jetip Posted yesterday at 12:45 AM Posted yesterday at 12:45 AM Sorry for the long post. Just so much there. I saw this in the beginning of May. "Maj Gen Kreuder: Sir, Apologize for the long read, but as we continue to execute the IPT to FUPT SGTO and prepare for our UND Mesa students to start flying, I wanted to provide you an update on what we’re observing and some quick thoughts on potential causality, all in order to ensure success of this program at full execution. BACKGROUND: In mid-May, we will graduate the remaining students from the SGTO and track them to their next programs. We continue to prioritize them over the legacy students and have closely monitored their continuity and performance. Of note, I have also taken the opportunity to fly with SGTO students from both squadrons and they have great attitudes and are excited to succeed in the course. The data below reflects check ride performance and progress/elimination check stats (data a week old): 37 FTS: 18 Total SGTO Student Pilots 12/18 passed Transition check 8/12 passed Formation check 13/18 have gone to a Progress Check (88) 8/18 have gone to a second Progress Check (88) 3/18 have gone to an Elimination Check (89) 41 FTS: 15 Total SGTO Student Pilots 1/15 went CR as was reinstated into legacy UPT. 3/15 passed Transition check 5/11 passed Formation check 14/15 have gone to a Progress Check (88) 7/15 have gone to a second Progress Check (88) 5/15 have gone to an Elimination Check (89) 2/15 has gone to a second Elimination Check (89) As these numbers are statistically higher than other classes, I asked my T-6 DOs to provide me their assessment of what’s occurring. They provided the following insights: Students started training above average for dollar ride but quickly plateaued by ride 5-8 and could be considered on par with a ride 7-8 Legacy syllabus student. With fewer rides prior to solo and transition check, students are quickly approaching milestones and end of block requirements without the required proficiency. Basic aircraft control initially above average, but skills have tapered off throughout the second and third blocks of transition. Basic Aircraft Control and Pattern Operations (RSU Procedures, Normal Overhead, ELP, slow final turns, high flares, lack of decision-making to call go-arounds, etc) remain consistent reasons for UNSATs throughout end of transition and throughout formation Instrument flying initially slightly above average, but skills have tapered off to average/slightly below average after introducing pattern and MOA maneuvers Suspected previous tower pattern habits are causing a higher-than-normal trend of improper radio transmissions in the RSU pattern Pattern work where students will pull to idle very early leading to high sinking flare resulting in go-around or student pilot attempting to “make it work.” Asking for IP’s concurrence/validation prior to initiating maneuvers and checklist items Not deactivating nosewheel steering on line-up Attempting to start the engine with canopy open Attempting to start the engine at home station without a crew chief present Attempting to taxi without clearance Missing required crew callouts / challenge and responses Missing checklist items Missing in-flight checks Numerous passive and active airsickness events Mitigation actions taken by Squadrons: Additional training sorties (87s) Focused flight room ground training to improve RSU pattern operations and communications IPs have emphasized the fact that students are Aircraft Commanders in training and should act as such Additional emphasis on continued pattern operations throughout formation phase Additional emphasis on 11-202v3 and Air Force specific instrument rules and regulations compared to FAA. DISCUSSSION: I assess that we haven’t provided a sufficient description to our instructors of what they should expect from IPT graduates to facilitate the transition to FUPT. The SGTO FUPT syllabus differs from the legacy syllabus only in the number of rides performed, not the course training standards defined in the syllabus. As a result, instructors have not adapted how they evaluate or instruct the SGTO students as compared to others. To complicate this, we have the same instructors flying with both SGTO and legacy students, sometimes on the same day. The dissonance and confusion our instructors are experiencing in executing this new syllabus is understandable and expected based on some fundamental aspects of IPT->FUPT: Students are coming in with Part 141 ratings, but from a diverse set of programs with different methodologies for attaining them. Our IPs are not organized, trained, or equipped to transition these students into an AF program. Our largest gap here is a syllabus that focuses on that transition (syllabus conference is coming up soon). Our instructors are executing two syllabi simultaneously and don’t have the specific direction on how to apply to different set of standards to the students they fly with. For example, based on the elimination of several rides before formation, instructors should have different expectations from a legacy student and a FUPT student approaching their formation solo. The latter has much less time simply flying this specific aircraft and may not be able to task manage as effectively as a legacy student. Our lack of aircraft availability has hindered our ability to fly the SGTO students at the optimal pace. Recent AA increases have been offset by seasonal weather, hindering our recovery of this specific group. Objectively, IFT and IPT graduates are not entering the program at the same developmental level. For IPT students, they indeed enter with more flying time overall, but also with more engrained flying habits then their IFT counterparts. For example, as indicated above, IPT students are being asked to unlearn ESA-driven pattern procedures and CRM behaviors. Our instructors, however, are not yet tracking these nuances and are applying the same course training standards they would to any student. When combined with less overall T-6 time, the SGTO students are failing to meet milestone requirements at a much higher rate than their predecessors. This confusion is further exacerbated by the encouragement and direction for instructors to “maintain the standard” for the SGTO students. Most of our young instructors don’t have the experience or development to understand what that means in the context of preparing for a B-course or FTU. They interpret this directive to mean the same standard as they have applied to previous graduates. However, as explained by AETC A5/8, we don’t expect our FUPT graduates to be T-6 experts any longer. Instead, we need them to be competent AF pilots ready for the next phase of training. While the concept is coherent, our instructors don’t know how to distill it down into daily instruction and evaluation. For example, does that mean students don’t need to be able to fly RSU procedures? RSU procedures were developed to fly more aircraft in the RSU pattern using procedural deconfliction (also a combat competency). Mastery of this competency takes repetition. We have removed a vast amount of these opportunities for this repetition from the syllabus but expect the same mastery. If we don’t expect mastery, we have a practical challenge of safely flying an RSU pattern, especially solo. While the behaviors learned at IPT are helpful to our MAF-bound pilots, the T-6 syllabus has been built to grow the skills required to succeed in the T-38 as well. Since we don’t track select early enough in the program, there’s a conflict in desired-competencies for our separate tracks that will be felt in the shortened T-6 syllabus. While this will theoretically be remedied by the introduction of the T-7, it won’t help us as we refine these programs over the next few years. We have several unresolved questions that we will need to answer in the interim to effectively execute. Does everyone need to solo? If so, when? Is T-6 formation important for every student? T-1 XPW flies a different style of formation much more applicable to MAF pilots. Is proficiency at T-6 instrument flying even necessary since our instruments are outmoded compared to the Garmin 1000s they flew with at IPT? Could we skip instrument flying in the T-6 altogether and leave it as an instructor proficiency? What’s the impact later in different platforms? Much of what is being discussed by Dr. Walsh at AETC would help us better focus our instructors’ efforts as we on board FUPT and FBF simultaneously. The 14 FTW would benefit from a description of what an FBF or FTU-ready pilot looks like. What competencies should they have and how should they be reflected in the FUPT syllabus? I hope to see this discussed at length at the syllabus conference, with FTU commanders and DOs present to discuss. Bottom line—our instructors are focused on doing the best they can to train pilots, but they don’t understand how senior leaders want them to adapt their methodology to meet the new program. In the meantime, they will “maintain the standard” by applying the course training standards in the current syllabus as they interpret it. If we’re not careful, however, we will expend considerably more resource and potentially CR worthy pilots in trying to build the aircraft while we’re flying. intend to have these philosophical conversations with our young instructor corps but am requesting supporting fires from our A3 team. We need to provide them the tools to be successful as we make one of the most significant adjustments to UPT in the last 30 years. RECOMMENDATION: Continued collaboration between FTCOE and T-6 squadrons on refining syllabus. Sir, looking forward to the conversation next month during your visit and hope to get some of these big questions ironed out over the next few months. Rest assured, the 14 FTW is fully committed to leading through this change and setting the course on what FUPT can and will look like at pace. Please let me know if you have any questions or additional data requests before your visit. Very Respectfully, ........."
yzl337 Posted yesterday at 03:47 AM Posted yesterday at 03:47 AM reads like a carbon copy of what we sent up from Vance to 19AF in 2021-22...we/they, have learned absolutely nothing during the PTN/UPT2.5/FUPT boondoggle. I was a convert in the early days of 2.5, the syllabus wasn't perfect, but it was working. This looks to be headed toward monumental failure.
