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 16th Aug 2018, 11:08
  #121 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Here and there.
Posts: 849
Has anyone been able to confirm/disprove the rumour mentioned earlier reference a dent in the cabin roof? (Post #99)

I can't find anything around the usual sites.
SATCOS WHIPPING BOY is offline  
Old 16th Aug 2018, 12:34
  #122 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Sneaking up on the Runway and leaping out to grab it unawares
Age: 57
Posts: 684
Originally Posted by BEagle View Post
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.
.
Really? Nimrod routinely did.
ExAscoteer is offline  
Old 16th Aug 2018, 13:08
  #123 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: West of Suez
Posts: 243
Talking

Originally Posted by ExAscoteer View Post
Really? Nimrod routinely did.
As would any self respecting 4 engine interceptor

Every rule has an exception
AnglianAV8R is offline  
Old 16th Aug 2018, 16:57
  #124 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 614
One problem with a simulator is that the pilot does not get any normal acceleration cues to his body (ie. g). If you have an aircraft that needs to fly at more than 30 deg of bank and the manoeuvre stability is such that you need to trim into the turn (Phenom and Nimrod), the pilot will use g cues, albeit subconsciously, when flying the task. Therefore, training for these tasks really needs to be flown in the aeroplane and not just in the simulator.
LOMCEVAK is offline  
Old 16th Aug 2018, 17:26
  #125 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 7,216
Originally Posted by SATCOS WHIPPING BOY View Post
Has anyone been able to confirm/disprove the rumour mentioned earlier reference a dent in the cabin roof? (Post #99)

I can't find anything around the usual sites.
Funnily enough I skill tested a pilot on a turboprop earlier today who saw them the other day and confirmed the damage.
S-Works is offline  
Old 16th Aug 2018, 19:00
  #126 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Scotland
Posts: 384
Originally Posted by LOMCEVAK View Post
One problem with a simulator is that the pilot does not get any normal acceleration cues to his body (ie. g). If you have an aircraft that needs to fly at more than 30 deg of bank and the manoeuvre stability is such that you need to trim into the turn (Phenom and Nimrod), the pilot will use g cues, albeit subconsciously, when flying the task. Therefore, training for these tasks really needs to be flown in the aeroplane and not just in the simulator.
A simulator In a centrifuge is being commissioned at Cranwell right now. It has interchangeable cockpits although I don’t think any ME types are included.
Timelord is offline  
Old 16th Aug 2018, 19:10
  #127 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 17
A simulator In a centrifuge is being commissioned at Cranwell right now. It has interchangeable
I suspect that any centrifuge will only be able to apply gz in response to its change of rpm and therefore not able to respond quickly enough to any simulator changes of g. Furthermore, it won't have any ability to provide the other forces that a normal 6-axis flight sim replicates.
FixClrEnt is offline  
Old 17th Aug 2018, 08:08
  #128 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Here and there.
Posts: 849
Originally Posted by Timelord View Post


A simulator In a centrifuge is being commissioned at Cranwell right now. It has interchangeable cockpits although I don’t think any ME types are included.
As FixClrEnt says, that will be of limited benefit. Sounds more like a fancy fairground ride than anything which will come close to substituting for real flying time.

@Bose-X. Thank you. It will be interesting to see how that damaged was caused.
SATCOS WHIPPING BOY is offline  
Old 17th Aug 2018, 08:34
  #129 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 715
It will be interesting to see how that damaged was caused.
On current striking rate, it'll be a couple of years perhaps, for the SI Final Report to be made public ?

One hopes the - ahem - 'formation practice' was properly briefed and authorised.

In the mean time, will the L3 RAF ME candidates (100 over three years) be getting any formation exposure on their L3 type, which looks as if it's the DA42 ...... or will they have to wait until they transition to the Phenom ?

LFH

............
Lordflasheart is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2018, 20:18
  #130 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: UK
Posts: 14
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

Hello Bob,

You've made a concerted effort on a number of different threads in recent months, to convince the assembled forum that all's 'fine and dandy' at MFTS (North Wales branch).

I just wondered whether or not it was true that a number of satirical posters had recently appeared in various Valley locations, expressing apparent student discontent with the current 3 year hold, and if so, hoped you might give us all 'your take' on the sentiment&issues highlighted?

I appreciate you have a healthy logbook over the last 12 months, what about everyone else?
Typhoondriver is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2018, 21:14
  #131 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,541
Originally Posted by Typhoondriver View Post
Hello Bob,

You've made a concerted effort on a number of different threads in recent months, to convince the assembled forum that all's 'fine and dandy' at MFTS (North Wales branch).

I just wondered whether or not it was true that a number of satirical posters had recently appeared in various Valley locations, expressing apparent student discontent with the current 3 year hold, and if so, hoped you might give us all 'your take' on the sentiment&issues highlighted?

I appreciate you have a healthy logbook over the last 12 months, what about everyone else?
TD, can you explain the 700% figure? I didn't get the joke.

Bob is a company man, so don't expect any real insights in his response, if any, but you could maybe ask him how many students graduated on the most recent T2 course, and how many were chopped.

The same question about the current course would, I am sure, enlighten the people who have been holding for years.

p.s. How many students in total, have been chopped from the T2 since the new management took over a few years ago?


