Test group to Skip the T6?

[gear3green]

Anyone heard of this?

[Snooter]

Just saw it today on TPN, s#!+$ about to get weird...

[carminsandiego]

skipping 38s is ridiculous but I can actually see this being a plausible idea.  Heavy drivers- would like to hear your honest opinion on this. 

[Snooter]

37 minutes ago, carminsandiego said:

skipping 38s is ridiculous but I can actually see this being a plausible idea.  Heavy drivers- would like to hear your honest opinion on this. 

I think there's a misunderstanding about what heavy guys do.  I guess for certain airframes it could be feasible, but definitely not the tac side.

[matmacwc]

10 minutes ago, Snooter said:

I think there's a misunderstanding about what heavy guys do.  I guess for certain airframes it could be feasible, but definitely not the tac side.

True that, but they've already proved they can be taught so there go your mission requirements.  

[Napoleon_Tanerite]

If you take a dude and drop them into T-1s without the conditioning provided by the T-6 program, I predict a road to failure.  The T-1 program has this perception of being some sort of cupcake program, but that's not the case.  Our washout rate is comparable and frequently higher than the T-38 side of UPT.  It's a bit more big-boy than T-6, but there is still a strong expectation for guys to know how to color within the lines (a skill they learn in the T-6).  If you take a dude from some pay-for-the-rating school and drop them straight in Phase 3, I think they will struggle regardless of their previous experience.  I see regional airline guys (paid, professional copilots) struggle in the T-1 when they think they're just there to get another rating added to their license.  It's not a matter of skills, it's a matter of adaptability to the environment.  

[dream big]

1 hour ago, carminsandiego said:

skipping 38s is ridiculous but I can actually see this being a plausible idea.  Heavy drivers- would like to hear your honest opinion on this. 

Horrible,horrible idea.  This isn’t to discount civilian training but the fundemental military aviation skills garnered in phase 2 is critical to basic airmenship in a dynamic environment.  This applies whether you’re flying low levels in hercs or orbits in an AWACS.  These kinds of initiatives are going to get people killed; we don’t have the luxury of taking shortcuts in this business.  Just my 2 cents..

[FUSEPLUG]

The next logical step is “Test group to skip flying airplanes all together”.  Anyone who’s played “Top Gun” on the NES should go direct to left seat in the C-17 for some night AR. 

This has become the definition of grasping for straws. 

[Clark Griswold]

Just the sad final end of years of mismanagement or a cynical strategy to "disaster signal" to get Congressional approval of policy / manpower changes to allow Big Blue to kick the can down the road...

[Standby]

Ya, there’s no way you could fly effectively in the military with ONLY civilian training. 

Kirby

[Homestar]

Hmm. In my UPT class the guy who was a CFI regional pilot practically slept thru Tweets and coasted in T-1s to DG. Take a guy with airmanship and teach him the military way and I think he’ll be fine. The test subjects are holders of aviation degrees and are CFIs, so the pool of prospects is pretty shallow anyway. 

[daynightindicator]

The next logical step is “Test group to skip flying airplanes all together”.  Anyone who’s played “Top Gun” on the NES should go direct to left seat in the C-17 for some night AR. 
This has become the definition of grasping for straws. 

Let’s be real - that game was crazy hard, especially AR and traps.

[BashiChuni]

Just now, daynightindicator said:

 

Let’s be real - that game was crazy hard, especially AR and traps.

i could never beat it

[carminsandiego]

2 hours ago, Snooter said:

I think there's a misunderstanding about what heavy guys do.  I guess for certain airframes it could be feasible, but definitely not the tac side.

How does 6 months of T-6s gain any skills that help the "tac side" of heavy flying?

And what if they were limited to track airframes that don't do any "tactical flying" such as C-5 and VIP jets and tankers?   

 

 

 

[Clark Griswold]

29 minutes ago, Standby said:

Ya, there’s no way you could fly effectively in the military with ONLY civilian training. 

Kirby

Not saying that or implying that military pilot training is the only way to become a great pilot 

What I am saying is that it is PATHETIC that a military institution historically based on airpower with a 132 billion dollar budget, 12,600 pilots, 5 bases dedicated to pilot training and over 1,000 training aircraft and access to enormous amounts of data that was foretelling this problem can not figure a way out.

[BashiChuni]

you hit it clark. utterly pathetic. and, frankly, SAD. - Donny t

Edited November 30, 2017 by BashiChuni

[jazzdude]

Ya, there’s no way you could fly effectively in the military with ONLY civilian training. 
Kirby

Already experienced pulling Gs, skip T-6s and go straight to T-38s.

