Air Force Looking Into Pilot Training Changes To Curb Accidents

[ThreeHoler]

It takes 15 minutes to TERPS a GPS approach. It can all be done remotely by your MAJCOM. The only thing they cant do is test flight it, but guess what.... There's even waivers for that. 

It doesn’t take much longer to TERPS a conventional approach either. It is also done remotely by the MAJCOM that “owns” that airfield (not your MAJCOM). They can’t and don’t flight check it which is why the Giant Reports ask for crews to do a flyability check. In fact, the most common reason why an approach never makes it into DoD FLIP after the MAJCOM does the review is publication requires a flyability check and no one ever does them.

Boy, I wish I knew something about FTIP reviews, procedure validation, US TERPS, PANS-OPS, MIPS, comparison reviews, accreditation, the DoD HN Accepted list, or any of this. Thanks for the lesson.

GPS approaches are easy to work with...until I shut off your access to GPS from the ground.

[FLEA]

1 hour ago, ThreeHoler said:

 

It doesn’t take much longer to TERPS a conventional approach either. It is also done remotely by the MAJCOM that “owns” that airfield (not your MAJCOM). They can’t and don’t flight check it which is why the Giant Reports ask for crews to do a flyability check. In fact, the most common reason why an approach never makes it into DoD FLIP after the MAJCOM does the review is publication requires a flyability check and no one ever does them.

Boy, I wish I knew something about FTIP reviews, procedure validation, US TERPS, PANS-OPS, MIPS, comparison reviews, accreditation, the DoD HN Accepted list, or any of this. Thanks for the lesson.

GPS approaches are easy to work with...until I shut off your access to GPS from the ground.

 

I'm not questioning your knowledge, just your dogma. I can jam a TACAN/VOR/ILS and anything you would use for a self contained approach as well. I could also just destroy most ground stations with guided artillery fire. There's also that nasty bit about acquisition and installation. What day of the war is that going to happen on? How is your ATSP 400 nm in country getting fed to that point? If the AF would have got on board with this 15 years ago when they should have, they would know there are mitigation technologies available to that, many of which we are already fielding in different enterprises. Is it a one size fits all solution? No, but it's a tool in the tool kit, and that makes it tactically important.

 

 

Edited March 6, 2021 by FLEA

[jazzdude]

I'm not questioning your knowledge, just your dogma. I can jam a TACAN/VOR/ILS and anything you would use for a self contained approach as well. I could also just destroy most ground stations with guided artillery fire. There's also that nasty bit about acquisition and installation. What day of the war is that going to happen on? How is your ATSP 400 nm in country getting fed to that point? If the AF would have got on board with this 15 years ago when they should have, they would know there are mitigation technologies available to that, many of which we are already fielding in different enterprises. Is it a one size fits all solution? No, but it's a tool in the tool kit, and that makes it tactically important.

Tacans are supposed to be portable. And we have portable MLS systems as well, and that even got some play in Afghanistan.

But to your point, it's all just tools in our toolkit.

There's also work being done on other navigation methods as well, though it's probably several years before we start seeing those systems in practice, and much longer to integrate it into existing platforms (gps took forever to integrate...)
https://www.darpa.mil/program/adaptable-navigation-systems

[08Dawg]

All this talk about reviving the companion trainer in a light GA platform sounds like a damn good reason to bring back aero clubs...and then budget a chunk of hours each year for a co/wingman to go burn there. 

[AA]

Speaking of the T-6 and its GPS issues.  Are T-6 bases canceling sorties now because this GPS is hard broke? Is any training actually being lost now?

[Homestar]

8 minutes ago, AA said:

Speaking of the T-6 and its GPS issues.  Are T-6 bases canceling sorties now because this GPS is hard broke? Is any training actually being lost now?

No it’s just being waived or accomplished in the sim. 

[AA]

38 minutes ago, Homestar said:

No it’s just being waived or accomplished in the sim. 

Thanks.  I guess my question is why cant you still do all your training in the airplane? I saw where RNAV approaches are restricted to Day/VMC but that doesn't mean you cant do them? If there's a weather day then yes, accomplish in the sim later?

[Homestar]

57 minutes ago, AA said:

I guess my question is why cant you still do all your training in the airplane?

I don’t remember the specifics of the eSSS I saw. Maybe that was an aspect I missed and it’s still possible. 

[N730]

Thanks.  I guess my question is why cant you still do all your training in the airplane? I saw where RNAV approaches are restricted to Day/VMC but that doesn't mean you cant do them? If there's a weather day then yes, accomplish in the sim later?

Like you mentioned. RNAV approaches are still 100% being done. Just under day/VMC conditions.

Main issue is no RNAV SIDS or STARS, so it can make out and backs or cross countries more difficult to plan.

The training is still happening, training opportunities are just limited by weather.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Baseops Network mobile app

[jazzdude]

Like you mentioned. RNAV approaches are still 100% being done. Just under day/VMC conditions.

Main issue is no RNAV SIDS or STARS, so it can make out and backs or cross countries more difficult to plan.

The training is still happening, training opportunities are just limited by weather.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Baseops Network mobile app

Oh no, the dreaded conventional sid/star! And planning on conventional airways instead of skyhooking gps direct... The horror...

[N730]

Oh no, the dreaded conventional sid/star! And planning on conventional airways instead of skyhooking gps direct... The horror...

Haha I'm not complaining.

ATC seems particularly annoyed at times, though. I doubt they're aware, so they don't understand why the T-6s are suddenly "unable" when they were accepting the RNAV STARS 2 months ago.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Baseops Network mobile app

[jazzdude]

Haha I'm not complaining.

ATC seems particularly annoyed at times, though. I doubt they're aware, so they don't understand why the T-6s are suddenly "unable" when they were accepting the RNAV STARS 2 months ago.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Baseops Network mobile app

"Approach, you know the answer since you also work for the federal government...The government is cheap"

[FDNYOldGuy]

On 3/6/2021 at 9:39 AM, 08Dawg said:

All this talk about reviving the companion trainer in a light GA platform sounds like a damn good reason to bring back aero clubs...and then budget a chunk of hours each year for a co/wingman to go burn there. 

How awesome it would be if Wings/Squadrons were allocated a couplefew T6s that pilots could sortie out for stick and rudder flying? Sure, it really wouldn't do anything for currencies in most MWS, but it would give pilots a cheaper opportunity to keep up on those flying basics over trying to wrangle a .69 of flying time with a handful of other pilots vying for the same on locals (well, in heavies, anyway). They already have 38s doing that for a couple airframes; why not expand it to more MWS?

Make it optional, so it's not something that feels like a burden to those that don't care to fly outside of their jet, and allow pilots to just enjoy flying. I am sure there would be some logistics headaches and issues, but a T6 seems like a still high performance but cheaper way to get altitude under ass time than 1-8 jet engines burning way more lb/hr.

[ayz33]

You mean like this? https://warontherocks.com/2019/01/rebuilding-the-forge-reshaping-how-the-air-force-trains-fighter-aviators/

[Hawg15]

19 hours ago, N730 said:

Main issue is no RNAV SIDS or STARS, so it can make out and backs or cross countries more difficult

“Unable STAR request vectors” -every fighter pilot in the history of flying objects with or without TACANs, VORs, or GPS. 

[Day Man]

13 hours ago, jazzdude said:

Oh no, the dreaded conventional sid/star! And planning on conventional airways instead of skyhooking gps direct... The horror...

some of that's gonna be tough without ever learning fix-to-fix

[Bode]

Thanks.  I guess my question is why cant you still do all your training in the airplane? I saw where RNAV approaches are restricted to Day/VMC but that doesn't mean you cant do them? If there's a weather day then yes, accomplish in the sim later?

Two things
1- classic it’s not fair he few a GPS approach and got one more graded item type issue
2- if students aren’t required to do it in the aircraft because you can’t require it with the WX issue then students won’t plan it.

I’m shocked we made it this long doing it the we did. I came from the 17 where we had a 2 page checklist to do a GPS approach. Get here and it’s like we can’t really verify the distances so we just wing it. Oh and we don’t know if RAIM is actually going to work or not. Just hope for the best at .3 to the FAF. Oh and to fly a departure you need to load an approach to that airport so you get the accuracy you need. Same for a STAR.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SurelySerious]

6 minutes ago, Bode said:

I’m shocked we made it this long doing it the we did. I came from the 17 where we had a 2 page checklist to do a GPS approach. Get here and it’s like we can’t really verify the distances so we just wing it. Oh and we don’t know if RAIM is actually going to work or not. Just hope for the best at .3 to the FAF. Oh and to fly a departure you need to load an approach to that airport so you get the accuracy you need. Same for a STAR.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That’s amazing. In the worst way. 

[Hawg15]

37 minutes ago, Bode said:

I came from the 17 where we had a 2 page checklist to do a GPS approach.

Requiring a 2 page checklist for basic pilot admin that a 50 hour GA pilot can do is more of a problem than anything else I’ve read in this thread. I can legally kill someone without running a 2 page checklist. Then again, I suppose when you’re in a blue falcon Q3 community it’s needed.

Edited March 9, 2021 by Hawg15

[Breckey]

Whatever happened to ADRWHOS? You don't have to really verify the distances anymore with the new 202V3 either. Load, Activate, and follow the magenta line.

[Clark Griswold]

52 minutes ago, Breckey said:

Whatever happened to ADRWHOS? You don't have to really verify the distances anymore with the new 202V3 either. Load, Activate, and follow the magenta line.

[jazzdude]

Two things
1- classic it’s not fair he few a GPS approach and got one more graded item type issue
2- if students aren’t required to do it in the aircraft because you can’t require it with the WX issue then students won’t plan it.

I’m shocked we made it this long doing it the we did. I came from the 17 where we had a 2 page checklist to do a GPS approach. Get here and it’s like we can’t really verify the distances so we just wing it. Oh and we don’t know if RAIM is actually going to work or not. Just hope for the best at .3 to the FAF. Oh and to fly a departure you need to load an approach to that airport so you get the accuracy you need. Same for a STAR.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You forgot to add that that's in addition to the 1 page of decent, approach, and landing briefings. And the NVG brief if applicable.

Though the C-17 mission computer was pretty stupid with how it handled GPS missed approaches (did I cross the MAP yet?!) and GPS approaches you wanted to circle from

[Bergman]

This should help. 🙄

 

I personally can’t wait for Contract Undergraduate Navigator Training, which will likely be in the second phase of their plan.

AETC Looking into Contract UPT

Edited March 9, 2021 by Bergman

[mcbush]

All those C-17 GPS issues have been eliminated by recent software updates.

The current flavor of the month for sport bitching is the new departure planning guide that they dropped on us a few months ago. In addition to all the actual T.O. guidance, apparently we need an additional 12 page(!) checklist just to generate safe takeoff TOLD in a C-17 now. 

[Bergman]

11 hours ago, FDNYOldGuy said:

How awesome it would be if Wings/Squadrons were allocated a couplefew T6s that pilots could sortie out for stick and rudder flying? Sure, it really wouldn't do anything for currencies in most MWS, but it would give pilots a cheaper opportunity to keep up on those flying basics over trying to wrangle a .69 of flying time with a handful of other pilots vying for the same on locals (well, in heavies, anyway). They already have 38s doing that for a couple airframes; why not expand it to more MWS?

Make it optional, so it's not something that feels like a burden to those that don't care to fly outside of their jet, and allow pilots to just enjoy flying. I am sure there would be some logistics headaches and issues, but a T6 seems like a still high performance but cheaper way to get altitude under ass time than 1-8 jet engines burning way more lb/hr.

What’s old is new again.  You know they did this for decades, right?  T-37/38 ACE (Accelerated Copilot Enhancement) at many tanker bases.  I think the B-52s did it at well; not sure what other MWS had them.

 

 

Edited March 9, 2021 by Bergman