IPT Industry Day Attendees and QA.pdf

Attendees TakeFlight Interactive Advanced Simulation Technology inc. Textron Inc.

AeroGuard Flight Training Center The Rockhill Group Air Venture University of North Dakota Number of Companies 32 Amentum University of Texas at El Paso Number of Universities 4 Bell Murray Aerospace US Aviation Group Total 36 Brunner Aerospace Vali Total Attendees 60 CAE Phoenix Aviation Academy Veracity Aviation, LLC CAE USA Vertex Solutions, LLC Chickatay Inc.

Crew Training International Deloitte Elbit America Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University FlightSafety International Horizon Dream HTX Labs Kachemak Bay Flying Service Kachemak Bay Flying Service Leidos Lockheed Martin Corporation Mahogany Models Support Mil2ATP, Inc North Central Institute PCI Aviation Pray Aviation Resicum International SAIC Response Savannah Aviation SkyWarrior Flight Training LLC Splendid Aviation

Question Government Response Q1) Looking at the cost that it would take to run one pilot through a program like this, you look at the 141 schools that are out there, we're putting out hundreds of thousands of pilots who are graduating with $100,000 of debt. I'm not seeing a large percentage of our grads being recruited by the Air Force. But they've got all the training and more than what you're asking for. Is there any idea of change in recruiting to recruit a grad who has a CFI? Who has a working CFI giving them a signing bonus to help defray the cost?

A1) We don’t actually have a shortage of people wanting to be Air Force pilots. The issue is not recruitment but rather our ability to get them through the process efficiently. Historically, we have had some mechanisms that allowed highly qualified pilots to join the Air Force with an expedited training process. The Guard and Reserve have utilized that more than others. However, with the divestment of the T-1 aircraft, we are shifting focus to a scalable pipeline that can meet peacetime and surge requirements. The new IPT process is designed to evaluate incoming pilots quickly and move them efficiently through training, ensuring they reach the T-6 portion faster. We're trying to also move away from what some of our customers in the Air Force have referred to as 'choose your own adventure' to become an Air Force pilot. The focus remains on standardizing a pathway.

Q2) You mentioned your security requirement to house the IPT students together. Does that mean that commercial solutions such as hotels are off the table? And a follow-on question, working flight training programs for international students, where we have to provide contract or transportation for the students, is that anticipated being part of this effort?

A2) Hotels are not off the table, but they are not the ideal long-term solution for housing students. While there have been cases where students stayed in hotels, feedback suggests that this setup is not the best for quality of life. The preferred housing arrangement is apartment-style accommodations, ideally two-bedroom units, as this provides a better living environment for officers who are not typical 18-year-old college students.

Regarding transportation, there is no current plan to require it for domestic students since they are commissioned officers receiving pay and per diem. However, for international students, this is an area that needs further consideration, as it has not yet been fully addressed in planning.

Q3) In regard to the April-May release of the RFP, do you guys still plan on beginning execution in accordance with the ramp-up schedule on 5 October for the IPT contract, which would mean an award around 5 July?

A3) That is what we are aiming for right now. The plan is to receive responses, issue the RFP, and proceed with the contract award according to this schedule. However, this is still subject to adjustments. We anticipate having more concrete information by the 14th when we receive key updates. At that point, we will evaluate our position and determine if any changes are necessary. We still need to obtain certain clearances on the contractor side before moving forward, but the target remains April-May for the RFP release, with an award in July and execution beginning in October.

Q4) Most of us are going to have to look at acquiring additional equipment. So we have to coordinate with the OEM. The sooner you guys can tell us, 'Hey, this is a pretty firm date for contract award, this is when we're going to start executing,' the better. Can you provide this information as soon as possible?

A4) We understand that mobilization and procurement timelines are key concerns for industry partners, especially with OEM coordination. This engagement is a continuation of our market research, and we recognize that if a single provider were to take on the entire effort, it would require significant lead time. The avionics requirements also present a resource constraint that must be factored in.

While we are working toward setting a firm contract award date, the approach will depend on capacity across the system. We may not need to award all contracts at once but rather plan for phased execution based on available capacity. The industry’s ability to mobilize and provide realistic timelines will be critical in structuring the contract awards and execution phases.

