Training pilots without actual airplanes

Might as well. These days, they're more likely to be drone pilots most of their career anyway.
 
They're going to end up with a pilot in the "fleet" who is capable of meeting their training standards but deficit in all the things that surround flying. Things like.

Dealing with Base Operations and ground procedures at a strange field.
Dealing with controllers that act well, like humans, and not a single instructor playing ATC
Aircraft issues that don't down it but require working around the issue to get it home.

I just can't see them replacing those sorts of things and thinking they will produce a complete aviator. I learned as much on my first T-34C cross country as the ten flights before that I think (although that was a while ago)
 
The military version of ‘ab-initio’ type training, get them over minimums then learn in the multi-piloted plane.
 
It doesn’t sound as bad to me after reading the article. It all comes down to the implementation.
 
This does not seem to be ab-initio training, but after initial training.

....
Earning pilot’s wings in the T-6 takes about seven months, at which point a trainee is selected to continue on the fighter-bomber track or the mobility track.

About 900 students are picked for mobility-track pilot slots each year. Those airmen, who train to fly cargo and tanker aircraft as well as special operations and intelligence-gathering planes, typically spend about five months in the T-1 — an intermediate step toward their operational unit.

Those who pass the T-1 course then move on to learn about their assigned aircraft. ...

.... Starting in January, the interim step — known as specialized undergraduate pilot training — will use only simulators to teach more advanced flight skills in 75 days.
Click to expand...

You would still do initial training in the T-6, but then use the simulator for the ones not selected for fighters or bombers. These trainees would get the simulator treatment for 75 days for 'more advanced flight skills' and then move on to their specific non-fighter / bomber aircraft training.

So, if the non fighter / bomber pilots weren't already looked down upon in the USAF, this is certainly not going to improve the image.
 
Yeap, not totally replacing aircraft. Everyone gets the same training in the T-6, aircraft and sims, then the crew aircraft guys go to the T-1A. Now that will be sim.

But remember, after the sim training they go to aircraft specific training, which is a mix of sim and actual aircraft. Then, they go to a squadron, where they will be a co-pilot for a good bit of time.
 
It’ll be interesting to watch it play out. If initial/mission qual training in the tanker/transport/bomber space ends up having to add a few live fly sorties to the syllabus, any savings on the AETC side will be a wash.
 
*giggles* You taxpayers are gonna love what they got cooking up over here in the brain trust./sarc
I'm too close to this one to talk inside baseball with y'all, the internet is not really all that anonymous anymore.

I'll keep my comments generic. All I'll say is, there will be imho a further bifurcation of what it means to be .mil trained after this process is complete. We'll all wear the same wings, but they won't be the same to those who understand what to look for. And that's really caustic; I don't like the rabbit hole where that leads to but I'm not in a position to push back. I just salute and do my job until I get my freedom papers. Don't shoot the iron major type of thing.

The short and skinny of it is that herbivores are eventually going to be trained in-kind with that the airlines do. And it will be a diluted product, but according to the brain trust, the important part is that it'll be good enough. And in fairness to them, they're probably right, at least as long as we don't get challenged by a peer air defense adversary in the near future.

The difference of course is that the airlines, and I mean major airlines, have experienced and historically TPIC-seasoned product as the input; the AF has young neophytes as the input. So that's the only experimental part of the whole thing. In reality, you're looking at what the regional airlines face in training as a benchmark for the AF. IOW, a lot of unspoken and unpaid OJT going on at the line/squadron level, while calling everybody "full CMR" in the process. The numbers look good on paper, but behind closed doors is a bunch of slicked wing O-3s in the left seat of airliner-based platforms and T-props, de facto flying single pilot while the co-pilot learns to walk, and hope's the plan. That's where the savings of this approach are likely to get paid, while telling you taxpayers we're saving you money.

