Timeframe for T-1 retirement

[ToHoldShort]

The first of the T-7s are scheduled to go to the T-1 PIT squadron at Randolph based on the roll out article from about a month back.  Don't know if that an indicator or if Big Blue is just shifting squadron numbers around to keep with the red tail vibe

[hindsight2020]

20 hours ago, ToHoldShort said:

The first of the T-7s are scheduled to go to the T-1 PIT squadron at Randolph based on the roll out article from about a month back.  Don't know if that an indicator or if Big Blue is just shifting squadron numbers around to keep with the red tail vibe

Of course it's just a renumbering. The 99th won't be a T-1 squadron when that happens. One thing (T-1 crews follow-on) doesn't have anything to do with the other (99th standing up as a T-7 squadron with T-38 and CAF IP initial cadre).

Yes, the 99th was selected specifically for the tuskegee airmen motif the airplane was named for in the first place. That too has been known since the beginning.

[Danger41]

Is there a T-1 replacement plan or is everyone going T-7? Sorry for my ignorance, I genuinely don’t know the UPT future plans.

[SurelySerious]

Is there a T-1 replacement plan or is everyone going T-7? Sorry for my ignorance, I genuinely don’t know the UPT future plans.

All sims for the T-1 track still a thing?

[LookieRookie]

On 5/14/2022 at 9:50 PM, illusive said:

Have you heard any talk of what happens to the T-1 guys?  Will they become Sim instructors?

i would assume manpower cut and yes non-commercially certified sims.

 

Same thing that 11Xs who go teach RIQ at Randolph as T18K

[hindsight2020]

On 5/15/2022 at 9:50 PM, Danger41 said:

Is there a T-1 replacement plan or is everyone going T-7? Sorry for my ignorance, I genuinely don’t know the UPT future plans.

Neither actually.

Herbies, afsoc and helo bound will never fly the T-7. For the maf types (the plurality of AF pilot accessions) its T6 wings and straight to airline training (sim based initial qualification). There's plans for some half baked crm centric t1 sim only as a precursor to their heavy FTU. Beyond that, it's gonna be a significant bifurcation of qualitative training difference between the IBF product (aka navy strike pipeline, for our 11F/B), and everybody else.

[08Dawg]

The system we have has worked for decades, and has produced far and away the best pilots in the world. Willfully giving it up like this is a disgrace. 

[di1630]

The system we have has worked for decades, and has produced far and away the best pilots in the world. Willfully giving it up like this is a disgrace. 

I disagree, we need to modernize training and sims are a great way to do it.

I’d rather do many FTU scenarios in a sim than airspace.

And yes, I survived the great “how can they fly a jet if we don’t make them do fix to fixes” and “no formation landings? We are all gonna be speaking mandarin”

[tac airlifter]

11 hours ago, di1630 said:

I disagree, we need to modernize training and sims are a great way to do it.

I’d rather do many FTU scenarios in a sim than airspace.

And yes, I survived the great “how can they fly a jet if we don’t make them do fix to fixes” and “no formation landings? We are all gonna be speaking mandarin”

I don’t know how it is in your community, but for us this change at UPT is accompanied by a decrease in training at the FTU and a decrease in hours requirements for MWS upgrades.  And none of the tech works as advertised yet.  In principle I think you’re right, I’m no Luddite.  But all signs trend towards a decreasing organizational emphasis on competence.  

Good news is we still attract and hire great people, I’ve been super pleased with all of our younger teammates as they grapple through these challenges which are not their fault.  

[illusive]

On 5/16/2022 at 7:34 PM, LookieRookie said:

i would assume manpower cut and yes non-commercially certified sims.

 

Same thing that 11Xs who go teach RIQ at Randolph as T18K

Could they do that if we haven't met our gate months?

[viper154]

1 hour ago, illusive said:

Could they do that if we haven't met our gate months?

It’s still a “flying assignment” So yes, reference all the 11s that in the past were sent to drones. I did 3 years in drones, about 3 years ago when I made my escape back to manned flying the 18x community was trying to get rid of most the 11s and get them back in manned aircraft. I did see Randolph T-6s on our Wings white jet allocations to fill for the Winter 22 VML. Not sure if they were to teach PIT or at the RPA training squadron. 

[Lord Ratner]

22 hours ago, di1630 said:

I disagree, we need to modernize training and sims are a great way to do it.

I’d rather do many FTU scenarios in a sim than airspace.

