse in the T2. Don't fall off your perch, BV, but I agree with your comment! Towards the end of my Hunter TWU, we were having a fairly busy 2v2 session out over the Bristol Channel in 4 single seat jets. Hunter fuel gauges were useless in manoeuvre, so fuel awareness was essential. As we finished the last bout, one of my colleagues called a 'Bingo minus' call as he'd failed to keep tabs - so back we went at range speed, he was told to land first....and was off the course soon afterwards.

[sharpend]

Yup continuity was rubbish. But the program was better than last week.

[charliegolf]

Anybody else notice that for some reason they decided to obscure the serial numbers on all the Hawks?

Then DVLA can't notify the cut n shuts!:E

CG

[dead_pan]

Anybody else notice that for some reason they decided to obscure the serial numbers on all the Hawks?

​​​​​​I did note one of the studes/instructors names beneath the canopy on a Hawk which was odd given all talking heads are anonymised.

[alfred_the_great]

What is the purpose of paying and training someone for 7+ years, and then cutting them at the very last step?

Beyond "tradition" and "it didn't do me any harm" that is?

[Trumpet trousers]

In the text box for R/T showing Maverick 2, 2 instead of Maverick 22. possibly because the majority of viewers, (i.e. those unfamiliar with r/t procedures/terminology) would read/interpret ‘22’ as twenty two, rather than two, two?
Overall having only seen episode 2, I thought it came over as a good PR effort for the RAF. Slightly annoying that Grey Funnel Line’s finest are still referred to as THE HMS Queen Elizabeth though...

[Bob Viking]

If I had known that all it took was an errant ‘the’ to annoy Navy types I would have been at it years ago. All this time I’ve been referring to floors/doors/kitchens/toilets (decks/bulkheads/galley/heads) and calling everything that drives in or on the water a boat. I could have saved so much effort by just saying the HMS Arkroyal etc.

BV

PS. BEagle. I have noted the date. The day we agreed on something! 🤣

PPS. Edited due to misunderstanding a previous post and being unnecessarily harsh!

[Trumpet trousers]

BV:
PM sent...

[charliegolf]

Just got around to watching Ep1. Emminently more watchable than the dire 80s offering IMO. I also liked the contrasted training vs conversion aspect of the 2 locations.

CG

[jayteeto]

If someone doesn’t make the grade, even after 7 years, you have to chop them. The reason for that is because they could potentially kill a lot of people if they get things wrong. It’s harsh, but funerals are harsher

[Dominator2]

BV,

You stated; As for ‘avionics’ warnings, they are usually generated by the TCAS tripping off as it’s attitude or AoB limits are breached, ie in every dynamic manoeuvre.

‘Traffic’ warnings are from other formation members. Annoying yes, but since the Moray Firth accident it is very hard to convince a duty holder that TCAS should ever be set to standby whilst airborne. Could you imagine if formation members collided and the SI reported that the collision avoidance system had deliberately been turned off?


As far as I know TCAS was designed as a Collision Avoidance System for civilian aircraft and/or Low performance Military aircraft. It was not designed for high performance fighter aircraft conducting ACT. Has the RAF changed the TCAS software to make it any more usable or reliable in a multi aircraft ACT environment? I believe that it was/is not technically feasible.

If the "Avionics" warning occurs every time the TCAS trips, it is distracting and annoying. More important is that if every time you point at another aircraft you get a "Traffic" warning your senses will become dulled to the warning. Unless TCAS gained a "Fast Jet" mode able to discriminate in a rapidly changing environment it is not viable for collision avoidance. Unless you can convince me otherwise I still believe that TCAS should be in Standby when conducting ACT. If need be operate in "Protected Airspace" such as a TRA.

[Pontius Navigator]

If someone doesn’t make the grade, even after 7 years, you have to chop them.
A nav stude, about 12 years ago, failed his final check ride. I don't know how hard it had been to get there but he made a potentially lethal error.

There is no point in having a final check if you cannot fail it.

You can even get chopped years down the line.

[Bob Viking]

I will not try to convince you that TCAS is suitable for ACT sorties. That’s because I don’t believe it is. But I don’t make the rules.

The warnings are annoying. However, as I said, after the Moray Firth crash it is hard to argue that it should ever be turned off.

