PC-21's for RAAF
 

Just out of curiosity (and apologies if this topic has already been raised), with the recent arrival of the first Pilatus PC-21 all through trainer aircraft for the RAAF, and expected completion of the delivery of the ordered 49 PC-21 in the next two or three years, what's the general opinion on what will become of the 60 odd PC-9's, and for that matter the remaining CT-4B's that will be replaced by the new Swiss aircraft? One could speculate by looking into the past, and deriving a conclusion based on what happened to the Macchi's when they had seen their time out, but I would like to think that the "9's" may well have a usefulness beyond what the Macchi's could fill. What do you think?

You would have to be very rich to keep one in the air when they have finished with them!

There's talk of a few syndicates forming to attempt to purchase some privately.

You might find the hours remaining especially the CT4's might not make many of the aircraft attractive??? :confused:

Didn't they try the all through trainer thing with the PC9 and then have to get the CT4s into action again? Perhaps they better hang onto the CT4s for a while yet!

Cloudee: Simulators and derated performance didn't exist then. It's comparing apples and oranges. Regardless, the RAAF doesn't own any CT-4's (bar 77 at the RAAF Musuem). They're owned and operated by BAE systems, contracted for RAAF use.

The chances of finding ex RAAF PC-9''s at auction will be, from what I understand, slim to nill. Always happy to be wrong.

Frankly, with serviceability being what it has been, I don't know why you'd want one.

Cloudee,

Not close enough! They tried all through with the Macchi as well - mid '70s or so. IIRC only one or two courses.

...and the Vampire before that.

The big difference here is the way pilots will be selected in the future. The days of going to DFR and asking to apply as a RAAF Pilot are ending.

Welcome to stage center, the "Aviation Candidate"

junior.VH-LFA,

Ya mean no more written RAAF job applications to P.O. Box XYZ in your capital city? :oh:

PS: I've just checked a favourite search engine. It doesn't know anything of the P.O. Box XYZ that many of us wrote to, many years ago.

Moving to all through training on the PC-21??
With 49 units.

Hmm. Strikes me there isn't enough of them coming in to fulfill the role.

How many CT-4's are BAE (or whoever has the contract now) running for ab-initio? Add to that the RAAF allocation of PC-9's for advanced training.

I was surprised at the decision to buy PC-21's when we did, at that stage it was already an older design. Did the JSF scare the people responsible into buying it as a safe option as a mature platform? who knows....

Sure...it was go and ask at recruiting to be a raaf pilot and in you go no questions asked and that's why all through macchi, PC 9 didn't work. There was no selection criteria....but those days have gone right? They now test their pilot candidates first.

Provided that (at least it as of 20 yrs ago) you were at the top couple of percent for maths,physics,chem, passed the aptitude testing, the phych testing, the board. At least in NSW only around 7 made it to academy out of a couple thousand applications and of those quite a few didn't last through the academy which was understandable. There were ways the system could be gamed a little during times of shortage, but was never easy.

Although the engine can be de-rated, it would still be a heavy and complex aircraft for ab initio with presumably same approach speeds etc. I seem to recall that the problem with all through macchi and PC 9 in the past was more to do with the later conversion onto other types. Just less depth of experience having only flown one type.

It may work but once thing is to never underestimate the incompetence of defence hierarchy and repeating mistakes learned the hard way is a particular specialty. So if it doesn't work and it turns into a cluster nobody should be surprised. Especially new acquisitions, defence has a record of incompetence that people outside the military would think was not even possible. The RAN's helicopter acquisition and subs are the stand out recent examples, but it it happens on smaller scales all the time. Probably because people are posted into decision making positions for short periods of 2 to 3 years. The idea is to make some change to get noticed to move up the chain. Unlike business, it is very hard to quantify how good a manager they are as the deliverables are vague and in any case people are not in a position long enough to judge. It is just my opinion but a lot of the talented people leave after the best of the flying was done, and those that go into decision making positions within defence are not necessarily the cream of the crop.That is not to diminish the skill of people at the operational end. Also there are some excellent managers, but they are an exception in my opinion. However looking at the outstanding safety record of 2fts and cfs and other units shows the progress made and the professionalism of its operators. 40 years ago RAAF aircraft were quite regularly lost, yet I can hardly remember the last RAAF accident and they do a lot of comparatively risky flying compared to RPT. Training had a very high standard. So despite everything, overall it will muddle forward.