The article doesn't cover this part, but the 11F/11B won't be like that. They'll get the gold plate. T-6 to T-7A, to include a USN styled blend of intermediate and and advanced strike (IFF will get blended into Phase III, 11Bs will be cut loose early) before hitting the B-course, in a touch screen avionics 4.5 gen fighter datalink/threat picture emulator with an airshow demo drag index and power ratio that overspeeds the g-damned gear even at 20deg NH if you take off full grunt (see avatar). #404FTW And I just went six to midnight thinking about level turn G-x's :D

As a casualty of the "one drop rule" caste system myself, I would like to see less division amongst our flying core. This is going to widen the chasm imo. Second tier effects I don't think senior leadership is tracking, at all. I'm too close to the retirement check to care make much extra fuss about, plus I got my hands full keeping people alive these days given the greening of the inputs that we incurred as a result of the decisions made in FY12-17. I digress.
 
Yuck. And bad for the force.

ETA: lemme guess…brought to you by Doss Aviation.
 
I'm seeing the changes here and whats going on....basically I'm told train them to 750 hours for the airlines...I have waay more thoughts on what I see but I'll keep it to myself and I'm just a lowly T6a simulator tech.
 
There has to be other areas where the military can be more efficient / cut costs other than training. Simulators can reinforce real flying skills, but it can't substitute. Far too many things that aren't in the simulator that will trip someone up when it's time for flying in the real world.
 
Again, they are getting real airplane time in the T-6, and then in training for their assigned aircraft, then a good number of hours flying as a copilot.

And the hours that are being replaced by the sim are in an aircraft that is ONLY flown for training.
 
With you on this one, Pinecone. But I definitely didn't consider the further divide it will cause like hindsight mentioned. If they did it for everyone it would be one thing, but splitting it for fighter/bomber and others is pretty ****ty. But then here I am applying for the Civilian Pathway to Wings program that excludes fighters/bombers :oops:
 
I don't see that as an issue.

Fighter/attack/recce pilots already look down on heavy pilots. :D

Seriously, other than bar bantering, I never saw any real divide. I do recall, at assignment drop night, anyone who got a transport got a spoon stuck in their sleeve pocket of their flight suit. To stir their coffee and eat their soup. :D
 
All due respect, back then everybody went through T-38s, and had twice (by volume output) the number of pilot training bases that remain today. A good half of them passed by the skin of their teeth, many (by modern attrition standards) more washed out, and others unnecessarily died too. I understand why folks of that generation would find the divide merely a matter of bar bantering given that very different ground reality. We're now regressing back to a paradigm of excess deaths on the T-38 as a result of the reintroduction of a less vetted quantity by both experience and undergraduate training background themselves. Don't shoot the messenger.

There's a lot more that I could expand on, but I wish to remain somewhat anonymous on this forum regarding this topic, since it cuts into my IRL present livelihood.

BL, the bifurcation is real and goes beyond bar-banter about heavies vs pointies. There's a fundamental hollowing of competencies across the rated aviator force, and putting increased weight on a T1-trained majority T-6 cadre to issue silver wings after 80 hours to neophytes, to then put them through simulator-heavy follow-on training, is not something I consider in the interest of our combat lethality, let alone our safety record in garrison in the first place. I'll defer my expanded comments for a different day and time. I retire in 5 years; my 'I love me' memoirs to publish shortly thereafter. :D
 
Definitely appreciate your insight.
 
I am not a CFI, not an expert in human factors, nor am I particularly familiar with what it takes to fly jets (having 0 hours of turbine time myself).

But, isn't this basically what happens with commercial pilots in every country that is not the US?

A few hundred hours in a piston single, 2 dozen hours in something with 2 piston engines, then some sim time and the pilot is sent to the line?

I don't see how this training is different from an EASA Frozen-ATP pilot being promoted to right seat.

If I am missing something please explain, but it seems there are a lot of pilots flying today (even in the US) who never piloted a jet until they hit the airlines, and in countries that don't require 1500 hours, I'm sure the pilots don't have much more time than the Air Force pilots have logged when they exit the Texans.
 
hindsight2020 said:
All due respect, back then everybody went through T-38s, and had twice (by volume output) the number of pilot training bases that remain today. A good half of them passed by the skin of their teeth, many (by modern attrition standards) more washed out, and others unnecessarily died too. I understand why folks of that generation would find the divide merely a matter of bar bantering given that very different ground reality. We're now regressing back to a paradigm of excess deaths on the T-38 as a result of the reintroduction of a less vetted quantity by both experience and undergraduate training background themselves. Don't shoot the messenger.

