Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 02/11/2017 in all areas

  1. 7 points
    Well actually, the guy who infamously barrel rolled - technically aileron rolled- an MC-12 now flies for Fed-Ex. What's ironic is the CFACC at the time, now current CSAF, went on the warpath briefing all deployed units at the time bragging about how he was going to railroad that guy's career. Now 'that guy' is a retired O-5 flying the line at Fed-Ex, living the good life, and laughing all the way to the bank. I think the AF is proper fucked.
  2. 3 points
    OK, so it's not OK for USAF bubbas to make a "convenience stop" in OCPs but the Army bubbas who wear them can? This all makes no fucking sense. We were all good with one uniform (BDUs) before the crayon-eating Marines just had to be different with MARPAT. Next thing you know we've got the Navy looking like camo smurfs or seaweed. The AF ABU is a joke, and whoever approved it should be shot. The Army pulled its cranium out and ripped off Crye with their Scorpion W2 (OCP) pattern, but it works (trust me, I'm surrounded by thousands of troopers wearing the stuff at the moment!). We gotta quit having so many fucking uniforms, it doesn't make sense!
  3. 3 points
    Right, the US constitution being applied to non Americans? How 'bout nope, thats what makes us special.
  4. 3 points
    I fully agree with you on this, and call me a cynic, but when I get a memo telling me I can roll up my sleeves, I delete it as fast as I do the ones reminding me that we're putting new cover sheets on our TPS reports - it just doesn't matter to me in the big scheme - I'll roll them up/down, wear whatever color boots you want, etc. That said, the AF wouldn't need to worry what the airlines did if their focus was on QOL. It is the only way the AF will compete with the airlines and it = (Fun / work) x Compensation. The Air Force, arguably, has a lot of control over two of these factors (Fun and compensation), so when people see our focus turned outward on issues that are yet to affect us, it's equivalent to worrying about a non-factor. So ultimately, I don't consider arguments that state the AF can't compete with industry - the AF is part of the only entity on the planet that can print money, so yes, they can compete - they just don't want to set that precedent. What else it suggests to me is that longer UPT commitments are not in the works, the AF was told 'no', or is anticipating being told 'no'. I don't think that this board's current attention on the 1500 hour rule is about that so specifically - rather it is general irritation with the latest in a series of misfires when it comes to addressing the problems the USAF says it has. The 1500 hour rule has not, in any way, contributed to the current exodus in the USAF - thus when this board reacts to it with 'really?' - it is a valid response. There is always a push and a pull when deciding on whether or not to leave the AF for other opportunities. Right now, the 'pull' factor has increased, but this was easily foreseen years ago, and is resultant from the long-looming retirement hiatus - not from the recent implementation of the 1500 hour rule. Once the regional airlines are empty, then we can talk about what the impact of that decision has had on the regional airlines as well as on military pilot retention, but as it stands now, the airlines can hire as many regional pilots as they can cram through training. What people here are focused on are the issues that "push" individuals out of service. Many people on this board have looked at this problem with the long view in mind and I've seen many such considerations that do address these issues in serious ways, but yet, we don't see movement on them or even acknowledgement that they're factors. Things such as: Basing decisions (Holloman, Cannon, Creech, Shaw, etc) 365s/179s (which exist specifically to skirt the USAFs own rules...) Up or out "Mandatory" not-mandatory education Ill-timed moves/PCSs TAMI/drones Opaque/unclear/questionable promotion rules The list goes on Ask me 10 years ago if I was considering going to the airlines, and I would have laughed at you. Give me more control over the factors listed above, and I'll laugh at the airlines...for at least another few years, which is all the AF wants anyway. So, yes, I sort of see that perspective, and I would give it more credence if it was backed up by actions taken 10 years ago to Increase the bonus Eliminate up or out Be more transparent with career opportunities/progression Or actions taken 4-6 years ago to not Force-shape fighter pilots...yeah...or other 11Xs... BL: seems to me that it is just something convenient to point at - just like the previous reasoning given which was "pilots just want to fly more..." when sequestration was all the rage. That, to me, sounds like American, Delta, United, and Southwest's problem - not the USAFs.
  5. 3 points
    For today's Air Force I'd recommend this...
