User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/19/2020 1:07:14 PM EDT
[#1]
The old guys (as in long retired) are absolutely losing their minds over this decision. I don't think this crash is the only reason for this decision. At the end of the day, form takeoff/landings are just not something we do anymore. I think the last one I've done was over 8-10 years ago during an upgrade.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/19/2020 5:31:10 PM EDT
[#2]
@JustinOK34
Were you in A-Flight that one friday when we were talking confessions, fuckups, etc? ...the greybeard LtCol was telling us about the time he almost put his F-4 in the dirt. Emergency aircraft was lead, he was wing. Was telling us about watching smoke billow out Lead's acft and wasn't watching where he was going and almost landed off the runway. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/19/2020 10:49:12 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ARAMP1: Were you in A-Flight that one friday when we were talking confessions, fuckups, etc? ...the greybeard LtCol was telling us about the time he almost put his F-4 in the dirt. Emergency aircraft was lead, he was wing. Was telling us about watching smoke billow out Lead's acft and wasn't watching where he was going and almost landed off the runway. KD? Damn, that would be a heck of a close call there. Man I don't seem to recall that story right now, but not to say I wasn't there. Definitely remember drinking with him there in A Flight a few times. That was almost 10 years ago, SoNNNN!! In Tweets was the formation landing an IP demo or were we on the controls for it? I don't remember that either, lol. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/19/2020 11:16:45 PM EDT
[#4]
Still doing T-6 form landings I hope. Valuable training if for no other reason than as to expose the student to something else.
I do formation takeoffs and landings regularly, albeit not quite as close. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2020 8:09:43 PM EDT
[#5]
Why would you do them? I don't think the risk is worth it for something different. I think flying in some other part of the envelope that the pipeline doesn't expose you to would be better to for something different. Radar trail for anything pointy nose now a days for takeoff. We don't really fly in the weather that much to worry about an ILS failure.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2020 11:48:55 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Still doing T-6 form landings I hope. Valuable training if for no other reason than as to expose the student to something else. I do formation takeoffs and landings regularly, albeit not quite as close. Nope. Training wings are coming up with additional guidance and training to prevent whatever happened at Vance. Even the IP's can't maintain currency, they're not allowed to do form landings. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2020 11:56:03 PM EDT
[#7]
Sad. I got a lot out of them. Proficiency, not to mention currency, is a problem everywhere.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/5/2020 9:56:04 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Sad. I got a lot out of them. Proficiency, not to mention currency, is a problem everywhere. It seems like after most mishaps the "solution" is to hinder proficiency. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/5/2020 7:33:33 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Sad. I got a lot out of them. Proficiency, not to mention currency, is a problem everywhere. What did you get out of them? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/5/2020 9:27:29 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What did you get out of them? I'm interested as well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/6/2020 12:22:22 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm interested as well. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: What did you get out of them? I'm interested as well. At least keep it in T-6s is my point. It was weird and different. It required precision and in general was a challenge, all of form was. Punching through weather in fingertip is crazy as well, yet it works and it blew my mind. Takeoffs and landings show that it really isn’t that big of a deal to have multiple planes on a piece of pavement if you do it right. It set the cultural tone and gave perspective for formation takeoff and landing procedures. The form weather flying really gave some guys pause, some quit. It illustrated to me that a guy could easily get killed doing this, and we take some risks because they force students to put that fear aside and fly the airplane. If they can’t focus, they have no business in a cockpit. Do we need to teach aerobatics and spins to heavy UPT pilots? No. Is it still good? Yes. My concept of flying planes changed at UPT. Form stuff is where most of that change happened. I am not advocating unnecessary risk, but if you’re going to fly military airplanes, you can’t let emotions (especially fear) cloud the cockpit. You can shake, puke, and cry once the flight is over. We had guys quit over some of this stuff and the pressure it put on them, flying wasn’t for them. Could it be a bridge too far? Maybe. But guys have been doing it forever. Depends on how much risk you are willing to accept and if the product is worth the risk. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/6/2020 4:21:14 PM EDT
[#12]
If they're going with the idea that it's just another challenging thing, I can think of lots of other things to do. I think they had always done them because historically, they were often needed. Radars weren't a thing (or really terrible), and the comm/nav equipment were flat out terrible and seemed to fail often (at least based on the "up hill both ways stories I always hear). This necessitated form TOs/LNDs to punch through the weather when someone had no other choice. We have much better equipment these days that rarely fails. In my 14 years of AF flying as a pilot/SOF/OPS SUP, I have yet to see a situation where even a form approach was needed, let alone a form TO/LND. I can only think of a scenario of compound emergencies (like 3 different failures) that MIGHT require a form landing, but even then I could still fly a wing approach and touchdown on speed with the AOA.
