HiFlyer

Student or not? Makes a bit of a difference.

Yeah, well when it changed I was hip deep moving from HQ SAC to Osan in the recce business and didn't pay that much attention to the "reorg of the day". I think most of the crisis of the day chatter then was about McPeak's new non-uniform. Now its just a distant memory. And yes, I'm pretty proud of him for getting thru the process from OTS to FTU. Frankly, we both worked hard at it!!! He'll be a good asset for the Herc world.

Yeah, I'm old and forget that they gave Alaska away (to PACAF). He'll be a 36th guy, obviously.

PACAF's one and only Herc unit!

A non-fighter example...my son/C-130: Commission - Sep 09, then at UPT (counting casual, MFS, and IFS) late Sep 09 thru May 2011 and C-130 FTU thru Dec 2011, leave the Rock and take some leave and report to duty station the last couple of days of Jan 2012, six months to move in, get settled, and do the local checkout (assuming the stated six months) gives him an MR date of around late July/Aug 2012. That's pretty close to three years by my calendar. Even if he speeds up a month or two its more or less the same. Add another three months for OTS and its past three years TIS in his case.

The simple answer is no. While a rated board might score you slightly higher in the education sub-catagory for a highly desired technical degree, the overall impact of that on total score and selection would be miniscule. I know plenty of pilot selectes with non-tech degrees and engineering degrees. By the way, if there was any such issue, it would probably be for Computer Engineering majors, not Computer Science majors...the AF sees those as very different animals.

As an example, at one time not too far back (not sure about 2011), the National Guard was the single largest employer in the state of Mississippi. Maybe not largest employer of full time people, but largest employer, nevertheless. If you think the Congressmen and Senators from states like that (there are a fair number) are going to roll over and eliminate their constituents' jobs, I think you are very mistaken!

Not required. None of my son's were.

All these questions requre a detailed requirements review; what do you want the aircraft to do??? According to the last statements by the CSAF its an aircraft to be used in developing countries as a trainer, COIN, ISR, and possibly light strike aircraft. That means two seats for sure, weapons capable (but exact placement not specified), and sufficient electrical and engine power to do the job. I think the AT-6 meets the basic criteria, as do several other aircraft, but until the details are published, its hard to say. In the case of the AT-6, I think that is already designed into it (uprated from the basic T-6A).

It also depends on how you define the mission. I think Rainman is thinking of the "Light Attack" mission more in terms of an "A/OA-10-type mission with a little gun", in which case he's probably right. On the other hand, my comment is based on the mission as more of a FAC/observation/ISR surveilliance/training mission with some weapons delivery capability if required...more the Vietnam-like OV-10 + manned Reaper mission model, or a even weaponized MC-12W mission. In the latter scenario, having one's head stuck in a video screen from the MX-15 FMV ball for several hours as you track a single HVT through village streets or to see where he goes from compound to compound is not very practical for a single seat version. I think the term "Light Attack" is a term more suitably attached to the SOF mission concept that the Navy was working; if I was to describe the broader mission I heard discussed I think the term is not accurate. This is the capability statement from the AT-6B info, which was more along the broader mission definition... "...capable of performing missions including: net-centric ISR with the ability for precise geo-registration, streaming video and datalinks; light attack including combat search and rescue (CSAR), close air support, forward air control and convoy escort; homeland defence (border security), port security, and counter-narcotics operations; and civil missions such as disaster area reconnaissance, search and rescue, and firefighting." However, even in the PR material for the various platforms the crew complement is described as "Minimum Crew - one pilot in front seat". For some missions you can do very well with just the front seater.

If the AF actually gets these aircraft (current Senate draft cuts $140M out for this program) and they are used as initially proposed, I suspect that AFSOC may get some because a lot of the third world mission is related to their work. On the other hand, simple FMS actions, like replacing the old OV-10s/A-37s now in use in several countries (Indonesia, RP, Columbia, etc.) would probably not be an AFSOC mission.

