Clark Griswold Posted June 25 Share Posted June 25 Thinking about this and its long since OBE but why didn’t we consider linking the two main training track platform recapitalizations and plan for them training together in some syllabus phases?The T-38 and T-1 successor systems having training systems that could simulate and interact with each other, possibly non-training assets also for their training/exercises?An integrated training system not classified to avoid that problem as the training aircraft would not always be doing this in SUPT and transiting thru civ fields but one that could simulate with other equipped assets. Would have been a bigger shift to what the syllabi at SUPT for both tracks would have been but I kinda think we missed the forest for the trees, that is that it was not just replacing this platform but what and how we teach in house at SUPT. This probably would necessitate a longer pre-SUPT program to teach more basics there so to adjust the T-6 / Phase 3 training but just a thought Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herkbier Posted June 26 Share Posted June 26 Save the mission training for the FTU, we don’t need T-1s and T-38s to standup a mission planning cell for an integration sortie when these dudes and dudettes are still mastering IMC approaches and basic/advanced airmanship. Seriously, for the heavies, buy some King Airs and be done with it. Stop suggesting we complicate things when we can’t even accomplish the simple tasks for one reason or another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clark Griswold Posted June 27 Share Posted June 27 Yeah, legit critique of the added complexity to the whole training endeavor but just a grandiose idea that will never happen Keeping it simple the King Airs would be an ideal solution but I’d still advocate for splitting up ME training Basics covered in a contractor course in a light twin, military and advanced ME in house in a heavier twin with mil instructors but that’s just my opinion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tool of The Man Posted July 24 Share Posted July 24 The decision to divest the T-1 was never about training...leadership has stated we have over trained our heavy pilots for decades. Getting rid of what they consider a waste of time was done to free up $$$ for the T-7. They convinced Congress and Air Staff that T-6 graduates will have the same competencies as before. Plus, we added a great program called AMF-S to bridge the gap. We bought awesome new RedBird devices and a fantastic LMS to create the greatest students in history. Which...was just cancelled. Now, we hope that civilian flying will produce Air Force pilots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swizzle Posted July 24 Share Posted July 24 1 hour ago, Tool of The Man said: The decision to divest the T-1 was never about training...leadership has stated we have over trained our heavy pilots for decades. Getting rid of what they consider a waste of time was done to free up $$$ for the T-7. They convinced Congress and Air Staff that T-6 graduates will have the same competencies as before. Plus, we added a great program called AMF-S to bridge the gap. We bought awesome new RedBird devices and a fantastic LMS to create the greatest students in history. Which...was just cancelled. Now, we hope that civilian flying will produce Air Force pilots. What was recently cancelled? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tool of The Man Posted July 24 Share Posted July 24 19 minutes ago, Swizzle said: AMF-S 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clark Griswold Posted July 24 Share Posted July 24 The decision to divest the T-1 was never about training...leadership has stated we have over trained our heavy pilots for decades. Getting rid of what they consider a waste of time was done to free up $$$ for the T-7. They convinced Congress and Air Staff that T-6 graduates will have the same competencies as before. Plus, we added a great program called AMF-S to bridge the gap. We bought awesome new RedBird devices and a fantastic LMS to create the greatest students in history. Which...was just cancelled. Now, we hope that civilian flying will produce Air Force pilots.Before I fly off the top rope with a folding chair… so the Redbird sim program is cancelled and then did the T-1 get a reprieve?Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tool of The Man Posted July 24 Share Posted July 24 Umm...have you heard of T-6 Direct to the FTU? And AMF-S used both Redbird and the legacy T-1 OFTs. We were promised that the RedBirds would be super awesome...just ask Det 24. Anyway, they are garbage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LookieRookie Posted July 24 Share Posted July 24 1 hour ago, Clark Griswold said: Before I fly off the top rope with a folding chair… so the Redbird sim program is cancelled and then did the T-1 get a reprieve? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk No Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LookieRookie Posted July 24 Share Posted July 24 (edited) Seriously though, someone should search sharepoint or whatever it is and find the GUPT (reference T-X) decision brief from circa 2014-2015 where MAF leadership talked about wanting more officership BS from pilot training and the CAF said they wanted more stick time and less sims. If MAF leadership wasnt a bunch of shoe clerks then we wouldnt have had this issue. Edit: The specific slide was a quad chart with inputs from ACC, AFGSC, AMC, and AFSOC Edited July 24 by LookieRookie 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flev Posted July 24 Share Posted July 24 From some cursory research, it seems the only good thing to come out of the whole UPT Next/UPT 2.5 was the T-6B. Everything else is just falling flat on its face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tool of The Man Posted July 24 Share Posted July 24 T-6B is only for the Navy. There are some mods on the books for the AF tails, but don't get too excited about it. Imagine a world with no T-6s in pilot training...coming to a base near you....sooner than you think Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clark Griswold Posted July 25 Share Posted July 25 T-6B is only for the Navy. There are some mods on the books for the AF tails, but don't get too excited about it. Imagine a world with no T-6s in pilot training...coming to a base near you....sooner than you thinkWhat?No primary trainer or no training done by military or both?Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkbird Posted July 25 Share Posted July 25 Just heard from one of the guys in my squadron who was a T/6 FAIP. He said gps is completed decertified for RNAV approaches and can only be used for enroute nav. So now studs can't even do RNAVs except at home station yet they want them to have less flying time and go straight to the FTU. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flev Posted July 25 Share Posted July 25 4 hours ago, Arkbird said: Just heard from one of the guys in my squadron who was a T/6 FAIP. He said gps is completed decertified for RNAV approaches and can only be used for enroute nav. So now studs can't even do RNAVs except at home station yet they want them to have less flying time and go straight to the FTU. This is ridiculous imo. I can understand having nav limitations on some of the legacy aircraft, but being unable to file /G in 2024 as the United States freaking Air Force is an embarrassment. Meanwhile, Bobby burning holes in the sky in his thunder chicken has more capable nav with a GI275. 17 hours ago, Tool of The Man said: T-6B is only for the Navy. There are some mods on the books for the AF tails, but don't get too excited about it. Imagine a world with no T-6s in pilot training...coming to a base near you....sooner than you think Oh dang. I had just watched a video where they showed off some Navy T-6B's at Randolph a couple years ago. Sad to see they never actually procured them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tool of The Man Posted July 25 Share Posted July 25 The T-6Bs were at Randolph were on loan from the Navy to prove Pilot Training next (PTN). In true AF fashion, we took a bunch of their hanger queens, paid for MX, flew them and gave them back in better shape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stlpilot11 Posted July 25 Share Posted July 25 Apparently the Air Force let the GPS go dead so they could push for an avionics upgrade. TBD how that is going though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeloDude Posted July 25 Share Posted July 25 6 hours ago, Arkbird said: Just heard from one of the guys in my squadron who was a T/6 FAIP. He said gps is completed decertified for RNAV approaches and can only be used for enroute nav. So now studs can't even do RNAVs except at home station yet they want them to have less flying time and go straight to the FTU. This isn’t recent news—it’s been this way for at least 2-3 years now. And yes, it’s embarrassing, but after seeing how AFMC handled the ISS issues with the seats and the OBOGS issues, no one should be surprised. But it’s good that the AF has allocated resources to things like DEI…you know, what really matters when winning wars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tool of The Man Posted July 25 Share Posted July 25 2 hours ago, Flev said: 17 hours ago, Clark Griswold said: What? No primary trainer or no training done by military or both? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Could be both. Interesting idea that civilian tickets (PPC, instruments and MEL) can bypass all of T-6 Training. And maybe even pick fighter pilots out of civilian schools.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clark Griswold Posted July 25 Share Posted July 25 Could be both. Interesting idea that civilian tickets (PPC, instruments and MEL) can bypass all of T-6 Training. And maybe even pick fighter pilots out of civilian schools....Not opposed to a contractor taught section(s) of flight instruction but not the primary or phase used for evaluation of pilot skill, leadership and track selection A longer phase in GA trainers to get a PPL, Instrument and initial experience with formation IMHO would save money and fatigue life on the military primary trainer offsetting the cost of a longer contractor led basic flight training program About 100-120 hours pre SUPT then attend a 6-8 month T-6B program to focus on acro, formation, modest cross country & low level phases and a mission phase (a simplified mission integration phase to plan and execute multiple timing, comms & maneuvers problems with different players and formations in an exercise area).Track select after that. T-7 or ME Commercial training program or an AF T-54 program to get a multi engine qual (20-25 hours).Graduate and go forth.Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yzl337 Posted July 26 Share Posted July 26 15 hours ago, Arkbird said: Just heard from one of the guys in my squadron who was a T/6 FAIP. He said gps is completed decertified for RNAV approaches and can only be used for enroute nav. So now studs can't even do RNAVs except at home station yet they want them to have less flying time and go straight to the FTU. unless this is a local restriction, not entirely true, can be used in day vmc for approaches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
viper154 Posted July 26 Share Posted July 26 6 hours ago, yzl337 said: unless this is a local restriction, not entirely true, can be used in day vmc for approaches. Has to be day vmc & flown under VFR now. Been that way for several months. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brabus Posted July 26 Share Posted July 26 21 hours ago, Flev said: I can understand having nav limitations on some of the legacy aircraft, but being unable to file /G in 2024 as the United States freaking Air Force is an embarrassment. Welcome to the CAF. 100% of F-35 sorties are not compliant with AFI (not allowed area nav, but that’s what you typically need to do or just do anyways). In reality it makes zero diff and there’s nothing wrong with it, but the certification process is so arduous it hasn’t been done. So ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawman Posted July 26 Share Posted July 26 Welcome to the CAF. 100% of F-35 sorties are not compliant with AFI (not allowed area nav, but that’s what you typically need to do or just do anyways). In reality it makes zero diff and there’s nothing wrong with it, but the certification process is so arduous it hasn’t been done. So ridiculous.They aren’t the only ones…It’s insane the number of military aircraft with dual keyed GPS/INS that somehow we didn’t find the money to get approved in the national airspace. We also deliberately leave Copter RNAV points out of DAFIF so even if we were approach certified the points aren’t contained in the non corruptible database.“Oh cool we can enroute RNAV in VMC… thanks I was pretty much doing that anyway it’s called flying.” Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raimius Posted July 26 Share Posted July 26 The fact that UPT can hardly teach RNAV approaches --the most common things available....is utterly ridiculous. Also, no timeline for improvement. "You'll get RNAV when the T-7 arrives." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now