Journey of a new pilot...

[GGTharos]

Actually you're dead wrong :)

 

It's more like 'If I can't expect you to make a right turn in your car, how can you make a left turn?'

 

To be blunt, discipline, and the discipline to execute things precisely is the number one requirement for being an effective fighter pilot. It all comes down to discipline for developing your skill and paying attention to details. And you don't get to skimp on any one part of it, for the simple reason that it all uses the same skillset. Anything else is being plain lazy.

 

That last bit is dead wrong. It is like saying, "If you cant tie your shoes, how can I expect you to ride a bike."

 

This is a logical fallacy that is made all the time. Human beings have all sorts of quirks and inconsistencies. I know many people who can shoot quite well with one weapon, but are not nearly as good with another, despite the the same general skills being needed.

[GGTharos]

Actually you execute the appropriate procedure for the situation you find yourself in. And yes, they brief everything. That's why they brief for a whole day before large exercises. Anything that's left out is left out because it's standard SOP.

 

when something happens you don't have a procedure for because it simply impossible to dream up every possible permutation and plan for it.

[USARStarkey]

No one is saying ttp's aren't a necessity. I'm saying it is more complicated than that. I just stated this in my last post...

 

I'm also not advocating not practicing something just because your not good at it. The opposite actually.

[POLARIS1]

Or...maybe...if you can hear what a noob has to say...

In my opinion, a good squad leader looks for diversity:

An array of pilots ranging from strict by the books (but don't cross the line of being drill sergeants) to natural pilots (without crossing the line of being dangerous and without being too mischevious).

Only with the right combo can you have a winning squad.

By the way...if most mad aces had done only what was allowed by procedures we wouldn't have had legends...

[GGTharos]

Fair question, right?

 

Let's see what Shaw does for us:

 

- He'll give you general move-counter-move for a bunch of basic, and classic situations.

- He'll show you some of the moves that are executed based on relative E

- He doesn't tell you how to judge relative E

- He doesn't tell you how to train for BFM

 

By contrast, in a real air force, you will get something like this (And let's keep it simple, because there's a lot of little pieces):

 

In a tail-chase, at most 100kt closure at 1nm, at most 50kt at 0.5nm. This is procedure and keeps you from over-shooting.

 

What about if you want to zip and take a pot shot and blow through? That's called HAGS, and there are specific parameters for accomplishing it.

 

What about flying formation? Again, specific parameters for each type of formation.

 

Pitch-out and rejoins - specific parameters that teach you to rejoin ... which teaches you BFM (because a dogfight is a rejoin to an UN-cooperative lead ;) )

 

How do you take offset in a head-on merge? WHY do you take offset? There are criteria and procedures for that.

 

What's your acceptable merge criteria? Why do you have those acceptable merge criteria?

 

What about your instruments? Can they measure things, can they give you enough SA to decide what tactics to use? Will you push bandit(s) or hit the road? Those instruments give you an idea of what to do. Your mission objectives obviously factor in.

 

How do you execute a great drag and bag EVERY time? That's procedure, too. In fact, every step of the way is described: The separation you start it at, the separation you maintain, how much you turn away from the bandit to bait him, etc.

 

As you can probably see, we're merely scratching the very tip of the iceberg here, and this drills down into a lot of detail that Shaw just doesn't go into.

 

And yes, you can go into the same depth for every move of a dogfight from start to finish, but the point is that it all begins with formation training. Before formation training, you have to learn to be fast enough in the cockpit while just flying in patterns - ie. TO/NAV/LAND. In DCS this is easy enough to do: Your airspace is clear. In RL, you're learning to do with with 20 other planes in the pattern, so you have more than just your HuD or instruments to pay attention to.

 

Yes, as a thought process it makes sense to say A2A is all about procedure like any other 'conflict' where all the possible playing pieces and moves are known (still what pieces are in play or where they are might be unknown) ie. no innovations are allowed or possible.

