Air Force Looking Into Pilot Training Changes To Curb Accidents

[Stitch]

On 3/9/2021 at 4:56 AM, Bergman said:

What’s old is new again.  You know they did this for decades, right?  T-37/38 ACE (Accelerated Copilot Enhancement) at many tanker bases.  I think the B-52s did it at well; not sure what other MWS had them.

 

 

I remember this at Fairchild circa 1982 with T-37s.  Serious question: Why not bring back the program using something like the Cirrus SR-20 like they use for powered flight training at the Zoo (a.k.a. the T-53A).  You could get like 40 T-53s and support equipment, staff, etc... spread out across the MAF for the price of say 4 or 5 T-6s.  Not the same aircraft by any stretch; but mission planning, making turnpoints/destinations on time, getting guys/gals pilot in command time and other stuff could be accomplished at minimal cost.  Have Mother Blue buy the tails and contract some local CFI/Flight School for initial/recurrent training and hire an A&P for daily maintenance & servicing.  Just a thought...   What say you?

[FDNYOldGuy]

On 3/9/2021 at 7:56 AM, Bergman said:

What’s old is new again.  You know they did this for decades, right?  T-37/38 ACE (Accelerated Copilot Enhancement) at many tanker bases.  I think the B-52s did it at well; not sure what other MWS had them.

 

 

I had no idea that was a previous thing in the past. Was it not utilized enough to merit the expense or something?

Even if T6s would run too much money, something like @Stitch said with the T53 or, hell, a discount/hours allotment to the (albeit few remaining) Aero Club(s) would be a step. I just figured the T6 adds speed, aero capes, and standardization of mx/parts/procedures because it's what pilots have trained on for 15+ years.

Taking it a step further, I'm honestly surprised they don't cram a bunch of Nav in at IFT (get something IFR certed) or with some other bug smasher IFR capable trainer at UPT. Setting up for an instrument approach, briefing, running DLIDS/OLDRODO/WDRWHOS/RSTLNE/Whatevermnemonicisused is pretty much the same in any aircraft; the speed it comes at you and the equipment used are the big differences and vary (sometimes maddeningly) between MWS. Save bucks in a 4-banger at 10GPH nailing the basics over any of the other UPT iron fuel-burn options and top off down the line in current UPT jets to add speed helmet fire/MWS similarities.

Then again, who the hell am I and what do I know?

[kaputt]

2 hours ago, FDNYOldGuy said:

 

Taking it a step further, I'm honestly surprised they don't cram a bunch of Nav in at IFT (get something IFR certed) or with some other bug smasher IFR capable trainer at UPT. Setting up for an instrument approach, briefing, running DLIDS/OLDRODO/WDRWHOS/RSTLNE/Whatevermnemonicisused is pretty much the same in any aircraft; the speed it comes at you and the equipment used are the big differences and vary (sometimes maddeningly) between MWS. Save bucks in a 4-banger at 10GPH nailing the basics over any of the other UPT iron fuel-burn options and top off down the line in current UPT jets to add speed helmet fire/MWS similarities.

Then again, who the hell am I and what do I know?

The Air Force did just put out an RFI in the past few days seeking inputs on an IFT 2.5 where studs would get 50 flight hours, including instrument instruction. So that very well could happen. 
 

I also think the T-53 idea is solid. Affordable, good performance (for a GA aircraft) legs to actually get somewhere, and a chute to satisfy the Bobs. My only fear is down the line when you get the commander in there who thinks small airplanes are stupid or a politician like AOC who runs to the press about Air Force officers flying around in “rich people toys” and not their main assigned aircraft. 

Edited March 11, 2021 by kaputt

[jazzdude]

The Air Force did just put out an RFI in the past few days seeking inputs on an IFT 2.5 where studs would get 50 flight hours, including instrument instruction. So that very well could happen. 
 
