Air University Review, September-October 1968
Today more than 3000 flying sorties will be launched from Air Training Command pilot training bases. There were 3000 launched yesterday, there will be 3000 more tomorrow, and there will be at least that many launched during virtually any working day one might select in the future, for the pace is increasing. During FY 1967, Air Training Command logged more than 795,000 flying hours in T-37 and T-38 aircraft. The number will be 900,000 in FY 1968 and will exceed one million in FY 1969. These are large figures. Yes, and other large figures are the $22.2 to $28.3 million FY 1967 operating costs for each of the nine Air Force bases devoted principally or solely to the pilot training mission, resulting in a figure of $243.3 million as the one-year price of pilot training. These flying hours and dollars yielded 2996 new military pilots in FY 1967 (of which 2702 were USAF). Production goals for FY 1968, 1969, and 1970 are 3293, 3473, and 3850 pilots respectively. This is big business by any standard and is indicative of the magnitude of the USAF pilot training task. This article will describe the nature of the task—what it is, how it is done and why, the sort of people involved, and the means by which the new pilot is tailored to meet future responsibilities.
background
The first substantial increase in pilot training rate in recent years was initiated with Class 67A on 29 July 1965. During the early 1960s, production had ranged from 1700 to 2200 new pilots each year, a relatively leisurely pace by present-day standards. The target for FY 1967 was 2982, with higher goals for subsequent years. Rather than accept the delay which would be required to activate or convert additional bases and obtain additional training aircraft, an adjustment in course content was made. The course requirement of 262 all-jet flying hours in the early 1960s was reduced to 252 in mid-FY 1965, then sharply curtailed to 210 in FY 1966. In view of the severe impact on proficiency that would inevitably result from this drastic reduction, a light-plane phase was added. The course became a three-phase one consisting of 30, 90, and 120 flying hours, flown in the T-41, T-37, and T-38 respectively. With minor modification, it is the course of today and for the immediately foreseeable future.
Addition of a light-plane “screening” phase was not a new idea in pilot training. The Air Force had used the Beech T-34 in like manner in the early 1950s. Reintroduction was expected to serve much the same purpose as before: to identify early the obviously unfit so that expensive, limited jet hours could be reserved for pilot students with above-average potential. The T-41 has served this purpose well. Since introduction of the T-41, fourteen classes have been graduated. From these classes, 45.2% of the students eliminated for flying deficiency were identified during T-41 flying. Furthermore, as an unexpected bonus, the T-41 has been found to provide useful orientation and training value. The student is conditioned to flying within a highly disciplined and procedural environment and is able to assimilate T-37 instruction faster than could his predecessor in pre-T-41 times.
So much for background. Let’s go on to an investigation of the nature of the task.
the student
The USAF pilot training student of today is a commissioned officer and a college graduate. As such, he is intelligent and mature and has mastered habits of self-discipline and application to study. These traits are tested severely during the initial months of training.
The largest single source of student pilots is the Air Force ROTC program,
supervised by
A somewhat comparable program for Air Force Academy upperclassmen began in January 1968. The Pilot Indoctrination Program (PIP) provides 36 hours in the T-41 aircraft. This is an Air Training Command mission; Air Force pilots are the instructors, and the school is tightly supervised by a squadron commander and appropriate staff officers. The curriculum is patterned after that of the T-41 phase and serves the three purposes of screening, motivation, and preparation.
Other sources of student pilots, in descending numerical order, are: Officer Training School—31.8%; USAF officers already on active duty—8.6%; navigators—7.6%; and service academies—7.3% (principally from the Air Force Academy, though graduates of the United States Military Academy and United States Naval Academy are eligible, and a few—76 in the last 5 years—have selected an Air Force career by this route). Regardless of source, most student pilots are highly motivated toward mastery of the pilot skills, either because of the challenge of flight itself or as acknowledgment of the likelihood that the pilot rating will improve Air Force career potential.
the overall mission
In a general sense, the pilot training course is designed to provide mastery of the basic flying skills, which in due course will permit assignment to any Air Force aircraft or mission. At graduation, however, the new pilot is able to operate only those aircraft in which he was trained; he is qualified for no specific Air Force mission. Consequently, further training, ranging from a few weeks to several months, is necessary before the pilot can contribute usefully to national defense efforts. Most such postgraduate schools are the responsibility of major commands other than ATC.
