USAF to scale down T-1 fleet, students to spend more time on simulators

[madhon]

“Pilots at Laughlin Air Force Base, Texas, and Columbus Air Force Base, Mississippi, will continue with the normal T-1 program but students assigned to Randolph Air Force Base will not fly the T-1 aircraft. Those at Vance Air Force Base will be exposed to a modified T-1 training syllabus.

Senior leaders will make a decision whether to expand the program after gathering feedback from the two courses at Vance and Randolph”.


whats thoughts in this, moving to simulator only in the future.

[jimjim1]

In case like me you have no idea what a T-1 is :-)

Did they start numbering from the beginning again?
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1024x676/1024px_t_1a_jayhawk_a9467cbf6594726b5099be0b7ec378c80792071d .jpg

[Duchess_Driver]

Depends on what you mean by “the beginning” jimjim...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1962_United_States_Tri-Service_aircraft_designation_system

Interstingly the T1 Jayhawk has been in Service since the early 1990s but the above numbering system doesn’t stop different services using the same name - the Jayhawk also used to identify some HH-60 models.

[NutLoose]

Well it has had a few names... Hawker 400... BeechJet 400...... Mitsubishi MU-300...... Mitsubishi MU-300 Diamond

[SLXOwft]

There was me thinking this below was a T-1. <nerd mode on>The 1962 designation system never seems to have been taken entirely seriously. All the T-n aircraft since the T-41 Mescalaro (C.172) should have been in the new sequence but only the renumbered USN T-1 and T-2 were (ex T2-V1 and T2J-1) were until 1990. Ironic that the T-45 should have been numbered in the ex-USAF range - clearly no USN Sharkey kicked up a fuss:}. Then someone clearly thought was a good idea to designate the Texan II as T-6 like the original Texan, Much simpler to use names IMHO.</nerd mode off>

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1492x1056/t_1a_seastar_43604139f758e04ea3bdd5196bcd024ad8c6b3a1.jpeg
Source: USN