Flight Instruction: Then and Now

In article ,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

Subject: Flight Instruction: Then and Now
From: Howard Berkowitz
Date: 3/7/04 3:33 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: hcb-145BCF.1833340703200

Who would make the better instructor, someone that had
flown a different platform that did have a backlog of combat pilots, or
someone with much more experience in type?


We never had to make that choice. Our instructors had exactly the
experience
we needed, And in spades. But they were tough and made us toe the line.
It
didn't take too much to get washed out.


Fine. 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 I have described, you insult them.

Perhaps someone knows what the expected survival was of SAC crews flying
a SIOP Major Attack Option strike. They probably did...but many of them
never "flew combat" or were taught by someone with combat experience in
their particular aircraft -- because NOBODY had combat experience in
certain of those aircraft.

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

"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

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

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.

"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.

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.

..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"

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"

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"