Initial Pilot Training and Future Pilot Training

[yzl337]

6 minutes ago, pbar said:

Lucky CSOs are flying in Navy T-6s else the AF would probably go to 100% sim for UCT and then off to the FTUs...

All the T-6As at UCT are Air Force. 

[Boomer6]

8 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Basic, acro, multi, seaplane and STOL by contract with mil oversight during training

Can't tell if you're being facetious or not. Seaplane training, really?

[Lord Ratner]

7 minutes ago, Boomer6 said:

Can't tell if you're being facetious or not. Seaplane training, really?

If you're going to use an inferior training program, and civilian flight school is absolutely (by necessity) inferior, then it's not crazy to just dump all the different qualifications in there to create a broad sense of airmanship. 

 

And it would still be much cheaper. But you'll get what you pay for.

[DirkDiggler]

9 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Copy that
More time is better than phoning it in
If the AF wants to go to only one trainer so be it, don’t agree but if so then buy a sizable and diverse civilian training experience to develop them before going to a high performance jet…
Basic, acro, multi, seaplane and STOL by contract with mil oversight during training
0.1% chance for that much pre mil training flying (if the straight to T-7 COA happens) but one must post what one thinks…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Current plan for IPT is Private, Instrument, and Multi ratings.  I doubt this will change.  Flight schools involved in the program must provide the same instrumentation across all the platforms students will be training on.

[Boomer6]

12 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

If you're going to use an inferior training program, and civilian flight school is absolutely (by necessity) inferior, then it's not crazy to just dump all the different qualifications in there to create a broad sense of airmanship. 

 

And it would still be much cheaper. But you'll get what you pay for.

If it's not crazy it's fucking retarded at best and poor stewardship at worse. Let's waste more tax payer dollars on additional quals. A hot air balloon license would increase their airmanship, plus we can use it to weed out the idiots. If we're gonna waste money I'd rather we have them all get an A&P.

[Clark Griswold]

Can't tell if you're being facetious or not. Seaplane training, really?

I just threw that in for fun but honestly if the AF gave me the keys and all these kids were going to get was the civ time in a program then go to a supersonic capable, 7G jet… I’d give them as much seat time as I could
Would landing a seaplane give directly translatable experience and knowledge to handle a T-7?
No but it would be more aviation experience handling multiple factors in 3 dimensions requiring strong fast response cognitive skills interlinked to hand/eye/seat of the pants that would likely lead to faster neurons in most students.
Probably would only take 2-3 weeks and the guys would likely wanna do it
But yeah it would be a very tradeable part of a good pre mil flying program for me, cool but not necessary

Icon A5 in Florida with weekends off. An enjoyable phase of training…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lord Ratner]

9 hours ago, Boomer6 said:

If it's not crazy it's fucking retarded at best and poor stewardship at worse. Let's waste more tax payer dollars on additional quals. A hot air balloon license would increase their airmanship, plus we can use it to weed out the idiots. If we're gonna waste money I'd rather we have them all get an A&P.

Are you a pilot?

[Boomer6]

1 hour ago, Lord Ratner said:

Are you a pilot?

Not of sea planes or hot air balloons.

[tac airlifter]

When I was a SQ/CC I sent alot of guys to get seaplane and tailwheel rated at a 2 week civilian school in Alaska.  I would have done everyone but didn’t have the budget, instead it was about 2 dozen and used as an incentive/reward for great work: IP OTQ, Pilot OTY, etc.  Didn't work with everyone’s schedule so randos got to go too.

It definitely teaches pilots to unlearn some overly safe attitudes in UPT (nothing wrong with that for their level) and how to fly aggressive without being unsafe, meaning have the confidence to take calculated risks.  You can’t quantify the benefit of learning to be comfortable outside your comfort zone, but vignettes can draw connections between unconventional training and success in unconventional combat situations.  It’s the same logic used sending officers for masters degrees- “this may not apply directly to current job but you’re learning how to think using new tools, thus arming you for the unknown.”  That’s the argument I used to get it approved and left my boss speechless, lol. 

My thoughts are that if you aren’t actively finding fun creative ways to make the team better you have no business leading.  Also if you aren’t willing to take some personal career risk by trusting the team to do these things, you have no business leading in combat.  We ought to have the best pilots in the world and that costs money and requires leaders who aren’t pussies.

[Lord Ratner]

53 minutes ago, Boomer6 said:

Not of sea planes or hot air balloons.

Just trying to establish if you're speaking from a position of experience, or pontificating from the bleachers. 

 

Seems like we have our answer.

[Boomer6]

The number of times I've wished I had acft MX experience is pretty high versus the number of times Ive needed seaplane experience. Unless Clark gets his wish and we buy a fleet of the spruce goose, I think having pilots with MX experience is going to be useful when it kicks off with china.

[Clark Griswold]

The number of times I've wished I had acft MX experience is pretty high versus the number of times Ive needed seaplane experience. Unless Clark gets his wish and we buy a fleet of the spruce goose, I think having pilots with MX experience is going to be useful when it kicks off with china.

I can take ribbing but I’m not calling for something not flying or exotic
I see MX experience beyond what we have now as desirable but the idea that anything beyond basic serving is unrealistic, just my opinion
Pilot training when I went thru did a good job but looking at the future and comparing the two, I think additional phases and expanded training into non-traditional areas will pay dividends


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Boomer6]

For guys going fighters I think a seaplane qual, helo qual, STOL etc. doesn't buy very much. Will their overall airmanship increase, sure, but will that significantly increase their ability to employ, no. I'd argue F1 drivers (the car not the jet) are a good example of the progression the AF executed (until recently) in fighter training.

We start with slower acft and rapidly progress to solo flights in high performance acft. F1 drivers do the same thing, and I don't see them in a CJ7 doing rock crawling contests because it will make them a better driver overall.

I need students to have a single seat mindset and to think at a minimum of 350KTs when they get to B course. If you think the heavy/afsoc etc. communities could benefit from non-traditional quals in UPT then I'll take your word for it.

[DirkDiggler]

13 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

I just threw that in for fun but honestly if the AF gave me the keys and all these kids were going to get was the civ time in a program then go to a supersonic capable, 7G jet… I’d give them as much seat time as I could
Would landing a seaplane give directly translatable experience and knowledge to handle a T-7?
No but it would be more aviation experience handling multiple factors in 3 dimensions requiring strong fast response cognitive skills interlinked to hand/eye/seat of the pants that would likely lead to faster neurons in most students.
Probably would only take 2-3 weeks and the guys would likely wanna do it
But yeah it would be a very tradeable part of a good pre mil flying program for me, cool but not necessary

Icon A5 in Florida with weekends off. An enjoyable phase of training…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I briefly spoke to this in my reply to Viper.

  There is concern amongst AETC leadership about whether students will be able to handle the transition from a light twin straight to the T-7 (should the program ever get going) given the big disparities in performance between the two.  There's no mass historical data that exists for that.  Expect in the next few years the AF will send a couple of SGTOs from IPT to Italy to fly the M346, which supposedly has similar performance to the T-7 IOT get data on how students perform.

  Now if the bulk of students can't handle the transition, I don't know what the AF is going to do; I doubt they have a plan for it yet. 

[Clark Griswold]

For guys going fighters I think a seaplane qual, helo qual, STOL etc. doesn't buy very much. Will their overall airmanship increase, sure, but will that significantly increase their ability to employ, no. I'd argue F1 drivers (the car not the jet) are a good example of the progression the AF executed (until recently) in fighter training.
We start with slower acft and rapidly progress to solo flights in high performance acft. F1 drivers do the same thing, and I don't see them in a CJ7 doing rock crawling contests because it will make them a better driver overall.
I need students to have a single seat mindset and to think at a minimum of 350KTs when they get to B course. If you think the heavy/afsoc etc. communities could benefit from non-traditional quals in UPT then I'll take your word for it.

Cool I can see that and the tactical mindset is what I want heavy crews to get too. This is how I see to get there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lord Ratner]

2 hours ago, Boomer6 said:

The number of times I've wished I had acft MX experience is pretty high versus the number of times Ive needed seaplane experience. Unless Clark gets his wish and we buy a fleet of the spruce goose, I think having pilots with MX experience is going to be useful when it kicks off with china.

Ok this also sounds like non-pilot talk. Understandable.

The point is airmanship. Its the same reason we had future tanker pilots flying 90-degree wing work in UPT. Same reason we had formation takeoffs and landings. And NDB approaches when everyone knew NDBs were on the way out. 

Flying is not an assembly-line task. You don't just "do flying" a million times until you're an expert. It's a series of physical and mental tasks that are supported by a greater series of physical and mental abilities. 

The current pilot training crisis is purely a function of the Air Force wanting to buy more than they can afford, and trying to move the resources from pilot training to other things. To make this work they have taken the same approach you have of looking for only directly-applicable skills, training those, and cutting everything else out. It's not going great, based on this thread. 

It's very simple. You want the best pilots in the world, you need the best training in the world. "Best" means not just neat planes and repetition of core tasks. It means broad exposure to the widest range of flying regimes and decision-making scenarios. "Experience."

If you don't think seaplanes and tail draggers and STOL/bush flying have anything to offer a pilot, then you are either A) not a pilot, or B) not a particularly experienced one. I'm sure one exists, but I have yet to meet the pilot with the above three quals who felt like they were no better after the training than before. 

EDIT: I think you're a pilot, but I don't think you have a particularly broad experience. I could be wrong, so if you have tail-dragger, STOL, and sea plane quals, my apologies. But the entire concept of directly-applicable training is a failing strategy with obvious outcomes. 

Edited yesterday at 04:45 PM by Lord Ratner

[Clark Griswold]

I briefly spoke to this in my reply to Viper.
  There is concern amongst AETC leadership about whether students will be able to handle the transition from a light twin straight to the T-7 (should the program ever get going) given the big disparities in performance between the two.  There's no mass historical data that exists for that.  Expect in the next few years the AF will send a couple of SGTOs from IPT to Italy to fly the M346, which supposedly has similar performance to the T-7 IOT get data on how students perform.
  Now if the bulk of students can't handle the transition, I don't know what the AF is going to do; I doubt they have a plan for it yet. 

Gotcha, I share that same reservation on going from a Baron to an afterburner
The SGTO has to be a truly random sample rather than the cherry picked, not saying something you don’t know but for the thread…

This doesn’t have to be hard (sts) or risky…
1 - basics in a civ program, intro to mil flying in a turbo that has a performance range to transition into aerobatics, form, low level then track… T-7s for some, T-54 for others…

2 - basics in a civ program and an extensive program in a PC-21. Assignment to follow.

3 - extensive civ program with 3 different phases, then T-6. Assignment to follow, good luck.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Boomer6]

2 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

If you don't think seaplanes and tail draggers and STOL/bush flying have anything to offer a pilot, then you are either A) not a pilot, or B) not a particularly experienced one. I'm sure one exists, but I have yet to meet the pilot with the above three quals who felt like they were no better after the training than before. 

Wrong on both accounts. Are you/were you a fighter pilot? 

I've taught quite a few dudes with a lot of non-standard civilian experience prior to UPT. Those dudes had average progression in UPT/IFF/B-Course. I've seen more ppl with broad civilian experience wash out than those with no prior experience. 

In the CAF I know a lot of dudes that have received the quals mentioned. Cool experience, and airmanship I'm sure is better. Does it change their tactical abilities, no. The correlation between the disciplines are too far apart to provide meaningful impact tactically for fighter dudes. 

 

[Lord Ratner]

21 minutes ago, Boomer6 said:

Wrong on both accounts. Are you/were you a fighter pilot? 

I've taught quite a few dudes with a lot of non-standard civilian experience prior to UPT. Those dudes had average progression in UPT/IFF/B-Course. I've seen more ppl with broad civilian experience wash out than those with no prior experience. 

In the CAF I know a lot of dudes that have received the quals mentioned. Cool experience, and airmanship I'm sure is better. Does it change their tactical abilities, no. The correlation between the disciplines are too far apart to provide meaningful impact tactically for fighter dudes. 

 

It feels like we're talking about two different things here.

 

You concede that airmanship is better. So then... What exactly is your point? 

 

Being a tactical God is largely irrelevant if you crash the airplane at the end of the day. 

 

It seems like the way you're framing this is exactly how we (not "we," I'm long since separated) ended up in this clusterfuck...  Trying to distill aviation down to the "tactical abilities" so that they can be focused on exclusively to the detriment of "airmanship" is how you end up with a bunch of inexperienced pilots flying planes into the ground.

 

Obviously I would rather have another hundred hours of upt training with military instructor pilots, but that wasn't the suggestion or the conversation. The suggestion was that if we are going to farm out military training to civilian institutions, we might as well max-perform the civilian training opportunities in the hopes that a broader experience will make up for a diminished training program.

 

UPT was never about creating tactical abilities. That's for iff and later. It was about creating pilots (airmanship). Trying to trick fuck your way around that process will yield predictable results.

[Clark Griswold]

I think we’re starting to get to another point
CAF wants one thing MAF (maybe AFSOC, AFGSC) might want something else in their new pilots
Points expressed here are singular data points but enough of them become useful data clusters
Is the single advanced trainer useful to try to bring back or go to in the everyone goes to T-7s after civ training model?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Boomer6]

4 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

It feels like we're talking about two different things here.

 

You concede that airmanship is better. So then... What exactly is your point? 

 

Being a tactical God is largely irrelevant if you crash the airplane at the end of the day. 

 

It seems like the way you're framing this is exactly how we (not "we," I'm long since separated) ended up in this clusterfuck...  Trying to distill aviation down to the "tactical abilities" so that they can be focused on exclusively to the detriment of "airmanship" is how you end up with a bunch of inexperienced pilots flying planes into the ground.

 

Obviously I would rather have another hundred hours of upt training with military instructor pilots, but that wasn't the suggestion or the conversation. The suggestion was that if we are going to farm out military training to civilian institutions, we might as well max-perform the civilian training opportunities in the hopes that a broader experience will make up for a diminished training program.

 

UPT was never about creating tactical abilities. That's for iff and later. It was about creating pilots (airmanship). Trying to trick fuck your way around that process will yield predictable results.

Fair enough.

My contention is I don't think the time/money that would be invested in additional non-standard civilian quals is going to adequately increase the airmanship enough to decrease the number of dudes "crashing at the end of the day."

If the goal is to prevent guys from killing themselves in admin phases of flight, then I'd recommend adding a lot more night flights, more robust unusual attitude training, and more complex EPs. Also, I think some simulator based training with a lot of radio chatter forcing studs to pick out key information that could kill them (like clearing civ traffic to land on the same RWY you're inside the FAF on) to increase SA on comms would help a lot. We've probably all seen a lot of close calls like this that were saved because an experienced dude was in the formation/flt deck. Listening/processing comm is something I don't think we do a good job training to.

To this end, my personal opinion is speed is the great equalizer. Fast airplanes force proper task prioritizarion at an expedited rate. If we can get kids thinking fast early on they'll benefit whether they go fighters or heavies. Which is why I'd rather see IPT put some kids in high performance aircraft instead of seaplane/STOL aircraft.

Last point. Hope is not a valid tactic. I don't want to spend tax payer money on civilian training we hope will increase airmanship. We've got 60+ years of fast jets in UPT. We know if you can think ahead of the jet in a task saturated environment then your airmanship is better than someone who can't. Thus my proposal to put them in some high performance civ aircraft instead of a seaplane.