Phase one. The initial phase of training is approximately five weeks in duration, depending upon seasonal variation in weather suitable for flying. Following one week of administrative processing and initial classroom “ground school” instruction, the student begins an arduous schedule—three hours in the classroom and six to eight hours on the flight line, five days a week, with extra hours in quarters for study, and occasional weekend flying. It is a demanding schedule and leaves little time for family or recreation.
Students from ROTC and Air Force Academy sources who have completed FIP or PIP light-plane training fly 18 hours in T-41 aircraft; all others fly 30 hours. It may appear that the 18 hours flown by FIP and PIP graduates is an expensive duplication of training already completed, but most students completed their light-plane training several weeks or months before entry into Air Force pilot training. Experience has proven that, were the 18 hours withdrawn, these students would be unable to assimilate T-37 training at a rate comparable to those who fly the full 30 hours in Phase I.
T-41 flight training is provided by civilian flight instructors at a civil airport in the near vicinity of each base. The T-41 aircraft are “loaned” to a civilian contractor, who furnishes instruction and maintenance in accord with the terms of a contract negotiated yearly. Quality control of both instruction and maintenance is assured through close monitorship by Air Force personnel. Three Air Force pilots oversee ground and air operations and fly at least 10% of the final check flights; two NCO’s oversee maintenance procedures and practices.
The T-41 was purchased by the Air Force “off the shelf.” With two minor exceptions, it is identical to the Cessna 172. It has a cruising speed of 120 mph and a maximum speed of 174 mph. Cost to the Air Force was a bit over $7000 each.
Phase two. The second-phase trainer is the Cessna T-37. Affectionately known as the “tweety bird” or “double-barreled dog whistle” because of the frequency and amplitude of the scream produced by its two jet engines, it is a first-rate training vehicle. Selected in 1955, it is the first Air Force training aircraft to be designed with side-by-side seating. Air Training Command received the initial production in 1956 and now operates 680 of these fine training aircraft. At takeoff, it weighs 6575 pounds. Two J-69 engines, rated at 1025 pounds’ thrust each, push it to a cruising speed of 250 knots and a top speed of 372 knots. The price is approximately $147,000 each.
It is during the 23 weeks of phase two that the student pilot really learns to fly in accord with military standards, procedures, and techniques. The 90 flying hours are divided into increments of 55 hours’ contact flying, 21 hours’ instrument training, 9 hours’ navigation practice, and 5 hours’ formation introduction. At phase completion, the student pilot has experienced most aspects of modern military flying and is well along toward mastery of basic flying skills. Associated with the contact and instrument flying lessons are 22.5 additional hours in the T-4 ground trainer. This trainer is not a simulator in the technical sense; it does not move, but its cockpit duplicates that of the T-37 and its instrument indications simulate those of the aircraft. It is used initially to provide familiarity with cockpit layout and for practice of normal and emergency procedures. Later, each instrument instruction flight is flown first in the T-4 trainer, then soon thereafter in the aircraft. This practice assures understanding of the nature and content of each instrument flight before investment of expensive flying hours.
With the reduction in jet flying hours from 262 to 210 at the start of FY 1966, the principal cut was made in the T-37 phase, from 132 to 90 hours. Experience now indicates this cut may have been too severe. An increase of the T-37 phase to approximately 120 hours would provide long-term proficiency gains well worth the additional expense. The typical learning curve is still steep at 90 hours and does not appear to flatten until 110 to 130 hours.
Phase three. During the third and final phase of approximately 25 weeks’ duration, the student further masters and polishes those skills introduced in the T-37 and adapts them to a modern high-performance aircraft. Again, Air Training Command is blessed with a near-optimum training aircraft. The Northrop T-38, driven by two J-85 engines of 2900 pounds’ thrust each, cruises at a bit over 500 knots and can exceed mach 1.2 in level flight. It is a relatively small aircraft with a takeoff weight of only 11,800 pounds, but its performance and flight characteristics duplicate closely those of modern tactical aircraft such as the F-4C. Air Training Command now operates 822 of these fine training aircraft, whose procurement price is approximately $880,000 each.
