Hawg15
-
Posts
109 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Downloads
Wiki
Posts posted by Hawg15
-
-
11 hours ago, ayz33 said:
Some of this has to be expected when you're picking people from the bottom of the barrel to make up for all the losses. I wouldn't want to fly left seat in a Cessna with some of the ROTC people I've seen get picked up for slots this last year. Bottom of the class, terrible GPA, bad leadership, etc. Are the washout rates going up at least to make up for some of this or am I just being green here. Anybody got the latest selection #'s? I feel like the training quality can only bring some guys up so much
Lol “bad leadership”. Are you still in college? LTs are barely capable of leading the coffee pot and corn machines without getting lost on their way to work, regardless of where they went to school. We’re all morons for the first few years. Pretending like they know about leadership as an LT, or are a better candidate for UPT, because they went to the academy just makes people think you’re a tool. College performance =/= flying performance. Quality is decreasing because the # of flight hours has decreased. Nothing replaces experience. You can teach a monkey to fly with enough time.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Newb said:
Hello,
I fly a jet equipped with an ejection seat. During a deployment, I started developing neck, back, and hamstring pain. I notified my flight doc and she attributed my pain to muscle soreness and suggested I wait to see if it heals on its own. Two months later, I woke up with excruciating pain. MRI results concluded that a cervical disc tore and my nerves are being “severely” pinched (annular tear, spinal stenosis, cervical radiculopathy are the medical terms). My lumbar spine has the same condition at a “moderate” level (which explains the hamstring pain). In addition, my pectoral and tricep muscles are not responding and are atrophying. The flight doc suggested immediate surgery, but I declined. I can’t prove that the ejection seat caused this, but I don’t have any other explanation.
Consequently, I was placed on a full profile for 6 weeks. My profile has since expired, and I haven’t flown yet. As long as I don’t aggravate my neck or back, I’m not in pain anymore. However, I don’t want to reherniate my spine again. I haven’t followed up with my flight doc yet, and I have an appointment with an neurologist off-base for a second opinion.
Could someone please share their insight to what this might mean for my flying career? Could I advocate that I no longer fly ejection seat aircraft (cross-flow) to prevent further damage to my spine? If I speak up, could I be FEB/MEB’d? What questions should I ask my neurologist and flight doc?
I understand the best answer is to talk to my flight doc, but I really value this board’s knowledge and experiences and wanted to hear your guy’s opinion first.
Thank you!
I know a guy who flew ejection seat aircraft with back and neck issues like you. He went through surgeries and stuff to help mitigate the pain. They allowed him to switch over to aircraft without ejection seats and he’s still flying
I wouldn’t not speak up about it for fear of an FEB/MEB. I don’t think they would boot a pilot that can fly other aircraft, and flying is most definitely not worth destroying your body.
-
1
-
-
10 hours ago, TreeA10 said:
Claimed an Art 15 kill on a Captain class SRO for cheating on one of my tests
If you ain’t cheating you ain’t trying
-
2
-
-
5 hours ago, Homestar said:
You put lives at risk when you drive drunk, buzzed, or high. Period.
Yet the Air Force is fine with making people fly aircraft to the extent they are so exhausted that drugs are required, and used, to keep going. They don’t really care about lives, it’s all PR.
-
10 minutes ago, joe1234 said:
This thread is actually really kind of comical. On one hand, you have pointy nose dudes bitching about the lack of quality of UPT/IFF grads they are getting because the training pipeline is so badly undermanned, and then in the very same post, come up with this elitist BS about how other people don't have what it takes to train your guys.
Like, okay, fine, the rest of us weren't exactly knocking down the door to come join your dumpster fire, but hey good luck with not having a midair with your shitty VR-trained UPT Next wingman that the last 3 training programs have been passing the buck on.
They’ve started forcing VR on IFF and the FTUs as well, and cutting syllabi. Eventually we’ll just have an Air Force that never flies the plane until it’s time for war. I can’t wait to be done with this disaster of an organization.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, HuggyU2 said:
The past UPT instructors I've known were good, and their instruction was far from inept. They worked very hard to produce the best product they could within the constraints of the syllabus... despite poor "management" from the leadership... and operating in a system where their hands may not be tied, but are often restricted.
I'm no fighter pilot by any stretch of the imagination, and simply do not know what basic "stuff" you are referring to.
However, in all facets of flying I've done... as well as a myriad of other non-aviation hobbies... "the basics" need to be revisited. The fundamental skills will atrophy and it affects the more advanced skills.
