A thought about the RAF and no C17 simulator
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A thought about the RAF and no C17 simulator
Has consideration and any discusions taken place with the RAAF about using its simulator whilst the fight goes on about if and when you will get one.
Whilst Australia is some distance compared with the USA, I suspect that the one at Amberley would not be fully utilized.
Nice posting for some RAF instructors, nice weather most of the time and not a bad bunch to work with.
One of the outcomes of our fatal 707 crash, was our government takes flying safety with the degree of urgency.
Our C17 simulator must be close to being commissioned.
Just a thought which might benefit all.
Regards
Col
Whilst Australia is some distance compared with the USA, I suspect that the one at Amberley would not be fully utilized.
Nice posting for some RAF instructors, nice weather most of the time and not a bad bunch to work with.
One of the outcomes of our fatal 707 crash, was our government takes flying safety with the degree of urgency.
Our C17 simulator must be close to being commissioned.
Just a thought which might benefit all.
Regards
Col
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: In the Ether
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Col - in a nutshell, the answer is no.
All of the C17 sims are run by Boeing. They sell their sim hours to us. That would be the case even if we had a sim here in the UK. It is already a crew-intensive business using the sims in the US - 6 days away for a 2-sim schedule. Using the Aussie sim would amplify that. It would also strain our already restricted T&S budget to breaking point!
Whilst a nice idea to post RAF instructors there, all instruction in the sim is done by Boeing staff, apart from a week at the end of the OCU. In the current climate, I can't see posts being created unnecessarily.
As the UK C17 numbers grow, it is a safe assumption that a UK C17 Sim is under constant review. The NATO C17 program in Hungary can only help our case as Boeing may now also have further Europe-based customers for a UK sim.
It's a simple case of supply & demand.
Uncle G
All of the C17 sims are run by Boeing. They sell their sim hours to us. That would be the case even if we had a sim here in the UK. It is already a crew-intensive business using the sims in the US - 6 days away for a 2-sim schedule. Using the Aussie sim would amplify that. It would also strain our already restricted T&S budget to breaking point!
Whilst a nice idea to post RAF instructors there, all instruction in the sim is done by Boeing staff, apart from a week at the end of the OCU. In the current climate, I can't see posts being created unnecessarily.
As the UK C17 numbers grow, it is a safe assumption that a UK C17 Sim is under constant review. The NATO C17 program in Hungary can only help our case as Boeing may now also have further Europe-based customers for a UK sim.
It's a simple case of supply & demand.
Uncle G
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having worked at FSaST I can assure you that the number of Airframes is irrelevant. The requirement as to how you train crews on any aircraft will be as a result of the TNA. If you have 1 aircraft and the TNA states that you need 3 synthetic training devices then so be it.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well,if you get another, you'll find out if I'm right 
I got interested cos someone brought it to my attention that there had been an incident or two (one serious), going into Kandahar. It was being suggested that it would be extremely useful to have a UK based Sim, not least, so that C17 crews could practice Afghan approaches with crosswinds etc to their heart's content, instead of learning on the job. The other training issue brought up was the extremely limited NVG training crews were receiving before being cleared for NVG approaches operationally.
I did a bit of digging and have it on very good authority that 8 aircraft would automatically trigger funding for a UK Sim.
I was in Brussels last week and chatting about this pooled resource for C17s for smaller EU countries. The subject of Sims came up again. Seems daft to me that you don't have one already, but I am sure that those in high office would argue that it is desirable but not necessary. The thrust of the argument being the training provided in America is more than adequate. I know this because I have already had the discussion...
I got interested cos someone brought it to my attention that there had been an incident or two (one serious), going into Kandahar. It was being suggested that it would be extremely useful to have a UK based Sim, not least, so that C17 crews could practice Afghan approaches with crosswinds etc to their heart's content, instead of learning on the job. The other training issue brought up was the extremely limited NVG training crews were receiving before being cleared for NVG approaches operationally.
I did a bit of digging and have it on very good authority that 8 aircraft would automatically trigger funding for a UK Sim.
