Learjetter

Wow...I've been in 19 years and can't think of a single example of backstabbing that I've witnessed or heard of firsthand. If it's truly as pervasive as mentioned above, then I'm gonna have to rethink my naïveté...

There but for the Grace of God go I .....

Everything old is new again...

It's not my technique, it's SOP. Active duty lears are maintained to civil airworthiness standards and use some civil rules on the MX side. In this case, both sets of times (1.2 / 1.3 from the example above) are written on the 781H (using normal block and one of the engine cycle/weps load columns) and the special use block of the 781. In short, pilot/ARMS time gets calculated and logged per 11-401and jet time gets logged per TO and LAND times. Both totals get logged on the 781 and 781H and are checked by ARMS and MX and QA/CAMS. I'll stop now before everyone's bored to tears...probably too late.

Ok...obviously I'm not explaining this well...I'll try this again. If I takeoff at 1500z and land at 1609z I'll log a 1.2 on the 781h as aircraft time. On the 781, for pilot time, I'll log the takeoff time as 1500z and the landing time as 1614z, for a 1.3. So, for ARMS, per 11-401, we're logging the extra 5 min to account for taxi time. But flying hours and aircraft phases or time change items, we use aircraft time from the 781h, so we don't lose hours or sorties or change parts prematurely.

"2". I'll admit it, I spend WAY more time on barnstormers than any other site. And at work, sometimes too. Finding the right airplane is tough!

I must have mis-typed: the extra 5 min is logged on the 781. On the 781H, we log the actual TO to LAND time. So jet time for flight hours program and time change items etc. is taken from 781H, and pilot time for ARMS comes from the 781 with the extra 5 min added.

In the C-21, we log the extra 5 min on the 781, and log the actual time (TO to LAND) in the 781H. Keeps mx happy (for time change parts/inspection issues) and happy mx = better jets. Complies also with 11-401 logging rules, I believe. Flight hour program runs off 781 time, so no lost sorties. Thought everyone was doing it that way (sts).

Photos of said girlfriend would help us all give a better answer...

Actually, I'd like to see all the info from the AP/FD and IFR supp printed on the back of the airport diagram page, including the takeoff minima. Latest link to FAA DTPP: https://aeronav.faa.gov/index.asp?xml=aeronav/applications

Just FYI : AFFSA is quite "on board" with technology and the times...we flew the first JPALS approaches in 2007 and fly with EFBs regularly. And if you want EFBs or to go paperless in the cockpit, we've already told your MAJCOM how to do that. We brokered the Jepp echart deal, keep SDPs available and are trying mightily to get Jepps products improved so they can be more widely used in the Service. Of course, we also killed the fix-to-fix and are on board with the SGs rule about sunglasses...so your point is taken...

Having carried too many of the fallen out of OIF / OEF... I can only say I thank God I never witnessed a scene like what was described above....every mission was treated with the utmost respect by the receiving ground crew and even neighboring aircraft crews would line up and salute when the fallen were transloaded. Wish there were fewer of those in the logbook...and more folks like the author of the story above.

If it's a legit debt, how about just paying it back? Fly safe!

You have an ACLU subscription?

Fellas, I'm trying to ishow how this DUI prevention incident illustrates the command climate this guy fostered as described in the article. I never said I had a problem with the guy giving the tipsy folks a ride home. I have a problem with a Wing Commander (or any senior rater) who fosters a command climate as was described in the AF Times article: Exhibit A: deliberately hiding unfavorable information about a subordinate (lack of accountability). Exhibit B: Documented fraternization and inappropriate relationships with subordinates--no senior rater should be so familiar with subordinates that they text about non-official business. Exhibit c: Rating a subordinate based on favoritism rather than generally-accepted standards. The lesson is clear: the higher up the ladder you go, the more your decisions, and behavior, need to be based on facts and sound logic. I'm just saying that if you read the whole article, I think you'll come to the same conclusion I did. If not, then we'll just have to agree to disagree. For the record, I'm glad he prevented the DUI, but he should never have made his command vulnerable and put himself in that position, with his subordinates, in the first place. Fly Safe! Another Link to AF Times Article

The proof: "The lieutenant colonel’s decision to contact Orr demonstrated he had failed to maintain the appropriate relationship between commander and subordinates, according to the investigation’s findings." From the report. It's about letting your subordinate commanders lead and creating an environment where they lead their units in the direction you've tasked them to go. This isn't about preventing DUIs, it's about the guy's choices as the senior leader. He's a senior rater--with promotion/retention/OPR/EPR(discipline/career-making or breaking power--everyone under his command must believe he's impartial. Fostering a climate like he did destroyed his command.

The interesting part to me is that a Lt Col would call the WING CC for a ride home. There are very few Wing Staff positions that a Lt Col can hold and have their immediate boss be the Wing CC--most Lt Cols in a wing have an additional level of supervision (Group CC) between them and the wing king. The issue isn't that the guy is getting hammered for giving them a ride home, but because HE was SO FAMILIAR with a certain subordinate that SHE thought NOTHING of calling HIM for a ride. That's the issue, IMHO. Fly Safe!

Anyone ever hear of old-timer graybeards transitioning from fixed to rotary wing? Like, say, hypothetically, a guy w/18 yrs in, some 4500+ hours in five USAF fixed wing aircraft, wants to go to rucker and then fly hueys or blackhawks for a couple of years before he retires. Is there any gunpowder in that chili? If so, who does my hypothetical guy call to make it happen?

Try squadrontoys.com....or this link: https://tinyurl.com/3yjz3z2 Fly safe!

So it's an old video?

I heard an graybeard tell me once: If you don't have at least one Q3 on your 942, you're not flying enough. Don't sweat the small stuff and don't suck on the big stuff (sts).

$5 says the viper drivers get Q-3s...

Yes. If you have a good reason to read the reports, go see your local squadron/group Flight Safety Officer. He/She can access the report and you can read it. If you're not in, or associated with, the AF, then you'll need to file a Freedom Of Information Act request with Public Affairs. Have fun with that.

I commissioned in the early 90s: Lots of my classmates were sent to pilot training then "banked", and many of us ROTC guys were "recategorized"--given the opportunity to train in a different AFSC then attend pilot training at the 3 year of service point. Banked pilots wore wings but went from UPT to another training course (Mx, Wx, Aquisitions, Command Post, etc) until a training slot in their assigned MWS opened up. Another program was the KC-135 third pilot: getting sent to a -135 unit as a pilot, but not qualifying in the 135, but riding along as a third crewmember. Getting banked was generally preferred over recat. Most of us waited a year from commissioning to enter AD. Recat put us "behind" our classmates in terms of earning flight pay, upgrading to IP before our MAJ board, etc. But, gave us a perspective on other aspects of the Air Force. We liken it to doing our "career broadening" assignment first. PM for details. Fly safe!

How to get out of your 10 yr ADSC? Don't complete SOS, Don't sign up for Tuition Assistance, don't volunteer for anything, Fail the PT test 6-9 times in a row, don't get promoted to MAJ, lose (or purposefully fail to keep your medical qual), and request an ADSC waiver from SECAF. That's one way...