Getting back to the original subject (Congress' current interest in Light Attack) I have to say that I'm kind of in the two-seat camp. Why do I think so? Because I've done all that. I've got over 250 combat mission flying the OV-10 in a COIN/CAS/light attack role. Sometimes by myself, sometimes with Army intel guys along, or Army SF guys wanting to check out an old camp to see its condition prior to a re-insertion, or locals flying as observers to point out inappropriate things on the ground back in the bush and speak the local language to units on the ground (things that should or shouldn't be there under the current conditions), or local commanders/ops officers trying to get a perspective of their AO from the FAC/CAS pilot's point of view. The fact is that we're not buying these for the AF to use in a primary CAS or air-to-air role...we're considering it as a SOF and foreign AF trainer/light attack/COIN aircraft, where we bring them in, teach the locals how to fly them, operate with them for a while, then mostly leave them when we go (except maybe for the hard core SOF missions). As an example, think of the F-5s in the 1970s, when the only USAF squadron was the training squadron at Williams (4441st TFS, I think), and the rest were owned by the locals and had USAF advisors/instructors flying with them as needed. The aircraft they are talking about will mostly be used as advance flying trainers/combat trainers, and in a COIN role. They will have weapons, when appropriate, but also an FMV ball like the Reaper, perhaps some basic SIGINT gear, and maybe some other ISR gear for tracking targets and learning the local "day in the life" routine. That's a two-man mission, plain and simple. Is the second guy valuable? For most of these missions, absolutely. He can be either the trained sensor operator when the mission requires it (CSO type guy or even an enlisted sensor operator like the Pred/Reaper uses), or a local observer to help identify specific cultural issues, or a US ground-pounder who can key you to specific details of a target area, or a fast mover crewmember flying along to see the details of what is on the ground (hard to do at 450kts and 15,000 feet). I'll let the rest of you fight the 1 or 2 seat fighter arguement..that's not my background...but for this mission, its handy to have another guy along to make all that magic stuff work.

Pat is one of the nicest, most humble guys you will ever meet. Very low key, but he's done it all and seen it all. One of the early U-2 guys, then one of the early SR guys.

Another way to put it: 1. None of those three is accurate. 2. Any amount of experience can be helpful. The operative word is "attitude"; if you think you can walk through the program because you have 100 or 1000 hours, or all the ratings the FAA offers, you're in for a terrible surprise. If you are willing to work hard, listen, and learn, you'll probably do well regardless of hours or ratings. Attitude is the key to success in most things, and especially in SUPT.

It doesn't need "service life extensions" in the conventional sense. The issues are more along the lines of cost and other operational issues. The AF position is that it will retire in 2015 and be replaced by the Global Hawk, but so far that hasn't gone smoothly. Congress (in about 2008) included language in the Defense bill that the SECDEF must show that the GH's capability will be as good as the U-2's before the AF can retire the U-2, and that hasn't happened yet. The latest Senate language for their version of the 2012 Defense bill also added this gem (quoted from the Senate public release): "Includes a provision that would prohibit the Secretary of the Air Force from taking any action regarding the retirement of the U-2 aircraft until the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics certifies to Congress that the operating and sustainment (O&S) costs for the Global Hawk aircraft are less than the O&S costs for the U-2 aircraft it is intended to replace. That has to be agreed to by the House in the Conference Committee before the final FY12 bill clears, but I wouldn't give up hope just yet...

Just for fun, here's an exerpt from the Senate's public release of their FY12 Defense budget language. Its not final...it has to go through the Conference Committee and get agreed to by the House, but its an interesting position: "Requires the Secretary of Defense to develop and implement a plan for the orderly transfer of the Air Force C-12 Liberty intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) aircraft to the Army."

I'd guess I'd be more concerned about the 450 potential depression/suicide candidates...

In my experience (which is a little dated now) I'd say it's unlikely that a few marks on one early check (if its a Q-1) will be a major issue, unless they become a trend over multiple checks. In my day, a pattern of such things might indicate an inattention to detail, which can become ugly in the deuce. Huggy is a little more up to date and can respond also, but I'd be surprised if its much different now.

