Changing/Switching airframes

[Guardian]

What about prior 11F's? Guard or reserve guys?


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[sqwatch]

I mean, would a 6-900 hour copilot do worse in fighters than a new guy straight from UPT? Honest question since I could see a couple of pros and a couple of cons.

This is like going to the midget convention and asking for the tallest person in attendance to play forward for the NBA.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guardian]

I know quite a few airline guys that couldn't hack the t37 and T6


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[dream big]

On 4/13/2017 at 9:18 PM, Kenny Powers said:

Not to bring up our favorite dick measuring topic, but...

If their community has not upgraded them to AC, why would you throw them in a fighter where they're going to be the AC?

Admittedly, I don't know anything about what it's like to be a co-pilot or anything about heavies as far as CRM goes.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 

Copilots in AMC usually don't upgrade for 2-3 years.   If they flew 38s they have no less "PIC" time than wingmen going to IFF from 38s, with probably a heck of a lot more experience and airmanship. 

Edited April 16, 2017 by dream big

[Kenny Powers]

with probably a heck of a lot more experience and airmanship. 

 

Not to downplay their service, but their experience really won't mean shit when they start flying fighters.

 

 

 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

 

 

[HossHarris]

1 hour ago, faipmafiaofficial said:

I don't get the "must have flown 38s in pilot training part"

There are some super good pilots out there who went the T-1 track and then on to heavies.  Why exclude them?

Why limit it to the dudes who sucked in 38s and got sent to heavies?

There is no way you can tell me that 50hrs in a 38 as a student is a legitimate qualification and disqualifier...

T-1 Faips go fly the 38 with the U-2 guys and learn no problem in no time...

 

 

U2 T-38 ops are very limited in what they are allowed to do. 

[Duck]

 
Not to downplay their service, but their experience really won't mean shit when they start flying fighters.
 
 
 
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 
 
 

I agree, however some of the best UPT studs I have seen had previous time, one was even an FO for United. So while the experience won't directly relate, I would hope and pray that they have more airmanship and SA than a fresh out of UPT stud.

Having said that, some people just suck regardless of their time and experience.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[Hacker]

I have no doubt that there are very talented pilots who went through the T-1 track and went on to fly heavies, and who would likely excel if they crossflowed to a fast mover.

But let's remember that the AF training pipeline has always been a game of numbers, and Big Blue has to select the pilots who have the highest likelihood of making through IFF and FTUs in the time directed in the syllabus.  I'm sure there are plenty of UPT washouts who would have made great pilots if they'd just had a couple more rides, right?  But, as we know, the syllabus directs when certain learning milestones will be achieved, and that is Gospel for the training pipeline. 

The brass who are making these decisions are old enough to remember the last fighter crossflow program in the late 90s and how generally sorta-slightly-below-average that turned out.  Yes, we're talking about something different now than then (e.g., now the question is T-1 vs T-38 trained, but then the only folks eligible for crossflow were T-38 UPT-trained pilots), but because of this I think the lessons of the 90s crossflow are even more amplified now than then.

I've posted about this before (several pages back in this very thread), but for those who didn't live through it, the fact is many crossflow pilots didn't end up performing as well as hoped at all stages of follow-on training (IFF. FTU, squadron MQT, etc). Some of them did great, of course (I know a couple that went on to perform well above average where I was in the F-15E community), but statistically they did "worse" (in terms of pipeline training washouts and issues in operational units).  Remember, during this crossflow program it was only T-38-trained pilots who were eligible.

Most of the dozen or so crossflow pilots that were my IFF/FTU classmates and later follow-on squadronmates were superb officers with fantastic officer performance records (and extremely good dudes to boot), but that didn't always continue into performance in the cockpit. It wasn't a talent issue with the crossflow pilots so much as it was an experience issue; one has to acknowledge, weather it is politically correct to or not, that there are significant cultural differences between the fighter community and other flying communities (although the bomber community is a somewhat close relative) that translate to differences in skills/airmanship in the pilots that come from those communities. What makes an aviator great in the MAF isn't the same thing that makes an aviator great in the CAF.

On the most basic level, the crossflow pilots, for the most part, were not used to being single-seat decisionmakers at much higher speeds, and much higher Gs, while hand-flying significantly more aggressive/dynamic maneuvers. Many times the core airmanship just wasn't operating well at 400 knots and pilots were just behind the jet (sound judgment, just not fast enough); sometimes a thousand hours on autopilot in the flight levels did not translate to having hands good enough for even basic admin formation work, much less more complex BFM or surface attack. This isn't unique to the crossflow folks, though; this is the same thing seen many times with ANG/Reserve fighter units that hire non-fighter guys and send them through IFF and fighter FTUs. There was a big wave of those guys back in the 2003-2005 timeframe (mostly A-10 units at the time, but I don't remember why), and they had an unusually high washout rate, too, with the guys who did superb being the exception rather than the rule.

None the less, the end result was that there was higher attrition of the crossflow guys compared to straight pipeline students, and the fighter brass largely decided the crossflow program wasn't that much of a benefit. Again, not that the crossflow pilots were idiots or anything (in fact, quite the opposite -- most of them had impressive OPRs/jobs/awards, seemed to have been superb pilots in their previous lives, and were really great dudes), but their previous flying time had given them habits and airmanship that did not dovetail into success in fighters.

And all of this was with pilots who had 100-ish hours of training as a fast jet single-seat flyer and decisionmaker before going to a multi-pilot airplane.  Now, how do you think that learning curve is going to be with a dude whose only single-seat judgment and decisionmaking was Phase II in T-6s however many years prior?

 

[Kenny Powers]

I agree, however some of the best UPT studs I have seen had previous time, one was even an FO for United. So while the experience won't directly relate, I would hope and pray that they have more airmanship and SA than a fresh out of UPT stud.

Having said that, some people just suck regardless of their time and experience.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

I agree, SA and Airmanship transfer to any airframe.

And I'm not saying the heavy guy who goes to fighters is gonna suck, it's just that his experience will not give him a leg up. It just isn't relevant.

Same with FAIPs. There are a few in every B-course and, from what I've seen, they graduate on the same level as their peers. Their FAIP experience did not give them a leg up.



Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[pawnman]

On 4/13/2017 at 11:33 PM, Duck said:

AMC and no Q2s or Q3s? Well there goes like 96% of the MAF... lol

We're getting our first AMC guys to the B-1 pretty soon.  The BUFF guys were pretty good performers through the B-course, I see no reason the AMC guys won't do just as well.

[HossHarris]

31 minutes ago, faipmafiaofficial said:

They do basically everything a 38 UPT student does.  

Think about a kid that goes T-1 as a student and then faips in a T-6...you're telling me his 1200 hrs in a single seat (mentality) aircraft isn't good enough to cross over but some scrub who barely made it through T-38s and 3 years in a C-17 is?? GTFO

Lots of heavy pilots could learn the 38 in like 2 months.

 

That's not what I'm telling you at all. 

 

What I'm telling you is 38s are VERY limited in what they can do. And no, they can't >basically< do they same stuff as upt 38 pilots. There are several upt "events" that you can't do in the companion trainer. 

[Hacker]

2 minutes ago, faipmafiaofficial said:

I'm a faip and all so ya I'm biased but I find this very very hard to believe. Especially in regards to 38 FAIPs

I wish we could gold plate this quote and hang it up on the wall for posterity.

Why?

Because it just so directly crystallizes the FAIP stereotype in fighter track follow-on training.

In my experience as an IFF IP and out in the wild in FTUs and Ops squadrons, FAIPs come in two wildly divergent flavors: above average and below average.  What makes the difference between the two?  Those who are able to bottle up that idea that because they instructed UPT that it gives them some kind of SA or experience that is applicable to learning the fighter trade, hide it somewhere deep in their psyche, and proceed as if they were a recent UPT grad that knew absolutely nothing.

The humble, willing-to-learn former FAIPs generally did well.  The ones who thought their FAIP experience gave them some kind of leg up generally flailed and struggled until they got their attitude in check.

[Kenny Powers]

I'm a faip and all so ya I'm biased but I find this very very hard to believe. Especially in regards to 38 FAIPs

Don't care, get over it.

Not sure why you think FAIPs should be better. They walk into the B-course with the same amount of experience flying fighters as anyone else.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[Hacker]

1 minute ago, faipmafiaofficial said:

Everybody I've ever asked says the b courses are easy.

This has to be a FAIP troll account.

[Kenny Powers]

Dude, this is the point where you should realize you don't know what you don't know and STFU.

There's a difference between flying an airplane and employing it as a weapon.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[Hacker]

11 minutes ago, faipmafiaofficial said:

Definitely not.

My entire point this am was the "must have flown 38s in UPT" is bullshit and there are many many pilots out there who are more capable but not eligible. Especially faips who did not fly the 38 in UPT.

Based on the fact that you have no experience either as a student or an instructor in any fighter follow-on training, I'm wondering where you get this belief.

I agree that there are some T-1 trained pilots who would probably do fine.  That is not the same as the requirement being "bullshit."

[Ram]

31 minutes ago, faipmafiaofficial said:

Everybody I've ever asked says the b courses are easy. That's all I'm basing that off of.  Maybe they are just full of shit

 

ill bet a bottle if you called up Kelly and Tucson and had them run the DGs you'd get a high percentage of faips

Do me a favor and PM me your name and USAF email address.  I'll talk to some of my bros at the Viper RTU and make sure everyone gets the data we need to sort this out.

[Hacker]

16 minutes ago, faipmafiaofficial said:

Ya and the regional guys or prior WSOs walk into T-6s for UPT with the same about of time flying T-6s as everyone else...using your logic, you say they don't have an advantage?

Except we are talking about very different disciplines and required skillsets here.

WSOs and regional pilots have experience that is directly related to the basic skills being taught in the T-6 program.

The only one who has relevant experience when it comes to IFF and the FTUs are former WSOs, and most IFF FTU IPs will tell you former WSOs come in the same flavor as former FAIPs: those who STFU and understand they're a student and use their experience for good and excel, and the rest who don't.

