ClearedHot

CH's new favorite phrase..."Galactic Game".

It is VITAL for you guys to understand the while for educational data (Masters) is still masked, it is only....repeat only masked to the promotion board. Your senior rater still has access to that data and may well use it to determine who gets a P or DP. It's been said 69,000 times on here, get your Masters.

Now this is my kind of thread...

Notice the Docs are avoiding this thread like a visit to the Proctologist. I knew execs in the Puzzle Palace who got Ambien like candy from the docs. I asked for some and was told no...i will mention in passing, being an exec drains the life from you and I felt like I never got any sleep. Anyway, what is the standard? I need some zzz's

I am a Maker's Mark drinker, although I recently enjoyed a bottle of Evan Williams. Any other takers?

Yeah, they're called "Iron Swap." I'm taking orders for delivery mid to late Feb.

WASHINGTON - President Bush will hold a news conference at 10 a.m. EST. The White House said Bush would open with a 10-minute statement discussing his decision to expand the overall size of the U.S. military to meet the challenges of a long, global struggle against terrorism. Bush also planned to stress the importance of working in a bipartisan way next year when Democrats take control of Congress heading into the final two years of his administration. The White House also said Bush would talk about the need to keep the U.S. economy strong. Bush said Tuesday for the first time that American forces were not winning in Iraq. He also said the military would be expanded to fight a long-term battle against terrorism. Bush did not say the U.S. was losing the war, which began in March 2003 and has cost the lives of nearly 3,000 troops. Instead, when asked during an interview with The Washington Post whether the war was being won, the president borrowed the phrasing of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine Gen. Peter Pace. "You know, I think an interesting construct that General Pace uses is, 'We're not winning, we're not losing.' There's been some very positive developments. And you take a step back and look at progress in Iraq, you say, well, it's amazing — constitutional democracy in the heart of the Middle East, which is a remarkable development in itself," he said. However, Bush also acknowledged the threat of sectarian violence, saying that part of the policy review for Iraq the administration has undertaken will deal with how to help the Iraqis provide for their own security. "And I'll come forward with a plan that will enable us to achieve that objective," he said. Two weeks before the November elections, which shifted control of Congress from the Republicans to the Democrats, Bush asserted that "absolutely, we're winning" in Iraq. On Tuesday, he said that response was "an indication of my belief we're going to win." In other remarks during the Oval Office interview on Tuesday, Bush said he plans to increase the overall size of the U.S. military, which has been stretched by wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He said he has asked his new defense chief, Robert Gates, to report back to him with a plan to increase ground forces. The president did not say how many troops might be added, but he said he agreed with officials in the Pentagon and on Capitol Hill that the military is stretched too thin to deal with demands of fighting terrorism. "I'm inclined to believe that we do need to increase our troops — the Army, the Marines," Bush told the Post. "And I talked about this to Secretary Gates and he is going to spend some time talking to the folks in the building, come back with a recommendation to me about how to proceed forward on this idea." The White House said Bush's decision about expanding the size of the military was separate from his search for a new approach to the war in Iraq. "This is necessary for the long term obligations in the war on terror," presidential spokesman Tony Snow said. Bush's comments seemed a stark departure from the views of former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who ran the Pentagon for the last six years until he was replaced Monday by Gates. Rumsfeld had long resisted calls to increase the size of the military, arguing that technological advances and organizational changes could give the Army and Marine Corps the extra capability it needed. Rumsfeld's critics argue that relatively small-scale but grueling wars possible in the 21st century, like those in Iraq and Afghanistan, would find the U.S. facing well-hidden terrorist groups and persistent local insurgencies. Such conflicts would inevitably demand strong, sizable U.S. ground forces to keep such operations going, they say. Among the chorus of voices saying it is time to bolster the military's size, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker said last week that he wants to increase his service beyond its authorized strength of 512,000, though he used no figures. He warned that the Army "will break" without more troops and a heavier use of reserves. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell has also expressed support for increasing the size of the Army and Marines, saying Sunday that they are "not large enough for the kinds of missions they're being asked to perform." Congress would have to approve the money for an increase in the size of the military, and the idea has won support in recent months from many lawmakers of both parties. Lawmakers would also find it attractive to boost the active duty force because that could reduce the reliance on local reserve units, which have been relied on heavily for Iraq and Afghanistan. Snow acknowledged that Bush is considering sending more troops to Iraq, an option that worries top generals because of its questionable payoff and potential backlash. Top generals have expressed concern that even temporarily shipping thousands of more troops would be largely ineffective in the absence of bold new political and economic steps, and that it would leave the Army and Marine Corps even thinner once the surge ended. They also worry that it feeds a perception that the strife and chaos in Iraq is mainly a military problem; in their view it is largely political, fed by economic distress. Bush said he has not yet made a decision about a new strategy for Iraq, which he is expected to announce next month. He said he was waiting for Gates to return from his expected trip to Iraq to get a firsthand look at the situation. "I need to talk to him when he gets back," the president said. "I've got more consultations to do with the national security team, which will be consulting with other folks. And I'm going to take my time to make sure that the policy, when it comes out, the American people will see that we ... have got a new way forward." Bush said his decision to increase the size of the armed forces was in response not just to the war in Iraq but to the broader struggle against Islamic extremists around the globe. "It is an accurate reflection that this ideological war we're in is going to last for a while and that we're going to need a military that's capable of being able to sustain our efforts and to help us achieve peace," he said. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass., criticized any decision to send more troops to Iraq. "Instead of changing course for the better, the president's plan for more troops will make matters worse in Iraq — as many generals agree," Kennedy said in a statement. "We need a political solution that brings these warring factions together and makes Iraq take responsibility for their own future."