raimius Posted yesterday at 05:27 AM Posted yesterday at 05:27 AM 4 hours ago, jetip said: Sorry for the long post. Just so much there. I saw this in the beginning of May. "Maj Gen Kreuder: Sir, Apologize for the long read, but as we continue to execute the IPT to FUPT SGTO and prepare for our UND Mesa students to start flying, I wanted to provide you an update on what we’re observing and some quick thoughts on potential causality, all in order to ensure success of this program at full execution. BACKGROUND: In mid-May, we will graduate the remaining students from the SGTO and track them to their next programs. We continue to prioritize them over the legacy students and have closely monitored their continuity and performance. Of note, I have also taken the opportunity to fly with SGTO students from both squadrons and they have great attitudes and are excited to succeed in the course. The data below reflects check ride performance and progress/elimination check stats (data a week old): 37 FTS: 18 Total SGTO Student Pilots 12/18 passed Transition check 8/12 passed Formation check 13/18 have gone to a Progress Check (88) 8/18 have gone to a second Progress Check (88) 3/18 have gone to an Elimination Check (89) 41 FTS: 15 Total SGTO Student Pilots 1/15 went CR as was reinstated into legacy UPT. 3/15 passed Transition check 5/11 passed Formation check 14/15 have gone to a Progress Check (88) 7/15 have gone to a second Progress Check (88) 5/15 have gone to an Elimination Check (89) 2/15 has gone to a second Elimination Check (89) As these numbers are statistically higher than other classes, I asked my T-6 DOs to provide me their assessment of what’s occurring. They provided the following insights: Students started training above average for dollar ride but quickly plateaued by ride 5-8 and could be considered on par with a ride 7-8 Legacy syllabus student. With fewer rides prior to solo and transition check, students are quickly approaching milestones and end of block requirements without the required proficiency. Basic aircraft control initially above average, but skills have tapered off throughout the second and third blocks of transition. Basic Aircraft Control and Pattern Operations (RSU Procedures, Normal Overhead, ELP, slow final turns, high flares, lack of decision-making to call go-arounds, etc) remain consistent reasons for UNSATs throughout end of transition and throughout formation Instrument flying initially slightly above average, but skills have tapered off to average/slightly below average after introducing pattern and MOA maneuvers Suspected previous tower pattern habits are causing a higher-than-normal trend of improper radio transmissions in the RSU pattern Pattern work where students will pull to idle very early leading to high sinking flare resulting in go-around or student pilot attempting to “make it work.” Asking for IP’s concurrence/validation prior to initiating maneuvers and checklist items Not deactivating nosewheel steering on line-up Attempting to start the engine with canopy open Attempting to start the engine at home station without a crew chief present Attempting to taxi without clearance Missing required crew callouts / challenge and responses Missing checklist items Missing in-flight checks Numerous passive and active airsickness events Mitigation actions taken by Squadrons: Additional training sorties (87s) Focused flight room ground training to improve RSU pattern operations and communications IPs have emphasized the fact that students are Aircraft Commanders in training and should act as such Additional emphasis on continued pattern operations throughout formation phase Additional emphasis on 11-202v3 and Air Force specific instrument rules and regulations compared to FAA. DISCUSSSION: I assess that we haven’t provided a sufficient description to our instructors of what they should expect from IPT graduates to facilitate the transition to FUPT. The SGTO FUPT syllabus differs from the legacy syllabus only in the number of rides performed, not the course training standards defined in the syllabus. As a result, instructors have not adapted how they evaluate or instruct the SGTO students as compared to others. To complicate this, we have the same instructors flying with both SGTO and legacy students, sometimes on the same day. The dissonance and confusion our instructors are experiencing in executing this new syllabus is understandable and expected based on some fundamental aspects of IPT->FUPT: Students are coming in with Part 141 ratings, but from a diverse set of programs with different methodologies for attaining them. Our IPs are not organized, trained, or equipped to transition these students into an AF program. Our largest gap here is a syllabus that focuses on that transition (syllabus conference is coming up soon). Our instructors are executing two syllabi simultaneously and don’t have the specific direction on how to apply to different set of standards to the students they fly with. For example, based on the elimination of several rides before formation, instructors should have different expectations from a legacy student and a FUPT student approaching their formation solo. The latter has much less time simply flying this specific aircraft and may not be able to task manage as effectively as a legacy student. Our lack of aircraft availability has hindered our ability to fly the SGTO students at the optimal pace. Recent AA increases have been offset by seasonal weather, hindering our recovery of this specific group. Objectively, IFT and IPT graduates are not entering the program at the same developmental level. For IPT students, they indeed enter with more flying time overall, but also with more engrained flying habits then their IFT counterparts. For example, as