Jump to content

Track Selects and Assignment Nights


Guest oliwoody

Recommended Posts

On 7/23/2017 at 2:55 PM, ihtfp06 said:


The demand for RPA experience outside is very high. The demand for helicopter pilots, on the other hand...

I imagine the army has no issue keeping W pilots because they're compensated pretty well, have a fulfilling mission, and actually get to focus on their mission.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

False.  Army is having some of the same aviator retention problems that the USAF is having.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd rather pay state income tax versus what TX has going on with property taxes.  I was paying $600 a month for a $200K house in TX.

Where the hell in TX is this? Super upscale master planned community? MUD taxes in a brand new development? Or downtown somewhere?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd rather pay state income tax versus what TX has going on with property taxes.  I was paying $600 a month for a $200K house in TX.

 

To continue the derail, 5 years ago monthly property taxes for a ~$170K house in TX were ~$250.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Stitch said:

Serious question from the "teach me" point-of-view, not being a smart ass.  What about guys/gals who are guard/reserve and fly for the airlines weekdays and drive Mother Blue's hardware in their off time?  Couldn't that be considered "dual qual'd; airliner/something else?  Also dual-qual'd pilots like the guys at Beal flying the Duce and the -38 seem to do OK.  (yes, I understand the Beal crowd is really the cream-of-the-crop type of community) 

Again, asked from a "teach me" point-of-view not being a dick.

 

 

For the purpose of this discussion, dual qual means a guy executing full up combat missions in two MDS during the same time period, which requires substantially more than "motherhood" flying.  The ability to fly more than one airplane safely is not being debated here, it's the ability to employ more than one aircraft effectively in combat. Beale/Whiteman 38s, airlines, etc. are all basic flying/"standard" airmanship type stuff - they are not employing an MDS in combat.  These two, different definitions of dual qual cannot be compared/inter-changed (apples to oranges).

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, brabus said:

For the purpose of this discussion, dual qual means a guy executing full up combat missions in two MDS during the same time period, which requires substantially more than "motherhood" flying.  The ability to fly more than one airplane safely is not being debated here, it's the ability to employ more than one aircraft effectively in combat. Beale/Whiteman 38s, airlines, etc. are all basic flying/"standard" airmanship type stuff - they are not employing an MDS in combat.  These two, different definitions of dual qual cannot be compared/inter-changed (apples to oranges).

Valid but the employment in combat between the two airframes in discussion (a LAAR and an RPA) are engaging in similar missions using similar sensors, could be made to use similar nav / displays (particularly for the pilot), same weapons, etc...

If this was done in a non-AF way, with careful thought and strategy, it is my opinion it could work.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MooseAg03 said:


Where the hell in TX is this? Super upscale master planned community? MUD taxes in a brand new development? Or downtown somewhere?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nah, that's about Bexar Co standard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, FlyLow said:

False.  Army is having some of the same aviator retention problems that the USAF is having.

They may have retention issues, but the ratio of commercial helo opportunities to mil helo aviators is a lot smaller than commercial fixed-wing to mil aviators.  The pay disparity is also a LOT bigger when comparing mil to airline.

Edited by Guest
Clarification
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

 

If this was done in a non-AF way, with careful thought and strategy, it is my opinion it could work.  

Agreed. But we both know it'll NEVER happen that way. There will be way to many cooks in the kitchen looking to pad their OERs and you'll end up with a zebra (with building costs and contractors spread across numerous states and congressional districts) when you wanted/needed was an elephant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, brabus said:

For the purpose of this discussion, dual qual means a guy executing full up combat missions in two MDS during the same time period, which requires substantially more than "motherhood" flying.  The ability to fly more than one airplane safely is not being debated here, it's the ability to employ more than one aircraft effectively in combat. Beale/Whiteman 38s, airlines, etc. are all basic flying/"standard" airmanship type stuff - they are not employing an MDS in combat.  These two, different definitions of dual qual cannot be compared/inter-changed (apples to oranges).

OK, that all makes sense now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed. But we both know it'll NEVER happen that way. There will be way to many cooks in the kitchen looking to pad their OERs and you'll end up with a zebra (with building costs and contractors spread across numerous states and congressional districts) when you wanted/needed was an elephant.

True - the temptation / habit to build it for everyone and it ends up serving no one is there but there have been times where we got it right

My two cents would be for splitting the baby to get Congress to buy this concept - systems built mainly in some states and stationed in others to spread the wealth but keep the execution clean(er)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

KCBM 17-13

T-38 STUDS

 

F-35

A-10

F-16 Luke

F-16 Luke

T-6 FAIP

T-6 FAIP

F-15SA RSAF

F-15C RSAF

 

T-1 STUDS

 

C-17 Hickam

C-17 Dover

C-17 Travis

RC-135

E-3

C-130J Little Rock

C-130J Yokota

C-130H IL ANG

C-130H Patrick AFB (AFRC)

C-21 Ramstein

T-1 FAIP

HC-130 Moody

C-146

U-125A Japan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

KEND

T38

F15C Kingsley Field (guard)

F15C Kingsley Field

F15E Seymour Johnson

F16 Luke

F35 Luke (B2 fakeout)

B2 Whiteman

T6 FAIP

 

T1

C130J Channel Islands (guard)

C5 Dover (guard)

C130H Wyoming (guard)

C130J McGuire (guard)

2xRC135 Offutt

C130J Little Rock

C146 Duke

T1 FAIP

CV22 Hurlburt

AC130W Cannon

C17 Charleston

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/5/2017 at 10:26 AM, Fish_burger said:

KCBM 17-13

T38

F35, Luke

T6 FAIP x2

F16, Luke

A10, Davis-Monthon

 

T1

C130H, Patrick (Reserve)

C130H, Illinois ANG

RC-135

C130J, Little Rock

C130J, Yokota

C17, Travis

C17, Hickam

C21, Ramstein

HC130J, Moody

E3, Tinker

T1 FAIP

C17, Dover

C146, Duke

Is getting T-6 FAIP'd from T-38s a normal thing? Seems like they would want all T-38 grads to go straight to the CAF. 

Edited by Vimix22
word
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Vimix22 said:

Is getting T-6 FAIP'd from T-38s a normal thing? Seems like they would want all T-38 grads to go straight to the CAF. 

They have to have instructors. Try can't only pulling from the CAF to have T-38 instructors. It's a balancing act way above my pay grade. "Robbing Peter to pay Paul" type of situation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...