UPT Next

[08Dawg]

On 6/14/2024 at 11:41 PM, Swizzle said:

Augmented reality CRM, what could be better? 

Break, break:

The first aircrew to hack AMF-S gets accolades. Imagine 'enhancing and modifying' the co-pilots visual appearance for better CRM!? What could go wrong?

Something something, Kobyashi Maru, something....

 

Break, break:

I knew the Air Force could go full tilt stupid sometimes....but substituting an actual flying airplane for a damn Redbird is about the most AF stupid type of stupid thing I've heard in a VERY long time.  

[Clark Griswold]

Divest the T-1 sim, save money and just go get them a multi eng civ course plus training
The Navy and by extension the USMC & USCG are still giving their guys real flight time, the Army ditto, we should be able to do the same with our 215 billion appropriation.  
Civ multi engine course, military multi engine course air mobility training & planning then a type course in a transport category aircraft contracted out.  
Put the multi engine mil course at a base / state where the CODEL will be highly motivated to preserve this mission while affording a training opportunities for what the future likely entails for Air Mobility in the future (austere unprepared locations; threat assessment, mitigation and resilience; working with unmanned assets, EMCON conscious ops and planning,  adhoc and dynamic planning, etc…)
That’s a lotta shit to get done but as the pointy nose community is kinda merging or wants to sorta merge phase 3 with IFF training the multi crew community needs to do the same.  Not merely to produce a better graduate but to change the culture of the MAF and multi crew communities (maybe not AFSOC) 

Edited June 19 by Clark Griswold

[CaptainMorgan]

Divest the T-1 sim, save money and just go get them a multi eng civ course plus training
The Navy and by extension the USMC & USCG are still giving their guys real flight time, the Army ditto, we should be able to do the same with our 215 billion appropriation.  
Civ multi engine course, military multi engine course air mobility training & planning then a type course in a transport category aircraft contracted out.  

I think we can agree the sim only training is a dumpster fire, but is contracting it out really the best option? My only civ training has been through DOSS and Higher Power; Higher Power was great (but expensive), DOSS, not so much. The Navy’s buying new T-54s, those could have been a suitable replacement for the T-1. If we wanted to stick with a jet aircraft, the Cessna M2, HondaJet, Beech Premier (while they still made it), or Eclipse (same) would have offered similar capes compared to the T-1 at a lower operating cost.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Boomer6]

35 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:

or wants to sorta merge phase 3 with IFF training the multi crew community needs to do the same. 

The merging of phase 3 with IFF is because they twiddled their balls for 30 years on getting a new trainer, refuse to retain experience thus exacerbating the fighter shortage, and then decided to grow their way out of the problem. All without a valid game plan of how to solve the first problem. Combining the two is theoretically supposed to shorten the overall UPT/IFF timeline. Wouldn't really say it's an issue of "wanting" to so something, moreso having no alternative they're willing execute.

[Clark Griswold]

1 minute ago, CaptainMorgan said:

I think we can agree the sim only training is a dumpster fire, but is contracting it out really the best option? My only civ training has been through DOSS and Higher Power; Higher Power was great (but expensive), DOSS, not so much. The Navy’s buying new T-54s, those could have been a suitable replacement for the T-1. If we wanted to stick with a jet aircraft, the Cessna M2, HondaJet, Beech Premier (while they still made it), or Eclipse (same) would have offered similar capes compared to the T-1 at a lower operating cost.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I agree and would prefer a new AF owned multi eng tng aircraft would be preferable but the Bobs are penny pinching and apparently the GOs at the MAF, etc.. DGAF about their new pilots getting real flight hours after T-6s before showing up at an FTU so finding ways to save money but still getting hours is paramount 

My druthers for a mil multi eng tng aircraft in these times would be fixed gear, unpressurized and rugged for high utilization and training, Twin Otter mil variant with mil radios, NVG cockpit and a mil tng software system seems right.  

I wanna contract out the initial basics and the very expensive platform (multi eng with complex flight and automation systems) to try to get all this to fit together in a budget the AF would support 

Another idea since the AF is not interested in spending a lot of multi eng students why not shrink the number of fully commissioned AF multi eng pilot trainees and start a WO pilot program recruiting from regionals for designated copilots on 3 year contracts?  Applicants get a warrant commission, indoc and training program then FTU, complete that and either get the post 911 GI Bill or completion payment (probably 100k+).  No upgrade no additional duties, just fly to fill the schedule as required and when done, go on your merry way.  This would be a crew force dynamically sized to meet the needs of the AF.  They could focus the mil training on regular commissioned students who will have longer ADSCs and would be expected to become the leadership of the MAF, the new WOs would be valued AF members but unless they wished to regular commission would not be expected to serve a career.  If they wanted to after serving, a process would be made.

[Clark Griswold]

5 minutes ago, Boomer6 said:

The merging of phase 3 with IFF is because they twiddled their balls for 30 years on getting a new trainer, refuse to retain experience thus exacerbating the fighter shortage, and then decided to grow their way out of the problem. All without a valid game plan of how to solve the first problem. Combining the two is theoretically supposed to shorten the overall UPT/IFF timeline. Wouldn't really say it's an issue of "wanting" to so something, moreso having no alternative they're willing execute.

Gotcha

[CaptainMorgan]

Another idea since the AF is not interested in spending a lot of multi eng students why not shrink the number of fully commissioned AF multi eng pilot trainees and start a WO pilot program recruiting from regionals for designated copilots on 3 year contracts?  

That could have worked when regionals weren’t paying what they are now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Clark Griswold]

That could have worked when regionals weren’t paying what they are now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, probably so
Maybe if the completion payment got into the 150k range after taxes but then you’re starting to negate the cost savings intent of the whole effort
At this point, just try something


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Swizzle]

8 hours ago, 08Dawg said:

Something something, Kobyashi Maru, something....

 

Break, break:

I knew the Air Force could go full tilt stupid sometimes....but substituting an actual flying airplane for a damn Redbird is about the most AF stupid type of stupid thing I've heard in a VERY long time.  

Side note: new AFI 10-217 governing aircrew training signed by recent former AFSOC/CC governs much of this new virtual training.

Ironically this new Aircrew Training Devices AFI release overwrote the former AFI topic which was the 'READY program'

And yup, Redbirds of 48th FTS @Moody:

Favorite article quote, "...maintaining the rate of production the Air Force needs...".  So not growing? But maintaining 🤔

[Biff_T]

Winging from the T-6, SIM only for multi engine and then put into a real Heavy unit flying military missions.  There's a big difference between flying a T-6 and a multi-engine jet that weighs over 250,000 lbs.  

[Springer]

3 hours ago, Biff_T said:

Winging from the T-6, SIM only for multi engine and then put into a real Heavy unit flying military missions.  There's a big difference between flying a T-6 and a multi-engine jet that weighs over 250,000 lbs.  

Dunno, would fly my Van's RV-4 one day and a DC-10 the next day to Europe.😄 

[Clark Griswold]

3 hours ago, Springer said:

Dunno, would fly my Van's RV-4 one day and a DC-10 the next day to Europe.😄 

With how many total flying hours in your logbook were you doing this?

That’s the unbelievable part of this, this is not about phoning in training for studs who have 500 CFI hours and 1000+ corporate or regional now going thru a military flying course, I’ll bet the average stud has about 100 something T-6 hours plus maybe 50 ASEL hours… how the ever loving hell do we not see a huge risk?

Keep fighting the good fight and debating on BO but this is crazy, ask yourself USAF, how many other militaries around the world are doing this with their multi engine pilot training?  None.  So why are you the outlier USAF?  
 

Contract on the multi basic part, teach in house the mil specific items and contract the cherry on top modern transport category training and experience.

Edited June 20 by Clark Griswold

[Biff_T]

16 hours ago, Springer said:

Van's RV-4 one day and a DC-10 the next day to Europe.😄 

You can pack your RV-4 in the back of that sweet DC-10 and take it with you.  Shit you could take a squadron of Van's RV-4s.   

[Clark Griswold]

Here’s your solution AF:

Basic multi eng tng:

New Piper Seminole at about $760k with G1000 avionics, about $420 an hour, a Piper Seminole FTD with control feedback is about $100 per hour.

15 hour simulator and 20 hour flight syllabus, probably 2 weeks academics with some pre study.