Edited 20 hours ago by Boomer6

[Lord Ratner]

14 hours ago, Boomer6 said:

Fair enough.

My contention is I don't think the time/money that would be invested in additional non-standard civilian quals is going to adequately increase the airmanship enough to decrease the number of dudes "crashing at the end of the day."

If the goal is to prevent guys from killing themselves in admin phases of flight, then I'd recommend adding a lot more night flights, more robust unusual attitude training, and more complex EPs. Also, I think some simulator based training with a lot of radio chatter forcing studs to pick out key information that could kill them (like clearing civ traffic to land on the same RWY you're inside the FAF on) to increase SA on comms would help a lot. We've probably all seen a lot of close calls like this that were saved because an experienced dude was in the formation/flt deck. Listening/processing comm is something I don't think we do a good job training to.

To this end, my personal opinion is speed is the great equalizer. Fast airplanes force proper task prioritizarion at an expedited rate. If we can get kids thinking fast early on they'll benefit whether they go fighters or heavies. Which is why I'd rather see IPT put some kids in high performance aircraft instead of seaplane/STOL aircraft.

Last point. Hope is not a valid tactic. I don't want to spend tax payer money on civilian training we hope will increase airmanship. We've got 60+ years of fast jets in UPT. We know if you can think ahead of the jet in a task saturated environment then your airmanship is better than someone who can't. Thus my proposal to put them in some high performance civ aircraft instead of a seaplane.

Well I agree with the premise, I don't suspect it's very realistic. There aren't a ton of civilian schools out there with fast Jets ready to take on the volume of students that the Air Force requires. That's not to say that there's an Armada of seaplane training schools either, but there are more. Probably just a function of how much cheaper a Cessna with pontoons is. 

 

As to the simulators, I have to disagree. If you're a fighter guy then you have much less experience in advanced simulators than I do, and at this point I've done military simulators, airline simulators, and civilian type rating School farmed out by the military (MC-12). If you're an airline guy then you already know this:

 

You are never going to get realistic training in a simulator outside of the raw mechanics of flight. For takeoffs and landings, for aerodynamic complications, stalls, all that type of stuff, the simulator is incredible. 

 

But once you start talking about simulating complex operating environments, radio calls, and all of the "real world" stuff, it's just not going to happen. It could, in theory, but it won't. There's just no way to get the students and instructors to take simulator training seriously enough to adequately simulate the experience you get at a real airport with real people and real planes doing real things. 

 

This is the hardest part of the conversation. We both know what to do to make good pilots. The question is, how do you make good military pilots in an environment where those things aren't funded/supported/allowed? 

Edited 5 hours ago by Lord Ratner

[Clark Griswold]

This is the hardest part of the conversation. We both know what to do to make good pilots. The question is, how do you make good military pilots in an environment where those things aren't funded/supported/allowed? 

Triage or publicly ask Congress for supplemental funding for reasons a, b and c… this is how we got here, here’s what we want to do to Make UPT Great Again and here’s how we are going to do it.
I suspect Triage is going to be the answer Congress would approve so honestly I’d look for where operational risk is possible and reprogram money
It would likely be a vertical cut versus horizontal to maximize savings, so much old iron has already gotten the ax we’re getting down to the family jewels


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CaptainMorgan]

I think we’re starting to get to another point
CAF wants one thing MAF (maybe AFSOC, AFGSC) might want something else in their new pilots
Points expressed here are singular data points but enough of them become useful data clusters
Is the single advanced trainer useful to try to bring back or go to in the everyone goes to T-7s after civ training model?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not going to happen. They didn’t order enough T-7s to put everyone thru it. When the T-6 is sunsetted, it will be IPT direct to FTU for the non-fighter/bomber dudes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SurelySerious]

Tangentially related, has the AF acquired enough of anything since Gulf War I other than Bob Gates’s obsession with Predator?

Edit: maybe C-17?