Leaderboard

It's still unbelievable to me that anyone ever thought our involvement in this conflict was winnable, or that the intent was ever to "win" against Russia. I've been arguing this for 3 years. The net result will be a loss to the West. It just is what it is. The security and interests of the American people were never a factor in Ukraine. It always was a corrupt state ripe for the manipulation and exploitation by people who stood to gain billions of dollars. All of us have been conditioned to think since childhood that Russia was capable superpower bent on world domination. And even after it has been demonstrated that they don't have that conventional capability, the propaganda still works. People still believe it. Zelensky himself said he doesn't know where $100 billion dollars went. It was allocated by our leadership, but it never showed up. The Ukrainian media themselves just admitted they were 90% funded by foreign interests such as USAID. How many times are we going to be "gotten" by these giant scams? It's now being reported that nearly every department of our government is rife with scams, lies, corruption, waste, etc. But they got this one right? The same propaganda machine that suckered half the population during COVID was the same propaganda machine that was pushing funding for this war. I understand how it works. It's a compelling belief: We're the noble good guys fighting to the good fight against the forces of evil. That's what I always believed in the early stages of my career. Eventually, you've gotta grow up a little bit and face reality. “The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either -- but right through every human heart -- and through all human hearts." Now that this whole thing is being dismantled, we're gonna have people equivocating and performing these amazing feats of logical gymnastics. "We were just trying to drain the Russian economy, not really win." So we spent hundreds of billions of dollars of US taxpayer money, half of it vanishes to who knows where before it made it to the battlefield, and the ROI is massive because a million Russians and Ukrainian men were killed? There is no ROI for you and me. None. What is our record for direct US engagement in third world foreign conflicts recently? How is Iraq doing? How is Afghanistan doing? How is Libya? How is Syria? But somehow we expect that if don't directly engage and instead give Ukraine hundreds of billions in money and equipment to fight a conventional conflict against an enemy that isn't a third world shithole --- that they're going to have a better result? It's mind-numbingly ridiculous to even think there was a reasonable expectation this was going to go well for the "good guys". Draw the border on the front lines. Let Russia boast over their acquisition of a few hundred km2 of destroyed rural farmland. The real benefit to the US will be the cessation of wasted $billions.

DOGE is going to force this guy to retire, and we'll finally be free of his tyranny!

1960s design and technology has upgrade limits. Too bad Boeing didn't do a clean sheet narrow body with design and tech features of the 78.

Way back in the day when I went through my first “no morale” iteration we decided to do scarves. The regs didn’t specify how you had to wear it (other than generally around neck and tucked into flightsuit) or what color/designs it had. So welcome to chief aneurisms when you have a bright red scarf worn like an ascot on any day of the week as you walk into finance. It was 10,000 times “worse” (from the chief perspective) than shirts. It was the ultimate “you play fuck on me, I play fuck on you!” The ability to give a massive middle finger to the d bags and let them know you have bested them on a daily basis was 100% worth wearing a scarf. The entire wing did it for about a year until morale shirts were back. Do it boys, you won’t regret it. Only disclaimer is I have no idea what current reg says about scarf design/wear, so QC that before full commit.

Complacency. Like doing high risk combat operations…just because you’ve done it a thousand times prior doesn’t make it any less risky. Your ability to manage the risk may improve, but that doesn’t equate to mitigating aka eliminating.

^^^Too funny coming from the guy who said Biden was doing a good job as president

Just as such, it's unbelievable to me that you advocate for a Russian win and just let them have it. Your guy is in charge. Surely he can negotiate better than giving Russia everything it wants? You even have his mug as your avatar. Surely you must be rooting for him to really stick it to Russia as much as you want it stuck to poor old corrupt Ukraine that didn't provoke an invasion? Or is it that you love Russia and have been rooting for them to wipe poor old corrupt Ukraine off the map and really stick it the Bidens? OK, new topic. Security interests. Russia is and always will be a security interest. To think otherwise is quite naive. Rewarding a dictator for life with lands due to invasion sends too many bad messages. As stated by others, Russia's military power has been shunted. ROI is, may it continue that no American fighting man end up in battle with Russia, nor our children. Second ROI, Russia gets nothing and is taught a lesson, fuck around and find out. In one hand, pull out the map from 2000 and start from there. In your red right hand, be holding an economic smack down that God himself would be impressed to see.

