LiquidSky
-
Posts
153 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Downloads
Wiki
Posts posted by LiquidSky
-
-
Ah yes the conspicuously timed post that thinks putting on a jacket is more relevant than the recent headlines:
Trump probed under Espionage Act, says warrant.
Trump search warrant: FBI took top secret documents from Mar-a-Lago
P.S. If we're stooping low let's not forget this video.
Turns out human shit happens to everyone.
-
47 minutes ago, precontact said:
The KC-46 is a great airframe and will be the preeminent tanker going forward.
Only because the other tanker we've got left is approaching 70 years old with an AP from Boeing that occasionally tries to kill everyone on board.
The 46 was supposed to be operational years ago. Wasn't supposed to have tools in the fuel tanks. And a remote vision system that added not detracted. Meanwhile the 330 from LM is fully operational with added capes (and on time to buyers). Yet we're talking about passing it yet again for more 46s for some reason.
Especially bad when Boeing has the following track record:
135: A/P tries to kill them.
46: Years late. Fod. Non working boom. NMC. Over budget.
New 747: Overbudget. Years late.
737 Max: Grounded for 2ish years.
787: Batteries caught on fire. Grounded for awhile. Also initially late to buyers. Now a great platform.
777X: 5 years behind timeline so far.
Wedgie: Not great capes. Old. Still going to take 4-5 years to hit the production line per reports despite being an existing design.
P8: Seems solid? Off an existing airframe. Don't follow the navy too much.
TX: TBD
Airbus recent failures:
380: Wasn't designed structurally for cargo. And economically not the best for airlines.
LM Recent Failures:
Fat Amy over budget and behind. 50/50 on LM and the scope.
From my perspective Boeing has put out nothing on time or budget in the last decade or two. Aside from the 787 they've rehashed new designs rather than push the envelope.
-
2
-
-
56 minutes ago, Chida said:
Reminds me of the enlisted RPA operators. Left out to dry when a new regime took over…. I envision an “altering the deal” if these guys make it to the line.
What did end up happening to those guys? I vaugley recall one being forced into being a T6 Sim IP at Laughlin? Or maybe that was a UPT next dude.
-
From the competitor: https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2022-07-airbus-a330-mrtt-becomes-worlds-first-tanker-certified-for
Meanwhile at Boeing: https://aviationweek.com/shownews/farnborough-airshow/new-air-force-one-delayed-again-first-delivery-set-2026
If we pass up the KC-Y for more 46s we as a force deserve everything that comes after. The fact Boeing still gets contracts proves to me this whole bidding process is a sham.
Edit: Forgot we already decided to acquire the wedgie from Boeing. We're screwed.
-
1
-
-
Update via TPN. The program managed to find over 15 (i.e. 16) people who were willing to submit complete applications.
-
Not a firing but it sounds like the military lost a good one this time around.
Col. Bode of 959th Med Ops Squadron, JBSA resigns the day before change of command stating in an official letter "leaders throughout the chain of command were aware and did nothing to stop illegal, immoral and unethical actions."
-
2
-
6
-
-
36 minutes ago, BrightNeptune said:
AFSOC doesn't even let dudes fly the PC-12, which is a single pilot plane, with only one pilot. Zero chance this happens.
Nor the few C-12s (Beech 200/350s) that are scattered around various commands.
Are B-2s single pilot rated? I wasn't aware of them having a jump seat but they've also clearly done a fam flight. Must be one or the other.
-
9 minutes ago, CharlieHotel47 said:
Single pilots ops for future KC46 ops???
Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile appAlready discussed at length here: https://www.flyingsquadron.com/forums/topic/2485-changingswitching-airframes/?&page=27#comments
-
2
-
-
On 8/8/2021 at 8:38 PM, kaputt said:
That video is tough to watch. I’m guessing he key’d the mic accidentally in the final panic.
It will be interesting to see what the investigation yields. It kind of looked like a mini version of the 747 crash from Afghanistan a few years back. Maybe some sort of load shift, control failure, or leaving a control lock on? I have a hard time believing a pilot of his experience and skill let a perfectly good airplane get into that nose attitude on takeoff.
Another repeatable, preventable accident unfortunately.
https://www.flyingmag.com/snodgrass-crash-blamed-on-failure-to-remove-control-lock/
-
4 minutes ago, nsplayr said:
Good god whoever signed off on the new TSP site design should be shot.
I especially enjoy the complete lack of balance history. Having 0 idea of how my retirement savings have preformed in the years prior to the site rollover is exactly what I wanted.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Of course this is XL only. Copy and paste details from TPN:
the USAF PAQ T6 Instructor email came out today.
just wanted to share it for people who were curious about the details of what the position looked like and what the details of the position were:
here are the big points:
1. 8 year total commitment
2. 3 year training pipeline, 5 years as an instructor.
