The C27's are a coming
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wingham NSW Australia
Age: 83
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KingAir350
FlareHighLandLong. On what do you base your statement re the KingAir350 that "you would not send someone to fly one without 3000 hours"? Surely you jest. Gundog01, most of the ex Caribou pilots have probably either been flying another type or gone civvy by now. It is a good while since the Caribou was removed from active flying. Anyway, I thought the RAAF pilots were all in the same Air Force and very few get to spend long tours on one type.
Last edited by Old Fella; 12th May 2012 at 08:57.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airbus
Re Airbus Military Comments, there is some background worth sharing.
Airbus is part of EADS, and EADS owns Eurcopter. Eurocopter has not yet received (all) the money for the Tiger Helicopters, because they have not met the milestones that were required under the contract. They did, however, fork out a LOT of money up-front to the OEM suppliers (Engines, Avionics and armament especially). Eurocopter spent more than they have thus far recovered from the ADF. A lot more.
The MRH90 has gone the same way and it has chewed up the cash flow for Eurocopter. Allof it in fact, and the some!
EADS was propping up Eurocopter using the sales of it's Airbus aircraft. Between notable and tragic 'issues' with its Airbus Fleet, and the GFC, that support isn't there.
I suspect the comments from Airbus are because they are desperate to recover SOME funding to help make their business work.
What happens to the MRH90 if Eurocopter goes under? Support for the Tiger? And add a 'lesser' Tactical Transporter to the Bill? That's a lot of eggs in one basket....
Airbus is part of EADS, and EADS owns Eurcopter. Eurocopter has not yet received (all) the money for the Tiger Helicopters, because they have not met the milestones that were required under the contract. They did, however, fork out a LOT of money up-front to the OEM suppliers (Engines, Avionics and armament especially). Eurocopter spent more than they have thus far recovered from the ADF. A lot more.
The MRH90 has gone the same way and it has chewed up the cash flow for Eurocopter. Allof it in fact, and the some!
EADS was propping up Eurocopter using the sales of it's Airbus aircraft. Between notable and tragic 'issues' with its Airbus Fleet, and the GFC, that support isn't there.
I suspect the comments from Airbus are because they are desperate to recover SOME funding to help make their business work.
What happens to the MRH90 if Eurocopter goes under? Support for the Tiger? And add a 'lesser' Tactical Transporter to the Bill? That's a lot of eggs in one basket....
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SIMUL8D
Re your comments
" Re Airbus Military Comments, there is some background worth sharing.
Airbus is part of EADS, and EADS owns Eurcopter. Eurocopter has not yet received (all) the money for the Tiger Helicopters, because they have not met the milestones that were required under the contract. They did, however, fork out a LOT of money up-front to the OEM suppliers (Engines, Avionics and armament especially). Eurocopter spent more than they have thus far recovered from the ADF. A lot more.
The MRH90 has gone the same way and it has chewed up the cash flow for Eurocopter. Allof it in fact, and the some!
EADS was propping up Eurocopter using the sales of it's Airbus aircraft. Between notable and tragic 'issues' with its Airbus Fleet, and the GFC, that support isn't there."
All I can say is tough, they signed the contract and I very much doubt they signed it without reading it and running it past lawyers so they have to suffer the consequences of signing something with performance / payment milestones installed which they were not capable of meeting.
I would guess they really wanted the contract and the flow on effect of that is what is occurring.
Meet the milestones and they will get paid, pretty simple really.
Re your comments
" Re Airbus Military Comments, there is some background worth sharing.
Airbus is part of EADS, and EADS owns Eurcopter. Eurocopter has not yet received (all) the money for the Tiger Helicopters, because they have not met the milestones that were required under the contract. They did, however, fork out a LOT of money up-front to the OEM suppliers (Engines, Avionics and armament especially). Eurocopter spent more than they have thus far recovered from the ADF. A lot more.
The MRH90 has gone the same way and it has chewed up the cash flow for Eurocopter. Allof it in fact, and the some!
EADS was propping up Eurocopter using the sales of it's Airbus aircraft. Between notable and tragic 'issues' with its Airbus Fleet, and the GFC, that support isn't there."
