RAF to increase pilot training by up to 50% at Valley.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,064
Received 2,934 Likes
on
1,250 Posts
RAF to increase pilot training by up to 50% at Valley.
Is that enough, or is that simply increasing a derisory number?
https://www.forces.net/services/raf/...ties-nearly-50
RAF Valley has opened a new building extension to allow for additional simulators to increase the basic flight training of trainee pilots by almost 50%, which it is hoped will help ease the current pilot training pipeline issues.
The new Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) building is part of a £175m investment by the Ministry of Defence (MOD) into Ascent's delivery of basic flight training within UKMFTS, the UK's military flying training system.
Ascent's industry partners from Babcock International and Kier have extended existing infrastructure to house the new simulators, adding additional instructors and other facilities to increase capacity for basic flying training.
The new Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) building is part of a £175m investment by the Ministry of Defence (MOD) into Ascent's delivery of basic flight training within UKMFTS, the UK's military flying training system.
Ascent's industry partners from Babcock International and Kier have extended existing infrastructure to house the new simulators, adding additional instructors and other facilities to increase capacity for basic flying training.
Top Answer
13th Jun 2023, 18:45
As readers will have gathered, I know bugger all about flying.
However, anything near 100% Sim is surely lunacy for at least two reasons:
Many years ago I became [don't larf] an expert in Harrier deck landings c. 1984 ....... on an in-house computer at my Weather Centre we had unofficially installed a state of the art commercial Flight Sim. After 100 crashes on deck or in the sea, I mastered the job. I was, in the context of the game, immortal I never experienced adrenalin rushes, squeaky bum or sheer terror as things happened quicker than I could react. Similarly, I deduce that the worst that can happen in a proper Sim is failure and bollocking.
The other reason is that the pilot is the tip of a very complicated weapon. The people that plan flying, that authorise it, that brief it, that supervise it, the armourers and the sooties and the lineys and ATC and a host of other trades need the day to day exercise of getting a military aircraft safely airborne and fit for mission. The Sim exercises nothing of this.
The 100%, or anywhere near it, has to be bolleaux, surely.
However, anything near 100% Sim is surely lunacy for at least two reasons:
Many years ago I became [don't larf] an expert in Harrier deck landings c. 1984 ....... on an in-house computer at my Weather Centre we had unofficially installed a state of the art commercial Flight Sim. After 100 crashes on deck or in the sea, I mastered the job. I was, in the context of the game, immortal I never experienced adrenalin rushes, squeaky bum or sheer terror as things happened quicker than I could react. Similarly, I deduce that the worst that can happen in a proper Sim is failure and bollocking.
The other reason is that the pilot is the tip of a very complicated weapon. The people that plan flying, that authorise it, that brief it, that supervise it, the armourers and the sooties and the lineys and ATC and a host of other trades need the day to day exercise of getting a military aircraft safely airborne and fit for mission. The Sim exercises nothing of this.
The 100%, or anywhere near it, has to be bolleaux, surely.
The following users liked this post:
Have they really named the building Strategic Defence and Security Review?
Or have Forces News misunderstood?
Or have Forces News misunderstood?
I partly agree but the recently retired CAS was on record as aspiring to a 100/0 sim/ flying balance. Live flying would only take place on Ops. Perhaps that is the origin of this story.
The following 3 users liked this post by langleybaston:
Timelord
BV
Surely it isn't meant to be a subsitute? Isn't it not part of the training syllabus? Most of a TR is in a sim. Clearly you need flying hours as well but its a start.
The following users liked this post:
As readers will have gathered, I know bugger all about flying.
However, anything near 100% Sim is surely lunacy for at least two reasons:
Many years ago I became [don't larf] an expert in Harrier deck landings c. 1984 ....... on an in-house computer at my Weather Centre we had unofficially installed a state of the art commercial Flight Sim. After 100 crashes on deck or in the sea, I mastered the job. I was, in the context of the game, immortal I never experienced adrenalin rushes, squeaky bum or sheer terror as things happened quicker than I could react. Similarly, I deduce that the worst that can happen in a proper Sim is failure and bollocking.
The other reason is that the pilot is the tip of a very complicated weapon. The people that plan flying, that authorise it, that brief it, that supervise it, the armourers and the sooties and the lineys and ATC and a host of other trades need the day to day exercise of getting a military aircraft safely airborne and fit for mission. The Sim exercises nothing of this.
The 100%, or anywhere near it, has to be bolleaux, surely.
However, anything near 100% Sim is surely lunacy for at least two reasons:
Many years ago I became [don't larf] an expert in Harrier deck landings c. 1984 ....... on an in-house computer at my Weather Centre we had unofficially installed a state of the art commercial Flight Sim. After 100 crashes on deck or in the sea, I mastered the job. I was, in the context of the game, immortal I never experienced adrenalin rushes, squeaky bum or sheer terror as things happened quicker than I could react. Similarly, I deduce that the worst that can happen in a proper Sim is failure and bollocking.
The other reason is that the pilot is the tip of a very complicated weapon. The people that plan flying, that authorise it, that brief it, that supervise it, the armourers and the sooties and the lineys and ATC and a host of other trades need the day to day exercise of getting a military aircraft safely airborne and fit for mission. The Sim exercises nothing of this.
The 100%, or anywhere near it, has to be bolleaux, surely.
The following 10 users liked this post by langleybaston:
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,812
Received 137 Likes
on
64 Posts
As a fellow Penguin, agreed >100% 😀
As an aside, it was noticeable that some ATC students, graduating to the real world from School Simulators, discovered ‘real World stress’ when joining their first Units. All of a sudden it’s not a Sim game any more … you can kill people if you get it wrong.
As an aside, it was noticeable that some ATC students, graduating to the real world from School Simulators, discovered ‘real World stress’ when joining their first Units. All of a sudden it’s not a Sim game any more … you can kill people if you get it wrong.
The following 3 users liked this post by MPN11:
The following users liked this post:
As a fellow Penguin, agreed >100% 😀
As an aside, it was noticeable that some ATC students, graduating to the real world from School Simulators, discovered ‘real World stress’ when joining their first Units. All of a sudden it’s not a Sim game any more … you can kill people if you get it wrong.
As an aside, it was noticeable that some ATC students, graduating to the real world from School Simulators, discovered ‘real World stress’ when joining their first Units. All of a sudden it’s not a Sim game any more … you can kill people if you get it wrong.
50% increase in pilot training must also mean an increase in QFIs?
Whence will they come?
Not as easy as augmenting a couple of squadrons of Gnats with another of Hunter T7 and GT6 was 50 years ago when the RAF was of a proper size.
Whence will they come?
Not as easy as augmenting a couple of squadrons of Gnats with another of Hunter T7 and GT6 was 50 years ago when the RAF was of a proper size.