Hacker

I never suggested any of those things. I was providing some perspective from someone who has also worked my way through college and paid for flying lessons and ratings AND uses MOAs for military training. No, you probably didn't sh*t away their whole day of training. When I flew T-38s, a GA aircraft flying through the MOA could cause a loss of about 30% of the day's training, which is significant.

Actually, it's probably quite the opposite. They probably did NOT see you coming, and had to turn their attention away from whatever work they were doing to avoid you. Yes, it's legal to fly through a hot MOA...it's just not smart. It's also pretty rude to the guys trying to conduct training (on the extremely limited flying hours they have) in that MOA. What about it rude to you, as someone who is just trying to exercise his priveleges as a GA pilot? Yup, it is a little rude. And it may cost you a little from your pocketbook to avoid the MOA.

Fuseplug, have you ever actually been in a military aircraft conducting training in a MOA? I was a GA pilot for many years before I started flying for the AF. I'm completely aware of what "right" a GA aircraft has to fly through an active MOA. I'd NEVER do it (an extra $50 in fuel? Gimme a f*cking break, waah, cry me a river) because I know how having an un-briefed aircraft in a MOA sh*ts on the training you can get. Wanna talk about a waste? When your jet burns $10K of fuel per hour and you can't use it to get any worthwhile training because some GA pilot doesn't want to take the long way around or under a MOA.

Trust me, Rainman, if they'd let us throw rockets on the two "unused" wing pylons on the F-15E (1 and 9 for the technically inclined), I'd be ALL for it.

With the F-15E's upcanted gun and the limited effective range of the 20mm, strafe is one of the riskier attacks that the airplane can do. It is exactly the opposite of the A-10, where it is the easiest weapon to use in any situation. It's not something that I would use in a threat environment just to MARK a target. To kill something...sure, gladly, any day. But, if I'm not sure where the target is before the pass, I'm sure as f*ck not going to stick my nose downhill and try and ID it through the pipper while I'm screaming at the dirt at 480 KCAS.

You actually completely missed the sarcasm of my post -- JTACs sometimes make some really retarded weaponeering requests. Marking the target with the gun is a really stupid idea (I know it's not a big deal in the Hog, but a strafe is a relatively high-performance maneuver for an F-15E) as is hitting a mover with a GPS-guided weapon.

Superb post, Rainman. I'm at Bagram right now sitting CAS Alert, and your words could not ring more true. Thanks...

Weaponeering doesn't really make a difference when the JTAC knows exactly what kind of weapon he wants and when he wants it. Like when he'd like me to "mark the target with 20mm" or hit a moving truck with a GBU-39.

As mentioned, the Hog puts on a pretty cool bat-turn and in a 9K setup with the A-10 defensive this ends up giving the appearance of a high-aspect merge! In the F-15E, the vertical was the best answer -- zoom up several thousand feet while the defender was "circling the Hogs" and point the nose down for slashing attacks. There was really no way to actually get to and maintain the control zone.

Interestingly, it's not that simple in the AT-38. Being a good BFM'er in the Eagle does not translate directly to the T-38. Similar can be said for dropping bombs. I think that in general, all IPs were able to perform the IFF missions at an equal level regardless of what MWS they came from. The two exceptions were in some of the CT missions: A-10 guys had a little less proficency at ACM, and F-15C guys had a little less proficiency at CAS. As far as the standard multirole IFF missions....based on what I saw with IPs dropping "nerf bombs" at IFF, there were two factors that offset each other: - IPs that came from bomb-dropper MWSs had an immediate ability to "see the wire" and it was easier to make corrections to parameters. On the other hand, the habit patterns established in the individual MWSs did not necessarily translate directly to the AT-38C (especially with Hog guys but also to some extent with Strike Eagle guys). - IPs that came from Eagles had no pre-established habit patterns and had to learn how to do it from scratch. Once they learned, they had no pre-established habit patterns that detracted from the AT-38C TTPs.

I can't take credit for that one...it was the lead-off slide in a job briefing at SOS by a UPT classmate of mine, Putty Eaglin. Well stated, IMHO.

Yeah, it must be insanely difficult to pick up the JFIRE and flip a couple of pages from the "Call for Fire" page to the "JCAS 9-line" page. While I understand the point, CAS is CAS...regardless of how the talk-on progresses and whom it progresses to. Having a guy who all ready understands what .1% PI means is a benefit over someone who has never read the JPub.

Here are a few constant naming ceremony options: Vaginal Blood Fart (VBF) Sperm-Burping Gutter Wench (SBGW) Triple-Ripple Butt Plug Shaved Dog's Ass (SDA) ...and my favorite... Asshole + peg number (e.g. Asshole 25, Asshole 18, etc) I have tried to name a guy FCO, pronounced 'fucko', for dating Fat Chicks Only. Didn't make it past the hordes, though.

???? What on earth is the AF missing without the Spartan??

Well....not really. Has a lot more to do with avionics use while still being able to fly fast and turn tight. Has nothing to do with the lack of a 2-seat trainer. The fact of the matter is that T-38 based IFF just doesn't produce a product that the Raptor community can use. The skillset that the current IFF program produces -- e.g. a wingman -- is not what the Raptor needs. The biggest complaint was that the way the F-22 employs is not like how standard fighters operate, and that every pilot needed to have at LEAST 2-ship flight lead kinds of skills, and they'd prefer something on the order of Mission Commander skills. If you look at the requirements they had for who they were accepting from the CAF -- 2-ship FL min and current in a radar-equipped fighter -- that is some hint as to what they are looking for their basic qualifications. This is an issue that was being worked on the entire three years I was at IFF, and the last I heard was that there was going to be an interim solution prior to a major overhaul of the IFF program. The major overhaul would include replacing the T-38 with a different aircraft that has performance and avionics which can accomplish the required training. Looks like this is the interim solution.

You don't wear them if you're just wearing the blues shirt without the service dress jacket, but if you wear the jacket you wear your ribbons. As I said...I haven't worn my blues in about 5 years...and even then that was the first time I'd worn them since UPT graduation.

Looking for some experience from anyone who has ordered one of those custom ribbon sets for their blues from someplace like www.ultrathin.com or www.superthinribbons.com. I hate to say it, but I haven't "updated" my blues since I went to SOS about 5 years ago and I have to wear them for an event in about a month. So, I'm gonna go buy a set off the 'net. Any recommendations or reviews, aviation brothers?

I personally don't care if it's exclusively a pilot thing, or if it has anything to do with being Mission Qual'd, or with retention, or anything like that. If it were up to me, the uniform issue A-2 would be just like it was in the 40s, sans the leather name tag and MAJCOM patch. Oh, and we'd be able to paint nose art on the back. Of course, I'm all for painting nose art on the jets, too, but that's beside the point. I'm even for bringing back pinks 'n' greens, along with the tucked-in tie, hehheh. The current-issue A-2 is different than the A-2 of the 40s, and as far as I can tell the changes were made with the Avirex contract of the late 90s. The original Cooper A-2s that were issued in the late 80s and early 90s were true to the wartime A-2 pattern. The one I was issued in '00 has three notable modifications: the neck closure hook has been eliminated, extra material has been added to the under-arm area (a popular Pop's Leather mod!), and the pockets have been subtly modified to allow the side-entry. I think the story of how the A-2 came back is pretty interesting. It's almost as amazing as the success of ACC Heritage Flight (which I expeted to fizzle and die after the 50th Anniversary in '97). https://www.afa.org/magazine/1993/0993jacket.asp

Hells yea

Good stuff, thank you!

You don't need to be rated to log hours. How do you think FAA student pilots become certificated pilots?? Gotta start somewhere. You can log every minute you fly in SUPT...you just have to be careful how you log PIC time there. Where you have to be careful is later on down the road when it's time to use your logbook to apply for an airline job, where the airlines will want you to only count PIC when you were the one who actually signed for the aircraft. That pretty much means that all your SUPT time is just going to count as total time.

Not necessarily true. First off, the electronic logbook (at least how I do it the Excel spreadsheet way) allows me to write as many comments as I want to. Hell, I can write an entire 'there I was' story in that section if I want to. In that way, I think it is MUCH MORE useable than a paper logbook. No, the paper log won't crash, but you also can't copy it or make a backup of it. I have my Excel logbook backed up in no less than three places, and I keep one of them on a thumb drive in my fire safe with scans of my other important documents on it. With respect to the interviewers, I've read many, many reports of guys who interviewed with the printouts from Logbook Pro and there were never any issues. In fact, for a military guy it helped as it was easier to add conversion times if needed to the electronic version that doing the math line-by-line in the paper log. I have used paper logbooks for the last 15 years that I've been a pilot, and only within the last two years have I really bought into the electronic logbook. It was a pain in the rectum to go add all that data in to the spreadsheet, but in the end the result has been more than worth it.

From the Logbook Pro demo that I used a couple years ago, you can break out your time any way you please. It's a database, really, not just a straight logbook.

I found it on the internet, actually, on some UK private pilot's website. I liked the way it looked and the tables/macros that were embedded, and modified it to meet my own needs. I added in stuff like NVG time, and turbine time, etc, that the original creator didn't have. Unfortunately the really great macros that the original maker had which calculated times and currencies were lost when I made my modifications and added numerous new aircraft types to the tables. You can download a version of my modified logbook here: https://airlinepilotcentral.com/resources/j...0061229169.html I'd really love to create an Excel version of the Jeppeson Pro Logbook, but unfortuantely I don't have that kind of spare time currently...anyone want to volunteer? Scans of the two sides of the pages are below...

I just use a simple Excel file on a thumb drive. This is what it looks like: Eventually I suppose I'll throw down the coin to get Logbook Pro, but in the mean time this works for me.