Tool of The Man Posted July 26 Posted July 26 16 hours ago, Clark Griswold said: 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 Well...if there are enough FBOs/Training schools to annually produce 1500+ students receiving 100hrs pre-SUPT, let me know. I'm sure our airline friends will have something to say about us sucking up all the resources. But if you are a DPE, get ready to make some coin. And to restate...the AF does not have the T-6B. Mods are on the way, but not anytime soon. There is absolutely no plan to create a flying portion for the MAF after T-6s. It's T-6 direct to the FTU...Nothing in between.
Tool of The Man Posted July 26 Posted July 26 1 hour ago, raimius said: 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." Well...we got rid of the plane (T-1) that did train RNAV....
Clark Griswold Posted July 26 Posted July 26 Well...if there are enough FBOs/Training schools to annually produce 1500+ students receiving 100hrs pre-SUPT, let me know. I'm sure our airline friends will have something to say about us sucking up all the resources. But if you are a DPE, get ready to make some coin. And to restate...the AF does not have the T-6B. Mods are on the way, but not anytime soon. There is absolutely no plan to create a flying portion for the MAF after T-6s. It's T-6 direct to the FTU...Nothing in between. Yup I know it’d be a large system to produce that many grads per year but the money is there just not the belief amongst the GOs apparently that flight time actually matters, funny how the FAA does with the 1500 hour rule… Yes I know the AF doesn’t have the B model but it should and I rant on…3-4 bases across the SW to SE USA, maybe at existing USAF or Joint Bases, instruct & fly their asses off to get students produced then send to the SUPT program, consolidate that to two bases and put the ME program at the remaining third, T-7s have 2 locations at existing ACC bases to fly their syllabus in proximity and if worth it with MWS at those bases in certain phasesWhere’s the AFA on this? Why aren’t they criticizing this bull fertilizer?Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Tool of The Man Posted July 26 Posted July 26 26 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said: Yup I know it’d be a large system to produce that many grads per year but the money is there just not the belief amongst the GOs apparently that flight time actually matters, funny how the FAA does with the 1500 hour rule… Yes I know the AF doesn’t have the B model but it should and I rant on… 3-4 bases across the SW to SE USA, maybe at existing USAF or Joint Bases, instruct & fly their asses off to get students produced then send to the SUPT program, consolidate that to two bases and put the ME program at the remaining third, T-7s have 2 locations at existing ACC bases to fly their syllabus in proximity and if worth it with MWS at those bases in certain phases Where’s the AFA on this? Why aren’t they criticizing this bull fertilizer? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk You realize you kinda just described SUPT....which this leadership (and previous) killed.... We had the infrastructure in place until leadership decided everything was broken and had to be replaced...VR, innovation, CRAFT, PTN....once they decided those were important, cut funding in legacy programs to prove your point. Get promoted and leave a mess for the next guy...
Lawman Posted July 26 Posted July 26 Well...we got rid of the plane (T-1) that did train RNAV....Think of how much better prepared we will be for the denied PNT environment… Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 1
Clark Griswold Posted July 26 Posted July 26 You realize you kinda just described SUPT....which this leadership (and previous) killed.... We had the infrastructure in place until leadership decided everything was broken and had to be replaced...VR, innovation, CRAFT, PTN....once they decided those were important, cut funding in legacy programs to prove your point. Get promoted and leave a mess for the next guy... Yeah but I’m describing it to persuade that SES, CODEL, HAF staffer lurking in this thread that the insane COA being proposed is just that insaneI’m not sure if MAF GOs have Stockholm syndrome and are just trying to placate the ACC GOs but this is fundamentally insane An institution principally built around manned flying aircraft and the aircrew that fly them is trying to lessen the actual flying training for the pilots that fly billions of dollars of planes and thousands of lives and the fleet of aircraft that make us different than any other Air Force in the world, our global air expeditionary capability Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 1
Danger41 Posted July 26 Posted July 26 So not to be that guy but if you can track a CDI to a final approach course, you can do a LNAV/RNAV. If you can track a localizer and glideslope for an ILS, you can do a LPV. And the buttonology in whatever follow-on MWS is different than the T-6 or T-1. Therefore, I don’t really see the problem with not having RNAV approaches for the training value. My $0.02.
Flev Posted July 26 Posted July 26 1 hour ago, Danger41 said: So not to be that guy but if you can track a CDI to a final approach course, you can do a LNAV/RNAV. If you can track a localizer and glideslope for an ILS, you can do a LPV. And the buttonology in whatever follow-on MWS is different than the T-6 or T-1. Therefore, I don’t really see the problem with not having RNAV approaches for the training value. My $0.02. There's no reason USAF shouldn't have GPS approach capability in a primary trainer. As far as airmanship, I agree with you; flying an LPV can be done by any stick monkey who's practiced enough ILS or non-precision with arcing, etc. But in a primary trainer that's expected to teach students about versatility and ADM, taking away RNAV takes away options from the front and back seater. That's a lot of fields that you can't go to in IMC. Personally, its more about giving those crews options.
