Leaderboard

Do better in T-6's, questions?

Well, lets just say we disagree. 38 studs have always been universally assignable - ever since the days of UPT, when T-38 studs went on to fly C-141s, OV-10s, etc. SUPT was implemented to save the Air Force money and to prolong the life of the T-38. Not to give T-1 students "dibs" on certain platforms. T-38 studs did rack their preferences, as did I years ago, knowing that I could always go fly something "heavy" later in life if I wanted to do so. Choosing to go fly 38s doesn't close any doors - choosing to fly T-1s does.

F'ing SNAPS.

Just make everyone go T-38s again and bring back the attrition!

Yes. People who know a lot more than you made decisions that you don't like - it doesn't mean they're wrong. 38 studs are universally assignable, and those individuals who "stole" 17s likely out-competed the ones you think they "displaced" earlier in the program when they were "head to head" - i.e. when they were in T-6s. No. They either graduate and the above happens, or they wash out.

I just knocked mine out with Chennault Flying Services in North Las Vegas. Outstanding, can't say enough about it. The owner is an Eagle dude who is very cool and big picture. I did the practical in 2 days. A dude from Luke drove up, he flew first, I watched from the backseat, we swapped and repeated for 2 flights actually flying the Beach 95, then we did our check rides with Retz the next day (flew with one of his CFI's who was a touchdown the first day). All in all very painless and big picture for a total of $3,700 including the check ride. I did the ATP CTP with PanAm flight school in Henderson, which was $3,900. Give me a PM if you'd like Retz's contact info. Total touchdown. You can also find the company on FaceBook.

Good times in Havasu. One BO.net person who I never met decided to come down and join us for the party. Thanks for making the effort to join us, Bobsan. It was great to meet you.

The Air Force will disappoint you. Consistently. Get used to it now. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

Life is not fair. In the Air Force, timing is everything. This is true well beyond UPT. Do the best you can and the rest is out of your hands. With the drops that are coming down now, if you do well in whatever track, you'll get what you want. UPT assignments were much worse even just a few years ago (see 2008-2009 timeframe). I'm sure the guys from the 90's who did tours as a non-rated officer before UPT slots opened up could tell stories of how it was even worse...

It's not about overriding. The JTR only specifies what you get paid. So your commander cannot stop you from getting paid, if it happens. But your commander can order you not to do something that you would get paid for BEFORE you do it, and it would be legal. Then, if you disobeyed, you would still get paid per JTR rules, but you can be punished for not following an order. Two examples. You have a TDY coming up, leaving from an airport 45 minutes away. Commander tells you to use the base shuttle service to save the squadron money. You're a piece of shit, so you just take a cab because you didn't want to use the base long-term parking lot. JTR says you will be reimbursed for the cab. Commander says you get an LOR for telling her you would use the shuttle. Both happen. You, a C-17 AC assigned to UPT, want to take a T-6 to San Francisco for the 2017 Brony convention in the Castro district. Commander says the squadron can't afford it. You tell him you and your hetero life partner, a FAIP, will stay at a friend's house in Alameda to save the squadron mad cash. But when you get there, your FAIP mentor immediately finds himself overwhelmed by a deluge of nonbinary polysexual panda-kin sex addicts. Swept away by the raw sexual fury and unkempt body hair of your fellow Brony convention-goers, you decide to each get your own hotel rooms in the heart of San Fran, where the lodging per diem is a conservative $12,500 per night. After returning to Vance in what can best be described as the moistest T-6 in the fleet, you submit your travel voucher. Seconds later, the lights go out, because your voucher was so expensive the squadron had no choice but you use the pot of money dedicated to utilities to fund your pseudo intra-species erotica vacation. Your commander, who for some reason looks just like a certain purple Clydesdale you got way too close to over the weekend, is reasonably upset. Per JTR rules, you must be reimbursed for the lodging. Per UCMJ and AFI, your commander is entitled to rip off your souvenir unicorn horn and stab it straight through your lying heart. See? Discipline and reimbursement are separate issues.

