Air Force Looking Into Pilot Training Changes To Curb Accidents

[Bender]

I was asking this too. I definitely remember using RNAV cross country. 
Maybe he meant certain RNP operations? 

He does not. T-6 GPS Ops FUBAR in IMC despite nothing changing systems wise. Something about a waiver that was intentionally not renewed.

Can still train with it in VMC, so there’s that...

~Bendy

Edited to make the last sentence not mean the exact opposite of what I was trying to say...yes, the reason is exactly why you would think that that happened.

Sent from my iPad using Baseops Network mobile app

[Sua Sponte]

9 hours ago, Royal said:

Can't; they're already collecting $10k/mo in retirement pay while sitting on the boards of Raytheon/Boeing/Lockheed for $1 million per year. You know, when they're not on the lecture circuit making $100,000 for talking to organizations about "leadership" and "efficiency."

Why do you have to call out retired MAF GOs like that 😂 

[Sid]

4 hours ago, FLEA said:

I was asking this too. I definitely remember using RNAV cross country. 

Maybe he meant certain RNP operations? 

Current T-6 IP. FAA no longer wants to renew the waiver for the RNAV database, so effectively the GPS is Day/VMC only for PBN/Terminal Area Ops now. Legal at night/IMC for point-to-point and T/Q routes only but any GPS approach or RNAV substitution must be day/VMC. RNAV SID/STARs are no longer authorized. Rumor mill is no replacement or AMP until 2025.

Edited March 3, 2021 by StuckinOK

[SurelySerious]

7 minutes ago, StuckinOK said:

Current T-6 IP. FAA no longer wants to renew the waiver for the RNAV database, so effectively the GPS is Day/VMC only for PBN/Terminal Area Ops now. Legal at night/IMC for point-to-point and T/Q routes only but any GPS approach or RNAV substitution must be day/VMC. RNAV SID/STARs are no longer authorized. Rumor mill is no replacement or AMP until 2025.

[Clark Griswold]

8 hours ago, jazzdude said:

But what gets cut to pay for a companion trainer (and the corresponding logistic tail)? We're not getting more money any time soon.

Valid critiques on a new / resurrected ACE program, my suggestion would be contracted service like the Aggressor Contract(s).

Contract instructors for init qual/cert and the mx/logistics then off to the races... COGO versus GOGO asset.  Way easier to roll out or roll up.  Gov would just provide facilities on base(s).

In justification for the program, a syllabus would likely have to be developed to satisfy the Bobs but flexibility with student directed missions / squadron directed DLOs could be had methinks.

Other COA could be Pilot Enrichment TDYs or PETs... Upset Attitude Training, Tailwheel, Backcountry / STOL, Sea plane, Aerobatic refresher, etc...

If your MDS/assignment does not offer an ACE program, you get 1 PET per year and 8 in your career, not required to take one but encouraged.  Pilot finds a program, proposes to the commander if it meets some basic criteria and boom go get some learnin'

The money is probably not insurmountable, there's the low hanging fruit of cutting in-residence PME for Company Grade O's but there's other monies to be had... just a WAG but figure $135 mil for both programs (COGO Companion Aircraft and PETs). 

The problem is the culture of the Air Force, I think the GOs and Cols think of ideas like this as admitting failure and won't entertain anything of the sort. 

[di1630]

 
When you have to redesign your MQT syllabus so much that it looks like a mini B-Course...

Try having to teach the B-coursers stuff they should have learned at IFF all for the bargain price if $50k per flight hour.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[jazzdude]

Valid critiques on a new / resurrected ACE program, my suggestion would be contracted service like the Aggressor Contract(s).
Contract instructors for init qual/cert and the mx/logistics then off to the races... COGO versus GOGO asset.  Way easier to roll out or roll up.  Gov would just provide facilities on base(s).
In justification for the program, a syllabus would likely have to be developed to satisfy the Bobs but flexibility with student directed missions / squadron directed DLOs could be had methinks.
Other COA could be Pilot Enrichment TDYs or PETs... Upset Attitude Training, Tailwheel, Backcountry / STOL, Sea plane, Aerobatic refresher, etc...
If your MDS/assignment does not offer an ACE program, you get 1 PET per year and 8 in your career, not required to take one but encouraged.  Pilot finds a program, proposes to the commander if it meets some basic criteria and boom go get some learnin'
The money is probably not insurmountable, there's the low hanging fruit of cutting in-residence PME for Company Grade O's but there's other monies to be had... just a WAG but figure $135 mil for both programs (COGO Companion Aircraft and PETs). 
The problem is the culture of the Air Force, I think the GOs and Cols think of ideas like this as admitting failure and won't entertain anything of the sort. 