  6. 3 points
    You guys write so many words. The art of brevity is lost on all millennials. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  7. 2 points
    They admitted the mistake of banning people with green cards/visas etc that have already been properly vetted. I believe this ban is to actually vet people, something Obama didn't really care about regardless of the fact that ISIS was spewing propaganda 24/7 about needing to get foreign fighters in the US through our unsecured borders. I don't want America to stop being the beacon of hope for the downtrodden any more than you do, but I DO want proper vetting of people coming in, so we don't confuse rabid dog with refugee. The ban is not discriminatory in nature. There are way more predominantly Muslim countries that aren't on the "keep-out" list than there are ones on it. Even so, I think we can all agree that terrorists are predominantly Muslim these days. Don't confuse me for a political expert either, but I think the whole reason the right is pissed off about all the negative coverage of the ban is because Obama did the exact same thing without hardly any negative response. Also it doesn't help that politics has now become "I don't care if what Trump does will 100% no doubt help this country, we're going to fight him every step of the way." And people wonder why he's not completely draining the swamp. He needs people who have played the political game, and know how to screw the left over without them being able to do a damn thing about it. He's a businessman, he knows he needs to keep strong arms around.
  8. 2 points
    I don't know why you guys have faith in the IG or the JAG to fix this stuff. They are going to side with the commander 99% of the time.
  9. 2 points
    the guy who rolled the mc-12 was an IP i looked up to (and still do to this day) tremendously. when there's a war that goes down that MC-12 IP dude is the guy i'd follow to the gates of hell
  10. 2 points
    Forget about the ban and just send everyone to California. They seem a little confused about the contents of the Constitution anyways.
  11. 2 points
    it's cause the current HRT wing/cc is a fcking bad ass
  12. 2 points
    I love how all us capitalists suddenly become socialists when we talk about our industry.
  13. 2 points
    Sometimes we learn our lieutenant lessons a little later in our careers.
  14. 2 points
  15. 1 point
    The nature of the Executive Orders in question are completely different. EOs are for the purpose of the POTUS directing the executive branch how to implement policy, and have been around for decades. Restrictions on immigration are exactly within the President's authority. Trump seems to have exceeded his limits by including lawful permanent residents (green card holders,) a mistake I imagine an upcoming EO will rectify. Obama used EOs to get around the fact that he couldn't get the legislation he wanted passed and just ignored law to rule by executive fiat. That's why I'm okay with it so far. EOs implementing a legal policy within the President's job description = perfectly fine. EO ignoring or de facto changing law and doing whatever you want = not fine, or "banana republicish"
  16. 1 point
    That would be admitting that the ABU pattern was a mistake and like canceling ASBC and making SOS 8 weeks only to go back down to 5, it has to be done methodically to make sure everyone saves face. Edit for clarity: ASBC was a joke and never should have happened, the way it was eliminated allowed everyone to save face
  17. 1 point
    Still somewhat early but are there any F-35 pilots or folks in the know here that can speak to life in that jet? This forum has been awesome, especially for another fresh UPT stud.
  18. 1 point
    Words are that the team suffered a delay getting it out today and that the release will be "early next week." My guess is that commanders will find out either Monday or Tuesday with the PSDM dropping the day after. Also heard that this is a good year! Best of luck everyone.
  19. 1 point
  20. 1 point
    My guess is that history repeats itself and someone gets promoted
  21. 1 point
    Illegal per the JTR. if this has happened to you, please go see the IG and JAG.
  22. 1 point
    I wonder when this will start for AFGSC. In my opinion, this and the non-vol 365s to make PowerPoint slides are the two biggest drivers convincing people to leave.
  23. 1 point
    Truth. No argument from me on that one. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums
  24. 1 point
    I get what you're saying, but in this particular instance (foreigner travel ban), how are Americans' freedoms being diminished?
  25. 1 point
    You didn't have the paying public onboard when you were doing those crossings. Also the USAF's oceanic training and procedures are a joke. Something like 30% of GNEs for 5% of crossings comes to mind.
  26. 1 point
    Russian considering giving Snowden to trump as a gift, akin to a bottle of fine Russian vodka. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/russia-eyes-sending-snowden-u-s-gift-trump-official-n718921 Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  27. 1 point
    So is the next step for the USAF to lobby the FAA to stop the Commercial Pilot or CFI equivalency programs? That would certainly serve to place another barrier up to try and stem the tide. Should Goldfein lobby individual airlines to stop adding .3 to military resumes? Should he lobby them to stop accepting military time altogether? There are real debates to be had about the 1500 hour rule and its effects on the aviation industry. Solving the USAF's pilot shortage should not be the driver of that discussion. Goldfein is out of his lane. He should concentrate on the myriad of issues that he CAN effect WITHOUT help from the FAA or airline industry.
