jango220

"Well sir, the MESL doesn't say you need a radome or wingtip, so I think you should take it as-is..."

Yes, TPS qualifies as IDE in-res (36-2301, Table 4). Anyone feel free to correct me, but what I've been told by a couple current test pilots is that they will try to send you to an actual school if you are a school select, but otherwise you can request equivalency credit from the DT board. You would still have to do ACSC online in order to receive credit.

I have heard that the KC-135 sims are FAA level C+. It got brought up during a conversation since our Chief of Stan/Eval knows a guy who knows a guy who is a FAA examiner. Haven't been able to locate any of the sim cert paperwork that puts that into words, however. One of the issues that arose from that convo was that we wouldn't be able to use motion since non-aircrew/sim operators would be in there, so it would essentially be a red carpet sim. Don't know if that would be a showstopper for the FAA folks or not. For those that have actually done the checkride, is the profile essentially our "annual" I/Q profile with the addition of approach to stall and unusual attitudes?

I'm just going to leave this here.... https://www.bakersfieldcalifornian.com/opinion/community-voices/x722101500/Our-freedom-demands-service-total-commitment-to-just-cause

Not an easy video to watch. Who the hell has been talking to the media up there at Fairchild?

Par for the course over there. Besides the wing leadership and the ops group, the give-a-shit factor of everyone else on that base was near zero. Pretty surprising considering just how many Army guys transit thru there on a daily basis going to/from downrange, those guys are fighting a completely different war than everyone else on that base. It is always the Air Force guys transiting as singletons that get crapped on the most. Lost track of how many people I helped carry bags for as they dragged 6-9 bags through the snow from the pax terminal tent to Hotel California/Alaska areas.

The 3-3 for the tanker has EM diagrams in one of the appendices. I don't know if it is the same for the other MAF jets.

For some reason, us heavy guys are addicted to VHF. At the last red flag, it took 2-3 days to convince everyone else in the tanker group to use uniform at Nellis (and to also stop requesting engine start clearance, but I digress..). The freaking RJ guys used it the entire 3 weeks. Borderline dangerous to do so during the mass launch/recovery.

My T-6 flight IPs came up with an interesting way to break us of the "at this time" habit. If we ever said that phrase during a stand-up, they would stop you and say "not at this time, try again in 2 minutes." So you'd be standing there in an awkward silence, sweating bullets and waiting to talk again. Erased it from our vocab in a week.

I've been at Dover for the past couple days and it is definitely a USAF jet. Still sitting on the taxiway too. From what I've been told by the Base Ops / TA folks, that notam and notam M0256 are related..

Them them. Our community is going to hurt for a long time. The spoiler is no longer charged on most jets, pulling the handle would likely do nothing.

Tried doing that in the sim the other day (-135s), and it was a no-go. Our sim is apparently limited in what it can do for rapid CG shift. Basically tried to simulate a body tank check valve failure - a possibility with a MPRS or RT jet - with forward body gas moving aft, starting a ~26% CG moving to 40+ rapidly. Only way the sim instructor could attempt it was to move around the gas manually on his panel. For some reason the software couldn't keep up, it would freeze everything and retrim the sim.

Damnit. He form soloed me, really great IP. I'll never forget the debrief from the previous ride/brief for my solo: "Was your wingwork great? No! But it was safe. And that's why you're flying this next ride solo." Probably too early to know, but is the 96th setting anything up for Zach?

FAA Proposed Rule Change. From what I can track down, the approval is still being delayed, but looks like the writing is on the wall. They floated the idea of a "restricted" ATP for military fliers with at least 750 or 1000 hours, but I'd rather spend a couple hundred now on gouge and the test instead of hoping that we don't get screwed later. The rule change equates to 4 days of class and 4 days in the sim before you can even take the written, easily a few grand.

I thought I remember hearing a rumor that since the -46 will have a 787 cockpit, the crews would be eligible for both 767 & 787 type ratings. I guess that is still up to the FAA to determine, however.

NATO jet, so they handled the safety stuff as far as I know. Copy, tumbleweed. Most people in this thread do this AR stuff for a living, either as tanker or receiver (or both). Going in guns blazing with limited knowledge of that skill set isn't a smart idea. I like reading the dash one warning that says that flying two jets in close vertical proximity is unsafe.

McConnell only makes sense for the FTU if they put the AD squadron there too. Unless the DOD wants to do some weird dual 135/46 hybrid wing and convert 2 of the squadrons and 1 AMU to the new jet. My money is Altus for FTU, Fairchild for AD and Pease for ANG. It puts the jets on the coasts for coronets. Plus anything to stay away from Grand Forks... EDIT: That scenario also opens up the possibility of the 135 FTU moving out of Altus to McConnell as well

Aside from the AWB, one of the proposals that grinds my gears is the potential requirement for a NICS check for all transfers, including private parties face-to-face, in an attempt to get rid of the dreaded "gun show loophole." I'm not necessarily saying in general that it is a bad idea, because there are bad people out there trying to acquire weapons and that does need to be prevented. But the current system of only allowing FFLs to access the database, and subsequently charge people for what amounts to a phone call and a form puts a price tag on what the Constitution says is a right of the people. Now I'm not a big city lawyer type, and many people may disagree with this train of thought, but isn't that along the same line as a poll tax? It may not be the government collecting the fee, but you are still paying someone. There is some precedent with Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections of saying that the public shouldn't be charged for exercising a guaranteed right. Not a direct correlation, but still precedent. One solution could be to open up NICS to the common public, which would not necessarily be a bad idea.

Still not as bad as the awful rendition of "Hey Jude" that contained sounds of an exorcising demon at the end of each verse. Between these songs/poems and watching "Zero Dark Thirty," I've had more than enough SERE flashbacks this week.

From another site: That's news to me, I flew -14838 a couple times this past summer.

I'm sure the conversation went like this: Pyramid: Tnkr 69, turn north to avoid traffic. Traffic is a B-1, BRAA 360 at 15, co-altitude, tracking south, report in sight TCAS: *Climb, climb*

The problem is that a rewrite of the AFI is not going to change anything. There is simply no way to accurately track how much fuel is transferred between tankers and receivers without implementing some new hardware. How we do things now gets us close, i.e. within a few hundred pounds. The tankers need an accurate fuel panel and totalizer, and there needs to be something like a RFID chip that identifies each plane for fuel tracking purposes. Heck, I'd just like the fuel panel to match what the 781 shows how much fuel is actually loaded for once. Don't believe us about the totalizers? There are 2 tanker bases within driving distance of you (135s at Andrews and 135s/10s at McGuire). Talk in an official capacity with the guys who do this every day. Go fly with them and see the numbers on the fuel panels change the second you turn on pumps, and watch the copilot frantically try and keep track of it (my current job). See the inadequacies in the equipment, and see how we implement the system that is currently in place.

There was an ALO in my SERE class that swore by 'em. Said it was like wearing a pair of really tall sneakers. He wore them through the entire JTAC schoolhouse, i.e. wallowing through the swamps of northern FL, so they appear to be pretty durable.

Saw this gem back in June.

Was this from about this time last year? If it's the one I'm thinking of, the "in" time of 1930ish had the note of "on a Friday"