Hacker

What this all seems to come down to in my book is this: 1.) Everyone with USAF wings has used gouge or had a bro help them pass an academic exam in one way or another -- that is part of the pilot culture, just precisely as Beaver posted above. 2.) Nobody in a leadership position is willing, once the spotlight of publicity is shined on that practice, to stand up publicly and say, "yep, that's how we do things." They have to get suddenly self-righteous, hide behind "integrity first", and point fingers at those who have _obvious_ integrity issues because they've cheated! Burn the witch!! This is the exact thing that happened to me in my OSI investigation in 1999 at SJ, folks. The specifics of my case and the CBM one are slightly different, of course, but the core two issues I noted above are the same. I had an ADC lawyer that told the representative from the ACC IG at the time (an O-6), "if you charge my client with cheating, then I'm going to demand that you level those charges against virtually every other pilot and WSO on this base!" So, my question is this: Is academic gouge -- and the razor-thin line between that and outright cheating -- going to be the AF's next witch hunt? Hoooooo-boy, if it is.

Unless forced to by their Wing/Group/Squadron CC.

'95 Ford Probe GT.

It's much easier to just put earbud earphones on under your helmet. Koss makes a pair of earbuds that have foam cylinders that block outside noise just like the EAR yellow foamies do. Not only does it eliminate the possibility that when you key the mic, you'll transmit Jimmy Buffett for *everyone* on freq to listen to (heard numerous times in the CAP during NOBLE EAGLE!), but if you're on a crew airplane you won't have to make the entire airplane listen to your tunes. I have a patch cord as was described above, but I use it to pipe radio and intercomm into my DV camera versus putting music into the intercomm.

There are two schools of thought on logging your military flying time in a paper or electronic logbook. One: Keep all your hours, civil and military, in a paper/electronic logbook you keep yourself. The up-side of this is that you will be able to keep remarks with all your sorties and that will be good when you want to review them someday (perhaps for a job interview). The down side to this is that you will have to keep up on comparing your logged hours to what AFORMS logs. I did this for about 3 years and then quit because most of the time when I located "errors", the errors were mine (in other words, my personal log was wrong and AFORMS was correct). Two: Keep a logbook for your civil flying and let the USAF track all your flight hours. The down side to this is that it will be tough to show your experience to the FAA when you want to go for higher ratings (you'll have to show your logbook *and* pull a certified copy of your AFORMS printout), and if you want to use your instrument checkrides to fulfill your BFR requirement, you have to double-log the sorties. The up-side to this is that when you go for your airline interview, the HR people will only have one set of logged time to look at instead of two. I have heard more than one instance where the HR folks discovered discrepancies between the AFORMS times and the private log times...that brings the validity of *all* your logged hours in to question. So, it's your call. There's no right or wrong way to do it. I wish that I had kept all my military time in my civil logs, but it's been several years since I stopped doing it (because of the airline interview horror story I heard) and it's toooooo late to catch up.

Just to pile on... As Toro said, there are places over the CONUS where supersonic flight by military aircraft is allowed, as well as spots away fron land out over the ocean. The supersonic corridors that military bases use for supersonic flight (syllabus training and FCF) are specifically identified in Letters of Agreement (LOAs) with the FAA. There is no single rule that says "you can go supersonic always if you're above FLXXX" or "you can go supersonic if you're XXX miles off shore." The rule in the FARs (14 CFRs...) is that no sonic boom shall be allowed to reach the ground, so these LOAs are designed to ensure that it doesn't happen around the population. As Piperpilot2004's post noted, even being offshore several miles away, a sonic boom can propegate and reach the landmass. In addition, there are a couple of FAA-designated spots for civilian aircraft supersonic flight, and those flights must be pre-coordinated with the FAA (e.g. aircraft at the National Test Pilot School, etc)

My question is this... What flying community has a need/use for a handheld GPS? It has no place in a fighter cockpit...I don't know anyone that uses one in a pointy-nose airplane. The one time that some guys tried to use it in an F-15E turkey shoot, they missed the target and their timing was all f*cked up. For point-to-point navigation, I much prefer an INS (especially if it's updated by a GPS, a'la EGI) which is tons more accurate than a commercial off the shelf reciever and is all ready hooked into the ships' systems. I think a handheld GPS is great in a GA airplane, where you're only doing 100 knots anyway. So, if you can't use a GPS to fly an instrument approach, and it isn't really useful for point-to-point navigation, what's the purpose of having one?

