A thought about the RAF and no C17 simulator
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: oxford
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Nige but the 'trigger' isnt aircraft in this case, its how many sim hours can be consumed and at the present time it isnt even close. The utilisation could be less of an issue if a 3rd party provider should wish to take the risk of selling spare sim capacity to for instance, NATO crews. That option is very much alive....I believe. Incidentally, the sim costs in the USA are incredibly cheap, making the BC for a UK sim even harder to get past the first post.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On Monday our time, the first of the continuation traing commences at Amberley for crews that are already qualified to operate the C17.
This will mean that no longer will crews have to go to the USAF for simulator rides.
On February 1st the first students to convert through the simulator program will undertake simulator instruction. A big step forward for 36 squadron.
Initually the RAAF sent I think it was five crews to the USA for training (bearing in mind we only originally took delivery of one airframe. The USAF also sent an instructor pilot to Australia and we also picked up at least one qualified captain who had been on exchange duty with the USAF.
In regard to Loadmasters the initual ones came from C130 squadrons. The loadmaster chief instructor is ex Air Force and works for Boeing under their contract to do the simulator training for the C17.
It also appears that the Loadmaster training part of the simulator is in place and enables the student to perform all his pre flight duties.
As I indicated previously the simulator is owned by the RAAF and Boeing is there to provide the staff to allow it to be operated.
It does appear that the simulator being made available to the RAAF was part of the agreement when purchase of the airplane was contracted.
Perhaps some ;lateral thinking by the RAF/RAAF could turn into a win win situation, where the RAaF could train new Loadmasters for you, and maybe provide RAF simulator requirements for all crew positions.
The benefit for the RAAF other than more efficient use of the simulator, would be the exchange of operational and other experiences coming from the RAF.
Of course your shortage of Loadmaster training slots, could be by either exchanging staff or by sending Loadmasters to Australia fro training.
Now that should open up the old Chestnut of airman aircrew.
A thought
regards
Col
This will mean that no longer will crews have to go to the USAF for simulator rides.
On February 1st the first students to convert through the simulator program will undertake simulator instruction. A big step forward for 36 squadron.
Initually the RAAF sent I think it was five crews to the USA for training (bearing in mind we only originally took delivery of one airframe. The USAF also sent an instructor pilot to Australia and we also picked up at least one qualified captain who had been on exchange duty with the USAF.
In regard to Loadmasters the initual ones came from C130 squadrons. The loadmaster chief instructor is ex Air Force and works for Boeing under their contract to do the simulator training for the C17.
It also appears that the Loadmaster training part of the simulator is in place and enables the student to perform all his pre flight duties.
As I indicated previously the simulator is owned by the RAAF and Boeing is there to provide the staff to allow it to be operated.
It does appear that the simulator being made available to the RAAF was part of the agreement when purchase of the airplane was contracted.
Perhaps some ;lateral thinking by the RAF/RAAF could turn into a win win situation, where the RAaF could train new Loadmasters for you, and maybe provide RAF simulator requirements for all crew positions.
The benefit for the RAAF other than more efficient use of the simulator, would be the exchange of operational and other experiences coming from the RAF.
Of course your shortage of Loadmaster training slots, could be by either exchanging staff or by sending Loadmasters to Australia fro training.
Now that should open up the old Chestnut of airman aircrew.
A thought
regards
Col
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Union J
Indeed, with Churchill's famous dictum:
"The Admiralty's analysis said six; The Treasury said four; We settled on eight."
Perhaps he had a point. Can't see it working today, though. Perhaps we'd have more success with UK8 with the "Spirit of Delta" model (Delta Heritage Museum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). A day's pay each peeps? I'm in, as it's the only way we're going to get the damn jet..
Interestingly, UAE is now up to six. Quite why is anyone's guess. Racehorse transports?
S41
Indeed, with Churchill's famous dictum:
"The Admiralty's analysis said six; The Treasury said four; We settled on eight."
Perhaps he had a point. Can't see it working today, though. Perhaps we'd have more success with UK8 with the "Spirit of Delta" model (Delta Heritage Museum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). A day's pay each peeps? I'm in, as it's the only way we're going to get the damn jet..
Interestingly, UAE is now up to six. Quite why is anyone's guess. Racehorse transports?
S41
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My understanding is that UAE either has been or is wanting to play a bigger part in UN Peacekeeping & humanitarian operations.
Since they don't have very many troops, their goal is to provide transport for the troops/equipment/supplies for other Arabic, African, etc nations that are supplying troops/equipment/supplies.
Since they don't have very many troops, their goal is to provide transport for the troops/equipment/supplies for other Arabic, African, etc nations that are supplying troops/equipment/supplies.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GK121,
Hmm, possible. But will believe it when I see it. Or in a few years could be some low-hour airframes that have been lavished with care and attention going cheap - sounds like the perfect RAF acquisition strategy.....
