If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Subject: Flight Instruction: Then and Now
From: Howard Berkowitz Date: 3/7/04 6:49 PM Pacific Standard Time ine. Those were the conditions in which you existed and served your country. But you have certainly suggested, as far as I can tell, that people that served in other periods, when the choice was necessary, somehow were less than honorable by being instructors without combat experience. If the choice was as have described, you insult them. Absolutely not. I just suggested (or asked) if the students were getting less by not getting a combat experienced instructor. We would have gotten less if our instructors had no combat experience. What is your feeling for an instructor? Combat experience or none? Arthur Kramer 344th BG 494th BS England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany Visit my WW II B-26 website at: http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"BUFDRVR" wrote in message ... Exactly. Hell, just the takeoff, approach and landing were a major challenge and I had several hundred flying hours by the time I got to B-52 FTU. JB What has been a concern since 2001 is that the FTU is doing mission qualification training. When you graduate from the FTU, you are a "full up round" and ready to go to war.......except our young EWs, Navs and Co-pilots are stuggling with the basics and have no buisness being deployed. I flew with a brand new FTU graduated co-pilot soon after the FTU-mission qual training began, the guy had great knowledge about threats, great knowledge about B-52 capabilities against those threats, had a pretty good idea of what he wanted to do with the jet on a bomb run.....but couldn't fly the jet to save his rear. He had good ideas about what to do on the bomb run, but couldn't pull any of them off. His pattern work was horrible and I left that night to go home wondering how in God's name he passed his checkride. A few sorties later I flew with another "newbie"...same story. Finally, one Friday afternoon, all the instructors from my squadron (IPs, IRs & IEs) got togather, cracked open a few beers and compared notes. Bottom line; due to the expansion of the FTU syllabus to include mission qual training, with a non-linear expansion in number of syllabus sorties (only added 2 sorties), crews were not getting a solid enough foundation in the basics. 9/11 happened shortly after, and I was quite busy until my PCS, but I still heard complaints, on nearly a daily basis. BUFDRVR Well, I can understand that in a Buff. It is a very difficult plane to learn to fly well, especially in the pattern. I assume the same training is going on in the Bone FTU. The idea was kicked around when I was the 28BS/DO, but we let it die. It takes time to train a guy to be fully mission qual, even with several sorties in the squadron. To try to do it in the FTU with 2 sorties is ludicrous. It's probably easier in the Bone because it isn't hard to learn how to fly, but it still is not a good utilization of those two sorties. You can't do it properly with two sorties. That was always a problem for me with the AF. To make a mark, get something unique on your OER, something has to change on your watch. Often the change is for change sake with no appreciable gain. It's just BS. I enjoyed my time in the USAF, it was personally and professionally rewarding, but I was glad to leave some of the really stupid things we did behind. I turned down a slot to NWC before I left...the YGBSMs were deafening, (from the Wing, to 8th, and up to NDU) but I'd had a good career, and enough of a career. I haven't regretted the career or the final decision. Cheers, JB |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Jim Baker wrote: Well, I can understand that in a Buff. It is a very difficult plane to learn to fly well, especially in the pattern. I assume the same training is going on in the Bone FTU. The idea was kicked around when I was the 28BS/DO, but we let it die. It takes time to train a guy to be fully mission qual, even with several sorties in the squadron. To try to do it in the FTU with 2 sorties is ludicrous. It's probably easier in the Bone because it isn't hard to learn how to fly, but it still is not a good utilization of those two sorties. You can't do it properly with two sorties. That was always a problem for me with the AF. To make a mark, get something unique on your OER, something has to change on your watch. Often the change is for change sake with no appreciable gain. It's just BS. I enjoyed my time in the USAF, it was personally and professionally rewarding, but I was glad to leave some of the really stupid things we did behind. I turned down a slot to NWC before I left...the YGBSMs were deafening, (from the Wing, to 8th, and up to NDU) but I'd had a good career, and enough of a career. I haven't regretted the career or the final decision. Jim, IIRC the Bones still do it the old way with the new copilots coming out of the FTU with a BMC rating. They still have to upgrade to CMR before we'll take them to combat. They have actually cut the number of sorties now that the nuc mission has gone away and so they can reduce the backlog for the FTU. Of course now you have the bomb squadrons 150% manned with copilots. Michael Kelly Bone Maintainer Cheers, JB |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
