Search

Notices
Military Military Aviation

C17 question.

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 08-31-2021 | 06:51 PM
  #11  
maxing the min/Moderator
20 Years
 
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,605
Likes: 15
From: 757
Default

Originally Posted by USMCFLYR
Moose -

I'm going to guess the latter half of your statement.
This is probably a HIGHLIGHT of anyone's career in strat lift I'd imagine.
Humanitarian lift - especially under such conditions as these - has to be high on the list of major career satisfaction and something that I bet those crews will be telling their grandkids about.

LIVES SAVED PERIOD.
Aeromedical Evacuation is very rewarding also
Reply
Old 09-01-2021 | 02:53 PM
  #12  
DustoffVT's Avatar
Sequester bait
 
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 282
Likes: 2
From: UH-60, AS-350, C-550
Default

Agreed. Not only was dustoff personally rewarding (saving soldiers/airman/marines from all over) but also a major way to gain the trust of a skeptical populace. Many many of our patients were locals who had no other option. Humanitarian flying was something I wasn't expecting but what I think about the most.

At CBP, same thing. Surveillance work rarely pays off in the moment. Federal investigations take forever. But an SAR is an immediate benefit to my community which builds massive goodwill.
Reply
Old 09-05-2021 | 07:39 PM
  #13  
New Hire
 
Joined: Sep 2021
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Default Weighing the benefits and negatives

A few questions, 1. First of all, why is guard bumming looked down upon? 2. I would like to be able to fly as much as possible while serving and realize reserves is the way to go but I would like some help understanding the difference in potential hours someone who guard bums a c-17 vs kc-135 could earn. 3. Lastly if down the line if I wanted to change locations, how easily could someone switch from let's say a reserve kc-135 unit switch to a guard c-17 unit or vice versa?, or is that just plain stupid and not possible?, thanks to anyone willing to take the time to answer my questions (:
Reply
Old 09-05-2021 | 08:05 PM
  #14  
rickair7777's Avatar
Prime Minister/Moderator
Veteran: Navy
 
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 44,864
Likes: 659
From: Engines Turn or People Swim
Default

Originally Posted by Whew
A few questions, 1. First of all, why is guard bumming looked down upon?
I hadn't heard that. If the mil has work that's legit enough to be funded they are happy to have you. The airlines are happy with any and all mil time you bring to the table regardless of your status when you acquired it.

An airline will not be too excited about folks who do a lot of mil drop but there's really nothing they can do about it.

At the application/interview phase, there's nuance (which probably hurt me). They might be less excited about you if they think you're looking forward to decades of extensive mil drop and long-term AD. If they get the impression that you're looking forward to getting on with a major, tapering off the mil to the min, and settling down to enjoy normal life that might work in your favor.

Originally Posted by Whew
3. Lastly if down the line if I wanted to change locations, how easily could someone switch from let's say a reserve kc-135 unit switch to a guard c-17 unit or vice versa?, or is that just plain stupid and not possible?, thanks to anyone willing to take the time to answer my questions (:
It's possible, availability would depend on staffing and outflow from the AD. Any unit will naturally prefer someone who's current in type. Probably be in your favor if both units are in the same state (guard likes locals, although some units are too remote to be picky).
Reply
Old 09-06-2021 | 05:37 AM
  #15  
galaxy flyer's Avatar
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 5,244
Likes: 2
From: Baja Vermont
Default

Originally Posted by Whew
A few questions, 1. First of all, why is guard bumming looked down upon?

Buns are essential to any unit with heavy operational tastings like airlift. Problem comes when, in poor times, lots of bums looking for pay; in good times no bums to fly the missions. Having 10 bums is the same problem in reverse as having 1.


2. I would like to be able to fly as much as possible while serving and realize reserves is the way to go but I would like some help understanding the difference in potential hours someone who guard bums a c-17 vs kc-135 could earn.

Heavies typically have greater call for bums and more HHQ-directed missions that must be flown. When TACC calls asking for “how many missions can you operate in 24 hours?” You need bums. Some C-17 units are heavily manned with AD crews for this reason. March was about 50% AD at one time.

3. Lastly if down the line if I wanted to change locations, how easily could someone switch from let's say a reserve kc-135 unit switch to a guard c-17 unit or vice versa?, or is that just plain stupid and not possible?, thanks to anyone willing to take the time to answer my questions

Yes, possible .

(:
Filler, posted inside the quoted
Reply
Old 09-07-2021 | 11:47 PM
  #16  
C17B74's Avatar
Line Holder
 
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 1,607
Likes: 4
From: No Hats No Jackets No PAX
Default

Guard Bumming was fantastic as I did it for nearly three years before securing a mil full time gig. As a former Chief of Scheduling my Guard Bums were crucial to executing our mission sets when activated or not, during lean times or not. The experience level varies and can help immensely when required. Regarding Air Evac, definitely one of the most rewarding missions out there. Our unit did the majority of dedicated Air Evac to/from Iraq/Afghanistan than any other ANG unit from 2002-2012 before I left to a D.C. tour. Other infamous runs aside from OIF/OEF, Hurricane Katrina, Haiti, Tomodachi (Japan Earthquake/Nuclear Reactor issue), one mission into China transporting L.A. firefighters for earthquake rescue - Very fulfilling, humbling and greatful to be a part of such humanitarian relief efforts. Towards the end of my mil career the airline was more than accommodating regarding mil leave. Major Kudos to all involved in the Afghanistan debacle, Top Leaders Suck! To those given the sh*t sandwich = Planners, Crews and support You ALL Rock!!!
Reply
Old 09-08-2021 | 06:03 AM
  #17  
Line Holder
 
Joined: Jun 2014
Posts: 216
Likes: 14
Default

Originally Posted by HalinTexas
They didn't seem to be in a hurry in the pics. I understand keeping the engines running so you can get out quickly, but FOD and other injury might seem to be a concern. Besides, the thrust blockers only block the fan not the core. But, whatever ya'll say.
Both fan and core have blocker doors on the 17. If an ERO is performed, they would be in reverse for a ramp onload. Some guys (myself included) will shut down with the T/Rs deployed in windy conditions (or if windy conditions are expected while parked overnight) to reduce the fan windmilling that can occur with a strong tailwind. As far as I know, it's not a -1 procedure, but it's what I learned from some smart dudes/dudettes.
Reply
Old 09-08-2021 | 06:55 AM
  #18  
rickair7777's Avatar
Prime Minister/Moderator
Veteran: Navy
 
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 44,864
Likes: 659
From: Engines Turn or People Swim
Default

Originally Posted by Fuseplug
Both fan and core have blocker doors on the 17. If an ERO is performed, they would be in reverse for a ramp onload. Some guys (myself included) will shut down with the T/Rs deployed in windy conditions (or if windy conditions are expected while parked overnight) to reduce the fan windmilling that can occur with a strong tailwind. As far as I know, it's not a -1 procedure, but it's what I learned from some smart dudes/dudettes.
Have to admit that I always wondered why it's OK for the N1 spool to spin freely (maybe backwards) for hours on end when parked in a stiff breeze without any oil flow.
Reply
Old 02-06-2022 | 10:12 AM
  #19  
On Reserve
 
Joined: Feb 2022
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
From: C-17 IP
Default

Originally Posted by HoursHore
Considering they’re at Kabul with no Maint and no huffers, they probably left them running to avoid the slight possibility that they wouldn’t start again.
100% correct. We had FCC's but no dedicated mx ground support and a broken jet would have destroyed the ground flow for offload/onload ops. Also, the ability to taxi and takeoff at a moments notice was worth the minimal risk/negligible fuel burn of leaving the engines running.
Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Horizon513
Hangar Talk
5
08-08-2010 10:27 AM
RVSM Certified
Flight Schools and Training
22
02-27-2009 12:04 PM
USMCFLYR
Hangar Talk
3
08-23-2008 08:37 PM
cargo hopeful
Cargo
21
03-05-2006 06:12 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices