Flight School backed up

[Roger_Waveoff]

I'd also wish there was more exposure to visual approaches as well. They can be very simple or quite complicated.

1,000%. At least around 2019 when I was going through T-44s, you didn't do visual approaches until cross countries. Entirely new concept to most SNAs combined with flying into entirely unfamiliar airports: unstable approaches and go-arounds galore. Who would have thought it?

The multi-engine syllabus isn't perfect, but that was my one real critique at the end. After a certain point, and arguably well before CCX/Review Stage, anyone can fly a GCA, ILS, and even a VOR with the full procedure turn. Flying the visual can be just as much art as it is science, and it's what you're going to do the vast majority of the time at the airlines anyway when the weather is clear and a million. I'd argue it needs to at least be introduced in Primary, too.

Last 2 cents before I get off my soapbox: at least from a V-22 perspective, both visuals and circling approaches build the skills you're going to need for tactical approaches. You can fly the book numbers most of the time, but there are enough places out there where you need to have a developed intuition of position and energy state, and how to simply put the plane where you want it without following pretty magenta needles.

 

[hscs]

Last 2 cents before I get off my soapbox: at least from a V-22 perspective, both visuals and circling approaches build the skills you're going to need for tactical approaches. You can fly the book numbers most of the time, but there are enough places out there where you need to have a developed intuition of position and energy state, and how to simply put the plane where you want it without following pretty magenta needles.

This isn’t just a V22 thing - would say also applies to helo tac approach.

 

[Roger_Waveoff]

This isn’t just a V22 thing - would say also applies to helo tac approach.

Oh, for sure. I’m just not trying to speak for other communities.

 

[SynixMan]

1,000%. At least around 2019 when I was going through T-44s, you didn't do visual approaches until cross countries. Entirely new concept to most SNAs combined with flying into entirely unfamiliar airports: unstable approaches and go-arounds galore. Who would have thought it?

The multi-engine syllabus isn't perfect, but that was my one real critique at the end. After a certain point, and arguably well before CCX/Review Stage, anyone can fly a GCA, ILS, and even a VOR with the full procedure turn. Flying the visual can be just as much art as it is science, and it's what you're going to do the vast majority of the time at the airlines anyway when the weather is clear and a million. I'd argue it needs to at least be introduced in Primary, too.

Last 2 cents before I get off my soapbox: at least from a V-22 perspective, both visuals and circling approaches build the skills you're going to need for tactical approaches. You can fly the book numbers most of the time, but there are enough places out there where you need to have a developed intuition of position and energy state, and how to simply put the plane where you want it without following pretty magenta needles.

Tbh I think visuals are out of scope for Primary beyond a basic transition to land on a straight in instrument approach. There’s a healthy balance to where things are taught. Visuals seems like more of an advanced topic that will be platform dependent.

 

[sevenhelmet]

Tbh I think visuals are out of scope for Primary beyond a basic transition to land on a straight in instrument approach. There’s a healthy balance to where things are taught. Visuals seems like more of an advanced topic that will be platform dependent.

Huh?? What is the overhead if not a "visual approach"? Civilian pilots learn how to do the pattern and a visual straight in before anything else- no reason a pilot selected for military training can't do the same thing (and in fact, they do).

Sarcasm? What am I missing here?

 

[Roger_Waveoff]

Huh?? What is the overhead if not a "visual approach"? Civilian pilots learn how to do the pattern and a visual straight in before anything else- no reason a pilot selected for military training can't do the same thing. What am I missing here?

Visual approach in the IFR sense, where you get vectored until you have the field or preceding traffic in sight, and then it's completely up to you as far as when to slow, configure, and descend. Depending on where you are (both laterally and vertically) or when you actually get the field in sight, the sight picture may be completely different and broader in scope compared to a normal VFR traffic pattern.

Ideally, you can just apply the 300'/NM rule and work backwards or throw the ILS in and intercept that. Doesn't necessarily work if there's weird terrain around and/or you're getting slam-dunked. It's not rocket surgery, but it is its own skill for sure.

 

[Fallonflyr]

Blow your partner’s mind and turn off all the automation to include the flight director. Just to make sure to have the ILS dialed up to remain in SOP.

 

[sevenhelmet]

Blow your partner’s mind and turn off all the automation to include the flight director. Just to make sure to have the ILS dialed up to remain in SOP.

Sounds like what I do on every visual approach. Part 91, brah! We don't need no stinking FMS...