All I can say is tough, they signed the contract and I very much doubt they signed it without reading it and running it past lawyers so they have to suffer the consequences of signing something with performance / payment milestones installed which they were not capable of meeting.
I would guess they really wanted the contract and the flow on effect of that is what is occurring.
Meet the milestones and they will get paid, pretty simple really.
Last edited by 500N; 12th May 2012 at 20:57.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Old Fella,
You're right, us Caribou guys that saw the old girl out have all been flying other types.
I think you will find there a a bunch of Herc and P3 guys who will never fly anything else (except Ct4 or PC9 when they go instructors).
You're right, us Caribou guys that saw the old girl out have all been flying other types.
I think you will find there a a bunch of Herc and P3 guys who will never fly anything else (except Ct4 or PC9 when they go instructors).
Last edited by Gundog01; 12th May 2012 at 22:46.
It is a reality for all RAAF pilot aspirants that the only aircraft they might get to fly in their careers is a Kingair. It is a legitimate (if not disapponting) career path in the RAAF to be a Kingair pilot for life.
At a recent airshow I heard an interview with Roulette seven and was surprised to hear that he had only flown the PC9 and B350 in RAAF service. Not the fault of the guys but a very sad state of affairs none the less. If you're not flying a tactical machine then what is the point of being in the ADF? You might as well fly a bus...
Bring on the 10 C-27s, and more if we can get them. Hopefully this will revive tactical airlift/airdrop in the ADF.
You mean you can go through your whole career without ever being operational...Never!!!
At a recent airshow I heard an interview with Roulette seven and was surprised to hear that he had only flown the PC9 and B350 in RAAF service. Not the fault of the guys but a very sad state of affairs none the less. If you're not flying a tactical machine then what is the point of being in the ADF? You might as well fly a bus...
Currently there has been no change in a system that may have worked before the arrival of the c17, kc30. The operational squadrons will continue to received pilots who either fail conversion or do not progress at a rate that will make them captain in the normal period.
I heard an interview with Roulette seven and was surprised to hear that he had only flown the PC9 and B350 in RAAF service
FlareHighLandLong. On what do you base your statement re the KingAir350 that "you would not send someone to fly one without 3000 hours"? Surely you jest.
Arm Out The Window
I didn't realise that, thanks. I will say though that if he was direct entry then his IMPS is more than 50% complete; without an operational posting. We've seen similar things in AAvn and the FAA in recent years.
Not really a sad state of affairs, as R7s are relatively junior people who don't fly in the team aerobatically, aren't QFIs and will often go on to bigger and better things later.
Yeah, I'm not sure exactly how things go these days, being out of the system now, but I've always thought it would be better to concentrate on giving pilots time to really develop in the squadrons rather than push them through the flying tour - ground job - flying tour - promotion into another ground job - flying exec job mill.
Give us a good pool of experienced B Cat FLTLTs in the squadrons rather than pushing them up the tree or out. Two full flying tours in a row of at least 2.5 years duration before any thought of a ground job, I say!
Not realistic thinking in these days of austerity measures I guess.
Give us a good pool of experienced B Cat FLTLTs in the squadrons rather than pushing them up the tree or out. Two full flying tours in a row of at least 2.5 years duration before any thought of a ground job, I say!
Not realistic thinking in these days of austerity measures I guess.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Victoria
Age: 62
Posts: 984
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AoTW for CAF!!
How true.
Given the complexity of today's aircraft and the environment they operate in, experience is paramount. However the RAAF sticks to the same old dogma when it comes to pilot manning. Gotta keep pushing them through the training system so we can keep the promotion system fed. Let's totally ignore capability and the dwindling experience levels in the squadrons. We can always recruit laterals from other air forces at the expense of developing our own guys
.
Want SRP? How about reducing the numbers of officers above unit command level by 50% and doing something to reduce the top heavy nature of our the RAAF? I'm sure the effect on operational effectiveneness will be negligible.
How true.
