kc135driver

Not directed at you Tanker-driver-

Oh boy, here we go, more "it's military so civilian procedures/manual/pilots are irrelevant" AMC mantra. So what this means, and I am purely speculating, we will end up with 767 without reversers, auto brakes or auto land, slap on a quasi KC-135 checklist that is takes at least 45 minutes to complete because we want to try to "standardize training from the 135 to KC46 to save money", and meanwhile not even bother consulting the civilian world because what do they know?

As most know, civilian pilots fly multiple models of the 757/767 in any given month and the differences course to the 787 is a matter of days. Here's a clue, as somebody already alluded to, AMC, just pick a 767 checklist from any major US airline, add in an AR checklist or two, and start up an FTU advertising for 75/76 part-timers. Oh, and make it near a major airport, not out in the middle of BFO.

Whatever you do, do not send it to Altus.

This isn't rocket science, but AD AF will sure try to make it.

Rant over-

KC

Tanker-driver

You'll find little argument from this FTU IP. I was pulling for this place to be BRAC'd last time around. I think the AF would do well to bring in talent from all communities (to include guard/reserves) as it writes the tech orders and AFIs for the 46. Lots of buffoonery/poor wording/archaic procedures that don't need to be there with the new jet. That said, there will be systems and capabilities that have no precident either in civil 767 ops or current tanker ops that will require a ground up look. BUT...all that is moot if we don't get the jets. Lets hope the DOD understands that the new tanker needs to be prioritized over the train wreck called F-35.

CAFB 04-12

I thought engineers wrote the T.O.s. ? Why would the AF be writing T.O.s? AFIs I get.

kc135driver

I'm not exactly sure the process for a new airframe, but the -135 has a regular/sometimes irregular FMRC process where anybody who has a stake in a 847 or anything else can join and try to effect the process. It is far removed from the engineers, except as SMEs. Problem is, there is little continuity, especially as the platform gets long on the tooth. If any thing else, the process does not produce the best product, either from a performance or human factor process. Our checklists absolutely suck. There I said it

Maybe somebody in the know can chime in on the -46 process.

Tanker-driver- Completely agree, I'll never see it, just hope DoD doesn't reduce the # of tails.


Frats-

KC

Indy

I bet if you found out who your T.O. Manager was, it will be a retired toad. BTW, your MAJCOM stan/eval will have final say on all T.O. revisions and great input on initial publication.