Points to Ponder
07-15-2009 | 02:55 PM
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
[QUOTE=USMCFLYR;645002]
I wasn't suggesting that CRM doesn't exist in the A/C, just that it is (or should be) different than the D. Same applies for different series C-130s and I suspect will apply to the P-3/P-8.
Maybe there's some DC-10/MD-11 or 747-200/747-400/800 pilots out there who could offer their perspective of the CRM change when operating with an advanced technology flightdeck v. a FE.
If it was then I would have to agree at some point. 
There was something in the mag about the Gunship study for the C-130J. Looks like they are trying to upgrade the HC/MC-130J to J model gunships. They are basing it off of the USMC KC-130J tanker varient.
Now, now - we still have CRM in the A/C models
USMCFLYR
There was something in the mag about the Gunship study for the C-130J. Looks like they are trying to upgrade the HC/MC-130J to J model gunships. They are basing it off of the USMC KC-130J tanker varient.
Now, now - we still have CRM in the A/C models
USMCFLYR
Maybe there's some DC-10/MD-11 or 747-200/747-400/800 pilots out there who could offer their perspective of the CRM change when operating with an advanced technology flightdeck v. a FE.
07-15-2009 | 06:31 PM
#12
Libertarian Resistance
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,057
Likes: 0
From: 757 FO
To me, it looks like a 767 with a KC-135 boom. That being said, the Italian KC-767 looks a lot like the Japanese airplane....yet somehow, Boeing had flutter and refueling problems with the Italian airplane, and I believe it is 3 or 4 years behind schedule.
As far as I can tell, the only thing different about it (from a KC-135) is the Boomer is not in a freezing-cold pod by the boom...he's up-front, and doing it with a camera.
And I don't see how that could be better. More comfortable for the Boomer, yes. More accurate and fewer boom-strikes---I would think not.
I don't understand how Boeing---with a boom-refueling history that goes back to the KC-97 and B-47, circa about 1948, can have such trouble using the same idea on a 25-year old 767 design. Re-inventing the wheel....poorly.
KC-135 guys, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you lose your F/Es as well about 10 years back?
I enjoyed being an FE on 727s, and yes, it could add to the crew efficiency/CRM, but I didn't sense a loss in the A-320 or 747-400 without one, either.
That doesn't add up. I flew into Sapporo in a 747-200 (1998), and there were F-15Js flying into either the same airport, or one within 4 miles.
Is this the Twin-Turboprop? If so, a huge waste of money. A friend of mine has gone Coastal and is flying the Falcon. He tells me the Ocean Sentry costs (if I remember correctly) $120 million each.
The basic airframe would be worth around 20 million, tops. Could they possibly put 100 million in life rafts aboard?
It is the most expensive acquisition in Coast Guard history, is overbudget, and I think, late. My bud tells me that EADS was hired to find the best replacement aircraft and manage the CG's logistics. Guess what? EADS said the best solution was to buy their aircraft, and hire them for logistics.
Another self-licking ice-cream cone. Another Marine-One debacle (replacement Presidential aircraft).
Been done before in 1968. It is called the OV-10 Bronco. Bring 'em back!!! (The D-model is a good airplane for this type of Op; the A-model is a death-trap).
I think yes. It is some model of King Air.
---------------------
So.....some good discussions topics if anyone cares to take a crack at one or two of them.
USMCFLYR
As far as I can tell, the only thing different about it (from a KC-135) is the Boomer is not in a freezing-cold pod by the boom...he's up-front, and doing it with a camera.
And I don't see how that could be better. More comfortable for the Boomer, yes. More accurate and fewer boom-strikes---I would think not.
I don't understand how Boeing---with a boom-refueling history that goes back to the KC-97 and B-47, circa about 1948, can have such trouble using the same idea on a 25-year old 767 design. Re-inventing the wheel....poorly.
KC-135 guys, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you lose your F/Es as well about 10 years back?
I enjoyed being an FE on 727s, and yes, it could add to the crew efficiency/CRM, but I didn't sense a loss in the A-320 or 747-400 without one, either.
That doesn't add up. I flew into Sapporo in a 747-200 (1998), and there were F-15Js flying into either the same airport, or one within 4 miles.
Is this the Twin-Turboprop? If so, a huge waste of money. A friend of mine has gone Coastal and is flying the Falcon. He tells me the Ocean Sentry costs (if I remember correctly) $120 million each.
The basic airframe would be worth around 20 million, tops. Could they possibly put 100 million in life rafts aboard?
It is the most expensive acquisition in Coast Guard history, is overbudget, and I think, late. My bud tells me that EADS was hired to find the best replacement aircraft and manage the CG's logistics. Guess what? EADS said the best solution was to buy their aircraft, and hire them for logistics.
Another self-licking ice-cream cone. Another Marine-One debacle (replacement Presidential aircraft).
Been done before in 1968. It is called the OV-10 Bronco.
Bring 'em back!!! (The D-model is a good airplane for this type of Op; the A-model is a death-trap).I think yes. It is some model of King Air.
---------------------
So.....some good discussions topics if anyone cares to take a crack at one or two of them.
USMCFLYR
I am not familiar with the differences between the Italian andd Japanese tankers, nor am i familiar with the problems you mentioned--I'll do some research.
As to the FE issue--the tanker has never had them. Most of the FE type duties are done by the copilot, with some assistance from the Boom Operator. When we upgraded our avionics in the 1990s we lost most of our navs. Some remained in special ops and some who were in command positions. That transition from a 4 to 3 man crew was a CRM learning experience for the entire fleet. Boom operators, by and large, stepped up and became a CRM asset for responsibilities other than fuel panel/pax/cargo/refueling.
WW
07-15-2009 | 06:37 PM
#13
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 829
Likes: 0
The biggest learning curve for the KC-135 without the Nav (from the point of view of the receiver) was when we would watch the -135 drive down the track in the opposite direction without turning (or turning late when they realized they forgot the turn).
07-16-2009 | 05:12 AM
#14
Libertarian Resistance
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,057
Likes: 0
From: 757 FO
I was giving an ASEV check one time to a crew with an AC just back from a staff tour or two. He had flown tankers before, but never without a nav. The weather turned nasty on them as they were headed for the AR track. I noticed that the AC kept turning around and looking at me (in the jumpseat). Then I realized that he wasn't looking at me, he was looking for the Nav to tell him what to do. I don't think he realized he was doing it but he probably looked back in the direction of the Nav seat 4 or 5 times a minute until the weather/rendezvous issue was resolved.
WW
07-17-2009 | 10:11 AM
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,192
Likes: 10
From: Petting Zoo
Stop and think about that one for a minute and you'll have your answer.
When I go out to preflight jet in middle of Alaska winter it's always toasty warm. Why? Because mx troops aren't idiots. Why stand outside hyperthermic when they can fire up APU and sleep with feet up while waiting for us to show up (late)?
07-20-2009 | 06:18 AM
#16
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 428
Likes: 0
From: Various
RANT SWITCH - ON (P)
It's unbelievable to me that the Air Force is allowing this tanker debacle to carry on this long. I know that there are older planes in the inventory (B-52s for example) but by time we get a new tanker these KC-135s are going to be 75 years old or older! It seems like the father of the last tanker pilot hasn't been born yet! The fact is that someone will have to die before anyone in Congress and the Air Force takes this seriously. It's a damn shame.
Boeing or Airbus, I don't give two *****. Give us something that works. Anything. It's just like the stupid process for getting a new ABU or PT gear. Ponder and experiment for 10 years then mass produce a lousy excuse for a uniform that is neither useful nor comfortable. Oh, and make it out a fabric that traps heat against the body. Especially the desert kind of heat because we never fight in the desert anymore. And then ask airmen for feedback but tell them to quit complaining about it.
The Air Force is on a one-way street to a strategic disadvantage in this world. And not only because good people are sick of serving in the Air Force.
/RANT SWITCH - OFF (P)
It's unbelievable to me that the Air Force is allowing this tanker debacle to carry on this long. I know that there are older planes in the inventory (B-52s for example) but by time we get a new tanker these KC-135s are going to be 75 years old or older! It seems like the father of the last tanker pilot hasn't been born yet! The fact is that someone will have to die before anyone in Congress and the Air Force takes this seriously. It's a damn shame.
Boeing or Airbus, I don't give two *****. Give us something that works. Anything. It's just like the stupid process for getting a new ABU or PT gear. Ponder and experiment for 10 years then mass produce a lousy excuse for a uniform that is neither useful nor comfortable. Oh, and make it out a fabric that traps heat against the body. Especially the desert kind of heat because we never fight in the desert anymore. And then ask airmen for feedback but tell them to quit complaining about it.
The Air Force is on a one-way street to a strategic disadvantage in this world. And not only because good people are sick of serving in the Air Force.
/RANT SWITCH - OFF (P)
07-21-2009 | 03:55 PM
#17
On Reserve
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
From: Falcon 50EX Captain
I hear ya. We finally recaptilized our entire active duty USMC KC-130 fleet (majority were early 60s "F" models) with the new "J" model. I could write a book on the battles I fought as a young requirements officer while assigned to the Pentagon (Budgets, Congress, GAO, Navair, OPNAV staff, Washington Post, politicians, Defense Contractors etc.) It helped to have truly tired iron (115 percent fatigue life expended) and a good, consistent story to tell. Unfortunately, the lack of night vision equipped aircraft in our legacy fleet contributed to a deadly mishap in Afghanistan despite years of warning from the warfighters. Amazing how an accident and a couple of wars can accelerate funding and reshape priorities.
08-30-2009 | 03:12 PM
#18
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
08-30-2009 | 03:18 PM
#19
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 13,843
Likes: 1
From: FAA 'Flight Check'
You're just mad because I tried to make you look good by correcting your spelling 
I wish someone had been able to correct MY mistake - thanks for pointing it out though!
Welcome to the world of USAF terms.
I guess the AF's process for assigning the aircraft (the UPT drop from what I understand) is a much grander affair than you or I are familiar with in our experience. Sounds like a party similar to our winging - or maybe it is a winging and assigment party combined!
USMCFLYR
I wish someone had been able to correct MY mistake - thanks for pointing it out though!Welcome to the world of USAF terms.
I guess the AF's process for assigning the aircraft (the UPT drop from what I understand) is a much grander affair than you or I are familiar with in our experience. Sounds like a party similar to our winging - or maybe it is a winging and assigment party combined!
USMCFLYR
08-31-2009 | 03:08 PM
#20
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
You're just mad because I tried to make you look good by correcting your spelling I wish someone had been able to correct MY mistake - thanks for pointing it out though!
Welcome to the world of USAF terms.
I guess the AF's process for assigning the aircraft (the UPT drop from what I understand) is a much grander affair than you or I are familiar with in our experience. Sounds like a party similar to our winging - or maybe it is a winging and assigment party combined!
USMCFLYR
I wish someone had been able to correct MY mistake - thanks for pointing it out though!Welcome to the world of USAF terms.
I guess the AF's process for assigning the aircraft (the UPT drop from what I understand) is a much grander affair than you or I are familiar with in our experience. Sounds like a party similar to our winging - or maybe it is a winging and assigment party combined!
USMCFLYR
Well you asked earlier what I was flying; I guess KA-350ER would be the identifier.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
coldpilot
Money Talk
2
10-22-2008 12:37 PM
