Degradation of SUPT

[di1630]

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

An ILS to mins is the same execution as an ILS to wx cats except the numbers change. One just has a higher safety margin for error but I’ve never had an ILS with an error so great I couldn’t land and that’s counting the ones on raw avionics.

With 2019 wind corrected steering bars etc, ILS practice should not be the reason we burn 69,000lbs of gas to practice vs a sim.






Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[zachbar]

I’ll somewhat reverse what I said earlier based off an experience I had today. Student cross-country. He shows up with a beautiful VFR plan. Amazingly marked VFR chart. Even wants to pick up an IFR for some instrument approaches after. He briefs me that at 1100L the weather will be SKC, 9999 RVR.

The problem is it was 1050L and it was still misty and overcast less than a thousand. The epiphany I had is that if we teach the students based off 1s and 0s in a sim and cut out too much flying, all we’re going to get is really good canned environment pilots. I know correlation doesn’t equal causation, but I have started to notice a severe lack of common sense amongst my T-6 students, and part of that is probably because we are taking away their opportunities to see real world flying. 

[Bigred]

26 minutes ago, di1630 said:

An ILS to mins is the same execution as an ILS to wx cats except the numbers change. One just has a higher safety margin for error but I’ve never had an ILS with an error so great I couldn’t land and that’s counting the ones on raw avionics.

With 2019 wind corrected steering bars etc, ILS practice should not be the reason we burn 69,000lbs of gas to practice vs a sim.






Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

I disagree. Maybe it’s just me, but it’s the intangible training that comes from knowing the weather is shit for real vs it being the sim.
 

 

[LookieRookie]

2 hours ago, zachbar said:

I’ll somewhat reverse what I said earlier based off an experience I had today. Student cross-country. He shows up with a beautiful VFR plan. Amazingly marked VFR chart. Even wants to pick up an IFR for some instrument approaches after. He briefs me that at 1100L the weather will be SKC, 9999 RVR.

The problem is it was 1050L and it was still misty and overcast less than a thousand. The epiphany I had is that if we teach the students based off 1s and 0s in a sim and cut out too much flying, all we’re going to get is really good canned environment pilots. I know correlation doesn’t equal causation, but I have started to notice a severe lack of common sense amongst my T-6 students, and part of that is probably because we are taking away their opportunities to see real world flying. 

Besides T-6 SQ/CCs going waiver crazy on T-1 tracked students, how have you taken away opportunities for real world flying? ASD/AMD has increased for T-6 flights to counter the decreased sortie count. SPs have the opportunity to fly more complex sorties due to the greater programmed mission duration.

[zachbar]

It’s still less sorties overall, and far less hours overall as well. I’ll check tomorrow to get a more exact number on hours. I was in UPT at the base I’m at now, so tomorrow I’ll run the numbers and compare my class’ with the current students‘. The increase to ASD by 18 minutes doesn’t do much to expose Stan to new environments, weather, circumstances, etc. It just lets them get one more approach or do one more set of TP and power on stalls. I fully agree UPT should change with the times, but I don’t think making the training more relevant or efficient means we can reduce how much of it we give. 

[Sprkt69]

17 hours ago, di1630 said:

An ILS to mins is the same execution as an ILS to wx cats except the numbers change. One just has a higher safety margin for error but I’ve never had an ILS with an error so great I couldn’t land and that’s counting the ones on raw avionics.

With 2019 wind corrected steering bars etc, ILS practice should not be the reason we burn 69,000lbs of gas to practice vs a sim.






Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

This is also funny coming from someone who flies around the flagpole in Fat Amy. Similar logic says you can cut most of your hours too

[Seriously]

2 hours ago, Sprkt69 said:

This is also funny coming from someone who flies around the flagpole in Fat Amy. Similar logic says you can cut most of your hours too

For some missions the fidelity of the sim *is* actually better than what you can get LARPing in the airplane. 

[Hawg15]

23 hours ago, di1630 said:

An ILS to mins is the same execution as an ILS to wx cats except the numbers change. One just has a higher safety margin for error but I’ve never had an ILS with an error so great I couldn’t land and that’s counting the ones on raw avionics.

With 2019 wind corrected steering bars etc, ILS practice should not be the reason we burn 69,000lbs of gas to practice vs a sim.






Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

Disagree. The whole sim and VR can replace flight time mentality really bothers me. The sim has its place as an additional tool, but time in the air can never be replaced by it. The hawg community gives students 3 sims to learn how to start the jet and fliP some switches, and then sends them up for the first time because they realize this. From the instrument standpoint, not everyone flies around in glass cockpits, with coupled approaches, and 4 pilots all sitting around staring at the instruments. The first time I flew an ILS to mins on a stormy night with a shitty steam ADI and HSI was nothing like the hundreds of sim approaches, or the maybe 3-4 real approaches I had to take seriously in the jet. It was incredibly uncomfortable. I even forgot to lower the gear until well past the FAF. Now I always treat them as if they are real. I disagree even more that it can be applied to actual mission employment in a meaningful way over flying. 

Nothing replaces the experience, confidence building time, and feeling the jet and how it responds to environmentals. 90% of most MWS flying is done based on feel with fighters. There needs to be G, buffet, etc. The hours we give pilots in the jet is what makes them superior to other countries. Country’s who’s pilots fly in a year what many of our pilots get in a few weeks. 

I’m sure this can be applied to heavies too. The C-17 (who’s sims are crippling broken all the time) flies 300’ low levels and does air drop. Sitting in a box isn’t going to make you comfortable at 300’ with a 200’ wingspan, or jumping guys that will die if you do it incorrectly. Nor will it build any confidence landing on tiny assault strips. 

tldr: Sims augment actual flight time, they can never replace it. Decision making is learned from experience. Practice like you play. (In a real airplane)

Edited December 13, 2019 by Hawg15

[Bender]

The hours we give pilots in the jet is what makes them superior to other countries. Country’s who’s pilots fly in a year what many of our pilots get in a few weeks. 

The seeming lack of acknowledgement of this fact by USAF leadership astounds me. Hands down, it’s the biggest thing we do better...because it isn’t VR.

~Bendy

[di1630]

Disagree. The whole sim and VR can replace flight time mentality really bothers me. The sim has its place as an additional tool, but time in the air can never be replaced by it.
............
Nothing replaces the experience, confidence building time, and feeling the jet and how it responds to environmentals.

Oh I’m not arguing to replace all or even a majority of flying with sims. I’m just saying that we CAN update and replace flown syllabus items with them and we should explore this and it’s being proven at the UPT/IFF level already.

Which and where to cut/change will widely vary by airframe. I’d say on the fighter side the A-10 has the least potential for sim replacement due to the stick-rudder mission demand and jets like the F-22/35 which are more sensor based have the most potential but I think they already do rely on sims heavily vs other fighters.

If time/money were unlimited, we’d do 100% flying. But F-22 cost what? $60k per hour?

We also need to get real
About updated missions. I was talking with a viper guy today who felt his community did too much A/A training vs his realistic real world combat role which he considered A/G. I don’t think he’s wrong.

Yeah, I get this pisses people off. Example 5 years ago most Eurofighter pilots were claiming “not a pound for air to ground” (aka 90’s eagle pilots) and are now begging for a A/G role to stay relevant as they find themselves a 90’s 4th gen A/A fighter in a 2020 world.

Heavies. I’m admittedly naive. I’d think you want to practice instruments in a sim and do real world mission stuff like assault landings and airdrop but maybe I’m underestimating the complexity of an ILS in a C-17.

Good discussion guys, I’m not saying I’m right, I’m saying I believe I’m right...big difference.






Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[Clark Griswold]

35 minutes ago, di1630 said:

Oh I’m not arguing to replace all or even a majority of flying with sims. I’m just saying that we CAN update and replace flown syllabus items with them and we should explore this and it’s being proven at the UPT/IFF level already.

Which and where to cut/change will widely vary by airframe. I’d say on the fighter side the A-10 has the least potential for sim replacement due to the stick-rudder mission demand and jets like the F-22/35 which are more sensor based have the most potential but I think they already do rely on sims heavily vs other fighters.

If time/money were unlimited, we’d do 100% flying. But F-22 cost what? $60k per hour?

We also need to get real
About updated missions. I was talking with a viper guy today who felt his community did too much A/A training vs his realistic real world combat role which he considered A/G. I don’t think he’s wrong.