Arkbird Posted July 26 Posted July 26 6 hours ago, Tool of The Man said: Well...we got rid of the plane (T-1) that did train RNAV.... The AMP upgrade was great. Brought it to modern standards and we could do LPVs. I loved it. 19 hours ago, yzl337 said: unless this is a local restriction, not entirely true, can be used in day vmc for approaches. That's what I asked about because that's what we were doing in Columbus but he said it was completely decertified for use. He said they could only use it back at Laughlin or del Rio international but other than that, not even day VMC. He said this is recent.
ConfidentlyIncorrect Posted July 27 Posted July 27 What are the chances they send heavy tracks to the T-44 in Corpus again? That program sounded pretty cool for the guys going to 130s. 1
Boomer6 Posted July 27 Posted July 27 7 hours ago, Clark Griswold said: Yeah but I’m describing it to persuade that SES, CODEL, HAF staffer lurking in this thread that the insane COA being proposed is just that insane That dude isn't going to do/say anything contrary to what his boss says and jeopardize his next assignment/rank. There's plenty of actual studies/data that the AF has commissioned and then blatently ignored. I don't think a bunch of dudes brainstorming common sense ideas on the internet is going to help. Maybe if a C-17 crewed by two T-6 direct to Altus dudes crashes into an LGBTQ+ parade during a flyover they'll 're-evaluate' the training program. 2 1
Clark Griswold Posted July 27 Posted July 27 45 minutes ago, Boomer6 said: That dude isn't going to do/say anything contrary to what his boss says and jeopardize his next assignment/rank. There's plenty of actual studies/data that the AF has commissioned and then blatently ignored. I don't think a bunch of dudes brainstorming common sense ideas on the internet is going to help. Maybe if a C-17 crewed by two T-6 direct to Altus dudes crashes into an LGBTQ+ parade during a flyover they'll 're-evaluate' the training program. If only you weren’t so right… You gotta fight or post on BO . net… like the US Navy “reevaluation” of their basic SWO training programs after two ship collisions, it will take something probably to convince the Bobs Funny how I was thinking about this jumpseating home yesterday, the crew was young but sharp, on descent they trapped an error on approach, I think the FO had been flying the CRJ for a year he said and the CA I think for 4 years, now would in a situation with a dude with only the equivalent of T-6 only been able to back up his CA and trap the error? Maybe but methinks chance favors the prepared or well trained Anyway, to hell with T-6 only direct to FTU…
hindsight2020 Posted July 27 Posted July 27 (edited) 4 hours ago, Boomer6 said: Maybe if a C-17 crewed by two T-6 direct to Altus dudes crashes into an LGBTQ+ parade during a flyover they'll 're-evaluate' the training program. That is the only language HAF responds to. They have a number. It's a political number, and they won't tell you what it is, but it's the one they find acceptable before at-scale recapitalization of primary and intermediate training is taken seriously. The rest of this exercise is nothing more than your typical morale-crushing regAF practice bleeding/running in place/ people put up with until they too bail for the airlines. Which is why I no longer get my blood pressure up about all the malfeasance, nor the political double speak. Any time people of my age demo have spoken up about this issue, all you get is tone policed and Luddite accussations. The AF has accepted atrocious gaps in basic training infrastructure for decades. The T-38 and the T-7 is the most glaring example, but the T-6 GPS is a poster child example as well, especially in the context of COTS solutions. To be clear, the -6s lack of NAS RNAV 1 compliance dates back to 2009, so they've been scoffing at it for a lot longer than this thread intimates. Edited July 27 by hindsight2020 i cant write short/monosyllabic 1
Lord Ratner Posted July 27 Posted July 27 Create an organization that has no true measurable metric for success. Then imagine the types of officers who are going to excel and advance within that type of organization. Finally, consider the types of decisions that sort of leader will make. It's the inevitable trajectory until there is once again a measurable metric for success. 1 1
CaptainMorgan Posted July 27 Posted July 27 Vertical guidance does not meet LPV? I’m pretty sure vertical guidance was non-existent on the T-6 GPS. I’m pretty sure the first LNAV/VNAV approach I flew was in the T-1. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
hindsight2020 Posted July 27 Posted July 27 (edited) 3 hours ago, CaptainMorgan said: Vertical guidance does not meet LPV? I’m pretty sure vertical guidance was non-existent on the T-6 GPS. I’m pretty sure the first LNAV/VNAV approach I flew was in the T-1. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk yah I didn't make the slides, the nitpick about the militarized KLN-90 definitionally not being LPV (it wasn't WAAS in the first place) is noted. The slides were built in the context of a pork barrel bidder audience for the T-6 Avionics replacement program. The macro point still stands. It's garbage for the T-6 to still be handcuffed to that unit's limfacs in 2024. The GNS-430W was rolling out to civilian markets in 1998. WAAS rolled out in 2003, as did the first LPV approaches. Again, this isn't the Orion Program, nor is any of this new. We're the military equivalent of "the govt outlaws itself from negotiating drug prices". Everything cascades down from there. Edited July 27 by hindsight2020
