T-6 Texan

[e6bflyer]

Honestly though - I think the Navy is going to find itself training people who aren't ready for modern aircarft. Training people for warfare in modern aircraft in a traininer that uses analog gauges, no electric trim, and no systems management functions seems backwards. Kids need to learn from day one on glass MFD's, GPS, etc.

The principals of power and attitude still apply - but do we have to dumb down our students (and the reputation of our service) by makingthem fly analog gauge aircraft with no autonated systems to manage?

I bet the USCG eventually says "screw this" and lets the AF to their UPT..

Tracom is behind the times. Slow adoption of The Texan II is hurting Naval Aviation big time.

I agree in some respects. Not taking the original delivery of Texans does suck in some respects. The mighty Mentor is basically a "go cart with wings" afterall. But until Whiting or Corpus are truly ready in all respects, it is much better for instructors and students alike to train the the T-34.
Ending split field ops at Whiting and not being able to use all but 2 OLF's is going to radically change the way business is done right now. Not to mention that the current batch of T-6's are plagued with a few problems that, while not critical, are going to be corrected in the next model, which is what Whiting and Corpus are eventually going to get. The B model is also going to be a true glass cockpit also, with a full MFD suite, not just a couple of gauges thrown on some video screens.
The Navy is taking the right approach by having students take baby steps, first the GPS in primary, then a "semi-glass" cockpit (most of them, anyway) in advanced, then a fully pimped out ride in the fleet. It would be great to start out in a plane with a Death-Star cockpit, FMS, MFD's, and X-Box, but it can also be a big handicap when it is crunch time and you have to go back to the basics and fly needles. It will be nice when we get the Texan, but it isn't critical. I think most of the *****ing from students and IP's is from people who just wanted to fly the new ride in town. Just my 2 cents.

 

[MasterBates]

Not to mention, not all of us go to "glass wundercockpits". Straight up steam gauges and tapes here. And will be til at least 2017.

 

[NavyLonghorn]

I agree in some respects. Not taking the original delivery of Texans does suck in some respects. The mighty Mentor is basically a "go cart with wings" afterall. But until Whiting or Corpus are truly ready in all respects, it is much better for instructors and students alike to train the the T-34.
Ending split field ops at Whiting and not being able to use all but 2 OLF's is going to radically change the way business is done right now. Not to mention that the current batch of T-6's are plagued with a few problems that, while not critical, are going to be corrected in the next model, which is what Whiting and Corpus are eventually going to get. The B model is also going to be a true glass cockpit also, with a full MFD suite, not just a couple of gauges thrown on some video screens.
The Navy is taking the right approach by having students take baby steps, first the GPS in primary, then a "semi-glass" cockpit (most of them, anyway) in advanced, then a fully pimped out ride in the fleet. It would be great to start out in a plane with a Death-Star cockpit, FMS, MFD's, and X-Box, but it can also be a big handicap when it is crunch time and you have to go back to the basics and fly needles. It will be nice when we get the Texan, but it isn't critical. I think most of the *****ing from students and IP's is from people who just wanted to fly the new ride in town. Just my 2 cents.

Tweet - T-C12 - P-3.

Where are these "baby steps" and "fully pimped rides" you speak of.

 

[MasterBates]

The most capable (in a cockpit instrumentation way) aircraft the I have flown (not just a 1hr demo) is the TH-57C.

Least advanced is the SH60B. T34C is in the middle.

 

[Brett327]

The Navy is taking the right approach by having students take baby steps, first the GPS in primary, then a "semi-glass" cockpit (most of them, anyway) in advanced, then a fully pimped out ride in the fleet. It would be great to start out in a plane with a Death-Star cockpit, FMS, MFD's, and X-Box, but it can also be a big handicap when it is crunch time and you have to go back to the basics and fly needles. It will be nice when we get the Texan, but it isn't critical. I think most of the *****ing from students and IP's is from people who just wanted to fly the new ride in town. Just my 2 cents.

You mean Chuck is actually way out in left field...AGAIN? I'm shocked.

Brett

 

[Fly Navy]

Honestly though - I think the Navy is going to find itself training people who aren't ready for modern aircarft. Training people for warfare in modern aircraft in a traininer that uses analog gauges, no electric trim, and no systems management functions seems backwards. Kids need to learn from day one on glass MFD's, GPS, etc.

I flew the T-34... now I fly a Rhino... I did just fine...

Systems management is the hard part... getting the flying skills down first so that they are secondary is more important. The hard part about the Rhino is not flying it... it's easy to fly... it's managing the systems AND flying.

 

[gregsivers]

Are you kidding me? What happens if you get into an unrecoverable spin or spiral? Or your engine quits shortly after takeoff with out any place to go and you dont have enough altitude to "jump" out? Or you hit another T-34/T-6 in Form? Dude there are a sh!t ton of reasons to have an ejection seat. I bet if you asked the helo bubbas, they would want one. Lets see, auto rotate or pull the freakin handle? The seat is the ultimate safety device. You pray you never need it, but it one heck of an insurance policy when your plane decides it doesnt want to fly anymore. I can think of a million reasons to have one and cant think of one reason not to.

