brwwg&b

https://www.ajc.com/news/breaking-military-aircraft-crashes-near-nellis-air-force-base/T2G5W3VW7BHXPEJMA37JNY6ZQA/ Story still developing

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a35865601/f-36-kingsnake-air-force-next-fighter-jet-concept/

They did, I think social media pressure actually got them off their asses... Though they don't seem to have an easily accessible high quality version. Seems like they wanted to make the correction quietly... looks like vipers to me

What about this do you think would be interesting? Is it that an 11F is more comfortable with higher risk? Or that an 11F is comfortable with risk because of increased measures to mitigate that risk?

https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=96258 I imagine they could follow the FAA rules.

Guess that's what a presidential pardon buys you these days.

Ok, yeah all fair points. So, I could see a fly only track basically having the branches - tactics, training, test, safety. I think you're right about having later than normal windows available for those who elect to go that path. So maybe target like a 10-11 year point for either getting to WIC, expecting multiple AETC tours sprinkled in, TPS, or like you said, FAA/NTSB for the safety types. Totally agree on the latter - that's a mindset which needs to be changed or removed.

They don't, because they don't care about that.

Yes. It fluctuates but averages around 38,000 a year. Roughly the same number of people who die in the U.S. from auto accidents annually. Yes, the line has to be drawn somewhere. Torqued, what's your line? The 200,000 you asserted as Prozacs line is ~5% of the U.S. annual birth rate, maybe that's a good reference? The problem with many of these arguments is that instead of a cost to society/humanity, many people only view it as a cost to self/surroundings. (i.e. their line is "1, but only if its me")

Unfortunately, that isn't true. https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2020/11/05/first-airman-a-texas-air-guardsman-dies-of-covid-19/

Yeah, this is where you're wrong.

This is certainly how Congress will see it - but maybe we are better about arguing for steady manning even during non-war periods...I doubt it, but it sure would help the laundry list of things plaguing the services' morale. My bet is on Flournoy

Or Option 2? Could've attempted, unsuccessful (in this case I mean partial/no initiation of sequence) and then ditch is now the previously undesirable Option 3. Not speculating, just talking general considerations.

Well, there's whats wrong with the AF for sure. Reactionary instead of proactive/preventative, and skirting blame where possible

Jazzdude, I said a cable and not a net for a reason. The likelihood of someone trying to land at TIK, having brake issues and deciding to go catch a net vs going to Tulsa (2x runways with cables) or just accepting landing on a long runway (Tinker) and hoping to stop on rollout while preserving the option to punch (an option that goes away if you're in the net) is too minimal...so for argument's sake, lets say END and SPS don't really help other than mutual support to each other. You missed where I was going with the TIK/TUL comparison. Yes, TUL has vipers - my point was if they need to hold a divert base for WX, its in their interest to have one with a cable. Fort Smith pulled their cables and I'm too lazy to do much more sleuthing to determine what other options they have - but I'd wager its few and far between. So, a WX divert to TIK, drop the gear and realize something isn't right = automatically punch in the scenario now. Maybe that's the cost of doing business, but I'll also wager they're considering that, carrying fuel reserve to at least trouble shoot if that happens, and therefore reducing training time. You and FLEA seem to have a better understanding of the inner workings of how airfield capabilities get decided / funded. I found that bit educational at least. Maybe the bobs are accepting the risk, so be it. I'll get back to that. I'm not arguing that you can find yourself in some shitty scenarios in a heavy as well. Your birds are far more costly and fewer in number, and aren't rolling off the line any longer...it's not surprising that your leadership would rather you focus on trying to race against time to get back on the ground vs just saying "f it I'm out" and riding the silk highway down. You're right that with tighter budgets, leadership is forced to make difficult decisions - I'm just hoping they are accurately weighing risk. If we are accepting higher risk at home to train, it better be for a good reason. I think the jury is out on that - similar to some of the same decisions we've seen regarding adjustments to training. To your last point, its likely blasphemy to say so, but I think low manning forcing under representation on the staff has hurt the 11F community in more ways than one

That makes the situation make more sense. Thanks for the transparency, FLEA.

I think you're confused

Your profile says you're at Charleston. Do you have cables? Do you know why? The original issue presented was a base commander making decisions at a base level, which might've contradicted "big AF"'s wants. Unknown if they made the decision to ask around before getting rid of the requirement, or if it was just missed by scrutinizing eyes beyond that location. Center the map around Tulsa and rethink whether the likelihood of events which could drive a divert to needing a cable (not a net) is worth maintaining a 100K/yr vs losing a 33+million dollar jet and buying risk at executing the seat option. Parachutes shouldn't be plan A, B, or C. (redundant engines, fuel/time, suitable fields all are limited to the pointy nose guys)

Pretty sure we've found a personnelist

2 of 3 correct on 2 different posts? Pretty sure that's a win by PA standards...

Not necessarily so. I've heard of AETC trained fighter bubbas showing up to MQT these days with about 60 hours pointy nose time

My suspicion is it wasn't an issue on the manufacturers part. The exact silhouette shown (depending on your browser / search engine) would often be the first response on a search of "fighter jet silhouette" The issue is laziness and a lack of effort from the Air Force Historians, Air Force Historical Research Agency, and The Institute of Heraldry. Each of which had a role in creating this propaganda...albeit, I suspect unintentionally. As Hacker said - their defending of the patch now is the larger issue. Like whining in a debrief. There should be no tolerance for defense of such ignorance.

AF Mortuary Affairs Patch Since it's been making the different group facebook pages this week...the fact this patch still exists as is, is appalling

Well, CDAWG didn't say go fill your gullet with anything you can find sprouting from the Earth. BTW, it is legal to grow hemlock.

What if the Growler MEZ pen'd? Are what if's open? On that note, I have noticed the younger Growler crowd is more willing to try "new shit" out and be the backpack. I'm glad they seem to be growing a pair.