Air Force is hiring for civilian T-6 IPs

[nunya]

23 minutes ago, LookieRookie said:

The reserve associate UFT IP program by AFI is required to provide highly experienced instruction. A bunch of FAIPs is not that.

[O Face]

1 hour ago, LookieRookie said:

The reserve associate UFT IP program by AFI is required to provide highly experienced instruction. A bunch of FAIPs is not that.

I agree, but neither is a bunch of civilian CFI’s. 

[Danger41]

I’ll admit that I’ve never taught UPT or been through PIT, but I’d like to see the quality of instruction that a CFI that got a degree in aviation could provide to a student compared to alot of the dudes PIT has produced. I got my degree in Aviation Education and honestly what most AF IP’s at various levels have provided is not good based on fundamentals of adult learning. It’s mainly supervision and discovery learning that produces results via coercive means (fear, sarcasm, ridicule). Maybe a wet behind the ears CFI would apply some of their knowledge and help the student.

[Lockjaw]

14 minutes ago, Danger41 said:

I’ll admit that I’ve never taught UPT or been through PIT, but I’d like to see the quality of instruction that a CFI that got a degree in aviation could provide to a student compared to alot of the dudes PIT has produced. I got my degree in Aviation Education and honestly what most AF IP’s at various levels have provided is not good based on fundamentals of adult learning. It’s mainly supervision and discovery learning that produces results via coercive means (fear, sarcasm, ridicule). Maybe a wet behind the ears CFI would apply some of their knowledge and help the student.

Skeptical about this effort as a whole, but I do agree that we sorely lack a document where USAF aircrew instructors can go and read up on learning theory/fundamentals of instruction. When I went through IPUG, I was given portions of Army and even foreign AF (RAF) documents which were formal manuals or handbooks for instructors.

These helped, but I was still surprised how little was devoted to actually learning how adults learn (aside from an, as usual, check the box CBT). This was amplified when I was assisting in developing some formal course instructor courseware, and there were no official USAF manuals or handbooks to pull from, for the purpose of how to instruct aircrew. We had good intentioned people scouring the internet to insert things from various websites, which in a lot of cases could not be used due to legal concerns.

Sorry if this derails the thread. Just thought it was an interesting observation.

[08Dawg]

When I was going through B-52 instructor upgrade, we were “testing” a new syllabus which was shorter by a week so the FTU could produce more classes and instructors per FY. What did they cut?  The one week of learning theory and instructor skills…

[pawnman]

1 hour ago, Lockjaw said:

Skeptical about this effort as a whole, but I do agree that we sorely lack a document where USAF aircrew instructors can go and read up on learning theory/fundamentals of instruction. When I went through IPUG, I was given portions of Army and even foreign AF (RAF) documents which were formal manuals or handbooks for instructors.

These helped, but I was still surprised how little was devoted to actually learning how adults learn (aside from an, as usual, check the box CBT). This was amplified when I was assisting in developing some formal course instructor courseware, and there were no official USAF manuals or handbooks to pull from, for the purpose of how to instruct aircrew. We had good intentioned people scouring the internet to insert things from various websites, which in a lot of cases could not be used due to legal concerns.

Sorry if this derails the thread. Just thought it was an interesting observation.

Even when I got my AFROTC gig, there was very little about instructional theory or how adults learn. 

But we got to deliver a lesson from the AFROTC syllabus three times and get critiqued if you said "um" or "uh"...

[SurelySerious]

I’ll admit that I’ve never taught UPT or been through PIT, but I’d like to see the quality of instruction that a CFI that got a degree in aviation could provide to a student compared to alot of the dudes PIT has produced. I got my degree in Aviation Education and honestly what most AF IP’s at various levels have provided is not good based on fundamentals of adult learning. It’s mainly supervision and discovery learning that produces results via coercive means (fear, sarcasm, ridicule). Maybe a wet behind the ears CFI would apply some of their knowledge and help the student.

They no-shit took the fundamentals of learning equivalent stuff that’s in the flight instructor handbook OUT of the -38 PIT syllabus. So if you didn’t know about any of it before (most FAIPs), they never set eyes on it.

MDS FTU? Same. When I went through most recent MDS IPUG, I was like “wait…you guys got rid of the only part that tells someone how to instruct”? Course manager was incredulous. I was lucky enough to have been taught the principles in my previous MDS.

RE deletion in PIT: Guess what? Most PIT IPs don’t seem to have a grasp on or instruct the new instructors on those concepts either. Mind blowing.

[MFE]

2 hours ago, Lockjaw said:

Skeptical about this effort as a whole, but I do agree that we sorely lack a document where USAF aircrew instructors can go and read up on learning theory/fundamentals of instruction. When I went through IPUG, I was given portions of Army and even foreign AF (RAF) documents which were formal manuals or handbooks for instructors.

These helped, but I was still surprised how little was devoted to actually learning how adults learn (aside from an, as usual, check the box CBT). This was amplified when I was assisting in developing some formal course instructor courseware, and there were no official USAF manuals or handbooks to pull from, for the purpose of how to instruct aircrew. We had good intentioned people scouring the internet to insert things from various websites, which in a lot of cases could not be used due to legal concerns.

Sorry if this derails the thread. Just thought it was an interesting observation.

Recommend taking a look at the FAA's Aviation Instructor's Handbook; covers learning theory, teaching adults, and more. Free for download here: 

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/aviation_instructors_handbook

FYI, this is the material CFI candidates study leading up to the Fundamentals of Instruction FAA knowledge test.

--MFE

[DirkDiggler]

On 6/8/2022 at 3:39 PM, hockeydork said:

They told me to get lost as well since I didn't graduate 141 program. I respectfully made it clear how foolish that was. I guess 3 engineering degrees with 7 years work experience, no busted rides and training coast guard cadets on the weekends just doesn't compare to that fresh 141 CFI. 

 

Whatever man. If that isn't already a redflag indicator that you'll likely be treated as a fourth rate citizen I don't know what is. 

  I know under the current rules that you're ineligible but if the rules change and your life circumstances allow you to apply, fucking go for it.  Worse case scenario you wash out or you don't like it and you're stuck doing something you don't enjoy for 2-3 years.  Also realize that new is strange/different and a new AETC/CC or CSAF could CNX the program if he/she don't like it.  

  Best case scenario, you get to do some awesome flying that you always wanted to do and help some motivated dudes/dudettes progress through a tough program.  Sometimes there's a lot of negativity on these forums that tends to drown out what could be great opportunities or experiences for some. 

  In regards to the credibility issue, if you're humble, willing to work hard, and a good dude/instructor, IMO it shouldn't be an issue.  I was late rate to pilot, went through UPT as a Captain.  I had more combat hours than all of my FAIPs.  That data point was completely irrelevant to pilot training and it never came up, because the FAIPs were there to teach me basic pilot skills and I was there to learn.  The fact that my FAIPs had no combat or "real world" experience never mattered to me at all because it wasn't relevant to the training at hand.  My operational experience also didn't count for fuck-all.  Similarly, if you're a good instructor and are effective at teaching the UPT syllabus, the fact you're not military and have no operational experience won't matter either.   

[Bender]

They will go through the full 2.5 T-6 syllabus and the full PIT syllabus, plus a TBD version of TI once they are in the unit before flying with a student.  So I agree that skill wise they may have a leg up on the FAIP.

That is a FAIP. …but, like all of these other things going on: it’s a half assed implementation of a good idea.

~Bendy


Sent from my iPad using Baseops Network mobile app

[Bender]

Do you mean any non former civilian hired to be a T-6 IP or the 141 warm body their targeting?
 
I could deal with being hazed/knowing my place/working hard to earn the credibility if it meant time in the T-6 with like minded bros...... but being forced to lick shit off the bathroom floors and being treated like some moron I will not, I've worked way too hard at this point. 

There is no reasonable expectation that you wouldn’t be treated with respect. There may be a large number of skeptics and a few that outright vocalize their disagreement with the program. If you contribute to the mission, fly sorties that others now don’t have to, do it well, help the students succeed…this isn’t a valid data point in anyones decision to do/not do this program.

I would however consider the training being offered and your actual experience level…UPT students are ing dangerous.

~Bendy


Sent from my iPad using Baseops Network mobile app

[Danger41]

19 hours ago, Lockjaw said:

Skeptical about this effort as a whole, but I do agree that we sorely lack a document where USAF aircrew instructors can go and read up on learning theory/fundamentals of instruction. When I went through IPUG, I was given portions of Army and even foreign AF (RAF) documents which were formal manuals or handbooks for instructors.

These helped, but I was still surprised how little was devoted to actually learning how adults learn (aside from an, as usual, check the box CBT). This was amplified when I was assisting in developing some formal course instructor courseware, and there were no official USAF manuals or handbooks to pull from, for the purpose of how to instruct aircrew. We had good intentioned people scouring the internet to insert things from various websites, which in a lot of cases could not be used due to legal concerns.

Sorry if this derails the thread. Just thought it was an interesting observation.

To continue the derail, a great resource is the FAA Aviation Instructors Handbook (FAA-H-8083-9A). Some of the chapters don’t really apply like lesson plan development etc but the first 2 chapters are good on some fundamentals. 
 

I don’t want UPT to turn into a touchy freely Part 141 school where the CFI’s kiss the students ass, but I’d like to see less throwing pubs/choking the oxygen hose Tweet style instruction. 
 

And if you’re one of those IP’s that’s convinced every student is trash and they can’t do anything right and are super nervous and awkward all the time, it may be you.

[WheelsOff]

On 6/8/2022 at 9:54 AM, nunya said:

I’m not sure it will.  50 hours of instruction is more than a FAIP has when they’re “hired.”  
 

As much as we want to think mil aviation is special, it’s simply not at the T-6 level.  It’s a Hershey bar wing with easy stall characteristics, forgiving landings, and no mission.  As long as these CAIPs stay in their lane and teach stalls, falls, and landings and leave the Blue-ing to the MAF and CAF bros, they’ll be an asset.  

The airlines use instructors that have never flown an airliner.  Certainly isn’t the same as a line pilot teaching you, but as long as they stay in their lane and teach the books, a wise student learns from them, too.

Sorry, late response…last part of my original comment was aimed more at the brains behind this idea.

That said, I agree with your point of them staying within the lanes of what they know—which frankly is probably only instrument flying and maybe some basic contact, as others have stated. Outside of that—they’ll lack a certain level of credibility among students, even if they happen to be a real good bro/dudette and it is just T-6s (for now). Not faulting these proposed CAIPs as a person/instructor; the military flight instruction game is just at a different level. Or at least it used to be anyways, lol. 

And this is not a knock on civilian instructors; I’ve had some great ones when I got my PPL many years ago. But the military training environment (and culture) is different for a reason. 

As many of us who’ve been around a minute know, once the AF changes the order of business, it’s often too difficult to change it back after a certain amount of time. If the AF is willing to go down the path of eventually contracting out all of its undergraduate flying training, what else will leadership compromise on in the future? This is the real issue, that can’t go unaddressed.

[brabus]

On 6/8/2022 at 2:28 PM, kaputt said:

that understand the nuances of briefing and debriefing appropriately

After reading they’ll go through UPT/PIT, I think this is not a bad idea. But to your quoted point, I think brief/debrief is a severely lacking skill with CFIs who don’t have a mil background. I work on the side around many CFIs, so I witness brief/debrief all the time. They generally suck massively at it. I didn’t go through civ CFI training, but there must be a gaping hole in how to provide an instructional brief/debrief. That all said, I assume PIT would fix that issue. 

[brabus]

On 6/8/2022 at 5:15 PM, hockeydork said:

I could deal with being hazed/knowing my place/working hard to earn the credibility if it meant time in the T-6 with like minded bros...... but being forced to lick shit off the bathroom floors and being treated like some moron I will not, I've worked way too hard at this point. 

I think you’ll be fine. Any mil IP who truly gives you “zero respect” is an asshole and probably an ineffective instructor. You’ll probably run into one or two like that, but I don’t think it’ll be a large number. Don’t mistake this for meaning you won’t have to prove yourself via positive attitude, work ethic, and demonstrated credibility/willingness to constantly learn and improve. 

[LJDRVR]

I would like to point out that this isn't unprecedented. Who do you think taught Deke Slayton, Gabby Gabreski, Bob Hoover and tens of thousands of USAAC pilots to fly?

Notice anything different about the IP in the middle's uniform?

 

 

Edited June 10, 2022 by LJDRVR

[WheelsOff]

2 hours ago, LJDRVR said:

I would like to point out that this isn't unprecedented. Who do you think taught Deke Slayton, Gabby Gabreski, Bob Hoover and tens of thousands of USAAC pilots to fly?

Notice anything different about the IP in the middle's uniform?

 

 

I see the point you’re making (and I agree with you); however it’s also worth noting that the glaring difference between then and now is we aren’t throwing all hands on deck for a world war. 
 

Make no mistake, this current idea is rooted in leadership’s failure at even attempting to retain talent.

Edited June 10, 2022 by WheelsOff

[tac airlifter]

3 hours ago, WheelsOff said:

I see the point you’re making (and I agree with you); however it’s also worth noting that the glaring difference between then and now is we aren’t throwing all hands on deck for a world war. 
 

Make no mistake, this current idea is rooted in leadership’s failure at even attempting to retain talent.

Agreed.  Civilian IPs in UPT are probably a fine idea that’ll work out.  But it’s not happening because outside the box thinking on how to win; it’s happening because leadership has failed to make AD a place worth staying.

[BashiChuni]

10 hours ago, Danger41 said:

To continue the derail, a great resource is the FAA Aviation Instructors Handbook (FAA-H-8083-9A). Some of the chapters don’t really apply like lesson plan development etc but the first 2 chapters are good on some fundamentals. 
 

I don’t want UPT to turn into a touchy freely Part 141 school where the CFI’s kiss the students ass, but I’d like to see less throwing pubs/choking the oxygen hose Tweet style instruction. 

Oh don’t worry UPT has been touchy feely for a long time now

[Lockjaw]

10 hours ago, Danger41 said:

To continue the derail, a great resource is the FAA Aviation Instructors Handbook (FAA-H-8083-9A). Some of the chapters don’t really apply like lesson plan development etc but the first 2 chapters are good on some fundamentals. 

Yes, we leaned heavily on that pub. Has some great material as you noted.

Also agree with the rest of your post, having gone through 61, 141, and mil flight training at various points.

[Lockjaw]

6 hours ago, LJDRVR said:

I would like to point out that this isn't unprecedented. Who do you think taught Deke Slayton, Gabby Gabreski, Bob Hoover and tens of thousands of USAAC pilots to fly?

Notice anything different about the IP in the middle's uniform?

 

 

I've thought about that quite a bit as well, having read a lot of first hand accounts. On the whole though - weren't those civilian IPs extremely experienced, as opposed to college graduation <2 years ago?

Again I can only hope for success and I am sure there are some great candidates out there, but as another commenter noted - this is likely because of leadership/personnel management failures. 

[Standby]

As queepy as it sounds, I had to complete an aviation instructor CBT from the ADLS portal before my first IPUG. It mirrored a lot of the FAA instructor handbook and had some good stuff in it. Surprise, surprise…coach/athlete is more effective than continually shitting on your future wingman/co-pilot. 

[HuggyU2]

The specifics of the pay scale haven't been announced completely.  However, the intent of this program is to start the new intern pilot at a GS-7 grade with annual grade increases based on successful performance during the three year program.

Upon completion, the graduate will outplace to a GS-12 grade, then after the required 52 weeks of service, increase to a GS-13 grade based on successful performance.

Also, if your start date is more than 2 years past your graduation from a Part 141 accredited pro pilot degree program, you are ineligible.  As of now, that is a hard and fast rule.  

[pawnman]

6 hours ago, HuggyU2 said:

The specifics of the pay scale haven't been announced completely.  However, the intent of this program is to start the new intern pilot at a GS-7 grade with annual grade increases based on successful performance during the three year program.

Upon completion, the graduate will outplace to a GS-12 grade, then after the required 52 weeks of service, increase to a GS-13 grade based on successful performance.

Also, if your start date is more than 2 years past your graduation from a Part 141 accredited pro pilot degree program, you are ineligible.  As of now, that is a hard and fast rule.  

So weird, because this seems like a great job for military pilots who separate or retire because of the BS but who love that type of flying.  Sure, it's less than airline pay, but American won't let you do a split-s in their 737.

[nunya]

8 minutes ago, pawnman said:

So weird, because this seems like a great job for military pilots who separate or retire because of the BS but who love that type of flying. 

It’s not weird necessarily; they just chose to put the program under an existing Recent Graduate umbrella and inherited its rules.

https://afciviliancareers.com/recentgraduates/