What is the book QFIs teach from?

photofly wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 9:42 am What is the book QFIs teach from?

There are quite a number of them. Details of each maneuver will come from the Aircraft’s Standard Manoeuvre Manual (like an aircraft specific MFT) Aircraft Operating Instructions (like a POH). Details of each lesson will come from the Training Plan. This is all very similar to what happens at a civilian FTU. What is different is how strictly these documents are adhered to and how closely the process is supervised. I’ve taught in both environments so I think I can make a valid comparison of the two.

Your comment about the lack of solo time producing a pilot that is not as good as they could be has some merit. However, what the military system has made each New Wing Grad prove is that they are able to learn quickly. The lack of solo time is quickly mitigated when the New Wing Grad reaches the operational unit as an FO or Wingman. The experience gained there is very mission specific, and when combined with the proven ability to learn quickly, results in a rapid increase in skill level.

photofly wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 5:09 am It may or may not be; but if it was demonstrably an inefficient way to achieve competency compared to dual training, a million impoverished PPL and CPL students would bite off your arm to skip it.

Fair, but that standard is set by TC. I don't know the efficacy of building time by taking a plane solo to ... build time. It might be crucial, I haven't seen a study done on the sweet spot of solo hours. They certainly have a role to play, but with the design of the RCAF training system I don't see tremendous advantage in giving more solos. They achieve their purpose well, extra flight hours per student (if they were available) would be better allocated to dual instruction.

But we're comparing apples to grapefruit. Wings standard is not to build a fully qualified pilot, without taking away from what an achievement it is or how difficult it is to achieve, from the Air Force's perspective it means you are merely able to carry on to more training. This typically means several more flying courses, lots of flying (in many cases including solos,) and years of training before you're dropping ordinance.

Comparing Ph2 'Basic' flight training to a CPL, they have many similar maneuvers that are probably evaluated to a similar standard, plus a lot of other maneuvers that aren't in a CPL and arguable some things evaluated to higher standards. But on completion of a 68-ish flying hour BFT course (more hours in sim), there is no professional licence or qualification. It's merely a means to carrying on to further training. So while it may look similar to a CPL, it's not meant to qualify anyone, just provide the skills and knowledge to do the next course. Phase 2 'Basic' Flight Training is not a wings course. It used to be yeast ago and it was a much longer course. Wings are now earned on a Phase 3 'Advanced' Flight Training course - which often includes more solos.

photofly wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 5:09 am I don’t see a qualitative difference between that and a steep turn, or power-on stall and recovery; one is more sophisticated than the others but they’re all technical manoeuvres.

Some maneuvers are more complex than others and really benefit from instruction. We're not talking about slow fight or stalls, it's aerobatics, final turns, closed patterns. You can teach a guy to fly a barrel roll, safe for solo, let him practice it solo. Students go solo get some practice, build confidence, but the benefits of adding in another 25 hours of solo isn't going to really compare to a couple of hours of dual. The maneuvers are involved enough that they really need instruction to progress quickly. Additionally, a student gets to see a maneuver a couple of times but there's not much time spent on each maneuver. They have to progress within a few quick flights to be safe for solo, get a solo in, get a little more dual instruction but generally the syllabus already has them moving on to other new maneuvers. There isn't time to spend 25 solo hours mastering slow flight and circuits. And it wouldn't be productive. Once they've reached the level, they move onto other new maneuvers. There's too much material to teach to dwell for hours.

This is partly because the training system needs to generate throughput to keep the Air Force fed with new pilots, ie production requirements with finite resources. But it's also by design. The training system isn't meant to give you 25 hours of joyride time. It's designed to be a limited amount of time to learn something to a specified level, and then move onto something else. By design the learning curve is steep, it's intentionally not giving more hours because the system needs to make it difficult enough to evaluate students for ability to learn quickly with minimal time solo or dual.

photofly wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 5:09 am Are you suggesting military flight students don’t learn to self-evaluate?

That's a non-sequitur. Seriously? Of course the training system puts a massive emphasis on self evaluation. The terminal level required is for 'minor' errors only, self analyzed and self corrected, zero instructor input.

photofly wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 5:09 am Why does the CPL syllabus *require* “30 hours solo flight time including: 25 hours solo flight time emphasizing the improvement of general flying skills of the applicant” if solo flight is unimportant for achieving skill?

Great question. Maybe that isn't valuable. Perhaps half that time with extremely well delivered instruction would produce a better result. Speaking from experience, if you gave BFT students 2 hours of solo it certainly wouldn't hurt them. Any flying experience is enriching and beneficial. But they will never get better as efficiently or reach as high a standard of proficiency as they would with well delivered instruction. Those extra hours also mean graduating few pilots per year.

The two training systems are different enough, teaching very different types of maneuvers to different standards for different purposes, using different candidates, some of whom are junior officers who are directed, in the civilian world they're often paying clients, etc. etc, that a direct comparison is difficult and likely irrelevant.

Our syllabus is very similar to that used by the USN and USAF. We regularly send our winged jet candidates to the Euro-NATO Joint Jet Pilot Training program (ENJJPT) to complete their Basic Flight Training course on the Texan 2 (same airframe as Harvard) and follow on to Fighter Lead in Training on the T-38. Our students generally perform very well and are usually well within top top 3rd of the course. We have 850 hr total time guys upgrading to Aircraft Commander (captain) on 650,000 lb 4 engine jets, running missions globally. There's lots that I would change if I were king for a day. But much of what the RCAF system achieves is pretty good. A lot of other air forces from around the world have or are currently sending their guys to CYMJ to get our training. Even with the solos hrs.

tsgarp wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 7:57 am The reason the current military training program has so little solo time is economics. I’ve talked with the guys who did Moose Jaw in the 80s and 90s. They had ~ 50 hrs solo on the Tutor. As the military budget shrank over the years solo time was an attractive target for budget conscious senior officers, hence it’s been pared down to what we have today.

In the 80's students flew a much longer course to 'wings' standard on the Tutor. Today, it' a different course and wings standard isn't achieved until another course. Overall the number of flying hours likely isn't that different. The benefit of using simulators is immense and the selection process is far more effective at picking candidates who are likely to suceed.

Economics are a driver of everything. However, the current training system was imposed on the military against its will when Bombardier proposed NFTC during the 'decade of darkness' of underfunding and scaling down the size of the Air Force. It was sold to the government as a lower cost and more efficient system, plus industrial benefits etc. 26 Harvards and 17 Hawks (minus a few hangar queens for parts) replaced over 100 Tutors.

It has been pared down in some regards but in many ways the training has been expanded, is delivered very efficiently and to high quality standards, following a very effective format that has proven over 20 years to be very effective.

photofly wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 8:43 am Maybe we should no longer hold military flight training in such high regard then, if economics dictates military pilots are denied adequate solo flight to move from being merely safe, even to being competent.

There does seem to be a disconnect here between military and civilian practice, and I wonder what the resolution is.

Perhaps you shouldn't hold it in any regard. If you have operational experience in the Air Force, especially at the pointy end - then maybe you can enlighten us as to how the system is remiss. I'd suggest that the track record of RCAF pilots over the last 20 years, many with green ink in their log books, speaks for itself. It appears you're suggesting the RCAF has a competence problem? Are you suggesting solo time is the smoking gun for the competency? If solo time is such a profound determinant of competence, probably some FTU that offers 100 hours of solo in getting a PPL would produce the next . Yeager?

There very much is a profound disconnect between military and civilian practice, quite appropriately and by necessity. There is no resolution required necessarily. Qualified military and civilian pilots do very different jobs. The training is therefore different. There seems to be an implication hat civilian FTU training is correct, and by noting differences between military flight training and civilian FTU's, the disparities are indications of the military system being wrong. I'm sure both systems could benefit from learning from one another.

We civilians have learned to be in awe of military flight training. Solo in four hours, in a fast jet at twenty. Fighting for Queen and country before most CPL candidates qualify for their written exam. How do they do it? That’s the preconception.

I have no idea how military training could benefit from learning from civilian training, but being a civilian I’m interested In how civilian training can benefit from any sources at all. In civilian training, a lot of emphasis is placed on solo time. To get from a very basic solo standard to being ready for a flight test, students are sent out a lot, to practice, solo, with intervening dual flights, of course. If it’s not necessary for military pilots I fail to see why it should be necessary for civilian pilots. So if solo practice isn’t after all as important as all that, that’s a radical departure from current thinking. And radical departures from current thinking interest me greatly.

Not my place to comment on whether the RCAF has a competence problem; others would know.

Gannet167 wrote:many with green ink in their log books, speaks for itself.

I was following you up until “green ink”? No clue why any RCAF aircrew would use green ink in their book. I’ve got lots of time flying operational plus over countries that would love to kill me, all blue ink for this driver.

Photofly - we just teach to a set standard that our IPs are obligated to maintain. Our QFIs are usually multi- tour, experienced drivers - akin to an AC skipper taking a break from the heavy iron and teaching at a FTU. Our students are highly motivated and competitive - their careers are very much on the line every time they go flying.

SAR_YQQ wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 10:55 pm- akin to an AC skipper taking a break from the heavy iron and teaching at a FTU.

That would be relevant experience when it comes to programming an FMS or getting clearance to divert from Reykjavik to Oslo but I think that would be an absolute disaster when it comes to teaching straight-and-level in a C150.

How does a military flight student get taught the relationship between pitch and power during level flight? Where would I find the teaching material for that? I’d like to look at it.

TSGarp and any others who have instructed in both systems.

I would be very interested to read your thoughts on how civilian flight training might be improved upon.

For years I have been harping on the fact that CFIs are not properly supervising absolutely zero experience instructors, and, in the last decade, that the Class 1 instructor rating is not focusing on the correct things.

Until I read this thread, however, I never really gave much thought to comparing the two systems, to see if the civilian side could benefit from lessons learned.But ,maybe It could, in some way, like the military providing guidance for the colleges in selection processes.

In any event, I do not want to influence your thoughts,but Instead will look forward to reading them.

What is phase 2B on the grob ?

photofly wrote: ↑Thu Oct 01, 2020 6:55 am How much solo time is involved in PFT? How many hours dual instruction is the target before a first solo flight?

When they go solo (2 circuits, 0.3 air time) they ideally flew 12.4 hours (air time) and received 5.9 hours of training in the simulator (which is mostly use for emergency handling).

The RCAF students are probably the best in the country. They're not better "natural flyers" than their civilian counterparts, but the tools they have at their disposal are without equivalent in the civilian world. And their motivation and dedication make the difference.

In your comparison of the two training systems, don't forget an important difference: the military gets to train the "cream of the crop" who are close to the peak of their learning ability. Now, the "cream of the crop" will excel in either system, but the military doesn't have to deal with the slow learner, the unmotivated learner, the perennially unprepared learner, the 'one trip a week' learner, nor the 'bottom line'. The military student shows up on time, pre-flight material studied, ready to learn.

Would more solo time benefit the military student? Possibly. But if the end product coming out the end of the training mill meets the requirement desired, then it doesn't make sense to spend the money on the extra hours.

I preferred the dual/solo ratio in my training days, mainly because I'm a time hog...

trey kule wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 6:45 am TSGarp and any others who have instructed in both systems.

I would be very interested to read your thoughts on how civilian flight training might be improved upon.

For years I have been harping on the fact that CFIs are not properly supervising absolutely zero experience instructors,

I think you hit the nail on the head there. The military system has some very experienced pilots and instructors in supervisory roles in the training establishments. Junior instructors are very closely supervised by these experienced senior instructors.

Neither of these two conditions are commonly found in civilian flight instruction. There is very little financial incentive for pilots to remain instructors, hence very few CFIs/Supervisory Instructors have a great depth of experience. Couple this with the looser TC rules regarding supervision of Class IVs and you have an environment where the rapid degeneration of standards is possible.

The other factor is the screening. The RCAF screens candidates quite closely for the rate at which they learn. Note that I did not say the RCAF screens for ultimate potential.

Big Pistons Forever wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 7:34 am What is phase 2B on the grob ?

There is Phase II Grob, which is the same course as is taught on the Harvard at Moose Jaw, except it's taught on the Grob in Portage. Also, students who do this course are only eligible for Helo or Multi (no fast jet).

Phase IIB used to be a transition course taught on the Harvard which got students selected for fast jet ready for the Hawk.