Initial Pilot Training and Future Pilot Training

[Clark Griswold]

  On 3/12/2025 at 3:50 AM, CaptainMorgan said:

Yeah, that’s not a good plan.  Not shooting the messenger just commenting on the situation.

 

[hindsight2020]

  On 3/12/2025 at 3:50 AM, CaptainMorgan said:

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

Expand  

^^^That's correct. All this hopium talk upthread is chaff. The IPT direct to T-7 is DOA, on both sides. The IPT side will fail for quality control reasons that are self-evident to those of us who have done the flight training thing on both sides of the military base fence. The T-7 side of that COA will fail for the reason you've highlighted already. And yes, the fallback will be mobility bounds direct to FTU. People will die in continuation training with increasing frequency, though it wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility to also see an uptick in intermediate pre-qual training losses. Plausible deniability will ensure no flag officer goes to prison over the programmatic decisions that caused them.

So I guess my macro point in all this is, everybody take care of número uno... and I don't mean flight lead.

 

 

 

 

[Clark Griswold]

Related item:

Navy having T-45 problems

https://www.twz.com/air/t-45-goshawk-navy-jet-trainer-fleet-grounded

 

[Clark Griswold]

  On 3/15/2025 at 1:50 AM, hindsight2020 said:

The IPT side will fail for quality control reasons that are self-evident to those of us who have done the flight training thing on both sides of the military base fence.

Expand  

If IPT were done at a military base with direct oversight do you think the quality control could be maintained?

[SurelySerious]

  On 3/15/2025 at 2:32 AM, Clark Griswold said:

If IPT were done at a military base with direct oversight do you think the quality control could be maintained?

Depends all on how the contract and syllabus are written, on site or off.

[Clark Griswold]

  On 3/15/2025 at 2:38 AM, SurelySerious said:

Depends all on how the contract and syllabus are written, on site or off.

Expand  

On site.  
I’m not one for excessive oversight but keeping them on a shortish leash might be helpful.

Go pros, FDRs, quality/standardization checks with mil instructors, etc… solid pay for CFIIs for IPT, 75k to start, pass probation period, say 6 months, pay bumps up, second year guaranteed 100k+ for x number of student training hours flown, etc…

This would be to off load some of a hypothetical phase 2 of my COA, intro mil flight training in a PC-21. Phase 3 then T-7s or T-54.  If the AF won’t buy the -54, then a ME course in a light twin, type training course with some extra sims, a LOFT phase, call it good.

Plane porn just because 

Edited March 15 by Clark Griswold

[Clark Griswold]

Lock Mart and Pilatus working on PC-21 upgrades / 5th gen training focus

https://aviationweek.com/defense/light-attack-advanced-training/pilatus-pursues-f-35-focused-pc-21-training-system-upgrade
 

Change course AF:

Basics in a quality GA platform, Skylane.  Mil training in a PC-21.  Track studs to T-7 or T-54.  Don’t overthink this.

Edited March 28 by Clark Griswold

[Clark Griswold]

Idea:
So there’s a military pilot shortage not just with us but our Allies as well, we’re in a rough patch with them right now so why not try to mend relations a bit and solve a common problem we all face by opening another base(s) here in the states, buy the iron ourselves or lease to go VFR direct to a solution and get ourselves caught up in production while getting our Allies caught up too, particularly in military pilot training.  We want them to do more on there own, this would be one way to get that started and solve a problem we have now too.

RAF, RAAF, RCAF, etc… are facing military pilot training shortages too, starting another base like the ENJPPT program at Sheppard, this justifies the purchase of new/different iron to train, different iron if current suppliers have no extra delivery capacity, reinvigorates mil to mil links without a new overseas basing mission and gets the extra production needed.  Plan on it being a 10 year project, long enough to have impact but a sunset date with a legal extension option available.

Old bases / airports are available, CODELs at these bases would support the MILCON money, there are enough vendors of capable training aircraft to get tails quickly as the facilities, syllabuses and logistics are worked out so that you could start I bet in 6-9 months with at least the primary phase as the intermediate/advanced phases are being set up.