There's a lot more that I could expand on, but I wish to remain somewhat anonymous on this forum regarding this topic, since it cuts into my IRL present livelihood.

BL, the bifurcation is real and goes beyond bar-banter about heavies vs pointies. There's a fundamental hollowing of competencies across the rated aviator force, and putting increased weight on a T1-trained majority T-6 cadre to issue silver wings after 80 hours to neophytes, to then put them through simulator-heavy follow-on training, is not something I consider in the interest of our combat lethality, let alone our safety record in garrison in the first place. I'll defer my expanded comments for a different day and time. I retire in 5 years; my 'I love me' memoirs to publish shortly thereafter. :D
Click to expand...

I am under the impression that current AF pilots have 150-200 hours before they transition out of piston trainers. How incorrect is that impression?
 
MarkH said:
I am under the impression that current AF pilots have 150-200 hours before they transition out of piston trainers. How incorrect is that impression?
Click to expand...

Very. IFT is a 14 sortie syllabus. Used to be the USAF paid civilians to gobble up the allotment for a PPL under the old program. 40-50 hours. Then the gravy train came to a stop, and went into IFS screening like the old days of Hondo Air Base, with several changes that yield the present hodgepodge of initial accessions flight time at UPT entry. If the applicant has their PPL on their own anyways, then it's straight to UPT. I have no idea how much time powered flight cadets get at the academy in the Cirri.

Suffice to say, numbers vary, it's not a set number, and certainly not 200 hours.

ETA: Talking about USAFA cadet accessions. Not Guard and Reserve, or civilian airline pilots under some of the niche onesy twosie weird duck programs that get turned on and off again with the shift in winds. For instance, I showed up to UPT as a CFI/II, CSEL with about 400 hours of piston time, but many of my peers in the Guard/Reserves cohort had barely a PPL. It really runs the full spectrum depending on what demographic you're talking about.
 
hindsight2020 said:
Very. IFT is a 14 sortie syllabus. Used to be the USAF paid civilians to gobble up the allotment for a PPL under the old program. 40-50 hours. Then the gravy train came to a stop, and went into IFS screening like the old days of Hondo Air Base, with several changes that yield the present hodgepodge of initial accessions flight time at UPT entry. If the applicant has their PPL on their own anyways, then it's straight to UPT. I have no idea how much time powered flight cadets get at the academy in the Cirri.

Suffice to say, numbers vary, it's not a set number, and certainly not 200 hours.

ETA: Talking about USAFA cadet accessions. Not Guard and Reserve, or civilian airline pilots under some of the niche onesy twosie weird duck programs that get turned on and off again with the shift in winds. For instance, I showed up to UPT as a CFI/II, CSEL with about 400 hours of piston time, but many of my peers in the Guard/Reserves cohort had barely a PPL. It really runs the full spectrum depending on what demographic you're talking about.
Click to expand...

Thats concerning, especially considering the weight given to military vs civilian pilot training.
 
MarkH said:
Thats concerning, especially considering the weight given to military vs civilian pilot training.
Click to expand...

In fairness, the value added the civilian sector historically assigns to military applicants stems from their rated winged experience on a per capita basis, compared to civilian experience. That includes the training and demonstrated experience in their major weapon system. It's partly the reason some airlines inject a multiplier to my military hours printout. But more specifically, it's the level of perceived training and quality control/standardization compared to part 91/91k and 135/134.5. It's the same reason other-121 is/was generally regarded as the preferred pool for major airlines, good bad indiff.

The angle you bring up though, is relevant to raising the legitimate question of whether two pre-ATP military guys, one 11F/B and one 11M/H/R/S, should be considered "known quantity" equals, when it came to qualifying for an R-ATP by military competency. Which is essentially the failed argument Republic Holdings tried to pitch the FAA. In the present circumstance, the system says yes, the two .mil are the same. My argument raises the rhetorical question of whether that could still be legitimately be answered in the affirmative, in the paradigm where they intend to take mobility/t-prop track students through, vis a vis their 11F/B counters. To be clear, that is a significant departure from the current baseline separation of undergraduate experience between 11F and the rest. The delta based on the new chasm could be as high as 175 hours less to their first MWS, compared to their 11F/B peers. That's not insignificant, unless you are in the camp that believes what we do in undergraduate pilot training is ultimately superfluous and can be "table-topped" with virtual reality goggles.

