Degradation of SUPT

[di1630]

All a very interesting debate. Answers should only come from realistic problems. What’s the likelihood that a particular system or procedure will fail you in a current war? What’s the likelihood in a future war? If said system fails (or is denied), will it raise your risk a notch during certain phases? Maybe that’s acceptable and not worth the training costs to mitigate it.
However, if a targeted attack on your Achilles Heel isn’t likely but would result in a F-Kill for your entire MWS, then it’s probably still worth it to train to it.

Problem is real: we waste a lot of time/money teaching unnecessary skills and skimp in other areas because we are comfortable doing it the way it’s always been done.

And on the heavy side: I’m not sure why they even need to fly so much vs sims.

I always wondered what they were doing for so long in T-1’s. Why not just axe that phase and get them into sims in their primary jet. I can’t imagine a C-17 sim hour costs more than an actual hour in a T-1.

Any heavy guys on here care to debate the finer points?


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[JBueno]

"You just need some air-under-your-ass time."

...the answer I got about droning in the T-1.

[jazzdude]

Any heavy guys on here care to debate the finer points?

Some good things:
-Single engine work in the jet (this isn't trained to in the C-17, where it's only in the sim)
-introduction to TOLD considerations
-Off station mission planning
-Low level flying
-Large aircraft formation (cell procedures)
-intro to air refueling procedures and rendezvous

When I went through T-1s I felt like half the nav phase was a waste in T-1s: why do I have to do a million ILS approaches when they are the same in pretty much every aircraft?

There are a lot of UPT tasks that don't directly translate to an MWS, but build a good foundation.

-No one really is going to fix to fix anywhere, but to be able to orient yourself quickly to a bullseye is an important skill that uses the same underlying concept as the fix to fix. I don't know how many times I've seen someone receive a threat call on a training sortie, and by the time the third pilot has plotted the threat on their chart they realize they are right on top of or just flew over the threat.

-Don't need to throw out dynamic retasking to the studs, half the time they are hanging onto the tail off the jet anyways. Instead, emphasizing things like fuel awareness, obtaining information prior to you destination, plotting routes on the chart, chart reading, all play a role in execution a changing airlift mission in an MWS. I've been part of a virtual flag n the C-17 where flight lead (Lead IP) was scared to go out of our planned for corridor despite potential threats because they didn't know how to calculate an MSA on the fly (charted MEF plus 500 or 1000).

-Visual navigation. So much exists in our MWS to help navigate that clock-map-ground is not emphasized and pilots become reliant on the magenta line. Which is all great until you want to operate in a GPS denied environment. Even the stuff we take for granted in mission planning, like what makes a good visual turn point and how to identify funneling features.

So lots to lay the foundation for in UPT.

[ThreeHoler]

Problem is real: we waste a lot of time/money teaching unnecessary skills and skimp in other areas because we are comfortable doing it the way it’s always been done.

And on the heavy side: I’m not sure why they even need to fly so much vs sims.

I always wondered what they were doing for so long in T-1’s. Why not just axe that phase and get them into sims in their primary jet. I can’t imagine a C-17 sim hour costs more than an actual hour in a T-1.

Any heavy guys on here care to debate the finer points?


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

There is very little unscheduled sim time at least in my community.

[Homestar]

23 hours ago, JBueno said:

"You just need some air-under-your-ass time."

...the answer I got about droning in the T-1.

Instrument approach practice.  Stan isn't very good at it, regardless of what he thinks.

[Standby]

20 hours ago, ThreeHoler said:

 

There is very little unscheduled sim time at least in my community.

 

That could be fixed by dissolving the T-1 UPT IP manning and generating more MWS sim time. 

 

I honestly can't recall how much attention I've given to di1630s posts before, but I hope you are still serving and in a position to affect the current model. As alluded to earlier...too many get off my lawn types running around. 

Also good to see hindsight still writing 200 IQ responses to internet chat blabber. 

[BashiChuni]

On 12/8/2019 at 11:48 PM, jazzdude said:

-No one really is going to fix to fix anywhere

bullshit you SNAP - washed up UPT sim IP

[ThreeHoler]

That could be fixed by dissolving the T-1 UPT IP manning and generating more MWS sim time. 

No, it can’t. We do not have military IPs running our simulators. There is only a finite amount of time available in a given day available for sim use and all 4 are nearly always in use. It would take giving up the sim maintenance time from midnight to 0800 and a new contract for sim IPs and maintenance. It will only get worse next year when one of the 4 sims used by 8 squadrons for IQT, MQT, and CT is torn down.

So, no, you cannot just absorb missing training in MAF assets without giving up something else like everyone’s CT or other things.

[jazzdude]

That could be fixed by dissolving the T-1 UPT IP manning and generating more MWS sim time. 
 
