Hacker

Which rule is that?

Very, very sad...a huge loss for the warbird community. Howard was one of the giants.

It will be a long time before the flying public is comfortable getting on an aircraft and not seeing someone sitting to their left in the front office. It's one thing in the military, or even when flying freight, but when people who may not be comfortable with flying in the first place have a choice, they will be buying tickets on the manned options for many years to come.

Recommend you guys don't go crucifying the crew from a flight discipline angle without knowing all the facts. "Hearing" that a maneuver is prohibited, or believing that a crew was not qualified to do something, and then all of the finger-pointing, "I-wouldn'ta-done-thats", and armchair courtrooming that goes with it is a bunch of crap....especially when the known facts don't yet support it. It doesn't frankly do anyone any good, except perhaps to satisfy some folks' innner superiority-complex-fueled need to point out someone else that appears to be doing something wrong (no different than the mindset of the uniform infraction zealots just waiting to pounce on the next untucked PT shirt or sunglasses on someone's nugget). Using Bud Holland videos as an example of poor airmanship and lack of flight discipline, and the disastrous potential consequences of those attitudes and actions, is excellent, because he is a well established, well researched case of it. I'd reserve snap judgment (and use of it as another example of poor airmanship and lack of flight discipline) on others, like this Apache video, until the actual facts are known. If it's eventually determined that they were in the wrong, then cleared hot. Until then, master arm safe to prevent frat.

Piano burn...a righteous way to remember warriors. Very strong.

We have identified the root cause. This is the kind of thought process that is killing an organization whose #1 job it is to "get the mission done". This is the type of cancer that needs to be eradicated from the USAF, and is unfortunately being spread as gospel by USAF management at numerous levels...and the young and impressionable are buying it. Additionally, this also gets back to the OTHER problem that yields these types of moronic tirades from the SNCO corps: O-6s and above who allow it to be this way. These Chiefs all work for commissioned officers whose job it is to establish the policy that the Chiefs execute. When a CMSgt is publicly offering critiques on officership, it is because his boss is tacitly endorsing it. We know this because, as soon as an officer critiques said Chief on stepping out of his lane, the Chief is quick to cry to daddy about the insolence of said officer. The circle of life is completed when daddy O-6 lays into the officer for his 'disrespect' of the SNCO...instead of there being any discussion or consideration of the reason the officer offered the critique to the Chief. The O-6s can stop this trainwreck at any time they so desire. It is 100% in their capability, authority, and responsibility to do so.

All I got out of that whole part of the thread was McSalty...stomach...Rainman's cock.

Hot tanker-on-tanker action part deux

I don't think it's a crime for a journalist to be able to make pointed criticisms toward other news outlets when they get things glaringly wrong. That being said, I believe that Steve doesn't really have much love for anything Rupert Murdoch.

I don't think it's possible for TSA to have a fair and rational reaction to anything except people kotowing to their au-thor-i-tah.

Is that what the briefing said, or is that what was apparent from watching the video?

All if this is just grand when you're in a permissive environment. Different story entirely when they're actually shooting back at you.

Glad to hear that worked well for you. Don't forget that you can further help the look and feel with the leather conditioner and hand/finger massage trick after the washing machine treatment. Lexol Leather Cleaner/Conditioner is what I usually use, but only because it's relatively easy to find in regular stores (vs in a leather/saddle/tack specialty shop) -- I'm sure that in a pinch any of the other leather care stuff that you'd find at WalMart (even for car interiors) is better than nothing. Spray or wipe on the leather, then roll the leather between your fingers to massage that conditioner in. You can work it a little piece at a time while watching TV or whatever. Over the course of an hour-long show, you can have massaged the entire jacket...it can help to make the shell much softer, and will reduce some of the stiffness that results from the wash and air-dry. I like a collar that stands rigidly up, so I generally just wipe down the collar area with conditioner rather than massaging it. STS all around, of course. I'd avoid getting any of the leather conditioner on the cotton liner -- it tends to discolor the liner (not permanently, but can leave an oil-ish discolored area depending on what kind of conditioner you're using).

An "otherwise guilty" person? YGBSM. Presumption of innocence. Check it out.

As much as I love the Air Commando boonie hat, I find it bizarre that the rest of 36-2903 was an assault against the flying community (fighter community more specifically, with the friday shirts and patches) with the rationale being that "the enlisted troops, the non-flyers can't do it, so why should the flyers be able to." So WTFO with the Spec Ops community getting special status. Again, I'm all for it -- legit heritage, go for it AFSOC bros, good for you, wear it well. More WTFO toward the individuals who penned and approved the new 2903 and their consistently inconsistent rationale for making everyone not-special sorta.

Yes, they were all mine at various times over the years. I'm a WWII aviation / warbird geek...can't help it. I've actually owned more than those I listed...those are just the ones I've done the washing machine treatment to, I currently have two 1999 Avirex A-2s (both USAF uniform wear - the one I was issued, and another I took off a dude who bought a Pop's jacket and didn't want his issue one anymore) and one veteran 1971 Star Sportswear G-1 (which I wear casually and when civilian warbird flying -- way more comfortable than the A-2). I've endured more than my share of "dead cow" jokes over the years (the A-2s aren't exactly popular in the fighter community...for some obtuse reasons that, unfortunately for most of the haters, they don't even understand or never even affected them). Plenty of, "no self-respecting fighter pilot would ever be caught dead in a bomber jacket." Suit yourselves, dudes, but I know a real fighter pilot when I see one, and I'm pretty sure I see them riding into Hun territory wearing leather.

Unfortunately, the main Flight Jacket enthusiast site, www.vintageleatherjackets.com, is a register-read-only forum, but there are numerous reports there of guys who have done it to their rather expensive Eastman and Goodwear WWII reproduction jackets. It's a controversial technique, as there are who think you should never wash a leather jacket. A Google search on the subject will probably reveal some posts from The Fedora Lounge, another forum that has a good bit of leather flight jacket discussion. Again, I've personally done this with 3 different USAF A-2s (one Cooper and two Avirexes) and three different USN G-1s (two Star Sportswears and one Brill Brothers), with zero ill effects. Again, none of these had the "plastic leather" look and feel of the Cockpit jackets, but the treatment did wonders for bringing out the grain and character of the leather. It also got 'em nice and clean...and it was amazing how dark that water was on some of these jackets! Can't promise anything, but it's worked like a champ for me.

Although the leather on the current 2007 contract Cockpit USA jackets is certainly ugly looking, I assure you it is not "fake leather" -- it is legit goatskin. A couple years ago, the rules for DoD suppliers changed, forcing the skins for the jackets to be sourced domestically rather than from overseas (traditionally, A-2s and G-1s of the last 20-30 years have been made from African imported goatskin). I don't know anything about species of goats in the US vs Africa, but apparently the skins from here at home aren't exactly prime...hence what you're seeing on the current issue jackets. There have been LOTS of complaints about them, mostly about the peeling and cracking, that have been channeled back up the supply system. Who knows if there will be any change in supplier or quality in the future. If you want to buy one that you can wear with your uniform, the ones Cockpit USA (used to be Avirex, who has been making USAF contract A-2s since 1998 or so) sells commercially are sourced from overseas skins and look considerably better. US Wings bought up the old Cooper jacket operation and sells a nice "current-issue" spec jacket as well. The Cockpit USA and US Wings jackets won't have the velcro on them unless you specifically order it that way. The Mr Lim's and Pop's Leather options are good too -- probably the best option if you don't care about the authenticity of the jacket and want some of the custom options and a nice fit. If you care about any kind of historical authenticity in your A-2 (as in, faithful to the WWII specs and look), then Goodwear Leather and Eastman Leather are where I'd spend my money. They're EXPENSIVE, and also require a custom order if you want the velcro on them (big surprise, WWII jackets didn't have velcro). Note that these jackets run smaller sizes and aren't nearly as comfortable as the current-issue design/cut, but IMHO they look a shitload better than the current Avirex and Cockpit jackets that look like you're wearing a garbage bag (unless you get one custom made/tailored at Lim's or Pops). Please, please avoid anything bought in a department store or mall. It's a uniform item. FWIW, if you want to try and 'save' your issued jacket, you can help make it less ugly by a couple trips through the washing machine. Set it on 'cold', with no detergent, and put it through the wash. When it's done, let it air dry for several days laying flat on the floor on a towel (you can also stuff a towel inside the zipped jacket to help dry the inside out. Make sure the collar is shaped correctly (with the fold at the correct spot and straight with no wrinkles), else it will stay however it sat once it dries. Don't hang it up until it's dry inside and out. Once or twice during the drying, put the jacket on and wear it around for a little while while watching tv or sitting on the computer -- it will help the leather shape to your arms. It shouldn't stretch or shrink during this process so long as you don't use hot water or the dryer. If any of the leather cracks/peels during this process, you're outta luck -- it would have happened anyway, nothing you can do about it. If you're able to get your hands on some leather conditioner (high quality stuff like Pecard's or Lexol...not the Meguiars or Armor All wipes you find at WalMart), wipe the whole outside of the jacket down after it's air dried. Even better if you can take the time while sitting there watching TV to hand-massage the conditioner into the leather, rolling the skin between your fingers. It will make the leather much softer and pliable...and won't look nearly as shitty as it does when initially issued. The leather flight jacket aficionados do this hand-massage conditioner routine with their new jackets (some of them do the wash, too) to break them in with a lot of success. I've done this process with several A-2s and G-1s (including some no-kidding vintage jackets) with no problems. If you're just going to throw your issued jacket in the closet to never wear again, I recommend at least trying it to see if you can salvage it.

FWIW, the banked pilots of the early 90s had to go through extensive re-quals in the T-38 before getting back in the "pipeline". Even then, as a generalization, they struggled in their follow-on training because of the time they'd spent out of the cockpit. The fact that the USAF hasn't used the "bank" as a pipeline management tool again suggests that they realized it wasn't a good method. While I agree that RPAs should not be a black hole from which no pilot ever emerges (in fact, I believe quite the opposite -- that pilots of RPAs should be free to get assignments back in the real world as manning dictates), I don't think that using the case of the banked pilots does anything to bolster your argument.

The real root problem with "Chiefs" is the O-6s they work for who empower them to act that way. Every time I have seen an officer do anything but kotow to a Chief over his asinine 'correction', it has resulted in a direct ass-chewing from an O-6. It's to the point where the Chiefs believe they are carrying all the rank of the guy with the Eagles whom they work for - and the Colonels are not only allowing it, but they're ENCOURAGING it by their actions. The Chief knows he can confront ANY officer he sees, because he knows that if he is rebuked, he'll be able to go tattle to daddy Colonel, who will then show that officer who's the boss. It's sickening...it's like the Commander's wife who thinks she is the "commander" of all the spouses, or that she wears her husband's rank around base. We can complain about Chiefs until the sun burns out, but the REAL issue is the O-6s they work for. Until they decide to stop allowing E-9s to go on these rampages, and put their feet down about policy, there will never be a fix.

Since this book isn't on the street yet, and it's unique style is a selling point, here are a couple preview links for you all to enjoy: Amazon Look Inside: http://www.amazon.com/Days-Rolling-Thunder-Robert-Deas/dp/0956982409/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1318401301&sr=8-1 Google Books: http://books.google.com/books?id=Ufpozw95oMQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=two+days+of+rolling+thunder&hl=en&ei=TDWVTuuzE5Go8APJ6tSxCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

A bud of mine just got back from his 6 months in the BACN. He said that the short training program was a big advantage over the MC-12 in terms of time away from home. Other than that, he said the most exciting thing that occurred on the deployment was choosing which movies to watch during the flights. Yes, the MC-12 has evolved quite significantly since the first year of ops, and the mission sets differ (often considerably) depending on base/location, and even differ between supported unit and time of day. If you have the choice between the two deployments, which one is 'better' depends a whole lot on who you are and what you're looking to get out of it. IMHO, the BACN could provide a fighter-background guy with a type of flying experience (and ATP/Type) which would show future civilian employers some diversity of experience, but it wouldn't be very exciting so far as the actual day-to-day execution goes. The MC-12, while being a type of experience that some future civilian employers might not be quite as impressed with, would likely be more satisfying during the deployment while flying missions. The end-state reality for us military guys, though, is this: if we are hired by a civilian flying operation, what type of civil type rating we do or don't have is not going to be the reason why we are selected.

I heard his mustache was too wide. Seriously, one of the news reports quotes the guy who picked up the pilot, who quotes the pilot as saying he had a dual engine flameout.

Thought I'd pass along a new book to the baseops.net masses, Two days of Rolling Thunder by Robert Deas. A fantastic read with a new twist on the "Thud pilot in Vietnam" theme. Like many of you, I've read several very good books on flying F-105s in Vietnam: When Thunder Rolled, Thud Ridge, Pack Six, and others. To be honest, when I first heard about Two days of Rolling Thunder I wasn't really all that enthusiastic about reading it -- after all, what could this book cover that hasn't all ready been done (and very well) by those other books? Well, I'll be frank -- this one knocked my socks off. What's different is that this is a "there I was" story of a different color, one which puts the reader in the seat rather than reading about the author being in the seat. The book is written in first person, as if the reader were a brand new wingman showing up in an F-105 squadron and participating in two days of combat sorties during ROLLING THUNDER. When I first started reading it, I have to admit it reminded me just a little too much of the Choose Your Own Adventure books I used to love in elementary school. The formula works, though, extremely well. It's a short read...or, at least, it seems like one because it is very engrossing and was tough for me to put down. The events are apparently true, as experienced by the author, Col Deas. The radio comm printed is transcribed directly from Deas' audio tapes of the very missions and events he describes. The book is full color, with many photos that Deas took himself. The book reprints some of the mission materials used on the raid, including the target photo/map showing the DMPIs for the attack. Pretty interesting stuff from a historical perspective...stuff which gets immediately put through the shredder in today's combat ops! The book is being published by Y2B Publishing, of which Baseops poster Steve Davies is one of the core founders/proprietors. I'm sure he'll be along to answer questions about the book, but I wanted to throw my two cents in. There's a start-up forum there on the publisher's website where more in depth discussion will take place, I'm sure (Steve had one for his Red Eagles book, too, and there were extra photos and text, etc, that ended up there to augment the book -- pretty cool stuff). A great read -- highly recommended.

I don't believe that the Navy sends "contact" style rides out on IFR flight plans.