Initial Pilot Training and Future Pilot Training

[Swizzle]

5 hours ago, DirkDiggler said:

CPs in MC-130s are PM only for assaults and always have been until AC upgrade or AC prep.  That model hasn’t been an issue for the community.

  The bigger issue is the lack of an actual Phase 3 trainer (T-1 sim only or T-6 only students).  The AF is really fucking these guys and girls over.  I’ve had several students over the last 6 months that seriously struggled to land the aircraft (in the sim) normally on a 13,000x150ft wide runway in day VFR conditions.  A lot of these students are behind in overall SA, comms, basic aircraft handling, and GK.

MC-J vol 2, 5.4 Qualification, para. 5.4.1 "First Pilots (FP) should accomplish a maximum effort take-off and landing in order to maintain this qualification."

Must suck to not "should" and learn for ~2 years or more...

[arg]

I can’t remember what the S in AFSOC is for

[DirkDiggler]

2 hours ago, Swizzle said:

MC-J vol 2, 5.4 Qualification, para. 5.4.1 "First Pilots (FP) should accomplish a maximum effort take-off and landing in order to maintain this qualification."

Must suck to not "should" and learn for ~2 years or more...

11-2MC-130J Vol 3 6.5.5.2: MC and FPs will not perform takeoffs or landings from the right seat under the following conditions:

6.5.5.2: During maximum effort or substandard airfield operations.

FPs (MCs really since the MC-130 doesn’t really do traditional FP) finish the sim phase and don’t sit left seat again until AC upgrade or AC prep (current AC upgrade min hours is 600) therefore there’s little to no benefit to qual them in max efforts.  I have not seen this be an issue during my time in the community, to include 2 schoolhouse tours and now current FTU CI.

Edit to add:  It's not that I haven't seen AC upgrade studs struggle with MEs; I have.  It's just that by the end of the AC upgrade syllabus the average student gets it.  Additionally, all the information in the MC-J HUD takes some of the art out of ME landings (power pull aside).

  I've seen far more ACUGs struggle with getting on/staying on the tanker, acting as the formation commander, and running a crew.

Edited Wednesday at 09:36 PM by DirkDiggler
afterthought

[Swizzle]

Maybe for this reason/policy, now rescinded

5.3.3. REMOVED. 5.3.3. SQ/CC may waive 30 percent of the total and PAA flying hours required for upgrade to aircraft commander...

This change of policy must've been for some [welcome] reason!? And I'm not saying that max efforts are a problem in that community, but it is a risk and training opportunity missed b/c of no FP max effort quals when it seems training and qualifications are priorities, but its also "additional" training (qual and beans) with inherent risk requiring flt hours. Its all about in-seat experience on both counts. 

[Clark Griswold]

7 hours ago, Pooter said:

Why do that when you can just crucify the inexperienced crews when they inevitably put more jets in the ground

Somewhere at AETC…

 

 

[LookieRookie]

1 hour ago, Clark Griswold said:

Somewhere at AETC…

 

 

Well Leard is wondering why T-6s have specific go around procedures or why SPs get graded on it, because he didn’t do it that way in the C-17.
 

He wants “military pilots,” not “T-6 pilots.” He has never done ab initio/undergraduate training so he’s out of his element Donnie.

[yzl337]

4 hours ago, Swizzle said:

Maybe for this reason/policy, now rescinded

5.3.3. REMOVED. 5.3.3. SQ/CC may waive 30 percent of the total and PAA flying hours required for upgrade to aircraft commander...

This change of policy must've been for some [welcome] reason!? And I'm not saying that max efforts are a problem in that community, but it is a risk and training opportunity missed b/c of no FP max effort quals when it seems training and qualifications are priorities, but its also "additional" training (qual and beans) with inherent risk requiring flt hours. Its all about in-seat experience on both counts. 

it was a holdover from when the requirement was significantly higher. It also allowed units to waive hours to less than the previous requirement, which was deemed insufficient given the UPT cuts combined with FTU course reductions pushed to the squadrons. 

[Clark Griswold]

19 hours ago, LookieRookie said:

Well Leard is wondering why T-6s have specific go around procedures or why SPs get graded on it, because he didn’t do it that way in the C-17.
 

He wants “military pilots,” not “T-6 pilots.” He has never done ab initio/undergraduate training so he’s out of his element Donnie.

I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt but the only way you get to that level, skill, awareness I think he is implying is by training and flying a lot and in several different types aircraft with good instructors, good equipment first in well crafted basic training situations then progressing to challenging, non-rote situations… 

Rinse lather repeat or Fly train fly… this is how it’s supposed to be #choirpreaching

 

[LookieRookie]

On 8/7/2025 at 4:56 PM, Clark Griswold said:

I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt but the only way you get to that level, skill, awareness I think he is implying is by training and flying a lot and in several different types aircraft with good instructors, good equipment first in well crafted basic training situations then progressing to challenging, non-rote situations… 

Rinse lather repeat or Fly train fly… this is how it’s supposed to be #choirpreaching

 

That’s not what he’s implying. He also lead the charge to get rid of the instrument approach (waiver) out of the T-6 fundamental checkride because SPs already learned to fly instruments at IPT.

He’s removing items that provide data that doesn’t support his “SGTO”

[Clark Griswold]

2 hours ago, LookieRookie said:

That’s not what he’s implying. He also lead the charge to get rid of the instrument approach (waiver) out of the T-6 fundamental checkride because SPs already learned to fly instruments at IPT.

He’s removing items that provide data that doesn’t support his “SGTO”

Well there goes that bit of hope there was a shred of self awareness and honesty in AETC leadership…

Reminds me of the Army general in The Pentagon Wars, before he was in charge of the Bradley, he was in charge of an IR missile so shitty he covered the target in electric frying pans to get a hit during testing.

Is there any insurgent pushback against this?

[MCO]

On 8/6/2025 at 10:51 PM, DirkDiggler said:

11-2MC-130J Vol 3 6.5.5.2: MC and FPs will not perform takeoffs or landings from the right seat under the following conditions:

6.5.5.2: During maximum effort or substandard airfield operations.

FPs (MCs really since the MC-130 doesn’t really do traditional FP) finish the sim phase and don’t sit left seat again until AC upgrade or AC prep (current AC upgrade min hours is 600) therefore there’s little to no benefit to qual them in max efforts.  I have not seen this be an issue during my time in the community, to include 2 schoolhouse tours and now current FTU CI.

Edit to add:  It's not that I haven't seen AC upgrade studs struggle with MEs; I have.  It's just that by the end of the AC upgrade syllabus the average student gets it.  Additionally, all the information in the MC-J HUD takes some of the art out of ME landings (power pull aside).

  I've seen far more ACUGs struggle with getting on/staying on the tanker, acting as the formation commander, and running a crew.

We can argue about the right way to teach assault landings. My point was things were mostly fine until UPT started changing, then the rash of hard landings followed by limitations placed on our new pilots. I feel like the quality of FP is linked to the UPT issues, and it’s showing in a lot of ways. This was the most obvious example I’ve seen so far.

[DirkDiggler]

4 hours ago, MCO said:

We can argue about the right way to teach assault landings. My point was things were mostly fine until UPT started changing, then the rash of hard landings followed by limitations placed on our new pilots. I feel like the quality of FP is linked to the UPT issues, and it’s showing in a lot of ways. This was the most obvious example I’ve seen so far.

You mean, kinda similar to my initial post on the topic quoted below?  I think we’re in violent agreement here.

On 8/6/2025 at 7:43 AM, DirkDiggler said:

CPs in MC-130s are PM only for assaults and always have been until AC upgrade or AC prep.  That model hasn’t been an issue for the community.

  The bigger issue is the lack of an actual Phase 3 trainer (T-1 sim only or T-6 only students).  The AF is really fucking these guys and girls over.  I’ve had several students over the last 6 months that seriously struggled to land the aircraft (in the sim) normally on a 13,000x150ft wide runway in day VFR conditions.  A lot of these students are behind in overall SA, comms, basic aircraft handling, and GK.

 

[Clark Griswold]

Reading some of the comments above and some googling of thoughts on the 1500 hour rule for an ATP certificate, maybe what we should think about for UPT (heavy tracked mainly) is an events / proficiency demonstrated in X number of events / checkrides approach to checkmate those trying just say well, they got X number of hours, passed X number of rides and checked successfully in the T-6 and their GA training aircraft so they’re good together go.  

