Leaderboard

Dunno about Jaded, but I'll do what I've always done when writing OPRs and EPRs...write the report with the proper tone based on the person's performance for that year. If they decide the VSP is the right choice, I'll shake their hand on the way out and thank them for their service. I'll also write a letter of recommendation for whatever job they're hoping to hire into. The machine will go on. Capt Snuffy (#2/57) is still #2/57 even if #1 punches. Unless his OPR comes due >120 days after #1's closes out. Then he can be #1 (if his performance still merits that rating). I still can't figure out if my experience over many years in the AF is that crazy-different from everyone else's, but I've found the number of solid leaders and commanders to exceed the number of bad leaders and commanders. Maybe it's just that we all remember the bad ones so vividly?

Aw yiss...that's one more F-35, boys! Let's go find us some more purses to squeeze so we can get ourselves a 4-ship! Yee HAW!

Thanks, dickhead. The vast majority of us don't go to the CAOC by choice and we all question the validity of this place when our CENTCOM counterparts do their jobs from stateside locations and garden spots like Larissa, Tampistan, and Vokel. That's an old argument that no one in leadership will entertain. In other news, Detroit, Oakland, and all U.S.-Mexican border duty locations will be added to the stateside IDP list and Clovis, NM now qualifies for HDP-L.

Not exactly - Read carefully. (Practical Test = FAA Checkride) §61.39 Prerequisites for practical tests. (a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b), ©, and (e) of this section, to be eligible for a practical test for a certificate or rating issued under this part, an applicant must: (1) Pass the required knowledge test: (i) Within the 24-calendar-month period preceding the month the applicant completes the practical test, if a knowledge test is required; or (ii) Within the 60-calendar month period preceding the month the applicant completes the practical test for those applicants who complete the airline transport pilot certification training program in §61.156 and pass the knowledge test for an airline transport pilot certificate with a multiengine class rating after July 31, 2014; (2) Present the knowledge test report at the time of application for the practical test, if a knowledge test is required; (3) Have satisfactorily accomplished the required training and obtained the aeronautical experience prescribed by this part for the certificate or rating sought; (4) Hold at least a third-class medical certificate, if a medical certificate is required; (5) Meet the prescribed age requirement of this part for the issuance of the certificate or rating sought; (6) Have an endorsement, if required by this part, in the applicant's logbook or training record that has been signed by an authorized instructor who certifies that the applicant— (i) Has received and logged training time within 2 calendar months preceding the month of application in preparation for the practical test; (ii) Is prepared for the required practical test; and (iii) Has demonstrated satisfactory knowledge of the subject areas in which the applicant was deficient on the airman knowledge test; and (7) Have a completed and signed application form. (b) An applicant for an airline transport pilot certificate with an airplane category multiengine class rating or an airline transport pilot certificate with an airplane type rating may take the practical test with an expired knowledge test only if the applicant passed the knowledge test after July 31, 2014, and is employed: (1) As a flightcrew member by a part 119 certificate holder conducting operations under parts 125 or 135 of this chapter at the time of the practical test and has satisfactorily accomplished that operator's approved pilot-in-command training or checking program; or (2) As a flightcrew member by a part 119 certificate holder conducting operations under part 121 of this chapter at the time of the practical test and has satisfactorily accomplished that operator's approved initial training program; or (3) By the U.S. Armed Forces as a flight crewmember in U.S. military air transport operations at the time of the practical test and has completed the pilot in command aircraft qualification training program that is appropriate to the pilot certificate and rating sought. © An applicant for an airline transport pilot certificate with a rating other than those ratings set forth in paragraph (b) of this section may take the practical test for that certificate or rating with an expired knowledge test report, provided that the applicant is employed: (1) As a flightcrew member by a part 119 certificate holder conducting operations under parts 125 or 135 of this chapter at the time of the practical test and has satisfactorily accomplished that operator's approved pilot-in-command training or checking program; or (2) By the U.S. Armed Forces as a flight crewmember in U.S. military air transport operations at the time of the practical test and has completed the pilot in command aircraft qualification training program that is appropriate to the pilot certificate and rating sought. (d) In addition to the requirements in paragraph (a) of this section, to be eligible for a practical test for an airline transport pilot certificate with an airplane category multiengine class rating or airline transport pilot certificate obtained concurrently with an airplane type rating, an applicant must: (1) If the applicant passed the knowledge test after July 31, 2014, present the graduation certificate for the airline transport pilot certification training program in §61.156, at the time of application for the practical test; (2) If applying for the practical test under the aeronautical experience requirements of §61.160(a), the applicant must present the documents required by that section to substantiate eligibility; and (3) If applying for the practical test under the aeronautical experience requirements of §61.160(b), ©, or (d), the applicant must present an official transcript and certifying document from an institution of higher education that holds a letter of authorization from the Administrator under §61.169. (e) A person is not required to comply with the provisions of paragraph (a)(6) of this section if that person: (1) Holds a foreign pilot license issued by a contracting State to the Convention on International Civil Aviation that authorizes at least the privileges of the pilot certificate sought; (2) Is only applying for a type rating; or (3) Is applying for an airline transport pilot certificate or an additional rating to an airline transport pilot certificate in an aircraft that does not require an aircraft type rating practical test. (f) If all increments of the practical test for a certificate or rating are not completed on the same date, then all the remaining increments of the test must be completed within 2 calendar months after the month the applicant began the test. (g) If all increments of the practical test for a certificate or rating are not completed within 2 calendar months after the month the applicant began the test, the applicant must retake the entire practical test. If you're wondering what the significance of July 31, 2014 is - read 61.153 (3) (ii) (e) & 61.156 Link - http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=e2823225a2dbfa1dc38c9d231fd694af&node=14:2.0.1.1.2.7&rgn=div6 SOURCE - http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=e2823225a2dbfa1dc38c9d231fd694af&node=14:2.0.1.1.2.1.1.25&rgn=div8 Get your ATP yesterday, otherwise its going to be harder than trying to breath with BQZIP's mom on top of you...