Be smart about this. The PCSM add for flying hours is in blocks (0-5, 5.1-10, 10.1-20, etc.). If you are only flying to help the PCSM, don't fly 7 if you already have 5.2, etc. Carefully check the PCSM site to verify the blocks. Make sure a point or two is worth the money, and unless you fly enough to get to the next level, it's a total waste of money. Of course, if proficiency or getting to a PPL is the goal, then its a different matter.

Going? I'd say they were already pretty much gone as far as aviation reporting goes. I remember once at Beale in the 80s the local people called wanting base access to cover "the accident" and then accused us of covering up the "disaster" when they were denied. Apparently they were monitoring the base freqs and heard about the "crash". What actually happened (it took us a while to figure it out) was a tanker called in after landing that they had a flat tire, and a fire truck responded (per normal procedure in care the tire caught on fire) while they waited for the MX guys to change the tire. By the time I left Beale that time I had a dozen such stories. Everytime a new reporter got to an existing story, he/she had to pump it up a little to "expand" the coverage and justify the time (I suppose), and none of them know anything about airplanes. I was even personnally chastised by the media because I laughed at a reporter on one occasion. Of course, this was northern California, so that sort of explains it, I guess...

Here's how I see it... First of all, until some decision is made (i.e., you are DQ'd) there isn't anything to do. Second, you need to determine if there is some kind of "appeal" process within the AF medical community which you can exercise to have a DQ reviewed. If the process exists, and if you are DQ's, and if they choose not to use the appeal process, then a well documented letter to your Congressman's office (don't need a face to face) might get him (the Rep) to request that the AF look into the issue and have them reconsider the non-reconsideration (but still no guarantee the AF will either review it or qualify you). The key here will be to show the Representitive that there is a process, they didn't follow it, and you have other (probably civilian, at your expense) evidence that the AF's decision does not follow approved medical practice. That's a lot to expect, but that's probably what will have to happen. Using the Congressional chip is always a chancy situation. They ( the AF med people) can always decide to stonewall you because you stirred up and muddied the waters. You'd better have pretty solid evidence that their medical decision is incorrect according to the AF's own standard!

NO. But you can apply via an Active Duty Rated Board after 2 1/2 years in your first operational unit.

Go read Smokey's last post in the "Pilot Selection Process" topic. It covers a little of this. I don't think the RPA course is "harder" than the pilot or CSO course...in fact, it appears to be exactly the same course up to solo, and that's where most of the RPA people are having problems. After that it is certainly longer than either of the others, simply because it is essentially both courses tacked together. I really think that the basic problem is that most of the pilot students, and many of the CSO students, have been working towards flying for several years. They've thought about it, studied it, flown some or a lot of private time, and are somewhat more mentally prepared for the environment. I suspect the RPA group are less prepared (not their fault...the program is new). Many did not expect to fly, had not thought about it or taken much (any?) flying training, etc., and are approaching it from a somewhat more basic starting point. When faced with the rather intense nature of IFS, they just aren't progressing as fast. That is a problem because IFS is not designed to teach at the student's learning level, but expects the student to learn at the IFS level. They always preach that its a screening program to weed out people who can't contnd with the AETC flying training process. Maybe that attitude will have to be modified a little for the RPA program, making it a little more of a training program and a little less of a weeding process. Time will tell. When you set up something new like this you have to wing it a little at first to find out what works and what doesnt. That usually takes a year or two. If I was an RPA student and I could swing it financially, I think I'd hit my local airport and take a few flying lessons, trying to get at least up to "ready to solo" point. That's probably 6-10 flights, but even a couple would help. Focus on stalls, turns, airspeed control, climb/decent, and patterns. There is more to learn, but that should help you in the pre-solo training where most people appear to be having problems.

Actually, I doubt if it was actually the generators. As I understand it, the two generators are mounted on a single shelf with power delivered to it via some kind of power-takeoff (a shaft connecting the shelf to the engine gearbox?). It was probably the PTO system that failed. Presumably, that's why the third generator is connected via some other method, avoiding a single-point failure mode.

I suspect it is related to things other than the airframe (all that magic electrical stuff, for instance) but I may be wrong.