Nations buying into this can go al a carte, send studs thru all 3 phases or just whatever they want, pay/support as you go… ARC support might be forthcoming, loads/bookings are getting lighter in the 121 world and a ARC/low seniority airline guy probably would look at a good 3-5 year tour with a solid bonus (50k a year)…bases that have been divested are not impinging on existing MOAs…

Solve a problem, bring the team back together and set them and ourselves up for success in the likely tense years ahead…

Edited March 30 by Clark Griswold

[SumPoorBastard]

@Clark Griswold Been snooping the forums for a while, I see you advocate for the Pilatus quite a bit. Does it have much more to offer over a T-6 B/C? While i think the PC-21 would be awesome it seems like there are benefits to just upgrading/getting new T-6's.

[Clark Griswold]

  On 4/3/2025 at 9:13 PM, SumPoorBastard said:

@Clark Griswold Been snooping the forums for a while, I see you advocate for the Pilatus quite a bit. Does it have much more to offer over a T-6 B/C? While i think the PC-21 would be awesome it seems like there are benefits to just upgrading/getting new T-6's.

Expand  

No time in a Pilatus but impressed with their planes (pc-12) that I’ve seen, flown with.

My advocacy for them and specifically the PC-21 is just based on casual internet research in this thread but it does seem like Pilatus has cracked the code with the PC-21 being a possible, maybe one platform replacement for the T-6 / other mil trainers.  

I would prefer it to be a Phase 2 trainer for the US military, but if the money men demanded only 1 mil trainer (cancelling existing and forthcoming trainers) then I think it could achieve what is needed to produce a mil trained pilot.  

I think a good 125 hour syllabus in a PC-21, with a good 125 hour in GA training aircraft (single and multi engine) could produce a well rounded aviator.  Still would want a third trainer but the end result could probably be met with 250 hours in those planes.

I may have just drunk the Pilatus kool aid but I think they make a good plane(s).

[Arkbird]

So why couldn't the Air Force go for an already built, proven design instead of another boeing delayed product? 

https://www.twz.com/air/m-346n-pitched-to-replace-navys-t-45-goshawk-jet-trainers

[reloder]

Is there such a thing as T-37 style initial jet training? I realize that this debate is over, but I remain of the opinion that side-by-side seating was a better teaching environment for this segment of pilot training.

[Lord Ratner]

  16 hours ago, reloder said:

Is there such a thing as T-37 style initial jet training? I realize that this debate is over, but I remain of the opinion that side-by-side seating was a better teaching environment for this segment of pilot training.

Expand  

Did you ever teach in the t-6? I never flew in the t-37, so I don't have a good comparison with a side-by-side trainer, but I never found the t-6 difficult to teach in. There were so few buttons and knobs to manipulate in-flight compared with more advanced aircraft, that you really didn't need to see the student moving their hands and touching the buttons to know what they were doing.

 

As an advantage, the ability to disappear as an instructor by simply not talking was quite valuable for letting the student get lost in training while still being observed. Every flight was a simulated solo if the instructor chose to remain hands-off.

[slc]

Kids these days have no idea......

"sir, I have 2 leg, 1 chest, 2 shoulder, safety belt, zero delay, silver key, 3 personal leads, dun strap, I am on, normal, normal with good blinker, good pressure, my loose items are stowed, and one zipper open.  How bout you?

[reloder]

  14 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

Did you ever teach in the t-6? I never flew in the t-37, so I don't have a good comparison with a side-by-side trainer, but I never found the t-6 difficult to teach in.

 

Expand  

T-6? No, I'm old. IP in tandem a/c: F-4, F-104. IP in side by side a/c: T-37, B-727, DC-9, MD-80, ERJ-170. IP in separate a/c: A-10.

Neat fact. The prototype B-52 had a tandem seating set-up, like the B-47. Curtis Lemay thought differently and told Boeing to redo the cockpit to a side by side arrangement.

[herkbier]

I think sims have improved a bit where side by side isn’t as much of a necessity

[Clark Griswold]

  19 hours ago, Arkbird said:

So why couldn't the Air Force go for an already built, proven design instead of another boeing delayed product? 

https://www.twz.com/air/m-346n-pitched-to-replace-navys-t-45-goshawk-jet-trainers

Expand  

Just a guess but the requirements were likely set very high / too high for everything they wanted to train for in the T-7, Boeing promised them the moon and stars and here we are… when we could have been recapitalizing…

The process could have been fixed too as this contract was awarded years ago when Boeing was really in deep trouble and the DoD may have said unofficially Boeing gets it for strategic defense industry reasons, just a guess on my not in the loop part