Airlift and Air Refueling Squadrons

[Dead Last]

Here's what the glass will look like:

I know its not G-14 Classified, but nice OPSEC bro.

Sh!t I'd kill for a decent flight director and FMS as opposed to our POS SCNS that we currently and will probably have for years to come...

[JarheadBoom]

And now we really know what happened to the C-130 AMP program...

un-f'n-believable

There's only 59 KC-10s. How many hundreds of C-130s would be getting AMPd?

One KC-10 was actually modded and flown with glass in the early 2000s. The program $$$$ got canxd, the aircraft was de-configured back to the original steam gauges, and (according to a few crewchiefs I've talked to) has been a COM/NAV, GAC, Electrics nightmare ever since.

Techsan:

Nice pics. Did they make T-255 a KDC-10 yet, or is it still a DC-10? Pics of it from Jan. '09 show no boom installed...

[PirateAF]

You want a peek inside the life of a KC-10 pilot?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1q_WDX2Ilhc

(disclaimed: I'm sure this has been posted on baseops before)

[Guest CharlieDontSurf]

Sh!t I'd kill for a decent flight director and FMS as opposed to our POS SCNS that we currently and will probably have for years to come...

2

or they could have given us H3's instead of letting the guard bums keep 'em.

[Techsan]

One KC-10 was actually modded and flown with glass in the early 2000s. The program $$$$ got canxd, the aircraft was de-configured back to the original steam gauges, and (according to a few crewchiefs I've talked to) has been a COM/NAV, GAC, Electrics nightmare ever since.

Ahh, yes, tail 1950. Her and I go way back. She tried her best to do us in one night over Asscrackistan. Ended up a class B. We're cool now though.

[Karl Hungus]

AMC/CC said at Q&A yesterday that they're moving forward with KC-10 cockpit upgrades and should start them next spring. Right. Said they have to since the -10 will be around til 2040. Right. Said don't expect any decrease in deployment/ TDY rates because they'd just have to fill the spots with -135s. SQ/CCs seem to be pushing for whole squadron deployments, we'll see.

[JS]

You want a peek inside the life of a KC-10 pilot?

https://www.youtube.c...h?v=1q_WDX2Ilhc

(disclaimed: I'm sure this has been posted on baseops before)

Probably the 10th time I watched that, and I still clicked on it and watched it in its entirety. Totally hilarious - plus it took a lot of talent. My favorite part is the end when they call out all of the green-suiters back home.

[Jimmy.The.Engineer]

2

or they could have given us H3's instead of letting the guard bums keep 'em.

Now you know that's right. The H3 was the mature version of a proven concept. I see your H3 and raise you: H3 with 8 blades. Yeah, a little pee came out, when I wrote that.

[Guest Sweatie311]

Now you know that's right. The H3 was the mature version of a proven concept. I see your H3 and raise you: H3 with 8 blades. Yeah, a little pee came out, when I wrote that.

You and 8 bladed props...all I can say is the back of the plane is the same, but it gets cold now! Very COLD!

[kapilot]

The 135 gets a 707 type.

At what point does that happen at? After you finish Altus right out of UPT, or after you become an AC. To get this type on your ticket what do you have to do? Is it a simple visit to the local FSDO or is more involved? Is it the same for the BE400 and MU300 for the T1 guys?

Edited September 10, 2009 by kapilot

[Hammer]

After you get a form 8 from Altus you just bring a copy to the FSDO. Same thing you do for the 400 add on.

Edited September 11, 2009 by snizz

[Bergman]

After you get a form 8 from Altus you just bring a copy to the FSDO. Same thing you do for the 400 add on.

I would call ahead to the FSDO. From the stories I have heard, different locations wanted additional paperwork.

Beyond the type rating, all you need is 1000 hours as an AC, a walk-in to FedEx, and you're good-to-go...

[Hammer]

I would call ahead to the FSDO.

Absolutely. A few guys tried to show up to the OKC office and were sent away because they had weird hours like only 1 day a week. Make an appointment.

Edited September 15, 2009 by snizz

[kapilot]

I'm still a ways off from being at this point but I will remember to make an appointment when I get there. Thanks for the input. Heck who knows maybe we'll all get 777 types.... (sarcasm)

[Techsan]

Just thought I'd post this pic here. Taken last month out here on the left coast...

[Guest Nike]

Hey all,

I was wondering what you guys thought some pros and cons of being in an Airlift Squadron opposed to an Air Refueling Squadron were. I am looking towards that division of the air force, but I dont exactly know which one to pick

IMHO:

#1 priority in choosing a heavy airplane: Does it have an engineer?

-engineers are great, they warm the plane up (or cool it down) for you before you even arrive,

they do the forms, smack around the crew chief, and brow beat the on-ground transient alert people for you

did I mention the walk around (or lack thereof?)

#2: Does it require air-stairs

Ok, if it is heavy - its gonna be tall, so if you have some vertical rope/ladder contraption required for you to egress (or just get out) - it could be a pain, the big thing here to ask: how do you bag drag up a ladder? KC-10's are great, but moving bags up that ladder...sheesh...

-choose wisely-

JP

[Guest BZ]

"#1 priority in choosing a heavy airplane: Does it have an engineer?

-engineers are great, they warm the plane up (or cool it down) for you before you even arrive,

they do the forms, smack around the crew chief, and brow beat the on-ground transient alert people for you

did I mention the walk around (or lack thereof?)"

Nike,

respectfully you couldnt be more wrong. The best thing about the C-17 is the lack of an engineer. As a former C-5 dude, replacing the engineer with a computer was the best change.

Edited January 24, 2010 by BZ

[arg]

"#1 priority in choosing a heavy airplane: Does it have an engineer?

-engineers are great, they warm the plane up (or cool it down) for you before you even arrive,

they do the forms, smack around the crew chief, and brow beat the on-ground transient alert people for you

did I mention the walk around (or lack thereof?)"

Nike,

respectfully you couldnt be more wrong. The best thing about the C-17 is the lack of an engineer. As a former C-5 dude, replacing the engineer with a computer was the best change.

Daaaanng.. took almost an hour for the eng hate'n to begin

[Guest CharlieFoxtrot]

A different view of some tanker-on-tanker action.

NSFW

[Techsan]

Nike,

respectfully you couldnt be more wrong. The best thing about the C-17 is the lack of an engineer. As a former C-5 dude, replacing the engineer with a computer was the best change.

The computer doesn't care if you land gear up, an engineer does.

[Guest BZ]

The computer doesn't care if you land gear up, an engineer does.

With that logic you shouldn't be able to fly an airplane without an engineer. I know for a fact that a reserve C-5 squadron landed gear up at travis 10-15 years ago on a local. I can go beyond gear and talk about the famous throttle swap at dover that the engineer's didn't catch. I’m just saying I don’t need an engineer to do work that another pilot or computer can do for me.(walk around, told, preflight, alerting me to performance limitations, balancing fuel, warming the jet up)

As for the downrange incident, until you fly a night nvg tactical approach to the box please keep you mouth shut.

[Techsan]

As for the downrange incident, until you fly a night nvg tactical approach to the box please keep you mouth shut.

Give me a fucking break. Everyone else that has flown a night nvg tac approach didn't have problems lowering the gear. A difficult approach does not rationalize the fact that they forgot the most important part of a successful approach/landing...LANDING GEAR--DN.

[Guest BZ]

Give me a ######ing break. Everyone else that has flown a night nvg tac approach didn't have problems lowering the gear. A difficult approach does not rationalize the fact that they forgot the most important part of a successful approach/landing...LANDING GEAR--DN.

Yah obviously you have not. Listen I'm not trying to make excuses for that crew. They ######ed up and that’s a fact. But really bro, are engineers there simply to make sure the gear is down??? If so you need to cut their tech school by about 5 months. In our community we have loadmasters and pilots do the safety checks. That obviously was overlooked because of human error but who are you to say that an engineer would not have missed that call as well with all the checklists they have to run on landing??

Look on the outside, how many engineers are flying the line @ the major carriers??? They've gone the way of the navigator. With the way technology is going they are able to replace the engineer. Hell, MD-11's don’t even have engineers.