I also think the T-53 idea is solid. Affordable, good performance (for a GA aircraft) legs to actually get somewhere, and a chute to satisfy the Bobs. My only fear is down the line when you get the commander in there who thinks small airplanes are stupid or a politician like AOC who runs to the press about Air Force officers flying around in “rich people toys” and not their main assigned aircraft. 

I mean, toys for the really rich are warbirds or L-39s, maybe even an A-4 (i.e. military trainers or old fighters).

It's about having and communicating a real need and shiwing positive benefit. $10-20k per flight hour in a MWS vs $200 per hour in a GA trainer.

The bigger (harder) case to be made is not companion aircraft vs MWS, but against the sim.

Inevitably, the comparison will be with the airlines who just train in the sim. So we have to sell that their mission is much simpler, and their bar to entry is much higher (1500 hours, though 1000 hours could be argued for R-ATP, where they built that air sense we're after flying much smaller planes, sand where a much smaller portion of time could come from simulators)

[WheelsOff]

What really needs to happen is for UPT 2.5/UPT next and this insatiable boner for training heavily augmented by VR to die in a big ball of fire. I won’t deny the fact that there are ways we can improve the way we train, but I’ve also spent the last 4 years in UPT and I’ve seen the onset of decline with my own eyes—getting to what is now the UPT 2.5 syllabus was a giant Petri dish experiment along the way (how many different syllabi did different phase 2 & 3 classes operate on over a 2-3 year period?), with a bunch of good idea fairies but no real direction. But hey, all the resultant thrash and “good” results sure made good OPR fodder...
 

All of that to say—it’s sad that I’ve become conditioned to not take seriously anything that a general says about wanting to revisit the training pipelines to curb future accidents, until they take action by starting at the source; this time by throwing the baby out with the bath water. 

[Bergman]

11 hours ago, FDNYOldGuy said:

I had no idea that was a previous thing in the past. Was it not utilized enough to merit the expense or something?

 

I believe the program went away with SAC in 1992ish.  They used companion aircraft since all the main jets were on alert.  It used to be a factor on assignment night...”take tankers to Grand Forks with T-38s or Barksdale with T-37s”

1 hour ago, jazzdude said:

The bigger (harder) case to be made is not companion aircraft vs MWS, but against the sim.

Inevitably, the comparison will be with the airlines who just train in the sim. So we have to sell that their mission is much simpler, and their bar to entry is much higher (1500 hours, though 1000 hours could be argued for R-ATP, where they built that air sense we're after flying much smaller planes, sand where a much smaller portion of time could come from simulators)

 

Yes sims are cheaper, but we can all agree they don’t come close to flying in the actual jet, within the airspace system.

The airlines train exclusively in the sim, but most pilots get 70-90 hours a month which could equate to 40+ flights on narrow body jets.  Lots of reps.

 

[jazzdude]

Yes sims are cheaper, but we can all agree they don’t come close to flying in the actual jet, within the airspace system.
The airlines train exclusively in the sim, but most pilots get 70-90 hours a month which could equate to 40+ flights on narrow body jets.  Lots of reps.
 

Completely agree, sims have their place, but it can't replace all flight training.

But we have to do a better job at justifying it. Especially when ACMI schedules look suspiciously like AMC strat lift (C-5/C-17) missions.

[WheelsOff]

19 minutes ago, jazzdude said:

 

Completely agree, sims have their place, but it can't replace all flight training.

 

 

Especially when said sims run shitty software (the AF is too cheap to pay for the good stuff...shocker) and the stick/throttles are of an A-10, and switch actuation is done by physically looking at it while simultaneously clicking a button on a remote. 
 

I guess it’s too much to ask to build a few more of the sims they already use in the sim building and upgrade those to integrate VR goggles for the 360 view...at least the cockpit setup would be realistic to what they actually fly. 

Edited March 11, 2021 by WheelsOff

[kaputt]

4 hours ago, jazzdude said:

 

I mean, toys for the really rich are warbirds or L-39s, maybe even an A-4 (i.e. military trainers or old fighters).

