• 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

Current SNA at Kingsville - Send Questions

fareastcruise said:
Do you happen to remember your multiplier after contacts? I just finished the 4200 block and am watching my multiplier torpedo into the depths of oblivion as the mif slowly rises from 2/3 to 3/4. It's pretty fun getting destroyed on a daily basis. Now I get to sulk back to my Onwing after flying with 2 of the 4 horsemen in the 4200 block.
Click to expand...
Had a 1.36 at the end of contacts. Finished up with a 75.5 NSS
 
Sorry for the delay in responses. Ground school started up in a fury and I actually forgot I had this post up in all the fun I was having.
 
600AA said:
How did your prior flight experience help (or hurt) you during primary? What habits were hard to break and how did you over come them? Thanks!
Click to expand...
My flight experience helped with control of the aircraft and knowing what to do/how to work the airspace. The main thing I saw people struggle with was the general stick and rudder skills that come with time in the aircraft. Since I had time with that already, it wasn’t as much learning how to fly as it was honing in the maneuvers.
The negatives were the little procedural ticks from previous training that just took a lot of repetition to get rid of. Bad habits can be broken, but they need to be acknowledged and worked on with intent. I can’t remember any major specific ones, but the talking over ICS when it could be quiet was the major one that just took a few “be quiets” from the back to fix.
 
PMPT said:
To clarify as well. I had no prior flight time. Maybe an intro flight and a lesson here or there but I had no ratings nor had I ever really done more than have a CFI demo a few things to me. So you can go from zero absolutely. Looking back in hindsight though, I do wish I had had more exposure to aviation. Would have made my life a bit easier, but it is what it is.

Sucks about the foreflight thing. TW1/2 Studs can now use ipads from day 1 as of january. In any case the FMS in the T-6 is great, that nav page is an absurd SA builder, and the cockpit lighting is much better than the shitty T-45 anyways.
Click to expand...
Better than the GINA in the T-45? I think the GINA is significantly better than the T-6 FMS.
 
GINA is not analogous to the FMS. I didn’t fly the T-6 but I assume it has an AHRS or INS? If it does, that’s what the GINA is equivalent to. There’s no FMS equivalent in the T-45.
 
hdr777 said:
Really? The 45 can't shoot rnavs, isn't legal for navigation, and isn't even an FMS
Click to expand...
Right. No RNAV. T-6 has an AHRS. But why would you need the GPS? The 45 has a TACAN. You can navigate to radial/DME intersections using a GPS box like in the T-6, or you can input a waypoint or TACAN offset in the T-45 and navigate direct to the fix using offset steering.

But, looking back on pri and intermediate, I think that the Navy wastes a lot of money with the GPS in every T-6. The studs going jets are not going to have a GPS in their cockpit. I've been told aircraft in the Navy with a GPS is a minority, so why waste so much time learning something you won't use in the fleet.
 
flgator92 said:
But, looking back on pri and intermediate, I think that the Navy wastes a lot of money with the GPS in every T-6. The studs going jets are not going to have a GPS in their cockpit. I've been told aircraft in the Navy with a GPS is a minority, so why waste so much time learning something you won't use in the fleet.
Click to expand...

Because the Navy is going to have eventually suck it up and use GPS more in the future since so many of the VORTACs are going away. But there's a whole thread/argument on that.
 
flgator92 said:
Right. No RNAV. T-6 has an AHRS. But why would you need the GPS? The 45 has a TACAN. You can navigate to radial/DME intersections using a GPS box like in the T-6, or you can input a waypoint or TACAN offset in the T-45 and navigate direct to the fix using offset steering.

But, looking back on pri and intermediate, I think that the Navy wastes a lot of money with the GPS in every T-6. The studs going jets are not going to have a GPS in their cockpit. I've been told aircraft in the Navy with a GPS is a minority, so why waste so much time learning something you won't use in the fleet.
Click to expand...
How many hours do you have in the T45?

Just for your professional development, navigating an airway or shooting an approach to a waypoint, waypoint offset, or TACAN offset in the T45 is illegal and is not a procedure. Use it at your own peril.

GPS is a nice to have in the T45 and is used as a backup. Just so you know, every gray jet in fleet is RNAV capable as well, so the T45 software is also fairly dated.
 
Last edited:
flgator92 said:
Right. No RNAV. T-6 has an AHRS. But why would you need the GPS? The 45 has a TACAN. You can navigate to radial/DME intersections using a GPS box like in the T-6, or you can input a waypoint or TACAN offset in the T-45 and navigate direct to the fix using offset steering.

