Cadet Mentors
-
@Bluewulf, no you don´t. There is no need to know stuff like that for a virtual pilot
The only bit that contained some useful knowledge is the lost wingman procedure (9)
What was the last time you recieved your weather report in the METAR format? NeverFor BMS? Never. Although, it wasnt the METAR I was concerned about. The point I have is that its a standard I expect of myself - to discover that its not one I presently meet is a heads up that I need to work to improve that.
On the topic of that METAR though, you want to run me through why A is the correct answer?
4
KBLV 051212 14005KT 8000 BR FEW030 QNH2960INS WS010/18040KT
BECMG 1314 16010KT 3200 -SHRA OVC020 QNH2959INS
TEMPO 1416 VRB15G30KT 1600 TSRA BKN008CB OVC020
BECMG 1617 29008KT 3200 -RA OVC030 620304 QNH2958INS
BECMG 1819 31012G22KT 9999 NSW SCT040 520004 QNH2952INS
BECMG 2021 30008KT 9999 SKC QNH2950INS TM01/11Z 08/18Za) At 12:20z you can expect misty conditions
b) At 13:55z you can expect moderate rain showers
c) At 19:00z you can expect a ceiling at 4,000 ft AGL
d) At 21:00z the wind is forecast to blow from 030° with 8 kts
e) None of the above4. A
4. Correct
First time Ive seen a METAR without the Z time slot. Seems like B is a better fit than A, no?
Still, there is no need to know how to drop a dumb bomb for a virtual pilot… no need to know how to correctly report NORDO for a virtual pilot, no need to know how to land for a virtual pilot… no need to know how to do a ramp start, no need to know how to fly safely or efficiently… no need to know how to do aerial refueling. No need to fly a virtual plane, if you want to take ‘need’ at its most literal.
Similarly, no need to fly BMS with other people instead of the AI, and no need to know or practice real procedures for the aircraft. I dont know anyone who flies BMS because they need to. Im pretty sure everyone who flies BMS, does so because they want to.
-
There is no need to know stuff like that for a virtual pilot
……
What was the last time you recieved your weather report in the METAR format? Never
For me…yea you’re probably right that a virtual pilot doesn’t NEED to know stuff like that. But sometimes people just WANT to know stuff like that. While you or others might think it’s silly and a waste of time, believe it or not there are a few of us that enjoy studying the manuals, the publicly available documentation, etc. For me it is part of the hobby.
And the last time I read a METAR for flying in BMS was yesterday which is certainly not never. WDP outputs forecasts in METAR format and I use WDP for every flight.
-
For BMS? Never. Although, it wasnt the METAR I was concerned about. The point I have is that its a standard I expect of myself - to discover that its not one I presently meet is a heads up that I need to work to improve that.
On the topic of that METAR though, you want to run me through why A is the correct answer?
First time Ive seen a METAR without the Z time slot. Seems like B is a better fit than A, no?
Still, there is no need to know how to drop a dumb bomb for a virtual pilot… no need to know how to correctly report NORDO for a virtual pilot, no need to know how to land for a virtual pilot… no need to know how to do a ramp start, no need to know how to fly safely or efficiently… no need to know how to do aerial refueling. No need to fly a virtual plane, if you want to take ‘need’ at its most literal.
Similarly, no need to fly BMS with other people instead of the AI, and no need to know or practice real procedures for the aircraft. I dont know anyone who flies BMS because they need to. Im pretty sure everyone who flies BMS, does so because they want to.
-SHRA would be a light showers and rain, so it would be false. It asked if a moderate rain shower was going to occur which would be SHRA. The little - minus means light. No sign means moderate. +means heavy.
-
Then that would make it E, no? none of the above?
-
No A because at 12:20 Zulu it will be misting which is designated by BR.
-
The two more common training methodologies in this thread that I can tell are:
a.) Spend a lot of time up front training (year), but allow members to participate in combat missions in between the training
b.) Don’t spend a lot of time up front training (months), but allow members to participate in training in between combat missionsTo me they are the same thing just using a different approach. In either case the members are getting the training just in different ways. If you are briefing and debriefing, every mission in BMS is a training mission and an opportunity to learn if your group takes advantage of it. I think that option A is more challenging to sustain over long periods of time because you have a higher wash out rate thus keeping your membership smaller, but it is possible to do it that way as groups like Red Dog’s have demonstrated. It’s just something to consider when your VFW decides how to handle it. I don’t think that one method creates better virtual pilots than the other either (my opinion). You get out of BMS what you put into it so if your VFW’s culture is to constantly try to be better virtual viper pilots, then your members will lift the skill level of the wing together over time.
