Fingertip and Formation Landings

[brabus]

On 5/9/2020 at 9:14 PM, Smokin said:

Don't think I ever once wrote no sids/no stars on a 175. 

I only learned about this option 4 months ago. First hack was out of Fort Worth, still had to play super-drink off with the controller who finally just gave up when I said I was doing 300 kts at 10k heading East through DFW until he gave me a different vector/altitude. He was less than pleased.

[mp5g]

Heard about that technique from a bud a few years ago when ATC starts giving you the runaround. You tell them you are searching for the point on your map as you push your power up to Mil or Min AB. When you start disrupting their flow and sequencing because of how you skip across their screen, they generally start to give you the vector you want. 

[SocialD]

4 hours ago, brabus said:

I only learned about this option 4 months ago. 

 

I think years ago, someone just took the master copy of the 175 off the shelf and scratched in NO SIDS/NO STAR lol.  It goes right above that other section you never use called rank and honor code.  

 

22 minutes ago, mp5g said:

Heard about that technique from a bud a few years ago when ATC starts giving you the runaround. You tell them you are searching for the point on your map as you push your power up to Mil or Min AB. When you start disrupting their flow and sequencing because of how you skip across their screen, they generally start to give you the vector you want. 

 

Just ask for the points coordinates (in degrees.minutes.minutes of course) because I'm 99% sure that point wasn't loaded  in the can.  Like the Hill VFR departure to pick up IFR on the other side of the mountain...there is always a way.

 

[mp5g]

2 hours ago, SocialD said:

 

Just ask for the points coordinates (in degrees.minutes.minutes of course) because I'm 99% sure that point wasn't loaded  in the can.  Like the Hill VFR departure to pick up IFR on the other side of the mountain...there is always a way.

 

Literally did that in a jet delivery to Hill several years ago. Denver center wanted me to head towards a point that I barely found on the low chart, but alas, no Lat/Long coords. Told the controller I needed Lat/Long and had him search for 6-9 mins before I got the proverbial, f**k it, fly this heading. 

[BashiChuni]

Why are sids/stars that bad? From an 11F perspective?

[brabus]

Because we don’t have an FMS. Flying with IPADs is pretty new, so it’s only recently foreflight became an option to search for points (that you still then have to hand jam into your system). So a SID/STAR with a bunch of points you have to hand jam while clipping away at .85m sucks, for us and ATC. 

[Hawg15]

We don’t even have a VOR in the A-10. If your SID/STAR only uses tacans then I can fly it, but I’m still going to say unable. A fighters GPS is made for weapons employment, not navigation. They can only hold a small number of navigation waypoints, and I can only edit the grids and names of the 50 mission waypoints.

[BashiChuni]

Makes sense!

[HuggyU2]

It warms the cockles of my heart to read that many of you know how to decline SIDS/STARS.  I'm proud of your written and verbal communication skills with Air Traffic Control.  Well done.  In the future, how about just saying "I'll take a descent to below FL180 and Cancel IFR" ?  Works every time and no one give two shits about what you filed.  VFR really isn't scary.  Try it some time. 

However, I didn’t start this thread to discuss that nonsense.  

I started this thread because I was very interested to continue the discussion about the value of wing landings after a very tragic incident. 

To Hawg15, MotoFalcon, YoungNDumb, Brabus, et al…

I get your point.  You don’t do wing landings in the CAF, and you see it as “increased risk with no benefit”. 

However, from a “risk management” view… and from a “training viewpoint”… I don’t support nor agree with you.  You’re not wrong.  I just don’t agree with your "risk threshold".  

A few thoughts:

• I just googled “T-38 Road to Wings”.  It was the first time I’ve perused that in quite some time.  I don’t see jack-shit about wing landing mishaps in there.  And in all of my years of being around the T-38, I don’t recall any Class A mishaps on wing landings.  Road to Wings seems to validate that.  
  • There sure are a lot of mishaps on low-levels, single-ship landings, etc…
    • Do we still do those?
  • Now we have the FIRST Class A fatal on a wing landing, and overnight it becomes a prohibited maneuver after 60 years?  
    • Does having a fatal outcome on a maneuver disqualify that maneuver as a good/important/valuable item to be accomplished by a military aviator in training? 

