Initial Pilot Training and Future Pilot Training

[Blue]

On 2/8/2025 at 3:34 PM, reloder said:

All of this seems so unnecessary. What was wrong with the old T-41/T-37/T-38 way of doing things?

 

On 2/8/2025 at 4:25 PM, Clark Griswold said:

Nothing, it’s just the leadership of the AF thinks they can min run this enterprise and get away with it
We can not have the AF we say want with the resources Congress allocates, missions we are legally required to OT&E for with the way we operate now
Something has to give or more money and the freedom to execute that money in the best way possible for the needs of the AF vs the needs of X defense prime or Congressmen or pilot hating shoe clerk

What @Clark Griswold said.  Air Force trainer aircraft acquisition has been the next-to-last priority, for a long time.  When the AF went to replace those aircraft, they didn't care enough to put the proper resources behind it.  Leading to today's inevitable state of affairs.

Also, my hazy recollection - folks can correct as necessary.

The T-41 had worked well for a long time, until McPeak became CSAF in the early 90s, and decided people needed to train in something aerobatic.  The AF procured the T-3 Firefly, which was pulled from service after three fatal accidents.  After that, the Air Force vacillated between several different solutions: sending people straight to T-37s with no prior flight time provided, paying for people to get a certain amount of hours at a private school of their choice, sending people to get their hours at a school designated by the AF, and probably other options over time that I don't recall.

The T-37 had worked well for a long time, besides being old and outdated.  The Air Force tried replacing in in the early 80s in a competition eventually won by Fairchild Republic's T-46 Eaglet.  They went over budget, and the program was cancelled.  Just goes to show you - even during the height of the Reagan era military buildup, the Air Force didn't care enough to get a new trainer built.  The AF tried again in the early 90s with the JPATS program, and ended up with the T-6, which were delivered between 2000 - 2009 or thereabouts.  And, based on this thread, the Air Force can't seem to keep them flying, for whatever obscene reason.

The T-38 had worked for a long time, but was old, outdated, and wearing out.  In the early 90s, the Air Force began procuring the T-1 Jayhawk, and split pilot training into a track for T-38s and T-1s, with part of the reasoning being to extend the life of the existing T-38 aircraft.  In the early 2000s, the AF began the T-X program with a stated goal of replacing the T-38.  That program proceeded in fits and starts, but generally really sucked hind tit when it came to funding over the years, with some years having no funding at all.  Finally, in 2016, the AF released a formal Request for Proposal, and in 2018 selected Boeing's T-7.   And Boeing has basically been Boeing, and fucked it all up.

Edited February 13 by Blue

[Flev]

End of the line for T-1's at Pensacola. What a time to be alive.

https://www.pnj.com/story/news/local/pensacola/2025/02/14/air-force-training-unit-at-nas-pensacola-begins-sendoff-of-jayhawk/78393747007/

[LookieRookie]

On 2/12/2025 at 11:21 AM, boba1024 said:

they have already sent three or four IPT classes of students to civilian flight schools. This seems to be official now. Not sure why they still need to confirm the idea works when it’s being fully implemented. 

I should have put confirm in quotation marks. The bobs need SGTOs to make fake data to show have a “data driven” decision.

just like that cuck Wills did with 2.5

[Clark Griswold]

4 minutes ago, LookieRookie said:

I should have put confirm in quotation marks. The bobs need SGTOs to make fake data to show have a “data driven” decision.

just like that cuck Wills did with 2.5

Is there any data released about the demographics of the SGTOs?

X percent were CFIs, ATPs, etc…

[LookieRookie]

Just now, Clark Griswold said:

Is there any data released about the demographics of the SGTOs?

X percent were CFIs, ATPs, etc…

I’m sure there is. I haven’t looked enough because I don’t work in A5/8

[Clark Griswold]

I’m sure there is. I haven’t looked enough because I don’t work in A5/8

Gotcha, I imagine they have it and meet any legal requirements to disclose it but unless it would be very supportive to their agenda they don’t advertise it, not really a spear thrown as we all try to accentuate the positives and the negatives we put at the end of the slide deck.

Another question / idea from the cheap seats but I wonder if the services could actually work together in the whole of military training pilot training (including USCG) and divide it up to specialize, have reciprocal support and allow each other to specialize in the aspect of a multi phase training curriculum they most care about?
I’m imagining the Army running a basic fixed wing training program, the USAF running an intermediate program, USN running a multi engine program, the advanced phase (fighter, bomber, carrier track) being kept wholly in house, etc… thoughts?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Swizzle]

58 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:

Is there any data released about the demographics of the SGTOs?

X percent were CFIs, ATPs, etc…

They were cherry picked beyond belief. 

