fighter pilot hours?

I fly about 50 hours a year and wish I could do more, just to stay in
the groove.

Could I have stayed current in a jet fighter, flying about 140 hours a
year?

Thanks!

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

I fly about 50 hours a year and wish I could do more, just to stay in
the groove.

Could I have stayed current in a jet fighter, flying about 140 hours a
year?

Depends on what Air Force you are talking about. I was reading the other day
where the average annual flight time in the Russian Air Force has been as
low as the 40 hour mark--and they don't have decent simulators to help make
up the deficiency. Supposedly, that average allows the younger pilots to get
in some 60 or 70 hours a year, while the older guys get stuck with less than
the 40 hour average. ISTR that some of the NATO nations (and I am not
talking the recent additions here) have annual flight hour numbers that
have dipped as low as the 80 to 100 hour figure; ISTR that even our ARNG
helicopter aviators are (or were a few years ago) required to get a bit more
than that each year.

Brooks


Thanks!

all the best -- Dan Ford

On Wed, 8 Sep 2004 13:18:37 -0400, Kevin Brooks wrote:

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
.. .

I fly about 50 hours a year and wish I could do more, just to stay in
the groove.

Could I have stayed current in a jet fighter, flying about 140 hours a
year?

Depends on what Air Force you are talking about. I was reading the other day
where the average annual flight time in the Russian Air Force has been as
low as the 40 hour mark--and they don't have decent simulators to help make
up the deficiency. Supposedly, that average allows the younger pilots to get
in some 60 or 70 hours a year, while the older guys get stuck with less than
the 40 hour average. ISTR that some of the NATO nations (and I am not
talking the recent additions here) have annual flight hour numbers that
have dipped as low as the 80 to 100 hour figure; ISTR that even our ARNG
helicopter aviators are (or were a few years ago) required to get a bit more
than that each year.

Do you have any figurews for USAF and RAF pilots? Does the number of
hours typically vary depemnding on type of aircraft flown? Also, to
what extent can good simulators replace flying time?

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)

Also, to
what extent can good simulators replace flying time?


It still doesn't entirely replace flight hours, it only augments them. There
are darn few "good simulators" that can remotely compare to the real thing, and
this was over 30 years ago, in computing's dark ages. Even the 9/11 ****s had
to get genuine flight training and even then, they nearly tore the wings off
the second 767. Flying is not only complicated - its dangerous. Simulators
can't trick you all the way, so you are always missing some component of the
actual flight.

In the Navy, we had a minimum of 4 hours per month that we were required to
ride along in any capacity that we could. On some shore duty locations,
meeting that would take genuine effort, but I didn't encounter that situation.
I got 660 helicopter flight hours one year, and when I got back to the states,
my squadron scheduled my first mission as a sortie in the WST. I guess they
didn't see the irony. I slept through the entire "flight". Hey, how was that
for a simulation?

zzzzz...grumble...snort..Wa? GOBLIN GOBLIN...ahhhhh... freakin WST...snort...
snorrre zzzzzz

v/r
Gordon
====(A+C====
USN SAR

Its always better to lose -an- engine, not -the- engine.

On 08 Sep 2004 22:36:53 GMT, Krztalizer wrote:
Also, to
what extent can good simulators replace flying time?


It still doesn't entirely replace flight hours, it only augments them. There
are darn few "good simulators" that can remotely compare to the real thing, and
this was over 30 years ago,

Presumably they are better now than then.

in computing's dark ages. Even the 9/11 ****s had
to get genuine flight training and even then, they nearly tore the wings off
the second 767. Flying is not only complicated - its dangerous. Simulators
can't trick you all the way, so you are always missing some component of the
actual flight.

Simulators -- assuming a good mathematical model of the airplane --
should be able to correctly simulate how it would respond to
anything the pilot does. The visual part of simulation is mostly
solved these days due to good computer power. The hard thing, as I
see it, is simulating the effect of the aircraft's movements on the
pilot.

In the Navy, we had a minimum of 4 hours per month that we were required to
ride along in any capacity that we could. On some shore duty locations,
meeting that would take genuine effort, but I didn't encounter that situation.
I got 660 helicopter flight hours one year, and when I got back to the states,
my squadron scheduled my first mission as a sortie in the WST. I guess they
didn't see the irony. I slept through the entire "flight". Hey, how was that
for a simulation?

What's a WST?

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)

It still doesn't entirely replace flight hours, it only augments them.
There
are darn few "good simulators" that can remotely compare to the real thing,
and
this was over 30 years ago,

Presumably they are better now than then.

The last simulator I was in was for the F-15 up at Edwards. Still a video
game, albeit on a GIfrickinGANTIC screen, compared to the real thing.


What's a WST?


Navy-ese for simulator - "Weapons System Trainer".

v/r
Gordon
====(A+C====
USN SAR

Its always better to lose -an- engine, not -the- engine.

Also, to
what extent can good simulators replace flying time?