Metrics like this mask more than they illuminate, especially when they are taken at face value. @blueingreen gave a good example. I won't make this another rant about prop 13, but it's another example of why stats like you provide - which inform your opinion - are bad basis upon which to make judgments about the world. Prop 13 functions to allow many people to live in CA who otherwise wouldn't be able to afford it. In other words, there are people whose federal tax contributions are counted in the CA column when they would really be residents displaced to NV, AZ, or elsewhere if CA's tax system wasn't so effed up. The two-pronged effect is to subtract federal tax contributions from other states and add them to CA - distorting the reality of the "red states receive more than they contribute" or at least complicating it. I'm certain many such distortions exist which shift the balance in both ways. But painting with a simple brush like "blue states contribute more to the tax kitty" is likely an artifact of other underlying distortions that are in operation which make it appear so. Extreme high earners, who pay the majority of income taxes, tend to live in big cities like Los Angeles and New York.

To be clear, I'm simply using the phrase "productive class" to describe Americans who pay more into the system than they take out of it. People don't have to be millionaires to consider themselves part of that class. For example, the top 20% of earners (household income of $170,000+) pay about 87% of US federal income taxes. With regard to blue states and red states, the most straightforward answer to your question is that red states, particularly those in the South, have the largest concentrations of people who are significantly more likely to be poor and rely on government benefits on a per-capita basis: Black and Hispanic people. This isn't to say that there aren't poor White or Asian people who rely on federal programs; In fact, Whites receive more benefits overall than anyone else in absolute terms, but their per-capita consumption rates are far lower (except for all the elderly people on Social Security, which is nothing more than a reflection of our country's historical demographics). When you take this into consideration, it's no surprise that blue states like Vermont, Maine, or Massachusetts receive less federal funding than Mississippi, Louisiana, or Georgia. So it's not really about the ideological consistency of the people who govern red and blue states, it's just a demographic reality. There are lots of ways to slice the pie when it comes to analyzing the data on this kind of stuff. But people tend to get uncomfortable when you start categorizing along the lines of race, sex, national origin, and other classifications — especially if it concerns any kind of negative outcome — because it forces us to ask difficult questions and grapple with complex issues that don't necessarily have straightforward or pleasant conclusions. But the truth is that these categories have utility, which is why they're used all the time by professional statisticians across the ideological spectrum. Unfortunately, any time you make a generalized statement about people based on population-level statistics, there are going to be sensitive reactionaries chomping at the bit to mention every exception to the rule and call you every "-ist" under the sun. Just as an example of how data can illuminate these types of discussions, let's look at education: The schooling system here in the US is often ridiculed by Americans and foreigners alike because we don't score as highly as you might expect on metrics like the OECD's Program for International Student Assessment (PISA). This kind of criticism was epitomized in Jeff Daniels' ridiculous monologue from "The Newsroom" where he rants about why America actually isn't the best country in the world according to various metrics. The most recent data from the 2022 PISA puts the USA at 18th in the world, which is decent, but not great. However, the story changes when you split American students by race: US Asians are 2nd in the world, US Whites are 7th, US Hispanics are 39th, and US Blacks are 47th. So right away, we've dispelled the narrative that all American students are underachievers. For some reason, our Asian and White students are among the best in the world -- better than any European country. Yet for another reason, our Hispanic and Black students are lagging behind. Is it because they're poorer? Is it because of cultural differences in how ethnic groups value education in the US? Is it because of "institutional racism"? Your guess is as good as mine, but my belief is that a serious and just society would look at these kinds of disparities with genuine interest and curiosity borne out of a desire to help and improve; Instead, we're lowering standards, eschewing standardized testing, and removing AP classes from curriculums at predominantly Black and Hispanic schools, along with lots of other nonsensical stuff. Don't even get me started on the propaganda machines we call "universities".

