Hacker

More likely "material failure" related to the engine getting thrown around post-crash after it separated from the wing. If you watch the entire video (and with the understanding of the limited info the NTSB video provides) there are some clues to this, especially that the tips of the blades are not curled, as would be evident if the engine were turning at impact. Props rotating and producing power at impact are usually curled forward, while props rotating and not producing power at impact are usually curled aft.

With the exception of the MD-11, all initial aircraft and domicile assignments for newhires are based on the last 4 of SSN (9999 highest, 0000 lowest). Newhires put in a dream sheet before day one of indoc, and available assignments are handed out in seniority order. MD-11 assignments are selected separately, before day one of indoc by the company, and this is where previous experience is involved. Because of the finicky landing performance of the airplane, and the accident record at FedEx, they are looking for specific experience to send newhires to the airplane. For some reason they like Navy carrier guys, C-17 guys, and of course KC-10 guys, but that's not all inclusive.

Those evil airsoft pellets!

According to Salon: https://www.salon.com/2019/09/09/were-starting-to-see-the-scale-of-trumps-personal-corruption-and-its-massive/ That's some world-class "reporting".

"We care how things look, not how things are" is far from a UPT-centric problem. That is a core AF competency, unfortunately, that is going to take a generation to un-screw.

Biden got on the "mandatory assault weapons buyback" train a couple days ago, too. How can you "buy back" what you have never owned to begin with??

Honestly couldn't tell you. I do have a bunch of undergrad education in social statistics, but much of that at this point is lost to history. I had the pleasure of working with Dr Patterson and Dr Carretta down at Brooks back in the mid '00s while I was going through a medical issue, though, and I did hear them discuss this topic (the validity of various methodologies in selecting pilot candidates) in detail. They had piles and piles of data that they were constantly compiling and evaluating, and were eager to tweak their algorithms when they found something new. They were actually quite excited that the PCSM had held up with a correlation that was statistically significant over time (at that point, more than a decade of use and something like 10,000 pilots it had been used on). Beyond that, I'm out of my depth in this discussion. I don't know if Carretta is still working for the AF, but Patterson has since retired...might want to look them up and ask the question if you're really interested in an informed answer.

There's actually a pretty close statistical correlation between PCSM and success at UPT. Anecdotes aside, that's what the data says. That's kind of the entire point behind its existence. To wit: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2011-11428-002

Can't speak for those fellas, but one of the now-F-15E squadrons wore berets at one point back in the day, too: the 492d "Madhatters". They picked up the squadron nickname from having adopted the headgear local to where they were based (and the unit moved around quite a bit in the postwar/interwar years) and that included berets while in France. Since they're UK-based now, it is a British bowler hat currently.

Jim is a retired F-111 WSO, so he doesn't know. He's asking those who do, since it doesn't seem to make sense to someone with plenty of military aviation experience but who has been away from the game for a while. I can see why, from his perspective, it seems like a very stupid idea.

...and when a UPT Wing Commander's job effectiveness wasn't measured using graduation rate.

As I've frequently posted, this is the annual total UPT attrition per FY (from the AF's circa 2001 study of effectiveness of UPT student selection methods). There are plenty of individual class at individual base snapshots that show extremely high attrition, but given these overall numbers there were obviously classes with substantially higher graduation percentages that offset the high numbers.

I can honestly say "it wasn't like that" in the places I was in during the mid-late 90s (both as a non-flyer and a flyer). I had CCs who actually attempted to give rudder corrections first, and mete out punishment when they had to to guys who colored outside the lines but were otherwise good folks that wouldn't leave a mark. Personally, I saw this change between 2001-2005 to the "a good leader is one who kills flies with sledgehammers" that we see currently.

That's the first intelligent fitness-related development I've seen from the USAF since 1991. As a fighter back-injury-sufferer, I could've used a little of that rather than "take some Motrin and get on the flying schedule next week".

Among all of the institutionally-biased informed and uninformed opinions on the matter, this is really the bottom line. War is an ugly business -- and it is meant to be.