HuggyU2

It certainly can be. One of the more difficult flyovers I led was for 2008 Air Force Week in LA. We held over the Rose Bowl. Because of LAX airspace, our initial inbound heading was roughly south, with a pylon turn to the west around downtown IVO East Los Angeles, for a westerly run in. Although the video looks like it is bright, it wasn't. In fact it was post sunset (we had a waiver). The downtown lights were very bright, and the Coliseum lights are pointed down and in, and don't show up until the last portion of the run in. Staying below LA's Class B with the huge amount of lighting in the area added to the difficulty. This was 12 years ago, and yes, GPS existed. But due to the non-linear IP-to-target run, the intricacies of SoCal approach and the potential flex of the Anthem, it was quite dynamic. And we are flying the A-model, not the C-model with whatever bells, whistles and HUD it has. We did extensive route study, timing contingencies, etc... and we trained like it was a "GPS-degraded environment". I suppose we could have laid down 99 waypoints on the curvilinear route we flew... but we didn't. We used a Sectional, LA TAC chart, and some aerial photos. Once the flyover was done, due to LAX congestion, we managed to get sequenced into the LAX traffic flow, did 2 night wing landings, well after sunset, in black jets, to 25L. Everybody involved in the evolution, including an F-16 pilot, TPS graduate, and a lot of high-time instructors, felt a good sense of accomplishment. The intricacies of completing the flyover included getting the formation to EDW, and getting the jets safely on the ground at LAX's FBO. We knew we were going to break a number of rules to get it done, and we got the waivers from HQ so we could do it. ALL OF THAT COORDINATION is part of making it successful... not just the last 10 miles of the run-in. Anyone can scoff doing flyovers if you want. And maybe my geekery combined with the fact I don't drop bombs gives me no "real world relevance". But I've done shitloads over the years and found ways to challenge myself on all of them. And I'm a better pilot for it.

To be clear, they must all be on the SAF/PA approved list. I've seen very few flyovers "directed from above". Normally, they are put on the SAF/PA list and units volunteer. If no one volunteers, they usually don't get flown. Yes, there are exceptions.

I'll pass. I didn't know the World Series was ongoing until they had played Game 3. I simply do not give two shits. When does the NFL season start?

The accident investigation is ongoing... ergo, it is always too early.

That would qualify as Option 1: no attempt. I hear what you're saying... but won't speculate.

I never attended Safety School, but what would Option 3 be that isn’t covered by 1 and 2???

I have no idea if a B-52, F-22, or KC-135 crew would find it good training. But in doing flyovers with the T-38 (single-ship or formation), yes... it was excellent training. And if in formation, we often bring along someone that has never done a flyover before to get them to see another aspect of flying and flight planning.

For those like me that are not good with a camera, I use a $4 iPad stylus to operate my iPhone camera.

No surprise here. Clowns. https://dailysnark.com/2020/10/19/joe-buck-troy-aikman-caught-on-hot-mic-mocking-military-flyover-before-kickoff/

That's the tricky part, now isn't it?

SoCal public schools are stepping up their game, and challenging students to reach their potential. Why go to a private school when you have this? https://www.foxnews.com/us/san-diego-school-districts-grading-system-racism

Why can't a side-opening canopy use a traditional jettison? Here's four examples.

For those of you in aircraft with det cord in the canopy: is there any talk... officially or unofficially... that when you are in a controlled ejection, you jettison the canopy manually, and THEN pull the ejection ring?

There is no way to answer this question. For me, I dropped a lucrative career to go active duty and I'm glad I did. I know others that hated it. You will have to think it through. Asking "is it worth it for YOU" is unanswerable by anyone but YOU.

If you can hold a 1st class medical, that is really all you need to have. Your background will certainly come up on the interview, however if you do not have a Dishonorable Discharge, it should have no bearing on your airline application.

Realize that, according to the report, he never put it into the Approach Power Compensator mode (APC). My understanding is that had he done so, it would have flown the correct AoA/Airspeed for the approach.

Excellent posts, especially Brabus'. This is a subject that could generate a ton of additional good posts. Two additional things I find interesting from the report: 1. "According to the MP and other witnesses, landing an F-35 at nighttime is not a mundane task, and is more difficult than a nighttime ILS landing in some of the legacy fighter aircraft." I'm somewhat amazed by this reality. 2. The MP has anomolies approaching Decision Altitude; he believes he has an HMD misalignment while low to the ground; he is manually adjusting the brightness late on final because it was "distracting"; the report states his corrections "placed the HMD misaligned symbology further and uncomfortably short of the runway." He is behind and unstable. Nowhere in the entire report do I see any discussion on the fact he had the option to abort the approach and go-around on short final. We all learned this in our first few months in UPT, and I don't have an explanation as to why the Board didn't address this simple fix, since when it happens again, I would expect the next pilot to go-around/missed. I did a go-around from a less-than-well flown approach less than 24 hours ago. It is so basic... yet has it become insignificant? Go around... get to a safe altitude... smoke a Lucky... sort it out. How does the Board not address this?

One more thing... The MP had 138 hours in the F-35A and less than 1500 hours total time. He became an IP over 9 months before the accident... so he did IPUG with maybe 80 hours in the F-35A? Is it normal in Fighter Land to create an IP who has so few hours in the new airframe?

This could end up being an excellent case-study on the negatives of over-reliance on cockpit automation when task saturated. I honestly cannot tell if the HUD comment is tongue-in-cheek. I hope it is. I remember years ago when we did a gas-and-go with a four-ship at Laughlin. We grabbed a bite in the Base Ops snack bar and got in a conversation with the students about the C-model. They told us a No-HUD landing was a Special Syllabus event flown dual... and that if the HUD goes out while solo, it was one to a full stop. We initially thought they were kidding. The dreaded "no HUD T-38 landing" has stymied many a great aviator. Maybe some emphasis on proficiency with backup instruments would be a good thing for all communities?

Say again?

Well... yes. Needs of the Air Force, you know.

"There's no money in cargo" - Rono Dutta, President, United Airlines, 99-02

Quit complaining folks. At least it isn't Flankers.

Recently declassified photo we have in the squadron. 2020-09-09 14-57.pdf