Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Air Corps:The future

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

  • #91
    Originally posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
    given that a 30% loss rate is a poor result.
    regards
    GttC
    If they're not up to the standard they're not up to the standard. I'd rather see people incompetent at flying axed than coaxed along with a gently gently attitude. That's asking for trouble. Traditionally cadet classes for both military and civilian airline pilots would have a similar failure rate. Out of 20 that started in my dad's class, 5 failed and in his opinion as a now seasoned captain, were better off failing as they'd be a liability if they weren't axed. If you're going to strap people into basically a flying bomb, they ought to be good enough at their job to not have to worry about their ability.
    Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
    Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
    Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
    Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

    Comment


    • #92
      Maybe rather than being used to coax along weak students, a trainer aircraft would allow the instructors to identify those unsuitable for flying earlier on in the course, and without having to risk a rather expensive PC9. Same outcome (ie those unsuitable are binned), but a lot of time and effort is saved, since the dead weight is removed earlier on.

      Comment


      • #93
        I don't accept that a loss rate of 30% is acceptable, espcially if there are only a small few cadets in the first place.It simply isn't good enough.It's a gross waste of money and resources to accept it, under the alleged goal of weeding out unsuitable people.For a force that conducts what is essentially civil-style flying (and before you argue, very little of what the Air Corps does is truly military or is not conducted by civil equivalents), with what is probably the best training system(a dedicated sim and an EFIS-equipped aircraft for the basics and 40 hours in a King Air sim for the Multi-engine) in the country, such a loss rate is no good, full stop.If you feed six cadets in at the start and lose one or two, that's barely good enough.It clearly means that the set-up is inadequate , which it clearly isn't, or it's too tough, which isn't the case.The answer is that the system is designed to be a pressure-cooker with few get-outs.It's designed to make you fail, rather than make you pass, which is pointless if the units are struggling for lack of pilots and are having to tell the Boss that they can't roster enough crews to fulfil their duties.Airlines don't accept high loss rates, obviously because of the bottom line, but also because their training is human-interaction based; ie, how will candidate x get on in a crew environment.As an example, a friend of mine is a captain with a certain airline.His cadet class lost one in basic, one in IR training and two in an accident.The rest passed and are all successful line pilots.So, clearly, their system works.
        Ability is a very subjective thing to try and divine and I'm less than convinced that the Air Corps have it down pat.
        regards
        GttC

        Comment


        • #94
          Don't they weed them out at simulator stage?


          Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by Barry View Post
            Maybe rather than being used to coax along weak students, a trainer aircraft would allow the instructors to identify those unsuitable for flying earlier on in the course, and without having to risk a rather expensive PC9. Same outcome (ie those unsuitable are binned), but a lot of time and effort is saved, since the dead weight is removed earlier on.
            Sometimes it only becomes apparent later on. Any fool can get a PPL with enough money and it's only when it moves on to the more difficult flying that people being inadequate becomes apparent.

            Originally posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
            I don't accept that a loss rate of 30% is acceptable, espcially if there are only a small few cadets in the first place.It simply isn't good enough.It's a gross waste of money and resources to accept it, under the alleged goal of weeding out unsuitable people.For a force that conducts what is essentially civil-style flying (and before you argue, very little of what the Air Corps does is truly military or is not conducted by civil equivalents),
            Wasn't going to. I'm aware they're more civil type flying.

            Originally posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
            with what is probably the best training system(a dedicated sim and an EFIS-equipped aircraft for the basics and 40 hours in a King Air sim for the Multi-engine) in the country, such a loss rate is no good, full stop.If you feed six cadets in at the start and lose one or two, that's barely good enough.It clearly means that the set-up is inadequate , which it clearly isn't, or it's too tough, which isn't the case.The answer is that the system is designed to be a pressure-cooker with few get-outs.It's designed to make you fail, rather than make you pass, which is pointless if the units are struggling for lack of pilots and are having to tell the Boss that they can't roster enough crews to fulfil their duties.
            Gently feeding people along is what isn't good enough. If the shit literally hits the fan you want someone who copes well under extreme pressure; not someone who fails.

            Originally posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
            Airlines don't accept high loss rates, obviously because of the bottom line, but also because their training is human-interaction based; ie, how will candidate x get on in a crew environment.As an example, a friend of mine is a captain with a certain airline.His cadet class lost one in basic, one in IR training and two in an accident.The rest passed and are all successful line pilots.So, clearly, their system works.
            How many started? If it was in and around the usual 20 or so, that's still a 20% loss, which is normal. I don't accept that they don't accept high loss rates. They'll happily lose anyone who isn't up to it as most of the people that go would never make command and where's the point in employing them once it becomes apparent you'll only ever get a first officer out of them? Given that they're also handling aircraft that can be less forgiving, (note CAN), and will also have dozens of passangers on board, if something goes wrong you want someone that is technically capeable and can cope under pressure. How someone gets along in a crew environment comes way, way after that. There are plenty of pilots out there that do NOT get along with most crew but make good pilots so it is never held against them.

            Originally posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
            Ability is a very subjective thing to try and divine and I'm less than convinced that the Air Corps have it down pat.
            regards
            GttC
            It is a very subjective thing to define but I think the best definition comes from peers and instructors. If a pilot is teaching someone to fly and it gets to the point where the student should be competent, the pilot should then be able to say "yes, I would fly with that person and if something were to happen and I needed to depend on them, I could". If they can't say that, or feel during training that they won't be able to say that about the student, then no, they don't have the required ability. If colleagues feel that someone is not up to the general standard required then they aren't. Sure, slow it down, gear it to gently bring people along to pass - still doesn't mean the people are able. All you get from that is a pilot that shouldn't be there and is a liability.
            Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
            Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
            Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
            Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by Goldie fish View Post
              The PC-9 and much of the recent Air Corps purchases are "future proofing". No point getting a basic trainer just for training our pilots to move on to small airliners and helicopters if, in 5 years time we decide by some miracle to go the fast jet route.....
              I know that's the case the Air Corps makes for having advanced trainers, but they've been putting that argument forward for 30 or 40 years now. It hasn't happened during that period and let's be honest, what are the odds of it happening in the next 10 years? The same logic would have the Naval Service training to operate submarines and aircraft carriers, 'just in case', and the army all geared up for the day when a fleet of MBTs arrive....

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by Come-quickly View Post
                In relation to two of easyriders previous comments

                AH-6s: If anything could seem less suitable for CAS/Recce for our long ranged patrols in Africa than a PC-9 you may have just found it.

                ARHs: How much less expensive do you expect the purchase and upkeep of L-159s to be? At least specialist combat aircraft have a wide range of practical applications for us any purchase of viable deployable aircraft, be they transport or recce/cas is going to be a major purchase but if the need is there they can be obtained.
                The H-6 is small short ranged and some redundancy measures aside unprotected...perhaps we should consider some new build S.E. 5s as an alternative?
                The AH-6 may not suitable, as you say, but many armies use a small single-engined helicopter to provide, among other capabilities, armed recce and escort for troop-carrying helicopters. There's a story on the thread about the DF deployment to Chad, where Irish troops and others were deployed by transport helis on a long-range patrol - there's a situation where you would need some armed escort. This sort of troop-lift is what the Air Corps are supposed to be building up to with the new AW139s. The next step is to provide an armed escort for those missions.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Hi all,
                  Very good comments there, jns.in the case of my friend mentioned above, the class size was 24 and two were killed in a crash, which skews the numbers a bit....I disagree with what you said about getting along in a crew environment.In the airline business, new pilots and cabin crew are trained to operate together from day one.The whole industry is based around team playing, active crew participation and co-operation.Soloists are not welcomed or encouraged.Which is why pilots get to interact with cabin crew for emergency training and spend a considerable amount of their career with them on duty, just as they do with engineers and ops people and have to get along with them to make the whole show work.The military is less good at this, partly because it is an rank/order-led hierarchy.If you really want to understand the difference, you should see how pilots have to learn to change mentalities when they leave the Don and join the airlines.Some of them are less than successful at this but soon get readjusted.People coming out of the military often lack the interactional skills with non-pilots because the system breeds them to percieve to be above the rest and an us-and-them attitude/culture is created.this is swiftly knocked on the head outside but it does take a while, in some cases.
                  regards
                  gttC

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by easyrider View Post
                    I know that's the case the Air Corps makes for having advanced trainers, but they've been putting that argument forward for 30 or 40 years now. It hasn't happened during that period and let's be honest, what are the odds of it happening in the next 10 years? The same logic would have the Naval Service training to operate submarines and aircraft carriers, 'just in case', and the army all geared up for the day when a fleet of MBTs arrive....
                    The Scorpions were bought in the late 1970's with the intention of eventually buying MBT

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by paul g View Post
                      The Scorpions were bought in the late 1970's with the intention of eventually buying MBT
                      Really? I didn't know that...
                      Meh.

