Jump to content
Baseops Forums


Registered User
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

47 Excellent

About Motofalcon

  • Rank
    Crew Dawg

Recent Profile Visitors

2,821 profile views
  1. This is my surprised face. Then again, it doesn’t change anything at my base, because when the policy changed to allow the squadrons to take care of PT testing, Wing leadership decided to “uphold standards” by continuing to use a Fitness Assessment Cell (ie the squadrons were not allowed to administer the test, there was literally zero change from the previous procedures). Which is a roundabout way of the wing cc telling the Sq commanders “I don’t trust you or your people.”
  2. This is very similar to the old Fighter Air Crew (FAC) year we used to take. It was about 6 different weightlifting movements (bench, lat pull downs, bicep curls, squats, leg curls, and maybe leg extensions?) all based off of your body weight (percentages like you suggest) along with another set of squats at body weight and crunches. Of course this test didn’t mean anything, but you had to pass it by the end of IFF (and then again at the beginning of the B course) or you couldn’t fly a fighter. They have since changed it and it is no longer a test but a “program” leading you to a healthy way of life (read: FW/CCs got a hard on for CrossFit), but I always thought it was BS that I had a test specifically developed for my afsc, yet still also had to pass the skinny test. This also disregards that the current test favors thin, runner types, who are also the folks who usually have the most G-tolerance problems. If I was king for a day, there would either be a test like you suggest, or the test would have 6-9 different events (pull up, push up, sit up, run, squat, bike, maybe swim, etc) - you pick 3. The standards could/should be pretty high, since different folks have different strengths and this isn’t a “one size fits all” (pun intended) so you are expected to do well in events you get to choose. Until I am shown that every human has the exact same size bone structure, any sort of size standard (be it waist, waist/neck, weight/height, BMI) is complete garbage.
  3. We did. But when every airman/NCO/SNCO in the afe chain responds with “well sir, the AFI says...” then I give all that feedback to the oss/CC (who seemed receptive) and went on about my business. I don’t have time to 847 every damn afe reg, and since I can’t order people to use common sense, not sure what other recourse there is that is worth my time. I tried to used the CSAFs “if it doesn’t make sense, stop doing it” mantra, but good luck finding a SMSgt who will let their shop actually violate an AFI, whether it makes sense or not.
  4. Empires, man. During the last exercise on the RoK I participated in, AFE went super-reg-Nazi mode and when we showed in the morning, we all had to individually go to afe to get issued our pistols with fake bullets, but only one person could be in the room at a time (never mind the 5 other afe personnel watching a movie, it’s “dangerous” to have more than one non-afe person in the room near some pistols, in case they snap and start shooting), and we would have to get the gun, arm it in the barrel, put it in the holster on our vests (which we had to fully put on/wear to put the gun in - couldn’t just hold the vest in one hand and put the pistol in the holster), and then give the entire vest back to afe (couldn’t just put it back in our locker where it normally lives) so they could lock it in a cage somewhere (so then we have to check it out again when we step). Reason? “Well sir we can’t have guns just laying around”. Well last I checked this entire building is locked down with armed guards checking everybody, and every single person in here is qualified to carry/use that gun. Not to mention, thousands of people carry weapons (with real bullets!) all day every day downrange. AND afe is behind its own locked door that only afe and pilots know the combo. Many reasons why guns aren’t just falling into anybody’s hands. These empires of people who blindly follow AFIs to the detriment of mission accomplishment/major a$$pain all add to the “this job isn’t worth it” column and that’s why the talent is leaving - the dudes/dudettes about to sign out a multi million dollar war machine, first have to go “report” to some A1C to begin a stupid long process for a damn M9. Infuriating. The cherry on top was during that exercise, when afe wouldn’t post flight/clean our helmets/masks between goes (because yet again, “the AFI says” they don’t have to until the end of the day) one of the afe troops was sitting on their bar-height stools watching a movie, fell asleep, and because his legs were dangling they fell asleep HARD, to the point an ambulance was called. And yes, I will gladly clean my own helmet (sts) and mask between goes (when I have time), but every time I do the afe guys look at me weird because they think I don’t know how to wipe a mask with alcohol and I might break something - I told them “if you don’t want me to do this, then YOU do it, since it’s your job anyway.” Empires.