tl;dr: I think $135M lowballs the annual cost, likely significantly, if the program is going to have any real impact on aviation skills...

Napkin math time:
2 CFIs @ 100k/yr
2 A&Ps @ 60k/yr
Let's call it 20 bases get a (new) companion trainer, with 2x CFI and 2x maintainers. Figure salary is about half the cost of an employee (taxes, benefits), and 20% management overhead, and 10% company profit based on labor charges only (assume all flying is done at cost)
Puts people cost at around $8-9M per year, leaving $126M to fly.

T-6 was around $500/hr to fly, giving you 252k flight hours based on the remaining $126M.

Air Force says it needs 21k pilots, but I'm going to wag pilot numbers at roughly 14k (1k/yr out of UPT, 100% retention for 10 years, then 40% for the next 10 years). Real number is somewhere between the two, but I'll use my lower number as a "best case" for hours per pilot.

252k flight hours for 14k pilots works out to 18 hours per year, or approximately 1.5 hours per month per pilot on average. In other words, one T-6 sortie a month. If you ignore personnel costs/management overhead/company profit, you get to a whopping 19.3 hours per pilot per year.

This also ignores the cost for the company to procure the aircraft, so cost per hour will go up to capture that cost, and reduce flying hours. So the cost of a COGO ACE program would likely be much higher, unless you use much cheaper aircraft (i.e. lower performance). A Cessna 172 at $125/hr wet gets you to a 1.5 hour sortie a week on average for those 14k pilots.

---

Your "PET" idea is interesting.
My ATP was about $4K, seaplane add on was $2.5k, so I'll use $3k as a "typical" course cost. Training would probably be about a week, so wag it at about $2k in lodging/per diem, and $1.5k for plane tickets to get to training. That brings us to $6.5k/trip.

Using my 14k pilot inventory from earlier, and going roughly every other year in your career, puts the cost at about $45.5M/yr, which might be more manageable or easier to find in the budget.

Then again, would you rather get a 1 week trip to go fly on the AF's dime every other year, or get straight cash on an increased bonus (extra $13k/year on a five year bonus, which would equate to the cost of your 10 PETs over your career)? Coincidentally, that'd put the bonus at $35k+$13k=$48k/year, which is what RAND recommended the bonus be to significantly affect retention.

[bfargin]

Not every pilot needs ACE time if you go with the idea of young guys needing to gain valuable experience. So, say all the LTs and maybe through first year captains for fighter guys (first 1000 hours of AF flight time). Back in the SAC days it was until you upgraded to AC in the Tanker or Buff. So maybe for fighter bubbas once you get upgraded to 2 ship lead (or whatever experience level you guys see the value in this program), you roll out of ACE. For the heavy guys you get to fly ACE until you upgrade to AC/left seat. If you wanted to save money each base could have three or four guys who might have been FAIPs or at least aren't your patches and have an interest in being IP qualed in the T-6 as well as qualified in the primary aircraft. They fly occasionally with the guys to check them out but most of the flights could just be the Cos and wingman who need the time. Most of my ACE time wasn't with an IP. We had 3 or 4 rides to get checked out and then once a year for a form 8 with the ACE IPs, the rest of the time was just us Cos. Though I did have to take my SQ CC up for a couple of sight seeing tours of Montreal.

[Clark Griswold]

21 hours ago, jazzdude said:

tl;dr: I think $135M lowballs the annual cost, likely significantly, if the program is going to have any real impact on aviation skills...

