Training Pipeline Clogged
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TACAN was in use donkeys years before GPS,RNAV etc came along so why would the answer depend on them, vinrouge?
Assuming its not a rhetorical question and you really don't know, Beagle, and not having had the pleasure of flying the lovely VC10, the answer is "not much". TACANs can be fitted on a ship, a building or even a truck none of which have such a thing as a North ref switch, so why would it matter? And in inverse bearing mode (if anyone's attention span has lasted this long) the reference pulse is aligned with a given part of the aircraft structure rather than a compass point. In any case, if a fighter cant find a great big tanker without a TACAN today is it really worth wasting fuel on?
If anything your question highlights the fact that maybe this particular capability holiday doesn't threaten the realm too much!
Assuming its not a rhetorical question and you really don't know, Beagle, and not having had the pleasure of flying the lovely VC10, the answer is "not much". TACANs can be fitted on a ship, a building or even a truck none of which have such a thing as a North ref switch, so why would it matter? And in inverse bearing mode (if anyone's attention span has lasted this long) the reference pulse is aligned with a given part of the aircraft structure rather than a compass point. In any case, if a fighter cant find a great big tanker without a TACAN today is it really worth wasting fuel on?
If anything your question highlights the fact that maybe this particular capability holiday doesn't threaten the realm too much!
Last edited by ShotOne; 24th Nov 2013 at 19:27.
No, I'm referring to INV BCN mode, not A/A INV, where the north reference burst is, according to publications, aligned with Magnetic North. Actually, it is transmitted when the rotating antenna pattern is passing East - and the aircraft heading is applied accordingly to provide the correct reference for the transmitted signal. So when the aircraft heading is aligned to True North, it is essential to understand whether that will also be applied to the north reference burst.
VinRouge, 'Trial and error' is hardly a sound testing methodology!
VinRouge, 'Trial and error' is hardly a sound testing methodology!
Training Pipeline Clogged
BEagle.
I don't doubt that there was a time when old school navigator techniques were very useful. Maybe that time will come again in the future when anti satellite weapons become more commonplace. However, could you please explain how they could still be considered useful in today's aircraft? I am being genuine here and not having a dig so don't think this is a young upstarts vs the older and wiser crowd situation. Please bear in mind I am a FJ guy through and through but being a professional I have more than a laypersons understanding of other fleets.
Even the creaking old dinosaur that is CFS realizes that Hawk T1s, whilst useful in the past and can still provide a useful FJ lead in, have had their day. More modern aircraft such as the T2 can more adequately prepare our contemporary baby pilots for the frontline types for which they are destined.
I'm sure there are parallels on other fleets such that older techniques are no longer considered necessary by those in the know. I'm content to be proven wrong though.
As an aside are civilians taught such delights?
BV
I don't doubt that there was a time when old school navigator techniques were very useful. Maybe that time will come again in the future when anti satellite weapons become more commonplace. However, could you please explain how they could still be considered useful in today's aircraft? I am being genuine here and not having a dig so don't think this is a young upstarts vs the older and wiser crowd situation. Please bear in mind I am a FJ guy through and through but being a professional I have more than a laypersons understanding of other fleets.
Even the creaking old dinosaur that is CFS realizes that Hawk T1s, whilst useful in the past and can still provide a useful FJ lead in, have had their day. More modern aircraft such as the T2 can more adequately prepare our contemporary baby pilots for the frontline types for which they are destined.
I'm sure there are parallels on other fleets such that older techniques are no longer considered necessary by those in the know. I'm content to be proven wrong though.
As an aside are civilians taught such delights?
BV
As an aside are civilians taught such delights?
Progressive dumbing-down of basic theoretical knowledge, which has been going on for many years now at FTS level, isn't the whole problem. What is worrying is what will happen when the last truly knowledgeable person finally retires a week before someone urgently needs an answer.
The creeping malaise of "Doesn't affect my little world, therefore doesn't matter" needs to be addressed.
For example, I was taught (and examined) PofF to a higher level as a UAS student in the early 1970s than I was as a CFS student some 20 years later. I don't think that it did me any harm - and was a sound grounding for later years.
