PC-9M - replacement?

[Silver]

When are the PC-9M's due for replacement?
What will replace them?

[Sparky42]

When are the PC-9M's due for replacement?
What will replace them?

IMO, not anytime soon, and whatever is as cheap as possible.

[DeV]

Well unless we are going to outsource elementary & basic training it has to be a piston/turboprop (rather than a jet (having said that the Swedish are the only air force to use a jet (the 1960s Saab 105 (side by side seating) as a basic trainer, but they are possibly changing to a Grob).

then will they decide to change syllabus to reduce the more advanced skills (aerobatics, weapons capabilities etc) as some of those skills aren’t used on anything apart from the PC9 ?

again would that be outsourced ?

then the ultimate question is what are they training to progress to….. a light fighter ?




by outsourced that could be a civvy contractor or another military (and with some of the issues they are having the RAF may not be an option, which potentially means increased subsistence expenses)

[DeV]

Grob 120TP seems to be commonly used as a basic trainer by many before streaming to:

Fast jets - something PC9 like - a jet trainer and then onto an operational type

multi-engine - something like a King Air (or smaller) and then onto an operational type

helicopters - something like EC135 or smaller and then sometimes something larger before an operational type

[na grohmiti]

There's a tendency here to get large quantities of non-operational aircraft, and small quantities of operational ones. Can we flip that?

In the 70s and 80s, student pilots went from Basic flying training to advanced flying training. Basic on the Warrior, then to the Warrior for rocket and machine gun. Off to the Fouga to do rocket and inboard machine gun as well as everything else advanced flying on a tandem seat 1st gen jet trainer had to offer.At one point we had leased/borrowed extra white Warriors because there was so many students to train and not enough Basic aircraft to train on.

I think the only reason behind this thinking was the 8 Warrior had replaced the 7 Hunting Provosts and 8 Chipmunks, and the 6 Fouga had replaced the 6 Vampires. All aircraft with very different characteristics.
If you spoke to anyone in the don in the late 90s, everyone said Alpha Jet was the future. There was hardly a time when there wasn't at least one German or French Alpha Jet visiting. It was the natural progression from the Fouga, and most former Fouga users were now Alpha Jet users. One of ours had been in Austria before being replaced by the Saab 105.
When we replaced 2 types with one (as advised by yet another accountancy review body), there seem to have been no taking into account the reason for so many aircraft in the first place, or the extra downtime the more modern turboprop aircraft would require. The sales pitch believed was anything Basic Flying training related could be done on the simulator before progressing to the real aircraft, under supervision. But once the pilot is qualified, what is there to stay current on? In the 80s, 90s and most of the 00s, once a pilot qas considered "qualified" they were sent off to Army Co op to build up hours on the Cessna 172, after a very quick conversion course, towing drogues, doing top cover for ATCP, parachute jumps, seal counting in the Shannon estuary... anything at all. Then the C172 was replaced with the (more complex than the PC9M) PC12. No way you'll be handing the keys of one of these to a freshly qualified pilot.

So we are back again to how do you keep a non operational pilot current? RAF have a huge issue with this at present due to a sudden shortage of aircraft, so because of limited numbers on conversion courses, their pilot are in danger of losing currency. They used to have multiples of Air Cadet or UAS aircraft they could draw on, just go get a few flying hours in, but not any more. Aeralis have yet to produce anything significant, exept for some lovely mock-ups.

This is where the Grob 120 pays for itself. (I'd go with the A, rather than the TP starting out)
Its a low cost "screening" aircraft, which when not in use for training, will spend far less time in maintenance than your average Advanced turboprop or Jet trainer, and thus be more available for building up hours.

Otherwise, with whatever we decide to select as a PC9M replacement, there should be enough to train all trainee pilots, with spare aircraft to keep qualified but otherwise non-flying pilots current for the 2 years or so they are stuck in a non-flying appointment.

[DeV]

I think the only reason behind this thinking was the 8 Warrior had replaced the 7 Hunting Provosts and 8 Chipmunks, and the 6 Fouga had replaced the 6 Vampires. All aircraft with very different characteristics.

in fairness that was also probably the international thinking of the time too

When we replaced 2 types with one (as advised by yet another accountancy review body), there seem to have been no taking into account the reason for so many aircraft in the first place, or the extra downtime the more modern turboprop aircraft would require. The sales pitch believed was anything Basic Flying training related could be done on the simulator before progressing to the real aircraft, under supervision.

again that is and largely continues to be the international thinking

But once the pilot is qualified, what is there to stay current on? In the 80s, 90s and most of the 00s, once a pilot qas considered "qualified" they were sent off to Army Co op to build up hours on the Cessna 172, after a very quick conversion course, towing drogues, doing top cover for ATCP, parachute jumps, seal counting in the Shannon estuary... anything at all. Then the C172 was replaced with the (more complex than the PC9M) PC12. No way you'll be handing the keys of one of these to a freshly qualified pilot.

no idea but could they be progressing to co-pilot on PC12 ?

So we are back again to how do you keep a non operational pilot current? RAF have a huge issue with this at present due to a sudden shortage of aircraft, so because of limited numbers on conversion courses, their pilot are in danger of losing currency. They used to have multiples of Air Cadet or UAS aircraft they could draw on, just go get a few flying hours in, but not any more. Aeralis have yet to produce anything significant, exept for some lovely mock-ups.

in fairness there’s a fair bit behind the RAF’s issues

https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Investigation-into-Military-flying-training.pdf

basically the contractor isn’t fulfilling their obligations.

This is where the Grob 120 pays for itself. (I'd go with the A, rather than the TP starting out)
Its a low cost "screening" aircraft, which when not in use for training, will spend far less time in maintenance than your average Advanced turboprop or Jet trainer, and thus be more available for building up hours.

