Clark Griswold

Maybe not wrong but inconsistent and frankly hypocritical. SUPT is meant to be Specialized not Universal UPT. I understand that needs of the AF drove the policy of 38 studs being universally assignable but that was based on an institutional need not a personal preference that was limited because of a career choice, i.e. the choice of these studs to track 38s and the likely assignments to follow from that personal choice. They ranked their track preferences and made their decisions. Now, when those chickens come home to roost, good or bad, they must live with them.

Guard dude confirming his advice - get it done prior to going to the dark side. 0.0% chance of promotion to Major without it. Since you're almost done with USMC PME course, you'll save yourself the loss of IQ points by doing AF SOS.

A bit older article but a good comparison between the A-29 and AT-6: http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/light-attack-aircraft-the-super-tucano-the-at-6-and-the-blue-kool-aid/ Taking CSAF's comments from the recent speech and if we really want this we have to strike when the iron is hot, either of these two plus the Scorpion Jet are the lowest risk, ready to fly options. Or could we go with what is behind Curtain 3? A split buy of Scorpions and A-29s? I say A-29s as their is already a training unit established and that is what Allies / Partners are seeming to choose, it is operationally proven and lower risk. Buy 125 Scorpions and establish an FTU to entice potential FMS customers (India for example) and give confidence in purchasing the jet, learning the lesson of the F-20 failure to launch. Buy 25 A-29s and continue the training mission at Moody AFB. Enough USAF capability to support one FOL and encourages participation with the USAF for BPC. Scorps at Seymour, Duke, Maxwell (training with Ft. Benning) Kirtland, Nellis. Look for 5-7 ARC units to change MWS or set up AA units at their locations. A-29s at Moody and Ft Campbell.

Too logical - separate quals with widely separated bases, no crossflow - maximize the self imposed problems. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's in the zeitgeist now. McCain wants 300, that seems a bit high but an order of 100 to 150 seems about right. Now the question to answer is where / how will you crew this aircraft as quickly as you can procure it? Would the pilot need to be an IFF grad or could those relevant syllabus portions (surface attack for example) just be taught in Initial Qual? Just guessing that the delivery of unguided or direct fire munitions is not really how this platform will be employed most of the time so would that really need to be a pre-FTU requirement? Honest question. The Afghan A-29 syllabus (I assume) rolls everything into one syllabus, repeat the same method with a USAF LAAR program (IMO) CSOs - qualify in the same class or separate from the pilots?

I wish I could refute that but it pretty much sums it up.

Not terrible spots, not the best but definitely on the better end of the spectrum. At these locations, you could get long term instructors (civilian, AD mil or Reserve mil) as the locales are nice enough (IMO) and they fit the other requirements (mostly).

Not the easiest question to answer, it should have: - Multiple runways or numerous satellite airfields. - Low civilian air traffic for MOAs & Low-Levels - WX conditions generally providing good VFR and mild winter conditions - A desirable location for retention and volunteers for extended tours. - Close proximity to a major airline domicile for a strong Reserve participation My opinion would be to open up Robins for UPT, a LONG shot would be to put a training wing at Beale. I'm actually not really for civilian instructors on the flight line but not adamantly opposed to it in some phases/sections. Agreed on a Merchant Aviation Academy, do you see it from zero time to ATP or from PPL to the higher certificates? My only reservation is that it would change the culture of the AF, having all pilots graduate from a military course does build some culture, camaraderie, etc..

Valid points. Just throwing it against the wall to see what sticks, apparently not much. The real solution is two fold: Make UPT Instruction a more desirable assignment by putting UPT in decent locations with additional career opportunities offered for extended tours. Higher educational opportunities, homesteading, professional development, etc... if you put some decent carrots out there, the Line will respond. If you continue to put shit sandwiches on the plate, they'll respond again but with their feet. Use the pilots you already have trained more in your Guard / Reserve force. The AF spends over 5 billion a year in training, I am not sure what X percentage of that is UPT but probably a good chunk. Train fewer pilots but offer more work to your already trained crew force. This is more complicated than my simple one sentence answer but the cost in terms of time and money to make new trained / qualified pilots is more than to use the ones already trained. Doing the same thing day after day in a cold, sunless, sterile Borg cube flying a computer to the same virtual places to see the same screw ups with just a different name doing it, that would never wear down a man's soul to a hard edge curmudgeon... never...

Historical item for the topic: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Air_Forces_Contract_Flying_School_Airfields Beyond IFS and sims I don't see Big Blue going for this but is this another place in flight operations where a WO program would make sense? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So you are ok with this AI FO not being full proof in the event it has to take the jet and execute a flight plan deviation, arrival to a likely CAT II or III full auto approach, land and autobrake? That is a holy shit what? I think I know what you are implying, that this is an emergency and everyone will just get out of the way and let the AI driven jet land and that this will be a rare occurrence, but what if it is not? The overall effect of these deviations to the flow of traffic in the NAS, especially if these AI diverting jets land at a Class B and shutting down a runway for at least an hour would be huge pain in the ass. Just because they are capable does not mean they should be. I bet a senior med school student could pull off simple surgeries unsupervised and would do it for a shit load less than a real doc, does not mean that they should either.

In your example you're combining a "deadman" switch with a branching logic system like the RQ-4 has. From experience directing the GH, there are some strengths but more weakness than are easily explained here - not trying to be condescending but when you look at all the X factors out there, you quickly go down a rabbit hole of "if thens" that become problematic at best. It is not that this is impossible but it is not worth it. The amount of money to be saved to actually reduce cost to the customer is minimal and if you want to reduce safety / operational capability to give some VP a bigger bonus - F that. Let's say you mass deploy this system and multiple aircraft have these AI directed deviations : In the same airspace, who has priority? Who assigns that? How will the AI handle see and avoid, WX avoidance, cascading faults or multiple contingencies? What about software issues (upgrades, bugs, sabotage)? Just an anecdote from the internet but I saw a 100+ million GH saved by a human operator many moons ago when he (not me) commanded a landing when HAL wanted to go around - what HAL didn't know was he was having a computer stroke and the MCs were about to shit the bed. The human had the SA not the machine. I understand that almost all airline flight in on autopilot on the FMS and routine and uneventful - we pay for the capability to deal with the unlikely but potentially catastrophic. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No but the nightmare scenario(s) we are talking about where the AC is incapacitated, would he/she be able to call for help? Also, when and to what level are you going to let the AI Co/FO override the AC? Who's really flying the jet? When are you going to override the AI Co/FO? It is not the technical feasibility I argue against, it is the squirming can of worms it opens that IMO are not worth the potential savings, which I doubt the Captain would actually see any of in his/her paycheck. I feel like the people pushing this are like Chris Rock in this scene from "I'm gonna git you sucka" How much more can you cut and still have the same service? Why stop at just one pilot? Just put vending machines in lieu of food service by FAs. Sweet talk the FAA on up'ing the number of PAX per FA to 38 from 19, save a buck there too. At some point, you have to accept costs commensurate with the level of service expected / legally / morally required.

It's not a problem when everything is going to plan, there are no problems, when that's not the case, that's the problem. If in this hypothetical aircraft you replace one human with a super autopilot certifiable to replace a qualified crew member, what's the cost? It would not surprise me that it would run 2 million (WAG) or more when you factor in everything required to be that reliable, predictable and redundant. That 2 million (plus whatever MX required during its operational life) would also need to be an LRU or the aircraft revertible to a two place crew if HAL is TU. This concept is potentially possible but IMO when you consider the totality of risk, cost, technical requirements and effect on the aviation enterprise, the benefits are actually minimal. You raise good points, I think mine are valid also, I will agree to disagree. But I have to ask, you may be single seat in most fighters, but are you ever alone? I would wager in training and operations, 99.9% of the time you are at least in a two ship, you may not have someone else in the cockpit but you have someone on the wing, you work as a team, just like crew aircraft.

Hmmm - I think that is not a direct analogy. The FE and the NAV were not in command of the aircraft, that has been and should remain the prerogative of the pilot with the back up of his/her Co/FO for a large, purposely built for crew, aircraft. Those positions were automated as their functions/responsibilities were mainly technical in nature and not subjective (sometimes) like the Pilot in Command's where they encounter situations in combination or never addressed by the T.O. or POH and they must call upon the sum of their experience, knowledge and abilities to deal with them. Their is a nuance to human vs machine intelligence that has yet to be adequately coded, the ability to sense context and act accordingly. The conditions may warrant action but how is that action to be taken, immediately or after a few seconds if that overall improves the situation? AI may one day make the better mouse trap and pilot but not yet.

Over 200+ AD IP positions were moved to the Reserves in the mid-90s, the main issue is not the need for a new DAF position for IP, is A1 to realize and believe there is a need for increased MPA to use the Reserves more that are already there. Civilian IPs would come with a new set of work rules to incorporate with the 11-202v3, T-6 regs, AETC regs/sups, local guidance, etc... me thinks it more problematic than getting more MPA

Will have to agree to disagree. The two place modern cockpit is not necessarily for workload reduction (a properly trained crew appropriately using the systems and automation can do that) but it's primarily workload verification. With hundreds of souls sitting just behind the controls, two well trained, qualified pilots reduce the risk rather than relying on only one, IMO. You may be right on the automation reducing the need but I would argue it is still needed. Other communities rely on the two person concept - surgical teams for example - it's a sound concept that does impose an additional but again IMO necessary cost.

Could be just a bit hefty. So you take one pilot out of the cockpit and then what? Put a fare paying passenger up there with him/her? The only way this makes financial sense (ultimately) is to take the space formerly occupied by the FO and re-purpose it for revenue paying passengers which is just a huge not gonna happen for any Aviation Authority in the world. Just a bit of a security risk... Which takes you back to the reality that this really could only happen in an airliner purposely designed for single pilot on-board ops. Look at the layout of the forward cabin / FA station / flight deck lof a 737, 320, CRJ, etc. aircraft, you would have to extensively remodel it to put more meat in new seats to make it worth the while and likely a very pricey remodel, recertification, new insurance costs, new training for all the crew with the loss of the FO, etc... and how long will that payback period be? How long can you afford to have that plane out of service for this remodel? If you built a single pilot airliner, how do you handle departing your flight station for physiological needs? What if HAL goes TU and you are now really single point of failure? There is a reason why we have safety standards in cars, even though we could build them cheaper if we said you don't need seat belts, airbags, brake lights, etc... Greed from the corner office needs a reality check that operations has an associated cost that you can't cut to the bone and expect the same level of service or safety. Rant - Complete (P, CP)

Will post this here but I suggest we take this sidebar conversation on single/automated airliners to a new/another thread: http://aviationweek.com/technology/nasa-advances-single-pilot-operations-concepts So NASA is working on the one butt in the cockpit and one butt on the ground concept. Why hate on the flight deck?

Bummer. I'm a Guard bubba now so unless they want to cut me a 3+ year order which I would gladly take for that tour, I think that ship has sailed for me. If you don't mind, ask your bud how he likes it or PM me his contact info and I'll shoot him an email. I saw this assignment a little over 10 years ago while on AD and then learned of the exchange tour to fly the Canadian tanker, would have been interesting to see how the Canadians pass gas and fly their Airbus 310 based tanker. On the subject of exchange tours, read this one from War is Boring: https://warisboring.com/an-american-pilot-is-flying-with-the-italian-air-force-over-iraq-271fd8def196#.px85mp277

Possibly and I agree with you on a dedicated design being the likely first iteration of partial or fully piloted commercial air travel, I think though the public acceptance of it will happen faster depending on the deployment/success of driverless cars. That will be the great amelioration to automation, if you own a car that is automated or ride in one and overall have a positive experience, that will probably dull your reluctance to autonomous commercial flight. Not for this kid, from my one RPA assignment I was both impressed and sobered to the realities of unmanned flight and I would extend that to all forms of automated (fully) travel. It's great when everything is working and there are no or little deviations to the plan, when that's not the case, everything doesn't necessarily go to shit in 0.69 seconds but it can start to wrap up really fast... Keep people in the loop, use technology as appropriate and don't try to put it into things it was not made for (sts).

True - in this case I think it will be partial automation (single pilot ops) before they go for the full monty. One human in the cockpit, HAL in the right seat and a datalink to another human who could thru another autopilot take control of the jet. That human on the ground will be responsible for intervening on any number of jets linked to an Ops Center for savings in the unlikely event that ground directed intervention is needed. This will satisfy the two pilot regulations until ICAO says one person in the loop is enough. This is the bow wave of history forming, how the hell do we run society when 50% of the population (or more) are automated out of work.

Anyone ever do the CC-150 Polaris exchange tour with Canada?

Their credit is fine (at least the report I saw a year and half ago) but I think the loss on their last house just left them a hole to fill in. They didn't sell their toys, they have a Harley in the carport so I think it drained their available cash from non tax advantaged accounts. My guess is that they are hesitant based on emotion, not faulting them for that. Not sure how much they lost but it stung I'm sure so once bitten twice shy. With their track record of payment and no drama, a modest down payment (3%) and a 15 year agreement the risk seems manageable. I'm interested in selling as I can't tell which way the neighborhood/city is going, it's stable for now but the city is like a lot of cities nowadays, it is getting bled dry of its tax base by the little town(s) right outside the city limits and the services have suffered as a result. The roads are ok but could be better, the schools are ok but the county schools are better, etc...

Question for the forum: I have a rental house and the good renters I have in their now, 18 months renting so far with no complaints, have expressed some interest in buying to my agent/prop. manager. I am considering offering them a rent to own agreement, has anyone done this before? I would prefer a simple sale but the market is slow, my house is towards the upper end of the market in the neighborhood and the good renters I want to turn into buyers took a loss on their previous home and are hesitant on buying again. This seems to be a viable Plan B for all involved, has anyone done this and what was your experience and/or advice?