Jump to content
Baseops Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Merle Dixon

Degradation of SUPT

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, ROCK 10 said:

"It starts at a syllabus "conference" when someone says: "students don't learn anything new from that second T-6 MOA solo anyway."

^^^Wait, What??^^^

Damn!!, two of the best days in UPT for me were solo MOA double-turns on a Friday - once in the -37, and later in the -38.  While at the desk dropping off my 'solo chit' at 11am for the 2nd -38 sortie, I distinctly remember the OPS-O saying "Hey, even I can't do that!" - then said, "Fly Safe, have fun!" 

Point is, me thinks that self reliance/confidence in the jet is learned in small increments - perhaps by flying solo!  Flying time back in early '97 was 87 Tweets/105-ish Talons.  192 total, just sayin'.

 

I’ve noticed that to be a big issue with UPT graduates. They lack confidence in their own abilities because they are rarely solo. As well as UPT teaches them to fly a syllabus, not be a pilot. They keep doing the same things that don’t work for them instead of what does because “that’s how the 3-3 says to do it.” The minute anything changes some guys will freeze up and short circuit. VFR is non existent in UPT and confuses those who only know AF flying. 

Ive heard IFF guys talk about how students can’t even fly the pattern. Well, the first time a student is flying the overhead pattern, or landing in general, at a different airport shouldn’t be IFF. I think students should always be in the front seat during instruments and XC and be required to do VFR patterns and visuals at foreign airports. T-1s do much better in that side of the house than 38s. 

We need to work more to make pilots once they have the basic aviating down. Hell, all of our student sorties are solo in the A-10 and they only get 2 EP sims before they fly. After ~20 hours of foundational instruction solos could easily be integrated more often into the UPT syllabus. 

Edited by Hawg15
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, ayz33 said:

I'm just saying I'm not just a kid who just came out of high school.

 

See you at Sheppard

I’m just saying that no one gives a fuck you’re not right out of high school. 

Get over yourself and stfu snap

BREAK BREAK

agree w top two posters. 

Edited by BashiChuni
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Hawg15 said:

Ive heard IFF guys talk about how students can’t even fly the pattern. Well, the first time a student is flying the overhead pattern, or landing in general, at a different airport shouldn’t be IFF. I think students should always be in the front seat during instruments and XC and be required to do VFR patterns and visuals at foreign airports. T-1s do much better in that side of the house than 38s. 

^This right here.  We spend far too much time teaching students to fly in a local UPT pattern that has way more rules and is far more saturated than anything they're ever going to see in the real world.  The rules  let us cope with a huge traffic load in the pattern, but the intricacies of local pattern-isms should be the realm of IP knowledge, not expected of students. We need less local pattern nonsense and more off station sorties to get them used to the real world.  Not to call anyone out, but I've seen countless students hook checkrides for not being able to find a specific VFR entry ground reference at the aux field  or not being able to clear the pattern for the 11 other airplanes doing god knows what.  Guess what, half of the IPs don't know where VFR entry is either.  

It's all a titanic waste of time and poor training in my opinion. 

 

Edited by Pooter
  • Like 3
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Huge agreement w above poster. Last week at a major class c airport the student turned crosswind and told me he was going to “outside downwind”. Also students try to breakout at KAFW if they are past the “perch point” which doesn’t exist at a non UPT base. Doesn’t help that their IPs let the SPs fly o&b sorties to the checkride base and don’t make them go somewhere challenging/unfamiliar/high&hot

Edited by BashiChuni
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a nobody commenting but dang even during my PPL my instructor had me fly solo to two or three airports I had never been to before. A couple of short "cross countries" to a couple of new airports dual, then back to those solo, then "Hey, you're going here today, you know enough to figure it out"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

Huge agreement w above poster. Last week at a major class c airport the student turned crosswind and told me he was going to “outside downwind”. Also students try to breakout at KAFW if they are past the “perch point” which doesn’t exist and a non UPT base. Doesn’t help that their IPs let the SPs fly o&b sorties to the checkride base and don’t make them go somewhere challenging/unfamiliar/high&hot

"If you're not ready at the perch, breakout.  Except if you're at any airfield on earth that's not called Columbus, Vance, Sheppard, or Laughlin.  Then just perch late or whenever tower tells you to, and try not to get drug in."

Source: AFMAN 11-248  Chapter 6, Section 9 Paragraph 6.9.6.9.69

Edited by Pooter
  • Like 3
  • Haha 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bender said:

The current syllabus T-38 track has 90 T-6 hours (3 of which are solo). You guys think we should take more of the sorties and just send them solo? Sounds like an easy fix if it in fact bolstered SA later on!

 

Shite, they can do 90% of the syllabus solo if it helps! Wouldn’t get any complaints from me!

 

~Bendy

 

 

Do all syllabus tracks get the same amount of T-6 solo hours? Only 3 hours seems to be a extremely low. If that is the case, it might be more of a "check in the box" ... "you did it, now move on to the next box" which brings no real benefit in my opinion. But hey, my opinion might not mean anything. I am a nobody Army helo guy UPT bound. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, CharlieHotel47 said:

Do all syllabus tracks get the same amount of T-6 solo hours? Only 3 hours seems to be a extremely low. If that is the case, it might be more of a "check in the box" ... "you did it, now move on to the next box" which brings no real benefit in my opinion. But hey, my opinion might not mean anything. I am a nobody Army helo guy UPT bound. 

No, there is an advanced aerobatics solo the T-38 bound students get that the T-1 guys don't.  Also the bottom of the barrel T-1 bound guys sometimes get their formation solo waived just to push them through if they still aren't safe to solo at the end of the formation block.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
^This right here.  We spend far too much time teaching students to fly in a local UPT pattern that has way more rules and is far more saturated than anything they're ever going to see in the real world.  The rules  let us cope with a huge traffic load in the pattern, but the intricacies of local pattern-isms should be the realm of IP knowledge, not expected of students. We need less local pattern nonsense and more off station sorties to get them used to the real world.  Not to call anyone out, but I've seen countless students hook checkrides for not being able to find a specific VFR entry ground reference at the aux field  or not being able to clear the pattern for the 11 other airplanes doing god knows what.  Guess what, half of the IPs don't know where VFR entry is either.  

It's all a titanic waste of time and poor training in my opinion. 

 

 

One former UPT IP opinion: your post speaks more to the state of the UPT instructor corps than it does to challenge “why” the RSU pattern is a part of primary flight training.

 

You are 100% correct, the RSU is the only way to support the number of sorties generated at a UPT base. What you should consider is that it also enables students to get much-needed reps which they might not get in a “real world” situation. If there’s one common theme from this thread, it’s that the syllabus is taking away too many reps already. Also, if we want to keep solos, you gotta keep the RSU pattern. The RSU will take way better care of that student than A1C Snuffy tower controller ever will.

 

I think it’s interesting that you suggest pattern “intricacies” should be reserved for IP knowledge and not expected of students, but then go on to say that IPs can’t find the ground references anyway. If that’s where the IP cadre is at, easy to understand why the students are struggling. I agree that Stan shouldn’t hook a ride for it, but I would wager that the IP’s need some more CT.

 

The IPs need to be good enough to communicate to Stan that while the RSU pattern isn’t “real,” it’s not about training them for real world pattern work, that is what phase III is for. The RSU pattern is simply about teaching them to fly an airplane. It forces you into a congested and SA-tasking environment, while making you look outside, understand your position with reference to the earth, clear for other aircraft, think critically, talk on the radio, maintain a cross check, understand and fly a contract, and, oh yeah...land the plane. That pattern will teach a dude way more than droning in the MOA ever will. Yes, you are sacrificing “reality” for some RSU rules, but that pattern is where the foundation is laid to make good pilots. If a dude can hack it in that pattern with 11 other planes , then you can build that student up to be a good product for phase III. Taking him single ship to the local civ field will not develop the skills that the RSU pattern will. Though, that has a time and a place too, the IP has to know when to use it.

 

If all the IPs can muster to teach is, “this isn’t real and it’s a bunch of nonsense,” I would argue that you’re missing out on the real training objective, and a quality training opportunity.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Dapper Dan Man said:

You are 100% correct, the RSU is the only way to support the number of sorties generated at a UPT base. What you should consider is that it also enables students to get much-needed reps which they might not get in a “real world” situation. If there’s one common theme from this thread, it’s that the syllabus is taking away too many reps already. Also, if we want to keep solos, you gotta keep the RSU pattern. The RSU will take way better care of that student than A1C Snuffy tower controller ever will

While I agree parts of the RSU pattern are a necessary evil, it is taken to a ridiculous level. When someone is hooked for turning half a section line too early. We do have an outside downwind kind of thing at DM, but it’s requested from tower if we can’t pull closed. 

Solo doesn’t mean they are by themselves.  I see no reason why the majority of formation isn’t flown solo. They could have a few instrument rides dual and a few solo as well. Aft is the learning channel and instruction can be done by the flight lead. At FTU the student’s IP flies chase during transition (when not practicing formation) until they get a form 8. This could easily be applied to UPT. If it’s form they always have a chase, if it’s instruments/trans it can be a mix of both.

If we want to make pilots we need to treat them like pilots, not hook them for being 2/10ths of a mile off the outside downwind track or perching slightly late. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While I agree parts of the RSU pattern are a necessary evil, it is taken to a ridiculous level. When someone is hooked for turning half a section line too early. We do have an outside downwind kind of thing at DM, but it’s requested from tower if we can’t pull closed. 
Solo doesn’t mean they are by themselves.  I see no reason why the majority of formation isn’t flown solo. They could have a few instrument rides dual and a few solo as well. Aft is the learning channel and instruction can be done by the flight lead. At FTU the student’s IP flies chase during transition (when not practicing formation) until they get a form 8. This could easily be applied to UPT. If it’s form they always have a chase, if it’s instruments/trans it can be a mix of both.
If we want to make pilots we need to treat them like pilots, not hook them for being 2/10ths of a mile off the outside downwind track or perching slightly late. 


Brother, I am in full agreement that students shouldn’t be hooking rides for that sort of stuff. My beef is with instructors who dismiss things that have solid training value.

Whoever is making the choice to hook stan for the transgressions you mentioned doesn’t understand what the point of the pattern is anyway, and also, probably doesn’t understand CTS. Sure, there are some unforgivable offenses that can occur, but your examples are debriefable at the most. I’m with ya man.

It’s a classic case of missing the forest for the trees. If instructors don’t recognize the value, they’re not going grade valuable things. That’s what I was going for; it raises concerns about where the IPs are at. Not where the students are at.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Hawg15 said:

I see no reason why the majority of formation isn’t flown solo.

We’d have to revamp the way we fly formation before that would happen. Either add more rides so they can go solo more than once or severely neuter the T-6 formation profile so they can solo earlier. Off the top of my head I’ve taken the aircraft from students who otherwise met MIF on all other maneuvers (they could have soloed otherwise) for rolling TOWARDS their wingman instead of away to initiate extended trail (from close formation), one for attempting an “overshoot” during wing-work (again...banking towards lead and trying to pull), and twice during extended trail for not recognizing excessive closure. Three of these were with “above average” students. Two went T-38s and one went T-1s by choice. 

My understanding is they get more formation solo in the T-38. Anyone in -38s wanna chime in? More solo is good, I agree, but at 10 hours of formation, a student is just beginning to develop the ability to think in three dimensions in relation to another aircraft. I’d rather see them get more experience before they regularly go solo. 

Also in regards to all the RSU pattern talk, I don’t get the impression from the gradebooks I’ve scrubbed that students are hooking for “localisms.” Most of the pattern unsats are for good reasons. Is having to stay below 1,600’ MSL until DER a Laughlinism? Yes. But when a student busts that altitude, they’re not just breaking a Laughlinism. They are failing to realize that they operate their aircraft in an environment full of hazards and that they need to have at least one iota of life preservation instinct, think about where the conflicts are, bring the radios into their SA bubble, and for one effing time in their life clear before they maneuver somewhere. 

Actually nevermind. They’re just going to fly in the NAS and only monitor one radio for the rest of their careers, right?

I don’t mean to come off as hating on people who want to abolish the RSU pattern. Any pattern is going to break down when you try to cram as many students into it as big AF wants us to.

If I could sum up the current state of pilot training in one phrase, it’s this: Better is the enemy of good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, zachbar said:

We’d have to revamp the way we fly formation before that would happen. Either add more rides so they can go solo more than once or severely neuter the T-6 formation profile so they can solo earlier. Off the top of my head I’ve taken the aircraft from students who otherwise met MIF on all other maneuvers (they could have soloed otherwise) for rolling TOWARDS their wingman instead of away to initiate extended trail (from close formation), one for attempting an “overshoot” during wing-work (again...banking towards lead and trying to pull), and twice during extended trail for not recognizing excessive closure. Three of these were with “above average” students. Two went T-38s and one went T-1s by choice

I’m talking more phase 3 after the basics of airmanship are learned in T-6s. However, I do believe not having an IP they know will save them helps develop some self preservation (it did for me). There’s a couple formation solos in 38s. I also think they need a nav/inst block containing solo O&Bs (chased by IPs). 38s are training single seat fighter pilots, so might as well train how single seat fighter FTU does. Model it similarly to vipers and eagles with their blend of dual/solo.

People still hook in FTU for trying to fly into their flight lead, it just requires an attentive IP. They also do dumb shit like accidentally shoot rockets at their flight lead in the hold too. Students will always find a way to scare you.

I don’t really have a problem with the RSU. I think trans should be flown to other local fields after setting the foundation on a few flights in the RSU pattern. From my understanding that’s how the T-1 side does things in trans and nav. 

Edited by Hawg15

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hooking for localisms as a factor of consequence?  Meh, hyperbole ime. So is the assertion the IP cadre is so green they can't fly let alone instruct to said localisms. 

It's just not a current driving reason for the otherwise production quality waste in the UPT syllabus, anecdotes notwithstanding. From our perspective and feedback on the PIT/IFF side... it's the sortie count, stupid. The cats have in aggregate 50 less hours (fiscal 06 vs fiscal 18 number comparisons, per the last big brain meeting last December). Less solos, and can't fly tac form to save their lives in IFF.

So to me, stop effing with the sortie count in phase III (+ solos) and you can improve the product baseline from a B-course customer perspective. But the entire premise of the innovation wank of the last 3 years was to crank up production and retain quality. That effort is failing demonstrably, and from where I sit at least it has killed a couple guys already but don't mind me. I digress.

From a IP-production/development which is my current wheelhouse, the program is not resource-allocated to get non-T38 MAF/NSA guys to get to a proficiency level in tac form to be able to IP-demo to the level expected of a top-off Track A 11F "classic guy" with currency in the prior airframe. With enough extra allocations though, sure I can totally get a non-38 prior herbie to that level, but not with a track A allocation. 19th won't hear of it though. And UPT wanks as a result, big surprise there. Oh well. 

Kwast is gone. Maybe this ---t will normalize as a result, maybe. Going back to legacy certainly worked wonder for us as a band aid these last 12 months, un-effing the production backlog of the SGTO experiment. I personally saved a couple potential casualties from checkered FEF through no fault of their own but the syllabus fiddle -----ng, so I sleep with a clear conscience. But not all baby turtles will make it to the ocean under this clownish paradigm. We're certainly on track to eff it up again with another round of innovation, so who the eff knows. *sighs* check ain't bouncin' I guess. 🤷‍♂️ 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dapper Dan Man said:

If all the IPs can muster to teach is, “this isn’t real and it’s a bunch of nonsense,” I would argue that you’re missing out on the real training objective, and a quality training opportunity.

 

Former IP here as well and I am with you on a lot of these points. I was being a little hyperbolic saying it's all a waste of time.  It isn't.  There is real value in the RSU pattern and you hit the nail on the head.  It is fantastic for ensuring the safety of solos, and it is great for reps.  But you and I also know sometimes it's horrible for reps.  With 8+ people in the pattern, no one is getting anything productive done except a sh!t ton of clearing and some practice with saturated radios.  And if you're the IP who lets their student ask for a straight in.. lord have mercy on your soul at the next roll call.  

My point was that there is this thing that happens at UPT bases where people get overly focused on localisms to the detriment of big picture aviation training.  I totally agree that it's valuable for students to learn how to operate aircraft in an area with local restrictions.  But when you have 5 different statuses and associated procedures for each runway direction at your base and aux field, we are getting into the realm of the absurd.  We're talking 30+ inflight guide pages! It is not an exaggeration to say that some THE most complicated local pattern, departure, and recovery procedures in the entire Air Force exist at pilot training bases.  UPT is a year long (for now) and if we're serious about still producing a good product, IPs need to stop wasting time hammering their students over a mountain of localisms, and start taking them off station as much as possible. 

Which leads me to my next point: my comment was absolutely meant to be an indictment of *some* of the current IP force.  Of course some IPs are out there doing great work, but PIT syllabi are being gutted just like UPT. New IPs have very little idea of what to do from a teaching standpoint, and they have to spend time learning the local procedures just like a student does.  But remember, IPs have a lot more time and reps to get good at a local area than the students do.  I've noticed as IPs get better at their local area, some of them tend to place more emphasis on it and hold students to an unrealistic standard of knowledge about its intricacies.  This is where I'm arguing that time and emphasis is better spent elsewhere.  

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, hindsight2020 said:

Hooking for localisms as a factor of consequence?  Meh, hyperbole ime. So is the assertion the IP cadre is so green they can't fly let alone instruct to said localisms. 

 

Hooking for localisms isn't a factor of consequence on it's own.  But hooking for localisms causes IPs to teach excessively to localisms, some of which ends up being wasted time.  And with reduced hours in the syllabus, every second counts. 

 

And yes, some of the IP cadre is that green.  A few IP-caused pattern incidents I've heard about through the grapevine recently truly boggle the mind.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bob Uecker said:

Do you guys think theres a correlation between student success and coming in with flight time, good or bad?

It can go both ways. Sometimes they have bad habits or are so ingrained in their ways that it’s a detriment. Other times it manifests as above average air sense, better patterns, better comms, etc. I think part of it is attitude and an individual’s ability to start from square one and accept that the Air Force is very particular about how it wants its pilots to fly. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, zachbar said:

Also in regards to all the RSU pattern talk, I don’t get the impression from the gradebooks I’ve scrubbed that students are hooking for “localisms.” Most of the pattern unsats are for good reasons. Is having to stay below 1,600’ MSL until DER a Laughlinism? Yes. But when a student busts that altitude, they’re not just breaking a Laughlinism. They are failing to realize that they operate their aircraft in an environment full of hazards and that they need to have at least one iota of life preservation instinct, think about where the conflicts are, bring the radios into their SA bubble, and for one effing time in their life clear before they maneuver somewhere. 

I don't really buy that argument.  There are a million altitude restrictions all over Laughlin's departure, recovery, and pattern procedures, and a student breaking one isn't necessarily a failing of their survival instinct. This is where we get into the root cause.  Did they bust it because they didn't know it?  Did they bust it because they knew it but were task saturated with other things? Did they bust it because they tried to level off and still just suck at leveling off? Did they bust it because they knew it and just willfully disregarded it?  This is what I'm getting at.  We can ask so many questions about a simple altitude restriction, meanwhile there are so many rules to learn that IPs have a hard time keeping track of them all, let alone a student.  I heard about what caused the little ops tempo stand down day a while back.  IP allowing a final turn breakout (not a thing) into a formation fini flight coming up initial?  Sounds sporty.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, ayz33 said:

Not sure why you're so riled up about this. I'm just saying I'm not just a kid who just came out of high school.

