Phenom
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Last edited by S-Works; 14th Aug 2018 at 15:19.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.....
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you don't adapt your training syllabus enough, you're going to be bitten.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Here and there
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bose-X, have you flown the Phenom in close formation?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,834
Received 2,802 Likes
on
1,193 Posts
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.
https://www.aerosociety.com/news/fly...the-dark-side/
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Close formation in a Phenom at up to 30 deg AoB I can understand. More than that is just risky showboating.
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.
Not sure if you've done much airborne instruction BEagle
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.
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On ME aircraft, several thousand hours as an A2 QFI, IRE, AARI on the VC10 & VC10K, thank you very much.
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 wrote:
Yes.
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.
.
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?
.
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.
Higher risk activity can be flown in the simulator and any role-specific needs should be taught at the relevant OCU.
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.
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.
I can't find anything around the usual sites.