Hacker

Considering that it used to be done up until 2002, what's the difference? I have my "Capt PRF" and it looks nothing like the meticulously thought out and wordsmithed document that my O-4 and O-5 PRFs looked like. Unless Commanders decide that they're going to put that type of effort into it (which, clearly, isn't required based on the promotion rate) then that's their own doing.

You should have told him you're responsible for making sure the pilots do their job correctly.

Good, hopefully that's an indication that there's been a change.

Sure...every time there was a "cooperate and graduate" moment, many stud WSOs were looking over their shoulder and waiting for the cheating police to bust down the door. I had more than one stud WSO report to me that there had been "cheating" during the academics. My response was, #1 are you really in here ratting out your bros, and #2, it's not cheating when the academic instructor gives you a 35-point review just minutes prior to proctoring the 35-point academic test. Obviously this doesn't describe *every* WSO who I saw go through IFF...not by a long shot. But there were certainly more moments like this from the Navy-trained folk than from the USAF-trained folk. What is it you're disagreeing with? Were you/are you an IFF instructor? I never went through Pensacola, but I sure saw plenty of the product of Pensacola that came through IFF on their way to the F-15E, and that's how I formed the opinion I posted.

The biggest problem with WSOs going through IFF is that they've been raised in the Navy's NFO training system up to that point, which has absolutely no "cooperate and graduate" aspect to it.

It's been the rare exception in my experience. What I've seen in the AF is absolutely childsplay compared to the walk-on-your-bros culture that exists in the O-3 and O-4 ranks in the Navy as they compete for promotions. Really, there are far greater cancers in the AF culture than backstabbing.

It's usually the sucker-punch to the gut when seeing such stuff that makes a lasting impression.

Weren't the Balad airframes all retrofitted aircraft that were purchased off the commercial market? I'm wondering if the custom-built 350ERs that make up the bulk of the fleet now had the civilian stuff left out.

Anybody know what the MC-12 guys are flying with? Are they using civil-impedance headsets, or does the airplane use single-plug military impedance headsets?

This is what I did mine in; a relatively nice 2000 PA-44.

Three days. If the airplane hadn't had a maintenance squawk on the first day, it only would have taken two days (one day of academics and two prep sorties, and one day taking the checkride). It has to do with the 4 factors that create a "critical engine" on a piston/prop twin (one which has the engines both turning in the same direction, at least) when one engine is failed. They teach the memory aid "PAST"; P-Factor, Accelerated Slipstream, Spiraling Slipstream, and Torque. These 4 factors all create additional forces trying to roll and yaw the airplane into the dead engine when one is failed (amplifying the obvious asymmetric thrust created by having one engine out). Jets simply don't have three of these forces; P-factor has to do with prop behavior in high angle of attack, accelerated slipstream has to do with wind behind the props moving over the wing and creating lift, spiraling slipstream is the turbulent air coming off the prop and pushing against the side of the fuselage and vertical stab. Torque is a bit of a factor, but not enough to really affect aircraft performance in any of the jets I've flown. I have a PDF I can email that has an expanded discussion on this topic if you're interested. This topic, and the factors which affect Vmc, were the core of the ground evaluation before the flight.

You know that the FAA considers the "flight time" to start when the aircraft first moves under it's own power for the purposes of flight, ergo, at taxi time. So, guys who are logging "taxi time" (ergo, that extra .2) in their own logbooks aren't doing anything anywhere near what you're accusing them of. Naturally, if they're doing it on the 781, then the issues you brought up are valid.

Just an update on this: The deal over at Tulsa CC totaled just about $1200, including ground instruction, aircraft rental, and DPE cost for the checkride. Started off with a morning of ground instruction on light piston twin aerodynamics. I thought beforehand that this would be throwaway information, but it turned out to be legitimate (and now I get why most fighters have the centerline thrust restriction -- it's more about pistons and props than it is how far the engines are away from aircraft centerline). Then it was 2 sorties, just under 3 hours of total time, in a PA-44 Seminole. First sortie was mostly aircraft fam, although we practiced all of the maneuvers that were required on the checkride, too. Second sortie was a typical rehearsal of the checkride profile. Checkride itself was just under an hour on the Hobbs, with a 2-ish hour ground eval. With one notable exception, the events came directly from the Commercial/Multi PTS that I quoted above (more on that later). Ground eval: - Critical Engines and aerodynamic forces - Vmc certification criteria, and how Vmc changes with changes in each of those criteria - Weight and balance, TOLD calculation - Some Seminole systems GK Sortie: - Engine failure on takeoff, takeoff aborted - Engine failure on departure - Engine failure in the practice area, full engine shutdown/prop feather - Vmc demo - Sim IMC/hooded instrument approach, single engine - Single engine landing You'll note that the PTS quoted in my earlier post says "approach and landing", with nothing about an "instrument approach". Well, it turns out that the most current version of the Commercial PTS was issued in 2002 and has an error in this particular section. In addition, since 2002, the FAA has issued a ruling that says if you want to be able to exercise instrument privileges with ANY certificate you're earning/modifying/changing, you have to include instrument flying and an approach in the checkride (surprise, cock bag!). So, the toughest part of the whole affair was learning to use the meager avionics in the Seminole to fly the approach. It had dual VOR/NAVs, but no DME, so that was a little tough to gain situational awareness with a crosscheck based on an aircraft with much, much better toys (and with only one practice attempt before the checkride...get up for it). Overall, the staff and instructors at Tulsa Community College was top notch -- very thorough and well prepared, and treated us well as 'students'. I'd highly recommend them to anyone interested in doing the same thing. I can give details on the FAA examiner via PM to anyone who is interested. Without a doubt, a very fair checkride and an examiner with a great sight picture.

And how will the iPad get that data in the cockpit? Through what wireless connection up at altitude?

Hopefully those FAIPs were heavily shit-on by the MWS IPs. I know if I saw that act out of one of the FAIPs in my squadron, we'd have a little mentorship session on the side about what they've 'earned' so far in their career.

That actually doesn't suck all that bad. It's not all that awesome, but considering some of the crap that we've seen from the AF that tries desperately to be hip this actually approaches something listenable and isn't entirely lame. Well, except for the 2nd half of the song when we're being preached to about core values -- that part is pretty lame. If you check out some of their other YouTube videos, they're performing in flight suits without a hint of wings to be seen on them anywhere...that, too, is pretty lame. All that being said, I'd rather see these dudes than TIB or the AF Band any day of the week.

Or not. The airplane you're thinking of was called the "Lancastrian". I think he's mixing the Lanc up the "Avro Manchester", which was a sort-of 2-engine version of the Lanc.

I'm going to do it (sts) through Tulsa Community College's aviation program, and the cost (including the DE and checkride) will be something on the order of $1500. Once I'm finished I'll post a more detailed breakdown.

The note at the bottom of the page is priceless:

From talking to actual WWII bombardiers, it's probably got something to do with the fact that none of them knew exactly how it worked. They learned to bomb with basic ballistic tables out of AT-11s over Kansas, and applied that same knowledge over Berlin. When I've had conversations with them about details like computing the parts of the bombing triangle (especially stuff of minor importance like HAT), I have usually received a blank stare in return. Turns out most of them practiced from low altitude (only a couple thousand feet) where minor errors in HAT and wind corrections didn't have that large of an effect on aiming or hitting. Once they got to medium altitude over Europe, those same 'skills' didn't exactly work as well as they did back home. Take that in concert that not every ship in the bomber formation was even really aiming and many simply dropped their ordnance when the lead ship dropped theirs, and it's no wonder they didn't really hit anything precisely. At least, that's what those guys tell me. Never used a Norden myself. Nifty fact: Both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki drops would have been scored as a "miss" by our nuke standards.

You're able to glean all of this from a patch you saw someone wear? Yeah, that's perspective all right -- a completely asinine one. I don't know what burr got under your saddle on this one, but you're taking three completely separate issues and trying to roll them all into one "Strike Eagles suck in OEF" thought, and it just doesn't have traction. Your entire underlying supposition that backs your posts in this thread is begging the question anyhow. Look, every bit of time I've spent in OEF I've seen nothing but a good act from my airframe. Mistakes? Yes. Areas where it could have done better? Yes. Clown act? No. In general I've seen exactly the same performance out of every other airframe doing the business over there including yours. Same occasional very inefficient use of firepower, same occasional low SA or stupid comm...but in general, a good act. Have there been any that have made the news? Well, yes, actually there have...but I'm not trying to mud sling because I realize that I don't know jack about the A-10 and I'm not qualified in any way to comment on the TTPs or competency of the guys who fly it. My assumption is that they're doing the best job they can based on their own capes and TTPs, even if it looks weird from my perspective in my jet. If there's anything I learned from my trip through AETC flying IFF it's that every jet raises pilots who are phenomenally biased toward their own airframe and just as amazingly ignorant about other airframes. Everyone thinks that "their way" is the only way, and that other methods of skinning cats are not only incorrect but retarded to boot. After flying, teaching, bar stories, etc, with guys from those other airframes, it was obvious that a lot of those negative opinions I had about other airframes were really because I had no idea what their airframe had in terms of capabilities and how those capes impacted their TTPs. What appeared stupid to me as an outsider actually made a lot of sense once I understood that. If you think the patch is retarded, fine...say so, but don't drag the entire community into the mix. If you think you know something about how the frat could have been prevented, and how it's related to some TTP that is flawed or if you know something about the performance of the crew on that night, then let's talk about that instead of mixing it in with a goddamn patch. Same goes for the two kids who morted practicing night strafe. If you have some experience in this airframe, and know something about how it's employed, and have an idea about how to do it better, then say so. The fact is, NEITHER of those events had ANYTHING to do with some supposed lax attitude about OEF among the F-15E community that you've surmised based on a dude's patch and the discussion on this forum.

I was there, and the most I ever saw was for a single Lt Col who was awarded three. And I've never, ever, ever, ever, EVER seen a Hog clown it up. Ever. How's the view from that ivory tower?

No, it was both. Massive respect to the Thud drivers who went north in the conflict of their day. At the same time, anyone with 100 missions of XCAS in Door Bravo South would get why it's a joke to have 100 missions in the conflict of our day.

Yes, it's a joke. I was in the squadron that made it, and it was supposed to be a takeoff of the "100 missions" Thud patch. Anyone who is taking it seriously as a token of pride has missed the point.

The housing market in Enid is surprisingly strong. Fortunately, the town is very military friendly, so you're not going to find many realtors who are going to try and shaft you. Courtney Colby is an ex-AF officer who does a lot of business with people on Vance. Ty and Kelly (who have the strange 'Laverne and Shirley' video on a previous page in this thread) are also a good realtor team. I don't see much in the way of modular homes anywhere that people from the base live. Most of the 4 bedroom houses are in the neighborhoods where Capts and above live (on the north and west side of town, primarily) and start north of $200,000. BAH in the area is enough to make such houses affordable. There's a pretty decent rental market in that price bracket, too. Schools are pretty good all around (two school districts in the area) -- Eisenhower Elementary is right on base property if you end up living on/close to base, and Glenwood Elementary is on the west side of town near where many Vance IPs live in any of about 5 or 6 neighborhoods out there.