Leaderboard

You don’t have to decontaminate equipment if it never leaves the Cbrne area ....

I’ll play along.... why is this a bad thing? Squadron manning aside, there’s still a job crews need to be ready to do. Sounds like someone near the top of the mobility world thinks we suck at parts of it and want to fix it. I think that’s good.

Is there some hint here that increasing the "opportunity" to O-5 is a desirable thing? That's going to make any kind of difference...who gives a shit? It's purely a number in grade game, and O-5 becomes more vacant by the day and the number competing becomes lower as well. "Best of what's left?"...please, that's always been true. It's a fact, used in sarcasm as some kind of point for those that feel they need it. Every SQ/CC (with 2 exceptions) I've ever hooked up, is now flying for delta...make O-5, get command, join the line behind the passed over major. Do what makes you happy and what you enjoy...I for one appreciate the people...I won't have these kinds of relationships in my next career...I'll missed that a lot. The money will probably help, but I'll still miss them. Last year captain is where it's at...if you move, blast straight to squadron command. There's no joy in ADO'ing; DO'ing for sure, but definitely not ADO'ing, unless your at a UPT base and hide in a flight as a chief pilot. (I don't know how to do this, it's just something I've heard happens). ~Bendy

Do you want a super villain? Cause badmouthing a philanthropic kabzillionaire who loves to make rocket ships, flame throwers, and submarines is how you get a super villain.

Which is kinda what everyone wanted, right?

Just so I’m tracking, personal attacks are immature except when you do it?

Problem solved! ""Sometimes instead of trying to create more aircrew, if we create more support personnel or keep the aircrew we have healthy, we can get more production out of" fewer people, Koscheski told Air Force Magazine." https://www.businessinsider.com/air-force-progressing-on-pilot-shortage-but-struggling-with-training-2018-7

I'm going to assume that you're responding to the voice inside you're head because none of this is related in any way to anything I had to say. And yet, from a statistical perspective, they're still saving lives over traditional vehicles. So what's your point. That they can improve? Sure, great. Doesn't change the fact that they're objectively safer in their current state. If you'd like, for funsies, I can point you to a video of a man burning alive inside his gasoline powered car after a mild impact which he survived but which deformed the frame of the vehicle to the point that he couldn't exit the vehicle, and cracked the fuel tank. Or are we all tuckered out on anecdotal evidence and hypotheticals that do nothing to change the statistics? Statistics that don't require 20 million sales to be relevant. There are very well established methods for determining how much of a sample size is required for meaningful statistical conclusions. Those analyses are presented right alongside the results showing the disparity in safety record. Yes, and? You take issue with objective truths? Also, not sure how you interpreted my comments to be support for Musk in any way. I recall showing support for the science of probability and statistics, and then pointing out the inevitable failure of Tesla's business model. I don't recall raising Musk up to deity status. For your sake I hope Musk's next project is a charity focused on adult literacy programs.

Tesla doesn't sell self driving cars. Negligent drivers in Tesla vehicles did all those things. Also, do you have numbers on how many BMWs, Hondas, and Fords were involved in crashes involving parked vehicles and highway barriers over the same period of time...normalized by the relative number of cars of course? That would help make your point that Teslas are rolling death traps. Oh wait, the numbers show that Teslas are significantly safer than a traditional vehicle? And that's with contribution of any battery issues and scrap parts rolled in? Damn, so much for that. As a fun side project, you should look up cases of "spontaneous" combustion in traditional cars vs. Teslas...you might be surprised to find that the national news isn't being so genuine when they highlight every incident of a Tesla burning to the ground while neglecting the order of magnitude more traditional cars that do the same on a daily basis. Statistically, your life insurance company should gift you a Tesla with known battery and manufacturing defects. Having said that, I wouldn't go anywhere near Tesla stock. People seem to have this impression that Tesla is doing something that none of the other car manufacturers have the skills to do. That's not the case at all. Up until now Musk has been willing to operate at a loss in a long term effort to corner an emerging market, but it's foolish to think he can do so. The traditional auto manufacturers won't enter the autonomous EV market in earnest until it's favorable economically over internal combustion engine vehicles, which isn't yet the case. However, when they choose to shift their engineering and manufacturing efforts it will take no time for them to flood the market with comparable EVs with their logos on them, and the halo that Tesla has been operating under will disappear in short order. They'll probably be left as a legitimate, but very small player in the car business. Their stock reflects none of that reality.

Same ADSC. Once you opt to transfer it you can redistribute it as you see fit. If you have kids down the line and they are added to MilPDS, you can redistribute months to them with no additional ADSC.

I know the C-21 squadron at Andrews is going to close soon, already seen a few people headed there get vectored elsewhere.

Can’t, they took that out of the syllabus.

Dam inspector: The dam is leaking and it’s losing water Dam engineer: well we need to find the holes and fix them so the dam doesn’t break Dam General: just keep adding more water so the lake stays at the current level

The sims especially at UPT bases are outdated with limited fields of view (especially for a canopy aircraft) and shitty graphics. Futhermore chairflying infront of a poster was great before technology existed. We have those sims where students can go sit in a T-6 cockpit and flip switches to get hand on experience or the T-1s with actual mission computers to practice with. How much do those cost versus one of these VR kits? I flew one of these at a presentation at shoe flag and I believe that we can produce way better pilots using VR. Nothing will replace putting a students ass in a cockpit, but doing it the way we’ve done it in UPT for the last 50 years is also a sure way to ensure we don’t produce the best product we can.

No because UPT you actually fly manned aircraft and are a real manned pilot.

Concur. However, VR beats chairflying with a poster. Also better than a SIM for some lessons. The key question is can this technology provide enough base knowledge to make flights more efficient? If you cut 25% of syllabus flights but replaced them with 400% increase in VR training, can you produce an equivalent (or better) product for less money? i don’t know the answer, but I’m glad we’re investigating the question. And I think we’ve got a team in Austin who will assess objectively.

I’ve never strapped into one of these VR contraptions, but so far, my experience has been that nothing replaces your ass in the seat of a real airplane.

Largely a distinction without a difference.

Sounds about right

I wouldn’t worry much. For any coalition to be on board we are required to have a coalition pilot at a set of controls. I’ve flown over 500 hours with the Afghans and have never seen that situation. They tend to have a very conservative mindset when it comes to flying. They carry extra airspeed and land fast because they are so scared of stalling.

My opinion in a nutshell: NATO can't survive without us. The collapse of NATO would be a huge win for Putin. Brexit, while not directly related to NATO, has an impact on the mindset of other NATO members. Without NATO, Russia will rise to fill the ensuing Eastern Europe power vacuum. Britain and Germany would rise to balance and we'd be looking at early-to-mid 20th century Europe all over again. Except the calculus would be significantly different because of nukes. Realists have been saying NATO would collapse since 1989, and it hasn't - mostly because we stayed in. Leaving NATO right now would be a huge strategic mistake and I just don't see that happening. Sent from my iPad using Baseops Network Forums