NEflyer

It's much easier to shift blame to the men for recent aviation fatalities and call them "cowboys" rather than acknowledge the massive organization faults, lack of resources, and corrupt leadership truly causing these accidents. For those who haven't read it yet, this should offer some context: https://www.propublica.org/article/marines-hornet-squadron-242-crash-pacific-resilard

As previously alluded to, yep! Majority of 60/130 hires are from off the street, I'd say at least 1/2 of the ops guys are from elsewhere. For those who can't navigate the DMNA website, here are the pilot openings... 1575376300-HC130J_PILOT_OFFICER_VAC_ANNO_11H1J_FY2004_03DEC19.docx 1575376380-HH60_PILOT_OFFICER_VAC_ANNO_FY2005_3_Dec_2019.docx

The 101 RQS will be having a rated and non-rated board for two slots in March. Deadline for apps is 15 Feb. Shoot me a PM if you have any questions outside the norm and I can direct you accordingly. 1546516720-HH60_PILOT_OFFICER_VAC_ANNO_11H1E_19001__20_Dec_2018.docx

If they really wanted to give the public an accurate demo of it's capabilities, it'd sit stationary on the ramp leaking hydraulic fluid with this playing in the background...

106th RQW out of Westhampton Beach, NY is having a board for HH-60's mid June. Deadline for packets is 6 June. For those selected for interviews, there will be a meet & greet 14 June. Feel free to PM me with any questions. See attached. 1494071867-HH-60 PILOT OFFICER VAC ANNO (11H1E) 16-009 27 APR 2017 (003).docx

Dear lord... I'm a rescue 60 pilot and the picture I have of myself in the "about us" section of my businesses website, is of me sitting jump in a 130 on a fam flight... Now I'm beginning to wonder if I've actually been scaring people off because they think I'm a nav.

"Nope." Never gets old...

My rebuttal to that and the "If I can't trust you to wear your uniform in exact accordance to regs, how can I trust you in the aircraft" argument, is always... If your primary worry in life is how we wear our flight suits and closely we follow AFI 69-69, or substitute in any of the countless queepy things the AF cares about these days... How can we trust you to lead us? Given you've just made it glaringly obvious you don't prioritize tactical proficiency, job performance, morale, retention, or anything relating to effective leadership. I'd even go so far as to say that attitude is often indicative of poor performance in the aircraft as well. So much of aviation is prioritization and the ability to recognize the next most immediate [and real] threat. Worrying about say... zipper height, as opposed to how effectively one does their actual job... Is akin to checking if your last four are written correctly on the flight orders as you CFIT into the side of a mountain, or the proverbial rearranging of the deck chairs on the Titanic as you plow into an iceberg.

Tried to send you a PM about accidentally voting down your post instead of up, but it says your inbox is full. Right now I'm successfully +1'ing posts with my iPhone at about the same rate of getting ELMO to actually take me where I want it to.

Oops, fat fingered that one Gearpig. Tried to +1 the post and failed.

While I enjoy these debates purely as an intellectual exercise, when witnessing them, I can't help but think the other side has won. Instead of the public being made aware of the progressive gutting/wearing out of our armed forces that's been taking place since the early nineties, all they witness is a pissing contest about exactly what sort of outdated and hollow force we'll have left (or they'll have left in their district). I know any of us would gladly take extraordinary risks and be willing to sacrifice our own safety without hesitation, it's what I signed up for anyway. That being said... I find it tremendously offensive when my life is unnecessarily put at greater risk due to inadequate resources like worn-out/outdated/inferior aircraft, all while much of the population is living large off entitlements and our defense spending rapidly races to below 3% of GDP. Soldiers in larger past conflicts, while often asked to do unbelievable things with completely inadequate resources we could hardly comprehend, at least knew the general public was sacrificing to support them as much as they possibly could. I need to start telling people, if you really want to "thank me" for my service, call your Rep/Senator and get us the resources we need to protect this country and your family against all eventualities.

This has to be one of the more foolish decisions made recently. Lack of low level and NVG experience aside, it will be the first time they've seen a landing area smaller than a relatively sterile 5,000ft+ runway. It'll be especially great coupled with the new Kirtland exclusive syllabus that seems to take much of the New River phase (including contact) and moves it into sim. Nothing like having your first dusty/restricted/slope landing, all while trying to judge winds and recon the site, be in a nearly $100 million aircraft. That is assuming you managed to find one that wasn't broken or stuck PL'd in a LZ for 10+ days. I'd be really interested in hearing the supposed logic behind the change. Would it be incorrect to assume it was highly political and predominately featured FW leadership in the process? Yes, they've been taking fixed wing transition guys for years, but they've mostly been operational before and have quite a bit of experience. The Rucker leadership was very vocally opposed to this decision when it was initially brought up a year or so ago, after they started dropping to T-1's. The only stated reason I heard about a year ago, albeit in a roundabout manner, was "helicopter pilot's lack of familiarity with the enroute structure." Yeah... because that's what gets you killed when much of your mission involves regularly flying below 200' AGL, at night, on NVG's, with TF/TA, landing to unsurveyed LZ's in remote areas. It seems as if nearly all the 22 class A's regardless of branch, have been in the terminal area. Who am I kidding though, I'm sure they'd have been prevented if only the crews had more experience filling out DD-175's. All that being said... I'm sure it'll be a popular drop out of T-1's/T-38's and they'll end up with some quality studs in the pipeline who'll adapt well, but that still doesn't make this decision any less idiotic or help prepare them any better.

The two deserved one another.

Exactly. Who are these people who keep proposing a "SLEP" as a viable idea? Do they know anything about 60's? Hell, do they know anything about mx or helicopters? Have they missed that they've been deployed/abused constantly from 1990-present? We're not talking about just slapping on new components, these things are bent/patched together well beyond any sort of viability for continued use. It's borderline ridiculous where we're at now expecting mx to keep them in the air and crews to keep flying them, let alone where we'll be in five years... Either do the mission right, or don't do it at all.

...because actually having [true] diversity leads to a better organization.