Jump to content
Baseops Forums

norskman

Registered User
  • Content Count

    53
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

22 Excellent

About norskman

  • Rank
    Crew Dawg

Recent Profile Visitors

1,936 profile views
  1. Dreaming here.... My vote for a companion trainer would be a tail dragger (ideally a Husky). Certified Day/night VFR/IFR. Airmanship-wise - anybody with any TW time on here can tell you the importance of using your feet for BAC! Still able to enter into your nearest Class B on IFR clearance and on VFR RTB hit a few grass strips to practice STOL. Again, dreaming here...
  2. Absolutely correct. Also, from my understanding, the FWF course at Vance has long since been shut down for RW bubbas. Anyone have data on that?
  3. Yeah, neither do I. Sarcasm here. I can't imagine how cutting a pilot syllabus by 115 hrs (~56%) will make someone better.
  4. Correct. The goal of this program is to make a better pilot though.
  5. UPT-H (Fort Rucker) has a current SGTO executing an ~88 hr syllabus (students have no prior IFT or T-6 time) that was reduced from a little over 100 hrs. The goal in the reduction was to make a better helicopter pilot. https://www.airforcemag.com/helicopter-pilot-training-experiment-skips-fixed-wing-courses/
  6. That does not negate the fact that we have had a heinous May-July '20. We have a trend now. The item in question now is defining the threshold of mishaps before *they* do something to tacitly address it ($/time).
  7. The sad part is that USAF management actually views that as truth data...reference our ACP, the gutting of UPT for helo drivers, the ops tempo, etc.
  8. Great question, I fear that we would be "Plan B" for most dudes in the commissioning pipeline. The default would be UPT, followed by UHT for the vast majority no doubt. Also, this. We have had plenty of dudes in the past couple of years flow back into FW assets.
  9. Airmanship. T-6 training is designed to take a dude with zero flight time and get them to be comfortable in a turbine powered machine flying in close proximity to other aircraft IMC. At Rucker, we take that baseline understanding/knowledge and build on it with a RW perspective (for example, training "wingman consideration" in helo form). Also, the intangibles should not be forgotten. FW training makes our community more understanding when we integrate with assets like HC-130s, A-10s, F-16s, etc. A baseline to integrate upon, if you will. Edit: I.E. FW energy management (sight pictures, stalls/spins considerations, pattern flow), FW limitations, FW advantages (f/ mission command upgrades). Edit #2: Forgot to mention earlier, HH-60 and CV-22 both train ACM and build on fundamentals of aerobatics. We cannot execute any g-related training due to system limitations of the H-1.
  10. Ft Rucker IP here....the entire instructor mafia here thinks it is a terrible idea. Additionally, we have seen a noticeable decrease in student's SA/ task management/airmanship with the change of ~95 hours in the T-6 to the ~75 they get now.
  11. Anyone here on 19AF staff I can PM?
  12. Shack. Basic math folks. As a current UPT instructor, I contend there’s no substitute for seat time in aircraft. Thus, by reducing time we are reducing experience, albeit SP experience..but the point still stands. Again, this is simply a mathematical issue.
  13. I get that you’re now part of Big Blue... but it’s poor form to comment and critique SUPT considering you did not attend....there’s something to be said for being a graduate of a course and thus being familiar with the intangibles...
×
×
  • Create New...