5th C-17 for RAAF
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Age: 64
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Couldn't agree more.
I particularly enjoyed the NOTAMs that once came from an alleged former Russian Air Force pilot, or as APA put it "a former alleged Russian Air Force pilot". His Russ-Lish was superb, but it did have a certain Australian flavour to it???
I particularly enjoyed the NOTAMs that once came from an alleged former Russian Air Force pilot, or as APA put it "a former alleged Russian Air Force pilot". His Russ-Lish was superb, but it did have a certain Australian flavour to it???
Last edited by Trackmaster; 22nd Apr 2011 at 07:16. Reason: Additional information
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back on Apr 20th Wiley asked the question (originally posed by MTOW some time earlier):
By the absence of an answer, can we assume that the answer was 'b'?
Or, more likely, 0800-1700 Monday to Thursday and 0800-1530 on Fridays?
Lost again, you haven't answered MTOW's question: ("Can you define 'fully booked'?") to you comment that "285Sqn has both a level 5 C130H and C130J simulator. These are fully booked."
Do you mean "fully booked" as in
(a) a 24 hour a day cycle, 7 days a week - (as most civilian simulators are used) - or
(b) 'fully booked' as in 0800 to 1700 Monday to Friday?
Do you mean "fully booked" as in
(a) a 24 hour a day cycle, 7 days a week - (as most civilian simulators are used) - or
(b) 'fully booked' as in 0800 to 1700 Monday to Friday?
Or, more likely, 0800-1700 Monday to Thursday and 0800-1530 on Fridays?
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wingham NSW Australia
Age: 83
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAAF Simulators
Unless things have changed dramatically the RAAF Simulators are used weekdays only, with maintenance carried out "after hours". If there is a shortage of instructors, which traditionally has been a secondary duty for squadron personnel, there would be little scope for the simulators to operate other than weekdays during normal hours. It would seem to me that, as others have pointed out, the knowledge and skills of former crew could be utilised to reduce the time to get new crews "on line". Sure would beat the hell out of spending one's day in the local "Men's Shed".
The sim instructors are ex service aircrew (I know at least 2 are retired QFIs) who are civvie contractors. First lot trained with Boeing in the US. I guess some back-up secondary duty for some pilots as required. Civvie contractors is the way to go, become specialists and could stay for years, well into their 60s.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is what civil sim. operators call 'running flat out'.
Session 1: 0600-1000
Session 2: 1015-1415
Session 3: 1430-1830
Session 4: 1845-2245
Session 5: 2300-0300
Maintenance: 0300-0600
....seven days a week, 365 days a year, with the odd scheduled session lost to maintenance if required. (And if the owner of the sim. has unused time, they usually advertise the spare time to other operators, and that spare time [usually those awful back of the clock sessions] is almost always snapped up.)
And the fixed base procedural trainer (which I assume the RAAF has for the C130 and the C17 as well as the full flight simulator), while not usually used 'back of the clock', is similarly heavily booked during heavy training periods, like conversion courses.
So in any given week, any one sim. can handle 35 four hour sim. sessions. I've been involved with sims in three airlines and that's pretty much the way they all do it - because their beancounters rightly see that whatever it might cost to staff and run them, simulators used this way, to maximum capability, save money - lots of it - and deliver productive crews, available to operate when and wherever needed, in minimum time.
If the RAAF's having trouble with long delays in initial training (as they seem to have been for some years now) and with maintaining currency for qualified crew, maybe it's time they took a closer look at the way civil aviation does it.
Simulators have such fidelity today that asymmetric procedures (and for that matter, any emergency procedures) do not need to be (make that should not be) done in the aircraft anymore. If the RAAF didn't know that already, it should have learned that after the loss of the 707 at Sale. (How many years ago was that now?)
Similarly, many of not most specialist categorisation training could be done in the sim. The QFIs won't like it, as it will turn them into vampires - (almost permanent residents of the 'bat cave') - but it's a fact. You also don't need QFIs to do most of this training if it's done in a sim. This again would involve a change of thinking from standard RAAF practice, but again, it's a fact.