S41
Hmm, possible. But will believe it when I see it. Or in a few years could be some low-hour airframes that have been lavished with care and attention going cheap - sounds like the perfect RAF acquisition strategy.....
S41
Yes, Him
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 2,689
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slight thread meander:
They are all spiffing and v clever, but these days do we really need the umpteen degrees of motion and super duper graphics of the latest sims ?
All adds to the price for aircrew who, in the main, will be fairly experienced to be selected for the C-17 and, dare I say, know pretty much what a cloud looks like.
They are all spiffing and v clever, but these days do we really need the umpteen degrees of motion and super duper graphics of the latest sims ?
All adds to the price for aircrew who, in the main, will be fairly experienced to be selected for the C-17 and, dare I say, know pretty much what a cloud looks like.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gainsey, full motion is a legal requirement for instrument ratings. Seeing as the RTS does not permit Assy work (as I understand it, can someone on 99 confirm this?) without the motion and uber graphics, they would end up still going to the states once a year (or at least every 13 months) for IRs.
A procedural sim I imagine would be handy, but the training you can achieve is very limited.
Also, if we were to get a sim, we would have the option of full mission sims, potentially linked another sim, if 400M gets ****canned, they have an expansion of the C-17 fleet and start to operate tactically for 30 tonne single pallet airdrop, block 40 CDS and throwing the entirety of D Sqn out the back in a single run!
A procedural sim I imagine would be handy, but the training you can achieve is very limited.
Also, if we were to get a sim, we would have the option of full mission sims, potentially linked another sim, if 400M gets ****canned, they have an expansion of the C-17 fleet and start to operate tactically for 30 tonne single pallet airdrop, block 40 CDS and throwing the entirety of D Sqn out the back in a single run!
I'm in, as it's the only way we're going to get the damn jet
Interesting, Squirrel, and reminds me how tanks in WWI and aircraft in WWII used to funded by public collections, the latter often taking place alongside static displays in public places, such as, I believe, a Mosquito by the Scott Monument in Princes Street Gardens in Edinburgh.
Jack
Interesting, Squirrel, and reminds me how tanks in WWI and aircraft in WWII used to funded by public collections, the latter often taking place alongside static displays in public places, such as, I believe, a Mosquito by the Scott Monument in Princes Street Gardens in Edinburgh.
Jack
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Umm!
Interesting concept just do not let our Labour government down here find about that idea, we would find ourselves with yet another levy.
Should be quite an attention getter for the cause, think a C17 would grab plenty of attention parked in front of the Palace. The Queen herself might dip into her purse and give a bit of a contribution too.
If the British public knew how little uplift capacity we both have then there would be more concern I am sure displayed by them.
Down here the press gave our ability a hammering with the situation in Timour when we had to hire from overseas more capacity.
I believe that at the end of WW2 the then USAAF had a large display of aircraft at the base of the tower, but I do not know if the flew them in or came by truck.
Regards
Col
Interesting concept just do not let our Labour government down here find about that idea, we would find ourselves with yet another levy.
Should be quite an attention getter for the cause, think a C17 would grab plenty of attention parked in front of the Palace. The Queen herself might dip into her purse and give a bit of a contribution too.
If the British public knew how little uplift capacity we both have then there would be more concern I am sure displayed by them.
Down here the press gave our ability a hammering with the situation in Timour when we had to hire from overseas more capacity.
I believe that at the end of WW2 the then USAAF had a large display of aircraft at the base of the tower, but I do not know if the flew them in or came by truck.
Regards
Col
N4790P
Can i ask a daft Question ?
Much does a C-17 sim cost to buy ?
and wot are the general running cost's per anum?
Much does a C-17 sim cost to buy ?
and wot are the general running cost's per anum?
(Within the commercial world Boeing's are currently trying to introduce a 15% levy on everyone to do with anything with Boeing simulators!).
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Within the commercial world Boeing's are currently trying to introduce a 15% levy on everyone to do with anything with Boeing simulators!
The cost of synthetic training devices is not an easy question to answer as again it will much depend on the result of the TNA. What do you want the simulator to do for instance? A civvy airliner simulator is quite cheap as the "simulation" doesn't do anything. The only thing being simulated is the aircraft and its systems. A complex military simulator such as those as Benson is very, very expensive as the "simulation" has to react to the actions of the crew. For instance, should a crew stray into the MEZ of a SAM battery then the simulation must provide for the aircraft to be shot at. The military simulation has to provide for other models of Ships, Aircraft etc which should replicate as much as possible the real thing. i.e. to be able to teach Deck landings in the Merlin / Lynx simulators requires the simulation to provide realistic sea conditions where the ship model pitches and rolls as it would for real.