I honestly can't recall how much attention I've given to di1630s posts before, but I hope you are still serving and in a position to affect the current model. As alluded to earlier...too many get off my lawn types running around. 
Also good to see hindsight still writing 200 IQ responses to internet chat blabber. 

The sim is fine for learning procedural tasks, but it's not the same as being in the jet.

More MWS sim time is not the answer, at least for the C-17. Need more quality training time in the jet, but that means reducing mission taskings so guys are home to train, and more locals so you don't have 5 dudes all trying to get recurrent on 4.0 local instead of focusing on tactical proficiency.

Even if you moved money to find more sim time, there are a limited number of sims, and there's not a lot of excess capacity for more training. So that means mil construction for more sim buildings and buying more simulators, which again, really just teach procedural tasks.

Not saying the T-1 track needs to stay as is, but I'd bet there would be better payoff for the airlift community trading for more time in T-6s learning visual navigation and building air sense in general. Pretty sure that 1x C-17 sim session (3 hours) would buy you 6x 1.5 sorties in the T-6.

Also don't need to have both the T-1 and T-38 tracks graduate at the same time. No matter how rigorous MAF wants the T-1 track to be, the fact of the matter is that big AF will always see the T-1 track as being limited/lesser than their T-38 track counterparts, who will be universally assignable (subject to AFPC's whims).

But if all you think C-17s do are strat missions, then yeah, just do transition phase in T-1s and graduate, cancel all locals and do it all in the sim, just like the airlines. Hell, just direct hire guys of the street with a FAA commercial Pilot certificate; it'd be a lot cheaper and fix the rated manning numbers really quick. And while we're at it, do the same for the fighters, cancel locals and do more sims; they'll just be cruising at 30k dropping GPS JDAMs in a permissive environment.

[Clark Griswold]

On 12/8/2019 at 10:52 PM, di1630 said:

And on the heavy side: I’m not sure why they even need to fly so much vs sims.

I always wondered what they were doing for so long in T-1’s. Why not just axe that phase and get them into sims in their primary jet. I can’t imagine a C-17 sim hour costs more than an actual hour in a T-1.

Any heavy guys on here care to debate the finer points?

Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

Experience building in the real world - you need all those moments to build experience, wisdom, judgement and a non-spasmodic demeanor in the jet when the Master Warning/Caution goes off.

No matter how good the sim, I believe the psychological effect of know your only flying in the Matrix makes it  not less valuable than actual flight time but at least different. 

Not to start Round 69 of Heavy vs. Fighters on BO but you have mentioned that you feel that a sizeable portion of your T-38 training (vis tac turns, form landings specifically) were of little to no value for today's fighter pilot but would you be willing to shorten the T-38 syllabus and expect those 38 grads to acquire the requisite skills for today's 5th gen fighter pilots in their F-35/22 ?

[dream big]

The idea that MWS squadrons should teach what should have been taught at UPT is going to get people killed.  When I get a new Copilot, I don’t need to be teaching him basic instrument skills or airmanship.  I need to be teaching him how to land in an LZ, airdrop 19 year olds into hot DZs, defend against a spectrum of threats, operate in a contested environment, integrate with SEAD, CAS, JTACs, be proficient at TDL or at a bare minimum not kill himself and his crew in Afghanistan.  If 18th AF/CC thinks we can train in the Ops squadrons then he is directly countering his boss who has made it clear that peer and near peer readiness is a priority.  

[ThreeHoler]

18 AF/CC doesn’t think that to my knowledge. 19 AF (AETC) does.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[raimius]

2 hours ago, dream big said:

The idea that MWS squadrons should teach what should have been taught at UPT is going to get people killed.  When I get a new Copilot, I don’t need to be teaching him basic instrument skills or airmanship.  I need to be teaching him how to land in an LZ, airdrop 19 year olds into hot DZs, defend against a spectrum of threats, operate in a contested environment, integrate with SEAD, CAS, JTACs, be proficient at TDL or at a bare minimum not kill himself and his crew in Afghanistan.  If 18th AF/CC thinks we can train in the Ops squadrons then he is directly countering his boss who has made it clear that peer and near peer readiness is a priority.  

2!

It gets really freaking frustrating when the ops unit runs more gradebooks than the schoolhouse, and it takes months to get people trained up on things that were taught during IQT previously.  The past 5-10 years have seen too much "just make the ops units do it, so we can "graduate" more half-trained aircrew."

[YoungnDumb]

5 hours ago, raimius said:

The past 5-10 years have seen too much "just make the ops units do it, so we can "graduate" more half-trained aircrew."

But at least the slides are green for the generals review!

[Homestar]

On 12/10/2019 at 12:47 AM, jazzdude said:

Also don't need to have both the T-1 and T-38 tracks graduate at the same time.

