UPT "today" vs "yesterday"
11-12-2008, 09:16 AM
#61
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: 744 CA
Posts: 4,772
Interesting perspective on the 130 community. I can speak to my training when I went the rock first as a copilot ( 1987 ) then AC upgrade in (89). Phase I, ie, ground school, sim and instrument work was all flying in the right seat. Only difference I remember was the engine out work. Other than that my memory serves me the profiles for checkrides and training were very similar. Tactical phase was a different animal, as in those days we still used navigators for airdrop and the crew duties for a copilot flying low level tactical generally didnt include hands on flying. You did have to fly some from the right seat for profeciency but your primary was navigation, threat surv, and back up the nav for airdrop. Perhaps with automated GPS airdrop systems I am sure the methodes we used are not even in play for the most part but that was a different time. We did have AWADS at Pope when I was there but it was still a NAV airdrop show.
Times change, systems change.... UPT has changed, I certainly am not qualified to judge for the better or worse. While I was a product of the T-37/T-38 UPT system I would hope to think the T-1 program made for better transitions out of UPT to MWS heavies.
Times change, systems change.... UPT has changed, I certainly am not qualified to judge for the better or worse. While I was a product of the T-37/T-38 UPT system I would hope to think the T-1 program made for better transitions out of UPT to MWS heavies.
11-12-2008, 09:29 AM
#62
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: FAA 'Flight Check'
Posts: 13,837
Originally Posted by HercDriver130
Interesting perspective on the 130 community. I can speak to my training when I went the rock first as a copilot ( 1987 ) then AC upgrade in (89). Phase I, ie, ground school, sim and instrument work was all flying in the right seat. Only difference I remember was the engine out work. Other than that my memory serves me the profiles for checkrides and training were very similar. Tactical phase was a different animal, as in those days we still used navigators for airdrop and the crew duties for a copilot flying low level tactical generally didnt include hands on flying. You did have to fly some from the right seat for profeciency but your primary was navigation, threat surv, and back up the nav for airdrop. Perhaps with automated GPS airdrop systems I am sure the methodes we used are not even in play for the most part but that was a different time. We did have AWADS at Pope when I was there but it was still a NAV airdrop show.
Times change, systems change.... UPT has changed, I certainly am not qualified to judge for the better or worse. While I was a product of the T-37/T-38 UPT system I would hope to think the T-1 program made for better transitions out of UPT to MWS heavies.
Times change, systems change.... UPT has changed, I certainly am not qualified to judge for the better or worse. While I was a product of the T-37/T-38 UPT system I would hope to think the T-1 program made for better transitions out of UPT to MWS heavies.
1) Are the new pilots of today BETTER than the new pilots of old.
In my opinion - the new pilots of today are probably better on the whole. The training has progressed, the systems and aircraft are more advanced and in my community the tactics are more involved - BUT -
2) Was it harder to get through pilot training "back in the day". Yes - I believe it was. I see MANY more chances given for success to today's new pilots than in the past - including my timeframe in the early 90's for a variety of reasons that have been posted before. You didn't get to go through training with 3 or 4 SODs (Signal of Difficulties or 'downs') and then start the syllabus ALL OVER again for example.
USMCFLYR
11-12-2008, 09:48 AM
#63
Line Holder
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Bunk Logging Other Time
Posts: 79
When you speak of past UPT training you are also speaking of an Air Force and Military that had huge pools of people to funnel through pipelines and places to put them after they failed. Even post draft in the cold war military...
The air force is 375,000 folks now instead of 650,000 like in the 80s. I dont know what it was back in the 50s...
Training has been adapted now to do the weeding out before they get to school. I lost 7 out of 29 in my class 01-08 at Columbus still.
Maybe I am wrong but I think there are many more hoops to jump through now than there used to be, mainly due to the much higher cost of training today than in times past.
The air force is 375,000 folks now instead of 650,000 like in the 80s. I dont know what it was back in the 50s...
Training has been adapted now to do the weeding out before they get to school. I lost 7 out of 29 in my class 01-08 at Columbus still.
Maybe I am wrong but I think there are many more hoops to jump through now than there used to be, mainly due to the much higher cost of training today than in times past.
