CJ-6A
-
Posts
44 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Downloads
Wiki
Posts posted by CJ-6A
-
-
There was a certain infamous person about a decade ago (or more) who had washed out of UPT in active duty and then went to the guard and re-attempted and became a C-130 pilot. He ended up destroying a C-130 down in Central America somewhere (Tegucigalpa?) and then during the accident investigation all these background details came to light. I don't know if it were this incident that prompted the regulation to prohibit do-overs, but whatevs.**
**Disclaimer: This was told to me by an old simulator instructor, so I take no responsibility as to its accuracy
BL: Your only shot at military pilot training is Army, Navy, or Coast Guard. Seek that out. Inquire at airwarriors.com, maybe.
He single handedly destroyed a C-130? Hmmm
-
And the AF wants it that way. Limited resources be they IPs, planes or dollars. Just need a "couple" of more rides? How does that go on down range when the stuff gets more complicated....always need just a couple of more rides.
What we do at IFS is really not that complicated. Given much experience in the UPT environment, if they can't get it here.....it will continue to be a problem at the next level, and the next, etc. That's the purpose. Identify those without the potential to succeed at the next level. Training resources are not unlimited.
Personally, I believe I could get anyone through anything given unrestricted training. That ain't what we do, nor the person you want on your wing going into battle.
And there is much more than the issues of airsick, being able to land, etc., that causes a washout of IFS. SA, task mgmt, risk mgmt, and so on. Although we use a DA-20 to indoctrinate the SP into AF type of flying, my end game is to teach them what they need to know to begin their journey to becoming an AF pilot....not a DA-20 or GA pilot. Far from anything they could even hope for from any FBO. The GA aircraft we fly is merely the resource we use to do so.
There always has to be a minimum standard. This ain't charity work after all.
Smokey
Agreed - I thought it was a great program, had a great time there and learned a ton.
-
Please.
I have never understood the guys who think flying a Cessna at the podunk FBO is going to give someone SA on UPT or military flying and act like they want it more because they got a bunch of jerk off hours before they showed up.
GA flying is great. It just has nothing to do with success in the USAF or a person's passion.
I hear what you're saying Rainman... it's just that if you can't make it through IFS, you can't go on to UPT. Just my opinion, but guys with prior time seemed to do better on average at IFS. A couple people failed out for not being able to land an airplane and would "need a couple more hours" for things to click (generally speaking, those people had no time). As far as the passion goes...perpetual airsickness, attitude, and not being able to land safely seemed to be big ticket items at IFS.
...just sayin' regardless of how prior time or "passion" for flying will help someone do in UPT, if you can't make it past IFS you don't really have a shot to prove it.
-
Did you have many zero hour people? It sounds like it was mostly ROTC wash-outs?
There were mostly zero hour people in my class. Not that there's anything wrong with that... however, it would just seem to make sense that if flying is what you wanted to do for a career, you would get a couple of hours under your belt to see what everything is about. It was just a little irritating to see people in IFS with no passion for flying all. All but one of the washouts was from ROTC in my particular class - sure it varies from class to class.
-
Jenna Jameson Charged with DUI after slamming pole
http://www.tmz.com/2012/06/25/jenna-jameson-charged-dui/
If that's the case, I figured she'd have about 6900 convictions by now
-
I thought it was a good program overall... definitely had some doubts going in based on other people's observations, but those were proven to be inaccurate. The only bad part about it was seeing people DOR who "didn't really even want to be a pilot" or "only picked pilot on their application because their ROTC Commander forced them into it"...sorry, but not much sympathy here.
It wasn't especially difficult for guys with a significant amount of prior time (and it really depends on what type of prior flight time that is), just different and required a bit of adaptation and study - as expected. The IPs are all really experienced and professional. The academics were great and interesting.
I really can't wrap my head around why anyone would go into a pilot career field (starting at IFS) with zero civilian flight time. Why not go rent an airplane and see if you even like it? A few people didn't seem to think flying was for them. Some people get washed out for not being able to land...some people for being perpetually airsick. Having an exposure to flying, however small, probably won't hurt.
-
A stable economy where everyone can participate provides hope and is the first step to crushing hatred.
It sounds like your starting with some presumption that people actually want "hope" or have some meaningful draw to it... wish it were the case. We tend to want to "give" them "hope"....Seeing everything as a political problem with a political solution, meanwhile pushing the delete button on over a thousand years of violent religious history. Good luck getting reason or hope into a culture that's completely shaped by "Allah's Will" or tribal differences. Our own refusal to understand this as a religious war is our own failure.
