BQZip01

I stand corrected. I took what I found on the internet without checking it very carefully...

Thanks?

Just ran across this on YouTube and thought some of you might find it interesting (Warning: it's about an hour long) Oh, he also mentions Lanchester bombers when he means Lancaster bombers, but realize that the Lanchester was a civilian version of the same airplane; seems like an honest mistake.

I "loved" when the AF PT gear first came out (sts) and the sizes were completely jacked up. I wear either a L or XL in most running shorts, but in the AF line, I suddenly needed XXXXL (XXXL was too tight in the waist, but was fine otherwise. I couldn't even get XXL on). WTF? The small shorts would work only for supermodels with <20 inch waists and a L was only good for 30 inch waists. Really folks? why don't we stick with standard sizing instead of coming up with our own system. There's a reason you have an abundance of shorts that no one wants because no one can wear them!

Surely it can't be that much. "It will save money and is more efficient" is what we were told this would do (according to the AF Times)

1. You mentioned heavies and crashes. Without mentioning the C-17 crash at Elmendorf, you certainly alluded to it. Given the timing of your comments I think just about everyone here believes you were doing everything BUT mentioning it by name. 2. Single seat fighters recording stuff is fine by me, but heavies flying with 3 pilots/aircrew (or more) rarely need to record things because they have an extra set of eyeballs. You are absolutely correct in that recorders don't lie (most of the time), but integrating a recorder into a B-52 would be cost prohibitive just to make sure pilots aren't lying on a few low passes a year (I can't speak for other airframes). The B-52's systems aren't set up for computer monitoring the way your "gucci" jet is. 3. They might not push it if someone other than the CP and Safety are watching? Your ignorance is astounding. First of all, the job of the copilot isn't to watch, it is to pilot the aircraft. That may mean watching/handling the trim, controlling throttles (the BUFF isn't a "light stick", monitoring/calling out airspeeds, taking the jet if he has more SA than the pilot flying, and more. Flight engineers handle a host of other things as well. Let's not forget the other aircrew as well (navigators, electronic warfare officers, etc). ALL of them are on the crew and paying attention to what is going on. If the pilot steps out of line, he will hear about it. If he continues to do so, leadership will also hear about it. 4. Please tell me what B-52 crash could have been prevented by data recorder? If you are referring to CZAR 52, you are mistaken. There was ample video evidence, witnesses, substantiated complaints, etc to ground the guy. Bud Holland's recklessness was intentionally overlooked by leadership despite evidence that he was a danger to himself and others. It was a failure in leadership, not because of some damn recorder. 5. "Just saying the recorders don't lie ". No, you aren't. You are questioning our integrity. You want us to put a device in our aircraft "to make sure guys are not making shit up". Your words, not mine.

UFB

I'm BQZip01 and I support this message

1. Going through Comm isn't the problem. The problems stem from the unbelievable bureaucracy Congress and other agencies have placed upon them. 2. I agree that money could be better spent, but Congress allocates money to be used in certain ways. Unless Congress changes how money is allocated, this cannot change in any meaningful way. 3. I agree money cab be spent more wisely. I just wish Congress would make changes so we could do that.

1. The only way to prevent them is to eliminate flying altogether. 2. Airshow crashes are almost always routine accidents that, in the normal ops world, would be "simple" class A mishaps. The differences are "showing off", an audience, and often the lack of altitude to recover from a situation. 3. You cannot prevent accidents, but you can minimize risk. The level of risk is what we need to more firmly establish and then remove anything that falls above that level or mitigate it. I think that the demo teams need to be dedicated professionals, not "Hey Skippy, you just upgraded to Flight Lead. Wanna put on a show at Oshkosh?" The rest of the flying needs to be done in a manner consistent with day-to-day operations. A B-52 doing a 45 degree-banked turn at 1000 feet is pretty cool and is well within the day-to-day flight parameters of a BUFF. A B-52 doing crazy things it is never meant to do (i.e. CZAR 52 and Bud Holland) is NOT acceptable. All such flights need to be coordinated with/approved by Wing Safety. (let's leave the speculation about what happened in Alaska to the Safety Board) I believe most (if not all) U.S. military flying is done under these standards. We haven't had an Air Force-spectator fatality in quite some time (honestly can't remember the last time) and I think we are doing it right. I don't think the Navy & Army have the same standards, but I think hearing how they do it (sts) and their safety record would be valuable.

