Effect of simulator use on Pilot/Nav Training

[Clark Griswold]

If the motivation is simply to have better-trained pilots, then I would see it as incredibly useful for many of the same reasons... if the motivation is to reduce cost to the minimum and try to maintain the same standard of effectiveness then it is a loosing battle. I sometimes feel that the AF logic on flying hours is like a guy that mortgages his house to buy a Lambo, but can't afford to insure it, fuel it, or risk driving it... but if it ever came down to racing for pinks, he hopes that he can just rely on his Mario-cart skills. It becomes a self-fulfilling iteratively-reducing process, as long as the race never occurs we justify that we can reduce even more, since we haven't technically lost yet.

As to your idea: why stop with a simple proficiency program when you can actually do a lot more... put a fixed-sight gun out the side and teach/maintain basic gunship theory/skill. Airdrop JPADs out the back of a twin otter. Put a sensor ball on a helicopter and teach basic CSO stuff. Setup training with the ground pounders and cheaply work on 9lines, etc.... formation... tanker orbits, well maybe not.

But, the problem with even the basic flying you discuss is: $ to a congressman's constituency so that you can get support for such endeavors; then an acquisition program, & mx, etc...i.e. how can we MAXIMIZE the cost. We had a decently-effective program to have all pilots get their Privates before UPT from a, *gasp, civilian instructor. But that went away for a more costly, more complex endeavor with IFS... I doubt we have any data on whether or not that actually affected anything, but it sure helped out a few companies along the way.

Cut in-residence slots by 90% for ASBC, SOC, & ACSC to pay for a light aircraft ACE program, with my seconds of thought and calculation to this I'm sure that will pay for it...

My votes... an Extra 300 & Diamond 42 program for aero, formation, basic tactics & cross-country that might actually involve mission planning and landing somewhere other than OTBH, OKAN, OAIX or UAFM...

[Dead Last]

I may be wrong or drunk, probably both... At one time didn't many bases have t-37s as a proficiency airplane?

[Fuzz]

I may be wrong or drunk, probably both... At one time didn't many bases have t-37s as a proficiency airplane?

Yep my instructor at Altus (form KC-135 guy) told me about it. His basic explanation was in the SAC days copilots were nothing but gear jerkers and so when the came up for AC upgrade they had lost a lot of flying skills. So they gave each wing a couple of Tweets for the copilots to take out and fly, and from his stories they flew the paint off those jets. Great idea but would probably last 6.9 days till someone put on an impromptu airshow.

Edited June 11, 2013 by Fuzz

[ExBoneOSO]

I may be wrong or drunk, probably both... At one time didn't many bases have t-37s as a proficiency airplane?

Bone units had T-38 dets assigned - all the CPs rejoiced...

[sky_king]

Hell, with how much I fly, I'd like to putz around in cheap airplane. I'd fly an ultra light if they paid for it.

[HuggyU2]

The t-6 would be perfect, but for the reasons you listed, it will never happen.

Concur. The old ACE program is proof.

Just get MAJCOMs to sign off on an ACES program like the U-2 & B-2.

The ACE program and our CTP program are different,... though to outsiders appear to be the same.

At one time didn't many bases have t-37s as a proficiency airplane?

Yes. The ACE program was a very cost effective way to get young co-piglets a bunch of good experience Unfortunately, Fighter Command took it away back around '95.