Sorry - Had to go fly. Good discussion and I had some time to consider my response at cruise. It's been over 20 years since I flew the 737 or A320 and I've rammed dumped them. My more recent experience is on the MD-11, 777, 757 and I'm currently in the left seat of the 767. First, I can already see we're coming at this from very different directions due to the lack of inhibits in your aircraft. I'd be curious to hear from other 737 operators. I'm really surprised that some of the newer versions don't have that feature. So, from my perspective, the inhibits allow me to ignore the failures that have already been determined to be unworthy of a high speed reject. All I need to know are the ones for which I am going to high speed reject. The other ones I'm not going to know about (or can be ignored) until 400' on takeoff. My company FOM directs a reject in the high speed regime for 4 things: Fire or Fire Warning, Engine Failure, Any type of windshear alert or warning and if the aircraft is unsafe or unable to fly. That's it. So I have thought about what I'm going to abort for and it's those items. Since other possible failures are filtered from my decision process by the inhibits, I don't have to look for all possible cockpit indications of problems and then determine if those are in my pre-thought-out list of high speed rejectable events and then decide to reject. Barring some kind of runway excusion or other external event, If I don't see one of the 4 things I listed above between 80 knots and V1, then I'm going flying. Some things I'm probably going to eventually declare an E for that might occur on takeoff (speaking now for the 767): Most of the ones that the QRH directs a land at nearest suitable and some that don't. Loss of generator or IDG with a deferred (MELed) APU in the Wx (so only one primary AC source), dual engine fuel filter issues, Anti-skid failure/fault, any single hyd failure since they all come with reduced spoiler panels operating on each wing (potential stopping issues) while in addition, the center system failure requires a higher landing speed and reduced landing flap setting using the alternate flap system, alternate gear extension and use of reserve brakes. I'm not trying to start a secondary "when to declare" thread. I realize there are lots of opinions. Mine is declaring an E doesn't cost anything other than some extra paperwork and if I'm going to be dealing with possible stopping issues, dual engine issues or one more failure putting me on battery power in the wx then I want priority and equipment standing by. Here are some examples of when inhibits occur during takeoff (FYI, there are also landing inhibits): MD-11 - Warnings for some fires from V1 to 400' RA or 25 seconds airborne. Lower priority cautions/alerts and the associated MC lights inhibited at either throttle advance, 80 knots or V1-20 until 400'/25 seconds airborne (some even inhibited until 1000' or 120 seconds airborne). A couple of exceptions are Engine fire is not inhibited at V1 but the master warning light/aurals from it are until 400' and the tire failure isn't inhibited. 777 - All EICAS advisory messages and MC light w/ new EICAS caution level messages inhibited from 80 knots to 400'/20 seconds airborne, Master warning lights/fire bell from the first of V1 or rotation to 400'/25 seconds airborne 767 - Advisory messages inhibited from t/o thrust application to 400'/20 seconds airborne, MC lights and EICAS caution aurals from 80 knots to 400'/20 seconds after rotation (actual EICAS cautions not inhibited - just the sound), Master Warning lights/fire bells from rotation to 400' or 20 seconds elapsed. A fire during inhibit will show an EICAS warning but no aurals until inhibit ends. I agree with your "time is the enemy" comments to a degree. But in some cases it depends on the aircraft. None of the bleed air malfunctions in the 767 require land at nearest suitable. All fuel related EICAS messages with the exception of L/R system pressure are advisory and I'll never even see them in the high speed regime. So, to a large majority of today's pilots, many of those malfunctions you mention are not going to be evident or if they are, only a partial, inaudible caution during the critical time between 80 knots and V1. That obviously excludes you and others flying 737s that don't inhibit cautions and advisories. On my flight today with a medium TOW (322K out of 408K max), I had 18 seconds from 80 knots to V1. I was PF. Bleed, fuel, oil and hyd leaks or a bad generator were probably not going to manifest themselves in such a way that they would have been recognized in the early half of that 18 seconds for the FO to let me know in time. No aurals and no MC lights while I'm looking outside through the HUD with a "go" mentality listening for only what I know can audibly warn me about 3 out of the 4 reasons I'm trained to reject at high speed. We're simply not conditioned and trained to bring a silent EICAS message into the decision process between 80 knots and V1. Yes, the non-rotating aircraft is an outlier. I wasn't using it as an example of a high speed reject, but more to offer an example of an aircraft that is unsafe or isn't going to fly. But, not really adding much to the discussion, I agree.

It's funny that I have the exact opposite opinion. Just as a matter of pure observation, it's interesting how some of these things break down along polar political lines. Anyway, here you go: RFK is on to something. He may be a bit off kilter on some issues such as Fluoride in the water and other fringe issues, but on others, like giving 69 vaccines to kids before they're 1, he probably has a couple of valid points. Also, just take your one each American citizen and put them on a scale. Now compare that to the same American in the 1950s. There is a difference, and it's not genetic. RFK is one of the few dems who is willing to say the emperor isn't wearing any clothes. He is pointing at something that is real and we can all put our hands on: our healthcare system and the way it functions is completely effed. It's driven by adverse incentive and no one is talking about it except for him! So he might not have all the solutions, but he has certainly identified a problem and it's an important conversation to start that we haven't been having. And finally, say whatever you will about his positions, he clearly has a deep level of knowledge about the domain. Tulsi, on the other hand, is decidedly not on to something. She's a confirmed and deranged conspiracy nut, and her tenure as DNI could potentially be catastrophic. Yes, everyone knows there are problems with our foreign policy. She offers no revelation there. But the USA is not out there sewing discord for some ulterior nefarious purpose, which is what her underlying view of the foreign policy establishment is. She's the type who sees Edward Snowden as a hero, rather than as a traitor - which she is on record as having a desire to see his charges dropped.

Sweet, no change from what I remember. The only possible bump is if you have a wing cc who’s a total douche and doesn’t approve scarves. As far as good taste, you all know your O-6s - if they’re not that cool, then just do a squadron color (maybe with the aircraft silhouette of what you fly in a pattern) and call it good. It’ll be enough to stick it to the douches.

What @Clark Griswold said. Air Force trainer aircraft acquisition has been the next-to-last priority, for a long time. When the AF went to replace those aircraft, they didn't care enough to put the proper resources behind it. Leading to today's inevitable state of affairs. Also, my hazy recollection - folks can correct as necessary. The T-41 had worked well for a long time, until McPeak became CSAF in the early 90s, and decided people needed to train in something aerobatic. The AF procured the T-3 Firefly, which was pulled from service after three fatal accidents. After that, the Air Force vacillated between several different solutions: sending people straight to T-37s with no prior flight time provided, paying for people to get a certain amount of hours at a private school of their choice, sending people to get their hours at a school designated by the AF, and probably other options over time that I don't recall. The T-37 had worked well for a long time, besides being old and outdated. The Air Force tried replacing in in the early 80s in a competition eventually won by Fairchild Republic's T-46 Eaglet. They went over budget, and the program was cancelled. Just goes to show you - even during the height of the Reagan era military buildup, the Air Force didn't care enough to get a new trainer built. The AF tried again in the early 90s with the JPATS program, and ended up with the T-6, which were delivered between 2000 - 2009 or thereabouts. And, based on this thread, the Air Force can't seem to keep them flying, for whatever obscene reason. The T-38 had worked for a long time, but was old, outdated, and wearing out. In the early 90s, the Air Force began procuring the T-1 Jayhawk, and split pilot training into a track for T-38s and T-1s, with part of the reasoning being to extend the life of the existing T-38 aircraft. In the early 2000s, the AF began the T-X program with a stated goal of replacing the T-38. That program proceeded in fits and starts, but generally really sucked hind tit when it came to funding over the years, with some years having no funding at all. Finally, in 2016, the AF released a formal Request for Proposal, and in 2018 selected Boeing's T-7. And Boeing has basically been Boeing, and fucked it all up.

neither can ukraine. and they have zero chance at victory. "just a little more support and victory is right around the corner!" gee where have i heard that bullshit from before? russia wants to wreck ukraine. not conquer it.

Or "other" inspections ala the Gen Scheisskopf ball sack check in Catch 22 (Clooney style).

It's funny how the Left frames the productive class—the ones funding everything—as the bad guys for not “sharing enough.” Never mind they’re already paying most of the taxes. Meanwhile, those who receive far more than they contribute in benefits are cast as victims. It’s a neat trick: blame the people keeping the lights on while ignoring the real problem—spending. But hey, why fix the system when you can just keep milking it? Mainstream politicians across the ideological spectrum are insulated from the negative consequences of their decisions. The rich stay rich, the poor are lavished with benefits with no incentive to achieve anything, and the middle class has to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.

What does the AF say about wearing a dicky (fake shirt not donger) instead of a T shirt?

No one should be interested in the things I'm not interested in anymore.

Isn't it hilarious that the same senior leaders that will complain about how our generation doesn't want to stay in and only thinks about the airlines, somehow completely misses the fact that when they were company grade officers they were basically living a frat boy's wet dream, with no real deployments, mission, or sacrifice? I had one Colonel tell a story about drunkenly arriving his car into a light pole at the OClub, only to have SF drive him home and pick him up in the morning to retrieve his vehicle. That same colonel then defended the 0-0-1-3 policy and giving article 15s to officers who were drunk in public. He had nothing to say when I asked if he had a bottle of scotch in his desk as a wing Commander. These guys are nothing but cowardly hypocrites. They enjoyed a system that was so awesome and carefree that it gave them the camaraderie and memories to stick around when the job inevitably gets lamer and lamer as you gain more and more responsibilities. But they can't see that without that first decade of awesome memories, there's no nostalgia to keep you tied to the organization. It is bordering on criminally stupid that the leadership of an organization desperate to retain talent can't see that allowing colored t-shirts and large mustaches is a no-brainer.