As a broad rule of thumb though, the average military simulator will cost in the region of 2 or 3 of the real aircraft cost.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I understand it at the moment, 99 Sqn are having severe difficulties securing aircraft for local flying training. Not only that, but they also had to fight off attempts to reduce allocated training hours for sqn crews. Were not talking MEZs and the like here, we are merely discussing ways to renew and refresh flying skills.
The serious incident that occurred in Afg did not involve hostile action.
I just hope, that yet again, decision makers aren't going to be wise AFTER the event. We lost a Hercules in the Kabul area that landed short some months ago, everyone walked away. Since I left the fleet experience in depth has evaporated, we can make up for it with high quality training. Without access to aircraft for local training, or the flexibility provided by in-house simulator training we are asking the squadron to balance operational imperative and risk.
Why can't they just have the training they are entitled to?
The serious incident that occurred in Afg did not involve hostile action.
I just hope, that yet again, decision makers aren't going to be wise AFTER the event. We lost a Hercules in the Kabul area that landed short some months ago, everyone walked away. Since I left the fleet experience in depth has evaporated, we can make up for it with high quality training. Without access to aircraft for local training, or the flexibility provided by in-house simulator training we are asking the squadron to balance operational imperative and risk.
Why can't they just have the training they are entitled to?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nige,
I agree with your sentiment, but I think you are overplaying the landing short incident.
How much MCT prevents serious sink in the undershoot, as that airfield is famed for?
As I have previously stated, landing short shouldnt happen, but it does from time to time. ( I am talking about 10 yards short here, not half a mile).
All fleets are going to come under increasing pressure to reduce training allocations, due to unservacability and of course, budget. The message that needs to get across is this: People need to be proactive in flaging up if they feel that the lack of flying is getting to a stage they feel uncomfortable with. Not Unsafe, uncomfortable. People also need to ensure "btr magicery" doesnt occur and the BTR extension process is used correctly. Ultimately, it will be Station STANEVAL staffs responsibility to monitor this and more importantly, demand more hours off the station executive if they feel that is what is required.
I agree with your sentiment, but I think you are overplaying the landing short incident.
How much MCT prevents serious sink in the undershoot, as that airfield is famed for?
As I have previously stated, landing short shouldnt happen, but it does from time to time. ( I am talking about 10 yards short here, not half a mile).
All fleets are going to come under increasing pressure to reduce training allocations, due to unservacability and of course, budget. The message that needs to get across is this: People need to be proactive in flaging up if they feel that the lack of flying is getting to a stage they feel uncomfortable with. Not Unsafe, uncomfortable. People also need to ensure "btr magicery" doesnt occur and the BTR extension process is used correctly. Ultimately, it will be Station STANEVAL staffs responsibility to monitor this and more importantly, demand more hours off the station executive if they feel that is what is required.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a interesting question, not helped by the answers being hidden in a pile of areas.
However in 2004 the USAF wrote congress and advised.
1. Motion simulators are now the only type of simulators to be purchased, but sought and obtained for the C141 a waiver, as they were to come out of service in 2006.
2. The price of the C17 simulator was listed at U$5M but I suspect that covered only the flight deck part. As you would know that extra parts and duties will be covered and include Loadmaster and loading training. Plus a module that deals with technical training.
3. Recently a specially built C17 load training fusalage was taken from the Boeing plant, put on a special Army ship and moved through the panama canal to Fort Bragg.
I will however warn you that searching on google on C17 simulators will more than take up a boring afternoon.
The RAAF is spending A$256M on the infra sytructure for the C17. However this is not just the simulator cost, but covers hardstands, Air movements buildings, Servicing workshops, refueling points etc on all major Australian bases.
Regards
Col
However in 2004 the USAF wrote congress and advised.
1. Motion simulators are now the only type of simulators to be purchased, but sought and obtained for the C141 a waiver, as they were to come out of service in 2006.
2. The price of the C17 simulator was listed at U$5M but I suspect that covered only the flight deck part. As you would know that extra parts and duties will be covered and include Loadmaster and loading training. Plus a module that deals with technical training.
3. Recently a specially built C17 load training fusalage was taken from the Boeing plant, put on a special Army ship and moved through the panama canal to Fort Bragg.
I will however warn you that searching on google on C17 simulators will more than take up a boring afternoon.
The RAAF is spending A$256M on the infra sytructure for the C17. However this is not just the simulator cost, but covers hardstands, Air movements buildings, Servicing workshops, refueling points etc on all major Australian bases.
Regards
Col
Last edited by herkman; 10th Jan 2010 at 08:26.
