WeMeantWell

Welcome to the forums- Don't worry, your question won't be on your checkride... You may find a document somewhere that states, "pilots abilities decrease by x with x amount of time out of the cockpit or something to that effect". I doubt you will be able to find a logical link from scientific-based rational research to FAA or *gasp USAF regulations. If you do, I would venture to guess that the date of the document was well after the regulation was written (someone trying to justify a reason). Many moons ago, the regulations were written by groups of pilots, based on years of experience/experimenting/accidents/deaths/etc... and then someone that controls the money to pay for currency got involved, (Enter your own humorous reasoning/rationale (or lack of) for USAF/FAA guidance). I could imagine the rational is something like this: A new plane built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 351 knots. The pilot spins the VV knob instead of the IAS knob. The plane crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a new training currency requirement? Take the number of planes in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of another pilot screwing up, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a new training currency requirement, we don't do one. ... Of course, I think that gives too much credit, it is probably more like: Experienced Pilot says, "Pilots need to fly x things in y days" Leadership dude climbing the ranks with no concern for anyone else's bottom line but his own, and whoever's he needs to take care of to get further up the ranks; and who could not tell you how many engines a glider has, says, "Well, don't they have an autopilot or something?", etc, etc... Is this research for something? Give us a little more insight and we might be able to point you in a better direction...

Two. By going the TPS route, or PhD route you are becoming a depth/technical expert versus a breadth/military expert. This can and has limited advancement opportunities (not saying it is a bad track) past, lets say, Lt Col (I know a few passed over Majors that are TPS grads). Yes, it is possible to continue up the ranks, but requires much more effort to regain the breadth needed to advance. If you want a PhD, the pilot track is not the best option... but not impossible. Work your way to AFMC/TPS/AFRL/Academy, some of these are more painful/difficult to get than others. As Learjetter said, best to be at least an IP, it has become difficult to become one after leaving the traditional "Ops" path.

Flash cards are the only way for the vocab, you will have a stack of about 500 words to go through, but will definetly help your score (I preped in 2 weeks), and then you flush it just as fast. If anything, practice the math test at least a few times, if only to get the timing down... Because of the question selection (next question based on how well you are doing), you have to focus on the first questions. You also have to make sure you answer all the questions, if only to "guess" an answer... the worse questions to miss are the first one, the best ones to miss are the last ones, but do not leave any blank, that is worse. Doesn't matter, something that interests you. A lot of the satellites offices only offer a few specializations, typically safety is avaiable I think... I tried to work a human factors specilization, but Chuck-Town did not have teachers to teach enough of those classes, a big problem if you PCS before finishing. Choose a "safe" route...

Agreed, the mission to accomplish at an airshow IS safe operations; anytime a higher-than-normal risk mission is happening, that should be his top priority... They are not that "routine" and they warrant the extra attention. Obviously it is not just CYA for him, but responsibility of national assests: the aircrew and the plane.

Interesting thought, I have witnessed myself and others make illogical decisions many a times. I don't see it as a defect, but, just human. Every Aviator knows there about 1,000 things that might kill us at any one instance and 10x as many rules governing those things; and somehow we prioritize them and make very important decisions continuously. How many jobs require you to apply the knowledge of an encyclopedia continuously? The entire reason we make airplanes more automated is because we aren't as good as we think we are. The reasons we train, practice, and take checkrides, is because we sometimes forget those priorities. What I think happens to aviators is they "get away with it", for some period of time, or they hear about someone else "getting away with it". (15+years the AF was flying the jet without a flying death/Hull loss? only 2 ground deaths I think?). I don't think it comes down to arrogance, or superior-ness to physics, I think it is logical, rational-thought. If I do something and don't get burned, not much going to stop me from doing it again. I think it starts with small-rules and builds, "hey I forgot my 3-hour out call (dating myself I am sure), but I didn't get in trouble... guess we don't have to worry about that anymore" and then it grows... "last time we pulled the GPWS circuit breaker and everything was fine". I think some people fly something once and believe it to be safe, or they hear about someone's exagerations at a bar. Even though all the rules, law, and physics are there making it dangerous. FWIW, my little experience with Airshows (been awhile), the OG/CC better know what is going on. I remember trying to fly a Demo and had to bring all the regs governing it to his office; we sat down and went over all of them, completely, then we called A3V to make sure we had it right. We then mapped out a training plan, a certification plan and ultimately a ride-along with him or his deputy... We (He) found a lot of things that were being done wrong and (He)fixed the process. The OG/CC knew it was HIS butt on the line and he had to have complete trust we wouldn't bone it. Knowing we had to fly it with him got us on our A-game. Been a few years, but I think max bank was 45? I went to like 48 for a few seconds... He de-briefed me for like 10 minutes later on it. If he doesn't have the time to make a Demo HIS top priority, then he shouldn't let one happen. Hopefully we can all learn from and remember this, this culture will repeat itself...again... sooner than you think.

Thanks, thought so, but thought I would ask. That will be tough to burn 45 days in about 6 months (Still in school until March)... I guess I better write Congress. Not to match my plight with those that are not getting leave because of their deployment/location, but "not permitted to take leave" seems pretty straight forward, regardless of cause.

2 quick questions... I lost 30 days leave because I was in "school" and not permitted to use any leave. Is there any way to get that back, or am I SOL? Second, I believe the 75 day carryover ends on 31 Dec of this year, how will that be implemented? I have 80 days right now (had 105 before the end of the fiscal and acrued 5 more since)... will I lose another 15 at the end of the year? Thanks!

Late to the game, thoughts to take it a little deeper (sts): Purpose of the Airshow? Recruitment? Re-assurance to the people of the power defending them? Make lots of noise, piss off more people then you impress? Recruitment-Airshows are generally not recruiting the 18-21 year old, they are recruiting the 5-10 year olds (so, yes we need to keep doing them, even though we are doing good with recruitment now) What's the best recruitment of 5-10 year olds, fly a "safe" and "representative of your plane" couple of passes, take a picture of your plane, sign it, give it to the kid, then show him around the plane... some Demo pilots/crews do this, many do not. Why does AMC spend $100,000+ of money on your training, travel to, performance at, and travel back from an airshow to recruit and give you (as I recall, maybe different now) absolutely no help in/no chance at any recruiting... Would $200 in pictures and patches really impact your budget... (well yes, it comes from another pot of $$!) The point: Airshows are awesome, they accomplish much more than just recruitment, the problem is many (typically not the dedicated teams) are just done to be done. The MAJCOMs that authorize them need to decide exactly what they are to accomplish and provide support. I thought the AMC process to upgrade pilots and the actual profile was generally well thought out, I never felt the need to "push" anything, but, maybe "rush" things, and generally I tried not to. The Airshow is all about timing, you must go on time, so the headline act can go on time... I always thought growing up when watching airshows that when the performer "knocks it off" and resets, like a go-around or something, it actually gives them credibility that it is difficult what they are doing, and I never thought anything about it as a kid... a kid (and 99.999% of the public) has no idea the difference between most of the aircraft or their performance. They know small jet->loud engine, fly fast, do loops, big jet-slow moving, wow, how does it fly? beyond that, you aren't really impressing anyone.

Something to consider: multiple squadron bases versus single squadron bases. You can be a big fish in a small pond or fight and claw to be a mediocre fish in a big pond... Do Charleston or McChord your first assignment to get the AD stink on ya, when your OPRs don't mean diddley, and no one cares if you ran the change of command cermony or not(Plus you will be at Altus for training a lot during your first assignment)... Then get to a single Sqd locale and put in above average work/hours and kiss A$$ for a year or two; guranteed Major and if you really want (and work for it) ACSC in-res. Regardless if you want to stay in or not, you will have a lot more options and won't be competing with 3 other squadrons of dudes, doing the exact same job, in the exact same plane, in your same year group. Even though you might be competing with other airframes at the other bases, it isn't the same. If you want to make it a career, you HAVE to go through Charleston or McChord at some point, and if you want to make it past LtC, 2x... you might make it by going through Altus at some point if you didn't make it to those 2, but it might be tougher... (obviously I am speaking generalities, everyone has an exception to that I am sure). If career/rank is not a motivator then choose on lifestyle, the "look at me, I got this pretty plane and this location" wears off in about 6 months, and then your are stuck with it.

Them must be some Magic Pants! Do they have a girdle in them? To make it in the heavy world you need to add a few inches to be respected, unless you want to be a Sq/CC then you can stay skinny.