 

But then what kind of thought process I should practice to have? Shaw's book describes tactics in a "bandit does this, you do this" kind of style but I personally don't like that kind of style and Shaw doesn't exactly seem to imply that it's necessary either. I prefer to have more general rules of thumb that result in the described tactics when applied to certain situations. It requires more thinking and less remembering which I prefer but it's less straightforward and more error prone but also more flexible.

[GGTharos]

That's just not how it works. If you're a natural pilot, you'll simply execute better and faster than other guy who has to think about it. But you still fly the same way. Yes, every pilot develops his own favorite bag of tricks for various parts of the fight, but they still get used within a broader context of mutual support which flat out requires you to fly in a specific way.

 

It doesn't matter if you're Maverick or Iceman. The same rules apply and the same things will get you or your wingman shot down.

 

The only way to have a winning squad is training, training, training ... with lots of procedure and 'doing things right' :)

 

A lot of in-game squads get good simply because they practice a lot together and they set some goals. Those goals lead to the formation of some procedures, even if it's as simple as communicating to build better SA, or setting up a given formation along with how it is to be used, etc. etc. Coordination gives you the advantage.

 

Eventually, this disadvantages lone wolves quite badly.

 

Or...maybe...if you can hear what a noob has to say...

In my opinion, a good squad leader looks for diversity:

An array of pilots ranging from strict by the books (but don't cross the line of being drill sergeants) to natural pilots (without crossing the line of being dangerous and without being too mischevious).

Only with the right combo can you have a winning squad.

By the way...if most mad aces had done only what was allowed by procedures we wouldn't have had legends...

Edited June 27, 2014 by GGTharos

[Stuge]

Yes, as a thought process it makes sense to say A2A is all about procedure like any other 'conflict' where all the possible playing pieces and moves are known (still what pieces are in play or where they are might be unknown) ie. no innovations are allowed or possible.

 

But then what kind of thought process I should practice to have? Shaw's book describes tactics in a "bandit does this, you do this" kind of style but I personally don't like that kind of style and Shaw doesn't exactly seem to imply that it's necessary either. I prefer to have more general rules of thumb that result in the described tactics when applied to certain situations. It requires more thinking and less remembering which I prefer but it's less straightforward and more error prone but also more flexible.

 

Bushmanni, you really found the point I was thinking about.

 

One aspect of it is innovation.

 

Not even the broadest definition of procedure includes innovation.

 

You can have a "moment of genius" during combat. Something that applies only to that specific situation. No amount of studying or practice removes this possibility. Because human cognitive capability is, in the end, very limited.

 

And originally, GG, i was thinking of "procedure" narrowly as predetermined step-by-step methods to achieve goals in specific situations. In aviation often in the form of checklists, also. Or learned by heart.

 

My view is that air combat at its best can be a form of art, and this requires moving beyond procedure as a rational thought process. Like for a master pianist, it is not enough to have technical mastery of a piece. It is much more powerful if emotion and heart is brought into the piece while it's being played. And piano playing doesn't have the flood of variables air combat has.

 

Even teamwork can ascend to an art. When teammates always know what to do in unison. Like a group of ballet dancers or ice skaters. Or a master aerobatic team. Where calling the end result "procedure" just sounds ugly. Even if coordinated effort does always require planning.

 

Now, in real life, procedure in the narrow sense has a very important function that is absent from a simulation: to preserve human life. A simulation frees us from this limitation, giving freedom to experiment much more freely with what is possible.

 

Now, this is only my view, and I definitely leave room for others' opinions as well:)

[USARStarkey]

Nobody briefs everything. I can't even count the number of times I've been through a brief that did not have everything. Not for the airforce, but I don't think they're any more omniscient than the army is.

[USARStarkey]

Journey of a new pilot...

 

Bushmanni, you really found the point I was thinking about.

 

 

 

One aspect of it is innovation.

 

 

 

Not even the broadest definition of procedure includes innovation.

 

 

 

You can have a "moment of genius" during combat. Something that applies only to that specific situation. No amount of studying or practice removes this possibility. Because human cognitive capability is, in the end, very limited.