  28. 1 point
    Stop focusing specifically on the 1500 hour rule for a second. Try looking at the problem from a 10-year lens. Everyone on this board has been screaming for the last 5 years that Air Force leadership, Congress, and America in general has not been paying attention to the looming pilot shortage. The 11Ms have been screaming "do something, don't just focus on 11Fs!" The Guard and Reserves are saying the same thing. They are losing their experienced pilots as well. Everyone agrees that if the Air Force does not do something then we're all F'd. Boot color, Friday shirts, rolled up sleeves, and contractors are not going to solve what is becoming a national problem, and will be a national crisis in 5-10 years. You could eliminate every pilot filled 179/365 tomorrow and you still wouldn't save enough pilots to put even a tiny dent in the approximately 1500-3000 pilots a year that the guys on this board have said are going to be hired in the next decade. We shit on one another all the time about the Air Force not having a long term plan that works with Congress and the commercial sector, and now some of us are angry because the Air Force is trying to have a conversation about a national problem? Personally, I'll take having to compete with a regional guy at an airline over having all of the experience sucked out of the Air Force. Fingers is just being honest about the problem, and is having a conversation with the people who can help. Having a conversation is a good thing! Do you see that perspective? And to be clear: I agree with a lot of the comments guys have made about attacking the problem instead of the symptoms. Stupid 179s/365s still need to be abolished, I like the positive uniform changes, in active duty fighter squadrons I have personally seen contractors tackle queep jobs, constant deployments to "temporary" (ahem permanent) locations with and without pilot swaps need to be adjusted, and there are still many other changes that need to be addressed and/or implemented.
  29. 1 point
    You think the leadership problem is between the O-3 and O-6 level? Really? AFPAK Hands. Worthless 365s/179s to shitholes to do busy work. Silly additional duties. A broken, archaic promotion system. Flight pay that hasn't changed since the early 1990s. A bonus that hasn't changed since 1999. Rampant micromanagement of squadrons/groups/wings by the NAF/MAJCOM. Have those very solvable issues been fixed yet? No? How many of those things are solvable at the O-3 to O-6 level? Yeah, I didn't think management was serious about fixing things either- easier to just send your top "leader" (LOL) to whine to the FAA.
  30. 1 point
    Right. I don't get it. How does Goldfein expect to be taken seriously? If I were the FAA at a meeting with a military general, I'd be interested as to why he expects me to fix his problem. His reasons for having a problem with the 1500 hour rule have absolutely nothing to do with the basis for why the rule was created. If he's going to attempt to rally the airline execs against the FAA by saying everyone can have more pilots, the airlines are going to say, "That's great, Fingers, but we're still going to want your pilots over sub-1500hr pilots, and we see that you're trying to keep them from us."
  31. 1 point
    I would say that Fingers is trying to find a way to keep adequate numbers of pilots on AD past the ends of their SUPT commitments, in order to meet warfighting requirements. The 1500 rule works directly and dramatically against Fingers' efforts, as discussed above. Rescinding the 1500 hour rule is no panacea--the Air Force will continue to hemorrhage people anyway; the economic and QOL benefits are too substantial even without it. I simply don't understand why folks on this forum are upset with him trying to do his job. There are plenty more valid things to complain about than this.
  32. 1 point
    They did. It's called the CF-5D, license built by Canadair back in the day. Bigger wing, leading edge flaps, -15 engines (J85-13 core with a smattering of -21 internal components), beefier landing gear, bigger wheels and tires. Even modded them with CF-18 HUD and HOTAS. Canadians used them as LIFT aircraft for a number of years before retiring them. They even SLEP'd their birds before putting them in storage. Great jets.
