UPT Next

[hindsight2020]

2 hours ago, Mighty said:

Are UPT students still being taught form approaches? 

 

Yes. And from my anecdotal observation there has been a marked uptick in atrophy in precision (and supervision on the IP side), as a result of the expectation bias of not form landing from them (by stipulation) anymore. 

Can't speak to local iterations of the 2.5 syllabi, but at PIT the new syllabus now includes a specific grade of wingman drop off, in order to force the issue of making the maneuver actionable. I.e. demonstrate proficiency in placing the flight in a position that allows the stricken wingman to transition to the single ship landing from a safe and reasonable position. On the wingman side, to demonstrate proficiency in evaluating a safe position to land and transition to a landing within CTS from the formation phase. Which is the whole point of teaching folks wing approaches.

It's not an academic maneuver from where I sit. As recent as 6 months ago we brought back a nose on birdstrike with composite  DC left and right (partial) bus failure. Very complicated EP to troubleshoot, electrical out in the cockpit to include PFD displays, and NORDO on top of it. Bird ripped through the upper skin right in front of the windshield, where the buses sit in the forward avionics bay. They had to do a no flap they didn't immediately know they were going to end up having to make (which made for a sporty transition, the stricken aircraft almost overshot as a result of lead not accounting for this nuance). All DC-electrical out, nordo wing approach. All those visual signals we rattle on the semi-annual test but never use, well it became a need that day. Again, wasn't a pretty execution by the crew members' own admission, but highlighted the importance of keeping this specific skillset fresh, at least for the IP cadre.

I am of the opinion it would be a significant disservice to usaf aviators if we shied away from this training. Seems the AF agrees, as they didn't act to prohibit the training in the wake of the XL fatality they way they did for wing landings in the wake of the VN one.

Lastly, formation (section for the brown shoes) takeoffs are to me a logistical necessity on weather days for outright mission accomplishment in no-radar land, given the programmed daily sortie volumes at the sausage maker side of the USAF. Count me also as supportive of continuing that training item.

Edited May 27, 2023 by hindsight2020

[Clark Griswold]

Just sayin’ this was available 5 years ago if a staffer or CODEL person is lurking on this thread

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Boomer6]

11 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:

Just sayin’ this was available 5 years ago if a staffer or CODEL person is lurking on this thread
 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

Oh they’re well aware, and they’re either working for Boeing by now or have a gig lined up to “consult” for them.

[Mighty]

1 hour ago, hindsight2020 said:

It's not an academic maneuver from where I sit….

I am of the opinion it would be a significant disservice to usaf aviators if we shied away from this training. Seems the AF agrees, as they didn't act to prohibit the training in the wake of the XL fatality they way they did for wing landings in the wake of the VN one.

Sounds like a sporty day. Glad everyone made it down safely! 
 

Agree on all parts. Small anecdote, and not nearly as dramatic as the story you just told, but I’m an inexperienced CAF guy and have done 4 “real-world” form approaches in the past 12 months alone for various EPs. Multiple times thru Wx and once thru Wx at night. 
 

Similar to the crew member in your story, the first time I had to do it outside of a training environment wasn’t the prettiest. It was enough of a wake up call personally that I’ve made it a point to be a little cleaner on those end of sortie BD checks as well as flying up initial as that’s usually the extent of my fingertip flying these days. 
 

Glad it’s still in the syllabus. It would suck to do a form approach for the first time “real world”. 

[HuggyU2]

2 hours ago, di1630 said:

Forgive me Huggy but should we keep teaching form landings for B-2/U-2 companion trainers or were you getting at something else?

I can't speak for the B-2, but yes... we were very disappointed when leadership rolled over and banned formation landings.  That said, it's dead now and as time marches on, there are fewer and fewer of us that have done it extensively.  It will never return to the Air Force.  

When I was a T-38 PIT IP at Randolph, we used to do formation touch and go's with the trainees:  it gave us a lot more evolutions to get proficient at it in a short time.  As mentioned above, the tolerances were such that you couldn't be sloppy on your approach since you knew what was coming.  I tried many times to get form T&G's approved at Beale when I returned there.  Came close once... but alas those are gone like good times in a UPT squadron bar and pilots that know the rules to Crud.  

As a side note, it was only in the last 5-6 years that we were forced to limit bank in close trail to 120 deg.  It was unlimited for us and barrel rolls were the standard.  We do other stuff that isn't done at UPT bases... but I don't want to mention it because some dickhead might take it upon themselves to ruin that too.  It took us about 6 years to recover from the effects of Maj Gen Lyon's heavy handedness (he was ACC/DO around 2012).  

Edited May 28, 2023 by HuggyU2

[LookieRookie]

1 hour ago, HuggyU2 said:

I can't speak for the B-2, but yes... we were very disappointed when leadership rolled over and banned formation landings.  That said, it's dead now and as time marches on, there are fewer and fewer of us that have done it extensively.  It will never return to the Air Force.  

