Flight Instruction: Then and Now

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)


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

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?

BUFDRVR wrote:
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,

Not trying to be argumentative, but just finished talking to my next
door neighbor who completed his check ride today. He finished only his
BMC and still has another 2-3 months of training with the 34th before
they will consider him CMR. I lived this problem for a year as one of
the maintenance officers for the 9th. It was an absolute fight to
provide enough sorties to keep the overmanned copilots from regressing.
Throw in upgrades it was tough. Even when we had the highest ever FMC
rate for the Bone.

Big of the problem was that our FTU got so backed up that we had to cut
down the syllabus and fly weekends to get caught up. All this did was
to push the problem on to the combat squadrons.

Cheers,
Michael Kelly, Bone Maintainer


BUFDRVR

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

Subject: Flight Instruction: Then and Now
From: Howard Berkowitz
Date: 3/8/04 5:29 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

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?


Training takes time. Time was what we had very little of. I'd say anyone who
goes into harms way had gone into combat regardless of the function of the
operation. But I know nothing about modern day operations and missions, so I
can't comment.. My war ended in 1945. And I'm still trying to figure it all
out but I doubt that I ever will




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

In article ,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

Subject: Flight Instruction: Then and Now
From: Howard Berkowitz
Date: 3/8/04 5:29 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

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?


Training takes time. Time was what we had very little of. I'd say anyone
who
goes into harms way had gone into combat regardless of the function of
the
operation. But I know nothing about modern day operations and missions,
so I
can't comment.. My war ended in 1945. And I'm still trying to figure it
all
out but I doubt that I ever will


In fairness to you, Art, modern operations really blur, even in
aircraft, the line between "combat" and "noncombat". A good example is
a High Value Asset like an AWACS, JSTAR, Rivet Joint or other SIGINT
bird. Individually, they are completely defenseless -- but are
essential to carrying out a combat operation involving real-time C3I.
An enemy of any sophistication knows that, and, if more competent and
less overmatched than the Iraqis, go after them with everything they've
got. Above all, they will use long-range AAMs (e.g., fUSSR AA-9) to hit
them at long range.

Tankers are another essential asset that the enemy will try to get, and
have no business being anywhere near Indian country -- but there are too
many examples where a tanker went, if not downtown, into the suburbs to
bring back damaged, leaking combat aircraft.

It's arguable if soft-kill, non-standoff jammers are combat or not --
they may go in quite close.

The goal is to so overwhelm the enemy, through hard kill, interfering
with his decision-action (Boyd or OODA) loop, and, where possible,
messing with his minds, so that he doesn't get a chance to shoot back.
If you can send in a missile or standoff weapon with a better chance of
hitting the target than a squadron of bravely flown B-26's, that's the
choice these days.

Is it risk that's that makes the line between combat and noncombat?
What about the riskier things nowhere near the battlefield? Now, in
battle and not, skill and equipment reduce risk. I've never been shot at
other than by good old boys who had had so many beers it was amazing
they could pull the trigger, but I have worked in biological "hot labs".
Franciscella tularensis -- the organism that causes tularemia -- isn't
consciously aiming at you the same way a flak gunner might, but if you
break technique, you may be in just as much trouble as getting in the
gunsight. Many of the SARS cases in Toronto were in healthcare workers
that didn't take the extra care to be CERTAIN their respirators sealed
correctly.

Yes, it may be a different world. I certainly respect the contributions
of those who went into combat. But others go into harm's way in means
other than traditonal combat.

You've mentioned that there was a different feeling about watching the
ground crew as you took off on a mission. Offhand, you might think even
less of the people who worked in offices...people like William F.
Friedman, whose mental and physical health was destroyed in the effort
to break Japanese crypto. Mental illness is a fairly common
occupational disorder among cryptanalysts. Are they taking risks?

What about the individual who may not be physically qualified for combat
service, but consciously puts their effort into defense industry or
other means of supporting the people at the sharp end? I wasn't
physically qualified for Viet Nam -- but I was involved in designing
personnel detectors and doing psychological warfare research. Those
efforts just might have saved more grunts than my walking point in the
bush. I'll never know.

Subject: Flight Instruction: Then and Now
From: Howard Berkowitz
Date: 3/8/04 8:47 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

What about the individual who may not be physically qualified for combat
service, but consciously puts their effort into defense industry or
other means of supporting the people at the sharp end? I wasn't
physically qualified for Viet Nam -- but I was involved in designing
personnel detectors and doing psychological warfare research. Those
efforts just might have saved more grunts than my walking point in the
bush. I'll never know.
..

If you know in your heart that what you did counts, there is nothing else you
have to know. You will sleep well knowing that you did what had to be done.,
But not everyone can say that. You are lucky that you can.


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

"Howard Berkowitz" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

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.

We have vets back from Iraq involved in training. Nothing against them,
just some of them haven't a clue about how to be an instructor.

[snip]
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.

Wars run too fast today to bring combat vets back and have them get up
to speed training and turn out troops before their war is over. Sure there
are a lot of lessons learned that apply to the next war but they have to
be generalized so the military isn't "fighting the last war".

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.

While not the NTC, just a small urban site, we got a nice message
back from an NCO in the field. Seems as they were loading back
aboard the Blackhawks he heard one of the squad comment "That
was easier than [the MOUT site]".

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.

The truth is that the United States military doesn't train like it did
in WWII, the US does it much better today. From Red Flag down
to our little town, the US trains with much more realism. At some
of the larger, better funded MOUT facilities -such as Fort Polk- they
have even hired large numbers of Iraqi expatriates to "live" in their
urban terrain to make it as real as possible. It's approaching the point
that by the time people deploy they have the experience equivalent of
a WWII GI who had been in a combat unit for a while.

Could we do better?
Of course, not every unit gets to work up at Polk. There are only
so many days on the calendar to use any facility and money to
support training and the facilities. But heck, I'm *trying* to learn
enough Arabic to make the right noises.

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)