jazzdude

I think the AAR was supposed to be added in IFF with the T-X, mainly because they didn't want the first time a new F-22 or F-35 wingman to do AAR be solo. Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Easy 1000 hours TPIC, so now our helo bubbas can transition easier to the airlines if they want... Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

100% on UPT. An MWS FTU should not have to teach fundamental skills like filing/weather requirements, VFR/IFR navigation, and how to fly an instrument approach. FTU should only need to teach airframe specific differences/TTPs, or unique mission requirements (multiple alternates, departure alternates, ICAO procedures, tactics, etc). As an example, I saw many T-6 IPs essentially mission plan the entire student cross country for the student, or just fly direct everywhere. Sure, studs check the MIF containers, but miss out on the bigger mission planning and route study learning. Some of that's is not the fault of the stud, either, as often they'll double turn throughout the week with no opportunity to truly plan an off station weekend in the name of timeline. Sometimes they'll do weekend flying the week before to catch then up to go on the cross country push the following weekend. But that doesn't matter-only timeline and production matters. If pilots are forgetting basics after msn cert, then the IPs need to crack down on guys below standard. Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Not the standard that I've seen, nor for most of my sq based on their previous backgrounds from multiple airframes/afscs. Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Eh, everyone that comes to the sq wants to fight it, but it's just not worth the effort. Plus we do get taken care of pretty well: rental car(s) is out standard for tdy, gas for the rental car, multiple options of getting to the airport are reimbursed, fast turnaround on vouchers, will kick back your voucher or call and ask) if you miss things you should be reimbursed for that you might have forgotten to claim, etc. So most people just take pics of receipts as they get them to upload later, or just put whatever's missing on a lost receipt form. Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

I stand corrected then Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

That's just your RA being stingy with "their" money. Fairly certain I included the taxi from LAW to LTS way back when since it was specifically mentioned in the reporting instructions as a travel consideration, and since there was no gov contract rate CHS-LAW, it made for a comfortable travel budget (gas, decent hotels, and meals over 4 days/3 nights covered within the CTW) Not at a C-17 sq right now, but my current RA will kick back the CTW (and/or auth/voucher) if you forget the travel costs to/from the airport on either end, including taxis, rental car fuel, and tolls. But then again he wants all transportation related receipts, even if they are less than $75. Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

IIRC, both airlineapps and pilotcredentials (the 2 main airline application sites for most airlines) automatically adjust military time based on what the airline wants. You just tell it what time was military, and the number of sorties flown, and it does the math. Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Only thing I'd recommend keeping track of for your Air force flight time is when you sign for the jet, primarily if you go to a crew airplane. Some guys keep individual flight records (781s). I used mission histories, and when I do my annual records review, I get a personal copy and highlight the lines where I was the A code, and file it away. Then it all gets transcribed into my excel logbook to make the math and totals easier. Also, try to find someone you trust to walk you through your first flight records review after UPT. I found I was missing about 90 hours 6 years after the fact (my second and third trips in the C-17) when I first started to transcribe my flight records into excel. Fortunately, I had my mission histories from those trips still, and was able to get a correction made to my flight records. I still maintain my logbook, partially for airline apps, but also since it lets me document more than just time. Locations I went, people I flew with, interesting events that happened, etc. Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

IP signed off the recommendation on the previous dual grade sheet, and the briefing IP signs on the step chit. Stud signs for the jet on the DFO though. Initial solo was broken into 2 lines-IP signs for the dual line, stud for their initial solo line. I wish these penguins would fall off the iceberg already... Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

There are different definitions of PIC time. Essentially, "sole manipulator of controls" and "signed for the jet". Even if you had complex/high performance, you still only sign for the jet on your solos. Airlines want the latter (signed for the jet), so no real advantage to getting the endorsements prior to UPT. You'll only get maybe 8ish hours solo in the T-6, which you can log without the endorsements, though I think that number has shrunk. But for the purpose of FAA ratings, sole manipulator of controls generally suffices. Here, your AF primary time maps over 1 to 1. And we're just talking about ~80 hours: the other tracks (T-1/T-38) would require a type rating to log PIC (signed for the jet), though T-38 solo would still count. Edit to add: your UPT time counts towards your total time for the airlines anyways. Only AF time that doesn't count is other time.

