Military flying technique v Civilian PPL
Thread Starter
Military flying technique v Civilian PPL
In a discussion with an old knuck I learned that:
*PPL's fly box circuits - knucks fly downwind then turn at a constant rate onto final
*PPLs climb and then abruptly level off - whereas its a gradual curve for a knuck
*Knucks set cruise using attitude
*Knucks can also do things in the circuit a PPL cannot i.e. buzz and break
*For a knuck set 300 knots cruise means just that - not 299 knots or 301 knots
In what other ways are basic military flying techniques different from civilian?
Please... no smart arse replies...
*PPL's fly box circuits - knucks fly downwind then turn at a constant rate onto final
*PPLs climb and then abruptly level off - whereas its a gradual curve for a knuck
*Knucks set cruise using attitude
*Knucks can also do things in the circuit a PPL cannot i.e. buzz and break
*For a knuck set 300 knots cruise means just that - not 299 knots or 301 knots
In what other ways are basic military flying techniques different from civilian?
Please... no smart arse replies...
The main reason why a military circuit is 'racetrack' shaped rather than rectangular is that a 'racetrack' circuit is more appropriate for a low wing aeroplane - in the 2 continuous turns you have a good view of any other traffic inside your turn. Whereas a rectangular circuit allows highwing aircraft to conduct 4 quick turns, during which the wing effectively blanks the view of other traffic ahead. Whereas 2 continuous turns would mean a longer period of blindness.
Attitude flying is a core aspect of all correctly taught flying training. 'Select, Hold, Trim' is taught right from the start and is not unique to civilian training.
Civilian circuit patterns do not necessarily require the pilot to level off before starting the crosswind turn as you seem to think - the local circuit pattern may have noise abatement requirements though. These will be forced on the aerodrome operator to the detriment of proper training - whereas the military rarely accepts such nonsense at a flying training station.
Flying an accurate speed with a fixed-pitch propellor is far more difficult than with a constant speed propellor due to the effect of IAS on blade angle of attack requiring the pilot to control IAS in level flight with indirect corrective use of the throttle lever. Whereas with a constant speed prop, power can be controlled directly by adjusting MAP with the power lever and the prop corrects as required to maintain the set rpm. Hence 'set 2250 and accept the speed' is often easier and safer (more time for l00kout than chasing ever-elusive speed fluctuations every time vertical air movement is encountered. Flying an accurate speed in a jet is really much simpler - just the one thrust lever per engine and no damn propellor to screw things up!
The run-in-and-break, flown correctly, is a very safe and practical way of entering a visual circuit. The original notion meant that a military aircraft could maintain tactical speed for as long as possible before scrubbing off the speed in the break and deceleration to final. For example, allied tactical air force operations from a forward aerodrome were often threatened by lurking enemy fighters in the latter days of WW2 - so pilots needed to maintain fighting speed for as long as possible. The unfortunate design of the otherwise excellent Me262 obliged it to fly a long approach as it had no speed brakes and poor engine response - so slowing the thing down to a safe approach speed wasn't easy. The Luftwaffe lost quite a few 262s on the approach to allied fighters and resorted to covering the approach route with intense AA cover.
Other military differences? 'Point and power' visual approach technique which is way better than the technique taught to most PPL students. But if taught to PPL students, they usually solo an hour or so earlier as it is such an obvious and intuitive method of controlling the approach. Another difference is 'Standard Closing Angle' on visual navigation exercises - which makes cross-country navigation so simple that many old dinosaurs won't use it; they prefer copious unnecessary mental arithmetic, it would seem.
Military flying training teaches pilots to operate their aircraft confidently to the corners of the approved flight envelope - whereas PPL flying merely teaches students sufficient skills not to kill themselves when flying from A to B for a £100 cup of tea.
Attitude flying is a core aspect of all correctly taught flying training. 'Select, Hold, Trim' is taught right from the start and is not unique to civilian training.
Civilian circuit patterns do not necessarily require the pilot to level off before starting the crosswind turn as you seem to think - the local circuit pattern may have noise abatement requirements though. These will be forced on the aerodrome operator to the detriment of proper training - whereas the military rarely accepts such nonsense at a flying training station.
Flying an accurate speed with a fixed-pitch propellor is far more difficult than with a constant speed propellor due to the effect of IAS on blade angle of attack requiring the pilot to control IAS in level flight with indirect corrective use of the throttle lever. Whereas with a constant speed prop, power can be controlled directly by adjusting MAP with the power lever and the prop corrects as required to maintain the set rpm. Hence 'set 2250 and accept the speed' is often easier and safer (more time for l00kout than chasing ever-elusive speed fluctuations every time vertical air movement is encountered. Flying an accurate speed in a jet is really much simpler - just the one thrust lever per engine and no damn propellor to screw things up!
