Yes, I think that’s an important aspect as well - we need to manage expectations.
it will surely be a discussion with W Av O’s about how to go forward. yes we could all “just get on with it” but how many squadrons have the suitable kit and instructors? we will have to work with those squadrons to provide for those that can’t.
The idea of this being done on squadrons has to be heralded as leap forward. As for the first time they sit in aircraft argument, what happened before all of this “pre flying course” BS? Oh yes I remember, we taught cadets at the squadron in the classroom and then they went flying, for the vast majority of the ATCs history. It’s only been in the last couple of years that these things have been invented to justify joblets and IMO for no other reason. They add nothing to the flying experience, as the actual flying part doesn’t marry up with the pre training, thus making the pre training effectively useless and little more than what we did previously. However with the new proposed model if / when a squadron gets a flying detail (check for unicorns grazing in the back garden) they can do the computer bit a week before so that it’s fresh, well that’s how I’d do it. Cadets can do similar things in the meantime in class and on the sim, but attaching no significance to it, other than for classifications.
@AlexCorbin Oh come on this the ATC there will be umpteen weekends taken up in out of the way locations far too remote many participants. Then I imagine a visit to make sure the flight sim meets a spec and no funding to ensure it does if it doesn’t. On this point, if this is the case then I would expect HQAC to fund or at least part fund getting them up to spec and not burying their head in the sand ignoring costs etc borne by squadrons. It must be an environment of constant wonder at HQAC when cadets achieve things that have a cost attached, like passing classification exams.
Hmmmm. Yes just as others let us use their ranges etc…
One of the biggest issues in the Corps is inter Sqn sharing of toys.
Then again, we have a nice minibus, when it was new (to us) we lent it to wing staff for an event. Came back filthy and with a dent on side panel.
They just dropped it off and ran.
Luckily I had made them sign for all damage before hand etc and for all cleaning.
Whq in the end (took 18 months) had to cough up over £450 for cleaning and repairs.
Funnily enough now when asked I never ever under any circumstances let other Sqns/wing use our bus.
You sound like Teflon! 
“One of the biggest problems is working with others.”
Hmmmm.
I enjoy working with other Sqns. My cadets also go on pretty much every wing event. Bar the ones their parents cant be bothered to transport them to 80+ miles away.
What I dont appreciate is the €$£#₩#£$ at wing trashing my bus. Simple as that.
Lol. I’m shocked that you appreciate people being decent human beings.
What is your problem?
No problem. You’re just saying that the biggest problem in this organisation is people not being respectful and responsible for other sqn’s assets.
Not really an issue inherent to this organisation, more just rubbish people.
We are some what off topic here.
For flight sim in Corps what I want to see provided is:
A full and complete ACTO with lesson plans for flight sim use.
Joined up thinking with the PTS.
Possibly a flight sim badge? Or at least direct meaningful link into current aviation badges.
Maybe make blue badge all flight sim?
Resourcing from HQAC to deliver this. 
1 Like
although i understand the premise, i fear it may become too prescriptive and turn what is intended to be a “flying game” into a “flight simulator” - ie removing any “fun” element.
the lesson plan I would like to see going forward, and would adopt myself if I had the opportunity.
A lesson on the effect of controls - moving the joystick does what to the aircraft.
A lesson on the instruments - what are the key dials to consider (speed, heading and height*)
A lesson on flying a circuit, Explain, Demonstrate, Imitate, Practise (EDIP)
now how long those “lessons” are is subjective. this could all be covered in an hour’s use of the flight sim, but critically I would like to hope this isn’t drawn out making it an 30-60 minutes per subject and the who syllabus a month’s worth of Parade nights to complete.
just a like structure to a flying game!
*bear with me, for circuit flying we only need height and not altitude
Any syllabus doesnt preclude still ‘fun’ flying.
i don’t disagree but if it is an hour’s lesson on understanding the instruments or strict accuracy on holding a bearing/height/attitude/speed i feel will take away the fun and lead more to a using a flight game as a bona fide flight sim - which it isn’t.
No one uses Call of Duty to teach Cadets how to apply the four markmanship principles ahead of shooting, so lets not try use a PC game to teach Cadets how to fly…
This is a positive move for me, especially if it allows the existing PTTs to offer more Bronze packages. Some guidance on delivering lessons on a Sqn SIM would be useful.
How that would actually work, in terms of time on the simulators, is something we’d need to work out.
lets be fair though. If a company sold the kit for squadrons to set up their own “dcct’s” then sqn’s would be doing that.
And squadron flight sims can be used for both. it just depends on how each session is pitched.
Unless anyone is stupid enough to add that into the syllabus, I don’t see that happening. The PTT doesn’t reflect that, nor should it.
I would suggest that a reasonable Blue PTT syllabus can be adequately covered by a well-thought-out and well-produced video, with no requirement for a flight simulator and all of the costs that incurs.
You lose the ability for the student to physically affect the modelled aircraft but the concepts can be covered without it. It will all look and feel different during a proper flight anyway.
i see your comment and raise you…
I am not saying the lesson plan will be :
spend one hour discussing instruments, or ensuring a Cadet can pilot an aircraft around the circuit within 50ft/2knts of specification
but as nice as it would be to have a lesson plan, the point i was trying to make in my original reaction was it need not be more than
these are instruments and show the pilot X
this is the influence of the controls - input = output
this is a circuit, watch my demonstration, now lets you have a go listening to my instructions until i don’t need to offer any guidance.
I like the idea of there being a syllabus, but at the same time echo Alex’s comments
if it is too strict, some units will simply cut the corners and NOT spend an hour on instrument familiarisation or make the process a month long exercise and the standard met will be wildly different depending on how (over) keen the syllabus might be…
With the linked classroom presentations, effectively this is what is actioned at a VGS for PTT.
KISS…
I’m not convinced as to the level we need to go to for a cadet going on a famil AEF. I can’t think that the old days of not doing anymore than PofF (if you didn’t get to fly before doing it) made the AEF flight any the less engaging or exciting. The variability in “training” has always been there and it’d not like we’re going to let cadets loose flying an aircraft on their own on the basis of a bit of classroom and computer work, not even with a day trip to a VGS.
Doesn’t get away from being able to do it at the sqn rather than wasting a day driving all over the place.