All Activity

Maybe for this reason/policy, now rescinded 5.3.3. REMOVED. 5.3.3. SQ/CC may waive 30 percent of the total and PAA flying hours required for upgrade to aircraft commander... This change of policy must've been for some [welcome] reason!? And I'm not saying that max efforts are a problem in that community, but it is a risk and training opportunity missed b/c of no FP max effort quals when it seems training and qualifications are priorities, but its also "additional" training (qual and beans) with inherent risk requiring flt hours. Its all about in-seat experience on both counts.

When I was a 2A753 (Sheet metal/corrosion control), I painted the grass in front of our Corrosion Control hangar green. This was in 1998 at the 388th.

Something like this: Half a wing (like the non pilot Brits) and a giant rocket.

So there is a correlation between operating multi-million dollar high tech war machines and a weed trimmer or lawn mower? My John Deere mower and Stihl trimmer are both over 25 years old. How sophisticated is lawn maintenance these days?

11-2MC-130J Vol 3 6.5.5.2: MC and FPs will not perform takeoffs or landings from the right seat under the following conditions: 6.5.5.2: During maximum effort or substandard airfield operations. FPs (MCs really since the MC-130 doesn’t really do traditional FP) finish the sim phase and don’t sit left seat again until AC upgrade or AC prep (current AC upgrade min hours is 600) therefore there’s little to no benefit to qual them in max efforts. I have not seen this be an issue during my time in the community, to include 2 schoolhouse tours and now current FTU CI. Edit to add: It's not that I haven't seen AC upgrade studs struggle with MEs; I have. It's just that by the end of the AC upgrade syllabus the average student gets it. Additionally, all the information in the MC-J HUD takes some of the art out of ME landings (power pull aside). I've seen far more ACUGs struggle with getting on/staying on the tanker, acting as the formation commander, and running a crew.

They copied the uniform from Star Wars, the group name from Guardians of the Galaxy, anyone want to make a prognostication on the new badge? I'm going with the widget looking thing from Star Trek.

I can’t remember what the S in AFSOC is for

MC-J vol 2, 5.4 Qualification, para. 5.4.1 "First Pilots (FP) should accomplish a maximum effort take-off and landing in order to maintain this qualification." Must suck to not "should" and learn for ~2 years or more...

Problem is when people in support (not that all space/cyber is support) start believing that they are actually warfighters, they forget that their job is to support the warfighter. When you lose track of how you relate to the mission, you lose track of what your real priorities should be. I don't care if you're turning wrenches, approving GPC purchases, or deploying space sharks with laser beams, you will be better at your mission when you understand how it fits into the overall mission of killing people and breaking things.

The use of the term "immersion tour" made me throw up in my mouth a little.

AF AMN/NCO page must be tracking this thread revival because this is perfectly on cue

Why do that when you can just crucify the inexperienced crews when they inevitably put more jets in the ground

In a sane and rational world with a bit of strategic vision versus how do I do this as cheap as possible not even considering risk, that program / location would / could be an answer. If they don’t wanna own new aircraft then buy the time, rent the planes and sim time. It is affordable, it’s not that difficult and they need the time, training and experience. Rant Generator - Off

In the video they keep saying that Navy can do whatever they want but that Navy shouldn’t. This is legally incorrect. Underpinning any ADSO, ADSC, MSO, etc, is contract law. Navy in actuality cannot do whatever they want. Unfortunately, when 1 party (Navy) breaches the terms of the contract, alters the contract without the other party’s (the pilot) assent, they act in a lawless manner and will need to be sued to bring them back in line.

CPs in MC-130s are PM only for assaults and always have been until AC upgrade or AC prep. That model hasn’t been an issue for the community. The bigger issue is the lack of an actual Phase 3 trainer (T-1 sim only or T-6 only students). The AF is really fucking these guys and girls over. I’ve had several students over the last 6 months that seriously struggled to land the aircraft (in the sim) normally on a 13,000x150ft wide runway in day VFR conditions. A lot of these students are behind in overall SA, comms, basic aircraft handling, and GK.

Best deal around back then, really enjoyed my training at Corpus.

If only there was a program in South Texas that explicitly trained low level navigation, basic herbivore formation, drop zone and crew coordination, and instrument flying in a multi-engine turboprop. Man that'd be perfect.

We did it fine before without issues. And the C-130 is a tactical airlifter, it sucks st strat. We fly 2 tac locals a week to get good at it because we really exist for the front line resupply efforts to get as close as possible to the action within reason. if you are going to make us an airland only C-17, then why do we exist? Just get rid of us. Save some money. Landing a C-130 isn’t hard. Landing a C-130 with half the pilot training time, a nine month wait on the flight line at the school house, then a multi month wait at your first unit as a new Lt is hard. And now you’ll barely do it as a copilot, get upgraded to AC and then have to do it for real with limited reps and a copilot that’s never done it.

Honestly, this is how it's done in the C-17 community. Co-pilot non ACs can only PM assaults. Not say it's right but I can see AMC A3 looking at us and seeing that the 130 flow can become like that.

Ha. Figures. Herk was designed specifically for blown-lift aerodynamics - its' express design-goal was to enable a core mission. You telling me pilots cannot even accomplish, understand, and operate this basic mission which hasn't changed since ~23 Aug 1954!? Hahahaha. AF training policies are so broken and the bobs don't listen. However, the Ops-Mx slides will green up by this policy. #notwinning But seriously: energy management and constant angle theory are things that have consequences when mismanaged in landings. Maybe student pilots should be taught them...and the basic design and handling characteristics of their plane. Or perhaps I'm overthinking this...B2B anyone!? (≠born to bounce)

Well… damn it… glad regular air land is going and I hope the risk mitigation measures work for the tactical ops… This is solvable inside of the budget of the AF, from above in the thread, heavy bound students are looking at 9 month waits till FTU, use that time and just buy the training they need. I rattled off a hypothetical set of training programs, I roughly estimate at $175k a student, round it up to $250k to be conservative. I’m not sure how many heavy crew tracked students AETC produces a year but just say it is 750. That’s 131 to 187 million lo to high for all multi engine flight training, even on the high end of that it comes to 0.09% of a 188 billion AF budget, the Bobs could easily find that money. Simplified post T-6 training suggested: Multi engine fundamentals + some time & experience building in an economical twin. 40 hours. Lease 50. Figure wet leased with instructor at $1200 an hour. Figure $60k per student for all training and flying. STOL, Tac Air Land introduction in a Twin Otter. Lease 30 aircraft. 20 hours, figure $135k for all training and flying. Transport aircraft training. 737 MAX simulator, lease 8, 25 hours, figure $35k for all training. That’s $230k per student, bit of leeway. In the grand scheme of the AF, actually very affordable and from my experience flying and instructing, would train your heavy pilots without the financial burden of acquiring and owning new aircraft. Commit to this program for 10 years to get industry interested in bidding.

If you can’t do something useful do something visible.

Lots of rumors on coming changes but right now just no assault landings for copilots unless they are with an instructor due to a rash of hard landings. There was some discussion on if that was the right way forward but the AMC A3 2 star directed that this is the way and released a fleet wide FCIF. We absolutely can fly cargo around with pilots that aren’t as good and are given significantly less time to train. We are just going to bend more metal in peace time, and in wartime the new expectation needs to be the MAF won’t be anywhere near the front line if we want to preserve the fleet. People gotta figure out their cargo another way.

No skin off my nose if they call themselves warfighters. If some new Lt or E-2 is proud of their training completion and wants to be called an operator, great. I don't think anyone is going to confuse them for Recon Marines because they use the term "warfighter." Reminds me of the silly Airman's Creed, but if it makes somebody proud to serve, awesome.

New jet, new day. Space Force leaders stop wearing “spings”, compare Space Force to the Marine Corps as warfighters: discuss. https://www.airandspaceforces.com/small-uniform-tweak-change-space-force-culture/