Thanks Thanks:  93
Likes Likes:  167
Dislikes Dislikes:  4
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 166

Thread: Pilatus PC-9M

  1. #51
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,752
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by expat01 View Post
    Which is a good argument for not having trainers with no role except to fly them for the sake of flying them. By that measure every minute a pilatus spends in the air is a waste of budget.
    And yes, I think we should be seriously debating spending millions on jets for five intercepts a year.
    Not spending it without getting a squadron of someone else's air force to permanently guard our airspace is criminally insane.
    And what do we train the pilots of the Learjet, Cessnas, CASAs and Defender on?

  2. #52
    C/S EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    356
    Post Thanks / Like
    The Cessna are the basic aircraft used for Training worldwide since the 50's. Used by the majority of airline pilots to get their wings. For multi engine rating the Defender would be fine.
    No Training need for PC9's unless you have single seat high performance aircraft such as jet fighters

  3. #53
    Major General
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,043
    Post Thanks / Like
    Does anyone see the AC insisting that new cadets have at least a current PPL and a min amount of hours before being considered for acceptance ? This might reduce the training regime somewhat.

  4. #54
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,752
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    The Cessna are the basic aircraft used for Training worldwide since the 50's. Used by the majority of airline pilots to get their wings. For multi engine rating the Defender would be fine.
    No Training need for PC9's unless you have single seat high performance aircraft such as jet fighters
    Except the AC Cessnas are older and harder worked than probably the instructors (never mind the students).

    Except the Defender's owner (who isn't the AC) probably bearly give enough training hours to maintain currency.

    The PC9s give a (very limited) armed capability.


    Quote Originally Posted by danno View Post
    Does anyone see the AC insisting that new cadets have at least a current PPL and a min amount of hours before being considered for acceptance ? This might reduce the training regime somewhat.
    Is there any Air Force that does that?

    How many PPL holders are there under 25 in Ireland (who don't already have better paid jobs)?

  5. Likes na grohmití liked this post
  6. #55
    Brigadier General
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    2,606
    Post Thanks / Like
    PC-9ms allow us to enforce a restricted airspace when there is a event on in the county, I would say this was the difference when they were being selected from say another marcetti type aircraft and the Fugas going. The best the Aer Corp could squeeze out of the Dept' of Finance.

  7. Likes DeV liked this post
  8. #56
    Major General
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,043
    Post Thanks / Like
    The limited armed capability/air combat role of the PC's is just that and one could not seriously be sent up against armed aircraft (balloons aside) or do CAS where any MANPADS/AAA are known/suspected to be. They do what was expected of them but do not have a wider utility to justify having 7 yet alone acquiring another one.

  9. Likes EUFighter liked this post
  10. #57
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,752
    Post Thanks / Like
    Well there are currently 3 different AC cadet classes at various stages of their cadetship (obviously some are in the DFTC still), total of 27 cadets.

    Plus instructors to be trained (and I assume maintain currency so they can instruct), plus the odd air display, supporting the odd ex, etc

  11. #58
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,358
    Post Thanks / Like
    To clarify; Air Corps cadets get the equivalent of an EASA CPL with shooting and aerobatics bits added; their education is to the same EASA Frozen ATPL standards as any civilian trained pilot. When they move on and get their multi engine training, or heli training, it's in turbine aircraft, which is beyond the reach of mere civil mortals. The AC will never specify a PPL as a base for accepting cadets as they, like most air forces, regard civilian PPLs as having bad habits that have to be weaned out, which is a waste of time and money to a system designed to chop people. They start all cadets as equals, regardless of prior experience and this is a worldwide phenomenon and not confined to the AC. The USAF screens its cadets on piston engined trainers prior to formal acceptance so that it reduces the washout rate at the expensive stages and this approach also bears in mind that many USAF candidates already have PPLs and higher because it's so much cheaper and easier to do so in the USA and also because there are so many aviation organisations to join in the USA. The RAF screens cadets on Grob trainers. In fact, most militaries screen cadets on piston trainers but the Don is different, of course. The Don has always been against screening prior to formal cadetship, despite evidence from bigger and better air arms that prescreening works, but that's another argument...

