Seldom,

**Deleted - definitely not very well veiled sniping**

Back to the initial point. As has been mentioned before, the key difference is that military flying ultimately teaches you the techniques to employ weapons. If you cannot fly to accurate parameters you cannot accurately employ the weapons system. This argument is slightly more valid for air to ground roles but does have carry across. Modern systems have highly reactive systems which constantly compute a weapons solution but if you cannot fly to a set of known parameters how can you assess whether your computed sight is correct? Accurate parameters is also extremely important for aircraft self damage considerations. Simplistically, too slow and the bomb can go bang too close to you.
In a tactical scenario I would accept +/- 10kts if manoeuvering, academically outside 5kts is just plain laziness.

Bryan G
 

While driving in the Scottish borders I saw a heavily loaded Tornado roll inverted to clear rising ground and it struck me that it was a damn sight more comfortable than pulling the same amount of negative G.

Wholigan and John Farley, your sage comments and vast experience on high-energy fast-jets add overwhelming value to this thread - and the questionable practice of 'ridge-rolling'.

That JP QFI who later killed himself in a Jaguar was sadly one of those whose desire to impress was perhaps not matched by his ability. Rolling inverted at low level in a Jet Provost and pulling down over a hill into a valley was thoroughly dangerous. He wasn't authorised for low level aeros either - but during one trip in LFA17 with another QFI we saw him trying an undercarriage-down barrel roll at low level....

Wholigan

Aw !! come on Rog, thats not the hooligan I remember !

Seriously though, I don't think the F-104 was ever initially intended to be a low level fighter, but was pressed into the role by several NATO nations. To compare it with the Hunter/Jaguar/ Tornado in the Low Level tactical role is a trifle misleading. I was certainly very comfortable with the technique, but had the good fortune to have flown some good low level steeds.

X767

Beagle,

I always enjoyed looking up into a Gnat's cockpit as they rolled and pulled over Ogwen Falls down into the Nant Ffrancon valley. So what was the bank angle and G?

I'll second Flap62's comments about accuracy of parameters being vital even with computed weapon aiming. On one particular weapon (used in Kosovo but no longer in service, thankfully) the computed solution was only accurate provided you flew within +/- 5 degrees of a given dive angle, and within the band 475-500 KTAS. The dive angle was OK but the speed bracket was a challenge. The jet would eventually accelerate through the speed band, even at idle power, so you didn't have the luxury of throttle control once established in the dive. Airbrakes were never conducive to accurate target marking at 500 TAS either. Basically it came down to nailing your entry parameters to within +/- 5kts and watching the speed build down the dive!

Not easy whilst also identifying and marking the target, keeping a beady eye on the height, reacting to threat indications, and being part of the general palaver of operational flying. Hence why the QWIs got so anal about parameters in the relative calm of the weapons ranges back at home.

India Four Two, the famous Nant Ffrancon was probably flown at about 360KIAS and the turn at Llyn Ogwen at around 70-90AoB and 4-5G. One of the stories which went around were "You aren't a real Gnat pilot unless you get down below the road at the A5 bend". Doubtless some did indeed manage this as it is quite a steep valley... But I seem to recall that the A5 pass was deemed 'dual only' and I don't recall having been allowed through it solo.

Perhaps an ex-4FTS Gnat / Hunter QFI could give you an authoritative answer?

Beagle - thanks for an overwhelming wave of nostalgia - just wiping the tears from my eyes - must be angel dust!

I Learnt About QFIing From That (A5 Pass)
 

As a new B2 Hawk QFI, I flew for the first time with a student nearing the end of the course on a low-level navex. The route ended through the A5 pass heading back to Valley. The student flew the route immaculately, impressing me with his technique. As we neared the pass (through which I had flown many times before in various aircraft) I said that I would demonstrate the way to fly it. He countered that he had already had a demonstration, so I checked that he knew what to do (overbank and pull) and agreed to let him have a go. At the bend he duly banked to 120 degrees or so (so far, so good), but then snatched 7+G. I took control for the low-speed handling check, RTB and can-carrying for the overstress.

Trust students? Not so much after that.

BEages, et al, in my day, the Gnat first solo was a low level speed run around the island. The A5 pass figured in the first solo low-level navex, but most instructors had to ‘demo’ it first – well that was their excuse.
Much, much later, I had (legal) opportunity to take my (civil) four jet through the pass - at a more sedately speed (and altitude), but with a sporting bank angle, over 60 deg but within a 2g limit.

Military flight training provides a wide range of scenarios in which to gain experience, but this is gained in a controlled manner. Thus the breadth and depth of general flight training in the military is greater than most civilian organisations.
In addition, the extent (duration) of military operational training provides role orientated experience which often included activities which could never be gained in civil aviation.
At Chivenor, the Hunter pilots, dropped things in the mud, whilst the future Lightning pilots fired guns and practiced close combat, (and had to fly in cloud and at night !!!).

In 1966 I did Ex 1 (or Instructors Benefit) with Max C, and of course it included Snowden at 200', invert, pull over the top and then revert to normal. 1988 or so and I am on the Command Accounts team doing the Valley inspection - on arrival a note at OM Reception to be at 1 Sqn 0900 Mon. On arrival at 1 Sqn, board says - Cxxxxxll (now Stn Cdr)/Gawn -Ex (1 Repeat). Sadly Max had other things to do, so I did it with someone else, but again GREAT FUN!! The inspection debrief was a blast! (And we did the A5!)

airpolice, fantastic - I think I've just had a small 'trouser moment'....:\

Blimey, was it that long ago!

Bala Naidoo - what a thorough gent. One of the nicest chaps anyone could possibly fly with, he had that unique knack of making stressed students relax and do well....

He wasn't OC 4FTS, he was OC 1 Sqn - and how he kept that bunch of tigers in check I cannot imagine.

After porking up a simulated engine seizure on my Final Handling Test, I had to do a flex GH trip and then another FHT, this time with Bala. I thoroughly enjoyed the experience - and actually passed.

One of Bala's 'make the student relax' trips I recall was with an ex-ULAS mate of mine, whose father was West Indian. Black chaps weren't that common in RAF flying training at the time and my chum had failed some 2-ship formation trip or other. In those days, 4FTS formation callsigns were weird things such as Kelvin, Motive, Lacock...and Sambar. Bala took my chum on the remedial formation trip, but used the callsign 'Sambo' rather than 'Sambar'.....much to the consternation of Air Traffic. That broke the ice, chum did fine and went on to become a top chap on Jags

Unauthorised LL aeros?
 

Beagle says: "during one trip in LFA17 with another QFI we saw him trying an undercarriage-down barrel roll at low level...."

... and presumably on landing your QFI helped the cause of flight safety by pointing out to him the error of his ways. Or did you both simply look the other way and thus contribute, albeit in a minor way, to his ultimate downfall.

BEagle

Amazing thread creep from the initial enquiry to Bala !!

I totally agree with you though - a true gentleman.

I went through Valley on the second Gnat course, before he arrived, but had the pleasure of sharing the cockpit of a B737 with him, during his time on Britannia, and consider him to be one of the finest, accomplished and courteous of aviators.
Unfortunately, he had a trying few years at the end of his time in Britannia, through no fault of his own, but still continues to be thoroughly involved in the world he loves.

X767

Roll, Pull and Puke
 

Anyone have a better definition version of this or a similar photo, please

Thanks for posting those photos - of much happier times than today...:uhoh:

essdee, I understand that the QFI I was with did indeed 'have a word' - but whether or not it had any effect, I do not know. Somehow I doubt it.

X767, very glad to hear that Bala is still enjoying himself! His sage, patient and courteous work must have helped countless students who struggled to get to grips with the Gnat.

Double Zero:

You know what I meant to mean!!! ;)

FFP

Looking at the black and white photo from the Valley line in 75 above takes me back. I had a ‘weather ship’ back seat ride in XS109 '63' (pictured second in the line) in 1975. This was a mind blowing experience for a 16 year old. I flew with Brian Todd (G41). We did everything from low level in Area 10 to aerobatics at 13000 ft. We finished in the traditional way with a run in and break.

I still remember the 6.5G break ...I was awake, I could still hear everything but my eyes had gone offline and I felt as if I was being crushed. At least that's how it felt at 16. The lights dimmed just after the left break overhead 32 and I regained visual in a steep descending turn over the sea for an approach to 02. Yes 02 not a typo.

As various contributors have said, military elementary flying training has a very different objective from PPL training. I was more taken by the difference in instructing styles.

In 1979 I began a PPL and was being taught by an UGSAS QFI but to the PPL syllabus. I was learning in a brand new Tomahawk. I did 11 hours with this guy (solo in 6.5hrs). Much later I did the full PPL (JAR) with a civilian instructor.

With the RAF QFI things went much more quickly and not always in the rigid sequence of the PPL syllabus at the time. For example the PPL syllabus at the time called for 1 hour of taxing training. I met a student at the local club who actually did this. My QFI told me I’d learn to taxi on the way to and from the runway. The syllabus also called for spin training prior to 1st solo. Interestingly my instructor said UGSAS students didn’t do spin training until after 1st solo. Neither did I as it happens but we did on the very next sortie.

I was encouraged to work to my limits closely supervised by the guy in the RHS. I really noticed the difference when I had to fly with one of the local club instructors when my normal instructor was away on RAF business. The experience was like chalk and cheese; I regressed and had to have the damage repaired later. During the sortie I found myself in information overload as every minor deviation was corrected immediately. With my QFI instructor I was allowed time to recognise a deviation and correct it myself before he would intervene.

At that time I had experienced two very different approaches to the same training and knew which I preferred. When I finally did my JAR PPL in 2006 I found things had moved on in the civilian world.

Some of what I experienced is no doubt due to individual personality. I think in general military instructors perhaps because of the different ethos behave differently to their civilian counterparts.