[Clark Griswold]

They were cherry picked beyond belief. 

Gotcha


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RASH]

I’m sure there is. I haven’t looked enough because I don’t work in A5/8

Not that A5/8 have looked either…


Sent from my iPad using Baseops Network mobile app

[SurelySerious]

Not that A5/8 have looked either…


Sent from my iPad using Baseops Network mobile app

If you don’t look for the outcome you don’t want, it’s a lot harder to find it.

[Clark Griswold]

So flying with a USN Reserve dude (T-45 IP) and found out the Navy has figured it out with contract IPs for their T-45 program, namely money will fix manning issues with respect to that.

Did the T-6 contract IP thing ever get anywhere?  If not was it not enough money or crappy work rules / contract or both?

Edited yesterday at 05:59 PM by Clark Griswold

[boba1024]

2 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

So flying with a USN Reserve dude (T-45 IP) and found out the Navy has figured it out with contract IPs for their T-45 program, namely money will fix manning issues with respect to that.

Did the T-6 contract IP thing ever get anywhere?  If not was it not enough money or crappy work rules / contract or both?

I could be wrong but don’t think IP manning is an issue in the T-6 world. The issue is maintenance. Vance is still on the legacy syllabus and producing pilots without any delays while students at Columbus is experiencing a 6 months (and counting) delay between academics and flight line. If Columbus had a healthy T-6 fleet, the IPT SGTO class wouldn’t cause such a long delay for legacy students. This IPT thing is not going to produce more pilots every year unless the MX issue is fixed first, at least not at Columbus

[Pooter]

On 2/8/2025 at 6:15 PM, WheelsOff said:

I’ve been out of the AETC IP game a few years now. Sad to read it’s only gotten worse. But for those who are new around here and don’t know the history…it began when Kwast and Wills forcefully gang-banged the UPT enterprise into a training program that has set us on a course to become a 3rd-rate Air Force for decades to come. 

Don’t know what Kwast is doing in his retirement, but Wills was just appointed senior VP at HTX Labs, which—you guessed it—oversees VR training/tech for military training applications. 

The VR and pilot training next stuff wasn't originally a problem in and of itself. If you added VR sims to the legacy UPT syllabus us old hats are familiar with, you would end up with a better product. Full stop. I'm all for trying to modernize sims/chairflying and I'm all for auditing the syllabus to make sure we aren't wasting time on things that don't matter operationally, like fingertip takeoffs and landings or serially hooking kids on ELPs. The problem arose when the brass started using the VR and PTN/UPT 2.5 syllabus cuts to mask the fact that they can't generate aircraft. That's when all the newfangled VR and syllabi basically became a trojan horse to cut hours while keeping slides green. 

[coppy]

23 minutes ago, boba1024 said:

I could be wrong but don’t think IP manning is an issue in the T-6 world. The issue is maintenance. Vance is still on the legacy syllabus and producing pilots without any delays while students at Columbus is experiencing a 6 months (and counting) delay between academics and flight line. If Columbus had a healthy T-6 fleet, the IPT SGTO class wouldn’t cause such a long delay for legacy students. This IPT thing is not going to produce more pilots every year unless the MX issue is fixed first, at least not at Columbus

It definitely seems like MX has a large piece to play in the Columbus issues, at least according to what I've been hearing. The only thing I may disagree with is you saying the IPT thing won't produce more pilots. If IPT really does reduce T-6 hours from 90ish to 50-60 per student, that will certainly allow more T-6's to get back on the flightline due to the reduction of hours. However, that assumes that manpower is the bottleneck and not parts, which I don't know since I am not there. Also, I am pretty sure that T-6 MX is contracted, so if parts is not the issue, some serious research should be put into whether or not that contract is sufficient.

BLOB: the trainer fleet has been abused and not enough has been done to remedy it. 

[Clark Griswold]

8 hours ago, boba1024 said:

I could be wrong but don’t think IP manning is an issue in the T-6 world. The issue is maintenance. Vance is still on the legacy syllabus and producing pilots without any delays while students at Columbus is experiencing a 6 months (and counting) delay between academics and flight line. If Columbus had a healthy T-6 fleet, the IPT SGTO class wouldn’t cause such a long delay for legacy students. This IPT thing is not going to produce more pilots every year unless the MX issue is fixed first, at least not at Columbus

Roger that

If only an updated version of the T-6 existed that exceeded requirements and was available with a better availability rate

https://defense.txtav.com/en/t-6c

[SurelySerious]

Roger that
If only an updated version of the T-6 existed that exceeded requirements and was available with a better availability rate
https://defense.txtav.com/en/t-6c

What if.