Washout stories

[joshrk22]

I'm in the EXACT same boat right now, starting UPT in 4 weeks. My wife, her parents, my parents, EVERYONE has said that crap to me, and to be honest, I'm a bit worried! I keep telling people, "Sure, I can talk on the radios, big deal! It comes down to the monkey skills and can I do them!" During my whopping 62 hours in a C-172 and DA-20, it took me just as long as everyone else to figure it out! Guess I'll be finding out soon...

It's nice to know others have been there too though...

Do you think how fast you learned to fly a small GA plane relates to UPT? Personally I would say "don't worry about it" because every instructor is different and your instructor may have had a different way of doing things. Then again I've never been to UPT so I don't know for sure.

For me I finished my license in about 45 hours flying both 172's and 182's. This was over the course of a year and a half, though. My instructor was pretty impressed that I was able to do it that quick when it took that long. I told him it's all those years of flight sim (apparently they do help), working my ass off before every lesson (coming prepared), and being young and very coordinated (actually that's what he said).

I'm sure you'll do fine, and good luck!

[Scooter14]

Riddller,

You'll be fine becuase you recognize the problem. You are going to go into UPT and know you will have to study just as hard as everyone else. You know that there are no laurels to rest on because you were a nav/EWO/WSO/airline pilot/etc. Don't put any unresonable expectations on yourself (like I did) and do the best you can.

I went in there thinking I had to be the #1 pilot because I had all this experience and I was the SRO. I worked hard and didn't take it for granted, but when I hooked my first end of block ride, I was shocked. It kind of threw me. A few more mediocre flying performances soon followed. Then, I said to myself "Hey, who cares if you finish #1 or #last...as long as you give it your very best." It makes it a lot less stressful when you accept what you have no control over and just work to change what you do have control over.

Less stress=better sleep. Better sleep=better flying. Better flying=less stress.

If you can look in the mirror the day you graduate and be satisfied you gave it your best shot, then that's a good day.

And the monkey skills will develop. Some pick it up quicker than others. Our Flight CC would tell us it was his job to teach us the monkey skills and that it would come with time. Our job was to learn the EP's and all the GK.

If we went to a checkride and hooked for a maneuver, oh well.

God help us if we hooked for our EP or GK.

[Guest Bender]

Our Flight CC would tell us it was his job to teach us the monkey skills and that it would come with time. Our job was to learn the EP's and all the GK.

I am still amazed to this day when I dig that some people, although they undersrtand the concept, still do not have the proper cross check and use the control & perfomance concept.

I mean, F...it's on like page 1 of the Instrument AFI.

The tweet was such a "visual" airplane...It took me awhile to learn how to fly it reasonably well on instruments alone. There was way too much talk about trimming the plane and not enough talk about actually flying the damn thing before you even think about trimming it. If you can't keep the ADI still, maybe you should trim a bit, but 99.99% of the time, you shouldn't be touching the trim until the ADI is already still. I'm sure techniques abound.

The real shocking thing is that people graduate from UPT and still don't really get it. I've seen pilot induced osscillations on at least 3 different occassions.

Granted, none deviated more than 150 feet, nor did an IP take the controls, but WTF?

Personally, I think the real success in UPT is that concept. Either using the horizon outside and crossing the performance instruments, or the ADI and the same. The faster you perfect that bean, the better you do in UPT.

BENDY

Edited January 1, 2008 by Bender

[Hacker]

Wow, I missed that one the first time I read it.

Anyone who thinks that UPT bases have washout rates to maintain are really smoking something strong.

[Guest Hueypilot812]

Washout rates are approximately tied to demand for pilots. When the AF doesn't need pilots as much, it tends to wash out more. When I went through UPT in 2000, they were seemingly desperate for pilots, and there were students graduating that had hooked every checkride in the syllabus.

On the other hand, events at a base can affect it as well. My friend from OTS was at Vance when a student spun a Tweet into the ground killing himself in 2000. He (the friend) had been performing below average, but probably not any worse than some of my classmates at Laughlin. After the accident, several weak students (including my friend) were washed out for lack of flying ability. I think he had hooked a couple rides in contact phase, but then again, several of my XL classmates were doing the same thing and squeaked by.

