If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Cub Driver wrote: Could I have stayed current in a jet fighter, flying about 140 hours a year? Usual NATO requirement is 180, but the Swedish air force got a waiver from that because our training areas are much closer to the airbases. So I'd say it's possible if you can use them well. -- Urban Fredriksson http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/ 1) What is happening will continue to happen 2) Consider the obvious seriously 3) Consider the consequences - Asimov's "Three Laws of Futurics", F&SF, Oct 74 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Really nice to have your range near by/adjacent to the airfield. For an
air-to-air guy with a training range very close, 140 hrs would have you flying about every other day. That said there are lots of other things to be done in terms of being 'current' in all aspects of the mission (even air-to-air specialized units). In particular there would be instrument flying requirements and air-to-air refueling missions. This eats into your 140 hrs; so the time actually spent honing your air-to-air skills would be down to a couple of times a week. Still not BAD, but on the fringe (IMHO). 20hrs a month is a more realistic number to take care of all the bits n pieces For a mud-mover (F-15E, F-16 type) you'd be looking at needing more hours to really keep proficient. Most missions average 2 hrs (rather than the 0.9 to 1.2 hr average for A2A) Mark "Urban Fredriksson" wrote in message ... In article , Cub Driver wrote: Could I have stayed current in a jet fighter, flying about 140 hours a year? Usual NATO requirement is 180, but the Swedish air force got a waiver from that because our training areas are much closer to the airbases. So I'd say it's possible if you can use them well. -- Urban Fredriksson http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/ 1) What is happening will continue to happen 2) Consider the obvious seriously 3) Consider the consequences - Asimov's "Three Laws of Futurics", F&SF, Oct 74 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Cub Driver
confessed the following: 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? Sure...if your mission was very limited. AFR 51-50 training requirements would be fairly easy to meet. F-102 units didn't have AAR squares to fill, no low levels, only one weapon the AIM-4...(TX ANG was not a nuke unit) so no Dart or strafe requirements, and no ACM back then. That leaves formation takeoffs and landings, intercepts, instrument approaches and SFOs (simulated flameout landings). Do-able. But like Urban mentioned, when I showed up in USAFE in 1981, NATO standard was 180 hours minimum. USAFE F-4 guys were averaging 240-300 back then, F-15 guys a bit less ISTR 200-250. If you had to drop bombs, strafe, fly night low levels, air refuel, use NVGs, employ HARMs or PGMs, maintain some honest air-to-air proficiency...140 hours wouldn't hack it today. With that little flying you'd only be a MS (mission support) wienie and not a full up MR (mission ready) pilot. Robey |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
On 8 Sep 2004 22:08:51 +0200, Urban Fredriksson wrote:
In article , Cub Driver wrote: Could I have stayed current in a jet fighter, flying about 140 hours a year? Usual NATO requirement is 180, but the Swedish air force got a waiver from that because our training areas are much closer to the airbases. Given that Sweden isn't in NATO, why would NATO care what Sweden does, and why would Sweden care what NATO requires? -- "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) |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
AF investigators cite pilot error in fighter crash | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | January 9th 04 09:55 PM |
Questions Regarding Becoming a Marine Fighter Pilot. ? Thanks! | Lee Shores | Military Aviation | 23 | December 11th 03 10:49 PM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |
Effect of Light Sport on General Aviation | Gilan | Home Built | 17 | September 24th 03 06:11 AM |