It seems to me there should be some ambitious young Wing Commander out there who should ask to be given command of the RAAF's transport sim. program and the wherewithal (=$$$) to turn it into a 24 hour a day, seven days a week operation and he or she would unplug a major bottleneck.
Session 1: 0600-1000
Session 2: 1015-1415
Session 3: 1430-1830
Session 4: 1845-2245
Session 5: 2300-0300
Maintenance: 0300-0600
....seven days a week, 365 days a year, with the odd scheduled session lost to maintenance if required. (And if the owner of the sim. has unused time, they usually advertise the spare time to other operators, and that spare time [usually those awful back of the clock sessions] is almost always snapped up.)
And the fixed base procedural trainer (which I assume the RAAF has for the C130 and the C17 as well as the full flight simulator), while not usually used 'back of the clock', is similarly heavily booked during heavy training periods, like conversion courses.
So in any given week, any one sim. can handle 35 four hour sim. sessions. I've been involved with sims in three airlines and that's pretty much the way they all do it - because their beancounters rightly see that whatever it might cost to staff and run them, simulators used this way, to maximum capability, save money - lots of it - and deliver productive crews, available to operate when and wherever needed, in minimum time.
If the RAAF's having trouble with long delays in initial training (as they seem to have been for some years now) and with maintaining currency for qualified crew, maybe it's time they took a closer look at the way civil aviation does it.
Simulators have such fidelity today that asymmetric procedures (and for that matter, any emergency procedures) do not need to be (make that should not be) done in the aircraft anymore. If the RAAF didn't know that already, it should have learned that after the loss of the 707 at Sale. (How many years ago was that now?)
Similarly, many of not most specialist categorisation training could be done in the sim. The QFIs won't like it, as it will turn them into vampires - (almost permanent residents of the 'bat cave') - but it's a fact. You also don't need QFIs to do most of this training if it's done in a sim. This again would involve a change of thinking from standard RAAF practice, but again, it's a fact.
It seems to me there should be some ambitious young Wing Commander out there who should ask to be given command of the RAAF's transport sim. program and the wherewithal (=$$$) to turn it into a 24 hour a day, seven days a week operation and he or she would unplug a major bottleneck.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wiley,
Regardless of how many hours there are available for a simulator to be used, the squadrons simply don't need it that much. There may be 50 (only a guess) 2FTS grad waiting for a conversion but the operational squadrons simply don't need more pilots, that is the reason they aren't training the backlog....not becasue of sim unavailability.
My squadron boggies are averaging 300hrs a year. That is not healthy. We simply don't need more boggies, getting less hours and leaving thinking they have done a tour.
Regardless of how many hours there are available for a simulator to be used, the squadrons simply don't need it that much. There may be 50 (only a guess) 2FTS grad waiting for a conversion but the operational squadrons simply don't need more pilots, that is the reason they aren't training the backlog....not becasue of sim unavailability.
My squadron boggies are averaging 300hrs a year. That is not healthy. We simply don't need more boggies, getting less hours and leaving thinking they have done a tour.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: North Arm Cove, NSW, Australia
Age: 86
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Caribou/King Air replacement
If the Australian DoD is at all interested in cost-effectiveness regarding military capabilities; why not the BT-67 for overcoming the gap in tactical air transport capability? See: BT-67, An Overview and this thread: http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...ghanistan.html
The piston-engined DC3/Dakota was operated successfully and extensively throughout the regional tropical archipelago for years. The stretched and enhanced turboprop BT-67 now has pretty impressive cargo capacity and performance. Unit cost only somewhere around $6million so another great bargain, like the Huey II.
Problem is Australia virtually gave away its large fleet of pretty low time Dakota airframes instead of storing them at say Woomera, so finding sufficient now on the world scene might be difficult. Similar story of course for the RAAF C-130Es re-introduced into military service with Pakistan in 2005, after refurbishment. (SIGH!!!)
The piston-engined DC3/Dakota was operated successfully and extensively throughout the regional tropical archipelago for years. The stretched and enhanced turboprop BT-67 now has pretty impressive cargo capacity and performance. Unit cost only somewhere around $6million so another great bargain, like the Huey II.
