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!

Tester130

I just finished an IP tour with a Navy FRS and I kind of wish they had done a bit more to wash some students out before they winged and got to us. 99% of what came to us was fine, but there was that 1% that had problems. After they failed an event an triggered the remediation processes that are place, one of the first steps was to look back at how they did in training pipeline....we found some real questionable stuff (did the guy pass just so they made a production number?).

I loved flying for the Navy (I'm at a desk now and will get out in a few months). The comparison I always heard between the Navy and the Air Force was Navy instructions told you what you could not do. If it wasn't in there, it wasn't in violation of the FAA, and it wasn't stupid then you could do it (many guys did stupid stuff anyways and were busted for it). Air Force instructions told you what you could do. If it wasn't in there, you couldn't do it. Not sure if it was true or not, but it felt that way when we would cross paths with Air Force students at some random field while we were both on cross country.

UAL T38 Phlyer

I taught for both the USAF and Navy, and can say there was generally more "human" involvement on the USAF side than the Navy.

Just by the general organization, the USAF required personal interaction and getting to know the student, whereas the Navy training (for NFOs) was such that you might never fly with a student more than once, and there was almost zero daily contact. This was 20 years ago, so things might be different, but I would have guessed that the "Super NFO" program, which was like mini-pilot training, would have mimicked pilot training in structure.

As far as washout rates: turns out there were periods and cycles in the Air Force where attrition rates were mandated, ie, get rid of a bunch of guys, no weak swimmers, and other times (like right now) that almost anyone with a pulse graduates.

Vito

UAL T38 Phlyer,
I agree with your point about the ebb and flow cycles regarding washout rates. I'm interested in this subject because I was told that after 1986-87 the USAF made an effort to curtail the high washout rates and save money as well. Some of the solutions to this problem were the two-track training system, the TBAS (video game) evaluation and some other recommendations. I do know that before I retired from the AF in 2014, some of our newly minted pilots would tell me it's virtually impossible to wash out unless you get air sick..

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.

The T-1 was a life extension to the T-38, because if fewer people flew the plane then it would last longer, and it did. But now the second airplane is wearing out also. Little Rock, Altus and the other heavy school houses can teach CRM just as easily as they did in the before time when we all flew T-37s and T-38s in training. Is the heavy accident rate from bad CRM lower than it was before the dual track system? I don't know, but it seems like the same old culprits of bad judgement and "hacking the mish" have characterized all the incidents of the last few years in the C-17/C-130 community.

I like the mostly Boeing, mostly US brain trust, fresh sheet of paper. That being said, I would vote for the T-100 from the now Raytheon/Italian team. The USAF tried to plug and play the T-6 for the T-37, and the single engine SFL/PEL patterns totally messed up the traffic pattern. Looking at the single engine proposals, I can't imagine these things having a low key much less than 3,000 AGL or a high key much less than 7,000 AGL. All of the training bases and Randolph will go for weeks at a time during the late fall, winter, early spring without getting the weather to fly those type of patterns. I can't imagine the USAF ever letting go of the idea of students needing some sort of rudimentary safe proficiency level in order to send students on solo missions. I also don't see the USAF coming up the IP manning numbers it would take to fly all the current sorties in the Phase 3 syllabus as dual rides. I don't bellieve the USAF will give up the paradigm of students going solo at certain times in training to build confidence and judgement.

I think you would still end up with a mini track/quasi assignment cut, if the whole class will fly the T-X. Much like the old days of only guys assigned FAIP/Fighters flying 4 ship sorties after assignment night, you could split off to do more IFF lead in stuff after everyone flew a Contact/Transition, Instrument/Nav, Basic 2 ship form syllabus.

Just my .02 from 16 years of being the Jane Goodall to the numerous clans of chimpanzees that came through the Phase 2 Jungle.

tomgoodman

Around 50 years ago, they needed vast numbers of pilots but didn't want to lower graduation standards. The solution? Ten UPT bases running at full speed, accepting a lot and washing out a lot. Money was apparently not an issue.

UAL T38 Phlyer

BTW: talking to a few FAIPs I keep in touch with in the last two weeks: T-1 students can now qualify for bombers, as well as traditional C-category airplanes.

When I qual'd as a T-38 IP in the 90s, the last big airline hiring boom was on. Fighter-pilot retention was low....about 32%. They had a limited number of fighter-crossflow back then from Heavy to fighter, if the pilot had flown the T-38 as a student.

It's on again, and this time, they will even consider pilots who went T-1 track. Lowest tier, but a possibility. I think the pecking order was 1. T-38 student/graduate; 2. could have tracked T-38 but MASS (grading scores) not high enough for the number of slots, 3. and then T-1 track.

Arctichicken

Desperate times indeed. Once again, trying to use a bandage to cure cancer. A pilot slot is not highly sought after these days and nor is flying fighters. When will the upper echelon ever learn?! Oh I know, how about putting those millions of $$$ to work and actually letting pilots be pilots!
In regards to UPT and washing out, I have to agree with the posters on here. I've been through both the up and down cycle. I remember in the early '90s when one hiccup would get you washed out. We lost over a 1/3 of my class. Fast forward to the late '90s/early '00s, it took an act of God to wash out Stan. As the saying goes, timing is everything.

Vito

Tweetdrvr,
Couldn't they utilize the Aux fields for the engine out approaches? Obviously IIRC, the Tweet was the only jet that utilized the aux field, but couldn't the new -38 replacement use the aux field and execute a go-around instead of landing due to short runway lengths? Then again this new TX jet may have a similar landing distance to a T-6.

Tweetdrvr

RND has a 38 Aux field, but the limiting factor will be the ceiling vis requirments for SFL/PEL patterns. Students in the T-6 have 7-10 day window on their various events to go solo before their currencies expire, and for both mid phase and final contact checkrides, they have to have the weather to at least get to a low key (1,500 AGL) for requirements. That weather throws enough monkey wrenches into the plan, because in the interests of continuity and proficiency to offer some chance of passing their checkride, they should probably have done those patterns on the two dual rides preceeding the check ride, and done them in the last 3 or 4 days prior to the check ride.

If the AF is going to stick to the traditional solo paradigm, then the weather requirements for the single engine jets being considered will be much higher and harder to obtain in the October thru March time frame at all the training bases.

On the T-6 side, we don't really expect a student to ever get a completely dead engine back on the concrete. If it is a sick motor, producing some thrust (chip light, low oil px, etc), we tell them to try to get on profile and try to get it home. But if it looks ugly, or quits and they don't feel comfortable, we tell them to get out. The stars would have to align perfectly, (ANG/AFRES student with Multiple FAA Ratings, or former USAFA soaring program instructor in the jet if and when a motor ever catches fire or craps itself) for us to have a shot at a student getting a T-6 back to terra firma with no engine. We only paid $5ish mil per T-6. I can't imagine the AF being so cavalier about a jet they paid $30 mil plus. Unlike the F-16 where your entry level aviator is a winged, IFR rated, AF pilot with 250 ish hours after UPT and IFF, the entry level student here will have 90 hours post T-6s, and no instrument rating, plus whatever they received in Introductory Flight Training at Pueblo, CO.

I know the T-34 community has had some students get quite a few home, but they had no choice with no ejection seat, especially in a low altitude power loss situation. I have heard from a few dudes that their HAPL/LAPL training in the T-6 is getting a bit watered down from what it was due to having a ejection capability. The USN has also used the single engine T-45 for just about everything the AF does in the jet pipeline, but in their program, they don't get all the weak swimmers like the AF would, if we return to single track training in Phase 3.

It might be cheaper in the short run to buy a single engine airplane. When one considers the whole class will probably fly it, and international students who often have no prior flying experience before T-6s, if they come from non-NATO countries; I think the easiest plug and play option with the least number of changes to the current paradigm would be buying a trainer with two engines.