Jump to content


Supreme User
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


tk1313 last won the day on December 22 2017

tk1313 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

260 Excellent

About tk1313

  • Rank
    Flight Lead

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

1,648 profile views
  1. Graduating in May, pushing for Pilot

    I definitely think you have a shot. You've probably heard this before, and you'll hear it again: Whole Person Concept. I also think you should try to get your PPL or as many hours as you can afford. Reserves vs. Active Duty is your personal choice. You can always apply for both and see which one gets you there faster if that's truly what you want. You can get Lasik/PRK done as a civilian, and sooner is better than later from what I've been told by others who have had the surgery. As for the Nav//fighter/etc questions you seem to be asking, I would recommend you start to focus in on what you want to do. There's a long road ahead of you, and not being sure that the route you took is exactly what you want is not going to help you get through all the training. If you want to go after a pilot slot, go after a pilot slot. If you've always wanted to fly fighters, go after fighters. If you truly don't care what you fly, and just want to get there quick, apply for anything and everything (including AD). Good luck!
  2. Info on flight boots

    Done a little bit of research on boots... I'm primarily concerned with getting good boots that are lightweight and good/comfortable for running in. What do you guys think about Nike SFB vs Rocky C4T? Those seem to be the two that guys are comfortable running and spending a lot of time in.
  3. The Next President is...

    Valid, I'm not an expert on polling nor will I ever be (or care to be), which is why I came sarcasm loaded. But, in my defense, the so called "experts" in political polling consistently get it wrong, even when everyone knows their estimates are very far off. I personally think it is mostly bias, but whatever the case I simply couldn't care less because polls are polls (like rumors are rumors), and I never take them unless I'm picking which football team is going to win. As an aside, wouldn't my "people stopped taking the ACA polls once the Repubs won the majority" fit into the "boomerang effect" from your link? I.e. President Trump says he will repeal ACA so I'm not going to take a poll asking my opinion on whether or not it should stay. I already voted for someone who wants to repeal it, he got elected... what's the point of reaffirming my stance via polling now?
  4. The Next President is...

    Strange... I looked at the entire list, and from October 10, 2009 to Jan 7, 2017 Americans are clearly and strongly opposed to the ACA. In the past year, yes, these every-so-accurate polls are showing more people in favor of the ACA... Maybe America is in an Enlightenment period and has finally discovered the amazing Utopia Obama wanted to create through government-provided healthcare/cell phones/everything else... After all, nothing says streamlined and monetary efficiency like government programs. We all remember the great successes of the VA hospitals and how Dems rode in like white knights to save the VA from the evil Republicans who wanted to defund it because Republicans hate Vets more than anything and wanted to screw them over under the guise of defunding a "corrupt and criminally negligent organization." Or maybe less Republicans are voting in the polls because they know Trump and the Republican House/Senate want to get rid of the ACA and they don't have to fight the good fight via internet polls anymore; and more Dems are voting in the polls because they are afraid that the Obama Legacy will wither and Republicans will work in concert with the Russians to let the uber-wealthy deny all forms of healthcare to all the poor people of the land. The Trump administration will create a new form of AIDS and pump it into the inner cities while they laugh in their ivory towers as Hillary cradles a sick infant and cries out, "None of this would've happened if the electoral college didn't screw me out of a win!!" Ok, sorry I've been reading too much Newsweek. In the end, the ACA sucks and badly hurt a close family member of mine because of the ridiculous regulations it put on small, private healthcare providers. But I'm not stupid enough to believe that the Republicans in DC are the answer to our healthcare woes. I think it would take cooperation from both sides to fix the shitshow going on in the system, so basically we're all fucked until the grandstanding idiots stop pointing fingers and start offering solutions.
  5. F-35 Lightning info

    Shifty fucking Canadians
  6. Did you ask for SERE before UPT? You're going to be brining your own handcuffs and whip aren't you?
  7. Dream Sheet Advice

    Is the end just a bunch of people sinking the weapons so it looks like a strike against civilians?
  8. I was told the package sits at NGB awaiting an approved FC1. Yes, you should have been told if there was any issues/waivers needed when you were at Wright-Patt. A couple pounds over the max weight for the T-6? That weight is around 245 or something... Don't quote me, but just figure that out. If you're over that weight, I don't really know what happens. Also, that is pretty quick for FC1, so hopefully NGB approval will be pretty quick for you too. Congrats!
  9. F-22 Pilot's comments after flying the F-4

    I've heard F-4 pilots describe it as "the military's science project to prove that, if you strap big enough engines on anything, it will fly."
  10. Trends in Air to Air Combat

