In article ,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

Subject: Flight Instruction: Then and Now
From: (BUFDRVR)
Date: 3/8/04 4:16 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

..but couldn't fly the jet to save his rear.

So what is new about that?

Because nowadays you're expected to be able to do the basics coming out
of
Formal Training. You're evaluation at the end of Formal Training
consists
(for
the co-pilot) of both a precision and non-precision approach, one missed
approach and a landing. This guy struggled with all of these.



Guess you guys had a lot more time for training than we did. The hotter
the
war the faster you go into action. (sigh)



I'm not sure how you mean "better". One of the reasons that casualties
have been lower in recent US combat is the immense attention given to
training. That includes all levels, such as the Army BCTP program that
gives a reasonable idea how a general officer will perform under combat
conditions--perhaps there will be a few less McClellans, Fredendalls,
Lucases, Ghormleys, etc.

Combat will always be dangerous. But yes, there is much more training
now -- and a real belief that sweat shed in training is better than
blood shed in the real thing.Serious training spills blood as well.

Training and technology get more done with less people at the sharp end.
Art, I have no doubt in the valor of your squadron going after a bridge.
Consider what one modern aircraft with precision-guided penetrating
munitions could do today -- preferably by the dark of the moon, at an
altitude above light flak. That sort of things isn't going to provide
as many combat-experienced instructors.

Or consider how many combat crewmen actually flew over Baghdad in the
start of Desert Storm. Yes, the F-117 drivers, with EF-111's in support
a safer distance away. But were the Tomahawk shooters "combat crew" by
your definition? The drone operators tickling the air defense radars
into radiating, or the HARM shooters waiting some tens of miles away?
The AWACS crew?