Initial Pilot Training and Future Pilot Training

[Arkbird]

3 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Never flew the T-6 but is it forgiving enough that it could be used for an initio pilot training?  No Cessna or Diamond training first but straight to a turboprop?

Not with how short the syllabus is now for the T-6. With the new UPT program, they seem to be getting ~45 hours in the T-6. It's a great and pretty forgiving trainer but everything comes at you quick if you're not prepared.

Edited Wednesday at 05:15 PM by Arkbird

[Clark Griswold]

2 hours ago, Arkbird said:

Not with how short the syllabus is now for the T-6. With the new UPT program, they seem to be getting ~45 hours in the T-6. It's a great and pretty forgiving trainer but everything comes at you quick if you're not prepared.

Gotcha, yeah I thought it would be a bit much for your first rodeo.

 

[Clark Griswold]

More on their new trainer, carrier focused with potential for light fighter

https://defence-blog.com/chinas-new-combat-jet-spotted-in-test-flight/#
 

 

[Lord Ratner]

On 10/29/2025 at 8:53 AM, Clark Griswold said:

Never flew the T-6 but is it forgiving enough that it could be used for an initio pilot training?  No Cessna or Diamond training first but straight to a turboprop?

 

Yeah, absolutely. I did the IFT replacement at the Air Force academy when they had gotten rid of IFT (or whatever the program was pre-2006). It was like half of a PPL course, taught by civilians, and had basically no standards. I learned practically nothing. Then it was over 2 years before I started upt, so I had long since brain dumped everything from that course. 

 

The T-6 is perfectly suitable to be the first airplane and Air Force pilot touches.

 

Edit: agreed with the above however, 45 hours would be wholly insufficient. 100 hours is probably The Sweet spot before going to an intermediate or advanced trainer. 

 

If we're going to transition back to everybody flies the T-38 (replacement) then we probably need more like 150 hours in something like the T-6. At least back when I was a FAIP, The limited t38 slots meant that only your best students were going to it, so you could get away with much less training. 

Edited yesterday at 02:04 PM by Lord Ratner

[brabus]

Question for UPT grads from early 90s and before…

Along the lines of Lord Ratner’s post, wasn’t one of the reasons for historically much higher washout rates back in the previous century the fact everyone flew 38s, which meant guys washed out for sucking at 4 ship form, etc. - things that were largely irrelevant to heavies, meaning these washouts probably would have been fine to graduate had they fast forwarded to SUPT with a tracked system (flew T-1s).

If I’m not off base, then hopefully that is considered when designing a single-airframe UPT program. More hours in primary trainer, maybe track guys in the first third of advanced trainer (e.g. everyone flies the same aircraft, but the syllabus becomes different for fighters vs. heavy track), etc.

[DirkDiggler]

59 minutes ago, brabus said:

Question for UPT grads from early 90s and before…

Along the lines of Lord Ratner’s post, wasn’t one of the reasons for historically much higher washout rates back in the previous century the fact everyone flew 38s, which meant guys washed out for sucking at 4 ship form, etc. - things that were largely irrelevant to heavies, meaning these washouts probably would have been fine to graduate had they fast forwarded to SUPT with a tracked system (flew T-1s).

If I’m not off base, then hopefully that is considered when designing a single-airframe UPT program. More hours in primary trainer, maybe track guys in the first third of advanced trainer (e.g. everyone flies the same aircraft, but the syllabus becomes different for fighters vs. heavy track), etc.

I'd have to look at the slides again but I'm pretty sure eventually when UPT goes to a single aircraft model (T-7) there's different syllabi after track select depending on which type you track ie Heavy guys wouldn't be flying events like 4 ship form.  IIRC after track select Heavy students basically go direct to the FTU.  

Edit to add: if you have a .mil email PM me and I can send you the placemat slide explaining the current plan.

Edited yesterday at 03:42 PM by DirkDiggler
afterthought

[raimius]

3 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

 

Edit: agreed with the above however, 45 hours would be wholly insufficient. 100 hours is probably The Sweet spot before going to an intermediate or advanced trainer. 

This is UPT currently, except there is no advanced trainer for the majority of students...they go straight to FTU.

It's half of a successful plan.

[Clark Griswold]

Yeah, absolutely. I did the IFT replacement at the Air Force academy when they had gotten rid of IFT (or whatever the program was pre-2006). It was like half of a PPL course, taught by civilians, and had basically no standards. I learned practically nothing. Then it was over 2 years before I started upt, so I had long since brain dumped everything from that course. 
 
The T-6 is perfectly suitable to be the first airplane and Air Force pilot touches.
 
Edit: agreed with the above however, 45 hours would be wholly insufficient. 100 hours is probably The Sweet spot before going to an intermediate or advanced trainer. 
 
If we're going to transition back to everybody flies the T-38 (replacement) then we probably need more like 150 hours in something like the T-6. At least back when I was a FAIP, The limited t38 slots meant that only your best students were going to it, so you could get away with much less training. 

Alright that’s another data point

Score 1 to 1 for yes/no to whether it could be your first training aircraft
If the syllabus was nice and fat (100+ hours / 80+ rides) with good sim and FTD time prior to flight line I suspect you’re right, with judicious expectations in the first few rides

I’m still for a screening / elementary program, basically a mil instructed PPL with introductory instrument work but if it was a choice between that and a straight to a 100+ hour T-6 syllabus if king for a day I’d get more T-6 hours for UPT

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lord Ratner]

9 hours ago, brabus said:

(e.g. everyone flies the same aircraft, but the syllabus becomes different for fighters vs. heavy track), etc.

That's what makes the most sense to me. We need a higher standard than what the T-1 offered, but we don't need refueling pilots (like I was) proficient in 4ship. Dump that stuff into IFF. 

 

I was a KC-135 instructor for a bit and the irony of that plane was that it was probably the second hardest plane in the AF to fly (stick and rudder, not mission execution obviously), yet it got mostly bottom-half UPT graduates because it was old and had bad CONUS bases. And it flies a lot of formation. Not fingertip at 90° of bank, but the same principals made you a good platform for the receivers.

 

A student with solid formation work and more high-speed non-autopilot flying would absolutely benefit even the most herbivorific planes. And the weak swimmers can't hide behind their flying partner like they could in the T-1.

[lilyelliott4]

On 1/20/2025 at 10:12 AM, raimius said:

Many and many.

60-70% are FAIPs who barely get any planned CT, and see most of the Stans they hooked come back from the 88/89/CR process.

And yeah, grade inflation is certainly a thing...and even worse now that it's T-6 direct to FTU.  No more phase 3 to help train most new LTs.  

 

The only potential upside for quality with these ideas is that the Lts will have some more hours when they graduate.  Most are graduating now with ~120-130hrs, when my group had 200-220.  I'm not a better student than the kids now, but I got more training...

That’s a really thoughtful perspective — and I totally see where you’re coming from. The shift in training hours and structure definitely impacts overall preparedness, especially when phase 3 time isn’t there to reinforce fundamentals. It sounds like experience levels are narrowing faster now, which can make the learning curve at FTU a lot steeper.

It’s interesting you mentioned the FAIPs too — that balance between getting them the right exposure while still maintaining training depth for new LTs seems tricky. Hopefully, with the added hours at graduation, some of that gap can be bridged, but it’s hard to replace real reps and mentorship time.

By the way, for anyone interested in thoughtful takes on training, learning progress, and milestones, I’ve shared a few reflections on my site as well — different field, but similar themes around growth and readiness.

[FourFans]

4 hours ago, lilyelliott4 said:

That’s a really thoughtful perspective — and I totally see where you’re coming from. The shift in training hours and structure definitely impacts overall preparedness, especially when phase 3 time isn’t there to reinforce fundamentals. It sounds like experience levels are narrowing faster now, which can make the learning curve at FTU a lot steeper.

It’s interesting you mentioned the FAIPs too — that balance between getting them the right exposure while still maintaining training depth for new LTs seems tricky. Hopefully, with the added hours at graduation, some of that gap can be bridged, but it’s hard to replace real reps and mentorship time.

By the way, for anyone interested in thoughtful takes on training, learning progress, and milestones, I’ve shared a few reflections on my site as well — different field, but similar themes around growth and readiness.

Are you a bot?  The chatgptness of your response and your Thai fitness webpage makes me think you're a bot.

Edited 11 hours ago by FourFans

[Springer]

14 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

I was a KC-135 instructor for a bit and the irony of that plane was that it was probably the second hardest plane in the AF to fly (stick and rudder, not mission execution obviously), yet it got mostly bottom-half UPT graduates because it was old and had bad CONUS bases. And it flies a lot of formation. Not fingertip at 90° of bank, but the same principals made you a good platform for the receivers.

Curious, what is the most difficult plane to fly in the AF?  Was the -135 difficult (landing) because of the low hung engines?

[Clark Griswold]

Was the -135 difficult (landing) because of the low hung engines?

I have about 1800 hours in the -135, around 100 IP so take this assessment from there.
The -135 was a challenge to land and do OEI (outboard) training / landing OEI once all trimmed up was not bad, landed one 3 engine once, it was not a huge deal, a thing but not bad either.
The challenge in landing was speed control and the effect of N1 inconsistency between engines on approach.
The CFM 56 on the R models I flew had a poor man’s engine control called Power Management Control (PMC) there were multiple versions of them for CFM 56s and they controlled N1 above certain power settings, it is a system really meant to prevent overboost in climb but on approach they could be inconsistent and make the tanker’s speed control and pitch up/down kind of a bear.
The cross wind landing technique was not the easiest to learn either as you have IIRC 18 inches (sts) from pod to pavement with only 4 degrees allowed in the wing low flare position.
Most IPs taught an aileron pop technique with a flatter flare for strong x-winds (15+ knots).
There were also challenges in proper sight picture as the dash and instruments were all slightly placed off from the original -80 bird, the plane due to the large changes in GW and fuel movement had a range of CGs to get used to, a 22 CG -135 is responsive and stable a 32 CG -135 is tail heavy and likes roll a bit, etc…
All in all, a good plane but from a different era with challenges in the pattern but obviously learnable


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TreeA10]

On 11/2/2025 at 8:41 AM, brabus said:

Question for UPT grads from early 90s and before…

Along the lines of Lord Ratner’s post, wasn’t one of the reasons for historically much higher washout rates back in the previous century the fact everyone flew 38s, which meant guys washed out for sucking at 4 ship form, etc. - things that were largely irrelevant to heavies, meaning these washouts probably would have been fine to graduate had they fast forwarded to SUPT with a tracked system (flew T-1s).

If I’m not off base, then hopefully that is considered when designing a single-airframe UPT program. More hours in primary trainer, maybe track guys in the first third of advanced trainer (e.g. everyone flies the same aircraft, but the syllabus becomes different for fighters vs. heavy track), etc.

I was A FAIP and instructed in the T-38 from 85-88 at Columbus.  Most loses in a UPT class occurred in the T-37 with a wash out rate around 30%, IIRC.  We would usually lose 2 or 3 students in the T-38 in the contract or instrument phase. I don't remember anyone washed out in the formation phase.  There was a change in the syllabus after a mid-air during a 4 ship rejoin. Those going to heavies got more nav and instrument rides and the guys going to fighters did more 4 ship.

Worst class I saw in the 38 was when the AF decided to push more students through and limited wash outs. We had a class come to us in the T-38 that lost students in the T-37 for medical or SIE but not much else. It was a blood bath and we washed out half the class.   

[Lord Ratner]

5 hours ago, Springer said:

Curious, what is the most difficult plane to fly in the AF?  Was the -135 difficult (landing) because of the low hung engines?

U-2, as far as I know. I only flew it three times, but holy shit, it's... different. 

 

On the KC it was the combination of low engines, fast approach speeds, and the cable driven ailerons and elevators delaying all the inputs. Then you had a huge hydraulic rudder that would throw the plane around much faster than the cable driven surfaces. It had so much inertia that if you didn't pull the power at the right point, you couldn't slow down. If I remember correctly we went to idle at 200-300 feet for the flaps 30 (engine out) approach when heavy.

 

I also can't compare it to the fighters that were around in your day, because they only keep the planes, not the pilots in the museums 😂🤣. I suspect some of those rocket ships with stubby little wings were an absolute monster to fly, but everything we have now is so much more advanced. 

 

The difference between the U2 and the kc-135 was not close, I don't want to make it sound like the kc-135 was unmanageable. After all, many of the world pilot training students flew it just fine. But when I talked to pilots who had flown both fighter aircraft and the kc-135, the raw stick and rudder of the kc-135 was more to manage. 

 

It was just really sloppy. You made up for it with probably the easiest combat mission in the AF. I taught many many KC135 pilots that were barely able to fly the plane, much less handle a more complicated mission.

 

Honestly the biggest argument I have in support of the kc-135 being harder to land than a fighter is that the fighters weren't doing touch and gos when I was in. That blew my mind. There's no way you could get proficient at flying the kc-135 without doing pattern only flights. But you also have the better pilot factor to deal with, for whatever that equalizes.