Flight Instruction: Then and Now

Subject: Flight Instruction: Then and Now
From: (BUFDRVR)
Date: 3/7/04 5:54 PM Pacific Standard Time

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 o

So what is new about that? Our co-pilot couldn't fly a B-26 to save his ass
when he came on board. Paul taught him on every flight. And pretty soon he
was quite good. When we switched from B-26's to A- 26's Bob got his own plane
and did fine from then on. I Guess on the job training is nothing new.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

..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"

"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

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"

On 07 Mar 2004 03:52:15 GMT, (BUFDRVR) wrote:

but it raises the
question as to whether the idea of using combat veterans as intructors was
abondoned and combat inexperienced instructors were used as a matter of
course.

I know I'm wasting my time here, your political views have clouded your already
clouded vision...however....when I began B-52 Formal Training in the summer of
'95, there were but a handful of Desert Storm vets in the FTU. These guys did
have some good insight, but to be quite honest, I could not grasp or apply any
of their suggestions. It was all I could do to learn how to fly a 300K+ lb.
aircraft at 500' AGL through the mountains, I was not able (nor was any new
crewmember) to perform defensive maneuvering tasks besides the very basic. Once
I got to my unit and went through *mission qualification training* there were
many more DS vets and I had become comfortable enough in the jet to begin
taking advantage of their experience, particularly in the low altitude
environment.

Or to put it another way. was Rumsfeld the exception or the rule.

I'd say he's the rule, especially for a Navy S2F.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

As far as I know the S-2 never flew a combat mission. A whole lot of "cold war"
missions, but no "combat"

Al Minyard

In article ,
wrote:

As far as I know the S-2 never flew a combat mission. A whole lot of
"cold war"
missions, but no "combat"


Come to think of it, didn't the Argentinians use S-2's for maritime
surveillance and possibly targeting in the Falklands campaign? ISTR
their carrier had them as well as A-4's.

As far as I know the S-2 never flew a combat mission. A whole lot of
"cold war"
missions, but no "combat

California is using S-2A and rebuilt S-2T (turbine) on fires.


Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)

In article ,
362436 (Ron) wrote:

As far as I know the S-2 never flew a combat mission. A whole lot of
"cold war"
missions, but no "combat

California is using S-2A and rebuilt S-2T (turbine) on fires.


Now THAT is scary...screw up, survive the crash, and face the Terminator.

Howard Berkowitz wrote:

Come to think of it, didn't the Argentinians use S-2's for maritime
surveillance and possibly targeting in the Falklands campaign? ISTR
their carrier had them as well as A-4's.

Yes. They appear to have had a track on the British carriers but lost it
before they could get organized for a strike (possibly compounded by weather
conditions; acounts are very confused and I haven't yet straightened it out
to my satisfaction.)

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872