  33. 1 point
    Let's see... 1. Both the Captain and First Officer in the Colgan Air crash had well over 1,500 hrs, yet they still died. Total flying hours was not the issue. It didn't save them that day. 2. Who is flying the regional jets--mainline or regional airlines--still doesn't fix the fundamental problem--there has to be a financially-viable way for folks (outside of the military) to get to 1,500 hrs. I don't see what your solution is to this problem, other than jacking up mainline payscales so much that the financial incentives are so great that nobody will stay on AD. Seems like a concern the CSAF should involve himself with. 3. As I wrote in a previous post, rescinding the 1,500 hr rule wouldn't preclude a quality prior-mil dude from getting hired when he retires/separates (see late-90s AF retention woes). It'll just tweak the supply/demand curve a bit, so you don't get quite so much cash as you would with the rule still in place. In other words, the concerns you voice are primarily economic/financial; what Goldfein & Co. are doing to try to make is comparatively irrelevant--it's all about the Benjamins. I get it; senior Air Force leaders can/should do more to eliminate queep/refocus on the mission/etc. Objections to the CSAFs efforts to have the 1500 hr rule rescinded, though, sound suspiciously like whining. TT
  34. 1 point
    Umm, since before the Air Force was an independent service. There's a whole lotta butthurtness on this forum over something they really need not to be butthurt over. There was no 1500 hr rule in the late 90s, yet folks had no problem getting hired then. If the airlines keep hiring at the levels they're projecting, you're worth your salt, you'll have no problem getting hired--even if they rescind the 1500 rule. For Goldfein, the issue is that the 1500 hr rule screwed over Air Force pilot retention even more. At least before, there was a marginally financially viable way for folks to build their hours through the civilian-only route. Folks would take the financial risk of paying for all the training and quals, and would suck up flying for peanuts in the regionals, since they had the hope of eventually reaching the big leagues, with their big league pay. The 1500 hr rule screwed that whole path up. Once the pool of maybe 3,000 (I get this number from a previous poster--can't vouch for its accuracy) well-qualified folks dries up, where are the major airlines, regionals, business aviation companies, etc., going to find their pilots, other than the military services--most notably Air Force, but also Navy, Marine Corps and Army? Rescinding the 1500 hr rule would at least offer a little bit of relief, and at this point, every little bit helps. Goldfein faces a further problem, in that a surprising amount of the military mission is executed by civilian contractors. The 1500 hr rule thus not only makes AF pilot retention harder, but it threatens the national aviation industry, by raising the barriers to entry too high for pilots. USTRANSCOM, for instance, contracts a helluva a lot of cargo movement; what happens when Atlas, Kalitta, DHL, etc., can't fly due to aircrew unavailability? It's not like they'll be able to task more C-17s to meet mission requirements, since--you guessed it--the AD and ARC C-17 units will have been gutted by airline hiring. In my mind, it would help if Goldfein approached the problem as a threat to the national aerospace system and industry, than "simply" a pilot retention problem. TT
  35. 1 point
    How does it end, I fell asleep at 2:11.
  36. 1 point
    Look on the bright side. Flight pay hasn't changed in 69 years, so you're losing less money than if they had adjusted it for inflation over the years.
  37. 1 point
    The Air Force could make a blow job terrible.
  38. 1 point
    Why TF would the FAA give two shits about this? FAA: Why should we do this? Goldfein: All of my people are leaving for a better QOL. FAA: Your concern is noted.
  39. 1 point
    on second thought, given Russian aggression in Korea we should probably start that war! Anymore troops on the peninsula and it might capsize......
  40. 1 point
    Still would have minimal effect on AF pilots IMO. It would be easier for civilians to get hired on by regionals, but legacy carriers are hiring at well above the 1,500 hour requirement anyway (closer to 2,000 - 2,500). Most military guys aren't flying for regionals after getting out, so they aren't directly competing with low-time civilians. You could argue that this will make it easier for civilians to build time at regionals since they'll be able to get hired at a regional faster. However, they will still need to be there for a long time to start logging PIC time.
  41. 1 point
    Hey everyone. Just wanted to revive this awesome thread and ask a couple of questions if anyone is around. I'm currently in UCT, through a good chunk of the advanced side now, and starting to figure out my dream sheet. RCs are without a doubt up there on my list. My big question that hasn't been discussed in this thread yet is what are the differences in maybe quality of life, deployment schedules, and crew dynamics for an EWO vs. Nav on the jet? Just trying to see where I would be the best fit. Could someone also provide an update to the typical deployment/TDY rotations going on right now? Thank you!
  42. 1 point
    Soooo, Germans (assuming here based on the accents) like big schwanzes. Or maybe they were Russkis. Good to know. Watch out Poland!
  43. 1 point
    shack. There's a gold mine of info here thanks to the OP's question.
