New features / developments of the forums and Baseops.Net website will be posted here. Please post any problems you have, glitches, etc. Please click on HELP (upper right) for more info... Please do not PM your trouble calls.
This is a sub-forum where you can post product/service reviews. Please do your best to add any military specific information. For instance, if I'm reviewing Disney World, I might post a link to the Shades of Green website.
A new forum designed for all of your questions! Have a stupid question? Get answers here. Also, NO PENALTY for asking something that's been asked in other threads. If you're a grey-beard, please try to help out by posting a synopsis version of the answer and a link to the thread you remember from 7 years ago.
RPA career field information (also known as Remotely Piloted Vehicle, Unmanned Aerial System, Unmanned Aerial Vehicle). Post information, questions, gouge; value-added posts ONLY, others will be deleted.
Shack on this one magnetfreezer. Different airframe, but the way Boeing has hamfisted our upgrade strung out over 10 years and $1B to get our jet to the mid-1990s, no fing way I want approach plates and checklists tied down to the system.
It would be easy to put checklists or approach plates in the CDU for the Viper as a PDF, but the problem is the interface. Since it's not a touch screen and you scroll down through pages via buttons on the side, there's no way to skip down 50 pages to get to a critical checklist I need right now. A software change might be able to make approach plates user friendly on the CDU, but I just don't see digging through the CDU with an EP looking for a checklist.
So if this abortion of an idea comes to pass, what does or would the FAA have to say about this?
While the military is a self-certifying agency there are some basic assumptions between the DoD and the FAA on aircrew training for qualification and certification, that we won't do anything reckless, risky, dumb or that would endanger the public or property unduly. Like marginally training people and then putting them in the control of a jet they by any other standard would not be qualified to operate at their given level of experience and training.
I doubt they would be cool with us certifying someone good to fly a multi-engine jet if they had no turbine or multi engine experience, so extend that idea to someone only having 100 or so hours in a high performance turboprop, some sims (not even Class D) and then put in the seat of a supersonic jet. Methinks they would not be ok with that person at the controls in the NAS.
How can the Air Staff or AETC Staff seriously bounce this idea around without considering the first incident and then the subsequent investigation, reports, headlines, etc... and not see the AF losing all confidence in its ability to operate? I mean really, look at the Navy right now, they took shiphandling and turned it from a formal course into a stack of CDs for dudes to review prior to reporting to their first assignment, how's that working for them now?