RVSM for single-seat drivers

[Huggyu2]

How's RVSM going to affect those of you in the A-10, F-16, F-15, T-45, F/A-22, F/A-18, T-6, etc...
Are any of your respective communities getting a waiver or some sort of workaround on RVSM? Or are all of us going to be going XC at and below FL 280?

 

[CAL to T-1A]

There are no plans to modify legacy fighters (F-15, F-16, F-117) or trainers (T-1, T-6, T-38) to meet DRVSM requirements. The F/A-22 will be moded and the F-35 should be RVSM compliant on delivery. There is a waiver for DoD aircraft but I'd wouldn't expect any multi-center trips to get approval. There will be a lot of us at FL280 and below. I wouldn't expect a lot of range and airspace problems due to RVSM for your normal ops, just X-C and O&Bs will be shorter.

 

[beernuts]

The U.S. government has a knack for exempting themselves from the rules they create for all of us. From parking tickets around the capitol to the sexual harassament laws. RVSM is no different, government and military aircraft are exempt from the requirements...at least they were nice enough to also allow certain air medivac flights too.

 

[FastCargo]

Uh...

...I think not.

Beernuts, though the 'gubment does tend to exempt themselves on things (of that there is no doubt), RVSM isn't one of them, at least not for military flying. I just got the brief the other day on RVSM, and the short of it was, fighter type aircraft (before the F-22) aren't getting a blanket waiver. They did an analysis and testing to allow a non-RVSM aircraft into RVSM airspace. The average workload for a controller who let ONE non-RVSM aircraft in RVSM airspace jumped 83%. Also, the amount of military non-RVSM aircraft that fly in RVSM airspace, jet routes, etc (other than restricted areas, MOAs, ATCCAs, you get the idea) was 2% of the total amount of traffic in the flight levels affected.

Do the math...it ain't happening. We (T-38C) community were basically told to plan on FL 280 or lower for cross countries. Us being allowed into RVSM airspace is on a case by case basis...and from what we were told, it's not going to be a case of 'Hey, center can we....'

Most transport/tanker aircraft on the other hand are either RVSM compliant or can get there with relatively little effort (maybe not some REALLY old aircraft).

Huggy, you aint gotta worry about it, you fly above RVSM anyway... Oh wait, those T-38As....

Fly Safe
FastCargo

 

[GasPasser]

not to piss on the fire......but, I just sat through my annual OPSEC training class. We may wish to let this one die on the vine. Anyone with a computer can get on this board.

 

[Huggyu2]

FastCargo: yeah, the upper FL's will be fine I suppose!!

GasPasser: huh?????

 

[RJP]

T-38C? Neato.

As far as the military (gubment) not following the rules, while they strive to follow them, they break 'em all the time. Single-seat, you can get away with murder in ATC. That's just the way it is. No space for charts or plates, going mach snot and always "unable" whatever they give you.

When in doubt, remember these words, "Sorry, I'm unable but I am vector equipped".

 

[Swede]

Pardon my senility, but WTF is a T-38C? I have fond memories of training in the A, and instructing pop-patterns in the B. Is there a new T38 mod?

 

[ExAF]

Yep, T-38C

Basically it is a glass cockpit T-38 with a HUD. I don't know all of the specifics, but I'm sure someone will chime in. Merry Christmas to all....ExAF

 

[FastCargo]

Single seaters...

...actually, single seat as far as instrument flying aint what it used to be.

There have been major changes in the instrument world for single seaters. Some examples:

1) RVSM as already mentioned.
2) Climb gradients (esp single engine). T-38s now very specifically must have a plan for single engine climbout...yes, we actually now look at climb gradients and routes. The 'Trouble T' is stressed and enforced for departures now.
3) Arrivals. Single seat aircraft (at least T-38s) are now REQUIRED to have the appropriate STARS on board. If you don't (ie say 'unable') ATC can outright refuse you, or read you the STAR, then make you fly it anyway.

From what I can tell, as the skies have gotten more crowded, the leeway ATC used to be able to give single seat guys has gone (or is rapidly going) away.

For you old heads (ie me) the T-38C is what all T-38s (A and Bs) in the USAF (and some USN) is being converted to. Includes HUD, MFD, GPS, INS, TCAS, VHF, VOR, TACAN, UHF, radar altimeter. A second modification to the T-38C includes bigger intakes and redesigned exhaust...approx 20% increase in thrust at bottom end of envelope.

