Leaderboard

Not at all, I didn't mean to communicate that, but my choice of words obviously did. My real beef is we have ONE accident involving a mil jet (who's on a published approach, not "hot dogging" around), and people get up in arms about how the mil needs to do X, and combat aircraft need to have Y prioritized over much needed other items, etc. All from people's mouths who clearly have little to zero understanding of fighter aviation, requirements, future procurement, etc. Replace F-16 with Bizjet X and we're not even having a mil-related ADS-B conversation - that could have easily been the alternate case. I feel very bad for the two that died, and of course more so for their families. They didn't deserve it, nor do I think they were complete idiots for doing what they were doing. However, taking an objective and unemotional look, one large piece of this problem is fact: they were not communicating with ATC. Not required I get it, but these gentleman were very possible failed by instructors and maybe the current Part 61/141 system at large. They didn't know what they didn't know and that was a contributing factor in losing their lives - would you fly at MVA through a radar pattern for a busy airfield without talking to anybody? Legal yes, smart decision no. But again, I bet they had no idea because they were never told, and that's not their fault; I wish somebody had educated them more on this. I wish someone had educated me more on this back in the day - I just got lucky nothing ever happened I guess, considering I was the 1200/not talking guy flying "just outside" required airspace to talk to ATC, at my normal GA altitudes - which coincided with MVA, fixes, etc....that I had zero SA on. I support GA and really miss it to be honest - I can't wait to start flying when I have time/money to do so, teach my kids to fly, etc. I support 1200/not talking (the Cub dudes as you said), but I also support an improvement in GA education during the private process where you learn more about times/locations when it's a good idea to talk to people even when you're not technically required to. I will certainly teach my kids a hell of a lot more about this related topic than I ever received in my "full up" 141 program back in the day - and it was a good program, but shockingly lacking IMO now that I have far more SA on flight in general. Keep flying GA Whitman, I support it, keep pushing for ADS-B, etc. on civ aircraft, I support it. I also support continuing education, something for those of us here who fly both sides can help our civ only bros out with. Lastly, it's maybe a "harsh reality" apparently for some here, but mil aircraft are made for war, and yes have to conform to a lot of NAS operation rules, BUT they are and should not ever be forced to 100% the same as all civilians because simply put, we don't have the time, money or certain products may make a jet less combat capable. Our focus is and needs to remain on combat capability with as much safety and NAS flying compliance as we can, but we can not afford to decrease our primary capabilities because of something that will in reality make extremely little difference - and this is not to minimize what happened a few weeks ago.

Brabus, are you really going to lead with this as your problem statement? You come across as arrogant here and blaming two dead gentlemen for legally flying their aircraft, potentially while squawking 1200 and switching freqs at low altitude to start flight following (aviate navigate communicate right?). It sounds like if you were King, J-3 Cubs would be grounded for lack of transponder and radio IVO "busy airspace". BTW, have you ever flown in SC? It's Moncks Corner, SC dude...we aren't talking about a feeder airport underneath DFW Class B here! YGBSM

Hahaha! You must be new here....

I'm already taking part in the drink off, so I'll take that as a win! sorry to encroach on your turf Majestik, I'll shack myself and change that to MajeticDroid or something. Thanks for the info to those who replied...even if it's bad news. I'm not the best pilot in my SQ, but certainly not the weakest. I guess I'll just hope for Beale and make the best of it. Follow up question: anyone know of a flight school near Beale who would hire a part time CFI?

Internet drink off GO!

Nice name dude. You spelled it wrong.

Well, that'll just about cover the flybys.

Future Farmers of America?

Hmm, and here I was sure there were Vipers in the air at the same time I was dodging SA-2s, -3s, -6s, -8s, Rolands, and 37 and 57mm AAA in Iraq in March and April 2003. I guess not, though. Thanks for clearing that up. You Viper dudes all turn your Air Medals and DFCs back in yet?

Your best source of information is the EFMP office at the location, and if able, get in contact with the SGH at the facility to discuss your case. Also, tricare standard is worth some serious consideration.

No, just no. Also, before everyone takes out their "jump to conclusions" mats, why not let the investigators do their job and wait until the report is released.

Never going to happen in fighters. Yeah yeah the FAA is going to "require" it by 2020, but I can not ever see this being funded considering what is NOT funded in "legacy" platforms. Fighters are not airplanes, they are war machines. Just like a tank that doesn't have turn signals, airbags and rear view cameras, I can't see the DoD letting the FAA drive how we spend money on hardware/software on fighters. Yes I realize the FAA and ATC thinks we would all run into each other if it were not for them, that is simply not the case Yes, the current mishap in SC is ONE recent data point to the contrary. But are we really not going to fund a system that enhances combat capability in order to fund an ADS-B "upgrade" No freaking way. Are we going to GAB a jet because ADS-B isnt working...no way. DoD and FAA will play chicken and the DoD will win. You fly an airplane by LOOKING OUT THE WINDOW....not down at some iPad looking thing telling you where "everyone" is.

Yup. And during UPT at XL you're much better off living on base. Nothing worth living at in Del Rio is close to the gate. If you were back as an IP, then I would suggest living in town.

Based on the preliminary information, it might very well have prevented the F-16 mid-air.

I must have missed the paragraph in the commissioning oath that prioritized your safety over that of the people behind the document that you swore to defend. I always thought the entire point was that you voluntarily sacrificed a level of your own personal safety in order to provide it for the citizens you serve. That could take the form of forgoing the latest and greatest RWR variant in favor of something that makes you less of a hazard in civilian airspace. However, we wouldn't want to go out of our way to provide a 'service' to civilian joe [or equivalent slightly belittling term for your employer]. That's just not what the military is in the business to do. Get over yourself. P.S. If it's any consolation, your MWS hasn't seen combat in well over a decade and most probably never will again. Re-purposing funds away from combat systems and towards FAA/ICAO airspace compatibility probably increases your survivability.

Perhaps refresh yourself on the meaning of the word "could" as opposed to the word "should" in the English language. There's a not so subtle difference between the two words that I believe you're unfamiliar with. I chose to bold it for a reason, but I guess it was a waste of my time. I should have included a dictionary entry instead. I haven't backpedaled on anything. And although you have no fucking clue what 'my element' is, (for the 4th time) I've made no comment whatsoever on any specific piece of equipment being integrated onto fighter aircraft, so it's immaterial.

Hmm, and here I was sure that I acknowledged a caveat for that very specific period of time. I guess not, though.

1. An aircraft with limited visual signature moving at 400kts is a (not 'the') hazard, just as every other thing in the sky is a hazard. That's a general comment made with absolutely no reference to the incident that spawned this thread, so unwad your panties. 1a. I made zero reference to any mid-air in my previous post. I did reference a piss poor attitude for a public servant, and not much else. You want a statistically significant demonstration that mil aircraft are a hazard to GA? Reference the link provided on page 1 of this thread about a fatal mid-air between an F-16 and a GA aircraft over South Carolina. Regardless of fault, had the military aircraft not been in that airspace at that instant, there would have been no incident. That's about the definition of a hazard. 1 vs. 0 is always statistically significant as it indicates an event is not impossible. Day 1 - Intro to Statistics. Nailed it. 2. I have no SA on how acquisitions works? I could put you in touch we a few guys at BIG SAFARI that might disagree with you. You seem to be under the impression that I'm advocating for ADS-B in the F-16. I am not. To form an opinion on the matter I would have to weigh that course of action against its opportunity cost, which would take time and effort...time and effort that I would demand compensation for. What I am advocating is that you lose the self-centered dismissive tone when someone (not me) suggests an addition to your aircraft that improves its integration into civilian airspace...inevitably at the expense of something else. Because, once again, your precious safety in combat (if you ever see it) does not take priority over non-squawky, non-talky, GA pilot Cleetus. 3. Great. I didn't reference ADS-B for the F-16 in my previous post so I'm sure he makes a bunch of great points that don't conflict at all with what I had to say. 4. No doubt your unit showed you their 'everybody gets a trophy' here's what we've contributed, feel-good video when you in-processed. Every unit has one...from the cooks on up. And they're important. Everybody wants to feel needed. Nevertheless, combat requires the exchange of force by at least two parties. From the F-16 perspective, it's been a one sided affair since the Balkans wound down...well over a decade ago as I stated. Yes, the F-16 has intervened in the combat of guys on the ground in OEF/OIF and elsewhere since then, but only from the comfort of a completely different non-combat environment. And that's fine. It's a necessary contribution and the extent of most members of the AF participation. There's no shame in it. In fact it's quite worthy of a level of pride. Bottom line: the F-16 has, as of late, been shoehorned into the fray just to 'get in the game' in many places at the expense of (relative) poor coverage for guys on the ground and more tanker orbits, but they've contributed quite a bit...from outside a combat environment. Don't bother to bring up Libya. You and I both know the details and it doesn't qualify. I'd possibly grant you a few days in 2003 but it's splitting hairs. 5. Cool Although it was off the cuff and I didn't intend for it to be factual, I'd bet more likely than not that investing in equipment to improve integration into civilian airspace would actually increase survivability in the F-16 over putting that money into combat related systems. Before your panties get all wadded up again, I am not suggesting we do that...but I do think that more likely than not it would hold true. Then again, your survivability is not the priority.