T-38 Questions

[Skitzo]

Originally posted by thefranchise:

the plan is to essentially limit the grade power for ranking and leaving it up to the IPs, Flight Commanders and sq commanders to determine who get 38s, 1s, and 44s and letting the grades jsut be grades and limit their influence. This will surely create its own issues but its def a step in the right direction IMO. We were told to maybe expect some sort of change maybe next year

I don't think I am understanding fully, how is this any better than the current system? We're talking about gut feelings here? The gut feelings based off of whose judgement, a squadron comander who may or may not have flown with the class, an assigned IP / Flight Commander from a heavy MDS making decisions about the suitability of a student to go fighter/bombers.

If the problem is the MIF being enforced selectively/incorrectly maybe we need to fix that instead of the way we are assigning people.

If the consensus is that -38s were the great equalizer when everyone went -38s, maybe the problem of multi-tracks is the problem in and of itself.

Or maybe an increased amount of time in Phase II would be better, to evaluate more items like tactical form.

[Hacker]

Originally posted by ktulu34535:

If the problem is the MIF being enforced selectively/incorrectly maybe we need to fix that instead of the way we are assigning people.

If the consensus is that -38s were the great equalizer when everyone went -38s, maybe the problem of multi-tracks is the problem in and of itself.

Two very good points -- the root of the problem is standardization in grading. The fact of the matter is that there ARE course training standards...it is up to the leadership to enforce that the IPs are grading to that standard.

With respect to everyone going through the T-38, that's a great idea, but the problem is with the number of hours put on the airframes if EVERYONE flies them. The maintenance and logistical costs go up exponentially.

[Guest thefranchise]

multi track is the death of creating pilots in the airforce. upt is supposed to create a pilot; not a tanker/airlift or fighter/bomber specialty. The concept sounded good on paper and maybe it saves money somehow but the product is definitly less than optimal. Producing a pilot involves providing them the basic skill sets so they can carry over to a RTU and airframe. Faster airspeeds and formation work, especially in 38s provides an awsome understanding of aircraft discipline control and aerodynamic concepts, basically enhancing the phase 2 instruction. T-1 training in a nutshell emphasises how to fill out DD175s, fly an ILS, and operate an FMS all while running checklists verbatim. in reality you could cut the t-1 syllabus in 1/2 and still produce the same product they give now.

Cheating out those concepts from 3/4 or better of your pilot population should tell you something. we arent and never should be creating a F16 pilot or a KC135 pilot, etc; we should be teaching and training our student pilots ALL the various and advanced skills we have to offer so they can suceed in ANY platform and multiple platforms, not a specific one.

[Bergman]

Originally posted by thefranchise:

multi track is the death of creating pilots in the airforce. upt is supposed to create a pilot; not a tanker/airlift or fighter/bomber specialty. The concept sounded good on paper and maybe it saves money somehow but the product is definitly less than optimal. Producing a pilot involves providing them the basic skill sets so they can carry over to a RTU and airframe. Faster airspeeds and formation work, especially in 38s provides an awsome understanding of aircraft discipline control and aerodynamic concepts, basically enhancing the phase 2 instruction. T-1 training in a nutshell emphasises how to fill out DD175s, fly an ILS, and operate an FMS all while running checklists verbatim. in reality you could cut the t-1 syllabus in 1/2 and still produce the same product they give now.

I disagree completely. You could not cut 1/2 the T-1 syllabus and produce anywhere near the quality of product. That would graduate students about half way thru the nav phase; you can't tell me someone at the point of the program is nearly as proficient/competent as someone at the end of the current program.

T-1 training in a nutshell emphasises how to fill out DD175s, fly an ILS, and operate an FMS all while running checklists verbatim.

The T-1 program, depsite it's shortcomings, is outstanding training. All of the things you mention are true - they teach you how to fly an ILS, fill out a 175, operate an FMS - that is exactly what they will be doing in their MWS. What better training than actually teaching what someone is going to be doing for the next 6-9 years?

The reality of today's Air Force is that most pilots will fly the same MWS for most of their career. The need to train to different platforms just isn't there - the days of F-4 guys transferring to B-52s then to F-15s are done. There is no need to have a "generalist pilot", so why not train to certain MWSs?