All contract instruction or traditional mix contact/military 

Military multi eng tng:

Western US AFB for backcountry STOL opportunities, remote field work (NVG work, tactical approaches, etc…).  15-20 ride syllabus in a Tecnam p2012 STOL, fixed gear, unpressurized aircraft with modern avionics and Air Mobility mission simulation systems

3rd

B737 type course, add a few sim events and keep flight deck training simple (no flows, just exposure to an automated flight deck of a transport category aircraft), simple culminating event and boom you’re SUPT complete

KISS, reliable and you’ll get a better graduate at an affordable cost

[Biff_T]

1 hour ago, Clark Griswold said:

Here’s your solution AF:

Basic multi eng tng:

New Piper Seminole at about $760k with G1000 avionics, about $420 an hour, a Piper Seminole FTD with control feedback is about $100 per hour.

15 hour simulator and 20 hour flight syllabus, probably 2 weeks academics with some pre study.

All contract instruction or traditional mix contact/military 

Military multi eng tng:

Western US AFB for backcountry STOL opportunities, remote field work (NVG work, tactical approaches, etc…).  15-20 ride syllabus in a Tecnam p2012 STOL, fixed gear, unpressurized aircraft with modern avionics and Air Mobility mission simulation systems

3rd

B737 type course, add a few sim events and keep flight deck training simple (no flows, just exposure to an automated flight deck of a transport category aircraft), simple culminating event and boom you’re SUPT complete

KISS, reliable and you’ll get a better graduate at an affordable cost

Not enough Government money to spread through different voting districts though (or into politicians' and weapons makers' pockets).  Too cheap and also a good idea.  So no.  

[CaptainMorgan]

Here’s your solution AF:
Basic multi eng tng:

New Piper Seminole at about $760k with G1000 avionics, about $420 an hour, a Piper Seminole FTD with control feedback is about $100 per hour.
15 hour simulator and 20 hour flight syllabus, probably 2 weeks academics with some pre study.
All contract instruction or traditional mix contact/military 
Military multi eng tng:
Western US AFB for backcountry STOL opportunities, remote field work (NVG work, tactical approaches, etc…).  15-20 ride syllabus in a Tecnam p2012 STOL, fixed gear, unpressurized aircraft with modern avionics and Air Mobility mission simulation systems
3rd
B737 type course, add a few sim events and keep flight deck training simple (no flows, just exposure to an automated flight deck of a transport category aircraft), simple culminating event and boom you’re SUPT complete
KISS, reliable and you’ll get a better graduate at an affordable cost

Your Tecnam idea is irrelevant to a lot of the heavy platforms. How would this be of use to anyone who goes on to the C-5, KC-46 or any -135 variant?

737 sim training also isn’t cheap.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Clark Griswold]

Your Tecnam idea is irrelevant to a lot of the heavy platforms. How would this be of use to anyone who goes on to the C-5, KC-46 or any -135 variant?

737 sim training also isn’t cheap.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Really it is about air time in controlled stressful training situations to build an aviator who won’t fold or freak out in big planes when the SHTF, also introduces concepts at lower airspeeds and less consequential environments to begin experiencing and familiarization with Air Land / Drop / NVG etc…
Copy on 73 tng but still cheaper than alternatives methinks


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LookieRookie]

5 hours ago, CaptainMorgan said:

Your Tecnam idea is irrelevant to a lot of the heavy platforms. How would this be of use to anyone who goes on to the C-5, KC-46 or any -135 variant?

737 sim training also isn’t cheap.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And 73 sims cost millions. There aren’t a bunch of free sim time.

[Clark Griswold]

No doubt there are issues and factors to deal with but you can find solutions, maybe the 73 sim training is not feasible maybe it would be if a provider knew the AF was committing to this or a similar paradigm for training its heavy track pilots but I’d rather try to light a candle than curse the darkness
Another transport category aircraft sim then, hell a corporate jet sim or even some flight time again do something
If ridiculous, you could not get an ATP with this flight training and be responsible for the lives of X passengers so why should the AF be allowed to take this risk then as that newly minted SUPT grad could theoretically be now responsible with X number of lives in his/her hands as a new co with likely less than 100 post SUPT flight hours?

We shake our heads at the Ethiopian Air crash that had an FO with I think 200ish hours in the seat but WTF is that different about what we are talking about here? Yeah I know the AC would be there but what if he/she is incapacitated and it’s now all on that co? And yes I think having at least the flight training or more or something like it would make a difference?