  12. Thanks The real Jack, sofa, danno thanked for this post
    Likes EUFighter, Tempest liked this post
  13. #59
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,752
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
    To clarify; Air Corps cadets get the equivalent of an EASA CPL with shooting and aerobatics bits added; their education is to the same EASA Frozen ATPL standards as any civilian trained pilot. When they move on and get their multi engine training, or heli training, it's in turbine aircraft, which is beyond the reach of mere civil mortals. The AC will never specify a PPL as a base for accepting cadets as they, like most air forces, regard civilian PPLs as having bad habits that have to be weaned out, which is a waste of time and money to a system designed to chop people. They start all cadets as equals, regardless of prior experience and this is a worldwide phenomenon and not confined to the AC. The USAF screens its cadets on piston engined trainers prior to formal acceptance so that it reduces the washout rate at the expensive stages and this approach also bears in mind that many USAF candidates already have PPLs and higher because it's so much cheaper and easier to do so in the USA and also because there are so many aviation organisations to join in the USA. The RAF screens cadets on Grob trainers. In fact, most militaries screen cadets on piston trainers but the Don is different, of course. The Don has always been against screening prior to formal cadetship, despite evidence from bigger and better air arms that prescreening works, but that's another argument...
    Didn't the Marchettis (or maybe it was prior to that) replace a screening and a basic trainer (ie 2 aircraft types).

    After the AC purchased the PC9 the feedback was that more of the washouts occurred at a later stage of flight training

  14. #60
    Sergeant Claudel Hopson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    84
    Post Thanks / Like
    The SF260 replaced both the Chipmunk (Basic trainer, un-armed) and the Provost (Advanced trainer, armable). The Cessna's had already been sent to the Burg for their Army Co-op and hour building role.

    As for Sofa's "The best the Aer Corp could squeeze out of the Dept' of Finance.", he's right. Everyoe knows the PC9 replaced the SF260 and the Fouga, and as a turbo prop, could never fulfil a fast jet role.

    The PC9 is nothing more than an armable trainer. just like the aircraft they replaced. It does what it does and it's what we have to work with.

    As I'm still serving, I'd love to answer some of the "negative" comments here, and put some of them straight, but I cant.
    Last edited by Claudel Hopson; 5th November 2016 at 21:04.

  15. Thanks pym, apc, sofa, meridian thanked for this post
  16. #61
    C/S EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    356
    Post Thanks / Like
    The discussion is should we buy secondhand aircraft from Mexico or not?
    If we want to train pilots to get their wings then a PC9 is ok but an expensive way to do this. Most pilots get their wings on something with a little less power such as the Cessna C172.
    There was a figure given as 2€m, for that money we could easily get 6 new C172 trainers. I know this would really confuse the bean counters as at the same time we want to replace our old C172's with C208's or PC12's. It would blow their minds. But if we want to train pilots then it is a cheaper option.

  17. Likes danno, Tempest liked this post
  18. #62
    Major General
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,043
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    Didn't the Marchettis (or maybe it was prior to that) replace a screening and a basic trainer (ie 2 aircraft types).

    After the AC purchased the PC9 the feedback was that more of the washouts occurred at a later stage of flight training
    What happens to those unlucky enough not to be able to progress further, is there a defined career path or do they get boarded.

  19. #63
    Rittmeister Herald's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    786
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by danno View Post
    What happens to those unlucky enough not to be able to progress further, is there a defined career path or do they get boarded.
    I think they get to fly the Arista.............

    https://bryansryan.ie/office-furnitu...b-op-blue.html

  20. Likes DeV, danno, Boreas liked this post
  21. #64
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,752
    Post Thanks / Like
    how are AC engineering officers recruited?

  22. #65
    BQMS
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    703
    Post Thanks / Like
    Direct entry or poaching from other services

