Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Phenom

Old 14th Aug 2018, 14:04
  #101 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,442
airpolice wrote:
Ask any of Beagle's vintage how many hours a month they used to do, and whether or not they think they would be as comfortable doing the current hours.
Mate, you have to remember that the aircraft I flew were decidedly mandraulic compared with today's FJs. On my brief time on the F-4 I think we got about 20-25 hours per month; also the simulator wasn't much use for practice intercepts. Even in training, the Gnat used most of one's mental capacity trying to stop it from killing you and it didn't have enough fuel for more than about 50 min airborne time.

The Hawk was much easier to fly, so students were stretched by longer, more demanding trips. At TWU, weaponeering was simpler in the Hawk; we didn't have the Hunter's GGS, but neither did we have those infernal cine mags. But course progress at Brawdy was worse than at Chiv, because we did level bombing rather than SNEB and were less hampered by cloudbase at Pembrey. Nowadays I gather that there is no live weaponeering at Valley on the Hawk T2 and most applied flying is synthetic. OK, the simuators are probably a lot better than the one we had, but applying yourself at 1g is a lot different than at the normal 4g we used for low level manoeuvring or 6-7g for doggers. Pre-RAFFT too, so most people weren't iron-pumping gym queens and found they were quite fit enough to cope with ACM without any 'fitness routine'.

I'm told that the Typhoon is easy to fly, but quite complex to operate in many environments. So hardly surprising that less airborne time is required nowadays. But how will Typhoon and F-35B pilots maintain g tolerance with low airborne time?

Anyway, back to the Phenom. Is 40% of the fleet still U/S? As for the cause, that's bound to leak out one day and I'm surprised that the press haven't already reported it. But why on earth do Phenom pilots need to be taught to fly at anything more than 30 deg AoB in formation, given that's about all any of the RAF's ME fleet needs to use as singletons.
BEagle is online now  
Old 14th Aug 2018, 14:56
  #102 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 7,216
Originally Posted by Bob Viking View Post
Fair enough. I shall concede. I have nothing left to say on the issue.

All I can say is that my logbook for the last year looks pretty healthy.

BV

Clearly not flying the Phenom unless you are referring to sim time.....
S-Works is offline  
Old 14th Aug 2018, 15:08
  #103 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 7,216
Anyway, back to the Phenom. Is 40% of the fleet still U/S? As for the cause, that's bound to leak out one day and I'm surprised that the press haven't already reported it. But why on earth do Phenom pilots need to be taught to fly at anything more than 30 deg AoB in formation, given that's about all any of the RAF's ME fleet needs to use as singletons.
Because the military QFIs wanted to do it because they had always done it on the Kingair and the "reasoning" was that one day they might be flying something that was air refuelled but mostly because it was fun to do. It was pointed out to them by a now departed Civilian Instructor that it was inappropriate and would end up in a crash........ In fact there was no need for formation flying at all (and they wont be getting it with L3) and that it should be left to OCU. Unlike flying a Kingair where station keeping is simpler because of the noise and feel and visual aspects of the turboprop, the Phenom is just too slippery and not designed for the task. There were numerous crashes in the sim practicing it as well which is when it became pretty obvious that it was not appropriate. Now the inevitable has happened and they have had a prang. The next thing that comes assuming they ever get operational will be students with no time on type being sent of on consolidation flights without an Instructor as is planned and banging one in. Mark my words.....

Last edited by S-Works; 14th Aug 2018 at 15:19.
S-Works is offline  
Old 14th Aug 2018, 17:58
  #104 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,830
I see where Bose is coming from. Jumping from a Jetstream/King Air into a pocket rocket like a Phenom is a biggish step. If you don't adapt your training syllabus enough, you're going to be bitten. The issue is not unique to the RAF; I've come across a number of people who think that a BE350/200 Type Rating can be easily morphed into an Eclipse 550 TR.
Cows getting bigger is offline  
Old 14th Aug 2018, 19:35
  #105 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 17
The next thing that comes assuming they ever get operational will be students with no time on type being sent of on consolidation flights without an Instructor as is planned and banging one in. Mark my words.....
I doubt there will be anyone, let alone students, flying consolidation flights with no time on type! Or was that another poorly worded post where you meant low time?

