Is it time in returning to the old days of UPT?

[Bergman]

37 minutes ago, TreeA10 said:

My concerns is the steadily decreasing amount of air under the seat.  All the VR or sim time in the world does not present the problems associated with the real world.  In the last couple years, there have been numerous accidents resulting in the loss of aircraft and life and these accidents were supposedly benign takeoff and landing events.  WTF is up with that?

Agree with this 100%!  It doesn’t matter which track or MWS either (while some are obviously more challenging)...experience matters.  Graduating pilots with 300 VR hours but only 69 actual flight hours just doesn’t make sense.

[brabus]

8 hours ago, VMFA187 said:

When were you at Whiting? I was there March-Sep of '09. And yes, for career fields out of TBS (Infantry, Logistics, Artillery, Intel, etc...) there is a quality spread. The top third of each third tend to get their first choice. Kind of confusing but they don't want all the type A dudes going infantry. 

Absolutely. No one is getting preferential treatment for being slightly above average. You had to show that the Marine Corps would be losing a really talented guy for the fighter community. 

The Marine Corps lost an F-35 last WTI due to loss of SA on the tanker. There have also been numerous canopy strikes. That being said I'm aware that Navy and Marine Corps tanking is significantly different. Proud to admit I was always doing the plugging and not vice versa. 😉

I'm not sure what you guys are seeing but we are having issues with FRS/FTU students trying to fly form by being glued to the glass in ATC spread on a 10nm scale TSD transiting to and from the area vice simply looking over his/her shoulder. 

Familiar with the WTI accident - task saturated and misprioritized tasks, not really an inability to fly formation in of itself. I saw similar stuff in some young guys in the Viper before I left. Haven’t seen it in the F-35, but I think we’re just starting to see new guys who aren’t necessarily the top of their UPT class. We expect the overall quality will decline, but for now the young guys are doing pretty well. 

[VMFA187]

15 hours ago, brabus said:

Familiar with the WTI accident - task saturated and misprioritized tasks, not really an inability to fly formation in of itself. I saw similar stuff in some young guys in the Viper before I left. Haven’t seen it in the F-35, but I think we’re just starting to see new guys who aren’t necessarily the top of their UPT class. We expect the overall quality will decline, but for now the young guys are doing pretty well. 

Valid, there are some other cases of basket slaps and such which I was including in the hazreps which doesn't really translate to the AF like it does the USN/USMC.

Concur completely. I think that is probably one of the reasons why we're seeing, or feeling that there is a decline - Because there are more guys who were average or even below in Intermediate/Advanced now that would have historically gone elsewhere. 

[HercDude]

On 3/22/2021 at 2:37 PM, jazzdude said:

Navy track system is different. There's a "class" for administrative purposes, but for the track you get is based on what is available the week you completed training. Have a great NSS ("class ranking" comparing you to the last 200ish students to complete), but no jet spot that week? Going to go fly helos, while the guy next week with sightly above average NSS gets the jet that's available that week (sure, there's some gamesmanship that the CC can do to help out the track selection, but sometimes there's not).
 

This is exactly how it has been done at Columbus for the last 3 years at least.  The MASS is run as a student approaches syllabus completion, and they are tracked based on how they stack up against a running historical MASS.  When they finish their last ride, they pack up their shit and head over to their Phase 3 squadron, they don't wait for the rest of their class anymore.  Their class number is administrative only.

My main concern with a return to single track is the aging of the T-6 fleet.  If we're going to move all T-1 training to the T-6, we're going to be putting a shit-ton of hours on a jet that's already showing its age.  The USAF acquisition process doesn't instill a lot of confidence in me that we could field a replacement (or even get Textron to build us more) before we fly these things into scrap.  The answer from 19th AF of course, will be to preserve flying hours by expanding simulator and video game hours.  Not a fan of that, personally.

The T-6 is also a piss-poor aircraft in which to teach CRM.  Agree that it's not rocket science and most of that training could be pushed on to the MWS world, or perhaps some sort of sim-only program where everyone about to enter the dual-cockpit world gets a wek or two advanced CRM course in a T-1 sim or something.  But if we want guys to get wings after only ever flying the Tex2, they are going to be craptastic at CRM when they get their wings.

[magnetfreezer]

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/39945/the-air-force-spent-134m-to-repair-39-hail-damaged-t-1-jet-trainers-its-about-to-retire

[Springer]

On 3/22/2021 at 4:42 PM, brabus said:

And CRM occurs every day in fighters, we’re just doing it over the radio vs. physically sitting next to someone in the same airplane. CRM isn’t a heavy-only thing, and it’s dumb to think a T-1 is necessary to teach it. 
 

Any old guys here who went through UPT back in the 38 only days, can you confirm the following: I have heard there were dudes who washed out in 38s because they couldn’t do “fighter things,” like close formation (including takeoff/landings). They otherwise would have been fine in a non-fighter aircraft. Is there truth to that, or is this just an excuse for guys who didn’t deserve to graduate regardless? 

My roommate washed out in the formation phase as I recall.  Became a F-4 WSO.  Later the AF sent him to law school.  There was no offer of a non-fighter aircraft.  Everyone that washed out was offered a nav slot.

As a side note, the AF sent my roommate to law school who later investigated/ruled on some very well known cases.  He became a Federal Judge after retiring from the AF.

[Clark Griswold]

As to a return to the OPs original question on going back to UPT vs SUPT, UPT would be IMO better for the AF overall and would make a less bifurcated and cohesive Rated cadre

If SUPT were not already atrophied and going to get worse I would at least keep it versus SUPT 2 point whatever where everyone not tracking fighters gets fornicated with a rusty pipe

An idea, why not contract out Phase 3 completely like IFT with AF evaluating the final product?
Pay for it thru O&M and only rent not buy.
Figure $100k per stud to a contractor for 75 flight hours and 15 simulator hours, classroom instruction
75 million plus costs for TDY but just WAGing it at a per FY thru put of 750 studs, it would probably be around 95 million or so for every thing.
Less than fixing these T-1s and dudes get real flying and the money could be found eliminating that which is not actually necessary

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/39945/the-air-force-spent-134m-to-repair-39-hail-damaged-t-1-jet-trainers-its-about-to-retire

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HuggyU2]

On 3/22/2021 at 4:42 PM, brabus said:

Any old guys here who went through UPT back in the 38 only days, can you confirm the following: I have heard there were dudes who washed out in 38s because they couldn’t do “fighter things,” like close formation (including takeoff/landings). They otherwise would have been fine in a non-fighter aircraft. Is there truth to that, or is this just an excuse for guys who didn’t deserve to graduate regardless? 

There are certainly instances of this... there always will be. But by and large, I didn’t see it during my T-38 FAIP days. Most pilots that got cut in -38s were for single-ship things. We had one in my class and he ended up being an F-4 WSO. It’s been a long time but the ones I remember were mainly T-38 Contact washouts. 
But it didn’t happen much:  we lost  21 people in my UPT class and only the one guy was in the T-38. 

I do recall one in another Flight that was washed out on his Nav check. I kid you not. 
 

Late in the Formation phase, we got notified if we were going to the FAR or TTB track. That was where the syllabus split and the TTB track did more out-and back Nav events. 
 

Overall, I liked “the old way” and if I were King, I’d send everyone to the T-38/T-7, dump the T-1, and dust off the old syllabus. 
 

Certainly, there are ways to do it better than we did... but there is no doubt in my mind that the T-7 would be a great platform for all USAF UPT graduates. 

Edited March 27, 2021 by HuggyU2

[the g-man]

This is exactly how it has been done at Columbus for the last 3 years at least.  The MASS is run as a student approaches syllabus completion, and they are tracked based on how they stack up against a running historical MASS.  When they finish their last ride, they pack up their shit and head over to their Phase 3 squadron, they don't wait for the rest of their class anymore.  Their class number is administrative only.

That’s gone. We are back to the traditional 15 class per year system.

[HercDude]

8 hours ago, the g-man said:

That’s gone. We are back to the traditional 15 class per year system.

Not for track select - no.  I'm a current T-6 IP at CBM and I was a Phase 2 IP years ago.  The current system bears little semblance to the traditional one where a class started together, advanced to Phase 2 and 3 together, graduated together, and were always racked/stacked against only each other.

Wing/Group/STUS leadership may be saying we are back to the way we used to operate, but that's not reality.

[contraildash]

Yeah I learned some great "CRM" in the T-1 as a student flying with an IP....usually a FAIP....

Anyone arguing that we need to keep the T-1 or have a like replacement for CRM purposes needs to get over whatever misguided notions they have regarding that air frame in UPT. For all the reasons people have already stated in this thread (Brabus said it best). 

While we are on the subject, spoilerons made the T-1 about as fun to fly as a cinder block with bricks for wings. If anyone should train on it, maybe it should be B-52 folks? /s

[FLEA]

10 hours ago, contraildash said:

Yeah I learned some great "CRM" in the T-1 as a student flying with an IP....usually a FAIP....

Anyone arguing that we need to keep the T-1 or have a like replacement for CRM purposes needs to get over whatever misguided notions they have regarding that air frame in UPT. For all the reasons people have already stated in this thread (Brabus said it best). 

While we are on the subject, spoilerons made the T-1 about as fun to fly as a cinder block with bricks for wings. If anyone should train on it, maybe it should be B-52 folks? /s

If anything you more-so make the argument we just shouldn't be using FAIPs in phase 3. I don't know the T-1, I went to Corpus, but the multi-setvice MWS expereinced cadre there was phenomenal at developing basic airmanship concepts that you might consider apart of CRM. 

[Clark Griswold]

1 hour ago, FLEA said:

If anything you more-so make the argument we just shouldn't be using FAIPs in phase 3. 

This.

11 hours ago, contraildash said:

Yeah I learned some great "CRM" in the T-1 as a student flying with an IP....usually a FAIP....

Anyone arguing that we need to keep the T-1 or have a like replacement for CRM purposes needs to get over whatever misguided notions they have regarding that air frame in UPT. For all the reasons people have already stated in this thread (Brabus said it best). 

While we are on the subject, spoilerons made the T-1 about as fun to fly as a cinder block with bricks for wings. If anyone should train on it, maybe it should be B-52 folks? /s

Not saying that having a different trainer for studs tracking to the heavy / crew track is better but having a real advanced trainer for them is a must.  Never flew the T-6 but if back in the day if they had just given the deplorables an extended T-37 course vs another more complex trainer it would not have been the same.  Having to quickly learn another aircraft, more complex systems and get more cross country, simulated mobility missions and planning was good.  Not perfect but worthwhile training, my opinion only.

Everything is worth what you paid for it, min run training / go cheap and don't be surprised with what happens.

Edited March 30, 2021 by Clark Griswold

[FLEA]

1 hour ago, Clark Griswold said:

This.

Not saying that having a different trainer for studs tracking to the heavy / crew track is better but having a real advanced trainer for them is a must.  Never flew the T-6 but if back in the day if they had just given the deplorables an extended T-37 course vs another more complex trainer it would not have been the same.  Having to quickly learn another aircraft, more complex systems and get more cross country, simulated mobility missions and planning was good.  Not perfect but worthwhile training, my opinion only.

Everything is worth what you paid for it, min run training / go cheap and don't be surprised with what happens.

All this is true. There are as something to be said about stretching your legs from locals in the cbus area to suddenly going to unfamiliar fields on the other side of the country, in more inclement weather, etc... They are removing a vital stepping stone in the growth and progression of young heavy pilots. 

[Clark Griswold]

7 hours ago, FLEA said:

All this is true. There are as something to be said about stretching your legs from locals in the cbus area to suddenly going to unfamiliar fields on the other side of the country, in more inclement weather, etc... They are removing a vital stepping stone in the growth and progression of young heavy pilots. 

