Jump to content
Baseops Forums


Super User
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


JeremiahWeed last won the day on March 19

JeremiahWeed had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

387 Excellent

About JeremiahWeed

  • Rank
    Flight Lead
  • Birthday 07/04/1965

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. 😂 This is just another way of saying "anyone want to join an ejection seat roulette club"? 1980s vintage F-100 engine I'm guessing? Maintained on a budget. What could go wrong? Sooner or later one of the lucky owners will get to turn their share plus everyone else's into the standard lawn dart when the motor quits. Fun while it lasted. Unless some bozo G-LOCs first. 🙄
  2. Are you sure it wasn’t a “periodic” thing...... oh, wait..... I guess you meant occasional. I was thinking something else 🙄
  3. UFB. The level of dumassery available out there never ceases to amaze me. This genius decides to stick multiple balloons of what has become a legalized drug in more than half our country up his ass - while hiding frickin meth in his car. Never mind the firearm antics. Moron. 🙄
  4. I think you’re starting to cut a pretty wide swath bringing in land and sea assets. Since we started discussing air threat replication, I’ll stick with that. Reaching all the way back to the Vietnam air war for examples of poor threat training and its ramifications conveniently ignores all the things we’ve done well to correct those mistakes in the decades since then. Again, if those in the know say we should use F-35s for threat replication then who am I to argue. We definitely need to crack that nut before our regular line fighter pilot bros are asked to face it for real. But isn’t development of tactics for use potentially 10 years into the future (the brain trust you mention) usually the job of the 422, not line bubbas possibly on their first trip to RF?
  5. Okay - as I said, I don't have the expertise to discuss this in depth. If it's a valid replication of the actual threat, then it sounds like it's needed. I'm certainly not advocating running away from a tough problem. On the other hand, I don't think expecting to face 5th Gen stealth adversaries as a baseline on every RF sortie is a realistic example of that "tough problem". Facing a metric shit-ton of 3rd Gen North Korean fighters is probably at least as likely if not more so than tangling with whatever latest and greatest the Chinese or Russians have. Those two scenarios are vastly different and, in my opinion, require tailored training scenarios. Practicing for one doesn't make your ready for the other. We still have plenty of AORs that don't require us to face the top line threat but would still pose a significant challenge.
  6. You’d think. Often crashes with no fire = no gas. Wouldn’t be the first bubba to get airborne with less than expected for various reasons.
  7. So.....maybe a multi-plane last ditch while the dragon holds its breath and shits a nice string of little 1000 degree turds might be appropriate IRCM? If it can make it come out one end on command, why not the other?🤣
  8. Isn't the assumption that 5th Gen stealth capes and whatever challenges an F-35 Aggressor offers Flag Blue-air is going to be an accurate representation of potential Chinese/Russian threats a rather big leap? It seems like this opportunity presented itself, not because of a well developed training plan, but more out of a need to do something with not quite ready for WW-next assets that aren't plentiful enough to equip a complete front line squadron. If there's nothing better to do with these assets, then I guess this is one solution. Going against an adversary that truly has these capes and is going to bring something very close to the game that a bunch of AD bubbas in F-35s can replicate is valid. But if front line squadrons develop tactics to deal with this perceived threat and reality is something considerably different, we could be building a mousetrap to combat a mouse that will never exist. I realize we did that for much of the cold-war but the variables and assumptions there were not anywhere close to the same magnitude of what is being dealt with today. Assuming an adversary can shoot a bit further out than his doctrine supports or that he has a bit more SA than a purely GCI dependent pilot does is quite a bit different than developing tactics to combat what a "not quite ready for prime time" F-35 and a US pilot brings to the party. Yeah, I'm out of the loop on much of this, so I'm just throwing some distant observer opinions out. I don't think it's a mistake to be able to replicate this threat, but I'd have a hard time accepting it as a routine expectation on a majority of RF type missions.
