Track Selects and Assignment Nights

[SurelySerious]

It would be nice to get some idea of how the program operates, e.g. is the VR solely for student chair flying and self-sim, or is there legit IP feedback with it during an official syllabus event?

[BashiChuni]

PTN's greatest fruit will be lighting a fire under UPT's ass to innovate and incorporate some of this VR tech into UPT syllabi

i think the concerns are valid about sending kids w 30 t-6 hours to fighters. how bad or good will it be? we're about to find out!

 

[hindsight2020]

42 minutes ago, SurelySerious said:

It would be nice to get some idea of how the program operates, e.g. is the VR solely for student chair flying and self-sim, or is there legit IP feedback with it during an official syllabus event?

Depends on which one you're asking about. There's PTN (Austin), UPT-Next, PIT-Next. I don't feel comfortable expanding on the implementation realities in this political climate, but I can tell you the end game is a combination of both propositions: e.g. VR-aided/integrated self-study, AI-led VR syllabus events, and IP-led VR syllabus events. 

On a personal note, this wouldn't be the first time we get people killed in the name of innovation and shiny doo-dads. I've seen it in my former MWS. Nobody likes talking about it and I can understand the sensitivity. But it's a real opportunity cost nonetheless. Brings a whole new meaning to that tired "service before self" trope, that's for sure.

[Sprkt69]

51 minutes ago, hindsight2020 said:

There is a difference between cutting chairflying time via VR technology (implementation which I support btw) and bypassing phase III in an equalizer type airframe like the white rocket; an animal much more unforgiving of airmanship deficiencies than a viper via severe underpowering and no flight control automation of consequence.

People are straight up playing with fire going from t6 straight to a big mouth burner jet, on the rails of VR potato. I'm balls deep in VR implementation at work; its a very immature development right now imo. And that's for guys with standard upt and a heck of a lot more hours under their belt. We are currently not making any cuts to the flying sortie count, which I think is a much more honest approach to VR validation than the PTN boondoggle.

My issue is that the PTN thing has "too visible to fail" written all over it. That's not honest brokering in the least, especially when sold as an experiment.

Do not construe this criticism of the implementation timeline as some sort of luddite argument.

Was it the use of only the top 0.01% that clued everyone to “too visible to fail”? 

I do not believe these 4 students that are going direct to a Block 30 Viper (1 of 2 F-16 FTU units without AGCAS and an engine/airframe combo that can kill the stupid and the weak ) with only 30 hours of T-6 time were set up for success. It would have been better to send them to a Block 42 that can at least try to save them.

My real fear is when Big Blue goes full retard and starts sending the Students that are no where near the top 0.01% to the FTUs and expect similar results. 

[Bode]

Which is what the second class supposedly is.

[LookieRookie]

FYI the CAF tracked studs did quasi-IFF in the T-6.

[Inertia17]

4 minutes ago, LookieRookie said:

FYI the CAF tracked studs did quasi-IFF in the T-6.

How was high aspect in the T6? 

Edited July 29, 2018 by Inertia17

[Danger41]

Probably about as similar as high aspect is in a Viper to a 38.

[FishBowl]

12 minutes ago, Danger41 said:

Probably about as similar as high aspect is in a Viper to a 38.

69 aspect is 69 aspect. Most of the principles remain intact. 

[Inertia17]

15 minutes ago, Danger41 said:

Probably about as similar as high aspect is in a Viper to a 38.

Guessing the sustained G might be a little less.

[brabus]

8 hours ago, Sprkt69 said:

My real fear is when Big Blue goes full retard and starts sending the Students that are no where near the top 0.01% to the FTUs and expect similar results. 

Same. I've seen many LTs the past few years who are well below average, on a secret LOX post-MQT, would never in a million years got 38s let alone a fighter 5 years ago, etc. The current AETC average product is shit. The naturally talented do great, the average guys are below average in the CAF, and the "old days" slightly below average guy is a .1 away from killing himself and/or someone else every day.

This is what we have right now with guys who have hundreds of hours and have been through far more training. What are we going to get when the bottom 1/3 types are pushed through a gutted program?  I acknowledge tech increase will narrow the gap and likely out perform status quo UPT teaching methods to an extent, but it will not close the gap with the wreckless amount of slashed training time. I sincerely hope this experiment breeds some awesome increase in instructional/learning capability to be implemented  in UPT/IFF, but not seen as a full replacement.

[matmacwc]

It isn’t going to work for a myriad of reasons and hopefully we never get to the SIB that most are expecting.

[matmacwc]

15 hours ago, LookieRookie said:

FYI the CAF tracked studs did quasi-IFF in the T-6.

With who?  The T-6 IFF squadron at Burpelson AFB?  They didn’t do IFF.

Edited July 29, 2018 by matmacwc

[SPAWNmaster]

I am not in a position to speculate about the fighter world, IFF or UPT syllabus changes. However I do want to share an anecdote about the technology. I went through Rucker having built a $2000 home VR set up in my office with a Huey model that performed surprisingly honest compared to the real thing. We had guys come through in the evenings sometimes to have a go and it seemed to help dudes out quite a bit for part-task training. In particular we had one stud in my class who just couldn't learn to hover for the life of him. He was getting extra rides, special emphasis from his dedicated IP (our IPs were all old savage vietnam legends), etc. The kid was getting real frustrated. Personally I think he probably just needed a change in instructional style but anyways, I had him come over for some stick time on my VR setup. In about two hours in my home office we fixed what ~10 hours in the actual helicopter wasn't getting him. We all flew our sorties the next morning and he never had a problem hovering from that point on. And by the way he is a solid 60 pilot now. Having seen a few things like this, I will say that I personally think VR is a game changer from an instructional technology standpoint. How it is implemented and what it can replace is beyond me but I would not be surprised if it's capable of substituting more than some would give it credit for. As far as 30 hour T6 pilots going to Vipers that's a realm of analysis that I can't get my head around. Will be interested to hear about the learnings from all of this...hopefully doesn't involve any fatalities.

Edited July 30, 2018 by SPAWNmaster

[SurelySerious]

1 hour ago, matmacwc said:

at Burpelson AFB?  

🍺

[Bode]

FYI the CAF tracked studs did quasi-IFF in the T-6.

Taught by who exactly? Pretty sure there are few, if any, guys who have IFF experience flying the Texan.

[Laxer69]

Shepard IPs, prior CAF guys, came down and did the iff rides for the studs apparently.

[Danger41]

13 minutes ago, Bode said:

Taught by who exactly? Pretty sure there are few, if any, guys who have IFF experience flying the Texan.

I know for a fact that there are at least 4 IP’s at PTN from fighter backgrounds.

[Sprkt69]

Anyone have the PTN syllabus?

[matmacwc]

34 minutes ago, Danger41 said:

I know for a fact that there are at least 4 IP’s at PTN from fighter backgrounds.

Or the T-6 EM diagram?  I can't imagine fighting P-factor during BFM, or make believe BFM as it was.  Or the qual syllabus the T-6's IPs did to become T-6 IFF special ops fighter pilots.

Edited July 29, 2018 by matmacwc

[BashiChuni]

confirm BASIC fighter fundamentals? also confirm INTRODUCTION to fighter fundamentals? not some super secret spec ops 5th gen fighter pilot shit?

basic right? like bedrock fundamental principles that have probably applied since eddie rickenbacker? lead, lag, angles, energy management, station keeping, bombing range patterns?

if kids do IFF in a 50+ year old jet i'm sure they can get the required learning points out of a T-6

im willing to give it a chance and see the results. some of you guys sound like the navy telling billy Mitchell he could never sink their battleship from the air.

rickenbacker and mitchell in one post...my history teacher would be proud.

[nunya]

54 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

rickenbacker and mitchell in one post...my history teacher would be proud.

You were SOS DG weren't you?

[Standby]

25 minutes ago, nunya said:

You were SOS DG weren't you?

SOS = bqzip’s mom?

[FourFans]

I've seen high-tech training produce excellent results.  C-130J kids go to the assault zone from the left seat on day one in the real airplane.  They can do that because the sims are awesome, and the HUD is an incredible tool.  It took 500-700 hours to get to that same spot in the E/H model.  High-tech training CAN really produce better results.

What it CAN'T do is condition a student with a culture of excellence and training focus like we old guys received during our 2+ years in the UPT pipeline.  Tech skills can be achieved quickly.  Professional aviators will ALWAYS take experience and time to build.  6 months and 30 hours in a real plane are not enough to build an aware student who knows how to safely operate in and around a jet.  This will only put more pressure on undermanned FTUs...where the IPs are getting distracted by "retention initiatives" like backdoor ADSCs and ever-changing Bonuses that may, or may not be a better deal than before (read that fine print).

These are all combining to set up a whole generation of students and IPs for failure. However, I have no doubt that these kids will rise to the occasion and prove their worth and amazing talent. We did.  So will they.  Just because they're set up to fail doesn't mean they'll fail.  It just means they'll have to overcome tougher odds, which will produce stronger character.  These kids (the ones that survive) will be just fine.

Regardless, I can't escape the feeling that Big Blue is seriously undercutting the quality of its pilots in every possible way right now.  The sad part is that the older generation is now the AO's inside Big Blue, and that some of us who were line pilots have now endorsed the boss's signature on the stupidity we're seeing emerge. 

Someone needs to stand on the boss's desk and tell Caesar he's naked.

Edited July 30, 2018 by FourFans130
words

[di1630]

Dudes, operational flying has changed, we need to update how we train.

Most new jets don’t even have CCIP bomb capes. Hell, even in the hog most stuff is PGM.

BFM hasn’t been used in usaf combat in 40+ years.

Should a new F-35 pilot understand BFM...sure, should they be to the level a 1980’s viper pilot needed to be at? Do they need to dedicate hours at the range to practice with their 169 rnds of gun?

I was at UPT last time the sky fell when fix to fix was axed....geezus, you should have heard the experienced old fighter dudes talk about how sh-tty of a product we could expect etc etc.

A lot of time/gas is being wasted everyday in the USAF getting proficient at obsolete or soon to be obsolete warfare.

I’m thrilled people care enough to look into updating things.