UPT Next

[Homestar]

22 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:

I just tell BQZip’s mom to get it for me

Fixed it for you. C’mon, you’re not new. 

[Bender]

How the hell does this get past GOs with a Mobility / Big Wing ISR or C2 background who went thru the T-1?  Is there not any fight in these dudes to say hell no, we have a huge appropriation 120.69 billion or so, we can afford a heavy trainer and will get a replacement for the Toner, full stop.
Now that heavy advanced trainer program could be different than the traditional model I grant you, consolidated to 1 or 2 bases, flown by AF IPs in COGO aircraft for instance or vice versa for shits and giggles but still something, don't just roll over take it.

AETC’s upcoming RTRB will be hijacked by dissent over this topic. None of the phase 3 plans are well planned, disseminated, or coordinated. It’ll be conducted virtually most likely (so dial in for the fun if you can! Bring some popcorn!)

The T-6 syllabus wasn’t well coordinated either...very close hold and the initial coordination was done in a week.

...and, no, I don’t personally believe we’ll end up using 737 sims. All seems kind of dumb to me...

~Bendy

[Clark Griswold]

37 minutes ago, Homestar said:

Fixed it for you. C’mon, you’re not new. 

Good return

35 minutes ago, Bender said:

AETC’s upcoming RTRB will be hijacked by dissent over this topic. None of the phase 3 plans are well planned, disseminated, or coordinated. It’ll be conducted virtually most likely (so dial in for the fun if you can! Bring some popcorn!)

The T-6 syllabus wasn’t well coordinated either...very close hold and the initial coordination was done in a week.

...and, no, I don’t personally believe we’ll end up using 737 sims. All seems kind of dumb to me...

~Bendy

 

if you give me the number and code I will Leeroy Jenkins that telecon with reckless abandon...

Glad to hear you don't think they will go full retard

I'm an airplane junky and will always want us to have more of them.  There are too many good jets and turbos out there made in 'Merica we can buy right now with or without mods to get the job done.  Buy, fly, repeat.

[di1630]

Some dudes all arguing for training better aviators....well damn, let’s just buy some twin engine props with shitty avionics. CRM...check...non centerline thrust...check...high workload....check.

We need pilots to have suitable training for their military future.

I take fighter guys flying in small planes all the time. It’s a complete sh-tshow from basic handling to even managing airspace and traffic pattern. Different skill set, these guys are all 2,000+ hrs have flown multiple fighter types in sh-t weather all over the world.

So I don’t buy that attaining good pilot skills are universally transferable just based on a planes being complex and tough to fly.

We are teaching military pilots specific skills.

That’s why we do T-6’s, to teach military discipline, rules and basics. Everyone gets a baseline military flying education.

After that, it needs to be tailored better.

Does a F-35 pilot need to see legacy IFF like the F-16/15C pilot? I’d argue no. Take it further, does an A-10 pilot need to fly T-38s? Should B-1/B-52 be T-1 track.

All feasible I think.

For the MAF, Im not sure. But my gut and experience tells me if we can cut T-38 stuff lightly, we can cut T-1 stuff heavily. It should not take more flight training to learn instruments in a crew jet than in a single seat.








Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[FLEA]

3 hours ago, di1630 said:

Some dudes all arguing for training better aviators....well damn, let’s just buy some twin engine props with shitty avionics. CRM...check...non centerline thrust...check...high workload....check.

We need pilots to have suitable training for their military future.

I take fighter guys flying in small planes all the time. It’s a complete sh-tshow from basic handling to even managing airspace and traffic pattern. Different skill set, these guys are all 2,000+ hrs have flown multiple fighter types in sh-t weather all over the world.

So I don’t buy that attaining good pilot skills are universally transferable just based on a planes being complex and tough to fly.

We are teaching military pilots specific skills.

That’s why we do T-6’s, to teach military discipline, rules and basics. Everyone gets a baseline military flying education.

After that, it needs to be tailored better.

Does a F-35 pilot need to see legacy IFF like the F-16/15C pilot? I’d argue no. Take it further, does an A-10 pilot need to fly T-38s? Should B-1/B-52 be T-1 track.

All feasible I think.

For the MAF, Im not sure. But my gut and experience tells me if we can cut T-38 stuff lightly, we can cut T-1 stuff heavily. It should not take more flight training to learn instruments in a crew jet than in a single seat.








Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

I'd argue it's a shit show because we have already given ground on this and we are too specialized. Like I said earlier, we can go this direction and train pilots quicker with more focus on specialty, but let's cut the shit that we are training the world's greatest pilots then, because from my pov, half of the world's greatest pilots probably don't know how to fly VFR to an uncontrolled field to grab a burger right now, and that says something. Sully didn't ditch an air craft and save hundreds of lives using automation and an advanced autopilot. It took expereince, instinct, and solid comprehension of the basics applied to a more complex environment. 

