Jump to content
Baseops Forums
norskman

UPT Next

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Well we cut the wrong people. 

In reality, I suspect a 5% reduction in CT flying hours in the heavy community would pay the bill, no numbers to quote to support that just a WAG.

Lol-we waste so much money on bullshit. Prime example, there are still many offices that are suppose to be “teleworking” that usually provide  “support” to the force during the non China virus times. Yet somehow the people hacking the mission continue flying and deploying without them. Cut the 69 billion pointless jobs on bases we have and we would have enough money for a new fleet of Phase 2, 3 trainers and god knows what else. 
 

Don’t get me started on how much time/money we waste on whatever the social justice hot topic of the month is. 
 

let’s be honest, the Air Force long ago decided your flying ability wasn’t really that important. Who was on the party planning committee and spending time in school is what matters to the bobs. This attitude has finally trickled down to UPT. 
 

Edit for grammar. I shouldn’t post before I’ve had my coffee. 

Edited by viper154
  • Like 4
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



Well we cut the wrong people. 
In reality, I suspect a 5% reduction in CT flying hours in the heavy community would pay the bill, no numbers to quote to support that just a WAG.


And replace the lost CT flying with sim credible events? :)

It'd been nice to have a cheap companion trainer, along the lines of a Cessna 172/182 or something similar, to keep building air sense as more same more stuff moves into the sim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bode said:


When I left Laughlin we were actually giving the students academics (completely optional to attend). However there are multiple problems with just letting them go nuts over in the sim building. They aren’t allowed to use the sims with 330 degrees vis because way back when a student damaged one going in there by themselves. Also, how do you keep an even playing field for competition of track and assignments? What if Bill has 3 months of flying the sim and Bob was a late rate who showed two weeks before his class? Is that “fair”?

In reality it sounds awesome. I remember going into the UTD (no visuals) and flying my entire profile when I was a student which I thought helped a ton. The students can still do and and use the IFT. However, instead of that students complain they don’t have gym time and can’t go to lunch during class.
 

I get what you’re saying, but the “fairness” argument doesn’t work for me. It wasn’t fair at all when I went through and some really good pilots in 38 classes got sent off to non-fighters and UAV’s because there weren’t any fighters in the drop. Juxtapose that with now where kids graduating 18/19 are getting fighters. That’s not “fair” either. The USAF needs to fill cockpits and motivated individuals should be able to give themselves an edge within the structure of the program. This would also empowering flight commanders to have some control of vectoring if a guy is a totally selfish prick and doesn’t do anything to help out and be a bro. 
 

On the issue of accessing the sim building, have it available 24/7 but manned normal hours. I’m sure it’ll get broken or something, but these people are military officers. We trust them with opening and closing SCIFs and accessing SAP material as Lt’s, I think using the T-6 sim is okay. And if they’re fucking around to the point of breaking the sim, boot them out of UPT. 
 

This whole topic to me is odd because so many people are convinced we are going to produce terrible aviators that will kill themselves or not be able to accomplish the mission without doing UPT the same way we did in Vietnam. In my current community (U-28), I’d gladly take a smart kid that was T-6 only trained. Main reason for that is we put them in the copilot seat and most of their mission duties aren’t flying the airplane at all. The second reason for that is we have companion PC-12 trainers where you can go practically anywhere you want VFR or IFR and develop great air sense. That companion trainer is amazing to develop young aviators and I think that would help a lot. Admittedly, the PC-12 variants we fly have identical avionics and for all intents and purposes the performance is similar so that wouldn’t work in a lot of communities. Having some T-6 or T-7 (T-38 could work but I know they’re very in the tooth) sitting on the ramp for young bucks to cruise around in and build time would be great. I’m not personally a fan of the C-172 and similar as companion trainers because they’re just so different in performance than the assigned MWS. It’s better than nothing though.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, jazzdude said:
14 hours ago, SurelySerious said:
Right, but several incidents later, and the FAA upped the requirements...
 
Edit: I also think it’s difficult to look back on a phase of training and say when you learned X, Y, or Z skill that is now so fluid in your routine you don’t notice it. There are very few things where I look at a complex skill and go, that’s where the lightbulb was. So asking the experienced dudes which phase of training was important to their development may not be accurate. 

Yeah, but the AF never met that requirement. Even with UPT before syllabus cuts, guys were graduating with less than 200 hours, and going out to fly heavy transport category aircraft. Hell, there were many ACs (and IPs) that got certed before meeting ATP mins (other time excluded since the FAA doesn't count it).

Very true, the AF is self-certifying but part of that justification has been the quality of the training program. Also, remember UPT in FAA equivalency is only a commercial multi engine license. Lots of actual flying at that phase in a civilian pilot’s life, not sim-only. 
 

Edit: part of the disparity is the risk acceptance. The FAA is severely and understandably risk averse towards under-trained pilots flying passengers. The greater the number at risk, the greater the aversion to lack of flying experience. So the AF calculus is different. 

Edited by SurelySerious

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Danger41 said:

How long are guys sitting casual before starting UPT now? I think we should start those casuals on ground school immediately and get them some basic instructions before they start UPT and give them access to the sim building. Give them basics to develop their hands and some instruction for primacy and that way, they can start the syllabus ahead of most guys and trim time off of how long UPT takes. If the goal is truly to produce talented aviators, let the motivated ones work on it instead of some bullshit casual job. Get rid of syllabus deviation and shit like that and allow students to take care of events themselves ahead of time. Just rewrite those events to make them hours requirements and assign some IP’s to ensure they’re not going full stupid with what they’re doing. Then give them something like a checkride prior to UPT start to ensure they’re at a standard and start them on the syllabus. I honestly think with some basic instruction with this type of training you could cut out large portions of contact and local instrument sorties. 

Vance is already doing this with their new 2.5 classes. Studs get early access to academics and knock out several tests before their class actually starts.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing that worries me is not the increase in sim time, but that were losing out experienced instructors out on the line. At least on the heavy side, you've got about 1.5-2 years to learn before you're up for AC. But if you don't have good instructors and ACs, knowledge and skills get lost, and we relearn those lessons the hard way

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are at least two LTs at my base sitting around wasting COVID time with no foreseeable projection on when they PCS for UPT. What’s old is new again. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jazzdude said:

The thing that worries me is not the increase in sim time, but that were losing out experienced instructors out on the line. At least on the heavy side, you've got about 1.5-2 years to learn before you're up for AC. But if you don't have good instructors and ACs, knowledge and skills get lost, and we relearn those lessons the hard way

I think this is one of the biggest symptoms of the 10 year ADSC. And the gravest. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Danger41 said:

This whole topic to me is odd because so many people are convinced we are going to produce terrible aviators that will kill themselves or not be able to accomplish the mission without doing UPT the same way we did in Vietnam. In my current community (U-28), I’d gladly take a smart kid that was T-6 only trained. Main reason for that is we put them in the copilot seat and most of their mission duties aren’t flying the airplane at all. The second reason for that is we have companion PC-12 trainers where you can go practically anywhere you want VFR or IFR and develop great air sense. That companion trainer is amazing to develop young aviators and I think that would help a lot. Admittedly, the PC-12 variants we fly have identical avionics and for all intents and purposes the performance is similar so that wouldn’t work in a lot of communities. Having some T-6 or T-7 (T-38 could work but I know they’re very in the tooth) sitting on the ramp for young bucks to cruise around in and build time would be great. I’m not personally a fan of the C-172 and similar as companion trainers because they’re just so different in performance than the assigned MWS. It’s better than nothing though.

I thought about this myself as a fellow U-28 guy. The PC-12 thing works great for IQT, but once the powers that be decided to convert more/all the fleet to mission birds it’s kinda gone down the drain. I’ve done 4 pilot pros the last couple weeks, all in the mission birds. It’s all about getting the most deployable tails we can.
 

I don’t think we are really the best example for arguing a T-6 only track, although it probably would work for us. I’ve met a couple new guys we got from UPT next or whatever it’s called with only T-6 time. (One almost killed me in the pattern, but that’s another story) We are pretty much a heavier/slower T-6, and as you said, the young guys really need to focus more on mission work than flying across the world. I would think a lot of of the AMC bubbas have a different focus for the new guys. 
 

If we are going divest T-1s I would rather see IFS go away and the AF to invest in a fleet of 172s/182s or whatever. Academy and ROTC pilot selects get their PPLs prior to commissioning through a summer program that is semi similar to UPT, stand up, bold face, AF style flying etc. Then a rehack/pre UPT phase, get their hands warm, current on instrument flying, some out n backs/cross countries etc, maybe a month? And then start T-6s. 
 

Guys that go heavies at least get another 60-100 hours of real flying that is way cheaper than a high end sim or taking a 4 engine beast around the flag pole. Guys that go fighters have more basic flying back ground so hopefully phase 3 can focus more on those -4g dives with MIG-28s or whatever it is they do, and less time trying to figure how to get ATIS and fly a ILS. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought about this myself as a fellow U-28 guy. The PC-12 thing works great for IQT, but once the powers that be decided to convert more/all the fleet to mission birds it’s kinda gone down the drain. I’ve done 4 pilot pros the last couple weeks, all in the mission birds. It’s all about getting the most deployable tails we can.
 
I don’t think we are really the best example for arguing a T-6 only track, although it probably would work for us. I’ve met a couple new guys we got from UPT next or whatever it’s called with only T-6 time. (One almost killed me in the pattern, but that’s another story) We are pretty much a heavier/slower T-6, and as you said, the young guys really need to focus more on mission work than flying across the world. I would think a lot of of the AMC bubbas have a different focus for the new guys. 
 
If we are going divest T-1s I would rather see IFS go away and the AF to invest in a fleet of 172s/182s or whatever. Academy and ROTC pilot selects get their PPLs prior to commissioning through a summer program that is semi similar to UPT, stand up, bold face, AF style flying etc. Then a rehack/pre UPT phase, get their hands warm, current on instrument flying, some out n backs/cross countries etc, maybe a month? And then start T-6s. 
 
Guys that go heavies at least get another 60-100 hours of real flying that is way cheaper than a high end sim or taking a 4 engine beast around the flag pole. Guys that go fighters have more basic flying back ground so hopefully phase 3 can focus more on those -4g dives with MIG-28s or whatever it is they do, and less time trying to figure how to get ATIS and fly a ILS. 

I think you just described IFS, phase 3 and IFF
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, MechGov said:


I think you just described IFS, phase 3 and IFF

He was on a roll!

 

How else could we reinvent the wheel?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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


I think you just described IFS, phase 3 and IFF

Ya pretty much. Innovation!!! <sarcasm> 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/26/2020 at 9:11 AM, Danger41 said:

I’m not personally a fan of the C-172 and similar as companion trainers because they’re just so different in performance than the assigned MWS. It’s better than nothing though.

image.thumb.png.e743b1565f7b06300067ba9e07e77aba.png

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... 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, norskman said:

image.thumb.png.e743b1565f7b06300067ba9e07e77aba.png

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... 

And a must for any Alaskan.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few weeks into 2.5 at KEND if anyone has questions, granted I'm a know-nothing student. Can confirm in generality that T-6 direct is/will soon be a thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of our guys is about to start 2.5...the overall timeline is about one month shorter than traditional UPT. So it doesn’t save any appreciable time getting guys to the operational AF, which is the problem they’re trying to solve. So, if it doesn’t produce more and faster, what is the benefit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn’t the benefit that it starts divesting from the t-1 and provides a stepping stone toward using the t-7?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, brabus said:

One of our guys is about to start 2.5...the overall timeline is about one month shorter than traditional UPT. So it doesn’t save any appreciable time getting guys to the operational AF, which is the problem they’re trying to solve. So, if it doesn’t produce more and faster, what is the benefit?

Hypothesis: it cooked the books enough to increase the production numbers for one particular leader’s tenure.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, brabus said:

One of our guys is about to start 2.5...the overall timeline is about one month shorter than traditional UPT. So it doesn’t save any appreciable time getting guys to the operational AF, which is the problem they’re trying to solve. So, if it doesn’t produce more and faster, what is the benefit?

$$$$$

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Isn’t the benefit that it starts divesting from the t-1 and provides a stepping stone toward using the t-7?

That assumes they will put everyone thru a classic UPT program vice what I think is their intention to put some thru a true advanced trainer phase 3 program and others thru a weak / nothing advanced trainer program

There are about 500 T-38s in the inventory now including companion trainers but they ordered only 351 T-7s but with options for more.

If they said divest the 170ish T-1 to buy more T-7s to return to UPT then sure but as we see the AF doesn’t believe if your going to a heavy you need robust military mission specific and multi engine training.
They wanna phone it in and create a second tier of pilots, and the heavy aircraft GOs are just rolling over and taking it...

But I’m not cynical not one bit and yes you do need an advanced training program if you are going to heavies


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:


That assumes they will put everyone thru a classic UPT program vice what I think is their intention to put some thru a true advanced trainer phase 3 program and others thru a weak / nothing advanced trainer program

There are about 500 T-38s in the inventory now including companion trainers but they ordered only 351 T-7s but with options for more.

If they said divest the 170ish T-1 to buy more T-7s to return to UPT then sure but as we see the AF doesn’t believe if your going to a heavy you need robust military mission specific and multi engine training.
They wanna phone it in and create a second tier of pilots, and the heavy aircraft GOs are just rolling over and taking it...

But I’m not cynical not one bit and yes you do need an advanced training program if you are going to heavies


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I assumed the t-7 was just going to replace the 38’s in UPT, how many of those 500 38’s are a-model companions or ADAIR? 


I’m not quibbling, just genuinely curious at why there’s such a big gap in the T-7 buy...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, SurlySlipper said:

I assumed the t-7 was just going to replace the 38’s in UPT, how many of those 500 38’s are a-model companions or ADAIR? 
I’m not quibbling, just genuinely curious at why there’s such a big gap in the T-7 buy...

Not sure, just a WAG but I think probably 75-85 would be ADAIR, Companion Trainers, Test / Chase Birds, etc...

Just my cynical suspicion on the delta between what is now and what is planned for the future is less or no flight hours for students bound for heavies / most crew aircraft in the future.  Strongly disagree with that idea but it seems the Bobs are looking at that.

Ranting into the ether but if the Borg Cube of HAF is listening (not holding breath for that) consider that if you min run Phase 3 for crew / heavy tracked students with little or no flight time in SUPT you will create yet another chasm in the culture of the rated force.  They will never be considered even close to their peers who tracked 38 or 7 and had a more robust, challenging and respected training phase to successfully complete. 

This will just make things worse in the rated communities I think in immediate terms of the product supplied to the MDS communities by having a less rigorous training program to build experience, knowledge and judgement while also being a less effective filter to appropriately winnow the field who of who should not be pilots.  I hate that aspect of training but their must be a filter aspect to it otherwise the herd will not be as strong as it should be.  I also doubt that the T-1 sim even if improved would be the right training environment for that. 

In the long term, it makes the heavy / crew pilot and officer less in the eyes of peers and other branches and this is not a small or unimportant detail.  If these rated officers do not have the full respect of their peers as aviators and likely as officers, a large and sizeable mission set of the Air Force looses ground in the never ending competition for leadership and resources.  Seems like overeaction I realize but would you really respect someone who didn't go thru a program at least similar to yours to earn the same operational badge? 

Save money by changing Phase 3 for heavy tracked dudes?  Sure but they still need FLIGHT training.

Edited by Clark Griswold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...