I can still remember my classmate that got the E-3 to Tinker during a T-1 stand-up...for those not in the know, T-1 stand-ups are done as a "crew", and the victim gets to be the aircraft commander and a "co-pilot" is chosen to assist. During this particular scenario, they just left the ground and an engine fails. Both students forget to clean the airplane up...gear is still down and flaps still at take-off...so the IP tells them climb rate is falling off and airspeed is stagnant. Both of them start running unrelated checklists to somehow appease the IP, and he says now they are descending through 100 feet, airspeed still stagnant. To our shock, the guy who eventually got the E-3 says "well, I guess we'll have to prepare to crash" and directed his copilot to lock his shoulder harness and get ready to pack it in.

The IP stopped the scenario and said "here's a hint...none of these situations should end in a crash". Amazing what got through XL 7-8 years ago!

Edited January 14, 2008 by Hueypilot812

[BattleRattle]

This thread hasn't been added to in over a year and I was wondering if there were any interesting stories from any FAIPs/IPs at UPT bases since the last post.

[TreeA10]

I was a T-38 IP in the late 80s and the AF in it's infinite wisdom had screwed up the pilot forecast so nobody was being washed out of T-37s. These guys come to us having lost maybe 3 or 4 guys out of 30. Within a short period of time, we have students in big trouble in all categories, academically, military, and flying. The massive culling begins and we washed out half. It was ugly.

I did have the class leader break down and start crying during the debrief of a formation ride. Not pretty. But it gets worse.

My big kill for that class was the Class Leader. He earned that position due to the earlier departure of the previous class leader. I was the Flight Stan/Eval guy and a firm believer in "cooperate and graduate" and expected them to work together. So what happens? This guy takes a test, I grade it, he busts it, and I hand it back. This bust meant an automatic and potentially fatal ground eval for him. Shortly afterward, he comes to me saying I made an error in my grading. Interesting. I recalled that question quite clearly because it was easy and only one person, our hero, missed it plus I had gone over it twice because I knew the implications of him busting another test. I ask him if he changed the answer, he said no. I ask him to join me talking to the Flt CC and we repeat the process. A short meeting later with the Student Squadron CC and this guy is facing an Article 15 as a bonus to the whole getting thrown out of UPT. He ended up taking the Article 15 and I have no idea what happened to him later.

[HiFlyer]

Many moons ago I was a T-38 IP. I had a stud who was the least likely candidate to fly an airplane I had ever seen. We were in one of those "you can't wash him out, give him two extra rides" periods, and I was stuck with him. One day in the area we were doing a few unusual attitude drills. Beautiful, clear day in west Texas. I take it at the top of the area (22K), he closes his eyes, I keep the power about 90% and slowly roll and pull until we are pointed almost straight down. "You have it"....slight pause, nothing happens..."I SAID, YOU HAVE IT!" Nothing. Passing about 13K with the airspeed approaching mach 1, I take it and recover. There is a slightly frustrated verbal exchange and the answer to the question "why didn't you recover?" was..."I thought I might over-G the aircraft, Sir". I tried to point out that the impact with the ground at 700kts would probably over-G it too, but the logic was lost on they guy. About three weeks later the same student and I are approaching extended initial to 13L, power up, coming out of the area at about 330 kts, and I'm thinking "...slow down...call initial...", but nothing from the front seat. "Lt. X", says I, "don't you think you ought to be doing something about now?" "Yes Sir," says he, and promptly slams the gear handle down. I got the handle back up and we only had to deal with two slightly mangled main gear doors after landing. I have to hand it to the kid, he was usually the master of not making an incorrect choice (the gear incident being one of the few exceptions). When confronted with options, he simply wouldn't make ANY choice. The worst part of this story is that we never could wash him out. He graduated and went to tankers someplace. I felt really bad for the poor AC who got him (who is probably still cursing me to this day for not washing him out)!

Edited March 7, 2009 by HiFlyer

[Guest STFU]