-
1
-
-
Recommend you guys don't go crucifying the crew from a flight discipline angle without knowing all the facts.
What? .....Crucifying a crew without knowing the facts.... that never happens around here....
-
Barrel roll.
No it wasn't
-
It really isn't a difficult game. Write the shit out exactly how it appears. Close enough is not good enough.
It's your introduction to the "attention to detail" concept.
It's amazing the Navy is able to turn out pilots
-
Completely unrelated, but it did neither. Skip to 1:16 for the fall out.
"No hazard what so ever" ... "Absoluetly non-hazardous" ... What was that noise? ....Sounded like a few heads exploding on this forum.
"We know that, you know that... Just don't do it anymore" - that sounds like the appropriate response.
-
CJ-6A....imagine for a moment that you are the Sq/CC of these guys. (let's assume for the moment that what's currently being discussed is fact....because for all we know, it's rumor at best). Anyway...what action, if any, would you take? Would you Q-3 them? Would you feel compelled to let your Wg/CC know? Or would you give them a stern talking-to and put them on tomorrow's schedule?
I'll tell you what I wouldn't do... and I wouldn't let these guys' guts be spilt in front of everyone at the highest level. Especially, if the dudes in question were good guys with a great combat record. If they screwed up, I'd find out what the perspective was and deal with it internally. My point... don't blow it out of proportion, invest in good people... have their back, discipline and move on.
-
Ok, then please put into perspective how this intentional deviation from the POH/FM/TO/AFI contributed to mission accomplishment in a positive manner.
Why don't you re-read what I wrote... and actually think about it.
-
My question to you is simple: how do you even justify an intentional deviation from the POH that in no way can ever be construed as mission essential?
You don't justify it, you just put it in perspective... take appropriate action... learn from it.. and move on. My entire point wasn't to justify it, just put it in perspective. This wasn't a 737 full of passengers or Bud Holland, round 2. Most of the people here don't know the circumstances and people involved, yet they feel the need to gather the pitchforks and light the torches. There's no need for a witch hunt or to burn good dudes who may have had a lapse in judgement for a split second. I'm sure many here would be proud of you for not deviating from the POH.
-
So rolling the MC-12W loaded with a metric shit ton of mission equipment and a bunch of other shit in the back of the plane that may or may not be secured in a fashion as to ensure that when a crew tries to roll a MC-12W and doesn't do it just right and now your 1G maneuver becomes a negative G maneuver...just for a second...and now you have multiple projectiles inside the aircraft + 4 not all that hard nuggets just sitting there....how is that unsafe? Really?
Obviously you were there and know exactly what and how it happened, right?
Exactly how is a barrel roll a 1-G maneuver? Takeoffs, landings and level turns are more than 1-G maneuvers. You can do a barrel "dive" at 1-G but not a barrel roll.
An Aileron Roll... which is different than a barrel roll... is a ~1G maneuver. It's not terribly hard to do. If you're putting negative loading on the aircraft, you just suck.
Anyways... all agreed, it was a bad decision in the current climate... but from a 'safety of flight' standpoint, it's no different than an intentional / complacent over-g on a 50 year old airframe. Normal category aircraft, from an FAA perspective, aren't certified to do aerobatics because they're not required to go through a certification process (which may or may not mean they, structurally, can handle it). Not condoning what happened here, but let's just keep this in perspective.
-
1
-
-
...uh i dont think you can really aileron roll a king air. It'd turn into an overbank, nose low, high speed dive recovery
Wow, just wow
-
Try telling the airline Captain conducting your future FedEx interview why you think a willing breach of flight discipline is "no biggie...wasn't unsafe, so who cares?" See how far that gets you. Grow up and set the bar high...it's there for a reason.
Except for "CJ-6A"...to whom my post was directed. His question was:
"What TO/AFI guidance says not to roll a King Air? The aircraft did not exceed its G-limits, airspeed, or come close to a CFIT scenario."
To me, this sounds like "Who cares? What reg did they break? It wasn't unsafe, so what?" Hammer the mouth-breathers that thought it would be fun to barrel roll a MC-12, and get back to the business of winning a war.
You are being flippant man, honest feedback. You admit later that rolling the airplane was a bad decision by whoever actually did it, and I'll take from that statement that you also think it should therefore not be done/you would not do it.
There's no need to up and crucify people over the incident if nothing bad actually happened (outside of an ass chewing by the SQ/CC), but it's the attitude that is perhaps the problem the FCIF was poorly trying to address. From your posts here you seem to have the attitude that it's NBD to depart from standard flight profiles for non-mission-related reasons, and that's a bad atitude to have. If doing something related to flight safety is a bad idea then we should be actively stopping guys from thinking it's ok to do it.