Every argument you are about to say has already been considered. We are all aware of its limitations but it also has its benefits at times. In IFR airspace it has obvious uses but it has also proved it’s worth at low level when big sky theory has let us down.

I’m sure Distant Voice would remind us that, despite it’s drawbacks, it probably would have prevented the Moray Firth collision even in its present form.

BV

[Dominator2]

I recall in the mid 80s a Re-role Nav Student who was chopped on his final trip on the OCU for "Safety. He had been on review and given extra hours on every phase of the course. Each time Group over-rode the OCU Staff decision and approved the extra Sims and Flying.

On the final trip the poor chap (8000+ hours and 36 years old) was told that he had failed the course. On the final trip he would have allowed his pilot to fly them both into the sea in blissful ignorance. Afterwards he has relieved that it was all over. 16 years of AEW is not a great lead-in to becoming a Fast Jet Nav.

Sometimes very difficult decisions have to be made. That is how we earned the extra "Instructional Pay"!

[alfred_the_great]

I recall in the mid 80s a Re-role Nav Student who was chopped on his final trip on the OCU for "Safety. He had been on review and given extra hours on every phase of the course. Each time Group over-rode the OCU Staff decision and approved the extra Sims and Flying.

On the final trip the poor chap (8000+ hours and 36 years old) was told that he had failed the course. On the final trip he would have allowed his pilot to fly them both into the sea in blissful ignorance. Afterwards he has relieved that it was all over. 16 years of AEW is not a great lead-in to becoming a Fast Jet Nav.

Sometimes very difficult decisions have to be made. That is how we earned the extra "Instructional Pay"!

probavly not very good instructing and selecting if after all that time he still failed.

Nothing like chopping for job security.

[Dominator2]

Alred,

You missed the point, the poor guy was never suitable for the role. HQ 11 Gp posted the navigator internally within the Group AEW to AD. To save face Group Staff subsequently refused to accept a recommendation to suspend training a number of times. The chap always just made the grade with extra Sims and Flights on every phase. If a person has little or no aptitude for a task how long should you persevere with their training?

When lives may be put at risk its time to call it a day!

[Fitter2]

I'm pretty sure TCAS is totally unsuitable for ACT sorties. However, in real life there will be multiple other potential distractions, so I don't think it's an undesirable feature.

[BEagle]

The problem with TCAS in environments for which it was never initially intended, is that 'nuisance alerts' may cause pilots to assume that the device is crying wolf. Don't forget that the original idea was to protect airliners from ATC incompetence...

When evolving AAR SOPs for the A310MRTT, we discussed TCAS at length. During transits to an AARA, it would be normal to select TA/RA for best protection. But outside controlled airspace with VFR traffic nearby, crews needed to be aware that they may receive RAs prompted by GA traffic going about its business, so we suggested that TA would be preferable. In AARAs, TCAS TA would warn of approaching receivers, which was no bad thing, but RA was pointless - it would require pilots either to ignore it, risking a culture of ignoring TCAS, or follow the RA pursued by the receiver trying to join formation! So we agreed that TCAS went to TA only in the Before Tanking checklist and went back to TA/RA in the After Tanking checklist.

If the Hawk ACT sorties are flown in segregated airspace, then why not put TCAS to Standby when entering and back to TA after leaving? Otherwise nuisance alerts risk developing a culture of ignoring TCAS advisory alerts, which could one day prove fatal.

A bit like the GPWS warning for Avianca flight 011, which the pilot ignored for 15 sec mumbling "Bueno, bueno" until his Boeing 747 collided with the terrain, killing 181 of the 192 people on board.

There's no point in any alerting system unless it is used only within an environment where it will work correctly, with pilots responding instinctively to genuine warnings.

[charliegolf]

The problem with TCAS in environments for which it was never initially intended, is that 'nuisance alerts' may cause pilots to assume that the device is crying wolf. Don't forget that the original idea was to protect airliners from ATC incompetence...



Does TCAS work if pilots are incompetent?

