timberlin
-
Posts
10 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Downloads
Wiki
Posts posted by timberlin
-
-
https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/19/us/utah-f-35-crash-hill-air-force-base-runway/index.html
CNN is saying the pilot was recovered and taken to the hospital for observation.
-
5 hours ago, ClearedHot said:
.gif.b0ac2a2e3d6c657fd97c99371d993abd.gif)
-
30 minutes ago, Pooter said:
I don't buy that this is some sort of "in case of war break glass" test. Please describe to me a scenario where you are short a bunch of copilots (due to attrition or some kind of attack) where you're not also short on ACs, IPs, and airframes. I'll wait.
This is how you socialize a garbage idea you know no one will sign off on for its own merits. You pitch it as some newfangled combat contingency test, get the waiver passed, and then implement it by precedent years after the original detractors are long gone.
Call me a conspiracy theorist but what do you think is the air force's more pressing problem:
a) pilot shortage
or
b) near peer shooting war where we somehow have a bunch of perfectly functional -46s laying around with no one to fly them
I haven't seen this mentioned by anyone on this board so far, but IMO, I think the single pilot ops intent is to provide an answer for nearly continuous operational availability and the duty day conflicts that come as a result. You could turn one tail between 2 pilots and that gives you nearly full coverage over any day, only needing to throw 1 extra boom into the equation, rather than 4 pilots and 2 booms (or asking for 18 hour duty days with only one crew) for the same effect. Is it dangerous to min turn with no other pilot as a back-up? Absolutely.....but it would provide some flexibility to a deployed MC if the package needed a couple packed days of heavy sprinting while an augmenting force is enroute to support. Just my 2 cents.
-
1
-
-
On 5/29/2022 at 11:06 PM, Majestik Møøse said:
What sorts of capabilities? Is it about getting more fuel to more people or is it a distraction from that?
Outside of the higher fuel load, talking with some of the early cadre, they are able to conduct AAR at much lower speeds than the -10 and -135 (don't know what is class or unclass for their stuff, so I won't post the number I was told). This is a pretty big win for the power deficient receivers.
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, BashiChuni said:
“Newly updated guidelines” is code for “we were wrong and we were putting out incorrect information”
case and point why it’s disgusting that the left and some of you in here have been cheering censorship of “bad data”. GFYS
The foundation of the scientific method is that nothing, including the fundamental laws of science, are immune to inquiry. Ideas only become more elevated and accepted after passing through rigorous skepticism; strong skepticism was celebrated as it is the essential conduit to bring us nearer to absolute truths . Unfortunately, what we've seen is anything but that.
The highly visible and open inquiry into what C19 is and how to fight it has left scientific community with lots of egg on its face. In lieu of exploring legitimate probes, anything that dared to question the core narrative was labeled as "dangerous," cast aside as a wacko conspiracy theory, and subsequently scrubbed from the public forums. Scientists cozied up to politics instead of remaining the separate and unbiased sources they claim to be. Instead of being agile and adaptive, this new rigid path failed to respond quickly and appropriately. The crux of this all is that this deviation from the fundamental ideals of the scientific method has only proven how essential it is to keep to it in the first place. The hubris of the community and it's complete reluctance to appropriately debrief and self-correct greatly exasperated the failures we saw in our responses. What we are seeing now is that scientists are finally beginning to look into theories that were brought up (and quickly disregarded) over a year ago that could have provided invaluable information into appropriate policy construction. It's impossible to know what kind of impact this would have made, but I fail to see how the availability of more correct information could lead to worse outcomes.
Whenever we get on the backside of this, the public trust in the scientific community has been significantly damaged and it will take some time to gain it back. But, what do I know, maybe there's some new science they're teaching since I finished grad school.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, kaputt said:
Scary stuff when you really read between the lines.
I continue to stand by the fact that the real extremism threat to this country is far left extremism packaged behind nice words like diversity, inclusion, and my absolute favorite: EQUITY.
Anyone who believes in a free society should get shivers down their spine when they hear politicians, the military, private companies, etc... using the word equity.
The problem is they don't really even care about how perfect equity would shake out in practice. If they truly wanted equity, their end goal should be equal representation in all fields, which we know it isn't. They obviously mean more minority/female representation in the desirable and high esteem career fields within the military (i.e. aviation), but they seem to care little about the less glamourous side. I highly doubt we'll see female applications at MEPS turned away from the personalist and medical positions they currently predominantly occupy and offered only MX or CE to even out those demographics as well.
-
1
-
What's wrong with the Air Force?
in General Discussion
Posted · Edited by timberlin
There's a saying in AFSOC in regards to Q3s "those who have and those who will." A Q3 doesn't tarnish your community rep like I would imagine it would in those where they are far more sparse; it just makes life more difficult as a whole to leave/fly outside of AFSOC (TPS, white jets, etc.)....unsure if that's a bug or a feature.....