[Skitzo]

And then again, everyone at ENJJPT goes -38s, and its been said time and again, that you can't tell an ENJJPT grad from an SUPT grad unless you look at the flightsuit.

The SUPT product must be close to being good enough because of this except for the cases where a stud gets -38s when he/she shouldn't because of santa clauses or a good student gets stuck with Major Regression, who will always be tougher on him/her.

It all says to me that the problem isn't in the training, its enforcing the CTS and MIF. Maybe if they simplified the MIF and manuever continuity instructors would have an easier time.

[Guest thefranchise]

Originally posted by Bergman:

The T-1 program, depsite it's shortcomings, is outstanding training. All of the things you mention are true - they teach you how to fly an ILS, fill out a 175, operate an FMS - that is exactly what they will be doing in their MWS. What better training than actually teaching what someone is going to be doing for the next 6-9 years?

in 6 months i could train a special needs chimp to fly and ILS. you dont need 6 months of ILS procedures to figure that out. you could easily cut out 3-4 transition rides and about 6 nav rides and all the airdrop/refuel. using your logic then why are we trying to teach mission commander skills and make the guy fly a crew jet single pilot when we should be teaching co-pilot skills since thats all they'll be for a couple years anyway?

[ 18. October 2006, 22:45: Message edited by: thefranchise ]

[C17Driver]

you could easily cut out 3-4 transition rides and about 6 nav rides and all the airdrop/refuel

No way! For C-17 guys, the "air refueling" basics they teach at UPT are about the most you are going to get until you get to your flying squadron flying an operational mission. With no "training" those new copilots would be worthless for their first couple night AR's over the black sea at night in and out of the WX. At least now they at least know what IP, CP, etc. mean and the importance of being precise.

[HerkDerka]

Originally posted by thefranchise:

formation work, especially in 38s provides an awsome understanding of aircraft discipline control and aerodynamic concepts, basically enhancing the phase 2 instruction.

WTF are you talking about?

HD

[SCRIMP]

Man...some of the questions that people post on here make me feel alot better about my redneck self. At least I know just to work my ass off. I guess that comes with being a redneck though.

[Bergman]

Originally posted by thefranchise:

in 6 months i could train a special needs chimp to fly and ILS. you dont need 6 months of ILS procedures to figure that out. you could easily cut out 3-4 transition rides and about 6 nav rides and all the airdrop/refuel. using your logic then why are we trying to teach mission commander skills and make the guy fly a crew jet single pilot when we should be teaching co-pilot skills since thats all they'll be for a couple years anyway?

Did you go through the T-1 program? I have no idea what program or base you went through, but at XL all of my T-1 rides were pretty good. Yes, the ILS to 13C gets old after 6-9 tries, but the outbase work was a challenge...LOC to an opposite direction TACAN to a circle, pull closed, back to radar, etc for 1-2 hours. Mabye you're Chuck F*cking Yeager or something, but for me at least the nav rides were difficult. I learned a helluva lot.

There is no way I would have been as prepared for Altus if I hadn't flown T-1s. Yes, the airdrop missions are useless for a tanker guy, but I maintain they teach basic airmanship, fundamentals of timing problems and airspeed changes (which we do use in the tanker), and basic SA. The A/R portion of mission fam was basically Altus-lite, and I know I was more prepared for Altus because o f those flights.

As for "training mission commanders even though you're going to be a copilot" - I agree with you there. It pissed me off to bust my ass in UPT, running the show on every mission, then show up at Altus and barely be allowed to raise the gear and flaps. Especially since my ACIQ guy was a C-141 dude who knew less about -135s than I did. Looking back, I can see why they have copilots. The -135 can be wayyy too much airplane for a newbie, which is why the PIQ program is a very bad idea.

[ 19. October 2006, 21:42: Message edited by: Bergman ]

[Guest Xtndr50boom]

Originally posted by Bergman:

airspeed changes (which we do use in the tanker)

Yeah, 135 guys only do that in contact about every 5 seconds. Receiver A/R with them is like watching a flying accordian. Maybe you shouldn't learn that in T-1s....Sheesh!

[Guest RazorB]

Originally posted by Hacker:

The U-2 method that you referred to was possible, but EXTREMELY limited, and as you said, gone now.