Those clowns at the CAOC will now have to deploy to the actual combat zone to get their extra $225 a month: http://www.stripes.com/news/dod-announces-changes-to-imminent-danger-pay-1.260479 WASHINGTON – On Friday, the Defense Department announced that many areas will be removed from the list of places where U.S. servicemembers qualify for imminent danger pay. “Today we are announcing the recertification of some locations as Imminent Danger Pay areas while we are discontinuing that designation for others,” Pentagon spokesman Col. Steve Warren told reporters. Of the areas previously designated for IDP, about one-third were decertified. IDP is intended to provide compensation bonuses to servicemembers deployed in locations that are relatively dangerous. The following land areas and the airspace above them were decertified: Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Serbia and Montenegro. The following land areas were decertified: East Timor, Haiti, Liberia, Oman, Rwanda, Tajikistan, United Arab Emirates, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan. The following sea areas were decertified: Arabian Sea, Gulf of Aden, Gulf of Oman, the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf (including the airspace above the Persian Gulf). The following areas were recertified for IDP: Afghanistan (including airspace), Algeria, Azerbaijan, Burundi, Chad, Colombia, Cote d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Greece (Athens only), Indonesia, Iran, Iraq (including airspace), Israel, Jordan, Kenya, Kosovo, Lebanon, Libya (including airspace), Malaysia, Pakistan, Philippines, Somalia (including airspace), Sudan (including airspace), Syria, Tunisia (including airspace), Turkey, Uganda, Yemen, Mediterranean Sea, and Somalia Basin. Some countries are on the IDP list even though the U.S. doesn’t have any servicemembers deployed in those countries, including Syria and Iran. The changes will take effect June 1 in the U.S. Central Command, U.S. European Command, U.S. Africa Command, U.S. Southern Command, and U.S. Pacific Command areas of responsibility. The IDP recertification review process began in 2011 and included an in-depth threat assessment from the combatant commands in coordination with the Joint Staff and the military services. The last time the IDP list was changed was 2011. It is an ongoing assessment, Warren said. In 2012, (the last year for which IDP statistics are available), about 194,000 service members received IDP. Approximately 50,000 service members will be impacted after these changes are made, according to DOD spokesman LCDR Nate Christensen. In 2012, DOD spent approximately $500 million on IDP. This policy change will save DOD $108 million per year, officials said. Warren said these IDP cuts were not driven by budgetary concerns. The current IDP rate is $7.50 per day, with a maximum IDP of $225 per month. Those numbers will not change, Christensen said. Experts told Stars and Stripes that IDP criteria make little sense. “Our men and women help to bring peace and stability to many places, and just because Imminent Danger Pay is discontinued doesn’t suddenly make those countries, waters or airspaces any more safe. One can only hope that this decision was done based on real world threat assessments and not for fiscal reasons,” Joe Davis, the Public Affairs Director for the Veterans of Foreign Wars, said in an email to Stars and Stripes. Lawrence Korb, a military budget expert at the Center for American Progress, believes that budget constraints did play a role in the policy change, but he supports the IDP rollback. “I think what’s happened is that the sequester and the budget cuts really have forced the department to do things they should have been doing anyway,” he said. Korb thinks IDP has been too generously distributed. “You got combat pay in Bahrain. I was in Bahrain a couple weeks ago. I’d sooner be there than some of the cities in the United States [when it comes to personal safety],” he said in an interview with Stars and Stripes. DOD also announced that, effective June 1, Hardship Duty Pay-Location monthly rates in East Timor, Haiti, Liberia, Montenegro, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan will be increased to $150. The HDP-L monthly rate in Bahrain is established at $50, according to a memo signed on Dec. 31 by Acting Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness Jessica Wright. HDP-L is intended to compensate servicemembers who are deployed in areas where living conditions are poor.

Wow how many man hours would be saved if the PRF, RRF and 1206 forms allowed for the same length of bullets?

Let it go

You could put it all into a Penfed CD (I haven't checked in a few days, but they have (had?) a 5-year 3.04% CD. If you need the money, you can break the CD and you pay 1 or 2 years of interest (I forget which). However, per PenFed's policy, the penalty will not eat into the principal. Your $63k would be $73,328 in 5 years at that rate. The worst case is that you break the CD and walk away with $63k. If you go this route, I recommend several $5k CDs. That way, if you need $20k, you could break 4 CDs and keep the rest earning interest.

I had to tell her to leave until I confirmed she wasn't giving everybody the clap (aka the double post issue). Once I made sure she was not the cause of our STD, I let her back in to get ransacked some more.

What would you do, Jaded? Your #1 Capt has his OPR close out in Feb '14. He's been the heat in your Sq. His Flt/CC (or shop chief) ranks him #1/15 in his block on the draft OPR, you're intending to make him #1/57 Capts. Then he swings by one day before the OPR closes out and says he's thinking of applying for VSP for personal reasons. What are you gonna do?

Applying for VSP may increase your chance of getting RIFed as well. I think commanders will be hesitant to waste good strat on a guy who wants out.

Unless you are just dying to get out (or have the next job lined up already), the 1.25 multiplier for VSP does not make financial sense. Not to mention showing your hands to the leadership. Edited to add the caveat.

If you're taking the librarian-look chick, sounds like Walter Mitty is your movie.

Tempted enough to run the numbers. And I hate math.

Here's the problem: Though I stand by my earlier remarks that the Snowden release is good because it has people discussing the issue, allowing more people to see the truth and have less trust in their government, etc...I will concede to Serious that more than likely not much will be done to significantly change how the federal government does their business. Obama said he would have the most 'transparent' administration ever, so if this is what constitutes transparent, then I think we're in serious trouble. Many on the left (as shown via NYT) is applauding what Snowden did and therefore (I'm assuming) wants these practices to stop. Yet Obama and the Dems will not stop it, and the GOP, especially the establishment types (Rep King, Sen McCain types,) will not vote to stop it either--hence we get the same Patriot Act BS. The only somewhat legitimate candidate for one of the two party's nomination in 2016 that I could see reducing the NSA scope (at least on the domestic side) to a degree is Rand Paul, as I don't see Hillary or Christie changing much of how things are done in DC. And if I were a betting man, I would say that Christie will get the GOP nomination, and unless things go horribly for the economy and/or Obamacare, that Hillary will win in 2016. So my prognosis: Expect more of the same with only small changes. This is why I am voting more and more Libertarian...on the big issues the two parties are pretty close to being the same.