The 120 hours of T-38 flying is divided into increments of 36 hours’ contact flying, 30 hours’ instrument training, 16 hours’ navigation practice, 36 hours’ formation training, and 2 or 3 hours’ optional time to be used where most needed. Initial contact flying and instrument training are augmented by 24 hours of training in a T-7/T-26 ground trainer, which duplicates the cockpit and performance characteristics of the T-38 as the T-4 does in the T-37 phase.
academic training
There are 289 hours of formal classroom instruction on subjects appropriate to qualify the student for pilot duties both during and subsequent to pilot training. Most of this material requires extensive extra-classroom preparation.
For many years Air Training Command has used a “prime base” concept. That is, each pilot training base is assigned prime or principal responsibility for a particular academic subject or subjects. Civilian experts in training material and evaluation, assisted by Air Force classroom instructors, prepare texts, instructor guides, student study guides, testing materials, and appropriate demonstration devices and visual aids. As such materials are developed, they are submitted for final review, editing, approval, and production to an element of the Hq ATC staff. Annually, each base hosts an “academic workshop” where representatives of all bases meet to review and further refine training materials for a particular subject.
Training materials now include 13 Programmed Instructional Packages, using up-to-date techniques of programmed instruction and a multitude of modern and sophisticated audio-visual training aids. Development of training techniques does not end here. Besides accomplishing the everyday teaching job, instructors and supervisors at all pilot training bases are engaged in in-house research, study, and evaluation. Various phases and units of instruction are compared for effectiveness, and equipment such as closed-circuit TV and other electronic picture and sound recording devices is evaluated for use. By these methods academic training is kept current, modern, pertinent, and keyed to job requirements. These are, of course, internal Air Training Command initiatives.
Of greater and broader consequence are the means by which the student is tailored to meet his postgraduate responsibilities in the other major commands. This aspect leads us to a document and a program.
Course Training Standard
The Course Training Standard (CTS) is a document published by Air Training Command. It consists of four parts:
Part I explains briefly the purpose of the CTS; it “sets forth the skills, knowledges, and degree of proficiency required of graduates. . . establishes the overall course objectives, and will be used as the basis for developing more detailed course control documents and training evaluation instruments.”
Part II enumerates the general duties and responsibilities of the graduate.
Part III defines four levels of proficiency, ranging from
1. Knowledge of the general nature of the operation, task, equipment, or considerations, and able to relate the information or knowledge to the performance of his assigned duties.
to
4. Able to perform the operation or task correctly, quickly, and efficiently without assistance and able to apply the principles, techniques, and procedures involved to new or related operations, tasks, equipment, or situations.
In Part IV, job elements are listed, and levels of proficiency (from the four defined) are assigned. For the pilot training course, 62 job elements are listed.
Were a new course to be established, preparation of the CTS would be the first step. However, since the pilot training course has been established for many years and is relatively stable, the CTS serves another very important purpose: it permits efficient communication between ATC and the other major commands. That is, the CTS provides the vocabulary by which requests for change are expressed and negotiated. It is also an essential aspect of the Field Evaluation Program.
Field Evaluation Program
The Field Evaluation Program is formally established by ATC regulation for the purpose of providing currently valid information on the quality of recent graduates: Are they competent to meet postgraduate responsibilities? The question is answered in two ways—by personal interview and through questionnaires. Approximately three months after graduation, each new pilot who enters an advanced flying school in another command is interviewed by a representative from an ATC pilot training base, and his immediate supervisor is interviewed also. Those new pilots who are assigned directly to tactical units (and their supervisors) are mailed questionnaires. These interviews and questionnaires use the CTS as vocabulary and ask two kinds of questions: How often is each job element used? Is training for each job element adequate? Responses are correlated at base level and again at Hq ATC on a quarterly basis. As examples of the effort devoted to the Field Evaluation Program during FY 67: More than 1300 questionnaires were completed by recent graduates, 879 by their supervisors. Twenty-eight bases were visited, and 96 formal reports were prepared on these visits. It is estimated that 95% of all graduates will be queried at least once by questionnaire or interview within two years of graduation.
The Field Evaluation Program provides a means of validating course objectives and training quality on a near-continuous basis. Additionally, CTS review conferences are convened as required or as requested by other major commands, and, within the limits of flying hour availability, the course is adjusted appropriately. Thus continuous evaluation and positive action assure that the pilot graduate matches the requirements of his job. When the job changes, the training is modified promptly to meet new requirements.
course quality
Those readers who are familiar with and perhaps products of the pilot training program of past years will have learned little new so far. The course length has changed only a few weeks since post-World War II days; flying hour content is roughly comparable. But is course quality much the same? The answer to this question is an emphatic NO!
Through the years, the increasing demands of tactical aircraft and the flying environment have challenged the ingenuity of pilot training course managers. This challenge has been met. The pilot graduate of today is better than ever before and in most respects is fully competent to meet his new responsibilities. Nevertheless, the fact that it is possible to train a pilot to the proficiency level demanded by modern military flying with only a few more weeks and flying hours than it took in pre-World War II days should be considered an almost miraculous achievement. How has it been done?
Improvement in course quality has occurred in two ways—incrementally and by breakthrough. These two general categories will be discussed in turn.
Incremental improvements.
(1) Control centralization. Today, control of the course curriculum is tightly centralized in an element of the Hq ATC staff. Here, selected from the entire personnel resources of ATC, is assembled a group of the most highly qualified and experienced pilot training experts in the Air Force. It is their responsibility to obtain maximum training value from each training day and flying hour allocated to the pilot training task. The product of their work and that of their predecessors has been a curriculum of ever improving quality, together with the training techniques and materials which assure its effective presentation. What is taught, when it is taught, and how it is taught are all the subject of detailed directives and course materials.
(2) Standardization/Evaluation (Stan/Eval) function. It is essential, of course, to ensure that the program is run precisely in accord with course directives and that every instructor and supervisor is doing his job correctly and professionally. This is the responsibility of the ATC Stan/Eval Board, also an element of the Hq ATC staff. The Stan/Eval Board consists of 14 highly experienced ex-instructor pilots. Their functions are spelled out in an ATC manual. In brief, they act as the eyes of the Commander, ATC; they visit each pilot training base at least twice yearly, where they fly with students, instructors, and supervisors, monitor briefings and classroom instruction, screen administrative records and local directives, and review all operational procedures. The Stan/Eval function is duplicated again at each base, where nine highly qualified instructor pilots perform the same service for the deputy commander for operations. The Stan/Eval function at Headquarters and base levels ensures that all the hundreds of people in the pilot training program understand what they are supposed to be doing, that they comply with directives, and that they use sound, safe operational procedures.
(3) Instructor pilot qualification. Certainly the qualification of the
instructor is a key factor in course quality. This is particularly true in
pilot training. Preparation of the instructor pilot for his influential role
has received strong emphasis. Specialized instructor pilot training courses are
operated for T-37, T-38, and academic classroom instructors. The T-37 and T -38
instructor courses are approximately ten weeks in duration, and they include 60
and 65 flying hours respectively. Already qualified in the aircraft at time of
entry, the student instructor is taught the many procedures and maneuvers used
in pilot training and the techniques by which he may best develop flying skills
in his students. Prior to graduation, the student instructor must meet high
instructing standards and demonstrate during check flights precise mastery of
all maneuvers. As an indication of the emphasis placed on the instruction role,
special procedures apply to pilots selected for instructor duty in these
schools. Selection criteria include minimum OER average for the last five years
of 7.5, two years’ experience (minimum) as instructor pilot at a pilot training
base, and at least 750 hours in the aircraft (T-37 or T-38). That ATC can
afford so high an experience level in the instructor schools may be a surprise.
Nevertheless, ATC now enjoys a very impressive experience level at the pilot
training bases. The computer provides this profile of the typical ATC
instructor pilot: he is 30.8 years of age, has a bachelor’s degree, and has
26.6 months’ experience as an instructor pilot; 57% of them have flying
experience in other commands, and 26.5% have combat experience in
These instructor pilots are competent, disciplined, hard-working young men, highly qualified for their important job. During 1967 the “buck” instructor pilot, in whose hands ultimately rests the success of the program, worked a 50- to 55-hour week and averaged more than 45 hours of flying a month.
Innovations. Now let’s look at improvements which may qualify for the term “breakthrough.” I shall discuss three, though there are others. Probably a narrative exposition will make their nature and significance most easily understood.
(1) Flight scheduling. Traditionally, training aircraft were launched in flying periods. The flying day was divided into four or five periods, depending upon the season of the year. At the beginning of each period, many aircraft were launched together, flew the assigned missions, and returned together. This was known as the “pulse launch” system. It had several limitations, the most important of which is the fact that all aircraft were competing for takeoff space, airspace, navigation aids, and landing space. From a maintenance viewpoint, the working day consisted of a series of sharp peaks and valleys. That is, a large number of aircraft required starting at the same time. Then, at completion of the flying period, all aircraft required refueling and restart for the next period.
During the past two years, a new concept called “smooth flow” has replaced the “pulse launch” system. The day is now divided into brief intervals of three or four minutes each. Every three or four minutes of the flying day a single aircraft (or formation) of each type is launched. Since each sortie is of approximately the same duration, aircraft return for servicing at approximately the same interval and rate. The maintenance workload is both reduced and leveled; only one aircraft need be launched or serviced at a time. More importantly, individual aircraft no longer need compete for runway time, airspace, or navigation aids. Improvement in training efficiency has been spectacular, since there is much less interference between individual sorties. Queueing for takeoff, approach, or landing is a problem of the past, and each student is able to receive many more opportunities for practice at the same flying hour cost.
(2) Air traffic control. Soon after receiving the first T-38 aircraft, it was apparent that ATC had a new problem. The combination of high speed and small silhouette greatly increased the probability of mid-air collision. In stark terms, if two T-38 aircraft get lined up on a head-on or near head-on collision course, both aircraft will be lost. Neither pilot will see the other aircraft in time to maneuver out of the way. The initial solution to this problem was to divide airspace into pieces and reserve a private piece for each aircraft. Because of maneuver requirements, a minimum size was defined, and the launch capacity of each base became limited by the number of airspace pieces available. Adoption of the “smooth flow” concept has greatly alleviated congestion and increased capacity. Additionally there has been aggressive action and considerable progress toward expansion of radar control. Hq ATC has established the ambitious goal of radar control of all training flights from initial takeoff to final landing. This goal is not as yet achieved; but, based on progress during the last two years, it appears attainable within perhaps the next two or three years.
(3) Use of computers. With improvements in aircraft control and scheduling, the training capacity of each training base has increased. Thus, it has been possible to accept larger production goals within the existing ATC base structure. This increase, in turn, has expanded and complicated greatly the problems of supervision and management. The computer has been the obvious answer. Today scheduling and a major portion of administrative accounting are done by machines. Further, as computers with greater capacity become available, more and more of the managerial task will be transferred to the machine, relieving supervisors of routine scheduling and administrative tasks and permitting closer attention to supervisory responsibilities.
All in all, the training operation of today bears little resemblance to the manual grease-pencil-wall-chart operation of a few years ago. The pilot training program is vital and adaptive and ever improving in quality, safety, and efficiency.
Webster provides a clue to the word “inexorable” in the title of this article: it “implies relentlessness of purpose.” Such is the nature of the pilot training mission. Three thousand sorties are required today and again tomorrow; every six weeks a class graduates, and on its heels a new class enters; and every new pilot must be capable of carrying his share of the Air Force responsibility. This mission is a harsh taskmaster; it permits no letup in attention or effort.
Hq
Air Training Command
Colonel Robert D. Curtis (B.S.,
Disclaimer
The conclusions and opinions expressed in this
document are those of the author cultivated in the freedom of expression,
academic environment of
Home Page | Feedback? Email the Editor