  23. #66
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,358
    Post Thanks / Like
    EOs come in as direct entry engineering degree holders and get a quick "saluting" course, as it's called, to acquaint them with military life.....the present PC-9 system is rather like a civilian Type rating in that the candidate spends thirty hours in the sim before he gets his hands on a live aircraft. The problem with that set-up is that in the civvie type system, the candidate already has his 200 hours minimum under his belt so the operator knows that the candidate can already fly multi engined aircraft and has an instrument rating so none of what he experiences will be new to him, ie, flying on instruments, unusual attitudes, simulated engine failures and so on. In theory, a PC-9 cadet can enter the system with zero flying time, which is all very egalitarian until you find that he or she gets airsick in a real aircraft or can't fly IR in a real moving aircraft or can't deal with emergencies in a real, moving aircraft or can't conduct repeated aerobatic or combat type manouvers in a real aircraft and has to be chopped. Thirty hours of expensive training up the spout. Most failures happen in the IR stage (and the Air Corps is no different) because it's hard work but some happen in the manouvering phase because it's also hard work and not everybody is up to it. It's not just the Don; airlines chop people the whole time in cadet phase because they either fail to improve or resign voluntarily if they realise that it's not for them. Most militaries use early screening because it saves a considerable amount of time, money and effort down the track, especially in militaries that are screening for fast jet or other combat aircraft. I got my tailwheel rating from an instructor who had been a screener for the USAF and he was adamant that screening was worthwhile, essential, economical for the training process and the organisation itself and fair to the candidate. The candidate typically got two tries at any task and a third at the discretion of the Chief Instructor and was then chopped if they showed no improvement. Minor mistakes were one thing but failure to improve was the killer, as it had long been proven that a weak candidate would not thrive in fast jet training or succeed under pressure, such as being in combat. In big air arms, failing to be a fast jet pilot was not an issue as there were plenty of other aircraft to fly and people who failed FJ candidacy often worked just fine in other aircraft, such as heli or cargo types. As a parallel, I knew a pilot who was falling behind as a 737 pilot but was otherwise well regarded so was slid sideways into turboprops and thrived on the slower aircraft until his retirement. An equal parallel is airline pilots who are not captains and will never become captains and every airline has them. most airlines give two shots at the title and then it's permanent FO if you don't make the grade. In today's dog eat dog world, that's also no guarantee that you'll be kept on and some airlines will chop any senior FO who fails the captaincy test. So, to my mind, screening is important and has a place even in a small air arm.

  24. Thanks danno, Turkey thanked for this post
    Likes Turkey, EUFighter liked this post
  25. #67
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,358
    Post Thanks / Like
    they are shown the door. the old days of being sent off to the Army or being found a slot somewhere else in the Don is gone.

  26. #68
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,358
    Post Thanks / Like
    The Marchetti replaced two aircraft types, just as the PC-9 did. One of the drivers behind the replacement of two types was the obsolescence of the Chipmunk and Provost, as they were no longer made and they were dinosaurs by the 70s..... The actual task of screening in the new regime was carried out by the Marchetti. The PC-9 changed the syllabus in other ways as the air firing portion of the old system, one session in SF 260 and one in Fouga was halved to one in PC-9 and of course, you have the sim from day 1.....the cadets fail in approximate three places; early in the first few hours as the imperative is for them to solo in a short period; instrument flight; multi engined flight. Also, some fail academically as the timeline for passing exams is tight and there is very little fat in the system for retests; some fail in one the manouvering phases (aerobatics, air gunnery, formation flight, recovery from unusual attitudes). Every candidate is different.

  27. Thanks danno, Turkey thanked for this post
  28. #69
    BQMS
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    703
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
    they are shown the door. the old days of being sent off to the Army or being found a slot somewhere else in the Don is gone.
    Unfortunately that is not the case. It still happens

  29. Likes Spark23 liked this post
  30. #70
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,752
    Post Thanks / Like
    Could the PC9 be used for some screening?

  31. #71
    Major General
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,043
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by TangoSierra View Post
    Unfortunately that is not the case. It still happens
    I recall that at the most recent commissioning there was something on here about a wingless AC cadet being commissioned.

  32. #72
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,358
    Post Thanks / Like
    Of course but it costs a fortune just to dress the guy to even fly in the thing. You could fly a 172 in yer jocks. The USAF used the bog standard 172 as a screener for nearly forty years and their cadets went from that to the T37, then to the T38 and then got farmed out to other types. So, it's perfectly possible to screen on a simple type and then the IR, Multi and aeros will filter out the rest. It saves a huge amount of money, if nothing else.

  33. Likes EUFighter liked this post
  34. #73
    Captain Jetjock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,724
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    Could the PC9 be used for some screening?
    The concept of screening is to root out obviously unsuitable candidates in a cheap, basic, easy to operate aircraft before you waste money on putting them in the PC 9. If you put any zero hours candidate good or bad in a PC9 with no experience they would be like a rabbit in the headlights. It would tell you nothing.

    Airlines screen on simulators(many fail). However these candidates will already have 200 hours flying experience so simulators are not an option for the IAC. It would need to be a basic trainer like a Grob 120A or similar.

  35. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes GoneToTheCanner liked this post
  36. #74
    Captain Jetjock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,724
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by TangoSierra View Post
    Unfortunately that is not the case. It still happens
    So the Air Corps is still hiring officers primarily with flying potential secondary.

  37. #75
    BQMS
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    703
    Post Thanks / Like
    Not sure about that but personnel who fail their flight training are being recycled back through the Cadet School into "line" appointments in the Air Corps.

    There was also a draft of Army Personnel transferred into the Air Corps in recent years.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •