Notch
-
Posts
19 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Downloads
Wiki
Posts posted by Notch
-
-
Sorry about your experience. That just plain sucks that an evaluator is that small minded. The issue you talk about is just nuts. My "engine failure" on takeoff happened about .69 seconds after brake relase and was a non-event.<-- ATP failure at Denver All ATPs. Instruction non existent, IPs more concerned with FB on their iPhones than scanning traffic and monitoring a student under the hood with traffic all over going into DEN and class B nearby. Their complacency partially set me up for failure. Busted w/eval on initial T/O since I momentarily removed my hand from the throttle. Evidently that momentary action is unsafe in a light twin ( I took my hand off to help set a wind correction on the flight controls). Airspeed didn't even rise. I take some responsibility for what happened, but if IP knew it was an issue and had actually paid attention like a student is out to kill them, the story might be different. 4k for a good ground eval and 0.5 on a taxi out/back and 4.3 in the seminole with 'instruction' by an IP beforehand. Not what I would expect with 2500 hrs in mil acft. Contemplating a recheck, but seminole time is $490/hr at All ATPs. My money may be better spent elsewhere...
Note, All ATPs pays it's IPs $7.50/hr. Not what I consider professional... It's on their website under employment. If a google search gives a company as the top 3-5 returns, the company pays for that...
Have you heard of any other similar experiences there? Can you bring it up with the FAA?
We heard what they make when we were down in Arlington as well. It was tough to hear that they make about $1250 a month prior to taxes but they are there building time for the regionals. Most of the guys in Dallas were happy about having a job. Just remember that if we weren't part of the USAF, we would all be looking for someone to pay for 1500 hours of multi time. Sure, there are jobs in the industry that pay more but these guys are using the company for its leverage at getting them interviews too...win-win, mostly anyway.
-
I just went to Arlington this week. The 2 day course was just the right amount of flying to feel somewhat comfortable. The IPs they have there are very young and mostly graduates of their course building time to get their ATP. Don't expect a USAF style briefing before or after the flight. It's much more relaxed and even a bit disorganized (scheduling of aircraft). Overall, the training portion went fine...nothing to write home about however.I'm currently at Dyess which puts me within easy distance of DFW. Is the ATP Flight School (.com) at Arlington "Friendly" or should I shell out the money to travel somewhere else? Seems to vary over time so just wondering what the latest feedback was.
The big deal everyone is worried about is the check ride. I had their "usual" evaluator and he was extremely fair. His son is a marine -130 pilot....questions he asked came straight out of the piper seminole training supplement and only a few standard instrument flying questions (what's RAIM). The flight was a mix of 3 small airports under the class B with him giving you "vectors" while actually flying VFR.
The other evaluator is a older gentlemen who used to be a USAF -135 pilot and has been flying for literally 50 years and has 20k + total flying time. The other two guys I went with both checked with him. He takes his time (lunch break after the oral) but is extrememly fair as well. He has a tendency to talk about random topics and both of the other dudes claim he only asked about 4 real questions during the eval. He flies a different profile than my evaluator at an airport just outside the dfw class b but again VFR flying while getting vectors from him.
Most of the flying is under foggles...
I'd recommend that anyone going to fly the seminole get a PDF copy of the POH and download the training supplement off of the all atps student site.
Overall, the only thing painful in the process was seeing the credit card bill. Questions, let me know..
Notch
-
WIC also applies since it is advanced flying training.
-
Let the troll die...
-
1
-
-
I don't get it...Do you tanker guys wave your hands at the bar to practice tanker turn-ons to your watches (instead of BFM)?
What does this have to do with anything? Something wrong with being proud of what you do? Something else wrong with a pilot wearing a breitling? Stop trolling.
-
3
-
-
I was the POC for a Mildenhall order of watches. The order took about 8 months total. Just be ready for that timeline. The watches are amazing though.
Hopefully it won't take that long!
-
At ATA this year, HAF A1 gave a brief called "MAF-apocalypse" and their message is below (I do not necessarily believe everything here, so don't kill the messenger and I am paraphrasing):
- Pilot retention in the MAF is not an issue...it's the CAF is broken (we all seem to know this, but they backed it up with numbers)
-- The CAF issues are the cause of MAF dudes taking MC-12, RPA and traditionally filled CAF staff billets.
--- The source of the problem is that the CAF has enough pilots for cockpits but not in the staff roles. That is why pointy-nosed dudes are getting Ops tours back to back to back.
--- The above problem has caused he MAF to OVERPRODUCE pilots in the past few years...this could be a problem in the future.
- Pilot retention in general requires a 60-69% (or close to that) ACP take rate due to the number of Lt Col and Col billets available.
--This fiscal year the bonus was about in the sweet spot of where A1 wants to be. The segments that are lower were given 50% up front (RPA, etc)
- A1 is looking at the "Airline" issue but...
--their numbers stem from contractors looking at airlines like Southwest and Up with FedEx and UPS.
--Currently their predictions are that the AF as a whole is doing just fine becuse of the numbers published on the link above
-- A1 is powerless to do much unless people start punching (they have to be reactive and not proactive)
- the ACP will see no major changes until FY15 at the earliest and is currently being coord'd to be $35k per year. if $35k can't fix A1's issues they may offer the 20 or the 25 year bonus again but is not likely.
--This years ACP was hinted to be the same as last year with a message being published sometime after January.
Again, don't kill the messenger but sitting through this brief the numbers they showed seemed logical.
If anyone else was there...feel free to fill in the blanks.
-Notch
-
I got a chance to meet these guys last year at battle creek. Good bunch of guys. They threw a BBQ for all of the military guys (blue angels included). They had 4 or 5 of the L-39's on the ramp near the hangar. We got to mess around with them for a bit. Some of the jets did have the seats operational but others did not. I can't recall if his did or not.
-
Is the desert flight suit authorized for official travel? For example, on a civilian flight that connects with the rotator?
This release discusses ABUs, BDUs, and DCUs, but doesn't say anything about the flight suit.
Nope. Never have been. You could possibly change when you were about to get on the rotator but they are not authorized on civilian airliners....sucks...
I can't figure out why it's cool to fly in ABU's but not a flight suit. Maybe the shoes feel like its "unprofessional"
-
If there is no accurate way to account for the fuel, instead of trying to make the broken system work, as a staffer you need to take back to your boss the inefficiencies of the current system, the impossibility of what he is asking with all the reasons stated and a suggestion for an entirely new process. It starts like this - "Sir, what exactly is the boss looking for here? I think this is out of our lane and unnecessary. It will create numbers that are impossible to measure and try to implement a false fix to a broken system using data that is irrelevant and inaccurate. The accountability that they are looking for is in the office of A3xx and A5xx"
When you get told to do it anyways, when you submit your TMT package be HONEST with what you are gathering, the inaccuracies of what they are trying to do and how the process is incorrect. When you present it to higher HQ, don't gloss over the inefficiencies in other departments. Generals listen to staffers when making decisions - don't try to make them happy, use your time to elevate broken processes and have suggestions to make things better.
1st and foremost, if congress is trying to equate accurate fuel accountability into conservation/flying hours realize there is no correlation in a fighter. Fuel has absolutely nothing to do with flying hours in the fighter community. The RAP tasking message is where you need to look. Looking at stateside Continuation Training missions, aerial refueling helps me to more efficiently meet RAP by getting 2 counters on a single sortie but the accurate accountability of fuel has little to do with that. Depending on the mission, I can empty my tank in 7 minutes or as long as 2 hours. 2 hours sounds like I am max conserving, but the 7 minute sortie may be a much more efficient use of the fuel on a given day and often is the only way to meet RAP.
I fly my fighter as efficiently as possible. I use TO climb speeds in between sets, max range to and from the airspace, and max endure when sorting problems. I manage my fuel to cover a VUL and the required Average Sortie Duration is generally within 3 minutes. Taking away tanker gas is going to increase the ASD - I will spend an extra 3o minutes to RTB and refuel to get the same number of sorties requiring more gas and time on the jets to get the same thing done, but that is as far as it needs to go for accountability.
Our new RAP message just came out and it is as lean as ever. With the groundings of fighter platforms over the last few years, simulator training is not a valid substitute and I fly less as a fighter pilot than several 3rd world nations.
I digress...
The only accurate measurement of the fuel we get is at the pump. This is when the tanker gets his gas from the truck. After that, it really shouldn't matter where it goes or who pays for it. It certainly doesn't equate to how I use it. Back to the car analogy, one step further. I own 3 cars, two bikes, a riding lawn mower, push mower and several gasoline powered tools. I take my truck to the pump with 5 - five gallon jugs and fill them all up to take back to the house. I know that I bought exactly 25 gallons. When I get back home, that gas is used very differently depending on the time of year. This week my leaf blower used way more gas than it did in the summer. In the summer, my lawn mower took the brunt of the gas. I know my lawn mower has a 1.2 gallon tank with a very rough fuel gauge. My Weed Whacker has no gauge and I probably spill more than I actually use. If I start pouring gas from the can into a partially full tank, use that mower until it is empty and do the same with all the other tools, it makes zero sense to try and figure out what amount each tool used and try and make that number match to the initial 25 gallons. I know that I got the job done and my yard looks nice, at the end of the year it took 75 gallons to accomplish that task based on my initial receipt from the pump. If you take away gas money next year because my inaccurate math only added to 70 gallons even though I took 75 gallons from the pump - a few weeks of the year my yard won't get mowed. I can not be any more efficient, or accurate because of limitations of the system. Further more I need what I need to get the job done, accounting has little to do with that. I know I used 75 gallons, it shouldn't matter if the numbers don't add up.
In short, if you are looking to cut flying hours even more than the abysmally low amount we already have you need to get out from under the preadator's microscope and take a look at the big picture. Fighters cost 7k to 50k per hour to operate depending on type and which chart you look at (It doesn't matter, pick one or the other.) We'll say 10k/hr for easy math. BFM is one thing I have to accomplish. This sortie has an ASD of .7 and will get me an average of 4 sets per flight. To make it easy and unclassified generic, we'll say it takes 10k of gas from start up to shut down to get those 4 sets. If I have a tanker, with an additional 5k of gas I can get another 4 sets(an additional sortie) and it will only take another .3 of time on the jet. At the end of the day for 2 sorties it will either cost $14k or 10k for the flight hours and take 1.4 hours or 1 hour to accomplish the exact same thing. It will take 20k of gas or 15k of gas for those same sorties. With a tanker, it is much more efficient.
The question you need to answer, if we are operating at the 50k/hr number with limited airframes where total hours on the jet will be a problem in a few years - is it cheaper to get new tankers and refuel during CT sorties to maximize the few flying hours we do have and save the hours on the extremely expensive fighters to allow them to operate longer into the future or is it more cost effective to have fewer tankers and spend the majority of the fighter's life transiting to and from the airspace. With the latter, RAP still has to be met but we will outrun the life of the now 100 to 400+ mil/copy jet exponentially sooner.
Cutting with a surgeon's knife over the accountability of a couple gallons of gas is aiming at completely the wrong target. Finding the cost benefit analysis of tanking should be relatively easy. Either it is more efficient to meet RAP over the life of the airframe including x% of tanker cost/sortie or it isn't. Gas amounts the tanker provides or accounts for is irrelevant in meeting RAP/determining flying hours. When you build those new tankers put an RFID chip, an accurate fuel gauge and a pair of binoculars so the boom can read the tail numbers to make everyone happy.
As a side note, it always cracks me up when I ask the boom for his tail number first when I hook up to interphone.
The only thing you forgot to mention here is that the tanker uses gas too...
The -135 burns about (give or take...the lighter it is the less it is) 10K an hour. If you put a tanker in an anchor for fighter support for 3 hours (assuming a pre and post VUL tank) you just burned 30K of fuel plus the required offload for the fighter flight.
You now have to include the cost of the tanker in your equation too...If you do the long division on that, it might actually be cheaper to fly more fighter sorties without a tanker.
-
I knew someone would take the bait. Thanks!
Not cool.
Did she also happen to be a Gp/Wg exec? Just curious...
Otherwise, we fly nearly every local as a formation and try to make it a large-cell, MX permitting. We feel like we're pretty proficient, and if somebody is unable on an actual mission, that's a fail.
No idea. Didn't ask. I'm just a -135 guy so I'm not sure what the issue was exactly..some sort of bean for flying dissimilar form with me. It wasn't a dig on the -10 community. I was simply pointing out that there are things we all can do better.
edit - grammar..
-
Dude, KC-135s can't even do EMCON 2 right stateside. Beyond that, the problem with this "war" is that it is now "every day ops" and for the most part no one gives a shit (reference the whole shitshow of "it's just a 1g maneuver" in the thread about the MC-12 Star Fox).
Yes, this is the best way, as long as the tankers have the correct info. That means the tanker needs the correct tail numbers, for two reasons: 1) fuel tracking for $$$ shoe-clerk bean counters; 2) fuel tracking for contaminated fuel (not terribly likely, but it has happened).
That said, the order of precedence on my crew is:
a) AC or CP read it off the side of the jets on the wing before they come in for gas.
a) BO reads the tail number off the receiver.
c) If the BO can't read it, he asks for it over interphone.
d) Over the radio is the last resort and should rarely be used.
Just remember, you can't have it both ways (sts). If you want the tankers to track the fuel, you have to pass tail numbers. If you don't want to pass tail numbers, then you need to make receivers track the fuel.
- Judging by your profile pic...I'm going to step out on a limb and say you are a holier than thou KC-10 driver...just quit the attacks...last time I flew a coronet with a KC-10 the AC couldn't fly lead with a -135 since she wasn't qualified...that made for an interesting mission...You guys are far from perfect...but thats not the point of this thread....
- I know from experience that most of the FMS sales (at least in Europe) paperwork needs to be correct (to include the tails)...Most of the military controllers that we deal with (Germany, Norway, and a few others) ask for our total offload before we depart the airspace and also ask the individual flights
how much gas they took...
- A lot of the talk here has been about fighter refueling...lets not forget about heavy's....There is no way for me to find out a tail number without asking....Some big jets do have a tail number painted up front but not all of them. How do we deal with heavy traffic?
-
It will be interesting to see how we are supposed to fly with them on our laps on an approach down to mins....I hope they are investing in Otterbox cases too....
-
As a tanker pilot, the tail number is the easiest way for me to keep track of who i give gas too....Even if Rainman give me a BS tail number, guess what...I can look outside and see it and most of the time they are painted by the receptacle, so the boom can relay it to the Co...That's why we rarely ask for them...Wing to Wing would be a pain in the ass since now I would actually have to talk to you.
BTW - your post AR report (gas, freq to call, etc) is relayed by the Co up front not the boom.
-
Interesting...just one major flaw...seems like it might have a few issues if you keep your phone in your pocket...
-
Eggs are called juevos in Spanish which is also slang for Balls.
Maybe they will cut your juevos off with scissors if you piss in the alley....
Pilot watches
in General Discussion
Posted
Fellas,
I was a POC for a group buy of airwolfs a few years back. We had 37 made. I was stationed in England at the time and I met the dude at RIAT.
If you give him a call or email, he might point you in the direction of someone in the CONUS or you could use him.
http://www.andrewmichaels.co.uk
Good luck!
Notch