JeremiahWeed

Nice attempt with the hardass, no slack message. It definitely needed to be delivered to our young-ish wannabe. But.....We’re gonna need to see this again (phhssst.....sound of beer can opening before step).😉 If you’re going to do the finger in the chest attitude adjustment, just do it. Don’t tell them you’re doing it while apologizing and for fcks sake..........Much love? YGBSM!

Your #2 above is basically how FedEx constructs a large percentage of their trips. The same deadhead from "domicile to the city you live in" scenario you describe is exactly how many of our pilots go to work on their trips. The additional wrinkle to any of our deadhead trips is that if you deviate and do not use the scheduled deadhead flights from domicile, the money from those tickets is yours to use to get where you need to go. Those not quite as fortunate to be able to hold deadheads to their actual home city, avoid the classic commute to domicile on their free time by using the money to fly from home to the city in which they begin their trip. Usually they are doing that during the "footprint" of their trip which incorporates the time spent deadheading from base. A paid commute on company time in most cases while accruing airline FF miles and the benefits that come with those. The FedEx contract does not allow us to be positioned for work on our own aircraft jump seats except under rare circumstances. Last I knew, that was not the case with UPS. They make more use of their own aircraft to move their pilots which isn't going to allow the same level of flexibility. While not as good as living in domicile, it's so much better than a classic pax airline commute. Definitely a better option for some of us than holding our nose and moving the the suburbs of Memphis. Fortunately, most of the major pax airlines guys hope to land a job with have better options for domicile cities and if circumstances allow moving, driving to work is the best. I just relocated to Hong Kong in conjunction with a move to the left seat. First time in 14 years that I'm living in domicile. While not quite the same as driving from the DFW or ATL suburbs (I don't have a car here), it's nice to worry less about getting to work.

I was a pure-bred F-15C guy. Every mission I flew that jet I was thankful we had one focus - A/A. That was essential to do that job as well as possible in that jet. While a Hornet has evolved like the Eagle has, I'd guess it's pilots would still be well served by the luxury of a single mission focus. Not sure if we can afford to do that given the limits on airframes and pilots these days. Someone else would have to speak to multi-role effectiveness using 5th Gen capes now. I'd always be a proponent of pure A/A pilots if possible.

I’d never argue against frequent live A/A missile and gun employment. They’re valuable, no doubt. I don’t see them as being quite so critical in 2019. We have so many tools available now to understand and visualize the actual WEZ of a particular A/A weapon. Employment within acceptable parameters is hammered from day one and we can accurately validate that with the debriefing tools available. To compare the inability of a 1960’s vintage fighter pilot employing early generation AIM-7s and AIM-9s to visualize the missile envelope with our current situation is just not valid. Using the Ault report as a justification for increased training ordnance employment is kind of a stretch, IMO. We have video of WSEP shots from multiple angles. We can watch how missiles pull lead, correct trajectory, bad shots, the importance of a quarter plane to avoid gun debris, etc. I watched as many of those videos as I could get my hands on as a new guy. I tried to shoot an AIM-9 as a newly MR wingman but it malfunctioned. I got to see an AIM-9 shot from the backseat another day. All valuable. My first live missiles were employed 6 months later on my first combat sortie. I heard about the delay when you hammer down on an AIM -7 and it takes an eternity to actually launch. It still made me start to say “ ah, WTF.....” until I heard the bitch light and become the great white hope. Would experiencing that in training have made me better equipped to employ it that day in combat? Probably not. There are just too many variables in A/A employment to say a single training shot is going to prepare a pilot for what he may encounter in combat. The Ault report involves ancient lessons that apply to fledgling employment of first generation A/A missiles by pilots without the tools we now possess to wield far more capable weapons. Should we ensure those weapons are maintained properly after captive carry sorties, sure. That’s common sense. Should we have guys shooting multiple missiles every year? If we had an unlimited budget, sure. Sooner in their career than later (but not too soon). Definitely. Necessary for success in combat? Probably not. Just my .02.

Dafuq is she wearing on her feet? 🤨

😂 This is just another way of saying "anyone want to join an ejection seat roulette club"? 1980s vintage F-100 engine I'm guessing? Maintained on a budget. What could go wrong? Sooner or later one of the lucky owners will get to turn their share plus everyone else's into the standard lawn dart when the motor quits. Fun while it lasted. Unless some bozo G-LOCs first. 🙄

Are you sure it wasn’t a “periodic” thing...... oh, wait..... I guess you meant occasional. I was thinking something else 🙄

UFB. The level of dumassery available out there never ceases to amaze me. This genius decides to stick multiple balloons of what has become a legalized drug in more than half our country up his ass - while hiding frickin meth in his car. Never mind the firearm antics. Moron. 🙄

I think you’re starting to cut a pretty wide swath bringing in land and sea assets. Since we started discussing air threat replication, I’ll stick with that. Reaching all the way back to the Vietnam air war for examples of poor threat training and its ramifications conveniently ignores all the things we’ve done well to correct those mistakes in the decades since then. Again, if those in the know say we should use F-35s for threat replication then who am I to argue. We definitely need to crack that nut before our regular line fighter pilot bros are asked to face it for real. But isn’t development of tactics for use potentially 10 years into the future (the brain trust you mention) usually the job of the 422, not line bubbas possibly on their first trip to RF?

Okay - as I said, I don't have the expertise to discuss this in depth. If it's a valid replication of the actual threat, then it sounds like it's needed. I'm certainly not advocating running away from a tough problem. On the other hand, I don't think expecting to face 5th Gen stealth adversaries as a baseline on every RF sortie is a realistic example of that "tough problem". Facing a metric shit-ton of 3rd Gen North Korean fighters is probably at least as likely if not more so than tangling with whatever latest and greatest the Chinese or Russians have. Those two scenarios are vastly different and, in my opinion, require tailored training scenarios. Practicing for one doesn't make your ready for the other. We still have plenty of AORs that don't require us to face the top line threat but would still pose a significant challenge.

You’d think. Often crashes with no fire = no gas. Wouldn’t be the first bubba to get airborne with less than expected for various reasons.

So.....maybe a multi-plane last ditch while the dragon holds its breath and shits a nice string of little 1000 degree turds might be appropriate IRCM? If it can make it come out one end on command, why not the other?🤣

Isn't the assumption that 5th Gen stealth capes and whatever challenges an F-35 Aggressor offers Flag Blue-air is going to be an accurate representation of potential Chinese/Russian threats a rather big leap? It seems like this opportunity presented itself, not because of a well developed training plan, but more out of a need to do something with not quite ready for WW-next assets that aren't plentiful enough to equip a complete front line squadron. If there's nothing better to do with these assets, then I guess this is one solution. Going against an adversary that truly has these capes and is going to bring something very close to the game that a bunch of AD bubbas in F-35s can replicate is valid. But if front line squadrons develop tactics to deal with this perceived threat and reality is something considerably different, we could be building a mousetrap to combat a mouse that will never exist. I realize we did that for much of the cold-war but the variables and assumptions there were not anywhere close to the same magnitude of what is being dealt with today. Assuming an adversary can shoot a bit further out than his doctrine supports or that he has a bit more SA than a purely GCI dependent pilot does is quite a bit different than developing tactics to combat what a "not quite ready for prime time" F-35 and a US pilot brings to the party. Yeah, I'm out of the loop on much of this, so I'm just throwing some distant observer opinions out. I don't think it's a mistake to be able to replicate this threat, but I'd have a hard time accepting it as a routine expectation on a majority of RF type missions.

Is there really a CVR in an F-18G? Or are we talking about some kind of mission debrief asset that records comm, tactical displays, etc. at the command of the crew actually in the jet?

Okay - just so we're clear........ In the story that includes 3 fire-breathing dragons, hatched inside a funeral pyre by a chick (inside the same fire) who rides said dragons, commands their actions, and also happens to be in love with a guy who was stabbed to death and brought back to life by another chick who births an assassin shadow to kill a rival king............. You're drawing the line at BS windage? 😉

After hearing the narrator’s voice (Burl Ives) I felt like we should be watching the classic Rudolph Christmas show.

A few things to keep in mind: There isn’t one approved “airline logbook method”. This has nothing to do with FARs or mil regs, so throw those out of the equation. Some airlines have unique definitions of what they consider PIC time and others fall into a similar pattern (signing for the a/c is common). Some allow a per sortie conversion (.2 or .3 per is typical), some don’t or they apply it themselves. . I’ve also seen a 1.2 multiplication option for one’s entire total. The bottom line is that it’s entirely possible that you could apply to 3 different airlines and have 3 different totals for your PIC time. So my recommendation is to avoid extra work and wasted time creating a civilian logbook that just going to need to be tweaked for every airline you come into contact with anyway. Be familiar with your hours and which sorties or types of events may not meet a particular criterion that an airline uses to define PIC. Make sure your military flight time products are presentable and profession (I got a better looking binder that didn’t look like it had been used for 11 years). As nunya said, put an accurate, airline specific cover sheet inside that details how you arrived at the totals you provided to that airline using their rules. Be conservative and realize that there are folks at each airline that understand how UPT and FTU syllabi are constructed. If you’re a fighter guy who claims 100% of his time is PIC and airline X says PIC = signing for the jet, they’re going to ask if you have any time in a two-seater with an IP on board. Dual received, even if the IP never touched the controls isn’t going to compute when an airline wants sorties you signed for the jet (i.e. were ultimately responsible for the a/c).

To your original post - I have no info on any of the 3 events, conditions at the time, etc. In general, if the winds are within the a/c limits and the flying pilot puts the appropriate cross-wind controls in during takeoff roll, dragging a wingtip shouldn't happen. Normally increasing Vr is a procedural option when it's used as a precautionary measure against potential windshear. The rationale is you unbalance the field and use any extra runway available to put extra smash on the jet (usually a max of 20 knots above the normal computer Vr depending on conditions, runway limits, etc). The extra energy gained doing this will hopefully aid during a windshear encounter once airborne. I've never heard of increasing Vr for crosswinds or gusts alone, but maybe some operators do it. I think proper flight control inputs and the typical performance buffers available for most takeoffs are probably all that's normally required.

All Boeing transport category aircraft have leading edge slats and some also have krueger flaps. At the companies at which I’ve flown them, they are not referred to as leading edge devices, nor is that term used in the Boeing generated systems manual or quick reference handbook No one is going to be confused if you refer to them as LEDs, but in my experience, you don’t hear Boeing operators use that term in the regular course of flying those aircraft, running checklists, etc. The MD-11 and DC-10 (MD-10) are the same as the C-17. There’s an initial “slats” position of the handle that controls the high lift devices and they’re referring to as slats during ops. No one I know makes a habit of calling them LEDs on those aircraft either. Semantics 101 complete 🤪

They are called that in the systems manual although on a typical flight, you rarely hear slats specifically referred to since Boeing doesn't really "do" slats. No one I've heard talks about LEDs, but that could be specific company "speak". 757, 767 and 777 control all the high lift devices with the flap handle and commands to extend them are always called using "flaps ____". Flaps 1 extends only slats to mid-range where they stay as trailing edge flaps are selected to 5, 15, 20. Slats fully extend to the landing position once flaps 25 or 30 are selected (either 25 or 30 can be used for landing).

This is highly situation dependent. First, it is possible to interview with a Guard unit and stipulate that you're looking for a full-time position. If they don't have one available, then you opt to go elsewhere. If they want you badly enough, they may do some horse trading. Second, considering the airlines are scooping up just about every able-bodied military pilot they can get their hands on, the competition for full-time positions in the Guard may not be the feeding frenzy you think it is. Of course, YMMV depending on the units you're rushing, their manning and a myriad of other factors. But, I wouldn't just assume that locking in a full-time spot is out of the question.

I think the dudes preparing for Folda Gap 🤔 2.0 are going to be really surprised if the balloon goes up............but that’s not important.

I like this quote: The CDI found that many airmen in those squadrons thought “rolling up” was based on camaraderie and bonding. But those who participated were taking part more out of peer pressure than on enjoyment of the actions, according to the investigations. "Captain, did you enjoy these hazing rituals you thought were about camaraderie and bonding?........ or did you just go along due to peer pressure?" What in the actual F did they think anyone was going to say? "We're better than this" 🙄 No, actually the USAF just got a little worse. Just another reason in a long list that will continue to drive the mass exodus away from the USAF.

On the MD-11, it got some pretty consistent attention. It has a 13K fuel tank in the stab. Once airborne, with the fuel system in auto, it will pump 13K back there if there's room and CG allows which will move the CG aft. It'll put it right at the aft limit for most of the flight if it can. Makes a big difference in fuel consumption. But if someone porks away the load, it's not difficult to negate that capability. Most operators don't plan for tail fuel management and tend to use pessimistic burns just for CYA. Certain issues can deny TFM and if the fuel load is counting on it and it fails, you will land short on some of the longer flights. Another factor is an emergency and rapid descent to landing early in the flight. If the descent is fast and slats come out early, a large portion of that 13K may be trapped back there. Can make the landing kind of sporty if the guys flying haven't experienced a significant aft CG.

What may be the issue is the forward belly freight. When the load team doesn't communicate well, they may end up with freight on the main deck aft of the CG. The guys unloading the forward belly (forward of CG) do that too quickly and eventually gravity wins. I've seen this happen a few times. I was working at another cargo carrier (before FedEx) on a layover in Anchorage. My Captain called me and said "turn on Fox News". So, I do and there's the aircraft we're supposed to take to Taipei in 18 hours at LAX looking just like that 747. "Ah..yeah, I guess our ANC layover just got a bit longer." 6000 lb pallet of stuff that was half-way to the door rolled back during the tilt and almost killed a guy who dove out of the way plus did big time damage to the aft bulkhead and a/c structure. Most cargo outfits have a tailstand, a weight cart attached to the nose gear or a strap running through the nose gear anchored to eye-bolts in the concrete during loading/unloading to avoid this. The 777F has the main deck door aft of the wing, so all the main deck freight is loaded and unloaded from front to back. Pretty much impossible to put one on the tail doing it that way (but you'll still never see one of ours without a strap or weight cart).