Leaderboard

It warms the cockles of my heart to read that many of you know how to decline SIDS/STARS. I'm proud of your written and verbal communication skills with Air Traffic Control. Well done. In the future, how about just saying "I'll take a descent to below FL180 and Cancel IFR" ? Works every time and no one give two shits about what you filed. VFR really isn't scary. Try it some time. However, I didn’t start this thread to discuss that nonsense. I started this thread because I was very interested to continue the discussion about the value of wing landings after a very tragic incident. To Hawg15, MotoFalcon, YoungNDumb, Brabus, et al… I get your point. You don’t do wing landings in the CAF, and you see it as “increased risk with no benefit”. However, from a “risk management” view… and from a “training viewpoint”… I don’t support nor agree with you. You’re not wrong. I just don’t agree with your "risk threshold". A few thoughts: I just googled “T-38 Road to Wings”. It was the first time I’ve perused that in quite some time. I don’t see jack-shit about wing landing mishaps in there. And in all of my years of being around the T-38, I don’t recall any Class A mishaps on wing landings. Road to Wings seems to validate that. There sure are a lot of mishaps on low-levels, single-ship landings, etc… Do we still do those? Now we have the FIRST Class A fatal on a wing landing, and overnight it becomes a prohibited maneuver after 60 years? Does having a fatal outcome on a maneuver disqualify that maneuver as a good/important/valuable item to be accomplished by a military aviator in training? To my way of thinking, it is not whether formation landings are “practical”, though I believe they are. But it is also about learning a skillset of precision… control… discipline… precision… and some mastery… of something I would expect a top-notch military aviator to be able to show some competence in. Much of what is done in UPT is done to instill confidence and aggressiveness. “Aggressiveness”… is that bad word now? Should we stop flying wingwork with 3G’s and 90 degrees of bank? It appears that isn’t a “CAF maneuver”… but as mentioned elsewhere, the skillset is valuable. How interesting. “Training for a skillset”. What a concept. Yes, we need to mitigate risk. Got it. However, the nature of the beast is that we cannot eliminate it. Flying can be dangerous. And we will never stop having mishaps. I’ve done dozens… and probably hundreds… of formation landings in the T-38. I was PIT IP when we did formation touch & go’s. I was there when “leadership” got rid of formation T&G’s because they felt it was too risky. I recall pilots telling me how formation T&G’s were a dumb idea… and yet they had never briefed, flown, or debriefed one. Getting winged as an AF pilot should be challenging. And it should prepare you to fly not just within the “heart of the envelope”, but also toward the edges. And when those items are flown toward the edge, we put an IP in the jet to mitigate the risk. Those newly winged pilots will use those lessons and skills when they go off to their F-35 and B-21. If wing landings are honestly “too dangerous”, then knock it off. But are they really that dangerous? Pretty much, I’ve taken 600 words to say what Hacker said in 60. But I ask you: what else would you cut out of the UPT syllabus because “the CAF doesn’t do that?”. Reap what you sow.

HC-130J CSO Very busy ops tempo. Mix of TDY and deployment. Most deployments are to bad places for 4 months. TDY’s are a mixed bag of Red Flag and good deals (I went to Thailand last year for example). We fly our own aircraft to the locations and usually have fun overnight stops en route. Flying is a mix of older school AFSOC style tac low level, helo, tilt-rotor, and navy/USMC fixed wing Air to Air Refueling, air drop, and CSAR skills. CSAR duties include searching for the survivors, coordinating pickup, etc... Mission is evolving and expanding with the new CSAR Coordinator role. Fun plane, all the C-130 goodness, none of the AMC BS. There is some bad. Rescue tends to be the redheaded step child and the HC can at times be rescues redheaded step child. There are only 3 locations DM (Tucson) and Moody (Valdosta, Georgia) for ops and Kirtland (Albuquerque) for the FTU. My wife and I love Tucson and Albuquerque, but would rather not get sent back to Moody. We are often on a short hook, my last deployment was with only 36hrs notice from the official “go” to wheels up. Deployed life involves a lot of sitting around and waiting for stuff to happen, we rarely get to execute our primary mission (CSAR) but it is the most rewarding mission imaginable when you do get to do it. We often rack up our combat time doing the logistics support side of CSAR such as relocating PJ’s and helo’s, running for supplies or parts for our forward operating locations that AMC takes to long to support, or doing SOF support missions (never enough MC-130’s around). Let me know if you have any specific questions.

Because we don’t have an FMS. Flying with IPADs is pretty new, so it’s only recently foreflight became an option to search for points (that you still then have to hand jam into your system). So a SID/STAR with a bunch of points you have to hand jam while clipping away at .85m sucks, for us and ATC.

California is so stupid

This is it right here. As a Lt, I went to red flag and saw fellow Lts flying fighters be more or less get locked in the vault for 12 hours, my intro to 130s was the sq/cc asking if I had completed my masters yet, and then scolding me because I hadn’t even started it.

I like it!

I fly VFR all the time, more than most fighter guys I’ve flown with. But, you know just as well as I do it’s not that simple when flying through busy class B with a 4-6 ship; VFR doesn’t auto-equal fuck off ATC/I can do whatever I want (I know you know that too). To the other point: Do wingwork, formation low approaches, formation low level, visual rejoins from BVR introducing bullseye concept, IFF surface attack, get ATIS while in fingertip (dick move Mav!), etc. All of those achieve what you’re talking about with direct correlation to things done, or concepts experienced, in the CAF. I don’t believe touching the wheels to the ground on the final portion of a formation approach adds a necessary experience/skill that the aforementioned list doesn’t 99% cover

Recently went through the HC- schoolhouse being -38 trained. My stick partner was also -38 trained, and we didn't have many CRM issues, rather a pretty big personality conflict. Personally, once I realized that being more proactive as both PM/PF rather than just doing what the checklist said things got exponentially better, and was a pretty good primer for going to my OPS unit. Also studying* effectively** as I had 2 other aircraft to compare to when it came to systems, terminology and application meant I was translating relatable things rather than starting from zero. I didn't understand TOLD outside of the basics and SEROC post UPT, and after the schoolhouse and a few conversations with IPs it clicked. For the most part all of the new copilots that have come in the last year and a half are up to speed and willing to learn. We have three separate syllabi to complete post Kirtland before we're CMR, and I got those done fairly quickly due to manning and IRF requirements.

One of the best parts of the U-28 flying assignment is the companion PC-12’s and support to take those things basically anywhere you want. I took one to the lowest and highest airports in the US in one day. This was staging out of Scottsdale and being based in Hurlburt. Oh, we also did the VFR Grand Canyon routing with the special part 93 procedures. This was all as the IP and upgrading 3 young guys to AC. Pretty amazing opportunity to build well versed aviators and awesome growth opportunities for those dudes.

We don’t even have a VOR in the A-10. If your SID/STAR only uses tacans then I can fly it, but I’m still going to say unable. A fighters GPS is made for weapons employment, not navigation. They can only hold a small number of navigation waypoints, and I can only edit the grids and names of the 50 mission waypoints.

All of that. But it’s not a straight apples to apples argument here. Our job is to put cargo where it’s needed, and if you dodge all the SAMs and then put her into the side of a mountain on the instrument approach in shitty weather you still failed. No kidding minimum length heavy weight TOLD can be a pretty complex discussion, especially when you add in combat factors. I’m pretty sure most fighters don’t get hung up on TOLD and climb out performance because it’s not something they ever need to worry about to the same degree. They also don’t have to talk on the radios to 10 different countries in one flight with shitty radios and different accents and procedures and not all of them necessarily friendly with us on a routine basis. Just like I don’t worry as much about taking down a complex IADS with enemy fighters in play even though it’s way cooler and more exciting because I’m a side show during that if I’m even in the air. It’s just life. agree to disagree. I think the MAF is behind the CAF because the MAF refuses to take a risk, and has extra time on its hands not studying in a vault and uses it worrying about how to make general instead of be a good pilot. Back to the original topic, I think a herk pilot could come from either of our current training platforms and do fine, but depending what you take out of the heavy track syllabus I think it could put a real strain on the tac training at the school house. edit to add: The starting point was a group of copilots straight out of the school house that are ignoring half the GK they need to succeed, and my theory was because they were all 38 studs coming in together, nothing more. If you knew my background you’d know I’m for being tactically proficient.

That was a good article on the backstory of that video. Thank God for dudes not compromised by the system doing the right thing. I hope this guy got sent an autographed copy on his birthday.

Correct but primarily for specific units where guys aren't getting seat time in their actual RPA as much. There are reasons that is happening but that's best not discussed here.

Interaction with law enforcement in general. How often do we interact with law enforcement that doesn't have the potential to cost us at least a couple hundred bucks with a ticket? Honestly the only time I want to interact with law enforcement is if I'm engaging more than 1-2 active shooters. Up until that point I'm pretty good at protecting myself. Like with the AME and your medical. No one comes out having a better day than when they went in.

Yepp, that was my intro to my first ops Sq 10 years ago from my Sq/CC, who on top of telling me to get my masters also assigned me my first task of making sure all the bulletin boards in the Sq had 4 corner thumb tacks instead of two because that is apparently a rule...this from a Weapons Officer. He was a real piece of work. Sidetrack I know but too good not to share

The ACE program was a great program for getting young SAC crews great experience and confidence with minimal expense compared to paying for hours in their primary jet. I wore out the Tweet when I was in ACE back in the mid to late 1980s. Flew that sucker to all four corners of the US in my time in ACE (Loring AFB, Homestead AFB, NAS Miramar, and NAS Whidbey island (t&g and RONed at Fairchild)). All different trips with different Co's planning and flying it all. Not much better experience to be had for young pilots and once we were off station we flew VFR at times as well as the official IFR flight plans that were "encouraged". It would still be a great inexpensive way to build hours and experience for today's MAF and even crewed CAF pilots.

Heard about that technique from a bud a few years ago when ATC starts giving you the runaround. You tell them you are searching for the point on your map as you push your power up to Mil or Min AB. When you start disrupting their flow and sequencing because of how you skip across their screen, they generally start to give you the vector you want.

That’s funny because I spend a lot of time explaining basics that are covered pretty well in books that nobody is really reading. Teaching in T5001 is a lot different than teaching in N5107. If you require much instruction in N5107 you’re probably not ready for N5290. That’s as much our fault, I suppose, as it is Stan’s fault.

@HuggyU2 what was it like learning to fly in the T-6 Texan 1?

At least no one here is slapped with a $162,000 bill for their training.