I'm certainly not a "if it saves 1 life" type, but I really don't see the need to continue them, especially with 4th and 5th gen fighters. I was probably one of the last guys in the squadron to do Form TO/LNDs because I actually enjoyed doing them. That said, my last one was over 7 years ago. We do plenty of other stuff that is plenty challenging. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/6/2020 7:48:13 PM EDT
[#13]
Navy/MC idea is primary is training single seat fighters, those who pass (assuming there are slots available) move on to jets, otherwise props or helos. Not saying it is right or wrong, but what it is. But I do agree you should expose all primary studs to the aerobatics, formations, etc. for screening purposes as a minimum. I still think fingertip is necessary, I have drug people through the weather with failed systems. However, mins of 200 & 1/2 there is time for wing to land, lead to take it around; weather better then take some separation when you break out (which is what happened when I had to do it). I do agree that we need to challenge aviators, especially young mil aviators; expand their envelope and comfort zone. I personally would rather investigate other areas when challenging them than form landings, but I understand what your saying. I did when training studs at the rag, I would stretch the "rules" as much as I could. When the kid had the basics down, I would try to expand their skill set. One thing I don't like about mil training (civ as well) is the idea that everyone is the same, if you have a rockstar move on and give them something more challenging.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/6/2020 9:00:32 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: At least keep it in T-6s is my point. It was weird and different. It required precision and in general was a challenge, all of form was. Punching through weather in fingertip is crazy as well, yet it works and it blew my mind. Takeoffs and landings show that it really isn’t that big of a deal to have multiple planes on a piece of pavement if you do it right. It set the cultural tone and gave perspective for formation takeoff and landing procedures. The form weather flying really gave some guys pause, some quit. It illustrated to me that a guy could easily get killed doing this, and we take some risks because they force students to put that fear aside and fly the airplane. If they can’t focus, they have no business in a cockpit. Do we need to teach aerobatics and spins to heavy UPT pilots? No. Is it still good? Yes. My concept of flying planes changed at UPT. Form stuff is where most of that change happened. I am not advocating unnecessary risk, but if you’re going to fly military airplanes, you can’t let emotions (especially fear) cloud the cockpit. You can shake, puke, and cry once the flight is over. We had guys quit over some of this stuff and the pressure it put on them, flying wasn’t for them. Could it be a bridge too far? Maybe. But guys have been doing it forever. Depends on how much risk you are willing to accept and if the product is worth the risk. Can you describe fighter jets penetrating IMC in tight formation? Is the lead under radar vectors or flying a route and the others are simply looking at the wingtip of the jet next to them? And is the other jets in the formation still in clear view even when in IMC? I could imagine that flying tight formation is very mentally exhausting. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/6/2020 9:09:34 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Can you describe fighter jets penetrating IMC in tight formation? Is the lead under radar vectors or flying a route and the others are simply looking at the wingtip of the jet next to them? And is the other jets in the formation still in clear view even when in IMC? I could imagine that flying tight formation is very mentally exhausting. I’m not a fighter pilot. But I did it in training. Some of the others here are probably a lot more knowledgeable on that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/6/2020 9:22:04 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I do agree that we need to challenge aviators, especially young mil aviators; expand their envelope and comfort zone. I personally would rather investigate other areas when challenging them than form landings, but I understand what your saying. This comes up every few months here, the old risk/reward tradeoff. Do it safer, but then pilots wind up less skilled. In the army students no longer solo. Used to be you would fly all around lower Alabama with only your stick buddy, then it was solo in traffic pattern only, and now no solo at all. Army students no longer do autorotations to the ground because it is not allowed in the Lakota. The Lakotas also are fully augmented afcs with autopilot and they have no major tail rotor authority issues. The army's answer to all of this is that: All army aircraft are two pilot aircraft, so no need to solo. All army helicopters are two engine, so autos to the ground never are needed. All army helicopters are stabilized and have big tail rotors and lots of power. I know there have always been horrible pilots coming out of flight school, but now the horrible pilots are even worse. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/6/2020 9:33:17 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This comes up every few months here, the old risk/reward tradeoff. Do it safer, but then pilots wind up less skilled. In the army students no longer solo. Used to be you would fly all around lower Alabama with only your stick buddy, then it was solo in traffic pattern only, and now no solo at all. Army students no longer do autorotations to the ground because it is not allowed in the Lakota. The Lakotas also are fully augmented afcs with autopilot and they have no major tail rotor authority issues. The army's answer to all of this is that: All army aircraft are two pilot aircraft, so no need to solo. All army helicopters are two engine, so autos to the ground never are needed. All army helicopters are stabilized and have big tail rotors and lots of power. I know there have always been horrible pilots coming out of flight school, but now the horrible pilots are even worse. Wow! I graduated IERW in 1987. In those days, once you soloed in the TH-55, every other day you flew alone to a stage field to do pattern work. During the tactics phase you and your stick buddy flew all over Alabama/Florida. I can’t imagine no solo or full crash and bangs to the ground anymore. Makes me feel old, lol. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/6/2020 9:48:05 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Is the lead under radar vectors or flying a route and the others are simply looking at the wingtip of the jet next to them? Quote HistoryQuoted: Is the lead under radar vectors or flying a route and the others are simply looking at the wingtip of the jet next to them? The lead flies the route, or vector, approach, or whatever. The wingmen just stay in formation, and follow the lead. But they aren't ignorant of what is going on. The are listening to the radio, and know what the basic plan is, and where they are going, And is the other jets in the formation still in clear view even when in IMC? I would say that most of the time, you can see the entire lead aircraft. But I have been in some very thick stuff, and have even lost sight because the visibility was so poor. I could imagine that flying tight formation is very mentally exhausting. It can be tiring, especially if you are in the goo for long periods of time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/6/2020 9:57:40 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If they're going with the idea that it's just another challenging thing, I can think of lots of other things to do. I think they had always done them because historically, they were often needed. Radars weren't a thing (or really terrible), and the comm/nav equipment were flat out terrible and seemed to fail often (at least based on the "up hill both ways stories I always hear). This necessitated form TOs/LNDs to punch through the weather when someone had no other choice. We have much better equipment these days that rarely fails. In my 14 years of AF flying as a pilot/SOF/OPS SUP, I have yet to see a situation where even a form approach was needed, let alone a form TO/LND. I can only think of a scenario of compound emergencies (like 3 different failures) that MIGHT require a form landing, but even then I could still fly a wing approach and touchdown on speed with the AOA. I'm certainly not a "if it saves 1 life" type, but I really don't see the need to continue them, especially with 4th and 5th gen fighters. I was probably one of the last guys in the squadron to do Form TO/LNDs because I actually enjoyed doing them. That said, my last one was over 7 years ago. We do plenty of other stuff that is plenty challenging. Quote HistoryQuoted: If they're going with the idea that it's just another challenging thing, I can think of lots of other things to do. I think they had always done them because historically, they were often needed. Radars weren't a thing (or really terrible), and the comm/nav equipment were flat out terrible and seemed to fail often (at least based on the "up hill both ways stories I always hear). This necessitated form TOs/LNDs to punch through the weather when someone had no other choice. We have much better equipment these days that rarely fails. In my 14 years of AF flying as a pilot/SOF/OPS SUP, I have yet to see a situation where even a form approach was needed, let alone a form TO/LND. I can only think of a scenario of compound emergencies (like 3 different failures) that MIGHT require a form landing, but even then I could still fly a wing approach and touchdown on speed with the AOA. I'm certainly not a "if it saves 1 life" type, but I really don't see the need to continue them, especially with 4th and 5th gen fighters. I was probably one of the last guys in the squadron to do Form TO/LNDs because I actually enjoyed doing them. That said, my last one was over 7 years ago. We do plenty of other stuff that is plenty challenging. Quoted: Navy/MC idea is primary is training single seat fighters, those who pass (assuming there are slots available) move on to jets, otherwise props or helos. Not saying it is right or wrong, but what it is. But I do agree you should expose all primary studs to the aerobatics, formations, etc. for screening purposes as a minimum. I still think fingertip is necessary, I have drug people through the weather with failed systems. However, mins of 200 & 1/2 there is time for wing to land, lead to take it around; weather better then take some separation when you break out (which is what happened when I had to do it). I do agree that we need to challenge aviators, especially young mil aviators; expand their envelope and comfort zone. I personally would rather investigate other areas when challenging them than form landings, but I understand what your saying. I did when training studs at the rag, I would stretch the "rules" as much as I could. When the kid had the basics down, I would try to expand their skill set. One thing I don't like about mil training (civ as well) is the idea that everyone is the same, if you have a rockstar move on and give them something more challenging. I don’t disagree with you guys. I haven’t been a UPT IP and probably won’t. Hopefully they can find a way to do it better. I will add that in my community big formations (day mod contour, NVG, IMC) in some cases tight big formations are a thing. We do a lot of form landings and takeoffs on relatively short fields where that real risk is a rejection in front of you, or somebody in the formation screwing up. AFSOC used to do NVG fingertip in 130s, and though fun, is dumb with no tactical purpose. I’m all for making smart safe decisions and mitigating unnecessary risk. However, if we cut out too much of the challenging and dangerous stuff in training we may get some pilots who don’t have the tools to deal with their professional stresses (used to be labeled cowards). Then, are unable self asses their proficiency level and try to remain within it. I flew with one in UPT, former C-5 guy who was terrified of any icing or weather, or really anything but straight and level day VMC. This is where CRM, aggressiveness, and airmanship gets hard to define. Lest we crash a B-52 full of O-5s at an air show. The guy in my avatar once told a COCOM or whatever it was then Commander that he wasn’t crashing enough jets. Yes, he was wrong literally but the intent was that they weren’t training property and we’re going to see much worse losses in combat if they didn’t step it up in training. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/6/2020 11:26:52 PM EDT
[#20]
Your perspective is still relevant as you discussed above.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/6/2020 11:32:44 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The lead flies the route, or vector, approach, or whatever. The wingmen just stay in formation, and follow the lead. But they aren't ignorant of what is going on. The are listening to the radio, and know what the basic plan is, and where they are going, I would say that most of the time, you can see the entire lead aircraft. But I have been in some very thick stuff, and have even lost sight because the visibility was so poor. It can be tiring, especially if you are in the goo for long periods of time. Yikes, losing visual on lead in IMC. Not even sure what the break off plan would be in something like that. Why not just separate the jets and send them in on their own IFR flights? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/7/2020 7:39:51 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Can you describe fighter jets penetrating IMC in tight formation? Is the lead under radar vectors or flying a route and the others are simply looking at the wingtip of the jet next to them? And is the other jets in the formation still in clear view even when in IMC? I could imagine that flying tight formation is very mentally exhausting. Quote HistoryQuoted: Can you describe fighter jets penetrating IMC in tight formation? Is the lead under radar vectors or flying a route and the others are simply looking at the wingtip of the jet next to them? And is the other jets in the formation still in clear view even when in IMC? I could imagine that flying tight formation is very mentally exhausting. It can be exhausting if it's for extended periods of time, but it's generally pretty short lived. The wingman should be keeping up on what's going on with the radios and have general SA where they are in the pattern. But yes, as a wingman, sometimes all I see is the missile on the tip rail or the nav light on the wing tip. As the lead, I've looked back and saw nothing but cloud...wingman was right there when we popped out of the weather. Quoted: Yikes, losing visual on lead in IMC. Not even sure what the break off plan would be in something like that. There are procedures for every situation of losing sight of lead and they're beat into you during pilot training. I've only ever had one wingman lose sight of me so far. We just separated and about a minute later we popped out of the weather, he rejoined and we continued to landing. That said, it's kinda like a badge of honor to not lose sight...if you do, beers are on you that night. Quoted: Why not just separate the jets and send them in on their own IFR flights? It's just easier to do that rather than get clearance for each jet in the flight. It's a dick dance of getting the jets separated, getting them their own clearance, etc... Most of the time we're only doing this to get through a few thousand feet of weather. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/7/2020 10:35:46 AM EDT
[#23]
Thanks for the info, sounds like intense flying. Yeah I can see how getting through a couple thousand feet is different than hard IMC for the entire flight.
Do fighters only tend to go out when there is clear VFR on top? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/7/2020 11:11:13 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This comes up every few months here, the old risk/reward tradeoff. Do it safer, but then pilots wind up less skilled. In the army students no longer solo. Used to be you would fly all around lower Alabama with only your stick buddy, then it was solo in traffic pattern only, and now no solo at all. Army students no longer do autorotations to the ground because it is not allowed in the Lakota. The Lakotas also are fully augmented afcs with autopilot and they have no major tail rotor authority issues. The army's answer to all of this is that: All army aircraft are two pilot aircraft, so no need to solo. All army helicopters are two engine, so autos to the ground never are needed. All army helicopters are stabilized and have big tail rotors and lots of power. I know there have always been horrible pilots coming out of flight school, but now the horrible pilots are even worse. From my strictly civilian fixed wing perspective, all that sounds like a really bad idea, if you end goal is training a pilot expected to fly an aircraft that has a very high probability of getting shot at with various stuff that can cause major damage to your aircraft, or fellow crew members. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/7/2020 11:57:44 AM EDT
[#25]
We'd say sucking LAU (aim 9 launchers on the outboard station). Usually it was only for a little, and you could almost always separate if needed (and would if the weather was real bad). I had a wingman go lost comm right after takeoff as we were getting in the weather, we punched through and went on our way. He lost control of all navaids and comm for the flight, we had to do a few approaches to get in at the end. That one wasn't to bad. As we had time on top for most of the flight for him to rest (it is exhausting). The one that really sucks is when the weather sucks when you are taking jets back over the pond. You can be in tight formation for hours, while having to get in the basket multiple times, that sucks. If you loose sight you might be diverting or worse trying out your one man life raft.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/7/2020 2:40:40 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:all that sounds like a really bad idea, if you end goal is training a pilot ..... Everybody wants skygod until they have to pay for the training and flight time for somebody to become skygod. Once you're responsible for that, then saving money by cutting flight time and removing stuff from the syballus sounds reasonable. "Reduced cost to train an aviator by 3%". "Reduced accident rates by 5%". Look great on evaluations. All military training is the same - you can only get one year of experience from one year of flying in flight school! |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/7/2020 2:49:44 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Everybody wants skygod until they have to pay for the training and flight time for somebody to become skygod. Once you're responsible for that, then saving money by cutting flight time and removing stuff from the syballus sounds reasonable. "Reduced cost to train an aviator by 3%". "Reduced accident rates by 5%". Look great on evaluations. All military training is the same - you can only get one year of experience from one year of flying in flight school! As long as Stan Eval passes enough guys service wide and the computer says you’re green, there’s nothing to talk about at the top levels. Any accidents are blamed on the crew and local leadership accepting too much risk. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2020 4:45:05 PM EDT
[#28]
Accident Investigation Board Report Review:
 Fatal T-38C Mishap at Vance AFB (November 2019) AIB Report Review |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