You could say that you kinda get that done now by ensuring X hours of training but it’s possible half of that is just at single ship cruise and doesn’t capture, record, track the percentage of their training hours that the student is actually training vs straight level 1 g point to point.

If AMC, AFSOC, etc… is noticing training deficiencies / difficulties with new students at FTUs, this might be a more concrete way to push back on AETC’s latest iteration of flight training.

Seems like there might be data out there to support what is sensed / observed about the guys that got shortchanged 

Events in a new multi eng trainer or training program(s) 

Edited 3 hours ago by Clark Griswold

[MCO]

6 minutes ago, DirkDiggler said:

You mean, kinda similar to my initial post on the topic quoted below?  I think we’re in violent agreement here.

 

Yes, but most of the stories are anecdotal “new pilots suck!” Which everyone has said since forever. The change in how the slicks do business is actual change in how we operate as a result of new pilots sucking after pilot training.

[Arkbird]

32 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:

Reading some of the comments above and some googling of thoughts on the 1500 hour rule for an ATP certificate, maybe what we should think about for UPT (heavy tracked mainly) is an events / proficiency demonstrated in X number of events / checkrides approach to checkmate those trying just say well, they got X number of hours, passed X number of rides and checked successfully in the T-6 and their GA training aircraft so they’re good together go.

I believe that's how it was done at least once the changes to UPT started being made initially. When I went through recently, you needed an event graded to a fair/good/excellent depending on the phase you were in plus every X amount of rides you had to reaccomplish that event. If you were good at some things and worse at others, you could spend fewer rides doing the stuff you were good at and move the amount of rides for that block to a different part that you were weaker on so you could get more experience and practicing with whatever it was that you sucked at.

[Clark Griswold]

13 minutes ago, Arkbird said:

I believe that's how it was done at least once the changes to UPT started being made initially. When I went through recently, you needed an event graded to a fair/good/excellent depending on the phase you were in plus every X amount of rides you had to reaccomplish that event. If you were good at some things and worse at others, you could spend fewer rides doing the stuff you were good at and move the amount of rides for that block to a different part that you were weaker on so you could get more experience and practicing with whatever it was that you sucked at.

Gotcha

Kinda sorta this idea is for the MAJCOMs (heavy operators) to push back on AETC and get them to quit min running it or establish their own post-UPT programs and pre-FTU programs 

You (AETC) are not just gonna send us pilot with little multi engine time / training to fly a 75 million dollar Herc for example, you’re gonna put more into it sts… this list of events in a multi engine trainer, light twin if the AF is that cheap / broke…

X flight hours, X landings, X GAs, X OEI approaches, X IAPs, X formation rides, etc… in a multi engine aircraft before you are accessed into an AMC, AFSOC, AFGSC, etc training program 

You could get granular on all the events but I’d try to keep it reasonable.  Probably 10-12 tracked events / task items.

[DirkDiggler]

1 hour ago, MCO said:

Yes, but most of the stories are anecdotal “new pilots suck!” Which everyone has said since forever. The change in how the slicks do business is actual change in how we operate as a result of new pilots sucking after pilot training.

Ahh gotcha.  That's not how I feel about my current students since I started this job; to me, they have deficiencies based on the changes going on in UPT/IPT/whatever the artist formerly known as SUPT is. Most of them have good attitudes and are hungry; it's just the AF isn't training them properly and getting them right type/quality of training.  And in all honesty in the 2-3 years before I retired I felt like my last squadron (anecdotal to be sure) was winning the CP lottery; we had a preponderance of strong swimmers with only 1-2 average/below average guys/girls.

  Changes to how communities are doing business shouldn't be surprising given the product that AF Pilot Training (and in many cases the FTUs) are producing.  Students are getting less time/experience in both, which translates into more risk assumed by the line Sq/CCs.  In most cases, the AF/MAJCOMs aren't giving said commanders additional resources to make up the gap, hence restrictions on certain training/maneuvers.  I'm not saying that its the correct answer (at least at the AF level) but it's understandable given the shortfalls going on in the training pipelines.

[Boomer6]

Are the B-course / Ops IPs on here that see the quality of pilots decreasing hooking more students (to include MQT rides), giving them extra rides, or kicking the can etc?