Jump to content
Baseops Forums
Merle Dixon

Degradation of SUPT

Recommended Posts

More with less is not a thing when it comes to training aviators. 
VR does not replace ass in the seat. 


Who is telling you that is the intention? A General?

~Bendy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actions speak louder than words
 


Well, it seems you’ll need to wait before you open up your mouth again then...

Sounds tough,
~Bendy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the end of the PTN article they mention they're going to be using T-6B's for the third class, is the AF buying some or did we manage to borrow a few from the Navy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/30/2019 at 7:51 PM, JimNtexas said:

I’ll feed the troll, it’s both.  From a CAF perspective we have already seen what cutting the F-16 B course syllabus does to the CAF units, they call and bitch about the new graduates ability, some even FEB’d.  When these students hit the non-UPT world, they are going to be thrown to the wolves.  Lacking proficiency in the basics?  Wash out of IFF or the B course.  Somehow get to a CAF unit and do something dangerous?  Have fun in your FEB.  It isn’t these students fault they are part of this “experiment” but the bro’s aren’t going to let them kill anybody much less themselves.  It simply isn’t the CAF’s (or any combat unit) responsibility to teach what UPTN is skipping or leaving out.  There will be some success stories I’m sure, but some students will be a joke.  I give this another few years before the USAF is on to some other “good” idea.  The CAF isn’t going to lower their standards because AETC did, the whole thing is a bad idea.

Edited by matmacwc
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Bender said:

 


Well, it seems you’ll need to wait before you open up your mouth again then...

Sounds tough,
~Bendy

 

I’m so confused at your post. Can you attempt to explain to me what your message is when sober?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/30/2019 at 9:02 PM, Bender said:

You a fan of loaded questions? Why not provide your own intelligent perspective on PTN rather than offer it up like meat to lions?

Jim is a retired F-111 WSO, so he doesn't know. He's asking those who do, since it doesn't seem to make sense to someone with plenty of military aviation experience but who has been away from the game for a while. I can see why, from his perspective, it seems like a very stupid idea.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I’m so confused at your post. Can you attempt to explain to me what your message is when sober?


If you’re confused that the words come before the actions, I can’t help you nor is it worth my time.

Good luck,
~Bendy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
At the end of the PTN article they mention they're going to be using T-6B's for the third class, is the AF buying some or did we manage to borrow a few from the Navy?


Not sure about the aircraft (I’d guess borrow is the answer with the Navy student(s), if they fly them at all) but I know their contractor is finishing up work on the T-6B model for their VR sim...it may be just that change alone that is being referenced.

~Bendy

Share this post


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

At the end of the PTN article they mention they're going to be using T-6B's for the third class, is the AF buying some or did we manage to borrow a few from the Navy?

I'm sure having a HUD from the get go is really going to instill airmanship skills and strengthen a crosscheck....

Share this post


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

 


If you’re confused that the words come before the actions, I can’t help you nor is it worth my time.

Good luck,
~Bendy

 

Lol

Share this post


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

 


Not sure about the aircraft (I’d guess borrow is the answer with the Navy student(s), if they fly them at all) but I know their contractor is finishing up work on the T-6B model for their VR sim...it may be just that change alone that is being referenced.

~Bendy

 

Randolph has B models for Det 24. The AF borrowed them saying they would fix them.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I'm sure having a HUD from the get go is really going to instill airmanship skills and strengthen a crosscheck....

Navy doesn’t really use the HUD in Primary. 2 exposure flights is all they get

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lol

 

Perhaps the disconnect is to think PTN (with its low pilot production) is intended to be a pilot training syllabus. While FTUs and operational units will see and “have to deal” with a handful of pilots trained their way, it was, is, and will continue to be nothing much more than an experimental ground for innovation (built ala the framework of the Innovator’s Dilemma).

 

What you should have your eyes on is “UPT 2.5” and/or “UPT 3.0” which will take shape at Randolph starting next summer, informed later this year by the current innovation flight activities that are looking to bridge the gap between PTN and the current UPT environment. The effort at RND next year is expected to generate a syllabus, and that syllabus will impact everyone in much larger numbers.

 

PTN has never been exportable to UPT as a whole and has not, is not, and does not plan to try to make itself wholesale exportable...goes against the point what what is going on there in a lot of ways.

 

There is pressure to reduce events, but that pressure mostly resides with CSI led events, so mostly academics and traditional simulators (most have already felt the MSI answer to this problem). There isn’t any mystery that VR (in its current form) cannot replace the aircraft...in fact some of the UPT innovation flights have seemingly set out to prove it. In some cases, the position straight to the top of AETC is quite the opposite...more experience is needed to compensate for observed deficiencies.

 

If you have constructive input and/or criticism, I can assure you now is the time to give it and that window is closing rapidly.

 

Personally, my experience shows VR provides negative physical flying training (in its current state), which must be overcome by exposure to the aircraft. I feel quite the opposite about the tool from the mental perspective, although that is also grossly tarnished by the huge limitations in the tools control input/response and avionics interface(s).

 

The words are being spoken now at every UPT base, each singing a different tune...the action has yet to happen. If that’s what is more important, then you’ll need to wait to see what transpires over the next year or so...I’m sure you’ll feel free to continue providing your unbacked up Captain Obvious statements. I assume you have a lot more to offer than what you did...but, I’m wrong a lot...so....

 

~Bendy

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I apologize for my smart ass question.  But I am genuinely curious about how UPT next is working out.

I saw them flying all the time when they were at Bergstrom, as their trailer  was right next to my T-hanger.

 

Edited by JimNtexas
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of this has to be expected when you're picking people from the bottom of the barrel to make up for all the losses. I wouldn't want to fly left seat in a Cessna with some of the ROTC people I've seen get picked up for slots this last year. Bottom of the class, terrible GPA, bad leadership, etc. Are the washout rates going up at least to make up for some of this or am I just being green here. Anybody got the latest selection #'s? I feel like the training quality can only bring some guys up so much

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ayz33 said:

Some of this has to be expected when you're picking people from the bottom of the barrel to make up for all the losses. I wouldn't want to fly left seat in a Cessna with some of the ROTC people I've seen get picked up for slots this last year. Bottom of the class, terrible GPA, bad leadership, etc. Are the washout rates going up at least to make up for some of this or am I just being green here. Anybody got the latest selection #'s? I feel like the training quality can only bring some guys up so much

You are in ROTC still... right?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ayz33 said:

Some of this has to be expected when you're picking people from the bottom of the barrel to make up for all the losses. I wouldn't want to fly left seat in a Cessna with some of the ROTC people I've seen get picked up for slots this last year. Bottom of the class, terrible GPA, bad leadership, etc. Are the washout rates going up at least to make up for some of this or am I just being green here. Anybody got the latest selection #'s? I feel like the training quality can only bring some guys up so much

I went through Sheppard with several guys that were Academy DG’s, who then went and got Masters at MIT type schools, aced that, then got to UPT and either washed out or graduated bottom of the class. Sometimes collegiate performance translates to piloting ability. Often it doesn’t. I put zero stock into someone’s pedigree when I make my assessment.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ayz33 said:

Some of this has to be expected when you're picking people from the bottom of the barrel to make up for all the losses. I wouldn't want to fly left seat in a Cessna with some of the ROTC people I've seen get picked up for slots this last year. Bottom of the class, terrible GPA, bad leadership, etc. Are the washout rates going up at least to make up for some of this or am I just being green here. Anybody got the latest selection #'s? I feel like the training quality can only bring some guys up so much

I was bottom of my ROTC class, had a gentleman's 2.7 GPA, and (still) questionable leadership...but I did somehow manage to fly a bunch of members of congress around the world and pass my OME last week. 🤷‍♂️

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, StoleIt said:

I was bottom of my ROTC class, had a gentleman's 2.7 GPA, and (still) questionable leadership...but I did somehow manage to fly a bunch of members of congress around the world and pass my OME last week. 🤷‍♂️

I had a 3.8 GPA at the “home of the world’s finest leaders” according to the football stadium ramp (welcome to thin air!), and here I am slinging UNSATS at T-6 students 😞 It was a 3.8 in English though, so adjusting for reality it would be a 0.69 in a real major. 

Edited by zachbar
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Bender said:

- Perhaps the disconnect is to think PTN (with its low pilot production) is intended to be a pilot training syllabus.

- While FTUs and operational units will see and “have to deal” with a handful of pilots trained their way, it was, is, and will continue to be nothing much more than an experimental ground for innovation (built ala the framework of the Innovator’s Dilemma).

- PTN has never been exportable to UPT as a whole and has not, is not, and does not plan to try to make itself wholesale exportable...goes against the point what what is going on there in a lot of ways.

- There isn’t any mystery that VR (in its current form) cannot replace the aircraft...in fact some of the UPT innovation flights have seemingly set out to prove it. In some cases, the position straight to the top of AETC is quite the opposite...more experience is needed to compensate for observed deficiencies.

- Personally, my experience shows VR provides negative physical flying training (in its current state), which must be overcome by exposure to the aircraft.

- I feel quite the opposite about the tool from the mental perspective, although that is also grossly tarnished by the huge limitations in the tools control input/response and avionics interface(s).

What exactly is it you're defending?

Because you're doing a way better job criticizing PTN than anyone else.

Edited by torqued

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, ayz33 said:

terrible GPA

i'll remember this when i do your gradesheet in a few years

Edited by 12xu2a3x3
grammar
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What exactly is it you're defending?
Because you're doing a way better job criticizing PTN than anyone else.


I think to say I’m defending anything is an assumption. Everything deserves criticism...

~Bendy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Bender said:

 

Perhaps the disconnect is to think PTN (with its low pilot production) is intended to be a pilot training syllabus. While FTUs and operational units will see and “have to deal” with a handful of pilots trained their way, it was, is, and will continue to be nothing much more than an experimental ground for innovation (built ala the framework of the Innovator’s Dilemma).

 

What you should have your eyes on is “UPT 2.5” and/or “UPT 3.0” which will take shape at Randolph starting next summer, informed later this year by the current innovation flight activities that are looking to bridge the gap between PTN and the current UPT environment. The effort at RND next year is expected to generate a syllabus, and that syllabus will impact everyone in much larger numbers.

 

PTN has never been exportable to UPT as a whole and has not, is not, and does not plan to try to make itself wholesale exportable...goes against the point what what is going on there in a lot of ways.

 

There is pressure to reduce events, but that pressure mostly resides with CSI led events, so mostly academics and traditional simulators (most have already felt the MSI answer to this problem). There isn’t any mystery that VR (in its current form) cannot replace the aircraft...in fact some of the UPT innovation flights have seemingly set out to prove it. In some cases, the position straight to the top of AETC is quite the opposite...more experience is needed to compensate for observed deficiencies.

 

If you have constructive input and/or criticism, I can assure you now is the time to give it and that window is closing rapidly.

 

Personally, my experience shows VR provides negative physical flying training (in its current state), which must be overcome by exposure to the aircraft. I feel quite the opposite about the tool from the mental perspective, although that is also grossly tarnished by the huge limitations in the tools control input/response and avionics interface(s).

 

The words are being spoken now at every UPT base, each singing a different tune...the action has yet to happen. If that’s what is more important, then you’ll need to wait to see what transpires over the next year or so...I’m sure you’ll feel free to continue providing your unbacked up Captain Obvious statements. I assume you have a lot more to offer than what you did...but, I’m wrong a lot...so....

 

~Bendy

 

 I hope the blend of UPT and PTN goes well. Speaking from the perspective of hearing from a bro firsthand how PTN in version 1 went down, to seeing VR force fed into UPT flight rooms, to hearing from another bro instructing at PTN version 2, there’s definitely a lot of merit (IMO) in how they’re adapting technology to assist with instructing.

I see a HUGE problem in how it’s been implemented though. VR goggles and flight sims are in nearly every flight room at laughlin now and but few IP’s have more than a passing familiarity with how to use them. The students catch on how to boot them up quickly but since there’s just videos of guys doing 69 patterns and aerobatics, with no integrated narrator or instructor on the vid, the sims are glorified chair flying or time-wasting machines. That’s not a bad thing necessarily but there’s a lot of untapped potential in these things.

 

Sidebar: i was a FAIP that went through IFF somewhat recently and they’ve got these  same cheap VR sims too. A critical difference at IFF though, was that the videos on these sims weren’t just raw videos but were edited to show a birds eye view of the engagement being flown in ACMI and a small window that had a perspective dedicated to looking at the bandit, on top of the view of go pro footage of the fight. That was HUGE for being able to see the pacing of the fights, to anticipate how fast a cross check had to be, the comm to set up and term an engagement, and most critically where to expect to regain sight of the BDT in DBFM. Anecdotally, the bros who sat in these did better than those who did not. Now if there had been higher a fidelity view of the BDT at range and a dedicated IP to talk you through it (or at least a consistently high quality narrator option), then I think that these sims would have been way more effective than the WST sims they had us do for OB/DB.  

Maybe in the future it’s a part of academics to sit in the VR sims and study the flow from similar videos, followed by more where you monkey through the left hand/right hand  stuff on your own in prepar3d or some program, before a ‘capstone’ sim with a CSI, so that the majority of the learning doesn’t require an IP. Who knows what will be it would be interesting to see the effectiveness of making a lot of that stuff easier to learn.

 

Long story short- I think there’s tremendous  potential with the sims, but the knowledge of what to use them for and how to make a good product for them is lacking. The VR sims need a significant amount of effort to mold them into effective training aids which takes time and (most important) technical knowledge. We’ve thrown the sims at people and yelled at them to innovate, and we wonder why people are exasperated and unimpressed by the haphazard results.

  • Like 1

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...