2 fts

flying

#21

For us it’s nearly a full day, not just 20 miles and after the 1st lot went, no interest at all. One of the Cdt SNCOs said it was a waste of a day, there and when they came back.


#22

I can see 2FTS having to buckle a little wrt it’s PTT empire?
There’s no sense in continuing with the blue/bronze wing PTS in its current form.
It actually makes more sense for wings/Sqn’s with suitable simulators and suitably qualified staff to tick the ground training off.
This would save cadets and staff travelling all over the country. They’re having to travel far enough to complete the flying elements as it is.


#23

I agree with that for Blue at least. Bronze may justified getting more serious with the groundschool.

I suggest a much simplified sim rig at wings that can deliver blue-level training and with a more basic delivery requirement for instructors. We need to be saturating the wing with blue PTT so that we can take maximum advantage of the flying opportunities open to us.

Or have a short video that shows the blue training and which can be used by any squadron in advance of a flying slot.

Or, ditch blue ground elements completely.


#24

The ground school for Blue needn’t be any more complicated than Airmanship 1 in the book.

“Pull back on stick and pointy bit goes up, push forward and pointy bit goes down, push throttle forward noise gets louder, pull back and noise gets less”

Do we even really need the Stimulator bit?


#25

After spending millions on the sims they need the blue syllabus to justify the cost!


#26

It’s alright not like it was their money.

Besides you could keep the PTT in Bronze whilst still keeping Blue Accesible.


#27

You’re right it wasnt their money it was RAFCTs money


#28

but who decided what is classed as “suitable”??? and how is that measured?

far easier for 2FTS to set the standard themselves with the PTT - not that I agree with it but that would be their thought process. (that and the idea of CFAVs being more qualified frightens those who work fulltime for RAFAC)


#29

It’s not the standards that are the issue. It’s getting the cadets to the PTTs. They’re in the wrong places.

If you can’t move the PTTs then HQRAFAC need to look at alternatives to make it more acceptable for those that at present have to travel large distances just to sit on a PTT for 10 minutes?


#30

Easy. 2FTS say wings should have s PTT that meats X specification, either purchase approved system from RC Simulations or whoever, or request an inspection.
If an inspection is requested, 2FTS should send someone to that wing who can check that the system meets the spec.


#31

i don’t disagree - but it is easier for 2FTS to set the standard and keep it in house

the trouble that the house isn’t convenient for the rest of us is a lower priority

would 2FTS pay for that?

its worded as if its down to the Wings to fund.

it still doesn’t solve the issue.
PTT’s in the wrong place ie not at the point of flying.

for some in our Wing that’s a 30 minute journey in one direction for flying, and 30 minutes flying in another for PTT.


#32

If you have all PTT at the point of flying, you have a low volume of PTT and you eat up time at the flying establishment watching power point and playing on a simulator, reducing throughput.

You’d need to make it work as an efficient production line: Get the briefing aspect done generically before arrival, then feed them through the sim, kit the cadet out, feed them through the flights, then feed them back into the waiting room.

AEFs would also need to be brought up to that system.


#33

Well 2FTS didn’t pay for the current ones, but if they could secure funding for 2 PTT’s per wing, great. But that should not stop wings from expanding their fleet if they desire so you still need some sort of 2FTS accreditation system.

And wing PTT’s should complement AEF/VGS PTT’s, with Blue and maybe Bronze wings delivered on Wing PTT’s.


#34

Ive already had 2 x RAFCT bid requests fall through that i suspect is due to such things like PTT’s and other things that HQAC have plundered them for, i am sure i am not alone in saying i can give much more value getting a grant from them than a piddly simulator at 10x the cost will.


#35

Well of course that depends who is doing the valuation.


#36

I would struggle to value a cadet sitting on a simulator for an hour or two at any price with the PTT’s we have.

I remember to this day, the feelings and excitement i had from my first winch launch, i will die with that memory.

I later on in my cadet career got to have 10 mins play in a multi million pound harrier sim, lets just say it was a little underwhelming and a few cadets asked if we could go back to the fire section after having a go on it.


#37

I know ex-cadets who when on a camp still talk about standing under a Vulcan with the handling team as it started up ready to go on exercise Cloudy Chorus at 5am. This was in the early 80s.


#38

I was, at Christmas, chatting to a lad I went on my first Germany camp with in about 1990 - we managed to scrounge a flight in an AAC Gazelle at RAF Wildenrath and we were giggling like kids when reminiscing about it. We did a rather excellent dive bombing manoeuvre over JHQ Rhiendhalen and scabbed a load of AAC t-shirts (is it any coincidence that we both ended up joining the Army rather than RAF?).

I think we had a go in the Phantom Simulator, but I can’t remember anything about it…

Simulator: null points.
Real Aircraft: twelvety billion points.


#39

Cadets don’t need to do the computer game to go flying, they just don’t get a badge until they’ve been on the computer game. This for me is a no brainer. If i get my cadets into aeroplanes and not a badge in sight IMO that’s job done.
TBPH I’d sooner send cadets to the AEF and get that experience, after all we are the AIR Cadets not the sit in a chair and pretend to go flying to get a badge Cadets. Well not quite yet, until HQAC et al in an eject teddies tantrum. Which we see periodically when people are getting on with getting cadets doing things and paying little attention to HQAC’s wants where they can.


#40

Might have been me then. Sorry about the noise! :laughing: