Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

The community is kept overmanned for a reason. The C-17 community is one of a few kept overmanned on purpose - as the shock absorber for Predators and UPT assignments... No shit - straight from the assignment manager's mouth.

Interesting... So something like: Too many pilots in this UPT class, send them to the C-17. Not enough Predator pilots grab them from the C-17... or do you mean pull from the C-17 community for UPT assignments as IPs? Now that you mention it, I do recall quite a few dudes getting those assignments in the last 3-4 ears. And back in the old days, if you didn't make FP by a certain milestone, they would PCS you with 2 years on station to one of those assignments before you made AC (typically terrible for the career).

Of course the downfall of that plan is a larger number of 1st assignment flyers (read: less experience), and the most experienced guys kept out of cockpit. Seems to me that would lead to an increase of poor decision making in the air.. but I digress... Hopefully enough guys got picked for VSP leaving plenty of cockpits to fill for staff/3rd assignment bubbas.

Posted (edited)

The community is kept overmanned for a reason. The C-17 community is one of a few kept overmanned on purpose - as the shock absorber for Predators and UPT assignments... No shit - straight from the assignment manager's mouth.

But as a guy going to his 3rd flying assignment and rapidly approaching my gate month quota in the next 1.5 years, thats a valid concern as well.

Chuck

we are definitely overmanned according to AFPC. I got booted out of the C-17 as an IP to preds and I personally know more that were in the same boat.. C-17 as a community can easily absorb extra bodies

Edited by nrodgsxr
Posted

While I'm not exactly in a position to speak to the staff stuff, I have heard that the C-17 community is "overmanned." AFPC is apparently scaling back personnel allocations (loads and pilots alike), probably part of cost savings measures that are forcing the AF's hand. With the 3 EAS idea on the table and the VSP (the list is apparently out, haven't heard much about it) we need to keep as many butts in seats as we can.

We recently sent a couple guys to Scott, I'll see what they have to say.

What?!? 3 EASs? YGBFKM. Great, one more fricken EAS to fill. FYI, no one at CHS got the VSP. They'll probably get RIFd instead.

Posted

Interesting... So something like: Too many pilots in this UPT class, send them to the C-17. Not enough Predator pilots grab them from the C-17... or do you mean pull from the C-17 community for UPT assignments as IPs? Now that you mention it, I do recall quite a few dudes getting those assignments in the last 3-4 ears. And back in the old days, if you didn't make FP by a certain milestone, they would PCS you with 2 years on station to one of those assignments before you made AC (typically terrible for the career).

As in... "We keep the C-17 community intentionally overmanned to absorb the shock for the MAF in Predator and UPT IP assignments..."

Chuck

Posted

Just an OPSEC reminder for everyone, do NOT talk about any unclassified but critical information in these kinds of threads. Specific information on future deployment dates, locations, etc is NOT to be posted on this forum; and offenders will not be lightly tolerated. Abide by this rule (as well as the other two) or find yourself benched for a while! :bash:

And thanks to the 99.9% of you that already know and follow these guidelines, both here and in your squadrons. This is specifically for that 0.1% that still doesn't get it! :banghead:

Cheers! M2

Posted

The over manned percentage is about to climb even higher. Altus is increasing the number of PIQ classes by 30% in the fall. Source: Altus Sim Program Manager.

Keep in mind that AD won't see all that 30%, if it in fact exists. There are two, possibly three AFRES units converting to C-17's as well as another new customer, India, that all need training.

  • 1 month later...
Posted (edited)

I got one of the 6 C-17s that dropped at XL last week...not sure if that spike is part of the ramp-up that CHS17 was referring to. Anyways, I tried to join the C-17 Aircrew Study Group using the instructions on this page, but the Portal said that the CoP had been disabled. Something about it not being in compliance. Any idea how long it's been down, and if/when it's going to be available again? Thanks for any help/info you can offer.

Edited by GovernmentMan
Posted

I got one of the 6 C-17s that dropped at XL last week...not sure if that spike is part of the ramp-up that CHS17 was referring to. Anyways, I tried to join the C-17 Aircrew Study Group using the instructions on this page, but the Portal said that the CoP had been disabled. Something about it not being in compliance. Any idea how long it's been down, and if/when it's going to be available again? Thanks for any help/info you can offer.

Slow your roll buddy...you haven't even graduated yet! Get some gouge at KLTS from someone there, go to scooters, and don't suck. Congrats on the wings.

Posted

Fair 'nough. I have a feeling that between the 6 of us and the 4x KC-135 dudes (from XL alone), we're going to keep that Applebee's afloat well into FY12.

  • 5 months later...
Posted

I've heard Mcchord has started with 60 day deployments, is this true and if so what is the general consensus? Better than 4 months?

Posted

Revival.

I have heard rumors about Wright Patt looking for Active Duty IP's to help with the transition from the C-5. Anyone from the 89th AS on here that might be able to shed some light?

This is a little late and they just recently had a change of command but when I sat down with the previous 89th commander in December 2010 he said they were trying hard to get guys off AD.....he said they were in hiring mode because their UMD went from 50 to 75 pilots and alot of their dudes were getting ready to retire....they were hiring for the UPT studs and mid-level (IPs, ACs) to backfill the guys retiring........

  • 2 weeks later...
Posted

Saw this little gem on airforce-magazine.com

Might have to look under the archives for 22 Nov. No other details were offered.

Learning from Nature: Air Mobility Command, in partnership with Boeing and DARPA, recently completed "a number of experiments" focused on flight formation, said Air Force Chief Scientist Mark Maybury. Specifically, the experiments found that if the Air Force mimicked bird formations with certain aircraft fleets—in this case C-17 transports—it could save an average of 7 percent of fuel without adding stress to the pilot, the aircraft, or changing the mission, said Maybury during a roundtable discussion at last week's Military Reporters and Editors conference in Rosslyn, Va. "That's a short-term way to change your behavior to actually influence your energy bill," he said. "You might ask how many flights can we fly this way. Turns out, Air Mobility Command has looked at that and it may be as many as 50 percent, which is extraordinary."

I thought they looked at this, a few times, with many different airframes and no one was ever able to show true benefit... Anyone have any insight?

Posted

In a theoretical formation like this, how close do the aircraft have to be to each other to make a significant difference?

Posted

I've heard Mcchord has started with 60 day deployments, is this true and if so what is the general consensus? Better than 4 months?

This is true. The jury is still out on it though. It allows more flexibility as far as not having to send entire squadrons out the door. Since every squadron will have a few guys with alibis (weddings, upgrade class dates, etc) that get them out of deploying each of the other squadrons can backfill the the required bodies. It will end up meaning that guys that don't deploy with their squadron will just deploy with one of the others. The pain will come on the subsequent rotations.

Posted

it could save an average of 7 percent of fuel without adding stress to the pilot

Sure, flying fingertip in a C-17 doesn't add stress to the mission.

  • 2 weeks later...
Posted

wondering if any Travis guys out there could update on what life is like. Are Travis guys gone as much as/more/less than other bases? (other than, PACAF... I already know that's the place to be...)

Current Travis co-pilot here; PM sent.

Was hoping to find this same info, anyone willing to share?

Posted

Busy. Guys are getting their post-mission crew rest waived to go back on the road. Should be slowing down a little bit here soon though. Not sure what all the other C-17 bases are doing. I just flew CHS to TCM to pick up cargo, just to fly back east again. Seems like it would have made sense for the McChord guys to just bring it over... Fuel conservation, anyone?

  • 1 month later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...