Flight Lessons

I'm curious how Air Force/Navy pilots get their wings? Do they go to some place like Emory-Riddle and fly Cessna 172s. Do they get
instrument ratings in these 172s? What's the transition to 'real iron'?

Basically, what's a newly minted Air Force/Navy pilot's logbook look like and where did he got those hours?

"Charles Talleyrand" wrote

I'm curious how Air Force/Navy pilots get their wings? Do they go to
some place like Emory-Riddle and fly Cessna 172s. Do they get
instrument ratings in these 172s? What's the transition to 'real iron'?

Basically, what's a newly minted Air Force/Navy pilot's logbook look
like and where did he got those hours?

This page is a good example of ROTC training

http://www.wpi.edu/Academics/Depts/A...tnavtrain.html

USN gets about 60 hours primary training in T-34C (or USAF T-37 ... its a
joint world). If he's a strike student, he continues with intermediate in
the T-2 and advanced in the T-45 OR just a combined strike syllabus in T-45
only. (T-2 will retire next year.) He'll accumulate maybe 275 hours in the
primary/intermediate/advanced syllabus ... about 250 or so in the T-45 only
program.

Students may have prior time (I've seen 'em with up to 1500 hours civilian
time) but its not required. Previous experience usually helps until about
half way through. All the Cessna time in the world won't matter when they
start doing formation, tac forms, weaps, acm, etc.

R / John

"Charles Talleyrand" wrote in message
...
I'm curious how Air Force/Navy pilots get their wings? Do they go to some
place like Emory-Riddle and fly Cessna 172s. Do they get
instrument ratings in these 172s? What's the transition to 'real iron'?

Basically, what's a newly minted Air Force/Navy pilot's logbook look like
and where did he got those hours?

"S. Sampson" wrote in message news
This page is a good example of ROTC training

http://www.wpi.edu/Academics/Depts/A...tnavtrain.html

Much Thanks. Did you notice the picture is a C-152 and the text says everyone train in a C-172?

Ed Rasimus wrote:
wrote:

In my Father's era (late 50's) no college degree was required for the
USAF Aviation Cadet program. Although he lacked a college degree,
he was still sharp as a tack and as many a college educated test pilot
or rip snortin' WW2 or Korea-era ace, or Vietnamese ground pounder
found out, he was one_bad_sumbitch in the air -- sheepskin or no.

Lots of folks have griped over the years about the college graduate
requirement, but the fact is that modern aircraft (and the integrated
weapons system in which they operate) are very complex and the degree
offers an indication that the individual will be able to deal with the
complexity. Additionally, there are more than enough candidates who
meet the criteria that it doesn't need to be modified.

Not saying that the criteria needs to be modified (I have both 2-year
and a 4-year degrees and agree that a college education trains one
to think at a deeper level) but I think (as did my ol' man) that a
college education is often over-rated.

For example, with just a high school education (and a few semesters
of higher education at the Univ. of Minnesota) his ability to quickly
perform mathematical computations in his head exceeded mine and
he would have no difficulty whatsoever checking out in a modern F-18
or F-15.

I was brought up in the '60's and 70's when experimental, newfangled
methods of education were just cranking up in our public school system
while your generation was raised in the more structured, "old
fashioned" era of "Reading, Writing and Arithmetic." No wonder his
math skills were superior to mine!

No doubt that you, Walt BJ, my ol' man or any other self-respecting
fighter pilot (as opposed to "pilot who flew fighters") wouldn't scoff
at what's available in civilian programs.

I imagine you can find a lot of training in aerobatics, modern
instrument flying, and even some formation. I don't know of many
civilian programs who operate supersonic aircraft, fly a reasonable
air/air introduction (T-6 and T-34 civilian programs aren't
comparable), and I don't know anyplace outside the military that lets
you drop bombs.

Exactly right.

You can certainly prepare yourself for an excellent career in the
airlines or general aviation with the great civilian
schools---provided you've got a pretty healthy bank account.