The difference is that pilot production increased something like 30% per class with no additional resources already. Triple turns, flying on the weekend, etc. And now you get a pet project that eats up more time, with people that don't have the tools to make something good. This is exactly the kind of problem for the staff to solve, and if they can't, well, maybe we should rethink who goes to staff, or man then appropriately. (Side note, even the reduced T6 syllabus didn't come from staff, it came from a UPT base) The AF has access to human factors experts, software designers, and the ability to contact out to experts if needed. But no, lets not use those people, we'll just dump it on the line squadrons to figure it out. Don't get me wrong, I think it's an interesting learning tool. But is it really that much better than Microsoft flight sim or X plane? Or is VR just the new buzzword that everyone wants to jump on board with because it's new? Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Here's the point I'm trying to make. It doesn't matter who is sitting next to me in the jet or who is on my wing, I just want them to be well trained and proficient in the mission. Diversity doesn't matter there-I don't care as long as they can hack the mission. However, as a service, we should care about diversity because it helps expose cultural assumptions and blind spots, which can affect both retention and recruiting. Maybe people don't show up to the recruiters office because they just don't understand the military, or have misconceptions about military service. Or that there are many ways to serve as well as paths to service. I didn't find out about ROTC until my academy interviewer mentioned that as another path to become an officer and a pilot, and that was as an Army brat. Many civilians I've met are surprised that I'm a military pilot, since I wear glasses, as they thought you could only be a pilot with uncorrected 20/20 vision. It's also increasingly likely that prior have never met anybody in the military, and have no frame of reference for what it means to serve outside of what they see on the news or in media. So why not reach out to those people? If we are only bringing in one group of people within our recruiting pool, they WILL change the culture of our military, as they will bring with them cultural norms and biases with them. It'll be a slow change, but it will change. The environment people serve in is absolutely relevant to recruiting, and retention. It feeds into those conceptions about what military service is like. This also goes beyond just diversity. What I was getting at with my OPR comment is that they don't matter: if you aren't on the HPO list, you're probably not going to get very far, no matter what you do or how good you are. If you are on the list, well, just don't do anything to embarrass your sponsor. Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

So do we just accept the norms are there and do nothing to change them? What about integrating minorities into combat units in WWII? Or allowing female combat pilots? Just 2 examples of over coming social norms and the status quo. Like it or not, our military has been very progressive socially, especially in the last century. Yeah, because the OPR/EPR system is great at differentiating between people outside a bottom line strat, and there is no need for a secret decoder ring to figure out how everyone stacks up. Sent from my SM-T700 using Tapatalk

#1 is right on, for #2 I'd say it's inertia. It's why if you get enough smash that you can pitch up and do a bunch of aileron rolls in a row while flying more or less an arcing path. Centrifugal force is applicable to the oil/fuel systems, so as long as there's positive g, they should work fine. Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Eh, I'll throw you a bone. The shape of the airfoil, camber, is only one factor in lift. Trying to explain lift only with Bernoulli's equation is overly simplistic. A high lift wing is going to have that text book curved top, flat bottom, since it is designed to be efficient while flying upright. As others have mentioned, aerobatic wings tend to be symmetrical. So how do they generate lift with a symmetric wing? Angle of attack. A high lift wing could fly inverted, but it won't be very efficient, requiring a greater angle of attack than if it were upright. Maybe this inverted angle of attack required exceeds the critical AOA, resulting in stall and a plane that cannot maintain level inverted, or maybe not. The T6A at ~220 knots level has a pitch roughly at 0° to maintain level. Inverted level is roughly 15° nose up, which is held there with forward stick pressure. Also, more AOA means more induced drag, requiring more thrust to maintain level flight. Don't think of the horizontal stab as providing lift for inverted flight though, think of it as a mechanism to set your AOA regardless of whether you are upright or inverted. For a symmetric wing, the level AOA upright vs inverted would be very similar. Lift is almost solely based on AOA in these wings. There's your 2 cent overview of inverted flight. Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators is a good read if you want to nerd out on aerodynamics, or you can just push the "I believe" button. Now for some homework... 1) how do some airplanes fly knife edge (90° bank) and still maintain level flight? 2) is flying level inverted the same as passing through inverted in a loop or barrel roll? Or is there another force to consider?

Both the Roman and Mongolian empires has diverse militaries, and were successful in their times. The Tuskegee airmen proved African Americans can do more in the military than previously assumed. Maybe it doesn't make sense at a tactical level, say at a squadron, but matters at a strategic level. At the tactical level, we can train most people regardless of their background to be effective. However, are we missing a huge pool of potential recruits, and if so, why? Are then unintentional (hopefully we've routed out any intentional) biases that make for lower recruiting or promotion rates from certain groups? What about operating around the world, and being able to draw on people that have already been exposed to that culture and it's cultural assumptions for what they value to help guide strategy? It can be perceived as dangerous if the military is comprised of a small subset of the population, and could lead to a resentment between both groups (military vs civilian). People have long argued that like promotes like-what if there's an unintentional bias within leadership that holds back certain groups independent of their ability? It doesn't have to be overt, something as stupid as giving out small tasks that end up building trust in that subordinate that leads to other bigger opportunities. Even if you take race out of the mix, these biases can be frustrating. It's why it seems the people who do the Christmas party and AF Ball seem to get a leg up on strats and opportunities-it builds trust in their leadership that they can get things done, even if it has no bearing on the mission. And that trust is what leads to other more important responsibilities/opportunities, ahead of peers that might be better but have been given no opportunities to show their talent our build that trust with leadership. Military meritocracy is held up as a truth, but we all know at some level it's not really true. Luck and timing have a lot to do with a successful military career. If you're never given small opportunities to excel at, you're never given bigger responsibilities. That being said, I don't believe in quotas. But if there are large differences, one has to wonder why. Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

2-4 years is probably realistic... Figure 6-9 months to design/pick a new system, plus 3-6 months to test it, time to produce the replacement parts, and time to retrofit into the fleet. Plus any time required to get funding for all of that. Even swapping to O2 vice OBOGS would probably be along the same timelines. Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Yeah yeah, 75 kt touchdown speed landing flaps in the T6 (penguin it's still somehow on the iceberg). I'll compromise, doesn't need to be a checkride event, but should be at least introduced and taught, maybe to a fair MIF. The seat is great, until it isn't. Remember when the T6 seat sequencers were bad and FCP was probably going to be stuck in the jet with ISS-both? Good times. Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Yeah, 50 kts vs 200 into a farmer's field will have very different effects on survivability. But everything leading up to that is similar- maintain aircraft control, get on speed, and get the nose pointed to the best suitable location. It's the decision making process while flying, not necessarily just the ability to recover the jet if a stud is solo and has engine troubles. Didn't studs in the tweet have to fly single engine approaches and do 4 types of spins? Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Cool. Lets also cut aerobatics and formation too, since most pilots won't use those skills in their MWS. Also about half of the instrument phase, just add a couple more sims in place. Nav block can go away too, lets save money on TDY costs, just fly airways in the sim. On the heavy track? No need to solo. Landing at 50kts vs 200 is irrelevant, it's the mentality of being prepared to handle an emergency, especially since most will go on to aircraft where they won't have the option to eject/bailout. Take away ELPs, and in-jet EP training is practically nil (used to be 2 SSRs to do a non engine emergency, once in late contact and once in instruments). Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Also not an expert...But here it goes Vanguard's founder is a big believer in investing only in index funds, and vanguard waa one of the first companies to really do index funds. Freakonomics radio did a pretty good interview with Vanguard's founder https://freakonomics.com/podcast/stupidest-money/ If you look at (specifically) Vanguard's target retirement funds, what they are doing is adjusting the stocks vs bond ratio, and over time increasing the amount of bonds to reduce risk. But the underlying things it invests in are index funds. So it lets you put balancing risk on autopilot, with a target date to retire and be in a lower risk portfolio at retirement. My current split is about 50/50: about half in target/lifecycle funds, and half in index funds. That's across TSP, IRA, and brokerage accounts. My next step is to find a financial planner and adjust the mix between roth and traditional. My pilot math has me conservatively retiring in about the same tax bracket, so there's not a clear advantage to either. Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

We're cutting the fundamentals when it's cheap to train, and pushing it to the MWS, where there are competing priorities (like learning to employ your aircraft in combat vs basic airmanship skills). Hell, even Joe Schmo getting his PPL check does an emergency descent to landing. We've also cut VFR flying, and fundamental navigation skills (clock to map to ground), and now it's ORM high if you want to go fly a true visual low level without reference to the magenta line in my jet. The problem isn't near term. These studs will probably be fine, barring having to deal with a true emergency. In 5 years though, these students will be the IPs, and won't have the knowledge/experience to pass it on. Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Lots of skills in the ELP are being learned. Energy management. Effect of wind on groundtrack. Planning ahead and adjusting on the fly. Knowing where my nearest emergency field is and whether I can make it there while concentrating on other tasks. Handling an emergency with a definitive time limit (time doesn't stand still in the jet like in stand up). Plus, every jet has the possibility of becoming a glider, we should be giving our pilots at least some exposure to forced landing in UPT to build that foundation of airmanship. ELPs are pretty much the only exposure T-6 studs get to handling emergencies in the jet, and which lays the foundation for staying cool, calm, and collected when things start going downhill. By the same token, why teach aerobatics? Or spins? Most pilots will never do those maneuvers in their MWS. But there's value added in doing those maneuvers-again, understanding energy, looking outside while maneuvering, etc. But I've got a bigger chance of my C-17 turning into a glider and executing a forced landing than me needing to barrel roll or do a spin recovery. It's all about laying a solid airmanship foundation for future instructors to build upon, versus teaching anew in a more expensive jet. Sent from my SM-T700 using Tapatalk

That sounds correct. Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk