AMPTestFE

So what number is the LH escape hatch?

You'll never forget! When's the date? I think I'll need to make a trip for this one! You heard SMSgt B has done the same, right? Sorry Col, I was being sarcastic, and not because I'm rubbing it in 'cause I'm retired. Quite the contrary.

The crew chief apparently still hangs out at the VFW in Jacksonville here in Arkansas.

What's a Caution?

Ghana to Sao Tome for an ERO, then to Dakar, Senegal. Our required takeoff fuel from Sao Tome was 58K. That second leg was somwhere right around 11.0! That's plenty long enough for me in a Herc...unless you give me 8 blades per engine.

According to the E(H)-1, the Fuselage tanks hold 1,800 gallons. All but 25 pounds can be used when feeding the engines.

Look in the Engine Shutdown checklist, Pilot's column for the applicable Caution.

IFR (UARRSI) is a beautiful thing, until you forget you have it!

A few years back, maybe more.

Looks like they've (AMC) figured out the most economical way to fullfill requirements for the legacy C-130 fleet is AMP. Go figure. Someone tell me they knew about this two years ago when they figured out the same thing???

Don't think so.

AR ANG is taking delivery of the first two of 9 St Joe H2s next week.

Hey, just trying to figure out what unit's FE ran #2 tank empty on the way into Kandahar. Little office discussion here trying to recall who did that.

There is no loss of range, no real increase in weight (I think maybe a couple of hundred pounds total), or as I'm aware of any CG problems. The operating weight of the test aircraft are in the 85K range (including test instrumentation)...very similar to the fleet. I'm not sure where this came from. Working this program & seeing how we operated really put a downturn on my view of the capability of the AF to get anything done, that's for sure! As far as why they picked the FMS, I'd say it was far cheaper to make the existing system work, than build a completely new system that replicates 80% or more of the functions. Remeber, one of the requirements is for it to operate in modern civilian airspace, so I can't disagree on their choice to use a system that does just that already.

Well said Herb! The program just has too many inexperienced people in positions making decisions/inputs.

Who said Lockheed should help Boeing? I only said they didn't have anything to do with the AMP, and that they wouldn't cooperate by selling Boeing certain items. Don't read too much into things, whoever you are. And Dave, I agree with you. I've had multiple failures of SCNS in my flying days.

Lockeed had nothing to do with this, other than making a couple of things harder for Boeing. The engineers at Boeing, not having C-130 experience, rely on the AF "experts" to help them. This process has been somewhat hindered by those who feel that if the product isn't perfect the first time out, then it should be scrapped. People just really can't comprehend how difficult the software development is, and just how good Boeing did from the start. It a shame when people who are so closely involved with the program can't see that.

The fleet in Dyess, for example, does not have the navagational capability (nor does any other non C-130J) that is/will be required by what used to be known as GATM. The legacy slick fleet does not have the capability to tune ATC radio frequencies that are required to fly above FL190 in Europe. The legacy C-130 fleet has been flying through Europe on waivers...waivers that from what I've been told, won't been extended any further. This is a safety of flight issue with the frequency spacing and required navigational performance (i.e. precision navigation). Other airspaces like the Pacific & Far East will be soon to follow. You want to blame someone for the time & money it's taken for this program? You'd better look at the Air Force. Nearly all delays, cost overruns, etc. have been due to someone new at AMC or AFSOC coming up with new requirements for this thing to do. AFSOC drove the cost up on the thing because of the capabilities they needed above & beyond the slick fleet....then bailed on the program! Eight years is a long time, I agree. But it's far better than the 15yrs it took to get the C-130J operationally capable (still can't fly SKE in the weather)! And the C-130J was not under the flailing management of the DOD procurement system. The AMP is about 90% ready to go operational, in my opinion. If someone makes the mistake of cancelling this program, I'll be bitterly dissapointed in the capability of the leadership within the Air Force. Not because I like the mod, because it's the right thing to do at the right time. This crap makes the 20 years I served my country seem like a waste.

You know, the short-sightedness of people kill me. Do you not realize that for the past 3 years, this program has been in developmental test??? It's your damn job to identify what mx procedures work & don't work, then validate procedures to make it work better. I've beat my head in the wall with some folks on the AF side out there that things don't appear out of a big modification program with zero bugs. The lack of foresight & stubborness of some people are having awfull effects on this program. I kept hearing gripes from AFOTEC & AMC T&E folks that this mod doesn't do anything to make me go faster or carry more. No SH!T, that wasn't the idea in the first place! Go find yourself a C-17. I understand now that there are units out there having to park airplanes because they can't get repairs to, or replacements for engine gages or flight instruments. That is one of the primary focuses of the AMP...increase realiability & maintainability of the instrumentation...and it does this very effectively. You want to see band-aid? Just wait til you see what they'll have to do to the fleet if AMP cancels. You can't navigate or talk your way through Europe anymore without an AMP modification on the legacy fleet. Other major airspaces are coming soon. How do you replace a fleet of over 200 in a span of 5 years if you don't think you can spend a little money right now?? Ok, I'm tired of typing, but I can go on a while bashing the AF incompetence on the AMP. In two weeks, the AR ANG pilots (who haven't flown the AMP) can operate it better than MOST AF pilots who have been flying it for 3 years. How's that for dedication on the part of the Edwards "team"? I hate to imply individual people being at fault (although there are a few) in this...it's primarily a leadership issue out there.

I got ahold of one of these....I assume it's for 100% engines? Also, the revolving line-it-up thingy is busted....anyone want to sell theirs?

Heard the rumors at least annually since I've been involved. One problem is that decision-makers are being fed "opinions" about the system from people who are supposed to be objectively evaluating the system against contract requirements, not what it is they THINK the airplane should do. These same folks don't take the time or want to exert the effort to learn how to operate the airplane effectively, but don't waste any time bashing it! There's one AMC TES person who'd rather live his days out in an old E-model than to accept the technological advances this system provides, this bias is evident in everything he says & reports. Luckily, I think his credibility has been lost at AMC...I hope. Hell, the former AFOTEC commander in charge of the C-130 evaluation section gave up trying to learn the AMP altogether! This person just went TDY to get their flying & checkrides done. What an example to the rest of the unit, huh? The lack of big-picture thinking from these folks is really having it's effects on the AMP, which I'm sorry to say. I am biased, yes. I can see the clear advantages this system will bring to the fleet. I also see the stubborness of the folks who are stuck in the dark ages...they will fight progress 'til the end. My two cents.

I think Elmendorf is opening back up, from what I understand. Other than that, AFSOC Talon 2s are your next best bet, after you get some hours under your belt. I wouldn't hold my breath on AFSOC though, you'll probably end up at Cannon.

Got to fly the 8-blades some while it was at Edwards. Absolutely loved it! Just spoke with the last money guy from AMC & he told me there is no way AMC will pony up the cost up front for these. It would take something like 7 years to break even with the projected figures they have now. I have heard AFSOC is taking a hard look though. Hopefully the fleet will at least get the electronic valve housings, they alone would be a great upgrade.

I understood that they were found on an AFSOC bird in PDM @ Robins.

Funeral at Jacksonville funeral home this Thursday at 10:00am.