UPT Next

[pawnman]

46 minutes ago, Majestik Møøse said:

WHY IS THERE NO CORN

Coronavirus.  It's a contamination risk.

[magnetfreezer]

59 minutes ago, Majestik Møøse said:

WHY IS THERE NO CORN

Funny, but good area for the VR/UPT/UCT-whatever developers to ponder. Assuming tech can eventually produce grads with decent muscle memory, scan, systems knowledge, etc. how do we use it to develop the intangibles (experience with weather, EPs, etc.) and attitude? If a guy/gal gets to the ops squadron, and acts like they're hot sh*t just because they're MQT complete but have 0 combat experience, that won't work either. Not a UFT-next problem exclusively (been declining over the past few years).

[brabus]

The attitude is easy to fix - they get kicked in the balls with increasing force until they change or are forced out of the community, whichever comes first. The intangible flying experience only comes with air time, so they’ll continue to be shitty/dangerous in those realms until they learn enough lessons through experience; that timeline will be individual-based. All of us will shoulder the risk. A real lose-lose situation. 

[nsplayr]

4 hours ago, magnetfreezer said:

...been declining over the past few years...

Not that I necessarily disagree, but has there ever been a time in history when an older generation has not thought less of a younger one? That they were lacking in some intangible, immeasurably quality that the older generation exudes and that the younger generation has utterly failed to demonstrate? I think not.

Put me in the camp of believing that the kids are alright and will grow up to shit on the next generation after them as reliably as we shit on them now.

[Stoker]

We've only know for the past hundred years of aviation that more flight time directly correlates to better pilots. At least on the T-1 side at UPT, how much more likely is a former airline pilot with 3,000 hours to DG than someone whose first time at the controls was in IFT? I showed up to my squadron out of UPT and they referenced the 250 hours I received there. They didn't realize I got slightly more than half of that. So people can complain about the declining quality, and maybe it's true that we younger folks just suck, but it's also a disconnect between resources expended "back in the day" versus now.

[Pooter]

30 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

Not that I necessarily disagree, but has there ever been a time in history when an older generation has not thought less of a younger one? That they were lacking in some intangible, immeasurably quality that the older generation exudes and that the younger generation has utterly failed to demonstrate? I think not.

Put me in the camp of believing that the kids are alright and will grow up to shit on the next generation after them as reliably as we shit on them now.

I agree with you in general terms.  Older generations tend to think they had it harder, uphill both ways, new kids just don't get it etc...

But many of us have personally observed UPT get watered down in very measurable ways in the last 3-4 years.  We're not talking long-term generational bias here.  I saw the syllabi get noticeably shorter and less rigorous over the duration of one assignment.  Just some T-6 examples since that's what I know:

No more ELPs

No more formation landings

No more advanced aero for T-1 bound students

Lower check ride MIF on a multitude of maneuvers

30% fewer sorties overall

50% fewer checkrides

50% fewer solos

Now we can debate the pros and cons of each, but I think it's undeniable we are plainly doing less total training time and events.  I've always said that if you get enough ADOs in a room who are worried about timeline, they could come up with a reason to waive any sortie in the syllabus.  "What's one sortie after all?!"  "Is the pattern-only solo really that important?" "Does this T-1 bound kid really need to form solo?  Lets just waive it."  This thought process is insidious and has resulted in a gradual whittling down of our core training.  And it happens in all of the perfectly well-intentioned syllabus rewrite conferences too.  Everyone is looking to "improve efficiency" because there isn't an OPR bullet for holding the line and keeping quality training the same.

VR training was never intended (by the people developing it) to replace regular UPT events.  Or speed up the pipeline. Or fix the pilot shortage.  It was intended to improve training by providing an additional resource that was more accessible than standard sims.  Having been involved with it from the very beginning, it's incredibly frustrating to watch the air force twist a good thing and pitch it as their silver bullet solution for problems they created..

But I suspect I am very much preaching to the choir. \endrant

[FLEA]

Sad to hear how much of UPT has eroded. I can understand the immediate logic behind cutting sorties for T-1 students but the reality is the AF always made better pilots slightly above the cut of the civil sector because we focused on building good airman (in the occupational sense of the word) first. You may never do a loop in your RC-135 but the concepts behind energy management and visual ques translated over every platform in a multitude of other skill sets. More than that, you instilled fierce confidence that graduates were able to take airplanes and fly them at their performance envelopes. Simply put, there was a time where the Air Force cared about making great pilots first, and then finding a weapon system for them. Now the emphasis seems to be getting them to a weapon system, and we'll worry about the pilot stuff later. 

[Homestar]

20 minutes ago, FLEA said:

Sad to hear how much of UPT has eroded

I really wish that someone who is really smart would do a long term study on the idea that UPT is pumping out inferior students as compared with a generation ago.  I've not seen anything other than biased anecdotal evidence that a graduate of 20-01 is really any more or less dangerous than a graduate of 01-20.

Of course, I haven't flown with a new copilot in a looooooooong time....I'm the guy grading Stan to MIF so he can apparently learn to fly the ILS when he gets to Altus. 🤷‍♂️

[Vito]

 Can you explain the point about 50% less check rides at UPT? When I went through in 86 we had 3 checks in the Tweet and 3 in the 38. They had just deleted a Low level check in the 38 a class or two prior to mine..so are there only 3 or 4 check rides total in UPT now?

[Bode]

My info is about a year old but what had 3 check rides for the studs and they were planning on adding a fourth.

 

They do a sim check which has really helped distinguish the problem children early. Then they do a transition check (think combo instruments and contact). After that the 38 bound studs do a for check (with tac) and all others do a nav check in an out and back.

