RAF Flying Trg System - How good
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike RO'C,
to answer your original question rather than get into the question of whether or not the foundation of our airborne military might is dependant on a trg aircraft's roll rate-
Flying with instructors from other nations right now I would say that we do it just as well as we ever did and we are definately capable of getting the most from our students on whatever aircraft type/capabilities we may have. RAF students are pushed further and are expected to achieve more than many other nations' students at the same stage of training. I can only speak of FJ (especially for you BEagle) training but we train our boys to lead from day one - so far I have not encountered another air force that expects their first tourists to lead.
As for the RAF system - it really hasn't changed that much. Sure, contractors are involved far more now but so what? I know for a fact that it works extremely well at Valley; BRAMA are doing a great job. As for synthetic training God forbid it replaces too much flying but inevitably it will replace some.
I flew the JP and then the Hawk - it was a good system but it's better now. Is it the best? If it isn't I'd like to know which one is. As for the 'good ole days' with the Gnat and Hunter all I would say is: BEags, you're holding on too tight, let it go, let it go.
to answer your original question rather than get into the question of whether or not the foundation of our airborne military might is dependant on a trg aircraft's roll rate-
Flying with instructors from other nations right now I would say that we do it just as well as we ever did and we are definately capable of getting the most from our students on whatever aircraft type/capabilities we may have. RAF students are pushed further and are expected to achieve more than many other nations' students at the same stage of training. I can only speak of FJ (especially for you BEagle) training but we train our boys to lead from day one - so far I have not encountered another air force that expects their first tourists to lead.
As for the RAF system - it really hasn't changed that much. Sure, contractors are involved far more now but so what? I know for a fact that it works extremely well at Valley; BRAMA are doing a great job. As for synthetic training God forbid it replaces too much flying but inevitably it will replace some.
I flew the JP and then the Hawk - it was a good system but it's better now. Is it the best? If it isn't I'd like to know which one is. As for the 'good ole days' with the Gnat and Hunter all I would say is: BEags, you're holding on too tight, let it go, let it go.
Perhaps. I certainly won't deny that training is very demanding for FJ pilots. When the Hawk came in, the pressure appplied to students was different to the pressures of the Gnat. The Gnat was difficult to fly, had short legs and complicated systems. The Hawk was much, much easier to fly, had simpler systems and much longer legs. So the students were given more difficult tasks to load them with pressure - the result being that they 'employed' the aircraft more thoroughly, rather than just kept it in the air safely for 1 hour! Which probably graduated a better pilot.
I am not sure that the quality of ME training has improved though - some of the output arriving for training on a certain 4-jet is frankly very weak. But a reminder is about to be issued to Cranwell to advise them that cost-saving measures will mean that very little 'flex' can be granted any more.....
I am not sure that the quality of ME training has improved though - some of the output arriving for training on a certain 4-jet is frankly very weak. But a reminder is about to be issued to Cranwell to advise them that cost-saving measures will mean that very little 'flex' can be granted any more.....
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep, I can't argue with that. You have perhaps unwttingly posed the question of whether or not we use simple training aircraft to fly and demand more from the student or difficult aircraft with a more simple syllabus - but is there a difference in the type of product you get? We seem to manage to send guys to the Harrier after having proved themselves capable of hooting around Wales with only a map and stopwatch yet it would seem more sensible to give them a glass training jet that was tricky to fly in the cct - but would it make a difference? I can't honestly answer that.
As for ME trg I take your expertise on that one - what do you think has changed?
As for ME trg I take your expertise on that one - what do you think has changed?
coops - basically the fact that ME pilots don't do a real BFTS course any more as all the Tincanos are used for FJ training. The 'old' JP course gave a thorough grounding in military flying to all pilots; only the FJ trainees are now so equipped.
There is a limit to what can be covered in the light aeroplane and Jetstream course pre-ME OCU now that the BFTS course has been omitted - the gaps in knowledge and experience exhibited by some recent trainees have been quite astonishing to anyone who was trained on the old 125 hr 'wings' course!