It's about having and communicating a real need and shiwing positive benefit. $10-20k per flight hour in a MWS vs $200 per hour in a GA trainer.

The bigger (harder) case to be made is not companion aircraft vs MWS, but against the sim.

Inevitably, the comparison will be with the airlines who just train in the sim. So we have to sell that their mission is much simpler, and their bar to entry is much higher (1500 hours, though 1000 hours could be argued for R-ATP, where they built that air sense we're after flying much smaller planes, sand where a much smaller portion of time could come from simulators)

 

Oh I definitely agree a Cirrus SR-20 is not actually a toy for the rich. But I’ve already seen when local and state level politicians try to garner support against an airport by accusing the owners of a bunch of ratted out 152s and PA-28s as being rich guys just making noise on your beautiful Saturday mornings. 
 

So it’s not hard for me to see a politician try and go after a low hanging budget fruit of SR-20 companion trainers to try and prop (lol) up their own *insert shitty political agenda here* and also convince a constituency that knows nothing about aviation. 
 

As you stated, the benefit is real. I would hope there are leaders in the Air Force and other politicians that could effectively communicate that. 

[TnkrToad]

On 3/11/2021 at 10:29 AM, kaputt said:

Oh I definitely agree a Cirrus SR-20 is not actually a toy for the rich. But I’ve already seen when local and state level politicians try to garner support against an airport by accusing the owners of a bunch of ratted out 152s and PA-28s as being rich guys just making noise on your beautiful Saturday mornings. 
 

So it’s not hard for me to see a politician try and go after a low hanging budget fruit of SR-20 companion trainers to try and prop (lol) up their own *insert shitty political agenda here* and also convince a constituency that knows nothing about aviation. 
 

As you stated, the benefit is real. I would hope there are leaders in the Air Force and other politicians that could effectively communicate that. 

Please, if we're going to talk about getting a GA aircraft as a companion trainer, never mention the SR20 (T-53) again. The plane is underpowered. USAFA flying ops are routinely terminated early during the summer, because the T-53 won't climb for crap. Hit 9,500' DA (a routine occurrence at USAFA), and you're done for the day. Ops are substantially restricted at 9,000 DA. On a hot day, pulling closed when dual with a cadet (who tend to a bit lighter than the average winged AF pilot) can be eye-opening enough. Throw a couple "body by AMC" types in the airplane, and performance limitations are all the more apparent. 

The SR22--the SR20's more powerful cousin--would be awesome, though. Better power, longer range, and the same CAPS system that has saved so many folks who put themselves in a bind. It certainly ain't cheap but (as discussed previously in this thread) it's operating costs are fractions of pennies (if not fractions of pennies) on the dollar compared to many of the airframes flown by AF pilots.  

TT

[kaputt]

3 hours ago, TnkrToad said:

Please, if we're going to talk about getting a GA aircraft as a companion trainer, never mention the SR20 (T-53) again. The plane is underpowered. USAFA flying ops are routinely terminated early during the summer, because the T-53 won't climb for crap. Hit 9,500' DA (a routine occurrence at USAFA), and you're done for the day. Ops are substantially restricted at 9,000 DA. On a hot day, pulling closed when dual with a cadet (who tend to a bit lighter than the average winged AF pilot) can be eye-opening enough. Throw a couple "body by AMC" types in the airplane, and performance limitations are all the more apparent. 

The SR22--the SR20's more powerful cousin--would be awesome, though. Better power, longer range, and the same CAPS system that has saved so many folks who put themselves in a bind. It certainly ain't cheap but (as discussed previously in this thread) it's operating costs are fractions of pennies (if not fractions of pennies) on the dollar compared to many of the airframes flown by AF pilots.  

TT

To be fair, most Air Force bases stateside aren’t dealing with 9,500ft density altitude issues and a 215hp SR-20 is more than enough for the mission we’re talking about here. But I see your point. 
 

I think you inadvertently bring up a great point though as to why this idea is likely never going to get off the ground in today’s Air Force in the first place.  
 

Having had direct insight into the acquisition process, a suggestion like going with an SR-22 vs the SR-20 is going to be met with so much requirements creep at each level of Bob that you’re either going to end up with something so expensive and beyond what was originally intended that it will get cut within a few years or it will never get approved in the first place. 
 

Bob1 is going to see an SR22 and say that’s great but I need something that operates in the flight levels and is at least a turboprop. Bob2 is going to agree and also say he needs something that pulls Gs. Bob3 is going to say he agrees with Bob1 about operating in the flight levels but doesn’t need an ejection seat. So we’ll end up at the T-6 and T-1 as suggested companion trainers (which isn’t a bad idea) but the reason we were considering GA aircraft was we already knew that the T-6 and T-1 in this role was going to be deemed too expensive in the first place.  
 

 

Edited March 13, 2021 by kaputt
Typos

[raimius]

On 3/11/2021 at 10:29 AM, kaputt said:

Oh I definitely agree a Cirrus SR-20 is not actually a toy for the rich.

 

If you have an extra $300-400k for a new GA aircraft, you probably sit in the upper brackets of income levels.  That's more than the average US house price.  Let's not kid ourselves about how rich one likely is to be able to afford a new production GA aircraft.

I wish GA was a middle-class hobby, but it isn't if you shop new.

[Bender]

What really needs to happen is for UPT 2.5/UPT next and this insatiable boner for training heavily augmented by VR to die in a big ball of fire. I won’t deny the fact that there are ways we can improve the way we train, but I’ve also spent the last 4 years in UPT and I’ve seen the onset of decline with my own eyes—getting to what is now the UPT 2.5 syllabus was a giant Petri dish experiment along the way (how many different syllabi did different phase 2 & 3 classes operate on over a 2-3 year period?), with a bunch of good idea fairies but no real direction. But hey, all the resultant thrash and “good” results sure made good OPR fodder...

This is all just very disappointing. What you refer to as “UPT 2.5” should have never existed, it wasn’t part of the plan of the people that started this train in motion. There is nothing “student-centric” about what you refer to as “UPT 2.5”, and it suffers from the exact same curriculum gaps as the traditional PPT syllabus (if not more).

“UPT 2.5” is convoluting and confusing. While it does have its merits, which will likely remain...this IS NOT and WAS NOT the intention of the people that started this and are still pressing forward on the design of what was to be UPT 2.5. At this point, you might as well call it UPT 2.6.

Yes, it was a experimental approach to proving a number of methods and tools in the beginning...but, there was a lot of critical thought into how that was done. The target to have everything put into place is October 2021...which is still very ambitious.

Please just stop judging all of this based off of “UPT 2.5”.

All pilots, regardless of track will get more flight time. All pilots regardless of track will not progress unless they learn, develop, and demonstrate very basic competencies required for more advanced activity. Everything about this is about making better pilots. There is not a single General involved in the development of any of this. This is a good thing...

If you want to sport bitch, do it about AMF-S. That is a gigantic leap into a pool with an unknown amount of water. The divestment of the T-1 with no replacement aircraft is a incredible travesty that is forcing drastic maneuver to save a situation that simply should never exist. Who divests an entire fleet, with an active, needed mission set, without a replacement?

~Bendy

Edit: “Baby out with the bath water” is actually a great analogy for what is happening right now. If a General is putting his money where his mouth is, it’s Wills. His action is simply allowing the bath water toss to happen, which is honestly amazing as F*$k.

Sent from my iPad using Baseops Network mobile app

[hindsight2020]

55 minutes ago, raimius said:

If you have an extra $300-400k for a new GA aircraft, you probably sit in the upper brackets of income levels.  That's more than the average US house price.  Let's not kid ourselves about how rich one likely is to be able to afford a new production GA aircraft.

I wish GA was a middle-class hobby, but it isn't if you shop new.

