Smokey

Speaking FAA wise here. Yes, I can access all the flight record information and provide it for you. What I can't do is provide any IP signatures into a logbook that would be necessary to validate that experience in a log book. No I won't walk a log book around for you to do so. But, I will email you the flight record information if you want. Check your PM. And, sorry it took so long to reply. I gotta life too. Smokey

LoneStar, Haven't heard that rumor.....so it may very well be true. :o) To be honest with you, and I was not part of that process, the DA-20 was forced on us. The Cirrus being acquired by the Academy has some nice aspects but we are talking about two separate programs. IFS at Doss and Powered Flight at the Academy. Powered Flight does not meet the prereq requirements for UPT nor is it in any way similar to the UPT indoc we provide. But, the Academy MUST have airplanes as history will demonstrate. I will not go deeper into why the fast turnover occurred at the Academy from the DA-40 to the SR-20. Suffice it to say that the airplane wasn't the problem. Doss owns the aircraft and barring someone from above saying we'll buy new aircraft for you to use, I doubt it'll happen anytime soon. I'd also say that the "stick/yolk" in the SR-20 is really a negative training device and would far prefer the stick in the DA-20 over it. That's my opinion. Had I been king, I would have gotten an aircraft capable of basic aerobatics and with heavier wing loading than the DA-20. The GROB 115E and the Pac Air CT-4F come to mind as two examples. However, the DA-20 with all her warts, is a great trainer. Again, if I were king, I would have included a no-harm, no-foul, couple of rides in the program just after the checkride to introduce "being upside down and pulling mild G's" to the IFS program. Believe it or not, there are folks that get through IFS fine but find that particular aspect less than desirable in the T-6 to include DOR's and LOA's (airsick). We can only do what the AF asks us to do. It's very effective, but could do a little more in a perfect world. As we all know, that doesn't exist. My 2 cents and my personal opinion. Not in any way a statement from Doss. Smokey

Bring your headset. Not a problem. Standard dual GA plugs only, no panel power. Cheers, Smokey

Your units nametag will be just fine. Smokey

That about sums it up. Coming into the fight with experience can help you, but as an IFS IP, I can tell you that too much experience can be as much of hurdle as having no experience. Bad habits. Fighting against learning to do it our way. Etc. There is a reason that UPT demands you do maneuver X in this manner. It's because the pilot that can put his/her aircraft where they want, how they want, and when they want, in a controlled training environment is the pilot that is ready to move onto the next step of flying an operational aircraft. Not a civilian vs military debate. Most civilian pilots are lazy and lack precision. Why? They've never had to be truly precise. If they find the runway....they're happy. If you don't get your package to the target within TOT tolerance and deliver the weapon in the tolerance prescribed by FRAG.....you failed your mission. Smokey

As an 84 UPT grad, I can tell you it was much tougher in those days based on the feedback I get from current UPT IPs when we conduct base visits. You have a bad few days back then, and you were off to Mather or a nuke silo somewhere........... Navy is not really a great comparison based on the fact it takes them almost twice as long to make a pilot ready for MWS training. I don't know why that is specifically, but sounds like the hammer isn't being delivered as hard like in the AF. I do know that their IPs are not universally qualified day one like a PIT grad. They can't instruct in formation, instrument, etc., day one. That probably adds to the time to get studs through their program. I can only imagine that provides some breathing room for a student with a lower ops tempo where studs get a day off here or there compared to UPT where you knew you were doing one sortie a day minimum. I don't have the exact stats, but the AF does send some pilot students through Whiting for the T-6......then they come back to the AF to complete phase 3 of UPT. Takes twice as long as it would at Vance, Columbus, etc. Smokey

Great post and I concur. As one who has worn that EP hat, I can say definitive Q-2, Q-3 situations happen. The were very few and far between in my experience and the squadrons I was in. If I had any question about the validity of a rating less than Q-1, first, bad on me for not knowing my job, and second, I'd look at the instruction (reg in my day) for guidance ( and probably bounce off another EP or 2 ) before saying much of anything till the debrief. As for the debrief, regardless of the outcome, yes my duty was as an evaluator for the flight but I was also an IP as well. IMHO, every eval was also a chance to instruct if needed....of course in the debrief and not during the sortie. Also, the concept of "extenuating or mitigating" circumstances is open to broad interpretation which I often did..... In other words, a pilot would have to really prove they were deficient or completely unable prior to a 2 or 3 rating. I assume from the beginning they were qualified as a MQ pilot and as such deserved any appropriate benefit of doubt. Although I don't, everyone else has an off day. Cheers, Smokey

So you're telling me nothing has really changed....outstanding. Appreciate all the replies. Cheers, Smokey

Okay, That didn't help much. Range foul..... Smokey

I have to disagree. Not that revolvers are simpler, however the moving parts issue comes into question. There really isn't that much difference. And, so long as either type of pistol is properly maintained, reliability isn't a question. For instance, an HK 40 USP breakdown is a no brainer (good for me). So is the breakdown on my 1960 era Ruger Super Blackhawk 44 Mag. After thousands of rounds in each, the HK has never had an issue. Granted, age is a player, however, the Ruger's cylinder pin will pop out after 20 or so rounds. Gunsmith has gone over it multiple times and can't figure it out (perhaps I'll find a new one). Now, I'd rather have a stove pipe than a cylinder misaligned (of course I see it when it happens and it is pissing me off royally). I'll clear the stove pipe with a tap and rack (never had one on the HK btw). Cylinder pin.....not so fast. Smokey

To add to the other post, I have shot the Sig 357 caliber model. FAMs use them. I like the HK better. Again, both were LEO models so may be a different experience. There is no double action on a LEO model. SAO. The HK SA trigger is far superior IMO. Thousands of rounds......not a single issue.....but I'm pretty anal when it comes to cleaning it and replacing weak clip springs. Smokey

Have shot 1000's of rounds with an HK 40 USP. The single most dependable gun I've had. I didn't read through the thread completely but am curious as to your trigger issues. Now, my experience is with the LEO model so may be a different experience. The trigger was effortless and consistent leading to greater accuracy. The LEO model is of course meant to be drawn and ready to shoot. It is always chambered and cocked with no de-cocking lever or safety once a round is chambered. I don't have experience with the standard model nor would I want to. If I draw and aim, I mean to fire. Can you expand some. Smokey

Guys and gals, Haven't played "mayor" for 20 or so years but gotta run a roll call and naming ceremony. Any up to date info from my active duty fighter pukes to set a good order of events? Alibis and fines for lost wingmen, Bring out your dead, etc. Thanks in advance. Smokey

Interesting post. First, IFS is intended to throw you into the deep end. Second, the whining about EP training, ground or sim, is intended to train "you" to react properly when situations occur. In other words, train your brain on how to react when things go bad. It is some the most important training individuals receive going through IFS and the next stages of their training. Flying your aircraft above all else, analyzing the situation, taking proper action, and developing a plan to recover the aircraft is a mindset that sets AF aviators apart. The more you have tried to mentally place yourself in an adverse situation under a controlled environment, the better you'll do should the situation happen. Or, should something beyond a "simple" EP happen....Sully and the Hudson comes to mind. He flew the aircraft first, continually evaluated what was happening with progressive engine and systems failures, and live through it. Why....how he was trained. Don't minimize the EP training you receive. It is trying to teach you a methodical approach to handling thing when they go wrong. Methodical doesn't mean slow. It means purposeful. If you've thought about what you will do when an engine fire happens or whatever numerous times on the ground or in the sim, your chances of surviving the real event is greatly improved. Old head, gray beard, out. Smokey

Spuds, Not to squash your thoughts, the AF has a selection process. There are pilot candidates that wash out for various reasons that are recommended for Nav slots. Had one two classes ago that was a stellar officer and was about as procedurally sound as I have seen. Student couldn't land the aircraft. Okay, I made sure that I let the AF side know my personal opinion, not official in anyway, that I would want 100 clones of this student in any unit I was a commander of. He was going through a bit of hell, but kept a great attitude, worked with everyone, and was what I consider an Officer! I haven't gotten final feed back on the outcome yet...those things take time. Having said that, those recommendations are few and far between at this point. I have 2 CSO students that have a commercial license...go figure. They can fly the plane beautifully, that expectation is limited in their CSO syllabus. I ain't the chief of staff so I can't comment on the process. Suffice it to say, the number of CSO students I've had with advanced FAA ratings prior to entering IFS is larger than I care to think about. The selection process belongs to the AF and there is NO upgrade in student status that I'm aware of....unfortunately. Smokey

Hiflyer, Sage advice, brother. The purpose of IFS is to screen. Yes, of course, training is provided. But, only that allowed by the demanding syllabus that we execute. AF wants a more or less proven product to introduce into formal undergraduate flight training. We save them $$$$$ in the end game. Sadly, I can tell you that I know after one ride whether the student has the "chops" to go the distance. My approach doesn't change and I give 110% even though I'm only asked to give 100%. I've got over 14000 hours, much of that as an IP, sadly I "know" when he/she has it or doesn't. But, I still give it my best effort day in and day out. I knew I wanted to fly for the AF when I was 5 and took a nice picture in the cockpit of my Dad's 105......okay, dating myself. Anyway, the IFS IPs will bend over backwards to help students get through.......within the limits of the syllabus. We don't take pride in washing out students or destroying their dreams. We do our jobs. We've got former F-16, U-2 (I'm in both categories), F-15, B-52, C130, C-17, etc., guys/gals here. 90% have prior UPT time as IP's. We KNOW what students need to demonstrate in the big picture. I have had too many students "on the ropes" get through IFS that I offer a little personal mentoring telling them that the struggles you made it through will only be compounded in the next stage. Get your procedural knowledge down tight to aid your learning how to fly the next aircraft. Knowledge is power in the UFT environment. The more resources you can free up to focus on the actual flying is paramount. Cheers, Smokey

No problem: in no particular order, U-2, F-16, B-52, T/AT-38, T-37 and indirectly the DA-20, for the military and did 12 years 121 prior to taking a leave of absence to come to DOSS in the AB-320/319 and B-737. The IP cadre is composed of about 70% prior military and the remaining 30% are very highly qualified civilians who get a full indoctrination into what UPT is like (base visits, ORT rides, etc.). The prior military come from all backgrounds. Heck, I just checked out a new hire that recently retired that was a T-Bird. He's now slugging it out trip turning with IFS studs..... We even have a few retired Navy/Marine pilots as well. Only appropriate given the fact that it is Joint SUPT. It is probably the most experienced instructor force serving AETC. For any RPA folks surfing the thread, just got handed a new Small Group Test change to the syllabus. Minor tweaks to include only a final check ride. Won't go into the reasons. You also get 2 more rides prior to the solo under the Test in what for them is the "screening" vice "training" portion of the syllabus. Cheers, Smokey

The post above me pretty well sums it up. Attitude and a willingness to learn a new way of flying. Sure some types of civilian flying has a mission to accomplish. That being said, GA flying isn't about a "mission mindset." It isn't something that even comes to mind. Takeoff, kind of fly over there, kind of do all the maneuvers, come home do all the patterns. Sure, there is a civilian PTS standard to operate in just like a syllabus CTS. The difference is it just isn't the fact you stalled and recovered or landed from some type of pattern. The difference is I'm training you, UPT will, RTU will, etc., to EMPLOY the aircraft towards accomplishment of mission objectives. That means that, especially in a controlled training environment, that you perform the maneuver by the numbers and as written in plan language. No you're not a robot. However, without external factors requiring modification to the baseline, I want maneuver X performed as intended. Case in point, flying one of the first few rides (first ride with me as well) in the program with a PPL student. Flew a horrendous pattern relative to what we want at one of our aux-fields. No one was in the pattern so I let him just fly it. 1 mile final, square turns to final, etc....not what we do. He did an absolutely beautiful landing and even commented on that fact on the touch and go. Took the airplane for the next pattern and said, yeah great touch down, sadly how you got there was unsatisfactory! Now, let me show you how it is supposed to be done. Going back about 3 decades, had a stud come to the T-38 from Tweets. CFI prior to UPT. Did only average in Tweets to be honest. Wasn't a team player. Didn't try to work, chair fly, etc., with his buds having issues in that phase. The Tweet didn't really challenge him and he coasted along. Now, let's speed up the world a bit and do so in an aircraft with totally different flying characteristics than he had seen before. Guess what, ate his lunch, couldn't adapt, non of his classmates really offered any help, and he ended up washing out pre-solo in the 38. You are demonstrating you can learn to employ the aircraft in a consistent fashion so that when I hand you the keys to an operational aircraft you can put it in weapons delivery parameters to make the weapon effective, not just a dropped a bomb or shot a gun, I don't care if it actually worked because I wasn't in the WEZ. Or, putting your C-17 in parameter for an airdrop. Or,..... Yes, in operational flying you have to go "outside the lines" quite often. You get back in as soon as possible because it provides the highest potential to accomplish your mission. So is how you fly your pattern or set up your stall important...absolutely! Also, you better do it by the book in an RSU controlled pattern when 10 aircraft are playing on the same runway at the same time. One guy can screw it up for everyone by "freestyle" flying. Smokey

Bank angle on average is only....ONLY 15-20 degrees. Final turns are only at a blistering 60 knots on a "normal" pattern. Downwind is a half mile spacing. Most common stud error....over banking and ending up with a very high, angled final. The Katana turns on a dime at those speeds. The width of the pattern and length of the final approach allow the dissipation of energy/altitude. Worst thing you can do is overbank in the final turn and shorten the path to the runway. Sure, there may be days when you need more bank. Of course, it is appropriate for overshooting conditions, strong tailwind on the downwind, etc. If not, anyone coming to IFS re-read the above and save yourself the heartache you'll experience. When learning how to fly or learning a new aircraft, know how to minimize the self induced variables. Use a bit of a mechanical approach and follow the recipe/technique you are offered initially to accomplish the goal. No, I won't grade you on any technique, I'll grade you on the end result of what you performed. You have plenty of time to develop your own techniques....probably not during IFS though. The key to a great landing begins on how you set up your downwind, then when you elect to configure, then when you perch, how well you fly the final turn to final, and then how stable you fly the final approach. Landing issues almost always go back to one of the prior steps and poor execution. That being said, if you want to fix two more variables (high/angled) along with everything else, have at it. Otherwise, you want to try and minimize your variables and create the same situation every time. Set up consistently for success in execution. For anyones benefit, normal approaches are 60 knots, no flap are 65 knots, and SFL's are 73 until slowing and lowering flaps when landing assured. Initial is at 100 knots. Downwind is 85 knots. Smokey

IFS is the program the AF wants and the function is screening those with limited potential to succeed in UPT. There is not one instructor there that doesn't want you to succeed. The fact is, all won't. I can't provide additional training other than the time alloted in the syllabus. We provide the same training to every student. Yes, the wick does get turned up on studs with prior flight experience. That's how the playing field is leveled so to speak placing them under pressure to learn at an advanced rate. Other than that, all studs are treated/trained equally. Those that have basic flying aptitude and truly apply themselves succeed. It is a fast paced, full throttle program, that is very unforgiving to those that don't focus 100%. Don't expect to be spoon fed. Students are all college grads and commissioned officers. We expect you to take charge in your studies and preparation for each sortie. Don't show up to the table unprepared. The end result is either not flying or better yet, a very painful sortie that was self induced. If you are curious, even FAA rated CFI's have washed out. Screening early saves serious bucks. All of us grey beards have designed the day to day activities to match the UFT environment to the max extent possible. When I make UPT base visits, not a single student failed to place value on how well IFS prepared them for UPT. The difference is that unlike UPT where there are some relative peaks/valleys in the work level, IFS is full throttle from day one to day last. My recommendation to anyone coming to IFS, take advantage of what is as of this post, current IFS info on baseops. Out of that info, know the BF and ops limits cold for day one, begin to review both the IFS Local Flying Procedures (the how you need to do it manual), and the EP Training Guide (the how you save yourself manual). Cheers, and good luck to all! Smokey PS: one caveat, live by the gouge, die by the gouge. Things do change from time to time and the gouge posted could become non-current at any time. However, it is a great place to start.