Primary on Monday

[FLYMARINES]

How many of our jets have NACWS? How many of our aircraft have props? How many of our aircraft are flown in "single pilot mentality"? By this logic, we should have primary trainers that look exactly like fleet aircraft. The point of primary is not to teach a stud how to fly/manage the systems that they will fly in the fleet, that's what the RAG is for. The point of primary is to teach someone how to be a competent, basically trained aviator.

On top of all this, you're looking at a snapshot vice the long view. The T-6 will be training SNA's for DECADES. Do you really think in decades that the average fleet aircraft will look like this?

Looks exactly like the same CDNU the Whiskey uses. God help them.

 

[helolumpy]

HThe point of primary is not to teach a stud how to fly/manage the systems that they will fly in the fleet, that's what the RAG is for. The point of primary is to teach someone how to be a competent, basically trained aviator.

I think the better question to ask, is if the students today are still learning skills like TACAN point to point; failed card approaches, partial panel, etc. These are the types of skills that Primary should be teaching.
If they are still being taught that and the students can use the latest generation of gucciness for cross countries, then that's fine. However, if the students are not able to figure out fuel flow calculations, estimate range or conduct DR nav because they become slaves to the machine, then I think we'll all agree that it's wrong.

 

[wlawr005]

Did the first block this week and it worked fine on each flight. It must not like you.

T-6 question...do studs get to use the HUD?

When I was there...no. However, when I was leaving they were in the middle of an OFT upgrade process which included installing HUDs. Word was that studs would be allowed to use the HUD afterwards.

 

[scoober78]

I think the better question to ask, is if the students today are still learning skills like TACAN point to point; failed card approaches, partial panel, etc. These are the types of skills that Primary should be teaching.
If they are still being taught that and the students can use the latest generation of gucciness for cross countries, then that's fine. However, if the students are not able to figure out fuel flow calculations, estimate range or conduct DR nav because they become slaves to the machine, then I think we'll all agree that it's wrong.

I'd say the more precise question...but yes. I couldn't agree more.

 

[squorch2]

Failed card stuff will go away in helo land with the introduction of the D, whenever that happens. It's pretty useless in the glass cockpit 60s anyway, as a loss of your gyros means nothing is displayed.

 

[Th3HumbleMuffin]

I think the better question to ask, is if the students today are still learning skills like TACAN point to point; failed card approaches, partial panel, etc. These are the types of skills that Primary should be teaching.
If they are still being taught that and the students can use the latest generation of gucciness for cross countries, then that's fine. However, if the students are not able to figure out fuel flow calculations, estimate range or conduct DR nav because they become slaves to the machine, then I think we'll all agree that it's wrong.

We're doing all that in the -34 still. For the next few months anyway.

Also, PP sucks.

 

[Lucky3]

We're doing all that in the -34 still. For the next few months anyway.

Also, PP sucks.

I think the better question to ask, is if the students today are still learning skills like TACAN point to point; failed card approaches, partial panel, etc. These are the types of skills that Primary should be teaching.
If they are still being taught that and the students can use the latest generation of gucciness for cross countries, then that's fine. However, if the students are not able to figure out fuel flow calculations, estimate range or conduct DR nav because they become slaves to the machine, then I think we'll all agree that it's wrong.

I just finished the multi engine maritime syllabus and we are still doing all of the things mentioned. In fact one review stage flight was needles only, which means no CDI. Just repelling head and pulling tail.

 

[HAL Pilot]

Just repelling head and pulling tail.

There are just so many ways to "expand" on this statement.......

 

[BusyBee604]

There are just so many ways to "expand" on this statement.......

Uh, a pretty heavy 'load' for one session, especially for a 'Stud'!
BzB

 

[Lucky3]

There are just so many ways to "expand" on this statement.......

I agree. I may have uttered the statement, "This is the only time in my life I have repelled head" a few times during that flight!

 

[Erin M.]

Did the first block this week and it worked fine on each flight. It must not like you.

T-6 question...do studs get to use the HUD?

Per all of the briefs we've received so far: No. Forbidden to use it. Instructors have the option of demonstrating use of the HUD to us, but that is it.

 

[C420sailor]

You'll have plenty of time to become a HUD cripple in the clown jet.

 

[Erin M.]

I believe you will get that opportunity when learning standard and half standard rate turns. Using the clock, and the turn & slip indicator.
Be careful what you wish for....

-ea6bflyr

Sadly, I am inclined to believe you.

 

[Wingnut172N]

After FAMs most my IP's didn't have a problem with me turning the HUD on, but is only about 10 flights (Aero/Forms)...RI's you're in the back with no HUD. To be honest, most the time even when I had it on I was so used to the normal instrument scan the HUD was just a distraction. Plus, it isn't as good of a HUD as the T-45 has. Field of view was all messed up, and it was pixelated and grainy.

The T-6 cockpit was great for navigation, but the only guys who will have anything similar in the fleet are E-6 pilots. The T-6 makes you look good in RI's though. Only thing I wish we'd gotten some exposure to (now that I'm in advanced and looking back) is partial panel. The T-34 guys seem to have a lot of partial panel experience, whereas I didn't know what it was until I showed up here.

 

[C420sailor]

Only thing I wish we'd gotten some exposure to (now that I'm in advanced and looking back) is partial panel. The T-34 guys seem to have a lot of partial panel experience, whereas I didn't know what it was until I showed up here.

I wouldn't be too concerned about it. What made PP suck so hard in the T-34 was the lack of a standby attitude gyro. It was very easy to get a PIO going in the pitch axis without it. Standby 'peanut' gyros are standard in both the T-45 and F/A-18.