  11. T-6s Grounded; More OBOGS Issues

    I don't have platform specific numbers with me. I know from looking at charts of oxygen analysis being done on some test jet aircraft (OBOGS) that the numbers on the ground are usually max performance (95-100%). For some aircraft, there is an OBOGS source change that happens after Weight Off Wheels that immediately shows a drastic decrease in O2% by vol, then increases back up to about 60-80%. The F-16 OBOGS O2 concentration to the face is very similar to the F-15 LOX, except it has a steeper increase at low atitudes. A lot of pilots let their mask hang until they absolutely have to put it on, but then they are getting that mass influx of oxygen to the lungs. When it is absorbed by the blood stream, and the pilot is still breathing a very high percentage of oxygen, the alveoli start to collapse since there is not a high enough concentration of Nitrogen to retain the shape (or so the theory goes). Luckily, with all of the OBOGS issues, they are implementing sensors in a lot of places in a lot of aircraft and this theory will be proven or disproven soon. As for the T-6 IP hypoxia issues, I would have to look at the debrief from the flights/ground events. I don't know if I buy off on lack of SA because a lot of the bad cases of hypoxia end up being "Oh, I remember being cleared to land and I didn't really feel good. I remember taxiing off the runway, but don't remember actually landing the plane." If that's the case, then no amount of (lost) SA is going to help you keep 69 seconds of flight time that would have otherwise been lost due to oxygen deprivation. Personally, I'd look for 1 or 2 aircraft that have the most amount of hypoxic events associated with them and start digging deeper. In addition, it would be a good idea to do hose leak check, mask fit check, mask leak check, concentrator and regulator replacements, check for water in the system (obviously), etc for all aircrew/aircraft that had an incident. I'm sure whichever team has been tasked to deal with this issue is already knocking out that easy stuff.
  12. T-6s Grounded; More OBOGS Issues

    Yeah, for sure the bottle is assumed to be 100% O2. This is debatable when OBOGS is not secured on certain platforms, due to the nature of the two way switching valve, but that's a whole other argument. Anyway, the hyperoxia focus is not stating that the EPs are an issue, just that the initial oxygen that aircrew is exposed to is not helping at all. Oxygen concentrations should start low at low altitudes, and increase from there until it gets to 100% concentration at higher altitudes. This has successfully been done on LOX jets in the past. The fact that OBOGS jets now are going from 95-100% O2, then back down to around 60-80%, then once again increasing to 100% could be hurting more than just a non-linear increase in concentration based on altitude, and could explain why they (OBOGS aircraft) have far more physio events. Yeah, the hyperoxia theory doesn't quite explain the specific cases of aircraft at one particular base being bad. Hate to think the maintainers are catching all the blame, but no doubt they are being scrutinized (who worked on what airplane and when). The fact that the IPs are the ones getting hypoxic is something that I'm sure the AF team of engineers or technical experts will start to focus on.
  13. T-6s Grounded; More OBOGS Issues

    The only time I'm a doctor is when I'm talking to a hot chick at a bar... But, from what I recall the actual doctor saying, the hyperoxia (oxygen poisoning) theory explains that breathing (in this case) 95% oxygen on the ground when usually we'd be breathing ~21% might be a bad thing. Our OBOGS-equipped platforms we fly are able to deliver 95-100% O2 on the ground, and in military flight, the mask is supposed to be on during checks/taxi. So on the ground, this leads to "absorption atelectasis". (From Wikipedia) Since oxygen is exchanged at the alveoli-capillary membrane, nitrogen is a major component for the alveoli's state of inflation. If a large volume of nitrogen in the lungs is replaced with oxygen, the oxygen may subsequently be absorbed into the blood, reducing the volume of the alveoli, resulting in a form of alveolar collapse known as absorption atelectasis. In flight, this leads to acceleration atelectasis and pulling G's can cause the base of the lung to collapse. So basically, drastically changing the composition of your alveoli on the ground, then going up and being exposed to O2 concentrations that vary between 60-80% during flights where you do multiple altitude changes is causing hypoxia (that's the theory at least). Now take a jet like the F-15 where LOX and a diluter-demand regulator is used... At 10k' altitude, 25-50% O2 (by volume). At 20k' altitude, 40-65% O2. Finally, around 28-30k' altitude, the regulator stops diluting the incoming oxygen from the LOX bottle and 100% O2 is delivered for those altitudes and higher. LOX jets historically have a MUCH lower (reported) percentage of hypoxia events per flight hour. Anyways, none of this is my research, but I just thought those basics were very interesting especially given the OBOGS issues in the T-6 (and across multiple other platforms as well).
  14. T-6s Grounded; More OBOGS Issues

    Not an expert, but thought the T-6 OBOGS was capable of producing 100% (or close to it) O2 on the ground? (not debating the boldface)
  15. WTF? (**NSFW**)

    Same-minded dude probably volunteered to put up these lights. Merry Christmas.