Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. Gun Talk

    Not bad. The vast majority of Americans are grossly ignorant of our own history. The bottom line is that American exists today because the government attempted to enact gun control. It was 243 years ago today that the British arrived in Lexington enroute Concord to confiscate guns. The American militia in Lexington were grossly outgunned, but fought to defend their freedoms anyway. Our forefathers fought and died to fight gun control and now Americans are eager to give up the very freedoms our forefathers died defending because those guns look scary. Along the line of the linked article; the British were hands down the most powerful military the world had ever seen to that point. They were beat and besieged in Boston by a 'well regulated militia'. As we have seen ourselves in Vietnam, Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan, don't underestimate a motivated group with some guns even when faced with the worlds most powerful military.
  3. The Next President is...

    Everyone needs to read that FBI/IG report. Gonna disagree here, seems to be working and is the only thing I like about current Administration.
  4. Yesterday
  5. Pilot Math

    I use the clock method to determine XW component. Just picture a clock with tick-marks at the quarter hours... 15 (1/4 of clock) 30 (1/2 of clock), and 45 (3/4 of clock) minutes. If winds are 15* off runway hdg, you take 1/4 of the wind speed as your XW component. 30* off is 1/2 the wind speed as your XW component. 45* off is 3/4 the wind speed as your XW component. 60* and up, take the full wind speed as your XW component. Interpolate as needed. Using this technique, I’ve never been more than 2 knots off estimating the XW component, and it takes about 2 seconds to calculate.
  6. Raptor Gear Up at Fallon?

    His mom doesn’t let him come here anymore
  7. Pilot Math

    Or just add 180!!
  8. The new airline thread

    While I agree with just about everything else you said, this is a hard no. USERRA has no such requirement and no one should be expected to do this. From the USERRA website:
  9. The new airline thread

    Ah. Gotcha. Makes total sense and I understand your points. Thanks.
  10. The new airline thread

    Not exactly sure what your question is then I guess...sorry There is ZERO issues going back on active orders with your reserve squadron while at an airline. I have known guys to go on orders for years at a time. You get orders, send them into your airline, and you will have your MIL leave on your schedule. What guys are saying is, don't drop MIL leave (you can drop a day, two days, week, month, year, years, or whatever the duration as needed) unless you have actual work to do. Abusing the system will make yours and all the others still serving life harder at the airlines. I personally show up, fly my trip, and then go home. Outside of that I do my monthly bids, any training, and that's it. I really don't want any more hassle because some people prefer to abuse the system for their own gain. Hard fact/statement: At my airline there have been circumstances with the company demanding points summaries from dudes/dudettes who have dropped MIL leave over busy seasons and/or holidays during the year all of a sudden. The problem isn't so much their request, it has been that they want a points summary going back 36 months in some cases. While they can't do that per the law, hence the union getting involved, they are trying to find abusers because it has gotten worse in regards to the amount of MIL leave being used. Granted there's an overall AF and airline pilot shortage so the airlines need more productivity and the reserves need more help so it's kind of a problem that just compounds itself...
  11. The new airline thread

    Great unemotional answer. 100% agree about integrity in all aspects. And in fact I am someone who would rather fly on the holidays when others don’t anyways. I appreciate your time and conversation. Thanks.
  12. The new airline thread

    Can't specifically say there's direct proof people aren't being hired because they are serving in the reserves because I don't necessarily think it is happening. I have buddies at the regionals with FAR more part 121 time and experience than any AF buddy I know. My AF buddies are getting hired in front of my regional buddies about 75% of the time (personal experience). I'd love more of the dudes still serving I know to feel comfortable at their chances approaching their departure from AD that they can get the call from a major vs having to spend time at the regionals. So it may not be an issue now...but we should as a group work to keep it that way. Lets not create a problem where one doesn't necessarily exist. Don't get me wrong, there is absolutely no problem using MIL leave. I use it when I need too, and if my mil duty cx for whatever reason, I go through the process to have it removed from my schedule and I got back on reserve or try and pick up the original trip or another one (not everyone does that but to each their own). The issue comes in when people conveniently drop any and all trips that ever touch a holiday. The airlines are accommodating but they aren't stupid. They know people abuse the program. I think the best "proof" the airlines, well my airline, is clamping down is that there are more and more circumstances of the company demanding some sort of proof that you did in fact have MIL leave when you said. They have tried to stretch the limits in how they do this so the union has stepped in to help protect guys as much as they can. However, if you lie and get caught then you deserve what you get. Champ said it best I think, if you can't face to face tell your airline's chief pilot what exactly you are dropping MLOA for and then allow him/her to call your reserve CC to confirm, don't do it. They have your CC's number so they can call anytime they want with or without your knowledge. Bottom line: If you have MIL duty, no matter when it is, take MIL leave. If you don't, then don't.
  13. Blended Retirement System Puzzle