Based on my experience dealing with these "great civilian schools"
(FlightSafety, for example), one can often receive a superior
education in general aviation by going to the lesser known,
"Ma & Pa" flight schools. Don't pay any attention to the slick,
4-color ad copies and press clippings of those well-known GA flight
schools such as Embry Riddle, FlightSafety, American Failures er'
Flyers etc. For the most part, they're simply over-priced country
clubs interested in churning out quantity rather than quality.

I think if he were still alive today, the notion of women flying combat
would make him go "straight up and break left" and he'd spit on the
current crop of fighter pilots not because they aren't any good, but
because of political correctness.

There are some warriors around. Even today. Some of them are even
women.

Women warriors such as? Do you really believe what you just wrote?

-Mike Marron

wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote:
Lots of folks have griped over the years about the college graduate
requirement, but the fact is that modern aircraft (and the integrated
weapons system in which they operate) are very complex and the degree
offers an indication that the individual will be able to deal with the
complexity. Additionally, there are more than enough candidates who
meet the criteria that it doesn't need to be modified.

Not saying that the criteria needs to be modified (I have both 2-year
and a 4-year degrees and agree that a college education trains one
to think at a deeper level) but I think (as did my ol' man) that a
college education is often over-rated.

I'll certainly agree with that. The kids I see before me in my local
Community College classes range from the gifted to the inept. The
younger they are, the more likely they are to attend erratically, blow
off assignments and inevitably fail. Those with a year or two of dirt
under their fingernails seem to develop an appreciation for
intellectual labor over manual. They inevitably succeed.

For example, with just a high school education (and a few semesters
of higher education at the Univ. of Minnesota) his ability to quickly
perform mathematical computations in his head exceeded mine and
he would have no difficulty whatsoever checking out in a modern F-18
or F-15.

There's little doubt of what you say, but the bottom line reigns
supreme and the military has a lot of stats to show that completion of
a four-year degree (whether or not it relates to aviation) is a good
indicator of the ability to complete an aviation training program. If
requirements rose drastically and available candidates were reduced,
the criteria might be re-examined, but that's highly unlikely.

You can certainly prepare yourself for an excellent career in the
airlines or general aviation with the great civilian
schools---provided you've got a pretty healthy bank account.

Based on my experience dealing with these "great civilian schools"
(FlightSafety, for example), one can often receive a superior
education in general aviation by going to the lesser known,
"Ma & Pa" flight schools. Don't pay any attention to the slick,
4-color ad copies and press clippings of those well-known GA flight
schools such as Embry Riddle, FlightSafety, American Failures er'
Flyers etc. For the most part, they're simply over-priced country
clubs interested in churning out quantity rather than quality.

Well, part of what you say is based on experience that I can't
challenge. But, I'll offer that "Ma & Pa" may not have access to
modern simulations, quality academic materials, and high-tech
aircraft. While they can make a very high-quality private pilot in a
C-152, they will have a tough time in preparing an aviation career
oriented individual for modern glass cockpits and heavy jet qual. Some
of the larger corporations have the overhead to fund the expensive
training.

I think if he were still alive today, the notion of women flying combat
would make him go "straight up and break left" and he'd spit on the
current crop of fighter pilots not because they aren't any good, but
because of political correctness.

There are some warriors around. Even today. Some of them are even
women.

Women warriors such as? Do you really believe what you just wrote?

I didn't believe it for a lot of years, but I've met a lot of the
current crop and they are a pretty well-blooded group of aviators,
what with DS, Kosovo, IF and various other combat ops under their
belts. The guys accept and respect the girls and the girls seem to
have their act pretty well together. There are exceptions to every
rule, of course.

One of the most vivid examples I've encountered is an AF
captain--call-sign "Shooter". Graduate of USAFA, went to Nav school,
flew combat as an F-15E WSO. Qualified for pilot training (a very
competitive process for operational navs) and went to Vipers out of
pilot training. Flew more combat in Vipers. Drinks well, knows the
words to all the songs!