CG

[beamer]

Two episodes in and despite the Americanisms and political correctness, the series is streets ahead of the woeful effort of the early eighties. I was at Linton when John McCrea and his mates went through BFTS and it was a very, very different world to the one are seeing on the box today, ditto Valley. Not so long ago I watched the full series of 'Fighter Pilot' and it was utterly cringeworthy with far too much time spent at Biggin Hill and Henlow and not enough at BFTS, AFTS and TWU. Only redeeming feature for me the glimpses of old colleagues such as Louis Mcquade and Bill Edward, sadly no longer with us.

Times change, we must change with them......well, to some extent anyway !

[tarantonight]

If someone doesn’t make the grade, even after 7 years, you have to chop them. The reason for that is because they could potentially kill a lot of people if they get things wrong. It’s harsh, but funerals are harsher

Or themselves (which is far more likely). A good friend of mine was chopped at Valley many many years ago. Devastated at the time (I can still see him looking bereft as we had a pint shortly afterwards), he did say to me a while after that though, best thing that could have happened - would have no doubt ended up a smoking hole in the ground. Everything was just happening too fast.

Recalling the moment when reality bit and I realised I was not destined to follow my father’s footsteps, I can fully appreciate how he and countless others have felt and will continue to feel, but, everything happens for a reason. Good or bad. Students are chopped for a very good reason. As you all know.

Better to be around still and able to comment as I just have.

TN.

[charliegolf]

I recall a (possibly CR) Harrier pilot in 1980s RAFG, walking into his boss and standing himself down. He felt he was always just behind the aeroplane, and that it was only a matter of time... Not sure whether he was re-roled, but that was very clearly the correct thing for him to do, as well as for his family and friends too.

CG

[Ewan Whosearmy]

A friend who was squadron boss at an F-15 unit in Europe in the 1990s recalls a similar tale, CG.

In his retelling of the story, the two go out and fly BFM. Wingman penetrates the bubble on one of the setups, so they knock it off and RTB. Back at the HAS, my friend climbs down from his Eagle to be met at the bottom by his wingman, white as a ghost. Wingman throws in the towel there and then: "I'm scared to death every time I fly". Wingman eventually gets re-rolled into something more sedate (AWACS) and seems to get on fine with that.

[Easy Street]

​​​If the Hawk ACT sorties are flown in segregated airspace, then why not put TCAS to Standby when entering and back to TA after leaving?

I stand ready to be brought up to date by BV, but last time I flew in the Valley training areas (a couple of years ago) they weren’t segregated airspace. Deconflicted between military aircraft choosing to observe them, yes; formally barred to non-participating aircraft, no.

Alfred,

I’m sorry to inform you that ‘chopping’ doesn’t stop at OCUs. I know of 3 pilots and a WSO who were removed from fast-jet duties during their first tours for failing to develop at the expected rate, and another WSO in his 40s who scraped through a refresher OCU after serving in staff for a few years but never got properly back on the horse and soon shuffled permanently to staff by mutual agreement. You can view it as a waste if you like, but the fact is that the instructional and supervisory capacity needed to keep such individuals operating safely is a finite resource that needs to be invested in those with capacity to repay it in future. With so few front-line squadrons, sustainability of the whole edifice is finely balanced and regrettably that means tough decisions being taken from time to time. Increasing the size of the supervisory cadre doesn’t help: they all need to fly, which means larger squadrons (needing more future supervisors) or less flying for junior pilots (hindering their development).

[Ewan Whosearmy]

I’m sorry to inform you that ‘chopping’ doesn’t stop at OCUs. I know of 3 pilots and a WSO who were removed from fast-jet duties

What did they struggle with, ES?

​​​​​​

[Easy Street]

What did they struggle with, ES?

​​​​​​

The common weakness was in overall capacity. By virtue of reaching the front line they had obviously demonstrated the required minimum standards in a variety of skills. But as the complexity of the task ramped up or as ‘post-graduate’ skills and knowledge were introduced, basic errors crept in. That much is pretty common: errors can be addressed and ironed out, that is the process of learning and few get it right first time, every time. The problem comes when addressing errors creates new errors elsewhere, especially in basic skills. I seem to remember that reluctance to take captaincy decisions, repeatedly missing radio calls and inability to recall sortie events were common to all 3 pilots: classic symptoms of being maxed-out.