The run-in-and-break, flown correctly, is a very safe and practical way of entering a visual circuit. The original notion meant that a military aircraft could maintain tactical speed for as long as possible before scrubbing off the speed in the break and deceleration to final. For example, allied tactical air force operations from a forward aerodrome were often threatened by lurking enemy fighters in the latter days of WW2 - so pilots needed to maintain fighting speed for as long as possible. The unfortunate design of the otherwise excellent Me262 obliged it to fly a long approach as it had no speed brakes and poor engine response - so slowing the thing down to a safe approach speed wasn't easy. The Luftwaffe lost quite a few 262s on the approach to allied fighters and resorted to covering the approach route with intense AA cover.
Other military differences? 'Point and power' visual approach technique which is way better than the technique taught to most PPL students. But if taught to PPL students, they usually solo an hour or so earlier as it is such an obvious and intuitive method of controlling the approach. Another difference is 'Standard Closing Angle' on visual navigation exercises - which makes cross-country navigation so simple that many old dinosaurs won't use it; they prefer copious unnecessary mental arithmetic, it would seem.
Military flying training teaches pilots to operate their aircraft confidently to the corners of the approved flight envelope - whereas PPL flying merely teaches students sufficient skills not to kill themselves when flying from A to B for a £100 cup of tea.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beagle,
Thanks for that, I have been an aerial photographer and sometime unofficial pilot ( a little knowledge is a dangerous thing ) and you've answered a few of my queries.
One remains though, as I used to work at Dunsfold alongside the Instrument Calibration dept; even with their modern counterparts' best efforts, my engineering training says ' how the hell does one think it's 300 knots not 299 or 301 ?!
I agree that's the mid range and ideal for calibration, but even so...
I've also wondered about the U-2 ( TR something ) as it's said the pilot at altitude needs to keep within a 3 knot margin; either it has a much better pitot system than I've ever seen - Harrier mainly - or it's a fairy story.
I come across the same calibration problem with yachties; just because their depth-sounders are now digital, they trust it to the last decimal point then wonder why they've run aground.
Thanks for that, I have been an aerial photographer and sometime unofficial pilot ( a little knowledge is a dangerous thing ) and you've answered a few of my queries.
One remains though, as I used to work at Dunsfold alongside the Instrument Calibration dept; even with their modern counterparts' best efforts, my engineering training says ' how the hell does one think it's 300 knots not 299 or 301 ?!
I agree that's the mid range and ideal for calibration, but even so...
I've also wondered about the U-2 ( TR something ) as it's said the pilot at altitude needs to keep within a 3 knot margin; either it has a much better pitot system than I've ever seen - Harrier mainly - or it's a fairy story.
I come across the same calibration problem with yachties; just because their depth-sounders are now digital, they trust it to the last decimal point then wonder why they've run aground.
I've also wondered about the U-2 ( TR something ) as it's said the pilot at altitude needs to keep within a 3 knot margin; either it has a much better pitot system than I've ever seen - Harrier mainly - or it's a fairy story.
CG
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Asia's Fine City
Posts: 462
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wonderful stuff. Variations to what BEagle states:
Initial attitude flying - aka "select a dot on the windshield that is YOUR horizon for straight and level"
then:
APT = Attitude, Power, Trim (same as Select, Hold, Trim)
and for approaches (Point and Power which is a better acronym) -
Constant Angle controlling Speed with Power (side slipping for x-wind)
Spot on.
A wonderful school in Bankstown, Sydney used to teach this ethos and with aeros from day 1. The instructors were ex RAAF/RAF.
Initial attitude flying - aka "select a dot on the windshield that is YOUR horizon for straight and level"
then:
APT = Attitude, Power, Trim (same as Select, Hold, Trim)
and for approaches (Point and Power which is a better acronym) -
Constant Angle controlling Speed with Power (side slipping for x-wind)
Military flying training teaches pilots to operate their aircraft confidently to the corners of the approved flight envelope - whereas PPL flying merely teaches students sufficient skills not to kill themselves
A wonderful school in Bankstown, Sydney used to teach this ethos and with aeros from day 1. The instructors were ex RAAF/RAF.
Last edited by kluge; 13th Mar 2010 at 08:30.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 68
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The average PPL flies differently to a military bod is because of the reason for his flight. After he's earned enough money to pay for his flying (and yours) he'll be flying for fun. The performance of their aircraft so low that any level offs might appear to be abrupt but in reality, less fierce than most military ones. Circuit shapes are the ones that the old military instructors gave us and also what other users would be expecting. "Runs & Breaks" whilst good fun are frowned on, are often illegal and would almost certainly pee of those living close the airfield. Also, with a pull-up entry speed of less than 200 Kts with a very fast PPL type aircraft, it would also be visually rather unimpressive. So they are not done. Rather amazingly, a cruise is set up by applying a both pitch and power setting, adjusting as appropriate to be "knot perfect" whilst simultaneously keeping a damn good lookout for people in green and grey aircraft burgling the circuit.