 

 

 

And originally, GG, i was thinking of "procedure" narrowly as predetermined step-by-step methods to achieve goals in specific situations. In aviation often in the form of checklists, also. Or learned by heart.

 

 

 

My view is that air combat at its best can be a form of art, and this requires moving beyond procedure as a rational thought process. Like for a master pianist, it is not enough to have technical mastery of a piece. It is much more powerful if emotion and heart is brought into the piece while it's being played. And piano playing doesn't have the flood of variables air combat has.

 

 

 

Even teamwork can ascend to an art. When teammates always know what to do in unison. Like a group of ballet dancers or ice skaters. Or a master aerobatic team. Where calling the end result "procedure" just sounds ugly. Even if coordinated effort does always require planning.

 

 

 

Now, in real life, procedure in the narrow sense has a very important function that is absent from a simulation: to preserve human life. A simulation frees us from this limitation, giving freedom to experiment much more freely with what is possible.

 

 

 

Now, this is only my view, and I definitely leave room for others' opinions as well:)

 

 

That is practically spot on :)

[Stuge]

GG, as someone who has not studied air combat that extensively, i read your last posts with great interest!

 

The question that pops in mind is this:

 

Which is better:

 

A) a procedure learned from a book and then practiced repeatedly

 

B) a perhaps different procedure for the same situation developed by you, for you, without the aid of a book/tutorial.

 

Whoever invented the procedure in the first place must have developed it for him/herself first, right?

 

Has this difference been studied? :)

[nwbasson]

Even teamwork can ascend to an art. When teammates always know what to do in unison. Like a group of ballet dancers or ice skaters. Or a master aerobatic team. Where calling the end result "procedure" just sounds ugly. Even if coordinated effort does always require planning.

 

In the end these examples are still just groups following a tightly coordinated process IMO. It looks like art to the observer because the observer is not aware of the defined procedures?

Imagine one of the dancers in ballet or pilots in the aerobatic team suddenly decided to start doing improv. It's not supposed to be Jazz music :P

 

EDIT: I guess the point is you first have to be a master at the situational procedures before you can make a decision if you are allowed to improvise or not?

[GGTharos]

One aspect of it is innovation.

 

Not even the broadest definition of procedure includes innovation.

 

Ok. What are you innovating? Why are you innovating? Is it because you weren't taught/shown that particular aspect of the fight?

 

And originally, GG, i was thinking of "procedure" narrowly as predetermined step-by-step methods to achieve goals in specific situations. In aviation often in the form of checklists, also. Or learned by heart.

 

That isn't altogether wrong. Procedure is a set of checklists. To put it another way ... we could program a virtual pilot that would always kick your butt in BFM. You simply would never be able to out-fight it. Why? Because a dogfight is a series of decisions defined by two things: Your ability to judge the opponent's E, and procedure. It can become more specialized - ie. you know the opponent's moves (experience). But a computer will probably judge things more accurately and make choices faster. Probably, no guarantees :)

 

The point is that, in the end, there is a limited number of moves, countermoves and decisions to be made.

 

You can make the decisions faster if you've learned a bunch of the 'small pieces that make up the fight' by heart.

 

My view is that air combat at its best can be a form of art, and this requires moving beyond procedure as a rational thought process.

 

That's what people say when they don't see the whole picture. You can always make the artistic claim, but the fact is that air combat is scientific murder.

 

Even teamwork can ascend to an art. When teammates always know what to do in unison. Like a group of ballet dancers or ice skaters. Or a master aerobatic team. Where calling the end result "procedure" just sounds ugly. Even if coordinated effort does always require planning.

 

That's an appeal to emotion. It's procedure, it's definitely not art. If you think of it as a squishy subject, you'll get run over by those who treat it as a hard subject.

[GGTharos]

I'm actually not sure how to answer your question in a nice and short way :)

 

Think of it like math, or science. At some point, we didn't have the concept of zero as a number - so, you couldn't say 1*0=0. In fact, you wouldn't know what 1*0 means.

