WeMeantWell

Saw this little gem on airforce-magazine.com Might have to look under the archives for 22 Nov. No other details were offered. Learning from Nature: Air Mobility Command, in partnership with Boeing and DARPA, recently completed "a number of experiments" focused on flight formation, said Air Force Chief Scientist Mark Maybury. Specifically, the experiments found that if the Air Force mimicked bird formations with certain aircraft fleets—in this case C-17 transports—it could save an average of 7 percent of fuel without adding stress to the pilot, the aircraft, or changing the mission, said Maybury during a roundtable discussion at last week's Military Reporters and Editors conference in Rosslyn, Va. "That's a short-term way to change your behavior to actually influence your energy bill," he said. "You might ask how many flights can we fly this way. Turns out, Air Mobility Command has looked at that and it may be as many as 50 percent, which is extraordinary." I thought they looked at this, a few times, with many different airframes and no one was ever able to show true benefit... Anyone have any insight?

Concur, new one takes over the day you sign in to your new base. It will take a month for it to catch up, so be prepared to have a paycheck with a chunk taken out to correct (if it is lower at the new base, just watch your statements). If you did not know, you might qualify for Family separation pay ($250?/month), payable after 30 days separated. If you in process with PIPS, I think there is an option to claim FSA. ...and take advantage of a partial dity if you have not done so already (even if it is 100# in your little honda), you should get paid to make 3 individual ditys (to you enroute, then to your new base, and again for your old to new). You should be able to set it up even if you are already at the enroute location.

I'm guessing "mimic" in the sense of randomness or unique patterns in most cities, such that a system of interest can be tested to see how well it can track/identify a specific section.

I thought the war was over? If commanders and immediate supervisors truly oversee or direct the deployments, you will probably not see a reduction...

"For most Airmen, the differences will be minimal," Long said. Ha Ha Ha...I can only laugh, because I don't know how to cry using only letters. "Most Airmen's deployments will remain at six-month rotations and we are looking to posture the Air Force at a 1:2 deploy-to-dwell ratio," Long said. So long and more often... Awesome!

Mimic city streets? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/8888909/China-Google-Earth-spots-huge-unidentified-structures-in-Gobi-desert.html

I think you can get it yourself from Vmpf... you might have to look a little bit, but it should be there.

Welcome to the aviation community... we complain about everything, all the time, because nothing is ever, ever good enough for us. Interesting thing about aviators: the fact that we are amazing at everything we do is also our downfall, we actually expect other people to at least be decent at their job... and unfortunately everyone else just sucks at their job (over generalization?), oh and we are slightly arrogant. Hence, we complain a lot. Just because there are more AF aviators here than other communities does not provide any statistical meaning. If you gave us a job where we flew once a week for two hours between two tropical islands with hooters flight attendants (and $500K starting pay) we would complain about the quality of the hand jobs. AF has most of the best fixed wing, Army has most of the best Helos, Navy has the most challenging...er... life? landings? and one of the best aircraft of all time, the Marines just get away with whatever they want... and pretty much all of them would do it for free. Other than that they all have many goods and bads, you can't make a decision based on the "everything else" you have to make a decision on who you relate with the best. I was personally too lazy to be a pilot anywhere except the AF. There is a decent chance you won't fly until your 65, a back up plan (education/leadership roles/marketable skills) should be a huge factor in the decision.

For what? (I know for what, but really... for what?) Life versus job? I choose Life. You are more marketable than you think you are, if you made it through 13 years, you have better management and leadership skills than a good portion of people out there. Build a hell of a resume out of those BS OPRs you have been writing, and you will find something. You might not be the envy of your HS friends as the military guy, but you will have a family who knows you and sees you every night.... Dude, seriously choose them first.

Found a discussion on herkybirds.com, and a link to the budget mentioned in the discussion: 2012 Budget Proposal Procurement Programs On the Adobe page 249, there is a line item for the amp program. Sounds like it is just "Phase 2" that might not get funding (102 H1/EC/LC/MC/AC-130 aircraft), which was never really considered a done deal... Maybe they will just buy more Js, those planes won't be able to fly most places in the world (is it 2020 still?) without meeting the ADS-B requirement.

Stolen from Gizmag.com This is a lot of "S" turn taxiing Looks like a trailing cone still attached? maybe they have not figured out the pitot statics yet? New type of UAV?