FWIW, I have heard enough "Stories"... If you shouldn't fly with it, then you shouldn't fly with it. If it is a semi-illogical rule then you have a better chance. Gearmonkey gave you the documents to make it happen, now it is up to you to decide how much red-tape "pain" you are willing to deal with. If this is what you want and blood, sweat, and tears are worth it, then get with your recruiter, have him find someone you can work with (or the recruiter himself) put together those documents, make yourself look like someone worth fighting for, you paperwork better show that you walk on water and the AF would be silly to pass on you. Call every day, visit in person when you can, type as much of the documents up as you can and have them forward them up (any AF office knows what a SSS is, and the routing is simple, straight up the chain) No one cares about this 1% of what you care about it, so they will not lift a finger for you, unless you give them the tools to help you. Tell them, this is how it is done, lets make it happen, instead of "How do I do it?"... That all being said, it is a gamble of your time, unless you truely walk on water... from many stories, you don't mess around with ear, nose, and throat problems when you fly airplanes, the pain you receive is not worth it. Ask your doc to take them out if he thinks it is justified, let them heal and then re-apply... The worse thing about the military is no one person knows all the rules, the best thing about the military is no one person knows all the rules, so you keep asking until someone gives you an answer you like.

I ruptured my disk and was in shear pain for about 6-8 weeks, Physical therapy was good, traction was even better. The pain was so bad, I wanted surgery by week 2, luckily a good nerosurgeon told me to wait about 4-6 weeks and see how I felt... I woke up one morning and I was fine, almost 1.5 years later and haven't had that level of pain again. A few weeks, here and there, of aches and such but that is normal as your spine re-adjusts to loss of the nucleus. As for flying, they told my 90 days symptom free to submit the waiver, took about 3 weeks to get approved. So from the incident to flying again, I would guess about 6 months. My lessons learned: this sounds terrible, but, I should of waited and not seen the fltdoc... or I should of let it go with them telling me it was back spasms and "here is your 800mg of ibuprofen". What I definetly shouldn't have done was had an MRI. I was trying to fly ejection seat aircraft and the waiver you want will be a FC II waiver, "limited to non-ejection seat aircraft", which should not be difficult as long as (key words here to say to the flt doc) "you are symptom free", even if you think its aching a little, don't even bring it up. Especially do not use the words "it feels numb" or "tingly" or "can't grasp a pencil" etc.... Long story, but 5 FSOs told me to pound sand, I got my waiver denied 4 times (or "approved" for only non-ejection seat acft), and it took almost 2 years... but I finally got an unrestricted FC II waiver, with a cervical ruptured disk. With an L1 problem it should be even easier.

nice, this road might get ugly, but it might be fun.

We poop bigger than you.

Agreed. I hope he coordinated these actions with France, Britain, Australia, Ugubuta, etc... otherwise that would be, gasp*, unilateral!

pardon my foolishness to get back on topic, I will place a disclaimer before my drivel from now on The plane can also do LAPES, doesn't mean it should. A capability shouldn't drive AF policy (HA!). A good example of a solution looking for a problem. I would be willing to guess that a considerable amount of the research and testing being done to expand the C-17s capabilities is to keep selling the plane to Congress, the administration, and other countries. I was looking at the shear economics of it, yes it is a very amazing capability and has been used very effectively (same with LAPES); but when a maintenance officer wants to declare a class B because an antennae rips off the bottom of the acft, you have a problem with continued operations. How can you justify the cost (not just to antennaes, but to tires, brakes, cooling system, avionics, ...what about blade damage?) on the C-17 to go into "real" dirt, it just doesn't make sense on a routine basis... I bet the cost from one FOD ingestion on a C-17 would have paid for 10 C-130 sorties. Now, if it is matted, solid ground (no ruts), enough MHE to handle the C-17, and a "genuine" need (not, my Wing/CC doesn't have a silver star type need), then why not. I think we are in for unprecedented changes to financial budgets, the C-17 is being rode hard and put away wet, we need to save them for its most efficient uses... I don't think busting antennaes, gear doors, and tires is the most efficient. Effective sometimes, yes, not effecient. Airdrop is the future for both platforms, we have a ways to go to be efficient at it.

I think "pencil-dick" should be hyphenated, I am not sure if pencil refers to peons or dicks? pls clarify. BTW, "Who's scruffy looking?" I thought they were "our" core values and creed? You must not like them? Either way, I have never seen this happen in any flight planning room. Both planes rock and have far outsurpassed any expectations, unfortunately the C-17 costs a freaking lot of money...I wonder if any great FGO has done research on the cost between the 2 (cost per tonnage per mile, short range versus long range). They do make a nice blended solution, with both being able to partially complete the others mission. C-17 focus on long legs, but when a lot has to be moved over a short distance/to a short field it can fill in, however inefficiently that might be; and the C-130 can definetly move farther distances if need be. It will be interesting what shakes out when we are done in the east (yes we will be done, with the economy as it is, 5 years?) if the C-17 will go the way of the gucci-boy life style... I would guess we will see the end of the C-17 on dirt strips, just not economically pheasible... If you really want to find a good dividing point, it is probably airdrop, C-130 pilots are bred to fly airdrop, the C-17... not so much. The plane has the capabilities but the training costs are astronomical and therefore "most" C-17 pilots, frankly, suck at it. Once they get good they are off to ACSC and staff. I would like to see a single ship AD qual, mainly for high altitude stuff...

He can do no wrong. Just wait, it will wear off....

Thanks for elaborating on what you believe to be "cool" airplanes, by specifically naming 2, you immediately alienated every other operator out there, good job with that. I think you will find it difficult to find anyone with experience in an airframe they love. I personally like the airplanes that the Civil Air Patrol fly. They are super fast, have lots of good air conditioning, and radios that are spot on... and they almost never crash, and when they do, you just have to climb out of the power wires, most of the AF cool airframes are not mistake friendly... Did I mention that hooters girls work at every FBO and love to hang out with CAP guys, they even get to progress through the rank system like a candy store, what could be better? I think you might be a little too much of a hard charger for the AF, this might be a better path for you.

Not to worry, I have it on good authority that the war will be over soon. If you haven't heard, we're broke.

yeah, I was... I think the job sucks, and I will be the first to admit that being an evalutor these days is not what it used to be. 10 years ago when squadrons were full of FGOs and a captain evaluator was unheard of; the evaluators had a crap load of experience, and could make those calls, because they had seen everything... I honestly felt experienced enough to be a great first pilot, definetly not an EP. I would of turned it down, had I not known who the next couple of choices were. Now you have young bucks (like me probably) that feel that knowing some bullsh!t line from some obscure reg actually means a hill of beans if you can't put iron in the air, bombs on target, or get/give the gas. Both Q-2s should of been Q-3s and I didn't have the balls at the time to take out 2 fellow EPs (ridicule all you want...). I saw Q-2s the other way, did they just screw it up, or do they have to go learn it and be evaluated again...

Flunked Mid-Phase: Failed to center the rudder peddals before recovering from the spin...WTF? If you reverse them, they have to center at some point right? I guess I needed to pause at center... australian exchange pilot on his finny flt, I thought I had it made... The funny thing is, that is the only thing I remember from pilot training, and if I ever intentionally put myself into a spin again, I will definetly remember how to get out That being said, IMHO, a 'genuine' hooked checkride sometime in your career, very well might save you life one day... that was the attitude I always took with giving evals, 'will Q-3ing this person save their life?' or will it just make them look bad... Sometimes your hands are tied and you can't have them telling everyone they passed wtih what they did ... other times they need a slap in the face that lets them know, flying aint a 'walk in the park Kazansky'... I gave 2 Q-3s and 2 Q-2s, and after a cooling off period, I am friends with all of them.

Oh, I don't Hate, I love it and can't wait for my chance...

Unfortunately, the changing situation is so complex, that once a program is designed to address 'everything', everyone loses flexibility. I bet things worked great before computers. Pucks on a board is great way to schedule, because the program is a 'human'. Every other program is a compatability or interface program between humans. Yes, there are tools that help us, but none great enough to handle the dynamics of the military. A program like yours is used everywhere, UPS, Fedex, for Logistics, etc, the problem is, one day FedEx is going to decide to move everything via motorcycle, because that would be financialy ridiculous... the military doesn't care, if that is an effective way to move crap, the cost be damned. I think you really have to limit the scope of this to make it work. (just check the box and come see how it really is)

Usually a multi-tiered approach, X number of pilots, WSOs, navigators, engineers, loadmasters, need X number of currency events. From historical analysis, approx # of currency events/sortie drives total # of sorties per quarter. Each base is alloted an amount of flying hours/year to fit this all in. From there, the needs of the Sqds are looked at, who is deploying, who needs more hours, who has a lot of upgrades or un-current people, etc. Then the Scheduler in each squadron takes an insane amount of input from everyone (availability, currency needs, wifes menstrual cycle, etc) and poops out a schedule. Some sqds are good, in AMC the best is about 4-5 days advance notice, but typically its 1-2 days notice. However, other communities have users that create a demand, everyone needs a tanker, so they have to fly extra if they are done with their currency, something to do with a horse blanket. Many have tried advance planning, but is just not realistic in our ops tempo.