11-12-2008, 11:39 AM
#64
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Legacy FO
Posts: 4,096
Originally Posted by SoPinesHeel
I have been very critical of the air force at times but I will speak to the C-130community that I know. I actually think the pilots coming out now are actually better!
I was a traditional copilot when I came through training in 2000 and now the C-130 uses the MPD program where new pilots are left seat trained from the start like in other airlifters. When I was a young copilot I was always told how much better and tougher it used to be. When the new MPD pilots started showing up in 2005, the old head Majors/Lt Cols also complained how bad they were, how easy they had it, how they didn't know how to talk on the radio, pilot training was so much tougher when they went through etc. etc.
Man I wish I had video of some of those old dudes when they were new Lts in the 80s...
After flying with the MPDs for a couple of years now I actually think they are better hands on pilots then I ever was in their position because they were pilots from the start and not copilots.
From my parents to pilots on this forum, everyone always thinks they had it tougher and it was better back in the day...funny thing though is that if it was then we would all still be living in caves and trying to hunt/gather our food.
I was a traditional copilot when I came through training in 2000 and now the C-130 uses the MPD program where new pilots are left seat trained from the start like in other airlifters. When I was a young copilot I was always told how much better and tougher it used to be. When the new MPD pilots started showing up in 2005, the old head Majors/Lt Cols also complained how bad they were, how easy they had it, how they didn't know how to talk on the radio, pilot training was so much tougher when they went through etc. etc.
Man I wish I had video of some of those old dudes when they were new Lts in the 80s...
After flying with the MPDs for a couple of years now I actually think they are better hands on pilots then I ever was in their position because they were pilots from the start and not copilots.
From my parents to pilots on this forum, everyone always thinks they had it tougher and it was better back in the day...funny thing though is that if it was then we would all still be living in caves and trying to hunt/gather our food.
I don't see how the MPD program makes you a better pilot. The MPD program dual-seat qualifies pilots from day one. However, it does so at a net loss of training in order for the USAF to save money.
In the KC-10 world, the only difference is now you fly from the left seat and you must learn how to taxi the aircraft. Nothing personal about the new super-cos (I wasn't one of them), but there is something to be said for having two years to "watch and learn" before making the leap to the left seat.
When I became an evaluator, the Chief of DOV started a "back to basics" campaign because our crew force was lacking very basic piloting skills and general knowledge. I continued that program when I became the Chief.
Things were harder back in the day. In the KC-10, if you got anything less than 100% on your Open/Closed/IRC testing, then you were passed over for AC school and someone took your place until you got your grades up. Now it is, first in, first out, no matter if you are ready or how good or bad you might be.
-Fatty
11-12-2008, 11:44 AM
#65
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: 777 FO
Posts: 931
Originally Posted by USMCFLYR
I'm not even sure if everyone here is speaking from the same sheet of paper. This thread has drifted somewhat from the original question or two questions have surfaced.
1) Are the new pilots of today BETTER than the new pilots of old.
In my opinion - the new pilots of today are probably better on the whole. The training has progressed, the systems and aircraft are more advanced and in my community the tactics are more involved - BUT -
2) Was it harder to get through pilot training "back in the day". Yes - I believe it was. I see MANY more chances given for success to today's new pilots than in the past - including my timeframe in the early 90's for a variety of reasons that have been posted before. You didn't get to go through training with 3 or 4 SODs (Signal of Difficulties or 'downs') and then start the syllabus ALL OVER again for example.
USMCFLYR
1) Are the new pilots of today BETTER than the new pilots of old.
In my opinion - the new pilots of today are probably better on the whole. The training has progressed, the systems and aircraft are more advanced and in my community the tactics are more involved - BUT -
2) Was it harder to get through pilot training "back in the day". Yes - I believe it was. I see MANY more chances given for success to today's new pilots than in the past - including my timeframe in the early 90's for a variety of reasons that have been posted before. You didn't get to go through training with 3 or 4 SODs (Signal of Difficulties or 'downs') and then start the syllabus ALL OVER again for example.
USMCFLYR
As for me, I went to UPT in '97. And I never had to walk through snow to get to my briefing room, I only saw one girl cry during a debrief (and she ended up being the #1 grad from T-37s...hmm..), and we washed only one dude out. And the whole thing was terribly unfair because I wanted a T-38 and didn't get one!
11-12-2008, 11:50 AM
#66
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: 777 FO
Posts: 931
Originally Posted by KC10 FATboy
Things were harder back in the day. In the KC-10, if you got anything less than 100% on your Open/Closed/IRC testing, then you were passed over for AC school and someone took your place until you got your grades up. Now it is, first in, first out, no matter if you are ready or how good or bad you might be.
-Fatty
11-12-2008, 03:41 PM
#67
No one's home
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,091
Well, I knew I was one of the old ones but... started UPT at Webb in DEC '67.
Was in D class so it was an eclectic class.. the guys who graduated early and the ones who graduated late. We had a real mixed bag of majors from electrical engineering to philosophy.
Those with time got a short course in the T-41 and the ones with no time got about 10hrs more. We called the T-41 the 'washing machine' because it washed out the majority of our year's losses. Some couldn't fly. Some found they didn't want to fly. Some couldn't keep up with the pace. Instructors were mostly civilian except for a few USAF officers monitoring the program.
We got 90hrs in the T-37 and we had all types of instructors. Mine was a great guy, later killed in an A-1 in Vietnam. I also flew a few times with a black instructor, also a great guy but one of the few on base at that time.. he also was later killed but in an F-111 with a sys failure. I also flew with one fat, screamer that I also remember this many years later.
We got 120hrs in the -38 and many of the instructors were returnees from SEAsia including -105, -100 and other fighters. Again, great instructor initially and later transferred to a pre-mature balding, sarcastic jerk who thought he was the greatest fighter pilot who never flew fighters.
The course was tight. Pink a ride and you got a second chance. Pink again and you got to talk to the training officer. Pink one more and you faced the Flight Evaluation Board (FEB). We lost a few in the -37 and about 4 in the -38. Started with about 90.. finished w slightly over 50.
Academics were more heavily weighted that flight scores so it was possible to be a genius with stones fists and graduate near the top. Our block had fighters -100s, F-4s, F-101s, F-102, A-1, F-105) , trash haulers ( C-7, C-130, C-123, EC/AC-47s, C-133, C-141), FAC jobs (O-1s, O-2s) but none in SAC or ATC. We even had an RB-47 in Japan but it was cancelled.
Lost more than a few in Vietnam, Laos and more than a few have passed away since. It, and the year FACing was some of the best flying I ever did.
Was in D class so it was an eclectic class.. the guys who graduated early and the ones who graduated late. We had a real mixed bag of majors from electrical engineering to philosophy.
Those with time got a short course in the T-41 and the ones with no time got about 10hrs more. We called the T-41 the 'washing machine' because it washed out the majority of our year's losses. Some couldn't fly. Some found they didn't want to fly. Some couldn't keep up with the pace. Instructors were mostly civilian except for a few USAF officers monitoring the program.
We got 90hrs in the T-37 and we had all types of instructors. Mine was a great guy, later killed in an A-1 in Vietnam. I also flew a few times with a black instructor, also a great guy but one of the few on base at that time.. he also was later killed but in an F-111 with a sys failure. I also flew with one fat, screamer that I also remember this many years later.
We got 120hrs in the -38 and many of the instructors were returnees from SEAsia including -105, -100 and other fighters. Again, great instructor initially and later transferred to a pre-mature balding, sarcastic jerk who thought he was the greatest fighter pilot who never flew fighters.
The course was tight. Pink a ride and you got a second chance. Pink again and you got to talk to the training officer. Pink one more and you faced the Flight Evaluation Board (FEB). We lost a few in the -37 and about 4 in the -38. Started with about 90.. finished w slightly over 50.
Academics were more heavily weighted that flight scores so it was possible to be a genius with stones fists and graduate near the top. Our block had fighters -100s, F-4s, F-101s, F-102, A-1, F-105) , trash haulers ( C-7, C-130, C-123, EC/AC-47s, C-133, C-141), FAC jobs (O-1s, O-2s) but none in SAC or ATC. We even had an RB-47 in Japan but it was cancelled.
Lost more than a few in Vietnam, Laos and more than a few have passed away since. It, and the year FACing was some of the best flying I ever did.
