Inertia17

Assuming you get the passengers willing to go without that extra crew member/no crew for that $15-20 saving, instead of flying with a fully crewed airline. That original ballpark was said in response to gaining market share by offering tickets at 25-50% less than current rate (suggested by Guardian), which would not be possible with such a small saving.

That is what I was saying earlier, most you would save is $15-20 per ticket. Just not worth the effort at this stage. Once again, too general by me. Referring to airline operations, not taking 6-9 people on a charter flight.

My statement was overly general, I should have been more specific. And while human error is the leading cause of accidents, aviation will continue to be about redundancy for risk mitigation. The time where they entrust an aircraft to remote piloting, or even single pilot is likely still many years off. The FAA would never allow something with a single point of failure. Single pilot, with a remote capability, with multiple redundancies, would be the minimum they would consider initially. In my opinion at least.

I definitely agree. It wouldn't be for a very long time, even for single pilot ops. But that would be the first place they would likely consider RPA/single pilot.

There is no way they would be able to offer flights for half the price just by removing a pilot. Call it a couple hundred dollars and hour per crew and then divide it across each passenger, you won't save any more than $20 per ticket (conservative napkin math, 150pax $500 an hour for 2 crew, 4 hour flight...$13.33 saving per seat). Then you have incidents like QF72 (QF72). Where the autopilot is out to lunch and tries to fight the pilot. How do you think that would have gone down with no crew on board, and the pilot monitoring was in the middle of an approach on one of his 3-4 other aircraft? RPA or single pilot ops are a fair way off, not because of technology necessarily, but the risk mitigation that has to take place to even consider it. Cargo would likely be first, and even that would be a battle with the FAA I'm guessing.

Now that is an assignment you wouldn't have trouble filling.

And if we needed any more evidence to know Chang is a troll, there it is.

DLF 17-08 T-38 3 x F-16 (1 guard) 1 x T-6 FAIP T-1 CV-22 3 x U-28 2 x EC-130 KC-135 (guard) 4 x C-17 (2 x reserve) T-1 FAIP C-130 (guard) Might have been a couple I missed. But that is the majority of it.

I'm guessing you *non gender specific individuals* get a propaganda class on those training days every second Wednesday? EDIT: Can't say 'guys' any more...oops.

Having dealt with the USMC process while I was applying, they require an age waiver beyond 27, which has to go up to the Vice Commandant of Aviation. So that takes a lot of time, and they will likely only push that if you put up good numbers on the ASTB and have a good package (sts). Earlier you can apply and better numbers you can put up on the tests, the better.

With no beer at official functions, I am guessing no one was there to see it...

KDLF 17-07 T-38 3 x F-16 F-35 F-15E T-38 FAIP T-1 U-28 T-6 FAIP C-17 KC-135 KC-10 C-146 Plus some guard and a couple others I missed. Very solid drop.

I could be reading it wrong, but it seems that only applies to the studs in the tracking class. Any other studs there wouldn't be able to drink either. That being said, track selects at DLF are held on flying days at 1100, so sounds like a completely different affair out there.

DLF 17-14 Track 2 International T-38s 6 AD T-38s (3 washed forward from 17-15) 1 AD Helo 14 T-1 (1 wash forward) There were also 3 from 17-14 who washed into 17-13 (2 T-38/1 T-1).

The T-X is coming...eventually.

DLF 17-06 T-38 1x F-15E 1x F-16 1x F-16 ANG 1x F-16 Iraq 1x F-15/16 Singapore T-1 1x B-52 3x C-17 1x U-28 2x KC-10 1x KC-10 AFRC 1x EC-130 2x C-130 ANG 1x HC-130 1x T-6 FAIP

To clarify, I was referring to an additional system that is not the CAT III. The system is not fool proof, Turkish Airlines (Flight 1951, 2009) could attest to that.

Yes, but if there is only one pilot (incap), and your contingency shits the bed, then you are SOL. Without someone there to crosscheck it is working correctly (radar altimeter is out, false glideslope etc), I wouldn't want to bet the farm on it. It is an added level of risk, that I don't believe is worth taking with 300+ people in the back. Now if you have multiple systems that can perform such a function giving you redundancy, then that risk factor for single pilot might be at a more acceptable level. This is all personal opinion of course, I could be way off track.

While it is true that the capability is there on some of the newer aircraft, it is when it stops working that is the problem. The more cuts you make, the more holes you find in your cheese. How many jets have you stepped to that don't have issues? The human on board still has greater capability to deal with situations that aren't quite textbook. I am not saying that single pilot ops won't happen, but I don't think the tech is where it needs to be yet to justify the increased risk.

Unless the one remaining asshole has a serious medical issue arise leaving them no longer able to fly the aircraft. Then I guess everyone is just SOL in the case of current tech.

Last track was 2 to T-38s and 1 to T-1's for the wash forwards. Rumor is up to 5 coming forward for the next track.

Pretty sure DLF is looking to push the numbers closer to 30 per class at some point. Which I am sure will be interesting with no cross countries in T-6's. That being said, they have been washing some people forward classes of late.

No idea man. I was just there. All that AFPC voodoo is well above my level. One would imagine they need pilots if they are dropping...

DLF 17-05: 38s: 2 x F-16 F-15E A-10 B-52 T-6 FAIP T-1s: KC-135 Kadena KC-135 (can't remember base) CV-22 U-28 EC-130 C-5 MC-130 T-1 FAIP Plus a few guard C-130s, and a couple I might have missed,

Shame we can't get a squadron or two in to share Miramar with the Marines...they seem to get by just fine buzzing Hornets around San Diego daily.