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (ret)
***"When Thunder Rolled:
*** An F-105 Pilot Over N. Vietnam"
*** from Smithsonian Books
ISBN: 1588341038

"Keith Willshaw" wrote:


"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...


In WW II almost no one had a college education. And I think that the vast
majoriity of wash-outs did so not because they weren't smart enough or
that
they couldn't do the job. It was because they could'ot learn FAST ENOUGH.
The
instructors toelrated one error. If you did it agin you got a check ride.
Any
erorr on the check ride and you were out. everything was time dependant. I
think college hones learning skills so you can learn faster. Thousands
of
Bombardiers and navigators washed out not because they weren't good at
their
assigned jobs. It was because they couldn't learn to send and recieve
8wpm in
Morse code in the very limited time allowed. Learning speed was
everything.
There was a war on and they had planes they had it get into the air.


Its interesting to note that the RAF still doesnt require a college
education for its pilots. All they require 2 A levels and 5
GCSE passes, including English language and maths , this wouldnt
get you into many universities and is roughly equivalent to graduating
from high school in the USA.

Keith

Rubbish. O-levels exceed that derisory qualification.

Grantland

"Tarver Engineering" wrote:


One of the most vivid examples I've encountered is an AF
captain--call-sign "Shooter". Graduate of USAFA, went to Nav school,
flew combat as an F-15E WSO. Qualified for pilot training (a very
competitive process for operational navs) and went to Vipers out of
pilot training. Flew more combat in Vipers. Drinks well, knows the
words to all the songs!

Dancing nekid on the bar ...


You need to learn how to edit.

And, she's an AF officer and "dancing nekid" isn't part of the job
description.

Take a moment to consider the benefit you're adding to the discussion
before posting.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (ret)
***"When Thunder Rolled:
*** An F-105 Pilot Over N. Vietnam"
*** from Smithsonian Books
ISBN: 1588341038

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...


In WW II almost no one had a college education. And I think that the vast
majoriity of wash-outs did so not because they weren't smart enough or
that
they couldn't do the job. It was because they could'ot learn FAST ENOUGH.
The
instructors toelrated one error. If you did it agin you got a check ride.
Any
erorr on the check ride and you were out. everything was time dependant. I
think college hones learning skills so you can learn faster. Thousands
of
Bombardiers and navigators washed out not because they weren't good at
their
assigned jobs. It was because they couldn't learn to send and recieve
8wpm in
Morse code in the very limited time allowed. Learning speed was
everything.
There was a war on and they had planes they had it get into the air.


Its interesting to note that the RAF still doesnt require a college
education for its pilots. All they require 2 A levels and 5
GCSE passes, including English language and maths , this wouldnt
get you into many universities and is roughly equivalent to graduating
from high school in the USA.

Keith

wrote

In my Father's era (late 50's) no college degree was required for the
USAF Aviation Cadet program. Although he lacked a college degree,
he was still sharp as a tack and as many a college educated test pilot
or rip snortin' WW2 or Korea-era ace, or Vietnamese ground pounder
found out, he was one_bad_sumbitch in the air -- sheepskin or no.

Sure, Sure... But he couldn't work his way into a classroom of a
bunch of 19 year old kids :-)

my ol' man or any other self-respecting
fighter pilot (as opposed to "pilot who flew fighters") wouldn't scoff
at what's available in civilian programs.

Pilots who flew fighters are called fighter pilots.

I think if he were still
alive today, the notion of women flying combat would make him go
"straight up and break left"

He was probably a red-neck, and the thought of darkies holding the
stick probably scared him more than women.

and he'd spit on the current crop of
fighter pilots not because they aren't any good, but because of
political correctness.

Who gives a ****. He's dead now. Only the worms know what he's
thinking now.