PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Military Aviation (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation-57/)
-   -   Phenom (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/611523-phenom.html)

SATCOS WHIPPING BOY 16th Aug 2018 11:08

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.

ExAscoteer 16th Aug 2018 12:34


Originally Posted by BEagle (Post 10225108)
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.

AnglianAV8R 16th Aug 2018 13:08


Originally Posted by ExAscoteer (Post 10225407)
Really? Nimrod routinely did.

As would any self respecting 4 engine interceptor

Every rule has an exception

LOMCEVAK 16th Aug 2018 16:57

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.

S-Works 16th Aug 2018 17:26


Originally Posted by SATCOS WHIPPING BOY (Post 10225326)
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.

Timelord 16th Aug 2018 19:00


Originally Posted by LOMCEVAK (Post 10225652)
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.

FixClrEnt 16th Aug 2018 19:10


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.

SATCOS WHIPPING BOY 17th Aug 2018 08:08


Originally Posted by Timelord (Post 10225754)


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.

Lordflasheart 17th Aug 2018 08:34


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

............

Typhoondriver 29th Aug 2018 20:18


Originally Posted by Bob Viking (Post 10223323)
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?

airpolice 29th Aug 2018 21:14


Originally Posted by Typhoondriver (Post 10236705)
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.

Easy Street 29th Aug 2018 21:57


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’.

Big Eric 3rd Sep 2018 16:34

ZM335 departed Waddington this afternoon as CWL45.

MPN11 3rd Sep 2018 16:40


Originally Posted by Big Eric (Post 10240419)
ZM335 departed Waddington this afternoon as CWL45.

Huzzah! The ‘RAF’ now has four!

Still no news on how/what?

Lordflasheart 3rd Sep 2018 17:58

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.

..................

Wander00 3rd Sep 2018 20:29

And for more accommodation costs if their course takes longer than planned

Ken Scott 4th Sep 2018 19:10

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....

airpolice 4th Sep 2018 23:02


Originally Posted by Ken Scott (Post 10241394)
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.

aw ditor 5th Sep 2018 09:30

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.

Lordflasheart 5th Sep 2018 09:50

............
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. ........... https://www.pprune.org/interviews-jo...t-2-a-242.html

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

LFH
.....................

Big Eric 5th Sep 2018 13:46


Originally Posted by MPN11 (Post 10240426)

Huzzah! The ‘RAF’ now has four!

Still no news on how/what?

It flew back to Cranwell with it's wheels down, not much point of retracting them for such a short flight I suppose! No other news yet.

ExAscoteer 5th Sep 2018 14:19


Originally Posted by Big Eric (Post 10241970)
not much point of retracting them for such a short flight I suppose!

Even though it's a short transit you wouldn't normally do it gear down; we certainly never did on neither the Dominie nor the Jetstream.

The gear will be down, I would think, for one of two reasons: Either it won't retract or one wishes a slow, high drag, transit in the approach configuration because one has airframe damage.

airpolice 5th Sep 2018 23:08


Originally Posted by ExAscoteer (Post 10241993)
Even though it's a short transit you wouldn't normally do it gear down; we certainly never did on neither the Dominie nor the Jetstream.

The gear will be down, I would think, for one of two reasons: Either it won't retract or one wishes a slow, high drag, transit in the approach configuration because one has airframe damage.


Maybe the crew just had doubts about the gear coming back down if they raised it.

Dominator2 14th Sep 2018 16:54

I'm fed up with all of this speculation concerning the incident and subsequent action. There must be someone who has seen some kind of statement from the RAF?

airpolice 14th Sep 2018 18:21


Originally Posted by Dominator2 (Post 10249288)
I'm fed up with all of this speculation concerning the incident and subsequent action. There must be someone who has seen some kind of statement from the RAF?

Must? In which universe?

ShotOne 18th Sep 2018 09:41

Do I have this right; there’s apparently been a collision. This “proves” (to the usual suspects) the training system is off to hell in a handcart and the Phenom is unsuited to its role? Presumably all the other types mentioned can be banged together without issue? As for holding, I held for about four months before BFTS which was unremarkable then (mid 80’s). Why is any such period now seen as evidence of melt-down?

Davef68 18th Sep 2018 11:20


Originally Posted by ShotOne (Post 10251751)
As for holding, I held for about four months before BFTS which was unremarkable then (mid 80’s). Why is any such period now seen as evidence of melt-down?

