Hacker

He had a legacy of buffoonery completey outside the shootdown incident that is fairly well documented. My favorite is the HUD video from his flight lead -- who is in the process of shooting down Super Galebs -- where Zulu flies right though the HUD while blind. So, ToBeKC135Pilot, be careful of your own enthusiasm for his "success" because it seems to be based on media instead of reality. You'll see a completey different side of things once you go to land survival at Fairchild.

Nobody on active duty gives a crap what Zulu says. 800-hour wingmen...sheesh.

The only thing I don't like about the RV is the outrageous prices that builders want to sell them for!! You need to really take a look at what you want to use the airplane for. If all you want to do is fly cross country, there are LOTS better airplanes to get than an RV-8. If you want to go sport flying, the RV is excellent. There are other factors to consider, too...have you flown an RV? I really wanted a 6 or an 8 at one point, until I went and flew one. It turns out that there is a physiological factor for me -- I am 6'2" and I could not comfortably sit in the airplane. My skull was up against the canopy and my shins were hitting the instrument panel. That had a really big impact, and I'm glad I did before I spent 60 Grand on one.

I don't think it's "challenging", but it most unforgiving of carelessness. The airplane has small wings and small engines, and if you're not careful you can get backed into a corner while flying the final turn. The jet also doesn't want to land through the flare -- it would rather sail a couple thousand feet down the runway in ground effect before touching down. So, while the T-38 is a bit tougher to land "with style" than the Tweety, it's far from impossible.

The Squadron from Randolph (435th FTS) and the squadron from Columbus (49th FTS) both relocated to Moody in '01 and '02. IFF is currently only at Moody and Sheppard. ENJJPT grads are the only ones that I know of who go through IFF at Sheppard, but we do get Sheppard guys at Moody all the time, too.

Yeah, one thing I didn't mention about the X-33 I own is that all of those great gee-whiz features that they put on there for NASA...well, I never use 'em. I own the watch because *I* think it's cool and I like to wear it. The only features I really use are the time, zulu time, chrono and countdown chrono. I don't even use *those* features while I'm flying anyway -- the ship's GPS clock and "hack" chrono work just fine. I once used my X-33 alarm while I was flying because it has some un-Godly decibel level what I could hear with my helmet on. Other than that... So, I would not purchase a "pilot watch" under the false pretense that you're going to use any of those features while actually flying. I don't think I've ever even met someone who has used an E6B or whatever on a watch while flying.

I don't know if non-fighter guys can get the deal -- there was an actice duty pilot at base X who was the contact with Omega and arranged the orders. The orders were done in bulk, and you had to sign a contract that A) you were an active military fighter aviator and B) you would not sell the watch in less than 5 years after your purchase. I have the Omega X-33 and I love it. I have done what most guys haven't -- worn it! I wear it in the cockpit, and it gets knocked around quite a bit. That titanium case holds up like a champ! There are some scratches on the bezel ring after 3 years of active flying with it, but there are zero scratches on the crystal. It is a very well-made watch, and Omega is committed to fixing any defects that show themselves under tough cockpit wear. I have no complaints about it, other than it is tough to find an authorized dealer who can replace the battery then pressure-check it so the waterproof warranty is still valid....

Breitling and Omega both sell watches to fighter guys at a bit of a discount, too...perhaps that's what Dewey is referring to.

Each recent response spoken like a true non-fighter pilot. If you walk through your average fighter squadron parking lot, I'm certain you'll find it looks much like any white-collar civilian job parking lot. There are some high-enders like Vettes, Porches, and Mercs. There are also plenty of trucks and SUVs. The bottom end beaters are represented, too, as well as muscle cars and motorcycles. The truth is this: Guys who actually fly jets for a living generally don't feel it necessary to have a cool car to show how cool they are.

I got my license through an aero club about 10 years ago. It cost about $3500, and even then it was about a Grand cheaper than the Part 141 school up the street. So, I imagine that with inflation, higher gas prices, etc, that the price has probably gone up in the last decade...

There have been several guys passing through IFF recently who are active duty, yet are attending FTU at Springfield ANGB. At the moment Luke is jam-packed full of students. So full, actually, that previously experienced Viper drivers looking to get back through a TX course are having trouble finding a spot.

There's an annual application process. Just like applying for a UPT slot with an AF 215, there is a special duty application you have to send the the USAFADS. In addition to getting top ranking from your Wing Commander, you'll also need some glorious recommendation letters from powerful people to go with that application. This year the Thunderbirds chose 12 semi-finalists to go out to Nellis and interview for a week. Out of those 12, they've currently whittled it down to 6 finalists to fill three positions this year. The finalists will go to Nellis for more interviews and to fly with the team in the 2-seater.

More like the AF and the AFRES didn't want him. He wasn't exactly what you'd call a gifted fighter pilot. You should hear the stories from some of the people who flew with him. 800 hours and still a wingman...sheesh.

I thought it was for "First and Finest"

Since the topic of discussion here is "Approaches at UPT", I want to mention that the T-38C, while GPS equipped, does NOT fly GPS approaches. I'm not sure of what the T-6 has to offer, though. Also realize that while apparently the C-17 has the ability to fly GPS approaches, none of the fighter aircraft that I know of have this capability. So, it's TACANs, VORs, ILSs, and GCI approaches for all my friends! On the subject of GPS navigation two points: One, from the "embracing technology" side of things, I don't see how navigating from place to place using GPS fixes is all that different from using radio NAVAIDs -- you still have to use similar procedures to proceed direct there (rather than homing). Two, from the "old crusty guy" side of the house, I also agree that pilots need to equally understand how to navigate using radio NAVAIDs or INS systems instead of GPS. I can tell you from personal experience that the GPS signal in central Iraq during OIF was *trashed*, probably due to the GPS jammers that were deployed there. Did it effect operations? Not from where I was sitting, because we just flipped our nav systems over to INS and continued with what we were doing. Plus, there's that really handy "map reading" thing that worked out amazingly well. In addition, all that stuff about how many satellites are guaranteed to be up at any time is nice...but...what about during wartime when we go against an enemy who can target our satellites? I can think of one potential adversary who has this capability and the intent to take down GPS satellites if the time comes. Bottom line with that is we must not become completely reliant on GPS for navigation and targeting because it may not always be there for us. Again, this part of the conversation is WAY off the topic of approaches at UPT but still a factor since that seems to be the way the discussion is going.

For what it's worth, "on to hold" is what fighter guys respond with when given "taxi into position and hold". This is not slang -- this is actual procedural comm that is mandated by USAF operating procedure.

jtpuro - I do the same for ATIS, initial IFR clearances, and taxi instructions. Over time, I've developed shorthand so I can write it down and not be too delayed in reading it back. Since sometimes I'm getting in-flight clarances for splitting off a wingman from a formation, I write those down, too, so I can repeat it to him if he didn't hear it the first time.

Yeah, I do agree that some IFF IPs take comm brevity to the extreme and I agree it sounds kinda stupid sometimes. When I first heard the "Base, Gear, Stop" call in the final turn, I kept thinking, "shouldn't they be saying "*left* base, gear *down*, *full* stop"? Remember that our student training mission is to slap the white-jet right outta our students, who are sometimes taught some un-fighter like habit patterns by the SUPT training environment. So, consequently some stuff (radio comm is one of them) is a little over the top. I call IFF the "Admin Weapons School" because all that little administrative stuff is what we're *really* teaching, even though the students think we're teaching them dogfighting and bomb-dropping.

Well, call me crazy, but in my opinion the definition of being an aviation professional means that you do things the way you're supposed to. When this comes to radio communication, it means you say what the FAA pilot/controller phraseology book says you do. The flying community has developed standard terminology so that we can say the precise thing we want to while simultaneously being concise and using as little air time as possible. Military radio communication, especially, uses brevity terminology to the max extent possible. Some of this you will be taught at UPT, and some of it you will just pick up as you mature as a military pilot. In the fighter community comm is a *very* high interest item and requires a lot of discipline on the part of the user. When we fight, subtle word differences (like "tally" vs "visual") mean drastically different things, so being correct and concise is very important. I look at controller communication much the same way. If you think that the radios are busy in a big Class B terminal area, you should hear what Strike Prime sounds like out at Red Flag, or even better, what the AWACS freqs sounded like over Iraq during OIF. No matter what military airframe you go to, someday you'll have to operate in one of these frenetic radio environments, and you'll be thankful for your fellow pilots having a tight comm act, just as they will be thankful if you do. Now, I do understand being brief with clearance readbacks. Do I really need to repeat word-for-word "Eagle 31, turn left 330, maintain 1,800 until established on the localizer, cleared ILS runway 26" when "Eagle 31, left 330, 1800 'till established, cleared the approach" will do? Of course this kind of brevity is okay. Freestyling it, though, is not needed, nor does it make anyone else -- including the controllers and your fellow pilots on freq -- think you're a pro. I have heard more than one airline captain trying to get cutesy with their radio calls, and I certainly don't think they sound cool. They may be "flying the line" and making a lot more than I am, but a loose act on the radio is nothing that is admirable from my standpoint. Just as others have said, my feeling is that the "professional" way is how you'll be taught as an Air Force aviator, and how you'll be expected to operate once you're out in the real world.

So, not sounding like a professional makes you feel more professional? I don't think that using nonstandard comm makes you sound cool...it makes you sound like a clown.

Which squadron? Prancers?

These are instantaneous Gs, though. A Viper in a 180-degree 9G sustained turn puts it's pilot through significantly more stress than Sean Tucker spiking 12 in a snap roll. The human body can sustain lots of instantaneous G in the Z-axis (just look at ejections, people falling off buildings and living, etc) -- but the physiological concern is can the pilot *sustain* that kind of G and still function.

Generally it's ham-fisted pilots.

My sqaudron was hard crewed during the first 2 weeks of OIF.

Puuuure urban legend. I heard the same thing back when I was a nuke weapons maintenance officer -- that the neutron and gamma radiation did weird things to men and as a result most had female kids. Then I heard it again when I got to the F-15 -- that the side and back lobes off the radar (or maybe it was the frequent G forces) would do the same thing. Well, I did both, and I had a boy. A friend of mine who also did nukes and subsequently flew the E-3 for a living also had a boy. About 3 years ago a ERAU graduate student did a survey at Seymour Johnson trying to get hard (sts) numeric statistics to support the "more girl than boy children" claim. Out of several hundred fighter pilots surveyed there was *no conclusive* data either way. So, in my book, until someone comes up with some actual proof other than "heard it through the grapevine", it's gonna remain a wives tale. [ 03 March 2004, 20:05: Message edited by: Hacker ]