The WSO was subtly different: the aircraft’s role, weapons and software had changed a lot during his time away and he couldn’t un-learn his prior (obsolete) knowledge or assimilate new knowledge to the extent required to be an effective operator. I guess you could lay some blame on the OCU refresher course, which might have exposed the issue earlier had it not focussed on ‘legacy’ skills which our man could just about cope with. But I think that would just have weeded him out earlier. (Incidentally there are plenty of counter-examples of seriously aged aircrew coming back from long layoffs and doing just fine!)

[RetiredBA/BY]

Does TCAS work if pilots are incompetent?

CG
It does, Beagle is talking nonsense.

TCAS was conceived to minimise collision risk however caused, ATC or pilot. My guess is that more RAs have resulted in pilot error, not necessarily incompetence, than by mistakes, or “ incompetence” by controllers.

The 2 RAs in my experience were caused by altitude busts , mis set.MCP, misunderstood clearance, I don’t know but TCAS saved the day.

Using TCAS during ACT , are you guys kidding ?

[Bob Viking]

I can reconfirm that TCAS is not used for ACT.

Having now caught up with the second episode I would just like to add that we should bear in mind that some details (ie comm etc) have clearly been added post edit and some of the comm quite obviously doesn’t match the footage. The best example was the beeps as the gun sight was brought to bear.

Anyway, another good episode. Even pissy Chrissy managed to act all grown up.

BV

[BEagle]

Retired BA/BY, the origin of TCAS was as the result of inadequate ATC leading to the Grand Canyon collision in the '50s. Another example was the Japanese near mid-air caused by ATC error. The Uberlingen tragedy was initiated by ATC error, but incorrect RA action by one of the crews resulted in the mid-air.

So don't be so rude and accusatory.

[RetiredBA/BY]

Retired BA/BY, the origin of TCAS was as the result of inadequate ATC leading to the Grand Canyon collision in the '50s. Another example was the Japanese near mid-air caused by ATC error. The Uberlingen tragedy was initiated by ATC error, but incorrect RA action by one of the crews resulted in the mid-air.

So don't be so rude and accusatory.

So, now you are saying that the origin of TCAS as inadequate ATC., ( which was the state of affairs then) NOT incompetence as you earlier suggested. Having the highest regard for controllers that is what I took exception to.

What you may not know is that before the 757/ 154 collision there was no SOP as to how to deal with a situation where TCAS and ATC disagreed. That was corrected very soon after the accident . Get your facts right !

Further the JAL near miss aircraft both had TCAS, so that incident did not LEAD to
TCAS.
Civil Aviation, certainly, has long encouraged a “JUST” culture where we identify , report and analyse our mistakes and errors. You should, perhaps, know better than to confuse genuine mistakes with incompetence.

[vlam]

Is Geoff the Hawk instructor South African? Trying to figure out the accent.

[tarantonight]

Is Geoff the Hawk instructor South African? Trying to figure out the accent.

Certainly down there somewhere -Zimbabwe maybe? I thought the same, very slight accent though.

TN.

[Clunk60]

Beagle accusing someone being “rude and accusatory”......I’ve heard it all now!

[Nugget90]

TCAS/ACAS Origins and Guidance Material

From late 1981 to early 1982 an early version of TCAS II was installed in two Piedmont B727s, and in 1984 N857N was cleared for use by all Piedmont's B727 crews. I have a copy of their operations manual before me as I write, and later in that decade I both flew their TCAS-equipped B727 flight simulator and observed from within the flight deck how the crews used this equipment in line operations.

Just a word about TCAS and ACAS. The acronym 'TCAS' stands for 'Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System' and was used in a generic sense in the early years when its equipment status was MOPS 6, 6.02, 6.04 and 6.04A. Subsequently TCAS II with MOPS 7 and 7.01 installed has become a solution to the operational standards inherent in ACAS II. TCAS I would not be capable of posting RAs, TCAS II can post RAs that advise avoidance manoeuvres in the vertical plane, and TCAS III would post avoidance manoeuvres in the horizontal plane as well as in the vertical plane. (As a guest of the FAA I flew a B727 in an encounter trial near Atlantic City with a breadboard version of TCAS III installed - it worked just fine, but subsequently the addition of horizontal advisories was never considered necessary.)