indicated above, IPT students are being asked to unlearn ESA-driven pattern procedures and CRM behaviors. Our instructors, however, are not yet tracking these nuances and are applying the same course training standards they would to any student. When combined with less overall T-6 time, the SGTO students are failing to meet milestone requirements at a much higher rate than their predecessors. This confusion is further exacerbated by the encouragement and direction for instructors to “maintain the standard” for the SGTO students. Most of our young instructors don’t have the experience or development to understand what that means in the context of preparing for a B-course or FTU. They interpret this directive to mean the same standard as they have applied to previous graduates. However, as explained by AETC A5/8, we don’t expect our FUPT graduates to be T-6 experts any longer. Instead, we need them to be competent AF pilots ready for the next phase of training. While the concept is coherent, our instructors don’t know how to distill it down into daily instruction and evaluation. For example, does that mean students don’t need to be able to fly RSU procedures? RSU procedures were developed to fly more aircraft in the RSU pattern using procedural deconfliction (also a combat competency). Mastery of this competency takes repetition. We have removed a vast amount of these opportunities for this repetition from the syllabus but expect the same mastery. If we don’t expect mastery, we have a practical challenge of safely flying an RSU pattern, especially solo. While the behaviors learned at IPT are helpful to our MAF-bound pilots, the T-6 syllabus has been built to grow the skills required to succeed in the T-38 as well. Since we don’t track select early enough in the program, there’s a conflict in desired-competencies for our separate tracks that will be felt in the shortened T-6 syllabus. While this will theoretically be remedied by the introduction of the T-7, it won’t help us as we refine these programs over the next few years. We have several unresolved questions that we will need to answer in the interim to effectively execute. Does everyone need to solo? If so, when? Is T-6 formation important for every student? T-1 XPW flies a different style of formation much more applicable to MAF pilots. Is proficiency at T-6 instrument flying even necessary since our instruments are outmoded compared to the Garmin 1000s they flew with at IPT? Could we skip instrument flying in the T-6 altogether and leave it as an instructor proficiency? What’s the impact later in different platforms? Much of what is being discussed by Dr. Walsh at AETC would help us better focus our instructors’ efforts as we on board FUPT and FBF simultaneously. The 14 FTW would benefit from a description of what an FBF or FTU-ready pilot looks like. What competencies should they have and how should they be reflected in the FUPT syllabus? I hope to see this discussed at length at the syllabus conference, with FTU commanders and DOs present to discuss. Bottom line—our instructors are focused on doing the best they can to train pilots, but they don’t understand how senior leaders want them to adapt their methodology to meet the new program. In the meantime, they will “maintain the standard” by applying the course training standards in the current syllabus as they interpret it. If we’re not careful, however, we will expend considerably more resource and potentially CR worthy pilots in trying to build the aircraft while we’re flying. intend to have these philosophical conversations with our young instructor corps but am requesting supporting fires from our A3 team. We need to provide them the tools to be successful as we make one of the most significant adjustments to UPT in the last 30 years. RECOMMENDATION: Continued collaboration between FTCOE and T-6 squadrons on refining syllabus. Sir, looking forward to the conversation next month during your visit and hope to get some of these big questions ironed out over the next few months. Rest assured, the 14 FTW is fully committed to leading through this change and setting the course on what FUPT can and will look like at pace. Please let me know if you have any questions or additional data requests before your visit. Very Respectfully, ........." Sounds like a CC who can't quite bring themselves to write the unvarnished truth. Too bad we don't have enough leaders willing to say "Boss, this plan will not work."
brabus Posted 20 hours ago Posted 20 hours ago Freddy is a smart dude who was a solid sq/CC - I hope he hasn’t strayed from that path. He’s also very data driven, so if objective data supports the shit show claim, at least old Freddy would do something about it.
Boomer6 Posted 16 hours ago Posted 16 hours ago 4 hours ago, brabus said: Freddy is a smart dude who was a solid sq/CC - I hope he hasn’t strayed from that path. He’s also very data driven, so if objective data supports the shit show claim, at least old Freddy would do something about it. He made a visit awhile back and had a 30 minute diatribe about the definition of quality in relation to UPT grads. At the end of it he said, "I mean do you want more pilots or what?" No, no I would prefer good pilots to lower quality/high quantity pilots. He could run for office tomorrow with how slippery he attempted to be not answering a direct question. What's comical is, if he and the rest of management are so confident this is the right way to produce pilots, why don't they have the balls to say, "yes we're going to produce as many as we can and quality will suffer."? Idk what he was like previously, but I can tell you a room full of crusty old IPs all thought he was completely full of shit. 1 1
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now