Jump to content
Baseops Forums

brwwg&b

Registered User
  • Content Count

    72
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

36 Excellent

About brwwg&b

  • Rank
    Crew Dawg

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Guess that's what a presidential pardon buys you these days.
  2. Ok, yeah all fair points. So, I could see a fly only track basically having the branches - tactics, training, test, safety. I think you're right about having later than normal windows available for those who elect to go that path. So maybe target like a 10-11 year point for either getting to WIC, expecting multiple AETC tours sprinkled in, TPS, or like you said, FAA/NTSB for the safety types. Totally agree on the latter - that's a mindset which needs to be changed or removed.
  3. They don't, because they don't care about that.
  4. Yes. It fluctuates but averages around 38,000 a year. Roughly the same number of people who die in the U.S. from auto accidents annually. Yes, the line has to be drawn somewhere. Torqued, what's your line? The 200,000 you asserted as Prozacs line is ~5% of the U.S. annual birth rate, maybe that's a good reference? The problem with many of these arguments is that instead of a cost to society/humanity, many people only view it as a cost to self/surroundings. (i.e. their line is "1, but only if its me")
  5. Unfortunately, that isn't true. https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2020/11/05/first-airman-a-texas-air-guardsman-dies-of-covid-19/
  6. Yeah, this is where you're wrong.
  7. This is certainly how Congress will see it - but maybe we are better about arguing for steady manning even during non-war periods...I doubt it, but it sure would help the laundry list of things plaguing the services' morale. My bet is on Flournoy
  8. Or Option 2? Could've attempted, unsuccessful (in this case I mean partial/no initiation of sequence) and then ditch is now the previously undesirable Option 3. Not speculating, just talking general considerations.
  9. Well, there's whats wrong with the AF for sure. Reactionary instead of proactive/preventative, and skirting blame where possible
  10. Jazzdude, I said a cable and not a net for a reason. The likelihood of someone trying to land at TIK, having brake issues and deciding to go catch a net vs going to Tulsa (2x runways with cables) or just accepting landing on a long runway (Tinker) and hoping to stop on rollout while preserving the option to punch (an option that goes away if you're in the net) is too minimal...so for argument's sake, lets say END and SPS don't really help other than mutual support to each other. You missed where I was going with the TIK/TUL comparison. Yes, TUL has vipers - my point was if they need to hold a divert base for WX, its in their interest to have one with a cable. Fort Smith pulled their cables and I'm too lazy to do much more sleuthing to determine what other options they have - but I'd wager its few and far between. So, a WX divert to TIK, drop the gear and realize something isn't right = automatically punch in the scenario now. Maybe that's the cost of doing business, but I'll also wager they're considering that, carrying fuel reserve to at least trouble shoot if that happens, and therefore reducing training time. You and FLEA seem to have a better understanding of the inner workings of how airfield capabilities get decided / funded. I found that bit educational at least. Maybe the bobs are accepting the risk, so be it. I'll get back to that. I'm not arguing that you can find yourself in some shitty scenarios in a heavy as well. Your birds are far more costly and fewer in number, and aren't rolling off the line any longer...it's not surprising that your leadership would rather you focus on trying to race against time to get back on the ground vs just saying "f it I'm out" and riding the silk highway down. You're right that with tighter budgets, leadership is forced to make difficult decisions - I'm just hoping they are accurately weighing risk. If we are accepting higher risk at home to train, it better be for a good reason. I think the jury is out on that - similar to some of the same decisions we've seen regarding adjustments to training. To your last point, its likely blasphemy to say so, but I think low manning forcing under representation on the staff has hurt the 11F community in more ways than one
  11. That makes the situation make more sense. Thanks for the transparency, FLEA.
  12. Your profile says you're at Charleston. Do you have cables? Do you know why? The original issue presented was a base commander making decisions at a base level, which might've contradicted "big AF"'s wants. Unknown if they made the decision to ask around before getting rid of the requirement, or if it was just missed by scrutinizing eyes beyond that location. Center the map around Tulsa and rethink whether the likelihood of events which could drive a divert to needing a cable (not a net) is worth maintaining a 100K/yr vs losing a 33+million dollar jet and buying risk at executing the seat option. Parachutes shouldn't be plan A, B, or C. (redundant engines, fuel/time, suitable fields all are limited to the pointy nose guys)
  13. Pretty sure we've found a personnelist
  14. 2 of 3 correct on 2 different posts? Pretty sure that's a win by PA standards...
×
×
  • Create New...