My involvement with TCAS/ACAS came about because as a Flight Operations Inspector in the UK CAA's Flight Operations Department I was tasked to participate in the likely introduction of TCAS II as a safety modification to UK commercial air transport/public transport aeroplanes. In the course of our early meetings that included representatives of NATS, airlines and the Ministry of Defence (MOD) Procurement Executive, the latter explained that fast jet pilots would probably not want to have a Resolution Advisory (RA) facility but rather a means by which they could be told/shown where to look to see any potentially conflicting aircraft and then make their own decisions as to what manoeuvre would be appropriate. Within a few years they produced a trials version of such a device that I seem to recall was installed in a Tornado but I don't know if a general modification programme followed.

To go back to Retired BA/BY's comment that at the time of the Uberlingen accident in July 2002 there was no guidance as to how pilots should respond when an ATC instruction disagreed with a TCAS RA: this was not the case in Europe where explicit guidance existed. First, the UK CAA published Civil Air Publication 579 'Airborne collision avoidance systems (ACAS) guidance material' in March 1991 (before any UK air operator had installed this equipment or begun training their crews). This CAP included the text in paragraph 6.2.4 (b), "If pilots receive simultaneously an instruction to manoeuvre from ATC and an RA, and both conflict, the advice given by the RA should be followed'. As the main author of this CAP and also the UK member on the Joint Aviation Authorities' Flight Operations Committee (later, 'Sectorial Team') I inserted a similar text into the first version of Temporary Guidance Leaflet No 11 published in October 1998 thus, "If pilots simultaneously receive instructions to manoeuvre from ATC and an RA which are in conflict, the pilot should follow the RA". Finally, as the UK nominee to the ICAO Operations Panel (yes, I was quite busy for a while!) I was able to ensure that similar text was written into the guidance contained in PANS-OPS Volume I Chapter 3 'Operation of Airborne Collision Guidance System (ACAS) Equipment' published in November 2008, "In the event of an RA, pilots shall .... follow the RA even if there is a conflict between the RA and an air traffic control (ATC) instruction to manoeuvre". The rationale is that the ACAS refresh rate was some ten times faster than information displayed to air traffic controllers, and of course the information transfer was much faster within a flight deck than from ground to air.

The point here is that it is essential that all pilots who have ACAS equipment in the aircraft they are flying (General Aviation as well as Commercial Air Transport) must have first received training in accordance with the ICAO guidance - this should ensure that pilots throughout the world comply with the same rules. Both ICAO Annex 6 Part I (CAT) and Annex 6 Part II (GA) contain this Standard. The only exception I can envisage is military fast jet aeroplanes when not in transit.

One other point: it is really important that all aircraft that are required to be equipped with SSR use it with altitude reporting enabled, for this will allow them to be detected by ACAS-equipped aircraft and the risk of conflict mitigated accordingly. Without altitude-reporting enabled in one aircraft, pilots in the ACAS-equipped aircraft might have a Traffic Advisory (TA) posted even though the former is some 7,000ft below (or possibly above). This is a real distraction as the pilots with an ACAS display don't know whether the intruder is co-altitude, and hence a hazard, or well distant and thus not a concern.

Finally, ACAS doesn't care how a potential conflict has come about, whether through ATC error, pilot non-compliance with ATC instruction, altitude bust on climb or descent, emergency descent, incorrect setting of altimeter sub-scale or whatever. If the ACAS algorithms detect a breach by an intruder of their time-to-CPA (closest point of approach) they will post accordingly - and this is regardless of ATC separation standards.

I hope that this submission will help resolve a few issues!

[RetiredBA/BY]

A really excellent explanation, thank you.

I had retired at the time of that collision but when I did my TCAS training ( B757/767) we certainly would have gone for an RA until the situation was fully resolved.

At the time of the accident, discussion with former colleagues, after reading the report, we gained the impression that might not have been the case in Russia, which , perhaps is why the Russian pilot did what he did.

Again thank you for such a detailed and authorative explanation.

[Training Risky]

Certainly down there somewhere -Zimbabwe maybe? I thought the same, very slight accent though.

TN.
I originally thought Maybe one of the Kiwi Skyhawk crowd. But I have been informed this is not the case.

