What's wrong with the Air Force?

[Biff_T]

8 hours ago, Swizzle said:

 

😜

Fishin is the Mission

 

Could you imagine casting a line off those pontoons) You could take that baby deep sea fishing.  Lol

[Pooter]

If there's one thing the Air Force pilot pipeline managers constantly forget and have to re-learn, it's that teaching skills at the lowest possible level in the cheapest airframe always pays dividends. 
 

Passing the buck to b-courses to teach fundamentals that should have been learned in IFS/UPT/IFF is 100% of the time a giant waste of money. The temptation to green up slides over doing the things that actually make sense is going to run our service into the ground.

 

Whenever this comes up I like to tell people some napkin math I did a few years back: I used more JP8 in my first 8 sorties in my MWS than I did in 3 years/1100 hrs in the T-6. 

[Standby]

3 hours ago, Pooter said:

Whenever this comes up I like to tell people some napkin math I did a few years back: I used more JP8 in my first 8 sorties in my MWS than I did in 3 years/1100 hrs in the T-6. 

I know the real answer is more nuanced…but I’ll ask: why even fly the more expensive jet unless it’s needed for combat operations? If it’s more cost effective to train in a fuel efficient and less maintenance intensive jet, why even fly the MWS? Do you think there is any merit in teaching the METL item in the actual aircraft they will execute it with? If yes, where does the crossover in benefit occur? Why not get people with the UPT basic stick and rudder skills to an MWS and plop them in a sim to grow into the mission?

[HeloDude]

Discussion on The Pilot Network on FB about AAMS going away very soon.  Says that when it goes away, the only way you can get your line by line sortie info is through the 1Cs…but their system only goes back 18 months.

[brabus]

@Standby I’m sure it depends on MWS. For fighters you absolutely must fly the actual airplane to get the training, there is no substitute. More sims/less flights for RAP is a viable solution in theory, HOWEVER, sims are MASSIVELY behind for what they’d need to be to actually make that transition in how we do daily training. Maybe we can reassess in 10 years.

[di1630]

[mention=13370]Standby[/mention] I’m sure it depends on MWS. For fighters you absolutely must fly the actual airplane to get the training, there is no substitute. More sims/less flights for RAP is a viable solution in theory, HOWEVER, sims are MASSIVELY behind for what they’d need to be to actually make that transition in how we do daily training. Maybe we can reassess in 10 years.

I don’t think you’ll need to wait that long. I think in 5 years maybe less we’ll do 50% of training (tactical stuff) in sims and 50% part task training in the jet.

They are building JSE at Edwards, Nellis and Alaska and it will improve massively in the short term.

Biggest obstacle is dinosaur leadership that focuses on quantity over of flying vs quality.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[Standby]

1 hour ago, brabus said:

@Standby I’m sure it depends on MWS. For fighters you absolutely must fly the actual airplane to get the training, there is no substitute. More sims/less flights for RAP is a viable solution in theory, HOWEVER, sims are MASSIVELY behind for what they’d need to be to actually make that transition in how we do daily training. Maybe we can reassess in 10 years.

I was playing devils advocate in my response to Pooter. My real belief is that if you have trained someone in the basics, why not put them in their MWS sooner? You can practice 6K setups in the T-38 all day…but why do that if you could drop someone into their F-XX and actually train?

I get the notion that we shouldn’t be deferring basic training items from UPT to FTU to ops…but there is something to be said for doing the job in the actual airplane you’re going to do it in. Basic stick/rudder airmanship at UPT. Then why not get them to their FTU sooner? I’m classifying basic airmanship as the minimum proficiency level to advance to the next block of learning. For the SOF folks: there is no AMP-3/4, fixed gun engagement, nap-of-the-earth LL in the T-6 or T-1 program…so why extend their time another 3-6 months? I get that any time in the jet is valuable, and it’s cheaper in a trainer…but this is the cost of doing business. 

[Danger41]

I'm a huge fan of the old ACE (Accelerated Copilot Enrichment) concept and really believe we should put some companion trainers at every base to let folks fly and get air sense in a cheaper trainer. If the argument is "more is better" (I disagree with this but I'm in the minority) in terms of flight hours, get some airplanes that you can fly a bunch and get experience on the cheap. @Pooter nailed it with his T-6 example. 

[hindsight2020]

1 hour ago, Standby said:

I was playing devils advocate in my response to Pooter. My real belief is that if you have trained someone in the basics, why not put them in their MWS sooner? You can practice 6K setups in the T-38 all day…but why do that if you could drop someone into their F-XX and actually train?

I get the notion that we shouldn’t be deferring basic training items from UPT to FTU to ops…but there is something to be said for doing the job in the actual airplane you’re going to do it in. Basic stick/rudder airmanship at UPT. Then why not get them to their FTU sooner? I’m classifying basic airmanship as the minimum proficiency level to advance to the next block of learning. For the SOF folks: there is no AMP-3/4, fixed gun engagement, nap-of-the-earth LL in the T-6 or T-1 program…so why extend their time another 3-6 months? I get that any time in the jet is valuable, and it’s cheaper in a trainer…but this is the cost of doing business. 

In my opinion the benefit of white jets is actuarial in nature. 500 hours. First 500 is where the first spike in accident risk of the bathtub (the other one is the experienced/complacency spike, which we also have good historical precedents for, even recently). When you move more of that window to the zone where the preponderance of your iterations will be done in the expensive jets, well by all means fvck around and find out. That's it, no RAND study needed.

 

[Clark Griswold]

1 hour ago, Danger41 said:

I'm a huge fan of the old ACE (Accelerated Copilot Enrichment) concept and really believe we should put some companion trainers at every base to let folks fly and get air sense in a cheaper trainer. If the argument is "more is better" (I disagree with this but I'm in the minority) in terms of flight hours, get some airplanes that you can fly a bunch and get experience on the cheap. @Pooter nailed it with his T-6 example. 

Concur

Left field idea but I thought about this and why not shorter courses and bring the different communities together (pointy nose, heavy, rotary, unmanned, trainer) for professional skills development, networking, rated development… ?

Different programs in relatively simple platforms for courses like upset/spin/acro refresher, STOL/off runway and back country flying, tail dragger, sea plane, etc… flying is most of it and it brings the rated crew dogs together for mil aviation and operational discussions 

Basically PME but way better

[brabus]

4 hours ago, di1630 said:

I don’t think you’ll need to wait that long. I think in 5 years maybe less we’ll do 50% of training (tactical stuff) in sims and 50% part task training in the jet.

They are building JSE at Edwards, Nellis and Alaska and it will improve massively in the short term.

Biggest obstacle is dinosaur leadership that focuses on quantity over of flying vs quality.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

That’s where we should be, but 5 years is way over-optimistic. I’ve been in and around the acquisitions/test world for a long time and I’ve learned one major thing - double or triple the timelines you’re told (and that’s after you account for half the shit you’re promised doesn’t even make it past power point and bar napkins). The sad reality of our procurement process.

Edited September 22, 2023 by brabus

[Lord Ratner]

6 hours ago, Standby said:

I know the real answer is more nuanced…but I’ll ask: why even fly the more expensive jet unless it’s needed for combat operations? If it’s more cost effective to train in a fuel efficient and less maintenance intensive jet, why even fly the MWS? Do you think there is any merit in teaching the METL item in the actual aircraft they will execute it with? If yes, where does the crossover in benefit occur? Why not get people with the UPT basic stick and rudder skills to an MWS and plop them in a sim to grow into the mission?

He answered that question:

9 hours ago, Pooter said:

teaching skills at the lowest possible level in the cheapest airframe

So for the tanker, if we're talking basic stick and rudder and keeping radio calls, trimming, airport operations, airspace navigation, and other fundamentals honed, then the cheaper smaller plane is a better value.

 

You also have to be competent in the specific landing and handling characteristics of the tanker, and in that case the lowest level and cheapest plane is the tanker. Or perhaps you could have a few tanker variants that don't have any of the refueling systems maintained and it's just a pattern monkey. But the premise is sound.

 

And yeah, the simulator is adequate for a huge percentage of this, which is why the airliners do not train in the aircraft (non-revenue), ever. 

 

For fighters you are obviously going to have less capacity to use the simulator, but there's no reason why an F-22 pilot couldn't practice in a much cheaper jet aircraft. Got forbid we actually ran acquisitions in an integrated, forward thinking way, you would buy trainer aircraft that are vastly cheaper yet handle similarly to the MWS's. 

 

The flying I did in the T6 improved my KC135 flying far more than my KC135 flying improved my T6 flying. 

[artvandelay43201]

5 hours ago, HeloDude said:

Discussion on The Pilot Network on FB about AAMS going away very soon.  Says that when it goes away, the only way you can get your line by line sortie info is through the 1Cs…but their system only goes back 18 months.

Can’t emphasize this enough. Just went through an airline interview and was almost screwed by the AAMS system going away. Hope everyone saved their green monster. 

[Danger41]

37 minutes ago, artvandelay43201 said:

Can’t emphasize this enough. Just went through an airline interview and was almost screwed by the AAMS system going away. Hope everyone saved their green monster. 

Really? I've heard from dozens of sources (including the airlines) that they just need the FHR summary.

[Standby]

1 hour ago, Lord Ratner said:

So for the tanker, if we're talking basic stick and rudder and keeping radio calls, trimming, airport operations, airspace navigation, and other fundamentals honed, then the cheaper smaller plane is a better value.

 

You also have to be competent in the specific landing and handling characteristics of the tanker, and in that case the lowest level and cheapest plane is the tanker. Or perhaps you could have a few tanker variants that don't have any of the refueling systems maintained and it's just a pattern monkey. But the premise is sound

Isn’t that the point I made? You can’t do mission essential tasks outside of the mission essential airplane. For the things that you don’t need an MWS for, go to the sim. 

[brabus]

1 hour ago, artvandelay43201 said:

Can’t emphasize this enough. Just went through an airline interview and was almost screwed by the AAMS system going away. Hope everyone saved their green monster. 

How so? DAL doesn’t give a shit about anything other than FHR 1 pager. 

[Swizzle]

21 hours ago, Biff_T said:

Fishin is the Mission

 

Could you imagine casting a line off those pontoons) You could take that baby deep sea fishing.  Lol

 

[artvandelay43201]

7 hours ago, brabus said:

How so? DAL doesn’t give a shit about anything other than FHR 1 pager. 

SWA told me to my face “we see y’all don’t have line by lines anymore”.

 

just an observation because I was missing 2 years of those sorties personally. 

[dream big]

20 hours ago, HeloDude said:

Discussion on The Pilot Network on FB about AAMS going away very soon.  Says that when it goes away, the only way you can get your line by line sortie info is through the 1Cs…but their system only goes back 18 months.

This is why I’ve kept my own logbook, never trusted a 1C further than I could throw them! Plus the notes section of my logbook makes for nice memories and reflection .

[SocialD]

1 hour ago, dream big said:

This is why I’ve kept my own logbook, never trusted a 1C further than I could throw them! Plus the notes section of my logbook makes for nice memories and reflection .

 

 

Another vote for keeping your own logbook.  I bought the blue logbook with silver wings from Sporty's and kept track of my flights since day 1 of UPT.  Found a few errors over the years, quite a few during UPT/B-Course, when bouncing it off my line-by-line during the yearly review.  Just leave it in the AFE locker and fill it out after every sortie with notes.  I brought that, along with my green folder when I went to my interviews.  

[Pooter]

23 hours ago, Standby said:

I know the real answer is more nuanced…but I’ll ask: why even fly the more expensive jet unless it’s needed for combat operations? If it’s more cost effective to train in a fuel efficient and less maintenance intensive jet, why even fly the MWS? Do you think there is any merit in teaching the METL item in the actual aircraft they will execute it with? If yes, where does the crossover in benefit occur? Why not get people with the UPT basic stick and rudder skills to an MWS and plop them in a sim to grow into the mission?