Problem is Australia virtually gave away its large fleet of pretty low time Dakota airframes instead of storing them at say Woomera, so finding sufficient now on the world scene might be difficult. Similar story of course for the RAAF C-130Es re-introduced into military service with Pakistan in 2005, after refurbishment. (SIGH!!!)
Last edited by Bushranger 71; 2nd May 2011 at 00:07.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: OZ
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Andu,
Sims start at 7am (5days a week) and last one finshed between 7pm to 11pm depending on schedule and availability of QFI's at 285SQN - all 6 of them (4 RAAF , 2 civies).
Probably nice to increase that number but the RAAF just can not go out and increase manning like a private firm does. In these days of SRP and Zero cost the extra people have to be deleted from other locations to increase the numberof QFI's, not so easy when no one wants to see their empire reduce.
politics politics don't ya just love it
Frazzled
Sims start at 7am (5days a week) and last one finshed between 7pm to 11pm depending on schedule and availability of QFI's at 285SQN - all 6 of them (4 RAAF , 2 civies).
Probably nice to increase that number but the RAAF just can not go out and increase manning like a private firm does. In these days of SRP and Zero cost the extra people have to be deleted from other locations to increase the numberof QFI's, not so easy when no one wants to see their empire reduce.
politics politics don't ya just love it
Frazzled
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: North Arm Cove, NSW, Australia
Age: 86
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Gundog01; is the relatively low 300 hours per annum for transport jocks on some aircraft types a function of lower aircraft on-line availability or lessened airlift demand?
Digressing somewhat to create awareness of a brilliant work which all should read - it largely reflects the dysfunctionality within the defence scene in Australia. See: http://www.cdi.org/pdfs/TPL_FullText_2.9.11.pdf
Digressing somewhat to create awareness of a brilliant work which all should read - it largely reflects the dysfunctionality within the defence scene in Australia. See: http://www.cdi.org/pdfs/TPL_FullText_2.9.11.pdf
Music Quizmeister
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Can'tberra, ACT Australia
Age: 67
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gundog - 30% over CE - I assume it is junior pilots that cause this.
Can I ask what manning of supervisory positions is? I.E. : do you have full manning of those positions, or are you short at all.
I'd imagine a shortfall in those supervisory positions coupled with an over-abundance of junior jocks would cause massive problems...........
Can I ask what manning of supervisory positions is? I.E. : do you have full manning of those positions, or are you short at all.
I'd imagine a shortfall in those supervisory positions coupled with an over-abundance of junior jocks would cause massive problems...........
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: North Arm Cove, NSW, Australia
Age: 86
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gundog01; I find the situation you describe curious.
I usually involve in a bi-monthly fighter squadrons luncheon frequently attended by some of the senior RAAF echelon from CAF down. I recently asked a Group Captain from Canberra: 'How are we going these days for pilots?' and his response was: 'We are always short of pilots'.
There has always been an outflow to airlines and not so long back, the Air Force was 'importing' pilots from other nations - maybe this is ongoing to maintain an experienced core. Excess junior pilots will only result in lowering overall experience gained during flying tours, as you have already mentioned; but has the training system been slowed so the surplus of 2FTS graduates awaiting type conversions can be absorbed?
The flying instructor nucleus for the RAAF was significantly diminished by shutdown of 1BFTS and loss of the helicopter flying training component once embedded in No. 5 Squadron at Canberra, when battlefield support helos were transferred to Army Aviation - multiple QFI posts at 4 helicopter squadrons were thus also forfeited. Is flying instructor strength at unit level now a limiting factor for type conversions?
I usually involve in a bi-monthly fighter squadrons luncheon frequently attended by some of the senior RAAF echelon from CAF down. I recently asked a Group Captain from Canberra: 'How are we going these days for pilots?' and his response was: 'We are always short of pilots'.
There has always been an outflow to airlines and not so long back, the Air Force was 'importing' pilots from other nations - maybe this is ongoing to maintain an experienced core. Excess junior pilots will only result in lowering overall experience gained during flying tours, as you have already mentioned; but has the training system been slowed so the surplus of 2FTS graduates awaiting type conversions can be absorbed?
