Initial Pilot Training and Future Pilot Training

[Clark Griswold]

21 hours ago, Blue said:

It's been equal parts alarming and saddening to watch this develop over the past 20+ years.  And it doesn't appear to be getting any better.

Tangent:

It might get better 

https://redstate.com/streiff/2025/01/21/trump-taps-officer-who-castigated-lack-of-afghan-accountability-for-defense-department-post-n2184618
 

He's just one guy but light a candle and if there are others to fight for change in the Puzzle Palace things might get better.  Think about it, pretty much the entire LAF officer cadre think acquisition is totally FUBAR, I’m hopeful this is reaching critical mass and change could happen.

Question for guys that live in base or close to it for your airline, if a new UPT syllabus was created along with likely a new aircraft to go with it, would you drop mil leave if you could start your mil duty at or near base flying out in the training aircraft, fly for a week or so then return to your base in said mil trainer.  Students then fly aircraft back to mil UPT base, solo or crewed.  
This is just another of my ideas from left field but the existing UPT bases are not that far from major domiciles, END to DFW is 211 NM, CBM to ATL is 201, etc… if they could out n back to pick up Reserve IPs to fly but cut out the self directed commute and positive space effectively would there be interest?

[Rated Flyer 4 Life]

On 1/21/2025 at 6:53 AM, Clark Griswold said:

Tangent:

It might get better 

https://redstate.com/streiff/2025/01/21/trump-taps-officer-who-castigated-lack-of-afghan-accountability-for-defense-department-post-n2184618
 

He's just one guy but light a candle and if there are others to fight for change in the Puzzle Palace things might get better.  Think about it, pretty much the entire LAF officer cadre think acquisition is totally FUBAR, I’m hopeful this is reaching critical mass and change could happen.

Question for guys that live in base or close to it for your airline, if a new UPT syllabus was created along with likely a new aircraft to go with it, would you drop mil leave if you could start your mil duty at or near base flying out in the training aircraft, fly for a week or so then return to your base in said mil trainer.  Students then fly aircraft back to mil UPT base, solo or crewed.  
This is just another of my ideas from left field but the existing UPT bases are not that far from major domiciles, END to DFW is 211 NM, CBM to ATL is 201, etc… if they could out n back to pick up Reserve IPs to fly but cut out the self directed commute and positive space effectively would there be interest?

I know I personally would be interested in it. I’m considering the airline/UPT IP gig as something down the road because it seems like it might be easier to keep up with all the beans than my current gig. Plus from what I’ve been told, it sounds like being a UPT IP has a lot of flexibility in terms of days you have to work and when you work…plus no deployments

[Clark Griswold]

I know I personally would be interested in it. I’m considering the airline/UPT IP gig as something down the road because it seems like it might be easier to keep up with all the beans than my current gig. Plus from what I’ve been told, it sounds like being a UPT IP has a lot of flexibility in terms of days you have to work and when you work…plus no deployments

Thanks that’s one datapoint.

Two ideas:

1 - New syllabus that has out n backs intermixed in different phases to get to where the Reserve IPs are. Start duty at Domicile, fly out in prepositioned aircraft with/without students as required. 3 day trip with return to preposition aircraft for the next iteration of this cycle.

2 - Establish a liaison aircraft program to fly IPs in something like a Cessna Caravan or Courier to UPT base regularly.

Both have costs but if you wanna relieve the AD manning requirements you gotta do something to make it easier and more attractive to get the guys you want to fly it.
I’d also recommend an additional sweetener, two UPT support trips a month gets Tricare Prime or other monetary benefit.

This just addresses the manning, aircraft reliability and availability is another issue but one at a time.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CaptainMorgan]

Thanks that’s one datapoint.

Two ideas:

1 - New syllabus bus that has out n backs intermixed in different phases to get to where the Reserve IPs are. Start duty at Domicile, fly out in prepositioned aircraft with/without students as required. 3 day trip with return to preposition aircraft for the next iteration of this cycle.

2 - Establish a liaison aircraft program to fly IPs in something like a Cessna Caravan or Courier to UPT base regularly.

Both have costs but if you wanna relieve the AD manning requirements you gotta do something to make it easier and more attractive to get the guys you want to fly it.
I’d also recommend an additional sweetener, two UPT support trips a month gets Tricare Prime or other monetary benefit.

This just addresses the manning, aircraft reliability and availability is another issue but one at a time.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not terrible ideas, but 5-10 years too late. The T-6 is next on the chopping block. Once IPT gets going, there won’t be a reason to repair/replace the T-6. They’ll just let it die and send IPT grads straight to the T-7 if going fighters, or the FTUs for heavy aircraft. Reservist manning won’t matter nearly as much at that point. Maybe Congress steps in, because the Reps/Senators for Enid and Columbus probably don’t want to see the loss of jobs/govt spending in their districts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[brabus]

Let’s say funding and airspace access was a non-issue, so we start moving T-6s to airline bases. Some guys will jump on it, and most will stop doing it relatively quickly once they’re reminded why they left the AF for the airlines in the first place (summed up as “all the bullshit.”) The bullshit is un-killable.

[ViperMan]

On 1/21/2025 at 6:53 AM, Clark Griswold said:

Question for guys that live in base or close to it for your airline, if a new UPT syllabus was created along with likely a new aircraft to go with it, would you drop mil leave if you could start your mil duty at or near base flying out in the training aircraft, fly for a week or so then return to your base in said mil trainer.  Students then fly aircraft back to mil UPT base, solo or crewed.

This is just another of my ideas from left field but the existing UPT bases are not that far from major domiciles, END to DFW is 211 NM, CBM to ATL is 201, etc… if they could out n back to pick up Reserve IPs to fly but cut out the self directed commute and positive space effectively would there be interest?

I would do it. Or I would do something like it. In fact, I am currently looking for a "retirement" gig that will let me keep doing military aviation in a part time capacity. I'm figuring out how to min run the airlines, and am winding up with a lot of free time on my hands. May as well do what I like, get paid retirement, get paid min guarantee, and then make extra money chasing clouds. That said, I'm aware of things like Drachen, etc. I also don't want to fly perma red air. For some reason I'd rather do something IFF-like or straight UPT. Maybe I'm crazy.

Not gonna be able to do the part time (non-retired) gig after I'm retirement eligible - I just can't make working for free make financial sense.

Edited January 23 by ViperMan

[Clark Griswold]

11 hours ago, CaptainMorgan said:

Not terrible ideas, but 5-10 years too late. The T-6 is next on the chopping block. Once IPT gets going, there won’t be a reason to repair/replace the T-6. They’ll just let it die and send IPT grads straight to the T-7 if going fighters, or the FTUs for heavy aircraft. Reservist manning won’t matter nearly as much at that point. Maybe Congress steps in, because the Reps/Senators for Enid and Columbus probably don’t want to see the loss of jobs/govt spending in their districts.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks, I’ll be an optimist and say we’re staring into the abyss but not in it yet.  Concur on CODELs might be the unlikely saviors, parochial and self-serving might be but perhaps they can get the right thing done.

11 hours ago, brabus said:

Let’s say funding and airspace access was a non-issue, so we start moving T-6s to airline bases. Some guys will jump on it, and most will stop doing it relatively quickly once they’re reminded why they left the AF for the airlines in the first place (summed up as “all the bullshit.”) The bullshit is un-killable.

Concur, additional sweeteners might be non-mobility positions with waivers for most bull fertilizer, anything is possible, go for broke and settle somewhere in the middle with the Bobs.

10 hours ago, ViperMan said:

I would do it. Or I would do something like it. In fact, I am currently looking for a "retirement" gig that will let me keep doing military aviation in a part time capacity. I'm figuring out how to min run the airlines, and am winding up with a lot of free time on my hands. May as well do what I like, get paid retirement, get paid min guarantee, and then make extra money chasing clouds. That said, I'm aware of things like Drachen, etc. I also don't want to fly perma red air. For some reason I'd rather do something IFF-like or straight UPT. Maybe I'm crazy.

Not gonna be able to do the part time (non-retired) gig after I'm retirement eligible - I just can't make working for free make financial sense.

Thanks another datapoint, if a new model of UPT is to be built, the no kidding what do you want out of this has to be known and if possible built to meet those to get participation.

More ideas

- Plan on 18 month start to finish for UPT students.  Might already be that way but building time lines for all the following events based on that might give breathing room.

- 3 phase program:  Basic, Mil Fundamentals and Advanced.  Wings after all three.  
Basic PPL with instruments, acro familiarization. Mil Fundamentals is basic aircraft checkout with heavy emphasis on standardization in comms, procedures, etc. then acro, form and mission sub-phases. Advanced is ME trainer or T-7.  Guard runs/funds ME trainer, Reserves T-7 and AD/ARC Mil Fundamentals.  
I think this sans the Advanced phase is what is being proposed but just putting it into the BO ether

- Liaison program or trainer aircraft pre-positioned, I’d probably go with liaison as it would also be a place to put recent grads if the FTU wasn’t ready to accept intake and would keep their butts flying.  A $169 billion Air Force can afford a fleet of 40 Cessna  Caravans or Couriers.

Tenant units at existing bases or light foot prints at remote sites, don’t over think this or try to over do it.  

[CaptainMorgan]

Thanks another datapoint, if a new model of UPT is to be built, the no kidding what do you want out of this has to be known and if possible built to meet those to get participation.
More ideas
- Plan on 18 month start to finish for UPT students.  Might already be that way but building time lines for all the following events based on that might give breathing room.
- 3 phase program:  Basic, Mil Fundamentals and Advanced.  Wings after all three.  
Basic PPL with instruments, acro familiarization. Mil Fundamentals is basic aircraft checkout with heavy emphasis on standardization in comms, procedures, etc. then acro, form and mission sub-phases. Advanced is ME trainer or T-7.  Guard runs/funds ME trainer, Reserves T-7 and AD/ARC Mil Fundamentals.  
I think this sans the Advanced phase is what is being proposed but just putting it into the BO ether
- Liaison program or trainer aircraft pre-positioned, I’d probably go with liaison as it would also be a place to put recent grads if the FTU wasn’t ready to accept intake and would keep their butts flying.  A $169 billion Air Force can afford a fleet of 40 Cessna  Caravans or Couriers.
Tenant units at existing bases or light foot prints at remote sites, don’t over think this or try to over do it.  

You’re way too much of an optimist. The Air Force could have cut 1 B-21 and re-engined the entire T-1 fleet. Also, you’re strangely obsessed with acro…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Clark Griswold]

8 hours ago, CaptainMorgan said:

You’re way too much of an optimist. The Air Force could have cut 1 B-21 and re-engined the entire T-1 fleet. Also, you’re strangely obsessed with acro…

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You gotta suggest what you want / think should be done

I mention acro as it just differentiates UPT from Civ training, builds confidence, SA, experience and is just cool.

 

[CaptainMorgan]

Well, they should have re-engined or replaced the T-1 with a comparable aircraft. They should have budgeted to buy T-6Cs, or a Tucano if they are unable to sustain the current T-6A fleet. They should have ordered T-50s instead of the dumpster fire that is the T-7.

None of this would have been cost prohibitive, but it would have meant asking for more money or cutting other programs, which big blue is incapable of doing.

The Air Force could make a course correction, but I don’t see that happening until they’ve suffered multiple class As that are attributed to the pathetic training that was the result of AMF-S, direct FTU, and now IPT. They won’t be quick to admit that either, something else will be found causal as mishaps occur.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Clark Griswold]

Well, they should have re-engined or replaced the T-1 with a comparable aircraft. They should have budgeted to buy T-6Cs, or a Tucano if they are unable to sustain the current T-6A fleet. They should have ordered T-50s instead of the dumpster fire that is the T-7.

None of this would have been cost prohibitive, but it would have meant asking for more money or cutting other programs, which big blue is incapable of doing.

The Air Force could make a course correction, but I don’t see that happening until they’ve suffered multiple class As that are attributed to the pathetic training that was the result of AMF-S, direct FTU, and now IPT. They won’t be quick to admit that either, something else will be found causal as mishaps occur.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, I hate that it might take that but you might be right

I’d prefer a preemptive solution versus the reactive


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[brabus]

44 minutes ago, CaptainMorgan said:

but I don’t see that happening until they’ve suffered multiple class As that are attributed to the pathetic training

It is a miracle this hasn’t happened yet. We are all in on the hope/luck-based gameplan.

[ViperMan]

11 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

- Liaison program or trainer aircraft pre-positioned, I’d probably go with liaison as it would also be a place to put recent grads if the FTU wasn’t ready to accept intake and would keep their butts flying.  A $169 billion Air Force can afford a fleet of 40 Cessna  Caravans or Couriers.

Tenant units at existing bases or light foot prints at remote sites, don’t over think this or try to over do it.  

Liason program? Pre-positioning? Sorry, I'm not up to speed on all the COAs. What are these?

I can assume I know what light foot prints at remote sites means. That could be interesting just because it opens up lots of options for people. Also, same with tenant units. Think beyond the USAF. Lots of good Coast Guard sites and Navy bases dudes would want to live near. Throw a couple of these out to K-bay, North Island, Tampa, C-Springs...now you're cooking with oil. Honestly, though, it probably makes the most sense to just stand up little tenant units near the super hubs, or within about 2 hours of them...at least the first ones if something like this actually goes down.

[Clark Griswold]

1 hour ago, ViperMan said:

Liason program? Pre-positioning? Sorry, I'm not up to speed on all the COAs. What are these?

I can assume I know what light foot prints at remote sites means. That could be interesting just because it opens up lots of options for people. Also, same with tenant units. Think beyond the USAF. Lots of good Coast Guard sites and Navy bases dudes would want to live near. Throw a couple of these out to K-bay, North Island, Tampa, C-Springs...now you're cooking with oil. Honestly, though, it probably makes the most sense to just stand up little tenant units near the super hubs, or within about 2 hours of them...at least the first ones if something like this actually goes down.

Liaison aircraft to run ARC IPs to/from training bases with these hypothetical IPs being airline pilots at major bases around 200 NM from existing UPT bases.  I mentioned Caravan/Courier as they would have reasonable costs in terms of acquiring and operating, crewed by IPs or recent grads but I could see the USAF also owning a small fleet 4 place aircraft to run IPs to/from, again either all IP flown or a recent grad flying liaison duty.

Again, the $169 billion Air Force can afford 40 or so liaison aircraft.

Edited January 24 by Clark Griswold

[ViperMan]

1 hour ago, Clark Griswold said:

Liaison aircraft to run ARC IPs to/from training bases with these hypothetical IPs being airline pilots at major bases around 200 NM from existing UPT bases.  I mentioned Caravan/Courier as they would have reasonable costs in terms of acquiring and operating, crewed by IPs or recent grads but I could see the USAF also owning a small fleet 4 place aircraft to run IPs to/from, again either all IP flown or a recent grad flying liaison duty.

Again, the $169 billion Air Force can afford 40 or so liaison aircraft.

Ok, cool. So like Hertz rent-a-T6.

[Clark Griswold]

Ok, cool. So like Hertz rent-a-T6.

Could be that but in my mind it’d be a Cirrus or like aircraft if it’s too much to synch student training lines to the out n backs or if the larger liaison aircraft is a no go.
I could see the Bobs balking at using flight time on the T-6 or other training aircraft for shuttles, if those flights did legit student sorties maybe.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ViperMan]

1 hour ago, Clark Griswold said:

Could be that but in my mind it’d be a Cirrus or like aircraft if it’s too much to synch student training lines to the out n backs or if the larger liaison aircraft is a no go.
I could see the Bobs balking at using flight time on the T-6 or other training aircraft for shuttles, if those flights did legit student sorties maybe.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ah ok.

[Ant-man]

FTU IP here, there’s no impetus downstream of AETC to produce a more robust product out of pilot training. I’ve been asked to provide subjective feedback on students coming from different programs as they’ve trickled through, but even if the collective message is “stop sending us guys with 69 hrs that can barely make a radio call,” it’s not going to slow momentum on these new programs. There’s just not enough data to prove that Brave New UPT absolutely won’t work. Not to mention the FTUs across the AF have already made their own changes for the sake of expediency, cutting sorties or entire events from the syllabus. We recently got rid of the sole night sortie because it was too difficult to schedule with current attrition rates and mx availability while guaranteeing on-time graduation. The ops squadrons will have to do with the min viable products they are receiving until we get better sortie rates or accept that we can’t make 1500/yr. 

[Flev]

USAF when it's gone through 3+ iterations of pilot training in the last 5 years:

[Clark Griswold]

FTU IP here, there’s no impetus downstream of AETC to produce a more robust product out of pilot training. I’ve been asked to provide subjective feedback on students coming from different programs as they’ve trickled through, but even if the collective message is “stop sending us guys with 69 hrs that can barely make a radio call,” it’s not going to slow momentum on these new programs. There’s just not enough data to prove that Brave New UPT absolutely won’t work. Not to mention the FTUs across the AF have already made their own changes for the sake of expediency, cutting sorties or entire events from the syllabus. We recently got rid of the sole night sortie because it was too difficult to schedule with current attrition rates and mx availability while guaranteeing on-time graduation. The ops squadrons will have to do with the min viable products they are receiving until we get better sortie rates or accept that we can’t make 1500/yr. 

Yeah that’s what I figured
Unless a GO / Cols is willing to risk their career, they will keep things as is / going or alternatively a Congressman or two is willing to begin to pick at this scab, get data and honest opinions from below the field grade level in a public forum so the Borg can’t suppress it.
What I think could happen now that would draw attention but would entail personal career risk would be the ANG directing their pilot students to the USN T-54 ME program after T-6s to show little to no confidence in the T-6 direct FTU model


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[reloder]

On 1/24/2025 at 12:56 PM, Clark Griswold said:

...the Bobs...

 

Are we referring to senior leadership? How did this term originate?

[SurelySerious]

Are we referring to senior leadership? How did this term originate?

Who let the AI bot in?

[reloder]

5 minutes ago, Flev said:

USAF when it's gone through 3+ iterations of pilot training in the last 5 years:

I have followed this discussion with considerable interest. I was a T-37 IP at Laredo, 1969-72. Then on to fighters and then the airlines. IP in F-4, F-104, A-10, B-727, DC-9, MD-80, and EMB-170. Too bad we can't restart the 37 and 38 production lines and return to a time when things for the most part seemed to get done.

[CaptainMorgan]

Yeah that’s what I figured
Unless a GO / Cols is willing to risk their career, they will keep things as is / going or alternatively a Congressman or two is willing to begin to pick at this scab, get data and honest opinions from below the field grade level in a public forum so the Borg can’t suppress it.
What I think could happen now that would draw attention but would entail personal career risk would be the ANG directing their pilot students to the USN T-54 ME program after T-6s to show little to no confidence in the T-6 direct FTU model


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I doubt the Navy has the capacity to support. There’s a reason we stopped tracking C-130s to T-44s.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[reloder]

7 minutes ago, SurelySerious said:

Who let the AI bot in?

Sorry, don't know what that is either. Just an OFP who can't keep up with all the current lingo.