 

[FLEA]

3 hours ago, di1630 said:

Some dudes all arguing for training better aviators....well damn, let’s just buy some twin engine props with shitty avionics. CRM...check...non centerline thrust...check...high workload....check.

We need pilots to have suitable training for their military future.

I take fighter guys flying in small planes all the time. It’s a complete sh-tshow from basic handling to even managing airspace and traffic pattern. Different skill set, these guys are all 2,000+ hrs have flown multiple fighter types in sh-t weather all over the world.

So I don’t buy that attaining good pilot skills are universally transferable just based on a planes being complex and tough to fly.

We are teaching military pilots specific skills.

That’s why we do T-6’s, to teach military discipline, rules and basics. Everyone gets a baseline military flying education.

After that, it needs to be tailored better.

Does a F-35 pilot need to see legacy IFF like the F-16/15C pilot? I’d argue no. Take it further, does an A-10 pilot need to fly T-38s? Should B-1/B-52 be T-1 track.

All feasible I think.

For the MAF, Im not sure. But my gut and experience tells me if we can cut T-38 stuff lightly, we can cut T-1 stuff heavily. It should not take more flight training to learn instruments in a crew jet than in a single seat.








Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

I'd argue it's a shit show because we have already given ground on this and we are too specialized. Like I said earlier, we can go this direction and train pilots quicker with more focus on specialty, but let's cut the shit that we are training the world's greatest pilots then, because from my pov, half of the world's greatest pilots probably don't know how to fly VFR to an uncontrolled field to grab a burger right now, and that says something. Sully didn't ditch an air craft and save hundreds of lives using automation and an advanced autopilot. It took expereince, instinct, and solid comprehension of the basics applied to a more complex environment. 

 

[Breckey]

8 hours ago, di1630 said:

That’s why we do T-6’s, to teach military discipline, rules and basics. Everyone gets a baseline military flying education.

Except for Helos. Gotta save those 75 annual T-6 slots for the fixed wing track that is already overloaded.

[di1630]

Except for Helos. Gotta save those 75 annual T-6 slots for the fixed wing track that is already overloaded.

Do helo guys not go thru T-6s?


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[Breckey]

There's a test case going through Rucker this summer. They've been trying to kill T-6s for helos for at least two years now. Nobody thinks it's a good idea but that extra T-6 capacity is precious I guess.

[FLEA]

1 hour ago, Breckey said:

There's a test case going through Rucker this summer. They've been trying to kill T-6s for helos for at least two years now. Nobody thinks it's a good idea but that extra T-6 capacity is precious I guess.

That's going to open up a whole oppurtunity for green to blue then eh? Wasn't that always the limfac before was that Army WOs didn't have fixed wing time? Maybe the AF thinks I'd they can kill T-6s for rotary they can slowly leech the Army's WO's with promises of better pay and lifestyle. 

[theoriginalturk]

Speaking of killing flight training, RPA operators will no longer be going to IFT. So no stick and rudder time, and no background in aviation for robot operators in your stacks.

May the odds be in your favor

[Sprkt69]

59 minutes ago, FLEA said:

That's going to open up a whole oppurtunity for green to blue then eh? Wasn't that always the limfac before was that Army WOs didn't have fixed wing time? Maybe the AF thinks I'd they can kill T-6s for rotary they can slowly leech the Army's WO's with promises of better pay and lifestyle. 

The AF thinking that far ahead to make the service better? Unlikely as some shoe will just say no because we’ve never done that before

[jice]

Thanks for the answer about T-1s. Follow on question: Do T-38 trained folks struggle/wash out of heavy FTUs at an increased rate? 

[Homestar]

18 hours ago, di1630 said:

But my gut and experience tells me if we can cut T-38 stuff lightly, we can cut T-1 stuff heavily.

I guess I don’t know what you mean by this, and I want to give you the benefit of the doubt. My guess is that the average student flies perhaps 30-40 instrument approaches in all of phase 3. Are you saying that they could be proficient instrument pilots with 25% fewer reps?
 

We value different things. Fighters value tactics, mission, and weapons employment. Airlift/tankers value mission and world-wide instrument proficiency.

[MCO]

1 hour ago, Homestar said:

I guess I don’t know what you mean by this, and I want to give you the benefit of the doubt. My guess is that the average student flies perhaps 30-40 instrument approaches in all of phase 3. Are you saying that they could be proficient instrument pilots with 25% fewer reps?
 

We value different things. Fighters value tactics, mission, and weapons employment. Airlift/tankers value mission and world-wide instrument proficiency.

