No more CQs?

[Griz882]

Not in my day! Now I'm really gonna show my age. I can't even count the times I worked the deck of the Lady Lex. Some of you other old farts know what I'm talkin' 'bout.

I was lucky enough to do some Lex landings while in the HT!

 

[IwannabeaPHROGdvr69]

It’s not just about the T-45. It eliminates a chunk of the syllabus in advanced, allowing them to get pilots to the fleet faster. It also frees up precious carrier underway time from a fleet that is tired from 20 years of wartime surge deployments. If the Air Boss, NAVAIR, and others agreed to this, I’m sure a lot of sue diligence was done.

I’ll also add that reducing CQ requirements from the 45’s replacement allows you to eliminate a big design hurdle. You can spend that on making something that covers a lot of bases for adversary and training work, further strengthening the fleet.

I would argue in general that the big hiccup in getting pilots to the fleet faster does not have to do with delays at one particular place (Ie if we eliminate T45 CQ we will get people to the fleet significantly faster... probably not) but the general inefficiencies that stack up from the time you check in at A-pool to when you finally wing, and they certainly don’t seem to end once you get to the RAG. The expectation when you check into the RAG is that because so much time was spent over and over again in the basics (ie B+Rs, FCLPS, instrument approaches.. in the T45) you more or less have these fundamental basics well in hand even in the F18 after one or two flights so that hopefully admin and tac admin are standard pretty quickly. As a result of this, even though PLM makes things much easier overall once you call the ball, the basic shipboard experience you get as a result of T45 CQ and the 400+ FCLPs you do during your year + in Kingsville or Meridian cannot be overstated. Flying over to the NOG solo for some FCLPs as a young Kingsville stud, sequencing into the pattern with 5 other studs, shooting an approach into weather on the way back... might seek insignificant in later years but at the time these are the exact unscripted flights that help build overall SA and airmanship. The same goes for the “o shit that’s the boat moment” you get when you show up and put your hook down for the first time. Higher up’s should be very careful wholesaling away flights that they may consider to be trivial or easier because of a technology that exists to get you over the goal line at the very end of your RAG experience and into the fleet. As much as we seem to want to will away flights in the T45 to get people to the fleet faster, the basic blocking and tackling skills that need to be developed to drive you all the way to that goal line are not just going to go away. I would argue this mistake is already being made with the elimination of several syllabus events in the T45 as has been discussed in other threads. As much as we may want to pat ourselves on the back with flight hour comparisons to other countries, the reality until you get to the fleet is much more different. So, overall, if this is the road we are going to go down, cool, but hopefully these flight hours dedicated for CQ now will be replaced with more flights that make people better at other stuff.

 

[Gatordev]

...because it depends on the rate of peddle depression...

I'm not a fan of peddlers. Especially at lighted intersections. Though I don't wish any kind of depression upon them, I can understand if it happens.

I can yank the stick full back and leave it there and it will never hit stall AOA. You can't do steep turns in training in normal law because you can't bank it enough.

Hold my beer...

 

[wlawr005]

I would argue in general that the big hiccup in getting pilots to the fleet faster does not have to do with delays at one particular place (Ie if we eliminate T45 CQ we will get people to the fleet significantly faster... probably not) but the general inefficiencies that stack up from the time you check in at A-pool to when you finally wing, and they certainly don’t seem to end once you get to the RAG. The expectation when you check into the RAG is that because so much time was spent over and over again in the basics (ie B+Rs, FCLPS, instrument approaches.. in the T45) you more or less have these fundamental basics well in hand even in the F18 after one or two flights so that hopefully admin and tac admin are standard pretty quickly. As a result of this, even though PLM makes things much easier overall once you call the ball, the basic shipboard experience you get as a result of T45 CQ and the 400+ FCLPs you do during your year + in Kingsville or Meridian cannot be overstated. Flying over to the NOG solo for some FCLPs as a young Kingsville stud, sequencing into the pattern with 5 other studs, shooting an approach into weather on the way back... might seek insignificant in later years but at the time these are the exact unscripted flights that help build overall SA and airmanship. The same goes for the “o shit that’s the boat moment” you get when you show up and put your hook down for the first time. Higher up’s should be very careful wholesaling away flights that they may consider to be trivial or easier because of a technology that exists to get you over the goal line at the very end of your RAG experience and into the fleet. As much as we seem to want to will away flights in the T45 to get people to the fleet faster, the basic blocking and tackling skills that need to be developed to drive you all the way to that goal line are not just going to go away. I would argue this mistake is already being made with the elimination of several syllabus events in the T45 as has been discussed in other threads. As much as we may want to pat ourselves on the back with flight hour comparisons to other countries, the reality until you get to the fleet is much more different. So, overall, if this is the road we are going to go down, cool, but hopefully these flight hours dedicated for CQ now will be replaced with more flights that make people better at other stuff.

