Jump to content

US Herk

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by US Herk

  1. US Herk,

    How much you wanna bet? Hopefully I won't be violating any "Basic OPSEC" regulations by copying this page, but here's all my 1985 book tells me.

    Don R.

    Wow - surprising since it post-dates the Arms Export act of '79...

    Still, basic OPSEC tells us to protect unclassified info...

  2. Since we've resurrected this post, here's what's on the front of one of my older dash-1 (1 Oct 98):

    Distribution Statement: Distribution authorized to the Department of Defense and U.S. DoD Contractors only (Administrative or Operational Use) (1 Oct 1998). Questions concerning technical content should be directed to WR-ALC/LUTD. Other requests for this document shall be referred to WR-ALC/LUTD, Robins AFB, GA 31098.

    WARNING - This document contains technical data whose export is restricted by the Arms Export Control Act (Title 22, U.S.C., Sec. 2751 et seq.) or the Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended (Title 50, U.S.C., App. 2401 et seq.). Violations of these export laws are subject to severe criminal penalties.

    HANDLING AND DESTRUCTION NOTICE - Comply with distribution statement and destroy by any method that will prevent disclousre of the contents or reconstruction of the document.

    My current dash-1 is at work, under my desk, but I'm confident it says something similar.

    My old slick dash-1 dated 1 Jun 89 has the identical distro, warning, & destruction notices on it.

    The 1970 A-model dash-1 I have on the shelf has no distribution statement that I can find. Perhaps the export and arms export acts mentioned in the newer ones changed all of that.

    So, DC10FE, I'll bet there's the same warning under your distro statement about harsh criminal penalties.

    Folks, it's not about classified info, it's about protecting unclassified info - OPSEC. Just because something is available, doesn't mean we should validate it on an open forum. Basic OPSEC.

  3. Just got word that they are going to Boise ANG as Senior Scout birds 4 sure :( -- Tripple Nickle was one of my favorit to fly.

    That's as wrong as two boys "franking" and a girl watching!!!!!! :mad::mad:

  4. HAd to accomplish an EMI test with it installed for a mod

    They had some non-Commando Solo classic birds that were going to do Scout. I was there a few years ago (maybe five?) for a conference...

    Figured they'd want to keep some of the "classic" herks around...for various reasons.

    Still, short-sighted to demod CT no matter the mission.

  5. I'm confident I could successfully roll the Herk w/o much loss of altitude. The trick is the rudder reversal at the top - if you don't do that, you'll end up in a barrel dive and lose quite a bit of altitude.

    I do it in the sim every year to "practice" for when I have to do it for real in combat! Hahaha! ;)

    Yes, virtually any plane can roll...

  6. I thought Harrisburg had the Scout mission with their older models...those planes already have the "stuff" required.

    Seems short-sighted to de-mod from Combat Talon config...

  7. A while back we talked about the MC-130E's and I mentioned a rumor that I heard that at least 4 MC-130E's were going to the 189 AS in Idaho. Supposedly the 189 was BRAC'd.

    I just got an e mail today that said 4 stored MC-130E's had been sent to ID.

    Can anyone confirm it? is the 189 going to become an SOS or are they just going to haul trash with them?



    Haul trash? You lose a pallet position on a T1...haven't heard anything, Bob, but will put my ear to the ground tomorrow.

  8. What\'s the latest plans for Maxwell? Will they keep their Herks?

    At one point, I thought they were going to switch to C5 or KC135 or something, but I saw a semi-recent article somewhere about them getting the first AMP birds.

    Anyone know what their future holds?

  9. tahoejace wrote:

    I would say that the product leaving LRF has been in a steady decline for several years in ALL crew positions. The focus in a lot of AETC units, not just at Little Rock, has become more about quantity than quality. Unfortunately, instructors in ops squadrons are so spread thin that they can\'t devote the time necessary to fix the problems, they can only affix a band-aid and hope nothing bad happens.

    I have to agree. Add to that the overwhelming majority of their flying is high-level to a pen descent in theater and their low-level SA is lacking. It\'s hard to remain objective at times...

  10. Muff Millen wrote:

    My unit doesn\'t take brand new FEs. We don\'t have this problem. AD slick units are doing this - LRF\'s product is \"good enough\".

    USHerk....since when is \"good enough\" a standard?

    Wow! Everytime I had a check ride I learned that what I knew was never \"good enough\".

    Muff, I agree completely. We\'re getting Instructor FEs here from the AD slick ranks whose general knowledge is pretty sub-standard.

    Slick pilots will very shortly never land the plane until they get to the unit. They will do all their work in the left seat in the simulator and come out with a QUAL/INSTM eval making them an FP. When they do their tac flying on the flight line, they\'re sitting in the right seat and the IP will do all the assault landings. So feasibly, they could not actually land the plane until they hit their unit.