The Phenom is not a pocket rocket, it's a relatively simple - certainly very easy to fly - small twin. The transition from the Prefect to the Phenom will be very straightforward and far easier when compared to previous airframe changes such as: Chipmunk-JP, JP-Hawk, Gazelle-Wessex to name but a few.

If you want a pilot who can only operate within quite a narrow environment (take off, transit, land), stay well clear of any limits, operate rigidly iaw very restrictive SOPs then perhaps the civilian CPL type course is the way to go. However, if you want a pilot who needs to be able to fly perhaps at LL, air-air refuelling, para drop, ISTAR or tanking to the absolute limit of your endurance, as part of a multi-aircraft package, with aircrews from other nations and using very different SOPs, to the extremes of your aircraft's accepted limits, then I would argue the CPL route doesn't work. You need a pilot that's had exposure to various skills - including basic formation - and most certainly on a few carefully considered sorties 'solo' ie without an instructor on board.

I've seen both systems close up, each have their pros and cons; but please don't think that sending a pair of well trained students, thoroughly briefed, on a well planned local sortie is unwise. It's an essential part of the military pilots' training and confidence building.
FixClrEnt is offline  
Old 14th Aug 2018, 19:42
  #106 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 1,863
I don't get what Bose is saying at all. Virtually all our M/E fleets have a requirement for close formation and it would be utterly ridiculous to take an RJ, E-3D or P8 out of operational service to teach multi-engine formation trip 1. Formation flying gets harder as aircraft size increases - in IMC and on the wing your eyes can be a long way from the fuselage you are formatting on. Add in heavy aircraft inertia, large turbine engine spool-up time or turboprop effects on trim and lift you can have a lot going on.

If the Phenom is not up to the task (and that is a very big if) the solution is not to kick the can down the road and try and teach formation basics on an even more expensive and challenging aircraft.
Just This Once... is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2018, 10:46
  #107 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 7,216
If you don't adapt your training syllabus enough, you're going to be bitten.
Thats what happens when you cut and paste the old Kingair Training manuals to make new ones......
S-Works is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2018, 11:24
  #108 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,830
Originally Posted by FixClrEnt
If you want a pilot who can only operate within quite a narrow environment (take off, transit, land), stay well clear of any limits, operate rigidly iaw very restrictive SOPs then perhaps the civilian CPL type course is the way to go. However, if you want a pilot who needs to be able to fly perhaps at LL, air-air refuelling, para drop, ISTAR or tanking to the absolute limit of your endurance, as part of a multi-aircraft package, with aircrews from other nations and using very different SOPs, to the extremes of your aircraft's accepted limits, then I would argue the CPL route doesn't work.
I think you're being a bit generalist there and somewhat disparaging of the civil world. Like you I've seen both sides (23 years light blue, 12 years 'gold bars') and the ethos are indeed quite different. But your assertion that you need to follow the military 'higher risk' ethos may be flawed. Personally, I now fly to far lower and sometimes more complex limits than the RAF ever authorised (try asking the RAF for fixed wing authorisation to 35ft MSD ). To date I haven't pranged an aircraft so I'm guessing that the civil training and oversight system is currently working.

The real difference ins in how the two worlds approach Risk and that was the driver behind my previous comments. To quote you:

The transition from the Prefect to the Phenom will be very straightforward and far easier when compared to previous airframe changes such as: Chipmunk-JP, JP-Hawk, Gazelle-Wessex to name but a few.
That is exactly the way the civil world would NOT approach risk. It would not assume that today's transition is easier than previous generations. It would look at the issues with a completely clean sheet of paper. It would wonder why the FJ world thinks it needs to transition from Prefect to Hawk T2 via Texan with nothing similar for the ME world.

The reality is that the RAF have managed to scare themselves (and probably incur a few unplanned costs) by nudging together a couple of Phenom. For sure someone at Abbey Wood will be looking at it in depth, but one question should be "When did we last have a formation mid-air, what did we do about it and what has changed to affect our original mitigation?". The follow-up question should be "How did we manage that change?".

PS. You touched on JP-Hawk transition. Back in the heady days of the Cold War, a young CGB had about 180hrs JP time before being pushed-off to Valley. I'm guessing the equivalent number is far less now.

Last edited by Cows getting bigger; 15th Aug 2018 at 12:32.
Cows getting bigger is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2018, 12:12
  #109 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 7,216
What should have happened with the ME training is they should have gone for something like DA42 for the ME and then the Phenom for advanced transition training before moving onto OCU. This is being done very successfully in Finland for example. Instead you have very inexperienced pilots going from the Grob TP to the Phenom with the majority of the hours in the sim. We have to ask if the MAA are actually maintaining proper oversight of this?
S-Works is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2018, 15:43
  #110 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Here and there
Posts: 9
Originally Posted by bose-x View Post
Thats what happens when you cut and paste the old Kingair Training manuals to make new ones......
IF (big if?) thatís whatís Ascent has done then itís extremely naughty. Especially if theyíre billing the taxpayer for the plagiarism.

Bose-X, have you flown the Phenom in close formation?
Bloodhound Loose is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2018, 16:07
  #111 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,992
Originally Posted by Just This Once... View Post
I don't get what Bose is saying at all. Virtually all our M/E fleets have a requirement for close formation and it would be utterly ridiculous to take an RJ, E-3D or P8 out of operational service to teach multi-engine formation trip 1. Formation flying gets harder as aircraft size increases - in IMC and on the wing your eyes can be a long way from the fuselage you are formatting on. Add in heavy aircraft inertia, large turbine engine spool-up time or turboprop effects on trim and lift you can have a lot going on.

If the Phenom is not up to the task (and that is a very big if) the solution is not to kick the can down the road and try and teach formation basics on an even more expensive and challenging aircraft.
How many ME fleets pemit the copilot to fly AAR (well, are not supposed to the copilot fly AAR)? My experience it was a commander only thing. So by the time bloggs gets a first go, by my reckoning, he should have 3+ years under his belt on a large heavy. Plus, for high gain flying such as this, a full motion SIM often does an excellent job at preparing them for AAR. Does the phenom training package include a level D SIM like most of our heavy fleets possess?
VinRouge is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2018, 20:03
  #112 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,442
We had an AAR prodding programme in the full motion VC10 simulators. As it was 2-D and had no 'g' simulation, it was utterly useless and made pilots think that they'd never be able to cope with real prodding. A total waste of time and we refused to use it as it was simply of negative training value; as an AARI, I never came across a VC10 pilot who couldn't cope with the real thing far more easily.

BUT they needed to have had some basic formation training to understand the basics (forward, up, in etc.) and to feel reasonably comfortable flying in close echelon or line astern. Co-pilots needed this too; although they were only allowed to prod if flying with an AARI on an opportunity basis, they had to be able to take control if the other pilot were to become incapacitated.

Close formation in a Phenom at up to 30 deg AoB I can understand. More than that is just risky showboating.
BEagle is online now  
Old 15th Aug 2018, 20:14
  #113 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 15,979
If you want a pilot who can only operate within quite a narrow environment (take off, transit, land), stay well clear of any limits, operate rigidly iaw very restrictive SOPs then perhaps the civilian CPL type course is the way to go. However, if you want a pilot who needs to be able to fly perhaps at LL, air-air refuelling, para drop, ISTAR or tanking to the absolute limit of your endurance, as part of a multi-aircraft package, with aircrews from other nations and using very different SOPs, to the extremes of your aircraft's accepted limits, then I would argue the CPL route doesn't work. You need a pilot that's had exposure to various skills - including basic formation - and most certainly on a few carefully considered sorties 'solo' ie without an instructor on board.
Cobhams Cpl Pilots do not seem to have a problem on the Falcon fleet. I realise a lot are exmilitary, but not all

https://www.aerosociety.com/news/fly...the-dark-side/
NutLoose is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2018, 20:40
  #114 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 17
Close formation in a Phenom at up to 30 deg AoB I can understand. More than that is just risky showboating.
Oh dear me! Where does your hard 30 deg AoB essential trg / showboating cut-off come from? Not sure if you've done much airborne instruction BEagle, but if we use your hard 30 deg limit for students then that means they'll be operating to their limit during, say, a routine pairs departure or radar-to-visual recovery. Surely wiser to expose them to slightly wider limits when specifically manoeuvring so they're back within a more comfortable zone during departure/recovery.