"The old bird aint what she used to be..."

Fly safe,
FastCargo

 

[RJP]

3) Arrivals. Single seat aircraft (at least T-38s) are now REQUIRED to have the appropriate STARS on board. If you don't (ie say 'unable') ATC can outright refuse you, or read you the STAR, then make you fly it anyway.

No way! Glad I got out. What good is a single seat cross-country if you can't let them give you the entire arrival then just say, "sorry, I'm unable"?

Disappointing.

 

[HueyPilot]

C-21s are non-RVSM aircraft, and they will be flying FL280 and below. The Herk is obviously non-RVSM...even if the older E and H models could cruise above 280, we'd slow everyone down so much that they'd kick us out of the upper FLs anyways.

I love hearing from my civilian friends who think we have the latest and greatest of everything...and then they wonder why we drool over things like a 737-700 flight deck. I was flying for the Army Guard back in 1999 and panel mounted GPS was still a "special" set of avionics reserved for only special ops birds. Herks can't fly GPS approaches, and I'm sure we're not the only airframes that can't do that...even a Cessna 172 can fly GPS approaches if so equipped. But hey, we can fly MLS approaches! Freakin' useless POS system. Oh, and we can't forget that until a few years ago, the UH-60 was equipped with the "high tech" doppler nav system...the very same system that got 50% of the aircrews that used it lost due to updating errors.

 

[talondriver]

For you old heads (ie me) the T-38C is what all T-38s (A and Bs) in the USAF (and some USN) is being converted to. Includes HUD, MFD, GPS, INS, TCAS, VHF, VOR, TACAN, UHF, radar altimeter. A second modification to the T-38C includes bigger intakes and redesigned exhaust...approx 20% increase in thrust at bottom end of envelope.

Yeah, all that glass is good...but the mod I'm waiting for is a new seat. There are two rumors out there: one saying yes , one saying no. I'm getting tired of hauling that frickin' chute to and from. Oh, we have sunshades to go with our C's at CBM

 

[Spur]

The Herk is obviously non-RVSM...even if the older E and H models could cruise above 280, we'd slow everyone down so much that they'd kick us out of the upper FLs anyways.

Well, I had an H3 at 370 in Europe and no one seemed to mind... and if they did who cares?

Anyway, the C-130 AMP will allow for GPS LNAV/VNAV approaches as I understand it, but with the APN-241 (which I think everone will get) your airborne radar approach will be just about as good.

As far as MLS, I thought it was a pretty good system. Europe continues to head in that direction, and since the FAA cut the LAAS/WAAS budget for next year you may see more MLS approaches before you see the CAT I GPS stuff.

Patmack the T-38 seat is 0/50

 

[BroyF15]

Flyn' T-38C's in southern GA teaching fighter stuff. We have the new engines as well. It's great for us since we have a functional HUD unlike the old iron site in the AT-38B. We have an air-to-air display as well as CCIP for air-to ground stuff. Alas, no more BDU-33s since they eliminated the pylon for the SUU. So we kill the target with electrons. The new engines are great at low altitude as evidenced today by two gear overspeeds and one flap overspeed (cold temps) - and this is guys who have their wings! No news on the new seat or anti-skid brakes, either. And, RVSM will limit our cross country range.

 

[talondriver]

BroyF15-

I just talked to a bud from the AETC staff today. He said AETC bought 200 seat mods. Plan on Martin Bakers. You guys are suppose to get them first...then one of the SUPT bases (or Sheppard).

 

[Huggyu2]

If you get through Ellington, check out the NASA T-38 jets. They did their mods "in house", and made quite a few. They are the ones that came up with the Propulsion Mod. Based on what I saw, their jets have the new seats. They looked mighty uncomfortable too: very thin pad. It appeared the front canopy had det cord in it, but the rear canopy came off in the old, traditional manner. The also have a wx radar. They moved the pilot tube to the fuselage to make that happen.

 

[Dizel8]

Ahhh, T38. One of my favorites, right after the 104. Now, If only I won the big lottery, because Thornton has one with my name all over it!

http://www.thorntonaircraft.com/body/body.cfm?page_name=mil

 

[Vandal]

RVSM is going to devastate the C-130 community...limited to FL280?!