I was being sarcastic, didn't see the smiley face? And I am a helo bubba, after you've trained to do autos they're not scary. Granted, I'd love to make it thru my career without ever having to do a real one, but I'd just revert back to my training. Often times we're not all that high anyway and can land relatively quickly.

edit: I agree a real auto from dual engine failure probably would be scary

 

[gregsivers]

I'll agree with most people on the glass cockpit issue. The biggest piece of glass I've used in a cockpit so far is the GPS in the 34 and 57 (haven't used the MPD in the 60B yet.) The only aircraft in the Navy that are all glass (that I know of) are the MH-60S and the Rhino, so I don't see how the current training aircraft are screwing over the SNAs.

 

[TurnandBurn55]

The only aircraft in the Navy that are all glass (that I know of) are the MH-60S and the Rhino, so I don't see how the current training aircraft are screwing over the SNAs.

I don't understand what your argument is. We shouldn't bring in the T-6 because we can do "just fine" with what we have? Come on, the T-34 is an archaic bird, and the fleet is moving towards all-or-mostly glass cockpits anyways... the JSF, the Osprey, the Shocker, the MMA...

This whole debate seems a classic case of "we've been doing it this way for so long, we can't change!!"

I just think there's a lot more the T-6 can bring to the table in TRACOM... granted, we'll have to give up on intersection holding...

Now if we can only dump the "everyone's gonna be trained to be a single-seater!!" mentality...

 

[Fly Navy]

I'll agree with most people on the glass cockpit issue. The biggest piece of glass I've used in a cockpit so far is the GPS in the 34 and 57 (haven't used the MPD in the 60B yet.) The only aircraft in the Navy that are all glass (that I know of) are the MH-60S and the Rhino, so I don't see how the current training aircraft are screwing over the SNAs.

Charlie too. They have two DDIs and one MPCD. Not as much glass as a Rhino... but a Charlie is a true glass cockpit.

T-45C is glass, two MFDs.

 

[Fly Navy]

This whole debate seems a classic case of "we've been doing it this way for so long, we can't change!!"

Very true. A classic Navyism. "You're going to make a strip chart by hand because it's the basics and we had to do it all the time." Except for the fact that all CHUMs, etc are now electronic... buy hey, why not.

I just think there's a lot more the T-6 can bring to the table in TRACOM... granted, we'll have to give up on intersection holding...

Whatever would we do!! I remember doing that in the T-34. What a red-a$$. You could theoretically do it in the T-45C with a VOR and a TACAN, we never did though.

Now if we can only dump the "everyone's gonna be trained to be a single-seater!!" mentality...

I have a feeling it's a lot easier to train someone from a single-pilot mentality to work as a crew than it is to train someone who is completely crew oriented to fly as a single-pilot. There is merit to the process.

 

[A4sForever]

Ejection seats?? Helos??? I'm probably "missing" something ... but I don't think I'd want to eject through these ....

Cold cuts, anyone ... ???

 

[Pugs]

I have a feeling it's a lot easier to train someone from a single-pilot mentality to work as a crew than it is to train someone who is completely crew oriented to fly as a single-pilot. There is merit to the process.

Some are more trainable than others. :icon_tong

The whole stink when we got Command Eject in the Prowler was humorous. "I don't want some ECMO ejecting me" was a common lament from the more single seat oriented pilots (some who had been in Prowlers for years!) Of course, trying to point out the very lopsided number of times some qualified aircrew inadvertently ejected vice the times someone rode one in when they should have jettisoned said aircraft was pointless to them so we just made it an SOP that it would be in command eject if an NATOPS qualified aircrew was in the right seat.

Flew with some single seat A-4 types in VT-86. In particular, a former VN era Marine A-4 Aviator who flew in the VT-86 SAU as a Navy Reserve CDR. Learned more about crew coordination from him in three flights than a bunch more flights in the A-4 and T-2 with some multi-crew pilots so it’s much more attitude than where you came from.

 

[A4sForever]

Some are more trainable than others. :icon_tong ....

Flew with some single seat A-4 types in VT-86. In particular, a former VN era Marine A-4 Aviator who flew in the VT-86 SAU as a Navy Reserve CDR. Learned more about crew coordination from him in three flights than a bunch more flights in the A-4 and T-2 with some multi-crew pilots so it’s much more attitude than where you came from.

Very astute observation. It's ALWAYS the individual. The man.

Sometimes ... when I weep for the future of Naval Aviation ... it's with tears of joy.

 

[pdx]

I must be missing something, because I can't understand why it is so important to have a glass cockpit in primary. After all, the point of primary is to learn how to fly (i.e. basic airwork, the aviation environment, navigation, decision making, communication, etc). It isn't to learn how to work some computer system or another.

Granted a glass cockpit can display more information, and in more formats, but a needle is a needle. What difference is there between following a physical needle and following a needle on an MFD? Same goes for gyros, gauges, and all of the other basics of flying.

I am not saying glass cockpits are bad, or that we should keep the T-34 forever, I am just saying I think the glass cockpit isn't magic. You can learn the fundamentals of flying without one, and those fundamentals will still be true in a glass cockpit. It's like reading - books are low tech, and laptop computers are high tech, but reading off the page is fairly similar to reading off the screen.

Even when we get the all glass T-6, it isn't going to have a velocity vector, weapons systems, radar, etc. Nor would it make sense for a primary trainer.

I'm pretty sure all of our current rhino and 60S/R pilots all flew with analog gauges in primary. My question is how hard was the transistion to the glass cockpit?