I was in Brussels last week and chatting about this pooled resource for C17s for smaller EU countries. The subject of Sims came up again. Seems daft to me that you don't have one already, but I am sure that those in high office would argue that it is desirable but not necessary. The thrust of the argument being the training provided in America is more than adequate. I know this because I have already had the discussion...
Last edited by nigegilb; 8th Jan 2010 at 08:59.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: In the Ether
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nige,
On that basis you may very well be right - but what you're talking about is declaring a further training requirement over and above that which already exists. In an ideal world, with money no issue, of course that's what the Sqn would want. However, trying to create a training requirement when none is perceived to exist at the moment (i take it the KDH issue you refer to is the wing oscillation dink several years ago now, linked to a known software issue that has since been rectified).
The UK's C17s now operate on a very regular basis into theatre without, touch wood, any major incidents that such a lack of training to which you refer might suggest.
As i said earlier - the sim procurement is based upon making sufficient use of the hours that it would provide. It's not the same as the C130/VC10/FJ sims where they are effectively owned and controlled by the Sqn. We could always fill the hours with quality training, but that would cost by the hour. Funding in the MOD is so scarce at the moment that i would challenge anyone to find hard cash for something that isn't deemed to be of the highest operational imperative - we can't even afford biscuits for the AOC for Christ's sake!
As you said "desirable, not essential", sadly.
I would love, however, to be proven wrong and see the C17 training expand to cover all eventualities, tactics, theatres, contingencies and emergencies on a regular but basis.
Here's hoping that a decision on UK8 isn't too far away and we'll find out for sure.
Uncle G.
On that basis you may very well be right - but what you're talking about is declaring a further training requirement over and above that which already exists. In an ideal world, with money no issue, of course that's what the Sqn would want. However, trying to create a training requirement when none is perceived to exist at the moment (i take it the KDH issue you refer to is the wing oscillation dink several years ago now, linked to a known software issue that has since been rectified).
The UK's C17s now operate on a very regular basis into theatre without, touch wood, any major incidents that such a lack of training to which you refer might suggest.
As i said earlier - the sim procurement is based upon making sufficient use of the hours that it would provide. It's not the same as the C130/VC10/FJ sims where they are effectively owned and controlled by the Sqn. We could always fill the hours with quality training, but that would cost by the hour. Funding in the MOD is so scarce at the moment that i would challenge anyone to find hard cash for something that isn't deemed to be of the highest operational imperative - we can't even afford biscuits for the AOC for Christ's sake!
As you said "desirable, not essential", sadly.
I would love, however, to be proven wrong and see the C17 training expand to cover all eventualities, tactics, theatres, contingencies and emergencies on a regular but basis.
Here's hoping that a decision on UK8 isn't too far away and we'll find out for sure.
Uncle G.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, the incident I am referring to is a C17 which landed short of the runway quite recently.
The suggestion of a shortage of training came from the crews themselves. (not I hasten to add the crew involved in this incident). They didn't think 3 UK NVG training sorties were adequate either. But the party line is that it is not required. Don't want to step on any toes here, merely relaying what I was told.
You eloquently repeat what I heard in my previous conversation explaining the desirability of a UK Sim, versus the harsh reality of the economic climate.
I hasten to add that an aircraft, crew and passenger load is also extremely expensive.
The suggestion of a shortage of training came from the crews themselves. (not I hasten to add the crew involved in this incident). They didn't think 3 UK NVG training sorties were adequate either. But the party line is that it is not required. Don't want to step on any toes here, merely relaying what I was told.
You eloquently repeat what I heard in my previous conversation explaining the desirability of a UK Sim, versus the harsh reality of the economic climate.
I hasten to add that an aircraft, crew and passenger load is also extremely expensive.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nige,
There isnt an aircraft type that operates to that location that hasnt landed short there.
Including the types that have sims.
"Missing the box" shouldnt happen, but still does from time to time. Dare I say its not too big a deal in the grand scheme?