That only applies to tucked in shirts and reflective belts...when junior grade personnel are told to scream, "TEACHER, TEACHER, HE DOESN'T HAVE HIS BELT ON!!!"

I've got a "Tweet 10 Hours" patch that seems to crack everyone up, but AMC 0? nice touch.

Guys in our squadron have a similar patch of "PRT 100 missions" (Powder River Training complex). It's just a jab at monotony, folks. Lighten up. (BTW, it's owned by Ellsworth's B-1s, not the BUFFs...who would have called it something FAR cooler than "Powder River"...[/random insult at the Bones])

The only difference is that the inmates get generally better treatment, but I'm not sure I'd want one of their "conjugal" visits...

NICE!!! Glad to see it back!

I lived in a tent both tours even after the trailers were moved in... ...but I lived on the Ops Side about 100 ft from where I worked :-) Was worth it!

^^^ I support this effort! FYI, there used to be a base "paper" to vent this kind of frustration. It was along the lines of the onion with many things being intentionally taken out of context. Everyone had a laugh...until the Med Gp/CC (who rode a bicycle to work...and insisted on having a parking space and colonel's plates for it) had pictures of his bicycle taken with an inflatable sheep (you can guess the kind of sheep...) After that, the paper was canceled. I highly recommend coordinating efforts. Multiple people, especially officers, should get together and wear those black belts in a group and wait for some shoeclerk to stop them. Then when they do, you confront him/her, ask for THEIR name/rank and check THEIR uniforms over for violations (I guarantee there's a cable on it or some small hole/tear. Check the color/make of their shirts. If it isn't 100% cotton, light 'em up). Alternative: go through AFIthirtywhatever and pick out the singularly most unbelievable uniform combinations worn at the bare minimum of standards (such as PT gear with a jacket, boots, and a black watch cap) and repeat the above scenario. Bonus points for anyone who wears dress blues with the "bus driver" hat. Your ideas?

Or perhaps you aren't allowed to kill the enemy? No matter how tempting it might be to lace that shoeclerk's room with 30mm tracer rounds... I agree this isn't Patton and it isn't comparing the exact same thing, but there are parallels (more comparing apple trees to evergreens; they are both leaders in wartime) You are absolutely correct that he doesn't have to light someone up for such asinine things. But he also has to enforce orders and if shoeclerkish higher ups are demanding this kind of behavior from their subordinate leaders, there is little they can do without losing their jobs (perhaps that sacrifice might need to be made if it is the case). As for not "presenting an image", I call BS and Patton was the KING of presenting an image. He led from the front, said what he meant, and didn't care who he pissed off, but by the same token, he always presented himself as a professional. He was a prima donna nearly obsessed with showing up other generals with more pomp and circumstance. He always had a grand appearance. A commander may make a bad decision (i.e. to ground a jet to address people not tucking their shirts in while sleeping...), but it is still his decision to make even if it is a bad one. Commanders are people too and they make mistakes. Give him a chance to learn and he may turn out just fine. Well, I guess we will agree to disagree and I won't criticize someone for having an extra exec if they feel they need one. Like I said before, I used to work in a Group with four. I deployed to a Wing/pseudo-MAJCOM as the sole exec. I can easily see the workload being shared as a better alternative in some cases. Before you criticize someone, make sure you walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you criticize them, you're a mile away...and you have their shoes... So true. But I submit there is a happy medium. Leaders who will let you push the envelope and mess with leadership to boost morale.

news reporter: "Is there any real difference between the F-15 and the Raptor?"

