Clark Griswold

Yup So it’s about 175 flight hours (not counting sim time) that we’re talking about here and that’s 75 shy of an FAA commercial instrument certificate, 75 hours, in the grand scheme of the things that’s not that much. That would have to 75 QUALITY flight training hours but the point is there, it’s not that much. If there is to be a public campaign, it needs to show the penny wise pound foolishness of this whole situation. No pilot would legally be allowed to operate for hire without the requisite minimum amount of training/experience, why is the AF allowed to cut corners? Now, if the Air Force wants to argue that it can’t afford a platform only used as a multi engine trainer, ok, I think that’s hard to believe but if you want to run with that then create a program that you build to have operational capability that you use also as an experience builder before other MWS assignments in AMC, AFSOC, etc… AETC pays for the type training, AMC flies / instructs these newly winged pilots in this short tour then onto their career assignment. There’s always a demand signal for light airlift from/to major bases, ex KSUU, KSAT/KSKF/KRND, KDOV, etc… pick any major base/concentrated military presence and there will be valid movement requests, buy an affordable, small regional airliner (Do 328 for example) that can serve as a utility transport for regular pax, cargo and medivac missions. Air Land only, no other specialized training, experience and reps while moving pax and cargo is the objective. Fly them for six months+ or so there, then move on to the assignment awarded out of UPT. That easily exceeds the missing 75 flight hours in their training, likely gives them 200+ hours in a transport category aircraft before operating a more complex, expensive mobility aircraft in a demanding training program and serves as an extension to the UPT system, thus keeping pilots from wasting time just waiting for an FTU.

This is very easy for me to say from Retiredville but it may take several whistleblowers (IPs and recent grads) who contact media, sympathetic congressional leaders for top cover and inform the public, civilian leadership that what the GOs are selling is just bullshit. For whatever reason, the people who should be and should have been skeptical of all this nonsense have let them get away with it, like 60 Minutes and the F-22 guys telling their story, someone(s) is going to have to risk their career & give an unvarnished, plain language explanation of the problem. Public shaming of the AF at this point is probably the last thing that could be done. It could be what I listed above but also a public advertisement(s) in appropriate places (military news sites, aviation news, etc) comparing recent historical UPT/SUPT to the recent iterations and comparisons to what allies and enemies are doing. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I assume (I know) that this process of feedback is being utilized, any response from AETC then? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Gotcha Kinda sorta this idea is for the MAJCOMs (heavy operators) to push back on AETC and get them to quit min running it or establish their own post-UPT programs and pre-FTU programs You (AETC) are not just gonna send us pilot with little multi engine time / training to fly a 75 million dollar Herc for example, you’re gonna put more into it sts… this list of events in a multi engine trainer, light twin if the AF is that cheap / broke… X flight hours, X landings, X GAs, X OEI approaches, X IAPs, X formation rides, etc… in a multi engine aircraft before you are accessed into an AMC, AFSOC, AFGSC, etc training program You could get granular on all the events but I’d try to keep it reasonable. Probably 10-12 tracked events / task items.

Reading some of the comments above and some googling of thoughts on the 1500 hour rule for an ATP certificate, maybe what we should think about for UPT (heavy tracked mainly) is an events / proficiency demonstrated in X number of events / checkrides approach to checkmate those trying just say well, they got X number of hours, passed X number of rides and checked successfully in the T-6 and their GA training aircraft so they’re good together go. You could say that you kinda get that done now by ensuring X hours of training but it’s possible half of that is just at single ship cruise and doesn’t capture, record, track the percentage of their training hours that the student is actually training vs straight level 1 g point to point. If AMC, AFSOC, etc… is noticing training deficiencies / difficulties with new students at FTUs, this might be a more concrete way to push back on AETC’s latest iteration of flight training. Seems like there might be data out there to support what is sensed / observed about the guys that got shortchanged Events in a new multi eng trainer or training program(s)

Well there goes that bit of hope there was a shred of self awareness and honesty in AETC leadership… Reminds me of the Army general in The Pentagon Wars, before he was in charge of the Bradley, he was in charge of an IR missile so shitty he covered the target in electric frying pans to get a hit during testing. Is there any insurgent pushback against this?

https://www.twz.com/air/crop-duster-armed-with-air-to-air-missiles-appears-in-ukraine

I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt but the only way you get to that level, skill, awareness I think he is implying is by training and flying a lot and in several different types aircraft with good instructors, good equipment first in well crafted basic training situations then progressing to challenging, non-rote situations… Rinse lather repeat or Fly train fly… this is how it’s supposed to be #choirpreaching

Somewhere at AETC…

In a sane and rational world with a bit of strategic vision versus how do I do this as cheap as possible not even considering risk, that program / location would / could be an answer. If they don’t wanna own new aircraft then buy the time, rent the planes and sim time. It is affordable, it’s not that difficult and they need the time, training and experience. Rant Generator - Off

Well… damn it… glad regular air land is going and I hope the risk mitigation measures work for the tactical ops… This is solvable inside of the budget of the AF, from above in the thread, heavy bound students are looking at 9 month waits till FTU, use that time and just buy the training they need. I rattled off a hypothetical set of training programs, I roughly estimate at $175k a student, round it up to $250k to be conservative. I’m not sure how many heavy crew tracked students AETC produces a year but just say it is 750. That’s 131 to 187 million lo to high for all multi engine flight training, even on the high end of that it comes to 0.09% of a 188 billion AF budget, the Bobs could easily find that money. Simplified post T-6 training suggested: Multi engine fundamentals + some time & experience building in an economical twin. 40 hours. Lease 50. Figure wet leased with instructor at $1200 an hour. Figure $60k per student for all training and flying. STOL, Tac Air Land introduction in a Twin Otter. Lease 30 aircraft. 20 hours, figure $135k for all training and flying. Transport aircraft training. 737 MAX simulator, lease 8, 25 hours, figure $35k for all training. That’s $230k per student, bit of leeway. In the grand scheme of the AF, actually very affordable and from my experience flying and instructing, would train your heavy pilots without the financial burden of acquiring and owning new aircraft. Commit to this program for 10 years to get industry interested in bidding.

Gotcha All copilots or inexperienced copilots? Are they adjusting the hours upwards to be considered experienced? No correlation of course to UPT 6.9 or F’dUPT of course… Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I figured the loss in contractor jobs (MX, sims, academics, etc…) would draw their ire. Sub standard… any leadership acknowledgment (formal or informal) if this? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

These people should be all over that https://www.legistorm.com/organization/summary/33466/Congressional_Air_Force_Caucus.html That’s what I don’t get, Congress loves spending, the AF is trying to spend less on this mission so why hasn’t the CODELs where UPT bases are put a hold on that?

9 months… doing nothing before FTU… what a waste when they could look around, shake the money tree, look in the couch cushions and use that time productively with a reasonable amount of money 1 - multi engine course probably $25,000 with all travel and training and that’s very conservative Figure 3 weeks for that, just call it a month. 2 - Type course, figure 1.5 months for that, probably $50,000 every thing said and done. One month King Air or Citation jet, experience and prep for transport category aircraft. 3 - Tailwheel & STOL training, figure 3 weeks for tailwheel plus some time building then 3 weeks for STOL, round up and make that 2 months. 4 - Plan on their water and SERE training plus M4, M9, tactical driving, etc… figure that at 2 months 5 - International experience last program. Lease multi engine Diamond DA62s, 1.5 months flying in Europe, 20 flights. The golden apple to work for… 8 months accounted for with 1 month for leeway Make UPT Great Again Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That replacement plan would be fine by me too, the M-345 has captured my fevered dreams as it’s a modern straight wing non afterburner jet with consequently a wide performance range, just like the American made Scorpion but I digress… That’s the crux, the Bobs will fall back on the saves no money argument and all mine and yours procurement suggestions do cost more but produce better results so how does one in the system pull the safety handle, with data, prove the correlation between under resourcing UPT and the dip in quality then tee up for Congress the solution? Rhetorical but the Bobs are the cause of and likely the solution unless there is champion in waiting in Congress or the DoD… Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

