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)

LincsFM 26th Jul 2018 17:06

Phenom
 
I hear there has been a cracking start in RAF service for the shiney new Phenom!
One on jacks in a Hangar at Waddo and rumours of another being involved in an incident
Oh well I'm sure Affinity Flying Training will keep us posted :oh:

NutLoose 26th Jul 2018 18:46

Civi wise the always struck me ( on the ones we had here ) as not being that robust, they struck me as built to a price rather than for longevity, but then again I initially thought that of the Puma.

horatio_b 26th Jul 2018 19:02

If they need any spares, there's been a Phenom stuck in the hangar at Blackpool for the last three years:

https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/aaib...emier-i-g-oomc

Lima Juliet 26th Jul 2018 20:35

‘Snap’ on the rumour. Apparently 2 poorly aircraft from the same sortie.

Evalu8ter 26th Jul 2018 20:50

Can't be going that well….https://www.pilotcareernews.com/l3-t...or-raf-pilots/

LincsFM 26th Jul 2018 21:26


Originally Posted by Lima Juliet (Post 10207127)
ĎSnapí on the rumour. Apparently 2 poorly aircraft from the same sortie.

Yep rumour is that the other frame may have to move out by road!

StopStart 27th Jul 2018 00:02

So am I to infer that L3 are taking multi-training off Ascent? I suppose losing “close” to 40% of the fleet in one sortie is going to limit their ability to deliver training.....

treadigraph 27th Jul 2018 06:07


Originally Posted by horatio_b (Post 10207032)
If they need any spares, there's been a Phenom stuck in the hangar at Blackpool for the last three years:

https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/aaib...emier-i-g-oomc

Um, that's a Beech Premier 1, bit different to an Embraer Phenom! :}

Dominator2 27th Jul 2018 07:40

HS125 would be a great trainer. Built like a BBSH, cabin high enough for most to walk round in, great capacity to run VIPs around Europe ir required. Phenom was the wrong aircraft from the outset. There was enough sound advice from experienced aviators that was totally ignored by those who, apparently, knew better!

BEagle 27th Jul 2018 08:03

Stoppers, the reason is more likely to be as the result of the delay in Arsescent being able to meet the RAF's requirements.

One wonders who will pick up the tab for the L3 interim solution?

As for 40% of the Phenom fleet now being unavailable, one also has to wonder what the heck happened if both aircraft became 'poorly' on the same sortie....

Regarding other airframes, I do wonder why the Jayhawk wasn't proposed - a civil design specifically modified for the military training role.

Davef68 27th Jul 2018 09:29


Originally Posted by BEagle (Post 10207427)
.
Regarding other airframes, I do wonder why the Jayhawk wasn't proposed - a civil design specifically modified for the military training role.

£££££ probably, but then it's also a 25 year old design which hasn't been in production since 1997

sangiovese. 27th Jul 2018 09:35

Doesn't surprise me. The aircraft is designed for point to point biz jetting (although the 300 is a better aircraft). That it does very well, I've flown both and they're very nice For flying training its just not robust enough. King Air with proline 21 is much more suitable (look at the number still being sold for hard grafting jobs)....oh and as for the jayhawk/beechjet/Hawker 400/Mitsubishi Diamond..omg don't go near one of those! Quite possibly the worst designed aircraft I've flown (outflow valve in front of the pilots so all the smoke goes through the flight deck when its evacuated....spoiler for roll control, yaw damping issues the list goes on!)

Bouff01 27th Jul 2018 13:34

BEagle, apparently both became "poorly" simultaneously and on opposite wing tips.

Tip-to-tip at low level...allegedly...

Ken Scott 27th Jul 2018 15:34

[QUOTEAs for 40% of the Phenom fleet now being unavailable, one also has to wonder what the heck happened if both aircraft became 'poorly' on the same sortie....][/QUOTE]

Rumour has it that adequate separation failed to be maintained during a formation sortie....

Chris Kebab 27th Jul 2018 16:50

...at least they weren't QFIs.......oh, hang on....

BEagle 27th Jul 2018 16:52

Ken Scott wrote:

Rumour has it that adequate separation failed to be maintained during a formation sortie....
You are surely kidding? WTF were they doing flying formation in those things? Or is that now a part of ME student training due to the abject dumbing-down of BFT these days?

Bring back the BFT course of the '70s for all military pilot students! Core skills learned at Cranwell / Linton / Leeming, FJ / ME / RW skills learned at AFTS... :ok:

Bob Viking 27th Jul 2018 17:01

BEagle
 
ME students have gone straight from EFT to Multis at least as long as I have been in the RAF (1999). They have not done BFT in that whole period.

EFT included formation flying. I canít speak for the present day EFT.

I know your gripes but you donít have to go as far back as the 70ís to find a system that worked well.

As much as there were benefits to the system where everyone flew the JP it was hardly cost effective, or certainly wouldnít be nowadays.

Please, sometimes, instead of harking back to a bygone era just accept that your modern day counterparts are doing the best they can with what they have. It may be different but that doesnít automatically make it wrong.

It just doesnít help anyone to say ďbring back the flying training system of 40 years agoĒ.

Anyone can find problems. It takes a really clever person to find solutions. Real ones. That work. In 2018.

On a separate note, I find it a little unsavoury the way people salivate at the thought of the flying training system failing or being proven right that the Phenom may or may not have been the right jet for the job (I know nothing of multi engine aircraft so wonít offer an opinion either way). Itís the only system we have.

As your Mum used to say, ďif you havenít got anything nice to say...Ē

BV

Ken Scott 27th Jul 2018 17:14


ME Students now do, I believe, an abbreviated EFT cse (Aeros & spinning no longer covered?) followed by an abbreviated MELIN (Multi-engine Lead-in) cse, (which itself was reduced by something like 15 hrs so that the sponsor could get promoted for saving money). Their ME cse is therefore essentially their BFT in old terms so things such as formation & low-level need to be covered then. Their OCU Cse, which they can start with a grand total of around 150 hrs, is now therefore effectively AFT.

After 2-3 years as a co-pilot & maybe 1000hrs TT they will be ready for captaincy. Allegedly.

Looking at the view from the cockpit of the Phenom it is hard to see how you would teach ab-initio formation but apparently Ascent cleared it as suitable. I donít know if they are reviewing things in light of recent events.


NutLoose 27th Jul 2018 17:58


Looking at the view from the cockpit of the Phenom it is hard to see how you would teach ab-initio formation but apparently Ascent cleared it as suitable. I donít know if they are reviewing things in light of recent events.

I wouldn't be surprised if they are reassessing that.

At least they have spares if it's just the tip, take it off the good wing and fit it to the other aircraft ;)

I agree with what has been said re the HS125, built like the proverbial, and a proven type in RAF service.

Lima Juliet 27th Jul 2018 18:44

BV

Normally, I agree with the majority of things you say, but...


On a separate note, I find it a little unsavoury the way people salivate at the thought of the flying training system failing or being proven right that the Phenom may or may not have been the right jet for the job (I know nothing of multi engine aircraft so won’t offer an opinion either way). It’s the only system we have.
...this I do not agree with. The whole MFTS thing has been a ‘train crash’ slowly evolving in front of our eyes. The NAO have been crawling all over this, EFT with Prefect has not exactly gone well - late by at least 3 months on the start date and the student output has been well below the planned numbers, with the aircraft too small to fit the the talker pilots who have to go to Tutor. There are numerous problems with the airframes - cracks as reported on Prune and engines being overtorqued by ham fisted students mean that availability from such a tiny fleet is low, which leads to slower output of studes. At Turweston there was a Juno that had reportedly cooked its avionics because we painted them black but didn’t pay for air con. The Juno is also too small for crewman training. The Hawk availability at Valley has been poor with around half on the line on a good day and then there was the widely discussed incident that stopped Hawk flying for a while. Now we have the Phenom, with only 5 bought and 2 allegedly bent, which means that again the small numbers with no planned resilience to quickly tap into, means that this is also not going well. With 10 Texans coming to replace a fleet of around 60 Tucanos, you can only imagine how that is going to go!

The outsource is a blessing actually as it means that there is some resilience. Don’t forget that MFTS was designed for SDSR10 with the low numbers required for that plan, but SDSR15 means that more ME pilots are needed for P8 and various assets being run on. So the outsource programme is there to service the extra requirement from SDSR15 with a suitable uplift of money to pay for it. Personally I think the DA42 with Garmin 1000 is a better aircraft for ME training than the Phenom. They would do well to use the Phenoms for 32 Sqn duties and buy double the number of DA42s to deliver ME pilot training.

The proof is in the pudding with some significant holding periods for the aircrew students waiting for this apparent debacle to start running smoothly.

But I don’t want to be accused of being negative talking down the new training system!

So of course it is all wonderful ;-)


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:08.


Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.