 

The plan when I left was to move the nav check left so all studs do it and then they track to their advanced portions of the T-6 syllabus.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LookieRookie]

36 minutes ago, Bode said:

My info is about a year old but what had 3 check rides for the studs and they were planning on adding a fourth.

 

They do a sim check which has really helped distinguish the problem children early. Then they do a transition check (think combo instruments and contact). After that the 38 bound studs do a for check (with tac) and all others do a nav check in an out and back.

 

The plan when I left was to move the nav check left so all studs do it and then they track to their advanced portions of the T-6 syllabus.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In current UPT:

Sim Check, Trans Check, Nav Check

T-38 tracked studs do a form check

T-38s:

Trans, Nav, Form

 

No idea for Toners

 

Legacy syllabus had a:

Mid-Phase, Final Contact, Inst, Form.

 

So only T-1 studs get less T-6 checkrides

 

[Pooter]

2 minutes ago, LookieRookie said:

In current UPT:

Sim Check, Trans Check, Nav Check

T-38 tracked studs do a form check

Well I'm glad they at least added the nav check back in for 38 bound students.  

[Finch]

22 minutes ago, LookieRookie said:

In current UPT:

Sim Check, Trans Check, Nav Check

T-38 tracked studs do a form check

T-38s:

Trans, Nav, Form

 

No idea for Toners

 

Legacy syllabus had a:

Mid-Phase, Final Contact, Inst, Form.

 

So only T-1 studs get less T-6 checkrides

 

Three checkrides in the T-1: Transition, Navigation, and Mobility Fundamentals.

[Vito]

So it seems like the same amount of check rides, just different names..

[Homestar]

One major update to the T-1 nav check is that it’s done as a local and no low level as part of the check. It used to be an out an back with the low level as one of the legs and the nav portion as the other. When I hooked my nav check in 2004 the low levels were specifically for check rides so you never saw them before check ride day. Before the most recent syllabus change the low level was one of the common training low levels. 
 

BLOB: the T-1 nav check is verifiably easier now than it was 20 years ago. 

[Scooter14]

The T-1 Nav Check was by far the longest friggin day in UPT. It was all downhill from there.

[di1630]

Embrace the changes people. Technology has improved safety, efficiency and lethality therefore we can update our training to match.

Half the stuff I grew up getting hammered for learning to fly fighters 18 years ago is N/A today.

That’s the stuff that is getting cut and I support it.




Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[Danger41]

I’m with di1630 about cutting outdated things. I only hope that the instrument phase isn’t cut back or watered down because all the friends I’ve lost in my career were the result of mistakes in instrument flying or physiological mishaps. 

[Homestar]

37 minutes ago, Danger41 said:

I’m with di1630 about cutting outdated things. I only hope that the instrument phase isn’t cut back or watered down because all the friends I’ve lost in my career were the result of mistakes in instrument flying or physiological mishaps. 

It seems to me that the only T-1 instrument flying that has been scaled back has been instrument-only fix-to-fix flying which isn’t really how anyone operates anymore anyway (we can argue the merits of the airmanship of fix-to-fix flying, but it simply isn’t allowed anymore if you can go DIR -> EXEC). RNAV wasn’t a thing when I graduated, so students are coming out much better prepared for RNAV approaches. Perhaps MIF has been adjusted in the first block of nav for some things, and there are a couple fewer sorties, but T-1 instruments is still the meat and potatoes of UPT imo. I doubt the hook rate is significantly higher than it was in the past but I have no data to prove that. 

[ThreeHoler]

simply isn’t allowed anymore

Fixed that for you.

[Vito]

Fix to fix, especially in the Tweet, was the reason 50% of studs  washed out back in the day!  Bust a check for a muffed fix to fix, then the vultures would start circling.....a vicious cycle., and very unfair to guys who would have been great pilots in the real Air Force.

Edited April 28, 2020 by Vito

[Pooter]

12 hours ago, di1630 said:

Embrace the changes people. Technology has improved safety, efficiency and lethality therefore we can update our training to match.

Half the stuff I grew up getting hammered for learning to fly fighters 18 years ago is N/A today.

That’s the stuff that is getting cut and I support it.

I'd be in support of "changes" if that's what was actually going on.  But we are seeing predominantly cuts, not changes. 

If the priority was to update the training to improve quality, we wouldn't see this sudden decrease in overall events and flight hours.  We would see that time put towards teaching other, newer skills.  Big blue's priority is to make more pilots.. faster.  

[di1630]

I'd be in support of "changes" if that's what was actually going on.  But we are seeing predominantly cuts, not changes. 
If the priority was to update the training to improve quality, we wouldn't see this sudden decrease in overall events and flight hours.  We would see that time put towards teaching other, newer skills.  Big blue's priority is to make more pilots.. faster.  

We can cut stuff....because flying has gotten easier to do safely and more efficiently than 10-20 years ago plus many critical skills from back in the day are no longer critical and worth the investment.

What skills would you like to swap in for the ones cut?






Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[SurelySerious]

27 minutes ago, di1630 said:

We can cut stuff....because flying has gotten easier to do safely and more efficiently than 10-20 years ago plus many critical skills from back in the day are no longer critical and worth the investment.

What skills would you like to swap in for the ones cut?






Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

What if the skill we want is more time flying so they have experience? 
 

Edit: it is awesome that some corners of the AF have seen gains in safety through newer airframes and/or upgrades, but some of our airframes flight safety wise are almost exactly the same as 40 years ago. Reduction in UPT flight time in the seat is kicking cans down the road, cool VR things or not. 

Edited April 29, 2020 by SurelySerious

[Bode]

Timeline hasn’t changed and the student load isn’t much different than 10 years ago. I was in class 10-15 and we had 32 students start. When I left UPT instructing class loads were around 20 with 25 classes a year.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk