UPT Next

[di1630]

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. 

You’ll need to convince me a single airframe that isn’t highly upgraded vs it’s 40yr old version adding to safety and ease of flying.

Not to mention mission sets are probably more aided by technology than stick/rudder skills.

Those critical skills needed through flying won’t be gained at UPT doing wing work and tac form in a -38 nor Radar patterns in a T-1.




Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[SurelySerious]

1 minute ago, di1630 said:

You’ll need to convince me a single airframe that isn’t highly upgraded vs it’s 40yr old version adding to safety and ease of flying.

Not to mention mission sets are probably more aided by technology than stick/rudder skills.

Those critical skills needed through flying won’t be gained at UPT doing wing work and tac form in a -38 nor Radar patterns in a T-1.




Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

The B-52, for one, flying wise has roughly zero changes. It has new mission things, but the flying portion is still almost identical to what is in museums. There are reasons flying certificates have flying hour mins; average students need a certain amount of actual flight time. 

[jazzdude]

If you don't gain the stick and rudder skills and overall airmanship in UPT, when will you gain them? Build the foundation there, and you don't have to teach those skills later in an expensive to operate jet when there's mission stuff to learn.

Technology is advancing and making it easier to fly, so stick and rudder skills are less important, until stuff starts breaking.

Not saying the discuss has to stay the same, but we need to think about what knowledge/experiences our pilots are exposed to during their development as pilots.

[di1630]

The B-52, for one, flying wise has roughly zero changes. It has new mission things, but the flying portion is still almost identical to what is in museums. There are reasons flying certificates have flying hour mins; average students need a certain amount of actual flight time. 

What could we add at UPT to help a B-52 pilot?


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[SurelySerious]

14 minutes ago, di1630 said:

What could we add at UPT to help a B-52 pilot?


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

Experience flying in general that has been reduced, to include the radar patterns you downplayed. Reductions in those things reduces the abilities of the average student, and in the B-52 let’s face it we’re getting something less than that. 

[di1630]

Experience flying in general that has been reduced, to include the radar patterns you downplayed. Reductions in those things reduces the abilities of the average student, and in the B-52 let’s face it we’re getting something less than that. 

Is the B-52 mission being hindered because of inability to perform well in the radar pattern?

I simply disagree that more T-38 pattern work is a worthwhile task that translates to what communities need, especially crew/heavy communities.

I think B-52 sims would be a better skill builder.




Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[SurelySerious]

24 minutes ago, di1630 said:

Is the B-52 mission being hindered because of inability to perform well in the radar pattern?

I simply disagree that more T-38 pattern work is a worthwhile task that translates to what communities need, especially crew/heavy communities.

I think B-52 sims would be a better skill builder.




Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

Hey man, your claim was we can cut training because our aircraft and flying are universally way safer with newer stuff. I’ve provided you at least one example where that is not true, and it’s one they plan on keeping for 69 more years. My claim was cutting UPT kicks the can down the road, which is exactly what you are proposing in taking more FTU training time to teach the basic instrument flying skills that should be learned in Undergraduate Pilot Training. It’s your burden to come up with a new argument. 

Edited April 29, 2020 by SurelySerious

[FLEA]

16 minutes ago, di1630 said:

Is the B-52 mission being hindered because of inability to perform well in the radar pattern?

I simply disagree that more T-38 pattern work is a worthwhile task that translates to what communities need, especially crew/heavy communities.

I think B-52 sims would be a better skill builder.




Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

I would say the fact that you identify needs by community would indicate you don't see the same problem as everyone else, hence, your going to argue to a wall at this point forward. 

What most people here are trying to communicate, is that UPT is the only oppurtunity you focus on being a good pilot in your career. Do communities need "this and that" is a loaded question. What people are edged about here was there was a time the USAF could say it produced the best pilots on earth, and all of us, being USAF pilots, took certain pride in that. I don't think you can continue to say that when the AF has now refocused it's priorities to graduating pilots with the minimal effort expended, or even hiring outside pilots and not training them at all. The fallout isn't an overnight mission failure but a slow regression in safety, best practices and eventually confidence and capability to complete more advanced tasks while flying an aircraft. There will be a point where the USAF won't be an authority on those topics, and as the nation's primary air component do we really want that? 

[dream big]

3 hours 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

Yeah, until we get plunged into a war with one of the big 4 near peers, then big Air Force would pray our pilots had those skills. 
 