As a sole-owner of one of the aforementioned clapped out PA-28s, a big '2' to your commentary on recreational piston. It's one hell of an elitist hobby, good bad or indifferent. And that just doesn't help the optics when it comes to pleading the case our segment of the hobby is middle-earning working stiffs trying to enjoy an activity that's much maligned and co-opted by class warfare, much as a life ain't fair type of thing as it may be.

At any rate, new production piston numbers have plummeted in the last 2 decades, which continues to demonstrate the K-shape bifurcation of the economy writ large. But more relevant to the topic, the gentrification of the hobby into turbine GA and away from pistons outright is also evident in the production numbers, on a historical comparative basis. Heck, I argue absent the churn of the American flight training complex (cheap by world standards, which is why the US is the flight training suite du jour), the whole thing would go the way of European piston GA. We recreationals basically ride remora on the legacy support infrastructure and third party vendor sales availability primarily supported by the rental beater fleets the part 61 and 141 puppy mills turn and burn. Otherwise, we'd be up the creek already on the rec side.

Experimentals offer the only refuge left going forward for people like me who will never have the capital, nor the principled willingness, to spend more for a toy than my need for basic housing for my dependents. And as one who wishes to continue to fly recreationally even after I've stopped doing it for money.

 

Edited March 13, 2021 by hindsight2020

[17D_guy]

6 hours ago, hindsight2020 said:

At any rate, new production piston numbers have plummeted in the last 2 decades, which continues to demonstrate the K-shape bifurcation of the economy writ large. But more relevant to the topic, the gentrification of the hobby into turbine GA and away from pistons outright is also evident in the production numbers, on a historical comparative basis. Heck, I argue absent the churn of the American flight training complex (cheap by world standards, which is why the US is the flight training suite du jour), the whole thing would go the way of European piston GA. We recreationals basically ride remora on the legacy support infrastructure and third party vendor sales availability primarily supported by the rental beater fleets the part 61 and 141 puppy mills turn and burn. Otherwise, we'd be up the creek already on the rec side.

I don't know what a lot of this paragraph means, and I'd really like to.  Specifically about the 'turbine' General Aviation turn away from pistons.

[hindsight2020]

3 hours ago, 17D_guy said:

I don't know what a lot of this paragraph means, and I'd really like to.  Specifically about the 'turbine' General Aviation turn away from pistons.

Sure thing, I'll try to speak more simply. Airplanes are expensive, middle class inflation adjusted (and I mean housing healthcare and education inflation money, not that joke of a shifting goalpost CPI metric) wages are flat since we went into the neoliberal era. People in my income quintile could afford new piston in 1965, i can't afford the same in absolute terms today, by at least a factor of 3.

This rank asset inflation combined with dwindling absolute demand, has made it so that the gap between turbo props/single pilot turbofan, and new piston, is no longer an opportunity cost of consequence for the remaining winners of the hunger games. So the market bifurcated straight into recreational turbine, leaving a gaping hole in the step up piston (historically crowded by the piston twin, now solely carried by the SR-22/22T). Much to the chagrin of Cirrus owners, their numbers are still paltry compared to the highs of the late 60s production.

This obviously presents a problem for us imprudent poors, who are stuck attempting to maintain a dwindling supply of fully depreciated (but still overpriced) airworthiness directive laden clap traps against the headwind of purposefully declining OEM (see Textron case study on their  beech 35 ruddervators and their Cessna single retract anything parts support) and uneconomic third party support willingness by fleet attrition proxy. The former want these cans mothballed right yesterday, the latter can't be blamed for exiting the market in light of loss of fleet volume.

Hope that clarifies. Cheers.

Edited March 14, 2021 by hindsight2020
Brevity not my strong suit

[WheelsOff]

On 3/13/2021 at 6:26 PM, Bender said:

 

This is all just very disappointing. What you refer to as “UPT 2.5” should have never existed, it wasn’t part of the plan of the people that started this train in motion. There is nothing no “student-centric” about what you refer to as “UPT 2.5”, and it suffers from the exact same curriculum gaps as the traditional PPT syllabus (if not more).

