What's wrong with the Air Force?

[SocialD]

29 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

On the ground, you're sometimes inches and often no more than a few feet away from numerous other objects, including other piloted vehicles whose drivers may or may not be paying attention. You're dealing with pedestrians, stray dogs, limited sightlines with no ability to see through the obstacle, confusing or missing road markings, and most of all, other idiot human drivers an arm's length away.

Word...

 

[Inertia17]

1 hour ago, dream big said:

Yepp, still seeing zero cost savings here.  You still have to pay for that pilot (potentially more because of Unions and the hardship of sitting on your ass by yourself for 14 hours from DFW to NRT), you still have to pay for that remote pilot on the ground, you still have to pay for the "redundancy" and not to mention the means to mitigate the retarded risk of single or remote piloted airlines. 

That is what I was saying earlier, most you would save is $15-20 per ticket. Just not worth the effort at this stage.

1 hour ago, nsplayr said:

You mean like a single commercial pilot flying passengers in a single-engine airplane? Something that preposterous would never be allowed by the august regulators at the FAA!

Once again, too general by me. Referring to airline operations, not taking 6-9 people on a charter flight.

[nsplayr]

3 hours ago, Inertia17 said:

That is what I was saying earlier, most you would save is $15-20 per ticket. Just not worth the effort at this stage.

Just for shits and gigs, a savings of $15-20 per ticket, for US domestic passengers only, would be a savings of $17.9 billion dollars per year based on a 2015 total passenger volume of about 896 million. When you're dealing at this scale, saying you can save even $0.25 per passenger per year with no other externalities would be tremendous savings for the airlines.

So if your random ballpark was meant to demonstrate how the R&D required for more serious flight automation isn't worth the potential gains, I think it basically shows the opposite.

Edited May 14, 2017 by nsplayr

[Inertia17]

20 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

Just for shits and gigs, a savings of $15-20 per ticket, for US domestic passengers only, would be a savings of $17.9 billion dollars per year based on a 2015 total passenger volume of about 896 million. When you're dealing at this scale, saying you can save even $0.25 per passenger per year with no other externalities would be tremendous savings for the airlines.

So if your random ballpark was meant to demonstrate how the R&D required for more serious flight automation isn't worth the potential gains, I think it basically shows the opposite.

Assuming you get the passengers willing to go without that extra crew member/no crew for that $15-20 saving, instead of flying with a fully crewed airline. That original ballpark was said in response to gaining market share by offering tickets at 25-50% less than current rate (suggested by Guardian), which would not be possible with such a small saving.

[Guardian]

I wish we could give thumbs down on the app.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[BFM this]

5 minutes ago, Guardian said:

I wish we could give thumbs down on the app.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

Just switch over to your browser (chrome, safari, etc) and click it there.

[Orbit]

[Herk Driver]

What's wrong with the AF is getting sidelined on automation discussions...

Back to your regularly scheduled topic.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[DirtyFlightSuit]

How about the HAF/A3 acting amazed that is was neigh impossible to wash out UPT students because wing/CC keep sending them back?  Or that he thinks allowing a washout T-38 student go into T-1's.  Without getting into a T-38/T-1 what is harder pissing match, I've seen some of the best (sarcasm) that Shepard has to offer in T-38 track to heavy students, and I'm sure they would have struggled there as well.  Overall when at UPT it was apparent that leadership was more concerned with pure pilot production numbers than maintaining any kind of "quality" product, while paying lip service to holding the bar high.  The same at PIT for that matter, more PIT students showing up with questionable FEF and even more questionable ability being pushed on the UPT bases.  But it is okay wing leadership still thinks that we can increase production and not reduce quality some how.   Though to be honest our quality issue right now is not due to work load, but quality of inbound students and inability to wash them out. 

 

Hopefully this gets us back on track... The point being that big blue doesn't trust its own instructors to call a shit product (UPT or PIT Student) what it is and wash it out.   Or more likely its not a trust issue but a don't give two shits issue since bean counters would throw a fit if their numbers are upset any further.

Edited May 15, 2017 by DirtyFlightSuit

[Sprkt69]

2 hours ago, DirtyFlightSuit said:

How about the HAF/A3 acting amazed that is was neigh impossible to wash out UPT students because wing/CC keep sending them back?  Or that he thinks allowing a washout T-38 student go into T-1's.  Without getting into a T-38/T-1 what is harder pissing match, I've seen some of the best (sarcasm) that Shepard has to offer in T-38 track to heavy students, and I'm sure they would have struggled there as well.  Overall when at UPT it was apparent that leadership was more concerned with pure pilot production numbers than maintaining any kind of "quality" product, while paying lip service to holding the bar high.  The same at PIT for that matter, more PIT students showing up with questionable FEF and even more questionable ability being pushed on the UPT bases.  But it is okay wing leadership still thinks that we can increase production and not reduce quality some how.   Though to be honest our quality issue right now is not due to work load, but quality of inbound students and inability to wash them out. 

 

Hopefully this gets us back on track... The point being that big blue doesn't trust its own instructors to call a shit product (UPT or PIT Student) what it is and wash it out.   Or more likely its not a trust issue but a don't give two shits issue since bean counters would throw a fit if their numbers are upset any further.

I'll just add what the ACC A3 said 7 years ago, they "will accept the risks." However, the current slides going up about the risks for cutting short B-Course said there was no risk from the change. That's your upper management working for you

[Seriously]

4 hours ago, Sprkt69 said:

I'll just add what the ACC A3 said 7 years ago, they "will accept the risks." However, the current slides going up about the risks for cutting short B-Course said there was no risk from the change. That's your upper management working for you

Ha! We had a conversation the other day at the squadron level about how much risk HHQ is buying with the reduced experience. It isn't just less experienced b-coursers these days. We also have very inexperienced IPs (technically experienced by the AFI).

[norskman]

47 minutes ago, Seriously said:

We also have very inexperienced IPs (technically experienced by the AFI).

THIS. We (HH-60s) have dudes going through IPUG with only 600 hrs in the machine, time will only tell concerning the health of my community in ~5 years. 

[HU&W]

10 hours ago, Sprkt69 said:

I'll just add what the ACC A3 said 7 years ago, they "will accept the risks." However, the current slides going up about the risks for cutting short B-Course said there was no risk from the change. That's your upper management working for you

In those seven years, how many times has ACC/A3 accepted the blame for the outcomes of accepting the risk?  How many AIB/SIB listed their risk acceptance as Causal?  Once we start seeing risk acceptance -> outcome -> blame -> updated risk decision, it'll be more than just words.

[TreeA10]

After reading rancormacs' financial debacle, I think that should be added as an example of what is wrong with the AF.  Failing to properly pay your people or making that process incredibly complicated is absolute BS.  Step one to good leadership is taking care of your people.

[BashiChuni]

1 hour ago, TreeA10 said:

After reading rancormacs' financial debacle, I think that should be added as an example of what is wrong with the AF.  Failing to properly pay your people or making that process incredibly complicated is absolute BS.  Step one to good leadership is taking care of your people.

Yes. 100%. 

Finance is universally terrible 

[Weezer]

Saw this post on Reddit...interesting pre-command prep strategy.

Edited May 15, 2017 by Weezer
Added picture...derp

[Napoleon_Tanerite]

On 5/12/2017 at 8:35 AM, Guardian said:

 

I think right this second you are right. Until the airlines fix the pilot shortage with drone and remotely operated options to their problem. Then we will have a pilot job crisis just like 9/11. It's coming. And if you don't think so just check out how much research is being done and funded by who. Necessity is the mother of invention. Both airlines and the Air Force need right now.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

 

I would be shocked if the airlines automated people carrying operations.  They could save some coins on pilot salary, but the first time one of those automated airplanes crashes and kills a couple hundred people, that company will be sued into the stone age, regardless if the droid was the reason the plane went down.  Now, FedEx, UPS, Atlas, etc may very well go automated, but not likely within most of our remaining flying years.

[war007afa]

On 5/14/2017 at 0:00 PM, Inertia17 said:

That is what I was saying earlier, most you would save is $15-20 per ticket. Just not worth the effort at this stage.

Once again, too general by me. Referring to airline operations, not taking 6-9 people on a charter flight.

You do realize an extra $15-20 per ticket TRIPLES TO QUADRUPLES the airline profit margin, right?

https://www.iata.org/pressroom/pr/Pages/2016-12-08-01.aspx

[Inertia17]

Just now, war007afa said:

You do realize an extra $15-20 per ticket TRIPLES TO QUADRUPLES the airline profit margin, right?

https://www.iata.org/pressroom/pr/Pages/2016-12-08-01.aspx

Yes. If they keep the market share, which they would likely need to reduce ticket prices to do with less/no crew. It is not as simple as throwing that on top of their profit margin.

[Sprkt69]

7 minutes ago, war007afa said:

You do realize an extra $15-20 per ticket TRIPLES TO QUADRUPLES the airline profit margin, right?

https://www.iata.org/pressroom/pr/Pages/2016-12-08-01.aspx

How much of that profit would be soaked up in new infrastructure and lawsuits?

[raimius]

10 hours ago, Weezer said:

Saw this post on Reddit...interesting pre-command prep strategy.

The first step is admitting you have a problem, right?

Crowd sourcing leadership training is surely a sign of a problem, but at least "New SQ/CC X" is trying to mitigate...

[FlyinGrunt]

On 5/15/2017 at 1:40 AM, Seriously said:

 We also have very inexperienced IPs (technically experienced by the AFI).

Confirmed for AFSOC as well.  It's getting terrifying.  They're not even experienced by the AFI.  We used to tell AC students that their AC potential was already proven, hence being there in the first place; now, we were evaluating their ability to be IPs.  It is no longer an exaggeration.  I can already point to 1 or 2 AC students that I 100% expect to see back at the schoolhouse for IPUG within a year, given the outlook.

[Seriously]

4 hours ago, raimius said:

The first step is admitting you have a problem, right?

Crowd sourcing leadership training is surely a sign of a problem, but at least "New SQ/CC X" is trying to mitigate...

I'd say it's a very good idea, actually. As long as he can separate the wheat from the chaff, I'm sure some of the responses will be valuable.  

[raimius]

1 hour ago, Seriously said:

I'd say it's a very good idea, actually. As long as he can separate the wheat from the chaff, I'm sure some of the responses will be valuable.  

Looking for feedback is wise...the AF "training" consisting of some speechifying and a blind intro, not so much.  It sounds like the new cc feels extremely unprepared.

[Toro]

15 hours ago, Weezer said:

Saw this post on Reddit...interesting pre-command prep strategy.

It's a decent idea, but a Reddit blast won't answer what's needed at your unit.  One of my jobs at my last assignment was Wg/DS, where I had around 20 folks (mostly enlisted) assigned to me.  A couple days after I took over, I pulled every single one of those people into my office individually for a few minutes to chat about them and to ask questions similar to that Reddit post.  I got some pretty damn good ideas from one and two-stripers who had been in the office longer than I had been on the base, but they had never thought to offer them up.  After our talk, an A1C told me that not only had she never been in the DS office, but the two previous DSs hadn't so much more to her than "Hello" and "Good Bye" on a daily basis.  

That is the problem with leadership.  At least the author of the Reddit post is making an effort to look down in the trenches rather than up the chain of command.