What's wrong with the Air Force?

[HuggyU2]

On 5/12/2017 at 0:45 PM, caseylf said:

Is the Deuce that insulated from the rest of the AF? Or you just like the community that it's easier to deal with the BS?
 

It's a good question that I'm not really sure of the answer.  And, frankly, having been gone almost three years, my opinion is of little value.  

My best... and possibly inaccurate... answer is that it I just enjoyed the flying and people so much that it made the BS tolerable.  

But toward the end, it did seem the BS was getting much worse.  But, once again, the perspective of a guy who was about to retire.  

There are others on here who can speak to the issue better.  However, they are currently in a good place leadership-wise with excellent SQ/CC's, OG/CC, and inbound RW/CV.  

Edited May 14, 2017 by HuggyU2

[Hacker]

21 hours ago, Inertia17 said:

Then you have incidents like QF72 (QF72). Where the autopilot is out to lunch and tries to fight the pilot. How do you think that would have gone down with no crew on board, and the pilot monitoring was in the middle of an approach on one of his 3-4 other aircraft?

That wasn't just the "autopilot" that was out to lunch -- that was the flight control computer.  Even after the crew tried to go to the lowest level of automation possible, it was still a computer that took a crap between their hands and the flight controls.  So, even more dangerous than just an autopilot acting up.

But, you have to put this in context.  As freaky as that was (and as catastrophic as the outcome could have been if it was unpiloted or remotely piloted), compare it to the number of lives lost due to pilot error (which is still by far the leading cause of accidents and fatalities in aviation).

Edited May 14, 2017 by Hacker

[Inertia17]

4 hours ago, Hacker said:

That wasn't just the "autopilot" that was out to lunch -- that was the flight control computer.  Even after the crew tried to go to the lowest level of automation possible, it was still a computer that took a crap between their hands and the flight controls.  So, even more dangerous than just an autopilot acting up.

But, you have to put this in context.  As freaky as that was (and as catastrophic as the outcome could have been if it was unpiloted or remotely piloted, compare it to the number of lives lost due to pilot error (which is still by far the leading cause of accidents and fatalities in aviation).

My statement was overly general, I should have been more specific. And while human error is the leading cause of accidents, aviation will continue to be about redundancy for risk mitigation. The time where they entrust an aircraft to remote piloting, or even single pilot is likely still many years off. The FAA would never allow something with a single point of failure. Single pilot, with a remote capability, with multiple redundancies, would be the minimum they would consider initially. In my opinion at least.

[dream big]

34 minutes ago, Inertia17 said:

My statement was overly general, I should have been more specific. And while human error is the leading cause of accidents, aviation will continue to be about redundancy for risk mitigation. The time where they entrust an aircraft to remote piloting, or even single pilot is likely still many years off. The FAA would never allow something with a single point of failure. Single pilot, with a remote capability, with multiple redundancies, would be the minimum they would consider initially. In my opinion at least.

"Single pilot, with a remote capability, with multiple redundancies, would be the minimum they would consider initially. In my opinion at least."

Yepp, still seeing zero cost savings here.  You still have to pay for that pilot (potentially more because of Unions and the hardship of sitting on your ass by yourself for 14 hours from DFW to NRT), you still have to pay for that remote pilot on the ground, you still have to pay for the "redundancy" and not to mention the means to mitigate the retarded risk of single or remote piloted airlines.  

Not to mention, human error is still very much in the chain.  Why are we still talking about this? I'm sure some socially awkward engineer type living in his parents' basement is having wet dreams about this, but let's be real here. 

[Sprkt69]

15 hours ago, pawnman said:

I'd get into that car.  I'm not sure I trust planes that much yet.  A computer-driven car will never be subject to human error.  

That's fake news, very fake news. Computers are programmed by humans, and the current self driving cars are having difficulty driving with humans around. 

[nsplayr]

15 hours ago, pawnman said:

Two-dimensional space at 60 MPH is a lot easier to navigate than three-dimensional space at 400 KTS.

The complete opposite is true. Once you're over the speed where fatal accidents become more certain in a crash, it doesn't really matter if you hit something at 120mph closure or 400kts closure, you're still in a bad place.

On the ground, you're sometimes inches and often no more than a few feet away from numerous other objects, including other piloted vehicles whose drivers may or may not be paying attention. You're dealing with pedestrians, stray dogs, limited sightlines with no ability to see through the obstacle, confusing or missing road markings, and most of all, other idiot human drivers an arm's length away.

Compare that to IFR flying, where the roads are mostly straight and all well-marked, you're not anywhere near other objects (relatively speaking compared to driving), and all pilots in that environment are much more highly trained than your 16 year old daughter in a mustang talking on the phone.

Obviously I've simplified both environments, but you get the idea.

Controlled for volume, there's a reason that traveling by air is orders of magnitude safer than traveling by car. Flying is almost 96x safer depending on how you work the numbers, and that margin of safety isn't just because the airlines have two pink bodies up front rather than one.

Edit to add: Pilots can safely fly an RPA, even in a busy stack, with a 2-second delay in control inputs. Do you think you could remotely pilot your car through an urban commute with that same 2-second delay and maintain an acceptable safety record over time?

1 hour ago, Inertia17 said:

The FAA would never allow something with a single point of failure.

You mean like a single commercial pilot flying passengers in a single-engine airplane? Something that preposterous would never be allowed by the august regulators at the FAA!

Edited May 14, 2017 by nsplayr

[matmacwc]

14 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

 

Edit to add: Pilots can safely fly an RPA, even in a busy stack, with a 2-second delay in control inputs. Do you think you could remotely pilot your car through an urban commute with that same 2-second delay and maintain an acceptable safety record over time?

Pssst.  Shhh!  Pilots don't really fly RPA's.  Don't tell anyone.

[SocialD]

29 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

On the ground, you're sometimes inches and often no more than a few feet away from numerous other objects, including other piloted vehicles whose drivers may or may not be paying attention. You're dealing with pedestrians, stray dogs, limited sightlines with no ability to see through the obstacle, confusing or missing road markings, and most of all, other idiot human drivers an arm's length away.

Word...

 

[Inertia17]

1 hour ago, dream big said:

Yepp, still seeing zero cost savings here.  You still have to pay for that pilot (potentially more because of Unions and the hardship of sitting on your ass by yourself for 14 hours from DFW to NRT), you still have to pay for that remote pilot on the ground, you still have to pay for the "redundancy" and not to mention the means to mitigate the retarded risk of single or remote piloted airlines. 

That is what I was saying earlier, most you would save is $15-20 per ticket. Just not worth the effort at this stage.

1 hour ago, nsplayr said:

You mean like a single commercial pilot flying passengers in a single-engine airplane? Something that preposterous would never be allowed by the august regulators at the FAA!

Once again, too general by me. Referring to airline operations, not taking 6-9 people on a charter flight.

[nsplayr]

3 hours ago, Inertia17 said:

That is what I was saying earlier, most you would save is $15-20 per ticket. Just not worth the effort at this stage.

Just for shits and gigs, a savings of $15-20 per ticket, for US domestic passengers only, would be a savings of $17.9 billion dollars per year based on a 2015 total passenger volume of about 896 million. When you're dealing at this scale, saying you can save even $0.25 per passenger per year with no other externalities would be tremendous savings for the airlines.

So if your random ballpark was meant to demonstrate how the R&D required for more serious flight automation isn't worth the potential gains, I think it basically shows the opposite.

Edited May 14, 2017 by nsplayr

[Inertia17]

20 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

Just for shits and gigs, a savings of $15-20 per ticket, for US domestic passengers only, would be a savings of $17.9 billion dollars per year based on a 2015 total passenger volume of about 896 million. When you're dealing at this scale, saying you can save even $0.25 per passenger per year with no other externalities would be tremendous savings for the airlines.

So if your random ballpark was meant to demonstrate how the R&D required for more serious flight automation isn't worth the potential gains, I think it basically shows the opposite.

Assuming you get the passengers willing to go without that extra crew member/no crew for that $15-20 saving, instead of flying with a fully crewed airline. That original ballpark was said in response to gaining market share by offering tickets at 25-50% less than current rate (suggested by Guardian), which would not be possible with such a small saving.

[Guardian]

I wish we could give thumbs down on the app.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[BFM this]

5 minutes ago, Guardian said:

I wish we could give thumbs down on the app.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

Just switch over to your browser (chrome, safari, etc) and click it there.

[Orbit]

[Herk Driver]

What's wrong with the AF is getting sidelined on automation discussions...

Back to your regularly scheduled topic.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[DirtyFlightSuit]

How about the HAF/A3 acting amazed that is was neigh impossible to wash out UPT students because wing/CC keep sending them back?  Or that he thinks allowing a washout T-38 student go into T-1's.  Without getting into a T-38/T-1 what is harder pissing match, I've seen some of the best (sarcasm) that Shepard has to offer in T-38 track to heavy students, and I'm sure they would have struggled there as well.  Overall when at UPT it was apparent that leadership was more concerned with pure pilot production numbers than maintaining any kind of "quality" product, while paying lip service to holding the bar high.  The same at PIT for that matter, more PIT students showing up with questionable FEF and even more questionable ability being pushed on the UPT bases.  But it is okay wing leadership still thinks that we can increase production and not reduce quality some how.   Though to be honest our quality issue right now is not due to work load, but quality of inbound students and inability to wash them out. 

 

Hopefully this gets us back on track... The point being that big blue doesn't trust its own instructors to call a shit product (UPT or PIT Student) what it is and wash it out.   Or more likely its not a trust issue but a don't give two shits issue since bean counters would throw a fit if their numbers are upset any further.

Edited May 15, 2017 by DirtyFlightSuit

[Sprkt69]

2 hours ago, DirtyFlightSuit said:

How about the HAF/A3 acting amazed that is was neigh impossible to wash out UPT students because wing/CC keep sending them back?  Or that he thinks allowing a washout T-38 student go into T-1's.  Without getting into a T-38/T-1 what is harder pissing match, I've seen some of the best (sarcasm) that Shepard has to offer in T-38 track to heavy students, and I'm sure they would have struggled there as well.  Overall when at UPT it was apparent that leadership was more concerned with pure pilot production numbers than maintaining any kind of "quality" product, while paying lip service to holding the bar high.  The same at PIT for that matter, more PIT students showing up with questionable FEF and even more questionable ability being pushed on the UPT bases.  But it is okay wing leadership still thinks that we can increase production and not reduce quality some how.   Though to be honest our quality issue right now is not due to work load, but quality of inbound students and inability to wash them out. 

 

Hopefully this gets us back on track... The point being that big blue doesn't trust its own instructors to call a shit product (UPT or PIT Student) what it is and wash it out.   Or more likely its not a trust issue but a don't give two shits issue since bean counters would throw a fit if their numbers are upset any further.

I'll just add what the ACC A3 said 7 years ago, they "will accept the risks." However, the current slides going up about the risks for cutting short B-Course said there was no risk from the change. That's your upper management working for you

[Seriously]

4 hours ago, Sprkt69 said:

I'll just add what the ACC A3 said 7 years ago, they "will accept the risks." However, the current slides going up about the risks for cutting short B-Course said there was no risk from the change. That's your upper management working for you

Ha! We had a conversation the other day at the squadron level about how much risk HHQ is buying with the reduced experience. It isn't just less experienced b-coursers these days. We also have very inexperienced IPs (technically experienced by the AFI).

[norskman]

47 minutes ago, Seriously said:

We also have very inexperienced IPs (technically experienced by the AFI).

THIS. We (HH-60s) have dudes going through IPUG with only 600 hrs in the machine, time will only tell concerning the health of my community in ~5 years. 

[HU&W]

10 hours ago, Sprkt69 said:

I'll just add what the ACC A3 said 7 years ago, they "will accept the risks." However, the current slides going up about the risks for cutting short B-Course said there was no risk from the change. That's your upper management working for you

In those seven years, how many times has ACC/A3 accepted the blame for the outcomes of accepting the risk?  How many AIB/SIB listed their risk acceptance as Causal?  Once we start seeing risk acceptance -> outcome -> blame -> updated risk decision, it'll be more than just words.

[TreeA10]

After reading rancormacs' financial debacle, I think that should be added as an example of what is wrong with the AF.  Failing to properly pay your people or making that process incredibly complicated is absolute BS.  Step one to good leadership is taking care of your people.

[BashiChuni]

1 hour ago, TreeA10 said:

After reading rancormacs' financial debacle, I think that should be added as an example of what is wrong with the AF.  Failing to properly pay your people or making that process incredibly complicated is absolute BS.  Step one to good leadership is taking care of your people.

Yes. 100%. 

Finance is universally terrible 

[Weezer]

Saw this post on Reddit...interesting pre-command prep strategy.

Edited May 15, 2017 by Weezer
Added picture...derp

[Napoleon_Tanerite]

On 5/12/2017 at 8:35 AM, Guardian said:

 

I think right this second you are right. Until the airlines fix the pilot shortage with drone and remotely operated options to their problem. Then we will have a pilot job crisis just like 9/11. It's coming. And if you don't think so just check out how much research is being done and funded by who. Necessity is the mother of invention. Both airlines and the Air Force need right now.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

 

I would be shocked if the airlines automated people carrying operations.  They could save some coins on pilot salary, but the first time one of those automated airplanes crashes and kills a couple hundred people, that company will be sued into the stone age, regardless if the droid was the reason the plane went down.  Now, FedEx, UPS, Atlas, etc may very well go automated, but not likely within most of our remaining flying years.

[war007afa]

On 5/14/2017 at 0:00 PM, Inertia17 said:

That is what I was saying earlier, most you would save is $15-20 per ticket. Just not worth the effort at this stage.

Once again, too general by me. Referring to airline operations, not taking 6-9 people on a charter flight.

You do realize an extra $15-20 per ticket TRIPLES TO QUADRUPLES the airline profit margin, right?

http://www.iata.org/pressroom/pr/Pages/2016-12-08-01.aspx