I don't know (of) anyone in a better position to answer those questions than Bob Viking.
airpolice is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2018, 21:57
  #132 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Wherever it is this month
Posts: 1,170
How many students in total, have been chopped from the T2 since the new management took over a few years ago?
Someone will be along to tell you that the decrease in chop rate is because the RAF can afford to be pickier about its candidates at selection given the gradual decrease in annual requirement and the increase in population, and because standards of instruction have improved (the same argument trotted out when GCSE and A-Level results were on their relentless rises a few years back, before some rigour was reintroduced). Well, the recent glut of pilot recruitment should tell us whether that’s true in a few years’ time. Personally I don’t find it credible that OASC, EFT and BFJT have simultaneously improved outcomes so noticeably. What I do find credible are tales of an incentive structure that encourages the contractor to chuck additional Hawk hours at students that would have been chopped in days gone by, especially when those tales come from Valley’s prime ‘customer’.

Last edited by Easy Street; 31st Aug 2018 at 19:24.
Easy Street is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2018, 16:34
  #133 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: UK
Age: 63
Posts: 202
ZM335 departed Waddington this afternoon as CWL45.
Big Eric is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2018, 16:40
  #134 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 74
Posts: 5,234
Originally Posted by Big Eric View Post
ZM335 departed Waddington this afternoon as CWL45.
Huzzah! The ‘RAF’ now has four!

Still no news on how/what?
MPN11 is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2018, 17:58
  #135 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 715
There seems to be some low-level muttering about the RAF multi-engine cadets at L3 (who are apparently on the DA42 at Bournemouth ) allegedly getting flying priority over the L3 civvie studes - who have to pay upwards of £80k for their ATPL courses.

..................
Lordflasheart is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2018, 20:29
  #136 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: France
Age: 75
Posts: 6,339
And for more accommodation costs if their course takes longer than planned
Wander00 is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2018, 19:10
  #137 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In the State of Denial
Posts: 769
Are the ‘mutterings’ because the RAF students aren’t paying for their training whereas the civvy students are? Do they think the former are getting it for free? The taxpayer is picking up the tab and presumably at a price that L3 are content with. Maybe there’s a clause in the contract that penalises L3 for delays in the RAF courses? As a taxpayer I’m delighted that a contracted-out service is not being strung out but that the operator is getting on with things.

It does make a sharp contrast with that other contractor, Ascent....
Ken Scott is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2018, 23:02
  #138 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,541
Originally Posted by Ken Scott View Post
Are the ‘mutterings’ because the RAF students aren’t paying for their training whereas the civvy students are? Do they think the former are getting it for free? The taxpayer is picking up the tab and presumably at a price that L3 are content with. Maybe there’s a clause in the contract that penalises L3 for delays in the RAF courses? As a taxpayer I’m delighted that a contracted-out service is not being strung out but that the operator is getting on with things.

It does make a sharp contrast with that other contractor, Ascent....
There is a tough choice here for the passengers on the outrage bus.

RAF Students have gone through a different process to "qualify" to be on that course. Did they get it free, or have they committed other aspects of their lives, rather than take the financial hit of borrowing the money to pay for their training?

How do you put a fiscal value on the lifestyle restrictions of a Junior Officer and the commitment of deadly ops in the future, against the fact that that civvy students "only" have to borrow the money, and nobody at the schools cares what tattoos or previous convictions a student might have?

The military selection process, certainly when I served, demanded a standard of personal values which the civilian, business model, is immune from.

That, to my mind, makes them different. Not necessarily better, one way or the other, just different.

However, we have now drifted into dangerous waters where both streams (pun caption on) of students are mixing in a training environment.

Perhaps any unhappy civvy students need to just accept that deeper pockets bring shorter courses. On the other side, the chances of actually flying an aircraft, after completion of the course, seems much higher for the civvy people.
airpolice is offline  
Old 5th Sep 2018, 09:30
  #139 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Pathfinder Country
Posts: 447
Not the first time in recent history the ME Stream was contracted out'. When 5 FTS at Oakington closed in the mid 70s' and with the then Jetstream engine problems and eventual mothballing' the Stream was closed down for 'ab initios'; it was retreads only' at Hamble on Beech Barons.. Stream eventually re-started at Leeming ISTR.

A.D.
aw ditor is offline  
Old 5th Sep 2018, 09:50
  #140 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 715
............
Judging by the respective dates involved - “The first class of students will begin training with L3 in August 2018.” and the likely relative numbers – ‘100 trainee pilots over a three years contract’ this may be less to do with the small RAF element and more to do with the very large number of civvie studes and a possible organisational shortage of flying hours.

The RAF tailored course is described as “similar to a Commercial Pilot License (CPL) with Instrument Rating (IR) as well as the Multi-Crew Cooperation (MCC) course to supplement the RAF’s own training. ............. https://www.pilotcareernews.com/l3-t...or-raf-pilots/

I don’t imagine that involves formal licence exams other than what is necessary to do the course flying so perhaps six months total with L3.

L3 claim business relationships with a couple of dozen airlines, in addition to those student individuals who enrol on spec, wholly at their own expense and risk. They currently have ten ground and flying training establishments since they took over CTC a year or so ago. ................hthttps://www.l3airlineacademy.com/about/academy-locations

That looks a bit too large to be disrupted by a few Acting Pilot Officers unless the RAF has pulled everyone off hold and front-loaded the contract.

Half a dozen RAF studes every two months perhaps, for, say, sixty hours flying ? Including no formation. If the first batch turned up for course induction and type conversion ground school on August 1st, they can hardly be hogging the flying before the end of the month as was suggested on the last two pages of this thread. ........... The CTC Wings (Cadets) Thread - Part 2.

That suggests there may be other reasons for any possible flying hold ups (at Bournemouth) and (of course) other reasons for the ‘mutterings.’

LFH
.....................
Lordflasheart 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.