 

Same thing with air to air combat. These skills were tested in flying and refined, and taught as a standard, refined skill with a specific instruction procedure to help make it stick as soon as possible.

 

A modern air force spends a lot of money on training, so they actually want you to nail things down very quickly. This means there is a training procedure. Your simple 'get on his six and gun him' exercise has a very specific set of starting and ending parameters, and turn limit (if you don't get him in 540 deg of turn, fail). You then debrief why things happened the way they did.

 

This just teaches you the basics, and further improvement comes with practice well after the basics are taught. It takes a LOT of time!

 

Now, carrying on with answers to your question: Try googling to see how aircraft maneuverability and agility is defined. We like to talk about climb rate and turn rate, and make fun of people who don't specify the altitude at which it all happens.

 

But real airforces have furthered the science of comparing aircraft performance - perhaps you have heard of something called 'Combat Cycle Time'. (note: CCT is only one of many metrics of agility, and not a holy grail)

 

To give one example, we like to say flankers turn better than eagles and eagles climb better than flankers. Fact is, you don't want to engage a flanker at low altitude because it might have a CCT that is close to the eagle's. But the eagle has a shorter CCT at medium and high altitudes, so a pilot who understands this AND understands how to use this little fact will whoop up on the flanker IF he executes his BFM process correctly.

 

So, you might say that there are always things to learn because you don't know them yet, and there's always science to refine and teach. In that respect, you might think you're innovating, and you probably are.

 

But the point is that this is then taught to the other pilots in your air force as a procedure or process so that they can also be successful.

 

Consider Top Gun :) It was established because the USN had stopped teaching BFM skills. And BFM skills are the very very core of air to air combat. Yes, including BVR. In the end BVR is just an extension of BFM where you're BFMing high-speed suicide gliders :)

 

So, AF's do the boring work of putting this all in writing and turning it into training and combat procedure. They factor in much more stuff that we do in-game, ie. relative missile performance, ECM performance, comms jamming, etc.

 

A bit more history: Read about AIMVAL/ACEVAL. The USAF conducted huge amounts of training to refine their combat process and procedure. They basically did the whole 'what if they throw 10 MiG-21 at us?' and of course the MiG-21 simulators (f-5s at the time) also got to improvise their own tactics. Both sides were trying to win, just like we do in the sim. So their goal is to create and examine all the different situations and tactics and develop successful counters.

 

We don't do this, so to us it might look like art. But you may recall Max's video where you notched his missile. You could take every single step of the fight and describe your thought process. Analyze which parts were good and which were bad. Speeds, ranges, altitudes, timings of executed maneuvers, reasons for executing them, etc.

 

GG, as someone who has not studied air combat that extensively, i read your last posts with great interest!

 

The question that pops in mind is this:

 

Which is better:

 

A) a procedure learned from a book and then practiced repeatedly

 

B) a perhaps different procedure for the same situation developed by you, for you, without the aid of a book/tutorial.

 

Whoever invented the procedure in the first place must have developed it for him/herself first, right?

 

Has this difference been studied? :)

Edited June 27, 2014 by GGTharos
Removed ellipses of doom.

[GGTharos]

I don't know why peeps gave -rep to USARStarkey for having an opinion. I have crushed the -rep with my own +rep :P

[USARStarkey]

Too busy to respond right now but I will later. Need to to read giant posts in more detail. Generally though I'd say this: training is conducted not only to practice existing procedure but to come up with new ones. Because you cannot anticipate every eventuality, training helps you experience as many as possible, and continue to experience more. But you can never predict every thing. I'm paraphrasing here but TE Lawrence once stated that 9/10th of tactics are taught in books, but that last bit is what makes the difference.

[USARStarkey]

Nine-tenths of tactics are certain, and taught in books: but the irrational tenth is like the kingfisher flashing across the pool, and that is the test of generals.

 

T. E. Lawrence

[Frostie]

The point that is being lost here is that without procedure you can't effectively innovate.

 

When you get in a merge with a bandit several procedures will be tasked of you, you may need to perform a low Yo-Yo, you may end up alongside a bandit then need to perform scissors. It may happen that you're defensive against a bandit then you'll need your learned procedures of communication to help your wingman onto his six while using the best procedure to stay alive.

These are all procedures which you use, without knowing these what do you do?

 

That is what its all about, you have procedure to give you the knowledge to act as an individual and as part of a unit, innovation comes with that. Without it innovation becomes guess work.

[USARStarkey]

The point that is being lost here is that without procedure you can't effectively innovate.

 

When you get in a merge with a bandit several procedures will be tasked of you, you may need to perform a low Yo-Yo, you may end up alongside a bandit then need to perform scissors. It may happen that you're defensive against a bandit then you'll need your learned procedures of communication to help your wingman onto his six while using the best procedure to stay alive.

These are all procedures which you use, without knowing these what do you do?

 

That is what its all about, you have procedure to give you the knowledge to act as an individual and as part of a unit, innovation comes with that. Without it innovation becomes guess work.

 

THIS. THIS RIGHT HERE. That is what I am trying to say!!!! Honestly, having finished GG's reading GG's posts, I think we might all be saying the same thing and nitpicking each others emphasis on things.

[GGTharos]

Yes, this stuff always ends up in nitpicking. This is where precision becomes necessary. :)

[TAW_Blaze]

THIS. THIS RIGHT HERE. That is what I am trying to say!!!! Honestly, having finished GG's reading GG's posts, I think we might all be saying the same thing and nitpicking each others emphasis on things.

 

I've been thinking the same for like the past 2 pages LMAO. :megalol:

[Frostie]

THIS. THIS RIGHT HERE. That is what I am trying to say!!!! Honestly, having finished GG's reading GG's posts, I think we might all be saying the same thing and nitpicking each others emphasis on things.

I don't understand either why you've been neg repped, so have some from me for your friendly convo. :thumbup:

[USARStarkey]

Thanks for all the rep peoples!

[Stuge]

Ok. What are you innovating? Why are you innovating? Is it because you weren't taught/shown that particular aspect of the fight?

 

Are you saying there is one and only absolutely best way to respond to a particular situation? If so, how do you know it? Maybe there is a default way to deal with a situation, something you've been taught, or you learned, but you just came up with something potentially even better!

 

 

That isn't altogether wrong. Procedure is a set of checklists. To put it another way ... we could program a virtual pilot that would always kick your butt in BFM. You simply would never be able to out-fight it. Why? Because a dogfight is a series of decisions defined by two things: Your ability to judge the opponent's E, and procedure. It can become more specialized - ie. you know the opponent's moves (experience). But a computer will probably judge things more accurately and make choices faster. Probably, no guarantees :)

 

In BFM this is true, i agree. However, with a human vs human situation, there are psychological elements involved. Stress, confidence, expectations of opponent's performance, handling of mistakes, reaction to failure. Also, more important to simulation only: importance/value of victory. Can you always give your 100%? Flawless turning and gunnery require strong concentration.

 

The point is that, in the end, there is a limited number of moves, countermoves and decisions to be made.

 

Only if you categorize them broadly. Once you deepen the detail level, suddenly the number of moves becomes infinite.

 

You can make the decisions faster if you've learned a bunch of the 'small pieces that make up the fight' by heart.

 

Of course, i agree! Studying is good!

 

 

 

That's what people say when they don't see the whole picture. You can always make the artistic claim, but the fact is that air combat is scientific murder.

 

Are you saying that to see the whole picture one has to ignore the emotional aspect of human performance? Isn't that just the opposite? Emotion is what makes a human being work. Without it, you would not have the will power to get out of bed, let alone play a flight sim.

 

Science today does not have the tools to explain the full functionality of the brain and the human nature.

 

Air combat is murder only if it occurs in real life, and ends with a pilot getting killed.

 

 

 

That's an appeal to emotion. It's procedure, it's definitely not art. If you think of it as a squishy subject, you'll get run over by those who treat it as a hard subject.

