Lord Ratner
-
Posts
1,960 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
114
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Downloads
Wiki
Posts posted by Lord Ratner
-
-
Here's what you're not realizing about the location vs mission thing: yes you're living in England right now, which is great, congratulations. But you'll be there for 3, 4 years tops, and then you move on and almost certainly never go back, and now you're stuck with your MWS wherever in the world that may take you for the rest of your career, assuming you don't get out immediately or manage to crosstrain. If you enjoy your mission, then I guess you hit the jackpot.
Picking based off a location is just shortsighted when one must take into account that they have 2 more assignments left until their commitment is done. I think it's funny how some studs brag about getting their first choice in UPT to some exotic location, and then in 5 years they're posting on Facebook about how they eventually wound up at a place they were trying to avoid anyway.
You're assuming I care about the mission. I've done three so far (two if you dont count AETC), and I've learned I care about location more than mission. Just like I said before. You can also pick an airframe based on future assignment opportunity. But it's not short-sighted to pick based on a location when you decide you are more concerned with the location.
I don't know what your background is, but a fairly large portion of the people at my base now came from other platforms. Not really uncommon
-
I'll be the voice of dissent and say choose the location. But I am personally more concerned with the lifestyle than I am with the mission. You'll be serving your country honorably either way.
BUT, I didn't come to this point of view until after my FAIP tour, where I got huge amounts of perspective from C-17, KC-10, C-5, etc guys who had BTDT. I never understood why, but for some reason IPs never tell the studs their true feelings about airframes, assignments, etc. Maybe because they don't listen anyways.
That being said, I was devastated when they FAIP'd me, purely because I hated the location. Turned out to be the greatest time I could have imagined. Great flying, great people, and despite what so many (clueless) people say, minimal queep (especially for a FAIP).
I guess the moral of the story is: what you think you want is wrong, but by the time you figure it out, it won't matter. Things change too fast to game it anyways. Figure out what your goals are in the near term, and try to knock them out. For me, I wanted to see the world, so of course, they kept me in Mississippi. Yet here I am now, living in England. You'll be fine either way.
-
Well sitting the jump seat on many 707/135, B-52 landings that looked effortless compared to the stick inputs on approach on a old Boeing.
*sigh*
-
Is it normal to have this much information being released in the midst of an investigation before the NTSB reaches a final conclusion?
My humble opinion: This is a clear cut case (assuming it's clear-cut to them, I have no clue personally), and Boeing is leaning hard on all parties to ensure no one thinks this was their plane's fault. Not after the 787 mess.
Why else would the airline and NTSB release so much info pointing to non-aircraft related factors?
-
GC,
Take this advice from a captain for what it's worth (nothing):
1. Read joe1234's post a few times. It doesn't matter what the truth is (which you are sharing, and trust me, many people here are glad to finally see the other side's view, even if we still disagree), you still support those below you where you can. Since you can't save their careers (people have to go, not everyone gets a bonus, etc etc), you can still empathize and support. A doctor may know the patient is dying due to terrible life choices, but he doesn't tell him that on his death bed. If I'm being unclear, stop telling dudes here they should just be happy, or to hold out their hat and take what they can get, or to stop putting their own "selfish" interests ahead of the AF. Leave that to their peers and mentors. I'm sure you already know this and have applied it with your subordinates, but since you came here as an unofficial representative of the AF leadership, maybe it would be appropriate to apply it here as well.
2. Living by the numbers, as you have made clear is your job, is only valid if the numbers aren't garbage. Corporations spend millions on numbers-people who are tasked to break every minute aspect of operations and personnel into a formula. But they don't get paid to ignore the numbers that "shouldn't" be there. Saying the C-17 world has enough people to do the job it "should" be doing is great, but a real numbers guy would follow that up with "but they are doing more, so here are the statistics based on the current reality."
The AF (government) has always been hell-bent on running the numbers, but they always fail because they only look at the numbers they'd like to see. Has anyone ever seem a manning percentage that made sense, high or low? Guess what, if you have been running a squadron for 15 years at 69% manning, and you never have or will make an attempt to fix it, that's now 100%. If C-17 GP and WG execs "should" be flying their fair share like the line pilots, but are only flying a fifth, or tenth of the sorties the line flyers fill, well that's the new real number. And before you tell me the AF hasn't failed, throwing billions at the problem after the fact to make it go away (F22, F35, retention, OEF, OIF, etc) is failing. No normal corporation would survive that. Should the AF be a corporation? No, but call a spade a spade: the AF and government at large fails with numbers, and often because of many of the things you are saying here.
I truly appreciate you coming out here and sharing with everyone the thoughts and opinions of the Pentagon. I hope the people here will restrain themselves from scaring people like you away from posting, despite their often-justified rage, so that BO can remain more than a place to bitch.
-
Chang,
O-5, O-6, or GO?
Not trying to identify, just trying to get a better perspective on who is sitting on the top rope with Liquid crushing the BaseOps theory machine.
-
Until next quarter when they are masked again.....and guys realize they spent a significant amount of cash, time, etc on a often worthless degree. I am AAD complete but hope for the sake of morale and spirit of the masses that we turn this lunacy off.
I agree it needs to end, but the Air Force does offer a free Masters degree.
-
Yes, I'm aware. My point being that the system REWARDS that behavior en mass. Behavior that can't be defended if you want your officer core to be the selfless defenders of good and righteous, as the AF purports to want. And sure, you could put your whole hearted effort into SOS by correspondence. And in that case, you're wasting your time jumping through a hoop to prove your worthiness to go do it AGAIN in residence. That cannot be logically justified. And I'd think that the AF wouldn't want it's core group of 'thinkers' doing things just because. In fact, I could point out multiple occasions where the SOS texts themselves make that very point. Don't follow the herd, don't be a sheep, etc. I mean, how ######ing crazy is that thought right there?
I wasn't trying to make any point whatsoever with the comment. It was a reference to an earlier post. I wasn't working 20hrs a day every day, and I wasn't complaining that I worked too hard to get PME done. If I had decided to do PME by correspondence, it could have been the same 10min cram session before 3 tests for a total investment of 30min of my life that most everybody else took to get it done. As I said, effort required was never the issue.
So we agree wholeheartedly, good.
Nowhere did I say knowledge was stupid, so I don't know why anybody would think it smelled like that. I believe I said the exact opposite. In fact, I said I was more than willing, not even just willing, but actually desired to go get an in-res degree at a legitimate institution. The AF just needs a program to facilitate that. One was tested in the Army not too long ago but I don't know what the outcome of it was (and it included educational incentives and continuing pay, which I wouldn't have needed/wanted if given the time off to get it done).
What is stupid is a program that everybody and their mother knows isn't actually designed to impart knowledge or growth onto the AF's officers. If they get a little growth or education as a side-effect, great, but we all know that that isn't the aim of the system. It aims to do nothing more than force AF officers to put their flag up saying 'yes, I wan't to promote through the system (evidenced by my willingness to waste my time to jump through these hoops), so invest your time in me and consider me for promotion'. There's a better way to identify those that want to continue on to FGO+ than to force them to waste their time. How about a program that would both identify those that wanted to promote and make them a more well rounded officer? Is that a crazy idea?
Ok, well I agree with almost everything you're saying. Two points where I differ:
1. SOS is-corr is not useless. The way it is used is insulting, sure, but the readings, which as you pointed out, are critical of the ways we do some things, can be of great value to certain your officers. I don't think it is a waste of time to learn some of those things, however I agree that doing it only to qualify for doing it in a longer version in Alabama is silly. If they want us to read those things before we go to SOS, and SOS is going to be 100% attendance in-res anyways, call SOS in-corr ASBC in-corr instead, and make it a requirement for pinning on O-3. But I know the outcry may be even worse for that plan.
2. Yes, philosophically I agree that getting a check-the-box degree from anyone, anywhere, about anything that may have NOTHING to do with my job as a pilot or as an officer is an insult, and I have been plenty vocal about that. If you want to call me an educated leader, then actually take the time to educate me. But don't make me look like a stooge by pushing me to get a basket weaving degree from the Boy Scouts community online learning center, and then call me the future of the nation because of my impressive credentials. I agree.
HOWEVER. The AF pays me good money. Real good. Sure, we have to do things that more than justify that paycheck, but that doesn't make it any less of a good paycheck. I love my job, and I would gladly do it for less money. But they don't pay me less money, they pay me good money. So if they want me to get a degree in advanced VCR repair from Bob's-Traveling-Combination-University-and-Kabob-Van.com, fine. It's their money. You want me to read a few hundred pages about being a leader over the course of 6 months to a year before you send me to read the same crap in a group for 2 months? Fine, it's their money. Can't wear colored shirts under the flight suit anymore on Fridays? Okie Dokie. No more Fun-Meter patches on my pen-pocket sleeve Velcro? Done.
It's not a volunteer force. When's the last time you volunteered at a soup kitchen or bake sale (most likely for OPR bullets) and they gave you a check at the end of the day? It's a job. And the expectations were public when you agreed to take the job. AAD's have been a source of bitching since Vietnam. But as a bonus, you aren't even required to get them, or go to SOS online. If it insults your very existence, as it clearly has yours, don't do it.
But don't get self-righteous when you didn't check the clearly labeled boxes, aren't promoted, and then your employer decides they are done paying you for your services. And enjoy the free flight training, on the house.
Airline pilots are told what they have to wear. Bankers are told what "conventions" they have to attend and what classes they need to enroll in. Marketing directors are paid more if they have advanced degrees, even if they are stupid. I'm all for making the system better, but I'm not going to harm my own interests to illustrate a point. I like being a pilot, and flying different airplanes in different parts of the world. AADs and CBTs suck, but so did living in a shoebox in Bagram. At the end of the day, they pay me $206 per month to fly airplanes, and the rest covers the queep.
Sorry for the excessive text.
-
2
-
-
Just game the system, put in min effort, skirt the intent of the program, make sure to get nothing from it, return mediocre .... words words words
I can't believe I have to defend SOS, considering how much I disliked doing it in-corr, but you know there's actually no requirement that you skip the readings, get the gouge, and min-run the tests, right? You're kinda attempting to discredit the entire field of philosophy by arguing there's nothing to be had from the readings, since most of them were simple leadership philosophy readings...
I was in the shop late into the night, words words
So what is your argument to the countless bros who spend hours upon hours working "in the shop late into the nights" and still do the PME and AAD? They should have been putting that time into the shop too? If you are working 20 hour days every day in the AF, you're doing it wrong. Period. And I don't mean you're putting too much of your life into the AF, I mean you're using your own catastrophically bad time management to blame the system.
I'm not suggesting that everybody approaches things that way, but you know damn well that that is SOP for MOST guys that jump through the hoops.
You may be a naturally gifted leader. I don't know, since I don't know you (I think). But most people in the AF, myself included, fall into the range of "some leadership abilities, with room to improve." Does anyone here know of a Flag Officer who hasn't read a shelf full of books by past military figures on command and leadership? Not just the tools, either, but the generals people on this board have hailed as saviors of the AF way; I'd bet the overwhelming majority of them have read leadership philosophy voraciously.
They can't force you to read it, and they can't stop us from making and distributing gouge. I'm about as stubborn and convinced of my own strengths as they come (as some of the people here who know me can attest), but when one of those stupid readings corners me in a dark alley and forces it's knowledge down my throat (sts?), I generally walk away a wiser person, and occasionally one causes me to rethink my limited-experience philosophy on leading.
SOS in correspondence as a gateway to SOS in residence is stupid. Making us do anything once to prove we are worthy of doing it again is stupid. Turning AADs into a check box instead of a tool for enriching the officer (and enlisted) force is stupid.
But knowledge is not stupid, and the people who have the influence to fix this system (Liquid, perhaps? Other generals who would never admit in public they lurk this site) are going to stop listening to you the instant your argument smells like "knowledge is stupid" or "you can't learn anything outside of first-hand, combat experience." Especially when you consider how important every general with a reading list considers it.
-
2
-
-
For the pilots, do you think there would be any benefit to the wing funding hours at the aero club to maintain proficiency. Not to be used as a replacement for hours, but as a supplement. For example, an E-8 will burn $10,000/hr in fuel alone for a flight, not including mx. For that price, you could fly 100 hours in a Piper Arrow.
Pros
- GPS Approach proficiency
---- The JSTARS cannot fly GPS approaches
- VFR proficiency
---- Try telling your Sq/CC that you'd like to go fly VFR point-to-point
- Fill in the gaps of some sim training
---- In the sim, you're the only airplane in the airspace. But you get to deal with congestion if you take an airplane into Atlanta Class B
- General Airmanship
---- Flying twice a month may keep you current but won't build proficiency. An airplane is an airplane and will build air sense regardless of platform.
Cons
- Not MWS Specific
---- May build habit patterns that don't translate (P-Factor, etc)
- Cost
---- The squadron may have to find money somewhere to fund this. Probably a tough sell to pull this cash from the FHP.
- Time
---- Pulling the pilots out of the squadron will take them away from their other duties.
In addition to the aero club idea, I was also wondering about the value of placing T-6s at heavy bases like this for the same purpose. However, I think the mx and life support functions would drive the complexity to a level where it isn't feasible. Not to mention the fact that you know the AF would require flight evals, boldfaces, etc...
I'm trying to write a paper on this, so please give me some feedback on my idea.
I dare say flying a C150 with no autopilot, digital displays, HSI, or GPS on an IFR flight plan would do wonders rebuilding the skill of task management. I know my ability to fly by hand atrophied greatly in the MC-12. I suspect the same will happen in the tanker.
The t-6 would be perfect, but for the reasons you listed, it will never happen.
-
This. As a brand new AC in the sandbox right now, I can attest to this. My first flight out here was surprising to me-way different than what we train for back home. Airmanship isn't truly tested until you are removed from your safe cookie cutter conus training environment and you are faced with a situation like this:
One controller (atc) wants you to go left for traffic, but you don't wanna go left because there's a thunderstorm there. Another controller (c2) wants you to go right because there is a roz in front of you because some a-10s are blowing shit up, but you don't wanna go right because there's a ######ing mountain there. You can't climb because you don't have the performance yet. Your copilot and nav are telling you different things based on the controller they are talking to. Your eng is worried about the number four tit gauge which decided to stop working, and your load is worried about the bright flashing light off of your left wing which is probably just a pickup truck but could be something more. Obviously several options available, but typically not something you encounter back home and if you don't have your head on a swivel, you could easily decide to do something that could bend metal and kill people.
I'm sure every aircraft has similar stories. I've seen the wreckage, and carried passengers on the plane in question. Ill reserve judgement, because I know everyone has been put in a situation where after they landed, they heaved a sigh of relief because whatever they ######ed up didn't result in the worst case scenario.
C2 doesn't know their ass from a hole in the ground. And ATC out there is convinced the world was built in 7 days to service their every desire, and nothing more. C2 aimed so many UAVs at our plane I was starting to think their was a medal for creating the most HATRs, and ATC told me that even though we were going to run out of gas, we could not land at AIX or AKB because POTUS was parked there. Good luck, it'll be your fault no matter what happens. Therein lies the key to serenity.
-
1
-
-
A parachute is like a gun. If you need one and don't have one you will probably never need one again.
Several bailouts from AC-130s in the Viet Nam.
I was going to say condom, but gun works too.
-
From ProSuper's 747 CRAF page: "Despite subflooring, any vehicle heavier than a 2-1/2 ton truck cannot be loaded into most civilian aircraft"
The average M-ATV or MRAP (e.g. Force Protection Cougar) weighs at least 14 tons after being outfitted.
Even though the MRAP is still much heavier, the "2 1/2" part of "2 1/2 ton truck" does not refer to the truck's weight.
-
There has only been one crash landing in the KC-135 where the crew lived, IIRC. So that's the scenario where they would be useful. Not the incident in Kryg. I'm hardly an expert on the plane, but anyone who has flown it knows its already a pain to land when fully functional.
But that was before butters pointed out that all heavies have passengers on them on every flight. Oops.
-
Without getting too much into speculation, can somebody explain load shift to the ignorant pointy nose guy and how it could cause something so drastic and unrecoverable?
Should work the same aerodynamically in a pointy, but you guys have fixed stations for weight. Move CG aft of the center of lift and horizontal stabilizers/elevators no longer have sufficient authority to maintain stable flight. Often CG is calculated within inches-feet so pushing back a part of the load a few feet can be catastrophic. Let's say you have a single large item in the back that comes loose. Aircraft pitches up during rotation and that item slides back. At worst, the result could be continued overrotation followed by an unrecoverable stall.
To pile on--
So if the CG shifts to behind the center of lift, the horizontal stab (made of a movable stabilizer and yoke-controlled elevator) now has to work in the opposite direction (pushing the tail up, now, instead of down) to keep the plane under control. Possible, but only for small loads (sts)
If the load shift happens rapidly on a large plane like that, the stabilizer can't move fast enough to start pushing the tail up (normally it is always pushing down). So you have the CG move behind the center of lift, causing the plane to start pitching up, and you have a horizontal stab still pushing the tail down while it re-trims (and the stabilizer vastly overpowers any inputs the elevator may put in). The result is about what you see in the video.
That's bare-bones explanation. I don't know if the 74 stab is capable of generating lift in the opposite direction (up, in this case), but the result would be the same. I've heard tales of a KC-135 that allowed CG to get to 44ish, which is right about where the center of lift is. Apparently the plane started porpoising, which is how they noticed it.
-
Yeah...this is slightly different than the standard "TDY for a formal course" type question that's come up in the thread already. I've read the rest of the thread and the JFTR. Once I am at my new base and the TLE entitlement spelled out in the JFTR expires (only 10 days...used on either side for CONUS to CONUS) expires, it seems to me that the JFTR doesn't apply any more with my travel being complete and I'm purely within the realm of AF finance/services rules. My reading of 34-246 doesn't clear up the issue either.
U2570 A (2). Don't even bother asking them for a Non-A. You called, and lodging wasn't available. Just get a name.
-or-
U2570 A (3). Go in the day of, and if they don't have a room, write up your own quick MFR.
If you haven't read the JFTR CH 1-5, you are doing yourself a huge disservice. I assure you, the finance 2-striper has not.
11-217, 11-2MDS-Vol3, 11-202, JFTR. All required reading for pilots.
-
1
-
-
For those of you getting new Jackets at Pops, apparently your old one will sell for a pretty penny on eBay to Japanese buyers.
How do I know? I shipped my jacket back from AFG, and never saw it again. Yesterday I found a 6 month old FB message (it got filtered, which I didn't even know FB did) from a ex-crew chief who found it in a Thrift shop (He looked incredible) in Minnesota, and after hearing nothing from me, sold it on eBay for north of $200.
-
any rumint on a crash? didn't wanna start a new thread unless it's confirmed...here's hoping
It's in the news already, 4 heroes according to the article. No further details. A toast.
-
That's an anaerobic test in nature.... [words]
I left out the AFT part (1.5 run) since that's fairly self-explanatory. Like I said in my first post, if I were king, this would be the test for people who couldn't pass the waist-measurement on the normal PT test, as a way to distinguish between the fat-asses and the dudes who are mini-hulks.
If you can't do a single pull-up or push-up and you fly a desk, fine, I can (easily) get over having people who are completely out-of-shape in the AF, since many will never need to be, ever. But I can't accept seeing some fat f*ck who can't look at a treadmill without working up a sweat max-performing his blues belt or wearing a flightsuit way past bingo-velcro. It makes us look bad. You don't have to work out to not be fat. Somehow this country managed it 50 years ago, and many other countries are still doing it today. Eat less.
-
1
-
-
What is the USAFA PFT?
I'm going from memory here, and only the male standards:
Pullups: 7-21
Standing Long Jump: 6'ish - 8'
Situps: 95 max, i forget the min
Push-ups: 45ish-72
600m Sprint: 2:05 - 1:35
Min score gets you 25 points, max gets you 100. 250 points required to pass IIRC, and you could only fail one event.
EDIT: Apparently you cant fail any of the events anymore. Good. Thx, Muscle
-
Waist measurement has zero bearing on Physical Fitness. While it may be an indicator of future medical issues later in life, it does not always have bearing on ones physical abilities.
Interesting you say that. I've spoken to a few people who were "in the room" when the new PT standards were developed, and according to them (take third-hand information on the internet with the due grains of NaCl), the metrics were designed with far more emphasis on predicting future medical costs to the service. Shockingly enough, fat people (pardon the oversimplification) cost more, even if they are just "bigger dudes" and can run the hell out of the 1.5 mile.
But, there is a vaild argument for the idea that if said fat-ass is a valuable and productive member of the team, then they are worth the future costs. I don't have an answer for how to fix that. But, I also agree (somewhat) with those who think it doesn't matter if Amn Snuffy the finance desk jockey can do 70 push-ups. But I also strongly dislike obesity, and have no desire to see it tolerated in the military, so here's my idea:
If you can't pass the waist measurement, you take the USAFA PFT and AFT. You pass, congrats, you've shown that your fatness (as far as the standard AF PT Test is concerned) is not affecting your ability to physically participate in the rigors of military life (whatever those are...). But if you can't pass the USAFA PFT and you can't pass the waist measurement, then you're just a fat-ass I guess, so see ya later.
Just a thought.
-
I had gotten an advance for every PCS up until recently when Little Rock gave me the run around in 2011. Apparently AMC directed no advances for PCS'. I was at the schoolhouse so I got around it but they were not going to give in for AMC assigned folks.
No, what you are dealing with is a confused finance troop. They made the same mistake with me.
Due to everyone having a GTC, no PCS or TDY advance payments are authorized. Think of this like an accrual voucher that you file before ever leaving. Those are gone.
What you need to specifically ask for is a Pay Advance, which is authorized (1 month for O's, 2 with CC signature) as part of a PCS.
Remember, the 19 year old is generally mis-quoting an email his buddy told him about when they were closed for training. And the E-7 who shows up after is mis-quoting the same email that he forwarded to the nineteen year olds without fully reading it.
-
Only to be topped by a pilot refusing to write up a hard landing when they blow out a pair of tires.
Thank you for pointing this out. Up until now I though hard landings were measured in G's or VVI. Number of tires blown is a much easier Ops Limit.
-
It's spelled " y'all ", not " ya'll ".
Since the Grammar Police have already made an arrest, this made me laugh:
"I are routinely task saturated during my simulator training"
-
2
-
Opinions on C-17 v KC-10 (as well as bases?)
in General Discussion
Posted
Walnut Creek. It may not be as glamorous as Sac, but trust me, you'll thank me when you see the opposite direction traffic during your commute on the 80 and 680.
Plenty of things to do for a single dude(tte) there, and the train to SF is close.