3. Pay starts at GS-7 and progresses to GS-9 while in training
4. Instructor duties and ground will be a requirement and but most of the training will conducted in the aircraft.
5. You will be based out of Del Rio AFB
6. Pay, one as an instructor tops out at GS13.
7. 6 total hires, 3 fall 22, 3 spring 23.Here is the body of the email, I left off the section from the program manager PoC information. If you want it, and it's okay with Admins, i can share the email with you. I just want to make sure this post is allowed, if not, please delete.
from the USAF PAQ AFPC:
"As you can see in the handshake announcement, the Air Force is looking to hire a total of Six (6) candidate into this program starting with Three (3) in Nov 22 and concluding with an additional Three (3) in March to April of 2023. All of these positions will be based at Laughlin AFB, Del Rio TX and once the training portion of this program is complete, the incumbent will be based out of Laughlin AFB for the duration of their term of service.
The overall program is broken down into a three year training phase beginning with T-6A Only Undergraduate Pilot Training in the T-6 and a Five (5) year term of service as a Civilian Flight Instructor that follows. Upon completion of that course, you will be evaluated on your progress and if nominated by the hiring unit squadron commander you will attend T-6A Pilot Instructor Training on a temporary duty assignment to Randolph AFB. Successful completion of both of these courses is a required training event and failure to complete these courses will result in removal from the program.
When these two courses are complete, the incumbent will return to Laughlin AFB where he or she will complete the Mission Qualification Certification and then will begin teaching USAF student pilots in the aircraft. Instructional work will include all phases of the current AETC Syllabus to include Contact, Aerobatic, Formation, Low Level, Instrument and Cross Country work. The goal is to accumulate the required Total, Pic, Instructor, Night and Instrument flight hours to be outplaced into the full performance position. In addition to the in-flight instructor certification, the incumbent will also become certified to teach in the T-6A Flight Simulator and to serve as an Academic Platform Instructor however the focus of the majority of the work to be performed is in the aircraft.
Upon completion of this Three (3) year program, the incumbent will be required to serve a Five (5) year term of service as an instructor pilot in the T-6A Aircraft.
Each candidate will have an Individual Developmental Plan which outlines all of the required training objectives and each person will be assessed at various gates to ensure you are making satisfactory progress towards the end goals of the developmental program. Each incumbent will be assessed annually at a minimum. Successful completion of each year's training plan will result in a grade level promotion. The incumbent begins their service as a GS-07 then progresses to GS-09 and GS-11 during the training phase. Upon outplacement to the full performance position, the incumbent will promote to a GS-12 until obtaining 52 weeks (1 year) time in grade and then be promoted to a GS-13 grade level.
Pay and benefits are set by the OPM pay tables but beginning at the GS-11 grade those tables are governed by a Special Salary Rate based on work performed while actively flying. Additional incentives are outlined in the handshake agreement attached to this document.
The attached PDF document is the "Handshake" agreement that went out to multiple universities who offer a Part 141 Professional Pilot Bachelor's Degree. Within that document you will find details on the program and the links to apply either through the Handshake link ( https://app.joinhandshake.com/emp/jobs/6600656 ) or by submitting the required documentation directly to the Operations Career Field
Organizational Email address ([afpc.operations.cft@us.af.mil](mailto:afpc.operations.cft@us.af.mil) ). It is imperative that you provide ALL the required documentation to prove that you meet the program requirements with your initial response as there is little opportunity to reach back and track down anything you may have missed. In short those required documents include:1. Your College Transcript (can be unofficial) showing GPA (2.95 Minimum) and Major: Must be a Bachelor's, professional pilot Degree from a Part 141 flight training program.
2. Your Resume
3. A scanned, Signed copy of the last page(s) of your log book showing that you have a minimum of 50 hours of Dual Given as a CFII.
4. Scanned Copies (Front and Back) of your FAA Certificates (Commercial, CFI, CFII and FAA Flying Class I OR II Medical): These must be current through the anticipated onboarding date (Nov 22 - Apr 23)
The basic requirements to be eligible for this program include:
- U.S. citizenship
- Recent/graduating student (Sep 20 - Dec 22), with a Professional Pilot degree from an accredited
university with a Part 141 program
- Possession of a FAA Commercial Pilot Certificate, a Certified Flight
Instructor-Instrument rating, and
an Airplane Single-Engine Land and/or Multi-Engine Land rating
- A minimum of 50 hours of dual given flight instruction
- A FAA Flying Class I or II medical certificate current up to the time of
appointment (November 2022 to
April 2023)
- In good academic standing with a GPA greater than or equal to 2.95 on a 4.0 scale
- Ability to obtain a Security Clearance (Air Force funded)
- Meet T-6 ejection seat height and weight requirements (Safe operating
limits for ejection)
-- Nude Body Weight - 103 to 245 Lbs
-- In addition to the weight requirements, other anthropomorphic measurements will be required during the screening process which include standing height, sitting height, buttock to knee length. These will be assessed for those who are tentatively selected and you will be notified on how to accomplish these measurements at that time.When we receive your application and documents, you will be notified that we have received them and are awaiting a final selection notification. At the close of the application window, all applicants will be sent to a central selection panel who will select those moving forward. When that decision is made, those selected will be notified by AFPC and given a Tentative Job Offer to continue. Ultimately those selected will be given a formal job offer and an entrance onto duty date to report to Laughlin AFB for in-processing and UPT 2.5 training start dates.
Throughout the training program, the Operations Career Field PAQ program manager will continue to support your administrative actions while the gaining unit commander (or delegated officer) will become your immediate supervisor."
--
-
1
-
-
-
The most useful part is the networking to find out useful tips from the support Os such as how to get a fuel truck in <1 hour. The least useful part is the 6-8 hrs of bullshit per day they have you doing to prevent networking.
Also bring a crock pot, hot plate, or something. Despite nearly all of lodging being filled by people tdy 5+weeks there is no kitchenette in the rooms. You get a mini-fridge and microwave. The one dfac you can eat at is barely open but you'll being walking out after one look at the "food" they have.
-
1 hour ago, nunya said:
They’re targeting ink-still-wet CFIs. They’re competing with CFI and low end charter gigs. I think they’ll get takers as word spreads around ERAU, UND, MGA, AU, etc.
Depends on how easy it is to quit I'd think. In the current environment if airlines are your goal 1000-1500 hours over 4-5 years will put you behind your peers. Even if it's a T6 vs a 172.
Maybe a good deal if airlines aren't your end game though, can't get a class 1 med, etc.
-
Actual flightline not sim? What's the pay, what's the contract length, and how long is the spin up time? Seeing how low the requirements are if the answers to those 3 questions are right I can see this being a highly desirable alternative path to the regionals than typical civilian CFI life.
Edit: Missed the left side. Guessing 2-3 year contract, 1 year spin up.
-
Since when did they start promising FAIPs follow ons and how does that work?
-
1 hour ago, Lord Ratner said:
I wasn't around. Did we buy the T-1 because we determined that business jet-trained students do better in the MAF than pilots who successfully completed the T38 syllabus? I doubt it...
Cheaper per flt hour and probably decreases washout rate significantly for those pilots that will never need fighter style form or bfm. Also have heard reasons such as simulates the feel of a heavy (no ailerons, just spoilerons), turbine training, and crm training.
I think it worked well but the parts supply chain isn't there to support and the jet chosen was never designed to be a trainer. So it took quite the beating and wore out quick. Add in the fuel tank issues, the Laughlin hail storm, etc. End of life for the platform was cursed.
-
22 minutes ago, di1630 said:
I agree in some cases Air under your ass is needed. I can’t teach BFM or air refueling in a sim. I can teach better tactics in many cases.
I’ve never flown a heavy/crew aircraft but if the airlines can train someone to fly a 767 in a sim…why can’t we make a KC-46 pilot in the sim?I can't speak for all communities but a few at least have their Init qual/inst check in the sim. That's on par with airlines.
It's the next few months of low levels, AR, NVG, assaults, formation, airdrop, etc. that while you can train in the sim can't be truly recreated. The high workload, high stress, dynamic environment is simply something that no matter how hard we try is not replicable.
The sim lays a great foundation and is a fantastic tool allowing you to get tons of reps cheaply. This needs real world supplementation though in all phases. At a very basic level imagine getting a copilot who'd never talked to a real atc much less one in a bravo or foreign country that barely speaks English.
-
2 hours ago, FLEA said:
Quite ed yes, but to be fair, Kendall does call this a bridge platform which I believe is what is really needed.
Seems like almost all of the big brains I talk to agree the next gen C2 platform should be distributed sensors with geographically centralized control, but while the concept is there a framework to make it happen isn't. So if the E-7 is just a stop gap while we flesh out what a distributed sensor platform looks like (probably a mix of manned and unmanned ISR), than I'm ok with that.
The acquisitions process has a way of turning stop-gaps into permanent. Just look at the delivery schedule proposed for the Wedgie. A platform that's already being fielded today! Ridiculous.
For another example look at the 46 intending to replace the 135 but in reality it's replacing the kc-10 because we didn't buy enough. But that's OK because we'll have another stop-gap tanker the KC-Y! Though now we might skip the KC-Y because the 46 is good enough 🤣
My money is on the all these "stop-gap" or "holdover" platforms suddenly becoming 30+ year platforms. Boeing is lobbying for it because they'll get to sell block upgrades ad infinitum to make up for their initial production losses.
-
1 hour ago, HuggyU2 said:
Wedgetail? Seriously?
What is that supposed to mean? This has got to be a British thing. I mean... a country that would name a plane a "Nimrod" or a "Beverly" is probably the same one that would name this jet "Wedgetail".
Blame the Aussies. From Google: "The wedge-tailed eagle is the largest bird of prey in the continent of Australia."
-
1
-
1
-
-
Have to throw their shareholders yet another bone to make up for the other contracts they've screwed recently.
"Boeing has lost a total of $1.1 billion so far on costs associated with a deal to modify two 747 jumbo jets to serve as Air Force One."
In my admittedly limited experience with the aussies E-7, they were nmc more often than not.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, slc said:
Interesting. Buddy of mine recently purchased a home outskirts of Ktown because it was financially beneficial vs renting for a few years. The only drawback was something about capital gains tax (ridiculous amount) upon the sale of the property etc?
Capital gains on German property only applies if it has not been your primary residence for either 2 or 3 years prior to selling. If that is not the case then you must have owned it for 10 years or owe 25% on the gains. Intent is to prevent property flipping/speculation.
-
Copy all. I could potentially buy the sustainment costs are lower argument if F-15 tools/sims can be cheaply converted to EX and cost per flight hour ends up being significantly less. However, I'm a strong believer in economy of scale. Hard to imagine the small run of EX stuff will in reality be cheaper than an increased run of 35s plus increased commonality of parts, sims, ops/support personnel, etc.
29 minutes ago, 1:1:1 said:Need to keep Boeing in the fighter business
Huh. And here I was thinking they should've gotten blacklisted after delivering us the shittiest tanker ever created. Oh well. Guess this is why I'm not getting paid to think, but to write decs and plan Christmas parties.
-
Can someone explain why are we buying the EX at significant cost over 5th gen? Is fat Amy truly that bad? Or has congress/the AF been hoodwinked yet again?
"The “Gross Weapons Systems” cost includes the “flyaway cost” and the per-jet share of the cost of unique equipment, simulators, and standing-up depots needed to support the aircraft. The gross weapons system cost of an F-35A adds up to $98.2 million in FY22.
The defense department calculates the F-15EX at $110 million. But that does NOT include the cost for simulators, EPAWSS, or the targeting and IRST pods required for combat. Adding in those costs brings the gross weapons systems cost for the F-15EX to $136.7 million — $38.5 million or 39 percent more than a fully loaded F-35A."
Source: https://breakingdefense.com/2022/04/air-forces-math-on-the-f-15ex-and-f-35-doesnt-add-up/
Today in hypocrisy...
in General Discussion
Posted
1.
Had he done this while President there might be an argument to be woven. Better if there was an official memorandum stating documents X, Y, and Z are declassified.
But with the current situation if the documents are sitting in a safe, still marked classified (rather than appropriately had the markings redacted and marked unclass), and they're not part of the public record (freely accessible via normal means such as a foia request) not a chance in the eyes of the law they were declassified.
2. Did they? Nothing has stated the timeline yet between learning and acting. Unfortunately legal mechanism here turn quite slowly, especially when you consider how squeaky clean a warrant against a former president needs to be due to optics.
As for weaponized you do realize the FBI is lead by a trump appointee right?
3. The national archives still manages those records. The location of those records was moved for a specific reason. See the national archives statement here:
https://www.archives.gov/press/press-releases/2022/nr22-001
"The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) assumed exclusive legal and physical custody of Obama Presidential records when President Barack Obama left office in 2017, in accordance with the Presidential Records Act (PRA). NARA moved approximately 30 million pages of unclassified records to a NARA facility in the Chicago area where they are maintained exclusively by NARA. Additionally, NARA maintains the classified Obama Presidential records in a NARA facility in the Washington, DC, area. As required by the PRA, former President Obama has no control over where and how NARA stores the Presidential records of his Administration. "
The rest of the whataboutism I'll drop because the entire purpose is misdirection. Would it be nice if everyone was held equally under the law? Yes. Is it too late to start just because we didn't in the past? No. If it was you'd never get any progress because what about in 1700 when I could burn witches? It's not fair I'd get jailed for that now. Someone else did it!