Jump to content


Supreme User
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


jazzdude last won the day on September 14

jazzdude had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

107 Excellent

About jazzdude

  • Rank
    Flight Lead
  • Birthday September 18

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Charleston AFB

Recent Profile Visitors

6,420 profile views
  1. jazzdude

    T-6s Grounded; More OBOGS Issues

    2-4 years is probably realistic... Figure 6-9 months to design/pick a new system, plus 3-6 months to test it, time to produce the replacement parts, and time to retrofit into the fleet. Plus any time required to get funding for all of that. Even swapping to O2 vice OBOGS would probably be along the same timelines. Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
  2. Yeah yeah, 75 kt touchdown speed landing flaps in the T6 (penguin it's still somehow on the iceberg). I'll compromise, doesn't need to be a checkride event, but should be at least introduced and taught, maybe to a fair MIF. The seat is great, until it isn't. Remember when the T6 seat sequencers were bad and FCP was probably going to be stuck in the jet with ISS-both? Good times. Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
  3. Yeah, 50 kts vs 200 into a farmer's field will have very different effects on survivability. But everything leading up to that is similar- maintain aircraft control, get on speed, and get the nose pointed to the best suitable location. It's the decision making process while flying, not necessarily just the ability to recover the jet if a stud is solo and has engine troubles. Didn't studs in the tweet have to fly single engine approaches and do 4 types of spins? Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
  4. Cool. Lets also cut aerobatics and formation too, since most pilots won't use those skills in their MWS. Also about half of the instrument phase, just add a couple more sims in place. Nav block can go away too, lets save money on TDY costs, just fly airways in the sim. On the heavy track? No need to solo. Landing at 50kts vs 200 is irrelevant, it's the mentality of being prepared to handle an emergency, especially since most will go on to aircraft where they won't have the option to eject/bailout. Take away ELPs, and in-jet EP training is practically nil (used to be 2 SSRs to do a non engine emergency, once in late contact and once in instruments). Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
  5. jazzdude

    Stocks for Dummies (Aviators)

    Also not an expert...But here it goes Vanguard's founder is a big believer in investing only in index funds, and vanguard waa one of the first companies to really do index funds. Freakonomics radio did a pretty good interview with Vanguard's founder http://freakonomics.com/podcast/stupidest-money/ If you look at (specifically) Vanguard's target retirement funds, what they are doing is adjusting the stocks vs bond ratio, and over time increasing the amount of bonds to reduce risk. But the underlying things it invests in are index funds. So it lets you put balancing risk on autopilot, with a target date to retire and be in a lower risk portfolio at retirement. My current split is about 50/50: about half in target/lifecycle funds, and half in index funds. That's across TSP, IRA, and brokerage accounts. My next step is to find a financial planner and adjust the mix between roth and traditional. My pilot math has me conservatively retiring in about the same tax bracket, so there's not a clear advantage to either. Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
  6. We're cutting the fundamentals when it's cheap to train, and pushing it to the MWS, where there are competing priorities (like learning to employ your aircraft in combat vs basic airmanship skills). Hell, even Joe Schmo getting his PPL check does an emergency descent to landing. We've also cut VFR flying, and fundamental navigation skills (clock to map to ground), and now it's ORM high if you want to go fly a true visual low level without reference to the magenta line in my jet. The problem isn't near term. These studs will probably be fine, barring having to deal with a true emergency. In 5 years though, these students will be the IPs, and won't have the knowledge/experience to pass it on. Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
  7. Lots of skills in the ELP are being learned. Energy management. Effect of wind on groundtrack. Planning ahead and adjusting on the fly. Knowing where my nearest emergency field is and whether I can make it there while concentrating on other tasks. Handling an emergency with a definitive time limit (time doesn't stand still in the jet like in stand up). Plus, every jet has the possibility of becoming a glider, we should be giving our pilots at least some exposure to forced landing in UPT to build that foundation of airmanship. ELPs are pretty much the only exposure T-6 studs get to handling emergencies in the jet, and which lays the foundation for staying cool, calm, and collected when things start going downhill. By the same token, why teach aerobatics? Or spins? Most pilots will never do those maneuvers in their MWS. But there's value added in doing those maneuvers-again, understanding energy, looking outside while maneuvering, etc. But I've got a bigger chance of my C-17 turning into a glider and executing a forced landing than me needing to barrel roll or do a spin recovery. It's all about laying a solid airmanship foundation for future instructors to build upon, versus teaching anew in a more expensive jet. Sent from my SM-T700 using Tapatalk
  8. jazzdude

    Finance Problems

    That sounds correct. Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
  9. Yeah, but more than likely they will make you serve out the rest of your commitment, at which point it's a voluntary separation with no pay. Keeps the bodies in while not paying a separation pay. Plus creates a pool of people hot for 179 deployments. Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
  10. I see ADSC as a one way contact-I owe the AF, but they owe me nothing. Then again, you can't stop loss someone who's already separated... Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
  11. I thought that was the goal for many, at least with all the talk here: fly the line, screw the game, pass on the staff assignment. Seems to be what every mid-level captain at least says they want to do in their career. That results in being passed over for Lt Col. Not a bad thing, just a different path (hmm, like a fly only path that has unofficially existed with continued majors). It does create a leadership challenge, because guys like that aren't going to be incentivized the way the AF likes to. Probably don't care about quarterly awards and beyond the AF ball/holiday party planner, or taking a job for "career progression." They are also likely the ones to point out the BS, because they don't have as much to lose telling the emperor they have no clothes ("what are they going to do? Pass me over for promotion...again?"). So the typical carrots and sticks the AF likes to use probably won't work. But give them a purpose, let them be the best pilots/instructors they can be, allow them to mentor the younger generation, and you know what, they'll probably be happy and get the mission done. Might even help the retention issue... Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
  12. The fact they can't touch the mil network is a fail. Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
  13. Counter point- maybe they don't get around to it because the metrics briefed to leadership are good. Pilots doing the work only masks the problem. Let it fail. Sent from my SM-T700 using Tapatalk
  14. From what I saw, generally FAIPs weren't the best instructors. Not necessarily bad, but they weren't disproportionately the best instructors. They could fly lots of sorties though, but generally because they weren't tied down with significant office jobs. They would sometimes miss the bigger picture of why we do some things, or teach a lot of -isms only relevant to the base or that jet. Not their fault because it's all they know, but it reflects in their instructional style and what they emphasize in briefs and debriefs. Like someone else mentioned, there is a difference teaching someone how to do something, and teaching someone how to teach doing something. I think PIT made me a much better instructor in general (previously was a MWS IP). Being TDY for PIT also meant no outside pressures-focus on flying and learning to instruct. Saying that upgrading IPs will be protected from office work until cert is as laughable as saying that new copilots will not have jobs for their first 6 months to focus on flying the jet... Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
  15. Isn't their upgrade much longer? My understanding was Navy UPT IPs essentially go back to the FITU multiple times, and each instructional phase is another upgrade/letter of x. So basic contact, adv contact, instrument, and formation were all seperate checkouts, which would mean a significant shift in how AF UPT would need to be scheduled since all IPs won't be certed to do everything. Sent from my SM-T700 using Tapatalk