Jump to content
Baseops Forums

norskman

Registered User
  • Content Count

    44
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

19 Good

About norskman

  • Rank
    SNAP

Recent Profile Visitors

1,829 profile views
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. Anyone here on 19AF staff I can PM?
  5. 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.
  6. 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...
  7. Alright partner I can tell you that Air Force pilots are not punching due to the use of humorous word games. Actually quite the opposite. Sounds like you've got some gray hair so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but I recommend reading a few threads here on BODN to see root cause for pilot exodus.
  8. A lot of this debate boils down to hardware. The dudes behind CSAR-X (-47) had a solid solution. This paired with new technology (droids) actually offers realistic PR solutions. Hanging our hat on the -60W doesn't offer a lot of dynamic capabilities similar to heavy lift options
  9. Not true, they were ready and willing to take it all (sts). Bottom line, the GA made a better decision than the -60 drivers on this one.
  10. WTF over?.... I love when FW dudes treat us like disposable assets. You do realize that it takes years ( just like a pointy nose driver ) to develop a solid helo IP? Just because the Big Green doesn't have SA on their manning issues doesn't make us worthless.
  11. As an instructor currently in the pilot training enterprise, I think it's safe to say that "UPT Next" has enough momentum that it's here to stay. https://warontherocks.com/2019/01/rebuilding-the-forge-reshaping-how-the-air-force-trains-fighter-aviators/ That being said, I'm interested in hearing what FTUs and Ops Units are seeing with regard to baseline results.
  12. I'm just spit balling slick F models, then contract out the AF hardware ( radios, SPS, FMS, throw a probe on it...etc) But I'll agree to disagree.... Merry Christmas!
  13. I think the H-47 proved the test of time. The AF has a bad habit of weighing down its helos with various hardware to the point of pushing max gross. The -47 would allow for that and still have the power to operate on a wide range of environmentals. And, it's fast! ( relatively )
×
×
  • Create New...