    I\'m sure it saves a buck somewhere...

    The old phrase, \'penny wise and pound foolish\' springs readily to mind.

    We\'re fighting this movement, but it\'s headed our way as well in AFSOC. They\'re trying to do more and more in the sim. The sim is an incredible tool, but is no replacement for the aircraft.

    We\'re fighting the \"good enough\" syndrome as well. We get questioned on why we\'re FEBing FEs for GK they already \"learned\" at LRF. Well, it\'s obvious to our FEs that their \"good enough\" isn\'t the same as our standard!

    I could rant about this forever...it\'s a slippery slope we\'re headed down...with no return.

  11. tahoejace wrote:

    US Herk wrote:

    From the summary of changes in 11-402 dated 25 Sep 2007:

    See? I\'m wrong! Haha! Thanks. We don\'t do many (enough) of these (regardless of what they\'re called anymore). Guess folks were still using old terminology - looks like a year old change.

  12. tahoejace wrote:

    Actually, for a while, officer aircrew still went to an FEB, while enlisted aircrew went to an AEB. With the most recent AFI 11-402, those two chapters were combined and the term \"AEB\" was eliminated. Now, rated officers, career enlisted aviators, and non-rated aircrew are all sent to FEB\'s.

    Interesting. The last four we\'ve done here were all AEB (officer and enlisted) - at least to my knowledge they were. Perhaps it was folks using improper terminology...have to admit, I\'m not up on 11-402.

  13. cobra935o wrote:

    Ya know, I did the FEB on the guy there at Kirtland (which wasnt an FEB, he got waived to go back to Pope, hence the reason he was still flying), I didnt see any names of the crew from the Pope/Iraq thing, but when I heard it, I was wondering in the back of my head if he was on there, now I know.


    Yeah, they don\'t even call them FEBs anymore, now they\'re called AEBs and if the guy came from another MDS, one of the options is to send him back. I don\'t have much heartburn with that normally, but there are times (and I\'m not saying this was necessarily one of them) when taking a guy\'s wings is the best thing for everyone (the Tegucigalpa crash and series of failures that led to that dude in a pilot seat come instantly to mind). Tough love is sometimes necessary.

  14. AG - you\'re right. We practice this in the sim, it IS in the dash-1, and crews DO know about it.

    All that said, I will say the knowledge level of pilots and FEs on the slick side of the house seems to be lower than in years past. No longer do FEs have to have 100hrs of instruction after they get to their unit with every flight a ground eval. No longer do pilots do any real training in the airplane. They are taught to fly numbers in the sim and are poor stick-and-rudder guys. Add to this, none of them are flying much low-level and they\'re simply not cutting it. We FEB an FE last year for GK!! Guy was supposedly an \"up and comer\" in slicks - sent him back. Incidentally, he was the FE on the Iraq crash...

  15. SEFEGeorge wrote:

    I\'m not at all easy about the Dems being in control of the White House now. I\'m sorely afraid that the troops in the field will suffer, and the country will become a 2nd rate military power.

    AND in control of both houses of congress...where the real power is - the power of the purse.

  16. TalonOneTF wrote:

    A little birdie whispered in my ear and hinted that there may be consideration in the works to extend the MC-130E service life to 2020 (plus). Any comments?


    Damn, that would be awesome!

    Last date I heard was 2015, but could slide as far right as 2018 or could be accellerated in 2011 if MC-J comes online quicker than anticipated.

    2020 really works for me...keep the original Chariot of Armageddon in the fight!

  17. TalonOneTF wrote:

    However, the development testing has demonstrated that the -241 TF can interleave with two other modes, such as TA and Weather....

    At what refresh rate? IE - how old is my data? A second or two can kill you. The clunky APQ-170 has two radars running concurrently and until we go phased array, I don\'t see how a spinning/tipping antenna can do things quickly enough without relying heavily on DTED.

    Not that I\'m knocking DTED, rather, that you have to sacrifice something if you try to do multiple scans with the same antenna. The DTED is a nice \"filler\"

  18. CT II Raven wrote:

    - also, do not forget weather, while your are TF/TA.

    Yeah - that\'s WHY I\'m TF/TA!

    But of course, you\'re right - need to pull up WX when the TF seems to think the rain is thick enough to be granite to figure out which way to go!:ohmy:

  19. I cannot answer your question directly, except to add that for the short time I was there, my understanding was that the RAF designation was \"C-130K C.Mk1/3\" & I understood it to be called C-130K there - at least, that\'s what the RAF operators called them \"Ks\" and \"Mk1\" or \"Mk3\"

    My logbook is endorsed as follows:

    Aircraft Type: Hercules CMk1/3

    The crews call her \"Hercules\" or \"Albert\"

    Like USAF, however, official designations and what crews actually call things are often slightly different! ;)

  • Create New...