“UPT 2.5” is convoluting and confusing. While it does have its merits, which will likely remain...this IS NOT and WAS NOT the intention of the people that started this and are still pressing forward on the design of what was to be UPT 2.5. At this point, you might as well call it UPT 2.6.

Yes, it was a experimental approach to proving a number of methods and tools in the beginning...but, there was a lot of critical thought into how that was done. The target to have everything put into place is October 2021...which is still very ambitious.

Please just stop judging all of this based off of “UPT 2.5”.

All pilots, regardless of track will get more flight time. All pilots regardless of track will not progress unless they learn, develop, and demonstrate very basic competencies required for more advanced activity. Everything about this is about making better pilots. There is not a single General involved in the development of any of this. This is a good thing...

If you want to sport bitch, do it about AMF-S. That is a gigantic leap into a pool with an unknown amount of water. The divestment of the T-1 with no replacement aircraft is a incredible travesty that is forcing drastic maneuver to save a situation that simply should never exist. Who divests an entire fleet, with an active, needed mission set, without a replacement?

~Bendy

Edit: “Baby out with the bath water” is actually a great analogy for what is happening right now. If a General is putting his money where his mouth is, it’s Wills. His action is simply allowing the bath water toss to happen, which is honestly amazing as F*$k.

Sent from my iPad using Baseops Network mobile app

 

Some fair points, but the fact remains that “they” still did some speeding with its implementation, regardless of what they officially call it. A shock that big to the system hurts students and IPs both.

No, not all tracks (at least in the new “2.5” phase 3 syllabus) get more flight hours...they actually get a few less (there is more simulator/device time however).

Lastly on Wills, if by “putting his money where his mouth is” is making lengthy posts on FB to seem in-touch/transparent/a bro then sure. Some trusted sources who have worked close with him over the years would beg to differ...I’ll just leave it at that. 

Edit: Also, agreed on the divestment of the T-1 without a viable solution. I feel like they kinda thought of the CAF a little more, but definitely hung the MAF guys out to dry...

Edited March 15, 2021 by WheelsOff

[17D_guy]

20 hours ago, hindsight2020 said:

Sure thing, I'll try to speak more simply. Airplanes are expensive, middle class inflation adjusted (and I mean housing healthcare and education inflation money, not that joke of a shifting goalpost CPI metric) wages are flat since we went into the neoliberal era. People in my income quintile could afford new piston in 1965, i can't afford the same in absolute terms today, by at least a factor of 3.

This rank asset inflation combined with dwindling absolute demand, has made it so that the gap between turbo props/single pilot turbofan, and new piston, is no longer an opportunity cost of consequence for the remaining winners of the hunger games. So the market bifurcated straight into recreational turbine, leaving a gaping hole in the step up piston (historically crowded by the piston twin, now solely carried by the SR-22/22T). Much to the chagrin of Cirrus owners, their numbers are still paltry compared to the highs of the late 60s production.

This obviously presents a problem for us imprudent poors, who are stuck attempting to maintain a dwindling supply of fully depreciated (but still overpriced) airworthiness directive laden clap traps against the headwind of purposefully declining OEM (see Textron case study on their  beech 35 ruddervators and their Cessna single retract anything parts support) and uneconomic third party support willingness by fleet attrition proxy. The former want these cans mothballed right yesterday, the latter can't be blamed for exiting the market in light of loss of fleet volume.

Hope that clarifies. Cheers.

Beautiful champ. Thanks.

[TnkrToad]

On 3/13/2021 at 12:00 PM, kaputt said:

To be fair, most Air Force bases stateside aren’t dealing with 9,500ft density altitude issues and a 215hp SR-20 is more than enough for the mission we’re talking about here. But I see your point. 
 

I think you inadvertently bring up a great point though as to why this idea is likely never going to get off the ground in today’s Air Force in the first place.  
 