11-12-2008, 05:51 PM
#68
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Retired Naval Aviator
Posts: 377
I'm from the Navy side of the house and started Primary in late 94, winged mid 96. I went through on the old grading system, pre MPTS. Not sure what it was called. The grading system was a bit more subjective than now, based on above average, average, below average and unsatisfactory. This is also the grading system that was used while I was an IP at the VAW/VRC FRS. I assume the major problem was there was no definition of above average or average. Seemingly each IP had his or her definition. I would fly with one guy, an above average hop, fly with another IP with what seemingly was a better hope and get an average grade.
Along comes MPTS with its system designed to define MIF based on the 1-5 grading scale. I think it comes from Air Force, with its breakdown in flight blocks for each phase of flight training. When I started instructing down here in Whiting with VT-6, went through a course for MPTS and still don't quite understand the inner workings. I think its job is to allow for a better product at the end of flight training while allowing more students to complete the flight program...thus saving the tax payers...ie not wasted dollars when a student is attrited at the end of his flight training.
I'm not so sure it necessarily allows more quality aviators to get through. I would say some of those that are a bit more below average, might make it through the program based on how a student can progress through each block and phase in the flight program. The Navy bases its final selection on their Navy Standard Score based on a bell curve. I've heard it doesn't work to well with the MPTS system and will eventually be phased out.
Being the OIC of the prep school for Royal Saudi Navy pilots, I get asked quite a bit what the average attrition rate is for aviators out of primary and advanced. What the wing tells me is it's about 11% for primary and about 9% for advanced. Thats for all reasons, attrite, DOR, NPQ, etc. I don't recall that many folks being booted when I went through in the mid 90's. I remember going through advanced training at VT-4 flying the T-2C. This was the E-2/C-2 advanced training squadron. There were about 30 of us students during the year I was there. Only 3 were attrited, right in line with the 9% we have now for advanced. All three attrited for the same reason, poor performance at the boat (the aircraft carrier for you AF types
). Of those same 30 types, I know of only two who later had issues and were booted either out or to another community. One had problems with night carrier landings and the other got caught with an Enlisted guy (both were dudes) in a sexual situation but that's for another time and story 
Along comes MPTS with its system designed to define MIF based on the 1-5 grading scale. I think it comes from Air Force, with its breakdown in flight blocks for each phase of flight training. When I started instructing down here in Whiting with VT-6, went through a course for MPTS and still don't quite understand the inner workings. I think its job is to allow for a better product at the end of flight training while allowing more students to complete the flight program...thus saving the tax payers...ie not wasted dollars when a student is attrited at the end of his flight training.
I'm not so sure it necessarily allows more quality aviators to get through. I would say some of those that are a bit more below average, might make it through the program based on how a student can progress through each block and phase in the flight program. The Navy bases its final selection on their Navy Standard Score based on a bell curve. I've heard it doesn't work to well with the MPTS system and will eventually be phased out.
Being the OIC of the prep school for Royal Saudi Navy pilots, I get asked quite a bit what the average attrition rate is for aviators out of primary and advanced. What the wing tells me is it's about 11% for primary and about 9% for advanced. Thats for all reasons, attrite, DOR, NPQ, etc. I don't recall that many folks being booted when I went through in the mid 90's. I remember going through advanced training at VT-4 flying the T-2C. This was the E-2/C-2 advanced training squadron. There were about 30 of us students during the year I was there. Only 3 were attrited, right in line with the 9% we have now for advanced. All three attrited for the same reason, poor performance at the boat (the aircraft carrier for you AF types
). Of those same 30 types, I know of only two who later had issues and were booted either out or to another community. One had problems with night carrier landings and the other got caught with an Enlisted guy (both were dudes) in a sexual situation but that's for another time and story
11-12-2008, 07:41 PM
#70
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: A330B
Posts: 210
Back in the day for me was March 1980, 81-03 Reese. The Iranian Hostage Crisis had forced Jimmah to ramp up UPT. We started with 66 and had the same number of IP's from the 30 stud days. It wasn't pretty. Still, it was an awesome year. Over the top formation, Team Rides-2 students together scaring the hell out of each other, no herpes or AIDS, casual bar tune ups before a night out at JL's, Cowboys, or the Red Raider Club. I was on SMS for military behavior! Luckily, I survived all that and then 3+ years at Kadena and Clark. I don't think that we were better pilots, but we sure knew how to enjoy ourselves. That makes a big difference.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