Ya, as a direct replacement for the UPT and IFF T-38 only on a 3 to 5 buy ratio, hoping to cover the gap via reduced attrition. The T-1 will be around well into the 2030s. Some of the more amusing calls I fielded as a T-1 Flt/CC were from my T-38 counterparts trying to poach my gunships/C-17s/AFSOC/etc in exchange for their E-3s and such. That's all well and good if it helps my guys, but the phone was quickly set to the "go fuck yourself" position when those guys tried to imply that because their students were flying the T-38 they were inherently better than my T-1 students and would have aced the T-1 program and finished ahead of my guys anyway. The fact of the matter is it is a myth that doing well in T-6s is an automatic identifier of future performance. It is frequently a result of either prior flying experience, or being a faster learner within a given medium. I saw guys who aced T-6s, chose T-1s (to the wailing and gnashing of teeth of the people who though they should go 38s) and then finish bottom 3rd in the T-1. Conversely I saw guys finish dead last in their T-6 class, come across the street to me with an apology note pinned to their lapel, and knock T-1s out of the park. So implying that students that track T-38s are inherently better than students that track T-1s is quantifiably bullshit. There most certainly are people who bottom feed the T-6, and then bottom feed the T-1, but there are also students who kill the T-6 and are gone from the T-38 before their first checkride. I'd be willing to bet those 38 washouts would have been T-1 washouts all the same. The T-1 and T-38 [programs aren't so different in terms of difficulty, it's just the nature of what is difficult. The T-38 is fast moving and demands precise and rapid decision making. The T-1 is complex, operates in a complex environment with limited to no outside decision making help (Sup, SOF, wingman, etc), and requires a lot of dynamic task management. The product of each program is different, but I wouldn't say one is better trained than the other.

You can't even intercept a passenger airline.

I agree with you and enjoy most of your posts. Not meaning to $hit on anyone - I just prefer to be very to the point on this forum. As far as the "closing doors" comment, of course flying any USAF jet is a privilege, and one all dudes should be very proud of - I simply mean that the last time someone got taken from the T-1 track and thrown into the F-22 was never. My original intent was to properly frame the two youngins' mindsets regarding opportunities in pilot training - it was their posts which strongly suggested T-1 studs had "dibs" on certain assignments, and the suggestive use of "quotation" marks also implied that they thought it was BS some hot dog 38 shithead swooped in and took "their" assignment - as if to say that if you choose to go to 38s you are opting out of the opportunity to fly what is generally the desired assignment on the T-1 side of the house - which is a bullshit thought. I've pasted what I was really getting at below: Ehh, on second reading, it really isn't even implied - they outright said it.

Maybe someone in a position of power is actually thinking, and making sure that there's an incentive for strong swimmers to strive for T-38s. That's a good thing. I've been an IP in 3 USAF aircraft: fighter, trainer and heavy(ish) - BACN. We want the strong swimmers in fighters. If a little social engineering is required to ruffle the feathers of a few millennials seeking the path of least resistance to a C-17 at CHS, possibly motivating them to strive to be the best, so be it.

You're enlisted with the unit you're interviewing with right? I'd wear dress blues to your interview...

not my photo Comparing apples to oranges to tangerines to cannons - one all-encompassing, bigly, yuuuge STS for the entire post - So she who must be obeyed (SWMBO) gets "headaches" everytime I ask her to go with me to the range to practice with her CCW J-frame - S&W Model 642 Airweight .38 special. In her defense, and as I've written previously, it is not a pleasant gun to shoot. For some real-world situation, I imagine you wouldn't notice it, but for practice, the recoil with the incredibly light revolver gets old quickly. I'm good after about 20 rounds. She doesn't even like to finish one cylinder. That does not make for great accuracy should it be necessary. Her rationale of utter reliability and simplicity of operation is sound, however, not practicing is not safe and she knows it. So, being the thoughtful husband that I am, I have talked with her regarding those ultra-reliable semi-automatics available and demonstrate such with my EDC XDS .45. I let her know I wouldn't let her carry a jam-o-matic, so let's see what we can find out. Using my collection, she was ok - dry-firing- with the S&W Chief's Special 9mm, the S&W 3913, and the M&P9c. She hasn't fired any of them yet. From my personal experience, I know that the Chief's Special is a snappy little bastard. The 3913 is a semi-collectable (it's out of production, parts are hard to source, and the value keeps going up a bit). The M&P9c is a great gun, but the small magazines make it too short for me to shoot comfortably. (Using the adapter and full-size magazines, I love shooting it). But I'm not the one that would be carrying/shooting it, so it's a player for her. Since she's out of town for a few weeks, I researched the M&P Shield in 9mm since it's nearly the same size as the 3913 and, as far as I can tell, as reliable as the M&P9c. Part of that research meant I had to buy one. Convenient excuse so I'm went for it. Went to the range this morning to side by side by side compare the Shield vs. the M&P9c vs. my XDS. The Shield is thinner both in slide and grip than my XDS. For my large hands, perhaps a bit too thin. Trigger finger wrapped past the first knuckle on the skinny trigger. Nothing that can't be overcome with training/practice, but that's the first impression. Shooting it, the trigger was "meh." Got better as I kept shooting, but this is a good candidate for the Apex trigger kit as I did for the M&P9c and full-size M&P9 that is my nightstand pistol. With the 8-round magazine, I could put all fingers and the heel of my palm on the pistol and it felt comfortable. Needs a bit more girth for me (I said, the STS has been accomplished!). The 7-rounder left my pinky dangling and not enough back pressure on the heel of my hand. I used 200 rounds of 115gr. FMJ. No issues whatsoever. I did not shoot any of my preferred Cor-Bon DTX hollow-point because I can't seem to find more. A factory order has been backordered for more than a month and retailers locally are out. Still, shooting this 9mm is a dang sight less snappy and uncomfortable than my .45 XDS with the 5-round magazine. Hence, I carry a 6+1 magazine and not the baby one. However, there is no disguising the 'grunt' factor of shooting the .45 in such a small package. As noted in a previous report, after 100 rounds, I'm more than ready to not shoot it anymore. I put the Truglo sights on the Shield and already had them on the 9c and the XDS. Very positive things to say about those sights - bright, big, easy to acquire. Overall, I like the Shield. I can see why it is wildly popular. Skinny, light, decent shooter. It fits all my XDS holsters including my car and truck-mounted ones. SWMBO returns in 10 days and will have her choice.

All ANG flying slots are Maj slots. With that being said, you will need your PME for promotion. I was the pilot hiring dude and a mid to senior Capt was our hiring wheelhouse. We typically only took junior Majors. You have to have think about retainability, because we do. We have to worry about force mgmt, so we will do our best to avoid being too top heavy. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

17s from the 38 side??? Thought is was CAF only? Yet DLF dropped a BUFF from T-1s? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A bit older article but a good comparison between the A-29 and AT-6: https://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/light-attack-aircraft-the-super-tucano-the-at-6-and-the-blue-kool-aid/ Taking CSAF's comments from the recent speech and if we really want this we have to strike when the iron is hot, either of these two plus the Scorpion Jet are the lowest risk, ready to fly options. Or could we go with what is behind Curtain 3? A split buy of Scorpions and A-29s? I say A-29s as their is already a training unit established and that is what Allies / Partners are seeming to choose, it is operationally proven and lower risk. Buy 125 Scorpions and establish an FTU to entice potential FMS customers (India for example) and give confidence in purchasing the jet, learning the lesson of the F-20 failure to launch. Buy 25 A-29s and continue the training mission at Moody AFB. Enough USAF capability to support one FOL and encourages participation with the USAF for BPC. Scorps at Seymour, Duke, Maxwell (training with Ft. Benning) Kirtland, Nellis. Look for 5-7 ARC units to change MWS or set up AA units at their locations. A-29s at Moody and Ft Campbell.

Quibbling.

I'd prefer that the President pick the next SECAF based on their ability, not their looks. If Mrs. Wilson spends half the time managing personnel that SECAF James spent taking selfies, it'll be an improvement.

The change from IFS to IFT was driven by the new Commander of AETC. He felt that the syllabus and intent of IFS was too inflexible and that (essentially) people who were on the ragged edge of being successful were being washed out because the IFS policy did not allow the school to give them the extra ride or two (i.e., a little additional training) to enable them to succeed. It was a waste of the AF's time and money to wash them out. That policy change reduced the emphasis on "screening" and increased the emphasis on "training". That doesn't mean you can stay and fly forever, and it is still a screening program, but it does mean that now if the IP thinks you can pass with just a little more opportunity to train/practice, the school is allowed to give you a ride or two to prove it. If you do, you continue, if not you wash out. Other than that policy change, the school is still the same. The change in title from IFS to IFT was meant as a signal of the change.