Originally Posted by typerated
(Post 10253442)
Perhaps doing a year as a AEF pilot might be a decent hold?
|
Originally Posted by just another jocky
(Post 10253901)
Indeed, lots of hours!
|
A friend's son has just graduated as Sgt Aircrew (aka WSOp) and has no idea where he is going next with regards to streaming. I hear on the grapevine that this may be related to a rumor that current WSOp training at Shawbury has been suspended TFN (anyone confirm or deny this?). It would seem that it is not just the Pilot pipeline that is suffering.
|
Unmanned Droid I recall the younger AEF pilots being a little less relaxed in the cockpit with cadets - even the week in and week out staff cadets like me. I guess the younger pilots feel the responsibility a little more keenly. |
You will only get holding pilots flying on the AEFs if they have reached wings standard, as you need to be QSP to carry passengers (gliders aside); unless it's changed, there was a 400hr TT requirement as well. And given that most of them will only have managed 5-10 hours solo time, I'm not sure I would want my children flying with them!
|
Phenom as an initial ME trainer
If you’ll forgive a civvie butting in, I have just completed an Embraer 145 type rating. I have a question re the suitability of the Phenom as a ME trainer. I have quite a lot of hours in traditional multi-engine pistons and turbo-prop airliners. In comparison with, for example, an ATR, the ERJ seems to me, as a tail jet, a lot easier to keep control in EFATO senarios, (in one sim session my initial tbought was ‘It can’t be an engjne failure, it’s too easy’ until I looked at the engjne instruments) So, is a tail jet (and I assume the asymmetric effect is even less in a smaller aircraft like the Phenom?) actually demanding enough (purely in the asymmetric charactristics sense - I’m not thinking about putting a student into a fairly high performance aircraft, which I guess the military are wont to do) for an initial ME trainer? EDIT: Yes, obviously I didn’t do my intial ME training on an ATR, but I would have thought the previously used Kingair a much better aircraft to teach the basic skills, while having the degree of relative complexity and performance a military training programe might need (I assume) as well as being a pretty tough aircraft. |
The phenom is not suitable for the role. Replacing the Kingairs with new ones would have been the better choice. |
Or the DA42 that pretty much every ME training school is operating these days. Oddly enough this is what the RAF ME students will be learning on with the contract with L3 at Bournemouth. |
Originally Posted by cheifofdefence
(Post 10254600)
A friend's son has just graduated as Sgt Aircrew (aka WSOp) and has no idea where he is going next with regards to streaming. I hear on the grapevine that this may be related to a rumor that current WSOp training at Shawbury has been suspended TFN (anyone confirm or deny this?). It would seem that it is not just the Pilot pipeline that is suffering.
|
Multi engine training - bring back the Canberra T4. That'll larn them
|
Surely it is time for the NAO to come and have another look - I don’t see much more progress since their last report 3 years ago? https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/up...g-Training.pdf |
Pardon another civvie if you please....
I seem to recall that this whole business of using contractors to provide training was branded as cost saving/good economy ? So, how does it tick when it takes 8 years, as stated in an earlier post, to get to a FJ squadron ? It seems to be agreed that potential aircrew are 'holding' for inordinately longer periods as a consequence of the inflexible training system. Surely the additional cost of 'holding' ought to be factored against any claimed MFTS savings. This just seems to be another exercise for making money, like Airtanker. I'm sure it would be a relatively simple accounting exercise to prove that this new training business does not give value for the taxpayer. |
Last time I checked, Airtanker seemed to be delivering on their contract though.... |
Non-aircrew, long retired, but agree entirely! Fuzzy accounting with things stowed in different budgets? Whichever, it seems horrendously slow and inefficient. |
Originally Posted by Arty Fufkin
(Post 10255525)
Last time I checked, Airtanker seemed to be delivering on their contract though.... https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ts-abroad.html Comment by LORD DANNATT, former Army head Buying something you couldn’t really afford was taken to a new level in the 1990s under the Private Finance Initiative. The government of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown seized on the concept to produce shiny new schools and hospitals across the country, especially in marginal constituencies. But the Voyager PFI deal has to rank as the worst of the lot. Even at face value, £10.5 billion to lease 14 aircraft does not seem like value for money. The project was led not by an RAF officer, but by an Army brigadier, so that there was no undue service bias. But this brigadier was so alarmed at the way it was going that he came to me in 2008, while I was Chief of the General Staff, to ask if I could try to get this deal stopped. I asked for a briefing, having been told there were much cheaper ways to meet the RAF’s air-to-air refuelling and strategic lift requirement. At the briefing, all other options were dismissed for one spurious reason or another, leading to the curious conclusion that the £10.5 billion procurement of 14 A330 airliners, assembled at Airbus Industrie’s factory near Madrid, was the answer. In the end, the politics of European industrial collaboration was the winner, the MoD was the loser, and now bucket-and-spade holiday-makers are travelling to sunny places overseas at British taxpayers’ expense. Is that value for money? Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson’s Modernising Defence Programme must put a stop to scandals like this. |
Originally Posted by Arty Fufkin
(Post 10255525)
Last time I checked, Airtanker seemed to be delivering on their contract though.... Is it not also the case that we are restrained from using A400 as a refueller under the Airtanker contractual agreement? If so, who ever signed up to that certainly didn't look after the interests of the taxpayer. It seems that military procurement is a process designed to serve the interests of industry first and foremost. If the folks at the sharp end get a decent bit of kit or service, that's a bonus. |
PFI - an off balance sheet scam which if pursued by a public company would certainly attract serious criticism. (IMHO of course)
|
Talked to a front line FJ pilot recently. Very nice chap indeed. 10/10 for being an excellent ambassador for the RAF. I must be getting old...cos he didn't look old enough!
On his first tour with a current FJ squadron. In his first year of his tour and he's been in the RAF for 9 years. Straight through the training system (Tutor/Tucano/Hawk/OCU) with no Instructional tour. He was happy to talk about hours/month. Hugely enthusiastic about his role/mount. Discussed his future. Thoroughly nice young man. |
Saw this on Ascents LinkedIn page ‘Congrats to all the Team at RAF Cranwell! The first student pilots graduated from Elementary Flying Training (EFT) on 23 Aug 18 marking another momentous achievement for No 3Flying Training School (3FTS) and the new Flying Training System under UKMFTS. This followed several other exciting firsts in recent months; the opening of new training facilities at Cranwell and Barkston Heath in January, in April the first student pilots took to the skies and the first student Prefect solo was flown in May |
So, is there any truth to the rumour that the Phenom is a Cat 5?
Also, how many aviators in this forum would categorise 2 aircraft unintentionally touching each other in flight as 'Perceived severity - Medium' to flight safety? |
Not me. Then again I was amazed there was not a more major investigation when the Typhoon and VC-10 traded paint (which I think was the most recent fixed-wing mid-air impact before this one).
|
I assume an Airprox investigation is/was underway? Or does the ‘prox’ element get cancelled when they actually make contact, or flying in formation? |
Originally Posted by Typhoondriver
(Post 10285975)
So, is there any truth to the rumour that the Phenom is a Cat 5?
Also, how many aviators in this forum would categorise 2 aircraft unintentionally touching each other in flight as 'Perceived severity - Medium' to flight safety? |
Not having much luck the Phenom. Had one land at Waddo today after an ES2 due to a possible birdstrike
|
Originally Posted by chopper2004
(Post 10259852)
Saw this on Ascents LinkedIn page This followed several other exciting firsts in recent months; the opening of new training facilities at Cranwell and Barkston Heath in January, in April the first student pilots took to the skies and the first student Prefect solo was flown in May Hmmmm, I recall, the entirely excellent facilities at Cranwell BFTS in 1981, The superb all-jet training on the JP5, (3 Sqns don'tchaknow!), and the great deployments to BH for 1st solo's (a few portacabins, totally sufficient, very BoB). Wouldn't have missed it for the World! OAP |
Originally Posted by Jump Complete
(Post 10255040)
If you’ll forgive a civvie butting in, I have just completed an Embraer 145 type rating. I have a question re the suitability of the Phenom as a ME trainer. I have quite a lot of hours in traditional multi-engine pistons and turbo-prop airliners. In comparison with, for example, an ATR, the ERJ seems to me, as a tail jet, a lot easier to keep control in EFATO senarios, (in one sim session my initial tbought was ‘It can’t be an engjne failure, it’s too easy’ until I looked at the engjne instruments) So, is a tail jet (and I assume the asymmetric effect is even less in a smaller aircraft like the Phenom?) actually demanding enough (purely in the asymmetric charactristics sense - I’m not thinking about putting a student into a fairly high performance aircraft, which I guess the military are wont to do) for an initial ME trainer? EDIT: Yes, obviously I didn’t do my intial ME training on an ATR, but I would have thought the previously used Kingair a much better aircraft to teach the basic skills, while having the degree of relative complexity and performance a military training programe might need (I assume) as well as being a pretty tough aircraft. What is a ‘tail jet ? ‘ |
Engines mounted either on or in the tail, hence the thrust line is very close to the centre-line. The resultant assymetric thrust vector gives minimal handling impact. Also allows a clean wing design.
|
Originally Posted by isaneng
(Post 10287576)
Engines mounted either on or in the tail, hence the thrust line is very close to the centre-line. The resultant assymetric thrust vector gives minimal handling impact. Also allows a clean wing design.
|
Originally Posted by airpolice
(Post 10287801)
Exactly not like a Canberra.
|
I am very curious how a Cat4/5 write off managed to fly from Washington to Cranwell on the 18th........ |
Originally Posted by bose-x
(Post 10288028)
I am very curious how a Cat4/5 write off managed to fly from Washington to Cranwell on the 18th........ |
Originally Posted by airpolice
(Post 10288073)
Waddington.
|
Lincs FM, `ES2` ?
|
Emergency State 2
|
From Air Force Monthly: Although not made public at the time, it’s now known that these two aircraft were involved in a mid- air collision during a practice for the RAF 100th anniversary flypast over London which took place on July 10. The aircraft – ZM335 callsign ‘CWL31’ and ZM336 callsign ‘CWL30’ – took off from RAF Waddington, Lincolnshire, but the wingtips of the two aircraft clipped each other. Both were able to return safely to Waddington, without injury to any of the crew members. The Ministry of Defence has since confirmed that both Phenoms sustained relatively minor damage to their wings,while one also had some fuselage damage, but both are repairable. The aircraft remained grounded at Waddington until September 3, when ZM335 was flown back to its base at RAF Cranwell, Lincolnshire, using callsign ‘CWL45’. It was expected to re-enter service after undergoing minor repairs. As of late September, the other aircraft, ZM336, remained at Waddington and was undergoing further damage assessment pending recovery. |
So if they just “clipped wings” then how did one of them end up with “fuselage damage”? Rumour is that one has a big dent in the roof...if that is the case then it’s damn lucky we didn’t lose them both. |
Originally Posted by isaneng
(Post 10287576)
Engines mounted either on or in the tail, hence the thrust line is very close to the centre-line. The resultant assymetric thrust vector gives minimal handling impact. Also allows a clean wing design.
Ok, a few extra words would help there would they not ? How about ‘tail mounted jets’ ‘Tail jet’ Unbelievable |
All times are GMT. The time now is 13:41. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.