TheInner

Right now the only squadron with CCIP jets running B-coursers through is the 308th, the first class to fly them graduates next week and the second class is getting ready for their first flights. I think the 310th has them also but they don't have any B-course studs. As far as who is next and when, I don't know that answer for sure but the cool toys aren't always of use, i.e. the HMCS is not used by studs at any point and the datalink isn't used to its full capacity either, but the color MFDs and the EHSI is an improvement I suppose. If you have any more questions just let me know. I can ask around (I am at Luke) to find out who is next if you really want/need to know.

I went to High School there from 95-98, if I can be of any help PM me.

I have a good bud who is a newly MR'ed WSO in the Chiefs and he went through the EW training at Randolph prior to IFF. Just like pbar said they are trying to send dudes through the EWO stuff and my buddy probably just had the dates lined up where he could go through EWO training and still get to his FTU in time.

As a Tweet FAIP I wanted to jump in and comment about how we determine who willl do well in the 38 side of the house as well as the general mix of the squadron, i.e. prior MWS experience. Let me first start by saying for the most part in my 1 year and 6.9 months as a FAIP, previous flying time normally isn't a huge make or break item. Don't get me wrong, it can often be very noticeable if and when somebody has prior time but it very quickly becomes not much of a factor. In my Tweet squadron we only have about 5 dudes with fighter time and only one is right out of fighters so we definitely don't get a good perspective that way. Mostly we rack and stack the way everyone thinks, flying scores, test scores, and flight commander ranking and then that gets mixed in with what the drop is vs. what the studs want. In my experience it almost always works out, just like anything in the Air Force. We have plenty of older dudes who were IPs in the everyone flew the 38 days and they all seem to think this system works better, at least from our side of the house. I certainly wish that we did have a better mix of IPs though, nowadays its alot of FAIPs who think they are fighter pilots and heavy MWS guys who, at least lately post-OIF/OEF, tend to even scare people away from heavies due to the 270+ days gone. Anyways I have rambled enough.

The T-37 syllabus calls for a minimum of 89 hours and that is not normally an issue as long as the ASD (average sortie duration) isn't capped low for your entire time. Most students will have one or two 86 sorties (those are somewhat freebie rides after a break of 5 days or more in the jet) or have to repeat a ride for an incomplete or an unsat. The T-38 syllabus (at least when I was a student about 2 years ago) required 117 hours. Don't know for sure about the T-1 side but I think they had less sorties but more hours but some of those hours sitting in the jump seat (from what I know during the Transition phase, or first portion of the syllabus, you fly with an IP and another student and split the time at the controls with the other student but log all the time) Hope that helps and sorry it took 3 or 4 posts to get a worthwhile answer. I know not everyone is interested but I feel it was a valid question.

I don't want to leave ENJJPT IP hanging out there by himself. As a fellow Tweet FAIP I would say I wouldn't want to have any student landing and stopping the plane in 2000'. I can't think back to the last time I had a student touch down fully flared 500' down, the only situation from which I would want to try stopping in 2000'. However I think the most important point is who cares because we have to have 5000' and that won't be changing anytime soon. As for RedDog I sure hope you are Tweet complete or at least hide your true identity well because you certainly didn't gain any allies with your post. Hopefully you know or will at least learn that your past history or flying time doesn't matter. If you are a Tweet student with 6000 hours civil time and you fly a sortie with 2 Lt FAIP who only has the 69 hours he got at PIT he is still going to be the aircraft commander, know more about the Tweet and how to fly it then you ever will, and most importantly he will have the ability to hook your sorry a*s any sortie he deems appropriate. Like I said I am in no way trying to flame you but want to make sure that everyone understands attitude means alot and you will run into many situations in the Air Force where you need to understand your place in the food chain no matter how much you may disagree.

Scoobs, don't forget the lovely town of Columbus as well. To answer your question yes you can get more than 1000 hrs and as a matter of fact it is rather difficult to not get more than 1000 hrs as a Tweet FAIP, but you will have to ask someone else for definitive answers about T-1 and T-38 FAIPs. In my opinion the only reason FAIP always seems to be looked down upon is the fact that you are stuck in AETC 3 more years. The hardest part for me has been reading all the emails from my UPT buddies out there doing all kinds of cool operational stuff while I try to explain to Stan why you need to abruptly move the stick forward after one full turn in the spin recovery procedure for the 69th time. Based on the fact I am still currently a FAIP I suppose I don't have the best answer but I definitely agree with TORO about the pros of the job. As most of you know and would probably agree, FAIPs all but run the squadron in UPT, especially the Tweet squadrons. Along with that comes lots of responsibility both flying wise and in the squadron. Here at Columbus they shy away from FAIPs being examiners but everytime you fly a student sortie you are logging IP time which is invaluable and your airmanship just grows on a daily basis which will be nothing but a good thing no matter what your follow-on is. Just as a side note I did not put FAIP anywhere near the top of my dream sheet but I know that my time here in UPT as an IP will make for memories I will never forget and an experience that can't be replaced.

This post is starting to get out of hand, seriously folks, everyone understands that gouge is out there and hopefully everyone understands the proper way to use it. IMHO gouge is there to help out in a time of need, NOT to be the sole source of one's education and from what I've read from previous posts that seems to be everyone's opinion, BUT the case of the scandal (if you can even call it that) here at CBM goes above and beyond guys and gals having the gouge and unless you are privy to details on the situation you aren't going to realize the true extent of what happened. Flylady, great post and deweygcc, you have something against FAIPs or something, just remember most of us didn't ask to be condemned to AETC, I personally am just trying to survive until I get a shot at the "real" air force.

Rocker, you must be at a T-6 only base because at a Tweet base you won't see any Tweet drivers NOT using the mickey mouse ears. Just remember, they might not look cool but after one year as a FAIP and I am already having to redo my hearing test during my PHA.

are any of the UPT bases dealing with the combat edge gear yet other than ENJJPT? i was just curious because i had heard a rumor that eventually all of UPT would be in the combat edge mask and was wondering if there was any truth to that. So far as a FAIP i have only seen guys or girls wearing them who have brought them with them from a previous life.

no, flyinjunky is referring to a spoof of the Eagle Rage clip made by some Tweet FAIPs at Columbus. It takes the sound clip from Eagle Rage and adds in Tweet footage to match. It's actually rather funny. Somebody will definitely have to try and get a link to it.

Just wanted to clarify something mentioned in an earlier reply, yes Pensacola has a helo dunker but the Air Force water survival does not use it. Air Force navs going through P-Cola go through the Navy's version during API which uses the helo dunker.

To answer the other half of your question, no you do not need to be a fighter guy to go to TPS