8 months

So much good, applicable and affordable training / experience / airmanship building could be done vs meaningless busywork

Already posted this musing but whatever

$175k ish would buy a good deal of tailwheel, acro, AMEL time and a type course in a transport category sim, travel costs included

But… here we are.

Somehow other Air Forces seem to figure out how to keep a multi engine trainer program going, not that only multi engine training is ailing in the Air Force

Italians are getting the Piaggio 180

Key Aero

Modernising ITALY’S multi-engine training

New generation Piaggio P180s The Italian Air Force’s air transport...

From the article:

The typical course of Phase 3, for pilots aiming to gain their military wings for the multi-engine fleets, lasts about seven months and includes 60 flying hours, plus 51 hours in the simulator. This equipment is provided by Alsim which is representative of a generic multi-engine jet aircraft. As mentioned earlier, SATA will receive a new simulator from Piaggio Aerospace, representative of both the VC-180B and the VC-180C versions.

If they can afford it we can too.

On 12/27/2025 at 9:44 AM, NoFlyZone said:

Broad answer most heavies outside of AFSOC from the stuff I’ve been hearing but no way to tell if they are working on it or content with the fact that AETC is “technically” reaching the desired numbers of winged UPT grads.

and @Boomer6 yeah I wish I considered it more because they funnel guard/reserve through as quickly as they have in the past. That’s another conversation that I’m sure has been discussed on this forum with whether or not they should fast track guard people when active duty is so backed up but I don’t need to open that can of worms here

What’s causing the delay?

@Polar Bear as far as I’m aware it’s just that the FTUs aren’t ready for the influx of pilots. They fixed the UPT problem but seemed to forget that the FTUs need to be just as fast for it to mean anything effectively.

9 hours ago, NoFlyZone said:

@Polar Bear as far as I’m aware it’s just that the FTUs aren’t ready for the influx of pilots. They fixed the UPT problem but seemed to forget that the FTUs need to be just as fast for it to mean anything effectively.

By "fixed" you mean pushed more basic training on the FTUs?

We cut an entire phase out of UPT to "fix" it.

@raimius Yup that’s exactly what I mean, and I completely agree with you it’s not a real fix but unfortunately it will be the standard moving forward. It really isn’t too late to go back though, because all I hear is that the resulting pilots are bad and that it was better before. If the speed of the FTU isn’t going to increase anyway, why not replace the T-1 and go back to the way things were? Or like @Clark Griswold suggests, get something that the AF can actually use (light transport style) to work with in the meantime that kills 2 birds with 1 stone?

On 12/27/2025 at 2:21 PM, ViperMan said:

This is objectively true. You only have to finish top 50% to continue to fighters. Getting a fighter on AD would take finishing in the top 10-25% (ish). Those who finish below that, but above 50%, are your huckleberries.

Maybe it's changed, but the "above 50%" was very loosey goosey as well.

3 hours ago, NoFlyZone said:

@raimius Yup that’s exactly what I mean, and I completely agree with you it’s not a real fix but unfortunately it will be the standard moving forward. It really isn’t too late to go back though, because all I hear is that the resulting pilots are bad and that it was better before. If the speed of the FTU isn’t going to increase anyway, why not replace the T-1 and go back to the way things were? Or like @Clark Griswold suggests, get something that the AF can actually use (light transport style) to work with in the meantime that kills 2 birds with 1 stone?

Yup

While I don’t agree with the premise the AF is apparently taking in a long term policy, that is to divest itself of all training aircraft save the T-7, I get why certain parts of the brain trust are advocating for that as there is only so much money, personnel, facilities, time and attention you can devote to training till while OTEing for ops.

With that in mind and trying to meet the other side in the middle, both the CAF and MAF could use their ARC associated wings to build out new capabilities that still meet operational requirements but also serve as expanded training capabilities before new pilots report to their assignments.

For the CAF, I’d argue for a light fight version of the T-7 with homeland defense, aggressor, training & exercise support as the raison d’etre(s).

For the MAF, I’d argue for a reasonable fleet of transport category aircraft, probably replacing some older Herc and 135 tails. Adding airlift capability to the AF for regular personnel movement, light cargo, aero medical airlift, etc. Season and prepare new MAF bound pilots there before reporting to their FTU.

There are costs and consequences to those ideas but you either want a strong pilot culture or not. You fly, train and focus on operating better than other Air Forces or not. You allocate the resources to build better aviators or not.

I’m also not saying that those COAs are the only ways either but in a general sense an institution must have the honesty and character to change course when previous choices aren’t working as well as they thought they would. It must also think a bit creatively when resources are scarce, as Churchill said “Gentlemen, we have run out of money; now we have to think“

Think creatively, reasonably but also not timidly.

The end goal is always a well trained, reasonably experienced and tested pilot graduate.