So, could be wrong but my guess would be that if all through PC 21 has been decided upon again, it was a decision made by people thinking things are different now and not respecting the lessons learned earlier. Presumably it's been done overseas already as well? But overall point is that past behaviour is the best predictor of future behaviour, and so just because a decision was made, there is little reason to think that it is the best one when it comes to defence.

(And disclaimer...lots of good people in defence management...but they face a battle)

Add in 7 simulators that can run 10 hours a day rain, hail and shine and you have more than enough.

The engine can't be de-rated. It produces different power depending on IAS. 1050hp less than 80 kts. Increasing to 1600hp at 200 kts.

The cockpit can be simplified.

Some people seem to forget really how shocking bloggs is. Generally, the 5428 project is staffed by 2FTS people who haven't seen a real ab-initio bloggs in forever. The "aviation academy" will fill the plane full of less than ideal candidates left of the bell curve. The students they get into 2FTS already know how to fly aircraft somewhat...stick goes up, plane goes up. Don't pull the handle between your legs when panicking, etc. We've had guys freeze up on controls and go all kinds of crazy in the CT4 cockpit over the years....give that guy 1500hp and an ejection seat!

Switzerland seems to be the model that everybody talks about with PC21. One trainer, then straight into f18. But these guys already have been flying GA aircraft (to CPL standard?) for some years before starting PC21. It's not ab-initio...it's a conversion.

I think they'll make it work, but it won't have the efficiency promised.

I can hardly remember the last RAAF accident and they do a lot of comparatively risky flying compared to RPT. Training had a very high standard.

I agree extralite. Look at our C-130 operations, the RAAF has operated a total of 48 C-130 Hercules of various models from the late 50's till now, and to my knowledge have never bent one. We gift our Northern neighbors some "H" models and they crashed one recently. And don't tell me that it's due to the environment that our herc's operate in. Our herc's and their crews go everywhere. Yeah, the overall safety record is pretty impressive.

Depending on your definition of "bent", the RAAF's bent plenty of Hercs. No hull losses though.

Post 11
Agree. "This time it's different" always makes me alarmed.
Each time all through has been tried in the past I am sure that phrase has been used. Takes sometime for the powers that be to realise it is a mistake (and ?swallow some pride).
It may work this time but I will be surprised.

You cynical lot you .... it'll take 2 posting cycles and 1 change of government before it's changed :}

What about the RSAF?
Do they have straight through training with their PC-21s?

Extralite, what planet are you from??
Utter garbage.

What's newer??

:{:{:{

Plus one to that, Ascend.

PC21 to F-35. That should work well...

RSAF have M-346 jet trainers based in France.

Thanks, BPA. :)

(Although that may further confuse the issue?) Do the Singaporeans later leave W.A. PC-21s to fly M-346 jet trainers in France?

Is the confusion caused by : RSAF? Does BPA and Gerry confuse RSAF to be "REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE AIRFORCE" or "ROYAL SAUDI AIRFORCE". Both outfits operate the PC-21. Or should I just s t f u and go into hiding?

The Singo's go onto their relevant A/C type after flying 21's.

The M-346 (12 of them) are used by Singapore in the Advanced Jet Training role, based at Cazaux Air Base France. They introduced them a few years back.

Bloggs: it will be PC-21 to Hawk to F-35 (and F/A-18F and EA-18G)

Quote:
Sure...it was go and ask at recruiting to be a raaf pilot and in you go no questions asked and that's why all through macchi, PC 9 didn't work. There was no selection criteria....but those days have gone right? They now test their pilot candidates first.
Sorry the sarcasm wasn't obvious enough for you.It was in reference to a post above which implied that all through may work now because pilot selection is more than walking in to dfr and asking to be one. The planet I'm on is one where I was at raaf recruiting for a brief time before a long stint at 2fts. Where does your expertise stem from?

Fifteen years in RAAF as pilot and as 2FTS instructor before another 30 years in cockpits.

You need to stick your tongue more firmly in your cheek if you want sarcasm to work on this forum.

I actually thought tongue would poke out the side of my mouth if pushed any more in cheek if you read the very next lines on the post which went on to say how stringent recruiting has been at least since i joined. And most people seemed to get it. Possibly if someone just read the first sentence and then went on a keyboard rageit might be missed. That is not to say however that some odd candidates got through recruiting over the years.

By the way, i think i can match that on our swinging dick competitions :) 18 yrs RAAF starting in 1987, no ground postings except 6 months seconded to RAAF recruiting VIC. 6 yrs instructing at 2 FTS, and private flying since then on a few aircraft...hence being on this GA forum. So we may know each other.

And i agree with the poster who seems to have been training ab-initio pilots. 2FTS instructors dont have experience in that area although I think that part could be learned fairly quickly. In general, the students who rolled up at 2FTS from Tamworth were of a good standard for general flying and also, Tamworth was well respected for its standard of instruction at least when i was in. Usually it was the instrument flying or navigation where capacity limits first started showing themselves so the system worked well.

As Junior has said above, simulators in basic training are the new factor that Australia hasn't had before - I don't know how many we will have or how realistic they'll be, but they certainly may, at least in my opinion, be quite a powerful and cost-effective way to do early screening for seeing who gets a guernsey in the first place and then who goes on from initial to advanced training.

It seems to my admittedly un-simulator-savvy brain (never had much opportunity to get near them in my time), they would be a wonderful tool for putting Bloggsy into various situations and seeing how he/she copes. Add in video recordings of the proceedings, get your psychs and experts crunching the results and surely you have a great measuring tool for predicting how candidates will fare on course. This may be the factor that means 'all through advanced' training actually works this time round.

That would be sensible but the RAAF missed that bit out (intentionally??)
https://www.airforce.gov.au/Technolo...NOMSQG/kuATXa+

I get enough of that already with more sim time!

Fair point...I should have said clarified it was the generic rather than the specific Bloggs I was talking about!

That's a relief, AOTW. Did my fair share of time in the fixed base "ruler up the switches for a SAM strike" simulator around in my time. :ok:

Extralite
Started in 1987 eh?

I may have chaired your selection panel:8

The RAAF's bent plenty of Herc's Post #15
 

Creampuff, how would you like to back up your comment with some facts? I joined the RAAF the same year the first A models arrived (1958) and spent ten years on the Hercules, two as a Sumpie and the rest as a F/E before going onto the B707 when we acquired that type. Apart from the spinning (and recovering) of A97-207, the fracturing of a NLG strut due to metal fatigue on two aircraft (one A model and one H model) and an occasional bump by errant ground equipment handlers I am not aware of any C130's being bent. In almost 60 years of operations in multiple environments I would hardly classify that as having "bent plenty of Herc's". It is easy to make "throw-away" comments but not so easy to back them up.

What is your definition of "bent"?

I classify this as "bent"

A97-208

18SEP65 Damaged in a very heavy landing on the nosewheel while demonstrating a short field landing at the Laverton Air Display. The aircraft was inspected and the nose gear was chained-down through inspection apertures and flown back to Richmond, unpressurised, on 20th Sept. Stress damage was found to have transmitted for about three feet to the rear of the nosewheel bulkhead causing shallow corrugations of the skin, bent sub-structure and pulled rivets. I saw it on jacks in the hangar at 486 (M) Sqn so I think they did the repairs. (Source: Jack "Jockey" Fordyce)

That's 1965 and on the web.

I don't think that was the first and last very heavy landing Ronnie did in a Herc. And very heavy landings are not the only things that bend Hercs.

I wrote the word "bent" in post #14, and I would have thought that it would be construed as my gentle term to describe a crashed aircraft that's now written off and no longer a tangible asset. But I was using the word in a "gentle" sense.

Definition of bent
 

Thanks Creampuff, you have cited one more than I did, still far from "plenty" I suggest. I operated the A-E & H models and aircraft being "bent" in flying operations was a very rare event. As for heavy landing incidents causing damage, the one you cited is the only one of which I am aware. My definition of "bending an aircraft" is to have caused damage by mis-handling or exceeding operating limits, in the context of this discussion.