All Activity

Could be flaps instead of the gear. India to London with a full pax load is going to be at or close to max weight, so the engines might not be able to overcome an early flap retraction, especially if the flying pilot didn't immediately go max thrust. That or fuel contamination are probably the two most logical possibilities I've heard so far.

RAT extends on the fuselage bottom right side just about even to slightly aft of the right wing trailing edge. I don't see it but it ain't that big. Flight aware data's shows they got to 400-ish feet AGL. Normal flap for takeoff is 5 degrees so leading edge slats and a little trailing edge flaps, 15 flaps on shorter runways. Flap retraction instead of gear?

Just a thought from left field but a manned AWACS and unmanned might work just as the fighter + CCA concept being developed Russian concept AWACS UAS Could you modify a biz jet for ejection seats and ACE to austere fields without spending 6.9 billion?

that's the fix. wish a general would have had the balls to do that during the 20 year GWOT disaster and wish a general had the balls integrity to say so now with the UPT disaster playing out in slow motion. if you can't do it and the plan being shoved down the throats of line IPs is bull shit, then you should resign in protest. don't be a yes man simply to push a square peg in a round hole sts

This is a classic, yet it still makes me laugh.

Nice. How fast is an E-2, what are the legs on that thing? I'm not sure they'll make it to the fight. Maybe they'll go low level? Lol

New angle... the loss of thrust is pretty apparent, but I don't see any obvious reason for it like smoke/fire/etc.

From the outside looking in, this does seem to make the most sense. They've decided: 1.) They want X number of pilots 2.) The T-6 fleet as currently funded can only support Y number of hours AETC leadership has been told to produce "X" pilots utilizing the available "Y" T-6 hours. End of story. If you can't do it, step aside, we'll find another General who can. Curious what a proper recapitalization of the T-6 fleet would look like. Is it a matter of needing to buy an entirely new aircraft (T-6C)? Or is there a path where enough sustainment funding of the current fleet (modifications, upgrades, overhauls, etc) would get you the hours needed to avoid all of the current flailing about with 141 schools and the like?

I don't see the RAT deployed, did someone else see it in the video? Tough to tell from a cell phone video like that. If it were a dual engine failure or significant electrical issue, then it should deploy automatically. Also deploying it is the second step on the dual engine fail memory item. Flaps 5 is the norm. Strange that the gear is still down, but if they had a dual engine loss shortly after liftoff then they probably aren't thinking much about the gear.

Yup, get a Bombadier/SAAB Global Eye or a E-37B. High/Fast

CBM wants to setup a pre-IPT or post-IPT immersion/seminar. the SPs are having a really hard time transitioning to military flying because the ESA 141s basically have no standards and don’t have the same rca/rm decision making/debriefing/briefing/checklist discipline.

Leading edge devices were out, so that should be Flaps 1 in a 787. Not sure if that's a common takeoff config or not. Video was suspiciously silent of jet engine noises except for the sound of the RAT, so maybe dual engine failure?

Looks like it settles into the ground with the gear still down.

An Air India Boeing 787 Dreamliner crashed into a crowded construction site shortly after TO out of Ahmedabad, India. This is the first major hull loss for the 787.

Thanks for the context.

It was SUPT until 5-6 ish years ago. I don’t know when Doss started but you did that before UPT if you didn’t have a PPL. That was referred to as IFS, and 2018/19? it changed from IFS (initial flight screening) to IFT (Initial Flight Training) from what I told it was the same but changed from a screening program to a “training” program. 2018/19 is when the SUPT most of us know started its change to the disaster we have now. I’m not super smart on the timeline, but I believe UPT next was a small and short program at Randolf/Austin, T-6 only, straight to a FTU. I think it only produced 20-40 grads. 2021 ish started the 2.0/2.5 and several other syllabus re writes. 22-24 The T-1 started sunsetting, and heavy folks started doing T-1 sim only programs. 2024 the T-1 sim only program sunset. They were not the regular T-1 sims, and while I’ve never been in one, from what I was told tbeh sucked. 2025 -IPT/FUPT. IPT is the training program at civilian schools to get studs a PPL/Inst/multi rating. The “legacy” syllabus being referred to was similar to the 2.0/2.5 but had changes in when checkrides and how the mission phase was executed. (Honestly it might be the 2.5 syllabus, I can’t remember which was which, I started ram dumping that info when I left AD) it’s 20 ish more hours in the T-6 than FUPT. I believe the “legacy” syllabus is still being executed at several UPT bases. To sum that up. legacy = Doss IFT (or PPL) + trans/nav-inst/form/mission in the T-6. FUPT = civilian school, FAA grading standards, time building CFI instructors, FAA checkride PPL/inst Multi, and then 50 hours in the T-6 with no real dedicated nav/inst rides. That being said the “legacy” being referred to is totally different than what most of us went though, and is really only a year or so old.

Chef's kiss on this phrase. Perfection. Poetic. Catch-22. i.e. "We're doing this. So fuck you."

Ok, so I don't know the entire evolution of the _UPT timeline. I went circa '07 but already had my PPL, so I guess that meant I went around the time of IFT, but I didn't have to do it. In my mind USAF pilot training has basically been: UPT (60s, 70s, 80s). (S)UPT (90s, 00s) - with some variation or another of intro to flying in some sort of prop airplane (may or may not have attained a PPL)...if my memory serves, I think people were given like 25 hours in a prop to see if they could do at least that. Then, I get fuzzy. Was it IPT? with UPT 2.0, UPT Next, FUPT now? Seems like there was a schmorgasborg of choose your own adventures during the last 5-7 years. Which iteration of legacy is being referred to. If it's UPT and SUPT of old, then they are certainly off base.

remember bois, this is ultimately being rammed through because they don't want to recapitalize the T-6. Just like the Tone, this is the alpha and the omega of the entire rot. The rest is sophist distractions. It goes beyond dereliction at this point; they're straight up conceding institutional sovereignty in chucking our Combat Airman development to the part 141 morass. And I can't get any more inside baseball without doxxing myself, but this guy said a mouthful: 100%. Folks here have no idea how bad. The metrics on IPT are being cooked/suppressed for upper management consumption. The reality is ugly.

Generals who have probably never set foot in a GA aircraft, telling us what a good thing it is putting the Air Force’s future in the hands of a GA training pipeline, is hilarious to me. I’m not anti GA either; in fact I’m very active in the local GA scene. But GA flying, even the pilot mill schools, is a completely different culture and set up.

Buy a jet

Old data and disregard for what’s actually needed. Great.

So for the whole 1500 pilots a year thing, that was airstaff under Welsh or Goldfein. The AETC bobs did bring up FTU absorption and were told, it doesn’t matter, make 1500 pilots.

At some point in the late teens IFS renamed to IFT, becoming more of a training program and less of a wash program. Some point around 2018 the bobs started experimenting, UPT Next, UPT 2.0 UPT 2.5. I’ve lost count. I did a short stint at UPT the last few years before getting out. I believe we had 4 different syllabi (T-6) in a 2 year time period. Bobs are flailing. it’s the same classic Air Force leadership bs. I was in the room when the question was asked about FTU/ops units having capacity to absorb 1500 students a year, and if this really saving any time/money as these studs are going to need more training at the FTUs/ops units. The response, and this is as direct of quote as I can remember “that’s not my problem” And whoever brought up the bobs not wanting to see data that shows the problem, it’s 100% correct. When the issues were brought up with the SGTO class the answer was to try and blame the IPs for trying to sabotage the program.

That’s the crux… they (the Bobs) are hiding behind walls of bullshit to continue building shoe clerk fiefdoms I’m not sure which AF member of Congress should charge at them but at least the ones with UPT bases in their districts Doubt very seriously they would release the data but this looks like a very DOGE worthy project or Project on Gov Accountability AFA too close to the AF to ever tell them their stuff stinks