Leaderboard

9 July is the public release for both the Maj and Lt Col board.

It's also possible this commander is, as many are today, hyper-vigilant in protecting his own career. Say the everyday typical student buffoonery happens, but this time it happens in a critical phase of flight requiring split second reaction time to correct it. Perhaps it's compounded by weather, gusty winds, com noise, etc. Metal gets bent and the CC is notified. The CC sits down behind his desk and weighs his options: "This IP made a mistake that any one of us can reasonably make with a bad student in poor conditions. I can call this IP in, lecture him, put him on a couple CT sorties, and perhaps have him give a squadron safety brief. I could go to bat for him at the OG and WG meetings. But metal was bent on my watch. What if it happens again? I'm going to get a lot of face time with the OG and WG over this and what if they think I didn't go far enough? If I give him a CC-directed Q3, it may be a little overkill, but then I have a high-vis corrective action paper-trail that I can wave around in the meetings letting them know that I'm an aggressive problem solver, and perhaps this won't affect my next assignment or chances for 0-6."

It looks like they screwed up the turn and got closer to the ridge than planned. We don't necessarily have the thrust or energy to pop over a ridge if the turn goes bad, so that leaves bank. The jet keeps flying, and if they did overbank, they brought it back pretty quickly. Better to overbank than be a smoking hole in the side of a mountain. Keep positive g and everything stays where it's supposed to on the back. 60 degrees of bank at 300AGL is routine in the -17. I don't see a straight line correlation to the Alaska crash, unless the overbank was intentionally planned/flown and the crew was hotdogging for the camera. Funny how the opinion of this event (OMG overbank Q3 the crew and ground them) is so different than the KC-46 landing halfway down the runway way off centerline (eh just a debrief item, stabilized approach is for dummies).

How about if we change our paradigm, and dual qualify the pilots at whatever base they are located at to fly them? I know it's crazy, but somehow I was able to fly both the U-2 AND the T-38 within a 6 hour period, and managed to do it relatively safely. And I'm sure there are pilots getting 50-75 sorties a year that might like some additional flying. We are the United States AIR Force. It should not be that hard to... you know... fly more. Especially during a pilot shortage.

I believe this explains everything when it comes to the Navy and this unfortunate situation:

Well we all (AMC) got a new FCIF on aircrew discipline and adherence to standards that mentions both low levels and stabilized approach criteria. So...move along. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

That's because they believe they are smarter than the rest of the force. They can't fathom the idea that others have already considered these options and either implemented or discarded them.

Maybe they worked, maybe they didn't, but I wouldn't expect anything else from RT.

Well there went my morning.

Because they don’t. Frankly stated, this is what’s happened when fighter pilots of above average intelligence got free reign on ACC staff to explore new ideas about force presentation - they quickly got in over their heads and scoffed what the actual experts told them, coming up with “forward thinking” ideas that already exist, aren’t tactically or fiscally feasible, or have already been disproven. In this case - all three. Chuck

Lots of bad assumptions in the article. Not saying a smaller aircraft is bad (remember all those C-27s that flew straight to the boneyard?) Need a widget? One first has to be in the supply system. If the cargo needs dip clearances, doesn't matter how big the plane is. The haz cargo for the ejection seat would've been delayed whether it was on a C-17 or a Piper Cub. Why not throw the part on a travel pod on a fighter if you need fast dedicated lift for a small part? With distributed ops, smaller cargo airlift would be worse than with larger airlift. Don't have to just replace a small widget now, but now full on resupply of a distributed base-ammunition, ordinance, fuel all has to come from somewhere. Lastly, who will fly there smaller aircraft? Last I heard there was already a pilot shortage, so I don't know where you'd find the pilots to fill the seats on smaller airlift. I guess we could bring back liaison pilots, but they'd still need to get somehow in overall end strength numbers, as well as their maintainers and the rest of the personnel footprint that comes with standing up a sq.

If only the AF thought about this before....

Yeah it doesn't sound like these dudes even know these exist in the AF or its periphery.

Imagine if the USAF would use airframes already in their inventory! C-146, C-145, CN-235, DHC-6, C-208 Crazy idea!

Probably can’t fight it. Not a career ender. I’ve known multiple Q3 recipients go on to be great IP’s and Commanders. Get your story tight for the airline interviews. Don’t dwell on it. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

That sucks, but you were the AC and the aircraft was damaged due to an error of the crew. I don't know the AETC culture on student initiated mishaps, so I don't know if that is within the realm of ordinary. Legally speaking, that sounds like a valid Q3...even if it's really lacking in bromanship or understanding.

Did this on the last PCS, though the location was >4.5 hours away. You can have your stuff moved anywhere you want. The government will reimburse up to the amount it would have cost to move to your next duty station. It was pretty easy to accomplish: just tell TMO where the movers will take your stuff. Tell the movers where to take your stuff. As always, exceptions and waivers may apply.

If your leadership is cool they'll give you a thing or note or at least an email with it. I had to go find mine in VMPF

Your line number will populate as soon as the release comes out, but it isn't part of the public release.

OK, while technically not a commander, the reasons behind Patrick Shanahan's departure as interim (and possibly permanent) SecDef irks the shit out of me... Honestly, I really don't have much of an opinion on his performance in that job; but the fact that he dropped out due to an incident where he not only wasn't charged after a full law enforcement investigation but the other party (his now ex-wife) was charged with assault (later dropped as a result of Shanahan's request) makes the entire matter a non-issue. Simply because he was accused of domestic violence, he is no longer a candidate for SecDef. The concept of presumption of innocence, the basis of our entire legal system, is being thrown out the window without any regard. Guilty until proven innocent doesn't even describe it, accused now equates to being guilty. Obviously he isn't the first and most certainly he won't be the only one who has been a victim of such circumstances, but the fact that this country's leadership isn't willing to stand up to such bullshit is intolerable. That is the reason why we cannot get quality leadership in such positions. Rant over.

I know this is late, but how did it go? Any update? Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

Timeless Tips for Simple Sabotage from 1944. A lot of this is eerily familiar. Additional nuggets on page 28 of the PDF. General Interference with Organizations and Production Organizations and Conferences Insist on doing everything through "channels." Never permit short-cuts to be taken in order to expedite decisions. Make "speeches," Talk as frequently as possible and at great length., Illustrate your "points" by long anecdotes and accounts of personal experiences. Never hesitate to make a few appropriate “patriotic" comments. When possible, refer all matters to committees, for "further study and consideration." Attempt to make the committees as large as possible - never less than five. Bring up irrelevant issues as frequently as possible. Haggle over precise wordings of communications, minutes, resolutions. Refer back to matters decided upon at the last meeting and attempt to re-open the question of the advisability of that decision. Advocate "caution." Be “reasonable" and urge your fellow-conferees to be "reasonable" and avoid haste which might result in embarrassments or difficulties later on. Be worried about the propriety of any decision - raise the question of whether such action as is contemplated lies within the jurisdiction of the group or whether it might conflict with the policy of some higher echelon. https://www.cia.gov/news-information/featured-story-archive/2012-featured-story-archive/simple-sabotage.html