Depending on your mission for that day, those tasks (plan, brief, fly, debrief) might just take up your entire day. Remember that each pilot has a "desk job" that he's responsible for (scheduler, training officer, weapons shop, etc), plus any number of additional duties. That's what comprises the rest of the hours in the work week.

TS is the highest actual security clearance level. There are, however, tons of "modifiers" used on top of TS. For example, one of the most widely used is "SCI", meaning Special Compartmented Information. Another one might be CNWDI, or Controlled Nuclear Weapon Design Information. There are thousands of these specific modifiers that limit access to only those who are authorized that particular program or compartment of a program. When the F-117 was a super-secret program, it was still only classified "Top Secret"...but it had numerous modifiers on top of it that limited access to only people who needed to know about it. The reality is, though, when it comes to security clearances, you'll get what you need to do your job. In my old job we used to say "those who have a need to know, will know soon enough". In other words, you won't be out there trying to get yourself a higher security clearance for coolness value. If your job requires it, you'll get it -- otherwise you won't have that job! You won't accrue higher clearances just by making rank, either. Clearances are for specific jobs, and if you're not in a job that requires one, you won't have one. There are SrAs out there with clearances probably higher than any one of us will ever have...and then when they transfer to another job that doesn't need it, they'll be "read out" of the program and they will no longer have that clearance.

As of about 2 years ago, there was an *immense* backlog of SSBI investigations (the one you need for a TS clearance) at DIS -- something on the order of 5 years. Like M2, I had my 5-year reinvesigation delayed nearly 2 years because of the backlog. I'd be very surprised if they were "leaning forward" and accomplishing SSBIs on cadets who -- as of yet -- didn't need them at all when they're having a tough time completing them on those of use who really need them for our actual jobs on active duty. The SSBI is going to include a much more in-depth look at your history than the NAC that was accomplished for you to get a Secret clearance. In this one, DIS or the FBI will visit some of your listed references to interview them, as well as talking to people who *aren't* on your list. When my initial SSBI was being done when I was a 2Lt, I got a call from someone who I played sports with in high school, but hadn't talked to in literally 5 years and was *not* listed on my SF-86. He said, "the FBI visited me asking questions about you..." so they're pretty thorough with who they talk to. Make sure you *tell* the people who you're listing as references on your form so they are not surprised when someone in a dark suit flashes a badge and asks about you. As for the phone taps, that is complete crap. I was once read in to a classified program, and as part of all the legal hoopla I had to sign a paper which explicitly said that "they" could listen in on my private phone line at will. I had to explicitly provide them permission to do this. Of course, if I hadn't, I wouldn't have gotten the clearance for the program. So, the idea that as part of a routine cadet security clearance investigation they're phone tapping...that is a load of shite. Now...if your cadet friend hadn't been exactly "truthful" on his SF-86, or some kind of red flag had been raised during the background check, that might be a reason for them to follow and phone tap. If that were the case, there's *no way* the special agent would have told him that it was being done, except if they were standing in front of a judge and it was being used as evidence!!

The tradition is actually just to not wear ribbons on the blues shirt. If you're wearing Class As/Service Dress, officers wear "all, some, or none". Why? I have no idea. The tradition pre-dates the (recent) times when every USAF specialty had a badge, though. [ 27. December 2004, 05:12: Message edited by: Hacker ]

Here is a better shot of the modern F-15E incarnation, minus my ugly mug in the shot.

It's like Red Flag but colder, eh.

He can't possibly top the harassment I've recieved over the last 6 or 7 years over my old www.militarypilot.net website (with my UPT journal on it) or my "Strike Eagle Gouge" website that was the subject of an ACC IG and OSI investigation!

I know that airplane (44-72934) used to be over in the UK, but apparently it's in Mexico now. Not sure who the pilot is on the airshow circuit Check it: https://www.mustangsmustangs.net/p-51/survi.../44-72934.shtml https://www.warbirdregistry.org/p51registry/p51-4472934.html On a related note, there used to be a P-51B painted up as the original Shangri-La. It was owned by Pete Regina and flown by Skip Holm back when I first saw it in '82. Since then, it's been repainted orange, renamed "The Believer" and flown by Joe Kasparoff. After that, it was sold to a fighter collection over in the UK and painted as "Miss Elizabeth" (or Princess Elizabeth, can't remember which).

Red Flags are held something like 7 times per year. Over the last 5 years I've been in the fighter business, the frequency of Red Flag participations has changed somewhat. This is mostly due to real-world taskings like ONE and OIF. All things being equal, it's a reasonable expectation to go at least once during a 3-year operational tour. My previous squadron *would* have done two Red Flags and one Maple Flag during my 3 years there, but the MF and one RF were CANX so we could play in ONE, OEF, and OIF. On the other hand, there are guys from Vipers and Hogs that I fly with at Moody who have been through two ops tours (one normal and one Korea) and never been to Red Flag. So, as usual, your mileage may vary. Regarding the funding of participating in a Red Flag or a WIC support...if you're not _at a minimum_ drinking your daily per diem, you're probably doing something wrong. If not that, then spending it at Blackjack or Craps is a suitable substitute. Just remember, if you hit it big at Craps you're obligated to take the rest of the boys to the Dancing Bear establishment of your choice and supply the $ bills for the evening! I recommend Crazy Horse II, but Spearmint Rhino also isn't bad.

Thanks...that's something that I don't see a whole lot of among USAF pilots -- a real interest in the history. I was amazed that guys in my squadron (and even in the rest of the 4FW) just didn't have an appreciation for the importance of the units they were assigned to and the amazing historical accomplishments. As an example, when I was first sketching out the "Shangri-La II" artwork on the nose of the airplane, you wouldn't believe how many people asked me, "hey, how come you're putting the 334th emblem [the boxing eagle] up there?" None of them realized that the emblem was on a very historically significant and well-known 336th FS airplane, and only later on did the boxing eagle become the squadron emblem of the 334th. Here's another little geeky tidbit for ya -- that P-51D that you have pictured (well, not that *exact* one...) is Gentile's Mustang that he used during his stateside war bond promotional tour. The *real* Shangri-La crashed at Debden on her last flight and was bulldozed into a field!

I'm gonna vote Creech, McPeak, and Fogleman. Creech was TAC/CC and the other two CSAFs. From the looks of the link, it's from some photos I have posted over at the Warbirds Information Exchange website, where I'm also a frequent contributor (because I'm not only a big geek about current military aviation, but a warbird buff too!)

What, no comments on the cool combat 'stache or the really bad grown-out-shaved-cranium chia look?

I'm sure all the Juvats will love to see what the Pantons are up to, holding ****-n-balls on video travelling 'round the world.

I'll throw my view as an IFF IP into the mix here. I brief my students on every sortie that when there's a no-kidding EP, training is over but *keep flying the airplane* and run applicable checklists. As others have said, I'll let students handle the EP on their own up to my tolerance for safety. I think being forced to handle an EP on your own is a fantastic learning experience, and by the time students get to me they should be able to perform a T-38 EP with few problems. My most recent EP I did not let a student handle was a weird EED indication which looked like an oil pump shaft shear (it later turned out to not be that), after which we shut the motor down and shot a single engine ILS into 400-1 conditions. I let the student trouble shoot the problem while I ran checklists for him, he performed all the coordination with his flight lead, the SOF, and approach. I only took over when we were approaching ILS final. He was doing a fine job, but I couldn't afford for us to mess up a no-crap SE ILS down close to mins and low on gas (it happened on RTB). It wasn't a big deal for me, but it could have been for my student, and I could not answer the mail as an IP if anything had happened.

What's your reference? What UCMJ article addresses this subject?

As a fighter guy, I've never used a Jepp chart. A shame, since when I go for that ATP I'm gonna have to learn! Anyway, I don't think it's of any utility to subscribe to Jepp as an individual military pilot. I'm guessing that the heavy dudes who use Jepps with approval have a squadron subscription and don't fork out the dough from their own Per Diem Cowboy fund. [ 02. December 2004, 19:07: Message edited by: Hacker ]

As many others have pointed out, you don't *have* to study anything prior to UPT in order to succeed. Also, once you start UPT, you have gotten on an ass-pain train that is not going to stop for about 2 years, so it's in your best interests to just enjoy your time with no responsibilities. That being said, when I went to UPT I'd had a copy of the Tweet -1 that I'd been studying for months. A student I met pointed out some of the things for me to focus my reading on (notes, cautions, warnings, etc) and that gave me a *serious* advantage once we hit the flightline. So, it's your choice -- listen to those of us who speak from experience when we say "just relax -- you'll be glad you did," or grab that -1 and start the pain early.

Herk drivers must drive like grannies! It's about 4 hours and change to Atlanta. I'll echo the thoughts on Valdosta. Nice, small southern college town with a good business district. Compared to Columbus (only other UPT base I've been stationed at), this place is the clear winner in all categories.