Hacker

I have no doubt that there are very talented pilots who went through the T-1 track and went on to fly heavies, and who would likely excel if they crossflowed to a fast mover. But let's remember that the AF training pipeline has always been a game of numbers, and Big Blue has to select the pilots who have the highest likelihood of making through IFF and FTUs in the time directed in the syllabus. I'm sure there are plenty of UPT washouts who would have made great pilots if they'd just had a couple more rides, right? But, as we know, the syllabus directs when certain learning milestones will be achieved, and that is Gospel for the training pipeline. The brass who are making these decisions are old enough to remember the last fighter crossflow program in the late 90s and how generally sorta-slightly-below-average that turned out. Yes, we're talking about something different now than then (e.g., now the question is T-1 vs T-38 trained, but then the only folks eligible for crossflow were T-38 UPT-trained pilots), but because of this I think the lessons of the 90s crossflow are even more amplified now than then. I've posted about this before (several pages back in this very thread), but for those who didn't live through it, the fact is many crossflow pilots didn't end up performing as well as hoped at all stages of follow-on training (IFF. FTU, squadron MQT, etc). Some of them did great, of course (I know a couple that went on to perform well above average where I was in the F-15E community), but statistically they did "worse" (in terms of pipeline training washouts and issues in operational units). Remember, during this crossflow program it was only T-38-trained pilots who were eligible. Most of the dozen or so crossflow pilots that were my IFF/FTU classmates and later follow-on squadronmates were superb officers with fantastic officer performance records (and extremely good dudes to boot), but that didn't always continue into performance in the cockpit. It wasn't a talent issue with the crossflow pilots so much as it was an experience issue; one has to acknowledge, weather it is politically correct to or not, that there are significant cultural differences between the fighter community and other flying communities (although the bomber community is a somewhat close relative) that translate to differences in skills/airmanship in the pilots that come from those communities. What makes an aviator great in the MAF isn't the same thing that makes an aviator great in the CAF. On the most basic level, the crossflow pilots, for the most part, were not used to being single-seat decisionmakers at much higher speeds, and much higher Gs, while hand-flying significantly more aggressive/dynamic maneuvers. Many times the core airmanship just wasn't operating well at 400 knots and pilots were just behind the jet (sound judgment, just not fast enough); sometimes a thousand hours on autopilot in the flight levels did not translate to having hands good enough for even basic admin formation work, much less more complex BFM or surface attack. This isn't unique to the crossflow folks, though; this is the same thing seen many times with ANG/Reserve fighter units that hire non-fighter guys and send them through IFF and fighter FTUs. There was a big wave of those guys back in the 2003-2005 timeframe (mostly A-10 units at the time, but I don't remember why), and they had an unusually high washout rate, too, with the guys who did superb being the exception rather than the rule. None the less, the end result was that there was higher attrition of the crossflow guys compared to straight pipeline students, and the fighter brass largely decided the crossflow program wasn't that much of a benefit. Again, not that the crossflow pilots were idiots or anything (in fact, quite the opposite -- most of them had impressive OPRs/jobs/awards, seemed to have been superb pilots in their previous lives, and were really great dudes), but their previous flying time had given them habits and airmanship that did not dovetail into success in fighters. And all of this was with pilots who had 100-ish hours of training as a fast jet single-seat flyer and decisionmaker before going to a multi-pilot airplane. Now, how do you think that learning curve is going to be with a dude whose only single-seat judgment and decisionmaking was Phase II in T-6s however many years prior?

Do any of the airlines have an AFPAK Hands program? Mine doesn't.

The seniority system is the only way to ensure that safety is the #1 factor motivating decisionmaking, vs trying to "look good" for management.

Just the fact that they're playing that card is an indicator of where their decisionmaking compass is pointing.

There I was, flat on my back....

You see, a pimp's love is very different from that of a square...

ATI AT-94A2. Basically the same gun made in the same factory as the Zenith (MKE in Turkey), but the previous importer. A2 stock and 16" CHF barrel with no muzzle device. It was imported with a bunch of weird stuff; A2 stock spot-welded to trigger group/lower, mag-well bars to restrict use of 10-round mags, etc. I sent it to Parabellum Combat Systems and had them 922r it, remove the mag bars, clean up the welds, strip the weird painted finish off and refinish in black duracoat. The OD green furniture is Pakistani-made and the lower is clipped-and-pinned and US-made.

I used to have the Hi Point 995TS, and although it was ugly as hell, just a tad heavy, and that big bolt reciprocating jarred my teeth when it cycled, it was utterly reliable and boringly accurate at plinking ranges. I sold it to get an MP5 clone instead.

It has been a couple years since I've been lectured by the SARC and the SJA, but I believe that what I've been taught is that you are, in fact, a rapist, and you violated the UCMJ and sexually assaulted her simply by looking at the photos.

Do a little searching on this site about she-who-shall-not-be-named (cha-ching $$ !) and you'll gain some tremendously important insight. The "story behind the story" with her is just as important as whatever you know about her currently.

Yes, all of the multi-ship demo teams use the sing-songy (and what appears to be somewhat loose compared to other mil flying) comm. It originally started with using the voice cadence to indicate the onset of G or roll rates or the pacing for other maneuvers, and it has sort of morphed into what it is today. If you go back and look at the Blue Angels "Threshold" movie from the early 1970s, you'll see a much tamer version of this same thing in Navy-speak. I got a couple rides with the Red Arrows in practice a few years ago and they had even more intra-airplane talking, even with pilots joking shit-talking each others' maneuvers during the performance using this same type of comm. Except with British and Scottish accents, ol' china.

I'll put the question back on you: what kind of time would you be trying to log? The hitch is that you'd be trying to log time under FAA part 61 rules, and 61.31 requires anyone who "acts" as pilot in command of a turbojet-powered airplane (e.g. a WSO flying a Strike Eagle from the back seat) must have a type rating. Since many military aircraft do not have civilian type ratings available, the FAA considers the AF's instrument-checkride Form 8 to be the same as a type rating. So...since WSOs don't get an instrument check F8, how would you explain to an FAA inspector (or someone interviewing you for a flying job later on down the line) how you were qualified to fly the thing under FAA rules? The bottom line is, as Toro mentioned, these days there's no pilot logbook value of WSO time. Now, most employers will see back seat time as important airmanship experience, and will consider that strongly to the benefit of you as a pilot, but the numbers won't count toward any required pilot experience.

Back several years ago, probably 2008-ish, a CAFB SUPT student got picked up in one of these stings, too.

"Lt MonkeySex". Loved that one.

What a lot of people -- apparently yourself included -- are missing is that the letter was "fighter standard" straight-talk, despite what Killer's public response to it was. As a fellow Strike Eagle dude when this all went down, I can tell you that 99% of the bro network thought Toro's reply was right-on, because that's how we talk to each other and how we keep each other on the straight-and-narrow when we stray outside what is acceptable behavior. So, it is no surprise to me that Toro made O-5, and had a fine career afterward, because he's a damn good officer, aviator, and instructor, and the vast majority of his peers and leaders knew that, too...as well as not thinking the email was some wildly-offensive douchey move.

Peacefully enjoying the scotch-of-the, er, check-of-the-month club, yes.

https://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7101

No. Airlines consider PIC time as time in which you "signed for the airplane", so there will never be a time that the 'pitter's name is in the FP/MP/IP column on the signout sheet at the ops desk. You might hear about WSOs and RIOs from back in the day being able to convert their back seat time into pilot time, but those days are unfortunately long gone. If you want to fly professionally after the Air Force, either buy an airplane and fly on the side to build hours, or hit up the Aero Club.

The Mayor has lost control! The Mayor sucks!

As said, not at a "career" airline, no.

Nice ascot in the official photo, tho...

If you're gonna get hitched anyway, do it ASAP and enjoy the extra pay.

Which '17 is it going to be?

Use the company EFB to surf porn.

Bottom line, humans are on board the airplane for judgment and decisionmaking when things do not go as planned. It will be a long, long time before machines will be autonomously capable of that.