Ameriflight
05-18-2014, 02:24 PM
#1902
Line Holder
Joined APC: May 2014
Posts: 99
Don't go there
Originally Posted by tbmpilot
One think I know is that if I see kimba's resume come across my hiring desk the poor writing and spelling will be painfully obvious #roundfile #nowhinersallowed
That's exactelly what i've been trying to say, so far.
Life at AMF will be miserable, no question asked and if you dare to speak up....
that's what's gonna happen, either you are fire or they make sure you are not hired anywhere else.
Let's not forget that recruiters know each other and if you are not in line with AMF, chance are that you won't get your next job.
No they won't write anything on your PRIA, they'll just call each other.
The best things to do is not have anything to do with AMF in first place!
If you have logged 1200hrs to go AMF keep doing whatever you are doing and log 1500 and than go for a reagional.
I promise I'll work on my spelling but it won't be to send you my resume.
05-18-2014, 04:45 PM
#1903
Banned
Joined APC: Jul 2012
Posts: 432
Anyone know the possibility of doing a base transfer. I.E OMA- SLC while staying in current equipment? New hires are going into into SLC, so I couldn't imagine it would be a issue to "trade" me into SLC, while a new hire into OMA.
Thoughts?
Thoughts?
05-18-2014, 04:55 PM
#1904
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2013
Posts: 196
Originally Posted by tbmpilot
One think I know is that if I see kimba's resume come across my hiring desk the poor writing and spelling will be painfully obvious #roundfile #nowhinersallowed
05-18-2014, 05:58 PM
#1905
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2011
Position: Any
Posts: 656
Originally Posted by Beech90
Anyone know the possibility of doing a base transfer. I.E OMA- SLC while staying in current equipment? New hires are going into into SLC, so I couldn't imagine it would be a issue to "trade" me into SLC, while a new hire into OMA.
Thoughts?
Thoughts?
If there is an opening in SLC that they plan to put a new hire in, then I think it might just be a matter of making sure everyone involved (both ACPs, BL and SH) is aware of it. Though I can't make any guarantees about that.
Part of the question would probably be, why move if it is just lateral?
05-18-2014, 06:13 PM
#1906
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2011
Position: Any
Posts: 656
Originally Posted by kimba
Thank you for the replay.
That gives me the chance to clarify two things:
1) if regulation and insurances require two pilots on board of an aircraft that can also be flown by a single pilot, that's got to be for a reason. Safer? More proficient? I don't think is a simple requirement.
And that leads me to the second point.
2) thank you for the little piece of history on the Strategic Air Command, but it looks like that this makes my point: two pilot is better than one (just to summarize).
That gives me the chance to clarify two things:
1) if regulation and insurances require two pilots on board of an aircraft that can also be flown by a single pilot, that's got to be for a reason. Safer? More proficient? I don't think is a simple requirement.
And that leads me to the second point.
2) thank you for the little piece of history on the Strategic Air Command, but it looks like that this makes my point: two pilot is better than one (just to summarize).
And my SAC comments were how important PIC time was before commanding an aircraft that not only had two pilots, but 2 - 4 other required crew members as well needed to accomplish the mission. So your "summary" of my remarks is totally OFF the mark.
Finally just to add another piece of information:
the future of the Military Aviation is not a two pilot crew but single pilot again (because of new advanced technologies that can reduce the load of a single pilot and a copilot may not be necessary anymore) look at the new genreation of fighter plane: F22, F35 and the European EFA- Thypoon.
All single pilot to be used in a swing role from A/A to A/G to EW.
the future of the Military Aviation is not a two pilot crew but single pilot again (because of new advanced technologies that can reduce the load of a single pilot and a copilot may not be necessary anymore) look at the new genreation of fighter plane: F22, F35 and the European EFA- Thypoon.
All single pilot to be used in a swing role from A/A to A/G to EW.
05-18-2014, 06:20 PM
#1907
Banned
Joined APC: Jul 2012
Posts: 432
Originally Posted by frmrbuffdrvr
I know inter-base if possible. There is a pilot in OMA that started in Texas.
If there is an opening in SLC that they plan to put a new hire in, then I think it might just be a matter of making sure everyone involved (both ACPs, BL and SH) is aware of it. Though I can't make any guarantees about that.
Part of the question would probably be, why move if it is just lateral?
