Comments (15)

1. 

   Community Member Idea Submitter

   This idea could be implemented fairly quickly!

   2 years ago

   0
2. 

   Community Member

   Fuel Efficiency measures are a hot topic in DoD right now. Have you elevated your recommendation via any other means? The format of your suggestion appears as the AF IDEA Program format...have you tried there? If not, I recommend it! :)

   2 years ago

   0
3. 

   Community Member Idea Submitter

   I submitted it a long time ago via the AF Idea program. They said it was ineligible because the idea requires a SEPARATE DOCUMENT. This seperate document they said they are wanting is a change in the T.O. However, the T.O. doesn't need to be changed for each aircraft the local AFI at each base would need to be changed to fly high altitude idle descent approaches. Civilian aviation is already doing this and saving billions. I've submitted a few ideas via the AF IDEA program all saving a lot of money, but they just say they are ineligible and don't seem to want to do anything about them.

   2 years ago

   0
4. 

   Community Member

   Yes this a perfect example of what suggested here, the private sector knows how to save instinctivley because their jobs depend on it.

   http://governmentreform.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Study-and-replicate-succesfull-private-companies/120816-13060

   2 years ago

   0
5. 

   Community Member Idea Submitter

   Agreed. Their jobs do depend on it. If a civilian company ran for a week the way the US government ran it would be bankrupt within a month if not sooner. It's time to start be frugal with tax payers dollars.

   2 years ago

   0
6. 

   Community Member

   Are jobs depend on it to but it is much harder to get implemented in the government work force then it is the private sector.

   To get anything changed in the government work force it takes a act of Congress to get it done and by the time they act it has been 5 years. Maybe if all these ideas didn't take so long to enforce all government employees would be getting a raise this year and the years to come.

   2 years ago

   0
7. 

   Community Member Idea Submitter

   I guess we need to get rid of some of the issues in the government. Oh wait there's another idea! Maybe we should create a website for that...oh wait I guess that's this, but how many ideas came out of this last year and actually got implemented?

   2 years ago

   0
8. 

   Community Member Idea Submitter

   Does anyone know if they implemented any ideas from previous years?

   2 years ago

   0
9. 

   Community Member

   The difference between civilian and military is that in the civilian world they depend upon profit (that being money). The problem is, the government (military included) has never been taught that they too have a 'profit' they should be concerned about (that being how efficiently/effectively money is spent). Profit can take many forms (again, civilian companies understand this) and government needs to relearn their concepts and change the methodology of how money is spent. We can and should run like a business because good (efficient/effective) government is a business! Look at the fundamentals of business and you will find all the aspects of ANY government entity. We all just need to look at things differently and stop using the old paradigms of "that's the way it always has been done" or "good enough for government work" cause that doesn't mean it is (or ever was the 'right' way of doing it and 'good enough' should never be an axiom as the money we spend is OUR MONEY and I for one want it spent to make things CONSTANTLY BETTER not the same.

   2 years ago

   0
10. 

    Community Member

    Fuel savings can also be improved in training sorties and deployment rotations.

    I have calculated in the C-130 community that per C-130; 110,000 lbs of fuel is utilized training on a IMC formation system that has never been used in combat. If the system is vital, then only train a few active duty units that can remain proficient rather than the entire C-130 community. 110,000/week x's 500(+/-) C-130's is huge.

    OEF/OIF rotations are done with organic assets - rather than rotator aircraft. Fuel, Per Diem, Hotels and time travelling (3-5 days) cost $54 millions dollars per year per unit, per combat zone.

    Increase the length in the combat zone per unit and utilize the already available rotators. This would suck for the individual servicemember; but the cost savings and better managment practices would be welcomed.

    2 years ago

    0
11. 

    Community Member

    We need to keep the entire C130 fleet trained. I've only been on five paratroop jumps but I sure as heck would not want to me on a plane where someone had not been trained to be proficient because the government was trying to save a few bucks and wound up having to deploy a Reserve or Guard unit who had no training on little notice due to a budget crunch. War is hell and it is also expensive. That is reality. Same for keeping flights low altitude. As a Army guy trained in bringing in Air assets for use in theatre, there is a reason why tactical assets, at least in the 1980s doctrine, were brought in by Initial Points in a combat zone. It kept planes in one piece and pilots alive. Train the way you wil fight and you will stay alive. There was also the ability to quickly break aircraft from one air avenue of approach to another air avenue of approach with little advance notice to the enemy. Airland Battle doctrine but when you look at it, it did not change much over the years from WWII. You still need to have flexibility to keep the aircraft away from threats. 9/11 taught us the enemy has new ways to hit us. Let's not make it easy on them.

    2 years ago

    0
12. 

    Community Member

    My post was obviously not read. We are continuing to train on a mission that has never been used in combat... Therefore as a passenger/grunt/etc. have never been exposed to what I am talking about. All other missions used in combat will still be trained to proficiency. This would not be a cut to training dollars it would be a cut to wasteful spending. I am with the Guard and Reserves and the aircraft flying overseas are over 50% G and R.

    2 years ago

    0
13. 

    Community Member

    I read the post. I just don't agree with it. I think you always fly the way you intend to fly in a combat zone, whenever possible. Have you really considered what one dedicated, crazy terrorist can do at Philadelphia, Chicago or New York, McQuire or similar places if the Air Force starts to make things easier for them by changing how they fly? Also, I had to be flown with several other officers and NCOs once inthe mid-1990s from PA to VA and back again by Vietnam vet helicopter pilots because a unit did exactly as you proposed. They were the only guys in the entire outfit capable of doing the support mission, flying a Nap of the Earth Mission using BlackHawks. The rest of the pilots could not fly a wartime type mission. National Guard unit or Reserve, don't recall which. EVERYTIME we have someone fly a plane, it is a training opportunity. Let's not waste it.

    2 years ago

    0
14. 

    Community Member Idea Submitter

    User: "I think you always fly the way you intend to fly in a combat zone, whenever possible."

    Always...whenever possible?

    Perspective:

    I agree that if one is flying into a combat zone the user should absolutely fly what needs to be flown.

    However, an empty C-17, KC-135, KC-10...etc. coming home from overseas has no reason not to fly and idle descent approach to save the U.S. tax payers MILLIONS.

    As to Philly, Chicago or New York...don't think a terrorist is going to hit an empty C-17 vs. a passenger airline.

    Civilian airliners are already saving billions by doing these RNP approaches.

    http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=bca&id=news/nextgen0710p12.xml

    As to the BlackHawk pilots that couldn't fly. That's a problem with the training program not with the RNP approaches I'm proposing. (Read above article to understand more).

    As a USAF pilot I agree that every flight is a training opportunity, but let's not waste tax-payers dollars while doing "training."

    Tony<><

    2 years ago

    0
15. 

    Community Member Idea Submitter

    If we're training on a mission that's not being done nor will ever be done it's wasting tax-payers dollars. Let's stop the waste!

    2 years ago

    0

Add your comment