As for other differences, well it depends on who they are and what and where they fly. The wealthiest may be out in their Extra's, Malibus and Mustangs. The poorest in their microlights, the traditionalist in their Luscombs. The important bit is, they'll be there enjoying themselves, respecting other people in the the air. The biggest thing to accept is that they have the right to be there.
But I have a question. What aircraft in the RNZAF aircraft does 300kts in the circuit? ...and why?
PM
As for other differences, well it depends on who they are and what and where they fly. The wealthiest may be out in their Extra's, Malibus and Mustangs. The poorest in their microlights, the traditionalist in their Luscombs. The important bit is, they'll be there enjoying themselves, respecting other people in the the air. The biggest thing to accept is that they have the right to be there.
But I have a question. What aircraft in the RNZAF aircraft does 300kts in the circuit? ...and why?
PM
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 45 yards from a tropical beach
Posts: 1,103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Initial and Pitch
Similar to the RAF Run-and-Break, but normally flown at circuit height. (Low Fan Pitch is closer to the RAF version.)
However, one night I was returning to RAAF Pearce from a night navex with my stude in a Macchi, and he requested an Initial and Pitch at the statutory distance out. Without missing a beat, ATC replied,
"XYZ, clear rejoin, number eleven."
By the time we had identified the rest of the circuit traffic, we were getting close to the boundary for Perth International! No sweat, and happy days.
However, one night I was returning to RAAF Pearce from a night navex with my stude in a Macchi, and he requested an Initial and Pitch at the statutory distance out. Without missing a beat, ATC replied,
"XYZ, clear rejoin, number eleven."
By the time we had identified the rest of the circuit traffic, we were getting close to the boundary for Perth International! No sweat, and happy days.
I sense something pejorative about Beagle's " . . . whereas PPL flying merely teaches students sufficient skills not to kill themselves when flying from A to B for a £100 cup of tea" comment . . . .
Nothing pejorative at all, I can assure you. But I guess to the truly paranoid, all comment must seem critical......
Having reasonably extensive experience of both PPL and RAF UAS instruction (that's real UAS, not sodding drones), I know full well, for example, that it isn't necessary to teach maintenance of the buffet nibble in a max rate turn whilst looking over his shoulder to a student pilot who will only ever want to potter quietly around the countryside on touring flights to different aerodromes - and there's nothing wrong with that.
300KIAS at 300 ft, then a climbing break. That's what I was taught as a baby pilot on the JP5 at SORF Leeming - and grand fun it was too! But those who try to fly VRIABs in unsuitable aircraft at small civvy aerodromes are often a danger to everyone including themselves......
Having reasonably extensive experience of both PPL and RAF UAS instruction (that's real UAS, not sodding drones), I know full well, for example, that it isn't necessary to teach maintenance of the buffet nibble in a max rate turn whilst looking over his shoulder to a student pilot who will only ever want to potter quietly around the countryside on touring flights to different aerodromes - and there's nothing wrong with that.
300KIAS at 300 ft, then a climbing break. That's what I was taught as a baby pilot on the JP5 at SORF Leeming - and grand fun it was too! But those who try to fly VRIABs in unsuitable aircraft at small civvy aerodromes are often a danger to everyone including themselves......
Last edited by BEagle; 11th Mar 2010 at 17:13.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Instrument Calibration
Hello Beagle & co,
As far as I can make out no-one has actually answered my question, as in why do pilots, amateur or pro', think their instruments are calibrated and correct to within 1 knot ?!
I'd suspect such things as the Harrier are calibrated to very low airspeeds ( or at least I hope they are ) as that's the critical regime; other aircraft have other requirements, though as someone commented entering the circuit at 300 sounds a bit demanding on air tragic, though I get your meaning - I could not photograph Harriers ' clean ' below 270 kts, but I'd have thought unless posing one would be a lot slower and at least thinking about getting flaps & gear down etc...
So the thrust ( 'scuse that ) of my question is, how accurately calibrated are your IAS instruments, ie no-one flies low on tactical op's on baro' alone, so why is the pitot - subject to AoA etc, apparently regarded as gospel to closer than the figures on the dial ?!
This applies to slower, light aircraft as well as military, but I have been involved in Flight trials, when at medium subsonic speed a Test Pilot was congratulated if he kept within +/- 50 kts, and of course relying on Radalt but still varying a fair bit; how does this tie in with " 300 kts, not 299 or 301 " ?
As far as I can make out no-one has actually answered my question, as in why do pilots, amateur or pro', think their instruments are calibrated and correct to within 1 knot ?!