Our group chose our method because we wanted to keep our membership numbers higher. For example, when I want to fly a pick-up mission on a week day, I want there to be another human pilot to fly with. On a weekend I want to fly in a strike package with all 5 flights filled with human pilots. So for my goals, I prefer option B. And I don’t think that flying “realistically” is mutually exclusive of option A or option B as there are VFWs out there to prove it. Each group finds their groove and what works for them, and it may change and evolve. Our VFW will be 9 years old this year. The 87th as one of the original groups out there, has to be at least 100 years old at this point . I’m sure you guys have changed your approach to training a few times like us.
If people in this thread disagree with me, that’s awesome. The great thing about BMS and the variety of groups out there is that you get to choose the best fit for you and what you want to get out of flying Falcon.
Good summary Demo. I can see the different group size both method would induce. There’s no surprise as to which I chosed
And Thanks to Hans for the honest input.
I see the washout rate is pretty similar, regradless of the method used though.If you are briefing and debriefing, every mission in BMS is a training mission and an opportunity to learn if your group takes advantage of it
Maybe something that wasn’t mentionned here but I feel it may be interesting to some people.
Considering the above and Han’s comment about nobody really dies. We do not hesitate to use the invulnerability feature in training. It is a nice didactic feature to be able to perfectly understands what happens during a training flight and be able to correct the problem right on the spot by trying that same event right away.I’d like to point out that this topic is probably the most interesting topic we had in a long time. I thank you for the honesty in your reports and the will to share things amongst some VFW.
Thank you -
@Red:
I’d like to point out that this topic is probably the most interesting topic we had in a long time. I thank you for the honesty in your reports and the will to share things amongst some VFW.
Thank youAgreed! It is refreshing to see people with various methods, and ideologies, for lack of a better term, coming together to share them without bickering.
-
No A because at 12:20 Zulu it will be misting which is designated by BR.
Ah! So it does. I stand corrected. Thank you sir!
-
Agreed! It is refreshing to see (….) share them without bickering.
+1! Definetely a great discussion, and thanks all for contributing. I’m still reading the tread and working through all the amazing info in there. I’ll post our methods and results later in a reply
-
Bump.
Yout turn, Buster -
-
nobody really dies. There are no costs to failure and poor performance
-
In the SIM an hour in the jet costs the same then an our in classroom, the briefing room or quietly studying in the library. Obviosuly quite different in RL
Those two facts to me indicate that much larger fraction of the time should be spent in the air compared to the RL approach. -
A virtual Squadron does not have to filter out the best of the best (who should be allowed to stay and continue past the rank of captain, who should be sent to FWIT)
-
Nobody really dies
Those two facts indicate that no detailed gradling and logging system is needed
conclusion number one I agree with, although not for the same reasons. You omit the point that some things are much easier explained while not flying, and others are most easily demonstrated whilst flying. If you omit all briefing and classroom time because flying is free, you will not get a better outcome than the prototype. I still think you can afford to spend more time in the air than on the prototype, but I think the only reason the fraction should be higher is to more easily retain your students, the majority of which are not interested in study. Even if they are interested in getting better, most students prefer air time to class time!
Conclusion two, I really disagree with. If your sole goal is to work out who is most likely to live and die, and remove those most likely to die from your roster, then sure, fair conclusion. You can have a detailed grading and logging system for other purposes, though. Self improvement is the big one. How can you drive yourself to improve, if you do not have detailed statistics on your flying, to indicate where improvement is needed? Other than ephemeral suggestions by an IP on how you could maybe fly straighter, or something… If your purpose is to train your students to a standard, there is no getting out of a grading system. If your purpose is to provide training to your students, regardless of how well they take it, then no grading system is needed or warranted.
Obviously these items are very dependent on the mission given to the training squadron commander by wing command. For a wing that is focused on getting as many pilots into the same airspace, at the same time, as possible, a different approach will be warranted than for a wing focused on having as high a common standard of training possible among the few able to dedicate the time and effort towards doing so.
-
-
Bump.
Yout turn, BusterYes I know, sorry been busy. So here goes:
So here’s what we have in place, some new stuff added and a training programme that is both an idea and fueled by the input of these posts. I actually launched it just this week so we’ll see how it goes.
We basically have a couple stages; a informal familiarisation flight to get to know the pilot and get an idea of his initial skill level. Also in the interview you try and get an idea of the motivation and availability. But we do have benchmarks and a new cadet does have to meet criteria of attendance and preparation. We sent out a PQT handout with all of the prerequisites that the cadet needs to setup on his/her end to make sure the flying goes smoothly. Mostly technical stuff about the ports, teamviewer, keyfiles and so on. This is before IQT starts. Then the cadet will be assigned a CM (cadet mentor) and IQT starts. 8 mission covering several topics which are designed as go/no go points: exams if you will. The IQT mission is designed to have the cadet demonstrate the skills learned, the homework done and preparedness. When the cadet passes IQT the next one is served up. Offcourse all DL’s and training materials are sent in due time and there is support and help in case this is needed (like extra explanation, instructional video’s and the opportunity to request a practise flight).
After IQT the cadet ‘gets his wings’ and the official flights are open. Not before that mind you. I am working on making the IQT missions open for other pilots to take a jet and fly along, to meet and greet as long as they shut up and realise it’s the cadets exam.We are working on an AQT (I think you guys call it MQT) training syllabus: Advanced training. This covers some topics in detail, like CAS (9line, target handoff), advanced TGP use (buddy lasing, handoff AGM-65D), complex A-A engagements (2 v many, 4 v many), SEAD (SA10/17) AAR and so on. More threat, more detail, higher bar for passing and a more challenging environiment. Only available for the motivated pilots with experience and the willingness to learn more. We have 1 pilot going through this every six months or so. A lot of fun to do.
Now this also creates a problem, due to the difference in skill level within the flights. So I adjusted the training program which is available for all active pilots into a couple of segments. Thanks to all your input, I came up with this:
- a 4 week period in which 1 topic is covered and trained in detail. Just 1 topic per cycle.
Each cycle is 5 missions, divided into a Tier system and a grading system.
Tier 1 is entry level, open for Cadets in IQT as well. low threat, low bar for passing. Tier 2 is more difficult and with a high bar for passing. Tier 3 is most difficult (dense threat, bad weather, weapons restrictions you name it). Low to medium bar for passing (don’t want to make it impossible right?)
So if the pilot fails Tier 2, he can jump in a Tier1 flight the next day/week and try again and go over a specific issue/question. That way, I can facilitate all skill levels and also avoid having the cadet struggling in a mission that’s too difficult, and the veteran getting bored.
The grading is basically SAT/UNSAT based on these topics (still working out the exact benchmarks for this, but breaking the gear on landing is offcourse a fail needless to say):
- On time, prepared for brief
- Comms
- Contracts
- Game plan
- SA
- Weapons deployment
- Takeoffs and landing (RAMP+Tower comms)
- Formation flying
- Fuel management
An ACMI is made and I grade all participating pilots (4-6, not too much) and write the debrief and send it to their flight leads only. The ownership of working from that is with the flight leads. This again has the flight (we have several flights in a squadron) take ownership which will/can boost morale and cohesion (i hope),
So it’s pretty layered, more 3d than 2d I think. That’s why the training cycles are put in place, so I don’t go bonkers with work on it, and I don’t have to come up with a new topic, materials, TE and what not every week. Also, in my experience, 1 topic has so much in it that you can easily spend a month working on just that.
- a 4 week period in which 1 topic is covered and trained in detail. Just 1 topic per cycle.
-
If you wanted to have some material for benchmarks, you might have a browse of AFI11-2F-16v2, which covers STAN/EVAL for USAF F-16 training. Possibly some of that could be adapted or at least serve as a starting point for writing your own.
-
Got it! thanks, I’ll have a look.
-
This thread has had it’s peak:let’s close it: Reference for future reading?
-
Closing it is not required, some way want to add onto it later.
Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk