BLUE: Episode 25 Pilot Pipeline

[Piper Nick]

 

Thoughts on these changes? Any idea when some of these things might get implemented? Hoping to head to OTS around November 2018. 

 

[BashiChuni]

If anyone can fix anything it’s scott van de water. Dude is legit. 

UPT next is gonna teach the AF a lot

Edited July 6, 2018 by BashiChuni

[Vimix22]

The VR stuff seems pretty cool. I can see a lot of potential there. 

[Champ Kind]

The VR stuff seems pretty cool. I can see a lot of potential there. 

I’ve never strapped into one of these VR contraptions, but so far, my experience has been that nothing replaces your ass in the seat of a real airplane.

[herkbum]

17 minutes ago, Champ Kind said:

 

I’ve never strapped into one of these VR contraptions, but so far, my experience has been that nothing replaces your ass in the seat of a real airplane.

 

Check!

[Danger41]

I have used those exact VR contraptions and they are definitely a step up from traditional sims. I don’t know the neurology behind it, but it was a much more immersive experience. I don’t think this is the exact solution, but something like this could make a big difference in UPT.

[tac airlifter]

52 minutes ago, Champ Kind said:

I’ve never strapped into one of these VR contraptions, but so far, my experience has been that nothing replaces your ass in the seat of a real airplane.

 

Concur.  However, VR beats chairflying with a poster.  Also better than a SIM for some lessons.

The key question is can this technology provide enough base knowledge to make flights more efficient?  If you cut 25% of syllabus flights but replaced them with 400% increase in VR training, can you produce an equivalent (or better) product for less money?

i don’t know the answer, but I’m glad we’re investigating the question.  And I think we’ve got a team in Austin who will assess objectively.

 

 

[Sprkt69]

I guess we will see if VR will be the gateway to future wings when these students go to Kelly for the FTU.

Right now, as mentioned before, the UPT product is definitely inferior to what it was just 4 years ago. Students are having a difficult time with the admin and Gs. Too much CrossFit and not enough beer and bacon is my guess for the G issues

[JeremiahWeed]

1 hour ago, tac airlifter said:

Concur.  However, VR beats chairflying with a poster.

That's great if you have easy access.  Unless they're going to issue each student a VR contraption, I bet the ones who want to do well on the check ride they have tomorrow will still find themselves chairflying in front of a poster in their room the night before.

[tac airlifter]

38 minutes ago, JeremiahWeed said:

That's great if you have easy access.  Unless they're going to issue each student a VR contraption, I bet the ones who want to do well on the check ride they have tomorrow will still find themselves chairflying in front of a poster in their room the night before.

They’re issuing each student a full VR kit: goggles, controls, computer, etc.  Its a nice one, and expensive.  

[YoungnDumb]

That'll last just long enough for a student to spill beer all over it/lose it, then they'll stop. 

[Day Man]

1 minute ago, YoungnDumb said:

That'll last just long enough for a student to spill beer all over it/lose it watch VR porn on it, then they'll stop. 

FTFY

[soupafly06]

With URT being all simulator based and spitting out RPA bubbas in roughly 6 months; will the rise of VR and the increasingly watered down UPT syllabus eventually blur the line between the UPT/URT pipelines enough so that they will become indistinguishable?  

[ViperMan]

4 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

Concur.  However, VR beats chairflying with a poster.  Also better than a SIM for some lessons.

The key question is can this technology provide enough base knowledge to make flights more efficient?  If you cut 25% of syllabus flights but replaced them with 400% increase in VR training, can you produce an equivalent (or better) product for less money?

i don’t know the answer, but I’m glad we’re investigating the question.  And I think we’ve got a team in Austin who will assess objectively.

Assess objectively? Yeah, sure.

I won't disparage the bros on the line who have been charged with conducting this experiment, but to think that this "process" will satisfactorily represent the larger issue is a pipe dream from the outset - at least from what I've heard. I'll stand by to be corrected.

The impression I'm under is that the set of folks who have been selected to participate in the Austin experiment were selected based on criteria that made it near-certain that they would succeed. Certain individuals are likely to succeed no matter what they do. If we did in fact choose these types to "represent" the viability of a program so it can serve as justification to implement change large-scale upon a group that is a non-representative superset, we're lying to ourselves.

I won't for one second state that the Air Force shouldn't investigate better ways of doing business/hacking the mish - but I also won't entertain the idea that this idea was born in a vacuum. It's a response to a separate problem, and a convenient way to save some dough.

[tac airlifter]

7 hours ago, ViperMan said:

Assess objectively? Yeah, sure.

I won't disparage the bros on the line who have been charged with conducting this experiment, but to think that this "process" will satisfactorily represent the larger issue is a pipe dream from the outset - at least from what I've heard. I'll stand by to be corrected.

The impression I'm under is that the set of folks who have been selected to participate in the Austin experiment were selected based on criteria that made it near-certain that they would succeed. Certain individuals are likely to succeed no matter what they do. If we did in fact choose these types to "represent" the viability of a program so it can serve as justification to implement change large-scale upon a group that is a non-representative superset, we're lying to ourselves.

I won't for one second state that the Air Force shouldn't investigate better ways of doing business/hacking the mish - but I also won't entertain the idea that this idea was born in a vacuum. It's a response to a separate problem, and a convenient way to save some dough.

