Do you wish you went Guard/Res?

[addict]

wing guy 1: "We have this mission to the X, and it hits several special-PIC fields. Who's qualified?"

wing guy 2: "the guys we sent out there last year"

Back to topic: Worldwide pilot or not, there's simply no substitute for experience. AMC says you gotta go there to be able to go there. A reserve squadron is stacked when it comes to the "I was there last year, I know how that place works" currency. They've got people that have been at the base for the last 2 decades. Corporate knowledge goes a long way.

[JS]

I apologize for derailing the thread from a comparison of guard/reserves versus active duty to one comparing experience levels of tanker/airlift guys. I agree with some of the previous posts that the instruments approaches are not the problem - anyone on this message board with wings on their chest is expected to be able to safely and properly shoot any standard instrument approach into any airfield, worldwide. In my opinion, an instrument approach is an instrument approach is an instrument approach. It is after the approach and landing that an experienced crew will really earn its money.

For example, if I were working in the planning cell at the Air Mobility Division, and we had an injured C-130 with a few legs of their mission that needed to be picked up by another airlift asset, and there happened to be a tanker available to do that mission, I would be hesitant to task that tanker to pick up those legs. Although tanker crews are totally capable of carrying passengers, pallets and patients, if I were to assign a KC-135 to leave their main base in "Southwest Asia," drop off passengers and pick up pallets at airfield #1 in Afghanistan, head to airfield #2 in Afghanistan to pick up a few aeromed patients, and then head back to the main base, I think the crew would have difficulty completing that mission (on frag) if the AC had only been to 5 fields in his career, with 4 of those fields being stateside.

Put another way, would the crew know about the local quirks with the ATOC guys at airfield #1? What would they do about the notorious fuel delays at airfield #1 that would put them behind frag? What about the well-known aeromed reg-quoter, mission inhibitor at airfield #2? How about the airfield diagram that looks like it was written with a crayon at airfield #1 or the local fighter procedures that affect your taxing and parking at airfield #2? Or hell, what about the ATOC gross stupidity and double-blocking debacles at the main base in Southwest Asia? I could go on, but you get the point. My solution, I think sending a McConnell tanker crew to spend the night at C-springs, pick up the Air Force band to bring them to Travis, and then drop off a few pallets of B-1 parts at Ellsworth on their way back to McConnell would only make them a better crew able to handle the intricacies of dealing with all of the ground issues you can run into in the sandbox.

I know some will probably argue "well, that is not the job of the tanker, we are there to pass gas and land at our 1 airfield." And they would have a point. A typical tanker crew has a helluva lot more experience passing gas to fighters than a Herk or C-17 does, but tankers are qualified to carry passengers, remain overnight at strange fields, carry pallets, and so on. That is why I think off-station training and dealing with all of the associated ground agencies on the road is an important set of skills to add to the airlifters experience.

[Guest]

Put people in an unfamiliar scenario and you'd be surprised to see even "experienced" pilots miss things trying to get caught up.

No I wouldn't.

Experience does not equal SA.

You can give a pilot experience but only God can give him SA.

Ianyone on this message board with wings on their chest is expected to be able to safely and properly shoot any standard instrument approach into any airfield, worldwide.

I had a squadron CC correct me when I was a Lt and said something about shooting an appch..."You shoot targets and fly intrument approaches. Don't be an idiot."

I never said that again.

For example, if I were working in the planning cell at the Air Mobility Division...

Those were great points.

The truth is, tankers can't do the tac airlift mission. Not a good airplane for that.

Edited May 1, 2010 by Rainman A-10

[Guest Hueypilot812]

No I wouldn't.

Experience does not equal SA.

You can give a pilot experience but only God can give him SA.

Hueypilot812, on 30 April 2010 - 05:23 PM, said:

For example, if I were working in the planning cell at the Air Mobility Division...

Like having the SA to quote the right person for a particular statement? Just saying.

[Guest Crew Report]

My solution, I think sending a McConnell tanker crew to spend the night at C-springs, pick up the Air Force band to bring them to Travis, and then drop off a few pallets of B-1 parts at Ellsworth on their way back to McConnell would only make them a better crew able to handle the intricacies of dealing with all of the ground issues you can run into in the sandbox.

You act like we never do this stateside (-135's). A few weeks ago we had a crew at my base go on a Coronet (dragging fighters overseas) and get tagged by TACC to do an HR mission before the Coronet and then take some palletized cargo to another base. Does that happen a lot? No, but it still happens and we are trained to plan for it.

I know some will probably argue "well, that is not the job of the tanker, we are there to pass gas and land at our 1 airfield." And they would have a point. A typical tanker crew has a helluva lot more experience passing gas to fighters than a Herk or C-17 does, but tankers are qualified to carry passengers, remain overnight at strange fields, carry pallets, and so on. That is why I think off-station training and dealing with all of the associated ground agencies on the road is an important set of skills to add to the airlifters experience.

What's not the job of the tanker? Which tanker? The KC-135 was designed specifically for air refueling. The cargo and passenger hauling was a semi-afterthought, however we can do it and we still do. Hell, the -135's at Kadena sit AE alert 365 days a year, and they launch frequently. The KC-10 was designed to be dual role (carrying people/cargo and air refueling). And they do it daily.

[Guest]

The KC-10 was designed to be dual role (carrying people/cargo and air refueling). And they do it daily.

They may do it daily but it is painful for the folks using them. It always thought it was great if we could do it but it was not easy.

Let's keep in mind most folks are talking about tac airlift, something a KC-10 dual role mission is definitely not.

[JarheadBoom]

They may do it daily but it is painful for the folks using them. It always thought it was great if we could do it but it was not easy.

Serious question: why is a KC-10 dual-role painful for the user? Are you talking about A-10s specifically, or fighters generally?

Not that I've been doing this for a long time, but I have done plenty of dual-role missions, and I don't recall the word "painful" being used by anyone involved...

[Guest]

Serious question: why is a KC-10 dual-role painful for the user? Are you talking about A-10s specifically, or fighters generally?

Not that I've been doing this for a long time, but I have done plenty of dual-role missions, and I don't recall the word "painful" being used by anyone involved...

Labor intensive to load anything but pallets.

Need special equipment to load (K-loader 60k forlift(limited) 40K w/extender or WBEL).

Limited configurations for people and cargo.

Pallets easiest/best to load but initial unit and small deployments are typically 50/50% pax and cargo with 75% cargo rolling stock.

Like I said, DRT was always a great option and a great way to save money, it was just more painful.