From the FAA's perspective, DoD wings are DoD wings, and will likely be given the same credit. But as the meme intimates, "bold move cotton.....".

I don't have a problem necessarily with experience impostors coat-riding on the reputation old-syllabus silver wings afford the newer collective. I just have a problem with the bifurcation of core competencies within the same occupational rating, internal to the service. I think it's going to be caustic, and not in the interest of anybody, never mind downline and interoperability staffing needs going forward.
 
hindsight2020 said:
…I think it's going to be caustic, and not in the interest of anybody, never mind downline and interoperability staffing needs going forward.
Click to expand...
Leafeaters will be demoted to second class citizens a la xSOs, panel navs, and the E-3/E-8 backend crowd (who never should have been rated to begin with).

Then, you gotta wonder what AFSOC is going to do, because they can’t afford proficiency questions amongst their sister service counterparts although it’s already acknowledged the 160th is *the* standard to measured against for lift, but as for the the gunships…..

And then there will be the pre-/post- divide not just in the MAF, but across the rated force until the post-change pilots have a chance to prove themselves against their 11F peers for time to IP/SEFE, etc. across all the career milestones.

ETA: i can’t even imagine what it would be like for the FAIP’d guy in this new environment.
 
hindsight2020 said:
*giggles* You taxpayers are gonna love what they got cooking up over here in the brain trust./sarc
I'm too close to this one to talk inside baseball with y'all, the internet is not really all that anonymous anymore.

I'll keep my comments generic. All I'll say is, there will be imho a further bifurcation of what it means to be .mil trained after this process is complete. We'll all wear the same wings, but they won't be the same to those who understand what to look for. And that's really caustic; I don't like the rabbit hole where that leads to but I'm not in a position to push back. I just salute and do my job until I get my freedom papers. Don't shoot the iron major type of thing.

The short and skinny of it is that herbivores are eventually going to be trained in-kind with that the airlines do. And it will be a diluted product, but according to the brain trust, the important part is that it'll be good enough. And in fairness to them, they're probably right, at least as long as we don't get challenged by a peer air defense adversary in the near future.

The difference of course is that the airlines, and I mean major airlines, have experienced and historically TPIC-seasoned product as the input; the AF has young neophytes as the input. So that's the only experimental part of the whole thing. In reality, you're looking at what the regional airlines face in training as a benchmark for the AF. IOW, a lot of unspoken and unpaid OJT going on at the line/squadron level, while calling everybody "full CMR" in the process. The numbers look good on paper, but behind closed doors is a bunch of slicked wing O-3s in the left seat of airliner-based platforms and T-props, de facto flying single pilot while the co-pilot learns to walk, and hope's the plan. That's where the savings of this approach are likely to get paid, while telling you taxpayers we're saving you money.

The article doesn't cover this part, but the 11F/11B won't be like that. They'll get the gold plate. T-6 to T-7A, to include a USN styled blend of intermediate and and advanced strike (IFF will get blended into Phase III, 11Bs will be cut loose early) before hitting the B-course, in a touch screen avionics 4.5 gen fighter datalink/threat picture emulator with an airshow demo drag index and power ratio that overspeeds the g-damned gear even at 20deg NH if you take off full grunt (see avatar). #404FTW And I just went six to midnight thinking about level turn G-x's :D

As a casualty of the "one drop rule" caste system myself, I would like to see less division amongst our flying core. This is going to widen the chasm imo. Second tier effects I don't think senior leadership is tracking, at all. I'm too close to the retirement check to care make much extra fuss about, plus I got my hands full keeping people alive these days given the greening of the inputs that we incurred as a result of the decisions made in FY12-17. I digress.
Click to expand...


I just came across this same article in the AF Times (before I saw this thread)- and immediately wondered what your take on this might be, lo and behold...
Granted, heavies aren't high-performance aircraft- but going FULL sim and zero hours flight time eventually? Doesn't strike me as a recipe for success.
 
