Track Selects and Assignment Nights

[ViperStud]

On 2/26/2017 at 9:04 PM, Fuzz said:

All consideration for Flt/CC horse trades for assignments aside, your statement that they made the cut so are better assumes that the top 7-8 of every class tracks T-6s. While the statistical likelihood is weighted heavily in that assumption it is not the 100% case (reference several pages back about having to non-vol people to 38s). Just becuase Lt Snuffy went 38s doesn't mean he was the top of his overall class since there is a still some student choice in the matter.

Maybe someone in a position of power is actually thinking, and making sure that there's an incentive for strong swimmers to strive for T-38s. That's a good thing.

I've been an IP in 3 USAF aircraft: fighter, trainer and heavy(ish) - BACN. We want the strong swimmers in fighters. If a little social engineering is required to ruffle the feathers of a few millennials seeking the path of least resistance to a C-17 at CHS, possibly motivating them to strive to be the best, so be it. 

[Clark Griswold]

50 minutes ago, ViperMan said:

Well, lets just say we disagree. 38 studs have always been universally assignable - ever since the days of UPT, when T-38 studs went on to fly C-141s, OV-10s, etc.

SUPT was implemented to save the Air Force money and to prolong the life of the T-38. Not to give T-1 students "dibs" on certain platforms. T-38 studs did rack their preferences, as did I years ago, knowing that I could always go fly something "heavy" later in life if I wanted to do so. Choosing to go fly 38s doesn't close any doors - choosing to fly T-1s does.

Fair enough.

I will quibble on your historical analogy though, that was when it was "universal" UPT and all were tracking 38s with their order of merit and Fighter, Bomber, Recce recommendation determining who could go where then.  Everyone was a 38 student then so the assignment of non-fighters was not remarkable but routine.

I didn't imply and I don't think that T-1s have "dibs" on certain assignments, however, the expectation is that the T-1s will be the primary source for those assignments, I saw some guys who were competitive for 38s choose T-1s, not me just to keep it real, but as Fuzz, said not everyone in T-1s is a unsuccessful T-38 track applicant.

Flying T-1s doesn't close doors, its a privilege.  I wanted to fly something with an afterburner but that didn't work out, so be it.  But getting to fly heavy jets is not a consolation prize.  Not sure if you were intending to shit on heavy flying or not but it comes across that way.  That's not butt hurt talking ether, just not going to be condescended to.

I'm done ranting, no animosity either.

23 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

im amused this argument is coming up again...all started by a casual 2LT

carry on please!

How was WWI started?  One guy shooting another guy was the little match to light the big fire.  Kindling was already in place though...

Edited February 27, 2017 by Clark Griswold

[jazzdude]

T-38 has a HUD, C-17 has a HUD...makes sense. (j/k)

Or the MAF is willing (or may prefer) to absorb these guys for the time being to pay the T-38 IP billets 3 years down the road so MAF can say they are doing there part to help the fighter pilot shortage by filling UPT T-38 IP billets. C-17s are kinda the MAF shock absorber.

[ViperStud]

"Flying T-1s doesn't close doors" - incorrect. Dude, this isn't about fighters vs heavies, it's about reality.  It's impossible to compare performance between different track 3 paths, but it's pretty fair to say we want people with the highest potential to at least have the option to fly fighters.

Our 4th gen fighters particularly are very task saturating.  One of the reasons that some studs were stiff-arming 38s for a while had to do with the relative high threat of droids. That had to be fixed. The pendulum has swung to a point where those same studs have the option to take a shot at fighters but not be "punished" for taking that chance if they don't excel.  The 135 or 17 is still a possibility. That's not a bad thing. 

[ViperMan]

2 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Fair enough.

I will quibble on your historical analogy though, that was when it was "universal" UPT and all were tracking 38s with their order of merit and Fighter, Bomber, Recce recommendation determining who could go where then.  Everyone was a 38 student then so the assignment of non-fighters was not remarkable but routine.

I didn't imply and I don't think that T-1s have "dibs" on certain assignments, however, the expectation is that the T-1s will be the primary source for those assignments, I saw some guys who were competitive for 38s choose T-1s, not me just to keep it real, but as Fuzz, said not everyone in T-1s is a unsuccessful T-38 track applicant.

Flying T-1s doesn't close doors, its a privilege.  I wanted to fly something with an afterburner but that didn't work out, so be it.  But getting to fly heavy jets is not a consolation prize.  Not sure if you were intending to shit on heavy flying or not but it comes across that way.  That's not butt hurt talking ether, just not going to be condescended to.

I'm done ranting, no animosity either.

How was WWI started?  One guy shooting another guy was the little match to light the big fire.  Kindling was already in place though...

I agree with you and enjoy most of your posts. Not meaning to $hit on anyone - I just prefer to be very to the point on this forum. As far as the "closing doors" comment, of course flying any USAF jet is a privilege, and one all dudes should be very proud of - I simply mean that the last time someone got taken from the T-1 track and thrown into the F-22 was never.

My original intent was to properly frame the two youngins' mindsets regarding opportunities in pilot training - it was their posts which strongly suggested T-1 studs had "dibs" on certain assignments, and the suggestive use of "quotation" marks also implied that they thought it was BS some hot dog 38 shithead swooped in and took "their" assignment - as if to say that if you choose to go to 38s you are opting out of the opportunity to fly what is generally the desired assignment on the T-1 side of the house - which is a bullshit thought.

I've pasted what I was really getting at below:

11 hours ago, innovator said:

Ulysses is correct. They were both non-recs.

Alright, I am gonna bitch. Despite what the bigwigs say, both of those 17s were taken from the T-1 pool of assignments. The outcome: those two T-38 students were "saved" from a bomber and in return two of the T-1 students that wanted C-17s got hosed.

Is this fair? I don't know. I will say that if you are going to play ball with the T-38s and want to compete for fighters, you must be ready to face the outcome if you don't perform well. Getting "rewarded" with C-17s (that T-1 students were competing for) is not justified after going to multiple 89s.  

You know what, lets just take the guy at the bottom of his T-1 class and give him a fifth gen fighter.....

Sorry for the rant guys. 

Ehh, on second reading, it really isn't even implied - they outright said it.

Edited February 27, 2017 by ViperMan

[LookieRookie]

Just make everyone go T-38s again and bring back the attrition!

Edited February 27, 2017 by LookieRookie

[Inertia17]

3 hours ago, LookieRookie said:

Just make everyone go T-38s again and bring back the attrition!

The T-X is coming...eventually.

[Clark Griswold]

10 hours ago, ViperMan said:

I agree with you and enjoy most of your posts. Not meaning to $hit on anyone - I just prefer to be very to the point on this forum. As far as the "closing doors" comment, of course flying any USAF jet is a privilege, and one all dudes should be very proud of - I simply mean that the last time someone got taken from the T-1 track and thrown into the F-22 was never.

My original intent was to properly frame the two youngins' mindsets regarding opportunities in pilot training - it was their posts which strongly suggested T-1 studs had "dibs" on certain assignments, and the suggestive use of "quotation" marks also implied that they thought it was BS some hot dog 38 shithead swooped in and took "their" assignment - as if to say that if you choose to go to 38s you are opting out of the opportunity to fly what is generally the desired assignment on the T-1 side of the house - which is a bullshit thought..

Cool - no offense taken and good points made.

As a T-1 grad looking from the outside at the potential change to SUPT, just send everyone thru T-X and at some point in the Phase 3 syllabus make the split between Fighter rec'd and everybody else with the syllabus diverging at that point.

Good for the Aviation Community as it encourages common culture and gives everyone a chance up to some point to shine and get to earn a single seat fighter. 

[Napoleon_Tanerite]

10 hours ago, Inertia17 said:

The T-X is coming...eventually.

Ya, as a direct replacement for the UPT and IFF T-38 only on a 3 to 5 buy ratio, hoping to cover the gap via reduced attrition.  The T-1 will be around well into the 2030s.  

Some of the more amusing calls I fielded as a T-1 Flt/CC were from my T-38 counterparts trying to poach my gunships/C-17s/AFSOC/etc in exchange for their E-3s and such.  That's all well and good if it helps my guys, but the phone was quickly set to the "go fuck yourself" position when those guys tried to imply that because their students were flying the T-38 they were inherently better than my T-1 students and would have aced the T-1 program and finished ahead of my guys anyway.

The fact of the matter is it is a myth that doing well in T-6s is an automatic identifier of future performance.  It is frequently a result of either prior flying experience, or being a faster learner within a given medium.  I saw guys who aced T-6s, chose T-1s (to the wailing and gnashing of teeth of the people who though they should go 38s) and then finish bottom 3rd in the T-1.  Conversely I saw guys finish dead last in their T-6 class, come across the street to me with an apology note pinned to their lapel, and knock T-1s out of the park.

So implying that students that track T-38s are inherently better than students that track T-1s is quantifiably bullshit.  There most certainly are people who bottom feed the T-6, and then bottom feed the T-1, but there are also students who kill the T-6 and are gone from the T-38 before their first checkride.  I'd be willing to bet those 38 washouts would have been T-1 washouts all the same.  The T-1 and T-38 [programs aren't so different in terms of difficulty, it's just the nature of what is difficult.  The T-38 is fast moving and demands precise and rapid decision making.  The T-1 is complex, operates in a complex environment with limited to no outside decision making help (Sup, SOF, wingman, etc), and requires a lot of dynamic task management.  The product of each program is different, but I wouldn't say one is better trained than the other.  

[HossHarris]

Big blue disagrees. 

[tac airlifter]

33 minutes ago, HossHarris said:

Big blue disagrees. 

And they have a long track record of stellar decision making. 

[YoungnDumb]

4 hours ago, Napoleon_Tanerite said:

The fact of the matter is it is a myth that doing well in T-6s is an automatic identifier of future performance.  It is frequently a result of either prior flying experience, or being a faster learner within a given medium.  I saw guys who aced T-6s, chose T-1s (to the wailing and gnashing of teeth of the people who though they should go 38s) and then finish bottom 3rd in the T-1.  Conversely I saw guys finish dead last in their T-6 class, come across the street to me with an apology note pinned to their lapel, and knock T-1s out of the park.

