-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
NEWS Navy Advanced Multi Engine Trainer Replacement
- Thread starter ChuckMK23
- Start date
Whats interesting in contrasting AF - the AF is decommssioning their multi engine trainer - the Beech T-1A and moving the Tanker/Transport Track student pilots right from the T-6A to the simulalator of the respective Major Weapons System (C-130, C-17, KC-135, etc) and finish training airline style .... its efficient but what gets lost ?
Efficiency at the expense of dynamic experience. Airlines are A to B with not much deviation in between. Tankers and transport are A to K, back to B, over to 12, and end at North.
It also kicks the can on actual stick time to the FTU and squadrons. The squadrons already don’t have enough flight time, and with AMC’s push for a seasoning baseline, it’ll be impossible for squadrons to make up for what was lost by not flying in UPT.
The longer I fly the more I realize that there’s no substitute for actual stick time, no matter how good the sim is.
Bingo!
There's precedence, like the C-20 and C-37 along with the T-43 and C-40. The story I was told about the C-20 and C-37 is that they designated GV's C-37's since they were replacing GIII/C-20's and it wouldn't look good to Congress to buy brand new C-20's to replace...C-20's to haul around Generals, Admirals and various Assistant and Under Secretaries. Is it true? I dunno, but being in government long enough and getting a little bit of a view of how the budget process works sometimes it actually makes pretty good sense, certainly rings true and could be the same case here. You know someone, somewhere would dense enough to block it because why should we buy T-44's to replace...T-44's.
Last edited:
After a bit of digging, looks like that plane belongs to VXS-1. Between that, the Gitmo planes, and Border Patrol, looks like Jax gets many flavors of King Airs!
I can’t speak directly, but I have many friends flying the C-12/C-26s as Station pilots. They all fly multi-piloted to my knowledge. Similarly, the T-44 is flown “Bro-lo” style with two studs flying during the solo flights in Multi advanced, so I don’t think any Navy King Air is flown truly single pilot.
Long time ago, so just a point of interest. In the mid 80s a Viking NFO frome my squadron took orders as an aide for someone who had a C-12 at his disposal. My bud went to whatever course they ran for C-12 dudes and flew as copilot whenever his boss took the plane
anywhere.
When I got a type rating in a Beech 1900, (16,600 GW ) it came with a Beech 300 ( 15,500 to 16,000+ GW ) rating. By doing a V1 cut and single engine VMC approach solo, I was awarded a single pilot type rating even though both planes were over 12.5 and turbine.
I may be arguing semantics, but you also have to define what "single-piloted" actually means. It's a little different in the FARs, whereas in the Navy, it boils down to minimums (hours, approach reqs, etc).
I'm guessing those two studs are operating under single-piloted minimums (or should be). The same thing can happen in H-60s, which are by definition dual-piloted, but there are times when IPs have to operate under single-piloted mins. This can be an issue with daily max flight hours as well as approach/alternate mins.
NFO's as C-12 'copilots' was still a thing in the late 90's (still?) and one of my NFO squadronmates, who had been NPQ'd from pilot, got orders that included being a copilot and went to school in St Louis (I think?) to learn to fly the King Air and was able to log pilot time. His goal was to do the airlines and he made it a few years ago.
I forget the minimums situation, but I’m sure there was something there for that. A Bro-lo is not a true “solo” like the T-6 and T-45 studs do, I brought it up as it’s the closest thing to a solo that you get in those pipelines, basically getting to be the PIC with another dude acting as your copilot, and no IP present. If there would ever be a time for a Navy King Air to be single piloted, it would be that, and even then they don’t.
We always flew single-pilot mins in the T-44. You had to since the SNA isn't NATOPS qualified. There was a provision for us to go down to multi-piloted minimums (like 100-1/4 on a PAR) if it was VMC. For the brolo, single-pilot mins applied, but per Wing SOP, we had to have the highest circling mins at NGP and highest circling mins + 500/1 for ETA/ETD +/- 1 hour. So the mins were never really a big deal for the brolo.
Last edited:
Yeah, I know, we had the same thing in the HTs. But Chuck's question was relating to the CFRs vs Navy for the King Air. My point is that the CFRs for single-pilot mean some different things (as well as some of the same things) than the Navy. That's all I was saying.
One example is I can't log a practice approach unless I'm actual under single-pilot FARs. I'd have to dig into 3710 to see what the fine print says, but practically speaking, EVERYONE logs simulated practice approaches while single-piloted in the Navy.