I agree. But I’ll also say that T-1 classes are syllabus complete before assignment nights these days. But the AF is fixed on the current grad model for now. 

[di1630]

Experience building in the real world - you need all those moments to build experience, wisdom, judgement and a non-spasmodic demeanor in the jet when the Master Warning/Caution goes off.
No matter how good the sim, I believe the psychological effect of know your only flying in the Matrix makes it  not less valuable than actual flight time but at least different. 
Not to start Round 69 of Heavy vs. Fighters on BO but you have mentioned that you feel that a sizeable portion of your T-38 training (vis tac turns, form landings specifically) were of little to no value for today's fighter pilot but would you be willing to shorten the T-38 syllabus and expect those 38 grads to acquire the requisite skills for today's 5th gen fighter pilots in their F-35/22 ?

I would expect the F-35/22 trainee to gain a lot of those skills in sims regarding tailored instrument events.

As for heavies, I think the T-1 could be used as a sort of heavy track version of IFF. Build solid airmanship in T-6’s, have 10-15 T-1 flights built around your heavy skill set.

I don’t have a lot of experience in crew aircraft but from sitting jumpseat in C-17 and C-5’s watching an IP look over the shoulder of a AC and copilot, I don’t see why a lot of the systems/EPs, instruments couldn’t be done in sims and the most of the learning on real missions with proper supervision.

....Like the airlines, who care about efficiency.

I am admitting I may be naive on the heavy side so Spears accepted if there are good counterpoints.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[zachbar]

22 minutes ago, di1630 said:

I would expect the F-35/22 trainee to gain a lot of those skills in sims regarding tailored instrument events.

As for heavies, I think the T-1 could be used as a sort of heavy track version of IFF. Build solid airmanship in T-6’s, have 10-15 T-1 flights built around your heavy skill set.

I don’t have a lot of experience in crew aircraft but from sitting jumpseat in C-17 and C-5’s watching an IP look over the shoulder of a AC and copilot, I don’t see why a lot of the systems/EPs, instruments couldn’t be done in sims and the most of the learning on real missions with proper supervision.

....Like the airlines, who care about efficiency.

I am admitting I may be naive on the heavy side so Spears accepted if there are good counterpoints.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

No I think that’s fair. Instruments is straight forward, and the EPs I got in the sim were far more complex than any I have had in the airplane (knock on wood sts). The benefit of real world flying is getting put in weird circumstances and thinking your way out of new problems. There is some benefit to flying different approaches under real world conditions, but I definitely think the mobility tracked Phase 3 can be reworked. But isn’t the rumor that T-1s are disappearing?

[Homestar]

39 minutes ago, zachbar said:

But isn’t the rumor that T-1s are disappearing?

Having just started a fleet-wide cockpit upgrade, the timing seems perfect to shut ‘er down 😂. It’s the Air Force way. 
 

Seriously though, it would take years to divest and/or retire the T-1 fleet. I feel comfortable believing I’ll retire flying the T-1. Heaven knows I ain’t going to T-6 PIT  

I never flew the T-6 but it’s cockpit looks pretty bare. Could you replace the T-1 nav phase with a T-6 and still get NDB, GPS, VOR, TAC and ILS approaches?

I get a kick out of hearing IPs flip out over cutting stuff from the syllabus then in the same breath recommend cutting the T-1 phase entirely for some extra T-6 instrument rides. 

[zachbar]

15 minutes ago, Homestar said:

Having just started a fleet-wide cockpit upgrade, the timing seems perfect to shut ‘er down 😂. It’s the Air Force way. 
 

Seriously though, it would take years to divest and/or retire the T-1 fleet. I feel comfortable believing I’ll retire flying the T-1. Heaven knows I ain’t going to T-6 PIT  

I never flew the T-6 but it’s cockpit looks pretty bare. Could you replace the T-1 nav phase with a T-6 and still get NDB, GPS, VOR, TAC and ILS approaches?

I get a kick out of hearing IPs flip out over cutting stuff from the syllabus then in the same breath recommend cutting the T-1 phase entirely for some extra T-6 instrument rides. 

The T-6 can only do VOR/LOC and LNAV approaches. If you’re feeling saucy I guess you could spin the CDI to something useless and do an RMI only approach.

The dirty rumor I heard was about getting newer T-6s like the ones being used at PTN with a more complete suite of avionics as a sort of MAF top off before going to PIQ. Students would fly Phase II in the T-6A and then polish their nav skills in a T-6B, but that sounds like it may be sometime after the T-7 is flying.
 

What’s the T-1 getting upgraded with? 

[raimius]

24 minutes ago, zachbar said:

The T-6 can only do VOR/LOC and LNAV approaches.