  5. Trip was an exemplary husband, father, and bro; a truly phenomenal fighter pilot. I can only hope to emulate him. If I may take some literary liberty, "His is a dying breed, and now that he is gone, the world is a lesser place." Blue skies, brother...
  6. Yeah, but then you have to pay back the unearned portion of the bonus - the kicker is that you pay back 100% of the unearned value, not the 75% you received after taxes. So it actually costs money out of your pocket to turn down continuation.
  7. Yeah, they have been testing some new flight suits by giving them to a few pilots at a few bases to get feedback. I think there's about 6-9 new models with small variations in material, cut, or both. One of them is made of a material that looks "acid washed" and has a shininess to it - it looks like an older poopy suit inside out.
  8. Counterpoint - I don't know what the purpose of the pin is since the lever should be sufficient (and easier to use and no "dropped pin/FOD" hazard). To be fair, the ACES II in the viper/eagle/hog has both an arming lever and a pin, except the pin is in the lever (not at the base of the ejection handle) and only prevents the arming lever from accidentally getting knocked down into the "armed" position (the pin in the new MB -38 seats prevents the lever from being armed AND prevents the handle from being pulled a la T-6, should the lever mechanism fail). Also, removing the pin in the big boy jets is a maintenance function (it is pulled and stowed before the pilot gets to the jet). When I was at RND I forgot to put the pin back in the -38 seat (arming lever was in "safe") and maintenance made me go back out to the jet to put the seat pin back in - they said they would not touch the pin (even though the seat was safed) and either the pilot or someone from egress had to put the pin back in. No idea why, just a stupid empire rule that didn't seem worth fighting. Its too bad that they harp on the pin so much, because a) it's unnecessary, and b) without it that lever can be quickly slapped down to arm the seat and then handle pulled. Not sure if it would have helped here, but maybe.
  9. Yeah, well given how the AFPC folks responded back when the AFI had two conflicting notes (always pick the note that kept the member in sts), I'm pretty sure that now if it it came down to the AFI vs "a guy at the porch told me" there is a 0.0% Pk of being let out of an ADSC. I won't believe it until there is a written change to the reg.
  10. It's not about "return on investment", it's about keeping people forever. If it was ROI, then you would owe a lot more time for the 8-month/69-sortie B course than you would for a 6-week/12-sortie T-X requal course, which would be more than you'd owe for a 2-ride post-DNIF in house requal. This is just gonna force people's hands into either 7-day opting earlier than they wanted or being stuck forever.
  11. Good point - here's a few other situations I thought of that are sure to cause grief if an in-house requal costs 3 years: 1) MWS pilot gets tagged for non flying 179 or 365. The only way to insure yourself is to take an I/Q checkride right before you leave, so when you come back you aren't unqualified, just non current. That does take sq/cc approval for an out of zone check, and given what I've read in other threads about some sq/CCs, that may be easier said than done. I don't think that would work for your Cessna problem though, because once you get the qual in the Cessna, it voids your previous MWS qual, no matter how current the form 8 (no dual qual for the average joe) 2) MWS female pilot gets pregnant - during her DNIF period, her checkride expires. So does she pick up 3 years just to requal once she pickles? (This can also expand to any pilot who has a long term DNIF) 3) MWS pilot gets a Q3 and is directed to fly X sorties/sims before refly - does this count as an in house requal? Again, who is gonna track down every "RQ INST/QUAL" form 8 and attach an adsc, I have no idea. But it seems like the AF didn't think this one all the way through (shocking). It used to be clear that they were picking and choosing what they wanted to follow - now they just muddied up the waters.
  12. This was discussed over in the adsc thread, but short answer: you gotta watch out for note 1c, because it says that an initial qual in a new airframe (like the one you would get when cross flowing to your new MDS) will cost you the full 3 year adsc, even if it goes past your initial UPT ten year commitment. Yes, note 1b and 1c directly contradict themselves, but when I brought that up to afpc, they stuck with 1c and I picked up an extra year when I got my T-38 initial qual. But it sounds like others have gotten it waived or reduced, so ymmv. Hope for the best (no extra adsc) but prepare yourself for the worst (full 3 year adsc for a form 8 that says "INIT QUAL" on it).
  13. Yeah, but do they do a normal UPT syllabus (T-6s and then T-38s)? Because we had the Saudis at CBM as well (along with Japanese, Italian, a couple others), but those were called international students, not ALP, and they did the same syllabus as the US students.
  • Create New...