Clark Griswold Posted July 27 Posted July 27 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 AFSOCFollow on question What was AFSOC’s input to this? Did they echo AMC?Also, I wonder if this is just another effect of 23+ year GWOT repetitive ops particularly in the heavy community where it was the same deployment, same tracks, same arrivals, etc… in a permissive environment Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
hindsight2020 Posted July 27 Posted July 27 (edited) ....or you can just look at occam's razor: They freaked out in '14 when the airlines finally came out of the Lost Decade, to find out they didn't have the infrastructure to upgage capacity. Faced (yet again, and as they've done in decades past) with feeding shiny penny programs in "tIp uh dUh sPeAr" land, AETC has and always will be metered. So there wasn't any political capital to re-open an additional UPT locale and fix the supposed problem they were bellyaching about in the first place. The result is the impasse we see today, where they keep whipping the dead mule and wonder why we ain't moving. Edited July 27 by hindsight2020
Clark Griswold Posted July 28 Posted July 28 ....or you can just look at occam's razor: They freaked out in '14 when the airlines finally came out of the Lost Decade, to find out they didn't have the infrastructure to upgage capacity. Faced (yet again, and as they've done in decades past) with feeding shiny penny programs in "tIp uh dUh sPeAr" land, AETC has and always will be metered. So there wasn't any political capital to re-open an additional UPT locale and fix the supposed problem they were bellyaching about in the first place. The result is the impasse we see today, where they keep whipping the dead mule and wonder why we ain't moving. Yeah it might be just that but here we are. So we’re behind in production, fix it by making more of the same product not by cutting corners Choir preaching but we have the resources just not the leadership But if the Bobs are not gonna do the right thing then if a dude is going to a heavy guard / reserve unit, then to relieve pressure off the existing system, I could see those studs going to a different program with contract instructors, GA training aircraft and then winging.-PPL with instruments in a C-172 with G1000 glass-Acro & form program in an Extra 300-ME training program in a Piper Seminole -Modest top off program with a Cessna Citation, type rating course at Flight Safety with 10-15 flights in leased aircraft None of the iron or facilities owned by the AF, almost all of it done by contractors and you could pay for it thru O&M. Run this program for 5 years while trying to unfornicate the situation SUPT is in (no T-1 replacement, T-7 late, T-6s need upgrade, etc…)Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Arkbird Posted July 28 Posted July 28 10 hours ago, Clark Griswold said: Follow on question What was AFSOC’s input to this? Did they echo AMC? Also, I wonder if this is just another effect of 23+ year GWOT repetitive ops particularly in the heavy community where it was the same deployment, same tracks, same arrivals, etc… in a permissive environment Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk I don't know from AFSOC's side but they were some of the first to take T-6 direct studs. The original offers of T-6 direct were to Herks, 135s, C-146, and U-28s. Supposedly AFSOC said they don't want sim only guys but they were willing to take T-6 direct for their smaller aircraft. So who knows.
MechGov Posted July 28 Posted July 28 I don't know from AFSOC's side but they were some of the first to take T-6 direct studs. The original offers of T-6 direct were to Herks, 135s, C-146, and U-28s. Supposedly AFSOC said they don't want sim only guys but they were willing to take T-6 direct for their smaller aircraft. So who knows. We can thank CAT5 for that. He wanted new aircrew 50% faster. Nevermind about those truths...Sent from my SM-G781U1 using Tapatalk 1
LookieRookie Posted July 28 Posted July 28 19 hours ago, Clark Griswold said: Follow on question What was AFSOC’s input to this? Did they echo AMC? Also, I wonder if this is just another effect of 23+ year GWOT repetitive ops particularly in the heavy community where it was the same deployment, same tracks, same arrivals, etc… in a permissive environment Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk I think it was a middle ground between both.
HuggyU2 Posted July 28 Posted July 28 13 hours ago, Clark Griswold said: ...we have the resources just not the leadership ... I could see those studs going to a different program with contract instructors, GA training aircraft and then winging. 1. I don't believe we have the resources. The USAF is financially broke. I mean hard broke. 2. About 3 months ago we sent a casual Lieutenant to a UPT program they are doing in Georgetown Texas. I can't recall specifics, but it sounded very interesting and pretty far outside the box for what I'd expect from the USAF. Very glad to see it and curious how it will pan out.
HeloDude Posted July 28 Posted July 28 1 hour ago, HuggyU2 said: 1. I don't believe we have the resources. The USAF is financially broke. I mean hard broke. 2. About 3 months ago we sent a casual Lieutenant to a UPT program they are doing in Georgetown Texas. I can't recall specifics, but it sounded very interesting and pretty far outside the box for what I'd expect from the USAF. Very glad to see it and curious how it will pan out. 1. Well, the Air Force seems to have money for DEI stuff and other nonsense…so while they might be hard broke, resources are finite, and using resources for X then reduces resources for Y. I think this, like every other problem, is a failure of leadership. 2. Are you referring to IFT-R that is/was done in Georgetown TX (link below)? https://www.brunneraerospace.com/usaf-ift-r-program/
HuggyU2 Posted July 28 Posted July 28 No, this LT waa going to a fixed wing program. I'll see if I can find him and ask. 1
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