I personally don’t like engineers because in my opinion I think they ###### up the C-5 reliability rate. Sure the airplane breaks by itself, but it sure is helped out by engineers. I saw it firsthand. If the engineer wanted to stay somewhere, the plane was staying. Yah it was laughed about, but it was true. Now not all engineers would break airplanes but it got so bad that the community sort of expected to break.

Rant off

[Stunna]

Yah obviously you have not. Listen I'm not trying to make excuses for that crew. They ######ed up and that’s a fact. But really bro, are engineers there simply to make sure the gear is down??? If so you need to cut their tech school by about 5 months. In our community we have loadmasters and pilots do the safety checks. That obviously was overlooked because of human error but who are you to say that an engineer would not have missed that call as well with all the checklists they have to run on landing??

Look on the outside, how many engineers are flying the line @ the major carriers??? They've gone the way of the navigator. With the way technology is going they are able to replace the engineer. Hell, MD-11's don’t even have engineers.

I personally don’t like engineers because in my opinion I think they ###### up the C-5 reliability rate. Sure the airplane breaks by itself, but it sure is helped out by engineers. I saw it firsthand. If the engineer wanted to stay somewhere, the plane was staying. Yah it was laughed about, but it was true. Now not all engineers would break airplanes but it got so bad that the community sort of expected to break.

Rant off

Really? What's the matter here man, did one of the female engineers turn you down out on the road once and now you're all bitter? You are why I hate the 17 community in broad sweeping generalizations... Engineers F'ing up the reliability rate sure sounds like an excuse to me. Lame one at that. You must hate crew chiefs too...

I can't even remember how many times I have called a checklist item, and the pilot and/or co-pilot rattled off the response, without actually applying the step, at which point I've had to re-call the step. Typical landing setup is usually calling for the flaps, then the gear, then asking for the checklist, and most guys I know (self included) will not even start calling checklist items until we have already visually verified the gear is down. Sure we're all human, and mistakes are always bound to happen, but how is not having an extra pair of eyes really a good thing? I don't get the logic, at all. Whatever, just don't come fly with me, you'd probably get upset at all the min ground time and lack of breaking anyway...

[Guest BZ]

Really? What's the matter here man, did one of the female engineers turn you down out on the road once and now you're all bitter?

This has to be one of the most unprofessional postings on the forum... do you actually think before you type?? Grow up

Engineers F'ing up the reliability rate sure sounds like an excuse to me. Lame one at that. You must hate crew chiefs too...

Look dude, I can only guess your a c-130 engineer, I don’t profess to know about 130 reliability rates. I was talking about the C-5 because in that community engineers do "throw out the anchor"(Insert hawaii joke here....) I totally respect the flying crew chiefs in the C-17 community. Most have a great knowledge base to draw from and I can honestly say they have saved my ass a few times. They just don’t need to call checklist for me or hand me told.

I can't even remember how many times I have called a checklist item, and the pilot and/or co-pilot rattled off the response, without actually applying the step, at which point I've had to re-call the step. Typical landing setup is usually calling for the flaps, then the gear, then asking for the checklist, and most guys I know (self included) will not even start calling checklist items until we have already visually verified the gear is down. Sure we're all human, and mistakes are always bound to happen, but how is not having an extra pair of eyes really a good thing?

Oh tell me how many times you’ve saved the day / corrected that new Lt because he forgot a step.... That’s what checklists are for. If the other pilot does not reply with the correct response or doesn’t acknowledge the checklist challenge, its on the person reading the challenge to say it again. As the pilot not flying we do the same thing.

Yah an extra set of eyes in the cockpit is great, but we don't need to make a crew position just to do that. With two seats behind the pilot/copilot there should always be a safety check on final by either a loadmaster or third pilot. I wonder how they fly in the J model without an engineer??

Whatever, just don't come fly with me, you'd probably get upset at all the min ground time and lack of breaking anyway...

We agree here, it’s nice not breaking all the time. I can tell my wife I'm on a 7 day trip and expect to get back on time.