And there are C130s. 7 month FTU, 3-4 months of it is tactics, formation, and airdrop. Are students from the new system going to be ready or is it going to be on the FTU to teach some of this basically from scratch?

I had the benefit of going to Corpus, which was designed as a C130 prep course taught completely by C130 pilots on the AF side. So honestly I don’t know what right looks like.

[Day Man]

2 hours ago, MCO said:

So honestly I don’t know what right looks like.

Spoiler alert: no one does.

[hindsight2020]

31 minutes ago, Day Man said:

Spoiler alert: no one does.

Too many 19th lurkers on here to comment more specifically, but there's a few folks in that place that think rather highly of themselves wrt that question. UPT 2.5 rollout is gonna be interesting if the personalities associated with that effort are any indication. And I'm out!

[Sprkt69]

1 hour ago, hindsight2020 said:

Too many 19th lurkers on here to comment more specifically, but there's a few folks in that place that think rather highly of themselves wrt that question. UPT 2.5 rollout is gonna be interesting if the personalities associated with that effort are any indication. And I'm out!

Any in particular? For those of us with the popcorn can we expect something entertaining at least?

[CharlieHotel47]

I hear 2.5 will be bringing back or introducing out and back SOLOs during T6s. Not enough SOLOs in the current syllabus (only 2 sorties). It builds confidence and also allows the STUD to step outside of the comfortable IP bubble... because when your flying alone, your never wrong!


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[dream big]

20 hours ago, jice said:

Thanks for the answer about T-1s. Follow on question: Do T-38 trained folks struggle/wash out of heavy FTUs at an increased rate? 

No? In my experience T-38 studs perform much better and have stronger hands than T-1 trained folks; another argument for single trainer for phase 3.

[norskman]

On 5/1/2020 at 10:42 AM, Breckey said:

There's a test case going through Rucker this summer. They've been trying to kill T-6s for helos for at least two years now. Nobody thinks it's a good idea but that extra T-6 capacity is precious I guess.

Ft Rucker IP here....the entire instructor mafia here thinks it is a terrible idea. Additionally, we have seen a noticeable decrease in student's SA/ task management/airmanship with the change of ~95 hours in the T-6 to the ~75 they get now. 

Edited May 2, 2020 by norskman

[jazzdude]

Ft Rucker IP here....the entire instructor mafia here thinks it is a terrible idea. Additionally, we have seen a noticeable decrease in student's SA/ task management/airmanship with the change of ~95 hours in the T-6 to the ~75 they get now. 

Wasn't straight to Rucker for UPT-H a thing a while ago? What drove big AF to add T-6s in the helo pilot pipeline?

Not saying it's right one way or another, but curious about the rationale behind both training philosophies (fixed to rotary vs pure rotary training). Army does only rotary, Navy does fixed to rotary.

[Breckey]

The Army is 95% RW so having a RW only track makes sense. The AF and Navy are the opposite. T-6s are a great time to find what you want. Many a pilot realized they didn't like instruments and wanted to be down in the weeds in T-6s. Assigning this prior to T-6s would be like assigning heavies or fighter before you ever stepped foot in a aircraft.

[jazzdude]

Assigning this prior to T-6s would be like assigning heavies or fighter before you ever stepped foot in a aircraft.

We do/did this with ENJJPT (heavies out of that seems to have been driven first by FTU backups followed by pilot production targets). Guard/reserve units can hire off the street for their mission/airframe, essentially tracking and assigning the stud prior to starting UPT.

What benefits (to the operational units) come from having fixed wing training prior to rotary training? Aside from it's easier to teach a stud that already has flight time in a formal training pipeline?

[norskman]

5 hours ago, jazzdude said:

 

 

What benefits (to the operational units) come from having fixed wing training prior to rotary training? Aside from it's easier to teach a stud that already has flight time in a formal training pipeline?

 

Airmanship. T-6 training is designed to take a dude with zero flight time and get them to be comfortable in a turbine powered machine flying in close proximity to other aircraft IMC. 

At Rucker, we take that baseline understanding/knowledge and build on it with a RW perspective (for example, training  "wingman consideration" in helo form). 

Also, the intangibles should not be forgotten.  FW training makes our community more understanding when we integrate with assets like HC-130s, A-10s, F-16s, etc. A baseline to integrate upon, if you will.

Edit: I.E. FW energy management (sight pictures, stalls/spins considerations, pattern flow), FW limitations, FW advantages (f/ mission command upgrades). 

Edit #2: Forgot to mention earlier, HH-60 and CV-22 both train ACM and build on fundamentals of aerobatics. We cannot execute any g-related training due to system limitations of the H-1. 

Edited May 2, 2020 by norskman