Aircraft crashed at RAF Cranwell
You can nurse practically anyone through any course if you spend enough time and effort on them, spoon-feed them enough information, hug them when they screw up and give them another chance every time they fail.
There is a lot to be said for the sink-or-swim approach to military flying training. Those that make it through will be exactly the kind of guys you need on a busy squadron where time spent nursing the strugglers is time not spent developing fighting capability.
This could be judged a wasteful approach as you have to input enough students to allow for a subtantial chop rate. However, the total cost of an IOT course and a bit of early flying training is peanuts when set against repetetive, basic front-line flying designed to allow low average pilots to cope...
PS not advocating violence or bullying! Just a firm approach to those who take forever to learn new stuff, or who learn stuff OK and then leak it like a sieve!
There is a lot to be said for the sink-or-swim approach to military flying training. Those that make it through will be exactly the kind of guys you need on a busy squadron where time spent nursing the strugglers is time not spent developing fighting capability.
This could be judged a wasteful approach as you have to input enough students to allow for a subtantial chop rate. However, the total cost of an IOT course and a bit of early flying training is peanuts when set against repetetive, basic front-line flying designed to allow low average pilots to cope...
PS not advocating violence or bullying! Just a firm approach to those who take forever to learn new stuff, or who learn stuff OK and then leak it like a sieve!
Last edited by Easy Street; 10th Jan 2013 at 23:02.
ES, every course I've been involved in, as instructor or student, did exactly that! I mean a firm approach to people who couldn't learn in time or those who forgot skills rapidly. If we saw genuine potential in people we'd work hard for them, and we'd forgive out-of-character errors with a low grade and permission to carry on. I find it hard to believe that front line flying on your type's been made more repetitive due to a perceived drop in the quality of the pilots....? It got dull at times on mine, but that was due to lots of reasons other than our own ability.
Anyway, if we could afford it, we'd breed much better pilots by throwing everyone through a Tucano/JP/M311 BFT course a la the scheme in the early 90s. Make it a bit longer and people could cope with it no problem after a swift 10 hour grading/USAF UPT-style course on contracted Cessnas or the suchlike. You'd be learning all your skills in a "proper" aeroplane rather than trying to download things to save cost, although at least the current system means they're familiar with the concepts by the time they fly a Tucano.
But we can't afford it, so it's better to stream people before they've gobbled up 100 hours in a turboprop, and considering we need something to do lots of other tasks like Air Cadet AEF, I think we're stuck with an EFT airframe for the forseeable future.
With the introduction of a formal branch for RPAS pilots, they're going to need some flying training too; and I doubt many would say that you'll get a good grounding for Reaper if the only things available were M311 and Hawk T2.
Anyway, if we could afford it, we'd breed much better pilots by throwing everyone through a Tucano/JP/M311 BFT course a la the scheme in the early 90s. Make it a bit longer and people could cope with it no problem after a swift 10 hour grading/USAF UPT-style course on contracted Cessnas or the suchlike. You'd be learning all your skills in a "proper" aeroplane rather than trying to download things to save cost, although at least the current system means they're familiar with the concepts by the time they fly a Tucano.
But we can't afford it, so it's better to stream people before they've gobbled up 100 hours in a turboprop, and considering we need something to do lots of other tasks like Air Cadet AEF, I think we're stuck with an EFT airframe for the forseeable future.
With the introduction of a formal branch for RPAS pilots, they're going to need some flying training too; and I doubt many would say that you'll get a good grounding for Reaper if the only things available were M311 and Hawk T2.
You only need to teach your EFT/UAS students (tyros) roughly the PPL syllabus before you send them to Tucano or PC-9...Don't forget there are many of us who climbed into JPs at CF or LOO with just a PPL under our belts.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@DB6:
Just my thought.
Having flown the mighty Firefly I loved every minute of it.
Not much that could go wrong, no matter how hard the dumbest student tried to rip off the wings on that wonderful machine.
Tom
Just my thought.
Having flown the mighty Firefly I loved every minute of it.
Not much that could go wrong, no matter how hard the dumbest student tried to rip off the wings on that wonderful machine.
Tom
Thone
I second that. I did JEFTS at Church Fenton on the M260 and it seemed like a great little toy at the time (more powerful than any of the alternatives). Having subsequently flown the Bulldog, Chipmunk (I always hated it, mainly because of the ridiculously uncomfortable cloth cap under the helmet!) and Grob I'd say it definitely compares more favourably. Now, in light of the Grob shedding prop blades like they're going out of fashion, it seems like an even better choice!
BV
BV
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Outside the Fence
Age: 71
Posts: 373
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
4 Posts
I have followed this thread with interest. It would appear that many of you are too close to the coalface to see the coal. There appears to be an argument that the Tutor is cheap to operate and therefor is the best ac for AEF and UAS operations. Since EFT is only a small operation in comparison they have to put up with the Tutor. Many hours flying an inferior ac does not make a good pilot.
May I suggest that the training of RAF pilots is of prime importance. The RAF should strive to provide the best platforms for student pilots to train on, be that synthetic or real. There should be no compromise in the choice of ac for the sake of AEF or UAS flying. I still maintain that after selection there should only be 2 ac to the OCU. LJ appears to come from a background where he can see the wood from the trees. Easy Street, I totally agree with your sentiment.
“There is a lot to be said for the sink-or-swim approach to military flying training. Those that make it through will be exactly the kind of guys you need on a busy squadron where time spent nursing the strugglers is time not spent developing fighting capability”.
If the RAF had to correct ac at BFT we could easily sort the wheat from the chaff. I believe streaming should be after 100+ hours. Most of our large ac now have a 2/3 man flight deck and the skills required are significantly different from those going to Nimrod or VC10.
I observe a significant number of people on the Tutor merry-go-round. See how many years can be spent in Raucbey Lane with the odd excursion to a UAS. When too old then continue in some guise on an AEF. It would be preferable if more of these people fought for what is right rather than trying to feather their own nests.
The debate about which is the best ac for EFT would be irrelevant if the whole training package were reviewed and bought into this century. The Air Force Board should be directive on what it wants and not allow the financiers to interfere again. How long is the RAF going to sit and wait for someone else to come and sort out the mess?
May I suggest that the training of RAF pilots is of prime importance. The RAF should strive to provide the best platforms for student pilots to train on, be that synthetic or real. There should be no compromise in the choice of ac for the sake of AEF or UAS flying. I still maintain that after selection there should only be 2 ac to the OCU. LJ appears to come from a background where he can see the wood from the trees. Easy Street, I totally agree with your sentiment.
“There is a lot to be said for the sink-or-swim approach to military flying training. Those that make it through will be exactly the kind of guys you need on a busy squadron where time spent nursing the strugglers is time not spent developing fighting capability”.
If the RAF had to correct ac at BFT we could easily sort the wheat from the chaff. I believe streaming should be after 100+ hours. Most of our large ac now have a 2/3 man flight deck and the skills required are significantly different from those going to Nimrod or VC10.
I observe a significant number of people on the Tutor merry-go-round. See how many years can be spent in Raucbey Lane with the odd excursion to a UAS. When too old then continue in some guise on an AEF. It would be preferable if more of these people fought for what is right rather than trying to feather their own nests.
The debate about which is the best ac for EFT would be irrelevant if the whole training package were reviewed and bought into this century. The Air Force Board should be directive on what it wants and not allow the financiers to interfere again. How long is the RAF going to sit and wait for someone else to come and sort out the mess?
What the great Dominator says...^^^^^
I've seen graduates of EFT and also those from UAS who have struggled with a basic PPL - failing exams, almost incomprehensible on the radio and struggling with handling in lessons before getting anywhere near a GFT! I don't see EFT/UAS creating any better product that a basic EASA/JAR PPL could not produce. I also agree, stream them at 100hrs+; so get them through a PPL, get them on a decent Turbo-Prop and then give them another 50-odd hours and then assess/board/stream. How many of us saw guys struggle for the first half of basic flying trg and then come good in the final stages, then going onto Harrier, Jaguar, Phantom, Buccaneer and Tornado and becoming fantastic warfighting aviators. At present, they are assessed for half a dog's watch and then a decision is made on their future whilst they still smell of Cranwell Holy Water
LJ
I've seen graduates of EFT and also those from UAS who have struggled with a basic PPL - failing exams, almost incomprehensible on the radio and struggling with handling in lessons before getting anywhere near a GFT! I don't see EFT/UAS creating any better product that a basic EASA/JAR PPL could not produce. I also agree, stream them at 100hrs+; so get them through a PPL, get them on a decent Turbo-Prop and then give them another 50-odd hours and then assess/board/stream. How many of us saw guys struggle for the first half of basic flying trg and then come good in the final stages, then going onto Harrier, Jaguar, Phantom, Buccaneer and Tornado and becoming fantastic warfighting aviators. At present, they are assessed for half a dog's watch and then a decision is made on their future whilst they still smell of Cranwell Holy Water
LJ
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pre and Post Haddon Cave
The old argument that the Tutor has done xxxxx thousands of hours so it must have been the most reliable aeroplane the RAF ever owned is based on Pre Haddon Cave arguments and we all know statistics can hide the truth.
At that time there was no MAA or associated list of Duty Holders. Back then the pilot could almost always be blamed as negligent without regard for other factors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Sc..._Chinook_crash
If there was an unserviceability it was normally verbally filed and supervisors and engineers might respond along the lines of "oh well they all do that"
Times have changed folks - SIX people are dead as a result of Tutor collisions. Of course there were other factors involved and most of these have come out in the legal proceedings and AAIB and Military reports.
Thankfully now, despite a few moans all round, we are getting to grips with incident reporting, Risk management and seeking to develop the best training system with limited resources.
The prop can probably be changed to another manufacturer /design quite quickly. However, there are still plenty of issues with the Tutor apart from the propellor. Sadly, whilst the DASOR system has helped raise military awareness in a very positive way, the Civi world has had fewer reports over the past 5 years in GA CHIRPs depsite the Tutor being on the G-reg.
Good stuff:
TAS - when it works it can raise traffic awareness. But it can't be relied upon.
Strobes and Landing Lights - now much brighter.
View over the nose on flapless approach is good.
Babcock Engineers are doing sterling work and all they can to improve reliability - but these are 12 years old (except for EA models) and things wear out - like flying surface bearing components corroding.
Less Good:
Things like nose wheel shimmy (Peterborough Connington: Air Accidents Investigation: Grob G115E Tutor, G-BYUW)
Bubbles in the Wingspar CF bond/glue structure (remember the formation landing: http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...WH%2001-11.pdf )
Canopy design that makes egress difficult and lack of go forward straps makes lookout harder.
Colour scheme that all users and ATC are concerned about except on blue sky days:
http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/Data/gl...uity-study.pdf
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...1_5_Causes.pdf
No flick manoeuvres permitted. Short coupled and high mounted Fin and circular fuselage x-section make for interesting spin characteristics. The tail skid/lower fin is there for a reason!
Over weight (partly due to 10 years of water ingress and now extra kit like TAS) - means Instructors have to loose weight or only select light students for a half decent fuel load.
Under powered (poor climb rate - can't get above weather - EFT spin sorties mostly taken up with climb time = more time at high power so more fuel used and more noise per hour).
High drag wing that leaves stagnant water on top of the flaps even at high speed cruise. The under wing camber profile also means bracketing pitch and power to achieve S&L - so attitude flying becomes less instinctive for students to grasp.
The Tutor would make a wonderful weekend PPL 80 KIAS touring aircraft - wait a minute - that's what it used to be in G115A format! Adding a glass cockpit for MFTS won't improve the main issues mentioned here and by others.
At that time there was no MAA or associated list of Duty Holders. Back then the pilot could almost always be blamed as negligent without regard for other factors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Sc..._Chinook_crash
If there was an unserviceability it was normally verbally filed and supervisors and engineers might respond along the lines of "oh well they all do that"
Times have changed folks - SIX people are dead as a result of Tutor collisions. Of course there were other factors involved and most of these have come out in the legal proceedings and AAIB and Military reports.
Thankfully now, despite a few moans all round, we are getting to grips with incident reporting, Risk management and seeking to develop the best training system with limited resources.
The prop can probably be changed to another manufacturer /design quite quickly. However, there are still plenty of issues with the Tutor apart from the propellor. Sadly, whilst the DASOR system has helped raise military awareness in a very positive way, the Civi world has had fewer reports over the past 5 years in GA CHIRPs depsite the Tutor being on the G-reg.
Good stuff:
TAS - when it works it can raise traffic awareness. But it can't be relied upon.
Strobes and Landing Lights - now much brighter.
View over the nose on flapless approach is good.
Babcock Engineers are doing sterling work and all they can to improve reliability - but these are 12 years old (except for EA models) and things wear out - like flying surface bearing components corroding.
Less Good:
Things like nose wheel shimmy (Peterborough Connington: Air Accidents Investigation: Grob G115E Tutor, G-BYUW)
Bubbles in the Wingspar CF bond/glue structure (remember the formation landing: http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...WH%2001-11.pdf )
Canopy design that makes egress difficult and lack of go forward straps makes lookout harder.
Colour scheme that all users and ATC are concerned about except on blue sky days:
http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/Data/gl...uity-study.pdf
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...1_5_Causes.pdf
No flick manoeuvres permitted. Short coupled and high mounted Fin and circular fuselage x-section make for interesting spin characteristics. The tail skid/lower fin is there for a reason!
Over weight (partly due to 10 years of water ingress and now extra kit like TAS) - means Instructors have to loose weight or only select light students for a half decent fuel load.
Under powered (poor climb rate - can't get above weather - EFT spin sorties mostly taken up with climb time = more time at high power so more fuel used and more noise per hour).
High drag wing that leaves stagnant water on top of the flaps even at high speed cruise. The under wing camber profile also means bracketing pitch and power to achieve S&L - so attitude flying becomes less instinctive for students to grasp.
The Tutor would make a wonderful weekend PPL 80 KIAS touring aircraft - wait a minute - that's what it used to be in G115A format! Adding a glass cockpit for MFTS won't improve the main issues mentioned here and by others.
Last edited by Lima Juliet; 11th Jan 2013 at 19:57.