I agree.

Just because the guy running this experiment is legit doesn’t mean I’m naive enough to think the AF will learn the right lessons and make smart decisions.  The organization is broken.

Regardless, VR is becoming mature enough for incorporation into training syllabi.... but how to leverage its strengths and avoid weaknesses will take some study.  Applications aren’t limited to pilot training either, at my last job we were using it to familiarize new guys with the layout of large ships & subs.  There’s all kinds of interesting applications and I’m glad the AF is experimenting with it.  

[DirtyFlightSuit]

I would have a lot less negative to say about UPT next if we just didn't hack the UPT syllabus to shreds and reduce the PIT syllabus significantly at the same time without any "test" groups or anything resembling a stepped approach.  It was "Oh crap we behind timeline hardcore" to "solved timeline issue."  It is one thing to mess with VR and see how we can leverage it, to already make cuts to the syllabus and then look at VR to make additional cuts before actually doing any kind of real testing.  

 

[LookieRookie]

15 hours ago, soupafly06 said:

With URT being all simulator based and spitting out RPA bubbas in roughly 6 months; will the rise of VR and the increasingly watered down UPT syllabus eventually blur the line between the UPT/URT pipelines enough so that they will become indistinguishable?  

No because UPT you actually fly manned aircraft and are a real manned pilot.

Edited July 8, 2018 by LookieRookie

[Fuzz]

The sims especially at UPT bases are outdated with limited fields of view (especially for a canopy aircraft) and shitty graphics. Futhermore chairflying infront of a poster was great before technology existed. We have those sims where students can go sit in a T-6 cockpit and flip switches to get hand on experience or the T-1s with actual mission computers to practice with. How much do those cost versus one of these VR kits? I flew one of these at a presentation at shoe flag and I believe that we can produce way better pilots using VR. Nothing will replace putting a students ass in a cockpit, but doing it the way we’ve done it in UPT for the last 50 years is also a sure way to ensure we don’t produce the best product we can.

Edited July 9, 2018 by Fuzz

[ThreeHoler]

Those shitty sims are way better than the Tweet sims we had when I went through UPT. The video processor was shared between the sims and you only got video for a few seconds of takeoff and landing.

[Laxer69]

You can get 400 VR sims for the price of a single T-6 OFT. I tried it, was immersive enough that i caught myself reaching forward to reset the G-meter. I definitely think it's the way of the future just from a price and portability perspective. Imagine having a couple of VR sims in each flight room at least, where IPs can watch the studs "fly" on each pc's accompanying desktop. It doesnt quite have the fidelity of a full up OFT but its definitely good enough.

Also, my bro there now talked about how easy it was to pause and reset with multiple guys linked together. Each stud did ~20 rejoins in the sim before trying it in the air, and then by their 2nd sortie in the aircraft had it shacked. Where teaching rejoins old school it was typical that stud were still struggling with rejoins in their ~12th sortie.

[Fuzz]

7 hours ago, ThreeHoler said:

Those shitty sims are way better than the Tweet sims we had when I went through UPT. The video processor was shared between the sims and you only got video for a few seconds of takeoff and landing.

Yeah exactly, they were better than the Tweets, now we have something better, so let’s use it. 

 

5 hours ago, BasicAggie said:

You can get 400 VR sims for the price of a single T-6 OFT. I tried it, was immersive enough that i caught myself reaching forward to reset the G-meter. I definitely think it's the way of the future just from a price and portability perspective. Imagine having a couple of VR sims in each flight room at least, where IPs can watch the studs "fly" on each pc's accompanying desktop. It doesnt quite have the fidelity of a full up OFT but its definitely good enough.

Also, my bro there now talked about how easy it was to pause and reset with multiple guys linked together. Each stud did ~20 rejoins in the sim before trying it in the air, and then by their 2nd sortie in the aircraft had it shacked. Where teaching rejoins old school it was typical that stud were still struggling with rejoins in their ~12th sortie.

The one I saw had gates to fly through to help you learn to fly patterns or instruments approaches. Pretty effective for showing what the correct sight picture looks like.

[Runr6730]

11 hours ago, ThreeHoler said:

Those shitty sims are way better than the Tweet sims we had when I went through UPT. The video processor was shared between the sims and you only got video for a few seconds of takeoff and landing.

 

Haha...in my day we flew upwind both ways and barefoot in severe icing.

How about the 300lb bluesuiters sitting next to you who knew that it took exactly 13 “clicks” of trim to level off?

Edited July 9, 2018 by Runr6730

[ThreeHoler]

Don’t get me wrong. We should leverage tech/upgrades where it makes sense and aids training. But realize a lot of the timeline of UPT is based on 60+ year old tech and whatnot.

[Disco_Nav963]

13 hours ago, Fuzz said:

The one I saw had gates to fly through to help you learn to fly patterns or instruments approaches. Pretty effective for showing what the correct sight picture looks like.

Sounds like chasing the golden rings down the glidepath on "Pilot Wings" on the Super Nintendo, circa 1992.

[FLEA]

Im really excited for AR innovations in the reality realm. 

 

https://youtu.be/E0UZWn4bnGY