And yes, I survived the great “how can they fly a jet if we don’t make them do fix to fixes” and “no formation landings? We are all gonna be speaking mandarin”

Having now done all manner of sim- and aircraft-training, there's simply no comparing the two in the early phases of training. Hell, one of the biggest weaknesses in MAF was the lack of raw stick-and-rudder flying ability. That comes from the smaller planes that don't translate well in Sims. 

 

We should also dispense with the "modernizing" argument. Today's sim technology has been around for decades, and the AF didn't decide to "modernize" until a manning and resource shortage. This is about cutting costs, and the results will be predictable.

[CaptainMorgan]

It’s still a “flying assignment” So yes, reference all the 11s that in the past were sent to drones. I did 3 years in drones, about 3 years ago when I made my escape back to manned flying the 18x community was trying to get rid of most the 11s and get them back in manned aircraft. I did see Randolph T-6s on our Wings white jet allocations to fill for the Winter 22 VML. Not sure if they were to teach PIT or at the RPA training squadron. 

I did not get gate months as a URT instructor. At some point after I left they were getting them, but I believe it’s back to not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dream big]

3 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

Having now done all manner of sim- and aircraft-training, there's simply no comparing the two in the early phases of training. Hell, one of the biggest weaknesses in MAF was the lack of raw stick-and-rudder flying ability. That comes from the smaller planes that don't translate well in Sims. 

 

We should also dispense with the "modernizing" argument. Today's sim technology has been around for decades, and the AF didn't decide to "modernize" until a manning and resource shortage. This is about cutting costs, and the results will be predictable.

Cutting costs, and also fixing the pilot manning crisis the Air Force created by pumping through more UPT students since they have all but given up on retaining on the other end.  We do this to ourselves. I’ll be standing by the data points on MAF 2.0/2.5 students from my FTU and line bros.  

[Bigred]

On 5/18/2022 at 4:30 AM, di1630 said:

I disagree, we need to modernize training and sims are a great way to do it.

I’d rather do many FTU scenarios in a sim than airspace.

And yes, I survived the great “how can they fly a jet if we don’t make them do fix to fixes” and “no formation landings? We are all gonna be speaking mandarin”

Been flying for 20 years and one thing I’ve learned is there’s no substitute for actual stick time in the plane. That becomes even more apparent when someone leaves the cockpit and then comes back, dudes with more time pick it back up faster. 
 

Sims help but they aren’t a replacement.

[Swizzle]

21 hours ago, dream big said:

Cutting costs, and also fixing the pilot manning crisis the Air Force created by pumping through more UPT students since they have all but given up on retaining on the other end.  We do this to ourselves. I’ll be standing by the data points on MAF 2.0/2.5 students from my FTU and line bros.  

Wasn't impressed with UPT SGTO graduates thru KABQ..and those were the cherry-picked batch, wait till mainstream hits flt line in force

[Danger41]

I view this like how NFL players were trained in the 50’s compared to now. There’s no substitute for game/practice time, but the weight training, diet, mental training, etc is no comparison. As a result, look at Dick Butkus compared to Patrick Willis or basically any Offensive Lineman from then compared to now. 
 

I use that as an example because a lot of UPT is the same as it was back then. Not taking advantage of modern methods is silly and leaves a lot of untapped potential on the table. I’m not saying these first iterations are perfect but I really hope they continue to pursue it. 

[Clark Griswold]

If king for a day...

Outsource initial ME training, give studs about 15 - 20 hours at All ATPs or other school to get initial ME training.

Next training is 50 hours in a light biz jet with type training done at Flight Safety, CAE, etc... not a type check just training and the check is passing the AF program.

Last phase is in a Twin Otter or other rugged fixed gear ME type for STOL, Off Airport TO/LND, Tac Approaches, etc... figure about 20 hours.

Honestly, if you wanna save money on Heavy / Crew bound studs consolidate all Phase 3 for them at one base with good WX, a few airports nearby and some ranges/terrain.  SW USA somewhere 

Don't min run training AF for what will be almost half of your rated officer force, you will regret it in the long run.

[di1630]

Been flying for 20 years and one thing I’ve learned is there’s no substitute for actual stick time in the plane. That becomes even more apparent when someone leaves the cockpit and then comes back, dudes with more time pick it back up faster. 
 
Sims help but they aren’t a replacement.

I agree in some cases Air under your ass is needed. I can’t teach BFM or air refueling in a sim. I can teach better tactics in many cases.

I’ve never flown a heavy/crew aircraft but if the airlines can train someone to fly a 767 in a sim…why can’t we make a KC-46 pilot in the sim?

[artvandelay43201]

4 minutes ago, di1630 said:

I agree in some cases Air under your ass is needed. I can’t teach BFM or air refueling in a sim. I can teach better tactics in many cases.

I’ve never flown a heavy/crew aircraft but if the airlines can train someone to fly a 767 in a sim…why can’t we make a KC-46 pilot in the sim?

Have you ever conducted air refueling in a heavy aircraft? Takes reps upon reps to learn with the stick. 

[LiquidSky]

22 minutes ago, di1630 said:

I agree in some cases Air under your ass is needed. I can’t teach BFM or air refueling in a sim. I can teach better tactics in many cases.

I’ve never flown a heavy/crew aircraft but if the airlines can train someone to fly a 767 in a sim…why can’t we make a KC-46 pilot in the sim?

I can't speak for all communities but a few at least have their Init qual/inst check in the sim. That's on par with airlines.

It's the next few months of low levels, AR, NVG, assaults, formation, airdrop, etc. that while you can train in the sim can't be truly recreated. The high workload, high stress, dynamic environment is simply something that no matter how hard we try is not replicable.

The sim lays a great foundation and is a fantastic tool allowing you to get tons of reps cheaply. This needs real world supplementation though in all phases. At a very basic level imagine getting a copilot who'd never talked to a real atc much less one in a bravo or foreign country that barely speaks English. 

 

[Bigred]

4 hours ago, di1630 said:

I’ve never flown a heavy/crew aircraft but if the airlines can train someone to fly a 767 in a sim…why can’t we make a KC-46 pilot in the sim?

I hear this counter argument quite a bit, it’s not an apples to apples comparison.
 

There’s a reason why the FAA changed the minimum hours needs for the ATP, and why a restricted ATP exists. Inexperienced guys were bending metal and killing people and it made the FAA realize that 250 hour first officers was dangerous. 
 

Airlines don’t teach guys with ~200 hours, they teach guys with minimum of 750 hours for prior military, or 1,000-1,500 hours for civilians, depending on how they got those hours. That’s potentially ~550-1250 hours more than a dude right out of flight school. That extra flight time makes a huge difference.

 

The airlines sim is more of a top off for an already experienced pilot instead of teaching a brand new pilot how to fly the plane in actual airspace while refining their airmanship. 

Edited May 20, 2022 by Bigred

[Lord Ratner]

14 hours ago, Bigred said:

I hear this counter argument quite a bit, it’s not an apples to apples comparison.
 

There’s a reason why the FAA changed the minimum hours needs for the ATP, and why a restricted ATP exists. Inexperienced guys were bending metal and killing people and it made the FAA realize that 250 hour first officers was dangerous. 
 

Airlines don’t teach guys with ~200 hours, they teach guys with minimum of 750 hours for prior military, or 1,000-1,500 hours for civilians, depending on how they got those hours. That’s potentially ~550-1250 hours more than a dude right out of flight school. That extra flight time makes a huge difference.

 

The airlines sim is more of a top off for an already experienced pilot instead of teaching a brand new pilot how to fly the plane in actual airspace while refining their airmanship. 

Yup. This covers it. We are talking about removing *basic* flying instruction.

 

The whole reason sims work for planes like the KC-135 and 767 is because the foundation was laid in smaller planes, in the real world.

 

And even then, guys don't go from the sim to the real plane without xx hours of supervision with a CKA. 

 

I'm surprised that anyone who actually taught phase 2 would think this was a good idea. Any time there was bad weather or MX issues that kept a student out of the jet for a week, they suffered greatly no matter how many intervening Sims they had. Hell, many were barely capable with the hours they had. Fewer now?

Edited May 21, 2022 by Lord Ratner

[kaputt]

Did anything ever move forward from those RFIs for GO-GO and/or CO-CO multi engine training? 

[HuggyU2]

On 5/20/2022 at 5:54 PM, Lord Ratner said:

The whole reason sims work for planes like the KC-135 and 767 is because the foundation was laid in smaller planes, in the real world.

Maybe... but I don't know if this is proven.  

Like many of you, I got typed on the 757/767 in about 20 work days using nothing but sims.

Now it may take more than 20 work days to train a low-time pilot.  But I find it hard to believe that a sim syllabus... combined with other methodologies that will likely include time in the actual aircraft... can't be successful in creating a qualified and skilled aviator. 

It goes back to what Danger41 stated, and he is spot on.  The AF will make many mistakes as they attempt to use these new tools to create a vastly different syllabus.  But each iteration should distill into a better process.  It is better that they attempt to evolve rather than keep doing UPT the same way we did it when I went though.  

I hope that UPT in 2030 looks vastly different than when I graduated from Laughlin in class 86-05.  If it doesn't, are we really the world's cutting edge air force?