 

[war007afa]

2 hours ago, di1630 said:

What could we add at UPT to help a B-52 pilot?
 

About 7 more engines! <cue drums>

[LookieRookie]

If anything, it would probably be more useful track B-52 bound students earlier then send them just to a bunch of T-1 sims. I’ve heard the B-52 flies like the T-1

[JBueno]

5 hours ago, dream big said:

Yeah, until we get plunged into a war with one of the big 4 near peers, then big Air Force would pray our pilots had those skills. 
 

 

That's where SKE comes in. C-130 pilots are well-positioned with the skills of yesteryear, ready to knock out the enemy with a surprise invasion of 60 airplanes providing mass on DZ. When the time comes just get behind us.  

[dream big]

2 hours ago, JBueno said:

That's where SKE comes in. C-130 pilots are well-positioned with the skills of yesteryear, ready to knock out the enemy with a surprise invasion of 60 airplanes providing mass on DZ. When the time comes just get behind us.  

Haha, not a big fan of SKE, it is merely a tactic that we focus too much on.  But I have to roll my eyes anytime a cocky young AC tells me “oh we will never have to do x, y, z.”  Then I ask them what are the odds that the Buffs or B2s have to execute their nuclear mission? Does that mean they don’t train to it hard and seriously? As to your example, there is historical precedent for a JFE.  Twice they were recalled but it is definitely an arrow in the NCAs quiver so let’s not suck at it?

[di1630]

Yeah, until we get plunged into a war with one of the big 4 near peers, then big Air Force would pray our pilots had those skills. 
 
 

Which outdated skills are going to make the difference in a near peer war?

I bet the T-37 RMI is more EMP resistant than a MFD...damn, if only we taught RMI fix to fixes like 1959-2004.

If only I had a dollar for every time over my 19 years that people justified their arguments by saying “Well when we fight China”

If the deciding factor for winning a near peer war is bombers flying the radar pattern or fighters needing more wing work, we are in trouble.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[Clark Griswold]

51 minutes ago, di1630 said:

Which outdated skills are going to make the difference in a near peer war?
I bet the T-37 RMI is more EMP resistant than a MFD...damn, if only we taught RMI fix to fixes like 1959-2004.
If only I had a dollar for every time over my 19 years that people justified their arguments by saying “Well when we fight China”
If the deciding factor for winning a near peer war is bombers flying the radar pattern or fighters needing more wing work, we are in trouble.

Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

I hear what you are saying but we need to step back and look at what UPT (whatever variation of it we are on Next, 2.5, SUPT, etc.) is really supposed to be doing:  namely producing strong pilots with a base of experience to begin their aviation careers, sorting & assigning said officer-pilots into communities where their demonstrated skills and abilities will allow them to serve the needs of the Air Force and winnowing the classes as appropriately between those who can and should serve as pilots and those who should not.  

I don't like that last point particularly but I know it is a necessary evil, I went to the dreaded 89 ride and passed thankfully but it was nerve racking to say the least.  I hate seeing those who want to fly and serve being told this is not for you but it has to happen at some appropriate rate to ensure the team is strong.

Not every lesson at UPT may have a direct practical translation to an MDS but the fact that the student demonstrates the ability to master that task, skill, body of knowledge and apply it consistently probably means they will be good at the truly required events they will have to perform in their assignments flying the line.  Antiquated skills that require physical flying ability, on the fly mental agility and the ability to recall knowledge relevant to said tasks are not perfect filters or tests to ensure that UPT always will produce strong pilots and capable aviation leaders but they work to some degree.  

Treating UPT as only a pilot training program and how to get that program to produce more widgets faster at some absolute minimum level of skill required misses the point that it is a filter and forge, we may be setting ourselves up for a worse problem than a pilot shortage in the short/medium term for a long term problem of a potentially weak cohort in our operational and leadership roles of the Air Force.

Just the two RMOs of a grumpy old man.

[SurelySerious]

53 minutes ago, di1630 said:

If the deciding factor for winning a near peer war is bombers flying the radar pattern or fighters needing more wing work, we are in trouble.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

UPT builds a baseline aviator. Erode that seat time, and you kick the can to the next training course and the next and the next to build in those basic airmanship skills that should have been learned earlier. 
 

There are things you do or know that only have happened because you have flown and developed habit patterns over the course of years of flying. 

[LookieRookie]

The T-6 UPT 2.5 syllabus doesn’t erode seat time. 

