Leaderboard

You don't need all that crap to land at the right airport. People have managed to find and land at the right places since before Al Gore invented the internet. This is basic airmanship.

Pencil whipping beans only makes the problem worse. Don't lie on your TARs and let the training guys file the reports. If you're not getting the training you need then lying about it won't fix it. That being said, all of my landings are generally precise approaches...now that 17th red air sortie in a row? That's a different story.

I thought it was shake, take, salute. I'm so confused.

The Air Force lost the balls to call out shitty pilots a long time ago. Now they just wait until an FEB or SIB calls them out so no commander has to get his hands dirty. Pussification of the Air Force is well under way.

Quote of the week nomination

Disagree. I think the brass smells blood in the water and AMC loves to make "examples" out of folks. This is a whole new AF from the one I entered 21 yrs ago. I would not be surprised if an FEB was convened.

It will be found that the crew was doing and talking about anything and everything except flying, instruments, and VID until it was was too late. All these comments about which instrument set-up (if even used) is giving them too much credit. There will be chatter in the cockpit (flight deck...forgive me, I'm old school) with checklists and briefings abbreviated because of previously said chatter and people not doing their jobs. This crew will survive with their wings. Crew Q3s and loss of aircraft commander and instructor quals. Cancelled or terminated upgrades for minimum of 18-months. Sit on the bench for a few weeks while giving safety briefings and "There I was" recaps. Additional training sorties (sims) and re-check with DOV's chief at appropriate time. As for the squadron/wing/base...a hard look into crew make-up, any previous history or poor decision-making by those on crew (2nd or 3rd strikes could be FEB) and were all of them current/qualified/crew rested. The units and leadership can get a ton of scrutiny, particularly if there's any history of poor aircrew discipline or perception of it. I imagine General Mattis--like all the others--were shocked at how close the C-17 came to a rest at the end of the runway. He probably understood the gravity of situation, however, having seen his share of truely grave situations and casualties probably didn't get into it with the crew before departing to McDill by vehicle. Despite how awful those crewmembers felt and continue to feel about their mistake and ramifications on their flying future, they need to step back and appreciate that they didn't kill someone, themselves and still are here today.

I would like to see a study done showing the AAD and PME completion rates for the individuals deemed causal for class A mishaps in the last couple of years.

More food for thought for those who want to actually learn something from this horrible incident... DHS Active Shooter Awareness Virtual Roundtable I've also gotten this via email...take it for what its worth...

What kind of C-17 mission hinges on the EMSEC considerations that would include a bluetooth device or a GPS puck in the window?? If you're really in hostile airspace, you may need to worry about your C-17-sized rader cross-section before you worry about your bluetooth receiver. Exactly.

For one, he hasn't played the insanity card yet; that's just media speculation at this point. Secondly, McVeigh wanted to use a "necessary defense" at his trial, alleging that he was in "imminent danger" from the government. his lawyers refused. He still went the route that the US Governments actions at Waco (Branch Davidians) were illegal therefore the bombing of the Murrah building in Oklahoma city was "a justifiable response." We all know how that worked out for him. So, how can you claim that there is no way that insanity can play into this Holmes' actions in Aurora? One could easily argue that a sane person would never do such a thing, so I see it as being totally plausible for that very reason. You need to explain your comment that anyone that disagrees with that needs to "recage their idea of sanity" as I don't get your point. You're saying that a person who walks into a crowded movie theater and open fire on hundreds of innocent people is sane because forethought and planning where involved? That's a pretty warped sense of sanity in my opinion! Still, it doesn't mean he gets to wander away scot-free; if Holmes' defense does successfully pursue the insanity angle than he still needs to be removed from society and be placed in restricted custody for the rest of his life. Not saying that is the case just yet, but it is a possible course of action...

I may not be able to fly the airplane, but you better believe I can go from MOPP2 to MOPP4 in under 2 minutes and then use my AETNA injector properly.

If it were my daughter, I'd be facing more than 180 days in jail and a $500 fine for what I'd do to those boys.

We all talk about how "it's only a matter of time..." due to the excess demands placed on aircrews. Masters, xmas parties, PME, non-flying deployments, desk jobs x3, rushed upgrades, shitty scheduling and msn coord by TACC (like launching from home station out of bravo for a 24 hour day w/a 2200L alert time and an AR at the 12 hour point...) Then something like this happens, and we are all ready to crucify the guys. I myself am guilty. My first thought was "how in the hell...?" Then I stepped back, and realized that I think this was very nearly one of those "it's only a matter of time..." incidents. I'd say this should be a wake-up call. The line is stretched pretty thin, and it was lucky nobody was killed. Of course, there is a fair amount of speculation in my comments, but I just can't for the life of me see how a qualified crew could make such a mistake without a chain of extenuating circumstances resulting from the excess demands stated in my second sentence (inexperience, fatigue, barely able to maintain proficiency, stress, etc...)

One thing to keep in mind too about spousal support. Not sure what state you're in, but here in VA, I had a clause put in the settlement agreement that spousal support would end not only upon marriage or death, but if she "actively cohabitates with a domestic partner, or habitually cohabitates with another person in a relationship analogous to a marriage for one year". She lives with someone now, so I took her to court , and last month was my last payment. (No child support was involved, all our kids were over 18). I also had to make her beneficiary to $500K of my life insurance, but that was tied to support, and is no longer required.

well until all airframes have EFBs, BOPS should not be able to decide on their own to not continue ordering sectionals, etc. That's a huge foul.

I steal sectionals from out bases every chance I get. I've never figured out why we fly around without a visual depiction of ATC airspace.

You know they outlawed drugs too...no one does drugs now. I also think they outlawed booze not too long ago...it was great, all the country's problems were solved.

I'm sure this will come as a shock to some, but my belief is... The answer isn't less guns, but more! I've already stated I think it would be a horrendous situation to be in, a crowded, dark, smoky movie theater with someone shooting and people running and screaming in all directions. I would say there are numerous reasons as to why not to take a shot at the culprit, but there is one really damn good one as to why a person who is armed and capable should. It would have likely stopped the threat. Had there been several armed citizens in that theater who took action against the threat, it would have seriously changed the outcome. As stated, this guy was not brave, and the mere sight of a few muzzle flashes in his direction would most likely have caused him to go on the defensive and run. He does not strike me as the type to engage in a firefight, he is one of those gutless individuals who will only act when he has the advantage. Yes, as I have stated there are very good odds of hitting an innocent individual, but those persons' lives were already threatened by the shooter. How much more lethal would it have been with a person returning fire? Some would say double, I for one argue that it most likely would have stopped the slaughter much earlier. Sure, I can think of numerous reasons why returning fire wouldn't be the best choice in this situation; but the truth of the matter is that it still would have been the only choice. Most Americans have this inability to think beyond the "winner-loser" perspective, probably because we as a society are so sports-fanatical; but sometimes there just isn't a solution ("victory") to a problem but merely facts that must be endured and dealt with. This was one of those situations... Cheers! M2

If the ADC said that, he's smoking crack. The guys who are ADCs aren't veteran former SJAs, they are the junior guys. ADCs are like public defenders -- they're over-loaded with cases, and can't spend the kind of time on any one case that a civilian attorney can. In addition, ADCs generally don't have the depth of experience that a good former-JAG civilian attorney will. I've seen it in action personally, and not only could the ex-SJA civilian lawyers run circles around the SJAs they were opposing, they were also doing a healthy bit of teaching to the poor ADCs who were assisting them. No comparison, in my book. For anyone who ever has the opportunity to be represented by legal counsel in proceedings against the US Gov, I highly highly recommend hiring civilian representation in addition to retaining the services of the ADC.

Was it an african Globemaster or a european Globemaster?