Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Wings 2022

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Wings 2022

    According to AC Facebook page,

    “The Presentation of Wings”

    Today’s Presentation of Wings ceremony marks the completion of an intensive flying and ground training course, during which, the seven successful students have amassed over 1000 cumulative flying hours.

    The students commenced their military training in October 2019 at the Military College in the Curragh Camp. After receiving their presidential commission as Officers of the Defence Forces they returned to the Air Corps College in Baldonnel in March 2021. The students undertook a rigorous ground-school programme, successfully passing 14 examinations which involved over 750 hours of lectures.

    In October 2021, their flying training commenced with six of the students leaving Ireland to travel to the U.S. Air Force Security and Training Squadron.

    Initially based in Pensacola, Florida, the students learned basic flying and airmanship with 19 hours of flying on the Cessna 172 aircraft. They progressed to the Grob G-120TP aircraft in Dothan, Alabama where they flew over 100 hours, before returning to Baldonnel where they completed over 20 hours of flying on the Pilatus PC-9M aircraft.

    One student, 2/Lt Liam Kelly, remained in the Flying Training School for the duration of the course, completing all 128 sorties and 165 hours of flying on the Pilatus PC-9M.

    Flying disciplines completed included aerobatics, formation flying, navigation, instrument flying, night flying and tactical flying.​

  • #2
    How manyflying instructors are left in Bal?

    Comment


    • #3
      Am I the only one now wondering what the point of the PC9M is, if it isn't being used for basic flying training. The Grob (and the Cessna 172, for that matter) is far more suited for training pilots who will operate dual seat aircraft.
      For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Tempest View Post
        How manyflying instructors are left in Bal?

        is there 2 or 3 cadet classes undergoing training at the same time?

        are they using this relief them to upskill, take leave, deep maintenance etc etc. i would assume so

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
          Am I the only one now wondering what the point of the PC9M is, if it isn't being used for basic flying training. The Grob (and the Cessna 172, for that matter) is far more suited for training pilots who will operate dual seat aircraft.
          Well they have zero military capability while the PC9M provides a limited military capability (having replaced 2 types).

          they are going to be end of life in the coming decade or so though

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by DeV View Post

            Well they have zero military capability while the PC9M provides a limited military capability (having replaced 2 types).

            they are going to be end of life in the coming decade or so though
            It's a very thin interpretation of military capability. We didn't gain any capability from the 1972 introduction of the SF260W which could also carry gun pods and rockets. We got ejector seats though.
            For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

            Comment


            • #7
              It's a Lead in fighter trainer, without the "fighter" actually being present. I love that British phrase, "fitted for, but not equipped with". That's the current state of the Nation; trainers to get pilots familiar with EFIS and turbines and things that go bang...but.....nothing warry to graduate onto. So, getting used to EFIS and turbines, without bangy things, qualifies you for...the PC-12, which then leads you to the Casa....or you move to rotary and start learning a new skill set. In fairness to the AC, sometimes, they move the goalposts (ie, what is the AC for) themselves but other times, the goalposts get moved for them and the results are not always pretty or useful, so the same arguments continue to go around in circles. Retention, rosters, working time agreement, multi-engined transport, new aircraft, old aircraft, service life upgrades, use of helicopters, Army co-op, Navy co-op, Civil co-op,etc etc.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
                Am I the only one now wondering what the point of the PC9M is, if it isn't being used for basic flying training. The Grob (and the Cessna 172, for that matter) is far more suited for training pilots who will operate dual seat aircraft.
                There is absolutely nothing wrong with the PC-9M. The problem is the retention crisis resulting in the loss of skilled technicians and instructors. No matter what training aircraft is in service will not change that.
                The Grob and certainly the Cessna are completely incapable of carrying out the advanced trainer role. The US Air Force uses the PC-9's big brother, the T-6, in that role. US Armed Forces student pilots before going on to qualify in their variants of the CN-235, PC-12, Learjet and AW139 will all have been trained on the T-6 first.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I'd have much more confidence in the syllabus now that the PC9 is not being used as a basic trainer. It is not, never was and never will be a suitable introductory aircraft no matter how much synthetic training is involved.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    the use of turbine first was tried in the RAF decades ago and was dumped because of sheer cost, which is why a screener aircraft is necessary. It doesnt have to be a "Blob" or a Cessna, it just has to available, properly operated and maintained and relatively cheap to operate. Think schoolroom, not combatant.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Jetjock View Post
                      I'd have much more confidence in the syllabus now that the PC9 is not being used as a basic trainer. It is not, never was and never will be a suitable introductory aircraft no matter how much synthetic training is involved.
                      The PC-9 is still being used in all training roles like it has been for almost two decades without any problems.