Many moons ago I was a T-38 IP. I had a stud who was the least likely candidate to fly an airplane I had ever seen. We were in one of those "you can't wash him out, give him two extra rides" periods, and I was stuck with him. One day in the area we were doing a few unusual attitude drills. Beautiful, clear day in west Texas. I take it at the top of the area (22K), he closes his eyes, I keep the power about 90% and slowly roll and pull until we are pointed almost straight down. "You have it"....slight pause, nothing happens..."I SAID, YOU HAVE IT!" Nothing. Passing about 13K with the airspeed approaching mach 1, I take it and recover. There is a slightly frustrated verbal exchange and the answer to the question "why didn't you recover?" was..."I thought I might over-G the aircraft, Sir". I tried to point out that the impact with the ground at 700kts would probably over-G it too, but the logic was lost on they guy. About three weeks later the same student and I are approaching extended initial to 13L, power up, coming out of the area at about 330 kts, and I'm thinking "...slow down...call initial...", but nothing from the front seat. "Lt. X", says I, "don't you think you ought to be doing something about now?" "Yes Sir," says he, and promptly slams the gear handle down. I got the handle back up and we only had to deal with two slightly mangled main gear doors after landing. I have to hand it to the kid, he was usually the master of not making an incorrect choice (the gear incident being one of the few exceptions). When confronted with options, he simply wouldn't make ANY choice. The worst part of this story is that we never could wash him out. He graduated and went to tankers someplace. I felt really bad for the poor AC who got him (who is probably still cursing me to this day for not washing him out)!

Funny thing about this is the C-17 is much more easy to fly than the KC-135 (having flown them both). So when I was in tankers we would get average to below average pilots out of UPT bases, and we knew this as an OPS group and our OG/CC(thank God) really concentrated on getting our young pilots experience and training. In C-17s you usually get the top of the UPT class and you would think the cream of the crop. WRONG!!To make a long story short I have been more scared with people in the C-17 than in the Tanker. This has just been my experience in both communities. Granted I have heard all the excuses, about how the mission is harder in the C-17 than it is in the tanker. Yes in someways. But a landing is a landing, and the C-17 landing is more forgiving than a tanker landing because of the engines. My point is that with enough money and time you can teach a monkey to fly and airplane but it is a person's determination and hard work that makes them a good pilot. I have seen amazing officers and enlisted in both communities and I am proud, amazed, and honored to be in the same Air Force as they are. So As I talk to my Brethren down at the UPT bases I get the feeling they try to give people more chances to become pilots because they realize that people can and will become better pilots out of UPT but it is up to that person. Now back to my Morgan and coke and watching NCAA basketball. Cheers.

[Guest Form 8]

Tankers usually don't land gear up. In fact barring a bunch of catastrophic failures mechanical and CRM wise it's very hard to land gear up in the KC-135.

[tac airlifter]

Tankers usually don't land gear up. In fact barring a bunch of catastrophic failures mechanical and CRM wise it's very hard to land gear up in the KC-135.

Why is it harder to land gear up in a tanker vs. a C-17?

[sputnik]

Tankers usually don't land gear up. In fact barring a bunch of catastrophic failures mechanical and CRM wise it's very hard to land gear up in the KC-135.

Yeah, well, we can land gear up without ruining our motors. So there.

Plus our floors aren't made of plywood.

[amcflyboy]

Yeah, well, we can land gear up without ruining our motors. So there.

Plus our floors aren't made of plywood.

SHACK!!

[Guest Form 8]

Why is it harder to land gear up in a tanker vs. a C-17?

Because we usually fly with 3-4 people on operational sorties (4 if you're using a Nav) and there are countless safety checks done before landing. Plus on the -135 you can hear the nose gear come down (large slipstream noise) while on the flight deck, which is a good clue also telling you the gear came down.

Yeah, well, we can land gear up without ruining our motors. So there.

So can we, straight to the crash scene.

Edited March 9, 2009 by Form 8

[Spoo]

Because we usually fly with 3-4 people on operational sorties (4 if you're using a Nav) and there are countless safety checks done before landing. Plus on the -135 you can hear the nose gear come down (large slipstream noise) while on the flight deck, which is a good clue also telling you the gear came down.

So can we, straight to the crash scene.

WEAK response...all the way around. Maybe try harder next time...in the mean time, choke yourself.

Edit: couldn't decide between WEAK or or YOUR ATTEMPT AT RESPONSE/HUMOR = FAIL

Edited March 10, 2009 by Spoo

[sputnik]

Because we usually fly with 3-4 people on operational sorties (4 if you're using a Nav) and there are countless safety checks done before landing. Plus on the -135 you can hear the nose gear come down (large slipstream noise) while on the flight deck, which is a good clue also telling you the gear came down.

So can we, straight to the crash scene.

Wow how to respond?

I guess only to say that in the C17 we usually fly single pilot, and unlike every other large or small aircraft out there, there is no significant slipstream noise to not notice when the gear doesn't come down, so we don't have the clue your high tech stratotanker does. Nor several other warning systems. Nor often 1-many other people on flight deck.

Copy your lack of ability to detect humor slamming my own community. Enjoy your motors

Edited March 10, 2009 by sputnik