Q5) Obviously, the quality of training is really important. But almost equally important is the consistency of the output for the students.

What through-line are you planning on using to maintain that consistency? Will there be a centralized LMS that you're sending out, or some other methodology for tracking student records? Are you going to be using any kind of centralized academic requirements from the Air Force? And finally, will there be an on-site military representative at some locations, or will someone be cycling through TDY?

A5) We are not looking to impose new academic standards beyond what is already established by the FAA Part 141 schools. These schools have their own syllabi, and we rely on them to maintain instructional quality.

Regarding LMS (Learning Management Systems), we do not have a mandated platform, but we do require that student data and qualitative feedback are tracked and made accessible to students.

As for military oversight, this will vary by location. We do not intend to implement operational control over training providers, but there will be some level of Air Force presence to handle administrative control and ensure that officers are meeting military requirements. In ongoing Small Group Tryouts (SGTOs), we have already stationed personnel to oversee administrative responsibilities rather than operational execution. We anticipate establishing a more permanent oversight structure as the program scales up.

Q6) Can you talk to us about your ideas on innovation? In the statement of objectives, it talks about innovative approaches to training.

What are you thinking about for innovation?

A6) Innovation in training has largely focused on leveraging simulators and other advanced training technologies to enhance pilot readiness. As Air Force aircraft become more expensive, we have shifted significant portions of training into flying simulators, similar to what is done in the commercial aviation industry.

However, when it comes to IPT, the goal is to emphasize real-world flying experience. While simulators are useful for certain training elements, such as multi-engine instrument procedures, our primary focus is increasing actual flight hours early in a pilot’s career.

That said, we are open to innovative solutions that improve training efficiency, optimize aircraft utilization, or enhance instruction.

Providers that can bring cost-effective training enhancements—such as avionics trainers, more efficient fleet management, or optimized student progression—will add value to the program.

Q7) Phoenix is great, but if we are from a state that is not Montana but just east of there, winter is hard, and summer is not. I know the desire is to have continuous classes, which Phoenix can do. But if we were able to do one or two classes from May to September, is that something feasible? From a contracting standpoint, are you willing to consider that?

A7) We would want to review the specific training plan and location before making a determination. The intent is not to rule anything in or out outright, but rather to assess feasibility. Seasonal training constraints, such as winter weather limitations, are factors we need to consider. If a provider can present a structured plan demonstrating how a May-to-September class schedule would integrate into the overall pipeline, we are open to evaluating it. The key is ensuring that any proposed schedule aligns with Air Force training needs and maintains a steady flow of qualified pilots.

Q8) Under the new program, will individuals with different levels of prior experience be segregated, or will they be trained together? A8) It will ultimately depend on how the training schools determine the most effective way to structure their programs. The Air Force will send students as a group, and it will be up to the schools to assess their skill levels and move them through training accordingly. There is no fixed requirement to segregate students based on experience, but it may be beneficial for training providers to identify higher-skilled students early and accelerate their progress where possible. In practice, we've observed that while students typically start together, their graduation timelines often stagger based on individual progression. The goal is to optimize efficiency without unnecessarily prolonging training for those who can advance more quickly.

Q9) Are you guys open to using a Part 141 syllabus that combines PPC and IR private pilot training at the same time? For example, in cases of bad weather, students could still be trained using VR in instrument approaches to make efficient use of time. Are you open to that approach?

A9) We have not explicitly stated a stance on combining PPC and IR training under a Part 141 syllabus, but we are open to evaluating structured proposals. Some programs already integrate these elements, and we would need to assess how they align with our overall training objectives. While operational efficiencies are important, maintaining a structured and standardized approach is key. We encourage providers to present their training methodologies so we can determine their feasibility within the broader program.

Q10) Beyond FAA 141 oversight regulations, are you expecting to have any sort of academic oversight from AETC once the program is implemented? If so, what would that entail?

A10) Our safety office will be involved in monitoring operations, but we do not plan to introduce additional academic oversight beyond existing FAA Part 141 regulations. The intent is not to impose extra constraints on training providers but rather to ensure safety and standardization within the program. While we will maintain a presence and work alongside the FAA to verify compliance, our approach will be more of a partnership rather than direct oversight. The focus will be on ensuring the program is executed safely and efficiently, without adding unnecessary bureaucracy.

Q11) How much of the DoD lodging standards outlined in the documentation are actual requirements, and how much is open for discussion? Are you asking to have one student per bedroom, daily cleaning services, and/or stocked supplies? What are the actual requirements?

A11) We have not established strict, non-negotiable lodging requirements, but there are baseline expectations for officer accommodations. One student per bedroom is generally expected, considering these are commissioned officers rather than entry-level trainees. However, aspects such as daily cleaning services and stocked supplies may have flexibility, depending on the proposed lodging solution. While DoD lodging standards were referenced in the documentation, we recognize that providers may propose cost-effective alternatives. Our focus is on long-term sustainability—temporary lodging like hotels may be viable in the short term but is not an ideal permanent solution. We encourage providers to present housing solutions that meet quality, cost, and efficiency considerations while aligning with the program’s needs. We will take this action to further clarify and define the specific DoD lodging requirements.

Q12) Students are going to come into the curriculum with certificates already. Do you expect those students to go through the full course and then complete an EOC? Or what kind of flexibility is there for those individuals, if they come in with high-level proficiency, to be accelerated through the course at a quicker pace?

A12) We have not specified a single approach for this, and different schools are currently handling it in various ways. We are not dictating how training providers should execute their programs. Our focus is on capturing data from T-6 performance over time, which will help refine best practices.

Training providers have the discretion to assess students’ proficiency and accelerate them through the course if they demonstrate the required competencies. There is no requirement for students to complete the full syllabus again if they already meet the necessary standards. The expectation is that schools will evaluate students and advance them as appropriate, rather than enforcing a rigid, time-based model.

Q13) Is there any appetite or consideration for Part 61? A13) No, Part 61 is not being considered for this program.

Q14) This is a fixed-price contract based on certificate delivery, not the number of flight hours required to complete the certificate. Is that correct? Since there is variability in how long it takes to finish the certificate, how should we account for this in our proposals? If a student completes their certification in fewer hours than expected, how will that affect payment?

A14) Yes, the contract is structured as a firm fixed price per certificate, rather than being based on the number of flight hours required to complete training. We recognize that training time varies from student to student, but pricing should be proposed based on historical training data and an estimated average.

If a student completes their certification in fewer hours than expected, it does not impact the fixed-price payment structure. Training providers should plan their pricing based on their experience and data trends to account for variability. Additionally, providers are encouraged to review and provide feedback on the draft CSO to refine this approach as necessary.

Q15) Is the intent for an awardee to conduct training at a single airfield, or could a Part 141 school with satellite locations train at multiple sites?

A15) It could be either. Training does not have to be conducted at a single airfield, and utilizing multiple locations is feasible. While one location may attempt to handle the full requirement, it is unlikely to be practical for all aspects of training.

Q16) Are you looking at doing a helicopter track in conjunction with the airplane track? A16) No, we are not including rotary-wing training in this program. The reference to T-1 in the slides pertains to other training aspects, such as RPA (Remotely Piloted Aircraft) and CSO (Combat Systems Officer) training, which have different requirements. While these tracks are part of the broader training framework, helicopter training is not currently included.

Q17) Do you envision Air Force students doing academics and intermingling with civilian or commercial pilots during scheduling? Or do you expect more of an isolated program? Additionally, do you have any specific requirements for instructor qualifications?

A17) There are no specific requirements for intermingling or isolation; it will depend on how each school is structured. While intermingling could happen, we have not seen it occur in current Small Group Tryouts (SGTOs). Typically, Air Force students are grouped together for academics.

Regarding instructors, there is no specific requirement for their background, but in practice, we have seen training providers assign more experienced instructors to these students. This is not mandated, but it has been observed as a way to ensure high-quality instruction.

Q18) Will the RPA (Remotely Piloted Aircraft) program be changing as well? A18) Currently, there is no pre-training requirement for CSO (Combat Systems Officer) candidates, but there are ongoing discussions about changes to the CSO training pipeline. The 19th Air Force is conducting an analysis on potential modifications, and we have incorporated those considerations into this program’s structure.

While no immediate changes are confirmed for the RPA program, we are evaluating how future training adjustments may impact it. As we transition out of Initial Flight Training (IFT), we want to ensure that any new requirements align with the overall training pipeline.

Q19) In the solicitation you sent out, you mentioned trying to do this in regional proximity to current pilot training bases. What does that mean?

A19) The intent is to minimize excessive travel time and improve efficiency in the training pipeline. For example, sending students from Columbus, Mississippi, to Phoenix adds significant travel time—around five days each way, totaling ten days lost to travel alone. While this is not a strict requirement, the goal is to establish training locations that are more regionally aligned with existing pilot training bases to reduce unnecessary downtime and optimize scheduling efficiency.

Q20) What methodology will be used to allow for attrition in the program, considering that in military flight training, instructors have the authority to fail students, but under Part 141 rules, a DPE (Designated Pilot Examiner) cannot test a student if failure is anticipated?

How will the Air Force manage students who struggle to progress?

A20) So far, attrition has not been a significant issue in this program, though we recognize it will occur at scale. Schools have generally communicated concerns when students struggle, and we rely on training providers to notify us if a student is not meeting expectations.

While Part 141 rules prevent sending students to a DPE if failure is expected, training providers ultimately determine when a student is unable to progress. There is a balance between giving students sufficient time to succeed and recognizing when continued training is no longer productive. The quality of incoming students has been strong, and the Air Force uses screening methods to assess success probability before students enter training. However, we acknowledge that as the program scales, attrition cases will need to be addressed.

Q21) Can you speak to the safety aspect and what long-term safety oversight will look like from the Air Force in this program? For example, is there consideration for training awardees’ safety officers in Air Force safety school, or will a uniformed member be present at each training site in a safety capacity?

A21) The Air Force will not be sending training providers to Air Force safety school, nor will there be permanently assigned safety representatives at each training site. Instead, safety oversight will focus on working with training providers to ensure compliance with FAA safety standards.

Our approach is more about collaboration rather than inspections, meaning our safety office will focus on understanding how providers are implementing safety practices rather than conducting formal audits. There is significant overlap between FAA and Air Force safety standards, and we plan to leverage those similarities rather than creating additional requirements.

Q22) You mentioned that the glass cockpit requirement for CSOs (Combat Systems Officers) and RPAs (Remotely Piloted Aircraft) is being adjusted. Would the Air Force consider proposals that focus solely on training CSO or RPA using a non-glass solution?

A22) Yes.

Q23) Can you clarify the timeline? You mentioned February 14—does that date refer to when additional questions are due, or is it related to Phase One?

A23) February 14 is the deadline for submitting additional questions regarding the Commercial Solutions Opening (CSO) documents that were released. This is an opportunity for industry partners to seek clarifications before moving forward. The timeline for Phase One is still to be determined and will be outlined when the formal Request for Proposal (RFP) is released.

Q24) When the RFP comes out, what level of interest will there be in data analytics behind the training, and how will that tie into the Air Force’s system of record for post-IPT and deployment?

A24) Currently, the Air Force does not have a standardized Learning Management System (LMS) that serves as a system of record for training data. While we acknowledge the need for a more comprehensive system, we are not requiring training providers to conform to a specific LMS standard at this time.

That said, we are interested in proposals that explore ways to enhance data analytics and improve training tracking. Providers are encouraged to submit ideas that could contribute to future data standardization efforts, even though a formal requirement does not yet exist.

Q25) Are you considering sending students on TDY (Temporary Duty) orders, or will they be permanently stationed at training locations? A25) Students will be on TDY orders for training. They will not be permanently stationed at training locations. The standard TDY duration is 139 days, which aligns with existing Air Force TDY policies. Students will travel to their assigned training location, complete their training, and then return to their base for follow-on assignments.

Q26) What is the minimum distance required from a base to avoid being considered a TDY (Temporary Duty) location? A26) 50 miles.