I would imagine that a graduating IFF pilot needs to apply "those basics" to their initial training (and even continuation training) in the F-16/F-22/F-15/etc, and adapt them from what they did in the short T-38 IFF course.
I’m not blaming instructors, it’s a problem with the whole system of UPT. I think anyone can learn to teach the 38 syllabus well, but it will take a non 11F a good amount of time to develop the skills for it. Time that isn’t available at PIT and affects a portion of the students they will have. I’m clueless on how to set someone up for success going into a U2 or MAF platform without time to learn it. It doesn’t help that it’s extremely difficult to remove students from UPT, and the syllabus has had so many cuts.
The basics out of 38s are the tactical formation. That is where the issue is arising. UPT does well with instrument flying and getting from point A to B without violating yourself. Skills need to be used to not atrophy, but time on a syllabus dealing with employment is limited. IFF requires instrument approaches, and in the CAF you can always do instrument approaches for the RTB if you let flight lead know you want practice. It’s something you are responsible for maintaining.
Quote5 hours ago, Danger41 said:IFF is not about employing an airplane as a weapons system. It’s an admin course that teaches you how to speak/do the basics of being a fighter wingman. Hell, it’s right in the title of the course (fundamentals). Even the end of block sorties are demonstration of proficiency, not expertise. I agree the FTU shouldn’t be spending time on that. I vehemently agree that Brabus shouldn’t have to do that during MQT in a Viper.
Admin and fundamentals for what? Beginning steps to employing as a weapons system. It’s air to air and range admin. Do they drop real bombs? No, but it doesn’t exist to instruct transition/instruments/formation. They work what they can into and around the syllabus. Many of the sorties require a penetration or some instrument approach. But that’s not the weak point of new graduates, that’s typically found with higher hour guys.
-
3 hours ago, Standby said:
A lot of emphasis here on SUPT T-38 training for future fighter pilots. You don't need a fighter or bomber pilot to teach T-38 rejoins or tactical. MIF is MIF. There is a reason why IFF exists. If the product after the FTU is shit, you have nobody to blame but the 11F community. Only 11Fs teach at IFF and FTU.
The point of IFF and FTU isn’t teaching the basics that UPT was supposed to spend a year teaching students. It’s employing an aircraft as a weapons system. IFF is ~15 .9 flights at Shep. Neither IFF or FTU have the sorties or time to carry the load for inept UPT instruction. They spend about 2 weeks with 6 flights to get you a form 8 and should never have to touch on that stuff again. It’s weapons and tactics from then on.
-
3
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, dream big said:
Nothing you do in 38s is remotely tactical or relevant to the skills required to fly any tactical platform in combat.
Tactical formation is the most basic fundamental of employing any MWS in combat, and something that will drain all your SA if you have to struggle with it. If you don’t hold in briefed position you won’t be able to visually look for threats, plot the target, tally the target, fence in for the proper attack, be in position for the attack geometry, and possibly affect lead’s ability to provide mutual support off target. All of which will then screw up attack timing and possibly exceed run in restrictions, weapons parameters, or just waste time while guys are getting shot on the ground. Oh, and if 3 and 4 are flying everything properly, you just screwed it up for them as well.
Guys are struggling to fly tactical in IFF and coming into the CAF. B-Course doesn’t have the time or sorties to teach the basics that were covered in the year of UPT. Does it need to be an 11F teaching it? Not necessarily, but it definitely needs to be someone who doesn’t think 38s teach no relevant skills for the CAF.
-
3 hours ago, WheelsOff said:
Back in effect as in they still are only hiring 11F/B?
If so, that’s absolutely ridiculous. Last I checked the back of the Form 8 doesn’t say an 11F/B is more qualified than a dude who flew an E-8, for example. As stated, it’s not like they’ll be able to be picky based on the manning trends.
They most certainly are more qualified for the 38 job. I’m not saying that someone who didn’t fly fighters can’t do the job, they obviously can and have been for a while now. However, the skills you develop in a fighter community apply much more to 38s than the heavy world. The pilots who have thousands of hours flying at 100agl in tac formations, or maneuvering air to air, while managing everything else that goes into flying a fighter will have a much easier time teaching the fighter centric aspects of UPT. Tactical formations, low level flying, single seat CRM, etc is all second nature, whereas other communities will have to spend the time it requires developing the skills to effectively fly it, and then experiencing it enough to accurately debrief what they’re doing wrong. Developing the geometry sight pictures of multiple maneuvering aircraft, and assessing what is going wrong with it, is one of the hardest parts to do well. I don’t think it should be limited to only 11F, but there is a definite return on investment if they aren’t required in the CAF.
