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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"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. Huh? Why would the Swedes need a "waiver", when they are not part of NATO in the first place? Brooks -- Urban Fredriksson http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/ |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Ed's numbers look pretty good to me. But another factor is what the
peculiar requirements of your situation is. I was a little miffed at TAC because they used a six-month cycle in which you flew (not necessarily in this order) air intercepts (radar work), air to ground conventional, air to ground nuke, air to ground night, air combat maneuvers followed by air combat tactics. Air refuling was mixed with (usually) air to ground nuke and air to ground night. But the problem was just about as soon as you got 'happy' with what yoyu were doing the mission changed. The other thing was instrument cross-check. here is where a good (!) simulator helps a lot, to stay sharp. In was once caught out; I'd been off 90 days TDY and when I got back about the second missionwas flying as chase on a pilot in the combat crew training phase. The wx lowered and we had to make separate GCAs. I was all over the place compared to my usual proficiency. The lesson was duly noted and I started scrounging sim rides when I sensed they were needed rather than dodging the box as if it were radioactive. FWIW I needed 3 act rides a week to be able to fly act automatically. I would guess that 3 good busy practices rides a month would keep you proficient enough to fly around the pattern on a severely clear VFR day. That means accomplishing the various training items you must keep proficient in, like approaches, ILS and non-p, plus the VFR pattern. This also includes, on the side, reviewing the flight manual religiously and knowing the EPs and limitations exactly plus 'blindfold familiarity' with the cockpit - be able to reach out and touch and identify without fumbling every gauge and control in the cockpit. (Note that this will not furnish enough proficiency to safely fly at night!) The USAF beginning about 1965 had us write out the EPs out verbatim before each and every flight. I consider this level of knowledge and cockpit familiarity to absolutely necessary for any high-performance flying. Unfortunately, as Ed points out, time per se isn't worth much. The USAF for a long time tried to get DOD and Congress to buy off on sorties rather than aircraft time as far as appropriations went. The pols couldn't understand that approach, unfortunately, since maximum performance flying eats up fuel and there goes the 1.5+ flight. Also, a heavy emphasis on max performance leads to a lot of hole-boring near the end of the month to log the monthly total and avoid nasty notes from HHQ. That's why a couple squadrons I was in really liked to send guys out on XCs over the weekend. 4 planes flying seven sorties each in cruise mode at altitude boost the average time per sortie significantly. One takeoff, climb out, cruise letdown and approach wasn't a significant amount of training per sortie, but that 1:40 (F104) or 2:30 (F102) helped a lot towards the hour total. Made up for those AB-heavy missions where the lessons learned were weighty. (Learned some lessons on the XCs, too!) Walt BJ |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"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) |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 12:01:35 -0600, Ed Rasimus
wrote: 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. Thanks, Ed. That's about what I figured. all the best -- Dan Ford email: (put Cubdriver in subject line) The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
phil hunt wrote: Given that Sweden isn't in NATO, why would NATO care what Sweden does, and why would Sweden care what NATO requires? It started with Partnership for Peace. And now, for example, SWAFRAP JAS 39A recently took part in Dragon's Nest 2004 and will fly in Joint Winter 2005. Most likely international operations we'll take part in will be NATO-led. You're right in that pilots not part of the rapid reaction force don't need any waiver. (And given the current economic climate it's not given they'd get one, the SWAFRAPs have priority.) -- Urban Fredriksson http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/ There is always a yet unknown alternative. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Subject: fighter pilot hours?
From: "Jeff Crowell" Date: 9/10/2004 7:45 AM Pacific Standard Time We've seen it again and again--try to save money in the training environment and you guarantee increased losses in combat. Jeff Too bad Rumsfeld doesn't read this stuff. Arthur Kramer 344th BG 494th BS England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany Visit my WW II B-26 website at: http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 08:45:59 -0600, "Jeff Crowell"
wrote: phil hunt wrote: 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. I agree to a point. It's a difficult task to simulate accelerations on the body that occur in flight using some sort of six-degree of motion ground-based gadget. It works fairly well in low acceleration systems such as air transports, but not in high-g operations like tactical aircraft. But (you were waiting for that, I know), a lot depends upon what you are trying to train. One can do a pretty good job of cockpit procedures training without much high-tech whiz-bang. And, one can teach instrument procedures pretty well with moderate tech sims. And, if you spend the money, current state-of-the-art can give you a pretty good aircraft pilot qual without ever burning a pound of JP-8. It's when you get into the weapons employment phase that things get confusing. Exactly as you describe, there's the proprioceptive cues that are part and parcel of every highly qualified operators input. You can't recreate those (yet) with the desired level of accuracy. And, you can't--without huge investment--recreate the total combat environment. You can't get the total combination of airplane, flight, strike package, support systems, enemy counter, enemy sensors, enemy IADS, electronics, etc. etc. etc. For that matter, you can't very easily or economically do "war" in training. One of the things we were working on with the ATF (F-23) program was low-cost desk-top trainers networked with both dome simulators and computer-generated entities to create a combat scenario. While the fidelity was unbelievably low if compared to actual flight, the task wasn't to teach airplane/weapon operation but to try to teach situational awareness--that "big-picture" or sixth sense that good air warriors carry in their heads. Surprisingly, a group of Fighter Weapons School, Top Gun, flight test and operational USAF/USN aviators quickly found that they could get immersed in the battle and almost forget that they were sitting at a 25" video monitor with a stick grip mounted on a desktop. I used to compare it to watching a football game on a small screen TV. Once you start watching you will often forget how small the display is and you're simply concentrating on the game. Tactics, maneuver, weapons employment, flight management, navigation, systems operations, etc. could all be practiced. The only thing that was missing was basic "stick-and-rudder". Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" "Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights" Both from Smithsonian Books ***www.thunderchief.org |
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 |