But, looking back on pri and intermediate, I think that the Navy wastes a lot of money with the GPS in every T-6. The studs going jets are not going to have a GPS in their cockpit. I've been told aircraft in the Navy with a GPS is a minority, so why waste so much time learning something you won't use in the fleet.
Click to expand...

Try going to a radial/DME using an offset when you have no damn clue where the fix is. With an FMS, if you get cleared direct DOUCH, you can just type it in and go there. In the T-45, without the ability to type it in, getting cleared direct DOUCH is an exercise in pain.
*assuming no iPad
 
wlawr005 said:
GPS is a nice to have in the T45 and is used as a backup. Just so you know, every gray jet in fleet is RNAV capable as well, so the T45 software is also fairly dated.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the humble pie, everyone. But, since we're on the topic, I have a legitimate question about this because I've heard different things from different people: does the T-45 have a GPS? I've been told it does not. I've been told "ehhh kinda." A sim instructor at CTW-6 was the only one to give me the most complete answer (which I think is correct): It has an INS where the jet's position information is regularly updated by a GPS receiver to minimize error in the INS. Without the GPS, the INS would nonetheless function just fine (with more error, of course).

I think some of the other points were very interesting, so I'm not trying to fly direct to DOUCH - I do apologize for coming off that way. I have heard and seen the FAA plans to decommission an increasing number of TACANs and replace them with RNAV waypoints (like the BFM TACAN just being a named RNAV waypoint like BRKLY or something), so it makes sense that Big Navy would want to increasingly rely on RNAV for enroute navigation and for instrument approaches. But tactically, is this the most sound decision to decommission the ground-based NAVAIDs? It would be easier for an adversary to degrade our nav satellites than disabling our ground-based VORTACs. I understand we're not getting rid of all of them, but I still think it's a bit shortsighted. I like RNAV navigation as much as anyone- it's far easier and more accurate, for instance, to proceed direct using GPS than doing a point-to-point, but I think (and it may be my ignorance, so grain of salt) it's tactically unsound to just decommission a bunch of TACANs and just rely increasingly on satellite-based navigation.
 
flgator92 said:
Thanks for the humble pie, everyone. But, since we're on the topic, I have a legitimate question about this because I've heard different things from different people: does the T-45 have a GPS? I've been told it does not. I've been told "ehhh kinda." A sim instructor at CTW-6 was the only one to give me the most complete answer (which I think is correct): It has an INS where the jet's position information is regularly updated by a GPS receiver to minimize error in the INS. Without the GPS, the INS would nonetheless function just fine (with more error, of course).
Click to expand...
You may want to crack open your NATOPS and find the appropriate chapter . . . :) But yes, the T-45 has a GPS Inertial Navigation Assembly which is a ring-laser gyro INS coupled to a GPS. The GPS can update the INS, and the INS will work without the GPS, but will slowly drift and begin to increase its circular error. This is why when you fire the jet up, you get attitude first, then headings, then a nav solution. The INS is first sensing what direction is "up," then which way the Earth is rotating, then verifying it is where you told it it was, and this is also why the location of Waypoint 0 is such a big deal. This is more or less how any modern-day aircraft's GPS/INS that I've ever encountered works. TL;DR, of course it has a GPS receiver; that's the first letter of "GINA" and it's a little bump on the top of the fuselage behind the cockpit.

I can't believe I remember all that 11 years after I flew the damn thing the last time, and still have to chase down my keys. ? But all of this should be in your NATOPS or systems pubs.

flgator92 said:
I think some of the other points were very interesting, so I'm not trying to fly direct to DOUCH - I do apologize for coming off that way. I have heard and seen the FAA plans to decommission an increasing number of TACANs and replace them with RNAV waypoints (like the BFM TACAN just being a named RNAV waypoint like BRKLY or something), so it makes sense that Big Navy would want to increasingly rely on RNAV for enroute navigation and for instrument approaches. But tactically, is this the most sound decision to decommission the ground-based NAVAIDs? It would be easier for an adversary to degrade our nav satellites than disabling our ground-based VORTACs. I understand we're not getting rid of all of them, but I still think it's a bit shortsighted. I like RNAV navigation as much as anyone- it's far easier and more accurate, for instance, to proceed direct using GPS than doing a point-to-point, but I think (and it may be my ignorance, so grain of salt) it's tactically unsound to just decommission a bunch of TACANs and just rely increasingly on satellite-based navigation.
Click to expand...
It's not really in anyone's interest to go blowing a bunch of stuff up in orbit. The debris stays up there, and basically turns into a big shotgun blast for anything in the general area of the blown-up vehicle. It's projected that it's possible to have a cascading effect, whereby huge ranges of potential orbits get denied for decades or more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top