In fairness to the brain trust, they're not advocating for zero hours. But they are trying to align to what I consider an MPL standard of training; they're just never going to concede that publicly. They're also struggling to align the messaging that they're not in fact trying to increase production by reducing training, instead of expanding capacity via additional UPT basing. Latter which is a non-starter for HAF and their fat amy budgetary bias.

The argument that most pro-MPLers miss when constantly referencing the airlines, is that the mission competencies of many .mil heavies, are a lot more involved than that of commercial ACMI or pax 121, by quite a bit more risk factors. Not least of which includes kinetic weapons employment for some. It's not airline flying (ferry flight), though it may resemble it the majority of the time. To encapsulate the entirety of the non-CAF as basically Strat Lift, is a complete misread.
 
Doesn’t even need to be weapons employment.

Let’s talk HAAM or formation airdrop or tanking or short and soft field under NVG, or any of the other myriad high performance missions big blue does with heavy aircraft.

Hell, combat departures and arrivals are near-max performance everyday maneuvers for that matter.
 
MarkH said:
Thats concerning, especially considering the weight given to military vs civilian pilot training.
Click to expand...

That comes from the UPT program. These are programs before UPT that are used to weed out those that at mostly liking to wash out of UPT.

In my day, if you had a PP or higher, you went straight to UPT and the T-37. If not, you went to Hondo for FSP. I did not go there, but it was about 15 hours in T-41A (straight tail O-300 C-172) with contract instructors. But to Mil training standards and formats. So they learned bold face and things not common to civilian training. IIRC, in the time allotted you had to solo or you washed out. This program was very successful with FSP grads having a higher rate of graduating from UPT that other sources (including Air Force Academy programs),

Once in UPT the real training started. In my day you did about 4 - 5 months in the T-37, soloing. And adding instrument and formation training. And doing some cross countries. Then to the T-38 for the same things. Typical grad was about 200 hours of jet time, depending on how many repeat rides due to not performing to standards.

We had a few special students that were 0 time and did not attend FSP. Those that graduated had around 240 -50 total jet hours. I graduated with 170 hours. Hmmm, how much does 15 hours in a C-172 cost versus 70 hours in jets (at the time the T-38 was about $1000 an hour)??
 
tobnpr said:
Granted, heavies aren't high-performance aircraft- but going FULL sim and zero hours flight time eventually? Doesn't strike me as a recipe for success.
Click to expand...

Where are they proposing that??

The current proposal has the same T-6 time. Then same transition training into the operational aircraft (sim and actual aircraft) and the same right seat time once operationally.

All that is being changed to sim only is the T-1A segment, which is a lot of CRM, cross country and instrument training.
 
I was a maintainer decades ago - I remember USAF doing a cursory F105 fam program for many-motor pilots then shipping them off to SEA. I don't know how well that worked out; I assume some did fine. Others maybe not so good. The point was the AF treated pilots as interchangeable commodities back then. Later, in the 80s, I was enlisted aircrew - us sweaties learned not all pilots are created equal - not at 300' AGL in the dark - we learned to "shop" crews when deploying.
 
I love POA. In this thread we have "Training pilots without actual airplanes," and in this thread we have "Training airplanes without actual pilots."

Nauga,
who answered, "No," but is willing to learn.
 
hindsight2020 said:
In fairness to the brain trust, they're not advocating for zero hours. But they are trying to align to what I consider an MPL standard of training; they're just never going to concede that publicly. They're also struggling to align the messaging that they're not in fact trying to increase production by reducing training, instead of expanding capacity via additional UPT basing. Latter which is a non-starter for HAF and their fat amy budgetary bias.
Click to expand...

Fat Amy = The F-35 Program. In other words, the Air Force will cut whatever it takes to keep feeding money to their #1 priority, the F-35.

I've found Air Force decision making much easier to understand if you always think "What choice will drive more dollars to the defense contractors?"
 
fasteddie said:
Fat Amy = The F-35 Program. In other words, the Air Force will cut whatever it takes to keep feeding money to their #1 priority, the F-35.
Click to expand...
No different than the F-22 “tax” years. Cut everybody’s flying except the schoolhouses to pay for F22.