N4790P
vecvechookattack
Quote:
Within the commercial world Boeing's are currently trying to introduce a 15% levy on everyone to do with anything with Boeing simulators!
Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear enough. Mr Boeing intends to introduce this levy on existing devices already in the field, nothing to do with data packs.
If you do 3rd party training on, buy a simulated spare part, update including non Boeing updates, in fact just about any activity on an existing Boeing simulator irrespective of age will attract this 15% levy.
Interesting statement. The art of today's simulation IMHO is the integration of the 'aircraft' into the non aircraft environment. Atmosphere, motion, visual, C/L, sound etc..
Today the airframe manufacturers tend to supply the simulator manufacturers with the aircraft systems software object code as part of the simulator data pack. The simulator manufacturers have no control over this anymore. Certainly the A380 and B787 have gone this way.
Quote:
Within the commercial world Boeing's are currently trying to introduce a 15% levy on everyone to do with anything with Boeing simulators!
Which is actually quite cheap and extremely reasonable. The Data that Airbus provided to CAE for the A380 was considerably more than 15%.
If you do 3rd party training on, buy a simulated spare part, update including non Boeing updates, in fact just about any activity on an existing Boeing simulator irrespective of age will attract this 15% levy.
A civvy airliner simulator is quite cheap as the "simulation" doesn't do anything. The only thing being simulated is the aircraft and its systems.
Today the airframe manufacturers tend to supply the simulator manufacturers with the aircraft systems software object code as part of the simulator data pack. The simulator manufacturers have no control over this anymore. Certainly the A380 and B787 have gone this way.
Last edited by ZFT; 10th Jan 2010 at 06:30.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ZFT, surely CAE and the like have a set software programme which they re-use for all types, weather, windshear and the like are not independent of type... surely then its just a case of modifying the linear equations of motion for each type depending upon the output from the flight model supplied by the aircraft manufacturer?
Most of the avionics boxes thse days in modern sims are the actual boxes used in the aircraft, with software supplying the data they would expect (position, tas, SAT, TAT etc).
I dont understand where the significant levy comes from, just because its a "new" type, especially civvy. The Graphics hardware and software will be the same. Ground handling would be the only thing I can think of that would require individual modelling (hence why a lot of sims dont do a great job of recreating ground handling).
I can completely understand why it gets expensive once you start throwing airdrop/Air to Air refueling and threat response into the mix, as these are highly type specific, for example, the interaction between AAR aircraft types and the aircraft require detailed modelling to recreate the complex aerodynamics that go on. I was surprised to see the Herc sim "simulates" the pressure wave and bumbling on the flight controls as you approch the AAR aircrafts wake... very realistic.
Most of the avionics boxes thse days in modern sims are the actual boxes used in the aircraft, with software supplying the data they would expect (position, tas, SAT, TAT etc).
I dont understand where the significant levy comes from, just because its a "new" type, especially civvy. The Graphics hardware and software will be the same. Ground handling would be the only thing I can think of that would require individual modelling (hence why a lot of sims dont do a great job of recreating ground handling).
I can completely understand why it gets expensive once you start throwing airdrop/Air to Air refueling and threat response into the mix, as these are highly type specific, for example, the interaction between AAR aircraft types and the aircraft require detailed modelling to recreate the complex aerodynamics that go on. I was surprised to see the Herc sim "simulates" the pressure wave and bumbling on the flight controls as you approch the AAR aircrafts wake... very realistic.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Long time reader, first or second time poster i can't quite remember but as regards to C-17's landing short in dusty places i think you might be referring to a place just up the north west of kandahar and the distance short was about 300m taking out a lot of approach lights and the like but looking at threshold tyre marks they haven't been the only ones!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Huwliet, I had been appraised of my mistake earlier by PM. As you have now done so on the thread I would like to confirm that this was the incident that I was originally referring to. Very nearly ending the same way as the "Kabul" Hercules, which wasn't so lucky. I am quite sure a simulator for C17 could be had for a fraction of the cost of a single aircraft, certainly when comparing the cost of the C130J sim.
I am grateful for your correction.
I am grateful for your correction.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And, I ask again, how will a sim stop serious sink during short finals, as that place is famed for?
Its something that all crews there are well aware of and is overcome by two words - "Go Around!", and an automatic no quibbles go-around off a gpws warning in short finals.
Thats not to say a sim wouldnt pay its way, it would, as long as we started training for excellence once again, instead of training for competency.
Its something that all crews there are well aware of and is overcome by two words - "Go Around!", and an automatic no quibbles go-around off a gpws warning in short finals.
Thats not to say a sim wouldnt pay its way, it would, as long as we started training for excellence once again, instead of training for competency.