I have no direct knowledge on the subject, however, I would caution you regarding this. You obviously aren't calling out any names, but here's a news article regarding said unit: http://www.bagram.afcent.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123208292 1. He has only been a group commander for a couple of months and while his actions might not seem to be in much context (and the first story above leaves me just aghast), take into account he may be trying to present a "tough guy image" and that he is not to be trifled with. General Patton did the same thing and he produced results "Hell, I don't want them to like me. I want them to fight!" 2. He's the group commander and, while he may be cutting down on fun and adversely affecting morale, he may be under orders to crack down on infractions. He isn't paid to be liked, but to be a commander. Anything he does affecting the mission is brought down on him and he has to answer as to why a mission didn't go. That's his prerogative. 3. Multiple execs isn't unusual even at large squadrons. I was an OG exec and we had 4 with two deputy commanders. 4. I find it amazing that anyone is being criticized for how they are dressed in the bathroom. When I was at an unnamed military school, that was one place that you could be out of uniform. The only other place was your room. If you want to have a small rebellion on the matter, make sure EVERYONE untucks their shirt when entering the bathroom, but tuck it back in before leaving. Next time you know he's going to be around, have a few guys take a shower fully clothed and walk by him (saluting of course) 5. A few batman reflective belts wouldn't hurt.

1. Welcome to the community 2. KMIB v KBAD is about 50/50 when averaged out, but that all depends on mission needs. Sometimes they need more up north/down south (sts) and the classes get skewed one way or the other. Even when standing up the 69th BS, they didn't really send more than 70% north. I'm not going to go into manning issues here. That information isn't necessarily classified, but I'm pretty sure it's kind of sensitive, so I'll err on the side of caution. 3. As with any airframe, you need to get into the books. As a nav/RN you are going to need to know all the specifics of a slew of weapons JDAM, WCMD, LGB, mines, "dumb" bombs, CALCM, ALCM, JASSM, etc plus all of your systems which were created piecemeal from decades of "how can we make this technology work in a BUFF?" The guys at the FTU will give you the information to set you up for success. Study hard, sts, and you'll probably do fine. 4. I too came into the BUFF community as a Capt. PM me and I'll give you my two cents.

From another country? Absolutely. It would likely be a series of explosions (it ain't a small base). From my math, the center of the runway at AUAB is 2 minutes and 14 seconds from Iranian airspace at Mach 2. However, I don't think any of us were thinking about a strike from Iran, but a terrorism attack where someone smuggled/drove a bomb onto the base; that is certainly a plausible option. 1. Canceling flight lines to fill sandbags is DUMB 2. Other than terror harassment, you won't see mortars at AUAB, they simply don't have the range 3. Iran is just stupid enough to try and lob a few missiles at AUAB just to see if they can get a reaction to justify an all-out war. Having those bunkers prepared is a good idea. Spending too much time on them and doing so at the detriment of more pressing matters is not.

...or conversely "I had to shit and didn't even have time to piss..." Reminds me of a time back in the summer of '05. We hear and extremely loud "BOOM!" Myself and other leadership run outside to try and figure out what is going on. In the distance on the horizon, we see a Mirage rapidly climb and bank into a turn. The guy just wanted to lay a sonic boom down on us. In retrospect, it was kind of cool... ...but I looked at every person out there (2 full bird colonels, 5 LTCs, a few majors...basically all the senior leadership) and realized NONE of us had bothered to grab our flak jackets or helmets. If we really had been under attack, I'm pretty sure we'd be toast.

Similar experience nearby to your location doing IFS out of the Eglin Aero Club. I was on my first syllabus sortie. After an hour of briefing/preflight, we took off, turned left before the apex, and climbed to the north up to pattern altitude. At 1200' I leveled the -172 and suddenly there was a loug bang followed by the engine making a "KACHUKACHUKACHU" sound. Given my mere minutes of instruction, I responded like any good rookie student would, "You have the airplane" My instructor happily took the controls, immediately turned left, and headed for one of Eglin's abandoned runways on the airfield (now just taxiways and unused pavement). Once we realized we were going to make the main runway, we changed our approach and landed straight ahead on the main rwy and shut it down. Didn't really have time to change our squawk or do anything else other than tell the Eglin Tower we were an emergency a/c and we were coming in to land. The mechanics and a few instructors/students drove out to meet us. When they opened up the engine, they found that the engine block had broken apart!

This is just a friendly reminder that nuclear warfare had its first of only two strikes on August 6th, 1945. This single event led to the cold war and the nuclear arms race with the Soviets. A toast to Tibbets and the Cold War warriors: