ACE 2.0

[Clark Griswold]

So in the GA thread a tangent got started and a new thread I think is better

Background:
Accelerated Copilot Enrichment (ACE) was a program for tanker & bomber copilots to fly and develop Total Flight Time to get guys who sat a lot of Alpha Alert to Aircraft Commander upgrade in a reasonable timeframe, it ended in 91 when Strategic Air Command (SAC) was inactivated.  94/95 when Gen Loh of ACC ended the program 

It made dollars and sense as the T-37s and 38s were cost effective trainers to develop the aviation skills and airmanship you wanted in your future Aircrew Commanders.  The flying was different, no autopilot in a fairly nimble aerobatic aircraft, but that was the strong point IMHO, it maintained skills that flying their Primary Aircraft Assigned (PAA) you really couldn’t.   More flight time, more real world experience in cross country / off station sorties and the challenge of keeping qualified & current in multiple aircraft; excellent opportunities for a newly minted military aviator to quickly become a strong swimmer.

I’m not the target for a resurrected ACE program but looking for the two cents of COs and others serving now on what you would feel about it:

- Do you think you would benefit from this additional flying?

- If it was voluntary, would you volunteer for it?

- Do you think you could manage it while maintaining Combat Mission Ready (CMR) in your PAA and additional duties?

- If ACE were restarted, it would likely be structured, what program targets do you think it should have?  X hours solo, X hours formation, X low levels, etc…

- If you dual logged some of your training in an ACE platform with your PAA, do you think that would add or detract from proficiency overall?

- The communities that a new ACE program would serve might have different priorities for what skills they want to practice, do you think a single platform could meet enough of their requirements or would separate platforms be better?

- If the AF continues to send crew aircraft assigned UPT graduates straight to FTU from T-6s (until the T-7 is IOC), would first qualifying in an ACE platform before FTU be likely beneficial enough to justify (along with faster Aircraft Commander development)?

 

All rhetorical questions but curious what those serving think. 

Edited 5 hours ago by Clark Griswold

[HuggyU2]

Correction:  ACE did not end when SAC went away. It remained within the newly-formed ACC until summer 1994 (maybe '95) when General Loh cancelled the program literally overnight. 

In my opinion, this was one more indicator of the lack of understanding that officers like Loh and many of the other ACC generals with fighter backgrounds had WRT to the non-fighter platforms under their command.  
 

Although I was never in ACE, I have many friends and classmates that flew as ACE co-pilots, or that were assigned to ACE as instructor pilots.  I have a lot of experience with the CT Program at Beale, which ran in conjunction with ACE until the ACE portion was killed. 
 

You pose a number of questions, Clark. Bottom line: the ACE Program was a cost effective and solid aviation method for getting low-time co-pilots some much-needed quality flying experience. Not to mention, it made pilots very happy that they were able to fly... actually fly anywhere they wanted to go, and work on developing their new aviation skill sets. Imagine that... happy pilots working to better their fundamental aviation skills. 
 

For a brief period of time, Beale RQ-4 pilots were flying Beale aero club aircraft in an ACE-like program. Pennies on the dollar. Of course, it was cancelled. But it showed that with a tiny bit of thought and effort... and not much money... something positive could be done. 
 

The short-sightedness of Gen Loh and his staff was very unfortunate.  Bringing back an even better version of the ACE Program should be done today. In both ACC and AMC. 

Edited 4 hours ago by HuggyU2

[Clark Griswold]

43 minutes ago, HuggyU2 said:

Correction:  ACE did not end when SAC went away. It remained within the newly-formed ACC until summer 1994 (maybe '95) when General Loh cancelled the program literally overnight. 

In my opinion, this was one more indicator of the lack of understanding that officers like Loh many of the other ACC generals with fighter backgrounds had WRT to the non-fighter platforms under their command.  

Although I was never in ACE, I have many friends and classmates that flew as ACE co-pilots, or that were assigned to ACE as instructor pilots.  I have a lot of experience with the CT Program at Beale, which ran in conjunction with ACE until the ACE portion was killed. 

You pose a number of questions, Clark. Bottom line: the ACE Program was a cost effective and solid aviation method for getting low-time co-pilots some much-needed quality flying experience. Not to mention, it made pilots very happy that they were able to fly... actually fly anywhere they wanted to go, and work on developing their new aviation skill sets. Imagine that... happy pilots working to better their fundamental aviation skills. 

For a brief period of time, Beale RQ-4 pilots were flying Beale aero club aircraft in an ACE-like program. Pennies on the dollar. Of course, it was cancelled. But it showed that with a tiny bit of thought and effort... and not much money... something positive could be done. 

The short-sightedness of Gen Loh and his staff was very unfortunate.  Bringing back an even better version of the ACE Program should be done today. In both ACC and AMC. 

Correction applied, thanks for the input as I strive for accuracy in my posts.

Yup, lotta questions to try to seed the discussion.

I see the value, looking back at my AD AMC tour, and I think it is possible unless things are way different now than then for a new CP (probably an Lt and not a Capt CP), especially in that first year at their assignment.

The CT program the Global Hawk was about $90,000 (05-06 dollars) to fly all the RQ4 pilots for the year, maintaining ASEL INSTM currency per the FAA LOA that was in effect at the time that covered Navs directing the GH as Mission Commanders when it was in the US NAS.  Dirt freaking cheap.

ACC HQ squashed it as they whined they couldn’t set it up all their projected bases for the GH so nobody could have it, because you can’t fly a Cessna in Japan apparently.

That was one of the reasons I requested my GH assignment, it was a great benefit while getting a RPA tour done, then the bait and switch happened.  Total bullshit and not even penny wise, it was less than the color copier budget for an FY, no kidding.  

An example to consider for the HAF staffer lurking on this thread:

Google AI says a -46 per flight hour cost is about $12,000 and a Gamebird GB1 would be about $400 per hour.  
Checking their AFMAN 11-2KC-46 Vol 2, to go from FP to MP you need a 1000 total and 400 -46 hours.  
Substituting 300 hours of GB1 time with a good bit of that being solo to really build airmanship would save $7 million in flying hours and I’m confident in saying likely deliver a stronger upgrade candidate than one with all -46 time. 
 

[Clark Griswold]

One more idea, in another thread this may have come up but what if ACE 2 were run at one or several centralized bases and participants TDY’d in for recurrency and a set training profile, like recurrency flights then an intense 2-3 weeks flying schedule.  Figure 3-5 training programs.

Since it would be about a one month TDY, the interference factor from home base could be eliminated.