There’s something in there about both Congress and the Departments being good stewards of taxpayer dollars that’s always getting missed.
 
hindsight2020 said:
All due respect, back then everybody went through T-38s, and had twice (by volume output) the number of pilot training bases that remain today. A good half of them passed by the skin of their teeth, many (by modern attrition standards) more washed out, and others unnecessarily died too.
Click to expand...

Seems like an exaggeration to me. In my 53 weeks of UPT, there were no deaths, in my class or any ahead or behind ours. About one third of my class washed out, which seemed to be the normal rate at that time. You seem to think more than half washed out, which seems high in my opinion.

Pinecone said:
In my day you did about 4 - 5 months in the T-37, soloing. And adding instrument and formation training. And doing some cross countries. Then to the T-38 for the same things. Typical grad was about 200 hours of jet time, depending on how many repeat rides due to not performing to standards.
Click to expand...

We all had the same hours in my day. Thirty in the T-41, 90 in the T-37, and 120 in the T-38. Back then the Air Force did not want student pilots who already had civilian certificates, but of course, some did. One classmate, Dick Stevens, had more than 2,700 hours as a crop duster. Unfortunately, though he would have made a great fighter pilot, he was going home to C-124s in the Mississippi ANG.
 
My quip about the washout rate was hyperbole for speech effect, yes. But I didn't say half washed out, I said half barely didn't. Plenty washed out.

At any rate, the important takeaway is that it was significantly higher in single-track UPT than SUPT. AETC has it normalized for the 80s around 25 percent with yearly variances. Point being, that attrition rate is insane if you consider what we spent on flight time for all these washouts. Today, that number would be completely unsustainable, people would be getting fired. It's 3% btw, after we got people out of the hot seat and into the Toner in 1993. A marked success from where I sit.

On the fatality front, not hyperbole. Here ya go. Of note, between FY18 and 21, each and every one of the listed fatalities, with the exception of the Japanese student, were either my co-worker, or my student. Flew missing man for one of them. I think I got a good idea of fatality rates in this MDS.

The 70s were atrocious. The 80s were slightly less bad, merely because we started implementing the T-38 stall awareness and IP recurrency program. The way we were flying this thing in the 70s was contemptible. We're better instructors now, objectively.

Take a look at the fatality rate inflection starting 1993 on that document I reference. Coincidence? Not from where I sit. The T-1 has saved more lives than penicillin (that one is hyperbole, btw). I digress.
 
Last edited:
Gilbert Buettner said:
Seems like an exaggeration to me. In my 53 weeks of UPT, there were no deaths, in my class or any ahead or behind ours. About one third of my class washed out, which seemed to be the normal rate at that time. You seem to think more than half washed out, which seems high in my opinion.

We all had the same hours in my day. Thirty in the T-41, 90 in the T-37, and 120 in the T-38. Back then the Air Force did not want student pilots who already had civilian certificates, but of course, some did. One classmate, Dick Stevens, had more than 2,700 hours as a crop duster. Unfortunately, though he would have made a great fighter pilot, he was going home to C-124s in the Mississippi ANG.
Click to expand...

My UPT was 11 months, so about 48 weeks (Class 82-01). I don't know about T-41 time, as that was at Hondo, and I as a Private Pilot, I was exempt from it. But I think at that time it was only about 15 hours.

Jet time seems a few hours more than scheduled for my class. I had 170.5 hours (had about 100 civilian before arriving). The lowest in my class was like 170.3, but he had over 2500 hours when he showed up. :)

We had a few "special" students in my class that did not have any civilian experience and did not do FSP in the T-41. They were around 240 hours to graduate. Most of the rest were in the 200 - 220 hours IIRC.

Also, about 1/3 washed out. When was considered "normal."

No deaths, only one real mishap. A T-38 solo student sucked the gear up early on a touch and go (more to the story), and slide it down the runway.
 
There are a few major foreign airlines that for the last several years have trained pilots from the ground up in simulators, who have never flown a real airplane until they were placed in the right seat.

Like Asiana Airlines. How well did that work out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top