11-217: should it stay or go?

[ThreeHoler]

CSAF / SecAF say reduce/resize regs...

 

Informal poll: Should 11-217 stay or go? Should it just be 11-202 and the AIM (Navy style)?

 

Any and all thoughts appreciated.

[Lord Ratner]

CSAF / SecAF say reduce/resize regs...
 
Informal poll: Should 11-217 stay or go? Should it just be 11-202 and the AIM (Navy style)?
 
Any and all thoughts appreciated.

Dear God yes.

[FishBowl]

Can’t you make an actual poll on here? But yes, the 217 was development by the Department of Redundancy Department 

[Danger41]

I don't think it needs to go away. I've been a CFII prior to the USAF and also done AIS as an AF IP so I've been pretty involved in instrument flying for both sides. I think the 217 is well constructed in that it fits with other AF Pubs and is organized pretty well. The AIM is organized well, but it's format is different than AF style pubs so finding stuff is not as intuitive for our conditioned AF brains. Honestly, if we started with the AIM, I would prefer it. But most of the information in 11-217 is taken from the AIM anyway so that part wouldn't be difficult. To me, it's the formatting differences. 

[nunya]

I'm beyond having a dog in the fight, but is what is basically a cut and paste from the AIM formatted for AF brains worth the staff hours spent to maintain it?  In an era of undermanned squadrons and staffs, I'd advocate for anything that reduces the paperwork burden, no matter how small.  Flyers will adapt to new formatting.

[Craftsman]

Yes get rid of it. Why not just use the AIM and FAA books like the instrument procedures book etc that are maintained by someone else.

[YoungnDumb]

Burn it and all the other redundant and pointless pubs.  It'll save countless dollars and person hours (since saying man hours now days leads to an MEO hit).

[BFM this]

Hadn’t checked in a while.  Is the latest version bold/italics from cover to cover?

[dream big]

Toss it.  Stick to the AIM.  Don’t want us to takeoff using see-and-avoid? Publish an FCIF.   Also, if you are going to have so many pubs, then update them.  202 updates (and changes significantly) every 2 years while our subordinate pub, the 11-2xv3, is from 2009.

[Majestik Møøse]

We must keep the -217! Otherwise, what will AFFSA do? Other than provide "PhD-level" AIS grads. They no-shit said that. For a fucking 2-week course. https://www.tinker.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/388296/affsa-new-command-at-tinker-new-commander/

[xcraftllc]

Dear god yes, revise and consolidate everything as much as possible.  It's like the damn U.S. Tax Code.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Clark Griswold]

Drop it

[SurelySerious]

Kill it with fire. 

[LookieRookie]

It's out of date anyways.

[Guardian]

The high penetration teardrop is not out of date. Take it back!

[ThreeHoler]

It's out of date anyways.

Updated this year and signed...stuck in publishing. But probably already out of date anyway.

[Craftsman]

1 hour ago, ThreeHoler said:

 

Updated this year and signed...stuck in publishing. But probably already out of date anyway.

 

That’s your answer why it needs to be dropped. We put too much red tape on everything.

[PlanePhlyer]

4 hours ago, LookieRookie said:

It's out of date anyways.

You mean to tell me pictures of NDBs and ADF equipment is out of date?  Next you're probably going to say fix-to-fixes are archaic too. *sarcasm*

[Learjetter]

At one time, not long ago...the plan was to use 14CFR91 and AIM and just have a .mil supplement for things unique to .mil like TACAN and weather and ing bird severe.

 

ACC, AFMC and AETC pitched a fit since it meant changing all syllabi, IRC banks and tests, open and closed for all MDS, references everywhere...not to mention certain acquisition and cockpit certification and CNS/ATM programs that reference 11-202, and a bunch of USAF Terps and ATC regs.

 

It was determined by folks other than at AFFSA that the juice wasnt worth the squeeze.

 

#protip: RPI-8 means AFFSA still one of the best staff gigs you can get (or so a friend told me recently) if you're so inclined.

 

 

[mcbush]

What’s RPI-8?

[Learjetter]

What’s RPI-8?

My bad...term is now API-8. Aircrew Position Indicator.

See AFI 11-401 Table 2.1 (not a bad reg to be familiar with if you're a flyer)

API-8 = Staff or supervisory positions above wing level that have responsibilities and duties that require the incumbent to actively fly or perform OFDA-creditable ground based radar duties.

[AZwildcat]

Just don't mention it to a certain someone...

 

[amcflyboy]

On 11/14/2017 at 11:08 AM, nunya said:

I'm beyond having a dog in the fight, but is what is basically a cut and paste from the AIM formatted for AF brains worth the staff hours spent to maintain it?  In an era of undermanned squadrons and staffs, I'd advocate for anything that reduces the paperwork burden, no matter how small.  Flyers will adapt to new formatting.

^^^ This x 1000

[HU&W]

22 hours ago, Learjetter said:

ACC, AFMC and AETC pitched a fit since it meant changing all syllabi, IRC banks and tests, open and closed for all MDS, references everywhere...not to mention certain acquisition and cockpit certification and CNS/ATM programs that reference 11-202, and a bunch of USAF Terps and ATC regs.

In other words, the staff work would be too hard?

[herkbum]

9 hours ago, Learjetter said:

 

 

My bad...term is now API-8. Aircrew Position Indicator.

See AFI 11-401 Table 2.1 (not a bad reg to be familiar with if you're a flyer)

API-8 = Staff or supervisory positions above wing level that have responsibilities and duties that require the incumbent to actively fly or perform OFDA-creditable ground based radar duties.
 

 

API 1, 2, 9, flying on the line

3 &4, fly no more

5 will keep you alive

6 & 8, the flying's great