It's a very good point. When I wave a class I spend just as much time trying to prepare them psychologically for the boat as the actual landings themselves. There are intangible training aspects to the boat that cannot be quantified.

That being said, the amount of money and time spent on the boat can be spent elsewhere and we can sufficiently devise a syllabus with the right amount of stress. The inconsistency of flight school sometimes lies directly with boat availability and CQ is a massive, immovable time suck. Money and dollars could be better spent elsewhere.

Students will learn whatever we teach them. If we are smart enough to understand there is intangible training value at the boat then we are also smart enough to figure out how to hold students to a standard.

Moving a certain type of training to the FRS is not insurmountable. If I can teach a student with 50 hours in the T45 how to land on a ship then an FRS instructor is absolutely capable of doing the same thing to a student with 50 hours in a Super Hornet.

 

[Pags]

You're all right (insert joke about blind people describing different parts of an elephant). FBW generally means that control inputs go via wires (or fiber) to a computer (usually three for redundancy and cross checking). The computer is programed with flight control software that contains various laws and rules as to how the computer can interpret the pilots inputs and then translate them into the required control surface outputs. There's also a whole bunch of more "goes intos" for the computer from EGIs, air data, etc. The computer is then connected to the various control surface motive sources and tells them how to move the control surfaces. The beauty of it is that the "laws" and how the computers handles the goes intos and goes outtas can be changed relatively easily so now the airplane can do more (or less) things than before. For instance, when designed, the V-22 predominantly used "rate" mode to fly around. Eventually "attitude" mode was developed and the implementation was relatively easy (as far as major updates to how an aircraft flies). In addition, the V-22 FCC could be reprogrammed as different flight profiles for couples approaches were developed over the years to include a recent update where buttons are reprogrammed and used to implement a coupled approach to a preselected GPS point and pilot control of glideslope and airspeed is managed by button pushes vice control manipulation.

How the various manufacturers architect and implement this concept on the airplanes will vary based on existing design constraints such as desired redundancy, faith in computers, weight, etc. Then, the computer can be programmed to do various things based on mission profiles like shoot coupled ILSs, high alpha maneuvers, stay inside the envelope, etc.

 

[taxi1]

I can yank the stick full back and leave it there and it will never hit stall AOA.

Makes me think about the Air France accident, where they deep stalled that perfectly flyable Airbus into the drink.

I can't even count the times I worked the deck of the Lady Lex.

I’ve got a bunch of traps on The Lex. Quite a few nights onboard while waving in the VT too. Good times.

When I wave a class I spend just as much time trying to prepare them psychologically for the boat as the actual landings themselves. There are intangible training aspects to the boat that cannot be quantified.

I wonder if the Navy couldn’t split the difference and rework some civilian ship into a flat deck for touch and goes only. You’d get the experience of ops around the boat and the ball flying, but wouldn’t need the complexity of arresting gear and catapults and the rest of stuff that a true warship requires. Could use it for fleet refresh too, not just Tracom. It could haul around ass and trash the rest of the time.

 

[HAL Pilot]

Makes me think about the Air France accident, where they deep stalled that perfectly flyable Airbus into the drink.

A whole bunch of reason but not a fault of the FBW. Pitot icing, fucked up CRM and crew procedural errors.

 

[Farva01]

Both, to a degree. LEF/TEF position has always been modulated in flaps AUTO while up and away, in order to optimize lift and turn perf across the flight envelope. In other words, leading and trailing edge flaps will droop during maneuvering flight, generally in response to increasing AOA.

The main thing PLM added was direct lift control during approaches by modulating TEF position. Previously, TEF position was a fixed number of degrees in HALF or FULL. In Rhino PLM, the LEFs are fixed in approach position, and the trailing edge provides direct lift control. I don't belive PLM has been added to the legacy (A-D) Hornet, although I have lost SA to developments on that aircraft since 2017. Can't speak at all to the -35.

