Surf70

Exactly... If they would have had an Engineer 90% chance of not happening...

48M For the C-130 AMP program! I thought this was dead? AMP is back again! I knew Boeing would never let that one go as they are the ones doing the Mod's. Lockheed has been lobbying for more J models instead. I guess the Boeing lobby power paid off this time again. And I guess Lockheed will try to kill it again in FY16 in order to force the AF to buy C-130J's for the Guard and Reserves. Word is AF will be out of the Legacy C-130 world by the end of FY14. I guess the Guard and Reserves will be rolling with the C-130X with the new engines and props according to the NDAA. Sad news for the Navigators all around though...

Yep! Should have had an FE... And I bet an FE did the TOLD at Boeing to get the thing off the ground and out of there as well since the computer was saying "No Joy!"...

Well for one if worked into the checklist the FE would call all the verbal checklists in the airplane and also Emergency Procedures. He or she is the front end EP expert. The pilot could go back to being a pilot leave the weight of the EP's on the FE shoulders and also not worry about the preflight, fuel management, systems, pressurization, aircraft condition, or if they have the data for the approach if they are so many knots hot on their approach, landing, etc.. The FE would be the one checking the TOLD the computer is putting out inputting the data or saying it doesn't jive with these numbers etc.... Just for starters...This would also relieve the Load's on what they are required to do as well and they can go back to just being loadmasters and concentrate on weight and balance and their other duties. Also when you go to the SIM all are tailored to the FE, the pilots just do what the FE tells them and take note during the rest of the Emergency Procedure part...

Yeah well if you read the SIB about the Honduras deal. The FE was questioning the approach. And also if you look at the MAFF's 7 incident the FE was informing the pilot of the thunderstorms getting closer. Mistakes in all but if you were to look at all the data and compare with or w/o the FE the numbers for the FE are in the green in the safety margins. Money is on the table fella's. You install the Flight Engineer on the C-17 and the J herk you will see a total decline in Mishaps fleet wide. Not to mention some increased mission effectiveness, CRM and safety numbers and also some relieved Pilots and Loadmasters...

Should have had an FE... http://www.c-130hercules.net/showthread.php?t=5038

By the way the C-5 FE is a side seater and not looking forward. This totally diminishes their SA. On the herk the FE is directly in between the Pilots and has the best view on the flight deck. Both inside and out. If both pilots are heads down, he/she is outside. SA with all three crew members goes through the roof. FE backs up the Pilot and watches any Altitude, attitude, course corrections, traffic advisories, radio calls etc, and any change beyond what the systems are saying and knows the systems and airplane like the back of their hand to what a degree in that airplane would accomplish. Knows the vol 3 like know one else on the crew. He or she is the resident expert in the sim and most sims for EP's in the Herk esp, are tailored for the FE. The pilots just take notes. The FE is the EP expert and conducts the EP's with the checklist in emergencies, while the pilots maintain positive control of the airplane (i.e. fly and do their jobs). And do not sweat it because they have a resident expert on board called a Flight Engineer... If the C-17 community ever did adopt a FE position I am sure Boeing would train them as does Lockheed in the Herk. He/she would be a Boeing trained expert on the airplane, as a crew member.

Yes... And until you actually fly with a Engineer who is trained and would back up the computer, who is a "front end" crew member, and backs you up constantly and prevents you from landing short after a long 24 hour crew duty day, you do not know the benefits of having this professional on your crew. And he/she is not a loadmaster nor a crew chief and does not perform maintenance duties. However but is the interface between maintenance and the airplane (Ops). And the FCC is not trained as a FE nor is he/she a trained crewmember. Like I said previously the "fix" on all this (with no FE on the C-17) was to place an extra pilot, and a FCC on the airplane. This did nothing and does not compare to a trained Professional Flight Engineer. It was an attempt to replace with two people who are experts in their own realms but equally was not the same and did not solve the issue

The FE is trained from my understanding very differently than a boom or loadmaster. For one their ASVAB scores have to be Top of the Chart from what I understand. At least it used to be and an NCO with a maintenance background. Old school TOLD was their bread and butter. Slide rule engineering in the 1-1, E6-B experts as well. At one time about 10 or so years ago congress was about to force the AF to adopt the Warrant Officer position and align their rank with the other services. Randolph put a list out, it ended up in AF times somehow and the FE was at the top of the list. In the RAF the FE is a Warrant Officer. A former SQ CC told me back in the day that he flew Herks out of Clark. At the time his CC was a Nam guy and had a local directive for all of the FE's to have at least 3 take off's and landings a quarter. The reason behind it was in his squadron in Nam one of the crews cockpit got sprayed with machine gun fire on departure. Messed both the pilots up real bad. The FE had to fly the bird home. Long story short he got a DFC out of it.

Having an FE would reduce the mishap rate. And you for one have to admit that. In the C-17 community having the FE would increase the CRM on the airplane. The FE would have just like on the Herk the overhead panel, and everything on the console behind the throttles. Read all the checklists, be the EP expert, walk around/preflight, and be the technical expert on the airplane. This relieves the Pilot from being the jack of all trades as he or she currently is and can go back to just flying. Full attention to maintaining postive control of the airplane and SA would increase crew wise three or more fold. They invisioned this when they placed the extra pilot on but sad to say this increased the tunnel vision IMHO. The FE is not in the pilot union and is a seperate enity. This in itself relieves the "tunnel scope" in the CRM.

Yep and they do not do assault landings, airdrops, or short field take off's as well. Multiple legs, double shuttle's on NVG's. Most of the time they take off once and land once if they are lucky. And to caveat if you have never flown with an FE and have no experience with one as a crewmember. Then you have no valid opinion. The old heads in the C-17 community (former C-141) brought this up a while ago. After that they threw a couple of pilots on instead. Oh and a flying crew chief who is not a systems, EP expert like the FE nor is he/she a trained crewmember.

Was the saftey officer a rated pilot as well?

Have you listened to the CVR tapes?

Well I have said it before and I will continue to say it. The C-17 community lost out when they gave up the Flight Engineer position. If the crew would have had an FE on board this would have never happened. And the Tampa experience as well. AMC is losing huge without a FE in the flight deck. Their fix was to place an extra couple of Pilots in the seats. That really helped in Tampa didn’t it? A typical CRM issue in the making. In the Tampa incident two were IP's and one was I believe an EP. Tunnel vision down to the mark IMHO. Bring back the FE, same goes in the C-130J community... Why because with that much airplane it keeps you honest and safe. I could write a book on how much safer the C-17 community would be if the FE was back as a crew member. The Alaska crash would not have happened as well if there would have been a FE in the seat behind them keeping them honest. On a side note, one of my lasting memories with my last deployment in OIF was seeing C-17's taxi off the taxiways at numerous places. With all the craziness in the theater to see that just tops it off. We would just taxi by them shaking our heads. If they would have had an FE on board they would have stayed legit and straight.

Air Force Defends Light Air Support Contract Award: The Air Force on Monday defended its decision to award the Light Air Support contract to the team of Sierra Nevada and Embraer and not to Beechcraft. "We are confident that this best-value decision is well supported and that the offerors' proposals were fully and fairly evaluated consistent with the evaluation criteria in the solicitation," service spokesperson Ed Gulick told the Daily Report on March 11. Beechcraft on March 8 lodged a protest with the Government Accountability Office over the Air Force's Feb. 27 selection of the Sierra Nevada/Embraer A-29 light-attack airplane to be the LAS platform instead of Beechcraft's AT-6. Beechcraft is challenging the Air Force's assertion that the A-29 represents the best value. GAO must decide on the merits of Beechcraft's complaint by June 17, according to the office's website. Gulick noted that the Air Force assembled "a new evaluation team, internal and external advisors, and a new source-selection authority" for this competition, which came after the service terminated the previous source selection of the A-29 due to a Beechcraft protest and the Air Force discovering deficiencies in its source-selection documentation. Which is better? A-29 or the AT-6?

http://www2.tbo.com/news/breaking-news/2013/jan/23/5/air-force-explains-errant-c-17as-visit-ar-614036/

To address the question posted, the problem is that American and many other majors are outsourcing their heavy maintenance. (B, C, and Depot level checks). This was started about five or so years ago when the majors started hurting financially. They are performed in Mexico, Indonesia, China, and many other places. If they are lucky they will have a few US IA's overseeing the masses, that are unlicensed, no ticket what so ever, performing heavy FAA regulated annual and semi annual inspections. Answer is I do not know how they will fix this if they ever will. However, the outcome is to grow I am sure. Long gone are the days of the superior American style airline industry.

Depends if your gaining "guards" unit CC is a senior FedEx or UPS guy and is buds with the CC at Randolph. I have heard it has been done before, and I also have been told that some cannot. You do stand a better chance since you are already rated. 50/50 depending on the unit. Makes some calls you might find a unit where their Sq CC or OG just has happened to have done it and be willing. My bet is if you just start making calls, and asking. Someone will or at least entertain the idea.

Well it looks like Top Gun 2 is on hold with the unfortunate death of Tony Scott the director. http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/moviesnow/la-et-mn-scott-projects-20120821,0,7108947.story Bruckheimer, who has collaborated with Scott on six films including "Top Gun," declined to be interviewed about Scott and the fate of "Top Gun 2." On Friday, the producer traveled with Scott and Cruise to the naval air station in Fallon, Nev., 70 miles east of Reno, according to a public affairs officer at the base. PHOTOS: Director Tony Scott dead at 68 During their half-day visit, they met with the commanding officer and talked to other officials to learn more about the modernU.S. NavyStrike Fighter Tactics Instructor program, more popularly known as TOPGUN.

Do you guys deploy? And can you arm up meaning put the guns on the UH-1N (M-60 in the doors, etc.)? Or are you just plain Jane Slicks?

Classic... Thats Legit... LM in Fort Worth filming has began... Late Summer 2013 release... In March 2012, it was revealed by Tom Burbage, Lockheed Martin F-35 program manager, that the F-35 Lightning II will be used and to be flown by Maverick as a test pilot in the sequel.[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_Gun Tom Cruise steps onto the tarmac – cool and confident in his flight suit and dark aviator glasses. While his co-stars still call him Maverick, this isn’t Top Gun and that’s not an F-14 fighter plane. This is Top Gun 2, and the fighter plane he’s getting into is the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) – the most expensive weapon program ever, which is slated to be the mainstay of the U.S. Navy, the Air Force, and the Marine Corps for decades to come. Hollywood is going back to "Top Gun" school with its upcoming sequel to the 1986 film, but hotshot pilot Maverick won't be flying any killer robot drones. Instead, Tom Cruise is set to return in the starring role as a test pilot for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter — a plane that could well be the last manned fighter aircraft made in the West. http://www.msnbc.msn...er-jet-top-gun/