Then there’s the guys who care about instilling the douchey “fighter mindset” and all that BS that I don’t believe in.
-
3
-
-
People use EFBs in flight for more than just checking ILS approach plates?
-
2 hours ago, Tin Man said:
Is that the complete list? Haven’t been following too close lately but seems a little light on total number of studs per class for an Air Force trying to produce itself out of the “shortage”.
The way UPT classes work has changed over the last year. There’s many more classes per year with smaller numbers per class.
-
Why would you ruin GA by involving the Air Force bureaucracy? 1-800-wxbrief “hey bro I’m flying a plane from here to there, thanks.” I still pretty much never do that seeing as I stick with VFR.
-
1
-
1
-
-
You call that overshooting final? Hold my beer. I’m pretty sure I’ve lined up with Tucson off the perch at DMA. Shit happens. Debrief and move on. I’m sure some senior politician, I mean leadership, who can’t even remember where the battery switch is on his bare min flights to keep flight pay, will try and crucify these guys.
-
1
-
1
-
-
28 minutes ago, Shazaam said:
How old are you? You do realize our Airmen aren't pilots and most of their jobs consist of staying inside the wire right? Unless said 18 year is in a highly specialized AFSC or is aircrew, they stay inside the wire and still receive holidays off as we launch combat sorties.
Let me stop by Finance on Thanksgiving at Bagram. Oh wait, it's closed in combat? Thanks AF, I'll just login to MyPay from the WiFi signal in my B-hut.
-
1
-
5
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Klepto said:
You must not be a hawg driver, because I’ve never seen a hawg driver act like the ass you are condoning.
Selectively raising your voice to get your point across on certain occasions can be effective, but that is different than habitual “yelling,” which if you’ve spent any time around other Services you’d know is not extremely common. It’s also just as effective in other Services (I.e. not). It really just makes you look like an ass and frankly it’s a failure to adult.
People don’t like talking to asses. That’s why they call it toxic. It’s not good for the mission if people don’t want to communicate with their leaders because they are asses. If you were a pilot you’d know that being an ass doesn’t work well in a plane, in combat, or anywhere else for that matter.
Training can tolerate some selective yelling because inducing a stress response can be beneficial when you want to help a person learn. Even in combat, a well-placed intentional yell may bring someone back to where they need to be. However, people can usually tell the difference between someone yelling to help them or the situation versus someone yelling because they’re a power-tripping overcompensating toxic ass.
The hawg community demands high standards, and is laid back as long as you attempt to better yourself and achieve those standards. You aren’t always expected to meet them, but you are expected to put in the effort. If you don’t you won’t be having a pleasant experience. Incompetence gets people killed and is treated harshly. Sometimes people need disciplining. That isn’t habitual yelling or power tripping, nor is it toxic. It’s typically not needed. It doesn’t go straight to that point, there’s a progression that starts as a friendly checking up on them, but it can be an effective tool if needed. I have had my fair share of being an idiot and having a not so pleasant experience with the DO, or my flight lead. That’s part of learning. I would rather deal with the tough love than be in a command that threatens careers and throws around paper work like it’s their job, I’ve experienced that as well. I’m sure you’ve never yelled at your children before.
Also, I don’t know her and haven’t interacted with her, but yelling doesn’t inherently make something, the oh so common buzz word, “toxic.” This shit is killing the Air Force. We’re an organization who’s sole purpose is killing. Cursing, drinking, and yelling, isn’t okay nowadays but sending 18 year olds into a “war” that started before they were born with no goal is.
-
4
-
1
-
4
-
-
47 minutes ago, Best-22 said:
I thought we didn't like toxic leaders on this board?
Surely you can't all think that screaming at each other over the phone, and calling your peers idiots behind their back is how business gets done.. It seems to me she was already under multiple IG investigations and her throwing a temper tantrum was just the final straw.
I honestly question your judgement if you perceive the people you work with to be so stupid, relative to yourself, that you have no other option than to yell at them. I've never had any contact with her though so if she was legitimately a good leader please let me know.
You must not be a pilot or have experience with leading an organization if yelling at someone is the defining point of a toxic environment. It’s extremely common in every other branch of service. Some people need the tough love of being yelled at every now and then. Obviously not constantly, but it has a time and a place. And the fact that this whole thing involved civilians and not military members is telling. I doubt there would be any IG investigations going on if the Air Force didn’t try and replace every job with a contractor that can’t be fired, being paid 3x more than a service member, who has no clue or experience with military culture. I would bet money she had to deal with a lot of incompetent civilians who know she can’t do anything about it.
-
Yeah, I couldn’t imagine flying around in a tiny 737 for 10 hours. Must be real uncomfortable lol
-
1
-
2
-
-
4 minutes ago, Best-22 said:
I don’t see a -60 being any more survivable than the other airframes you listed is all I’m saying.
They aren’t by themselves, how the overall SARTF is employed what makes them effective. The casevac missions of Afghanistan and OEF are nothing like real PR. The rescue guys actually didn’t want to go with another -60, it was forced on them. Also, the last thing we need is mission dilution, lack of comms, and fighting with another majcom over rescue resources who are geared towards the ACC/regular ground mission. It’s already hard enough to get the ball rolling on things when people are in need.
-
8 minutes ago, Best-22 said:
Are you saying we need a new aircraft for these situations? Perhaps something with stealth?
AFSOC certainly doesn’t. They aren’t ACC and that’s not their job.
-
7 minutes ago, tac airlifter said:
I hear versions of this often about a lot of AF mission sets. Money is a finite resource and priorities shift as situations change. That’s just life, and all communities must adapt to changing realities or be left behind.
And CSAR is something that should always be receiving part of this finite money to keep it healthy. There isn’t much that holds a higher priority over isolated personnel. Cutting funding to it is pretty disgraceful for a country constantly reassuring its service men and women that it will do anything within its power to recover them. We exist to serve the guys on the ground. But we have a bunch of disconnected careerist politicians that need more government contract money for their district or another star on their shoulder. So let’s spend tons of money on armed T-6s that can barely kill a Toyota Hilux before rearming and unneeded MC-130 terrain following radar instead. Hopefully the insurgents don’t get to them first when they have to punch out of that light attack aircraft in the middle of nowhere.
-
AFSOC is good at what it does operating in a low threat environment, but they’d be useless for CSAR in a near-peer war. ACs, MCs, Ospreys, U-28s, etc will all be a burning wreckage trying to get anywhere near an environment where fighters are being lost once the SAMs and AAMs start flying. AFSOC would ruin the RQS. A jack of all trades and master of none isn’t what you want trying to do a specialized mission. The reason our CSAR is so competent is because they don’t try and train to a plethora of mission sets, nor should they. The AF way of doing PR is much better than other branches, and the fact that training for the worst day of some dude’s life is their sole purpose is a major reason. Find one of the Navy exchanges and talk to them about the difference between the two. Also, look at some of the dumb shit the army has accomplished trying to recover people in Afghanistan. Everything from crashing their helicopters to unknowingly leaving individuals behind. AF CSAR hasn’t lost relevancy to people doing the job. The morons allocating funds who don’t see value in it because no one is currently dying or punching out is the issue.
-
3
-
-
Does anyone have any SA on the possibility of switching airframes from a fighter to a non-ACC heavy without a medical DQ for ejection seats? Is there any chance, especially with the current climate and mysteries of how AFPC works, it could happen?
-
Was helmet art ever really an Air Force thing? The Navy has always seemed to be the one into the heritage of aircraft and helmet designs. I do think it’d be cool to have a badass squadron aircraft or more than a gray helmet.
-
34 minutes ago, Gazmo said:
You guys do know this is all about contracts and the corporate machine that runs our military. It has nothing to do with what actually makes sense or fitting the needs of the war fighter. It's about money. Someone is making money. The AFI's get adjusted accordingly.
My favorite part about the Army “developing” the OCP pattern is how they took it from the copyrighted Multicam design so they wouldn’t have to pay more, but they’re the government so they do what they want.
Degradation of SUPT
in General Discussion
Posted · Edited by Hawg15
I’ve noticed that to be a big issue with UPT graduates. They lack confidence in their own abilities because they are rarely solo. As well as UPT teaches them to fly a syllabus, not be a pilot. They keep doing the same things that don’t work for them instead of what does because “that’s how the 3-3 says to do it.” The minute anything changes some guys will freeze up and short circuit. VFR is non existent in UPT and confuses those who only know AF flying.
Ive heard IFF guys talk about how students can’t even fly the pattern. Well, the first time a student is flying the overhead pattern, or landing in general, at a different airport shouldn’t be IFF. I think students should always be in the front seat during instruments and XC and be required to do VFR patterns and visuals at foreign airports. T-1s do much better in that side of the house than 38s.
We need to work more to make pilots once they have the basic aviating down. Hell, all of our student sorties are solo in the A-10 and they only get 2 EP sims before they fly. After ~20 hours of foundational instruction solos could easily be integrated more often into the UPT syllabus.