Single seat instruction
Thread Starter
Single seat instruction
With the coming of the F-35 to the RAF/RN inventory, I was just musing about the change in flying instruction required to get the guys through the OCU in a single seat jet..
With other modern FJ of course you usually have a twin seat option (mostly), so you have someone in the boot casting a watchful eye over the stude in the front.
I'm sure there are many QFI's/QWI's/QPI's out there who either have a view or some practical experience. I'm assuming synthetic training plays an exceedingly large part in the OCU course of single seat FJ's? And of course, every second in the air will be recorded and downloadable for post sortie debriefs.
Happy to hear any thoughts.
Thanks
TO
With other modern FJ of course you usually have a twin seat option (mostly), so you have someone in the boot casting a watchful eye over the stude in the front.
I'm sure there are many QFI's/QWI's/QPI's out there who either have a view or some practical experience. I'm assuming synthetic training plays an exceedingly large part in the OCU course of single seat FJ's? And of course, every second in the air will be recorded and downloadable for post sortie debriefs.
Happy to hear any thoughts.
Thanks
TO
The Typhoon OCU is now pretty much a single seat OCU. Modern technology in aircraft like the F35 and Typhoon mean that they are easier to fly domestically and have a lot more in built flight control protection. They bite you a lot less.
Simulators are also getting so much better. It makes the cost of producing a 2 seat training variant of an aircraft simply not worth it.
Mr Vice.
Simulators are also getting so much better. It makes the cost of producing a 2 seat training variant of an aircraft simply not worth it.
Mr Vice.
Considerably easier with modern simulators and aircraft that are 'relatively easy' to fly - consider many others such as the Hunter, Lightning and Harrier which all came into service as single seaters before trainer versions were developed, and there was never a dual control Buccaneer either.
Yep, hardly a new concept and it must have been an interesting exercise on an aircraft as demanding as an F-8, especially against a carrier. In the wartime environment the first Spitfire sortie could not have been easy either.
Time and technology have made the absence of a trainer variant a bit of a non-event but the F-35B in UK service will have its own challenges beyond initial conversion. The plan is for a serious percentage of day-to-day training will be conducted in the simulator rather than an aircraft. There are some technical and operational security reasons for extra sim time but the UK is also looking to save money by flying the aircraft as infrequently as possible.
There are risks with this, especially on the engineering and logistics side, as it is easy to call an aircraft serviceable when it does not do a trip. We may find that our first stressing of a fleet will come during war fighting and the true answer to our latent capability may be vapourware. It also makes nonsense of on-the-job training for frontline technicians and we have examples from other fleets where trade groups could do multiple tours without ever doing their primary role (eg sooties that have never attempted an engine change). It also makes keeping manning levels at the correct level for ops challenging when workload is so low in peacetime.
On the pilot side the long-term effect on air skills with so little non-synthetic flying is not fully understood. Some of us question the potential skill-fade several years down the line from flying training. Quite a few more of us have questioned the retention factor if we only give pilots single-digit hours per month whilst drowning them in sims and assorted ground trivia.
Time and technology have made the absence of a trainer variant a bit of a non-event but the F-35B in UK service will have its own challenges beyond initial conversion. The plan is for a serious percentage of day-to-day training will be conducted in the simulator rather than an aircraft. There are some technical and operational security reasons for extra sim time but the UK is also looking to save money by flying the aircraft as infrequently as possible.
There are risks with this, especially on the engineering and logistics side, as it is easy to call an aircraft serviceable when it does not do a trip. We may find that our first stressing of a fleet will come during war fighting and the true answer to our latent capability may be vapourware. It also makes nonsense of on-the-job training for frontline technicians and we have examples from other fleets where trade groups could do multiple tours without ever doing their primary role (eg sooties that have never attempted an engine change). It also makes keeping manning levels at the correct level for ops challenging when workload is so low in peacetime.
On the pilot side the long-term effect on air skills with so little non-synthetic flying is not fully understood. Some of us question the potential skill-fade several years down the line from flying training. Quite a few more of us have questioned the retention factor if we only give pilots single-digit hours per month whilst drowning them in sims and assorted ground trivia.
JTO
I hear everything you’re saying. My honestly held belief is that F35 would make a much better second tour than a first.
As a JP straight out of training I would be very excited to get my hands on a brand new F35. However, for various reasons (airmanship, experience and knowledge amongst others) I think guys would be much better placed to have a tour under their belt before they transition to the limited flying on offer on an F35 squadron.
This is not a policy I have heard of, but simply the educated opinion of a QFI.
BV
As a JP straight out of training I would be very excited to get my hands on a brand new F35. However, for various reasons (airmanship, experience and knowledge amongst others) I think guys would be much better placed to have a tour under their belt before they transition to the limited flying on offer on an F35 squadron.
This is not a policy I have heard of, but simply the educated opinion of a QFI.
BV
Guest
Posts: n/a
In WWII, almost every RAF single seat pilot had 150 - 200 hours under his belt (the last third usually in the "Harvard" trainer). At OTU you read the "Pilot's Notes", had a good look round, listened to a bit of advice from a QFI, hopped in and flew. (The Spitfire was a welcome change from the Harvard - it was said the the Spit "was a good lead-in to the Harvard". Simulators hadn't been thought of.
Thousands of lads made out all right then - but I admit the F-35 might be a bit of a handful ab initio !
Thousands of lads made out all right then - but I admit the F-35 might be a bit of a handful ab initio !