 

• To my way of thinking, it is not whether formation landings are “practical”, though I believe they are.  But it is also about learning a skillset of precision… control… discipline… precision… and some mastery… of something I would expect a top-notch military aviator to be able to show some competence in. 
  • Much of what is done in UPT is done to instill confidence and aggressiveness.  
    • “Aggressiveness”… is that bad word now?  

 

• Should we stop flying wingwork with 3G’s and 90 degrees of bank?  It appears that isn’t a “CAF maneuver”… but as mentioned elsewhere, the skillset is valuable.  How interesting.  “Training for a skillset”.  What a concept.   
• Yes, we need to mitigate risk.  Got it.  However, the nature of the beast is that we cannot eliminate it.  Flying can be dangerous.  And we will never stop having mishaps.  

I’ve done dozens… and probably hundreds… of formation landings in the T-38.  I was PIT IP when we did formation touch & go’s.  I was there when “leadership” got rid of formation T&G’s because they felt it was too risky.  I recall pilots telling me how formation T&G’s were a dumb idea… and yet they had never briefed, flown, or debriefed one.  

Getting winged as an AF pilot should be challenging.  And it should prepare you to fly not just within the “heart of the envelope”, but also toward the edges.  And when those items are flown toward the edge, we put an IP in the jet to mitigate the risk.  Those newly winged pilots will use those lessons and skills when they go off to their F-35 and B-21.  

If wing landings are honestly “too dangerous”, then knock it off.  But are they really that dangerous?  

Pretty much, I’ve taken 600 words to say what Hacker said in 60.  

 But I ask you:  what else would you cut out of the UPT syllabus because “the CAF doesn’t do that?”. 

Reap what you sow. 

Edited May 13, 2020 by HuggyU2

[brabus]

2 hours ago, HuggyU2 said:

In the future, how about just saying "I'll take a descent to below FL180 and Cancel IFR" ?  Works every time and no one give two shits about what you filed.  VFR really isn't scary

I fly VFR all the time, more than most fighter guys I’ve flown with. But, you know just as well as I do it’s not that simple when flying through busy class B with a 4-6 ship; VFR doesn’t auto-equal fuck off ATC/I can do whatever I want (I know you know that too). 

To the other point: Do wingwork, formation low approaches, formation low level, visual rejoins from BVR introducing bullseye concept, IFF surface attack, get ATIS while in fingertip (dick move Mav!), etc. All of those achieve what you’re talking about with direct correlation to things done, or concepts experienced, in the CAF. I don’t believe touching the wheels to the ground on the final portion of a formation approach adds a necessary experience/skill that the aforementioned list doesn’t 99% cover

[HuggyU2]

4 hours ago, brabus said:

I fly VFR all the time, more than most fighter guys I’ve flown with. But, you know just as well as I do it’s not that simple when flying through busy class B with a 4-6 ship; VFR doesn’t auto-equal fuck off ATC/I can do whatever I want (I know you know that too). 

I was just having a little fun at y'alls expense to get the thread back on track.  But for me, yes, "cancel IFR" was usually an auto-fuck off.  I used it every single time I was forced on to the Jacob Arrival in to the Phoenix Class B, as I passed FL180.  

 

4 hours ago, brabus said:

I don’t believe touching the wheels to the ground on the final portion of a formation approach adds a necessary experience/skill that the aforementioned list doesn’t 99% cover

You're not wrong since it is your opinion.  However I completely disagree with you.  Formation landings are well worth it. 

The part from 500' AGL to touchdown is a magnitude more difficult for pilots new to the T-38 and formation, and requires a lot more skill than they show on a formation approach to a restricted low approach.  

I recall when we passed through Laughlin years back in a four-ship, and while talking to students while grabbing lunch, we found out that "HUD-out patterns and landings" were dual-only maneuvers and a "Special Syllabus item".  The look of "YGBSM" on everyone's face said it all.  What else can we dumb down?  Well... how about "formation landings" for 800, Alex?  

As unfortunate as the discussed mishap is, it is a single data point that I don't believe should erase the benefits and skills we've been teaching in the T-38 for 60 years.  Just my opinion.  

