Hacker

The really good ones were Art 15s.

For my last 3 or so years on active duty, I adopted the practice of calling authority figures in my chain of command "management" rather than "leadership". Fortunately, I had Squadron leadership that rocked and were flying top cover for me, otherwise I'm sure I'd have added another LOR or something to my already-impressive record of administrative slaps on the wrist. SQ/CC: "Hacker, have you briefed Group leadership on the ADVON plan?" Me: "Sir, I did brief management, and they did not have any questions." SQ/CC: "Why do you keep using the term 'management'?" Me: "I'll call them "leadership" when they re-earn that title. In the mean time, I'll call them what they actually are in practice." SQ/CC: "I guess I won't be putting you up for Wing Staff anytime soon....you're dismissed."

I did a year at a regional after retiring and before I got hired at my career airline. I highly recommend it for many reasons. Yes, the pay sucks, but it will be to your benefit in the long run if you're not getting calls from the majors.

That's not just on APC...you'll find that out in the real world, too.

I actually enjoyed being a UPT IP, and it was an opportunity to be on the leadership train since I wasn't a shiny enough penny to be a Strike Eagle SQ/CC.

Vampires can't see their own reflection in a mirror.

I was a snacko once as a Lt Col, and I was the best goddamn snacko that squadron ever saw.

My airline's AFPAK Hands program will station you at the Kuala Lumpur Beach Club Café with a tall drink and a companion who will be happy to keep you company, GI.

Amidst all the bleeding pussies, slighted egoes, and hurt feelings around this topic, don't forget that these are decisions based on qualifications that would likely translate to success in the IFF, FTU, and MQT training pipelines. It has nothing to do with ego. It is "gatekeeping", yes, because the AF doesn't have unlimited money to throw at people to see if they will make it -- they have to make educated and calculated decisions. Again, the Colonels and Generals who are kicking this stuff around saw the last iteration of the puppet show and how that turned out -- hell, some of them may have even been participants in it themselves. Since the results previously were marginal/acceptable at best with T-38 trained pilots, what is the logic some of you have behind thinking that opening it up to pilots with no fast jet single-pilot decisionmaking experience would deliver a better result? With a T-38 trained pilot, there is at least some sort of measured, documented performance that shows adaptability to that flying environment and theoretically the potential to succeed. With a T-1 trained pilot, there is no measured documented performance of those tasks...so which is the riskier bet? Again, it isn't about talent, it is about experience. As said, everyone realizes there are probably a number of T-1 trained MAF dudes who would excel when retrained as a pointy-noser using the existent T-38 requal/IFF/FTU/MQT syllabi, but the AF can't build policy based on what are likely statistical outliers.

Based on what you're saying in this thread, it sounds like you haven't learned any of the lessons that are intended to be conveyed during IEP.

I can't wait for you to go back and look at this post maybe 5 or 10 years down the road -- you know, when you have some actual real-world ops experience under your belt -- so you can see how truly ignorant it is, even as sarcasm. At some point you're probably going to have the opportunity to do an IEP either with an IFF squadron or a fighter FTU. I highly recommend you take that opportunity to see what is lurking on the other side of the UPT base fence.

Well, that's certainly going to fix the morale problem. As if there weren't already enough distrust and animosity between line folks and leadership...

Everybody goes back to the bottom at the new job, theoretically. That being said, DOs and CCs in the new units can incorporate FLUGs and IPUGs into "MQT" if it is appropriate. When I went back to the F-15E after having been an IFF IP, my MQT was dovetailed right into a 4-ship FLUG program.

Except we are talking about very different disciplines and required skillsets here. WSOs and regional pilots have experience that is directly related to the basic skills being taught in the T-6 program. The only one who has relevant experience when it comes to IFF and the FTUs are former WSOs, and most IFF FTU IPs will tell you former WSOs come in the same flavor as former FAIPs: those who STFU and understand they're a student and use their experience for good and excel, and the rest who don't. Which, by the way, is also the same recipe for success that those regional FOs and former WSOs have in T-6s, too. I think the thing you're missing here is how large the gap is between the skills required of a T-38 UPT graduate and the skills required to succeed as an IFF student. Unless something substantial has changed, a fresh T-38 graduate doesn't have the skill or proficiency required to walk across the street and demo pro the formation phase in IFF. There is still a substantial learning curve for a student in those short 4 sorties. I have personally busted former T-38 FAIPs on IFF F-4 because they couldn't fly tactical to the IFF standard. So, if UPT T-38 grads have a challenge...and T-38 FAIPs have a challenge...where do you think that leaves someone who has never had to be a single-seat decisionmaker in a fast jet?

Based on the fact that you have no experience either as a student or an instructor in any fighter follow-on training, I'm wondering where you get this belief. I agree that there are some T-1 trained pilots who would probably do fine. That is not the same as the requirement being "bullshit."

This has to be a FAIP troll account.

I wish we could gold plate this quote and hang it up on the wall for posterity. Why? Because it just so directly crystallizes the FAIP stereotype in fighter track follow-on training. In my experience as an IFF IP and out in the wild in FTUs and Ops squadrons, FAIPs come in two wildly divergent flavors: above average and below average. What makes the difference between the two? Those who are able to bottle up that idea that because they instructed UPT that it gives them some kind of SA or experience that is applicable to learning the fighter trade, hide it somewhere deep in their psyche, and proceed as if they were a recent UPT grad that knew absolutely nothing. The humble, willing-to-learn former FAIPs generally did well. The ones who thought their FAIP experience gave them some kind of leg up generally flailed and struggled until they got their attitude in check.

I have no doubt that there are very talented pilots who went through the T-1 track and went on to fly heavies, and who would likely excel if they crossflowed to a fast mover. But let's remember that the AF training pipeline has always been a game of numbers, and Big Blue has to select the pilots who have the highest likelihood of making through IFF and FTUs in the time directed in the syllabus. I'm sure there are plenty of UPT washouts who would have made great pilots if they'd just had a couple more rides, right? But, as we know, the syllabus directs when certain learning milestones will be achieved, and that is Gospel for the training pipeline. The brass who are making these decisions are old enough to remember the last fighter crossflow program in the late 90s and how generally sorta-slightly-below-average that turned out. Yes, we're talking about something different now than then (e.g., now the question is T-1 vs T-38 trained, but then the only folks eligible for crossflow were T-38 UPT-trained pilots), but because of this I think the lessons of the 90s crossflow are even more amplified now than then. I've posted about this before (several pages back in this very thread), but for those who didn't live through it, the fact is many crossflow pilots didn't end up performing as well as hoped at all stages of follow-on training (IFF. FTU, squadron MQT, etc). Some of them did great, of course (I know a couple that went on to perform well above average where I was in the F-15E community), but statistically they did "worse" (in terms of pipeline training washouts and issues in operational units). Remember, during this crossflow program it was only T-38-trained pilots who were eligible. Most of the dozen or so crossflow pilots that were my IFF/FTU classmates and later follow-on squadronmates were superb officers with fantastic officer performance records (and extremely good dudes to boot), but that didn't always continue into performance in the cockpit. It wasn't a talent issue with the crossflow pilots so much as it was an experience issue; one has to acknowledge, weather it is politically correct to or not, that there are significant cultural differences between the fighter community and other flying communities (although the bomber community is a somewhat close relative) that translate to differences in skills/airmanship in the pilots that come from those communities. What makes an aviator great in the MAF isn't the same thing that makes an aviator great in the CAF. On the most basic level, the crossflow pilots, for the most part, were not used to being single-seat decisionmakers at much higher speeds, and much higher Gs, while hand-flying significantly more aggressive/dynamic maneuvers. Many times the core airmanship just wasn't operating well at 400 knots and pilots were just behind the jet (sound judgment, just not fast enough); sometimes a thousand hours on autopilot in the flight levels did not translate to having hands good enough for even basic admin formation work, much less more complex BFM or surface attack. This isn't unique to the crossflow folks, though; this is the same thing seen many times with ANG/Reserve fighter units that hire non-fighter guys and send them through IFF and fighter FTUs. There was a big wave of those guys back in the 2003-2005 timeframe (mostly A-10 units at the time, but I don't remember why), and they had an unusually high washout rate, too, with the guys who did superb being the exception rather than the rule. None the less, the end result was that there was higher attrition of the crossflow guys compared to straight pipeline students, and the fighter brass largely decided the crossflow program wasn't that much of a benefit. Again, not that the crossflow pilots were idiots or anything (in fact, quite the opposite -- most of them had impressive OPRs/jobs/awards, seemed to have been superb pilots in their previous lives, and were really great dudes), but their previous flying time had given them habits and airmanship that did not dovetail into success in fighters. And all of this was with pilots who had 100-ish hours of training as a fast jet single-seat flyer and decisionmaker before going to a multi-pilot airplane. Now, how do you think that learning curve is going to be with a dude whose only single-seat judgment and decisionmaking was Phase II in T-6s however many years prior?

Do any of the airlines have an AFPAK Hands program? Mine doesn't.

The seniority system is the only way to ensure that safety is the #1 factor motivating decisionmaking, vs trying to "look good" for management.

Just the fact that they're playing that card is an indicator of where their decisionmaking compass is pointing.

There I was, flat on my back....

You see, a pimp's love is very different from that of a square...

ATI AT-94A2. Basically the same gun made in the same factory as the Zenith (MKE in Turkey), but the previous importer. A2 stock and 16" CHF barrel with no muzzle device. It was imported with a bunch of weird stuff; A2 stock spot-welded to trigger group/lower, mag-well bars to restrict use of 10-round mags, etc. I sent it to Parabellum Combat Systems and had them 922r it, remove the mag bars, clean up the welds, strip the weird painted finish off and refinish in black duracoat. The OD green furniture is Pakistani-made and the lower is clipped-and-pinned and US-made.

I used to have the Hi Point 995TS, and although it was ugly as hell, just a tad heavy, and that big bolt reciprocating jarred my teeth when it cycled, it was utterly reliable and boringly accurate at plinking ranges. I sold it to get an MP5 clone instead.