Jump to content

BFM this

Supreme User
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,108

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    25

 Content Type 

Posts posted by BFM this

    Extension to Age Limit?

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    On 9/19/2018 at 3:00 PM, nsplayr said:

    Waiver approved, just waiting for Cathy to assign me a training date. Should happen by Friday inshallah. Action’s waiver is still pending unfortunately because as an O4 his package had to go to HAF for some reason 🙄

    UPT?

    What's wrong with the Air Force?

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    23 hours ago, Bender said:

     


    Standard AFI (Congress) mandated "Professional Relationship" briefing. Why it's not a good idea to bang students and how you're supposed to turn people in even if you hear sixty-ninth hand someone is banging a student.

    It'll be riveting, no doubt.

    ~Bendy

     

    This post?  I still see it.

    AF Light Air Support Aircraft

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    2 hours ago, FourFans130 said:

    Why? Because that's hot.  How many prop strikes you think the FTU would log in a year?

    None.

    The first phase of training would be 15 dual and 20 solo hours in a Husky.

    btw: the FTU is equipped with a fleet of Huskies...and the line for IPs is around the block.

     

     

     

    ...let me have my dreams dammit

    • Upvote 3

    Aviation Continuation Pay (ACP - The Bonus)

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    2 hours ago, ThreeHoler said:

     


    A RAND study the AF commissioned said $72k/yr was required to retain what the AF wants. The AF asked for $60k/yr in 2016. House gave $48k/yr. McCain and cronies cut it to $35k/yr and won’t budge. I was at a briefing by a General from HAF/A3 where he gave all this info.

     

    Not to worry.  With the new ADSC rule change, it makes up for it.  #FixedTheGlitch

    ?s on ADSC (Active Duty Service Commitment)

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    7 minutes ago, MooseAg03 said:

    Another alternative to signing a 3 year ADSC would be to utilize the 750 hour R-ATP at a regional. Anyone who was non-vol’d to RPAs should meet that hour threshold (unless we’re talking TAMI guys). 

    Most TAMI folks should meet R-ATP mins.  They were selected with 400-500 MWS hours, probably flew another 100ish hours waiting to PCS, and it’s total time, so 200 UPT hours count.  Oh yeah and it’s mil time, so + .3 a sortie!

     Knew one guy who got TAMId, then went on deployment  before he left and ended up with 750 hours in his jet.

    ?s on ADSC (Active Duty Service Commitment)

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    7 hours ago, Sling Blade said:

    Any second assignment RPA folks that tack on an extra year or three at the end of their UPT commitment for the privilege of meeting airline hiring mins are chumps.  Any three letter contractor will pick them up for equal to or better than airline pay starting on day one.  The folks that do take the bait are going to end up eating 365s and other shit deals and never see the flying experience they hoped to get.  Not to mention the ops squadrons would be getting inexperienced copilots that are mostly worthless training burdens with no return...as majors...with huge chips on their shoulders.  But you know YOLO.  Let me know how it goes.  AFPC counting on RPA returns to backfill demand is a pretty dubious proposition in my opinion.  All those folks are getting out.  Ask me how I know.

    Guess I’m not exactly the demographic you’re referring to since I long ago had the logbook to step right into 121, but...

    I also had some RPA stink, but would gladly take regional pay and QoL for a window seat.

    Never wanted to go.  Gave my best when the “needs of the AF” said to.  Would have separated within 3 years of retirement if the AF hadn’t PCSd me out.

    Pay is important, but it’s not everything.  If the AF can get a little something out of someone while giving them their preferred path, that’s what good talent management looks like.  It’s not all “give me exactly what I want with nothing in return.”

    What is right with the Air Force

    in General Discussion

    Posted · Edited by BFM this

    Oiy.  And this is why, @Danger41, I suggest eliminating all but lawfully required (handicap) designated parking.  If the WG/CC isn't being "shown respect" there are bigger issues, throwing rose petals before his feet isn't the solution.

    If the number of times per day that a SQ/CC has to go out to their car in order to chase down queep is driving the proximity of their parking spot, the proximity of the parking spot is not the root cause of the DFP.

    • Like 1

    What is right with the Air Force

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    2 hours ago, Majestik Møøse said:

    I’m not sure why we don’t just erase all the reserved spots and just let the O-6s park curbside by the front door.

    How about just erasing all reserved spots?  For leadership, reserved spots are antithetical to servant leadership and an embarrassment.   But the AF then goes full retard, not only duplicating higher leadership spots all over the base, even in parking challenged bases like Osan, but then doles out spots to favorite pets: CCE, CCS, GOV1, GOV2 etc.

    ...didn't someone write a paper on this?

    Non-Availibility lodging/letter

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    Whether or not this applies to SPG, dunno.  But at Hilton properties, some operators will not give the points under the same circumstances (group booking and/or corporate card).  Wait 3 or 4 days and call up Hilton Honors, and they register the points.  A hassle?  Yes, but not the end of the world, imo.

    Aviation Continuation Pay (ACP - The Bonus)

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    17 hours ago, Klepto said:

    "Air Force enlisted pilot implementation initiatives

    The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not later than March 4, 2019, on the plan to implement the enlisted pilot aircrew requirements of Section 1052 of the FY17 NDAA for the MQ-9 enterprise of the Active, Guard, and Reserve components of the Air Force. Furthermore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to submit a report to the congressional defense committees not later than April 1, 2019, on the costs, benefits, and feasibility of authorizing enlisted Airmen or Warrant Officers as pilots, navigators, or weapon systems operators on all Air Force aircraft or rotorcraft platforms. The report should also assess and explain any policy or guidance impediments that would preclude enlisted Airmen or Warrant Officers from serving as pilots, navigators, or weapon systems operators."

    Maybe I'm missing something, but this appears to be congress' checkers move, not AF leadership'.  Yet.  I'd imagine that congressional staffers hear and discuss the same batch of bright ideas that we churn through, so this is just congress asking "hey, what about this one?", to which the AF as duty experts can weigh in and shed light on why it's not a wise move.  

×
×
  • Create New...