Edited May 13, 2020 by HuggyU2

[Hawg15]

I’d bet money it’s not the first mishap on a form landing or takeoff in the 38. I know a guy who punched out on a form takeoff. I don’t see how landing adds any benefit to the approach. It doesn’t help develop any skill I need in my wingman, and many fighter pilots much more experienced than a student, and most UPT instructors (who have 0 fighter experience) have died doing them. Including the IP at Vance who was experienced in super hornets, vipers, and the T-38. Did you know in many fighters we aren’t even allowed to do a touch and go? Your wheels don’t touch the ground until it’s your full stop. Now I don’t think we should stop them in the 38. On the topic of VFR, it’s how we do most of our flying, yet it was never done in UPT in more than 1 flight from what I remember. 

[HuggyU2]

I doesn't develop any skill you need in a wingman?  Really?  This isn't FTU training.  It's not even IFF.  We are teaching them basic control of a jet throughout the range of its operation.  I believe it's a skill I want in AF pilots that I work with.  We can argue this to death.  Suffice to say, I don't agree with you.  

43 minutes ago, Hawg15 said:

On the topic of VFR, it’s how we do most of our flying, yet it was never done in UPT in more than 1 flight from what I remember. 

VFR flying is an anathema to the USAF and it too was dumbed down during my time in the AF.  "It's entirely too dangerous".  

I can't speak to your statement above.  I'm glad to hear it but it surprises me.  Speaking to the fighter pilots of my era, I got the impression it was depart IFR to the MOA or range... do your work... RTB with an IFR pickup until field in sight, then cancel for initial.  If you're now departing VFR, going enroute to the area VFR, and doing a VFR RTB, then that's a big shift from what I recall.  

Additionally... as a T-38 PIT instructor, the vast majority of trainees we got came out of fighter/attack.  They were usually very good pilots.  But their VFR skills were very lacking.  Every time I flew with one of them on a VR route, about 5 miles out of Randolph I would turn off their TACAN (this was A-model days).  Despite all of the pre-flight planning for this sortie, very few could find the route entry point.  Chasing a GPS-derived waypoint carrot "while flying VMC" really wasn't the same thing as "flying VFR" and learning to read a map.  

 

Edited May 13, 2020 by HuggyU2

[Hawg15]

We have plenty of VFR departures and recoveries. Some MOAs require IFR due to how center manages them and they can get temperamental if you show up VFR. The range complex is VFR. Standard recovery isn’t typically initial, it’s a TRP. Other fighters do VR and IR routes, but that’s no something we do often. We typically just fly around the range at 100-300ft along a route we plan beforehand or on ingress. 

[HuggyU2]

That's good to hear.  The A-10 drivers I worked with in the past were always good with a map and LLNAV.  I learned more from them about VFR flying than any other "fighter community".  

 

Edited May 13, 2020 by HuggyU2

[MD]

I’m guessing no one here is old enough to remember ASLARs or else never did them in what they flew, when we would mass-recover tactical jets down the same instrument approach,  starting with 4-ships and culminating in drags to two 2-ships on the final segment and form landings; all to get planes recovered to a single runway field as expeditiously as possible, whether day/night, VMC/IMC. Wasn’t dangerous, but took some skill and training, not just executing the instrument approach correct procedurally in terms of the ASLAR portion, but the form landing too.  As a fighter pilot, it was a regularly expected skill, nothing special. There were certainly far more risky iterations we did in tactical jets than this, by far.

Edited May 13, 2020 by MD

[MD]

On 5/8/2020 at 2:59 PM, VMFA187 said:

 

Regarding the Tomcat, I'd venture a guess because with their wings spread they might be too wide to do a section landing on typical fighter bases like Miramar, Oceana, etc...?

Miramar and Oceana are both 200’ wide runways, more than enough to do section T/O and landings in a Tomcat. Unless something had changed prior to their retirement, Tomcats regularly did section T/Os and landings.

[MD]

13 hours ago, HuggyU2 said:

 

• • Now we have the FIRST Class A fatal on a wing landing, and overnight it becomes a prohibited maneuver after 60 years?  
    • Does having a fatal outcome on a maneuver disqualify that maneuver as a good/important/valuable item to be accomplished by a military aviator in training? 
• •  

It probably doesn’t help with regards knee jerk reaction that the current head of AETC is a career helo guy, and one who went through the separate UHT when it existed, never doing anything fixed wing,  as opposed to the first half of UPT. Nothing necessarily wrong with that, apart from having zero knowledge of the risks of certain maneuvers as it comes to tactical jets, what with no frame of reference in said aircraft to be able to accurately assess the risk vs the practical application.

