Why T-38s for B-52 (BUFF)

[JS]

Originally posted by MDINC:

Can somebody comment on the economics of the argument? It seems to me that it would be more expensive to maintain 3 airframes rather than 2.

Apparently the Tone costs less than half of what a -38 costs per hour to operate. Plus you have to factor in the fact that the jump seat guy supposedly learns from the other pilot flying (and he can log "other time" too). So basically the Tone is training twice the pilots at 1/2 the cost, which theoretically makes it 4 times as productive of a trainer.

This info comes from the following website, so I am not sure how accurate it is (from 2001):

https://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/blafacrates.htm

[Champ Kind]

Very interesting website!

[Bergman]

Originally posted by MDINC:

I think if Tone grads were able to cross-flow it wouldn't be such an eyesore, but as the system stands, it just adds fuel to the fire, all in the name of cockpit integration?¿ It seems to me that AF pilot careers are cyclical and very dynamic, and perhaps I could make the argument that the Air Force would be better off enabling their pilots to access the whole range of operational assignments, much like the way in which, at least theoretically, old system pilots could. But I digress.

While I agree with you, I believe the official reasoning was that stovepiping people into one type of airframe (heavy, fighter, helo) was to A) reduce the cost of retraining someone into a new MWS every 6-9 years (i.e. training an F-4 guy to fly the B-52 then 6 years later to fly the A-10) and B) in theory to make each pilot more of an expert at his assigned mission (CAS, A/A, airlift, whatever). They at least used to offer the crossflow boards as a carrot on the stick for some heavy guys, but I think even that program has been stopped in recent years.

[Guest SnakeT38]

Originally posted by Bergman:

While I agree with you, I believe the official reasoning was that stovepiping people into one type of airframe (heavy, fighter, helo) was to A) reduce the cost of retraining someone into a new MWS every 6-9 years (i.e. training an F-4 guy to fly the B-52 then 6 years later to fly the A-10) and B) in theory to make each pilot more of an expert at his assigned mission (CAS, A/A, airlift, whatever). They at least used to offer the crossflow boards as a carrot on the stick for some heavy guys, but I think even that program has been stopped in recent years.

[war007afa]

Originally posted by Bergman:

While I agree with you, I believe the official reasoning was that stovepiping people into one type of airframe (heavy, fighter, helo) was to A) reduce the cost of retraining someone into a new MWS every 6-9 years (i.e. training an F-4 guy to fly the B-52 then 6 years later to fly the A-10) and B) in theory to make each pilot more of an expert at his assigned mission (CAS, A/A, airlift, whatever).

So does this mean that the mentality of rank increase being directly proportional to the number of airframes flown is going out the door? One of the things that I was told when I first started to fly was to become an expert at many airframes...that's the way to move up. As a young guy, I'm sort of curious about how all of this will effect career progression. But I digress...

[Guest a_uhan23]

A quick T-1 note:

In my class three of of our top ten took T-1's over T-38's. They 'lost' or never had the desire to be 38 guys.

One other thing; the T-1 does little to train guys on how to fly a crew airplane. You start off in the left seat and have to tell the acting dullard on the right to do everything. It hinders you in accomplishing things quickly more than it helps you in mission completion. You don't really learn how to fly as a crew until you are in RTU.

Just my .02

[Rocker]

Originally posted by JS:

This info comes from the following website, so I am not sure how accurate it is (from 2001):

https://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/blafacrates.htm

Wow, the F-22 sure is cheap. The plane that pays itself off. And you GO E-4B!! Only $36K an hour. "Oh, then I better just take two of those."

[Guest TheBobGoat]

Originally posted by Bergman:

While I agree with you, I believe the official reasoning was that stovepiping people into one type of airframe (heavy, fighter, helo) was to A) reduce the cost of retraining someone into a new MWS every 6-9 years (i.e. training an F-4 guy to fly the B-52 then 6 years later to fly the A-10) and B) in theory to make each pilot more of an expert at his assigned mission (CAS, A/A, airlift, whatever). They at least used to offer the crossflow boards as a carrot on the stick for some heavy guys, but I think even that program has been stopped in recent years.

[KennyB]

Originally posted by mmmm...free goo:

One other thing; the T-1 does little to train guys on how to fly a crew airplane. You start off in the left seat and have to tell the acting dullard on the right to do everything. It hinders you in accomplishing things quickly more than it helps you in mission completion.

That sounds strangely like Corpus...

The standard brief "I won't be a good copliot or a bad copilot. I won't do anything unless you tell me to."

The standard debrief "You really need to work on your CRM skills... you could have used your copilot a lot more."

Gotta love the 'reality' of UPT...

[Skitzo]

It wasn't to extend the life of the T-38?

[ 06. February 2006, 16:01: Message edited by: ktulu34535 ]

[Bergman]

Originally posted by war007afa:

So does this mean that the mentality of rank increase being directly proportional to the number of airframes flown is going out the door?

I would say that times have changed. Take a look around...the only guys who have fighter AND heavy experience are typically Vietnam guys, or fighter guys who were DQd from ejection seats or some similar strange happening. I am sure someone can find plenty of examples to prove me wrong, but in my experience there is little to no crossflow any more.

One of the things that I was told when I first started to fly was to become an expert at many airframes...that's the way to move up.

