Originally Posted by
hindsight2020
Come do this job and tell me with a straight face you're kosher with an airplane whose airframe stated lifetime has been exceeded by 200% and still being Gx'ed like it's a new rental. And before you tell me your tanker has the same problem, I made the exact same criticism of the bomber I flew. Except I wasn't pulling 6Gs on it. So we're all innocent in Shawshank.
Point well made and taken. But I do fly 757s with 98,000 hours on them and 60,000+ cycles. They don't have ejection seats but they're mostly flying at 1G.
I agree the USAF's fly to failure for maintenance is no bueno. I had an engine failure on takeoff in the KC10 because of this. The takeoff before that failure was at an airfield where we took off at maximum gross weight and had zero margin for error due to runway length.
Originally Posted by
hindsight2020
AF no longer uses the NAVY T-44 Corpus pipeline for C-130s. It's all T-1 track now. Been so for several years now.
Originally Posted by
Vito
Banana380,
What impressed my friend the most about the difference between the AF and Navy system of pilot training was, He said the Navy treated student pilots like humans. I went through UPT in 1986 and we were expected to all wash out, and only the ones who went through the wringer would graduate. I understand nowadays, they actually try to get you through the program. When Imwent through, we all felt that their priority was to try to wash you out. I can tell you stories of how students who were doing fine, did one thing to **** off the IP's and within a week or two were gone!
I went through T-34s and T-1s circa 1998. The US Navy UPT program was hands down by far better than the USAF's at that time. The Navy provided you with a UPT Student Guide. The guide described each flight you would do during Phase I/II; required reading, required bold-face memorization and require maneuvers. As a student, it was easy to prepare for your flight. We had a mixture of UPT instructors: Navy, USAF, USCG, and USMC. VT-3 was commanded by a USAF O-5. Everyone was awesome to work with. The program was designed to teach you to learn and how to fly. If you screwed something up, the program wasn't designed to wash you out.
However, at Vance, besides three instructors who I still call friends today, most were incredibly arrogant and ash hole ish. We were kept on formal release until after aircraft MWS selection. The instructors would do everything to try and trip you up during "stand up" where they would ridicule and laugh at you. It was generally a big haze program.
I initially track selected C-12s out of Whiting Field because I didn't want to go through the bs up at Vance. Many of my peers did the same because of the stuff we heard about USAF UPT. Getting a C-12 slot became difficult to procure. Later I changed my mind and experienced USAF UPT first hand.
Originally Posted by
Tweetdrvr
We need a new trainer. The T-38 is at the end of its useful service life, and the T-1s are rapidly wearing out. Economics will dictate a return to single track pilot training. The number of fighter planes we are not going to buy or have in the future cannot justify buying a $30 mil plus high performance trainer and then turning around and replacing the T-1. Go back to a single logistics support train for one airplane.
While I don't necessarily disagree with you, I think training obtained from the two track system works best for each track.
The heavy bubbas need a trainer with long legs, FMS and glass cockpits, that can do multiple types of IFR approaches. The T-1 has been a very good trainer for heavy pilots.
The fighter bubbas need a high performance aircraft for aerobatics and fighter maneuver training. If you could build a high performance trainer with longer legs and FMS cockpit, it could work. And it wouldn't be a bad thing for heavy bubbas to experience the same track which could make them eligible for fighters in the future -- should this fighter shortage remain.