Krztalizer wrote:
It still doesn't entirely replace flight hours, it only augments them.
There
are darn few "good simulators" that can remotely compare to the real
thing, and
this was over 30 years ago,

phil hunt wrote:
Presumably they are better now than then.
snippage
Simulators -- assuming a good mathematical model of the airplane --
should be able to correctly simulate how it would respond to
anything the pilot does. The visual part of simulation is mostly
solved these days due to good computer power. The hard thing, as I
see it, is simulating the effect of the aircraft's movements on the
pilot.

A very nontrivial challenge.

When positive G is modeled by inflating your g-suit and negative G
by inflating a "whoopie cushion" under the driver's butt or dropping
the sim a foot or two, that ain't very useful. Numerous crashes
have been attributed to pilots flying the airplane too soon after being
in the sim (Miramar had a mandatory delay between 'flying' the
WST and getting in a real airplane). Your body gets used to what
ought to happen to it in the Real Thing (tm), then gets confused by
the sim. Minutia such as rate of G application get missed by the sim
but have tremendous significance in flight.

Sims are great for buttonology and procedures, and can be a lot of
fun (and they can scare the hell out of you sometimes). But they do
NOT teach you how to really push the plane to its and your limits
(low-level flight in a non-permissive environment, for one simple
example), and that's the key to surviving in the Real World.

We've seen it again and again--try to save money in the training
environment and you guarantee increased losses in combat.


Jeff

"phil hunt" wrote...

Do you have any figurews for USAF and RAF pilots? Does the number of
hours typically vary depemnding on type of aircraft flown? Also, to
what extent can good simulators replace flying time?

USN minimum is 100 hours/year. That's way too low to actually maintain
proficiency.

15 hours/month is about minimum for proficiency; 300 hours/year is reasonable.

"phil hunt" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 8 Sep 2004 13:18:37 -0400, Kevin Brooks
wrote:

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
.. .

I fly about 50 hours a year and wish I could do more, just to stay in
the groove.

Could I have stayed current in a jet fighter, flying about 140 hours a
year?

Depends on what Air Force you are talking about. I was reading the other
day
where the average annual flight time in the Russian Air Force has been as
low as the 40 hour mark--and they don't have decent simulators to help
make
up the deficiency. Supposedly, that average allows the younger pilots to
get
in some 60 or 70 hours a year, while the older guys get stuck with less
than
the 40 hour average. ISTR that some of the NATO nations (and I am not
talking the recent additions here) have annual flight hour numbers that
have dipped as low as the 80 to 100 hour figure; ISTR that even our ARNG
helicopter aviators are (or were a few years ago) required to get a bit
more
than that each year.

Do you have any figurews for USAF and RAF pilots?

Can't find any (after a quick search) for fighter/attack aircraft, other
than in "relative" terms (using 1988/89 as a baseline value that is not
actually stated); you maye derive more info by reading the following more
completely:

www.comw.org/pda/afread02.html

Does the number of
hours typically vary depemnding on type of aircraft flown?

Apparently so; the above reference indicates, for example, that in 1994 the
C-5 pilots were averaging 133 hours per year, and C-141 pilots were
averaging 123 hours. I'd imagine fighter pilots, especially those of
multimission aircraft like the F-16, require significantly more hours to
remain truly proficient (as already mentioned by Ed and others).

Also, to
what extent can good simulators replace flying time?

You'd be better off asking that question of someone who has experience with
the latest high-tech sims. I doubt they are on par with actual flying
experience, but I also have little doubt that they beat sitting around
rereading flight manuals to kill time...

Brooks


--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)

On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 13:13:02 -0400, Cub Driver
wrote:


I fly about 50 hours a year and wish I could do more, just to stay in
the groove.

Could I have stayed current in a jet fighter, flying about 140 hours a
year?


You would have to add some definitions and parameters to get a
definitive answer.

Could you fly the airplane? Probably if you had been properly
qualified and gained some experience. If you had flown a lot
previously and maintained high proficiency, you could probably avoid
killing yourself with that level of flying.

Would you be mission capable? Depends upon the mission and the
availability of effective simulation. If you had good mission
simulator support you could remain reasonably competent with that
level of currency.

Today's airplanes are easier to fly than in the past, but today's
weapons systems are considerably more complex and enemy defenses are
more layered and require better force integration to defeat. At 140
hours per year you might be quite good if all of your flying was
..9/sortie air-to-air of high intensity--provided your mission was
1-v-1.

If your 140 hours was ten monthly cross-country flights, droning along
from A to B, you probably won't be combat effective.

And, a lot would depend upon your innate talent. If you were a
"natural" you could be a lot more "current" than if you were a bit
ham-handed.

Fly your 140 hours in a three month period and you'll be very good at
the end of the period. Then, you can come back up to speed quite
quickly when you resume next year. Fly your 140 hours at 12
hours/month, two 1.5 hour flights per week, and you'll just barely be
minimum qualified unless you've got a backlog of experience to draw
upon.

IMHO.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
"Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights"
Both from Smithsonian Books
***www.thunderchief.org