• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

Flight School backed up

Gatordev

Gatordev

Well-Known Member
pilot
Site Admin
Contributor
GroundPounder said:
All the fun of knocking the hell out of someone/something with limited chance to actually kill someone?
Click to expand...

I'm not convinced there's that much thought given to it considering their BAC. Or maybe it's selective drunk smarts.
 
DanMa1156

DanMa1156

Is it baseball season yet?
pilot
Contributor
Griz882 said:
No argument here, but if the big navy decides to take this route permanently (as in post-NIFE, X% are funneled to helicopters) then changes to how helicopter pilots are rated and cycled through a career will have to happen. That, of course, leads us to the bigger issue in all of the services - officer career management. In any case, the true issue is that flight school is a broken toy. The “long war,” with the luxury of no real enemy air threat, allowed the services to be lazy about pilot retention/career management/how much time is actually spent in a cockpit learning and excelling in tactics, but a big one might not.
Click to expand...
FIFY
 
ChuckMK23

ChuckMK23

FERS and TSP contributor!
pilot
MIDNJAC said:
Wild they were still flying (T)F9Fs in 1970
Click to expand...
Whats amazing is the plethora of aircraft SNA's trained in and later how the syllubus was streamlined. And think what a revolution the T-45 was at the time. How the modern jet pipeline evolved:

T-34B -> T-2A (single engine) -> T-2B (two engine) -> TF-9J

T-28 -> T-2B -> TA-4J

T-34C -> T-2C -> TA4J

T-6 -> T-45

And here is the full SNA pipelie circa 1984 - that me, @Griz882 and @mad dog enjoyed:
[EDIT - this pipeline, published in 1984-85 predates the unifiled helo syllabus where HT-8 and HT-18 operated full tracks independant of each other also TH-57A was removed from service by 1984'ish. The UH-1 sim however was useed heavily in BI and RI's with the full motion TH-57C sim just rolling out in late 1987 - I was on of the first SNA's to experience RI's in that device]

[Edit - by summer 1986 E2/C2 SNA's transitioned to VT-4 at Sherman Field - for CQ]

1687268862857.png
 
Last edited:
Griz882

Griz882

Frightening children with the Griz-O-Copter!
pilot
Contributor
ChuckMK23 said:
Whats amazing is the plethora of aircraft SNA's trained in and later how the syllubus was streamlined. And think what a revolution the T-45 was at the time. How the modern jet pipeline evolved:

T-34B -> T-2A (single engine) -> T-2B (two engine) -> TF-9J

T-28 -> T-2B -> TA-4J

T-34C -> T-2C -> TA4J

T-6 -> T-45

And here is the full SNA pipelie circa 1984 - that me, @Griz882 and @mad dog enjoyed:
[EDIT - this pipeline, published in 1984-85 predates the unifiled helo syllabus where HT-8 and HT-18 operated full tracks independant of each other also TH-57A was removed from service by 1984'ish. The UH-1 sim however was useed heavily in BI and RI's with the full motion TH-57C sim just rolling out in late 1987 - I was on of the first SNA's to experience RI's in that device]

[Edit - by summer 1986 E2/C2 SNA's transitioned to VT-4 at Sherman Field - for CQ]

View attachment 38272
Click to expand...
Oh yeah, I remember the UH-1 sim. When you first got in there you felt like you were flying a giant!
 
ChuckMK23

ChuckMK23

FERS and TSP contributor!
pilot
Odominable said:
What was the reasoning behind the H-1 sims with no corresponding flight time?
Click to expand...
The TH-57C and the helo advanced syllabus that went with it lacked a simulator for many years - and when the few devices came online in late 1987, the visual system was not yet installed and the entire platform was buggy - availability for those first few years was poor. So BI's and much of the RI syllabus was completed in the TH-1L/UH-1E sims - which were analog and full motion but used proven technology and was sufficient for training. These were Singer-Link sims. Paper plotting board outpost for debrief. ITO was flown strictly by gouge - impossible otherwise. Identical sims used by Army at the time. We got ,"free play" time after hours as SNAs. Later the TH-57C sim started to perform, availability improved and even the basic visual system worked but it took a couple of years. 1990 ish. I believe the Huey sims were sold to Turkey.
 
Last edited:
nittany03

nittany03

Recovering NFO. Herder of Programmers.
pilot
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
ChuckMK23 said:
The TH-57C and the helo advanced syllabus that went with it lacked a simulator for many years - and when the few devices came online in late 1987, the visual system was not yet installed and the entire platform was buggy - availability for those first few years was poor. So BI's and much of the RI syllabus was completed in the TH-1L/UH-1E sims - which were analog and full motion but used proven technology and was sufficient for training. These were Singer-Link sims. Paper plotting board outpost for debrief. ITO was flown strictly by gouge - impossible otherwise. Identical sims used by Army at the time. We got ,"free play" time after hours as SNAs. Later the TH-57C sim started to perform, availability improved and even the basic visual system worked but it took a couple of years. 1990 ish. I believe the Huey sims were sold to Turkey.
Click to expand...
This reminds me of going back through T-45 pilot sim events as an SNFO because the sims hadn’t been built yet in Pensacola.

I was (somewhat rightly) accused of blowing up the NSS curve, but I blame the squadron and the wing for not recognizing silliness when they saw it. ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top