Jump to content

Stank

Registered User
  • Content count

    13
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Stank

  • Rank
    SNAP

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    FL
  1. Here's a scenario: let's say 4 years ago you signed up for the five year bonus. Today you get hit with a 365 deployment to the CAOC and decide after all your previous deployments and with the airlines hiring it might be a good time to get out. Can you punch? How much money of the bonus would you have to return? All that you have received so far? (4 years worth) or would you just stop receiving the bonus and not owe any money? Hypothetical question only.
  2. Is the KC-10 going to be cut?

    I feel a little guilty taking so much pleasure in this thread... The most arrogant community in AMC, the ones who think by some incredible quirk of mathematics that great pilots exist only in the KC-10 while every other airframe is full of incompetent dweebs, the ones who treat other AMC aircrew deadheading on their jet worse than they treat space-A pax, the ones who can't talk to other AMC crew dogs for more than five minutes without telling them how much they suck or how incredibly gifted KC-10 pilots are. This incredible flying community, a gift to our nation from the almighty, has been told by big blue: GO AWAY, WE DON'T NEED YOU, WE'LL BE JUST FINE WITHOUT YOU. On behalf of KC-135, C-130, and C-17 flyers everywhere: before you start showing up at "slums" like Altus, Little Rock or McConnell and flying our crappy jets, remember to leave your gucci bags and arrogance on your KC-10s when you drop them off at the boneyard.
  3. This week I received an e-mail from my base's EO office: EQUAL OPPORTUNITY OFFICE. Leadership opportunity available; EO is seeking 5 project officers for the following committees: Martin Luther King Day / Jan 2014, African American Heritage Month / February 2014, Women's History Month / March 2014, Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month / May 2014 and Pride Month / June 2014. To be considered, a completed nomination form with supervisor endorsement should be delivered to the EO Office, "Pride Month" corresponds to Gay Pride or LGBT Pride Month, which happens in June. This seems a little ridiculous. Anyone want to volunteer? Great OPR bullet...
  4. What's wrong with the Air Force?

    Was boredom a problem before OEF? I don't remember it being a problem in the 90s. Where is this guy coming from? From 2001 until present, the AF didn't seem to care much about high deployment rates other than giving lip service to them and making us fill out medical forms. But now they're worried about us being bored? YGBSM.
  5. C-17 lands short at Dover

    I handled a lot of issues like this when I was in command post. I never understood the almost pathological desire by MX personnel to lie in order to avoid a delay code being assigned to them. The whole purpose of the delay code system is to provide accurate info on why planes aren't taking off on time. How can AMC spot trends in declining aircraft reliability when MX personnel lie so that their power point slides look good? The regulation that governs delay codes is AMCI 10-202V6. The verbiage on how to assign delays is right here: "The primary deviation code is the first event in the sequence of events that directly leads (meaning an event from which unit actions cannot recover) to the mission departing in delay. C2 controllers will consider the 14-minute take-off window when evaluating "recoverable" events." So, if showing up 1 minute late to the acft does not directly lead to a takeoff delay, the code should be assigned to someone else. Chapter 6 has the list of all of the codes. 219 and 222 are the ones that CP and MX love to assign to aircrew.
  6. I always felt closer to the battle in the -135 vs the -17, but still pretty far away. I've seen the fighters I just gave gas to peel off and drop bombs on Fallujah, I've had a lot of fighters ask me to move my orbit closer to their TIC so they can spend more time strafing. Opening night for OIF was pretty exciting with a wall of fighters on my wing ready to push into Iraq. A lot of the -17 guys I flew with seemed to think the war revolved around them. Granted I wasn't an airdropper in the 17.
  7. I flew -135s and was able to switch to C-17s. Now I fly a desk. Strat airlift mission is a lot more enjoyable and more interesting than the refueling mission. I realize 10s are different than 135s, but 90% of their mission is flying circles over the sandbox. When flying C-17s, you could be anywhere in the world tomorrow, I thought that was cool. The deployment tempo of the -135 (60 on, 60 off while I was flying, similar to 10s) was a little more predictable and easier to manage than C-17s.
  8. No parachutes on heavies

    Bailing out was a more likely scenario for KC-135s during the cold war, if it ever went nuclear. If the bomber needed more gas than planned, the tanker had to provide it. Now you have a KC-135 over northern Canada without enough gas to get to its recovery base. Also, the recovery base could be a nuclear crater. A controlled bailout would be an acceptable option, with time to get your equipment ready and the jet slowed down.
  9. Tuition Assistance Cuts

    Where to begin, where to begin? 1. Maybe 2. This is hardly a government handout. The USAF views PME and Masters degrees as necessary to develop a professional officer corps. That they execute that task poorly is irrelevant. The bottom line is that obtaining a master's degree is, for 99% of us, a requirement for retention in our chosen career. Not even close to some of government's low hanging fruits, like farm bills or NPR. 3. Try not to suck at life? That's your recipe for promotion? You just offended a lot of passed-over dudes who may not have had a few boxes checked but definitely did not suck at life. That's the whole big gripe here: the system sucks at identifying real talent and leadership and instead favors shoe clerks, execs, and kiss-asses. Now it's going to cost more. 4. How is this a step towards relieving that requirement? What makes you think a masters requirement will go away now that it costs (alot) more? No one likes their crap degree here. They hate/hated getting the crap degree and now will hate paying out the ass for it. Couger's lost it, turned in his brain today
  10. Panetta to Lift Ban on Women in Combat

    Its not a straw man argument. It is likely a reality that standards will be lowered through political pressure. How can you not see this? Also, its not likely that a female can meet the standards of infantry service, either, but you want them to be able to try. Even if 99% of them fail, regardless of the cost, right? I think a 60 yr old male, or a 4'5" male is probably more likely to meet the standards of infantry service than a female. Why not let them in, then? Its not about having a penis you moron. Its about the other differences between males and females. I know that a liberal like you thinks that a man can become a woman by cutting off his penis and getting a boob job, but us conservatives just think he's a fvcked up man. Its about more muscles, stronger muscles, stronger bones, greater stamina, and all of recorded history showing that males are far superior soldiers. Letting women even try is just stupid for the sake of political correctness. Hey one, can you read this a few times? Has it started to sink in, yet? We're concerned about soldier's lives while you envision some spank-fest amazon movie and liberal utopia?
  11. Panetta to Lift Ban on Women in Combat

    Uhhh....thanks. I really wasn't looking for specific regulations and that's a lot of useless knowledge that you're carrying with you. Up until a few days ago there was also a rule that prohibited women from joining infantry, armor, artillery, and special ops units in the armed forces. That rule (you can go find the specific reg or AFI for me since you're into that) has been rescinded and is no longer valid. So rules really don't matter in this discussion, because Sec Def Panetta can get rid of them in the name of fairness and equality. By this logic, and by nsplayr's logic, anyone, literally anyone, who can pass the minimum standard of that particular branch or MOS, such as infantry, should be allowed to serve, to include: women, elderly, 'little people', and folks afflicted with various ailments or conditions that I will label as 'disabled' or 'handicapped.' I'd like an answer from nsplayr if he would also allow all of those folks entry into the infantry if they could meet the minimum standard.
  12. Panetta to Lift Ban on Women in Combat

    Hey all, long time lurker, thought I’d join up for this thread. A few questions for NSplayr: You say that “I value equality of opportunity and don't support limitations based on gender or sexual orientation or race or whatever. That's the root of it and why I think it's the right thing to do.” OK fine. Then why not disabled people? We don’t even let them apply to the military. Are they not as patriotic as other Americans who can serve? Can you provide me a rational explanation, based on your logic of allowing women to serve in infantry units, why handicapped people cannot? As long as a handicapped individual, whatever ailment they have, can meet some minimum physical standard they should be allowed in, right? Why should they be excluded from the top tiers of military leadership because of some condition that is not their fault? And we should ignore whatever cost is involved with accommodating them because we don’t want to infringe on ‘equality of opportunity’. What about old people? I’m sure there are many patriotic 60 year old men who could probably pass the MINIMUM standards for infantry service. Shouldn’t we allow them the equality of opportunity as well? Is it their fault they’re old? Why should we discriminate against them? Many European countries have lots of older people in their militaries, shouldn’t we follow their lead? I’m pretty sure the average 60 year old man is tougher and stronger than the average 20 year old woman, why not give them a shot? These questions are not reductions to the absurd. I think allowing women, elderly, and disabled people into the infantry is entirely consistent with all of your arguments above. Remember, according to you, we have to at least give them the opportunity. How is not having “a penis between your legs” (your dim idea, not mine) any different than having gray hair or too many skin wrinkles? Does a liberal’s desire to have an effective national defense ever exceed their desire for equality? You also believe that because a politician has stated that “standards will not be lowered” therefore this will be true and standards will never be lowered. Where have you been living? In your time observing politics you haven’t developed any cynicism? No amount of pork-barrel spending, illegal immigration for votes, gerrymandering, farm bills, spending cuts that are actually increases and temporary taxes that become permanent have led you to realize that our politicians are not honest and do not have a selfless desire for our nation to succeed and prosper? Standards will be lowered, politicians will push Generals for results, it will cost more, our infantry will be weaker. The first female infantry soldier will appear on Oprah and President Obama will shake her hand in the oval office along with a bunch of other liberals and the media will gush about how tough she looks and how she could probably beat up Matt Lauer. It will be a proud moment for liberal america.
×