Napkin math time:
2 CFIs @ 100k/yr
2 A&Ps @ 60k/yr
Let's call it 20 bases get a (new) companion trainer, with 2x CFI and 2x maintainers. Figure salary is about half the cost of an employee (taxes, benefits), and 20% management overhead, and 10% company profit based on labor charges only (assume all flying is done at cost)
Puts people cost at around $8-9M per year, leaving $126M to fly.

T-6 was around $500/hr to fly, giving you 252k flight hours based on the remaining $126M.

Air Force says it needs 21k pilots, but I'm going to wag pilot numbers at roughly 14k (1k/yr out of UPT, 100% retention for 10 years, then 40% for the next 10 years). Real number is somewhere between the two, but I'll use my lower number as a "best case" for hours per pilot.

252k flight hours for 14k pilots works out to 18 hours per year, or approximately 1.5 hours per month per pilot on average. In other words, one T-6 sortie a month. If you ignore personnel costs/management overhead/company profit, you get to a whopping 19.3 hours per pilot per year.

This also ignores the cost for the company to procure the aircraft, so cost per hour will go up to capture that cost, and reduce flying hours. So the cost of a COGO ACE program would likely be much higher, unless you use much cheaper aircraft (i.e. lower performance). A Cessna 172 at $125/hr wet gets you to a 1.5 hour sortie a week on average for those 14k pilots.

---

Your "PET" idea is interesting.
My ATP was about $4K, seaplane add on was $2.5k, so I'll use $3k as a "typical" course cost. Training would probably be about a week, so wag it at about $2k in lodging/per diem, and $1.5k for plane tickets to get to training. That brings us to $6.5k/trip.

Using my 14k pilot inventory from earlier, and going roughly every other year in your career, puts the cost at about $45.5M/yr, which might be more manageable or easier to find in the budget.

Then again, would you rather get a 1 week trip to go fly on the AF's dime every other year, or get straight cash on an increased bonus (extra $13k/year on a five year bonus, which would equate to the cost of your 10 PETs over your career)? Coincidentally, that'd put the bonus at $35k+$13k=$48k/year, which is what RAND recommended the bonus be to significantly affect retention.

Potentially as my WAG being on the low / bottom end of the spectrum but methinks still affordable if done with a focus on what it is you want out of the program:  flight training to develop general aviation knowledge, situational awareness, flight experience and esprit de corps. 

@bfargin said what I should have said in my post on COAs for this, that it is focused on the spry and young not the old and crusty (like me).  I think most single seat communities differentiate experienced and inexperienced at 500 hours in type and heavy communities vary but I think you could apply a generic 750 hours total time if looking for a way to focus limited resources on those most likely to need the training this program(s) could offer.  Personally, I think sortie count is a better indicator of experience level but 6 of one half dozen of another.  I would leave room for pilots returning from non-flying duty, if they haven't flown in two years or so, no mater if they have already gotten their allotted PETs or are by hours excluded from the Companion Trainer, they would get some extra air time.

$500 seems low for the Texan, my reference is a bit old (2013) but when you roll everything into a per flight hour cost, $2200 seems more likely.

Costly Flight Hours | TIME.com

While the AF could afford that (a T-6II based CT program) but with likely significant disruption to other programs, I would want a CT to be relatively simple, safe, capable and cheap.  No autopilot, no ejection seat, probably not turbine powered and likely fixed gear.  Basically an aerobatic aircraft with modern civilian glass.  Nothing MILSPEC as it would cost three times as much, deliver less, always have problems with funky work-arounds and be 10 years behind what every other aircraft not owned by the DoD has.  Not because pilots in the AF are idiots but because the gov acquisition process is idiotic.

The CFIs and MX personnel could be IMAs / Reservists / Guard, likely pricier than Civilians but just an idea or possibly a Golden Apple tour to seal the deal and get a good one to commit to a career. 

Overall, I think the PET COA is more feasible, it's just money and paperwork, not executed under the stern gaze of the Bobs vs the queep monster a CT program would likely mutate into, shoe clerks gonna shoe clerk, they would make it yet another PITA.  

