Originally posted by GoneToTheCanner
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Air Corps:The future
Collapse
X
-
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?
-
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
-
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
-
Originally posted by Barry View PostMaybe 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.
Originally posted by GoneToTheCanner View PostI 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),
Originally posted by GoneToTheCanner View Postwith 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.
Originally posted by GoneToTheCanner View PostAirlines 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.
Originally posted by GoneToTheCanner View PostAbility is a very subjective thing to try and divine and I'm less than convinced that the Air Corps have it down pat.
regards
GttCIs 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
-
Originally posted by Goldie fish View PostThe 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.....
Comment
-
Originally posted by Come-quickly View PostIn 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?
Comment
-
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
-
Originally posted by easyrider View PostI 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
-
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 PostHi 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
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
-
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
Comment