Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 16 of 16

Thread: Accelerated VS. Old Fashion Flight Training

  1. #11
    I'm going to pop in here with a much larger view. In 1968 I was asked to examine USAF Navigator Training with a view to using some of the C-9A options or contract extensions to replace T-29 aircraft used in Undergraduate Navigator Training (UNT). T-29's were used at the time for Proficiency training in all the commands. I went to Randolph AFB to meet with the Director of Navigator Training and his staff. There was pressure to replace all of the (UNT) with simulator training or remove all Navigators all the seats they had in bombers, transports, fighters, and reconnaissance aircraft, etc. I spent most of the summer with a retired USAF colonel who knew the staff at Mather and later got us in to Castle AFB where Combat Crew Training Systems (CCTS) was done with Navigators and Radar Bombardiers. The B-58 was in inventory then and the FB-111 was coming fast. I soon had not just costs, course times and grades, I had syllabi including expected syllabi for simulators on the latter aircraft. The B-52 at the time had an inertial navigation system and a star tracker as well as a ground mapping radar each of which had it's own procedures trainer. Any calculations were strictly up to the individual navigator in precomps or along the route during dead reckoning. The KC-135 had a Doppler radar for drift and the boom operator took sun shots for azimuth. Add it all up and the "learning curves we made to help decide what the simulators could take over and what could simply be dropped as mechanized in later systems" soon became a --- well they wre not exactly the same product cures used in production planning so the report was suppressed. Boeing won the proposal with it's 737 to become the T-43. They are all out of the inventory now. The navigators were removed from USAF F-4 "Phantom-II"s which had two stick positions and --- Nowadays I read Aviation Week about ADSB-IN/OUT and the Atlantic routes, and Air Force for military as well as Tail hook for Navy/Marines with Proceedings to tie in non-Aviation and Aviation. The Berlin Air Lift showed what Ground Controlled Approach could do for C-54's. We've been to the moon as pilots and to Mars as cargo and beyond to the limits of the Solar System as instruments and communications gear.

  2. #12
    Auburntsts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    395
    WTF? Exactly what does this rambling exposition have to with the OP’s 4-year old question?
    Todd “I drink and know things” Stovall
    PP ASEL - IA
    RV-10 N728TT - Flying
    My builder's log (which is woefully out of date): www.mykitlog.com/auburntsts
    WAR DAMN EAGLE!

  3. #13
    At one time pilots used railroad tracks and water tower town names. Flight training includes situation awareness as well as traveling point to point where at one time there was a very distinct difference between homing on the expected landing place and navigating by dead reckoning involving plotting a track. What my post does is say in 1968 the military services decided to get rid of everything except homing on the expected landing place. That didn't exactly happen which leads to the "rambling." Do you know what the difference is between a VOR/TAC and a TACAN? What DME means. Now where do these questions come from? Definitely not out the window. Sometimes the flight is in segments.
    Last edited by 2ndsegment; 05-01-2020 at 10:41 AM. Reason: I have sometimes spell teh instead of the as I touch type with left right hand location inaccuracy.

  4. #14
    Auburntsts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    395
    Quote Originally Posted by 2ndsegment View Post
    At one time pilots used railroad tracks and water tower town names. Flight training includes situation awareness as well as traveling point to point where at one time there was a very distinct difference between homing on the expected landing place and navigating by dead reckoning involving plotting a track. What my post does is say in 1968 the military services decided to get rid of everything except homing on the expected landing place. That didn't exactly happen which leads to the "rambling." Do you know what the difference is between a VOR/TAC and a TACAN? What DME means. Now where do these questions come from? Definitely not out the window. Sometimes the flight is in segments.
    the question, which apparently you missed, was whether to use the traditional approach to IFR training normally done through a local flight school vs one of the 10-day accelerated programs like PIC. The information and skills germane to the IR are the same under both, just the manner of presentation differs and one might suit an instrument student better than the other.

    What you did back in ‘68, while interesting, doesn’t have any relevance to the OP’s question. IOW how does a trip down memory lane help out a prospective instrument student today? Do you know the difference between TSO 129 and TSO 145/146 IFR GPS navigators or the significance of the FAA’s MON infrastructure initiative?
    Last edited by Auburntsts; 05-01-2020 at 01:28 PM.
    Todd “I drink and know things” Stovall
    PP ASEL - IA
    RV-10 N728TT - Flying
    My builder's log (which is woefully out of date): www.mykitlog.com/auburntsts
    WAR DAMN EAGLE!

  5. #15
    Nope and that is why I need to go to the best school. I am pleased my huge thunder cloud did not dampen your interest in flying on instruments overall.

  6. #16
    I looked at your builders log and was especially interested in how the vacuum pump mount was used to install a secondary Alternator as a backup. Very thorough overall.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •