What's wrong with the Air Force?

[Lord Ratner]

I'm not in anymore, but my opinion was always that if you're not willing to fly under allowable circumstances, then you're not allowed to fly at all. If you don't trust yourself to fly to the training standard, which are the regulatory minimums, what else aren't you comfortable with that you might encounter?

 

Every once in awhile in the kc-135 someone would say that they won't do a 50 flap landing. They'd gotten so complacent with 40 flap landings that they somehow convinced themselves it was unsafe to do the landing the plane was designed for. Eventually 50 flap landings were added as a required currency item, but it was always a fun conversation with someone asking them why they weren't skilled enough Pilots to fly the plane in accordance with SOP.

Edited November 4, 2021 by Lord Ratner

[CaptainMorgan]

Mins in UPT (AETC) are ceiling and vis. Mins in ACC are ceiling and vis. Mins in AMC are vis only for straight ins (but most AMC pilots never figure that out and keep spewing this 200-1/2 bullshit). What are the mins to fly this approach in AMC?

https://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/2111/00150IL6.PDF

Looks like 1800 RVR to me. In the C-17, I’ve never done a T&G in anything other than VMC because we don’t often do instrument approaches on locals.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[di1630]

A decade or so ago. A fighter guy at UPT was at the ops desk upset because weather was at mins (alternate was VFR) and he said he wasn’t going to fly.

I took his jet instead, never understood why anyone argues a black and white item like mins. You are qual’d or not.

[jazzdude]

Looks like 1800 RVR to me. In the C-17, I’ve never done a T&G in anything other than VMC because we don’t often do instrument approaches on locals.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

1800 RVR assuming you have the equipment operable to go below 2400 RVR

I take it you've never been through Altus in the winter if you haven't done an IMC T&G in the C-17

[Sua Sponte]

3 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

I'm not in anymore, but my opinion was always that if you're not willing to fly under allowable circumstances, then you're not allowed to fly at all. If you don't trust yourself to fly to the training standard, which are the regulatory minimums, what else aren't you comfortable with that you might encounter?

 

Every once in awhile in the kc-135 someone would say that they won't do a 50 flap landing. They'd gotten so complacent with 40 flap landings that they somehow convinced themselves it was unsafe to do the landing the plane was designed for. Eventually 50 flap landings were added as a required currency item, but it was always a fun conversation with someone asking them why they weren't skilled enough Pilots to fly the plane in accordance with SOP.

Which is funny to me since 30 and 50 flap landings were the norm until about 2010. Having someone do a 40 flap landing before then would elicit a weird look.

[Bigred]

13 hours ago, joe1234 said:

Look, I'll take weather down to mins any day of the week (what can I say, I'm a badass), but if you put a PIC's name on the flight authorization, then the decision to go or not yours; it's his. Doesn't matter if you think he's being weak, or isn't living up to his qualification level, or whatever else. The only opinion that matters is the PIC's. Doesn't matter if it's 300-3/4 or CAVOK. It's his prerogative.

Either cut a new authorization with a new PIC, or deal with it. You don't like how he makes decisions? Stop putting him on flights. Maybe there's another conversation to be had with that guy's unit commander, but lol if he's a guard dude, because nobody is going to believe some deployed active duty DO nerd over one of their own experienced EPs.

Using the weather example above, if a PIC says no to flying with 300 & 3/4 when the mins are 200 & 1/2, I’ll back up his decision and he doesn’t fly that day. I’d also recommend he lose his PIC designation and needs to go through requal.

Edited November 5, 2021 by Bigred

[Lord Ratner]

26 minutes ago, Bigred said:

Using the weather example above, if a PIC says no to flying with 300 & 3/4 when the mins are 200 & 1/2, I’ll back up his decision and he doesn’t fly that day. I’d also recommend he lose his PIC designation and needs to go through requal.

Shack

[HeloDude]

14 hours ago, joe1234 said:

Look, I'll take weather down to mins any day of the week (what can I say, I'm a badass), but if you put a PIC's name on the flight authorization, then the decision to go or not yours; it's his. Doesn't matter if you think he's being weak, or isn't living up to his qualification level, or whatever else. The only opinion that matters is the PIC's. Doesn't matter if it's 300-3/4 or CAVOK. It's his prerogative.

Either cut a new authorization with a new PIC, or deal with it. You don't like how he makes decisions? Stop putting him on flights. Maybe there's another conversation to be had with that guy's unit commander, but lol if he's a guard dude, because nobody is going to believe some deployed active duty DO nerd over one of their own experienced EPs.

Air Force pilot:  I don’t feel comfortable flying a mission I was told to fly because I perceive risks that could possibly jeopardize my safety and it doesn’t matter that my leadership thinks it’s totally safe to go fly.

Air Force pilot:  I don’t feel comfortable getting a new vaccine that I was told to take because I perceive risks that could possibly jeopardize my safety and it doesn’t matter that my leadership thinks it’s totally safe to take. 
 

Either we trust our people to be able to make their own call when it comes to their safety and how it affects the mission or we don’t.

Full disclosure—I think if you’re in the military and are ordered to get the covid shot then that’s part of the job, whether I personally like it or not, and if you refuse when the leadership thinks it’s safe, then there should be consequences. Likewise if you’re ordered to fly a mission you’re qualified to fly and you refuse, and leadership thinks it’s safe, then there should be adverse consequences.

[arg]

I remember back in the day when I learned you could take off from an airfield that didn't have landing mins as long as you had an alternate that did. Seemed weird. But I lived to fly another day.

[FLEA]

11 hours ago, HeloDude said:

Air Force pilot:  I don’t feel comfortable flying a mission I was told to fly because I perceive risks that could possibly jeopardize my safety and it doesn’t matter that my leadership thinks it’s totally safe to go fly.

Air Force pilot:  I don’t feel comfortable getting a new vaccine that I was told to take because I perceive risks that could possibly jeopardize my safety and it doesn’t matter that my leadership thinks it’s totally safe to take. 
 

Either we trust our people to be able to make their own call when it comes to their safety and how it affects the mission or we don’t.

Full disclosure—I think if you’re in the military and are ordered to get the covid shot then that’s part of the job, whether I personally like it or not, and if you refuse when the leadership thinks it’s safe, then there should be consequences. Likewise if you’re ordered to fly a mission you’re qualified to fly and you refuse, and leadership thinks it’s safe, then there should be adverse consequences.

Well, leadership recently ordered a crew at Tinker to fly a mission that by the book was legal but in reality was stupidly non-sensible. 

To me that's the role of the AC. If you're go/no-go factors as an AC are simply whether or not its legal by the book to take off or land, than we are paying you too much. Fuck the Nav can look in a book and tell you if you have the mins or not. I would say the guy at the TMO desk could do it but I don't think they've ever cracked and AFI in their life so I won't go there.

Anyway, the AC is there when by all accounts you should be allowed to do something, but for whatever extenuating circumstances or factors that guidance doesnt capture, its just a really stupid idea. 

[CaptainMorgan]

Same pay for zero responsibility sounds like a hell of a deal to me.

Need those PIC hours for later. Also, you could be looking at an FEB.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LookieRookie]

22 minutes ago, FLEA said:

Well, leadership recently ordered a crew at Tinker to fly a mission that by the book was legal but in reality was stupidly non-sensible. 

 

The crew members didn’t have adequate rest. It was not legal.

[FourFans]

On 11/4/2021 at 9:24 AM, Lord Ratner said:

I'm not in anymore, but my opinion was always that if you're not willing to fly under allowable circumstances, then you're not allowed to fly at all.

On 11/4/2021 at 9:28 AM, CaptainMorgan said:

Looks like 1800 RVR to me. In the C-17...

On 11/4/2021 at 10:19 AM, di1630 said:

A decade or so ago. A fighter guy at UPT was at the ops desk upset because weather was at mins...

13 hours ago, Bigred said:

Using the weather example above, if a PIC says no to flying with 300 & 3/4 when the mins are 200 & 1/2, I’ll back up his decision blah blah blah....

11 hours ago, HeloDude said:

Air Force pilot:  I don’t feel comfortable flying...

1 hour ago, joe1234 said:

Same pay for zero responsibility sounds like a hell of a deal to me.

41 minutes ago, FLEA said:

Well, leadership recently ordered a crew at Tinker to fly a mission that by the book was legal but in reality was stupidly non-sensible.

39 minutes ago, CaptainMorgan said:

Need those PIC hours for later

Curtis Lemay is turning over in his grave and muttering something to the effect: They're F'ing clouds.  Fly through them and get the F'ing job done like warriors should!  Don't bring it weak, you weak dick pussies!

[Alpharatz]

10 minutes ago, FourFans130 said:

Curtis Lemay is turning over in his grave and muttering something to the effect: They're F'ing clouds.  Fly through them and get the F'ing job done like warriors should!  Don't bring it weak, you weak dick pussies!

Yeah dammit...that's what B-29's are for...now git...

[FourFans]

57 minutes ago, Alpharatz said:

Yeah dammit...that's what B-29's are for...now git...

In my civil life, I operate a plane that will land itself in bad weather.  Why on earth is weather even a discussion topic in military aviation at this point?  It should be motherhood that in a briefing would sound like: "we'll autoland if needed, standard, next?"

I know.  I know.  I also fly basic female dog airplanes in the reserve... 

I'm just saying, Lemay would be very sad at the state of how our military leverages tech right now...rightly so...

[FLEA]

1 hour ago, LookieRookie said:

The crew members didn’t have adequate rest. It was not legal.

From what I've heard, they had 12 hours with 8 hours opportunity to sleep. That's totally legal. 

[FLEA]

6 minutes ago, FourFans130 said:

In my civil life, I operate a plane that will land itself in bad weather.  Why on earth is weather even a discussion topic in military aviation at this point?  It should be motherhood that in a briefing would sound like: "we'll autoland if needed, standard, next?"

I know.  I know.  I also fly basic female dog airplanes in the reserve... 

I'm just saying, Lemay would be very sad at the state of how our military leverages tech right now...rightly so...

Largely because we're still flying with avionics manufactured in the cold war probably. 

[StoleIt]

36 minutes ago, FourFans130 said:

In my civil life, I operate a plane that will land itself in bad weather.  Why on earth is weather even a discussion topic in military aviation at this point?  It should be motherhood that in a briefing would sound like: "we'll autoland if needed, standard, next?"

How many non-civ military only fields even have a CATIII approach? Andrews is the only one I can think of.

[ThreeHoler]

Ramstein. But you don’t always need a Cat III approach to autoland.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[Stoker]

8 hours ago, FourFans130 said:

In my civil life, I operate a plane that will land itself in bad weather.  Why on earth is weather even a discussion topic in military aviation at this point?  It should be motherhood that in a briefing would sound like: "we'll autoland if needed, standard, next?"

I know.  I know.  I also fly basic female dog airplanes in the reserve... 

I'm just saying, Lemay would be very sad at the state of how our military leverages tech right now...rightly so...

This isn't exactly news, look up the air mail scandal for an early example of military aviation lagging behind civilian when it comes to flying in weather. 

[CaptainMorgan]

If dude was already an IP, he's probably good on PIC hours. And then, what, FEB a guy because he made a safety of flight call the CC didn't like, despite an otherwise unblemished flying record?
1. The board would laugh and reinstate the pilot immediately.
2. Everyone in his chain would get embarrassed and look like jackasses.
3. The CC would lose all trust and credibility with his instructor corps over such a pointless and petty decision to pull the qual.
4. It'd make a great story at an airline/guard unit interview about being committed to safety in a toxic flying culture. Active duty is notorious for that BS and I assure you being a yes-man PIC is NOT seen as an attractive quality on the outside.

I totally agree with the AWACS crews’ decisions. Your suggestion that he revert to being an FP is what could cause an FEB. I don’t know of anyone who has voluntarily regressed in qualification. The one or two that I know who were Commander Directed downgraded in quals were expected to requal to IP. Failure to upgrade can lead to an FEB.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HeloDude]

6 hours ago, joe1234 said:

1. The board would laugh and reinstate the pilot immediately.

A board can’t reinstate, take away wings, etc.  The board merely makes recommendations and the MAJCOM CC (or delegated authority) has the call.  Off the top of my head I’m aware of two instances where the board recommended one action and the final authority did the opposite—in these two cases I’m referring to, one board recommended keep their wings and one didn’t.

I’m fortunately not an AMC guy, where I have heard stories of guys getting Q3’d for minor issues/things mostly beyond their control, but I have seen some serious buffoonery and just overall weak flying abilities not met with adequate consequences (ie some sort of Q3).  I’ve been a school house IP a couple times and have seen studs only receive a downgrade on an eval for something clearly outside the realm of Q1 criteria…this has more so been evident over the last few years vs 10-15 years ago.  
 

To the discussion above regarding the E-3 debacle a few months ago, I’m all for an AC saying the risk factors don’t justify the mission, but this should never be met with “whatever you say, it’s your call”/no repercussions, regardless of the situation.  If you’re an AC and you refuse to fly (first off, you’re probably better to QC your decision with some other/older experienced guys/gals if you can), then that decision should always be reviewed by leadership afterwards…and if you made a solid call, then I’m fairly confident any “decent” leadership will back you up and there’s no repercussions.  But if someone is canceling just because they don’t want to deal with some extra work or challenges (ie they might have to divert on a local training sortie) then those decisions need to be met with some conversations/possible adverse actions. I’ve been sitting ops sup and kindly tried to “understand” why guys didn’t want to go fly and I always said you have the final call but I’ll have to report it to the DO, etc…funny how if I started questioning why they didn’t want to fly (because I and others wouldn’t have canceled) most guys would decide to go.  

[tac airlifter]

1 hour ago, joe1234 said:

 

Not surprising...most active duty pilots live in constant fear for their careers, and thus are easily intimidated. Which I always thought was kinda sad. Oh well.. sucks to suck.

That has certainly not been my experience or observation in AFSOC.  Is that a mobility thing?

[SocialD]

I've cancelled a few times when wx was technically legal to fly, both as the Flight Lead and the OPS SUP said go, and as the OPS SUP when the Flight leads were willing to go.  There have been plenty of times where it's much more prudent to not fly that day.  Realize you may have to do some explaining, but I've never once been threatened with loss of quals.  Even if I had, it wouldn't have changed my mind, especially for a daily CT line....lol make me a wingman only (twoop!).  If you said you'd have to "report it to the DO," I'd say sure thing, let's walk down there right now....hell, get the SQ/CC and OG if you want, I don't really care.  Once you've been a FL/AC/OPS SUP for a while, you start to learn what really matters and what doesn't.  I'm all for going out and getting some good experience/lessons learned, but there are plenty of times where, even if the weather is technically legal, the gain does not outweigh the loss/potential risk.  It gets even easier when you have the option to cancel and go fly that mission in a sim.

[HeloDude]

8 hours ago, joe1234 said:

Not surprising...most active duty pilots live in constant fear for their careers, and thus are easily intimidated. Which I always thought was kinda sad. Oh well.. sucks to suck.

How dare someone have to explain their decision why they can’t do their job when others (trained exactly the same way) can.  Accountability is so tough these days…kind of sad.  Sucks to suck  I guess.