Jump to content
matmacwc

F-16 Students skip Phase III

Recommended Posts

Anyone else read the writeup in CAF Fighter FB page.  Seems like a reasonable attempt to answer a lot of these questions.  Proof will be in the pudding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BFM this said:

Anyone else read the writeup in CAF Fighter FB page.  Seems like a reasonable attempt to answer a lot of these questions.  Proof will be in the pudding.

Cliff notes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Science project.  In the research/data gathering phase with emphasis on accepting limitations and/or debunking hypotheses, but also not loyal to traditional dogma.  Exploring all off the shelf technology readily available, including VR and limited "AI" (quotes to caveat a limited subset of AI, not necessarily learning, but programable feedback mechanisms).  If the original poster wants, he can put his full writeup here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It also sounds like a lot of solutions in search of problems. They have a list of technologies they want to use, but don't appear to have a corresponding list of applications for said technologies. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think some of the tech he mentioned seems like it could certainly enhance training, but none of that will replace air time.  I fully support finding ways to do things better and not sticking with the status quo because "that's how it's always been," but what HAF won't admit is you can't take this tech and replace air time, let alone cut UPT length by 50%.  We're already in a shitpie with dangerous, non-mission capable FNGs, cutting 6 months out of the pipeline, regardless of new tech, will be disastrous.  If HAF would admit this new tech will improve training (but won't replace air time, i.e. UPT stays 1 year), then I'd applaud them for doing something that makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recommend pushing flight hours *earlier* in training, not later, by contracting a commercial-instrument rating for pilot selectees in a single-engine airplane *prior* to UPT.  The vision:

- Air Force generates a syllabus for civilian flight schools.

- Instead of casual status, students fan out across the country to go get flight time prior to UPT.

- Students earn 250+ hours in a single engine airplane a <$200/hr.

     -  Students build air sense, learn to communicate on the radios, learn how to learn to fly, etc...

-  All students start UPT having completed a commercial-instrument and complete a short baseline academic syllabus to account for variance in civilian flight schools.

-  Air Force spends less time (money) teaching the basics and more time (money) on teaching "military" flying (formation, energy mgmt, etc).

-  Air Force avoids having to teach "air sense" at $600/hr in the T-6, much less $1,500/hr in the T-1, $3,200/hr in the T-38, or say...  $8,200/hr in the F-16.

-  Hell...  I had students come to me in the schoolhouse that couldn't enter a VFR traffic pattern, make a CTAF call, or recite their cloud clearances.  I shouldn't be teaching this stuff in an aircraft that costs more than $200/hr to fly.  IMO, this knowledge is the price of entry, not even worth reviewing in the FTU.  Yet...  here we are.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, FlyLow said:

I recommend pushing flight hours *earlier* in training, not later, by contracting a commercial-instrument rating for pilot selectees in a single-engine airplane *prior* to UPT.  The vision:

- Air Force generates a syllabus for civilian flight schools.

- Instead of casual status, students fan out across the country to go get flight time prior to UPT.

- Students earn 250+ hours in a single engine airplane a <$200/hr.

     -  Students build air sense, learn to communicate on the radios, learn how to learn to fly, etc...

-  All students start UPT having completed a commercial-instrument and complete a short baseline academic syllabus to account for variance in civilian flight schools.

-  Air Force spends less time (money) teaching the basics and more time (money) on teaching "military" flying (formation, energy mgmt, etc).

-  Air Force avoids having to teach "air sense" at $600/hr in the T-6, much less $1,500/hr in the T-1, $3,200/hr in the T-38, or say...  $8,200/hr in the F-16.

-  Hell...  I had students come to me in the schoolhouse that couldn't enter a VFR traffic pattern, make a CTAF call, or recite their cloud clearances.  I shouldn't be teaching this stuff in an aircraft that costs more than $200/hr to fly.  IMO, this knowledge is the price of entry, not even worth reviewing in the FTU.  Yet...  here we are.

Wasn't that the pre-Pueblo IFS (not all the way to CSEL/250 hours, but PPL level)? Even with a syllabus it would need a lot of standardization to prevent students from picking up bad habits from CFIs.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Merry Christmas from the geniuses at the staff. And no, I don't know where I got them.  There's a few more, but you get the idea. 

20171222_144645.jpg

20171222_144632.jpg

20171222_144658.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those slides are cool and all but I missed the part where it addresses retention.  Can you imagine being the poor SOB Maj type stuck on the staff having to deal with this? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Little bit about that on these.  I particularly was surprised about the USAF JROTC flying academy.  

20171222_144403.jpg

20171222_144240.jpg

Edited by matmacwc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hell they couldn’t see the massive airline hiring about to take place 3 years ago and kicked out a bunch of pilots, but they are already looking at 2033. I’m sure they got it this time.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Champ Kind said:

LOE 4 on the last slide: analyze the definition of “experienced.”

Wow.

That and decreasing the first assignment is going to work out awesome I’m sure. 

At least the slides will be greened up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, dream big said:

Those slides are cool and all but I missed the part where it addresses retention.  Can you imagine being the poor SOB Maj type stuck on the staff having to deal with this? 

 

You mean the Maj who signed the bonus and doesn’t understand why his peers are bailing for a greener grass?

He/She deserves to be stuck with this stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Those slides are a ing cluster  

The USAF is managed by fvcktards who with their years of AU schooling couldn’t lead a Lt to a strip club.

None of this surprises me. Sad to see some good dudes working the issues hard only to see them hosed by the inept leadership above them.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, YoungnDumb said:

Who cares about actual abilities to hack the mission?  So long as manning looks good on the weekly slideshow, everything else is secondary

Yepp, this will cost lives like sequestration; except this time Air Force leadership will be directly responsible.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

looks like they got a hundred different bad ideas to herd lots of new pilots into the same broken organization but they have only a few to keep them. apparently neck and back preventative care is one of their best ideas. funny how many of the common grievances are simply ignored. the answers have been shouted at their faces for years and they refuse to acknowledge them. let the whole thing rot.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, magnetfreezer said:

Wasn't that the pre-Pueblo IFS (not all the way to CSEL/250 hours, but PPL level)? Even with a syllabus it would need a lot of standardization to prevent students from picking up bad habits from CFIs.

Yes. It was called "IFT." Wasn't the precursor to IFT, T-3s at Hondo? Like a dog chaising it's tail. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×