Initial Pilot Training and Future Pilot Training

[MIDN]

15 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Mover n Gonky discussed this on their channel, USN’s reasoning is that if PLM is not working they’ll do a land recovery or take a barrier anyway, their jets their rules but a bold strategy Cotton…

————————————————

If there was a program to replace the T-6 and expand the syllabus taught in phase 2

M-345… took a big sip of the kool aid… it’s probably the best jet for an intermediate+ trainer

PC-21 / AT-6C if the Bobs wanted to stay turboprop for intermediate+ trainer

 

You absolutely would not "take a barrier" if PLM failed, it requires far more precision than a regular carrier landing and the consequence for screwing it up close to the deck is certain death

[uhhello]

1 hour ago, MIDN said:

You absolutely would not "take a barrier" if PLM failed, it requires far more precision than a regular carrier landing and the consequence for screwing it up close to the deck is certain death

Pffttt.  You just fly it into the big net.  It’s easy. 

[Clark Griswold]

10 hours ago, MIDN said:

You absolutely would not "take a barrier" if PLM failed, it requires far more precision than a regular carrier landing and the consequence for screwing it up close to the deck is certain death

I tried finding the video where they discussed this but to no avail this morning, i think WOMBAT, was in that episode, anyway they said if you follow the current matrix it would lead to directing to a shore landing and if it was blue water ops, I think they said barrier but I will eat humble pie if wrong.

Mover, WOMBAT and Gonky were all skeptical of the loss of a carrier capable trainer, same for me as I am skeptical of less flying in mil trainers with mil instructors for AF pilots during training.

Just posting plane porn here:

What should have replaced the T-1, Pilatus PC-24

Add a UARSSI (no plumbing, just for dry contacts) to it, NVG friendly if not fully compatible cockpit, mil radios, HUDs both sides and boom a great multi engine trainer and mobility lead in aircraft.

[contraildash]

Just got to PIT, but this seems like its a foregone conclusion at this point. AETC/19AF aren't running FUPT as an experiment. This is the new reality, so deal with it.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

Their mind was made up before the SGTOs even started.

One of the more ironic things is hearing them refer to UPT 2.5 as ‘legacy’ UPT and it not working so they need to replace it with FUPT as if someone else other than staff came up with 2.5 and they are fixing that mistake.

From the program itself, to the lack of resources, hell even the lack of housing for the influx of new students…it’s all FUPT’d up. Still unsure if they are going to attach a multi year ADSC to IPT, they certainly should. At our current graduation rate, we have AMC bound students waiting 9+ months for FTU start dates. That will only get worse.

My prediction:

1. More DORs. Especially if USAFA forces grads to FUPT.
2. Significant increase in 88/89/CRs. (This is already happening with the SGTOs)
3. We won’t meet the 1500/yr goal. We’ll run our IP cadre into the ground. Retention will get even worse.
4. Q3 rates at FTUs will increase
5. Class A rates are going to increase, I already think they are, but don’t have the data to prove it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Arkbird]

9 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

I tried finding the video where they discussed this but to no avail this morning, i think WOMBAT, was in that episode, anyway they said if you follow the current matrix it would lead to directing to a shore landing and if it was blue water ops, I think they said barrier but I will eat humble pie if wrong.

Mover, WOMBAT and Gonky were all skeptical of the loss of a carrier capable trainer, same for me as I am skeptical of less flying in mil trainers with mil instructors for AF pilots during training.

Just posting plane porn here:

What should have replaced the T-1, Pilatus PC-24

Add a UARSSI (no plumbing, just for dry contacts) to it, NVG friendly if not fully compatible cockpit, mil radios, HUDs both sides and boom a great multi engine trainer and mobility lead in aircraft.

PC-21 to replace the T-6, PC-24 to replace the T-1, T-50, M-346, or any other proven advanced trainer to replace the T-38 would all be great but what AETC would say is that none of these solutions save the air force money. Something something our current UPT is producing the best and most capable pilots we've ever produced or whatever buzzwords they'd use. 

[Inertia17]

57 minutes ago, Arkbird said:

PC-21 to replace the T-6, PC-24 to replace the T-1, T-50, M-346, or any other proven advanced trainer to replace the T-38 would all be great but what AETC would say is that none of these solutions save the air force money. Something something our current UPT is producing the best and most capable pilots we've ever produced or whatever buzzwords they'd use. 

Or..no T-6, no T-1. Direct IPT to T-7. 

Let's throw a bunch of Lt's fresh out of a Part 141 with no military flight training, directly into a fast jet trainer, with no instrument phase, because they learned it in Cessna's.  That is the current plan. Should be fine...

[Clark Griswold]

PC-21 to replace the T-6, PC-24 to replace the T-1, T-50, M-346, or any other proven advanced trainer to replace the T-38 would all be great but what AETC would say is that none of these solutions save the air force money. Something something our current UPT is producing the best and most capable pilots we've ever produced or whatever buzzwords they'd use. 

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[contraildash]

I highly doubt anyone at the congressional level has any SA on the situation.

The whole thing is just pathetic. The USAF can’t even train its own pilots.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Clark Griswold]

At our current graduation rate, we have AMC bound students waiting 9+ months for FTU start dates.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

9 months… doing nothing before FTU… what a waste when they could look around, shake the money tree, look in the couch cushions and use that time productively with a reasonable amount of money

1 - multi engine course probably $25,000 with all travel and training and that’s very conservative
Figure 3 weeks for that, just call it a month.
2 - Type course, figure 1.5 months for that, probably $50,000 every thing said and done. One month
King Air or Citation jet, experience and prep for transport category aircraft.
3 - Tailwheel & STOL training, figure 3 weeks for tailwheel plus some time building then 3 weeks for STOL, round up and make that 2 months.
4 - Plan on their water and SERE training plus M4, M9, tactical driving, etc… figure that at 2 months
5 - International experience last program. Lease multi engine Diamond DA62s, 1.5 months flying in Europe, 20 flights. The golden apple to work for…

8 months accounted for with 1 month for leeway

Make UPT Great Again



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Clark Griswold]

10 hours ago, contraildash said:

I highly doubt anyone at the congressional level has any SA on the situation.

The whole thing is just pathetic. The USAF can’t even train its own pilots.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

These people should be all over that 

https://www.legistorm.com/organization/summary/33466/Congressional_Air_Force_Caucus.html

That’s what I don’t get, Congress loves spending, the AF is trying to spend less on this mission so why hasn’t the CODELs where UPT bases are put a hold on that?

 

[MCO]

On 8/3/2025 at 3:38 PM, Clark Griswold said:

These people should be all over that 

https://www.legistorm.com/organization/summary/33466/Congressional_Air_Force_Caucus.html

That’s what I don’t get, Congress loves spending, the AF is trying to spend less on this mission so why hasn’t the CODELs where UPT bases are put a hold on that?

 

As long as the mission isn’t moving why would congress care? The money saved is in the base, if anything more students is more housing and more money in the economy.

The sub quality pilot training product is becoming apparent on the flightline.

[Clark Griswold]

As long as the mission isn’t moving why would congress care? The money saved is in the base, if anything more students is more housing and more money in the economy.
The sub quality pilot training product is becoming apparent on the flightline.

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MCO]

18 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

C-130J community is starting to limit what copilots are allowed to do.

[Arkbird]

40 minutes ago, MCO said:

C-130J community is starting to limit what copilots are allowed to do.

Can you say what aspects? I'm curious on how this compares to other MWSs

[Clark Griswold]

C-130J community is starting to limit what copilots are allowed to do.

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MCO]

1 hour ago, Clark Griswold said:

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lots of rumors on coming changes but right now just no assault landings for copilots unless they are with an instructor due to a rash of hard landings. There was some discussion on if that was the right way forward but the AMC A3 2 star directed that this is the way and released a fleet wide FCIF.

We absolutely can fly cargo around with pilots that aren’t as good and are given significantly less time to train. We are just going to bend more metal in peace time, and in wartime the new expectation needs to be the MAF won’t be anywhere near the front line if we want to preserve the fleet. People gotta figure out their cargo another way.

[Clark Griswold]

Lots of rumors on coming changes but right now just no assault landings for copilots unless they are with an instructor due to a rash of hard landings. There was some discussion on if that was the right way forward but the AMC A3 2 star directed that this is the way and released a fleet wide FCIF.
We absolutely can fly cargo around with pilots that aren’t as good and are given significantly less time to train. We are just going to bend more metal in peace time, and in wartime the new expectation needs to be the MAF won’t be anywhere near the front line if we want to preserve the fleet. People gotta figure out their cargo another way.

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

[Swizzle]

4 hours ago, MCO said:

Lots of //...// no assault landings for copilots // ...// due to a rash of hard landings. //...// AMC A3 2 star directed that this //...// fleet wide FCIF.

//...// People gotta figure out their cargo another way.

Ha. Figures.  Herk was designed specifically for blown-lift aerodynamics - its' express design-goal was to enable a core mission. You telling me pilots cannot even accomplish, understand, and operate this basic mission which hasn't changed since ~23 Aug 1954!? Hahahaha. AF training policies are so broken and the bobs don't listen. However, the Ops-Mx slides will green up by this policy. #notwinning

But seriously: energy management and constant angle theory are things that have consequences when mismanaged in landings. Maybe student pilots should be taught them...and the basic design and handling characteristics of their plane. Or perhaps I'm overthinking this...B2B anyone!? (≠born to bounce)

[Arkbird]

4 hours ago, MCO said:

Lots of rumors on coming changes but right now just no assault landings for copilots unless they are with an instructor due to a rash of hard landings. There was some discussion on if that was the right way forward but the AMC A3 2 star directed that this is the way and released a fleet wide FCIF.

Honestly, this is how it's done in the C-17 community. Co-pilot non ACs can only PM assaults. Not say it's right but I can see AMC A3 looking at us and seeing that the 130 flow can become like that.

[MCO]

2 hours ago, Arkbird said:

Honestly, this is how it's done in the C-17 community. Co-pilot non ACs can only PM assaults. Not say it's right but I can see AMC A3 looking at us and seeing that the 130 flow can become like that.

We did it fine before without issues. And the C-130 is a tactical airlifter, it sucks st strat. We fly 2 tac locals a week to get good at it because we really exist for the front line resupply efforts to get as close as possible to the action within reason.

if you are going to make us an airland only C-17, then why do we exist? Just get rid of us. Save some money.

Landing a C-130 isn’t hard. Landing a C-130 with half the pilot training time, a nine month wait on the flight line at the school house, then a multi month wait at your first unit as a new Lt is hard. And now you’ll barely do it as a copilot, get upgraded to AC and then have to do it for real with limited reps and a copilot that’s never done it.