So, VOR, LOC, ILS, and LNAV...that's not a bad starting set.   (I thought it could do TACAN as well?)

Throw in a 15year old Garmin and you'd get LPV too, lol.

[ThreeHoler]

T-1 is getting Proline avionics.

If 19 AF cuts the T-1, expect AMC to demand all their IPs back to be able to “finish” training in MAF aircraft.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[Clark Griswold]

3 hours ago, di1630 said:

I would expect the F-35/22 trainee to gain a lot of those skills in sims regarding tailored instrument events.

As for heavies, I think the T-1 could be used as a sort of heavy track version of IFF. Build solid airmanship in T-6’s, have 10-15 T-1 flights built around your heavy skill set.

I don’t have a lot of experience in crew aircraft but from sitting jumpseat in C-17 and C-5’s watching an IP look over the shoulder of a AC and copilot, I don’t see why a lot of the systems/EPs, instruments couldn’t be done in sims and the most of the learning on real missions with proper supervision.

....Like the airlines, who care about efficiency.

I am admitting I may be naive on the heavy side so Spears accepted if there are good counterpoints.

Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

I don't think your naïve but I would argue that what you saw was professional Aircrew after and the result of them having received a proper base of advanced multi-engine training and if you had observed aircrew that had a much smaller base of advanced multi-engine training, it would likely have been a different data sample from which you would have drawn a different conclusion.  Likely said AC or Co would have required more supervision and training them on operational mission(s) would have entailed more risk and/or supervision to possibly make it inappropriate to do so.

As to the airlines, they care about efficiency but take advantage of the base, fundamental training and experience already provided to their employees by other institutions, usually the military or other companies who earlier in the careers trained them.  They get already experienced pilots, if the airlines had to start at the very beginning and provide for their pilot's training, they would not just take them at low hours and get the rest of their training done on the job.  Not sure exactly what the low end of total hours for an FO in a 121 company (regionals) is but likely at least 500 hours, competitive candidates probably have around 750 hours.

This is just not a good idea, case in point (tragically) - The Ethiopian Airlines 737 MAX accident 

'You basically put a student pilot in there': The copilot of crashed Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 had just 200 hours of flight experience

They had someone not at the proper point in their career to be in that seat, he was with an 8,000 hour Captain, and while I am sure his low experience was not the main causal factor, but it likely contributed to that tragedy.  Not speaking ill of the dead, I am sure that young man did his best but IMHO, he should not have been in that seat and I think that is a salient example of why you need properly trained and experienced aircrew in heavies.  Full stop.

Not throwing any spears and not sure what was going on when you observed crew operations but it can get demanding quickly. 

Planes are expensive, people are irreplaceable and proper training is required to protect both.

[jazzdude]

As for heavies, I think the T-1 could be used as a sort of heavy track version of IFF. Build solid airmanship in T-6’s, have 10-15 T-1 flights built around your heavy skill set.

 

Not a bad idea

 

I don’t have a lot of experience in crew aircraft but from sitting jumpseat in C-17 and C-5’s watching an IP look over the shoulder of a AC and copilot, I don’t see why a lot of the systems/EPs, instruments couldn’t be done in sims and the most of the learning on real missions with proper supervision.

 

Pretty much everything for the C-17 currency wise is in the sim. I've been out for a little bit, but I think all that's required for a copilot to get in the jet is 1-2 tactical sorties per semi. ACs add maybe 2-4 extra AR sorties per semi.

 

Airdrop quality doesn't really increase the amount of training sorties either- 1 extra sortie per semi is all you need, 2 if you're JPADS qualified. And it can count as your airland tactical sortie as well...

 

[MooseAg03]

 
Pretty much everything for the C-17 currency wise is in the sim. I've been out for a little bit, but I think all that's required for a copilot to get in the jet is 1-2 tactical sorties per semi. ACs add maybe 2-4 extra AR sorties per semi.
 

Near peer preparation has driven more currency items to the jet. More tactical sorties and flights in chem gear.

If AMC asked for IPs back to finish the training, what aircraft would they fly? We didn’t even have enough to fill the current required training sorties to keep the squadron current and get all the beans finished each semi. There is definitely no excess training capacity for UPT phase 3 or 4, or whatever you would want to call it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bigred]

15 hours ago, zachbar said:

No I think that’s fair. Instruments is straight forward, and the EPs I got in the sim were far more complex than any I have had in the airplane (knock on wood sts). The benefit of real world flying is getting put in weird circumstances and thinking your way out of new problems. There is some benefit to flying different approaches under real world conditions, but I definitely think the mobility tracked Phase 3 can be reworked. But isn’t the rumor that T-1s are disappearing?

There’s also the pucker factor of flying an approach to mins in the aircraft vice the sim.