Jump to content
Baseops Forums

DazedandCynical

Registered User
  • Content Count

    17
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

14 Good

About DazedandCynical

  • Rank
    SNAP

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    KSZL

Recent Profile Visitors

2,933 profile views
  1. Never said it wasn’t policy. His original question was where is this written. Ever had someone tell you a policy existed but quoted the wrong reg? In my experience, CCs don’t care. The problem arises from the RA that approves the voucher....RA = must approve voucher. The CC = may subject the traveler to the disciplinary action. You get Hilton Gold with AMEX platinum.
  2. Wait....so, not the JTR? Free advice: Don’t be a jabroni if a dude had a simple question on source information. Awesome work deconstructing cross-referenced bureaucracy that no one else could.
  3. I de-magnetized mine 3 years ago...never seems to work and the numbers are difficult to read for some reason. Hilton Diamond.
  4. Making sure you are flying before you raise the gear isn’t a technique.
  5. “Train people well enough so they can leave, treat them well enough so they don’t want to.” — Richard Branson Or....do whatever you want. I don’t think the AF knows how to calculate ROI.
  6. Just fill out the grade sheet? Not for the O-6.... I’m as cynical as the next dude...but I wouldn’t leave the AF bc the OG threatened to remove my certification as an IP if I didn’t do my job. Obviously, not inspiring words from the OG to a new IP...but just fill out the grade sheet.
  7. Just a curious question with regards to the new promotion policy to Major. If they routed and rack/stacked PRFs up to your WG/CC, did the WG/CC give feedback to every dude on how those PRFs would have departed the wing? Or was it “good game, nothing more to see here” as the PRFs were tossed?
  8. Nobody needs to read the assessment for Korea in order to tell that you don't know that MOAB is a guided weapon.
  9. I think the entire system is flawed...especially when you relate the issues in this thread to the issues in the MC-12/Safety System thread. Ridiculous that privileged findings are used to hang a dude...but in other instances, privileged information is safe-guarded or not emphasized in training enough to gain real lessons learned.
  10. All valid, and think Liquid was spot on. There are some barriers due to the restrictiveness, but also think the info is available...but under a shitload of obstacles that are unnecessary. Spinning up aircrew in a new airframe that was rapidly procured...the FTU needs to have an emphasis on pushing out the info from past SIBs, but also new aircrew need to seek that info...and that's regardless of airframe. I can somewhat understand the displacement of info of guys that used to be in the MC-12 that are no longer there...but if a pilot is in that current airframe he/she needs acces (whatever kind). Champ- not saying this doesn't happen at every safety shop or FTU, but don't think it is an emphasis when it should be as a whole. Liquid- the only part I disagree with is the aspect of training post-SIB. I am with you that all the products produced from an SIB would give extremely more insight to all crew members in a community, but there needs to be a better answer than that. FTUs need to train based off the information gained from those SIBs or we are repeating previous incidents.
  11. Agree with what you are saying. The main point is that the individual safety offices need to develop root causes of each SIB from the recommendations and disperse that info throughout their respective wings. I think as a whole, if there is an obvious safety of flight issue....the AF sends guidance thru FCIF/TO change, but the inference of SIB info wrt to each specific airframe is not disseminated to the masses appropriately. That being said, there needs to be action from both the SE office and also line aircrew (mainly IPs) to emphasize the findings and fixes to the info in each SIB report during spin up.
  12. Badass...we are not in Nam. We are landing jets short of the runway (if the correct one), even w/ an FE.
  13. Having an FE would reduce the mishap rate. C-5s have an FE. It's ridiculous to say that we train a person for 50 wks (x2)...but an AF pilot needs an FE to determine a go-around. An extra set of eyes okay, maybe...but should NOT be the savior.
  14. 1000' short isn't likely a case of the sucks. But, you knew that... I think there was a C-17 crew that landed 56,000 short about a year ago...but you knew that. I heard the CP switched his display tho.
  15. We could probably use a FCIF to make sure this doesn't happen again...
×
×
  • Create New...