There is a limit to what can be covered in the light aeroplane and Jetstream course pre-ME OCU now that the BFTS course has been omitted - the gaps in knowledge and experience exhibited by some recent trainees have been quite astonishing to anyone who was trained on the old 125 hr 'wings' course!
Gentleman Aviator
I would certainly endorse BEags' point about non-FJ aircrew from the rotary point of view. Studes who were post JPs or Tucanos were often very good, general military aviation awareness and SA not so good now having only come from civilian type light aircraft (it's not as if they have been flying Chipmunks or even Bullfrogs).
The best rotary studes seem to be those who have done some Tucano or Hawk (alright - those who got chopped on Gp 1).
Stands by for response by outraged straight-through rotary .....
The best rotary studes seem to be those who have done some Tucano or Hawk (alright - those who got chopped on Gp 1).
Stands by for response by outraged straight-through rotary .....
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 390
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEags-
Fully agree with you re standards and the lack of "grounding" that today's student gets in the streamlined system. ANY exposure to flying training can only enhance a student's overall airmanship and "awaremanship". Even if the job he finally ends up doing is on a totally diffent airframe from his earlier training.
I personally think the RAF are standing into danger by further reducing these qualities as they rmove EFT students from a total (albeit contractorised) aviation environment and farm them out to UASs (Note: Am NOT commenting on the standards achieved @UAS, but we stand to lose a lot of the "course" benefits by pushing studes through in small groups)
I wonder what your comments will be on the standard of ME studes in 3 years time?
Fully agree with you re standards and the lack of "grounding" that today's student gets in the streamlined system. ANY exposure to flying training can only enhance a student's overall airmanship and "awaremanship". Even if the job he finally ends up doing is on a totally diffent airframe from his earlier training.
I personally think the RAF are standing into danger by further reducing these qualities as they rmove EFT students from a total (albeit contractorised) aviation environment and farm them out to UASs (Note: Am NOT commenting on the standards achieved @UAS, but we stand to lose a lot of the "course" benefits by pushing studes through in small groups)
I wonder what your comments will be on the standard of ME studes in 3 years time?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Only my second post - but I have to agree with Beags on the output of ME fg trg.
I was a QFI on a UAS and am now an instructor on a certain 4 Eng ME ac. I would say the following about entrants to the OCU/front line sqns to amplify Beags points:
1. The straight-through ME co-pilots (ie EFTS/MELIN/METS/OCU/Sqn) only have about 170-200 hrs total when they hit the OCU.
2. This compares to 250-300 on the old Gp2 Phase 1 on JP/Tucs
3. This missing 50-100 hrs is a heck of a percentage of experience plus the lack of proper (240-300kt) LL and formation are important gaps in a pilot's 'armoury'.
4. The airmanship of these straight through pilots can be poor - but no real fault of theirs!
5. The OCU instructors have little or no flex with which to work on the gaps in the new co's knowledge and skills.
6. Therefore, the Sqn qfis spend the first 6 months coaching the new cos the basics (on the most expensive ac) before they are officially regarded as CR by the Sqn execs (whatever the output std of the OCU). (FYI - Our sims are no great use for piloting skills)
7. It is difficult/impossible to chop anyone anymore but a number of cos have been NCR'd and retrained ON THE SQNS.
8. The ex Tucano/Hawk/rotary guys/gals generally have much more airmanship and capacity than their 'straight-through' cousins. This may be an ability or confidence thing but I am sure it is mainly an experience thing.
The officer-quality/intelligence of young cos is high at the moment (well on some Sqns!) - I am surrounded by top class young JOs who have improved from when they were top-class studes of mine on the UAS. These people have coped admirably with the deficiencies of the system. However, I believe the ME fg trg system has let them down (not the instructors or OCUs per se, who have their hands tied, but the bean-counters who are only interested in ££££s)! As the RAF and ME fleets get short of pilots in the next few years, will we see less capable JOs emerge fm IOT who we will then have to chop off the OCUs/Sqns when a little more trg on cheaper ac would give the OCU/Sqn qfis something to work with??
I believe we have reduced the fg trg hrs available (on ME ac at least) BELOW the bare minimum. I would recommend that we re-introduce a Gp 2 Ph 1 cse on Tucano again (supposedly being considered) or a longer, more demanding EFTS/MELIN/METS with new ac.
This is even more important as we introduce more technically demanding front-line ME ac such as C130J, C17, A400M and FSTA, Nimrod 200? etc. Even the C130K Sqns are both tactical sqns and there is no fail-safe of strat/route only. All co's must have the potential for demanding Tac ops - ditto for VC10s and tanking!
I was a QFI on a UAS and am now an instructor on a certain 4 Eng ME ac. I would say the following about entrants to the OCU/front line sqns to amplify Beags points:
1. The straight-through ME co-pilots (ie EFTS/MELIN/METS/OCU/Sqn) only have about 170-200 hrs total when they hit the OCU.
2. This compares to 250-300 on the old Gp2 Phase 1 on JP/Tucs
3. This missing 50-100 hrs is a heck of a percentage of experience plus the lack of proper (240-300kt) LL and formation are important gaps in a pilot's 'armoury'.
4. The airmanship of these straight through pilots can be poor - but no real fault of theirs!
5. The OCU instructors have little or no flex with which to work on the gaps in the new co's knowledge and skills.
6. Therefore, the Sqn qfis spend the first 6 months coaching the new cos the basics (on the most expensive ac) before they are officially regarded as CR by the Sqn execs (whatever the output std of the OCU). (FYI - Our sims are no great use for piloting skills)
7. It is difficult/impossible to chop anyone anymore but a number of cos have been NCR'd and retrained ON THE SQNS.
8. The ex Tucano/Hawk/rotary guys/gals generally have much more airmanship and capacity than their 'straight-through' cousins. This may be an ability or confidence thing but I am sure it is mainly an experience thing.
The officer-quality/intelligence of young cos is high at the moment (well on some Sqns!) - I am surrounded by top class young JOs who have improved from when they were top-class studes of mine on the UAS. These people have coped admirably with the deficiencies of the system. However, I believe the ME fg trg system has let them down (not the instructors or OCUs per se, who have their hands tied, but the bean-counters who are only interested in ££££s)! As the RAF and ME fleets get short of pilots in the next few years, will we see less capable JOs emerge fm IOT who we will then have to chop off the OCUs/Sqns when a little more trg on cheaper ac would give the OCU/Sqn qfis something to work with??
I believe we have reduced the fg trg hrs available (on ME ac at least) BELOW the bare minimum. I would recommend that we re-introduce a Gp 2 Ph 1 cse on Tucano again (supposedly being considered) or a longer, more demanding EFTS/MELIN/METS with new ac.
This is even more important as we introduce more technically demanding front-line ME ac such as C130J, C17, A400M and FSTA, Nimrod 200? etc. Even the C130K Sqns are both tactical sqns and there is no fail-safe of strat/route only. All co's must have the potential for demanding Tac ops - ditto for VC10s and tanking!
Any views from Linton-on-Booze QFIs....how's it working at your level?
The Tin-can had an awful start to fg trg....is it any better?
I speak as someone who had a piece of Tin-can come off in my hand (Guv), it was just a shame that it was the control column!!
(any 3-4 bed, detached properties for sale up there?)
The Tin-can had an awful start to fg trg....is it any better?
I speak as someone who had a piece of Tin-can come off in my hand (Guv), it was just a shame that it was the control column!!
(any 3-4 bed, detached properties for sale up there?)
Interesting and valid comments from Flipster, when the Jetstream replaced the elderly Varsity at Oakington some 27 years ago(!) we (in TCHQ) were having the same arguments with our then masters' They seemed to regard the ME stream as the " won't need much training", "they'll get it in the right hand seat".portion of the then TC output.
The civilian co-pilot can be put in the right-hand seat of a 737 to learn their job progressively after extensive line-training. I'm not knocking airline training: it by and large does a good job but there's a difference in job spec.between a 737 First Officer and a Nimrod Co-Pilot. It would seem the argument continues nearly 30 years on!!
The civilian co-pilot can be put in the right-hand seat of a 737 to learn their job progressively after extensive line-training. I'm not knocking airline training: it by and large does a good job but there's a difference in job spec.between a 737 First Officer and a Nimrod Co-Pilot. It would seem the argument continues nearly 30 years on!!
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: England
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many valid comments I feel.
Yes, the flying trg system we still possess is a world beater - it's the bits that we no longer have that let us down.
The FJ world should not have noticed much of a difference, maybe even a slight improvement since the studes are now streamed prior to Linton. However, the ME and RW OCUs must have their work cut out trying to compensate for 100+ hrs loss of trg.
It was always the case, and I think that it still is, that the majority of Linton QFIs are not from a FJ background; traditionally, this never proved to be a problem - although there may be a few dissenters out there - but it can't be too long before baby QFIs arrive at Tucano CFS who have never flown the ac or the syllabus before.
Yes, the flying trg system we still possess is a world beater - it's the bits that we no longer have that let us down.
The FJ world should not have noticed much of a difference, maybe even a slight improvement since the studes are now streamed prior to Linton. However, the ME and RW OCUs must have their work cut out trying to compensate for 100+ hrs loss of trg.
It was always the case, and I think that it still is, that the majority of Linton QFIs are not from a FJ background; traditionally, this never proved to be a problem - although there may be a few dissenters out there - but it can't be too long before baby QFIs arrive at Tucano CFS who have never flown the ac or the syllabus before.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the ORP
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EESDL.
From my position I can only say that the system at Linton worKs well but you have to bear in mind that the studes are streamed before arriving at BFJT so in theory Linton just sees the best from EFT.
That said, I am in total agreement with previous remarks that all RAF pilots should go through a Tucano type course to inculcate that great unquantifiable aspect of military flying---airmanship.
As for the Tucano itself, basically it is a good aircraft and over the years many of the problems have been ironed out; but, the initial build quality was pretty dire and that still shows through at times. For myself, I would still prefer that the studes were taught on a pure jet; this would help teach fuel awareness, give a more representative response in formation and get rid of the never-ending need to trim the blasted rudder. The bottom line is of course money, the Tucano is cheap to run compared with a jet so that is what the RAF is stuck with (unless of course MFTS comes up with something different---v. unlikely).
Lastly, I agree with a comment made previously, the QFIs at Linton are generally pretty good and have the right attitude; long may it remain so.
From my position I can only say that the system at Linton worKs well but you have to bear in mind that the studes are streamed before arriving at BFJT so in theory Linton just sees the best from EFT.
That said, I am in total agreement with previous remarks that all RAF pilots should go through a Tucano type course to inculcate that great unquantifiable aspect of military flying---airmanship.
As for the Tucano itself, basically it is a good aircraft and over the years many of the problems have been ironed out; but, the initial build quality was pretty dire and that still shows through at times. For myself, I would still prefer that the studes were taught on a pure jet; this would help teach fuel awareness, give a more representative response in formation and get rid of the never-ending need to trim the blasted rudder. The bottom line is of course money, the Tucano is cheap to run compared with a jet so that is what the RAF is stuck with (unless of course MFTS comes up with something different---v. unlikely).
Lastly, I agree with a comment made previously, the QFIs at Linton are generally pretty good and have the right attitude; long may it remain so.
Well, I'm heartened to note that it's not just me who thinks that the current ME/RW pre-AFTS (I won't dignify it by calling it BFTS) system is totally inadequate.