You know both can be wrong, right? Of course you did. Does the government need to be cutdown? Sure. Does it need an autistic technicrat who’s a defense contractor of all things data mining American’s data to run through his Grok 2.0 AI with this band of college aged broccoli haired retards named “Big Balls” shutting down agencies without authority to do so? No. Conduct auditing with qualified people who can conduct auditing. But hey, at least Elon’s government contracts are doing great! https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/FY25-Procurement-Forecast.xlsx (NAISC Code 311999) SpaceX also was awarded a $38M contract yesterday. So, a CEO of multiple government contractors will be “auditing” competing government contractors? But don’t worry, he said he’ll recuse himself of any conflict, all is good.

Funny how progressives never give back their savings from tax cuts back to the government…

🥱 - Yawn. Change the rules first, then worry about the rest. VA started moving on tinnitus, but I don't know if they made the changes. Also, how do you treat that? Also, they never note tinnitus on a hearing test, they just keep saying, "stop pressing the button." BTW, at flight med, when the first tone is heard, its press... press... pause... press... At the VA, they had a way better setup for hearing testing and really good headsets. It's in that super quiet testing booth where the tinnitus really rings out. Lastly, I can't stand soft talkers or kids that run 5 words into one like the other day, doyuwanaresee. What? repeats. I'm sorry, I'm hard of hearing. Do you want your receipt? oh. No thanks. It's like talking to fucking Pikeys.

I think Tulsi will start with whoever put her on the 'Quiet Skies" watch list that got her the full Monty colonoscopy everytime she flew anywhere.

Caveat up front: there are good/bad/disciplined/undisciplined pilots in every community and this is not geared toward any individual. But I'm gonna be the asshole here. In my experience, the army rotary wing community ranges anywhere from lackadaisical to outright dangerous WRT instrument procedures, airspace and traffic awareness, and flight discipline. I've witnessed a 5-ship Army Apache mission brief take place in the lobby of the San Angelo FBO that was basically: "Alright dudes, we're gonna take off, head east, 200A, everybody fall in. Questions?" "Sick. Step complete." I've been in control of a T-6 pattern full of solo students and had to send them all breakpoint straight through (half of them didn't even know what to do) because we had a 4 ship of army black hawks blast perpendicular through our pattern while talking to precisely no one on the radio. The second I saw the news out of DCA my first reaction was "goddammit some army rw clowns got everyone killed." Then I felt bad for jumping to conclusions and not waiting for the report. But after a few weeks, each new piece of data points right back to them and I'm back to being pissed. Why were they off altitude? Why are they dicking around at night in the approach corridor of a major airport? Why are they not on VHF? Why was this even an approved routing for them in the first place? Why were 28 different agencies permitted to fly helos in close proximity to DCA? These were not one-off, swiss-cheese-holes-aligning, mistakes. This was business as usual, proven by the fact there had been multiple near misses at DCA in the recent past including a helo-caused airliner go-around the day before. Obviously an airspace/procedure re-design is warranted, but I think we need to take a look at community-wide culture that was comfortable operating like this in the first place. @busdriver said it best that these procedures are "no-step stupid." The problem with that is if you've been raised in a community of hot dogging and "we'll do it live" you're probably not equipped to make a good risk assessment.

Further effects of the divestment, some GS [now former] toners at P-cola are scrambling for T-1 sim jobs at the garden varieties in order to get a touch n go to apply back to their own sim jobs down there. That's how saturated that market is, and how much location is an inducement for these AD retiree types. Some folks would bag groceries as long as the wife doesn't have to hear we gotta leave the redneck riviera. In fairness, I know Allegiant pilots in the same boat (vis a vis legacy 121 et al), so the dynamic is not unique. After all, it's why most people (HoH with dependents) get out of RegAF for, statistically speaking. On our end, not everybody wanted to flow to T-6s, T-6 PIT is more than 12 months backed up, it's a mess. Some sour faces across AFRC regarding the divestment (Toners were always the easiest to fill due to the airline job gateway it was), and people looking at having their AGRs invol-curtailed short. It's a mess for sure, yai morale and loss of experience. But fif gen and big pork programmes are capitalized, so it's all good. /s

finally some common sense. This Ukraine grift is over.