Given the complexity of today's aircraft and the environment they operate in, experience is paramount. However the RAAF sticks to the same old dogma when it comes to pilot manning. Gotta keep pushing them through the training system so we can keep the promotion system fed. Let's totally ignore capability and the dwindling experience levels in the squadrons. We can always recruit laterals from other air forces at the expense of developing our own guys
.Want SRP? How about reducing the numbers of officers above unit command level by 50% and doing something to reduce the top heavy nature of our the RAAF? I'm sure the effect on operational effectiveneness will be negligible.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speaking to the C-17 and MRTT guys there is virtually no practical way for a 2FTS grad to become captain on a 3 year first tour. The squadrons get no return on investment as the guys are out just as they are about to become really useful (i.e. C-CAT).
KA350 is good in that guys learn about life outside 40TAC of Pearce but unless the OPCONs can reduce conversion length (or at least time to make captain) based on KA350 time the no-one is better off. There is now the first batch of ex 32/38 Kingair guys who are on or about to be on OPCONs so it will be interesting to see what happens with their progression.
KA350 is good in that guys learn about life outside 40TAC of Pearce but unless the OPCONs can reduce conversion length (or at least time to make captain) based on KA350 time the no-one is better off. There is now the first batch of ex 32/38 Kingair guys who are on or about to be on OPCONs so it will be interesting to see what happens with their progression.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wingham NSW Australia
Age: 83
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3000 hours
Yes FHLL, you did not make it clear that you were talking about the civil environment. My response was indeed based on the RAAF where I expect the KingAir is flown as a ME/MC operation. As for needing 3000 hours in civil ops I am not sure that there are not PIC's in 350's with less than 3000 hours.
Old fella,
I was not trying to prepare an irrefutable argument for a court of law. As a general rule, king air pilots would typically start with lots of time, the exact figure or the occasional exception is not important to the point I am making.
In the civil environment junior pilots generally do long apprenticeships before they would get near any of the alg or srg types, even as cojo. Because it is generally single pilot, the king air requirements would typically be higher than the rest. Therefore the development of training packages has been difficult, and I would argue they still don't provide the captaincy and decision making development the guys need.
The civvies have reduced the time train candidates, but only by focussing all the training on the automation and crew interaction. I still believe the boggies need all those basic hands and feet stuff they get at 2 fts, but there has to be a very strong case to provide accelerated me/mc development. Given how heavily the civvies are using simulation we are way behind. I spoke to a Cathay SO recently who told me he is sent to the sim constantly, way more than the minimum, simply for his development.
I ack the points about the raaf's attitude that it's ok to send pc9 pilots to big jets, and that it must be possible for them to develop in time without the extra resources. Winded what it will take to change this perception?
I was not trying to prepare an irrefutable argument for a court of law. As a general rule, king air pilots would typically start with lots of time, the exact figure or the occasional exception is not important to the point I am making.
In the civil environment junior pilots generally do long apprenticeships before they would get near any of the alg or srg types, even as cojo. Because it is generally single pilot, the king air requirements would typically be higher than the rest. Therefore the development of training packages has been difficult, and I would argue they still don't provide the captaincy and decision making development the guys need.
The civvies have reduced the time train candidates, but only by focussing all the training on the automation and crew interaction. I still believe the boggies need all those basic hands and feet stuff they get at 2 fts, but there has to be a very strong case to provide accelerated me/mc development. Given how heavily the civvies are using simulation we are way behind. I spoke to a Cathay SO recently who told me he is sent to the sim constantly, way more than the minimum, simply for his development.
I ack the points about the raaf's attitude that it's ok to send pc9 pilots to big jets, and that it must be possible for them to develop in time without the extra resources. Winded what it will take to change this perception?
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wingham NSW Australia
Age: 83
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PC9 to Big Jet.
FHLL, I have no idea what the current RAAF situation is, I can only draw on my RAAF experience on the C130 & B707 fleets in regard to the RAAF system. I well recall any number of graduates from 2FTS being posted into 36 Sqn and spending much of their tour in the RH seat. Most, as I recall, made command during that tour and, most if not all, were good Captains. I have no doubt that the environment within the C130 especially was one where co-pilots were in the company of a considerable amount of experience on most operations. I think they learned CRM although the term was never mentioned, maybe not yet invented in my RAAF days, with a crew compliment of three Commissioned Officers and two SNCO's at least. The B707 was different in that, especially in the initial days, all crew members were highly experienced. The initial six pilots comprised five former C130 Captains (two of whom had also had KC135 exhange postings), one P3 Captain and three C130 F/E's and we were all trained by Qantas to their standard of operation. Our first 3 LM's all came from the C130's. Given the 54 years of C130 operations, most if not all under the system as I knew it, and the record of never having lost a C130 speaks for itself in terms of the effectiveness of the RAAF system, I think. I am sure improvements can be made, as they always can.
