Initial Pilot Training and Future Pilot Training

[Lawman]

The [emoji6] was pitched to the USAF, I got to talk with the decision makers. Basically like all things European defense produced, they tried to milk the US for a ton of money in sustainment costs so they passed.

I’ve flown the [emoji6], it’s awesome, very euro fighter-ish avionics wise.




Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

That sounds like the C-27 problem

Effectively Leonardo wants obscenely amounts of money for sustainment of the airframes that didn’t go to the boneyard so they are ll essentially F’d.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Clark Griswold]

That sounds like the C-27 problem

Effectively Leonardo wants obscenely amounts of money for sustainment of the airframes that didn’t go to the boneyard so they are ll essentially F’d.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

That all checks, I flew the C-27, you had to get tires shipped from ‘Merica to Italy get an Alenia stamp on it then ship it back
Not sustainable


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Clark Griswold]

China trying to cut training time too, much different scale than the. USAF but everyone is looking at changes 

https://www.airandspaceforces.com/new-report-china-pilot-training-time/

At first I thought it was ridiculously long for training but after awhile I thought they might have a point.  I know that is not the way the wind is blowing in the AF right now but BO is a free for all…

Why not take 18+ months maybe up to 2 years to train a military pilot not just a pilot?

More flying, more experience, exposure and familiarity with concepts necessary for all USAF pilots regardless of what aircraft they drop out of training?  There would be a bit o’ academics in this longer program on the how, why and what we do to execute the missions.  Not talking WIC level but why not as they are learning the basics introduce the high level concepts and as they progress delve a bit deeper

The payoff is in likely reduced training time in the MDS these guys get assigned to as they will already have a better base to work from versus the first time being in a $50k per hour jet learning task X.

6-9 months basic flying training plus high level overview of AirPower in the strategic plan plus some history.  
6-9 months introductory military flying plus medium level overview of planning/concepts for operations.  
6-9 months advanced military flying training plus simulated operational training.

No idle time, allow SERE/water/mobility to be done prior to graduation, no pushing off to the FTU training that should be done prior to winging and training.

Rehash of previous posts but so be it.  

[dusty69]

Anyone know if the IPT locations have or will have AD liaison or IP positions? 

[Inertia17]

15 hours ago, dusty69 said:

Anyone know if the IPT locations have or will have AD liaison or IP positions? 

I'm fairly confident even AETC doesn't know the answer to that question...

Edited June 6 by Inertia17

[Flev]

https://www.laughlin.af.mil/News/News/Display/Article/4206191/boosting-readiness-aetcs-plan-to-train-1500-pilots-annually/

TLDR; sounds pretty FUPT up to me.

[Clark Griswold]

https://www.laughlin.af.mil/News/News/Display/Article/4206191/boosting-readiness-aetcs-plan-to-train-1500-pilots-annually/
TLDR; sounds pretty FUPT up to me.

FUPT… almost the right idea, good amount of hours in GA aircraft though

Needs more cowbell… a bit more T-6 flight time, a new lead in fighter trainer now and a new multi engine trainer

Old man rant complete


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Biff_T]

They should have called it FUPA. 

[LookieRookie]

On 6/6/2025 at 5:17 AM, Inertia17 said:

I'm fairly confident even AETC doesn't know the answer to that question...

they don’t. they are ESAs right now.

 

 the actual ipt scale contract hasn’t been awarded

[LookieRookie]

oh and Leard wants to cut instrument approaches from the T-6 FUPT checkride because “sps have instrument ratings.” The waiver was signed and then pulled because the 14th didn’t have a real chance to non/concur on it. All the GOs in AETC decided to do it without SME input.

Anyone from the MAF have personal experience with him? He seems to only want data that confirms his decisions.

 

CBM isn’t doing SGTOs because this is going to scale with no way to fail and TexanWorld at CBM is sounding the alarm.

 

 Feedback from CBM is the students are being short changed.

Edited yesterday at 05:19 AM by LookieRookie

[Inertia17]

3 hours ago, LookieRookie said:

 He seems to only want data that confirms his decisions.

That doesn't appear to be an isolated issue, get the same feel from 19AF/CC.

Expecting the average stud to make the jump from 110-140kt instrument crosscheck to 300+ kt in the T-7 is not a winning gameplan. Particularly when you are assuming they can do instruments because they have already done it, and cut it from the syllabus.

[contraildash]

Recent visit feedback: Leard can’t read a room, was tone def, and avoided answering most questions.

My professional concerns:

1. We don’t have enough applicants for UPT. Forcing more USAFA/ROTC grads to UPT will just result in more DORs. Problem not solved.

2. USAF doesn’t recognize FAA ratings and doesn’t seem to plan to do so. So to drop critical things like instrument training/checks is a massive failure on leadership. It is a wild abdication of our training and qualification that is unacceptable.

3. MAJCOMs don’t have the ability to absorb more inexperienced pilots. FTUs are backed up. Training is being pushed to ops units with wild experience-inexperience ratios.