Hopefully the RAF still runs QWI courses, even though TWU aircraft no longer deliver real weapons? Which I still think is a real mistake.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bob, yes we are taught it, and beagle would be pleased to hear the nav/Flt planning exam is (or was) based on VC10 fuel flow tables. That said, tens of thousands of aircraft manage to find their destinations every day, some of which are in godforsaken navaid free parts of the globe without navigators, specialist or otherwise.
What prompted the resurrection of this thread after two years?
What prompted the resurrection of this thread after two years?
Training Pipeline Clogged
BEagle.
I can see your point but the intricacies of Lightning Pods, phased array RADARs and GPS guided bombs weren't taught 20+ years ago. Maybe it's not a case that guys now have less knowledge. Maybe it's just that there are more relevant things to fill up much needed brain space these days.
We've been through the whole simulated bombs versus training weapons before (ie hawk T1 vs Hawk T2 or 115). I've taught TW on both and went through both as a student. I know which I think prepares students better for modern frontline aircraft. Rest assured though with modern attack computers, whether you have a score from the RSO after your attack makes little difference if the correct discipline is taught.
I too remember same, drift, drift, track, fire. It worked well at the time but so does practicing loft deliveries of PW4.
BV
I can see your point but the intricacies of Lightning Pods, phased array RADARs and GPS guided bombs weren't taught 20+ years ago. Maybe it's not a case that guys now have less knowledge. Maybe it's just that there are more relevant things to fill up much needed brain space these days.
We've been through the whole simulated bombs versus training weapons before (ie hawk T1 vs Hawk T2 or 115). I've taught TW on both and went through both as a student. I know which I think prepares students better for modern frontline aircraft. Rest assured though with modern attack computers, whether you have a score from the RSO after your attack makes little difference if the correct discipline is taught.
I too remember same, drift, drift, track, fire. It worked well at the time but so does practicing loft deliveries of PW4.
BV
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What prompted the resurrection of this thread after two years?
Many thanks to WW & CS for their instant and very helpful replies.
The ensuing debate re the relevance of "directional consultant" training to the modern world of aviation, military or civil, has got **** all to do with me.
But if I may venture an ill-informed and uneducated opinion.
Navigators are OK, but pound for pound I'd rather take some extra dairy cream sponge.
BV, I concede that some of the stuff we had to study on the Gnat course wasn't all that relevant. Why, for example, did we study the theory of monsoons and learn about 'willy-willies' and 'horse latitudes' in an aeroplane which could barely reach the south coast of the UK from Angelsey?
But there's rather a lot of 'running before walking' around nowadays - Litening pods, PW and phased array radar would have been OCU topics, rather than TWU topics not all that long ago, for example. Is TWU really the right point for such esoteric systems?
As for the dumbing down of ME flying training, teaching VC10 co-pilots to fly close formation when they'd probably only have done so in little puddlejumpers beforehand was....interesting. Particularly at night.
It's not so much the 'directional consultant' as the knowledge of the deeper recesses of their black craft which seems to be in danger of being lost, if the RAF isn't careful.
Does 'Nav Flight Services' still exist?
But there's rather a lot of 'running before walking' around nowadays - Litening pods, PW and phased array radar would have been OCU topics, rather than TWU topics not all that long ago, for example. Is TWU really the right point for such esoteric systems?
As for the dumbing down of ME flying training, teaching VC10 co-pilots to fly close formation when they'd probably only have done so in little puddlejumpers beforehand was....interesting. Particularly at night.
It's not so much the 'directional consultant' as the knowledge of the deeper recesses of their black craft which seems to be in danger of being lost, if the RAF isn't careful.
Does 'Nav Flight Services' still exist?
Training Pipeline Clogged
Since I've never had the pleasure of spending much time in the company of navigators I can't really speak for the more complex areas of their trade. I'm sure there'll be someone along soon with a little more knowledge in that respect.
As for the TW stuff I would say that guys will learn whatever you put in front if them and cope just fine. It wasn't that long ago that we had several fleets of aircraft that dropped dumb bombs almost exclusively. The training system we had worked just fine for that. In the not too distant future we'll be sending guys off to an OCU for a fifth gen wonder jet. Something had to change.
We could debate the rights and wrongs of the dissolution of the Nav branch until the cows come home but my point of view is that modern aircraft are designed around one seat and work just fine. Others were designed around two seats and also worked fine. Horses for courses I suppose. I'm afraid I don't see a place for many of the old techniques and knowledge when there are more pressing matters and equipment that works without it. I may of course be proven wrong in the future.
BV
As for the TW stuff I would say that guys will learn whatever you put in front if them and cope just fine. It wasn't that long ago that we had several fleets of aircraft that dropped dumb bombs almost exclusively. The training system we had worked just fine for that. In the not too distant future we'll be sending guys off to an OCU for a fifth gen wonder jet. Something had to change.
We could debate the rights and wrongs of the dissolution of the Nav branch until the cows come home but my point of view is that modern aircraft are designed around one seat and work just fine. Others were designed around two seats and also worked fine. Horses for courses I suppose. I'm afraid I don't see a place for many of the old techniques and knowledge when there are more pressing matters and equipment that works without it. I may of course be proven wrong in the future.
BV
TOFO,
I suspect MFTS at Culdrose will end up as the only school for future non-pilot aircrew of the future.
Bob,
Old school tip - in the northern hemisphere the sun will be due south at local midday time. Work backwards or forwards in time at 15 Deg/hr and you'll know if you're driving north or south on the A1 on Thursday afternoon! 
I suspect MFTS at Culdrose will end up as the only school for future non-pilot aircrew of the future.
Bob,
I'm afraid I don't see a place for many of the old techniques and knowledge
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
I suspect MFTS at Culdrose will end up as the only school for future non-pilot aircrew of the future.
.Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Despite best intentions and lots of evidence to suggest the older fraternity of Beagle et al are absolutely spot on in that over the years we have "dumbed down" our flying training across the board, the bottom line has been two fold.
Firstly, as a weak analogy to the Battle of Britain/World War 2 era, the last 10 years of high tempo ops has (and will continue) to see a high turn over over trained aircrew, therefore the flying training system (in some areas) may not be able to deliver the standards it once did.
Secondly, if there is no money then you can do as much of a TNA and get as many training consultants in to advise as you want, but sadly the MOD will not be able to afford it. Especially if we were a bit cheeky and made sure that Hawk training and the Fast Jet pipeline possibly had the greater focus, and therefore the greater MFTS resources upfront, leaving the cupboard bare for the other pipelines.
The only way that maybe the concerns of those espousing that the training system isn't to the same standard, and whether or not offers value for money etc is to ask the MAA to try and compare occurrence incident and accident rates over the last 20-30 years. If there is a sharp spike in occurrences , that cannot be attributed to Op Hazards, Tech Faults or any other non HF(Aircrew) or training related factors, then maybe the bean counters in MOD may take notice.
Or we could just go back to the old way of doing business, tell each Service to train it's own pilots, and we use our Reserves and pilots that have had enough op or front line tours and that we may retain by giving them a tour of stability.
But no one in the MOD can put a price on the long term advantage of retention, standards and military ethos and practices versus potential short term cost savings (?) of contractorisation, PFIs and civilianisation across the board.
Firstly, as a weak analogy to the Battle of Britain/World War 2 era, the last 10 years of high tempo ops has (and will continue) to see a high turn over over trained aircrew, therefore the flying training system (in some areas) may not be able to deliver the standards it once did.
Secondly, if there is no money then you can do as much of a TNA and get as many training consultants in to advise as you want, but sadly the MOD will not be able to afford it. Especially if we were a bit cheeky and made sure that Hawk training and the Fast Jet pipeline possibly had the greater focus, and therefore the greater MFTS resources upfront, leaving the cupboard bare for the other pipelines.
The only way that maybe the concerns of those espousing that the training system isn't to the same standard, and whether or not offers value for money etc is to ask the MAA to try and compare occurrence incident and accident rates over the last 20-30 years. If there is a sharp spike in occurrences , that cannot be attributed to Op Hazards, Tech Faults or any other non HF(Aircrew) or training related factors, then maybe the bean counters in MOD may take notice.
Or we could just go back to the old way of doing business, tell each Service to train it's own pilots, and we use our Reserves and pilots that have had enough op or front line tours and that we may retain by giving them a tour of stability.
But no one in the MOD can put a price on the long term advantage of retention, standards and military ethos and practices versus potential short term cost savings (?) of contractorisation, PFIs and civilianisation across the board.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Navigators are OK, but pound for pound I'd rather take some extra dairy cream sponge.