Would you let someone operate on you that didn’t finish medical school but was deemed “good enough” at 2 years of training and then sent to a surgical residency?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CaptainMorgan]

If ridiculous, you could not get an ATP with this flight training and be responsible for the lives of X passengers so why should the AF be allowed to take this risk then as that newly minted SUPT grad could theoretically be now responsible with X number of lives in his/her hands as a new co with likely less than 100 post SUPT flight hours?

I don’t think the AF should. I think the risk with the legacy UPT syllabus was acceptable, however, and going sim-only or T-6 direct FTU are horrible ideas. The SUPT approach with the T-1 has worked out for 30 years. The correct answer would have been to just find a newer aircraft (with inherently lower operating costs) to replace the T-1. Kinda like how the Navy is buying new King Airs to replace their old ones. Another option would have been to send them to Nextant for their upgrade/rebuild, as opposed to the garbage AMP upgrade they wasted a ton of money on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Clark Griswold]

I don’t think the AF should. I think the risk with the legacy UPT syllabus was acceptable, however, and going sim-only or T-6 direct FTU are horrible ideas. The SUPT approach with the T-1 has worked out for 30 years. The correct answer would have been to just find a newer aircraft (with inherently lower operating costs) to replace the T-1. Kinda like how the Navy is buying new King Airs to replace their old ones. Another option would have been to send them to Nextant for their upgrade/rebuild, as opposed to the garbage AMP upgrade they wasted a ton of money on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Concur, just buying a new low risk option would have been my choice too but here we are
The King Air IMHO would have have been the best straight forward choice to replace the venerable T-1 as a 1 to 1 replacement but if cost is driving everything then the Seminole plus other training is what I would recommend to the Bobs if they asked
The Tecnam is cheaper and that’s the name of the game here, even though it’s a recip at lower speeds it’s the flight experience managing all the dynamic variables is what I’m after, it builds the pilot even though the aircraft is way smaller and slower
Landing it on short fields, learning new tasks quickly, etc… integrating all those skills together and demonstrating you can do it builds the graduate you want in the 46, 17, 130, etc…
Choir preaching I realize but it’s one of the things we do on BO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[1:1:1]

If the AF were in the business of buying low-risk, newer, cheaper aircraft it would have bought the T-50 or KC-30 instead of the T-7 and KC-46. Sadly, the only acquisition we know how to do is the over-engineered boondoggle that is supposed to be "digital engineered" in half the time but actually takes twice as long for half the results.

[Clark Griswold]

If the AF were in the business of buying low-risk, newer, cheaper aircraft it would have bought the T-50 or KC-30 instead of the T-7 and KC-46. Sadly, the only acquisition we know how to do is the over-engineered boondoggle that is supposed to be "digital engineered" in half the time but actually takes twice as long for half the results.

True
No one is held accountable, there’s no clearing out of bad idea generators just more boondoggles


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kaputt]

 

They could have just replaced the T-1 with this. Robust parts support network, proven airframe, similar performance. 
 

Had they chosen the already in production T-50 or T-100 for the 38 replacement maybe they would have had money to replace the T-1 too.

[Clark Griswold]

 
They could have just replaced the T-1 with this. Robust parts support network, proven airframe, similar performance. 
 
Had they chosen the already in production T-50 or T-100 for the 38 replacement maybe they would have had money to replace the T-1 too.

True
I advocate for a partial contract flying to put the stalls, falls and bounces on iron the AF technically would not own or if it was owned was cheaper to fix or replace, the Seminole seems to fit that.
The bigger more complicated airplane IMHO would not get a lot repetitive patterns, OEI work, etc… some but not nearly as much as the T-1s took but would be there for formation, cross country to complex airspace (high traffic density class B), etc… but just as the pointy nose community stepped back and said what is it we want our students destined for F-69s to learn or be familiar with prior to FTU, what do we want the crew heavy tracked students to see prior to the FTU?
Yeah you can say this or that smart alec answer but really what does the heavy military aviator looking at the next few decades need to learn in SUPT to hit the ground running in FTU?
The 46/52/17/etc has gadgets and is networked or will be I believe with other players, the T tails will be also, we’re looking at ACE, heavies going a bit into the threat rings for the peer conflicts of the future, ultimately it’s gonna need to be a Phase 3 and platform(s) that teach that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk