Jump to content


Supreme User
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Bender last won the day on June 14 2020

Bender had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

261 Excellent

About Bender

  • Rank
    Flight Lead

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Columbus AFB, MS

Recent Profile Visitors

4,712 profile views
  1. No, I would not. Although they should just for decision making for flying an RNAV when they set up the ILS for their precision and decided not to fly the localizer. ~Bendy Sent from my iPad using Baseops Network mobile app
  2. Until a student can fly an ILS half as well as I can...we can differ the non-precision approach stuff. RNAV, PBN, or otherwise. ~Bendy Edit: I’d still teach them about it, but not so much as to clutter their pretty little nuggets. Edit2: Damn, it’s been a hot second since I read my first post on here.
  3. I think experience requirement to teach in primary training is a good thing. Is it set correctly, I don’t know. Do I like them enforcing what they have, yes. I don’t think we do a good enough job training our FAIPs for what we ask of them...which, in my opinion, is a lot. Also, f&$k a VSP...I’d consider a TERA to help my country out of its shit sandwich, but I’ve sacrificed plenty already... ~Bendy Sent from my iPad using Baseops Network mobile app
  4. The P-51 and the MC-12 would lead you to a different conclusion, so I guess it just what crack you’re trying to fill. Usually is only limited by what you do to yourself...or standards, or whatever. Talking about both woman and airplanes, BTW... ~Bendy Sent from my iPad using Baseops Network mobile app
  5. It’s a problem a post can’t be upvoted more than once at a time. Not a problem with the right lady friend... ~Bendy Sent from my iPad using Baseops Network mobile app
  6. But apparently we had 1.9 Trillion just laying around... Priorities, ~Bendy Sent from my iPad using Baseops Network mobile app
  7. This is all just very disappointing. What you refer to as “UPT 2.5” should have never existed, it wasn’t part of the plan of the people that started this train in motion. There is nothing “student-centric” about what you refer to as “UPT 2.5”, and it suffers from the exact same curriculum gaps as the traditional PPT syllabus (if not more). “UPT 2.5” is convoluting and confusing. While it does have its merits, which will likely remain...this IS NOT and WAS NOT the intention of the people that started this and are still pressing forward on the design of what was to be UPT 2.5. At this point
  8. Yeah, hard pass. Anyways, is it the right approach to “create” a safe space when what you really want is the world to be “safer” (for you)? Seems like a facade at best... I’m for more respect of each other. Just doesn’t seem to me like these “safe spaces” do that in any way... ~Bendy Sent from my iPad using Baseops Network mobile app
  9. He does not. T-6 GPS Ops FUBAR in IMC despite nothing changing systems wise. Something about a waiver that was intentionally not renewed. Can still train with it in VMC, so there’s that... ~Bendy Edited to make the last sentence not mean the exact opposite of what I was trying to say...yes, the reason is exactly why you would think that that happened. Sent from my iPad using Baseops Network mobile app
  10. I bet if a student was actually taught a cross check (beyond the 2.6 hours a CSI “teaches”) helmet fires would be significantly reduced from current levels...Vance’s “2.5” included. Although, in its defense, Vance’s “2.5” does give flight line IPs additional opportunity to teach a cross check. It’s not in the syllabus to use the opportunity that way, but the opportunity exists none the less. If we actually taught students the shit they needed to know, good things would start to happen. Or at least, that’s the thought...time will tell. ~Bendy Edit: Stand ups too...has always been a trial
  11. The disconnect here arises from the notion that a statement/post must either defend or attack a position. Sometimes it’s just a fact, sometimes an opinion, which by nature doesn’t need to always advance or retreat to have value. The fact that a seemingly large majority of people believe that it does, is part of the problem with political discourse. We were, in my opinion, a little sideways before...now, oh my, we’re riding down the track backwards. Exciting anyways... ~Bendy Sent from my iPad using Baseops Network mobile app
  12. No washouts is unequivocally incorrect (in any version). As to the first sentence, probably close to true, but what results exactly do you have an issue with? ~Bendy Sent from my iPad using Baseops Network mobile app
  13. Hard pass. ~Bendy Sent from my iPad using Baseops Network mobile app
  14. Here we are again, Huggy...So then, once the investigation is over, is it now the time to start speculation? I tire over this concept that speculation can’t be a valuable tool for pilots to discuss scenarios that aren’t driven by historical fact. While the platform for such speculation is a real cause for concern, pilots should be both sharing personal facts and talking hypothetically to be their best...this absolute tank opinion on talk is unhelpful. If one believes this forum is an inappropriate place, that’s one thing...but, speculation is actually healthy if done for the right reasons.
  15. I’m quite sure everyone is told at some stage to lower the seat to the point it’s above your head...whether they listen or not is a different answer. ~Bendy Sent from my iPad using Baseops Network mobile app
  • Create New...