VIP Cessna Longitude concept

I tried finding the video where they discussed this but to no avail this morning, i think WOMBAT, was in that episode, anyway they said if you follow the current matrix it would lead to directing to a shore landing and if it was blue water ops, I think they said barrier but I will eat humble pie if wrong. Mover, WOMBAT and Gonky were all skeptical of the loss of a carrier capable trainer, same for me as I am skeptical of less flying in mil trainers with mil instructors for AF pilots during training. Just posting plane porn here: What should have replaced the T-1, Pilatus PC-24 Add a UARSSI (no plumbing, just for dry contacts) to it, NVG friendly if not fully compatible cockpit, mil radios, HUDs both sides and boom a great multi engine trainer and mobility lead in aircraft.

Mover n Gonky discussed this on their channel, USN’s reasoning is that if PLM is not working they’ll do a land recovery or take a barrier anyway, their jets their rules but a bold strategy Cotton… ———————————————— If there was a program to replace the T-6 and expand the syllabus taught in phase 2 M-345… took a big sip of the kool aid… it’s probably the best jet for an intermediate+ trainer PC-21 / AT-6C if the Bobs wanted to stay turboprop for intermediate+ trainer

True, I mention as it they seemed to be there for specific training, drones, and how to use asymmetric capabilities / tactics to fight conventional forces. Bodes ill for stability in certain areas poorly / loosely governed methinks.

Textron / Leonardo ready to get the USN a new trainer now https://theaviationist.com/2025/07/28/textron-unveils-beechcraft-t-346n/ I wonder if they could offer the same partnership for the AF for the M-345… https://aircraft.leonardo.com/en/products/m-345 Making this jet the standard intermediate trainer, companion training aircraft and an aggressor/support aircraft.

So this is good news… https://www.twz.com/news-features/cartel-members-fought-in-ukraine-to-learn-fpv-drone-skills-report

Meh it’s just Monopoly money to the AF at the prices we’re talking about here but an RV could work too An airplane that is not too challenging to fly but more to handle than a 172, can enter the pattern at 200 knots, can put on Gs for the break turn, etc… not perfect but before studs hit the T-6, this trainer plus a syllabus to give them a transition from a 141 training environment to a quasi mil would pay dividends methinks If FUPT (really?) is it then polish that turd as best you can. PPL + Instruments, AMEL, TW + transition to mil flying, probably around 130-150 hours flight time.

Then begin Operation Shoe Clerk Subversion Standardize the part 141 training, shift from existing ESAs to stand alone programs at aviation schools; get more training at these schools before they report to UPT, flight time in something fast (relatively) that can put on Gs to build fast thinking and high SA in a busy mil pattern, etc… basically more UPT just before they report to UPT. I don’t have any tail dragger time but after a PPL, instrument and AMEL courses, could an average student get the endorsement in about 10-15 hours then get another 20-30 hours in something like an Extra 300 (as an example) to get experience in a fast(er), maneuverable aircraft before the T-6 and would that increase the chance for success? I’d rather see UPT resurrected but that is not likely to happen so like aikido, go where the energy is going till you can direct it where you want it to go. Edit: make that a Game Bird 1, read this review and googled training in an Extra 300. Probably too much to use a 300 for initial tail wheel but a Game Bird seems like it could hit all the wickets. https://www.flyingmag.com/we-fly-gb1-gamebird/ in this phase, students first TW qual, then train for two ship form, no form acro just basic maneuvers and fly form to mil bases to train there, form arrivals, overhead pattern, etc…