 

[BroyF15]

If you get through Ellington, check out the NASA T-38 jets. They did their mods "in house", and made quite a few. They are the ones that came up with the Propulsion Mod. Based on what I saw, their jets have the new seats. They looked mighty uncomfortable too: very thin pad. It appeared the front canopy had det cord in it, but the rear canopy came off in the old, traditional manner. The also have a wx radar.

NASA continues to lead the way for us as to what's possible with an aging aircraft. There has been concern at AETC over the Martin Baker seat as to how it fits and how it separates from the aircraft. As I understand it, we will also get det cord on the canopy. There may also a bit of a concern for you taller people who may become a wee bit shorter if you eject with the MB seat (not from the compression - but your new call sign could be "Stump"). There's always risk involved trying to retrofit such an old aircraft.

There's also the cost/benefit analysis for upgrading an aircraft that will leave the service in the not too distant future. As with all aging aircraft, it continues to find newer and better ways to break that drive up the maintenance costs.

 

[Swede]

Alas, no more BDU-33s since they eliminated the pylon for the SUU. So we kill the target with electrons.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
YGBSM!

What is the point of a fancy-a$$ jet if you cannot drop iron on a range, no matter how puny?

I was among the last of the Holloman AT38B guys in 1991. Got out just before the first women arrived. The program was gutted after I left, most of the range rides were eliminated, I think it was IP demo only, no pops. No ACM beyond canned 1V1 setups. I think the loss of HMN as a program was a shame.

Sorry for the continued thread drift.

 

[BroyF15]

That's the single biggest complaint we have with the Chuck model. Gone are the days of seeing the red flags are you walk out to the jet. Gone is feeling something actually come off the jet when you hit the pickle button. Gone is seeing the puff of smoke as you turn X-wind. Gone is hearing the scores on the radio. And, gone is the pressure to beat your bro's score on the next pass! We do have a silly, computer-generated score though. Woohoo!

Off topic to be sure. But with SOOOOOOO many of us having time in the white rocket (none of them are white anymore BTW - or blue either) it's a fun interlude.

 

[Nalo Boy]

dont all those new gadgets take the fun out of it? do the studs still have to fly under the "bag"? or do they just have to hit LNAV/VNAV

 

[talondriver]

Join/instruct for the Navy... we still drop blue death in the training commands, fight, low levels, and land on the boat....

Patmack-

Are you out of Meridian? "R-4404 is hot for the next..."

 

[BroyF15]

dont all those new gadgets take the fun out of it? do the studs still have to fly under the "bag"? or do they just have to hit LNAV/VNAV

Don't know about under the "bag" since we don't do that at IFF. Maybe somebody at one of the SUPT bases could answer that. By and large the new gadgets do make for a more efficient way to train. I can get a much more effective debrief now with the HUD video and our poor-man's ACMI capability (uses GPS derived data from the aircraft that is written to a standard PCMCIA card that we read to a computer to have it draw the lines). We still teach IPs how to sketch lines. But, like a lot of other things, that too is becoming a lost art. In the big scheme of things, a lot of really good decisions were made with the T-38C. And, more importantly, we will always do our best to keep the standards high.

 

[Huggyu2]

Are there any folks out there still flying the T-38 with over 3000 hours of Talon time (following up from another thread; this seemed a good time to ask)?

 

[FastCargo]

The bag...

...I know that the instructional phase of PIT for instruments is still taught with the PIT trainee in front, so I wouldn't be surprised that the SUPT students still do 'bag' rides. Also, the MFD has a 'repeater' function, so you can monitor the other guy and make sure he's not 'cheating'. I'll look it up when I get back to Randolph...

Fly Safe!
FastCargo

 

[talondriver]

...I know that the instructional phase of PIT for instruments is still taught with the PIT trainee in front, so I wouldn't be surprised that the SUPT students still do 'bag' rides. Also, the MFD has a 'repeater' function, so you can monitor the other guy and make sure he's not 'cheating'. I'll look it up when I get back to Randolph...

Fly Safe!
FastCargo

The bag is still required for instrument rides...with the exception of I5101 which is their first (dollar) ride. Yes, the student's first T-38C ride is an instrument sortie. It's more of a "see how checklist is suppose to be done" ride with instrument approaches.

 

[Huggyu2]

What does the PMP mod do as far as flight in the FL 350 range?
For other cruise altitutudes, does "50+altitude" give you your best range Mach?
Is there still some high altitude 2-ship tactical in the syllabus?
I've heard some they that "they heard" that the PMP reduces range up high.
What's the real story?