 

[SynixMan]

Huh?? What is the overhead if not a "visual approach"? Civilian pilots learn how to do the pattern and a visual straight in before anything else- no reason a pilot selected for military training can't do the same thing (and in fact, they do).

Sarcasm? What am I missing here?

What @Roger_Waveoff said. We teach VT SNAs to land from specific perch points, be they the normal pattern, the ELP, or instrument visual straight in. It eliminates a lot of variables and give them a consistent sight picture. Teaching them a visual approach where they get let loose at 10nm and 1500 ft and have to "make it work" would be a lot of airmanship to teach, and probably not useful to their becoming fleet aviators.

 

[sevenhelmet]

What @Roger_Waveoff said. We teach VT SNAs to land from specific perch points, be they the normal pattern, the ELP, or instrument visual straight in. It eliminates a lot of variables and give them a consistent sight picture. Teaching them a visual approach where they get let loose at 10nm and 1500 ft and have to "make it work" would be a lot of airmanship to teach, and probably not useful to their becoming fleet aviators.

While I see your point given the limitations of the syllabus, I'd still argue that's overthinking it. Any pilot who is cleared for solo should know what a 3 degree glideslope looks like. "Hey Junior, drive in at 1500' until you see a sight picture you recognize (that one we beat into your head in FAMs, remember?) then do what you've been trained to do."

The trick that takes a little longer is judging WHEN and WHY to do it- which may actually be what you're driving at.

 

[Odominable]

For what it's worth the main Camp Pendleton initial is a very long straight in and as a FRS IP I saw this get gooned up by junior dudes very frequently (even sometimes in fleet squadrons) - too slow too early, bringing the heat too late etc, usually in parade (sorry -2). I never gave it much thought, but reading this discussion it occurred to me that I don't think I ever did something like that in the TH-57 or T-34. It's not an apples:apples comparison to an instrument final certainly but I think it would be worthwhile exposure in the training command.

 

[SynixMan]

While I see your point given the limitations of the syllabus, I'd still argue that's overthinking it. Any pilot who is cleared for solo should know what a 3 degree glideslope looks like. "Hey Junior, drive in at 1500' until you see a sight picture you recognize (that one we beat into your head in FAMs, remember?) then do what you've been trained to do."

The trick that takes a little longer is judging WHEN and WHY to do it- which may actually be what you're driving at.

I think you overestimate the Mark 1 Mod 0 SNA. They know patterns and breakdown quickly when things get "weird". We keep them in a relatively small box for their Solo (2 possible fields, one set of course rules, one type of pattern entry, one EP entry). When I tought transition to land off an INAV approach, I preached to them to pickup their contact checkpoints for final approach and then fly in their normal sight picture. Even that was tough. And frankly, this isn't required to make them competent fleet pilots. That type of SA/airmanship comes with experience.

 

[sevenhelmet]

I think you overestimate the Mark 1 Mod 0 SNA...

Fair enough. I remember what it was like and will say at the time, my biggest concern (besides overall safety) was doing something that would piss off the IP and earn me a pink sheet, because I didn't do it exactly per the FTI. However, it's set up that way for a reason, and I didn't always have the SA I thought I had at the time. Discipline matters.

I think it's a small point- one which I willingly concede. The transition from "Flight School" admin brief to "fleet" brief begins to happen near the end of Advanced (at least in T-45s), and that's probably the right time for most junior aviators.

 

[jointhelocalizer]

I agree in the fact that it could be a topic saved for Advanced, but I would like to see it more of a normalcy surrounding visuals in CNATRA. In my advanced syllabus (Multi), I think we did one as a special syllabus requirement and we had to do one in review stage. That was it. However, I’ve done plenty of circling approaches, full DME arcs, Localizer B/C, etc. Things to stay proficient at for sure. However, when the IP cadre is saying “you do a ton of visuals in the Fleet,” and you’ve done two your entire syllabus, it makes you wonder why we don’t spend more time on them. They can be logged as non-precision approaches as well. I think it would make more sense to do one or two per block instead of treating them like they are this special thing.

 

[Gatordev]

They can be logged as non-precision approaches as well.

Do you have a reference for that? I don't think that would fly on the FAR side because you'd be VMC past the FAF. On the Navy side, I thought you had to be some level of IMC at some point within the IAP (but those penguins are quickly departing the pattern).

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm honestly curious if it's spelled out somewhere that I'm (undoubtedly) forgetting.