If there is an opening in SLC that they plan to put a new hire in, then I think it might just be a matter of making sure everyone involved (both ACPs, BL and SH) is aware of it. Though I can't make any guarantees about that.
Part of the question would probably be, why move if it is just lateral?
I don't want to commit to another year contract. Mine expires in 4 months, and would like to keep my options open.
05-18-2014, 06:28 PM
#1908
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: FAA 'Flight Check'
Posts: 13,837
Originally Posted by frmrbuffdrvr
You are obviously letting the bias of your viewpoint cloud what I was saying. The only case of two people (not necessarily pilots) in an aircraft that can be flown single pilot that I mentioned was aerial photography. And the second person there doesn't need to be a pilot because all he is doing is handling the camera. The other references involving regulation were for aircraft too complex to be handled by one pilot.
And my SAC comments were how important PIC time was before commanding an aircraft that not only had two pilots, but 2 - 4 other required crew members as well needed to accomplish the mission. So your "summary" of my remarks is totally OFF the mark.
First off, there are many more aircraft than just fighter/attack types and ALL of them (bomber, transport, tanker, AWACS, etc.) require two pilots, again because of the complexity of the aircraft, not just to make the basic flying safer. And for fighters, there are only a handful of types that HAVE been two crew (F-4, F-14, older FA-18s, a couple of F-15 variants, A-6.) And for the most part, the second crew member was normally a pilot. So I don't really see the change in the fighter ranks you are alluding to.
And my SAC comments were how important PIC time was before commanding an aircraft that not only had two pilots, but 2 - 4 other required crew members as well needed to accomplish the mission. So your "summary" of my remarks is totally OFF the mark.
First off, there are many more aircraft than just fighter/attack types and ALL of them (bomber, transport, tanker, AWACS, etc.) require two pilots, again because of the complexity of the aircraft, not just to make the basic flying safer. And for fighters, there are only a handful of types that HAVE been two crew (F-4, F-14, older FA-18s, a couple of F-15 variants, A-6.) And for the most part, the second crew member was normally a pilot. So I don't really see the change in the fighter ranks you are alluding to.
Of the **older** F/A-18s - only the USMC 'D' model has two aircrew - one pilot, one Weapons Systems Operator (WSO) - like the F-15Es.
Of the *newer* variants, the F/A-18Fs (replacing the F-14s) has a WSO too, instead of the F-14 RIO.
Now...back to AMF....
05-18-2014, 06:51 PM
#1909
Line Holder
Joined APC: May 2014
Posts: 99
Originally Posted by frmrbuffdrvr
You are obviously letting the bias of your viewpoint cloud what I was saying. The only case of two people (not necessarily pilots) in an aircraft that can be flown single pilot that I mentioned was aerial photography. And the second person there doesn't need to be a pilot because all he is doing is handling the camera. The other references involving regulation were for aircraft too complex to be handled by one pilot.
And my SAC comments were how important PIC time was before commanding an aircraft that not only had two pilots, but 2 - 4 other required crew members as well needed to accomplish the mission. So your "summary" of my remarks is totally OFF the mark.
First off, there are many more aircraft than just fighter/attack types and ALL of them (bomber, transport, tanker, AWACS, etc.) require two pilots, again because of the complexity of the aircraft, not just to make the basic flying safer. And for fighters, there are only a handful of types that HAVE been two crew (F-4, F-14, older FA-18s, a couple of F-15 variants, A-6.) And for the most part, the second crew member was normally a pilot. So I don't really see the change in the fighter ranks you are alluding to.
And my SAC comments were how important PIC time was before commanding an aircraft that not only had two pilots, but 2 - 4 other required crew members as well needed to accomplish the mission. So your "summary" of my remarks is totally OFF the mark.
First off, there are many more aircraft than just fighter/attack types and ALL of them (bomber, transport, tanker, AWACS, etc.) require two pilots, again because of the complexity of the aircraft, not just to make the basic flying safer. And for fighters, there are only a handful of types that HAVE been two crew (F-4, F-14, older FA-18s, a couple of F-15 variants, A-6.) And for the most part, the second crew member was normally a pilot. So I don't really see the change in the fighter ranks you are alluding to.
So, once again, why going to AMF?
I don't see the point today.
As far as you knowledge in fighter I'll let the Marine to replay to you.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
