T-6s Grounded; More OBOGS Issues

[matmacwc]

30 minutes ago, YoungnDumb said:

 a time when Deputy OG's and Sq/CC's were wondering around and QC'ing schedules.

The mayor has lost control. 

[Sneedro]

44 minutes ago, Standby said:

I’m not a company man, but I do love flying so thank goodness there are several types of us out there. 

Yes...thank god there are several of your types out there.  What would we do without you gracing our presence?

 

 

[SurelySerious]

50 minutes ago, Standby said:

 

Last post in this thread. 

This was just getting entertaining, though. 

[flyusaf83]

4 hours ago, Standby said:

I’ve taken notes and maintain my position. We all have our own ideas of what unnecessary risk is and this, TO ME, is not it. People will bitch about OBOGS or the lack of an external CFS jettison and then turn right around and ride a motorcycle home during rush hour. I’m OK with being in the minority here. 

Completely invalid and caustic attitude.  You don’t justify unnecessary risk by saying “Well, some people choose to do dangerous shit anyways.  So this should be fine.”  You sound like leaders trying to tell everyone to overlook their shitty leadership by saying “well, Marines in Nam’ had it harder than you guys, so don’t complain”.  It’s lazy and it’s no excuse for crappy decision-making or leadership.

52 minutes ago, Standby said:

It was a comparison of how trivial the argument is. As I stated before, I’m clearly in the minority here. If someone offered me an enrichment ride on day one of the new procedures I would gladly accept. I’m not a company man, but I do love flying so thank goodness there are several types of us out there. 

Last post in this thread. 

No, you don’t love flying more than pilots without unsafe attitudes.  As a pilot, you should have enough maturity and judgment to override your enjoyment of flying, when presented with undue risk.   

Edited February 27, 2018 by flyusaf83

[matmacwc]

What he said. ^ 

Some people forget it's AETC, in the short term, nothing is that urgent.

[VolFan]

1 hour ago, B.L said:

We just want an aircraft that does what it’s supposed to do and don’t want another Air Force rubber stamping everything and putting band-aids on major aviation and physiological issues.

 

We start flying tomorrow at Vance with eleven planes.  Eleven.  Because those are the only aircraft that passed both TCTOs which scrubbed the OBOGS and the emergency oxygen systems nose to tail.  

We're not flying on ambient air (yet) because testing, airworthiness review/certification, etc. is still ongoing.  Will we eventually fly in that configuration?  Maybe, but not without the procedures & training necessary to mitigate the risks involved.

I just don't buy the argument that the Air Force is "rubber stamping" this one to produce more pilots.  Are they motivated to get these planes back in the air and start flying student sorties again?  Of course, that's their primary mission!  I'd question their leadership if they weren't searching for any and every solution to end this stand down.  But we've had the capability (i.e. the hardware & proof of concept) to fly while breathing ambient air for weeks now.  If this was a knee-jerk reaction to get planes back in the air, we'd already be flying.  

I agree that Vance leaned too far forward in January, trying to "catch up" to the timeline.  Hindsight is 20/20.  I also think that this time it's being done right.

So far.

Only time can tell if that will continue.

[Majestik Møøse]

This seems like an extraordinary amount of risk for a training organization to accept, especially in the modern risk-averse environment. That high of an ALR indicates that the Air Force really believes that increasing pilot production is the most important solution to its pilot shortage crisis.

 

[Sneedro]

We are talking about AETC right?  Training safety standards and risk acceptance is FAR FAR different than when you are talking ops world combat sorties.  

 

Again just my opinion...then again I'm removed from AF flying for greener pastures, more money, less bullshit, and more time off doing my best "pilot PA voice".  Now, get off my lawn! 

[Azimuth]

2 hours ago, VolFan said:

We start flying tomorrow at Vance with eleven planes.  Eleven.  Because those are the only aircraft that passed both TCTOs which scrubbed the OBOGS and the emergency oxygen systems nose to tail.  

We're not flying on ambient air (yet) because testing, airworthiness review/certification, etc. is still ongoing.  Will we eventually fly in that configuration?  Maybe, but not without the procedures & training necessary to mitigate the risks involved.

I just don't buy the argument that the Air Force is "rubber stamping" this one to produce more pilots.  Are they motivated to get these planes back in the air and start flying student sorties again?  Of course, that's their primary mission!  I'd question their leadership if they weren't searching for any and every solution to end this stand down.  But we've had the capability (i.e. the hardware & proof of concept) to fly while breathing ambient air for weeks now.  If this was a knee-jerk reaction to get planes back in the air, we'd already be flying.  

I agree that Vance leaned too far forward in January, trying to "catch up" to the timeline.  Hindsight is 20/20.  I also think that this time it's being done right.

So far.

Only time can tell if that will continue.

Will leadership be the first ones to fly the aircraft that passed the TCTO's?  I mean, they're pilots, right?  They're leaders, so I'd imagine they'd never put their subordinates in a safety laden hazard due to their drive to get the timeline back on track.  

[Trogdor]

5 hours ago, FUSEPLUG said:

Serious questions since I’ve been out of UPT for 12 years now - but do you guys run ORM before each T-6 sortie, or is that some bullshit only the MAF does?  

Based on what I’m reading here, I could easily come up with enough points to drive my ORM approval up to a level just shy of the SecDef. 

What is the ORM process for IP's at the AETC these days?  I know in my corner of the AF, you can mark your risk as high/extreme or whatever.  But, if the appropriate level of leadership signs off and tells you to fly anyways... that's why they are called orders.  

I also wonder if the ORM approval has gone up any higher than what was previously stated.  But, if risk is identified and the appropriate level leader signs off then you do still have a choice.  Sack up and fly, or refuse the order and be ready for whatever punishment may come down.  Although, it does sound like a mass strike might be brewing from the likes of this thread. 

[Duck]

It was a comparison of how trivial the argument is. As I stated before, I’m clearly in the minority here. If someone offered me an enrichment ride on day one of the new procedures I would gladly accept. I’m not a company man, but I do love flying so thank goodness there are several types of us out there. 
Last post in this thread. 

FAIP?

[FourFans]

4 hours ago, Azimuth said:

Will leadership be the first ones to fly the aircraft that passed the TCTO's?  I mean, they're pilots, right?  They're leaders, so I'd imagine they'd never put their subordinates in a safety laden hazard due to their drive to get the timeline back on track.  

Yeeeeeeeeah, not in today's Air Force.

BREAK

Bottom Line: Everything AETC does can wait until tomorrow.  The training mission IS important, but it's not worth blatantly risking lives to accomplish.  Reference how no Americans died or were put at risk as a result of the T-6 pipeline shutting down for safety.  The same cannot be said of line ops squadrons.

Flying is hazardous enough without intentionally taking a broken jet into the air.

Maintain aircraft control, analyze the situation, take appropriate action. 

It sounds like they are skipping straight to "take action" regardless of the "appropriate" part.

Edited February 27, 2018 by FourFans130

[YoungnDumb]

10 hours ago, Trogdor said:

What is the ORM process for IP's at the AETC these days?  I know in my corner of the AF, you can mark your risk as high/extreme or whatever.  But, if the appropriate level of leadership signs off and tells you to fly anyways... that's why they are called orders.  

I also wonder if the ORM approval has gone up any higher than what was previously stated.  But, if risk is identified and the appropriate level leader signs off then you do still have a choice.  Sack up and fly, or refuse the order and be ready for whatever punishment may come down.  Although, it does sound like a mass strike might be brewing from the likes of this thread. 

We have a sheet we fill out before we step, give it to the Sup who reviews it and checks on certain items like personal factors (making sure you've compartmentalized accordingly/are good to go).  If a higher up signature is needed then the Sup grabs the appropriate party.

Now in my time in AETC I have never had a CC sign off if I wasn't willing to go.  The ones I dealt with when my ORM hit that high were very much along the lines of "Is it a personal thing and/or are you physically/mentally/whatever okay to go?"  If the answer was "Yes I'm good, my ORM is high due to wx/mx/trip turn/etc)," they were good signing it. The once or twice where I wasn't okay to go, the Sup caught it and sat my a$$ down and then had some pointed words about my pushing too hard when I wasn't okay too.

Now all of this may be different than what has occurred the last few months (reference Vance 7 days ops in January), but that's at least been my experience in AETC thus far.

[ThreeHoler]

Yeeeeeeeeah, not in today's Air Force.
BREAK
Bottom Line: Everything AETC does can wait until tomorrow.  The training mission IS important, but it's not worth blatantly risking lives to accomplish.  Reference how no Americans died or were put at risk as a result of the T-6 pipeline shutting down for safety.  The same cannot be said of line ops squadrons.
Flying is hazardous enough without intentionally taking a broken jet into the air.
Maintain aircraft control, analyze the situation, take appropriate action. 
It sounds like they are skipping straight to "take action" regardless of the "appropriate" part.

I’ve read the signed waiver. It is pretty clean cut what AETC wants to do and involves periodic re-evaluation of the situation.

[BashiChuni]

T-6 in the pattern at RND at this time currently presently

[tedybearofdoom]

https://www.texomashomepage.com/news/local-news/air-force-lifts-pause-on-t-6-texan-ii-fleet/996053751

[BashiChuni]

"I know without a doubt that the T-6 nation is fired up and ready to get back in the air!” - Gen Dohetry

yeah T-6 NATION!!! whoot!!! get out there and fly that bitch!

 

 

[FUSEPLUG]

3 hours ago, tedybearofdoom said:

https://www.texomashomepage.com/news/local-news/air-force-lifts-pause-on-t-6-texan-ii-fleet/996053751

The use of the word “pause” pisses me off. You GROUNDED the fleet. I know that word sends the wrong message to the public, but the message you are sending to your IP’s and students is one of obfuscation and sugar-coating. 

When bad shit happens to an airplane or pilot, you GROUND it. Just call a spade a spade for Christ sake.  These mind games from our senior managers are becoming transparent and tiring. 

[nunya]

Yet another reason I'd never make it as a politician or GO... I couldn't say that faux positive PC shit with a straight face.

[Majestik Møøse]

“...component failures or degradations were identified as affecting the topline performance of OBOGS oxygen pressure, flow, and content, resulting in various disruptions that negatively impacted the human-machine interface.”

This is an excellent example of Officialese, an English-based language designed to increase the speaker’s perceived professionalism and authority on a subject. The intent is that a listener will either be too lost in the complexity of the words to coherently respond or the excessive verbosity will cause boredom and withdrawal. Simply saying, “the OBOGSs were failing and making pilots hypoxic,” is too easily understood and would invite too many follow up questions. Greater sentence complexity = hard to decipher theme and harder to devise timely counter arguments.

Fortunately for all fans of brevity, the statement above became illegal in the Plain Writing Act of 2010.

Edited February 28, 2018 by Majestik Møøse

[HuggyU2]

On 2/26/2018 at 6:54 PM, matmacwc said:

Some people forget it's AETC, in the short term, nothing is that urgent.

Nothing... except for really good Airshows, with a Monday return. 

[matmacwc]

1 hour ago, HuggyU2 said:

Nothing... except for really good Airshows, with a Monday return. 

Ahhh, AETC cross countries.  When I was a FLT/CC we were forced to go each class for a weekend, don't know if they still do it.  Even the best students fell apart flying around Dallas or Los Angeles airspace, shoot I've seen instructors melt in Los Angles.  There were a few classes I pushed pretty hard before cross country on purpose, it only left us 4 sorties for the cross country, so of course I'd double turn to Vegas on Friday then double turn home on Sunday, put a little vacation in the middle of UPT.  This could be a thread all its own.

[DirtyFlightSuit]

RND is back up flying only aircraft with the TCTO's passed.  10-11 so far.  I do know that any jets not passing those TCTO's will likely be turned down by aircrew even with the "duck call" work around.   There is a reason all of the experience is dead set against flying with modifications and obogs off.  How about we fix the damn system and force it.  Perhaps the youngin's may start taking notes when they are not too busy working on OPR bullets and shining turds.

[zachbar]

25 minutes ago, DirtyFlightSuit said:

RND is back up flying only aircraft with the TCTO's passed.  10-11 so far.  I do know that any jets not passing those TCTO's will likely be turned down by aircrew even with the "duck call" work around.   There is a reason all of the experience is dead set against flying with modifications and obogs off.  How about we fix the damn system and force it.  Perhaps the youngin's may start taking notes when they are not too busy working on OPR bullets and shining turds.

We received a briefing this morning on this, and I think it did a lot to dispel some of the complaints voiced in this thread. For the last month, an OT&E team has been flying sorties breathing ambient air and undergoing endless medical analysis before and after each flight, NASA has been involved sampling cockpit and mask air quality, and maintenance has been tearing down OBOGS to try and find a source of the issue. Below are some of the highlights from that briefing.

1) Only TCTO compliant aircraft will be flown with OBOGS operational as normal. Breathing cockpit air was not approved by AETC nor recommended by the OT&E team. To answer those who wondered why this was such a big deal when other aircraft fly unpressurized without oxygen, it is an FAA airworthiness certificate issue. Without the OBOGS, the T-6 would not be considered airworthy by the FAA without an amendment.

2) The TCTOs are a "millimeter by millimeter" (their words) inspection of the OBOGS from the engine air inlet all the way to the mask. It replaces parts to make the system as close to factory new as possible.

3) This is not the end. No causal factor was found, but the OT&E unanimously agreed that returning the OBOGS to a factory new state made them comfortable flying the jet. Flying is still volunteer only at PIT.

4) The top six of the T-6 SPO were fired due to mismanagement of the program and a fly-to-fail mentality. The zeolite bed maintenance interval has been aggressively reduced from 4,500 to 700 hours, and the new SPO is re-evaluating other fly-to-fail parts on the T-6 to possibly set replacement intervals. 19 AF is also using this debacle to highlight the ISS and EFIS issues.

5) The future: The team considers this only the beginning and are still trying to drill down to a single cause. From what the briefer said though, the OBOGS on all of the jets inspected were absolutely horrendous (kinked lines, valves stuck in the open position, evidence of water in the lines, general dirt and gunk, etc), and 79% failed the inspection, so there might not be one silver bullet. The incident T-6s are all still impounded, but an Edwards AFB test team will begin inspecting those independently and in parallel so the two teams can compare notes.

Honestly, I was pretty impressed with what the team has been doing this last month. There were a lot of really smart people helping with this, to include a NASA test engineer who has made a career out of OBOGS issues. It also received visibility all the way up to the VPOTUS. My biggest misgiving is that they never found a single causal factor, but I am not surprised given the fact that the entire system was basically never inspected since the plane left the factory. I think the 19 AF initially fumbled at the beginning of this grounding a month ago, but since then a lot of good things have happened to make up for it.

Edited February 28, 2018 by zachbar

[DirtyFlightSuit]

Zachbar I generally agree with you, but my main issue was that we even went down the road of attempting to fly with the obogs system off in the first place.  While yes they tested ambient air, the number of flights and the fact they were with RND jets (that have thus far not had any occurrences) also skews any possible results.  I am much more confident with the obogs inspections / repairs / TCTO's however.  While it may not have found the smoking gun at least we have proper eyes on a system that was being flown to failure for no reason other than attempting to save a penny and now we have paid the dollar as a cost for losing our focus on the pennies.

 

Also the briefing this morning was for UI's so you really should get back to chair flying because your fair/unsat is likely to follow ;D

Edited February 28, 2018 by DirtyFlightSuit