Jump to content

Toro

Administrator
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,711

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    36

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Toro

    Information on PIT (Pilot Instructor Training)

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    Yes; although, you know as well as I do that the E-model B-course only requires six rides to get the initial INSTM/QUAL (no previous experience in the jet required). The track 4 at Klamath only required five-to-six and the equivalent at Luke is four rides, and can be proficiency advanced down to three (neither of these syllabi require previous MDS experience for course entry).

    I don't offer those examples to stir up a pissing contest, but as a point of reference. Even if the T-6 were more complicated to fly than the those other aircraft, 8-10 rides seems high.

    Edited for spelling.

    Valid

    US flags at half-mast for Nelson Mandela--thoughts?

    in Squadron Bar

    Posted

    Would you consider it tacky and distasteful if somebody was taking selfies and laughing like that at one of your family members funeral/memorial? I damn sure would. This is the President of the United States on the world's stage. That narcissistic fuck doesn't know any better. I guess you don't learn manners being a community organizer in a shit hole like Chicago.

    I normally would agree with this, but the picture - while not taken out of context - did not have the full context of what was going on. The atmosphere at this event wasn't like most of us would picture a memorial.

    From NBC Nightly News:

    The atmosphere inside Africa's largest stadium was celebratory, with people dancing, blowing "vuvuzela" plastic horns and singing songs from the anti-apartheid struggle as they honored the man who steered their country from white-minority rule to multi-racial democracy.

    "It is a moment of sadness celebrated by song and dance, which is what we South Africans do," Xolisa Madywabe, CEO of a South African investment firm, told The Associated Press.

    Selfie at a funeral: head-up-ass level of ignorance and tackiness

    Selfie at a celebration of somebody's life: not that big of a deal

    • Upvote 1
    • Downvote 1

    US flags at half-mast for Nelson Mandela--thoughts?

    in Squadron Bar

    Posted

    Why is it an issue? Because of dickbags like this?

    Anybody who has issue with this might want to try and read the US Code: Position and manner of display

    (m) The flag, when flown at half-staff, should be first hoisted to the peak for an instant and then lowered to the half-staff position..... By order of the President, the flag shall be flown at half-staff upon the death of principal figures of the United States Government and the Governor of a State, territory, or possession, as a mark of respect to their memory. In the event of the death of other officials or foreign dignitaries, the flag is to be displayed at half-staff according to Presidential instructions or orders, or in accordance with recognized customs or practices not inconsistent with law.

    It shouldn't be terribly surprising that somebody from South Carolina is making a huge stink about it.

    • Upvote 1
    • Downvote 1

    Patch information (wear, care, etc)

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    Legal info? I wouldn't trust what you read on here. I recommend you head to your base legal office and get their take on this uniform travesty.

    Exactly.

    Shut Up - before you get too spun up, I suggest you also look to see if there's a local sup to 2903 (assuming your command chief doesn't send out 6-9 references it prior to the CUI). It may specifically detail how patches are worn on that base. If still nothing, just take the patch off until the CUI is over.

    • Upvote 2

    Aviator's Joke of the Day

    in Squadron Bar

    Posted

    I got some jokes about all the various crew positions...but come to think of it, a lot of them aren't too funny. I think you guys might be a little too sensitive for those. My joke was right at the weather guy. Are you a weather guy? If so...sorry. What does the 10 dollars mean? Should I have tipped the weather shop?

    Good God, stop while you're behind.

    • Upvote 5

    Sad that the Guard has come to this...

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    We have been reminding you about uniform wear and hats in the parking lot over the last few weeks, but it has officially hit its limit. The Wing/CC was eating out at a local restaurant and saw another member of the Ops Group not wearing their hat when they should have been.

    Big enough problem to threaten a 30-day grounding, but not a big enough problem to walk over and tell one of your subordinates to put their hat on?

    Chickenshit. He must not have had a chief with him to correct the uniform infraction.

    • Upvote 5

    Aviator's Joke of the Day

    in Squadron Bar

    Posted

    Sticking with the Nav theme...

    Two Navs walk up to a machine that is dispensing pilot wings. The wings cost 0.50, and each Nav has only a quarter. They discuss it, and determine that they're going to each put in a quarter, and they will take turns with the wings.

    They each put in a quarter, turn the knob (sts), and the wings pop out. The first Nav takes the wings, pins them to his chest, and struts around proudly. After 6-9 minutes, the second Nav jealously says, "All right, that's enough...my turn," to which the winged gent says, "FUCK YOU NAV!"

    • Upvote 5

    The USAF Safety Process

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    Does the USAF safety system have some kind of process where members of the affected community can give some feedback to the safety board telling them the community thinks their findings are off base and need to be reexamined? If not, do we just have to live with the causal factors and recommendations however ridiculous and "uncausal" they may be?

    Yes...but.

    After the report is finalized and approved, requests for inputs to a Memorandum of Final Evaluation (MOFE) are sent to involved parties for any inputs they have to the report. Here's from the safety investigation reg (91-204):

    7.2 Memorandum of Final Evaluation (MOFE). Organizations will review Class A and B final message/formal reports and send their response back to AFSC within 45 days after final message release by the convening authority. Comments received after the 45 day deadline may not be considered in the MOFE unless an extension is granted through AFSC/SEFO.

    7.2.1. AFSC will publish a MOFE on all on-duty Class A safety reports within 90 days after release of the final message. Additional MOFE requirements and exemptions are specified in AFMAN 91-22X.

    7.2.2. AFSC will consider inputs from the following in preparation of the MOFE:

    7.2.2.1. Convening authority.

    7.2.2.2. Lead command of weapons system (AFPD 10-9).

    7.2.2.3. Air component commanders of unified commands when the mishap occurred during contingency operations. NOTE: The unified command staff offices must agree to safeguard the information according to rules contained in this instruction.

    7.2.2.4. Designated action agencies (OPR/OCRs).

    7.2.2.5. Commander of the mishap wing.

    7.2.2.6. Statements of person(s) found causal in the formal report.

    7.2.2.7. Air Force agencies outside the investigating command if their functions were involved in the mishap (e.g., HQ AFFSA/A3A for air traffic services and airfield management, DCMA for mishaps involving contracts managed by DCMA).

    7.2.2.8. Unsolicited comments. Agencies and organizations reviewing the final message report may comment on the investigation, findings, causes, and recommendations even though they are neither in the chain of command nor a designated action agency.

    So in theory, your comments could fall under that last category, but I doubt this would happen. First, it assumes your safety office queried for comments from the general public (and you would have to represent an "agency or organization"). Next, it assumes that you actually get a chance to read the report, hear of the MOFE, and reply within the 45 day limit. Last, it assumes that they actually took your comments - this would probably be your biggest hurdle.

    Your best bet would be to convince your safety office to submit comments on your behalf (which they would actually have to submit on behalf of the Wg/CC).

    Seeing a Chiropractor

    in Aviation Medicine

    Posted

    A friend of mine who use to work in flight medicine was saying this could cause me to be DNIF by going without consulting with a flight doc first.

    False

    I've never been to a chiropractor and frankly I've always thought they are witch doctors. Does anyone have any personal experience? Is it just a waist of money?

    I've been to one on several occasions for neck pain. It doesn't solve the problem immediately, but the issue has always tended to go away shortly after.

    The USAF Safety Process

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    I've split this discussion from the MC-12 thread into its own.

    Who are you to decide what I need to correctly ascertain the lesson? What if 7 day history is part of the problem? The system is terrible and doesn't work at all.

    If 7 day history (in the tabs) is part of the problem, it will be summarized in the report. I take it you've never looked through mishap tab data - it is mind-numbingly overwhelming. Getting the recreation videos is what you want, not tab data.

    This hyper-control of information, fear-of-god bullshit comes straight from the AF Safety Center. I disagreed with it when I went through the courses, and I still disagree with it. "Toe-ing the line" and deciding who "needs to know" what information is garbage, and safety offices continue to hide behind it.

    I 100% agree that the AFSEC too close-hold on things like briefings and videos. I've had safety officers try on a couple occasions to get them - totally possible, but it takes longer than it should.

    As far as the privilege concern, I see this is a MAJCOM/leadership issue, not AF Safety as a whole. It seems like most of the concerns over the release of privileged information for punitive purposes has been in AMC. I've never seen or heard of it in ACC or AETC (not to say it hasn't happened). I have personally overseen two class A mishaps, and in both the pilot was found at least partially causal. In both cases, the pilot was required to acknowledge the findings (and allowed to provide input), and both pilots were extremely concerned about how that would affect them. I explained there was nothing that could happen to them as a result, and in both cases absolutely nothing happened.

    The MAJCOM/CC is the convening authority, and if they are allowing that information to be used for anything punitive, then your problem lies with leadership, not the safety process.

    • Upvote 1

    More SARC briefings soon.

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    "I don't care if you fly a 1.1 or a 1.3... you WILL log a 1.2!"

    The whole "Fly what you can and log what you need," is bullshit. Unfortunately, I still see that going on. Stepping from the Ops Desk at the end of the year, Ops notes read, "LOG 1.2". That's a stretch for most of our sorties, but miraculously, most guys managed to do it.

    The buffoonery will continue until we figure out a way to fix the allocation of flying hours.

    Many years ago, we changed our SCL so that all sorties (including A/A) had tanks, and we were to fly max ASD. Any range sorties from Lakenheath were to go to the Scotland range at max endurance. Flying a 3.0 was about average. Fast forward a few months and somebody realized that we completely overshot our goal, so now we have to minimize ASD. Directive from the OG/CD is to fly the lowest ASD possible. NSTFS - one guy (who went on to be a Sq/CC), blew past the hot pits on a surge day, called #1 to tower, and called 10 out to Ops. When Ops asked his status, he responded with, "I'll tell you when I take off." He took off, pulled closed, landed, and logged the only 0.1 I have ever seen...all for the benefit of the FHP. Of course, he got his ass handed to him (by the same OG/CD who gave the directive).

    Were we talking about the SARC briefings?

    The USAF Safety Process

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    Anyone read Approach magazine? Why doesn't the AF have something like that?

    If you're referring to a service-wide magazine, we use to have Wingman, but it was recently cancelled.

    1. Get something out to the community in a timely freaking manner. The DVR/DFD are decoded pretty quickly, and we generally have a good idea of what the hell happened within 48 hours or so. Isn't there a preliminary safety message put out that soon anyway? The NTSB gets a basic report out pretty early, and it is usually about 95% accurate after the final report comes out. And before anyone says "things can change," then I say so what. Then we can change what we learned if the final report is that much different from the initial one.

    The preliminary safety message (within 24 hours) is generally nothing more than an OPREP that states only facts (location, ranks, aircraft type and tail number, general mishap category). The time limit for investigations is 30 days - barring no extenuating circumstances - which really isn't that long of a time period to wait to hear what happened. As was mentioned previously, if something is discovered that is imminent hazard to aircrew, it WILL be immediately released. IMO, the reason the NTSB releases so much information so quickly on accidents is because of public scrutiny and media. Neither of those plays a big part on Air Force mishaps, so we do it under our timeline.

    2. Give everyone with access to the portal access to safety reports. Maybe a semi-sanitized version. I should be able to access these lessons from my hotel room, downrange, or wherever. I shouldn't have to go back to my home unit and then beg and plead with the safety office, only to be denied about 50% of the time anyway by the "I have a secret" weenies. I just don't get how it will somehow hurt operations, safety, or privilege by allowing the broader community to have access to safety reports. NTSB reports are not only open to the flying community, but they are open to anyone with an internet connection.

    You’re missing the point of the report. You can’t have a “semi-sanitized” report that has any sort of findings – this would make it privileged, and therefore FOUO, and therefore subject to the restrictions of safety reports. Releasing these FOUO reports has nothing to do with hurting operations, it has do to with protecting the concept of privilege for those who are subject to investigation by safety reports. If the reports are leaked publicly, that information could in theory be used in legal or other matters for which it was not intended (again - that is the point of the AIB) . Unfortunately, the reports are kept close hold for the same reason you have to take IA training every 12 months that is geared towards the lowest common denominator – because some people are stupid, and when given the chance, they will email it out or upload it to YouTube. That all being said, your safety office isn’t doing their job if they're not working to get you reports and/or briefings.

    3. As I mentioned before, have a condensed, user friendly document, PPT, and animation on said safety portal, available to anyone with a CAC card. Someone mentioned how the C-5 animation was leaked out and how bad that was, and how we have to be careful with "raw data" like that without the safety guys there to "interpret" it for us.

    I agree 100% that these should be more easily accessible (by Safety shops), but again not to the average Joe. On the occasions when we wanted to brief mishaps, it took a lot of prodding and justification to the safety center -- it is unnecessarily painful. But the reason for not making it available to everybody has nothing to do with the safety guys interpreting it, it has to do with the concept of privilege and safeguarding that information.

    IIRC, the 4 star could change causal factors to just about anything before the report is sent out to the masses. The AF Safety Center could put the causal factors back where they belong but the report is filed and never sent back out afterward.

    The convening authority (4-star MAJCOM CC) cannot change casual factors, but he can reject the report and/or make the SIB go back and research other areas. The report is never "sent out," it is uploaded into AFSAS. Any changes following the final report (MOFE) or loaded into AFSAS. All versions of the report are maintained in AFSAS.

    Re timeliness: I've been a Class A SIB BP and a few other roles...the instant we believed releasing info was necessary to prevent future mishaps, we sought the MAJCOM/CC's permission to put the fix in place (Mx action, TO change, etc).

    Contrary to popular opinion, you probably do not instantly need to know what happened. If you're really interested in flight safety, go read the 91 series, and go to ASPM/AMIC and become a safety officer.

    Safety reports are full of very sensitive info and are not for the curious. That's what AIBs are for.

    ETA: I routinely look up reports and TELL the curious/interested what happened, without releasing privileged info. That's what safety offices SHOULD be doing.

    Shack on all of this.

×
×
  • Create New...