Dapper Dan Man

Not sure that either of these claims are true. No C-130 sims are listed on the current FAA Qualified FSTD list, located at https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/nsp/faa-qualified-flight-simulation-training-devices Do you have an alternate reference that says they count as Cat C or D? Would be interested to see it. The Mil version of the C-130J no longer qualifies you for the L-382J type. Source located here https://registry.faa.gov/typeratings/ (pdf pg. 10) Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (edit in attempt to make hyperlinks work)

https://www.airandspaceforces.com/congress-more-info-air-force-reoptimization/ Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Genuine question, can he even enter FTU training? There’s no way the government isn’t suspending his security clearance….right??? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think we need to challenge the “AF can’t afford those dollar figures” rhetoric way more than we do. So many times we hear this from flag officers, leaders, or policy makers and take it at face value without really putting that reasoning to the test. The AF could afford those dollar figures if they could successfully advocate with lawmakers to reallocate resources they already have on the books. The AF can afford plenty, but the problem is what they’re allowed to spend it on. Physicians receive bonuses in amounts that might actually get a pilot to stay, yet where is the advocacy for that? Is there a doctor shortage in the Air Force that we’re just not talking about? Or, the AF could produce less pilots and put that savings into retaining their experienced ones. Even if the cost of putting one person through UPT and FTU averaged only $2M, the AF could instead put that towards retention and pay 20 pilots $100,000 right now to stay. This isn’t earth shattering stuff…anyone who’s taken an HR class can tell you that hiring, onboarding, and training are some of the most expensive parts of running your company. The AF is on record saying that they’d rather produce talent than retain talent, even though that’s the more fiscally irresponsible option. I think if we challenged this line of thinking and brought attention to it with lawmakers, they’d be more open to revising the NDAA and compelling the AF to come up with resource allocation options (and therefore bonus options) that would actually entice people to stay. Write your congressmen. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://www.duffelblog.com/p/army-creates-new-future-douchebag-congressman-mos Solid work from the heroes over at the Duffelblog. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Honestly, same. You can use CPTS portal to hold finance accountable and it’s very effective. No more stories about losing paperwork, digging through email traffic, or recounting phone calls with nameless airmen. You can see who worked on your issue and when, down the minute. It’s all right there with all the data you need to back it up. Nowhere for finance to hide anymore, so maybe this one should be in the “right with the AF” thread. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

AF is already there, that’s the T prefix Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thread revival: Youngstown ARS fragged to convert to C-130Js, pending environmental impact study. Final decision sometime in Summer 2023. https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2022/12/23/ohio-reserve-base-tapped-as-likely-new-home-of-c-130j-cargo-planes/ Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe? Anecdotal of course, but in my herk experience, I’ve seen probably too many C-130 dudes screw up a VOR-A on local training rides. My scariest moments in the MAF were never on the employment end of stick either…but always in admin phases of flight. Particularly departures, recoveries, and approaches with poor airmanship on display in the formation. It’s tempting to focus on employment, sure. But successful employment requires some building blocks that you just have to get from reps attempting to fly that perfect VOR-A in UPT. Your final point is dead on. Set the bar high in UPT, keep the bar high in the ops world. Students will meet it. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quoted for truth.

https://www.afrc.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/2065563/afrc-studying-locations-for-four-new-c-130js/ Saw this article a few months back, it mentions an AFRC site visit in February to evaluate C-Springs getting the J model. Anyone have any intel on C-130J potential in the Springs over the next few years? Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

Negative. Those documents are what your MAJCOM demands of you, and the distinction is important. Are we to seriously believe that AMC is on the cutting edge of organizing, equipping, and...to the point, training its people? There is significant empirical data that shows AMC crews are not up to standard. Performance in exercises and downrange for one, or the MAJCOM’s love affair with the Q-3 another. I think it’s quite apparent we do have a training problem in the MAF, despite “meeting the minimums.” As IPs, we have the choice. Accept what the bobs have written down as gospel. Or we can look at it, acknowledge the rules are for what they are, and still make the choice to be better. I’d also argue that pursuing excellence is procedure and not a technique, as you seem to imply. But i’ll spare the philosophical for now. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

Quoted because it’s so accurate that it hurts. Like Chuck said, it’s a guerrilla movement in the MAF to change this line of thinking, but it is a significant uphill battle. Personally, I don’t think we’ll see what “right” looks like until either enough of the current senior CGO’s or young FGO’s who are leading this movement are put into significant leadership positions to really drive the fight. Or, AMC eventually fails hard enough in a non-AMC exercise (singling out Mobility Guardian because the MAJCOM will always find a way to debrief it through rose colored lenses) or op so that they are forced by the customers/the CAF/the AF/Joint leadership to change the way they look at things. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tedreed/2020/01/22/american-airlines-philadelphia-pilots-call-for-ceos-removal/ Any folks at AAL have some insight to offer? Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

Brother, I am in full agreement that students shouldn’t be hooking rides for that sort of stuff. My beef is with instructors who dismiss things that have solid training value. Whoever is making the choice to hook stan for the transgressions you mentioned doesn’t understand what the point of the pattern is anyway, and also, probably doesn’t understand CTS. Sure, there are some unforgivable offenses that can occur, but your examples are debriefable at the most. I’m with ya man. It’s a classic case of missing the forest for the trees. If instructors don’t recognize the value, they’re not going grade valuable things. That’s what I was going for; it raises concerns about where the IPs are at. Not where the students are at. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

One former UPT IP opinion: your post speaks more to the state of the UPT instructor corps than it does to challenge “why” the RSU pattern is a part of primary flight training. You are 100% correct, the RSU is the only way to support the number of sorties generated at a UPT base. What you should consider is that it also enables students to get much-needed reps which they might not get in a “real world” situation. If there’s one common theme from this thread, it’s that the syllabus is taking away too many reps already. Also, if we want to keep solos, you gotta keep the RSU pattern. The RSU will take way better care of that student than A1C Snuffy tower controller ever will. I think it’s interesting that you suggest pattern “intricacies” should be reserved for IP knowledge and not expected of students, but then go on to say that IPs can’t find the ground references anyway. If that’s where the IP cadre is at, easy to understand why the students are struggling. I agree that Stan shouldn’t hook a ride for it, but I would wager that the IP’s need some more CT. The IPs need to be good enough to communicate to Stan that while the RSU pattern isn’t “real,” it’s not about training them for real world pattern work, that is what phase III is for. The RSU pattern is simply about teaching them to fly an airplane. It forces you into a congested and SA-tasking environment, while making you look outside, understand your position with reference to the earth, clear for other aircraft, think critically, talk on the radio, maintain a cross check, understand and fly a contract, and, oh yeah...land the plane. That pattern will teach a dude way more than droning in the MOA ever will. Yes, you are sacrificing “reality” for some RSU rules, but that pattern is where the foundation is laid to make good pilots. If a dude can hack it in that pattern with 11 other planes , then you can build that student up to be a good product for phase III. Taking him single ship to the local civ field will not develop the skills that the RSU pattern will. Though, that has a time and a place too, the IP has to know when to use it. If all the IPs can muster to teach is, “this isn’t real and it’s a bunch of nonsense,” I would argue that you’re missing out on the real training objective, and a quality training opportunity. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

This seems to be the AF’s official position on the pilot shortage. I have never understood it. Guardian nailed it with “best way to fill a bucket with holes is to pour more water in.” Looking at this from a money standpoint, I don’t see how the AF gets away with it. They’re going to spend millions over 2-3 years to make a single rookie pilot, but they can’t spend more than 35K a year to retain an experienced one. If I was in the CSAF’s shoes, I would march straight to the hill and demand a revision to the law to let me pay my people more. “I’m going to dial down production, and use the extra resources to retain. This is a money allocation problem, not an ‘I need more money problem.’ It makes no sense to spend 50 times the money to make a product than you could spend to retain one with 10 times as much experience.” If that could be realized, a six figure bonus would be reasonable. Make that an option, I bet you’ll see a lot more folks consider staying in. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

A point worth noting, as well as LookieRookie’s point about PRANG’s reputation. There is something to be said for a serious culture problem down there. Excerpts from the AIB that highlight this. (pages 33-34). “Of the senior leadership that were available for interview, including the 156 OG Commander, 198 AS Commander, and the 156 MXS commander, none of them could accurately describe the mission of the unit.” “Most of the members of the maintenance team who were interviewed could not say whether they had attended Maintenance Resource Management training and/or were not sure what the training included.” “Additionally, the Propulsion Shop Lead did not know the difference between back shop manuals and on-aircraft manuals, neither MM1 nor MM2 realized there were troubleshooting guides in the on-aircraft manuals and relied on a back-shop manual” “MM3 could not define his role and responsibilities during a maintenance engine run.” Food for thought. There seems to be a lot more going on down there other than the mishap crew’s failure to handle an engine-out herk. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

Left the UPT world about a year and a half ago, but I believe the idea of FAIPing more graduates was in it’s infancy around that time. SQ/CC heard from the white jet functional that they were kicking around the idea. Reason being was that since MWS FTUs are a bottleneck, more FAIPs could mean an increase in “pilot production” without clogging up the FTUs. Reasonably sure there was no plan for what to do three years later when all those FAIPs have to go somewhere to the same clogged up FTUs. Because Air Force. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

You laugh, but a real life student at CBM pressed to test on this a few years ago. Not even the third ride in T-6s, pre-mission brief: IP: “So let’s get to what we wanted to work on from the last ride. Did you study up on on the stuff we talked about?” Stan: “No sir.” IP: “No? Everything alright at home?” Stan: “Oh yeah that’s fine, I just got wasted in Memphis all weekend.” Might still be the record for fastest ground hook. Stunningly the system actually worked, and got this student eventually removed from UPT. Stan is still out is out there somewhere in big blue, no idea where. It ain’t rocket surgery. Put the study time in, care enough to want to do well, and chairfly. Flying well is a bonus, but even if you aren’t, we can get you there if you’re putting the ground time in. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

Prior T-6 Flight Commander here...about 3/4s of this is reasonable, but the FAIP portion sounds sketchy. Do you know which base? We have had very good guard and reserve students who were destined for a heavy unit that we fought to get T-38s for. In each case they were at the top of the class and had fantastic attitudes. A lot has to line up for this to work. So, just to manage everyone’s expectations: 1) The gaining guard/reserve unit has to like the idea. 2) They have to like it enough that they would bug the NGB/AFRC about it to get the slot and get it paid for. 3) NGB/AFRC has to approve it. 4) The T-38 squadron also may have a say...as far as I know they are maxing out what they can take already. 5) Assuming that all this happens, it is almost certain you will still fly what you were hired to fly...you just will have gone through T-38s instead. 5.1) The only exception was an outstanding dude who was going to fly KC-135s in HI...HI ANG approved the switch to T-38s and a chance at the F-22, in HI. Not many other places where this sort of opportunity is even an option, so this was more like a one-in-million. “So you’re saying there’s a chance...” Lastly, we will approach you if we think the opportunity is there and if we think you can hack it. Just like everything else in UPT, keep your head down, do your best, and take care of others. Chairfly, study hard, cya.

Big picture difference: ALP (only offered at CBM) students attend on a scholarship, i.e. we pay for it. T-6s only, they do all the same checkrides (just at different intervals) plus a nav check at the end. Takes a little under a year. It’s administered by the AF security assistance team for the reasons Motofalcon talked about. “International” students attend as part of the foreign military sales program. They pay for their own slots...and subsequent extra hours if they need them. Other than that, exact same UPT syllabus as an American just on their country’s own dime.

Except for that it kind of does man. You get what hopefully is your dream job and you can’t be bothered to spend 3-4 days on the road to go make it happen? College graduate, sure. Adult and Officer? Questionable. Grow up dude. Also, nickel’s worth of free advice. Probably not the best move to ask folks in this line of work, who traverse the country and the world every 3 or so years, about how you don’t have the desire to take a little road trip. I mean really. Also, what was your plan for after UPT and/or every time you move for the rest of your life?

[emoji481]