Which, by the way, is also the same recipe for success that those regional FOs and former WSOs have in T-6s, too.

I think the thing you're missing here is how large the gap is between the skills required of a T-38 UPT graduate and the skills required to succeed as an IFF student.  Unless something substantial has changed, a fresh T-38 graduate doesn't have the skill or proficiency required to walk across the street and demo pro the formation phase in IFF.  There is still a substantial learning curve for a student in those short 4 sorties.  I have personally busted former T-38 FAIPs on IFF F-4 because they couldn't fly tactical to the IFF standard.

So, if UPT T-38 grads have a challenge...and T-38 FAIPs have a challenge...where do you think that leaves someone who has never had to be a single-seat decisionmaker in a fast jet?

[YoungnDumb]

I may have missed the answer to this question in earlier posts, but when someone from a fighter switches over to another fighter (F-16 to F-35 for example) what does that do to their progression?  If they left the Viper as an IP what do they enter the F-35 as?  Also, if someone goes fighters then teaches IFF, how do they come back into their community progression wise, i.e. former 4 ship lead comes back with same quals?  Thanks

[Hacker]

6 minutes ago, YoungnDumb said:

I may have missed the answer to this question in earlier posts, but when someone from a fighter switches over to another fighter (F-16 to F-35 for example) what does that do to their progression?  If they left the Viper as an IP what do they enter the F-35 as?  Also, if someone goes fighters then teaches IFF, how do they come back into their community progression wise, i.e. former 4 ship lead comes back with same quals?  Thanks

Everybody goes back to the bottom at the new job, theoretically.

That being said, DOs and CCs in the new units can incorporate FLUGs and IPUGs into "MQT" if it is appropriate.  When I went back to the F-15E after having been an IFF IP, my MQT was dovetailed right into a 4-ship FLUG program.

[di1630]

Definitely not.
My entire point this am was the "must have flown 38s in UPT" is bullshit and there are many many pilots out there who are more capable but not eligible. Especially faips who did not fly the 38 in UPT.
 
 

10+ years ago I was assigned to get a never-had-flown T-38 former C-130 with 2000+ hours, ready for IFF as he was transitioning to a new guard unit.

He made it...barely thru IFF, struggled in the B-course and I personally spent a shit-ton of spare time helping with extra sims, instruction etc and that's because the guy had a great attitude.

A lot of time is spent breaking habits, teaching quick, solo thinking. It's just a different flying mindset.

It can be done, he proved it, but it wasn't easy or efficient and nothing comparable to taking a 23 year old and pushing them thru with the right skills and mindset from day 1.




Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[Sprkt69]

1 hour ago, faipmafiaofficial said:

Everybody I've ever asked says the b courses are easy. That's all I'm basing that off of.  Maybe they are just full of shit

 

ill bet a bottle if you called up Kelly and Tucson and had them run the DGs you'd get a high percentage of faips

Don't mind what these guys are saying, you just go to that B-course with that FAIP chip on a shoulder attitude. I am sure the IPs are going to be super impressed with you and please keep us all informed on the outcome. We could use the laugh in this day of stop loss

[TheInner]

So I was a FAIP, have been through a fighter FTU, and am wrapping up five and a half years as a FTU instructor.  Anybody with prior experience (95% of the time FAIPs but sometimes WSOs) typically excels in the 6-9 rides prior to their Inst/Qual check.  After that it is a wash.  Have FAIPs been DG?  Absolutely, but so have the dudes who pin on 1st Lt during the b-course and with zero time in airplanes outside formal training.  Not to mention, the fighter world puts a lot of weight into attitude.  For most people we can get you there tactically with a lot of effort from the student but a student with good hands and a bad attitude is destined to be one fighter assignment and done.  The culture shift is what I anticipate being the greatest challenge with crossflow and I'm not talking so to speak, elbow pointing, etc.  I am talking about the single seat, your best is never good enough, every action in the jet is put under a microscope mindset that may be difficult to transition to after 1000+ hours of operating much differently.  Like Hacker mentioned, the AF is simply hedging their bets for IFF success based on historical data.  

[PitchTrimmer]

Well .  I hope they open it to T-1 guys, but I get why they wouldn't...  Sucks though, there was nothing in the world like my T-6 solos, and if I got another chance at my childhood dream...  Even if I got there I'd get that I'd be the red headed step child of the squadron but to me it'd be worth it to have a shot again at getting that fighter.

[Hacker]

20 minutes ago, faipmafiaofficial said:

Don't bother dreaming man. As a T-1 UPT graduate you are automatically a worse pilot than ANYONE who flew the 38 in UPT. For the rest of your career too. Might as well get used to it. 

I can't wait for you to go back and look at this post maybe 5 or 10 years down the road -- you know, when you have some actual real-world ops experience under your belt -- so you can see how truly ignorant it is, even as sarcasm.

At some point you're probably going to have the opportunity to do an IEP either with an IFF squadron or a fighter FTU.  I highly recommend you take that opportunity to see what is lurking on the other side of the UPT base fence.

Edited April 16, 2017 by Hacker