• 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

IFS down the tubes?

Pugs said:
I'll weigh in as a guy who didn't have an opportunity for IFS and who went through a very different syllabus in 1987/88. While I had about 25 hours of civilian time in ye-old Piper Traumahawk, it would have been very useful for me to have spent a little time in the cockpit with a military mindset instructor to understand the differences in expectations and prep me for VT-10 basic in the turbo-weenie. Two sims didn't do that...
Click to expand...
HA! My instructor was a 23 yr old CFII with 700 hours in a Cessna...needless to say it was far from a military mindset.
 
EM1toNFO said:
Here's a hundred dollar question... Why the F*** do we still send us double anchor dudes through IFS? Absolutely pointless... Especially for us big bird riding FOs!
Click to expand...
Maybe it was a good thing to do in the "fat years"…but I think I agree…no/little actual ROI in the "lean years". Wish I'd had that opportunity…just because…but I/we (in our time) didn't suffer from the lack thereof.

Crap….did I just use a preposition to end a sentence with? CRAP…did it again. Would IFS have helped?
 
Pugs said:
At one point there was talk of sending NFO's up through solo but no clue if that happened or not.
Click to expand...
I was told several years ago…may have been misinformed…that the USAFA sent their "pilot" cadets through solo, but worked hard to send their "Nav" cadets through PPL. The object of the exercise being to build a future cadre of UAS "pilots". Have no idea as to the veracity of that construct.

Any "silver winged" bubbas wanna further educate us/me?
 
Renegade One said:
I was told several years ago…may have been misinformed…that the USAFA sent their "pilot" cadets through solo, but worked hard to send their "Nav" cadets through PPL. The object of the exercise being to build a future cadre of UAS "pilots". Have no idea as to the veracity of that construct.

Any "silver winged" bubbas wanna further educate us/me?
Click to expand...

Not silver winged (although being winged at Vance AFB, my gold wings may have a little silver mixed in)

The USAF sends their pilots through IFT, with the difference being the T=training vs. the Navy IFS where the S=screening. The USAF's point is to get the student through their PPL in order to make them stronger in JSUPT vs. the Navy's intent to attrite the weak early and cheaply.

I was led to believe that you had to be a rated pilot in the USAF in order to fly UAVs. This is what led to the draft from other platforms in order to populate the CONEX boxes in Nevada with real pilots. I don't really know what they do with their Navs, but I was led to believe that they are going the way of carrying a sextant in the aircraft (yes, the E-6 had one until about 8 years ago).
 
Completely unrelated, but Navs on aircraft operating close to the poles still use celestial navigation as a backup due to lack of NAVAIDS and poor GPS coverage. Thanks Smithsonian channel.../tangent
 
e6bflyer said:
Not silver winged (although being winged at Vance AFB, my gold wings may have a little silver mixed in)

The USAF sends their pilots through IFT, with the difference being the T=training vs. the Navy IFS where the S=screening. The USAF's point is to get the student through their PPL in order to make them stronger in JSUPT vs. the Navy's intent to attrite the weak early and cheaply.

I was led to believe that you had to be a rated pilot in the USAF in order to fly UAVs. This is what led to the draft from other platforms in order to populate the CONEX boxes in Nevada with real pilots. I don't really know what they do with their Navs, but I was led to believe that they are going the way of carrying a sextant in the aircraft (yes, the E-6 had one until about 8 years ago).
Click to expand...
The AF is back to IFS now - a TDY program at Pueblo - since many students had problems adjusting to the regimented nature of AF primary. By creating an IFS with military-style instruction, boldface, standups, formal release, etc. they figured they could weed out the non-adaptable or DORs much more cheaply.

Originally, in addition to pilots, navs with a commercial rating could fly UAVs; the ticket requirement was due in large part to FAA requirements for operating the bigger UAVs in CONUS airspace at the time. To stanch the bleeding from the rest of the AF and stabilize manning, they eventually developed the straight-to-UAV program. Prospective fliers do the full AF IFS program; they then do T-6 instrument sims to fulfill the instrument flight requirement, and go straight to flight principles/tactical stuff before they select. The first official "flights" are then at the FTU for the appropriate UAV.

The tanker/heavies in the AF have the traditional chart-and-compass navs; the career field also encompasses electronic warfare officers on RC-135s, B-52s, and various SOF assets, as well as WSOs on B-1s and F-15Es.
 
wlawr005 said:
Completely unrelated, but Navs on aircraft operating close to the poles still use celestial navigation as a backup due to lack of NAVAIDS and poor GPS coverage. Thanks Smithsonian channel.../tangent
Click to expand...

I've flown close to the North Pole and didn't have any problem using GPS/IRU nav. The trick is remembering true vs mag headings since the variation up there is like 60 degrees. I'm pretty glad I don't do celestial nav, that seems like it would be a pain.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
 
I think we are mostly missing the main point of IFS. To my understanding, and its name, it was never designed to make the student better. It is purely a screening tool brought by economics, and as was already said, the question is: is it cheaper to send all non-PPL guys to IFS, or is it cheaper to not and deal with the attrites later. You have to take in account how many people fail and at what stage (IFS/API/Primary) to see the cost savings. I hope the reason to cut IFS is that it has been determined to not save money off the bottom line. Otherwise, the counter argument is that to save money, we have cut a money saving program.
 
Pugs said:
......At one point there was talk of sending NFO's up through solo but no clue if that happened or not. Don't know if that much investment is needed but I know that on my first couple flights in the T-34 I was waaayy behind and going to T-2's with a whopping 15 flights in the T-34 was certainly a rush.......
Click to expand...

That was where the 'SuperNFO' program (not my term) came in about '93 or '94 I believe. They started giving SNFO's 8 FAMs in the front seat and then 4 ANAVs to finish out Primary. I think they changed the mix to 6 and 6 towards the end of my second stint through flight school in '01, I don't know if it is still the same. It was definitely helpful for me and many others.

MIDNJAC said:
....It is just a completely different kind of flying........
Click to expand...

.....altogether.

airplane_cockpit-25481.jpg
 
magnetfreezer said:
To stanch the bleeding from the rest of the AF and stabilize manning, they eventually developed the straight-to-UAV program. Prospective fliers do the full AF IFS program; they then do T-6 instrument sims to fulfill the instrument flight requirement, and go straight to flight principles/tactical stuff before they select. The first official "flights" are then at the FTU for the appropriate UAV.
Click to expand...
This part is fascinating…still the current thinking? Any more info? Full career path available?
 
No CONEX box, joystick, or half-empty bag of cheetos featured prominently on the lead wings? Fail.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top