This is important...hindsight is 20/20, and you can't go on kicking yourself or saying "I should have..." Take a look at why those companies have done so well, and how it can help you find the next GOOG/NFLX/PCLN.

If you have not registered for Mint.com I would HIGHLY suggest it. Its a completely free service and has apps on many platforms. (I have the iPhone and iPad apps, oh good for me) It is very easy to upload your financial info that downloads automatically, which you can get the up-to-date look at your finances.

We're supposed to be a nation of laws. Snowden was wrong to disclose classified, and the NSA is wrong for violating the 4th amendment. The American people win if: Snowden does token time, and the NSA (& others) KIO.

Just so we're clear, that's not me - it's our current subject's favorite opening line to every brief/comment at SOS.

"As a graduated Squadron, Group and Wing Commander..."

As a recent Shoe Flag grad, this guy would aaaaaaaaalmost say the right thing! THEN BAM! "Don't argue about reflective belt wear downrange and just wear it!" It's not worth it to make sense, guys.

That's cool, man. Just remember half the country (and Canada, too) is of below-average intelligence, and some of us don't need "baby steps."

I know exactly who you are talking about and I can't stand that guy. He looked a friend of mine dead in the eyes and said not to bother trying because navs have no place in his Air Force and if he has anything to do with us we will all be force shaped within a year (about two years ago). That guy is a piece of work. I knew someone that worked closely with him and he refused to admit anything was his fault. Everything that didn't turn out perfect had to be blamed on someone other than him. If that's the type of people that get promoted to general, I just don't know what to think anymore.

Can't do all your living when your old is my motto.... Good luck taking that 1st class ski trip to the swiss alps when your 70, luckily i already went and just banked it on my credit card. The couple bucks interest is simply a future loan from my old self who has volunteered to sit at home and watch more TV since he can't ski anymore anyway. Lol but none will agree so enjoy!

Pajaro....good job! You're not a pilot I assume....only on wife #1 and you obviously dont drink or gamble :) but as a suggestion and since your child is only 1yrs old. Take some of that mountain of cash and purchase a pre-paid college tuittion for the little nose miner! Sure, you can probabally do somewhat better by investing a set aside monthly amount but at the kids current age the cost for future 120 college credits is well worth it.....most states have pretty good plans (IRS 529 plans) and I know that Nevada's Pre-paid tuittion plan, as an example, can be used at any college up to the value/cost of the University system. My daughter is on her last college semester and my total outlay was about 6K; I signed up when she was seven. Additionally, the plan can be resinded, money back or transfered to any other child if college isn't in the cards for the first one. Another education possibility is transfering your GI Bill education credits. Good program and since I already had all the sheepskins that I need I transfered the 36 months for her graduate level education. Oh yeah!, and get a estate plan going before you cross the street and get hit by a bus with all that money in your wallet!

Yeah! Fuck the Constituion and the 4th amendment! Who the fuck really needs freedom? Give me Orwell's 1984 any day over privacy.

Trust me on this: in 10 years you won't care about watching your area work. What you want to do is stash that GoPro in the corner of the flight room and record your morning stand ups. I'd love to see myself struggle through electrical fire in the Tweet and get told to "sit down" cause I was an idiot.

A few weeks ago I made a statement to a room full of senior AF leaders that we were making a big mistake paying contractors and civilians to fix and fly aircraft in combat while we keep active duty support personnel, including band members, comm, CE, firefighters, finance, etc. I said an Air Force that pays civilians to fix and fly aircraft will soon end up in the Army. I didn't get a slow clap, or any supporting fires, but it felt good to say it to a bunch of senior decision makers. We should cut, contract and civilianize all support functions before we cut combat power and our core missions. Our support functions are vitally important, but they don't have to all be military. We should contract all housing, CDCs, fire departments, base security, FSS, DV airlift, protocol, CE, base comm, base logistics and most our health care. Contracts keep costs down, quality up, allow for competition, hold people accountable and leverage corporate experience, technologies and responsiveness. And you don't pay for full benefits and retirement for non-combat/non-critical Air Force capabilities, so it is cheaper in the long run.