I think we're now in furious agreement.
It did work a treat in your day. No longer. 2 crew flight deck, slower progression and rates of flying = much lower corporate knowledge, and a need to rely upon more rigorous training schemes. Hence my comments.
C27s will not have such a luxury of those high experience levels available. I know of some good operators who will probably get a start, but on the whole it's less than it would have been in days gone by. Once they get going, it should be superb.
It did work a treat in your day. No longer. 2 crew flight deck, slower progression and rates of flying = much lower corporate knowledge, and a need to rely upon more rigorous training schemes. Hence my comments.
C27s will not have such a luxury of those high experience levels available. I know of some good operators who will probably get a start, but on the whole it's less than it would have been in days gone by. Once they get going, it should be superb.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wingham NSW Australia
Age: 83
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
High experience levels not available?
FHLL, I would have thought that the demise of the C130H, which I presume is currently being flown by a number of highly experienced crew, will release those crew to be posted into other squadrons. Surely, as was the case with the B707, some of those highly experienced pilots will be used in the introduction of the C27 into RAAF service. Obviously the FE's will not be used in the C27 and, if required, will be employed in the maritime role.
As far as pilot progression due to being a 2 pilot aircraft it did not seem to be a problem on the C130 which has always been a 2 pilot aircraft, albiet assisted by the FE until the J model.
I hope your concerns prove to be unfounded and that the C27 proves to be a successful replacement for the venerable 'Boo.
As far as pilot progression due to being a 2 pilot aircraft it did not seem to be a problem on the C130 which has always been a 2 pilot aircraft, albiet assisted by the FE until the J model.
I hope your concerns prove to be unfounded and that the C27 proves to be a successful replacement for the venerable 'Boo.
Don't get me wrong - I think the C27J will be one of the healthiest platforms. It will provide fun and interesting flying and I hope plenty of boggies who start on it will want to stay.(all those conversions to civvy types 737/A330/CL604 will be very attractive). Given the profiles and the number of sectors the guys get they will develop faster than just about any of their peers. It should go from strength to strength.
Your presumption about the H model workforce is a bit of a problem. Between those who left for greener pastures (such as C17), and those recently forced into promotion you will find very few senior FLTLTs left to form the core of the C27J workforce. Besides, you might find a very specific effort by RAAF to post in a blend of bodies to ensure it doesn't get swamped with H culture and attitudes. Remember, 20 years ago you probably needed 1000 command to start QFIs, the current generation only need 300, and I believe that is often waived. It was offered to me once when DP came looking for fresh meat for the schools, when I had about 150 command, and was getting more at about 10 hours a month. By the way, the guys on the H right now are top blokes, but that workforce has been smashed by terrible management since Timor.
The comment about 2 crew is because C130AEH and 707 had 4 on the flight deck. The whole crew learned and taught each other. Reducing that to 2 guarantees that knowledge will degrade quicker.
Your presumption about the H model workforce is a bit of a problem. Between those who left for greener pastures (such as C17), and those recently forced into promotion you will find very few senior FLTLTs left to form the core of the C27J workforce. Besides, you might find a very specific effort by RAAF to post in a blend of bodies to ensure it doesn't get swamped with H culture and attitudes. Remember, 20 years ago you probably needed 1000 command to start QFIs, the current generation only need 300, and I believe that is often waived. It was offered to me once when DP came looking for fresh meat for the schools, when I had about 150 command, and was getting more at about 10 hours a month. By the way, the guys on the H right now are top blokes, but that workforce has been smashed by terrible management since Timor.
The comment about 2 crew is because C130AEH and 707 had 4 on the flight deck. The whole crew learned and taught each other. Reducing that to 2 guarantees that knowledge will degrade quicker.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wingham NSW Australia
Age: 83
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B707 crewing
FHLL, very sorry mate, only 3 in the cockpit of the B707, in my time at least. Our Navigator was by Delco INS. Maybe later went to Litton as on the "H".