The programme is good overall, despite the pandering to the female stude and all her guff about being female aircrew for the muslim schoolgirls.

[Herod]

Did I get it wrong, or was there the situation in both episodes where the F35 failed to recognise the pilot's log-in, and refused to start? That doesn't bode well for QRA. "A password link has been sent to your email address"

[JG54]

Did I get it wrong, or was there the situation in both episodes where the F35 failed to recognise the pilot's log-in, and refused to start? That doesn't bode well for QRA. "A password link has been sent to your email address"

I'd suggest the bigger problem may be finding yourself in a situation where the F-35 is required to stand Q in the first place!

[alfred_the_great]

I originally thought Maybe one of the Kiwi Skyhawk crowd. But I have been informed this is not the case.

The programme is good overall, despite the pandering to the female stude and all her guff about being female aircrew for the muslim schoolgirls.

quite right too.

Mustn't let women be women, it confuses the men.

BTW, your taxi to the 1950s is waiting at the front gate. Take your snowflake attitudes back there will you?

[pr00ne]

quite right too.

Mustn't let women be women, it confuses the men.

BTW, your taxi to the 1950s is waiting at the front gate. Take your snowflake attitudes back there will you?



Congrats on a fine post.


Training Risky, your constant problem with women is revealing that you have issues, were you chopped by a female by any chance?

[MPN11]

As an ATCO, from 1965 I worked alongside female colleagues. Just like the rest if us, some were good, most average and a few cr@p. I can’t recall any gender issues, apart from one who seemed more interested in doing her knitting than paying attention to r/t calls. ;)

[just another jocky]

The programme is good overall, despite the pandering to the female stude and all her guff about being female aircrew for the muslim schoolgirls.

I seriously hope that with an attitude such as that, that you are not currently serving.

[air pig]

I originally thought Maybe one of the Kiwi Skyhawk crowd. But I have been informed this is not the case.

The programme is good overall, despite the pandering to the female stude and all her guff about being female aircrew for the muslim schoolgirls.



Hope you never need a surgeon who happens to be female and more importantly an anaesthetist who is female, sleeping during the operation maybe a problem, if you have an attitude like that when talking to or is it your case at them. One of the best surgeons I have ever worked with was a female along with several anaesthetists who I would let put me to sleep any time far ahead of many of their male colleagues.

[Bill Macgillivray]

Air pig

I think that I know what you are getting at but I am not sure!! It is not (in my humble opinion) worth raising the "sex" banner, either pro-male or female, in this day and age. Both sexs are equally competent when trained and qualified (as used to be the case during my service time, many years ago). I got a "bol****ing in 1965 for sending a young lady solo in a Chipmunk - could not see why as she was an RAF sponsered undergrad. on a UAS (had to be!) and I was told (correctly) she was to be treated like any other student. Today there would have been no comment but then...!

Bill

[BEagle]

When I ran the recruiting session at the UAS one year, I discovered a number of forms from young ladies which hadn't been processed - the adjutant had put them on one side. I asked why - to which he replied "We've got our 10% females". So I told him that there was no such limit and to process the applications - the girls were equally entitled to apply for membership. We managed to contact most of them, but one never received the message. Her father later wrote to ask why she'd been excluded, so I apologised and told him what had happened; sadly by then we had no more vacancies for the current intake - but encouraged him to ask her to reapply for the following year. Which she did, but unfortunately the quacks found a medical issue; however we made her a 'social member'.

I found that there was a distinct difference in attitude between males and females - if you said to one of the lads "That was an average trip", he'd think "Good, I'll be off to the pub later". But say the same thing to one of the girls and she'd usually put in the effort to do better next time. Rather more rewarding to instruct! It also helped that they washed their flying suits more often than the lads and were less likely to turn up with hangovers.

[Training Risky]

My my, lots of 'White Knights' on here! Dry your eyes ladies. I have worked with lots of women while I was in, some good, some bad, but not one of them ever needed to be the centre of attention for a TV programme or be filmed talking to kids and getting special attention for their gender. That bit was cringeworthy...