The people we want out won't leave. The people we desperately need to stay want to bolt... The AF should work much harder to figure out why that's the case.

Big picture, I say go to UPT if there is a choice between a wait and starting immediately. I thought I had the option to go ENJJPT while I was in ROTC (#1/6, 3.8, 99 PCSM, SP) and applied, thinking I wanted to go fighters. When I found out I didn't get it, I was pissed. Apparently, my det/cc, who was new, saw my speeding ticket I got right before packets were put in and bumped me down to #2, even though I was #1 for the last 5 semesters straight. I ended up getting Vance, and I was nervous, primarily because I figured ENJJPT was my only ticket to a guaranteed 38. I spent weeks looking at selection rates, realizing that I was probably boned and would have to go tubes. Honestly, though, phase 1 and 2 was not that hard. If you work hard and really want a 38, you will get one, I did with really no worry. At the same time, there were people in my class that were deadset on fighters at the beginning that by the end of phase 2 had them last on their track preference. Things change, and I saw that as a good thing for 4 or 5 of the 18 AD dudes in my class. After you go 38's, you are, for assignment purposes, exactly equal to ENJJPT - they don't get preference for fighters, it's all the same drops. I ended up gettting my fighter in the end, as did 5 other dudes in my class. Also, you have to consider that your competition at ENJJPT is going to have almost only those motivated super cadets/people with 690 hours of flight time/real type-A dudes. I don't know if I would have been able to do as well as I did if I had been pitted up against them. At Non-ENJJPT bases, you have a mixture of people and a mixture of goals, which I realize now was beneficial to me in a competitive environment. Waiting for a year sucks ass. While you do get a guaranteed 38, I don't think it would be worth the extra competition with respect to assignments/delay.

Only once in a while does an argument come along that is so awful that you can't sit by and let it go quietly. 1. Do you really believe your own bullshit? That, prior to the year 1980 the United States Air Force was completely and utterly incapable of supporting any long range fighter movement capabilities, or fight a war in the Pacific? That, before the KC-10 came online, the U.S. literally could not project power anywhere ever, but somehow you came along and singlehandedly revolutionized warfare? 2. "Impossible". Holy shit dude, you really DO believe your own bullshit... 3. They are building it into the new tanker. And then they are killing off your tanker. Surely even you can draw the line from point A to B. 4. Better at tanking? As if there's some sort of lost art kung fu pilot technique to sitting on your ass and making left turns with the autopilot engaged while the boom does all the actual work. 5 & 6. Yes, there's a reason why FedEx uses it. And a bunch of other civilian carriers with similar airframes and capabilities. So why don't we just pay them to do it instead of you? The KC-10 is nice to have, as a planner, as a flyer, and as a receiver. It has a lot of capabilities. It's also a really expensive, redundant luxury that we will able to do without once the KC-46 gets here. So what if you're a receiver and you won't get soft baskets? Get over it and do your job. So what if as a planner it's now more tricky to manage the gas in an AOR because you don't have a magical giant super-expensive fuel truck sitting around? Get over it and do your job. This is the military that we operate in now. One that requires actual intelligent people to figure out how to solve problems with what they've got instead of just having everything ever at their disposal, and being propped up with a a never ending river of money, logistics, and highly expensive, redundant airframes to help them do it.

Sounds like someone is primed for some earth-shattering disappointment in a few years.

Snowden is a criminal.

Haha...no. But you keep supporting a dude's claim that he is something he is not, and then challenge me when I call him out. The dude originally asked if he could where a camera, and people told him what the reg says...if he chooses to violate the regs, then it's on him if he gets caught. Either way, he deserves to hear what the regs are and to also be given the advice that acting like you're a pilot before you even get to UPT is not a smart mentality to have. So you tell me--where am I going wrong?