3 ms·

> due to inadequate planning Seeing as you've had the opportunity to thoroughly evaluate Tyndall's emergency hurricane evacuation procedures, the airworthiness

> due to inadequate planning Seeing as you've had the opportunity to thoroughly evaluate Tyndall's emergency hurricane evacuation procedures, the airworthiness of 55 aircraft divided between two squadrons, O&M/MILCON budget of a training base, and logistical impediments arising from 72-hours notice coupled with a swarm of evacuating civilians from surrounding areas, please do take the time to enlighten us all.

JohnBooty 8y ago
What are you saying here? Are you saying that their plans were adequate? Clearly they weren't; they lost at least a handful of irreplaceable planes. Or are you saying that there was just no way to predict or prepare for a hurricane hitting an airbase right in the middle of hurricane country? I mean, a lot of hurricanes roll through that part of the country. the airworthiness of 55 aircraft divided between two squadrons, My "evaluation" is what the article says. Namely, that the planes left behind weren't airworthy. If you know otherwise, let's hear it. I'm no military brain genius, but it seems obvious to me that at any given time less than 100% of the planes at any given airbase would be airworthy and that perhaps some provision should be made for sheltering or evacuating these planes if a hurricane rolls through this base which, again, is located in a very hurricane-prone region. O&M/MILCON budget of a training base I'd think that the cost of making sure you don't lose a billion dollars worth of fighters every time a hurricane rolls through a hurricane-prone area probably costs less than, I don't know, a billion dollars.
- metaphor 8y ago
  That you've summarily dismissed the efficacy of planning for which you know precisely zero of is baffling. That you presume to parade your decision making as superior to the dozens of career field officers and senior enlisted members with real skin in the game--let alone the hundreds preceeding them who have earned their keep--is even more baffling. That you continually insist $1bil in F-22 assets was lost to this hurricane is quite telling of both blatant ignorance and inexperience in matters relating to military aircraft maintenance operations. Admittedly, I'm rather insulted by the magnitude of sheer narcissism and narrow-minded hubris in your remarks.
  - JohnBooty 8y ago
    Let me back up a step. I angrily said "these idiots" as if everybody involved was an idiot. What I should have acknowledged is that the folks on that base are insanely talented (I know enough about the military to know that the folks trusted with these aircraft are very elite) and in all likelihood pulled off a freaking miracle to save as much hardware as they did with (more importantly) zero loss of life. I have no doubt that they spent 72 hours stretched to their limits and performed admirably. Whatever else we disagree on, at least we agree on that. What I am angry at is the design of a base that had inadequate structures and/or procedures in place to enable those assets to be fully protected and/or evacuated in the event of a hurricane. Clearly those (or the budget allocated) were not adequate to fully handle the situation. The results attest to that.
    - mulmen 8y ago
      This was the most powerful hurricane to hit the Florida panhandle in recorded history. The base has withstood previous hurricanes and storms. So yeah, the structures were inadequate to protect some of the planes from the storm of the century (or two?) but should we expect or desire the base to withstand that? Of the dozen planes left behind so far only four are suspected to have been destroyed and even that isn't actually known yet. It is still possible the base did protect the planes at least in part from this extreme outlier event. The lifespan of the planes is only ~30 years. Losing a few of them to a total freak storm doesn't seem as outrageous as you are making it out to be, especially when much more of the fleet was evacuated than should be expected based on typical readiness. You're acting like the USAF had no hurricane plan at all when in reality they obviously did. Not all the F-22s were lost and a bunch of the other assets made it out too.

JohnBooty 8y ago

What are you saying here? Are you saying that their plans were adequate? Clearly they weren't; they lost at least a handful of irreplaceable planes. Or are you saying that there was just no way to predict or prepare for a hurricane hitting an airbase right in the middle of hurricane country? I mean, a lot of hurricanes roll through that part of the country. the airworthiness of 55 aircraft divided between two squadrons, My "evaluation" is what the article says. Namely, that the planes left behind weren't airworthy. If you know otherwise, let's hear it. I'm no military brain genius, but it seems obvious to me that at any given time less than 100% of the planes at any given airbase would be airworthy and that perhaps some provision should be made for sheltering or evacuating these planes if a hurricane rolls through this base which, again, is located in a very hurricane-prone region. O&M/MILCON budget of a training base I'd think that the cost of making sure you don't lose a billion dollars worth of fighters every time a hurricane rolls through a hurricane-prone area probably costs less than, I don't know, a billion dollars.

metaphor 8y ago
That you've summarily dismissed the efficacy of planning for which you know precisely zero of is baffling. That you presume to parade your decision making as superior to the dozens of career field officers and senior enlisted members with real skin in the game--let alone the hundreds preceeding them who have earned their keep--is even more baffling. That you continually insist $1bil in F-22 assets was lost to this hurricane is quite telling of both blatant ignorance and inexperience in matters relating to military aircraft maintenance operations. Admittedly, I'm rather insulted by the magnitude of sheer narcissism and narrow-minded hubris in your remarks.
- JohnBooty 8y ago
  Let me back up a step. I angrily said "these idiots" as if everybody involved was an idiot. What I should have acknowledged is that the folks on that base are insanely talented (I know enough about the military to know that the folks trusted with these aircraft are very elite) and in all likelihood pulled off a freaking miracle to save as much hardware as they did with (more importantly) zero loss of life. I have no doubt that they spent 72 hours stretched to their limits and performed admirably. Whatever else we disagree on, at least we agree on that. What I am angry at is the design of a base that had inadequate structures and/or procedures in place to enable those assets to be fully protected and/or evacuated in the event of a hurricane. Clearly those (or the budget allocated) were not adequate to fully handle the situation. The results attest to that.
  - mulmen 8y ago
    This was the most powerful hurricane to hit the Florida panhandle in recorded history. The base has withstood previous hurricanes and storms. So yeah, the structures were inadequate to protect some of the planes from the storm of the century (or two?) but should we expect or desire the base to withstand that? Of the dozen planes left behind so far only four are suspected to have been destroyed and even that isn't actually known yet. It is still possible the base did protect the planes at least in part from this extreme outlier event. The lifespan of the planes is only ~30 years. Losing a few of them to a total freak storm doesn't seem as outrageous as you are making it out to be, especially when much more of the fleet was evacuated than should be expected based on typical readiness. You're acting like the USAF had no hurricane plan at all when in reality they obviously did. Not all the F-22s were lost and a bunch of the other assets made it out too.