My point is that it's being blown out of proportion and comparing it to Bud Holland is stupid.
Everyone is getting on their soapboxes about what they think "flight safety" is... well, if that helps put a star on your shoulder... great. God forbid any one of you ever get yourselves into something like this... I'm sure there will be a bunch of overachievers looking to gut you over it. Was it a bad decision? Yes. Was it unsafe? No. This doesn't need to be a huge deal.
-
CJ-6A...your flippant attitude is disappointing. I hope you're not in a position to influence the younger dudes.
It's not a flippant attitude. This shouldn't have been blown up.. whatever happened to things being handled within a squadron? Guess that was a couple generations ago? You all are crying to lynch these dudes... come on.
From the B300/300C POH Page 2-16:
"The Model B300 and B300C are Commuter Category Airplanes. Acrobatic (yes that's what it says) maneuvers, including spins, are prohibited."
If you are of the opinion that rolling the MC-12 is not unsafe and this whole thing is being blown out of proportion, I will never get in an aircraft with you.
http://www.ntsbbar.org/getart.asp?ID=19903
While not entirely related, it does show that the NTSB/FAA has mixed feelings about different categories doing aerobatics.
How, exactly, is rolling a King Air unsafe? Any proof of that versus any other flight regime? I'll buy that it's a bad decision and abnormal in the current climate... but unsafe?
-
The comparison isn't about the specific maneuver, it's about a mentality that, when allowed to continue, can have bad results.
Rolling a King Air is abnormal, not unsafe. Rolling a twin is nothing new, Bob Hoover did it with the SECAF (at his request) and a few other generals on board. Matt Younkin rolls a Beech 18 (at night!) as part of his show.
Re: Doing rolls in a Lear... Clay Lacy did it as part of his show, no problem. If they screwed it up, it's because they screwed it up...just like you can screw up any part of flight.
Anyway.. this thing is being blown way out of proportion... especially with making comparisons to Bud Holland.
-
1
-
-
Yea, f*ck me right? I'm a p*ssy, for not wanting to put a prop-job thats at max gross with shit hanging off it and weird CG on its belly. If you think its a non-event do it, put it up on youtube and tell you sq/cc about this non-event.
FIFY.
Yea, we've all had that "that was luck/stupid" moments, but this is negligence.
The comparison to Bud Holland is a stupid one at best. Near knife edge close to the ground with a huge aircraft (i.e. BUFF or C-17) is a totally different event than doing a roll in a King Air at altitude. You don't know the details and if you did, you'd probably be less likely to make a comparison to Bud Holland.
It's one thing to explore the flight envelope of your airplane; however, it's another to willingly violate TO and AFI guidance regarding the operation of your airplane.
What TO/AFI guidance says not to roll a King Air?
The aircraft did not exceed its G-limits, airspeed, or come close to a CFIT scenario.
-
Really? If this happened those dudes are retards, they're not in their single-seat cockpit anymore or never were there in the first place.
If this would have happened 30 or 40 years ago, it would have been a non-event. Besides, there's nothing structurally unsafe about rolling a King Air. Anyone want to take a shot a Bob Hoover for not having flight discipline in his Air Force career.... or any other pilot of his generation? This should have been a non-event.
-
Do you think real millionaires use credit cards?
Yes, most do.
As a matter of fact, most very successful business owners had to get credit (i.e. venture capital to start their business). It's not necessarily a credit card... but same general principle.
The loan is leverage (at 2%). It all depends on how you use it.
-
If I had to throw an uneducated guess in the pot, it'd be that most fighter units will probably move to UAV/Recce and surviving fighter units will just be AD associate units for the homeland missions. State politics will probably keep a compromise going somehow.
-
Chimay Red 10/10
Mexican Military incursion(s) into the United States
in General Discussion
Posted
I'm not sure that partial drug legalization is actually part of the solution. They aren't simply about drugs only anymore. Don't get me wrong, drugs are a large part of it. Mary Jane is just a drop in the bucket compared to the profits on cocaine, meth, etc... which will probably never be legalized. Like any good business, they have diversified. Many have evolved into essentially what Amazon is, a one stop logistical shop for everything.... kidnapping, human trafficking, pirating intellectual property, etc. Drugs may have launched their mechanism but their real bread and butter is how they sell and traffic their product. Either way it's a complete mess... especially when U.S. banks such as Wachovia in 2008 alone processed $378 billion in Mexico without any anti-laundering actions.