In addition, I'd want to know that a Phenom QFI doesn't have to break-out every time he takes control and the bank gets to 31 deg! I'm going to want him to be able to cope reasonably well at say 45 deg AoB.
FixClrEnt is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2018, 22:26
  #115 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,442
Not sure if you've done much airborne instruction BEagle
On ME aircraft, several thousand hours as an A2 QFI, IRE, AARI on the VC10 & VC10K, thank you very much. And you, FixClrEnt?

ME aircraft do NOT fly 'routine pairs departures' or 'radar-to-visual' recoveries in close formation. 30 deg AoB is quite adequate for AAR manoeuvring as it gives a slight margin over the standard max bank angle of 25 deg; higher bank angles are simply not required. They also pose the risk of exceeding buffet boundary limits or g limits.

There is NO need for the Phenom to be flown in close formation at higher bank angles, although some experience as a singleton at higher bank angles may be of benefit for those who will later fly the A400M or C-130J in the tactical role.

Last edited by BEagle; 15th Aug 2018 at 22:47.
BEagle is online now  
Old 15th Aug 2018, 23:18
  #116 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 17
On ME aircraft, several thousand hours as an A2 QFI, IRE, AARI on the VC10 & VC10K, thank you very much.
Ah, that's impressive, I've not met many military guys with several thousand hours total never mind several thousand as logged instructional time. That must put you comfortably well over 10,000hrs military total so hats off! A rare breed indeed.

So, are you suggesting that for any formation sorties the Phenom is limited to 25/30 deg AoB in a snake climb, then splits for individual recoveries? And as a singleton 'some' experience at higher bank angles only for those going tac? Does that kybosh any thoughts of abo student ME pilots regularly flying steepies in the Phenom; perhaps just a select few towards the end of the course?
FixClrEnt is offline  
Old 16th Aug 2018, 07:32
  #117 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,442
FixClrEnt wrote:
So, are you suggesting that for any formation sorties the Phenom is limited to 25/30 deg AoB in a snake climb, then splits for individual recoveries?
Yes.
And as a singleton 'some' experience at higher bank angles only for those going tac? Does that kybosh any thoughts of abo student ME pilots regularly flying steepies in the Phenom; perhaps just a select few towards the end of the course?
ME pilots do not need to fly at bank angles in excess of 30 deg AoB in the aircraft at all. If necessary, they can do that in the simulator.
.
BEagle is online now  
Old 16th Aug 2018, 08:25
  #118 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: UK
Age: 64
Posts: 966
BEagle

Would not your proposal lead to adequate training rather than training for excellence?
beardy is offline  
Old 16th Aug 2018, 09:12
  #119 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,442
I don't think so, beardy, it's questionable whether there is any need at all for Phenom pilots to fly in close formation. But if they do, it should be limited to the types of formation appropriate to large ME aircraft.

Higher risk activity can be flown in the simulator and any role-specific needs should be taught at the relevant OCU.
BEagle is online now  
Old 16th Aug 2018, 09:33
  #120 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: UK
Age: 64
Posts: 966
ME pilots do not need to fly at bank angles in excess of 30 deg AoB in the aircraft at all. If necessary, they can do that in the simulator.
I was thinking of aircraft handling, not specifically formation flying. Confidence is born and nurtured in the aircraft itself. I know that the unfortunate Air France pilots had flown their simulator in extreme conditions, it's part of the Airbus programme used by Air France which trains adequately, but not to excellence and for routine operations, not combat operations.
beardy is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.