Leaderboard

Well from a non-AMC guy, I hope the General and his folks aren’t afraid to attempt to try new things to make the most important MAJCOM more effective in a real war. Not saying this was it, but deviating from any business as usual will result in bitching (especially online).

The fact that single pilot KC-46 pilot operations was even suggested and staffed up to Mini demonstrates just how broken the USAF is. There are only two possible reasons to allow this moronic idea to see the light of day. The first option is they know the big-wing tankers are gonna get whacked in a fight with China, so lets keep the body count low. After showing a ray of hope with the KC-Y discussion, they quickly defaulted to dogma and signaled intent to buy more of the same...Fing brilliant...not. The second option is they know the pilot shortage is worse (and accelerating), than they are saying in public. Sadly, this option is a solvable problem. If they want to try out of the box solutions then give up one freaking KC-46 and dump that $170M into pilot retention. Figure out what the actual number is to get a pilot to stay until 20 and PAY them. Seriously, we spend a $1M to put an ejection seat in a jets to save pilots, why not spend a million dollars to keep them on active duty. I know not everyone wants to stay for 20 years and the nonsensical queep of the past 15 years has made it even less desirable but money speaks and so does messaging. Congress gave authority to pay more bonus but the shoes chase the curve rather than lead turn it with a long-term view. If USAF never uses the full allocation, what message does that send to the force. COVID saved this clown show...but that little respite is over and it is time to get serious. I am using old numbers but as I recall USAF makes approximately 1000 pilot a year and needs an approximate retention rate of 60% at end of initial commitment to break even. In recent years that number has fallen to the around 37-39%. I wonder how the calculus would change if they swallowed their pride and put real money on the table. Realistically they need 200-250 pilots to stay each year...offer each one $1M and see if your retention rate changes. Pay it lump sum, pay a portion each year, pay it however the pilots want to receive it and you will see a difference. $250M is decimal dust to the Air Force and if it solved one of the toughest problems it would be money well spent.

By describing the landlord and Cara using gender binary pronouns of "him" and "her," respectively, the Brits are reinforcing the patriarchy wherein the male holds the power of property ownership and the female is relegated to the role of subservient, dependent tenant. Furthermore, they are reinforcing the heteronormative, chauvinist worldview by establishing the toxic male as the aggressor upon the female. A gender nonconforming example would have been much more appropriate.

Already discussed at length here: https://www.flyingsquadron.com/forums/topic/2485-changingswitching-airframes/?&page=27#comments

Apparently, leadership doesn’t like publicity of a poor good idea fairy.

I think you’re thinking in the right direction in your analysis. Commuting from New England should be doable for either, although as SurelySerious brought up, Purple’s commuter policies/benefits are objectively better than UPS. As far as management styles go, I’d say it’s good to think of it this way: FedEx is an airline that happens to run some trucks. UPS is a trucking company that runs its airline almost as an afterthought. IPA unity is a direct result of constantly dealing with a management style that wouldn’t look out of place in the 1940s. Remember that old Army Lieutenant’s guide that said all enlisted troops are lying thieving dogs who need constant oversight and liberal discipline? Well, that’s how UPS looks at all hourly employees, including pilots. We’re highly overpaid aerial truck drivers in Atlanta’s eyes. IPA has made great strides for this pilot group but the union is far from perfect. IMO the union worked very well when we were a sub 2000 pilot group that was mostly based in Louisville. As other domiciles have grown rapidly along with international flying, I think the union is experiencing some growing pains. Nothing that we won’t overcome & I think we have some genuinely smart people on our executive board, but it may not be the nothing but rainbows and unicorns you may have heard about. Bottom line: I wouldn’t turn down a job at either. Brown and Purple are alone in that they still offer defined benefit plans & they are uniquely insulated (although not immune) to economic downturns. If you end up with offers from both, I’d probably do a deep dive into which one will be easier to commute to. Try and talk with people at both who live where you do & focus on ease of getting to work on company and/or offline jumpseat options. Can’t speak to Purple but Brown is largely a weekday airline (at least domestically) which can make getting to work on a Saturday or Sunday difficult as SDF is generally at least two legs on the airlines unless you’re in someplace like Atlanta or Dallas.

Not to be pedantic since you later mentioned multiple crew members and mutual support with a 2-ship and etc., but…yea, I’m pretty sure every strike eagle combat mission ever flown was with a single pilot 😅

Congrats to Stalin. I'd say she's already had a successful run these past few months as the East Coast TACDEMO pilot. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/meet-lt-amanda-stalin-lee-first-woman-blue-angels-jet-demo-pilot

Kerry's trying to cutback, though. https://nypost.com/2022/07/19/climate-buster-biden-green-czar-john-kerrys-jet-unleashes-tons-of-co2/

But the guy said she was “really hot” How an Unqualified Sex Worker Allegedly Infiltrated a Top Air Force Lab

When the topic of "energy policy" comes up, I've defaulted to tuning it all out. There is just such an absurd amount of nonsense around climate change, electric cars/planes/trains, decarbonization, etc. Anyone who tries to ask any legitimate technical or scientific questions is shouted down as a heretic. Our current standard of living depends on burning hydrocarbons. Politicians and other talking heads can do all the hand waving they want, it doesn't change that fact.

Laws regarding sexual harassment are most often relevant to work. Hostile work environment, sexual favors for promotion, etc. Just hearing someone whom you have little to no association with say unpleasant words to you typically isn't prosecuted. Your "butwhataboutsim" regarding anyone's wife is simply an appeal to emotion, not logic. If "talk properly or fight" are the two options you propose, then you regard bad speech worse than violence. If you look closely at the video, AOC's boyfriend was just a few steps ahead of her, turned and looked at Alex, and kept walking. Clearly, the "man" who has the most interest in that big booty found nothing Alex said to be worthy of violence, yet you do. How strange. Once again, you want to jump straight from civil discourse to violence. Bear in mind that has already occurred, and the appropriate political institutions were soundly defeated so we could have the right to say unpleasant things. Yet here we are, being lectured to again to by the losers. What do you tell an empire with two black eyes? Nothing it hasn't already been told twice.

The H-60 isn’t single pilot rated but we took guys up on fam flights all the time. The how, we had to get approval from the CC and it had to be an EP as the AC.

That spot has tuned into a pilgrimage for some who go there and relive that wonderful event.

The UK example is offensively heteronormative.

AFSOC doesn't even let dudes fly the PC-12, which is a single pilot plane, with only one pilot. Zero chance this happens.

Any company's security manager can tell you why the denial is when they look in JPAS. However, many companies will not really be willing to spend money on someone to try to obtain a security clearance after they were previously denied. YMMV

Got super tired last Wednesday and had a cough. Mama hounded me to take the test. Yep, ‘rona. A little whipped mowing the lawn Saturday, but now I’m back to being my normal dumbass self.

"Air Mobility Command is discussing the option as part of how it may handle war in the Indo-Pacific, where it believes large, slow jets including tankers would be more vulnerable to attack from Chinese anti-aircraft missiles. Shrinking the number of airmen onboard a tanker could help minimize potential troop casualties while still getting combat jets the fuel they need." PACAF attrited half the F-105 fleet in three years and in the middle when they ran out of fighter dudes to fly them started non-voling 135 guys to fly them...

Sorry to shift the topic for selfish reasons...but maybe someday someone else can benefit from this same question. First world problem question to follow: I have a CJO with FedEx, and I'm currently working to schedule a UPS interview after they broke 3 months of radio silence on my application. I obviously don't have the job with UPS at this point, but if I go through with the interview (leaning toward this, especially because they're virtual interviews right now) and get a CJO, I have a decision to make. Obviously a lot of factors go into deciding between the two, and I'm leaning overall toward FedEx. Although UPS management has an awful reputation, the IPA seems awesome, though, which is making me question this decision. Additional info that might help: 11F background, so I don't have a ton of experience with this stuff. Initially was planning on living somewhere between Indy and Louisville (which made this decision even more difficult), but now I'm anticipating that the family and I will settle down somewhere in New England (i.e. commuting). I will not be balancing a guard/reserve job on the side. FDX/UPS while on the road, dad at home. My wife is with our girls full time. FDX pros: well, it's FDX. I've wanted to work for them for a long, long time. No furlough history, great pay, no ties to AMZN anymore, flying-centric culture. FDX cons: MEM is awful if we ever wanted to live in base some day (not likely at this point based on updated life plans), widebody vs narrowbody pay scales (like almost everyone else), ALPA seems ok at best. UPS pros: spartan / blue collar culture has led to profitability regardless of what the economy is doing, single pay scale (no chasing which aircraft, just a rheostat between max pay and max QOL), IPA union seems awesome. UPS cons: management relationship (to include history of a furlough), truck-centric culture (I'm told to anticipate being treated like a truck driver while on the clock...i.e. 1-2 legs more per night for hub turns), doesn't seem to be as commuter-friendly. This question might seem like a no-brainer to some, but I have 5x bros who all love UPS (disclaimer: all are domiciled in AK, which I think makes a difference) whereas the APC forums make UPS seem a bit sub-optimal compared to FDX. I know of a few guys who have gone from UPS to FDX, but not the other way around. I'm hesitant to believe the "FedEx is the best place ever, no questions asked" narrative that all my fighter bros continue to promulgate despite only 0-1 year on property (but maybe it is true). One last note: now that Fred Smith is stepping down, I'm concerned that FDX will become another SWA where the culture leaves with the previous guy in charge. I do not plan on choosing one or the other for intangibles, because those can change very quickly. I know this forums has a few who fly for FDX and UPS, so I'd greatly appreciate your input. Hopefully it's a bit less sensational than the feedback I received on the APC forums. Thanks!

Do the Strike Eagle guys fly missions with a single pilot? B-1? BUFF? Bone? C-17? C-40? Of course they don’t. Just like the KC-46, they were designed to be operated and employed by multiple crewmembers. On the AMC side of things, the vast majority of pilots have been taught “crew concept” and CRM from very early on in their careers. As a guy with a fairly extensive tanker training background, I don’t think asking our pilots and instructors to make this shift is anything short of a monumental sea change. It’s a far more complex problem than just asking if one guy could, in fact, operate the airplane solo. This might get a bit long, so settle in. First, let’s tackle the simplest question: Can a 767 be flown single pilot? The answer is yes. I’ve practiced scenarios in the sim where the other pilot was considered incapacitated and removed from the seat. The airplane flies the same with one pilot at the controls as it does with two. The real question is: Is it safe and effective to do it routinely? Transport category airplanes are currently designed to be operated by two pilots. From a human factors standpoint, unlike the controls of a single seat tactical aircraft, the controls of an airliner are not necessarily designed to fall easily to hand. They don’t have to be. The operating concept has always been one pilot flies the aircraft, while the other handles navigation, radios, systems, the flight management computer, checklists, and any other task not directly related to pointing the airplane in the desired direction (although the PNF still shares responsibility with the PF in ensuring it does indeed go where intended). These are complex machines from a systems standpoint and when nonstandard things happen, the extra hands and brain cells are invaluable. IMO, in order to even begin thinking about making single pilot ops in these types of airplanes routine, you’d need to START with a total, ground up redesign of the flight deck with emphasis on 100 percent reliable heavy automation that can do things like respond to voice commands to shut down engines, pull fire handles, close fuel and air valves, etc, etc. Also, if you are coming from a tactical background, how often do you fly single ship? Most of the time there is some sort of mutual support, usually in the form of a wingman, yes? Well, mutual support in big airplanes means a guy or gal sitting next to you. I’m not sure I’ve EVER had a flight in a crew aircraft where at least one error wasn’t caught by the other crew member. Single pilot ops will GREATLY reduce the mutual support concept, even if all the advanced flight following and enhanced automation concepts are implemented and work perfectly. Second, and perhaps the most important question: Can you effectively employ a large tanker aircraft with a single pilot? I really don’t see how unless you not only massively revamp the aircraft, but also revamp everything from the training to command and control to receiver procedures, etc. While the mission is pretty chill most of the time (takeoff, turn left, find clouds to drag receivers through), there are times where mission management can become complex. Managing multiple receiver taskings, extra fragged fuel requests, multiple radios, a tactical environment, fuel offload plans (that will affect cg and w&b), rendezvous procedures, ATC and airspace considerations, weather considerations, and any number of other variables can and do cause helmet fires with a full crew compliment of two competent pilots and an experienced boom. Asking a single pilot to take this on without some serious upgrades to the equipment and the system will be an absolute. Fucking. Disaster. We haven’t even talked about fatigue yet. Missions were long enough in the KC-135 with a basic (two pilots & a boom) crew to the point they were probably dangerous at times. The 46 is receiver capable. So now you want to ask a guy who’s been flying the airplane by himself for eight or nine hours to take a console (consolidation: take on fuel from another tanker) and extend his day to truly dangerous proportions? Again, asking for disaster. I really thought this was a joke when I first heard it. If it’s really the AMC/CC pushing this, I hope his leadership sends him to a psych eval. If he has any experience at all flying big airplanes, he should know this is a complete non-starter given the current technology. Now, I’ve been out for a while and I realize that tech and capabilities are a moving target and things have probably changed in the last decade. But I’m very, very skeptical that we have put the pieces in place to even start thinking seriously about a concept like this and the people with the most to lose will be the ones tasked with trying to undertake this I’ll fated clusterfuck. Here’s an idea: how about the four star goes back to flying the line, by his own single pilot ass self for a few months in all the kinds of shitty conditions he’s talking about exposing his crews to? He wants this? He can validate the concept himself.

I’ve seen a bunch of folks talking that if anyone does this single pilot KC-46 thing, they need to be black balled from all the airlines. These are the same people that bitch about toxic leadership and all the other talkings points 24/7. I find it highly ironic that black balling a guy for something he’s ordered to do about the most toxic thing I’ve ever heard.

Wait…I thought the left called this “protesting”? It’s now called harassment?

BTW This topic deserves its own thread. Huggy, On a good day from point A to point B, one could probably fly a KC-46 with a single pilot and a boom operator. But why? I’ve flown tankers for close to 20 years now. Air refueling missions range from the mundane C-17 training mission or two ship F-15 CAP to complex Missions where you have multiple tankers talking to each other, ATC or C2 and to the receivers that may or may not be showing up at the same time/when they are supposed to and may or may not be as English proficient as we would like. When you have multiple tankers and multiple receivers you need everyone listening up on the 3-4 radios and dividing the duties. It’s a lot, especially when there’s external factors like a retrograde, TIC, etc. A jump seater or an extra boom is a welcome addition in these scenarios due to task saturation. Someone (maybe in another thread) also alluded to some of the additional capes (datalink, etc.) and the discussion that ensued tried to delineate if these detracted from the mission or enhanced the mission. IMHO, they are designed to enhance the core competency of air refueling when utilized properly but, if we are not careful they can easily distract the crew or the squadron from the fundamental mission of a tanker. In an emergency/non-normal situation as well, there’s a lot to accomplish. In our sims, we train with two pilots and the sim instructor plays the boom or we bring one in. Are we bringing a boom into every sim now since they will now have to train for every EP? Will they be running pilot checklists while the only pilot maintains aircraft control? I guess flight engineers used to (never flew with one but I know they were integrated up front) so now the boom does it? I’m ok with that, I implicitly trust the booms but again, why not just have two pilots with the boom backing us up. Maybe I don’t have the big picture. I’m all for innovation but besides possibly ferrying aircraft in a wartime situation to either survive them or get them to a frontline unit where other pilots are executing a near peer fight and we need all hands on deck I can see no good reason to try and fly a 767 with one pilot. I see this as a distraction from the mission and not an enhancement to the mission.

It's probably not good for political discourse, but Alex's video where he tells AOC she's his favorite big booty Latina is pretty funny.

Another not so “latest” movie that I just watched for the first time: Whiplash Stars Miles Teller (you know, Goose’s kid) and a yolked JK Simmons (yeah, the guy from the insurance commercials). Well shot, well edited art-house style film that never stood a chance at the box office when the public’s preference is overwhelmingly “more superheroes please”. But the story is apropos to the current plagues of participation trophies and helicopter parents and the general acceptance of mediocrity. Indeed, one of the best quotes from the movie is JK Simmons’ character stating “there are no two words in the English language more harmful than…..’good job’”. It’s a story about drive, commitment, and the human condition. You don’t have to be a jazz fan to “get it”. Anyone who’s had a passion about something and experienced a coach or mentor who knew how to squeeze every last ounce from them, or anyone who’s been in the other seat as a parent or a leader, will understand what this film is getting at. One of the best films I’ve seen in a while. Recommend. Here’s a clip:

Exactly. It was border patrol agents that actually finished the job.

100% agree on that. I had a privileged upbringing but I was 1 generation away from abject poverty on both my parents sides. Without the Air Force, I wouldn’t have had anywhere close to the opportunities I had because my dad took advantage of the programs to earn a commission, become a pilot, retire as an O-5, and go fly for the airlines. His dad dropped out in middle school and worked the line in a meat packing plant until he died at 60. If he and his brothers don’t join the AF, they’re more lower class working stiffs (nothing at all wrong with that) with much less opportunities. I always encourage military service of someone doesn’t know what to do for the benefits, reliable pay, and skills you can transfer. Join as a personnelist, do a 4 year tour, then go to college with some money in your pocket. Don’t join the infantry if that’s not your style.