So implying that students that track T-38s are inherently better than students that track T-1s is quantifiably bullshit.  There most certainly are people who bottom feed the T-6, and then bottom feed the T-1, but there are also students who kill the T-6 and are gone from the T-38 before their first checkride.  I'd be willing to bet those 38 washouts would have been T-1 washouts all the same.  The T-1 and T-38 [programs aren't so different in terms of difficulty, it's just the nature of what is difficult.  The T-38 is fast moving and demands precise and rapid decision making.  The T-1 is complex, operates in a complex environment with limited to no outside decision making help (Sup, SOF, wingman, etc), and requires a lot of dynamic task management.  The product of each program is different, but I wouldn't say one is better trained than the other.  

Well put.

Edited February 28, 2017 by YoungnDumb

[Napoleon_Tanerite]

5 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

eh...wat? complex environment like class B airspace? lol

 

Like any airspace where they can't see their home base out of the window.

 

[Ram]

It's called a canopy, actually. Windows are for passengers and aviation via committee.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[di1630]

I'd say the bigger factor in T-38 success is attitude. 69% of T-1 students would probably do fine in the T-38. 96%+ of T-38 students would do fine in the T-1.

I knew a reservist who flew T-38s for 8+ years but had to go fly T-1's to make rank....he'd stop by with some great stories.

T-1 studs should take pride in their training and jet. Just recognize it's a different mentality being taught. My T-38 students would talk about their T-1 roomies sleeping in and playing video games while they were pulling 12 hour days.

That's where the animosity often lies between the tracks. Not better/worse...just different perspective.

We did get some T-38 studs who just weren't cut out for single seat. Ok pilots overall but not on their own so we kept them safe enough to pass, got them crew aircraft and they've done great things.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[Napoleon_Tanerite]

46 minutes ago, di1630 said:

I'd say the bigger factor in T-38 success is attitude. 69% of T-1 students would probably do fine in the T-38. 96%+ of T-38 students would do fine in the T-1.

I knew a reservist who flew T-38s for 8+ years but had to go fly T-1's to make rank....he'd stop by with some great stories.

T-1 studs should take pride in their training and jet. Just recognize it's a different mentality being taught. My T-38 students would talk about their T-1 roomies sleeping in and playing video games while they were pulling 12 hour days.

That's where the animosity often lies between the tracks. Not better/worse...just different perspective.

We did get some T-38 studs who just weren't cut out for single seat. Ok pilots overall but not on their own so we kept them safe enough to pass, got them crew aircraft and they've done great things.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

Attitude is everything.  I know it sounds like blue bullshit, but there really isn't a track or assignment that is bad (or good) top to bottom.  No matter where you your attitude and approach to it is the key factor in whether you enjoy it.  Every assignment has good aspects and bad aspects, and anyone who says otherwise is delusional or a liar.

Edited February 28, 2017 by Napoleon_Tanerite

[Homestar]

On 2/26/2017 at 7:32 PM, HossHarris said:

A bit tongue-in-cheek perhaps, but there is a quality cut at track select. 

Different skill sets develop over time. 

[Day Man]

6 hours ago, Ram said:

Windows are for passengers and aviation via committee.
 

Like a SOF, or wingman?

[Ram]

Yeah, I always consult the SOF about where to point my jet, the checklist I'm running, and which tactic I plan on using. GMAFB, dude.

As for wingmen, yeah...it's just a big fukkin peyote drum circle up there where we talk out our feelings while slinging missiles and killing shitheads on motos. You bet, champ.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[tk1313]

40 minutes ago, Ram said:

Yeah, I always consult the SOF about where to point my jet, the checklist I'm running, and which tactic I plan on using. GMAFB, dude.

As for wingmen, yeah...it's just a big fukkin peyote drum circle up there where we talk out our feelings while slinging missiles and killing shitheads on motos. You bet, champ.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

 

[LookieRookie]

We're back to the annual T-1/T-38 dick measuring.

Having flown both aircraft there's no argument that the T-38 requires more stick and rudder skills, but that wasn't the point of the T-1.

 

FWIW, this disagreement will be moot in the next decade though because there will be another T-X buy to replace the T-1 and we're going back to Generalized UPT (GUPT). That's the official name. After T-6s some guys will go to Rucker but after that there will be an advanced phase track select.

Edited February 28, 2017 by LookieRookie

[matmacwc]

I thought we had calmed it down?!?  They each teach different skill sets for their prospective follow ons, end of story.  You should see the mil vs civilian dick measuring contests at the airlines, a lot of the same.

[SurelySerious]

[Duck]

Here we go again...


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[Danger41]

This is not meant to have any connotation at all so keep everyone's panties unwadded.  I'm asking because I'm curious.  In the T-1, how much of the flying is done on the autopilot for the students?