(ArtKramr) wrote: Subject: Flight Instruction: Then and Now From: Howard Berkowitz Date: 3/7/04 6:49 PM Pacific Standard Time ine. Those were the conditions in which you existed and served your country. But you have certainly suggested, as far as I can tell, that people that served in other periods, when the choice was necessary, somehow were less than honorable by being instructors without combat experience. If the choice was as have described, you insult them. Absolutely not. I just suggested (or asked) if the students were getting less by not getting a combat experienced instructor. We would have gotten less if our instructors had no combat experience. What is your feeling for an instructor? Combat experience or none? First, instructional skill. People with instructional skill can pass the information out from a limited number of people with combat experience. It's not unreasonable that some combat-pilots, especially from single-seat aircraft, may have survived due to aggressiveness and superb reflexes -- which aren't necessarily the best tools to teach. Let's try some analogies. There are very good male obstetricians. AFAIK, no Hall of Fame NFL coach was Hall of Fame player material. Second, subject matter knowledge in a technological world that changed much faster than WWII. I'd want my electronic warfare training to come from someone who has kept up on as many threats as possible, including those we haven't directly encountered in combat, but knows about their characteristics as understood by the intelligence people, and has run simulations against them. Third, one has to consider today's training methodology. I'm most familiar with Army experience, but the comment was made again and again that the National Traininc Center OPFOR was tougher than anything the Iraqis had. One doesn't have to have now COL HR Masterman available to get the sense of the Battle of 73 Easting. One can go through it seeing what he saw through the same displays, in a very good simulator. The simulator people can throw in random variations. All other things being equal, it helps to have someone with direct experience. But with smaller, shorter wars, and rapid technological change, you cannot any longer assume that an instructor will be available with relevant combat experience in the same aircraft. Remember also that there's going to be demand for the same limited number of people in the doctrine development centers and the battlespace laboratories. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"Howard Berkowitz" wrote in message ... missions, but they essentially were never in combat. As far as I know, a P-3 never fired a live round at anyone, although they've certainly located targets for shooters recently. Well, not a torpedo or depth charge anyway. But P-3s fired at least 14 Standoff Land Attack Missiles (SLAMs) at Serb targets during Operation Allied Force. At least one old freighter was destroyed with Maverick missiles around the same time & place. I also recall that P-3s fired SLAMERs at Taliban & Al Qaeda targets in the early phases of that campaign. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
In article , "John Keeney"
wrote: "Howard Berkowitz" wrote in message ... missions, but they essentially were never in combat. As far as I know, a P-3 never fired a live round at anyone, although they've certainly located targets for shooters recently. Well, not a torpedo or depth charge anyway. But P-3s fired at least 14 Standoff Land Attack Missiles (SLAMs) at Serb targets during Operation Allied Force. At least one old freighter was destroyed with Maverick missiles around the same time & place. I also recall that P-3s fired SLAMERs at Taliban & Al Qaeda targets in the early phases of that campaign. Good to know. A relevant example to the training thread as well -- an older instructor, perhaps much better on ASW and aircraft handling, wouldn't have this firing experience. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
..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. BUFDRVR "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips everyone on Bear Creek" |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
I assume the same training is
going on in the Bone FTU. The Bone FTU caved in before the BUFF FTU. Once one bomber caved in to ACC, the other one (in this case the BUFF) didn't have a leg to stand on. It takes time to train a guy to be fully mission qual, even with several sorties in the squadron. To try to do it in the FTU with 2 sorties is ludicrous. Well, its not like they crunch everything in to 2 sorties, your mission qualification training takes place throughout the entire syllabus. 2 sorties were added because the mission qualification training events required basically couldn't be done with the old 12 ride syllabus. BUFDRVR "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips everyone on Bear Creek" |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Jim,
IIRC the Bones still do it the old way with the new copilots coming out of the FTU with a BMC rating. They still have to upgrade to CMR before we'll take them to combat. I don't think so. ACC demanded that both bomber FTUs produce FMC initial qual and upgrade crewmembers. We fought them off for over a year, but when the 28th BS decided they could do it, the 11th BS (B-52 FTU) was forced to follow. BUFDRVR "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips everyone on Bear Creek" |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|