Yup, if yours truly were king for a day and still had to live in the realm of finite resources I would fix the Heavy Track Phase 3 problem thusly:

Outsource to All ATPs or another contractor a ME program to get 25 hours of ME training. Get the bounces in the contractor's aircrafts and some more experience for Stanley.

Return to your home base for T-1 training in a refurbished Nextant 400Ti.  As you did your ME training and have your Instruments done in already in T-6s, you would have a short Instrument / Qual phase (no phase check) and fly this updated T-1 with avionics to get experience in datalink, BLOS voice, autopilot/autothrottles, FMS, mobility mission planning & execution, etc...  Would not beat to shit this trainer in pointless and repetitive ground checks, bounce after bounce after bounce, but as what it should be, an introduction to flying crew aircraft with mission and flight management systems that must be set, monitored and used correctly to get a mobility/recon msn done

Now back to reality... 

Edited March 30, 2021 by Clark Griswold

[zachbar]

I’ll throw my opinions into the mix. Some might be popular, some not. 
 

I respectfully disagree with Danger41 that you can teach CRM in a week but agree that we don’t need a T-1 to do it. CRM is more than just asking the other guy to put your gear down, and the soft “people” skills that come with managing a crew well take a span of months or even a year to learn as a copilot in my opinion, but a lot of that is community specific with how they want their missions and crews to run.

I think close formation is overrated but not useless. It has value in teaching aggressiveness, smooth control inputs, and that less is more when you’re on the wing, but being good at fingertip has no bearing on a student’s overall airmanship in my opinion. I’ve had lots of students fly great fingertip and then go on to hook the shit out of their sorties for being dumbasses. On the flip side, the students who are smart but have bricks for hands usually suck at everything else too.

Regarding syllabus 2.5, to be honest I don’t know enough about it to like or hate it, but I do know I’m against the single path to wings as it stands now. There isn’t enough training. Other countries use a single trainer to wings, like the RAAF and their PC-21s, but they still fly it for 54 months, and the PC-21 is a hell of a lot more advanced than the T-6 is.

And most of all, why did the Air Force reinvent the wheel with the current UPT syllabus??? Is it actually producing more pilots? What do the numbers look like compared to previous, the end of year ones that account for the washbacks? I’m genuinely curious to know. 

[Vito]

“Any old guys here who went through UPT back in the 38 only days”

 I went through CBM 87-04.  We washed out half the class. Of the 21 studs in my class who walked across the hallway from Tweets to -38’s we lost about 4. All in the Contact phase. There were some who struggled in formation, but I can’t recall any of them washing out. We also had a student who passed his last checkride hours AFTER we graduated. They let him walk across the stage with the class because his family was there, then he left to take his 88 checkride. If he had busted he would have washed out. Our Wing CC had a 3 checkride failure policy. No exceptions. He ended up a 2Star General! Col Chuck Edwards CBM 1987 was the CC. 

[Swamp Yankee]

On 4/2/2021 at 1:31 PM, Vito said:

“Any old guys here who went through UPT back in the 38 only days”

 I went through CBM 87-04.  We washed out half the class. Of the 21 studs in my class who walked across the hallway from Tweets to -38’s we lost about 4. All in the Contact phase. There were some who struggled in formation, but I can’t recall any of them washing out. We also had a student who passed his last checkride hours AFTER we graduated. They let him walk across the stage with the class because his family was there, then he left to take his 88 checkride. If he had busted he would have washed out. Our Wing CC had a 3 checkride failure policy. No exceptions. He ended up a 2Star General! Col Chuck Edwards CBM 1987 was the CC. 

Laughlin 94-01, which was towards the end of the single track era.  I was a Guard 130 guy but glad I flew the T-38.  The relative time compression helped instill good airmanship skills.  Everyone made it through 38's, although we did have a guy who busted his Form and Nav checks (don't recall how) and went to an 88.     

CRM is very important but my impression based on the product was that the T-1 didn't address any assumed / perceived shortcomings.  In any case, CRM isn't refined to an operationally-suitable skill until in the MWS.  Each has (had?) a distinct culture in that regard.