4. IPT is not faster, cheaper, or better. Nor will it produce the 1500 pilots/year that they think. But as already stated on here, they don’t want to hear that. There is no backup plan for when this doesn’t work.

5. I expect higher attrition rates. Is AETC going to lower CTS when IPT isn’t producing the magical number of pilots? When everything else changes, that is all that is left. Unacceptable.

Finally, and we are already seeing this, Q3s and accident rates are already climbing (this is before IPT even started). We are not flying enough nor experiencing pilots at a sustainable rate. SIMs are not a 1:1 equivalent. People need to fly. Throwing more inexperienced pilots at the problem isn’t going to help.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Biff_T]

FUPA

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DKut95ePnUJ/?igsh=MTc4MmM1YmI2Ng==

What have they done to UPT? 

Edited 22 hours ago by Biff_T

[Clark Griswold]

If FUPT / IPT isn’t producing the right graduate and I give this 0.69% of happening… quietly recognize it and reconstitute ACE / post UPT shortish TDY assignments to build flying hours.

ACE ver 2.0 - 100+ hours, jet, program designed to build flying skills, based not UPT bases maybe allocate program to the guard / reserve.  Build a syllabus to complement other training programs and focus on diverse flying.  Take the jet on the road, train with others as feasible/practical.  

TDY program - find a need, requirement, mission, legitimate training program, etc… and assign grads to before FTU if possible and fly a lot.  Thinking at least 300 hours.  Liaison, light transport, light mobility training platform could be part of an effort.

Keep it out of the UPT enterprise as it sounds like that is maxed out, I’ve argued for this before, post graduate flying programs to help shape what UPT now might be leaving with rough edges and I’ll readily admit it’s not cheap but affordable if the leadership realizes that you’re preventing more expensive problems.

[ViperMan]

Yeah, this is concerning.

"In the new model, pilots will earn a private pilot certificate, instrument, and multi-engine ratings in approximately 120 flying hours within a maximum of 139 calendar days. Pilots then complete military specific flight training, earning wings after 108 days—55 hours in the T-6A and 50 hours in simulators.

Leard explained, 'Prior to implementing this new program, our fundamental challenge was getting enough flying hours in the T-6A to meet our goal. This new program ultimately provides our pilots with more flight time than the legacy system while exposing them to a greater number of aviation competencies.'"

There's a lot in that little snippet that I'm not even sure is factually true. I graduated UPT (technically SUPT) with over 200 hours - most of them were in the T-38. These guys are going to graduate with 175 hours with most of them in some combination of Cessnas and Pilatuses? Hmmm. Not sure they're getting more flight time. Certainly they're not getting more relevant flight time. Maybe he was referring to the T-1 track? Can't speak to what the T-1 guys graduated SUPT with, hours-wise. Does anyone know approximately?

My top concern is that this just seems to be trading quality for quantity.

Instead of wings with a star on top, can we begin issuing wings with an asterisk?

Also, I would like the statement "exposing them to a greater number of aviation competencies" to be substantiated. I doubt this is true. And if it is, what competency did we just discover in the year of our lord 2025 to which I have not been exposed?

 

[Swizzle]

38 minutes ago, ViperMan said:

Yeah, this is concerning.

"In the new model, pilots will earn a private pilot certificate, instrument, and multi-engine ratings in approximately 120 flying hours within a maximum of 139 calendar days. Pilots then complete military specific flight training, earning wings after 108 days—55 hours in the T-6A and 50 hours in simulators.

Leard explained, 'Prior to implementing this new program, our fundamental challenge was getting enough flying hours in the T-6A to meet our goal. This new program ultimately provides our pilots with more flight time than the legacy system while exposing them to a greater number of aviation competencies.'"

There's a lot in that little snippet that I'm not even sure is factually true. I graduated UPT (technically SUPT) with over 200 hours - most of them were in the T-38. These guys are going to graduate with 175 hours with most of them in some combination of Cessnas and Pilatuses? Hmmm. Not sure they're getting more flight time. Certainly they're not getting more relevant flight time. Maybe he was referring to the T-1 track? Can't speak to what the T-1 guys graduated SUPT with, hours-wise. Does anyone know approximately?

My top concern is that this just seems to be trading quality for quantity.

Instead of wings with a star on top, can we begin issuing wings with an asterisk?

Also, I would like the statement "exposing them to a greater number of aviation competencies" to be substantiated. I doubt this is true. And if it is, what competency did we just discover in the year of our lord 2025 to which I have not been exposed?

 

Remember legacy UPT could be the present UPT. UPT Next and UPT 2.0 was dubbed "UPT". So reverting back to Grandfather UPT, that snappy ole' reliable pappy, is to what they're refering?. ...the tried and true UPT version that stood for ~50 yrs!? That one, yes?

[viper154]

1 hour ago, ViperMan said:

Yeah, this is concerning.

"In the new model, pilots will earn a private pilot certificate, instrument, and multi-engine ratings in approximately 120 flying hours within a maximum of 139 calendar days. Pilots then complete military specific flight training, earning wings after 108 days—55 hours in the T-6A and 50 hours in simulators.