 

You obviously treat it as a hard subject. My approach might be more "squishy".

 

With almost 20 years of online dogfighting experience(on/off) I would just love you to run over me in a dogfighting session. And to meet you in person too (on ts) :) i hang around on the 104th server quite often these days, as much as summer work allows... an open invitation for you GGTharos :) I like flying any aircraft.

[GGTharos]

Are you saying there is one and only absolutely best way to respond to a particular situation? If so, how do you know it? Maybe there is a default way to deal with a situation, something you've been taught, or you learned, but you just came up with something potentially even better!

 

If you have a good instructor, for the most part you won't have any innovating to do. Innovation is the discovery of new methods. You may discover something new to you personally, but that's not innovation any more, it's just reinventing the wheel.

 

In BFM this is true, i agree. However, with a human vs human situation, there are psychological elements involved. Stress, confidence, expectations of opponent's performance, handling of mistakes, reaction to failure. Also, more important to simulation only: importance/value of victory. Can you always give your 100%? Flawless turning and gunnery require strong concentration.

I don't want to discuss psychology, it's simply not a factor for training setups. Psychological training must also happen, and some training setups account for this (eg. DBFM), but it's a thing that is separate from teaching the procedure of air to air combat - ie. what you do with your plane.

 

Only if you categorize them broadly. Once you deepen the detail level, suddenly the number of moves becomes infinite.

No, it really does not. What happens is that people make mistakes, and they end up paying for them. Moves and counter-moves are fairly finite.

 

Are you saying that to see the whole picture one has to ignore the emotional aspect of human performance? Isn't that just the opposite? Emotion is what makes a human being work. Without it, you would not have the will power to get out of bed, let alone play a flight sim.

I don't see how this is relevant. RL fighter pilots are highly motivated people and they don't like leaving things up to emotion, psychology, luck, or art. Their lives depend on being on the ball.

 

Air combat is murder only if it occurs in real life, and ends with a pilot getting killed.

You're missing the point.

 

You obviously treat it as a hard subject. My approach might be more "squishy".

No, I should treat it as a hard subject, but I don't as much as I should. I pay for that :)

 

With almost 20 years of online dogfighting experience(on/off) I would just love you to run over me in a dogfighting session. And to meet you in person too (on ts) :) i hang around on the 104th server quite often these days, as much as summer work allows... an open invitation for you GGTharos :) I like flying any aircraft.

I'm sure you've run into me already. I fly incognito for a bunch of reasons. Besides, I know what needs to be done, but I'm not terribly good at it. I know people who are though ... not in flight sims, though they play as well. They don't do the art thing :)

[Buckeye]

Thanks for all the rep peoples!

 

Glad to see you back in the green, brother. I'd add some rep too, but I really doubt my 1 rep power would do much, haha.

 

All in all, I agree with Blaze that I thought you all were saying essentially the same thing for the last few pages, just interpreting each others words differently. Regardless, it was entertaining to read.

 

I had today off of work (scheduled vacation day just to get out of the office) so I've been flying most of the day. I must say that I feel I am FINALLY making positive strides when I get into WVR engagements (granted against the AI, but I'm taking baby steps). Having my rudder pedals arrive has helped me a lot, I love them. I am improving in 1) getting into position behind the bandit instead of just flying around each other with nothing really happening for a while 2) keeping a visual on the bandit and 3) following the bandit well/closely until I see my cue to move into position and fire. There is no better feeling than a good dogfight that I work hard in and come out on top of. I can't freakin wait to be able to do it online against other human pilots, that will be a huge rush -- although I know I will again feel like I'm helpless at first, until I learn from experiences and improve.

 

I spoke with AT&T today and got some bad news: about 2 more weeks until I will have working internet at my new place...so, 6-7 weeks total without internet. Sucks! But once I get it set up at least I have some of you better pilots that have offered to help train me up. I'm looking forward to that...there is only so much I can teach myself from what I've read, and we all know the AI sucks anyway.