Probably the easiest way to answer this question is to ask, does it absolutely have to be learned in the MWS? Basically is it so tactically-specific that training in a lower cost airframe is impossible? If the answer is no, it should probably be taught in the cheaper airframe. 

[Standby]

49 minutes ago, Pooter said:

Probably the easiest way to answer this question is to ask, does it absolutely have to be learned in the MWS? Basically is it so tactically-specific that training in a lower cost airframe is impossible? If the answer is no, it should probably be taught in the cheaper airframe. 

That’s part of my argument/opinion: the things that are part of the METL need to be done in the MWS. For everything else that doesn’t require time in the actual jet, the sim should be the answer if we’re concerned about pinching pennies. The closest thing I’ve seen to an actual companion trainer in recent history was for the U-28 community. I am in agreement that you should be able to utilize the most cost effective solution to train the DLO…but I think the reality of most combat aircraft is that even the administrative coming/going isn’t easily trained in a proxy aircraft. 

[Pooter]

34 minutes ago, Standby said:

That’s part of my argument/opinion: the things that are part of the METL need to be done in the MWS. For everything else that doesn’t require time in the actual jet, the sim should be the answer if we’re concerned about pinching pennies. The closest thing I’ve seen to an actual companion trainer in recent history was for the U-28 community. I am in agreement that you should be able to utilize the most cost effective solution to train the DLO…but I think the reality of most combat aircraft is that even the administrative coming/going isn’t easily trained in a proxy aircraft. 

You won't find me or anyone else here arguing that reps in your actual MWS aren't the gold standard. Of course they are. But we live in a world of limited budgets, limited airframes, sims blocked out 24/7 and the dreaded FHP.  

My point is cost difference in operating a UPT aircraft versus a major weapon system is so much that saving even a single sortie in the MWS world is totally worth the trade off.  We can't afford the opportunity cost of not training things at the lowest level possible. 
 

Let's take low level as an example since it's frequently on the UPT syllabus chopping block. If you get good exposure to clock-to map-to-ground/timing/chart reading in UPT maybe it takes you one less C-130 b course ride to get comfortable. Then maybe you can move on to NVGs and airdrop quicker. Maybe you get more time practice something else you suck at more because you made MIF early in low level. 
 

The passing the buck down the line to the next unit has got to stop. In my community the classic example is copilot AR qual. The buck gets passed from the b-course to the ops squadrons (probably because the b-course was cleaning up UPT deficiencies.) Then the ops squadrons have to deploy with non CMR aircrew and scheduling has to do backflips to get every copilot with an instructor.

I know it's hard to quantify what we're losing, but when we gut the fundamentals it has cascading effects down the line. I'm pretty sure If you get enough timeline obsessed big brain AETC types in a room they could convince themselves landings can be taught only in the sim. 
 

 

[di1630]

It’s interesting to me that somewhere a T-6 sq is pinching pennies and in 5th gen land the waste is just incredible.

18 hrs in a T-6 = 1 hr in an F-35.

Give me a T-6 with some displays that simulate F-35 systems and I could save the USAF millions per year guaranteed.

But the dinosaurs in charge measure effectiveness by hours flown and FHP close out.




Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[brabus]

2 hours ago, di1630 said:

Give me a T-6 with some displays that simulate F-35 systems and I could save the USAF millions per year guaranteed.

What training are you accomplishing in this hypothetical? I literally can’t think of one valid thing you can do in this setup. And if you say admin manipulation of systems/PVI (i.e. ground ops), then that’s a sim, not a T-6. If you say basic airmanship/aerial decision making, then that’s a single engine piston tail wheel and zero need for fighter-relevant displays (if we’re really trying to save money, then even a T-6 would be overkill for this).

I completely agree with your assessment of dinosaurs and FHP. But a “cheaper” airplane option is not relevant to fighters, outside of the piston example above. The 50/50 high end sims/fly fighter MDS is the viable solution, it will just take way longer than we’d all like. I can see utility for an official “cheaper” companion aircraft for other MDS.