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite a few good, accurate points made here by JTO et al. Perhaps I can add a bit more. If the recently graduated first UK ab initio course are anything to go by, they completed it to a very high standard and weren’t phased at all by the (almost) equal ratio of live and synthetic flying. The F35 simulator is very immersive and, to quote one student pilot: “first solo was fantastic and a bit of a non-event as it felt exactly like this simulator I did beforehand!” It’s a low risk and low cost way of getting people trained to a high standard.
Yes people joined to fly jets - and they absolutely will fly a good amount in F35 too - but much of the tactical sharpening of pilots is best served in the Sim where serious threat systems can be pitched against our tactics, techniques and procedures. It also allows pilots to gain confidence in the whole system’s capability.
It’s a different approach, that’s all. So far the feedback is wholly positive but we can veer and haul with learned experience.
Yes people joined to fly jets - and they absolutely will fly a good amount in F35 too - but much of the tactical sharpening of pilots is best served in the Sim where serious threat systems can be pitched against our tactics, techniques and procedures. It also allows pilots to gain confidence in the whole system’s capability.
It’s a different approach, that’s all. So far the feedback is wholly positive but we can veer and haul with learned experience.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,803
Received 135 Likes
on
63 Posts
An Anson was more useful, perhaps? My second flight was on Anson T20, WJ514, of the Binbrook Station Flight, 13 April 1959. In fact I had 2 trips in it that day, for some strange reason. Flt Lt Jeremy ffolliott-Foster DFC was driving ... what a name to encourage the young to join up!!
When the Valiants shuddered to a halt at the end of 1965 a Chipmunk were issued to each squadron for the co-pilots to keep their hand in. We Direct Entry pilots had never flown a Chipmunk before, Provost and Jet Provost trained, so the Squadron QFI had to convert us. With a bit of effort one could knock up twenty hours a month.
The Station Anson was available for the captains but the facility was never taken up.
A VForce captain wouldn't be seen dead flying an Anson.
The Station Anson was available for the captains but the facility was never taken up.
A VForce captain wouldn't be seen dead flying an Anson.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps someone in the know can tighten me up - but when we did a study into the hours, both in the simulator and aircraft, for which we had budgeted for the F-35 pilots - it was borderline whether they’d actually be able to use them all if each and every trip benefited from a decent mission planning cycle.
Of course, some will contend that some hours should fall into the ‘simply slip the surly bonds’ category or indeed the ‘pitch up at sim with no AEA and run through some emergencies’ bucket...FWIW I disagree!
Of course, some will contend that some hours should fall into the ‘simply slip the surly bonds’ category or indeed the ‘pitch up at sim with no AEA and run through some emergencies’ bucket...FWIW I disagree!
Orca,
I agree. The manufacturers can build the most capable sims in the world but the hours in them are only any use if the aircrew put the same effort into the plan / brief / fly / debrief cycle that they would with live flying. My experience in the sim world was that this was not always the case. Good luck to the F35 people in using sims differently.
I agree. The manufacturers can build the most capable sims in the world but the hours in them are only any use if the aircrew put the same effort into the plan / brief / fly / debrief cycle that they would with live flying. My experience in the sim world was that this was not always the case. Good luck to the F35 people in using sims differently.
Last edited by Timelord; 12th Aug 2018 at 14:45.
Joking aside, given that we'll soon have so few flying stations, a "station flight" would be a good idea (and not too expensive…honest). Potentially retention positive (working towards licenses perhaps) and for the Typhoon force in particular, a convenient way of moving people/parts from CGY to Lossie and Warton. A King Air as the modern day Anson and a couple of 120TPs (or, whisper it, soon to be surplus Tucanos) as tools and toys - especially for those in non-flying command posts in the Stn/Force HQ. Check-outs and back seats given for good behaviour - a bit like the recce Gazelles we used to have. With a general reduction in the amount of flying during training, for some aircrew, access to the like of the KA/Tucano would serve to broaden and develop their airmanship. For Odiham crews they could use them to fly between Odi and Benson to use the CAE Sim…save that awful drive through Reading….Sigh, not in this climate I'm afraid…..
As for Sim vs real, the new buzz is LVC - Live/Virtual Construct where in the (simulated) sunny uplands of the future the likes of TLT/Nitex will be flown by crews in both real and simulated aircraft - achieving that collective training "tick". From my experience of instructing in the Sim, the key, as Timelord suggests, was total immersion and a proper plan/brief cycle - including breaking away from 2 hour sorties. Some of the 4hr + multi-ships we did got really convincing as the crews "suspension of disbelief" became deeper, and the training, as a result, became even more valuable.
As for Sim vs real, the new buzz is LVC - Live/Virtual Construct where in the (simulated) sunny uplands of the future the likes of TLT/Nitex will be flown by crews in both real and simulated aircraft - achieving that collective training "tick". From my experience of instructing in the Sim, the key, as Timelord suggests, was total immersion and a proper plan/brief cycle - including breaking away from 2 hour sorties. Some of the 4hr + multi-ships we did got really convincing as the crews "suspension of disbelief" became deeper, and the training, as a result, became even more valuable.
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Orca, you’re right. However, there is a simple issue with taking all your AEA to the sim. The helmet/visual implementation is different so you wouldn’t take the bone dome. I pretty much agree with the rest though: Mission plan, brief , execute and debrief as-real time.
Thread Starter
Thanks all for your considered views.
I'm presuming that most of the first tranche of pilots on the squadrons will already be experienced FJ pilots with a tour on the Tornado/Typhoon behind them?
I recall at the start of the Typhoon coming into service there was the odd ab initio pilot made his way straight from Valley.
I'm presuming that most of the first tranche of pilots on the squadrons will already be experienced FJ pilots with a tour on the Tornado/Typhoon behind them?
I recall at the start of the Typhoon coming into service there was the odd ab initio pilot made his way straight from Valley.