Flying Training Views

[navbag]

I've noticed several threads recently on Flying Training, "Quality of OCU candidates" being the latest, with some pretty valid points.

With MFTS just around the corner, is anybody listening to these various points and ideas, bearing in mind that without guidance, you can be sure that Industry will be busy forming its own ideas?


navbag

(everybody wants one really!)

[Rudolph Huckar]

:confused:
I note the level of interest in the Fg Trg Views posted by navbag. Of more interest to me ( as a mere scribbly) is why no-one has an opinion that they deem worthy of publishing? I'd have thought that, at the very least, you aircrew would like some shiny new toys to play with.
......nothing against Harrier pilots, it's just that I think they'll all be better when they finish puberty......

[Wholigan]

Nice, non-inflammatory first post Mr Scribbly. That should get some responses worthy of the normal attitude to Admin Guru. Or are you one and the same re-registered?? :D ;)

[Black 'n Yellar]

Who wants to grow up anyway? I'd rather fly a harrier than be worrying about how much tipex there is in the drawer.:cool:

[Rudolph Huckar]

:D
From the way the replies are going, I appear to have hit a nerve. Presumably, then, the QFIs won't be too upset when, come MFTS, the RAF are obliged to train their pilots on Son-of-Tucano before going on to Son-of-Hawk? I'm sure there's no trg gap really......Last year I was able to get to a trg conference in Florida ( I was only the bag carrier; even 1 Stars need Tippex occasionally) the technology that was available then seemed like Stars Wars. Still, I'm sure Eurofighter pilots will be able to cope, in spite of the trg system.

[navbag]

Blimey, I've got a scribbly in on a flying training related thread.

However, it's interesting to see that the budgets are stretching to technology conferences in Florida, maybe MFTS is getting the attention it deserves.

Technology does appear to be what is missing in the present training system or would this simply mean the introduction of fancy new ac and sims with little change to the syllabuses? Is this what is needed?

[tommee_hawk]

What price the future of nav training? I'm an A2 with 8 years instructing both in the UK and in a warm place. But where do they want to send me next - anywhere but training... Why - because, apparently it's more relevant to have recent "when I was flying over Iraq" war stories to tell, than it is to have years of training experience. And we wonder why we get the people we do.........

[Black 'n Yellar]

In response to Navbag, We already have a very good simulator at Valley. The 2 domes can be linked for air combat and I think it is fair to say that the course has been greatly enhanced by it.

However, the problem is the jet itself. The RAF in its wisdom refuselaged the hawk to extend its life, rather than buying in new Hawk 115s or the equivalent. The cockpits are steam driven and bare no resemblence to front line jets, thus increasing the workload at the OCU.

I have heard from guys who have completed TAC Weapons in Canada who have sung the praises of the jets out there. Thoroughly modern cockpits with HUDs, resembling the jets they will go on to fly. The argument that flying our hawks increases capacity is all well and good, but who will press on operationally if Nav kit or HUDs have failed?

I think any new flying training system which can provide the student with better jets for more realistic training must be a good thing. Replace the Tucanos with the old knackered Hawks and get a decent jet for TAC Weapons.

[BEagle]

....and we thought the Hawk was such an easy-peasy thing after the Gnat! STUPRECC and CUBSTUNT - anyone remember them?

At TWU it didn't have a Great Big Avon, it had a cr@p sight for many weapons events (not that the Grunter was much better in certain air-to-mud events), but (back then) it turned like hell.

Still rather a girlie jet compared to the Hunter!

[DeaconBlue]

Coupla points on this subject....

1) Yes the NFTC Hawk 115s are lovely cockpits but unfortunately serviceability is not much good...(what do you expect with a 30-y old design). Recent furore in the Danish press about the huge cost of NFTC vs. the delay in generating pilots due to much poorer than planned Wx and inability to generate sorties due to 115 availability

2) You can't replace the Tucs with Hawks for the pure reason that they are knackered. They start to die off in 2007 and therefore you need to make a choice on new FJ now - Tuc will survive for the time being one suspects...

3) Despite there being a good field of candidates (MB-346 / T-50 / L-159 / etc) No doubt (much like A400M) the decision will be a political one (entirely unlinked from the fact that most Brough workers live in John Prescotts constituency) and that, I'm afraid means a wonderfully instrumented Hawk that won't last the life or meet the real expections of future fast jet training.

[navbag]

Understand that the new Hawk is a done deal (!?)

However, FJ Pilot training is only part of the MFTS story. it would appear that all trades are involved from pilots and navs to AEOps and ALMs. A pretty tall order!

Clearly from my handle, I'm aware that nav (wso?!) training is a bit poorly! Are all of the other training pipelines in a similar condition and what is the answer for them?

Is the scribbly pipeline running out of blotting paper??

[Chronic Snoozer]

DeaconBlue,

This furore in the Danish press about NFTC costs - don't spose you have a link? Is it in English?

Cheers

CS