                      Comment


                      • Suggested Additional Aircorps Fleet

                        A MIG-29, couple of hawks or even a Hercules C130 - it would be nice to see them parked down on the Tarmac in Baldonnel .. i know i know operational, airwothiness costs etc.. but i'm sure if we asked our neighbours nicely they might lend us some.

                        btw anybody know off hand what the Aircorps annual budget allowance is ?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
                          Hi all,
                          Very good comments there, jns.in the case of my friend mentioned above, the class size was 24 and two were killed in a crash, which skews the numbers a bit....I disagree with what you said about getting along in a crew environment.In the airline business, new pilots and cabin crew are trained to operate together from day one.The whole industry is based around team playing, active crew participation and co-operation.Soloists are not welcomed or encouraged.Which is why pilots get to interact with cabin crew for emergency training and spend a considerable amount of their career with them on duty, just as they do with engineers and ops people and have to get along with them to make the whole show work.The military is less good at this, partly because it is an rank/order-led hierarchy.If you really want to understand the difference, you should see how pilots have to learn to change mentalities when they leave the Don and join the airlines.Some of them are less than successful at this but soon get readjusted.People coming out of the military often lack the interactional skills with non-pilots because the system breeds them to percieve to be above the rest and an us-and-them attitude/culture is created.this is swiftly knocked on the head outside but it does take a while, in some cases.
                          regards
                          gttC

                          I'm always wary of lessons from civilian organisations. The personnel requirements are and always will be different at a very fundamental level.
                          While some, like Blackwater or (Chubb and ADT for that matter), may order employees to kill, no civilian airline and no company can order its people to die. Civilian management and personnel philosophies simply Do Not Apply.

                          Comment


                          • The Scorpions were bought in the late 1970's with the intention of eventually buying MBT
                            There was a very ambitious plan for the defence forces in place in the mid 1970s, including a 12-14 ship NS, a small force of MBTs (Leopard 1s btw) for the army etc. The repercussions of 2 oil crises and 1 complete disaster of a budget (1977) put paid to it, regardless of how realistic it was in the first place.

                            In terms of purchasing the Pc-9s, the fact of the matter is that they are very nearly as capable as any jet trainer or 'pretend' light strike aircraft. Neither could justifiably be operated abroad, neither have proper optics, ecm, radar, or ew equipment, and neither would be surviveable in a hostile environment. Both only have limited 'COIN' strike abilities, and possess a very basic air to air capacity - useful against helicopters or light aircraft, but not at night or in bad weather.

                            If the AC had gone for a pretend fighter instead of the PC-9, they would still have to purchase a more basic trainer, and would still be without any meaningful combat capacity. At least this way they have one worthwhile fleet of aircraft, which they can afford to keep in the air.

                            I don't understand why they don't use light aircraft as a screening or very basic trainer though.

                            As for the AH-6 - for very specific purposes its ideal (SOF work, LOH etc), but for more generic tasks its a toy. I do think that armed and deployable helicopters are a valid way forward for the AC, but they need to get the basics right first - being able to operate (and sustain) transport helicopters abroad*. Then they can start work on the next step - and as already discussed in other threads, the most flexible replacement for the Cessnas would probably be a mixed fleet, a very small number of Cessna Caravan type aircraft, and a larger number of small twin engined helicopters (EC-135/635), all of which could deployed abroad in support of EU/UN missions.

                            Attack helicopters like the Mangusta or Tiger would be a huge step - they are as complex in many ways as full on fighter aircraft. And they're expensive too ...

                            *Edit; While we're on the subject, a useful way forward would be a further purchase of 139s (or 149s), with the eventual aim of operating a type like the NH-90 in the middle of the next decade, so the heli fleet would be of the order of 10 EC135/635s, 10 AW139/149 and 4-6 NH-90s. If you're going to Walter, you might as well do it in style.
                            Last edited by Aidan; 19 August 2008, 17:41.

                            Comment


                            • The 8 x PC-9s were purchased to replace the 7 (I think) x Marchetti (basic trainer) & 6 x Fouga (advanced trainer).

                              Comment


                              • Replacing what was effectively two obsolete aircraft types, both of which drank fuel and maintenance budgets, is not all that hard.The generational gap between the two fleets is in the order of thirty years.Same as for the EC135s doing away with the A.IIIs and the Gazelles.Given that the rest of the fleet, apart from the King air and the Cessnas, are EFIS/FADEC, it's about time the training fleet were up to date....I agree that the focus for the future should be on load-lifting assets, either heli or fixed-wing, with a definite eye towards foreign ops.
                                regards
                                GttC

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X