Air Navigators
- Thread starter cpl-cam
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
prima6 said:
I think Boom operator etc is an ncm trade in other military's..is the position that much different one needs a degree on the polaris?
- Reaction score
- 68
- Points
- 680
IIRC the CC-150 Polaris MRTT does not have a boom but rather uses probe/drogue refueling as seen in the fol pic.
Luftwaffe Airbus A310 MRTT ready for refueling, shown at the Paris Air Show 2007
Luftwaffe Airbus A310 MRTT ready for refueling, shown at the Paris Air Show 2007
A
aesop081
Guest
Office Linebacker said:
Has nothing to do with operating the refueling system.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
CDN Aviator said:
and more to do with ensuring a seat for future plane rides..lol..
- Reaction score
- 68
- Points
- 680
Office Linebacker said:
Ummm..... NO.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Good to hear there is still consideration for ACSO on the FWSAR vehicle of tomorrow. I can only hope that stays true. I think I would have a hard time picking between FWSAR, MP and MH if the choice was ever presented to me (I know, I know, a guy can dream though).
A
aesop081
Guest
Dimsum said:
Yup. The response however, from what i have seen, is less than enthusiastic.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
the response from the ACSO's?
A
aesop081
Guest
KingKikapu said:
Yup
A
aesop081
Guest
Dimsum said:
If only it was just that........
- Reaction score
- 300
- Points
- 880
We're in the process of ramping up some sort of program to grant accreditation to these future operators here at the school. It may very well be a CF ticket without an APC. They will get to sit beside a pilot in a King Air or Grob and explain how they think a certain instrument approach could be flown - touching of flight controls not required/allowed. >
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
Zoomie said:We're in the process of ramping up some sort of program to grant accreditation to these future operators here at the school. It may very well be a CF ticket without an APC. They will get to sit beside a pilot in a King Air or Grob and explain how they think a certain instrument approach could be flown - touching of flight controls not required/allowed. >
It sounds like a very expansive way to do it IMO. FSX is not good enough? (just kidding). Not to mention using pilot training resources, certainly not going to help the training backlog for pilots.
A
aesop081
Guest
FltEngr said:
Well, theres an equaly pressing need for UAV crews so........
- Reaction score
- 1,515
- Points
- 1,140
Do they REALLY need to fly right seat in the King Air (looking at someone else doing the job) to be competent in the operation of a UAV? IMHO, put them in a simulator for a while, let them fly the thing while we're at it, and give them a qualification with that. That would be closer to what they'll actually do IMHO.
Since the big issue with UAV operators is getting an IFR ticket, well, they'll need to train for that. When I did all my civilian ratings, and even on course in the military, Flight Simulator 9 (FSX wasn't out at the time) is what taught me about 90% of the stuff. Sitting in my room, trying out different stuff, seeing what works for me and what doesn't. Plus, that's probably much closer to what they'll actually do than flying a real airplane. Granted you cannot issue an IFR ticket with Flight Sim, but a simple ride in a King Air or any other fixed wing simulator is all what would be required.
FltEngr said:
Since the big issue with UAV operators is getting an IFR ticket, well, they'll need to train for that. When I did all my civilian ratings, and even on course in the military, Flight Simulator 9 (FSX wasn't out at the time) is what taught me about 90% of the stuff. Sitting in my room, trying out different stuff, seeing what works for me and what doesn't. Plus, that's probably much closer to what they'll actually do than flying a real airplane. Granted you cannot issue an IFR ticket with Flight Sim, but a simple ride in a King Air or any other fixed wing simulator is all what would be required.