Leard explained, 'Prior to implementing this new program, our fundamental challenge was getting enough flying hours in the T-6A to meet our goal. This new program ultimately provides our pilots with more flight time than the legacy system while exposing them to a greater number of aviation competencies.'"

There's a lot in that little snippet that I'm not even sure is factually true. I graduated UPT (technically SUPT) with over 200 hours - most of them were in the T-38. These guys are going to graduate with 175 hours with most of them in some combination of Cessnas and Pilatuses? Hmmm. Not sure they're getting more flight time. Certainly they're not getting more relevant flight time. Maybe he was referring to the T-1 track? Can't speak to what the T-1 guys graduated SUPT with, hours-wise. Does anyone know approximately?

My top concern is that this just seems to be trading quality for quantity.

Instead of wings with a star on top, can we begin issuing wings with an asterisk?

Also, I would like the statement "exposing them to a greater number of aviation competencies" to be substantiated. I doubt this is true. And if it is, what competency did we just discover in the year of our lord 2025 to which I have not been exposed?

 

Your error is the reference to “legacy”. He referring the syllabus before IPT was thing. In that syllabus they got 70? Ish T-6 hours and then straight to the FTU if they didn’t get 38s. 
 

I flew with many of the initial IPT studs at CBM, the program is trash. 

[Clark Griswold]

Has anybody asked the AF to show their work with this number of required annual new pilots to be produced?

The article quotes 1,500 as the required amount but if the FTUs can not intake that amount without a lot of waiting time after UPT or extended times when they are in training because they are operating with little to no margin then why the hell modify the UPT process to produce less than desired training received pilots?  
Produce as many required up to standards pilots as you can with the infrastructure and resources you have allocated then supplementing the force with ARC pilots already trained and go on.  If you produce 900 fully trained pilots but need another 600 in a year to fly in the AD, use the ARC to meet that difference.
It seems the 1,500 number is driving the AF to make decisions that are long term bad without really  proving they need to do this

Edited 16 hours ago by Clark Griswold

[Swizzle]

1 hour ago, viper154 said:

Your error is the reference to “legacy”. He referring the syllabus before IPT was thing. In that syllabus they got 70? Ish T-6 hours and then straight to the FTU if they didn’t get 38s. 
 

I flew with many of the initial IPT studs at CBM, the program is trash. 

In 2005-2007 pathway to wings was like:

IFT your choice of civil school for PPL (40-50 flt hrs), then ENJJPT or JS/SUPT phases 1-3 (200-275 flt hrs depending upon Advanced turboprop track, T-1, or T-38)

Later came IFT->IFS (reduced to solo). And ever since KPUB IFS has been a thing, right?

Then chiefly came UPT-Next/2.0 (~55-65 in T-6) ultimately creating the present paper tiger. Winging at end of phase 2. Granted that ignores stray cats like XPW, etc.

 

[Swizzle]

7 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:

Has anybody asked the AF to show their work with this number of required annual new pilots to be produced?

The article quotes 1,500 as the required amount but if the FTUs can not intake that amount without a lot of waiting time after UPT or extended times when they are in training because they are operating with little to no margin then why the hell modify the UPT process to produce less than desired training received pilots?  
Produce as many required up to standards pilots as you can with the infrastructure and resources you have allocated then supplementing the force with ARC pilots already trained and go on.  If you produce 900 fully trained pilots but need another 600 in a year to fly in the AD, use the ARC to meet that difference.
It seems the 1,500 number is driving the AF to make decisions that are long term bad without really  proving they need to do this

That's inside baseball bro! Cannot show the math, because then the sacred cows would be at risk

  [the blue sacred cow = AD process and structure, the undisclosed non-negotiable. Not even historic pilot attrition has fatally cracked it. Superficially cracked, yeah. ]

[Clark Griswold]

43 minutes ago, Swizzle said:

That's inside baseball bro! Cannot show the math, because then the sacred cows would be at risk

  [the blue sacred cow = AD process and structure, the undisclosed non-negotiable. Not even historic pilot attrition has fatally cracked it. Superficially cracked, yeah. ]

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

Edited 15 hours ago by Clark Griswold

[viper154]

2 hours ago, Swizzle said:

In 2005-2007 pathway to wings was like:

IFT your choice of civil school for PPL (40-50 flt hrs), then ENJJPT or JS/SUPT phases 1-3 (200-275 flt hrs depending upon Advanced turboprop track, T-1, or T-38)

Later came IFT->IFS (reduced to solo). And ever since KPUB IFS has been a thing, right?

Then chiefly came UPT-Next/2.0 (~55-65 in T-6) ultimately creating the present paper tiger. Winging at end of phase 2. Granted that ignores stray cats like XPW, etc.

 

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. 

[LookieRookie]

32 minutes ago, viper154 said:

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. 

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.

 

 

[Clark Griswold]

18 minutes ago, LookieRookie said:

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.

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

[kaputt]

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.