  44. 1 point
    He's in UPT. He wants info on airframes and associated lifestyles. Actual pilots in those airframes have commented with information that could be helpful in the future. Hence the term "valuable information". Unless you know about the lifestyles of every airframe in the Air Force... In which case, by all means. Enlighten us.
  45. 1 point
    On your second post, you're going to bash someone who asked an honest question and by all accounts... has helped contribute valuable information to the forum? Seriously? Indeed.
  46. 0 points
    Why the hell does this matter? For all we know he was tasked to work with the FAA to come up with a solution (something that has been discussed for a while). As a result a part of the equation to help the national pilot shortage (both military and civilian) is to lower the time. What's wrong if they lower the hours for FOs, a lot of the issues mentioned are completely in the control of the airlines. (Showing without rest, pay, training) I was crossing oceans with just over 1K hours with a brand new FP. So according to some posts here we should have been a death trap waiting to happen. If you are an AF pilot and you believe this is doing you an injustice the problem probably isn't flights hours... Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  47. -1 points
    I'm not sure what "valuable information" you're referring to. You should reread his comment history. Seriously.
  48. -1 points
    @tac airlifter so you upvoted @daynightindicator's post and so did I...guess we can agree after all! BL: no need to go crazy war-hawk and start threatening to nuke Russia, but no need to tickle Putin's balls either. Several previous admin have tried a middle ground somewhere in between those two, I guess now we'll see how far kissing the ring gets us...
  49. -1 points
    Well, at least you recognize that your legal opinion isn't on par with federal appeals court judges (neither is mine FWIW). Clearly the 9th circuit feel that the plaintiffs' claims are valid, i.e. that Washington State and the other plaintiffs will suffer harm should the EO be in place. The likelihood of this decision being sound is fairly high since the three-judge panel ruled unanimously, concurring with the lower court decision that originally halted the EO's enforcement. We'll all get to find out what another 8 judges thinks here shortly... Because the defendant in the case, the President of the United States, claims specifically that this is happening due to the enforcement of the EO being halted by the courts. He also went ahead and pre-blamed the judiciary for any future attack that might happen for good measure. He went from "may be pouring in" on Feb 4th to "pouring in" with some greater certainty on Feb 5th. On Feb 8th he claims (citation needed...) that there's a big increase in traffic (i.e. immigration) from "certain areas," which we're left to assuming are the 7 countries the EO addresses. This is something that is either true or it isn't, and the State Department and DHS, who work for the President, could provide the data to say conclusively one way or the other. So long story short, I completely agree with you that it's very unlikely that terrorists are suddenly flooding into the U.S. I also completely agree that we need to thoroughly vet all refugees, immigrants and people seeking temporary visas before they come to the U.S. Maybe the administration should request Congress appropriate more money for the State Department's consular operations since consular officers are on the front lines abroad actually reviewing and approving individual immigration and visa cases. But as evidenced by his public statements, the defendant in this case that's bound for SCOTUS seems to believe that perhaps there is a specific threat from one or all of the 7 countries in question, that the threat is increasing while the EO is stayed, and that federal judges rather than the CINC will be to blame if an attack were to occur. Mr. President, good luck making that argument in front of the court!
  50. -1 points
    You guys are 100% correct that the President has a ton of latitude here. The fact that this EO is hung up in the courts and not currently in force is due almost solely to the administration's sloppiness and incompetence. If they really want this thing to stick because it's so GD vital to national security, they absolutely rescind the JV version 1.0 and re-write something that makes a little more sense and is on firmer legal ground. Exempting green card holders and those with approved visas (i.e. they've been vetted already), include countries where terrorists have actually come from, give new and specific instructions to the State Department on visa approvals and DHS on screening at ports of entry, etc. For those that think this will win at SCOTUS on the merits of the case, I guess we'll see. As was stated above, once the 90 days are up I'm sure they'll have figured out a much stronger vetting system and this can just fall by the wayside right? Or they could almost immediately end the litigation by rescinding the original EO and writing a new one that more competently accomplished the stated goal. I mean, the President said that bad people are pouring into our country right now under his watch right...shouldn't he be quickly drafting a new EO to stem the tide and beat back the mongol hordes? I for one am not holding my breath on either of those outcomes, because at this point it's just a pissing contest, and the President doesn't seem to take perceived insults or losses lightly.
×