Otherwise, with whatever we decide to select as a PC9M replacement, there should be enough to train all trainee pilots, with spare aircraft to keep qualified but otherwise non-flying pilots current for the 2 years or so they are stuck in a non-flying appointment.

Begs The question, why rotate pilots (hard to train & retain) into non-flying roles routinely .

[na grohmiti]

PC12 is a single pilot aircraft.

In Sweden, Gripen pilots remain Gripen pilots for the duration of their career. Non flying roles are done by non flying officers, nobody gets rotated away from flying. The idea of rotating out of flying, after spending so much t train them in the first place makes no sense.

[DeV]

PC12 can be single pilot

[GoneToTheCanner]

AC pilots are routinely jobbed as a second duty to ground roles, formally such as being seconded to the Apprentice School for 6 months and the other "job" such as OC Mess Tables or OC Badminton Rackets. Junior Officers are fodder for all sorts of bullshit jobs. Soldier first, Pilot second. The Don never had a streaming system like the RAF where aircrew are (or were) listed in the Aircrew Spine (that's the actual name) or Command, ie, you chose Flying first above all or Command first above all, so the more you flew, the slower up the food chain you went. RAF pilots who prioritised Flying also had to work to keep current when rotated to ground duties so blagging flight time in anything from a Bulldog to a two seat jet was done. That was back when the RAF had masses of training-only aircraft such as the Bulldog, JP, Hawk and even Hunters on hand. The less you flew, the more you were aimed at Command such as Wing leadership or Project work such as accepting new aircraft or weapons into Service of Joint roles with other Arms of Service.
The Don is really too small for much of that so pilots have to be found work to justify their existence and the PC-9 and -12 are doing that because you can always stick a newbie on an Instructor's course or as P2 on a -12 (realistically, the equivalent of a young FO in an airline. Not many hours and under the care and feeding of an experienced Captain). It's essentially what the King Air did, with one engine. You can always send them overseas on a few tours to prime them for Command or break their will to live (I'm joking!) or send them to Casa or Eurocopter to watch the overhauls being done and see how factories do their thing.
The Grob TP is a good choice because air arms don't want to keep and own piston engined trainers any more because they are harder to keep running and harder to service than a simple turboprop, which is about as difficult to service as your diesel car engine. In many cases, it's easier, as access is better than in a car so the turnaround time is shorter, the service life is much longer and the cost per hour is relatively low and air arms don't want petrol (Avgas) in their inventories if they can avoid it.
Air arms also want not to fire weapons until the trainee reaches an actual fighter, so the old style "gunnery in a Fouga" part of the Course is a dying thing, with the advent of incredibly realistic simulators.
The Grob keeps pilots current, doesnt carry weapons, is relatively simple to service and keep operating so what's not to like. It's also ideal for transitioning to a PC-9 or 12 or even whatever replaces the Learjet. Wouldnt surprise me if a PC 24 came along, given the relationship with Pilatus. As for PC 12 being single pilot, no-one inside or outside the Military operates them as single pilot unless they absolutely have to or are private owners flying themselves. Even American Part 135 operators routinely crew them and other types as 2 pilot simply because insurance companies won't touch them unless they formally crew them with 2. I know there are exceptions, even here in Ireland, but you'd be a fool to depend on one pilot.

[na grohmiti]

There was one PC12 flight during Covid that has 2 pilots up front, and 2 more as "cabin crew", who flew the return trip.

[DeV]

Moving people around between corps, units, barracks, appointments just for the sake of it is so incredibly wasteful.

people take time to bed in, travel time, work/life balance, effect on retention, having to spend more time on courses etc

It obviously makes sense (and is an actual requirement) to have pilots as Instrs for a YO flying course but it doesn’t make sense for an apprentice/recruit class (there are of course exceptions, maybe they have failed a flying medical or something).

also it may make sense for the Wing/Sqn Ops Offr to be a pilot…. But does the Admin Offr/Adjt ?

it also probably doesn’t make sense to have too move moving for the sake of it between aircraft types (wasteful of available hours etc). Doesn’t help that we have too few of too many types.

[DeV]

Obviously forgot to mention that the establishment has to allow for sufficient personnel to ensure all tasks are delivered efficiently and strength needs to be kept to establishment

[DeV]

Interesting video on Grob (before introduction to service) and U.K. MFTS

https://youtu.be/xoy06b_o9Qg?si=ZbW3MUbMsuJZ6H3f

caveat: on other videos, as this video very briefly hints at, this guy has…. Let’s say certain views (and I’m not talking about aircraft)

[na grohmiti]

He does waffle a bit.

[GoneToTheCanner]

Moving people around between corps, units, barracks, appointments just for the sake of it is so incredibly wasteful.

people take time to bed in, travel time, work/life balance, effect on retention, having to spend more time on courses etc

It obviously makes sense (and is an actual requirement) to have pilots as Instrs for a YO flying course but it doesn’t make sense for an apprentice/recruit class (there are of course exceptions, maybe they have failed a flying medical or something).

also it may make sense for the Wing/Sqn Ops Offr to be a pilot…. But does the Admin Offr/Adjt ?

it also probably doesn’t make sense to have too move moving for the sake of it between aircraft types (wasteful of available hours etc). Doesn’t help that we have too few of too many types.

Sometimes, pilots sent to the Aptce School were waiting for a training slot to open up. Apart from that, it introduced them to the people who would be servicing their aircraft and gave them experience of being in charge of someone other than fellow cadets. All part of the growing up process for young pilots and apprentices. On this small island, they often knew each other from home, which could create an unusual dynamic. As for Adjutant roles, usually a Line Officer but sometimes a Pilot. Having done an Adj slot was seen as part of the process on the way up, like doing a tour as someone's ADC.