Thanks for you posts, chaps. But will the bean counters listen.......
Interestingly, the one pilot we had who had received pre-ME OCU training on my PA28s, a few hours on PA-34s and a tour on the VC10 as a navigator never had any trouble doing a straight through VC10 co-piglet's course.......then they made him top up his training on the wretched Jetstream.
Bring back the basic wings course, I say!
Thanks for you posts, chaps. But will the bean counters listen.......
Interestingly, the one pilot we had who had received pre-ME OCU training on my PA28s, a few hours on PA-34s and a tour on the VC10 as a navigator never had any trouble doing a straight through VC10 co-piglet's course.......then they made him top up his training on the wretched Jetstream.
Bring back the basic wings course, I say!
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Here and there
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree with everything that has been said. I was lucky enough to go through the Tincan course and half of Valley. After failing miserably to add one and one whilst at LL in the Hawk, ME was the route destined for me.
The extra 150 hours flying I had helped me no end on the OCU. Not in aircraft handling, a 4 engine jet was new to all of us, but just bum in seat experience was invaluable.
Those who had taken the ME direct route found life that little more difficult. All was ironed out by the time they achievd CR but as mentioned previously this was done on a 4 engine jet, not a single Brazilian turboprop built by Irishmen.
In the frozen wasteland, we have been told to expect a drop in the standard of pilots turning up to the OCU. This is due to the good guys going 130J or C17. We wait to see what happens
The extra 150 hours flying I had helped me no end on the OCU. Not in aircraft handling, a 4 engine jet was new to all of us, but just bum in seat experience was invaluable.
Those who had taken the ME direct route found life that little more difficult. All was ironed out by the time they achievd CR but as mentioned previously this was done on a 4 engine jet, not a single Brazilian turboprop built by Irishmen.
In the frozen wasteland, we have been told to expect a drop in the standard of pilots turning up to the OCU. This is due to the good guys going 130J or C17. We wait to see what happens
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dudley: T-38 great aircraft, no doubt about it, for FJ training, aggressor, and various other things you need a go fast for. Relatively (compared to contemporary Century series and later designs) easy and inexpensive to operate and maintain, very good to great flying qualities. Do they ever run out of airframe life? variations on the J-85 are around to keep them engined, new radios and take it easy on poling them around and they could last forever.
FJ curricula around world were fairly similar in terms of hours with high 200s or so sylabus hours in FJ added to primary training as I recall. Reflys and warmups added to flying hours the student graduated with, typically in the 400s somewhere.
In that vein, in the civil world there are some spikes in the accident rate curve at 40-100 hours and again in the 250-400 hours if I recall properly and after that point things settle down. With people at the end of primary training any extra hours they can get that are even halfway efficiently utilized must make a world of difference in airmanship and "air sense"
Are you still laboring (labouring?) with the Link Miles built Hawk simulators? I could not believe how they were designed and then accepted with little control or quantitative testing in maintenance of flying charaacteristics.
When Hawk was turned into T-45 it was a classic cockpit, but plans were in the works even then for a glass cockpit, and it was kept in the program as a product improvement.
FJ curricula around world were fairly similar in terms of hours with high 200s or so sylabus hours in FJ added to primary training as I recall. Reflys and warmups added to flying hours the student graduated with, typically in the 400s somewhere.
In that vein, in the civil world there are some spikes in the accident rate curve at 40-100 hours and again in the 250-400 hours if I recall properly and after that point things settle down. With people at the end of primary training any extra hours they can get that are even halfway efficiently utilized must make a world of difference in airmanship and "air sense"
Are you still laboring (labouring?) with the Link Miles built Hawk simulators? I could not believe how they were designed and then accepted with little control or quantitative testing in maintenance of flying charaacteristics.
When Hawk was turned into T-45 it was a classic cockpit, but plans were in the works even then for a glass cockpit, and it was kept in the program as a product improvement.