Bender

Copy. Laze the building, not the people. I can do that. Laser on…do your thing. CSV, ~Bendy Sent from my iPad using Baseops Network mobile app

Tomorrow’s a Federal Holiday? I did not get that memo... ~Bendy

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

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.

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

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

But apparently we had 1.9 Trillion just laying around... Priorities, ~Bendy Sent from my iPad using Baseops Network mobile app

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, you might as well call it UPT 2.6. Yes, it was a experimental approach to proving a number of methods and tools in the beginning...but, there was a lot of critical thought into how that was done. The target to have everything put into place is October 2021...which is still very ambitious. Please just stop judging all of this based off of “UPT 2.5”. All pilots, regardless of track will get more flight time. All pilots regardless of track will not progress unless they learn, develop, and demonstrate very basic competencies required for more advanced activity. Everything about this is about making better pilots. There is not a single General involved in the development of any of this. This is a good thing... If you want to sport bitch, do it about AMF-S. That is a gigantic leap into a pool with an unknown amount of water. The divestment of the T-1 with no replacement aircraft is a incredible travesty that is forcing drastic maneuver to save a situation that simply should never exist. Who divests an entire fleet, with an active, needed mission set, without a replacement? ~Bendy Edit: “Baby out with the bath water” is actually a great analogy for what is happening right now. If a General is putting his money where his mouth is, it’s Wills. His action is simply allowing the bath water toss to happen, which is honestly amazing as F*$k. Sent from my iPad using Baseops Network mobile app

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

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

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 by fire brown cluster. Doesn’t need to be, we just like to waste an entire go of a FAIP’s day slogging through it multiple times a week because we had to do it too. Seems legit. Sent from my iPad using Baseops Network mobile app

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

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

Hard pass. ~Bendy Sent from my iPad using Baseops Network mobile app

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. Certainly no one needs to be sharing their speculation with the family (or in view of the family, thus the only possible rational argument from keeping it out of here). Although, I think it should 100% be here...that is (one of) what this place is for. I can agree either way on that one because I understand we can’t contain what we say in here anymore like we could 10 years ago...although, I’m not sure I think it’s a horrible thing it even gets out if people could just stick to saying smart things. Pilots should speculate with pilots. It breeds healthy discussions. Discussions keep us safer. Keep privileged information just that...once the report is briefed...discussions become stifled. It’s just my opinion, agree to disagree. ~Bendy Sent from my iPad using Baseops Network mobile app

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

The T-6 can’t jettison it’s canopy; It wouldn’t even come open if you unlocked it in flight. Maybe we should teach ELPs... Now, if it did jettison, why wouldn’t the ejection sequencer just do that instead of blowing it up in the pilot’s face? Man, if we bought a screw driver, we’d end up paying $300 for a drill with no bits. smh When I retire, I’m starting a business for the sole purpose of selling overpriced shit to the government. ~Bendy Sent from my iPad using Baseops Network mobile app

I don’t understand a lot, but DT Vectors is one I have never understood. What’s the point? ~Bendy

I am not at Vance. UPT 2.5 is at Vance because Vance leadership asked it to be, AGAINST the advice of people close to its development. Banzai is not a Vance term; it’s a PTN term, adopted by every base. I’m not rooting against you, I just think the acceleration over the last 5-6 months is irresponsible. That isn’t on you or any other IP... If you think that syllabus, or this effort, is Vance’s, you should go find someone that knows what they’re talking about. Although, at this point, sometimes I wish it was... The next 6 months are very important here...we might just scrap this whole F’ing thing. Again, Good Luck, ~Bendy

Vance AFB is conducting UPT 2.5 because “they were just so far ahead of the other bases”...LOL. Anyone can sign up for stupid anytime they want, doesn’t make one “farther ahead”...I would NOT want to be dealing with this thing in mass as END right now. This thing is hard enough with a single flight SGTO. Grade A way to become so overwhelmed you learn nothing (just wait until we sprinkle on a little timeline pressure), but that’s just one man’s opinion. That whole syllabus is going to require a MASSIVE overhaul...not a bad try for writing it in a couple months when no one had any idea what they were doing. Good luck to Vance & Randolph, Not to mention Columbus & Laughlin, ~Bendy Sent from my iPad using Baseops Network mobile app

Do you teach primary pilot training? Last I check (today), we are. ~Bendy Sent from my iPad using Baseops Network mobile app

Line pilots still do the staff work, even if they aren’t on staff... Sent from my iPad using Baseops Network mobile app

Yay, we don’t suck!!! #poundmetoo ~Bendy Sent from my iPad using Baseops Network mobile app

An upvote, skybert...but it’ll be Fair overall for your inability to correctly quote a post. ~Bendy

This is one of the most horrible things I’ve ever read. ~Bendy Sent from my iPad using Baseops Network mobile app