Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Low level training
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by DeV View Posthttps://flyinginireland.com/2017/09/...evel-training/
Air Corps low level PC9 training in wicklow mountains
- Likes 3
-
Originally posted by Anzac View PostThis is why the Air Corp and other militaries have specialist aircraft like the PC-9, Texan II and Tucano in the training role.
Originally posted by Anzac View PostThis is the key difference between a military pilot and a civil aviation pilot.
it has more trainers than operational fixed wing airframes, and it has a frankly massive training pipeline to provide a tiny number of aircrew, who then leave because not only are they paid peanuts, they are bored out of their minds because the budget has been spunked on a wild inflated training capacity leaving nothing left for operational flying.
- Likes 3
Comment
-
Originally posted by ropebag View Posttraining for what?
Originally posted by ropebag View Posti fear you have somewhat failed to grasp what the AC does(n't do).
it has more trainers than operational fixed wing airframes, and it has a frankly massive training pipeline to provide a tiny number of aircrew, who then leave because not only are they paid peanuts, they are bored out of their minds because the budget has been spunked on a wild inflated training capacity leaving nothing left for operational flying.
It is a completely separate issue the failure of the Irish government to adequately resource of follow on roles post wings course for Air Corp pilots.
- Likes 5
Comment
-
Unfortunately I don't have it with me, but the "Fouga Magister - An Irish Perspective" book described a low level route through the Wicklow Mountains. From memory, I think that route might have been longer than the one linked to above, but can't remember more about it than that. Great to see this area being developed and explored further by the Air Corps.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
The IAC don't follow a standard military curriculum because there's no such thing; every single air force does it's own thing and every single air force thinks it's curriculum is the best for it's own conditions. The Air Corps used the King Air for multi training because the Fougas were stood down because of wear on certain airframe bolts and because Aerospatiale didn't want to keep spares going for Fougas and the Air Corps had to buy spares from civilian operators in the USA. The King Air was a very good choice because it's a decent aircraft to fly and it's a perfect lead-in to the Casa. It also gave pilots experience in airways and instrument flight to a level that the Fouga didn't and couldn't. It might not be suitable for whizzing around at low level in Wicklow valleys but that never mattered to the Don anyway, as the pilots were going on to fly over the sea and not fly combat aircraft...or they would fly helicopters.....the AC used to follow the RAF's CFS syllabus to the point of having identical training books but it then mutated into a form which had Irish bits, legacy UK bits and French/Italian bits and the written syllabus, for quite a while, was a direct copy of a certain Irishman's text book, to such an extent that AC pilots used to get an automatic grant of an Irish CPL, because the AC and civvy exams were essentially identical. The only extra bit was gunnery and rockets, as per the SF 260 manual and the Fouga manual. It was only when pilots moved onto helicopters that they recieved a different angle on flying that had a military bent to it, ie, lifting troops or lifting a mortar or going onto do SAR in Alouettes and Dauphins...and SAR is no longer a military task.....these days, the heli training is probably the "warriest" of all the Air Corps flying function, as the demand for helicopters has been firmly pointed at the Army's needs. The flying syllabus is now a PC-9 evolution and the point at which pilots are streamed for multi engine or rotary has changed yet again.
- Likes 4
Comment
-
Originally posted by GoneToTheCanner View PostThe IAC don't follow a standard military curriculum because there's no such thing; every single air force does it's own thing and every single air force thinks it's curriculum is the best for it's own conditions. The Air Corps used the King Air for multi training because the Fougas were stood down because of wear on certain airframe bolts and because Aerospatiale didn't want to keep spares going for Fougas and the Air Corps had to buy spares from civilian operators in the USA. The King Air was a very good choice because it's a decent aircraft to fly and it's a perfect lead-in to the Casa. It also gave pilots experience in airways and instrument flight to a level that the Fouga didn't and couldn't. It might not be suitable for whizzing around at low level in Wicklow valleys but that never mattered to the Don anyway, as the pilots were going on to fly over the sea and not fly combat aircraft...or they would fly helicopters.....the AC used to follow the RAF's CFS syllabus to the point of having identical training books but it then mutated into a form which had Irish bits, legacy UK bits and French/Italian bits and the written syllabus, for quite a while, was a direct copy of a certain Irishman's text book, to such an extent that AC pilots used to get an automatic grant of an Irish CPL, because the AC and civvy exams were essentially identical. The only extra bit was gunnery and rockets, as per the SF 260 manual and the Fouga manual. It was only when pilots moved onto helicopters that they recieved a different angle on flying that had a military bent to it, ie, lifting troops or lifting a mortar or going onto do SAR in Alouettes and Dauphins...and SAR is no longer a military task.....these days, the heli training is probably the "warriest" of all the Air Corps flying function, as the demand for helicopters has been firmly pointed at the Army's needs. The flying syllabus is now a PC-9 evolution and the point at which pilots are streamed for multi engine or rotary has changed yet again.
- Likes 1
Comment
Comment