Side Bar

December 2005

Air Force Revisiting Requirements for Pilot Training

By Sandra I. Erwin

Senior U.S. Air Force officials are debating whether a planned drawdown of the service’s aircraft fleet should be matched by cutbacks to the number of pilots that are recruited and trained.

At a gathering of three-star and four-star Air Force generals scheduled for December, one of the topics of discussion will be the possibility of slowing down the entry of new aviators into the force.

The Air Force currently trains about 1,100 pilots each year. That is more than double the number of pilots the Air Force had in its ranks in the early 1990s.

At the December meeting, known as a “rated summit,” Air Force leaders will discuss, among other topics, the service’s long-term requirements for combat aviators, said Gen. William R. Looney III, who heads the Air Education and Training Command. “The number of required trained pilots may change,” he said in an interview. “Now we produce 1,100 pilots a year. The question is, ‘Is it the right number?’”

Inventory reductions of potentially more than 700 aircraft planned for the next five years could lead to a reduction of the pilot force, although no firm decisions have been made, he said.

“We’ll look at the future, the amount of aircraft we expect to have, the number of pilots we need, how many we need to train,” Looney said.

Regardless of the outcome of these deliberations, no sweeping reductions are expected right away, he cautioned. The draconian cuts seen immediately after the end of the Cold War, when the force dropped precipitously, were too disruptive and led to low morale in the ranks, Looney explained. “We don’t want to go through that same major drastic cut, because of the unintended consequences it has on the force.”

Pilot training is one of several areas that the Air Force is reevaluating. Aviators, said Looney, can expect to see gradual changes to their training regime. More of their training, for example, will shift from real airplanes to simulators.

“Simulation is a huge multiplier, and enhances our training capability,” Looney said.

C-17 and C-130J cargo aircraft operators, much like commercial airline pilots, will do almost their entire training on simulators. The first time they will board a real cockpit will be for their “check ride,” a pilot proficiency sortie.

Pilots complete their initial qualification in simulators known as “weapon system trainers.”

This does not apply, however, to older C-130s, which do not have the sophisticated simulators available for the J fleet, explained Air Force spokesman Dave Smith.

The C-130E trainers are “not as good” as the C-17’s and C-130J’s, Smith said, although the E simulators are receiving some upgrades to allow landing training. Once the enhancements are completed, the Air Force will determine whether pilots can receive their initial qualification checks in the weapon system trainer, said Smith, although he admitted this was an ambitious goal. One major drawback in the C-130E simulator is the poor fidelity of the landing simulations. “The C-130E does not have a heads-up display, and its systems make learning how to land the aircraft more difficult than the C-17 or C-130J.”

Simulators are categorized on a scale from A-D, the highest being a level D. In a level D simulator, a pilot can earn a rating without ever having to fly the aircraft. The C-130E has level C simulators, according to the contractor, Lockheed Martin.

The Air Education and Training Command, and the Air Mobility Command are preparing a “request for proposals” from Lockheed Martin to begin the simulator upgrades, and to develop a new syllabus and training program by April 2007.

According to Lockheed spokesman Warren Wright, “there are some discussions being held about further upgrades for the E models, but no RFP or formal proposals have been issued.”

The shift to simulator-based training seen in the Air Force mirrors a trend that started in commercial aviation many years ago, experts noted.

“We are seeing a convergence between what the military customers are asking for and the commercial sector,” said Hugh Dunkley, vice president of simulation programs for CAE USA.

Current military operations limit the number of aircraft available for training, which translates into a higher demand for simulators, Dunkley said. “What was safety and economics driven in the commercial sector is now seen as an effective means of freeing up aircraft for deployable use.”

In commercial aviation, the most advanced simulators are classified as “zero flight time” trainers where literally the commercial pilot will fly the real aircraft for the first time with passengers onboard, Dunkley said. Military transport trainees not only must learn how to operate and fly the airplane, but also must master unique maneuver skills, such as dropping cargo loads, lining up in formations, air-to-air refueling and other tasks. “That requires high fidelity simulations,” said Dunkley.

Air Force aviators, meanwhile, will continue to see their career field affected by the expansion of the service’s unmanned aircraft fleet.

All UAV operators in the Air Force today must be rated pilots. “They have to understand the rules of the airspace,” said Looney.

That policy may be reevaluated some day, he said. “We may develop a program for UAV operators who are not rated pilots.” The key question will be whether non-rated UAV operators will be able to operate with the same level of proficiency as a rated pilot. “If we can do that, it would make sense to head down that road,” Looney said. The Air Force trains all UAV operators at Creech Air Force Base, Nev.

Back To Top