  9. Is there really a CVR in an F-18G? Or are we talking about some kind of mission debrief asset that records comm, tactical displays, etc. at the command of the crew actually in the jet?
  10. Okay - just so we're clear........ In the story that includes 3 fire-breathing dragons, hatched inside a funeral pyre by a chick (inside the same fire) who rides said dragons, commands their actions, and also happens to be in love with a guy who was stabbed to death and brought back to life by another chick who births an assassin shadow to kill a rival king............. You're drawing the line at BS windage? 😉
  11. After hearing the narrator’s voice (Burl Ives) I felt like we should be watching the classic Rudolph Christmas show.
  12. A few things to keep in mind: There isn’t one approved “airline logbook method”. This has nothing to do with FARs or mil regs, so throw those out of the equation. Some airlines have unique definitions of what they consider PIC time and others fall into a similar pattern (signing for the a/c is common). Some allow a per sortie conversion (.2 or .3 per is typical), some don’t or they apply it themselves. . I’ve also seen a 1.2 multiplication option for one’s entire total. The bottom line is that it’s entirely possible that you could apply to 3 different airlines and have 3 different totals for your PIC time. So my recommendation is to avoid extra work and wasted time creating a civilian logbook that just going to need to be tweaked for every airline you come into contact with anyway. Be familiar with your hours and which sorties or types of events may not meet a particular criterion that an airline uses to define PIC. Make sure your military flight time products are presentable and profession (I got a better looking binder that didn’t look like it had been used for 11 years). As nunya said, put an accurate, airline specific cover sheet inside that details how you arrived at the totals you provided to that airline using their rules. Be conservative and realize that there are folks at each airline that understand how UPT and FTU syllabi are constructed. If you’re a fighter guy who claims 100% of his time is PIC and airline X says PIC = signing for the jet, they’re going to ask if you have any time in a two-seater with an IP on board. Dual received, even if the IP never touched the controls isn’t going to compute when an airline wants sorties you signed for the jet (i.e. were ultimately responsible for the a/c).
  13. To your original post - I have no info on any of the 3 events, conditions at the time, etc. In general, if the winds are within the a/c limits and the flying pilot puts the appropriate cross-wind controls in during takeoff roll, dragging a wingtip shouldn't happen. Normally increasing Vr is a procedural option when it's used as a precautionary measure against potential windshear. The rationale is you unbalance the field and use any extra runway available to put extra smash on the jet (usually a max of 20 knots above the normal computer Vr depending on conditions, runway limits, etc). The extra energy gained doing this will hopefully aid during a windshear encounter once airborne. I've never heard of increasing Vr for crosswinds or gusts alone, but maybe some operators do it. I think proper flight control inputs and the typical performance buffers available for most takeoffs are probably all that's normally required.
  14. All Boeing transport category aircraft have leading edge slats and some also have krueger flaps. At the companies at which I’ve flown them, they are not referred to as leading edge devices, nor is that term used in the Boeing generated systems manual or quick reference handbook No one is going to be confused if you refer to them as LEDs, but in my experience, you don’t hear Boeing operators use that term in the regular course of flying those aircraft, running checklists, etc. The MD-11 and DC-10 (MD-10) are the same as the C-17. There’s an initial “slats” position of the handle that controls the high lift devices and they’re referring to as slats during ops. No one I know makes a habit of calling them LEDs on those aircraft either. Semantics 101 complete 🤪
  15. They are called that in the systems manual although on a typical flight, you rarely hear slats specifically referred to since Boeing doesn't really "do" slats. No one I've heard talks about LEDs, but that could be specific company "speak". 757, 767 and 777 control all the high lift devices with the flap handle and commands to extend them are always called using "flaps ____". Flaps 1 extends only slats to mid-range where they stay as trailing edge flaps are selected to 5, 15, 20. Slats fully extend to the landing position once flaps 25 or 30 are selected (either 25 or 30 can be used for landing).
  • Create New...