Still, I love planes and this would make an excellent CT platform:

Super Decathlon | American Champion Aircraft

[SurelySerious]

On 3/2/2021 at 9:21 PM, StuckinOK said:

Current T-6 IP. FAA no longer wants to renew the waiver for the RNAV database, so effectively the GPS is Day/VMC only for PBN/Terminal Area Ops now.

I got distracted earlier with how ridiculous the AF waiting until 2025 to fix this was, but what exactly is the database issue?

[Homestar]

1 hour ago, SurelySerious said:

I got distracted earlier with how ridiculous the AF waiting until 2025 to fix this was, but what exactly is the database issue?

I wonder if the TSO its certification was based on was rescinded by the FAA because it’s been superseded or something? Just guessing, but the AF would probably have to pursue a non-compliance waiver or upgrade the GPS unit in the T-6. 
 

 

[ThreeHoler]

I got distracted earlier with how ridiculous the AF waiting until 2025 to fix this was, but what exactly is the database issue?

Probably non-compliant in some important way and the AF chose to ignore the problem at least 10 years ago instead of starting the fix then.

AMC pilots barely speak Area Navigation. The AF is at least 25 years behind except the KC-46 avionics. And many the GNS-430 or 530 in the UH-1.

[SocialD]

7 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

 

Still, I love planes and this would make an excellent CT platform:

Super Decathlon | American Champion Aircraft

 

Funny you mention that.  As I'm reading this thread, I'm thinking to myself, slap a GNS430W into an original T-6 Texan and it would be a MUCH better platform to make good pilots than the Texan II.  I had Mustang pilot tell me you needed about 50 hours in a Mustang before you flew the T-6.  Controllable pitch prop, it does nothing for you, so you have to stay on your toes and it's will make you a heck of a stick and rudder pilot (T/O & Landing) in the process.  But ya, a Super D would do...cheaper, just less cool.  😎

 

7 hours ago, SurelySerious said:

I got distracted earlier with how ridiculous the AF waiting until 2025 to fix this was, but what exactly is the database issue?

 

Same reason they can't pay me the correct flight pay, and haven't been able to since 2017 or 2018 (but don't worry, the fix will roll out Jan 2020).  You can slap a WAAS capable GNS430 in to a beat-up old 172 and fly it down to 200 feet in every "burg & ville" in the U.S., and the AF can't even get their primary trainer to do it.  

[jazzdude]

Potentially as my WAG being on the low / bottom end of the spectrum but methinks still affordable if done with a focus on what it is you want out of the program:  flight training to develop general aviation knowledge, situational awareness, flight experience and esprit de corps. 
[mention=5493]bfargin[/mention] said what I should have said in my post on COAs for this, that it is focused on the spry and young not the old and crusty (like me).  I think most single seat communities differentiate experienced and inexperienced at 500 hours in type and heavy communities vary but I think you could apply a generic 750 hours total time if looking for a way to focus limited resources on those most likely to need the training this program(s) could offer.  Personally, I think sortie count is a better indicator of experience level but 6 of one half dozen of another.  I would leave room for pilots returning from non-flying duty, if they haven't flown in two years or so, no mater if they have already gotten their allotted PETs or are by hours excluded from the Companion Trainer, they would get some extra air time.
$500 seems low for the Texan, my reference is a bit old (2013) but when you roll everything into a per flight hour cost, $2200 seems more likely.
Costly Flight Hours | TIME.com
While the AF could afford that (a T-6II based CT program) but with likely significant disruption to other programs, I would want a CT to be relatively simple, safe, capable and cheap.  No autopilot, no ejection seat, probably not turbine powered and likely fixed gear.  Basically an aerobatic aircraft with modern civilian glass.  Nothing MILSPEC as it would cost three times as much, deliver less, always have problems with funky work-arounds and be 10 years behind what every other aircraft not owned by the DoD has.  Not because pilots in the AF are idiots but because the gov acquisition process is idiotic.
The CFIs and MX personnel could be IMAs / Reservists / Guard, likely pricier than Civilians but just an idea or possibly a Golden Apple tour to seal the deal and get a good one to commit to a career. 
Overall, I think the PET COA is more feasible, it's just money and paperwork, not executed under the stern gaze of the Bobs vs the queep monster a CT program would likely mutate into, shoe clerks gonna shoe clerk, they would make it yet another PITA.  
Still, I love planes and this would make an excellent CT platform:
Super Decathlon | American Champion Aircraft

$500-550 was the FHP cost for the T-6 when I was working current ops in 2016. True cost per hour is probably higher like you mentioned.

Sample size of one, but as a copilot I flew my butt off; came to the C-17 in the middle of a surge, then deployed 6 months after MQT. So 750 hours was reached in under a year, though lots of the time was on autopilot flying on a combat basic crew just trying to stay awake. Not a lot of home station time to fly a companion trainer if it was available though, that first year was a grind rolling from post mission CR straight into a shortened pre mission CR and another 2 week trip.

I do know I became a better pilot going to instruct in the T-6. It also made me a better C-17 pilot (and IP) when I went back. Lots of hand flying in different situations and weather, and lots of reps instructing and explaining aviation concepts. So I see a benefit for ACs and IPs in heavy platforms as well to fly something smaller without an autopilot.

I'd scope it further back-don't even need an aerobatic trainer. An off the shelf IFR Cessna 172 or 182 with G1000 would likely suffice. Aerobatic aircraft would mean you still need parachute riggers, though I guess that could be contracted out.

The acquisition process is slow because of the budget process and POMing for money, and competition for money is fierce. It also tends to get bogged down with complying with requirements, which sometimes get over specified and don't leave enough trade space, or are aspirational (assuming new technology is mature enough for production and assuming risk). I guess the closest example for the acquisition of a COTS companion trainer would be the DA-20s for IFS. Though the AF would likely put in a stupid requirements like "it has to have a stick and throttle, and the throttle has to be on the left side" that potentially increases costs and schedule.

Super decathlon is a nice plane, it's in my running for a plane in retirement if I can afford it.

[Breckey]

AMC pilots barely speak Area Navigation. The AF is at least 25 years behind except the KC-46 avionics. And many the GNS-430 or 530 in the UH-1.

From what I've heard the H-1 is running into problems right now because the SPO never "certified" the GNS-530 for any RNAV criteria so they're in a kind of limbo where they can do RNAV approaches but don't have an RNAV/RNP cerfication.

[MoonShot]

1 hour ago, jazzdude said:

 

I'd scope it further back-don't even need an aerobatic trainer. An off the shelf IFR Cessna 172 or 182 with G1000 would likely suffice. Aerobatic aircraft would mean you still need parachute riggers, though I guess that could be contracted out.

 

As someone that has both glass and traditional 6 pack time and seeking UPT, would you recommend staying proficient in the glass (G1000) as opposed to the 6?
 

I’ve also got a friend with an RV-8 and Aspen avionics that I was thinking of getting time in hoping it would be somewhat of a stepping stone to the T-6.

[jazzdude]

As someone that has both glass and traditional 6 pack time and seeking UPT, would you recommend staying proficient in the glass (G1000) as opposed to the 6?
 
I’ve also got a friend with an RV-8 and Aspen avionics that I was thinking of getting time in hoping it would be somewhat of a stepping stone to the T-6.

If you haven't been to UPT, it doesn't really matter-getting good flight time in anything will help. Good as in don't be lazy, plan your flights, stay on desired headings/courses/altitudes, don't accept long/floating landings: basically, learn something or improve something every flight.

Going from a military aircraft back to vacuum powered 6 pack would be slightly tougher when you're used to much better avionics, but many people make the transition back and forth regularly. I'm just not a fan of vacuum instruments, especially for IFR

[MoonShot]

30 minutes ago, jazzdude said:

 

 

If you haven't been to UPT, it doesn't really matter-getting good flight time in anything will help. Good as in don't be lazy, plan your flights, stay on desired headings/courses/altitudes, don't accept long/floating landings: basically, learn something or improve something every flight.

Going from a military aircraft back to vacuum powered 6 pack would be slightly tougher when you're used to much better avionics, but many people make the transition back and forth regularly. I'm just not a fan of vacuum instruments, especially for IFR

 

Right on - thank you!

In my case the G1000 has made IFR a breeze.  But I also learned that way..

[raimius]

6 hours ago, Breckey said:

 

 

From what I've heard the H-1 is running into problems right now because the SPO never "certified" the GNS-530 for any RNAV criteria so they're in a kind of limbo where they can do RNAV approaches but don't have an RNAV/RNP cerfication.

 

The H-1 doesn't have RNAV-x or RNP certification.  It can do RNAV and LNAV/LNAV+V/LPV approaches.

...or at least that's my current understanding.  Without much range, wx radar, or anti-ice, IMC isn't something we do very much, just go SVFR to class G, when able.

[Breckey]

The SPO never certified it for LPV or L/VNAV. They just stopped caring as soon as the TCTO was complete.

[Clark Griswold]

13 hours ago, jazzdude said:

<Good words>

Super decathlon is a nice plane, it's in my running for a plane in retirement if I can afford it.

Same

 

[FLEA]

3 hours ago, Breckey said:

The SPO never certified it for LPV or L/VNAV. They just stopped caring as soon as the TCTO was complete.

What boggles my mind is why we aren't 100% in on GPS. It has so much tactical potential to get into places and go to places that are not TERPS'd/charted/etc...

[ThreeHoler]

What boggles my mind is why we aren't 100% in on GPS. It has so much tactical potential to get into places and go to places that are not TERPS'd/charted/etc...

Even with GPS based procedures you still need TERPS.

[war007afa]

On 3/3/2021 at 3:00 AM, jazzdude said:

 

tl;dr: I think $135M lowballs the annual cost, likely significantly, if the program is going to have any real impact on aviation skills...

Napkin math time:
2 CFIs @ 100k/yr
2 A&Ps @ 60k/yr
Let's call it 20 bases get a (new) companion trainer, with 2x CFI and 2x maintainers. Figure salary is about half the cost of an employee (taxes, benefits), and 20% management overhead, and 10% company profit based on labor charges only (assume all flying is done at cost)
Puts people cost at around $8-9M per year, leaving $126M to fly.

T-6 was around $500/hr to fly, giving you 252k flight hours based on the remaining $126M.

Air Force says it needs 21k pilots, but I'm going to wag pilot numbers at roughly 14k (1k/yr out of UPT, 100% retention for 10 years, then 40% for the next 10 years). Real number is somewhere between the two, but I'll use my lower number as a "best case" for hours per pilot.

252k flight hours for 14k pilots works out to 18 hours per year, or approximately 1.5 hours per month per pilot on average. In other words, one T-6 sortie a month. If you ignore personnel costs/management overhead/company profit, you get to a whopping 19.3 hours per pilot per year.

This also ignores the cost for the company to procure the aircraft, so cost per hour will go up to capture that cost, and reduce flying hours. So the cost of a COGO ACE program would likely be much higher, unless you use much cheaper aircraft (i.e. lower performance). A Cessna 172 at $125/hr wet gets you to a 1.5 hour sortie a week on average for those 14k pilots.

---

Your "PET" idea is interesting.
My ATP was about $4K, seaplane add on was $2.5k, so I'll use $3k as a "typical" course cost. Training would probably be about a week, so wag it at about $2k in lodging/per diem, and $1.5k for plane tickets to get to training. That brings us to $6.5k/trip.

Using my 14k pilot inventory from earlier, and going roughly every other year in your career, puts the cost at about $45.5M/yr, which might be more manageable or easier to find in the budget.

Then again, would you rather get a 1 week trip to go fly on the AF's dime every other year, or get straight cash on an increased bonus (extra $13k/year on a five year bonus, which would equate to the cost of your 10 PETs over your career)? Coincidentally, that'd put the bonus at $35k+$13k=$48k/year, which is what RAND recommended the bonus be to significantly affect retention.

 

I imagine if the Air Force could muster $135M to get 40 x IPs and 40 x MX and 252k flight hours in T-6s, they’d likely spend that money to replace IFS or make it a part of UPT and fix the glitch and training backlogs. That’s a lot of training capacity for not much money at all!
 

...but that would make sense and won’t happen. 

[FLEA]

6 hours ago, ThreeHoler said:

 

Even with GPS based procedures you still need TERPS.

 

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.