The flying instructor nucleus for the RAAF was significantly diminished by shutdown of 1BFTS and loss of the helicopter flying training component once embedded in No. 5 Squadron at Canberra, when battlefield support helos were transferred to Army Aviation - multiple QFI posts at 4 helicopter squadrons were thus also forfeited. Is flying instructor strength at unit level now a limiting factor for type conversions?
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Antipodea
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@MTOW, Wiley and Andu
Apologies for the late reply. I'm wearing 3 hats at work and organising a major training course so we have guys ready for TS11. I try to forget work at home to get a break.
Regarding the SIM, 0700-2000 is pretty normal for training use. More is available and can be negotiated with the operator. In between it's down for maintenance, block upgrades and development for role expansion. That's what I meant by fully booked. All available sim slots are filled.
To operate 24/7 would require more instructors and the loss of any OT&E for new procedures/hardware/role expansion. Our sims are used for development, not just raise/train/sustain. It's been said before but increasing numbers means another FEG must lose. Personnel manning is neutral. To increase our CE means the body must come from within the existing structure. I'll give an example, for those that remember the ABNOPSO position coordinating tactical training. Now it's been rolled into an ops job at the same time with long range planning. Same work, double volume as you cover both responsibilities. Oh and keep flying at the same time, instruct, maintain currencies, do that minor project for an upgrade, investigate an ASOR, do a QA on fraud, keep your IR up to date, finish the required courses for promotion, sit in as deputy when the FLTCDR takes leave, draft PAR's/PRP's etc..
The merging of jobs decribed above freed up a position. Loss of Dev FLT at 285 freed up some more and now you have some people who can man up 4Sqn, 2Sqn, 36Sqn etc...
The other item that consumes resources is the continual retraining when we block upgrade. The 5.4 J is not the same as a 6.1 or 7.0 J. These must be planned for as the last upgrade took the J sim offline for months as it did for each airframe going to 5.4. The currencies had to be managed so that nobody went uncurrent during this period. Block upgrades are ~2-3 years apart.
To answer a previous question. Herc's do no EFATO or double assymetric training airborne, it's all sim based. The 707 accident forced a rethink of this training.
Our training woes are being worked on. I just wouldn't like being a bograt pilot awaiting basic conversion at the moment.
Apologies for the late reply. I'm wearing 3 hats at work and organising a major training course so we have guys ready for TS11. I try to forget work at home to get a break.
Regarding the SIM, 0700-2000 is pretty normal for training use. More is available and can be negotiated with the operator. In between it's down for maintenance, block upgrades and development for role expansion. That's what I meant by fully booked. All available sim slots are filled.
To operate 24/7 would require more instructors and the loss of any OT&E for new procedures/hardware/role expansion. Our sims are used for development, not just raise/train/sustain. It's been said before but increasing numbers means another FEG must lose. Personnel manning is neutral. To increase our CE means the body must come from within the existing structure. I'll give an example, for those that remember the ABNOPSO position coordinating tactical training. Now it's been rolled into an ops job at the same time with long range planning. Same work, double volume as you cover both responsibilities. Oh and keep flying at the same time, instruct, maintain currencies, do that minor project for an upgrade, investigate an ASOR, do a QA on fraud, keep your IR up to date, finish the required courses for promotion, sit in as deputy when the FLTCDR takes leave, draft PAR's/PRP's etc..
The merging of jobs decribed above freed up a position. Loss of Dev FLT at 285 freed up some more and now you have some people who can man up 4Sqn, 2Sqn, 36Sqn etc...
The other item that consumes resources is the continual retraining when we block upgrade. The 5.4 J is not the same as a 6.1 or 7.0 J. These must be planned for as the last upgrade took the J sim offline for months as it did for each airframe going to 5.4. The currencies had to be managed so that nobody went uncurrent during this period. Block upgrades are ~2-3 years apart.
To answer a previous question. Herc's do no EFATO or double assymetric training airborne, it's all sim based. The 707 accident forced a rethink of this training.
Our training woes are being worked on. I just wouldn't like being a bograt pilot awaiting basic conversion at the moment.