Why in the hell is a picture of Maj Gilbert’s mother in a moment of extreme grief, on the Air Force website? http://www.af.mil/news/story_media.asp?storyID=123035120 What are we trying to prove. Please tell me this is not some ploy to show the Air Force is taking losses too. These PA tools need a swift kick in the junk. Let me state for the record, if I ever buy the farm and AF.mil decides to place a picture of my parents grieving on the website, I am asking each and everyone of you to drive to the Pentagon and knock some common sense into someone. I’ve had far too many friends die trying to protect our way of life to have their sacrifice turned into a media event. [ 14. December 2006, 09:34: Message edited by: Toro ]

You would think Rainman has one or two good stories from UHT/UPT, but I guess stories about flying the Jenny are not funny anymore

T-38 Buffoonery... 1. The Hwy-90 Touch n Go Club...allegedly. 2. Thunderbird Audition ride checklist; A. Start at 13,000’, select full blower, and unload to zero G. B. Kiss Mach one at 9,000’ and start a pull to the vertical. C. Once vertical, begin aileron roll record breaking attempt. D. Going through 15,000’ take a second to think…”This is cool”. E. Going through 20,000’ take a second to think… “Holy Crap, this thing is still going like a banshee”. F. Going through 21,000’ realize the top of the area is 23,000’, initiate panic checklist, and start pulling on the stick. G. Going through 23,000’ demonstrate only airmanship of the day by selecting Mode C OFF. H. Going through 24,000’ realize nose is not tracking and airspeed is decaying rapidly. I. Apogee at 26,000’ and initiate forbidden T-38 tail-slide maneuver. J. Falling through 25,000’ take a second to think “This is the stupidest thing I have ever done.” K. Falling through 24,000’ say silent prayer that nose is starting to track towards ground, follow up with no-spin prayer. L. Falling through 20,000’ see 100 knots on airspeed indicator, begin to think “I might actually live.” M. Recover at 14,000’, turn Mode C on and spend next 15 minutes flying straight and level. N. Tell no one.

Sort of...

A small bit of education. The Air Force is not "taking a hit for personnel funding". As a service we made a decision to trade people for new equipment. We all know systems like the F-22 are very expensive, but so are people. So we have decided to give up roughly 40,000 personnel and use that money to replace worn-out airplanes. In the 1990's we faced a similar situation and we did the same thing. The only career field the escaped the cut was of course pilots. We banked almost two thousand pilots of a four year period knowing that we would need them someday. We cut everyone else and we cut them all at once. I think the Navigator community got the worst of it. First we cut them, then a few years later we started begging for them to come back and offering bonuses to the same ones we cut. Other services have tried this strategy and failed for one simple reason, they were too good to their people. In order to make the most of cutting people you have to get rid of them all at once or in a short period of time. The Army cut a lot of people in the early 1990’s but they allowed them to leave slowly and basically through attrition. In other words they let a lot of them reach retirement which increased their end cost. There were some immediate cuts but the process was slow enough that it cost them more money over time. Oddly, the Army had to expand to some degree as a personnel centric force. Bottomline, when you see the budget as approved from Congress, realize the USAF made a conscious decision to accept cuts in people to recapitalize.

Going to walk out there and take a nap myself tomrrow.

I TURN HEAT ON!!!

It Depends... There are areas and altitudes (especially out west), that require a transponder, but in general they are not required.

As a long time glider pilot (about 1,000 hours in gliders over 20 years), I am here to tell you I hate it when all you powered guys get in the way.

Welcome to the Air Force, they are going to be in “your” cockpit from your first flight to your fini-flight, get used to it. It matters because the Air Force has invested a lot in you and if your hands are burned off, you will no longer be of use. I understand Rainman’s rational and I thought that way until I had a fire in the cockpit back in 1999. A group of wires behind a panel over my ugly cranium caught fire and started shooting sparks and molten gunk at my face. We were doing transition work at the time and luckily I had my gloves on because out of pure instinct I put my paw up to protect my eyes, which it did. Certainly a rare occasion, and I was lucky as I normally take my gloves off once I get to attitude. In combat, I tended to wear my gloves all the time, not because of the fire protection, but because it gets cold in an unpressurized gunship above 10,000’. Bottomline, for the heavy guys there really is not a lot of choice, as wearing gloves is required by regulation during takeoff and landing and hard to hide with a plane full of other crewmembers. I don’t judge your decision during other periods of flight I just know what I do and what works for me. [ 14. August 2006, 12:24: Message edited by: ClearedHot ]

I didn't think there was much difference. Regardless of USAF, USN, or USMC receiver...the Tanker guys will be equally late, at the wrong IP, or drag you through a CB. Relax Scooter, I am kidding NOKAWTG

Word getting out...they took the picture of MGen Breedlove down. [ 08. August 2006, 16:01: Message edited by: ClearedHot ]

Rainman, B-1 & B-52 studs do track T-38's. Reason unknown.

I guess you never heard about the MOAB. [ 31. July 2006, 13:02: Message edited by: ClearedHot ]

Any accredited Masters Degree.

Screw the docs, what is the worst that could happen? While on a flight you bust an anal grommet and briefly ended up sitting in a steaming pile of bloody butt mustard before passing out from the blood loss. Your airplane full of dependants slams into the ground in a fiery ball. Ultimately, they find your burnt carcass with your left hand stuck up anus in a valiant, although futile attempt to stop the bleeding. At least you got your wings…

Steve, I've heard that as well, but I also have a good friend who was on the raid, and to this day he believes they flew it into the ground.

Same thing happened to an F-111 during the Lybia raid...they think.