-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Vance for Primary??
- Thread starter JSketto
- Start date
Hmmm, flying the full procedure vs taking rv to final... keep it, I'll take vectors. ILS's... great... I've flown maaaybe 5 since i've gotten winged (one was the other day. First time in 16months and 450hrs...) PARs are a lot more realistic for a Navy guy.
Not trying to bash your post... The things you mention seem like big deals when you are going through training. But, bottom line is that once you hit the RAG for your fleet aircraft, none of that shit matters.
To the original poster- you won't be able to control if you get one specific platform any better from being trained at Vance, Corpus or Whiting vs. any of the others. Go where your friends are going, enjoy the freedom on days you aren't flying, stay Navy and shit will work out the way it will work out. At least you won't be setting yourself up for a huge letdown if you spent 6 months in purgatory and didn't select your pipeline of choice. If you get sent to Vance through voluntoldism, go and do your best, and make the best of the situation but don't go there thinking that you'll have any better shots at jets- thats an untrue impression API Stucon gives studs to dupe them into filling Vance slots.
It's actually only twice as much power. I believe the Tq in the T-6 is %, so not sure about the Tq.
So is the T-34, and it doesn't have an AFCS to help out w/ torque.
They used to do these in the T-34 as well, and still do some aero in formation, but a lot of it was removed due to fatigue life management of the T-34.
Actually, the T-34 can fly a full GPS approach just fine. ILS, not so much.
This is actually Wing dependent at times. Wing 4 had a lot of problems recently. In three years at Wing 5, I rarely canceled for maintenance.
I'm not arguing the overall message of your post and I'd love to see the numbers as well. I just couldn't let the outright bad gouge go unanswered.
A stable descent - which makes the whole procedure easier IMHO. (Yes, I know you can fly a stable descent on a Loc ... unless you are a dive and drive type
)Nope - you get it.
Psst. Lower approach minimums.
MasterBates
Well-Known Member
ILS = My favorite approach if I need one.
PAR = as good, IF the controller doesn't suck. (which happens often here, Student Controllers)
I like being able to "see" where I am. Not all controllers "slightly belove glidepath" are equal, but I know within a dot or two at 2-3 miles to go is not too bad, and easily correctable.
Remember for PAR & ILS, Groundspeed *5 ~= FPM needed to stay on 3 degree glidepath.
I just chop groundspeed in half, and use that. (My brain multiplies by 10 like a CR-3)
PAR = as good, IF the controller doesn't suck. (which happens often here, Student Controllers)
I like being able to "see" where I am. Not all controllers "slightly belove glidepath" are equal, but I know within a dot or two at 2-3 miles to go is not too bad, and easily correctable.
Remember for PAR & ILS, Groundspeed *5 ~= FPM needed to stay on 3 degree glidepath.
I just chop groundspeed in half, and use that. (My brain multiplies by 10 like a CR-3)
My point was never to imply that vance guys are better because they know how to do an ILS or full Px GPS; saying that would be following in the same vein of the guys who claim I will be bottom of the class or struggling somethin' fierce because I missed out on Navy training for primary.
My point is that we learned and did different things at Vance that you won't get to do at CC or Whiting Field. Some of these were a lot of fun (form and the higher G aerobatics we could get away with). Some were not (full procedure GPS or full procedure ILS come to mind).
Things like a Tacan, PAR, or a AOA pattern were not "encouraged" by the curriculum, as everyone knows the J in JSUPT stands for 'this is how the air force does it so it must be joint', but flying with navy IPs helped straighten out a good bit of my misconceptions about the latter two, and just asking questions about a Tacan approach at least gave me a foggier warm and fuzzy about them.
My point is that we learned and did different things at Vance that you won't get to do at CC or Whiting Field. Some of these were a lot of fun (form and the higher G aerobatics we could get away with). Some were not (full procedure GPS or full procedure ILS come to mind).
Things like a Tacan, PAR, or a AOA pattern were not "encouraged" by the curriculum, as everyone knows the J in JSUPT stands for 'this is how the air force does it so it must be joint', but flying with navy IPs helped straighten out a good bit of my misconceptions about the latter two, and just asking questions about a Tacan approach at least gave me a foggier warm and fuzzy about them.
Original post Reply
Go to Corpus. AF training not fun. Navy training fun. Both training good.
Go to Corpus. AF training not fun. Navy training fun. Both training good.
concur. eloquent in its brevity.
phrogpilot73
Well-Known Member
Student controllers are everywhere. After they finish their MOS school/A school they are Air Traffic Controller Trainees - and then they head to their duty station where they continue to learn. It was always funny to be shooting a PAR and hear the stud get totally messed up/turned around, and then hear a very, very calm voice (that was always louder than the stud) come up on freq and say "Leroy 05, turn right heading 230 descend and maintain 3000"
So what you're saying is that by going to Vance you don't practice what you will do 90% of the time on instruments/landing at the boat in the Navy...
yep. since SNA's are incapable of learning how to do new things once they get that NSS and selection taken care of in primary, and since i'm sure none of these things are covered in advanced, i guess I'll never learn these techniques. my lack of navy primary training has set me up to fail when I try to snag the 3 wire in my P-3 at the boat in the soup.
To be serious, PARs were practiced often in my sims, especially if you had time left over, and I made a point to get my Out and Backs down to fort rucker so I could do a good number of them vice the three we were required to get on XC.
And everytime I rolled off the perch after having a NAVY IP teach me how to actually fly an AOA pattern, I was playing the AOA indexer for that sweet on speed donut coz it made the landings oh so choice, so I'm not feelin that underprivileged.
phrogpilot73
Well-Known Member
You missed the point of my post. I wasn't attacking SNA's and their ability to learn, more that I was attacking something I can't change. "Joint" training as you pointed out is how the Air Force thinks it should be done. I think early and often exposure to what they're going to do in the fleet (or whatever the hell the AF calls the fleet) is a good thing. I think that we shouldn't conform to the AF's rules, anymore than I think the AF guys should conform to ours. Do you really think the AF studs at VT-3 need to know how to fly an AOA approach? Nope. I think if it was truly going to be "Joint" then somebody, somewhere needs to realize that the type of flying we do is different than the AF. I'm sure that they could make a curriculum where a AF guy wasn't judged on his ability to fly an AOA approach, and a Navy guy is - why? Because a stud at Vance may fly a shitty AOA approach, something that's important in the Navy jet world - whereas his peers in Whiting/Corpus may be rocking it - and you don't find out until he gets to advanced.
My gripe is more about the whole "it's the way we do it, so therefore it will be joint" - see if you can find out about the JCAS pub, and the requirement for Commander's Initials that was demanded by the AF - not the USMC. Then you'll understand where I'm coming from.