Yeah, I get this pisses people off. Example 5 years ago most Eurofighter pilots were claiming “not a pound for air to ground” (aka 90’s eagle pilots) and are now begging for a A/G role to stay relevant as they find themselves a 90’s 4th gen A/A fighter in a 2020 world.

Heavies. I’m admittedly naive. I’d think you want to practice instruments in a sim and do real world mission stuff like assault landings and airdrop but maybe I’m underestimating the complexity of an ILS in a C-17.

Good discussion guys, I’m not saying I’m right, I’m saying I believe I’m right...big difference.

Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

I hear what you're saying and there is a point to doing things in sims vs. the proverbial 10k an hour KC-135R pattern ride to win the battle on training beans

Just my two old fart cents, we had it right in the 80's for heavies.  Flew as required the big MDS for ops, tng and such.  Flew the ACE jets for training and proficiency (Tweet, 38s).

For budgetary sanity, for the heavies, give them an economical trainer and replace just 10-20% of their training hours and get some Vitamin G once in a while.  I can only speak for myself but I would have traded 50 training hours for 100 hours in a modern aero aircraft when at homeplate and not burining dinos over the desert.

I like the GameBird

https://talkbusiness.net/2017/09/faa-certifies-gamebird-aerobatic-airplane-to-be-built-in-bentonville/

Close visual formation, aerobatics, VFR by clock map ground, etc... not that those specific skills are applicable to their MWS but the fundamentals to them build strong pilots (multi-tasking, quick cross check, thinking ahead, etc...)

After 20 years of flying heavies and sometimes flying GA, I can tell I'm in better pilot after a period of keeping those basic pilot muscles strong in a plane without George, autothrottles, TCAS, etc...  

Edited December 14, 2019 by Clark Griswold

[Splash95]

On 12/6/2019 at 10:09 PM, YoungnDumb said:

How are they doing UPT at KRND?  Did they stand up another squadron or are the PIT guys helping out?

@YoungnDumb Get an answer on this? Probably not the ideal spot but I UTFSF'd without much success...who here is currently/directly in the know about PTN (or just Randolph UPT if that exists)? Would appreciate being able to PM someone.  Thanks, Splash

[LookieRookie]

3 hours ago, Splash95 said:

@YoungnDumb Get an answer on this? Probably not the ideal spot but I UTFSF'd without much success...who here is currently/directly in the know about PTN (or just Randolph UPT if that exists)? Would appreciate being able to PM someone.  Thanks, Splash

UPT 2.5 will be taught by the PIT squadrons. PTN is taught by Det 24 on the T-6 side.

[Bode]

UPT 2.5 will be taught by the PIT squadrons. PTN is taught by Det 24 on the T-6 side.

So the organizations who historically can’t maintain timeline are about to expand the workload? Where was that post about terrible policy and managements decisions at?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MCO]

On 12/14/2019 at 10:48 AM, di1630 said:

Oh I’m not arguing to replace all or even a majority of flying with sims. I’m just saying that we CAN update and replace flown syllabus items with them and we should explore this and it’s being proven at the UPT/IFF level already.

Which and where to cut/change will widely vary by airframe. I’d say on the fighter side the A-10 has the least potential for sim replacement due to the stick-rudder mission demand and jets like the F-22/35 which are more sensor based have the most potential but I think they already do rely on sims heavily vs other fighters.

If time/money were unlimited, we’d do 100% flying. But F-22 cost what? $60k per hour?

We also need to get real
About updated missions. I was talking with a viper guy today who felt his community did too much A/A training vs his realistic real world combat role which he considered A/G. I don’t think he’s wrong.

Yeah, I get this pisses people off. Example 5 years ago most Eurofighter pilots were claiming “not a pound for air to ground” (aka 90’s eagle pilots) and are now begging for a A/G role to stay relevant as they find themselves a 90’s 4th gen A/A fighter in a 2020 world.

Heavies. I’m admittedly naive. I’d think you want to practice instruments in a sim and do real world mission stuff like assault landings and airdrop but maybe I’m underestimating the complexity of an ILS in a C-17.

Good discussion guys, I’m not saying I’m right, I’m saying I believe I’m right...big difference.






Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

I agree with you. Also, there should be a fully qualified AC or IP in the seat in a heavy every time with a copilot, so take advantage of it. I usually let my copilot fly a complex approach until they are overwhelmed and then take it if I need too. Instruments aren’t hard but they will definitely kill you. If we don’t trust our ACs then either extend time to upgrade or don’t just upgrade everyone “because it’s their time”. You can get the majority of instrument experience in the sim just fine, and the rest as a copilot on the line. Tac flying on the other hand, which varies airframe to airframe in the MAF, needs ass in seat time.

 

On that same vein though, I think a lot of MAF leadership focuses on “sexy”, “cool” training that they can claim they prepped the fleet for instead of getting the crew force good at what we would actually be doing, wasting our training opportunities. Just my opinion.

Edited January 9, 2020 by MCO

[di1630]

Guys, what makes a complex approach? Any good stories?


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[MCO]

On 1/10/2020 at 10:13 PM, di1630 said:

Guys, what makes a complex approach? Any good stories?


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

I don’t have a picture of it but I was sent to Beijing when I was refragged after show time and had to deal with a high level pax. Of course the J model is not GPS approved in China so now I’m the only aircraft shooting the non GPS arrival and it is about 15 step down segments in meters switching between headings, multiple VORs and NDBs and various speed restrictions. It was a little chaotic. Add to that gusty winds so I’m supposed to fly a 144kt approach speed, but I overspeed my flaps at 145kt.

Most of the time it’s when you are going into a field with no radar service using procedural deconfliction, probably some place like Africa or the Balkans, and you look at the approach plate and even after years of flying think what the hell is this. Luckily you usually can look over the approaches the night before but not always, and ATC seems to be good at getting you to join the arrival/approach in the one way you weren’t expecting. The more experienced you get the less this happens and the more you laugh at/teach the young guy struggling, but as the young guy going into some interesting fields in the middle of no where at mins, it’s everything to keep your SA up. I’ve shot multiple circling NDBs at mins after I was told in pilot training NDBs were going away and I’d probably never have to shoot a real one. I’m sure there are plenty of other guys on the forum that have had some ridiculous foreign approach sprung on them at the last second.

Edited January 11, 2020 by MCO

[war007afa]

Do you prefer the BC localizer for a missed approach?  Or perhaps the "you don't get a missed approach, so don't die"?

[YoungnDumb]

On 1/7/2020 at 4:58 PM, LookieRookie said:

UPT 2.5 will be taught by the PIT squadrons. PTN is taught by Det 24 on the T-6 side.

So the PIT squads will now basically be half PIT and half UPT?  Interesting.  Looks like the Randolph flying club is on its way out

[LookieRookie]

38 minutes ago, YoungnDumb said:

So the PIT squads will now basically be half PIT and half UPT?  Interesting.  Looks like the Randolph flying club is on its way out

More like 20% UPT at worst

[YoungnDumb]

Gotcha, sounds more like a select lucky few will get to experience KRND vs KDLF/KEND vs a full up pipeline

[the g-man]

Heavies. I’m admittedly naive. I’d think you want to practice instruments in a sim and do real world mission stuff like assault landings and airdrop but maybe I’m underestimating the complexity of an ILS in a C-17.

Good discussion guys, I’m not saying I’m right, I’m saying I believe I’m right...big difference.






Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

That’s precisely what’s already going on. Initial Qual is like 40 sims, then a check, in the sim.

One qualified, continuation training in the sim focuses on instrument flying and emergency procedures.

Local training sorties are dedicated to tactical training until weather dictates otherwise, in that case you might fly a 3 hr local doing approaches somewhere, but it’s not the norm or first plan.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[norskman]

Anyone here on 19AF staff I can PM? 

Edited January 28, 2020 by norskman

[ToHoldShort]

Curious how this product turns out? Seem like a decent idea to explore or maybe just another way the guard is better

 

https://bogidope.com/civilian-to-guard-or-reserve/apw/

[ImNotARobot]

Curious how this product turns out? Seem like a decent idea to explore or maybe just another way the guard is better
 
https://bogidope.com/civilian-to-guard-or-reserve/apw/

I like the Hitchhiker’s Guide “enough paperwork to impress a Vogon” in the writeup. Bogidope is doing something right!