I'd suspect such things as the Harrier are calibrated to very low airspeeds ( or at least I hope they are ) as that's the critical regime; other aircraft have other requirements, though as someone commented entering the circuit at 300 sounds a bit demanding on air tragic, though I get your meaning - I could not photograph Harriers ' clean ' below 270 kts, but I'd have thought unless posing one would be a lot slower and at least thinking about getting flaps & gear down etc...
So the thrust ( 'scuse that ) of my question is, how accurately calibrated are your IAS instruments, ie no-one flies low on tactical op's on baro' alone, so why is the pitot - subject to AoA etc, apparently regarded as gospel to closer than the figures on the dial ?!
This applies to slower, light aircraft as well as military, but I have been involved in Flight trials, when at medium subsonic speed a Test Pilot was congratulated if he kept within +/- 50 kts, and of course relying on Radalt but still varying a fair bit; how does this tie in with " 300 kts, not 299 or 301 " ?
Thread Starter
Some context around the knots issue.
I think the point my old knuck was making was that precision in adhering to requested airspeeds is critical when flying a military aircraft... especially so in the case of a fast jet. One would not wnat to arrive at a waypoint too early, or too late...
R/e the RNZAF... it was back in the days of Macchis and A4's.
I think the point my old knuck was making was that precision in adhering to requested airspeeds is critical when flying a military aircraft... especially so in the case of a fast jet. One would not wnat to arrive at a waypoint too early, or too late...
R/e the RNZAF... it was back in the days of Macchis and A4's.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Double Zero
The point is not what speed you are actually flying at, but whether you can keep to the requested indicated speed.
It is a microcosm of the quest for perfection expected of Military aviators.
The point is not what speed you are actually flying at, but whether you can keep to the requested indicated speed.
It is a microcosm of the quest for perfection expected of Military aviators.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tartare,
Thankyou & I know what you're saying, I've been on flights ( and lots of sails ) where waypoints were critical;
This does not answer my question, how exactly calibrated are IAS indicators ?
I would think a wise pilot would allow a few knots +/-, please someone tell me if I'm missing something !
Thankyou & I know what you're saying, I've been on flights ( and lots of sails ) where waypoints were critical;
This does not answer my question, how exactly calibrated are IAS indicators ?
I would think a wise pilot would allow a few knots +/-, please someone tell me if I'm missing something !
Tourist:
I thought you regarded forgetting to do your checklists as acceptable to military aviators?
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...ml#post5443079
It is a microcosm of the quest for perfection expected of Military aviators
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...ml#post5443079
Thread Starter
Can't answer that double zero... I'm just a humble PPL and plane spod who has had the privilege of riding backseat in a Macchi with the RNZAF, and a Hawk with the RAF through the Mach Loop.
Needless to say... I was also allowed a little fly myself on both occassions
The other trick they do (which us humble bugsmashers never will) is rolling inverted at very low altitude to go over the top of a hill (we did this in the Macchi) - presumably to keep as low as possible and avoid a red-out through a high G pushover.
Any knucks... is there a name for this manouvere?
Needless to say... I was also allowed a little fly myself on both occassions
The other trick they do (which us humble bugsmashers never will) is rolling inverted at very low altitude to go over the top of a hill (we did this in the Macchi) - presumably to keep as low as possible and avoid a red-out through a high G pushover.
Any knucks... is there a name for this manouvere?
Any knucks... is there a name for this manouvere?
A pity you've only flown in the JP6 - or 'Hawk' as it's called. You should have tried the A5 pass in Mr Folland's pocket rocket - that was low level flying!
Thread Starter
Beagle... are you referring to the Gnat?
I found the Hawk quite a handful - especially when asked to fly a loop, and pulled up way too hard, loading us up with a large amount of G which got me a bollocking from the front seat... not realising that the wing loading on the Hawk was a lot less than the Macchi...
Having said that, there is almost nothing like looking back over the top of an ejection seat and seeing the ground rolling over underneath you... bloody amazing - will remember it for the rest of my life.
I found the Hawk quite a handful - especially when asked to fly a loop, and pulled up way too hard, loading us up with a large amount of G which got me a bollocking from the front seat... not realising that the wing loading on the Hawk was a lot less than the Macchi...
Having said that, there is almost nothing like looking back over the top of an ejection seat and seeing the ground rolling over underneath you... bloody amazing - will remember it for the rest of my life.
thumbs up
If you have a choice ; personally I'd say go for the RAF route, training par excellence bar none (IMHO) - Before I fly into a flak barrage (it's on the radar already !!!) you will of course also receive excellent training going for a PPL & you may even be lucky enough to get an ex Mil' instructor, just (IMHO) that if you go for the RAF route you'll have a wider choice of kit to operate & at more extremes unless you have strong feelings about being shot at, or operating live weapon systems in theatre.