There isnt an aircraft type that operates to that location that hasnt landed short there.
Including the types that have sims.
"Missing the box" shouldnt happen, but still does from time to time. Dare I say its not too big a deal in the grand scheme?
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
8 Aircraft sounds about right for the cost break even point for a simulator The number of aircraft vs Sim break even in the last airline I worked for was I am told 11.
So I guess it depends on how the RAF's numbers pan out, as for using the RAAF's sim, I should think that a rugby scrum has already formed at the door of the postings office!
So I guess it depends on how the RAF's numbers pan out, as for using the RAAF's sim, I should think that a rugby scrum has already formed at the door of the postings office!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am afraid your information is wrong and can be confirmed with a Google search on RAAF C17 simulator.
Our simulator was bought and paid for under the FMS system and was installed in a specially built building again paid for by the Government. Later this year we are to take delivery of the cargo compartment section of the simulator.
The RAAF really led the way in simulator purchases with them being bought for the C130A, E,H and J models. After the loss of the 707 VIP airplane the government relented and fast tracked one of them. With the sale of the last three 707 tankers to Omega this simulator was sold to them.
Boeing may be supplying the staff to run the C17 simulator at this stage, but I suspect that further down the track the staff will either be ex RAAF or RAAF. I do know that some of the instructers are ex RAAF.
I cannot see how it is being operated to maximum capacity.
However there are rumblings, which all would understand that we want to buy another two frames, Still alot short of the magical eight figure quoted.
Would be nice to see more RAF operating experiance shared down under.
Regards
Col
Our simulator was bought and paid for under the FMS system and was installed in a specially built building again paid for by the Government. Later this year we are to take delivery of the cargo compartment section of the simulator.
The RAAF really led the way in simulator purchases with them being bought for the C130A, E,H and J models. After the loss of the 707 VIP airplane the government relented and fast tracked one of them. With the sale of the last three 707 tankers to Omega this simulator was sold to them.
Boeing may be supplying the staff to run the C17 simulator at this stage, but I suspect that further down the track the staff will either be ex RAAF or RAAF. I do know that some of the instructers are ex RAAF.
I cannot see how it is being operated to maximum capacity.
However there are rumblings, which all would understand that we want to buy another two frames, Still alot short of the magical eight figure quoted.
Would be nice to see more RAF operating experiance shared down under.
Regards
Col
Nige et al
The Sentry has a Flt Deck Sim and a Mission Sim for only 7ac. Surely, it is the number of crews that generate the requirement not the number of ac?
Just a thought
The B Word
The Sentry has a Flt Deck Sim and a Mission Sim for only 7ac. Surely, it is the number of crews that generate the requirement not the number of ac?
Just a thought
The B Word
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: In the Ether
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Our simulator was bought and paid for under the FMS system and was installed in a specially built building again paid for by the Government
You're clearly not giving the immigrants enough benefits down there!
B Word - it's a factor of all things, in this case it's the number of training hours required. Obviously that's related to number of crews which, in turn, is related to the number of ac. It's also related to the number of trg hrs per crew which is very difficult to justify increasing.
Last edited by Uncle Ginsters; 8th Jan 2010 at 11:06.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B word, you could well be right, I would still claim to be technically correct if the eighth aircraft acts as the trigger for the crew requirement!!
I am willing to have a small wager..
I am willing to have a small wager..
"We want eight and we won't wait"
If the dark blue may chip in, it's somewhat reminiscent of the situation in 1906 when the Conservative Party, aided and abetted by the then First Sea Lord, Admiral Jackie Fisher, campaigned for more DREADNOUGHTs with the slogan "We want eight and we won't wait".
Jack
Jack
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: East Midlands
Age: 84
Posts: 1,511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Small Fleet - Is a simulator needed?
When I worked in Oman we had 24 Jaguars and it was considered economic to fly every Jaguar pilot to UK (Coltishall or Lossie) twice a year to do 5 x 2 sim trips, rather than buying and maintaning a flt sim in country.