I was referring to this order: COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PUBLICATION IS MANDATORY on the reg... "Get over myself"? because I choose to follow a written order? No, not to predict, but to judge their performance, based on your own experience of other pilots ICW the reg. I would like to know that I judged them based on the reg; I think it is "ridiculous and grandiose" to judge someone without reference to the reg, as though I know more than all those that came before me who wrote it. Not my intent to imply check ride scores are dependent on financial concerns, rather AETC has the resources to demand their EPs give Q3s and not Q2s. I was offering the outcome differences between the two, a blanket Q3 for every unsat grade costs everyone more. Not sure how we got here. I thought the discussion was "should Q2s be allowed?" based on the original statement that an EP should not be an EP if he gives one. I am not sure how you jumped to the conclusion that I have to always give Q3s to fix a situation, when in fact, I am trying to justify the use of a Q2 when it is necessary INSTEAD of a Q3. Most people associate a Q2 as the same as a Q1 with downgrades, I see it as similar to Q3 but for non-critical areas. I don't think they are justified very often, but I can see situations when they are. I have yet to hear a single argument for EPs not to give Q2, except for the AETC V3 from Crew Report that says "serious consideration" should be given for a Q3. I am just giving my side, and I know I have been wrong on occasion [/sarcasm], but I would like to know people's rationale for not using them.

No, because you said any evaluator that gives them should not be evaluators, thus you are encouraging they disregard the Vol 2. That does seem to tie your hands a bit, however it appears to be an AETC attempt to remove some decision making from the EPs. Maybe because AETC does not know how to handle the outcome of a Q2? Come back operational and purge the AETC bong water from your system, their rules exist for a purpose and they do not translate well operationally. I think that is the key distinction (AETC can always afford the training). Q2 means training, Q3 means training, another pre-check and another check ride. Imagine the difference between a Q2 OME and a Q3, maybe one ride versus 3 locals, and 2-3 trips... That's an expensive distinction. Must be nice to be in a community with no mistakes and where all your friends are still alive, that must make you correct.

What? So everyone that has given a Q2, "probably shouldn't be evaluators"? Really? Come on... with that statement you are blatantly disregarding the Vol 2, which makes you either unprepared or not knowledgeable enough to be an evaluator.... "I know what the reg says, but I am just going to ignore it"...? Giving a check ride with that mentality is unfair to the person being evaluated, and if that is your intent I would hope you have the balls to brief him/her beforehand that you don't follow the regs and that the only outcome of this check ride is a Q1 or Q3. I have yet to hear a compelling argument that no Q2s should be given, and if there is, then why don't you initiate a change to make it happen? If everyone believes that, then why does everyone sit on their hands and do nothing? Because, I think most people just listen to the party line and simply agree with what everyone else says and believes them to be worthless; as an evaluator you should read the reg and interpret it yourself. Ultimately, someone with stars on their shoulders has ordered you to follow that reg because (we hope) s/he and their staff have a lot more wisdom/experience with flying and check rides... Honestly, they are not justified very often, but there is a need for them nonetheless. And the argument that they are a tool for someone that can't make a decision is invalid, I think it means the evaluator is actually looking at the reg and determining the best outcome for the check ride. This is not 10th grade physics, this is multi-million dollar aircraft and usually many people's lives at stake... I have never had the unfortunate circumstance of giving a check ride to someone that screwed up later-on, but I would have a very hard time knowing that I had the opportunity to catch or fix something and let it go because I did not utilize all the tools available to me. Obviously, we do not know the full story of the check ride, but if the evaluator thought it was unsat in an uncritical area, then he would be completely justified with a Q-2; saving tax-payer money on something more than additional training. Point 2: At least in the last vol 2 I looked at, "Judgement" is a critical area, how are you going to write that as a downgrade? You can not have "lapses in judgement" and still receive a Q1... "Sorry I had a lapse in judgement and bombed the wrong dudes"...unless you are going to call it something else to work the form 8, but really... should you be an evaluator if you are doing that?

Rebuttal story: (that the public will never read) http://nycaviation.c...-a-pilots-take/ "Thankfully, Mrs. Obama was involved in a go-around and not a headline grabbing incident. Oh, wait." And to stoke the fire: http://www.agi.it/english-version/world/elenco-notizie/201104200808-cro-ren1005-first_lady_s_plane_almosts_crashes_jill_biden_on_board " The barely averted collision between two planes at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland could have caused a national disaster." I think when the press escalates rumors they are worse than a bunch of guys waiting for news about VSP (edited for the second link)

Interesting... So something like: Too many pilots in this UPT class, send them to the C-17. Not enough Predator pilots grab them from the C-17... or do you mean pull from the C-17 community for UPT assignments as IPs? Now that you mention it, I do recall quite a few dudes getting those assignments in the last 3-4 ears. And back in the old days, if you didn't make FP by a certain milestone, they would PCS you with 2 years on station to one of those assignments before you made AC (typically terrible for the career). Of course the downfall of that plan is a larger number of 1st assignment flyers (read: less experience), and the most experienced guys kept out of cockpit. Seems to me that would lead to an increase of poor decision making in the air.. but I digress... Hopefully enough guys got picked for VSP leaving plenty of cockpits to fill for staff/3rd assignment bubbas.

Just curious if other folks have been told the same thing. Recently spoke to an AMC-staff bubba (C-17 IP) coming up on assignment. Since he has already met his gates he was told that he is he most likely will not be going back to a flying-gig... He was told to start looking at another non-flying job, that the C-17 community is overmanned right now. Anyone else hearing that? (obviously a lot will change this year, but I was pretty surprised)

Yeah you fvcked up, that guy carrying your stuff in to your house, do not trust him with anything. The driver, trust him with less. What qualification do you think they have? Most of them have no clue what English is and I doubt they could locate where they are on a map. Some of them won't re-assemble a crib anyways, because of the liability (I've asked) of what happened to you. I have learned the hard way, disassemble and then re-assemble everything yourself, you are the only one that knows how it should be done, I have three kids and make them sleep in sleeping bags the first night if I can't get to their beds. It will save you a lot of time in the end. Have you ever seen the tools they use? Are you kidding me? No self respecting American would bring 2 screwdrivers, a hammer and a 5/8 wrench from Woolworths to disassemble anything (ever have them ask you for allen wrenches, seriously?). The sooner I can get them out of the house the better, I don't care what work it costs me in time that day or week. Don't let them do your beds (They lost a footing in the middle, found a brick from the back yard and jammed it with paper towels to fix it), dresser (they put 3 inch drywall screws through the mirror backing and then into the drawers, couldn't open them), tables (broke a leg during the move and put it together anyway, basically balancing on the other three). Don't trust them with your pets (threw KFC chicken bones at my dog, which of course he ate and chocked on), each other (No kidding, a neighbor on base had two packers get in a fist fight in the front yard), or your bathroom (I have never had someone disrespect my throne so bad that I wouldn't let my kids go in there... I actually replaced the whole throne, but only partially for that). And never ever ever ever ever let them pack anything that looks quasi-valuable, stolen/missing items I have known about: playstation, wii, model airplanes, smaller TVs, jewelry, watches, coins, anything that looks flashy/shinny (think raccoon-mentality skills) there is a good chance it won't make it, even if is a tin foil ornament your kid made at church, it's gone. They have no incentive to be up front with you. If a packer/unpacker screws up he is out of a job, if the driver screws up (i.e. you claim something) it comes from his pay. Yes, there are good companies and drivers and packers, but after 7 moves in 12 years I think I have had 2 companies that I wouldn't smack down with furious anger the next time I saw them.... and yes, I claim everything!! everything. The next time you don't claim that $10 vase that shattered you are justifying the use of that company and screwing the next guy that is forced to use them as well. I take the same philosophy to 781, but that is an entirely different topic... I tell the wife: this is why we can't have nice things (I always see the bright side of things!) btw, I always give the benefit of doubt with each one, I have cold drinks on hand all day and buy lunch... [/rant]

Saw "Source Code", it was ok (predictable and the scientific premise was only partly plausible, until the end)... however the irony of an AF program (At Nellis) that hacks into a officer's brain to use them as a tool (against their will) was not lost on me. Perhaps "irony" is not the right word.

and a stockpile of officers... maybe an USAF Blue to RAF baby-Blue program. The only downside is you have to give up your dental plan.

Doesn't look that hard (sts) to get into this career field...

Why spend money on defense when you have the US to do that for you. Let the US protect us while we can take care of the people in our country. It will get interesting IF we start closing bases around the world. Many countries will no longer have our immediate protection -> will they then start spending on defense again? Unfortunately, it is not something you can buy off the shelf.

Good article in Time this week about it... so I guess in this case, the losers try to re-write the history books? This site looks legit: http://home1.gte.net/carriet/CSA.htm

I figure it is a numbers game, you have fewer Sqds each with fewer aviators, unless you take a non-flying track. Breadth maybe from a logical perspective, but maybe not from an AF perspective? They just see you as a guy that spent X years to learn how to perform a specific job, regardless of what you actually know/can do. ...because we change our philosophy too often, we say a masters degree is not important, than it is important. We say Wing Commanders should first be Ops officer, no wait they should be vice commanders first. We can't change the path for our career leaders every 5 years, the only people that get promoted are the ones who play the game. I once heard an interesting perspective from the Army side of the house (feel free to correct this over-generalization). The Army takes their well-educated leaders (PhDs, IDE/SDE, etc) and uses them more for 2nd in command (for theory/doctrine), while the 1st in command generally has the field/real-world experience. We seem to do the opposite, and we get a lot of theoretically-good leaders.