The T-38 and T-1 syllabi don’t exist yet.

[SurelySerious]

26 minutes ago, LookieRookie said:

The T-6 UPT 2.5 syllabus doesn’t erode seat time. 

The T-38 and T-1 syllabi don’t exist yet.

Benchmarked against what?

[hindsight2020]

My understanding was the UPT2.5 fighter track (of a total of 4 tracks) is predicated on people winging on T-6s after 7 months; no solos on -38, which means no EP flying training on the Equalizer. Ruh Roh.. Which would equate to a bastardized "transition course" on steroids modeled after what we currently give the non-fighter TPS candidates, and the make-a-wish heavy-2-fighter non-IFF background hen's teeth candidates of yesteryear. Oh and IFF ain't blending with old phase IIIers nor changing a damn thing about how they run their stand-alone. Okie dokie.

But no worries, according to the big brains one here, UPT s a bunch of make-work grifters anyways and the "FTUs got this". In Sha Allah is all I'll say to that. Train, evaluate,document, punt. Call me Pontius.... 😄  

[Finch]

1 hour ago, hindsight2020 said:

My understanding was the UPT2.5 fighter track (of a total of 4 tracks) is predicated on people winging on T-6s after 7 months; no solos on -38, which means no EP flying training on the Equalizer. Ruh Roh.. Which would equate to a bastardized "transition course" on steroids modeled after what we currently give the non-fighter TPS candidates, and the make-a-wish heavy-2-fighter non-IFF background hen's teeth candidates of yesteryear. Oh and IFF ain't blending with old phase IIIers nor changing a damn thing about how they run their stand-alone. Okie dokie.

But no worries, according to the big brains one here, UPT s a bunch of make-work grifters anyways and the "FTUs got this". In Sha Allah is all I'll say to that. Train, evaluate,document, punt. Call me Pontius.... 😄  

What the heck did I just read?

[SurelySerious]

11 minutes ago, Finch said:

What the heck did I just read?

[dream big]

5 hours ago, di1630 said:

Which outdated skills are going to make the difference in a near peer war?

I bet the T-37 RMI is more EMP resistant than a MFD...damn, if only we taught RMI fix to fixes like 1959-2004.

If only I had a dollar for every time over my 19 years that people justified their arguments by saying “Well when we fight China”

If the deciding factor for winning a near peer war is bombers flying the radar pattern or fighters needing more wing work, we are in trouble.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

I see your point, I’m just hesitant to dismiss basic raw skills because “airplanes are more technologically advanced”. 
 

Will you need to do a fix to fix over the straights of Taiwan? No, but you may need to utilize raw chart/map/ground navigation because you have no GPS.

Will you need to do wing work while dropping the 82nd into a hell hole? No, but those crews will need to handle not hitting each other under stress. 

Pilot training decisions are, and have always been made by bean counters instead of being driven by MAJCOM requirements.  20 years of low intensity conflict (relatively speaking) allows us to rely on our technological advancements, many MWSs have not had to push the envelop in combat in a while.  When that happens, forgoing training will come home to roost. 

[LookieRookie]

1 hour ago, dream big said:

 

Will you need to do a fix to fix over the straights of Taiwan? No, but you may need to utilize raw chart/map/ground navigation because you have no GPS.

. 

Good thing there are redundant INSes

[SurelySerious]

57 minutes ago, LookieRookie said:

Good thing there are redundant INSes

Good thing CMR crews never mismanage dual INSes due to task saturation during weapons employment at denied Combat Hammer vuls dropping the easiest weapon known to man. 
 

This particular comment is not glib. Real life. 
 

Edit: However, no I’m not a magician trying to connect errant CH drops back to primary training. Got me there. 

Edited April 29, 2020 by SurelySerious

[hindsight2020]

10 hours ago, Finch said:

What the heck did I just read?

-UPT 2.5 fighter track implementation potentially dilutes the old phase-III to effectively that of a shortened "warm up/fam" transition course, without solos nor the accompanying comprehensive T-38 EP pattern flying repetitions. Then off to legacy IFF. This iteration of "blended phase III" is also much shorter than legacy phase III. 

 - UPT 2.5 does not have any changes to IFF as of the last time this topic came up (pre-Corona). The initial "blend" ask between phase III and IFF made it clear they're not wanting to play together.

 

Edited April 30, 2020 by hindsight2020