Leaderboard

Copy that with resignation.... CRM, Mobility Mission Fundamentals, Experience in managing a crew, executing a mission, flying a more complicated jet, Multi Engine non-centerline experience and just more flight time, etc.. there is a certain amount required to be safe, effective and ready to fly the big iron. This topic in other threads has come up (deleting most or all of Heavy track Advanced Trainer Phase III in SUPT) and there is a reason why (written in blood unfortunately) that the FAA and other Aviation Authorities around the world require a certain amount of time to hold certain certificates to exercise privileges, you can't just get a few hours or even 100's in a good high performance ASEL and then with minimal training go to a Transport Category AMEL and be truly safe and ready to learn to fly those aircraft. The experience acquired in the T-6 is good but not the same as acquired in the T-1. You need experience in a jet modified to simulate somewhat the maneuver performance of a large jet, has most of the systems (albeit at a smaller scale and lower complexity) of a big jet and time with a simulated Co-piglet IP running checklists, keeping track of all the parameters of your mission as an AC (timing, fuel, WX, objectives, ORM, etc..) and synthesizing all that simultaneously, continuously to get the mission done well. There's no IFF for heavy dudes but just my two cents the Mission Fam phase of my T-1 time was valuable to introduce us to AR, Heavy Formation, Basics of Low Level with simulated Aerial Delivery, etc...call it our IFF and if yours truly were empowered I would expand it for NVGs, Short and Unprepared Field, Dry contact AR, simulated Mobility Multi-Ship Missions and the planning required for it, etc... This would mean you believe the purpose of SUPT is to produce quality, strong aviators and AF officers prepared to begin careers executing and learning to lead the Line of the Air Force and your acceptance that this will take time, money and patience. Not holding my breath for this based on what this thread is teaching me about the forthcoming plans for SUPT... I'll accept that but it still doesn't change my belief that the MAF deserves a quality product. If AETC wants to deliver that product thru the T-7 and and going back to UPT I'm fine with that or if they want to keep SUPT and refurbish the Tones to squeeze more life out of them or get another jet, I'm fine with that. What I am not ok with and what I believe every Heavy Aviator who gives a shit should be mad as hell about is the apparent attitude rearing it's fugly head that our jobs are so un-challenging compared to fighters that we don't need a robust and established Advanced Trainer Program following Phase II. To hell with that and any GD bean counter and his evil minions trying to screw Heavy track students.

Both are going to be considered in the context of the rest of your resume....and they will further be evaluated based on how you describe what happened to get you into that situation, and how/why you're a better pilot because of it. So, the answer is probably no...they're going to be seen differently...but that's because all black marks are going to be assessed individually in the greater context of what you've accomplished. A "friend" of mine who had been to an FEB was asked in an airline interview if he thought having such a black mark on his record made him less desirable of a candidate for a job offer. He answered that, given the reputation of the quality of candidates for employment at that airline, and that they had their choice of the best of applicants, they probably didn't even need to consider hiring people who had such black marks on their records. The interviewers began to laugh, and said, "if you only knew what kind of skeletons in the closet guys that fly out on the line for us have", and then proceeded on to the next part of the interview. The way we look at, and differentiate between, things like the question you're asking from inside the Air Force fishbowl is not the same way it is going to be looked at from outside the fishbowl. Airlines know that for someone to have the aviation experience required to get called for an airline interview, there is a high probability that they've made some mistakes or been involved in something that's not exactly perfect, and they're okay with that. Again, it all depends on what happened, why it happened, and how you have responded/recovered from it. EDIT: Forgot to mention that my friend in the story was offered a CJO after that interview.

Weren't the fighters also limited to gun-only in this exercise? TB and Chewie laugh in GBU-10.

Some dudes all arguing for training better aviators....well damn, let’s just buy some twin engine props with shitty avionics. CRM...check...non centerline thrust...check...high workload....check. We need pilots to have suitable training for their military future. I take fighter guys flying in small planes all the time. It’s a complete sh-tshow from basic handling to even managing airspace and traffic pattern. Different skill set, these guys are all 2,000+ hrs have flown multiple fighter types in sh-t weather all over the world. So I don’t buy that attaining good pilot skills are universally transferable just based on a planes being complex and tough to fly. We are teaching military pilots specific skills. That’s why we do T-6’s, to teach military discipline, rules and basics. Everyone gets a baseline military flying education. After that, it needs to be tailored better. Does a F-35 pilot need to see legacy IFF like the F-16/15C pilot? I’d argue no. Take it further, does an A-10 pilot need to fly T-38s? Should B-1/B-52 be T-1 track. All feasible I think. For the MAF, Im not sure. But my gut and experience tells me if we can cut T-38 stuff lightly, we can cut T-1 stuff heavily. It should not take more flight training to learn instruments in a crew jet than in a single seat. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

I just tell your mom to get it for me

People usually fuck themselves by not knowing that they are the target. never pass up the opportunity to shut the fuck up.

How to tell the other pilot to get ATIS.

When I flew the 60 I was able to fly 1v1 against an -18. I could out turn him all day and if I flew low and directly at him, he couldn’t get a gun kill without going uncomfortably nose low. In the debrief he said he’d just drop a bomb on me and if I climbed to avoid frag he’d shoot me with his gun.

The AF thinking that far ahead to make the service better? Unlikely as some shoe will just say no because we’ve never done that before

Speaking of killing flight training, RPA operators will no longer be going to IFT. So no stick and rudder time, and no background in aviation for robot operators in your stacks. May the odds be in your favor

This article pops up every few months in different sources, always citing that 5:1 "kill" ratio that the 1978 exercise "proved." Here was the kicker in the data: the helos had no shot-kill criteria whatsoever. None. If they got their gun in the general vicinity of the fighter, without regard for range amongst all things... they called a "kill." The fighters involved in the "test" weren't aware of the helos self-designed kill criteria until the debrief. There's still a few silver-backs around that had first or second-hand knowledge of this one if you look hard enough through your community-- probably the blue hair that shows up in the bar once a year and empties the squadron's Jack supply... Had this occurred in the modern sense, the Army crews would have had to take out loans to repay all of their invalid kill calls. A fighter can't turn with a helo-- the things can hover, pedal-turn, and hid behind scrub brush. You stay high and outside where they can't see you, and you pop 'em from long range-- similar to the way experienced fighters engage Hogs. Cheers, Zero

Except for Helos. Gotta save those 75 annual T-6 slots for the fixed wing track that is already overloaded.

My conclusion is that I will not worry at all when I am outdoors. Please stop the madness (outdoor madness).

now I enjoy the variety and it’s very similar to AMC flying when engaged in change. Much better layovers for the most part, very nice hotels, decent support overall. Nothing like flying the Queen of the skies in the commercial world. I will admit I prefer the upper deck of the pure cargo birds vs the pax conversion freighters. True separated rooms vs the bunk garbage. Long trips but always interesting on the 74. Welcome aboard and it’s definitely what you make of it. Plenty of time to have fun or complain, it’s what you choose. Lady 747 will take you around the world faster than any other jetliner. She also will take you to most any airline of choice when hiring so there’s options. Not many if any other can provide a better steppingstone from the military to your 1st choice, it’s a smattering of everything. It’s not just a job, it’s an adventure. Well, it’s a job so there’s that again.

Thanks for the good string of posts. I'm interviewing on Tuesday, and I really needed some real talk about Atlas that wasn't drenched in negative bias. Hoping to fly that Queen of the Sky with you. FF

If he was read his rights, and chose to still make a statement, that's on him. If he was wasn't read his rights, then asked to make self-incriminating statements, that's a 5th and 6th Amendment violation (Miranda v. Arizona). However, SCOTUS holding in Frazier v. Cupp (1969) that law enforcement deception with regard to a target's confession is legal. Either way, regardless what anyone every tells you, no U.S. Citizen can be compelled to make a self-incriminated statement in any form. And if law enforcement, or really anyone, is questioning you about details about an alleged crime that you're the target of, they're never there for your benefit. https://repository.law.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1020&context=umrsjlr

Even if they mask it, since the AF moved to the AFSC-specific promo boards, it seems like there is a better chance than not that this guidance will be disregarded. Its been said multiple times, but, w/o a DP you have about a 1% chance of getting promoted APZ. The stigma Senior AF leaders attach to that designation is too much to overcome. Once you are APZ you are essentially worthless in the eyes of the AF and serve to fill the jobs that the service doesn’t want to really expend resources on. Which is fine with me because I’ve never had an easier job with more time to do what I want while still seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. The freedom is a real thing, and once you realize that you are getting paid peanuts by the AF for the skills/experience private companies kill for, it makes you feel a lot better about the future.

TLDR: kill IFF Not read up on the plan for UPT 2.5+; assumptions based on the discussion above. We’re all treating IFF as a sacred cow. Let’s be real; it’s an eight week top-off. A program like that can screen, but it’s not enough time to teach much beyond vocabulary and how to fake it for those who don’t have it. I know, I know... the fighter pilot attitude, aggressiveness, intangibles, Excel spreadsheet bombing! More on that later. It sounds like we are downloading expectations for basic airmanship to the basic trainer (reasonable) and at pretty much the same time phasing out our T-1 and T-38 fleets as we field the T-7. What if we killed IFF or, said another way: expanded its scope? All studs who require the T-7 (I think there’s a lot of merit to a single trainer track for some airframes, having not flown them) would start in one squadron, per UPT base, for transition to the new airframe, eventually being selected into a fighter or non-fighter track after two months. The non-fighter studs stay in the jet transition squadron and finish a syllabus similar to current phase III. 3 more months. Basic form and nav focused. AETC, AMC, ACC/ISR and AFGSC have equal seats at this unit’s post-track syllabus development table. Syllabus tailored to airframe with multiple off-ramps for each community’s needs. The jet transition squadron is manned primarily with AFGSC/MAF/ISR backgrounds. T-7 FAIPs start here. The fighter tracked studs finish UPT phase III in what was formerly IFF. Manned by fighter pilots, syllabus written by ACC/CAF and AETC. 6(+) months. Single syllabus to create a what would be a T-7 CMR wingman if the T-7 had real weapons. Begins with advanced formation and progresses to the limit of the T-7, or as deemed appropriate by ACC. No more trying to fix bad habits from a six month phase III in an eight week course. IFF is no longer screening, they’re building the product. Don’t like the intangibles? You’ve got six months to instill the fighter pilot mentality. It’s no longer a program that studs are just trying to get through, they actually have to absorb to survive, and contribute to the squadron. There’s room and time for truly valuable events to build confidence and airmanship. An ADAIR TDY to Nellis could be the capstone. If we’re going to stay ahead of the world, it’s time to rethink the model they copied. And oh yeah, VR and shit.

For the HIANG, I got an interview about a year ago and I am not a Hawaii resident. But I did 'rush' the squadron and visited on my christmas break. I asked if there was any preference for locals and was told no with the caveat that one should come prepared/have a plan financially because Hawaii isnt cheap, especially oahu.

Alright ya'll figured I'd offer what I have. I spent at least a couple weeks trying to get in touch with a pilot at the 199th fighter squadron. Finally managed to get one of the AD pilots who passed me the email of the squadron DO Lt Col Horton. I emailed him and he informed me that the HI ANG does not keep a set schedule on their boards and the only way to get board information is indeed to go through the recruiters. He put me in contact with the recruiter that deals directly with their boards MSgt Manalo. PM me if you are interested and I will give you her contact info. I sent her an email and she reached out to make sure I had all the prerequisites done (AFOQT etc.) and then she sent me the requirements for the application package. She has a database started and will shoot out a mass alert to submit your package when the submission date drops for the UPT board. The 199th, 203rd, and 204th run joint boards so she will be the gate keeper for all 3 if you are interested in something other than the F-22's as well.

When there’s not a lot of sky to hang onto, making sure it doesn’t fall out of it is an attention demanding job. There’s as much to do as you’re willing to invest. Some missions are way more demanding than others, but on the ones where you’re not constantly worried about putting the airplane in the right place without bending it, there’s room to be an athlete in other ways. “Optimizing collect” or just paying attention to what’s going around you is a full time job. Lots of folks working hard to make it one of the busiest (and most capable) cockpits in the Air Force.

I get what you're saying, and I get what joe1234 is saying. I managed to do almost 22 years and never had a position that wasn't flying, instructing, or evaluating and my thoughts have been all over the map on this issue. There's always been the constants in the Squadron: A few stick and rudder guys that just nailed everything, few GK gurus, a couple deadbeats, and then... everyone in the middle. For whatever reason, I marked 2012 as the year when I saw a notable decline in the middle of the squadron's "give a shit" attitude and emphasis toward flying skills. That's also around the time I noticed a massive increase in complexity of simply being a pilot/member of the Air Force. It was around this time when the Great PC Witch Hunt occurred, more inspections, budget sequestrations/less flying, new finance policies, etc. After a while, every checkride/training folder began with conversations along the lines of "Hey, I'm just trying to get through this. I've been working on MICT checklists for the past month and have been cancelled for MX/WX/Ops six times." And they weren't lying. So then I go to the SQ/CC with my concerns and he says, "Yeah, I know what you mean. I just got back from a conference and had to jump on a line and seat swap with 2 other pilots last night to get my one to/app/landing for the month. Maybe we should schedule a GK/tactics briefing this week to up everyone's game." Surprise, no one dropped their deployment prep, CBTs, OPRs/EPRs, Wing staff circlejerks, training summary reports, FEF reviews, travel voucher puzzles so Petey Patchwearer could lecture everyone how to calculate a tactical descent profile into Baghdad international. So I would debrief the flight, I'd try to offer techniques, get in the weeds a little, and they'd rapidly nod while checking their watch. They all had to make slides for the next morning's staff meeting, send an email, meet some sort of deadline for more important matters. My point is it's a math problem. I don't think the quality/character of the average pilot of the squadron has declined. But if you increase the complexity of the job and therefore reduce the time available to dedicate to improving flying skills, the result is the result. On top of that, the Air Force doesn't require or reward you for being better than you were yesterday in your primary duty. I 100% agree that everyone should strive to be better than the minimum. Challenging oneself and being the best pilot you can be for your country and coworkers should be reward in itself, but it still competes with, and is secondary to, the other time and tasks the Air Force requires.

Lame stream fake media will not talk about it - given that they were part of the setup. But this man will go over entire thing.

Thanks for the answer about T-1s. Follow on question: Do T-38 trained folks struggle/wash out of heavy FTUs at an increased rate?