Even up to a year would be reasonable - Typhoondriver suggests a hold of up to three years, which seems extreme

flighthappens 18th Sep 2018 12:08


Originally Posted by Davef68 (Post 10251804)
Even up to a year would be reasonable - Typhoondriver suggests a hold of up to three years, which seems extreme

Word on the street is that the hold is is already longer than that and not getting shorter....

last i I heard is up to 2 years pre-EFT - with significant further holds before both Linton and Valley.

BEagle 18th Sep 2018 13:23

Firstly, I don't see why the Phenom should be deemed unsuitable for ME training, provided that the course itself is suitable. Which also means that the pre-ME EFT course needs to be suitable; from what I hear, at the moment that is doubtful with less than 3 hours PIC time for ab-initio pilots.

Wasn't MFTS supposed to be the cure-all which would put a stop to long holding times?

Typhoondriver 18th Sep 2018 13:28

Given this is a rumour website....

I'm told that some guys are pitching up for their FJ OCU with 'in excess' of 5 years served.

I'm also told that some guys are so exasperated with the state of affairs, that they are happy to leave the Service after only 1 frontline FJ tour.

I'm also told that a current FJ OCU will have to cancel courses in early 2019, because they have no student output from Valley, who they can train.

But it's all OK, because Bob Viking has a healthy logbook this month.......

Thaihawk 18th Sep 2018 14:11


Originally Posted by Big Eric (Post 10241970)
It flew back to Cranwell with it's wheels down, not much point of retracting them for such a short flight I suppose! No other news yet.

On Monday 10th September, ZM336 was still looking sorry for itself at Waddington.

There were 2 other Phenoms on the flight line at Cranwell that day, with contractors restricting flying activities there performing runway repairs.

Pure Pursuit 18th Sep 2018 18:58


Originally Posted by Typhoondriver (Post 10251910)
Given this is a rumour website....

I'm told that some guys are pitching up for their FJ OCU with 'in excess' of 5 years served.

I'm also told that some guys are so exasperated with the state of affairs, that they are happy to leave the Service after only 1 frontline FJ tour.

I'm also told that a current FJ OCU will have to cancel courses in early 2019, because they have no student output from Valley, who they can train.

But it's all OK, because Bob Viking has a healthy logbook this month.......

A little harsh on BV there...hardly his fault. Ascent on the other hand... wall, firing squad...etc.

i know a chap who clocked 8 years service as he completed the Typhoon OCU and won’t be staying past his option point. Not alone in that situation either. The system is completely broken and the hierarchy simply do not care. ‘Make it work!’...

MPN11 18th Sep 2018 19:21

P P ... that’s frightening!

Ken Scott 19th Sep 2018 13:44

I recently met a JP on a Typhoon Sqn, he said it had taken him 8 years from IOT to a FJ Sqn. As many of the RAF’s pilot entrants are graduates that’s reaching a Sqn at circa 30 yo, so what long term career/ promotion prospects do they have? Plus they’re likely to have a wife/ kids in tow by that stage so they will be understandably less keen on overseas detachments etc.

Lets not be too nostalgic about the ‘good old days’ though, holds between courses in the 90s were already getting long, I know of several people who completed Master’s degrees whilst waiting for the next stage of their training. However the current situation is far worse and the training system is well & truly broken at the moment. Whether Ascent can fix it properly & quickly will be the true test of the MFTS concept.

LincsFM 19th Sep 2018 14:23

Well Ascent are getting a new MD and he's ex RAF. It's bound to get better ;)

Ascent Managing Director, Dave Boden, has announced his intention to depart the organisation, starting his transition from the company on 29 October 2018.

The Ascent Board is pleased to announce that Tim James will succeed Dave Boden as Ascent Managing Director on 10 November 2018, following the transition.

Tim is currently the International Business Development Director for Lockheed Martin Rotary and Mission Systems and has been with the company since 2012.

Prior to Lockheed Martin, Tim served in the Royal Air Force. During his 16-year military career, he flew Tornado F-3s and undertook two international exchange roles flying the F-16 aircraft with the US Air Force and the Royal Air Force of Oman. Tim spent a year working in Requirements Management for the UK Military Flying Training System (UKMFTS) programme.

Tim holds a BA from Henley Business School.

We would like to take this opportunity to thank Dave for his outstanding service and welcome Tim to his new role.

Easy Street 19th Sep 2018 16:01

There’s a lot of harking back to the holding generation of the mid-to-late 1990s to (sort of) excuse the parlous state of MFTS. However a much less flattering comparison is with the state of the pipeline from about 1999 pretty much until the fateful SDSR in 2010, which is essentially what MFTS was meant to replace. It was not unknown to go from IOT graduation parade to the FJ front line in under 3 years around the turn of the millennium. Granted, EFT could be done while at UAS, but (unlike BEagle) I think that was a good system that bought back ~12 months of the ‘age penalty’ incurred by university.