[Breckey]

It probably doesn’t help with regards knee jerk reaction that the current head of AETC is a career helo guy, and one who went through the separate UHT when it existed, never doing anything fixed wing,  as opposed to the first half of UPT. Nothing necessarily wrong with that, apart from having zero knowledge of the risks of certain maneuvers as it comes to tactical jets, what with no frame of reference in said aircraft to be able to accurately assess the risk vs the practical application.

I've only met him during dog and pony shows so I don't know the guy but close formation landings are a primary skill in helos. The Huey and Pavelow he flew regularly perform them in far worse conditions than a runway. He may not have a frame of reference for tactical jets but he has definitely has a frame of reference for the practical application of the maneuvers.

[MD]

11 minutes ago, Breckey said:

33 minutes ago, MD said:

It probably doesn’t help with regards knee jerk reaction that the current head of AETC is a career helo guy, and one who went through the separate UHT when it existed, never doing anything fixed wing,  as opposed to the first half of UPT. Nothing necessarily wrong with that, apart from having zero knowledge of the risks of certain maneuvers as it comes to tactical jets, what with no frame of reference in said aircraft to be able to accurately assess the risk vs the practical application.

I've only met him during dog and pony shows so I don't know the guy but close formation landings are a primary skill in helos. The Huey and Pavelow he flew regularly perform them in far worse conditions than a runway. He may not have a frame of reference for tactical jets but he has definitely has a frame of reference for the practical application of the maneuvers.

I’m a dual-rated guy so I get where he’s coming from, and though form approaches and landings are indeed performed in both fixed wing and helos, there are operational and hands-on differences in actual performance between the two. In that sense, that is what he likely wouldn’t be aware of merely from the lack of having performed them in jets. Not a bad thing necessarily, just lacking that frame of reference simply due to not being involved in it. Same as a C-141 guy trying to understand helo-specific nuances and make decisions regarding them if in charge.

[di1630]

I’ve done 100s upon 100s of form landings. Not once was it actually required. I never had issues with them in any jet...but...

That being said, in my 19 yrs and 3500+ hours, the closest I ever came to (perceived) dying in an aircraft was a T-38 form landing on the wing where the lead student flared high and slow and my student tried to follow. IPs took the jets and both of us went around in AB, I tried to just keep the gear from going through the wings and touched down, the other jet stayed airborne but veered towards us almost hitting us. Really scary, we both came in the sq white faced.

I just don’t find the juice worth the squeeze on this.

Form low approaches to closed in sequence.....90% of the training...6.9% of the risk.

Valid and smart trade-off.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[YoungnDumb]

On 5/13/2020 at 1:45 AM, HuggyU2 said:

 But I ask you:  what else would you cut out of the UPT syllabus because “the CAF doesn’t do that?”. 

 

Huggy, I'll be totally honest I can't think of anything right now besides fix-to-fix that I would cut out.  Even to the day I ended my FAIP tour I was arguing for more training in order to expose the students to more things earlier in their careers.  I honestly miss formation takeoffs and landings, they were always something fun that you could do decently but took some practice to do well.

That made me laugh about HUD out being a dual only item.  If only they came from a plane with no HUD 3.6 weeks earlier...

[herkbier]

Aren’t the same principles of a fix to fix used when quickly building SA when using a bullseye?

[hindsight2020]

Form landings are pretty much done at this point, so moot discussion.

The latest RUMINT on the shit that's rolling down the hill on the UPT 2.5 fighter track side of things is a doozy. UPT 2.5 might end up killing more people than wing landings. I'm sure Gen Webb means well and his reputation precedes him, but I think he's not got one clue wtf is about to unfold under his tent. Captain hi-top left this place in disarray.

[Ryder1587]

8 minutes ago, hindsight2020 said:

Form landings are pretty much done at this point, so moot discussion.

The latest RUMINT on the shit that's rolling down the hill on the UPT 2.5 fighter track side of things is a doozy. UPT 2.5 might end up killing more people than wing landings. I'm sure Gen Webb means well and his reputation precedes him, but I think he's not got one clue wtf is about to unfold under his tent. Captain hi-top left this place in disarray.

Care to elaborate ?