Hacker

Dupe, you are a retard. That is, as others have mentioned, that story is from When Thunder Rolled. I sent out a PDF of the story before we went downrange in '07. You do remember that, right? Or have those TPS reports flushed all of that good fighter pilot sh*t out of your brain? heh heh I will email it to your work address.

https://www.stripes.com/09/feb09/crash_report.pdf Pilot, Radar Nav, and Nav (see page 7).

Saw this over on Airwarriors and thought this crowd would appreciate it. This is an "Ask The Captain" column from the Pt Mugu base paper: https://www.aerotechnews.com/ptmuguhueneme/...-01-14T19-52-34

Maybe a test of Google-fu needs to be added to the AFOQT.

Important safety tip for us old guys who will eventually (hopefully) make the transition to flying in something other than a flight suit. Although, living overseas rapidly breaks one of the t-shirt/Levi's/tennis shoe wardrobe. Unfortunately, the re-living former glories part has to be un-learned.

BBC reported the same 10% cut figure on Friday.

Caption Contest: 435th Air Base Wing Drunk Sluts 435th Air Base Wing Crazy Coeds 435th Air Base Wing Girls Gone Wild

He actually addresses that topic in the paragraph titled "Decline in Specific Airline Opportunity for Military Pilots". Unfortunately, his analysis in that paragraph fails to consider that the reduction of reservists employed at airlines is directly to linked to furloughs at the legacy airlines. Many of those furloughed will then take up mil-leave when recalled so they can get their USAF retirement before going back to their airline job. In other words, the data in his graph is real, but he derives an incorrect analysis from the data, e.g. that it indicates there is less opportunity at the airlines for former military pilots.

Although he has a (somewhat) valid point with the reduction of the airline pay gap, he obviously didn't do any research with real pilots. Nor did he spend any time with even a basic Excel sheet comparing the actual USAF vs airline pay numbers over time. First off, with respect to the airline pay gap, he hasn't done his homework enough. I did run the numbers in summer '07 and found that *with* the bonus, it was equally financially beneficial to stay in and retire (then go to a post-retirement airline gig) as it was to separate as soon as your UPT ADSC was done and go VFR direct to the airlines. Equal. With the bonus and the pension starting at age 42. So, do the math Brian -- cut the bonus, and it's no longer financially beneficial over the long haul to stay in past your initial hitch. Second point, and probably the one that's more relevant -- With the increased deployment rates of the GWOT and the dramatic increase of UAV assignments, there is a corresponding drop in desirability of staying in once your commitment is up. If the bonus were CANX, there would be a mass exodus for many reasons. There's a third issue that Major Missile here isn't considering -- that ACP itself being a Congressionally-mandated pay, was difficult to get in the first place. There was discussion at the Air Staff level about stopping the ACP a year or two ago, the reason being that starting next year there is a 2-year ADSC gap from when the ADSCs went from 8 years to 10 years. One of the points made was that it was far easier to KEEP the ACP than it was to kill it and then try to revive it a couple years down the road when the financial landscape changes. You guys have all ready made good counter-arguments to his proposition to pump up pilot production as an alternative. In addition, the criticism of his lack of actual cost-benefit analysis as well as failure to look ahead are both very valid. Somebody needs to write this all up in a nice counter-paper. I have the Excel spreadsheets I did on the pay issue if anybody wants to use 'em.

When this thread was first posted, I actually pulled out a copy of the PFE (although it's called something else now, I just can't remember the new name) from my NCOIC's desk, and that information is NOT in there. The only thing even related is a chart showing the appropriate way for subordinates to address superiors.

That's a kickass life support shop for you. It is definitely not that way in other places...wish it was, though.

Old helmets are accountable items for your life support shop, so they usually have to turn them back in to supply when getting new ones. God only knows what those guys do with them...they probably end up in a trash can somewhere or in the attics of the airmen that work there. Sometimes you can convince your life support shop to give you your old shell when they give you a new one.

Valid.

What "environment" is it exactly that you feel should exist at UPT but doesn't because IPs are calling studs by a colloquial word like 'dude'? If you think that being addressed in a casual way by a superior creates some kind of environment where you can't learn to fly a military airplane, then I highly suggest you either toughen the f*ck up or find a new line of work. Again, I'm waiting on seeing that reg that tells me what the proper terminology is for a senior officer to address a subordinate officer and what would make use of 'dude' so radically unprofessional that it even remotely counterbalances a Lieutenant's requirement to call a superior 'sir'.

Feel free to quote any part of those two AFIs that you feel apply to regulating how a superior officer is to verbally address a subordinate officer. More importantly, how the term "dude" would be judged as unprofessional and....how did you say it...."backed up by the AFI". C'mon....those are the MEO and Professional Relationships regs. They have to do with discrimination and fraternization. You've gotta be able to do better than that.

It floors me that nobody is grasping here that the "attention at the ops desk" part of the email is one of those "this is how mad I am" threats that this ADO has no intention of actually executing. Better, I love it when people think that all there is to leadership is the singular rule to "praise in public, punish in private." Well, that phrase is a guideline, and not a black and white rule by any means. There absolutely ARE times to openly hammer someone's nuts in front of the crowd. It can be -- depending on the situation -- a phenomenally effective means of modifying behavior. Again, it's not a binary either/or issue. There certainly are times when the bean-cracking needs to take place behind closed doors (ergo, most of the time). But there are definitely OTHER leadership techniques that are effective and CAN be used...and public humiliation is one of them.

I'm interested to see the "AFI" reference that addresses how a superior officer is supposed to address a subordinate. That wasn't my point at all. It is one thing to be standing in front of a Lieutenant, addressing him/her personally, and using the term "dude". It is another entirely to be addressing a group of your squadronmates and referring to a third person who is not there as "dude". Seriously...if we (you) are to the point where we are critiquing the colloquial terminology used in a YFG email, there has been a complete loss of perspective.

I don't see what the big deal is -- I think the Maj has a point that is valid. The way you guys are nit-picking the way the message was transmitted is some of the most retarded sh*t I've seen on this site in a while. So what if this ADO hadn't done anything about it YET. Having let it go in the past never prohibits you from taking action on it now. In fact, what he's saying is that he made a mistake in the past, and he's taking care of it now...and wants the rest of the IPs to do the same. I fail to see where there's a problem with that. As for pot-calling-kettle with the Major complaining about professionalism and then calling Lieutenants "dude"...so what? RHIP. I don't remember anything about higher ranking officers owing any kind of customs and courtesies to lower ranking officers. He can call them "ass monkey" for all I care, and it still doesn't assauge the Lieutenants' need to use customs and courtesies when addressing higher ranking officers. The email was sent to other IPs, anyway. I can see that there would be a problem getting the message across if he was personally addressing the Lieutenants and calling them 'dude', but that's not what is happening here. I'm not personally a fan of the 'stand at attention at the ops desk' part, but I'm thinking that was just hyperbole anyway.

Yes, there was a design change to the gear doors a while ago. Probably pre-1990s.

When IFF was at Moody, we frequently "fought" with the Raptors down at Tyndall. It was mostly 2 v 2 BVR at the time, and we generally were simulating cruise missiles in the T-38 because of the jet's RCS. They're correct that because of the jet's small visual size, it's a great visual lookout exercise for guys used to looking at same-sized adversaries. I've been able to get through many a BVR setup with the AT-38C and kill a Viper or Eagle because they simply didn't see me.

The ball is retractable...STS.

At a minimum it will scare the crap out of everyone who looks at that ghoulish face.

Agreed...total class act to do that.

I take it that you're asking Herk guys? Every fighter squadron does this, and has for the decade that I've been doing this business at least.

Yeah, as soon as it's "authorized" by big blue, a journal officially loses what is most attractive about it -- the ability to speak your mind freely about your experiences. I give that a big thumbs down. Nice try, blue.