Having had direct insight into the acquisition process, a suggestion like going with an SR-22 vs the SR-20 is going to be met with so much requirements creep at each level of Bob that you’re either going to end up with something so expensive and beyond what was originally intended that it will get cut within a few years or it will never get approved in the first place. 
 

Bob1 is going to see an SR22 and say that’s great but I need something that operates in the flight levels and is at least a turboprop. Bob2 is going to agree and also say he needs something that pulls Gs. Bob3 is going to say he agrees with Bob1 about operating in the flight levels but doesn’t need an ejection seat. So we’ll end up at the T-6 and T-1 as suggested companion trainers (which isn’t a bad idea) but the reason we were considering GA aircraft was we already knew that the T-6 and T-1 in this role was going to be deemed too expensive in the first place.  
 

 

Copy all on requirements creep, but it's a pretty freakin' huge leap in both purchase price and hourly operating costs between an SR-22 and a T-6 or T-1. 

Considering the investment the AF makes in each of its pilots, (flying an F-22 is a couple of orders of magnitude higher per hour than an "expensive" SR-22), the added margin of safety would certainly be justifiable. 

Granted, flying at/around USAFA presents a relatively extreme example (combine high altitudes with frequent turbulence and rotor from the Rockies just to the West--who've thought this might cause issues?), but one can just imagine there would be more than a few Zoomies who might take the keys to the SR20 and make a trip back to C-Springs...after at least partially getting over their PTSD from the place. They might even take a trip out there over the summer, and even better think little of taking an "adequately powered" SR20 through the mountains. 

Pulling closed in the T-53 can be scary enough on a hot summer day with generally lighter cadets, with the seats removed, no luggage, when flown by folks who've had the inherent limitations of the airplane beaten into them in PIT (not to mention once they start flying as IPs). 

Put a couple less-than-skinny 30ish year old AD pilots in the airplane, along with even a minimal amount of luggage, a part-timer's appreciation of the SR20's performance limits...add rotor/turbulence/downdrafts, and life can get really sucky (sts) really fast. 

I'm confident this discussion is nothing more than a neat mental exercise--minimal likelihood anything like this idea being discussed would ever happen--but the amount of risk an SR22 would mitigate would more than compensate for the additional cost. 

TT

[Orbit]

We should do what Nigeria did and build a fleet of Van's RV-6 airplanes to put at bases.  Cheap maintenance costs, aerobatic, cruises the same speed as a SR-20 burning almost half as much fuel.  

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van%27s_Aircraft_RV-6

[hindsight2020]

Just now, Orbit said:

We should do what Nigeria did and build a fleet of Van's RV-6 airplanes to put at bases.  Cheap maintenance costs, aerobatic, cruises the same speed as a SR-20 burning almost half as much fuel.  

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van's_Aircraft_RV-6

Great personal tourer/gentleman acro machine, I'm in the process of getting one (trike version) myself to eventually replace my AD-laden cErTiFied airplane. But, they're frankly even less of a contender for a DOD companion trainer than the cirrus: The DOD would never put an experimental on the fleet, and a good % of the USAF crews would have trouble fitting side by side. They're cramped. Many won't fit without control interference. The RV-14 would be the only one that would have a chance imo. Their useful loads (6 and 7) are paltry, and they need to be built light to live up to the specs. A commercially procured RV will be piggy, it wouldn't survive a DOD capitalization process. The regulatory bloat placed by USAF management programs would negate the capital savings of going FAA non-TC in the first place.

The Cirrus lineup is automotive in ergonomics, which allows for all sorts of dimensions to be workable. It's one of the reasons they outsold Mooney and Beech in the waning days of the step up piston (no longer a relevant dynamic, as I've suggested in my prior post).

At any rate, this is all mindless fapping. Having experienced first hand the dynamics and politics of standing up an aero club in the post commercial-IFT days, I'm willing to bet next month's BAH that the DOD is never going to procure a piston companion trainer to augment flying hours for the "poors" within the pilot community.