[brabus]

1 hour ago, Homestar said:

Hmm. In my UPT class the guy who was a CFI regional pilot practically slept thru Tweets and coasted in T-1s to DG. Take a guy with airmanship and teach him the military way and I think he’ll be fine. The test subjects are holders of aviation degrees and are CFIs, so the pool of prospects is pretty shallow anyway. 

On the contrary, I had 3x CFIs in my class, 2 of which were below average in phase 2 and struggled heavily.  The other kicked ass.  I don't think civilian ratings directly correlate to good UPT performance, but I'm sure they do help for some people, clearly not for all.

[AZwildcat]

1 hour ago, Clark Griswold said:

Just the sad final end continuation of years of mismanagement or a cynical strategy to "disaster signal" to get Congressional approval of policy / manpower changes to allow Big Blue to kick the can down the road...

FIFY

[jazzdude]

I think this only helps the part 141 schools stay in business now that they can't place their grads direct into the right seat of a regional anymore.

[Sprkt69]

1 hour ago, Standby said:

Ya, there’s no way you could fly effectively in the military with ONLY civilian training. 

Kirby

Careful with what you wish for, that is exactly one of the COAs that was proposed to man AMC. They’d go to a civilian/contractor school to basically get an ATP then go to their perspective AMC airframe school. That leaves the rest of the 6/38 student production to go to the CAF while the helos would be there own thing

[Standby]

I don’t think you will see wide swaths of knuckle-dragging, barely cert’ed civilian pilots being picked up for the program. I think a lot of problem in the service is hypocrisy. On one hand people fault leaders being resistant to change and new ways of doing things while talking out the other side of the mouth about how the new COA won’t work because it’s not how it has been done before. This so-called pilot shortage is only going to get worse if we stay the conventional course. With a test batch of 10 individuals...how much damage could be done? We are looking at taking trained aviators and putting them into a military platform while executing a standardized syllabus. If they fail to meet MIF, I would hope the service cut losses early and either can the program or re-assess selection criteria. I don’t think x-hours in the T-6 will matter in the long run if a guy successfully completes T-1 phase 3 and continues to follow-on MAF MQ. The success and credibility of the program will be directly measured by the standards being enforced and drawing a critical comparison of the two products: traditional SUPT grad to MAF vs T-1 direct accession. Reading through some of the other threads, it seems like the product being handed to the MAF is a steaming turd anyway.

I cut my teeth outside of the CAF/MAF and find myself in AETC-land completely disassociated from this experiment BUT I don’t think it is in the interest of any AF pilot to be poo-poo’ing any semi-legit way to train future aviators if the byproduct is the same.

That being said: I agree that mismanagement of the force has occurred and it’s still somewhat unbelievable we are even discussing this...but we are living in the present.

posted from phone...unregard spelling/grammar

[Snooter]

9 hours ago, carminsandiego said:

How does 6 months of T-6s gain any skills that help the "tac side" of heavy flying?

And what if they were limited to track airframes that don't do any "tactical flying" such as C-5 and VIP jets and tankers?   

 

 

You know what, f-me, I'm wrong.  I thought you were looking for opinions, not an argument.  I'll be over at the donut shop before step time...

[Napoleon_Tanerite]

9 hours ago, Homestar said:

Hmm. In my UPT class the guy who was a CFI regional pilot practically slept thru Tweets and coasted in T-1s to DG. Take a guy with airmanship and teach him the military way and I think he’ll be fine. The test subjects are holders of aviation degrees and are CFIs, so the pool of prospects is pretty shallow anyway. 

In my experience as a T-1 IP over the past 5 years or so the guys coming in with prior experience tend to exist on the extreme ends of the bell curve, rarely the middle.  Either they are able to adapt to the military way of flying and are able to leverage their previous experience to great success, or they possess the attitude of "I've got nothing to actually learn here, I'm just checking the box" and they struggle if not wash out.  Prior experience and skill CAN be an advantage, but only when paired with humility and an attitude that is conducive to accepting instruction.

[RTB]

6 hours ago, Standby said:

I think a lot of problem in the service is hypocrisy. On one hand people fault leaders being resistant to change and new ways of doing things while talking out the other side of the mouth about how the new COA won’t work because it’s not how it has been done before. 

I’d say that’s a valid overall observation. But in this particular case, leaders are ignoring or at least not addressing the myriad of reasons there is a pilot exodus, and have instead chosen to alter a training program and methodology that is proven and has been highly successful for over 50 years. These COAs are offering up a cheap solution to the wrong problem.