When I was a T-38 PIT IP at Randolph, we used to do formation touch and go's with the trainees:  it gave us a lot more evolutions to get proficient at it in a short time.  As mentioned above, the tolerances were such that you couldn't be sloppy on your approach since you knew what was coming.  I tried many times to get form T&G's approved at Beale when I returned there.  Came close once... but alas those are gone like good times in a UPT squadron bar and pilots that know the rules to Crud.  

As a side note, it was only in the last 5-6 years that we were forced to limit bank in close trail to 120 deg.  It was unlimited for us and barrel rolls were the standard.  We do other stuff that isn't done at UPT bases... but I don't want to mention it because some dickhead might take it upon themselves to ruin that too.  It took us about 6 years to recover from the effects of Maj Gen Lyon's heavy handedness (he was ACC/DO around 2012).  

UPT still does barrel rolls in close trail

[ryleypav]

1 hour ago, LookieRookie said:

UPT still does barrel rolls in close trail

We didn't when I was in T-6s just under a year ago. 

[LookieRookie]

4 hours ago, ryleypav said:

We didn't when I was in T-6s just under a year ago. 

because you didn’t fly t-38s and get your own atis

[Clark Griswold]

14 hours ago, Boomer6 said:

Oh they’re well aware, and they’re either working for Boeing by now or have a gig lined up to “consult” for them.

Quite likely

The pointy nose are getting a new jet (eventually) and could have had one earlier (T-50) but don't forget the crew aircraft bound students, if the Navy can figure out how to get a new multi engine trainer we can too..

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20230215005839/en/Textron-Aviation-Special-Missions-Beechcraft-King-Air-260-chosen-as-new-U.S.-Navy-Multi-Engine-Training-System-METS

I'll be a broken record for that lurking person on this thread that can make this happen...

Students bound for crew based platforms following track select:

X more hours in the T-6 focusing on cross country and experience in new fields and mission planning (I think they already do this with UPT Next)

Establish training contract with civilian flight company for initial ME training, 15 hours.

Travel to Flight Safety, get initial type training in Beech KA 260, academics and sims, no type check but basic prof check at end observed by USAF, 6 weeks should cover it with slop.

50 hour multi engine flight training program

[Biff_T]

Definitely a different mindset needed for crew vs single pilot ops (Who's gonna get ATIS? lol).  Regardless, if it has afterburners or not.  UPT should be a base to establish these different types of mindsets, not the operationl units (sts).  A dude with pilot wings should know the basics for the type aircraft he's flying when he shows up to the Sq.   Crew based flying is a little different.  It's hard to share lol.  

[Danger41]

I still think we should only have one trainer like before the SUPT days. Understand the desire to extend the life on the T-38 but if everyone goes to the T-7, you just assign earlier and the heavy bound folks now spend more time on XC type missions and not 4 ship and tactical formation.

IMO the focus on CRM in UPT is very overrated. CRM is a great concept but if injected too early in a pilots development, it undermines some development.

Of note, I’m not shitting on the T-1. Honestly, the T-1 trained guys in Draco were usually better than their 38 counterparts.

[Biff_T]

8 minutes ago, Danger41 said:

I still think we should only have one trainer like before the SUPT days. Understand the desire to extend the life on the T-38 but if everyone goes to the T-7, you just assign earlier and the heavy bound folks now spend more time on XC type missions and not 4 ship and tactical formation.

IMO the focus on CRM in UPT is very overrated. CRM is a great concept but if injected too early in a pilots development, it undermines some development.

Of note, I’m not shitting on the T-1. Honestly, the T-1 trained guys in Draco were usually better than their 38 counterparts.

This.  100%.  

[Clark Griswold]

I still think we should only have one trainer like before the SUPT days. Understand the desire to extend the life on the T-38 but if everyone goes to the T-7, you just assign earlier and the heavy bound folks now spend more time on XC type missions and not 4 ship and tactical formation.
IMO the focus on CRM in UPT is very overrated. CRM is a great concept but if injected too early in a pilots development, it undermines some development.
Of note, I’m not shitting on the T-1. Honestly, the T-1 trained guys in Draco were usually better than their 38 counterparts.

Single trainer is fine too, if that was the COA the Bobs took or would somehow change to I would suggest a trainer version of the Scorpion Jet

Good performance overall, reliable and modable with an affordable price in acquisition and sustainment

Not a shameless plug for Textron but it’s probably the only jet on a ramp today that could fulfill the training needs of both pointy and heavy via a syllabus split when FBR qualified guys are identified

We’re in a financial spot where we need to go VFR direct to the solution, the kabuki theater of our source selection process and the need for almost immediate replacement necessitates a low bullshit COA


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ryleypav]

8 hours ago, LookieRookie said:

because you didn’t fly t-38s and get your own atis

That would make sense yeah. 

[CaptainMorgan]

Quite likely
The pointy nose are getting a new jet (eventually) and could have had one earlier (T-50) but don't forget the crew aircraft bound students, if the Navy can figure out how to get a new multi engine trainer we can too..
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20230215005839/en/Textron-Aviation-Special-Missions-Beechcraft-King-Air-260-chosen-as-new-U.S.-Navy-Multi-Engine-Training-System-METS
I'll be a broken record for that lurking person on this thread that can make this happen...
Students bound for crew based platforms following track select:
X more hours in the T-6 focusing on cross country and experience in new fields and mission planning (I think they already do this with UPT Next)
Establish training contract with civilian flight company for initial ME training, 15 hours.
Travel to Flight Safety, get initial type training in Beech KA 260, academics and sims, no type check but basic prof check at end observed by USAF, 6 weeks should cover it with slop.
50 hour multi engine flight training program

50 hours multi-engine? Sounds kind of like the current T-1 syllabus.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HuggyU2]

2 hours ago, Danger41 said:

I still think we should only have one trainer like before the SUPT days. 

I am sure I'm misinterpreting what you meant. But we had two trainers prior to SUPT. 

Can you clarify?

[Clark Griswold]

50 hours multi-engine? Sounds kind of like the current T-1 syllabus.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Shooting from the keyboard but seemed like a good round number but not out of the realm of possibility
Some of it could be sim time at a UPT base, I could see that being used for instrument and EP work but in my opinion a certain amount of flight time is required for the experience and evaluation of the student.
Short field work, uncontrolled fields, off runway operators, NVGs, formation, practice using SPINs, military comms, etc… some of the topics to be introduced to in this syllabus
50 hours could probably be enough to give the students a taste of each and not be a sip from the firehose, particularly when coupled with the new tech available to familiarize them to the mission before engines are running (PC based VR flight simulations, mission replay and critique, etc…)
It (the heavy track) has to be a challenging process to get thru, you’ll get strong aviators and officers out of it, and I’ll close my sermon on that point


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Arkbird]

4 hours ago, Danger41 said:

I still think we should only have one trainer like before the SUPT days. Understand the desire to extend the life on the T-38 but if everyone goes to the T-7, you just assign earlier and the heavy bound folks now spend more time on XC type missions and not 4 ship and tactical formation.

IMO the focus on CRM in UPT is very overrated. CRM is a great concept but if injected too early in a pilots development, it undermines some development.

Of note, I’m not shitting on the T-1. Honestly, the T-1 trained guys in Draco were usually better than their 38 counterparts.

I'm in T-6 right now and I swear we barely talk CRM outside of the form and mission briefs before rides. This must be more of a T-1 thing because our IPs pretty much expect us to do everything in our profiles without their intervention unless we're doing something dumb or dangerous. 

[HeloDude]

17 hours ago, LookieRookie said:

UPT still does barrel rolls in close trail

In close trail?  Damn that would be close!

[LookieRookie]

2 hours ago, HeloDude said:

In close trail?  Damn that would be close!

it’s a non-event in a t-38

[ryleypav]

4 hours ago, Arkbird said:

I'm in T-6 right now and I swear we barely talk CRM outside of the form and mission briefs before rides. This must be more of a T-1 thing because our IPs pretty much expect us to do everything in our profiles without their intervention unless we're doing something dumb or dangerous. 

Yeah thats how its supposed to be. Definitley way more CRM in T-1s than T-6. But again, thats intentional. The T-6 isn't is crewed air craft technically even though its a two seater. You're supposed to fly with a single pilot mentality, more or less. However, the style and quality of CRM varies from instructor to instructor.

[Danger41]

6 hours ago, HuggyU2 said:

I am sure I'm misinterpreting what you meant. But we had two trainers prior to SUPT. 

Can you clarify?

I just meant primary and advanced the same for everyone like 37 to 38 or T-6 to T-7 for all.

[CaptainMorgan]

Shooting from the keyboard but seemed like a good round number but not out of the realm of possibility
Some of it could be sim time at a UPT base, I could see that being used for instrument and EP work but in my opinion a certain amount of flight time is required for the experience and evaluation of the student.
Short field work, uncontrolled fields, off runway operators, NVGs, formation, practice using SPINs, military comms, etc… some of the topics to be introduced to in this syllabus
50 hours could probably be enough to give the students a taste of each and not be a sip from the firehose, particularly when coupled with the new tech available to familiarize them to the mission before engines are running (PC based VR flight simulations, mission replay and critique, etc…)
It (the heavy track) has to be a challenging process to get thru, you’ll get strong aviators and officers out of it, and I’ll close my sermon on that point


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Good luck with that. With the current syllabus we have about 25 hours of trans/nav, and some can barely land the plane. 25 hours of form/AD/AR with MIF as a fair. Where in there are we supposed to teach all your “advanced” training that isn’t even relevant to everyone?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CaptainMorgan]

I just meant primary and advanced the same for everyone like 37 to 38 or T-6 to T-7 for all.

We’re not buying enough T-7s to make that a reality.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HeloDude]

2 hours ago, LookieRookie said:

it’s a non-event in a t-38

In the T-6 it’s extended trail vs close trail.  How close is close trail in the 38?