One of my bunch, on being collectively-briefed about the ongoing Tutor ‘hold’, made the suggestion “why can’t all the Tutors be replaced with Tucanos? They never go wrong”.
Now, whilst I bet this perspective on Tucano reliability isn’t true, if ownership/operating costs were no issue (as if!), how good a job would Tucano actually do as an EFT aircraft? Is it too fast/unstable? Too difficult to fly? Not able to be dual-controlled sufficiently?
It’s interesting to read on Wiki (so it must be true) that all Tucanos will be getting replaced from 2015 with whatever is selected to be the successor in the UKMFTS procurement.
So is it just a flight of fantasy to imagine Tucano as a downcycled EFT aircraft?
It’s a good idea, something which my Squadrons cadets asked too. The big issue would be ejector seats?
What hoops does a cadet have to jump through to fly in an aircraft fitted with them? Would it push AEF age limits up to over 15/16?
EDIT
Ignore everything I’ve posted, I misread EFT as AEF!
[quote=“wilf_san” post=4949]So is it just a flight of fantasy to imagine Tucano as a downcycled EFT aircraft?[/quote]From a training perspective, the Tucano is a relatively complex aircraft being quite a nippy turboprop and is more expensive to operate than the tutor or similar types. It would be jumping into the middle of the “progression” somewhat.
It would also be little use for the ATC as it is fitted with an ejection seat and (as per current rules) would require each person to pass an RAF medical as fit to fly. The abandonment training may be simpler though
I suppose you could have pointed out to the cadet that the Tucano is also grounded at the moment, due to the wheels up incident a few months ago (actually only two days before the Tutor prop separation incident)! That was a definite something “going wrong” with them!
As for the EFT proposal, I imagine it would be too “racey” for teaching the lessons learnt during EFT, as MattB said, like learning to drive in a Porsche 911. I think one of the major positives of being in a Tutor is the instructor sat next to you, giving your tuition a much more personal perspective, down to simple things like watching how he handles the controls (as opposed to simply following through on the controls) and pointing out instruments on the panel.
I think the current progression we have (Tutor -> Tucano -> Hawk) is pretty sound.
agreed. i remeber the first time i sat in the Vigilant and graps the column with a full hand. and then quickly told it was just finger and thumbs, something that would not have been picked up so readily in tandem
that said the Chipmunk, and all previous trainers (Harvards through to bi-plane era etc) have been tandem so it can’t be impossible
The Tucano has a smaller performance envelope than the aircraft it replaced, the Jet Provost (JP). Until the 1970s trainee pilots commenced their flying training on the JP, there was no elementary phase. When the Hawk replaced the Gnat it would have been feasible to carry out all training on that aircraft, if cost was not an issue.
The primary reason for having an elementary aircraft is cost reduction, if you require one for AEF and UAS; although limited now; it makes sense to increase the utilisation and reduce the hours at the next stage. However if you need an elementary phase to train students to cope with the aircraft used for basic training then there’s something wrong with your procurement process.
Wasn’t the assumption then that Elementary Flying Training was to be done in the main by UASs? That was certainly the case when I joined in the late 1980s. The ex-UAS guys went straight to an FTS and JPs, while the rest went to EFTS at Swinderby and then to an FTS.
EFT was the ■■■■■■■ child of the Grading Scheme Trial run circa 1974/75. At the time ex UAS students (GE) did a 120 hour course on the Jet Provost whilst direct entrants (DE) did 145 hours. The Grading Trial was part of the project to improve the prediction of success in flying training and was set up at Church Fenton. It consisted of a highly detailed instructional syllabus of 30 hours(?) on the Chipmunk and an objective assessment system. the students who went through it were assessed and then monitored throughout their subsequent training. Their progress was compared with a similarly selected control group.
The results of the trial were not as clear cut as had been hoped and were considered insufficiently reliable to be used as the basis for suspending students at such an early stage. Instead (or by default) it was decided to introduce the EFT concept with the dual intention of shortening the BFT course on the Jet Provost and making the case for early removal on that course more apparent.
FWIW Most of the QFIs on the Grading Trial ( I wasn’t one of them, but knew quite a few) felt that had the will been there to progress with it, it would have proved successful in the medium to long term. We shall never really know.
[quote=“MattB” post=4956]Surely it’s a bit like learning to drive in a Porsche 911?[/quote]#
Maybe not a 911, possibly a Boxster.
In today’s risk averse age I doubt any ab-initios would ever be let in an aircraft with retractable gear and which if you don’t do the pre-take off check correctly will leave you on the grass by the side of the runway. The other factor to consider is why send chaps and girls who will end up flying rotary and multis off to the Tin-can when the Tutor will prepare them adequately for those streams at far less cost? There just isn’t the money in the system.
Learn on something simple and forgiving, progress to something more challenging, then progress further still before doing the tricky stuff (dropping and shooting things. If in future the second and third stage can be one aeroplane, with performance tailored to the sortie profile by computer (PC-21? ), then hooray.
Tucanos to fly cadets? What planet are you Fraggles living on?
Let’s overlook the pros and cons on side-by-side vs tandem seating. (We’ve been training cadets to fly solo for the better part of 60 years in tandem seat gliders.)
Let’s overlook various guff about the relative complexity of Tucano systems. (It’s not going to make an ounce of difference to someone on a 20min fam flight)
Let’s overlook the height/weight limitations of ejection seats and the need for cadets to hold a medical category.
Instead, let’s just mention that the Tucano costs 8-10 times as much per flying hour to operate as the Tutor, then close the thread and do something less bone-headed.
Problem with using the Tucano straight off is that a, it is much faster than a Tutor however being a turboprop the engine characteristics are a bit different if something goes bad you still have the delay of a few seconds before it will increase power, it’s probably also cheaper to run the tutor off of avgas then when someone desides they don’t actually like flying its less money wasted.
The issue is cost, whilst you could teach someone to fly in almost anything, why would you teach someone in a more expensive (both to buy and run) a/c in which the trainee would initially be far more occupied in keeping up with the a/c than learning the basics effectively. You’d end up flying more hours in a more expensive a/c.