                      Originally posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
                      the use of turbine first was tried in the RAF decades ago and was dumped because of sheer cost, which is why a screener aircraft is necessary. It doesnt have to be a "Blob" or a Cessna, it just has to available, properly operated and maintained and relatively cheap to operate. Think schoolroom, not combatant.

                      On cost grounds for large air forces with several squadrons of training aircraft, it makes sense to have multiple different aircraft types for each phase of training.
                      For small air forces with only the need for a handful of training aircraft, it's certainly more cost-efficient to have a single aircraft type that is capable of carrying out all the single-engine fixed-wing training.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        They are starting in a Level D simulator before they ever set foot in the live aircraft but unlike airline cadets and the cadets of many air arms the world over, they have not been thru a screener aircraft process to weed out those who might fail. It may come as a shock to you but a lot of people only find out that they actively hate to fly at the pointy end when they step up to a live aircraft and many more fail at real-world instrument flight. Sims are brilliant at what they do but actual, live flight is more stimulating to the senses. Live flight generates reactions and inputs than sims don't.
                        The AC was losing a lot of cadets at the instrument flight phase and always lost one or two per year when it came to aerobatic flying and the Mil system is designed to be merciless. A cadet who is not showing improvement after each lesson is usually given one or two retests and is then chopped. Airlines tend to have a bit more slack and will give a cadet more chances to improve or fail. As for cost, a few hundred euros to deliver one hour in a simple screener like a 172 is infinitely cheaper than an hour in a PC-9. Even the mighty USAF employ screener aircraft, delivered via quasi-military flight schools. It wouldnt be beyond the wit of the AC to do the same here.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Did I not see somewhere a few years ago that since the introduction of the PC9 people were failing later in the syllabus than previously ?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
                            They are starting in a Level D simulator before they ever set foot in the live aircraft but unlike airline cadets and the cadets of many air arms the world over, they have not been thru a screener aircraft process to weed out those who might fail. It may come as a shock to you but a lot of people only find out that they actively hate to fly at the pointy end when they step up to a live aircraft and many more fail at real-world instrument flight. Sims are brilliant at what they do but actual, live flight is more stimulating to the senses. Live flight generates reactions and inputs than sims don't.
                            The AC was losing a lot of cadets at the instrument flight phase and always lost one or two per year when it came to aerobatic flying and the Mil system is designed to be merciless. A cadet who is not showing improvement after each lesson is usually given one or two retests and is then chopped. Airlines tend to have a bit more slack and will give a cadet more chances to improve or fail. As for cost, a few hundred euros to deliver one hour in a simple screener like a 172 is infinitely cheaper than an hour in a PC-9. Even the mighty USAF employ screener aircraft, delivered via quasi-military flight schools. It wouldnt be beyond the wit of the AC to do the same here.
                            You are trying to find a fault with something that isn't broken for the sake of it. The Air Corps operated Cessnas alongside the PC-9's for 15 years, so the option was there to use the Cessna for flight training, but it wasn't needed as the PC-9 is more than suitable to carry out the role it was purchased for.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              The original decision to go to live aircraft after sim was based on airline practise BUT all airlines and most air forces use screener aircraft via the training system, for good reason. It filters out potential failures early in the food chain. The RAF stopped the practise of ab-initio training on turbine aircraft decades ago on the grounds of cost, because, even back then, it simply cost too much in fuel and maintenance and servicing to carry out what is, in effect, a PPL on a turbine aircraft, before reaching the hard stuff of instrument flight, aerobatics, formation flying , air gunnery and so on. I get why the PC-9 replaced the SF 260 and Fouga, but it is not efficient for ab-initio in itself (otherwise, we'd all be doing it) and it depends on a very expensive simulator to make the system work. Screening works and the airline industry and most air forces screen because they trust and believe in it. The PC-9 after Sim is a work around, to avoid having to buy a screener aircraft or hire in a screening system. Politics and accountants competing to avoid using the industry and defence best practise of screening.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X