 

[SynixMan]

I would argue in general that the big hiccup in getting pilots to the fleet faster does not have to do with delays at one particular place (Ie if we eliminate T45 CQ we will get people to the fleet significantly faster... probably not) but the general inefficiencies that stack up from the time you check in at A-pool to when you finally wing, and they certainly don’t seem to end once you get to the RAG. The expectation when you check into the RAG is that because so much time was spent over and over again in the basics (ie B+Rs, FCLPS, instrument approaches.. in the T45) you more or less have these fundamental basics well in hand even in the F18 after one or two flights so that hopefully admin and tac admin are standard pretty quickly. As a result of this, even though PLM makes things much easier overall once you call the ball, the basic shipboard experience you get as a result of T45 CQ and the 400+ FCLPs you do during your year + in Kingsville or Meridian cannot be overstated. Flying over to the NOG solo for some FCLPs as a young Kingsville stud, sequencing into the pattern with 5 other studs, shooting an approach into weather on the way back... might seek insignificant in later years but at the time these are the exact unscripted flights that help build overall SA and airmanship. The same goes for the “o shit that’s the boat moment” you get when you show up and put your hook down for the first time. Higher up’s should be very careful wholesaling away flights that they may consider to be trivial or easier because of a technology that exists to get you over the goal line at the very end of your RAG experience and into the fleet. As much as we seem to want to will away flights in the T45 to get people to the fleet faster, the basic blocking and tackling skills that need to be developed to drive you all the way to that goal line are not just going to go away. I would argue this mistake is already being made with the elimination of several syllabus events in the T45 as has been discussed in other threads. As much as we may want to pat ourselves on the back with flight hour comparisons to other countries, the reality until you get to the fleet is much more different. So, overall, if this is the road we are going to go down, cool, but hopefully these flight hours dedicated for CQ now will be replaced with more flights that make people better at other stuff.

I’ll fully admit I’m just a lowly HSC bubba who taught in VTs, but I think you’re slightly over-valuing the hours in VT-Js leading up to the boat. All hours in the aircraft are increasingly valuable and we should be maximizing them to make cones as tactically relevant.

All the setups you mentioned are fairly vanilla and should be in an aspiring naval aviators toolbox, but if shit hits the fan it’s not varsity blue water ops. An FRS cone should be able to bingo back to Oceana from W-50 and shoot a PAR, if not they shouldn’t be in that seat.

In general, I think we’re under estimating what the future could look like in the tradeoff. It’s not unthinkable for VTJ stud to be validating CATM shots at a helluva lot lower cost/flight hr. Similarly, F-5s, F-16s, and 18ABCD won’t be around forever and you can bet the wily reservist in a new small jet would give you a run for your money over Duval St.

 

[wlawr005]

I'd say there's a better than average chance the new trainer will also be the new adversary platform.

If only an enterprising VFA CO would research and write a white paper outlining such a future.

 

[Pags]

And here's the beauty of FBW if implemented correctly: Mongo doesn't have to know all this. He just needs to point the jet at the bad guys and pull the trigger and the FCCs know what to do with all the control surfaces and how to keep Mongo from breaking the jet. Mongo can now focus on TTPs, squadron admin, deadlifts, and his/her beer die game (Bizzity Biz!).

 

[IKE]

And here's the beauty of FBW if implemented correctly: Mongo doesn't have to know all this. He just needs to point the jet at the bad guys and pull the trigger and the FCCs know what to do with all the control surfaces and how to keep Mongo from breaking the jet. Mongo can now focus on TTPs, squadron admin, deadlifts, and his/her beer die game (Bizzity Biz!).

I guess that was my pedantic point above. Does FBW entail auto modes and higher-order control types (position, velocity, glidepath, etc.) as opposed to acceleration control, or does it just mean wires form part of the control path?

I think the latter/simpler, and the original meaning of FBW has been conflated with all the laws, algorithms, automation, etc. because it's a cool marketing buzzword.

 

[IwannabeaPHROGdvr69]

I’ll fully admit I’m just a lowly HSC bubba who taught in VTs, but I think you’re slightly over-valuing the hours in VT-Js leading up to the boat. All hours in the aircraft are increasingly valuable and we should be maximizing them to make cones as tactically relevant.

All the setups you mentioned are fairly vanilla and should be in an aspiring naval aviators toolbox, but if shit hits the fan it’s not varsity blue water ops. An FRS cone should be able to bingo back to Oceana from W-50 and shoot a PAR, if not they shouldn’t be in that seat.

In general, I think we’re under estimating what the future could look like in the tradeoff. It’s not unthinkable for VTJ stud to be validating CATM shots at a helluva lot lower cost/flight hr. Similarly, F-5s, F-16s, and 18ABCD won’t be around forever and you can bet the wily reservist in a new small jet would give you a run for your money over Duval St.

Unfortunately based on responses not sure if I was that clear overall. I would imagine we actually are in a fair amount of agreement here - I am totally for this move - as long as these hours are replaced with hours flying the jet, either the F18 or the T45 - which I don't think is going to happen, based on the fact that CNATRA has already eliminated flights in the syllabus in an effort to get people to the fleet faster - whether that be in Kingsville/Meridian or 122/106. Ie - if you eliminate 4 hours of FCLPs, please add 4 hours to do more DCAs, 3 more high aspect flights, 2 more CAS flights - whatever it is, just do more tactical flights, so I'm pretty sure we agree on most of this. And to your point that a cone should be able to bingo to Oceana and shoot an approach - yeah, that's already standard and totally expected - but you can't brief that as standard after talking about it once without the amount of hours spent in the T-45 under the bag (hood) shooting approaches, etc. Have to be brilliant at the basics so you can eat the bigger fish. Same principle is going to apply to CQ ... the system can only do so much for you. I hate to say this but I am venting about an overall dissatisfaction with training that probably does not apply specifically as well to this situation, so I apologize for the rant.

 

[Pags]

I guess that was my pedantic point above. Does FBW entail auto modes and higher-order control types (position, velocity, glidepath, etc.) as opposed to acceleration control, or does it just mean wires form part of the control path?

I think the latter/simpler, and the original meaning of FBW has been conflated with all the laws, algorithms, automation, etc. because it's a cool marketing buzzword.

I don't know the "official" answers but I'd offer that a FBW architecture more easily enables all the magic. The magic is in the capability of the FCC and the fact that you can always plug in a new FCC if you don't like the one you have.

 

[wlawr005]

Unfortunately based on responses not sure if I was that clear overall. I would imagine we actually are in a fair amount of agreement here - I am totally for this move - as long as these hours are replaced with hours flying the jet, either the F18 or the T45 - which I don't think is going to happen, based on the fact that CNATRA has already eliminated flights in the syllabus in an effort to get people to the fleet faster - whether that be in Kingsville/Meridian or 122/106. Ie - if you eliminate 4 hours of FCLPs, please add 4 hours to do more DCAs, 3 more high aspect flights, 2 more CAS flights - whatever it is, just do more tactical flights, so I'm pretty sure we agree on most of this. And to your point that a cone should be able to bingo to Oceana and shoot an approach - yeah, that's already standard and totally expected - but you can't brief that as standard after talking about it once without the amount of hours spent in the T-45 under the bag (hood) shooting approaches, etc. Have to be brilliant at the basics so you can eat the bigger fish. Same principle is going to apply to CQ ... the system can only do so much for you. I hate to say this but I am venting about an overall dissatisfaction with training that probably does not apply specifically as well to this situation, so I apologize for the rant.

Nothing has been eliminated, only waivered. Once the boat is gone I suppose the waivers will change. The new proposal syllabus has some interesting things in it that I appreciate as a VFA guy. A/A timelines, out mechanics, re-attack mechanics, some new CAS-like target area tactics, some division fluid four type stuff. This new syllabus is written and was supposed to be online already, but was pushed back due to jet issues and COVID. It's not perfect, but it's a move in the right direction.

Airboss was my CSG a while ago. We were the first air wing to deploy with PLM so he's intimately familiar. I'm not surprised he's willing to move forward with it. I think right now we have a confluence of things moving Navy flight training in the right direction. An Airboss that genuinely cares, a manning shortage, an old airplane, and a new technology. It's not always about the right idea, but the right idea at the right time with the right external factors and people in place to make it happen.