That advice is completely wrong! You need to show progression in your primary MWS, not master ten different airframes. It would look very strange (to a promotion board, or assignment guy, etc) to see someone who had flown 2-3 different MWS' but hadn't been either an AC and IP, or flight lead/IP, in every one. You want to be the best copilot, then upgrade to AC, then upgrade to IP. Once you have climbed that ladder, I would think about switching airframes.

[Guest lsuspb]

In my opinion, whatever that is worth, the T-1 has some positives but a lot of negatives. It may be cost effective as far as training goes but it is definitely deteriorating pretty fast. I don't go a week without having something go wrong in the thing. I give it another decade or so...it's no Tweet for sure.

If anyone thinks we teach CRM in the T-1 that's a load of crap...we're "voice activated co-pilots". But "we don't train co-pilots we train ACs", or so the party line goes.

Having experienced my first couple of rounds of graduations, I can say with confidence T-1s graduate some some really great pilots and some truly awful pilots. There are a few guys we tried our damndest to wash out and they still slipped through the cracks. As they were pawned off on us by their T-37/34/6 IPs in the hope that they will flourish in the "CRM" environment, we unfortunately pawn them off on their MWS in the hopes they will get FEB'd or never upgrade. Despite some "tough talk" it is almost impossible to wash somebody out these days in T-1s.

[Guest KoolKat]

Wow...dude, if your a T-1 FAIP, as it seems to me...please don't talk again. Please?

BENDY

[Bergman]

Originally posted by Bender:

Wow...dude, if your a T-1 FAIP, as it seems to me...please don't talk again. Please?

BENDY

Who pissed in your corn flakes?

I agree with RAIM. I know of 2 guys who hooked all 7 checkrides in UPT and still got their wings. WTF! That shit ain't right.

[Guest KoolKat]

Noone pissed in my flakes.

Tell me how you can hook all 7 and that's ok?

I didn't know that could happen?

BENDY

EDIT: RAIM, feel free to talk...like you care what I said...WTF, a dude can fail every check and somehow make it through...please.

[ 14. February 2006, 22:25: Message edited by: Bender ]

[Bergman]

Originally posted by Bender:

Tell me how you can hook all 7 and that's ok?

I didn't know that could happen?

BENDY

As long as you pass the 88 or 89 ride after each hook, you stay in training. Repeat 7 times. DoH! Definitely not the smartest way to build flight time.

[Guest KoolKat]

yeah yeah, I know that...but...

I've done something dumb on just about every check ride I've ever had...only one of which required a 88.

7 times...it's the pattern of performance that seems unacceptable.

Ok, everytime there is pressure you F up. But, once you get to fly with the 'big picture' guy , your good again.

Oh...at least the dude flys a crew airplane. That should help our little 3 year captain co-pilot.

BENDY

[Guest lsuspb]

There are a handful of guys who hook every check and still get their wings. On top of that there are guys who run tweets into the dirt and come to T-1s and hook every check, are on CAP the entire time and still end up getting their first choice...given it is an airframe that no one else wanted. If you couldn't tell this is based on a true story.

[Guest KoolKat]

When you fly a crew airplane I guess it's the standard to fly well only most of the time...is that something you can agree with, at least how the "system" sees it?

BENDY

[Guest lsuspb]

I have no idea how the "system" sees it...I know how I see it. When 2 or more people are flying together it only takes a second for the Pilot Flying to f*** up everyone's world...permanently. Trust me there's been times I look away for a split second and someone with 10 months of UPT tries to put me 6 feet under. I find it hard to believe wings will make them suddenly capable...crew aircraft or not.

On a side note, wow what a digression from the original thread, huh.

[Guest KoolKat]

I agree with that totally. Not an acceptable explaination for letting a dude like that through, but again, I've only seen it once.

And yeah, quite the digression. Probably my fault. It usually happens eventually though.

BENDY

[LJ Driver]

Originally posted by RAIM:

There are a few guys we tried our damndest to wash out and they still slipped through the cracks. As they were pawned off on us by their T-37/34/6 IPs in the hope that they will flourish in the "CRM" environment, we unfortunately pawn them off on their MWS in the hopes they will get FEB'd or never upgrade. Despite some "tough talk" it is almost impossible to wash somebody out these days in T-1s.

There were 2 in my class and 1 in another when I was in T-1's.

[KennyB]

I think we all know a couple (10) people (chicks) that should have gone back to work in the weather shop from whence she came...

[Hacker]

Originally posted by RAIM:

we unfortunately pawn them off on their MWS in the hopes they will get FEB'd or never upgrade.

Here, exactly, is where the problem is.

UPT...DO YOUR F*CKING JOB, GODD@MN IT!

[zrooster99]

In my opinion, whatever that is worth, the T-1 has some positives but a lot of negatives. It may be cost effective as far as training goes but it is definitely deteriorating pretty fast. I don't go a week without having something go wrong in the thing. I give it another decade or so...it's no Tweet for sure.

If anyone thinks we teach CRM in the T-1 that's a load of crap...we're "voice activated co-pilots". But "we don't train co-pilots we train ACs", or so the party line goes.

Having experienced my first couple of rounds of graduations, I can say with confidence T-1s graduate some some really great pilots and some truly awful pilots. There are a few guys we tried our damndest to wash out and they still slipped through the cracks. As they were pawned off on us by their T-37/34/6 IPs in the hope that they will flourish in the "CRM" environment, we unfortunately pawn them off on their MWS in the hopes they will get FEB'd or never upgrade. Despite some "tough talk" it is almost impossible to wash somebody out these days in T-1s.

Awesome...