[flighthappens]

My my, lots of 'White Knights' on here! Dry your eyes ladies. I have worked with lots of women while I was in, some good, some bad, but not one of them ever needed to be the centre of attention for a TV programme or be filmed talking to kids and getting special attention for their gender. That bit was cringeworthy...

its about exposure... I’m guessing that she would have been perfectly happy not being centre of attention but it is in the best interest RAF if she can inspire some young ladies who otherwise may not have considered the forces.

[alfred_the_great]

My my, lots of 'White Knights' on here! Dry your eyes ladies. I have worked with lots of women while I was in, some good, some bad, but not one of them ever needed to be the centre of attention for a TV programme or be filmed talking to kids and getting special attention for their gender. That bit was cringeworthy...

quite right too. We should cloister them away otherwise they get ideas above their station.

[just another jocky]

My my, lots of 'White Knights' on here! Dry your eyes ladies. I have worked with lots of women while I was in, some good, some bad, but not one of them ever needed to be the centre of attention for a TV programme or be filmed talking to kids and getting special attention for their gender. That bit was cringeworthy...

Jeez, so relieved you are no longer with us.

Did it ever occur to you that female recruiting is a high priority as there aren't many joining (probably because of the perception of attitudes like yours) and so showing her talking to potential female recruits (who cares what clothes they wore or what fools might try to deduce about their religion from their clothes) might further help the cause.

[beardy]

Jeez, so relieved you are no longer with us.

Did it ever occur to you that female recruiting is a high priority as there aren't many joining (probably because of the perception of attitudes like yours) and so showing her talking to potential female recruits (who cares what clothes they wore or what fools might try to deduce about their religion from their clothes) might further help the cause.
Positive discrimination is very important in the short term, it means that what is currently perceived as a deviation from the normal does not have to be so and that such aspirations are not unusual and are attainable by groups who would otherwise perhaps feel disadvantaged.
That said IMHO there should be no change of standards required to meet quotas. It is those very standards that inspire and that everyone who is attracted to our profession strive to achieve and maintain.
​​​

[Training Risky]

Jeez, so relieved you are no longer with us.

Did it ever occur to you that female recruiting is a high priority as there aren't many joining (probably because of the perception of attitudes like yours) and so showing her talking to potential female recruits (who cares what clothes they wore or what fools might try to deduce about their religion from their clothes) might further help the cause.

Whatever. Grow up.

So by that rationale, my sons could watch the one piece of the programme that discusses recruiting and they should infer that the Forces are only really interested in women and minorities? What a way to inspire ALL young people...:ugh:

[alfred_the_great]

Given that the vast majority of the Services are male, I doubt your sons need any positive role models to join.

And of course, the other 4 (of 5) pilots featured were also male. So I’m sure they’d cope.

[ExAscoteer]

The programme is good overall, despite the pandering to the female stude and all her guff about being female aircrew for the muslim schoolgirls.


Sexist attitudes like that are exactly why the RAF needs to engage with women. Currently 14% of the RAF are female (which is better than the other services), with aircrew being a far lower percentage, and that's despite having had female aircrew for 30 odd years.

You might want to look up 'Self - sabotage' and 'Imposter syndrome'. Research indicates that, owing to sexist societal values, it affects more women than men.

It's attitudes like yours that reinforce female self-doubt, attitudes that belong in the 1950s, attitudes which have no place in the 21st Century.

[GICASI2]

What has happened to the training system? Nine years to Valley, WTFO? I started on my first Jag sqn 30 months after starting IOT...

As for calling the instructors mate - I blame the Brüggen Jag ‘mates’ - some of them couldn’t remember their own names never mind anyone else’s; hence everyone was ‘mate’. Might even have been Andy S who started it all!

The F35 looks quite a good piece of kit but I thought that, as the iPod generation jet, only those under 30 would be able to operate it effectively. Most of the candidates have about a year’s productive service before they will have to move on ��. Hopefully the designers have taken into account Putin’s EMP weapon (I believe I saw the glow over space city in Khazakstan many 100s of miles south of my track one dark night).

[Warmtoast]

ISTR I read a piece in the press recently about the lady pilot and they reported that she is married to a pilot for one of the budget airlines. Intriguingly, I wonder what they talk about at the end of the day?

[57mm]

You left the toilet seat up again....

[hoodie]

"I've told you a thousand times. That's not a toilet seat; it's the upper fan door"