hindsight2020

boy have you said a mouthful. Like I've said before...Tumon Bay was my Vietnam... 😄

non-sequitur response.

But you're wrong. The close trail parameters are identical in the T-6: 1-2 ship lengths, slightly below. And I have been that "close" aplenty in the T-6 as in the T-38, as an IP on both.

ooh story time. So barrel rolls are not considered over-the-top maneuvering proper. As @LookieRookie highlighted already, barrel rolls in c-trail are common and, generally a non-event. That said, I have seen weaksauce IPs pork one for the record books. So there I was.... ...I'm -2, lead is running us through the dog and pony show, my student is flying it for proficiency block. Next thing I know, lead guy damn near puts me lost wingman approaching IMC 40 degrees NL and 420 bills at one ship length. I saw the upset early, broke out right above the cloud base and KIO barely avoiding the goo. It was all asses and elbows. Since I floor saved, I figured I'd be higher than him, so I was looking for him to come out the goo mid level to slightly lower than me. haha nope. Fucker came out on the top side of that cloud at like 50 NH like an Atlas V. These two cosmonauts were straight up passengers at that point, heading to low earth orbit as far I could surmise. The irony of Houston Center being our controlling agency did not escape me one bit at that very moment lol. Back on the ground, I assumed this was boilerplate proficiency block student shenanigans (typical "it's been a minute since I led one of these sir"). So I was ready to tear his student a new one on the ground. But then coo coo bird IP copped in the bar pre-debrief that he was in fact the one on the controls demo'ing it for the student when the wholesale pork antics ensue. So yeah, barrel rolls in close trail can get spicy. Occupational hazard of this pilot fOrGiNg biznazz. 😄

Yes. And from my anecdotal observation there has been a marked uptick in atrophy in precision (and supervision on the IP side), as a result of the expectation bias of not form landing from them (by stipulation) anymore. Can't speak to local iterations of the 2.5 syllabi, but at PIT the new syllabus now includes a specific grade of wingman drop off, in order to force the issue of making the maneuver actionable. I.e. demonstrate proficiency in placing the flight in a position that allows the stricken wingman to transition to the single ship landing from a safe and reasonable position. On the wingman side, to demonstrate proficiency in evaluating a safe position to land and transition to a landing within CTS from the formation phase. Which is the whole point of teaching folks wing approaches. It's not an academic maneuver from where I sit. As recent as 6 months ago we brought back a nose on birdstrike with composite DC left and right (partial) bus failure. Very complicated EP to troubleshoot, electrical out in the cockpit to include PFD displays, and NORDO on top of it. Bird ripped through the upper skin right in front of the windshield, where the buses sit in the forward avionics bay. They had to do a no flap they didn't immediately know they were going to end up having to make (which made for a sporty transition, the stricken aircraft almost overshot as a result of lead not accounting for this nuance). All DC-electrical out, nordo wing approach. All those visual signals we rattle on the semi-annual test but never use, well it became a need that day. Again, wasn't a pretty execution by the crew members' own admission, but highlighted the importance of keeping this specific skillset fresh, at least for the IP cadre. I am of the opinion it would be a significant disservice to usaf aviators if we shied away from this training. Seems the AF agrees, as they didn't act to prohibit the training in the wake of the XL fatality they way they did for wing landings in the wake of the VN one. Lastly, formation (section for the brown shoes) takeoffs are to me a logistical necessity on weather days for outright mission accomplishment in no-radar land, given the programmed daily sortie volumes at the sausage maker side of the USAF. Count me also as supportive of continuing that training item.

god damn it, you beat me to it. aww fok it, here it is anyways

Quite a bit apparently. Suggest you do your yearly FCIF review in earnest. Because that 4.4G under 5k limitation has quite a bit to do about wings falling off than you appear to be aware of.

With the other two contenders of consequence both being COTS. That's the real criminality here. I pretty much threw out my T-7 swag already. With a first retirement eligible date of mid-late 2020s, I'm settled in the fact I'm gonna retire in my grandfather's ol timey ride. That is if it doesn't kill me first, or cost me a second divorce. The weef already got smart on the airline "trade", she's now on the "100% you're just taking a gratuitous risk now" camp. Jest aside, it's not hyperbole when I say I have more than one former co-worker who lateral'd back to the T-6 or went back to a heavy, citing these concerns. Though I never had any interest in the 121 thing, it does not escape me that the income vs bodily risk ratio went lopsided a while ago for me as a multi-thousand hour in type grey beard in this enterprise. The consideration does weigh on me at times. What I'm also confident on, is had we gone T-50 or T-100, we'd have tails on ramp last summer. It was the height of malfeasance what Boeing did with that shtick of unserious underbidding. Not so much that they threw the number, but that the AF entertained it with a straight face. I still carry the memory of Stuck with me. Human factors notwithstanding, he didn't have to die that day. These are losses squarely in the camp of the right side of the MTBF curve, aka the bathtub model. To say nothing of the fact we've exceeded Northrop's projected airframe life by thousands of hours and multiple decades, pacer classic potato or not. It doesn't have to be this way. And as much as it pains me to say this, there will be more losses stemming from *aging-structures (*term in engineering grad school for this issue) related failures, mark my words. Acceptable as it may be to HAF, it needs to be said anyways. Because for those of us who are in the community, nothing could be more personal, AVF platitudes be damned. Boeing has blood on their hands as far as I'm concerned. Everybody stay safe out there.

If you mean the 340th, he needs to qual in an MWS as an AC or 2-ship FL before we could entertain an application to the Associate IP program. Wingman waivers are not particularly forthcoming in this environment of increased scrutiny and mishap rates, given the greening of the force brought about everybody and their mother getting a lucrative airline job. To say nothing of the fact we just don't need to, the job is a very desired niche (locations notwithstanding) within those transitioning to civilian flying. Don't shoot the messenger. ya beat me to it. We had engineers at Lockmart who part-timed in my prior life/MWS. None of it ever translated to a flying role for these defense OEMs. We also had a BBJ division delivery pilot (now big wig within the program), same deal. The ARC military flying was not germane to the position, though in that case the military affiliation was a leg up as a generality. Recently, we had a regAF O-6 move on as a test pilot for the McBoeing folks in the T-7. But the guy was a TPS grad and retired out of AETC, so the conduit was as straight shot and hyper specific as it got. Outliers don't make the rule type of thing. I had a similar road to mull over when I was in the OPs shoes as a young guy, with two aerospace engineering degrees. For me it was no contest, I was in it for the flying, so I went full time reserves and never looked back. The engineering career track wasn't particularly enviable all things considered, compared to my [eventual] lowly indentured servant FGO pay and future AD retirement. To say nothing of the airline route, volatility and all. I bypassed it for [reasons], but no question the income and schedule flex in that job is unmatched compared to an engineering gig. As you said, there's more to life than money, no right or wrong answer. But I would second the notion that the desk job affiliation won't get the cat closer to a flying position for the OEMs. Driving trucks for UPS seldom lead to a direct hire outcome at the flying gig, or working for Home Depot leading to a job offer in their corp aviation department et al. These megacorps are right hand don't talk to the left hand type outfits. If flying for Lockmart/McBoeing is the goal, just beg borrow and steal a TPS application as a Reservist within one's MWS, and grab that credential, then go beg for a test or delivery pilot job. They're not that well paying compared to airlines, nor carry the cachet people think of test work in the days of the Right Stuff. I was actually rather underwhelmed to learn the compensation package these jobs carry. If I'm honest, it's more of a retirement gig for people with a jelly of the month club check and Medicare for all (Tricare AD retired) in their pocket already, who otherwise don't want to do the airlines , and the 135/91 offerings locally happen to be garbage/unavailable. But that's me when I went looking, to each their own of course.

just like the EW mission, the usaf ceded the mission set at their own expense. False economies abound.

Of course I do, one sent me to UPT. But I would seriously address what is it you think T-1 tracked airframes lack that bombers would provide. Because if it's hands-on weapons employment, I have some more bad news for ya. I know it's a hot take, so I won't get into it here. The B-2 is a niche within the bomber side of things. More akin to a U-2 assignment than a buff one. It might even be a stretch to call it a flying assignment. Have you talked to the B-2 folks to fully understand the mission set you're trying to get into?

naw, it's just a pageant, nothing more. They have no better way of screening for aptitude at the neophyte level, for the kind of flying the aspirants are ultimately going for, but have yet to demonstrate. Certainly no more a clue than big blue regAF does with their gen pop IFS accessions. It's all a crapshoot I've seen plenty of their hires not make it. I've been in the UPT game for 12 years so I've had first hand experience of the dynamic not only as a Guard applicant of said units, but also later on as an instructor of some said washouts both in T-6s and 38s. My own initial caf unit had to deal with one such case during my tenure. Composite Wing sister squadron (11F) tried to push gumby hands, and the UPT squadron non-recommended her for IFF mid-phase3, so they chucked her to us (11B). Worthless, and not the greatest attitude from where I sat (scoffed at the initial offer of an 11M recat, can't believe they acquiesced, actually I can but that's not for this thread) and proof positive there was no vetting of consequence. Tons of cult of personality tbh. In reality, and to your point, fighter units have enough applicants they can just play the straight numbers game, like the cartels smuggling by car crossing. Enough make it through to make the excess losses justified. That does not equate having a vetting process though.

duty station. And Type-I only when orders exceed 30 days, otherwise type II. Welcome to America's lesser paying regional airline 😄

😬 Seriously OP, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Knock out a solid ADSC, try to fly as much as you can, scoff the qweep. If you're still so inclined, reconsider your interest in making such a transition later down the road. If (likely) the options are not there, go get a higher paying civilian flying job with that mil experience and buy an RV-(n), and put this chapter of life behind ya. At least that was my plan if I couldn't reach escape velocity from the assignment before my RSC expired. There's ways you can mine this situation and pivot a net gain, even if it's not your dream job.You've been given good gouge on the non-standard options on the heavy track upthread already. Consider mulling those alternatives as you move forward. Good luck.