I say ‘age penalty’ not because of career or promotion issues - clearly illegal these days - but because of the very real issue that outlook, lifestyle and commitments generally (deliberate emphasis!) change as the thirties are reached. By that point I’d done enough - two full tours and a ‘postgrad’ qualification - to understand what a future in the Service had in store for me and could commit myself to it. By comparison, someone facing those life choices as a first tourist has much less to go on; it’s small wonder that fewer seem to have the confidence in their future progression to stick around.

The long holds at the moment - even for EFT, for Chrissake’s! - are a waste of precious years of youth that should be spent deploying left, right and centre and gaining the experience that we so badly need. Frankly, the decision to recruit with no prospect of timely training was absurd to the point of negligence. The seniors responsible have left their successors with no good options: replacing all the holdies with fresh young recruits is probably illegal, while keeping them will make the front line into even more of a flat, we’re-slightly-too-old-to-be-enthusiastic place than it has already become. Thanks a million!

[By the way, I think the idea of getting more people out into civilian life before large pension and allowance liabilities are incurred is a reasonable one. But, you need to get your pound of flesh first... which we’re abjectly failing to]

MPN11 19th Sep 2018 16:35

As I’ve recently been on e-mail with an old friend from 20 Sqn in Singapore, in the context of a Reunion, the potential attendance list was amazing! And ... the aircrew back then (late 60s) had a high proportion of early 20s on their first squadron tour. How did we achieve that back then, without sophisticated simulators, if we can’t do it now? My aircrew mates had probably been in for 3 years or so, and there they were on Front Line sqns whacking Hunters, Canberras and Lightnings around the tropic skies.

Aplogies for old bloke input :(

chopper2004 19th Sep 2018 17:07

T-6 Texan II
 

Originally Posted by airpolice (Post 10222848)
For the benefit of those who doubt the opinions expressed above:

I understand that with this being an anonymous forum, so data can be hard to verify, but for those who know people... ask around.

Which units are getting anything like enough hours in the air to be even half competent?

Reds: Probably.

Front line Typhoon and Tornado, including QRA: nothing like it.

Phenom: Who knows, given the shortage of airframes, and the flying needed to get their QFIs (the ones who haven't yet left) to the standard, what the long term picture is?

Transport & Tanking: Apparently some, but some of them are civvies, the rest of them are run into the ground on ops. The A400 pilots were struggling to achieve 200hours/annum. Not sure if this is still the case?

Hawk T2: No, advanced high tech sims are not the same thing. Great for as well as, but not instead of. I hear the convex for QFIs is taking well in excess of 12 months, at a very slow rate. Output rate, albeit with some overseas customers to satisfy, is blocking up a 2 year plus hold for baby pilots with no likely refresher. 'Downloading' training needlessly from Typhoon, and pilots lacking basic fast jet handling skills.

Hawk T1: No idea, but they seem busy enough.

ISTAR: No idea, but imagine RJ and E3D crews must be struggling, due to high unserviceability rates.

Rotary: Training; Students are flying, and Instructors are doing an awful lot fewer (P1) hours in the air than they used to. Ops; Previously flown to exhaustion, which is as bad as not flying enough. Now showing large reductions.

Prefect: Too early to say, but probably not. Have they resolved the over torque issues yet? That's not exactly care free handling.

Texan: Ask me in 2019, when it just might have permission to fly in the UK.

Air Cadets: Don't make me laugh.

If standards haven't dropped, why is it that Air Command now say that "flight training is now to be to an acceptable minimum standard at the cheapest contractual price"? The previously used term "excellence" has been dropped.

That looks to me, as if even 22 Group have decide to settle for less.

You forgot to mention UAS officer cadets :)

Whats the skinny on the T-6 having permission to operate in UK airspace? I must have missed out on that one...however this is probably not related, but there was a recent accident with USAF T-6? Both pilot and student are ok. And also this came up on my news feed:

Cheers

USAF Calls T-6 Physiological Events ?Extreme Outliers? | Defense content from Aviation Week

just another jocky 19th Sep 2018 20:17

Well the UAS and AEF are flying their asses off at my local airfields. Which brings into question other 'facts'.

typerated 20th Sep 2018 06:36

Perhaps doing a year as a AEF pilot might be a decent hold?


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:09.


Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.