    Slightly off topic, but have any recent hires had issues with opting in to the BRS? I thought I'd be automatically opted in since my first paycheck came in January, but apparently I have to choose to opt in because I swore in in 2017. But there's no BRS opt-in button for me on MyPay. Base finance is no help because I'm Reserve, Reserve squadron just keeps telling me to call DFAS, DFAS says I have to call AFPC, and everyone I've managed to get on the phone at AFPC says it's not their problem.
  14. The new airline thread

    If I was in an airline and went back on active orders? Yes to both. And again. No one is answering with hard statements, facts, or examples. Just feelings. No dead horse here. Haven’t received an answer yet.
  15. The new airline thread

    Would you straight-up tell your AFRC/ANG unit commander and your company's chief pilot exactly what it is you're up to and the circumstances behind those actions? If not, I think you have your answer. For some reason you seem to be beating a dead horse, and despite other people's attempts you seem to still have a lack of SA. Disclaimer: I'm still AD USAF.
  16. The new airline thread

    Thanks for the response. Take away the mil leave to not work Holidays, birthdays, special occasions part. Just focus on someone being on mil leave while also employed at an airline. Does is really screw over your buddy? Are people really not getting hired for that very reason? Is there proof? Or is it just someone’s guess as to why they didn’t hired. Not at all trying to upset anyone. Just seriously asking how it screws over people to serve in the military as well as have an airline job during a national pilot shortage at both the airlines and military. 5 years ago I might agree. Right now it doesn’t seem like it’s the case. If someone isn’t getting a job right now I have to imagine it’s because they don’t fit what the company wants. Not because someone before that person went back to the military for a time to serve their country in the countries time of need voluntarily and legally. Just really having a hard time wrapping my head around the logic. Any and all answers welcome.
  17. The Next President is...

    Dept of Justice IG recommends criminal charges for fired former Deputy FBI Director McCabe. Gonna be a good day, Tater...
  18. The new airline thread

    The job given to the ROAD Maj/Lt Col who just wants to fly until retirement.
  19. The new airline thread

    What is a chief pilot?
  20. The new airline thread

    If you aren't on MIL duty...DON'T be on MIL leave from the airlines, simple as that. If your mindset is you will "weather the storm" during those years of low seniority where you can't control your schedule like you'd like by using MIL leave to get birthdays, holidays, or whatever off...find a different profession. How would you like not getting a job offer because dudes before you gamed the system for themselves and the airlines got sick of it? I'd bet you'd be pissed so why even consider pulling that shit on those hoping to follow in your footsteps? Every single military dude/dudette who uses MIL leave to their advantage screws over the rest and makes everyone's life harder. If you have legit work, by all means take the leave over whatever days you need. Don't F your buddy! It's really not that difficult yet even when I went through INDOC you'd hear guys talking about how they won't miss holidays because of their ability to use MIL leave...it's disgusting.
  21. Pilot Shortage Deepens, USAF is SCREWED.

    Although I encourage my mil friends to come over to the airline side every chance I get, I will not criticize them for deciding to stay in. I have a few good friends who are truly on the good guys’ side that are in their prime to make the jump to the airlines. And yet, despite the increase in pay and quality of life they have decided to stay. I had lunch with one of these guys a while back and he told me that he felt that he had a responsibility to stick around in order to provide the same mentorship to the young guys that he had experienced years ago. My hat is off to the guys who make that decision despite the continued sacrifice and the state of the USAF today. These men and women have far more patience than I do. Of course I’ve made sure they know that I will walk their resumes and rec letters into HR The moment they decide they’ve had enough.
  22. Syria strikes underway

    A few corrections/updates. DoD Officials Erred About Weapons, Fighters Used in Syria Strike Mission; https://www.military.com/defensetech/2018/04/19/dod-officials-erred-about-weapons-fighters-used-syria-strike-mission.html
  23. Syria strikes underway

    This is true in general...all three admin have taken an EXTREMELY broad view of the powers of the President under Article II, the 2001 AUMF, and the Cartman Doctrine (I do what I want!). Congress has shown little to no appetite to intervene or check the President, which is what the Constitution calls for. This is also true, and I appreciate people who have been a little more consistent saying they either oppose all military actions not authorized by Congress or side more with the executive's ability to conduct the strikes regardless of who that executive is. I may disagree with the effectiveness of certain actions vs others, but I'm usually on the side saying that the President can take action pretty broadly while holding a parallel though in my mind that Congress doing its Constitutional duty and act like they're a co-equal branch of government. This I disagree with re: Syria. It's widely understood that the 2001 AUMF and especially Article II aren't bound by geography, but more by group and/or purpose and/or duration. Striking AQ in Afghanistan (purpose of 2001 AUMF) was extended to include AQ and AQ-affiliated groups all around the globe. That 2001 AUMF authority was then somewhat tenuous extended then to ISIS and wherever ISIS operated. I don't necessarily agree that those legal gymnastics pass the smell test, but at least IMHO Bush, Obama and now Trump have wide authority to order strikes on AQ and ISIS without strict geographic limits based on what WH lawyers have cooked up over the last 15+ years. Attacking the Syrian government led by Assad is a whole different animal, and not fundamentally different than attacking any other sovereign country. As you correctly point out, Obama was on much shakier legal ground to order the operations against the Gaddafi regime in Libya and I think Trump is in the same boat ordering strikes against Assad in Syria. Not that I'm specifically opposed; both of those guys are total assholes and I think we should have and should be doing more to stop them from massacring their own people, but it would be much better for Congress to vote on a new AUMF for the worldwide right against AQ & ISIS and give specific authorizations for state-on-state fights like Libya and Syria.
  24. Syria strikes underway

    1) Obama did attack Syria. If a country attacked anywhere in the US (not necessarily a "government target") then we would say the country attacked the US. 2) Obama did not attack Assad forces because he didn't get Congressional authority--if his concern was not attacking country X until given Congressional authority then Obama wouldn't have attacked Libya, Yemen, Iraq (he declared the Iraq war was over and then he later attacked them anyway), and any other place he has dropped bombs (even in his last year of his presidency). So your nonsense about how Obama had some sort of restraint that Trump doesn't have is a joke. Keep digging your hole man...
  25. The Next President is...

    I thought the point of the strikes was to destroy the manufacturing facilities while minimizing human casualties... I'd call that mission accomplished. The Cold War is over. The 1980s called... they want their foreign policy back. (couldn't resist) Nobody can have a rational debate with you if you honestly believe that Trump being (1) compromised and (2) a clear and present threat to the nation who needs to be removed "isn't a partisan matter."
  26. Syria strikes underway

    So in the late 2000's, after Saddam's government had been dismantled and the dude was hung, our fight against Al Qaeda in Iraq was the same as attacking the Iraqi government forces (whom were fighting with us). Is that what you are saying? There's no differentiating between attacking a government's forces and equipment and attacking a terrorist organization operating within that country? They are one in the same? Libya is Syria? Can we keep on the subject of attacking the Syrian government? I pointed out the falsehoods about why Obama didn't attack Assad and your response is "what about Libya?" Maybe the guy learned his lesson from Libya and wanted to do it the right way, the Constitutional way. And the response here is that meant he was weak and failed to act. No, that means he followed the law and the Republican party blocked any legal attack.
  1. Load more activity