Fuzz
-
Posts
1,641 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
14
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Downloads
Wiki
Posts posted by Fuzz
-
-
11 hours ago, MooseAg03 said:
Fly what you can, log what you need.
If we go NMR, we leave fewer people to execute the mission. So...all this stuff will be prorated anyway. If it isn’t, then we will punish those who are proactive to get all of their beans accomplished by increasing their Ops tempo. Brilliant.
As for the tactical stuff, 95% of what we do (in my community) operationally ends with vectors to an ILS final. If you want us to practice large force integration, that’s fine. Then eliminate AR quals for 90% of our crew force because we NEVER do it operationally. Then we’d have plenty of time to practice C2 integration, brevity, and all that jazz.We haven’t dropped an atomic bomb since 1945 I guess we can scrap AFGSC but that logic? We are a strat airlift asset which means we must maintain the capability to execute intertheater airlift. As an IP I know the pain of trying to get AR training, it sucks especially given the MX status of the tankers when at home. However, if I had a dollar for every time someone told me “we’ll never do that for real or it will be the SOLLII/WOs/Leads” in the last 3 years I’d be sitting pretty well off financially. There’s a lot of things the Air Force as whole doesn't do on a daily basis but still trains too because it’s about what we can do when the flag goes up.
-
1 hour ago, dream big said:
For those of you in the MAF (perhaps also the CAF), you may have noticed a significant increase in the amount of currency and continuation requirements. There are now specific requirements from AMC to perform large force exercises for airdrop units as part of currencies, among other new requirements.
A lot of this stemmed from Ex Mobility Guardian in 2017 which, for those who were there know, was an absolute clown show. There were absolutely shortcomings with the C-17and C-130’s ability to integrate in a large force tactical environment. It was literally an international embarrassment.
However, all of this comes at a time when we are undermanned, overworked and cannot retain anyone. Word up at the Mobility Mecca is that this drastic increase in flying requirements is designed to make squadrons go NMR, in order to produce a demand signal to HHQ to get more money, people and resources.
Any other MAF dudes on here experiencing the same thing in your squadrons? Personally I feel like this is going to royally backfire. I have yet to meet an 05 DO/CC type that would let anyone in his Squadron go NMR..
The new C-17v1 is now effective as of 15 Jun you can pull it off Epubs. As for MobGar when we have multiple crews Leroy Jenkins their way straight through called SAM WEZs because they have zero battle space awareness or understanding of what TAC C2 is telling them then yeah maybe we need to do more of that.
The TCM OG/CC has not waived NMR events at the end of the semi for 2 periods now to purposely not cover up had much training we couldn’t accomplish due to the Ops tempo and the SQ/CCs are all on board.
ETA: while I like some of the changes they also made some way more complicated, such as the formation currency with Night Vis Wing is going to been even a larger pain in the ass for IPs to ensure everyone gets.
-
21 hours ago, MDDieselPilot said:
What are the specific plans, or where can I find them?
I know the C-21 squadron at Andrews is going to close soon, already seen a few people headed there get vectored elsewhere.
-
1
-
-
On 7/12/2018 at 1:34 AM, YungBuck said:
And there were definitely no sims or UPT Next sets floating around my ROTC unit. Seems like you should be able to learn systems, basic EPs, basic instruments and pattern procedures remotely. There is nothing magic about being physically present on a UPT base to start memorizing some shit.
Not necessarily true, not VR but pretty good overall.
-
4 hours ago, Naviguesser said:
Do a barrel roll!
Can’t, they took that out of the syllabus.
-
2
-
1
-
-
21 hours ago, Disco_Nav963 said:
Sounds like chasing the golden rings down the glidepath on "Pilot Wings" on the Super Nintendo, circa 1992.
More or less they already had it setup to where the visual cues could be reduced as the pilot got better at flying.
-
7 hours ago, ThreeHoler said:
Those shitty sims are way better than the Tweet sims we had when I went through UPT. The video processor was shared between the sims and you only got video for a few seconds of takeoff and landing.
Yeah exactly, they were better than the Tweets, now we have something better, so let’s use it.
5 hours ago, BasicAggie said:You can get 400 VR sims for the price of a single T-6 OFT. I tried it, was immersive enough that i caught myself reaching forward to reset the G-meter. I definitely think it's the way of the future just from a price and portability perspective. Imagine having a couple of VR sims in each flight room at least, where IPs can watch the studs "fly" on each pc's accompanying desktop. It doesnt quite have the fidelity of a full up OFT but its definitely good enough.
Also, my bro there now talked about how easy it was to pause and reset with multiple guys linked together. Each stud did ~20 rejoins in the sim before trying it in the air, and then by their 2nd sortie in the aircraft had it shacked. Where teaching rejoins old school it was typical that stud were still struggling with rejoins in their ~12th sortie.
The one I saw had gates to fly through to help you learn to fly patterns or instruments approaches. Pretty effective for showing what the correct sight picture looks like.
-
1
-
-
The sims especially at UPT bases are outdated with limited fields of view (especially for a canopy aircraft) and shitty graphics. Futhermore chairflying infront of a poster was great before technology existed. We have those sims where students can go sit in a T-6 cockpit and flip switches to get hand on experience or the T-1s with actual mission computers to practice with. How much do those cost versus one of these VR kits? I flew one of these at a presentation at shoe flag and I believe that we can produce way better pilots using VR. Nothing will replace putting a students ass in a cockpit, but doing it the way we’ve done it in UPT for the last 50 years is also a sure way to ensure we don’t produce the best product we can.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Just remember we could still be part of the Army.
-
1
-
1
-
-
On 7/1/2018 at 7:40 PM, dream big said:
The intent is that they’ll make up for the lost training at the FTUs. Can’t speak for the fighter side but on the MAF guys, the FTUs are running at max capacity and min manning. They will definitely not get their lost UPT training at the FTUs. Then they’ll show up to the units and be our problem. They will continue to be burdened with nonner duties because commanders can’t seem to follow CSAF guidance. They’ll waste time on being equipment custodian, security manager, Christmas party planner, unit piss test POC or whatever. They’ll have no one to set them straight and teach them how to be pilots because all of our experience is running for the airlines, if they aren’t shackled up at the wing exec or DS office. We are so f*c&ed.
According to one of the MAF functionals the MAF FTUs aren't at max capacity. Which makes sense because last I checked the C-17 schoolhouse was only several weeks behind /sarc.
-
On 7/1/2018 at 9:02 PM, HarleyQuinn said:
My apologies. It was in my Google news feed and all of the stories in my Google feed do not require a subscription except for the Wall Street Journal at times of course. Crazy how Google knows exactly what I want to read..nerd algorithms.
Google the title and you should be able to see it without the paywall
-
AMCs “Fly only track” but only for DV platforms, because that’s where we are short on experienced aviators. Just when I thought AMC was at least on a good trajectory they pull this shit.
http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2018/August 2018/Mobility-Boom.aspx
-
2018 Airman of the Year because of volunteer bullets:
-
2
-
-
Moved here for more appropriate discussion but the two links 17D posted for accessing the new outlook from your computer are now blocked by IE and Chrome due to invalid certificates. Any have any luck getting them to work?
-
50 minutes ago, SurelySerious said:
WTF are you talking about? You think China and Russia are going to stop what they’re doing because of our “cohesion”? If you’re not a bot or high school student, I’d be surprised.
I going to go with young captain who’s first assignment was MC-12s.
Also HarleyQuinn, the last 17 years has been a smorgasbord for China and Russia. We’ve put a lot of our R&D and future programs on the back burner and they got an upfront seat to 17 years of TTPs, decision models, C2 structure, weapons capes etc. We needed to be in the fight but wearing out our best equipment with 17 years of fighting in a unforgiving environment was not smart move. China and Russia aren’t afraid, if they were we wouldn't be currently scrambling to figure out how to deal with the annexation of Crimea, the Southern China Sea, the Great Silk Road etc.
-
5 hours ago, pawnman said:
I have a hard time believing that the Air Force wouldn't offer continuation to rated guys in the midst of a pilot manning crisis... But then, they've done dumber things.
Checks
-
2 hours ago, matmacwc said:
AFPC knows about this site, they look.
-
1
-
-
27 minutes ago, RJ09 said:
Air Force promotions page on portal
There's a promotions page on portal? Like people actually use that website for more than hyperlinks to other mostly useless .mil websites?
-
1 hour ago, aggiecadet03 said:
Wh[y] promote a 100% promotion due to numbers if they did not intend to add to the end total of promotees?
Great question, one I'm sure leadership will have to answer for here in a couple days when people get the results.
-
He explained that they set up an actual promotion board and ran the board through Full PRFs, one line PRFs and no PRFs. The end result was almost identical promotion rates regardless of format, therefore they decided to can PRFs since they had almost no effect on the promotion and save everyone's time. The fact that people still wrote them is indicative of probably the biggest issue we have in the AF, which is middle management going rogue and not listening to HAF and thereby wasting peoples time.
-
3 hours ago, aggiecadet03 said:
The delay was a pain but as long as they stick to the original plan of 100% as long as you didn't have any negative remarks I'm ok with it. No one from this group can pin on before September 1st anyway.
I heard directly from one of the recorders for the board at AFPC that this was not the case. You had a 100% promotion opportunity (which has always been the case so I don't know why leadership started using this) but not everyone will get promoted even if you had no negative indications. I predict this is going to backfire spectacularly in leadership's face, based on how they sold this, when people get notified they were passed over. I can see the Air Force times headlines now: "100% promotion rate to major, does not mean 100%", "Top Air Force Leadership lied about promotion rates" etc.
-
On 6/13/2018 at 7:01 AM, NKAWTG said:
Not just the weak swimmers heading there. If you were a T-38 MAF guy, you were heading back to UPT with few exceptions. Couple that with the MAF taking most of the T-6 slots, and you have a huge experience gap developing in the MAF. It's not just our commanders who are low time and lack credibility, but the middle of the career junior Majors are rarely IPs now, since they got picked off for a UPT or drone second assignment. These children of the sequester are now the front line instructors of the shortened UPT product. May you fly in interesting times.
We’ve even stopped sending prior 38 guys because we simply can’t afford the manning loss. We just got a huge influx of majors into my squadron which are all returning from UPT/RPA and are pretty much useless. We can barely get them CMR (some we haven’t 1+ years in) before they get sucked up to the GP/WG. So now we have 1st and 2nd assignment IPs teaching not only the new pilots but trying to spin up these majors who can barely fill missions.
-
On 6/12/2018 at 9:44 PM, BADFNZ said:
Putting two and two together here...was the OG/CC responsible for this the same WG/CC that just got shit-canned at Dyess?
Yes however, while a contributing factor the people were typically Pheonix Reach or similar types who were upgraded to IP too fast and were there to check a box not learn and employ the C-17 mission.
-
7 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:
Heavy drivers (T-1 trained) are just that bad / untrainable to become a T-38 IP later (or anytime) in their careers?
Let’s be realistic about who the MAF is sending back to UPT. Our manning and experience is becoming as critical as the CAF, we can’t afford good pilots leaving the communities outside of special programs. Besides a few volunteers for family reasons, those we send back are typically not our strongest swimmers, and some are barely above drowning at any given second.
It's Official, OCPs are Coming!
in General Discussion
Posted
I don’t fly with it on, but our squadron bought the Coyote Brown Massif jackets for the everyone (which is surprising because they usually skimp on everything.)