Jump to content

Arkbird

Registered User
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    190

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Arkbird

Recent Profile Visitors

6,155 profile views

Arkbird's Achievements

Flight Lead

Flight Lead (3/4)

107

Reputation

  1. Arkbird
    They made it seem like the T-6 was getting old and having maintenance issues to the point of making IPT a thing when I was at Columbus. Not sure if that's accurate but maintenance was always the focal point of why we had a class sitting for weeks.
  2. Arkbird
    PC-21 to PC-24 for heavy studs. PC-21 to T-7 for CAF studs. Makes the most sense and would be relatively easy to procure both. But the Air Force wants an "innovative" solution, not an actual solution that will produce favorable results equivalent to legacy UPT syllabus.
  3. Arkbird
    I was technically a Lt when I applied so I didn't have a lot of first hand leadership (RPA). I will say I had a lot of "first" in my package explaining how I was the first to do something. So it could be in how you frame your experiences as well.
  4. Arkbird
    Best way to do it in my opinion. Waiting sucks but not thinking about it makes it go by quicker.
  5. Arkbird
    Good luck everyone! When are you all expecting results?
  6. Arkbird
    I believe that's how it was done at least once the changes to UPT started being made initially. When I went through recently, you needed an event graded to a fair/good/excellent depending on the phase you were in plus every X amount of rides you had to reaccomplish that event. If you were good at some things and worse at others, you could spend fewer rides doing the stuff you were good at and move the amount of rides for that block to a different part that you were weaker on so you could get more experience and practicing with whatever it was that you sucked at.
  7. Arkbird
    432d used to have a policy of if your pcsm score wasn't 80 or higher, you wouldn't be able to apply. The year I applied they didn't have that so it's always hit or miss depending on the year and wing CC.
  8. Arkbird
    Honestly, this is how it's done in the C-17 community. Co-pilot non ACs can only PM assaults. Not say it's right but I can see AMC A3 looking at us and seeing that the 130 flow can become like that.
  9. Arkbird
    Can you say what aspects? I'm curious on how this compares to other MWSs
  10. Arkbird
    PC-21 to replace the T-6, PC-24 to replace the T-1, T-50, M-346, or any other proven advanced trainer to replace the T-38 would all be great but what AETC would say is that none of these solutions save the air force money. Something something our current UPT is producing the best and most capable pilots we've ever produced or whatever buzzwords they'd use.
  11. Arkbird
    Yeah they're making the heavy guys find out their ops unit after the FTU now. Recent change.
  12. Arkbird
    Doesn't japan also have KC-767s? Do they also use cameras or are they the old reliable boom pod?
  13. Arkbird
    Nah. I've had a buddy who dropped the 46 to Travis a year and a half ago.
  14. Arkbird
    https://www.aerocontact.com/public/img/aviaexpo/produits/catalogues/297/Pilatus-Aircraft-Ltd-PC-21-Brochure.pdf Looking at this PDF the PC-21 probably has all the avionics upgrades Borsight is going to be upgrading the T-6 to. I spot large MFDs, HUD, a mission computer, and probably a GPS that isn't from the early/mid 90s. Pilatus website even has some airframes with pylons for simulated weapons. Sounds like something the Air Force could use as a front line trainer and to bridge the gap for the fighter/bomber bros before T-38s/T-7s. Seems like a no brainer to me which is probably why the Air Force isn't going this direction.
  15. Arkbird
    This feels like another T-1 moment where by the time they update the avionics on the T-6, they're going to send them to the boneyard. They need to just start buying PC-21s and call it a day.
×
×
  • Create New...