60 driver

Now I ask you - what kind of communist homo flies helicopters and doesn't like to see a 4 ship of Apaches? Off topic, but your story reminded me of a flight near Kandahar a few years ago - except your part was played by my 2 ship of HH-60's and the snide civilians were played by, coincidentally, a couple of AH-64 guys. Pretty similar exchange. We were just switching over to the range freq, we heard "...and watch out for the f***ing air force guys, they like to fly around with their lights off, and they never talk on the radio." "Uh...Jolly 21 flight of two copy all, checking in three to the south, visual you." - crickets - We'd just swapped out with another unit, so who knows, they might have been right - still funny though.

If I were you, I'd make sure that number made its way to your OG so he can have a directive conversation with whoever answers the phone. Unless there's more to the story, that controller needs his bag smashed in a big way. The 11-202v3 TCAS guidance is the same as the rest of the world's, and it's unequivocal. If you have an RA, even if it conflicts with ATC guidance, you are required to follow it, period. As everyone else pointed out, if your controllers are telling you different, they are mistaken. P.S.: I had this same opinion about TCAS before I actually flew with it. As an old single seat guy, it was beat into our skulls over and over never to have blind trust in any one sensor. It took me a long time to get used to the idea of "just follow the guidance". I myself have beaten young guys about the head and neck for basing their SA solely on one INS, moving map, etc. However - given situations like the story above about the T-34s and at least one documented midair as a result of guys blowing off TCAS guidance, it's been pretty well established that given the loss of separation required to produce an RA, it's a lot riskier to disregard the RA than it is to comply. No one is saying sacrifice your SA to fly the box - continue to evaluate the situation, but do it while you're flying the guidance.

You have to follow the RA. What did the guy say?

I think we're in violent agreement. You like beta, or you don't?

Beta kind of seemed like a good idea on the OV-10, but maybe I'm missing your point.

Which part, beta on a trainer?

I probably wouldn't walk into the Iwakuni O club spouting that shit until at least April 2nd.

We had one in our class too. Her nickname was the Cone of Confusion. That story sounds familiar though. What year?

That kind of airspeed will prepare you nicely for flying any sort of Airbus product after you get out. I remember that slog to 350 in the hog well. Nothing more embarrassing than requesting an altitude, only to have to come back 10 minutes later and tell center you can't make it. Bonus points if you can get there in the summer without flaming one out. to contribute: Funniest one I can remember is during an interval takeoff in the OV-10. #3 guy on tower freq, "Hey, Bronco 3's gonna have to GOT DAAMMN!! SHI-" He told us later he smelled something burning, immediately followed by a gigantic short somewhere which sprayed sparks all over his lap, right as he began to transmit. Best imagined in a North Carolina accent.

As of summer 08, connection was too slow for video, but audio only worked fine.

There are lots of better options out there unless you just like spending your whole paycheck on international cell calls. If they have contract internet for the billets (most places do now), check into skype. Free computer to computer, or like 2 cents a minute anywhere in the world if you call computer to phone. I use it all the time on international airline trips, and also while deployed to Bagram last summer. Works great, lasts a long time. http://www.skype.com

Dude, it's in the checklist. http://www.planecrashinfo.com/cvr040103.htm Also reminds me of the UPT stories about the Saudi studs.

That right there is the key concept for the '09 iteration of this discussion. I have kind of a blue collar mindset on this subject, but I think having a relevant capability in the war we're currently involved in should carry a little more weight in the acquisition process than it currently seems to. For that reason and all of the ones that Jollygreen pointed out, I agree with him. However, when push comes to shove, I don't really care which one we get as long it will fit more than two litters in the back, produce OGE power at a reasonable altitude, and be delivered within the next decade.

Steve mentioned the MOT, but I don't think anyone pointed how stringent it is/used to be. It's a consideration - While I was stationed in the UK it was routine to fail for items such as "excessive body rust" on cars that looked 100% normal to me. I don't know if it's the same now, but if your car wasn't in at least above average mechanical condition, it could turn out to be way more of a pain in the ass to get it inspected than it was worth. I had the 1989 equivalent of the Toyota Tacoma when I was there (in newish condition), and mine failed the MOT the first time because the (stock) tires stuck out about 1/4" past the edge of the sidewall flares. The second time the guy decided I needed special fog lights drilled onto my front quarter panels. I finally got around all of that, but I guess the point is, be ready for some surprises even if you think you have everything covered. Bottom line, I enjoyed having my truck there. Driving took some getting used to but wasn't that big a deal after the first 2 weeks, and I enthusiastically recommend (stomp stomp) sticking with USAA if you have it. Reminded me of a somewhat animated conversation that was taking place at the Lakenheath TMO as I was outprocessing many years back - the only line I clearly overhead was the TMO agent saying in a very polite tone, "Sir, I'm afraid you don't understand, they've dropped your entire vehicle into the North Sea. So if you'll just have a look at this form..."

Pretty sure they're talking about an flight data recorder as opposed to a cockpit voice recorder. Two different things on most airplanes.

You're kind of confusing two different scenarios, one being total hydraulic loss, and the other, coming back with one of the gear stuck up or missing. You can see the mains from the cockpit, and your winger can check whether they're locked, and also look at your nose gear (which you can't see) if there is any doubt about that. There's a chart is the back of the -1cl (or used to be) that outlined all the landable configurations of the hog with various combinations of gear extended. Basically it's landable in all of them, but most guys would consider landing gear up before landing with a retracted nosegear and two extended mains, due to concerns about pole vaulting the aircraft if it was a rough runway. I haven't read the report but that sorta looks to me like what this guy did. Keep in mind that not all gear problems are hydraulically related - but since you asked, you can get the gear down and have brakes whether you have zero, one, or two hydraulic systems operating. If you have one or two, couple of extra checklist steps, put the gear down and land, no big deal. If you have zero hydraulic systems operating, the question now becomes not so much whether to put the gear down as whether or not to eject. Manual reversion (flying the aircraft with cables like a 45k lb cessna) was designed to keep the aircraft flying long enough to get you back across the FLOT so you could eject over good guy land. Guys have landed the jet in man rev, but it has killed at least a couple of them that I know of. Bottom line: You're normally going to put the gear down if you can. Quick story: Many moons ago, one my squadron's young wingmen got distracted in the pattern while TDY and forgot to get the gear handle down. He actually had a pretty nice touchdown, and pretty much kept it on centerline most of the way during the "rollout". Total damage: One each destroyed B and D model TGMs (which the aircraft was sitting on) and 2 scraped rudder caps. We flew it home 4 days later. It's a pretty rugged old airplane.

I did it from A-model stuff. I'm aware of at least 5 other guys who did it from A-, F- and B- model stuff, and one from C- model stuff. All guard and reserve guys but I'm sure there are a few on AD as well. Crazy.

None of these will make the front page of national geographic (a lot of them are video captures), but some of them are kind of cool, and per the OP they were all taken of or from an airplane I was in at the time. To start off, a picture of an F-15 taken from a rare angle. The rare angle is through the HUD of a hog: Obligatory tanker shot: Ventilating some gently used Caterpillar equipment at the Nellis Range Complex: A little contractor work, post-active duty: Practice Autos: Sightseeing in Eastern Afghanistan: FARPin' it up at Ghazni: (I think) I thought about throwing an airline picture in for laughs, but it was just too depressing.

I agree with you there. Of course, when you ask a Services Food Preparation Journeyman at the DFAC what they do, every one of them will tell you "I'm a cook at the chow hall." So I've never been sure whose honor is being defended, or why it needs to be. Anyway. Since I've shit on this thread not once but twice now, here is my reply to the original question. OP - I've flown a whole bunch of different airplanes (as have most here) and all of them have been fun, for different reasons. I loved flying trainers because they were simple and fun to fly and it is probably the only time you will ever get paid to go out and do aerobatics until you are ready to throw up. I loved flying attack airplanes because I had the best seat in the house every time I flew, and I would go out with 1 or 3 of my closest friends and blow shit up, fly low level, and visit developing countries to blow their shit up in support of our bros on the ground. There's no better mission than that. Great dudes, great airplane. I love flying helicopters because you are right down in the thick of things, and with a FLIR, goggles and 3-6 of your closest friends, you can go places and do things that most of your fixed-wing buddies absolutely will not believe. We visit developing countries, fly 100 feet and below in nights blacker than 6 feet up a bull's ass and pick up wounded soldiers and take them to the hospital. There's no more satisfying mission to me than that. Great dudes, great helicopter. I've never flown air force cargo airplanes or bombers or any of the many others I'm forgetting, but all of them have similar stories. When you talk to those guys at the bar, strangely enough, at least once during that conversation they'll say something along the lines of "There's no more satisfying mission - it's a great airplane and I fly with a bunch of great guys." I've also flown a bunch of civilian shit that I won't bore you with here, but all of those airplanes and jobs were enjoyable for different reasons as well. I guess my point is, if you like flying, you're probably going to like flying, no matter what airplane you're in. Ok I'm done, back to sarcasm and thread derails.

Off topic, but since it would be hard to ###### this thread up any worse than it already is, I'll go ahead and ask. It took me over a decade to realize that when some shithead said "you mean DFAC" whenever I said "chow hall", they weren't going for a cheap sarcastic laugh. Over the years, it's finally dawned on me that people actually get pissed about this. I've seen it. But I don't get it. Since you are clearly a subject matter expert, I have 3 questions. A) Why does anyone give a ###### if I call it a chow hall? B) Why would anyone counsel you (or bother even mentioning it to me) for calling it a chow hall? C) What rationale does the SG give you explaining why you should give a ######? I hope you can clear this up for me, because it's on the short list of gayest things I can think of in the AF. Now back to "what should I fly".

I believe you guys are still eligible to be ALOs, but I am showing my age here so I should let one of the current CAS guys have the last word on that one.

Some of the terms were somewhat interchangeable over the years, so in the past if you said "FAC" you were either talking about an airborne FAC (AFAC or FAC(A) depending on who you were talking to) or the ground FAC, or ALO. The terms are more tightly defined now - the FAC is the airborne FAC, and the ALO is the officer working directly with the Army on the ground. JTACs and ETACs are the enlisted equivalent of the ALO, and all are terminal air controllers although the E's do the bulk of the actual controlling. Occasionally you'll run into an old fart like me that says ground FAC, but it's not as common now.

This hasn't always been true. Maybe it's different now, but about half of my AGOS (now JFCC) class in the early '90s was F-111 and B-52 nav types. None of them were all that psyched to be there, but that's a different story. The Brigade ALO when I was a Battalion ALO with the 25th ID in Korea was a B-52 radar nav, as were a couple of other guys I knew who were doing the ALO thing at Ft Polk and Ft Benning. By definition, an ALO is a fully qualified Terminal Air Controller (read FAC), so your statement there isn't (or wasn't at that time) 100% true. If you meant FAC(A), well then, yeah.

This is an early developmental stage of the international airline captain. In later stages this species is readily identifiable in urban settings by its company leather jacket (nametag removed), jeans, white tennis shoes, and white socks. The international airline captain displays identical plumage worldwide, convinced that it blends with its environment. Oblivious to irony, it has regularly been observed offering insight on international customs and culture while eating a hamburger at an outback steakhouse. This behavior has been officially documented in Singapore, Penang, China, and Japan, but has been widely observed worldwide. When in confined spaces such as flight deck or third world bar, aircrew should be alert for repetitive conversational openers, such as "when I was the OG at ###" or "back when i was a base commander". Use caution, extended exposure may result in drowsiness, coma, seizure, and/or choking.

Hey, if this is you, nice work. We were going to walk over to your TOC and get you to autograph a couple of copies of Airman magazine for us, but then didn't - we figured you might have had enough attention for a while. So instead we went to the local patch shop and had a bunch of pencil pocket patches made with FUBAR on them in Dari. I mentioned it in another thread - I really need to see if I can find the email chain (concerning you) that I saved. You probably wouldn't believe the level of hysterics that a group of 50 year old men can work each other into over something so inconsequential. Actually, you probably would.