 

See you at Sheppard

You are like every other UPT student who has walked the halls of a UPT squadron before you, and I guarantee an “I know what I’m doing” attitude is the fastest way to get to the bottom of your FLT/CC ranking, despite your “performance.”  Let me give you some sage advise : “Never pass up an opportunity to STFU.”  UPT can be a blast but it can also be very painful if the IPs sense a chip on your shoulder.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Pooter said:

I don't really buy that argument.  There are a million altitude restrictions all over Laughlin's departure, recovery, and pattern procedures, and a student breaking one isn't necessarily a failing of their survival instinct. This is where we get into the root cause.  Did they bust it because they didn't know it?  Did they bust it because they knew it but were task saturated with other things? Did they bust it because they tried to level off and still just suck at leveling off? Did they bust it because they knew it and just willfully disregarded it?  This is what I'm getting at.  We can ask so many questions about a simple altitude restriction, meanwhile there are so many rules to learn that IPs have a hard time keeping track of them all, let alone a student.  I heard about what caused the little ops tempo stand down day a while back.  IP allowing a final turn breakout (not a thing) into a formation fini flight coming up initial?  Sounds sporty.  

Definitely was an overly simplified argument. I guess what I’m getting at is RSU pattern or not, both options have pros and cons, but I don’t think getting rid of the RSU pattern is necessarily priority one. But I do still feel that from the 88s I’ve seen and 89s I’ve generated, the IP force is for the most part still keeping the big picture in mind. I am a sample size of one though. 

And yes that was a fiasco 😬 We’re all hurting for more CT here. New guys, mid-time like myself, and even the older guys. THAT is the biggest issue I think. Most of Laughlin’s convoluted procedures exist so a T-38 can pull closed on the outside runway while a T-1 departs the center runway as a T-6 heads to the MOA on the inside runway with another T-6 500’ above it in the break turn. And the weather requirements exist so all local aircraft in the airspace close to Laughlin can be considered MARSA. It’s a necessary evil, and I’d agree that if there is a problem, it’s with IPs not separating wheat from chaff, not the procedures themselves. 

Like I said earlier, better is the enemy of good. UPT as it was seems have served the Air Force pretty well throughout history, convoluted airspace and all. Maybe “big Air Force” knew all along they were sacrificing quality for quantity and just never told us. 

Edited by zachbar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, zachbar said:

Maybe “big Air Force” knew all along they were sacrificing quality for quantity and just never told us. 

Having discussed this with the Generals over various AFSCs, I consistently heard “I never said to lower the standard!” Maybe they were lying to me, maybe they were lying to themselves to feel better about the future losses, either way I’m guessing they believe you will accept all the risk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, zachbar said:

Maybe “big Air Force” knew all along they were sacrificing quality for quantity and just never told us. 

Bingo.

Fixing the pilot shortage:

  • Cheap + Good = actual innovation in UFT that produces more, better aviators to man the future force
  • Good + Fast = retention of current pilots, i.e. pay a much bigger bonus (and also fix QOL & leadership issues)
  • Cheap + Fast = this is clearly what we've chosen, see orange section below

image.thumb.png.d773a2593a8dbd7a95f0c5cd8cb45e0c.png

Edited by nsplayr
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, zachbar said:

Like I said earlier, better is the enemy of good. UPT as it was seems have served the Air Force pretty well throughout history, convoluted airspace and all. Maybe “big Air Force” knew all along they were sacrificing quality for quantity and just never told us. 

 

6 hours ago, Sprkt69 said:

Having discussed this with the Generals over various AFSCs, I consistently heard “I never said to lower the standard!” Maybe they were lying to me, maybe they were lying to themselves to feel better about the future losses, either way I’m guessing they believe you will accept all the risk.

After the conclusion of the first iteration of the Syllabus Slashing Conference of Justice our previous sq/cc told us just the opposite when announcing the changes. He said the Bobs know they’re sacrificing quality for quantity and they’re accepting the risk (by they he meant us/the CAF) due to the crisis. Huge shock there was mixed messaging.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...