ClearedHot

Toro, Refreshing to hear that approach. My old squadron used to give a lot of incentive rides and it seemed to be a contest to see who could make the “guest” sick the fastest. I always took a different approach because I thought this is a once in a lifetime experience for most of these folks. I would only do what they wanted to do with in the bounds of the mission profile. Cudos to you for seeing the bigger picture.

Since we are bringing out the oldies and this forum is protected by non-attribution... Why do women have smaller feet then men? So they can stand closer to the stove. Why don't women need a watch? There is a clock on the stove. What's the difference between a woman having her period and a terrorist? You can negotiate with a terrorist. Why is it called PMS? Because Mad Cow Disease was already taken. What did they replace the airspeed indicator in the A-10 with? A calendar. How do A-10 evaluators give checkrides? They plug in and run along side.

AG, I got picked up for SAW (USMC version of SAASS), which meant a move to DC and another year of school. Keeping in line with this thread, it looks like I will go to the Air Staff for a year, then back to fly.

As I recall last year's Air War College class lost two people. One left when he was non-selected for O-6 (extremely rare), and another was removed for a UCMJ issue.

There are a multitude of staff jobs out there. Organizations vary from Air Staff, Joint Staff, numbered Air Force. The jobs themselves vary from bean-counter, money dude, to policy and strategy types. “Good” staff jobs depend on what your desired outcome is. For promotion, Air Staff and joint staff offer the best opportunity, but usually at the greatest cost in blood and toil. Going to one of Command and Staff Colleges as a Major is a big indicator that you will go to a staff, but around 30 percent of all graduates go back to ops. Graduating from one of the War Colleges (for O-5’s and O-6’s), has about the same spread of OPS and staff assignments. My roommate last year while I was at ACSC was going through Air War College and he went back to fly. From my limited experience, the guys that graduate from War College and go back to fly are typically on the fast track, not true in all cases, but usually a big indicator.

Hacker, I hope that attitude is gone now. I left the WIC two years ago they and simply did not tolerate that kind of BS. The Commandant a few years ago, Col Rand, was huge on Weapons Officer Training (WOT Blocks). He spent hours covering the ethos of weapons officers and the school. His biggest message was humility. The last thing he wanted was the ivory tower syndrome and the resonated with those of us who had seen it out on the line. I felt lucky to be selected to go, let alone come back and teach there. I also saw it as an obligation to share what I learned so we could all be better when the balloon goes up. I also knew I couldn’t do my job if it wasn’t for the dudes out on the flightline busting their ass to keep me in the air. It probably doesn’t mean much now, but I apologize for that BS in the past and the next time I am in Valdosta (December), beer is on me. [ 17. October 2004, 11:46: Message edited by: Clearedhot ]

The U.S. supported the Mujahideen during the Afghan-soviet war, not the Taliban. While many members of the Taliban came from the Mujahideen, the Taliban is actually a collection groups that were both for an against the U.S., mainly on tribal lines. The Taliban came offically about around 1994 when Mullah Omar too the helm. Using the Taliban is a poor example, although there are others that will make the case. Bottom line, it is a nice world and sometimes you make choices that align you with bad people. That said, you have to do what is best for and will ensure the survival of the U.S. France on the other hand, makes choices that embarrass or deliberately go against the U.S. There is a difference.

HercDude Well Said!

Hacker, Someone actually said that? If a Crew Chief or MX dude asked, I always gave it up (STS), partly because I hated wearing the damn thing, mainly because they deserved it. At one point we were actually ordered to wear the scarf...I know tradition reigns, but I thought it was just something else to carry around.

I am not an AWACS guy so take this with a grain of salt. 1. Driving heavies in ACC is not usually a good thing unless you are at a separate wing like AWACS and the Bombers are. Things are somewhat different now that the composite wing structure is all but dead. In the old days there were horror stories when it came to PRF’s and awards. 2. AWACS go to EVERY Red Flag. 3. AWACS pilots do not go to Weapons School. However ABMs do. 4. I believe AWACS are like some of the other LDHD units, you can camp if you want to but might still get tagged for a white jet, UAV, or other Alpha type tour. [ 14. October 2004, 18:52: Message edited by: Clearedhot ]

I know of a gunship crew that broke at Mildenhall for 30 days!

The subsidies to Airbus and the competition with Boeing just came up in the Presidential debate...

Actually there was a Eagle Driver flying the Mig-29 with the Germans a few years ago. Not truly east european, but still flying the Fulcrum. [ 13. October 2004, 16:20: Message edited by: Clearedhot ]

Gearpig, If you read my posts you will not find me slamming the airlines. I already posted that of course the airlines will purchase the cheaper product because they are in business to make a profit. I have flown on the Airbus with United and I think the other was Air Jamaica. Boeing can’t win the contracts because of the way Airbus and the French government sell aircraft to the airlines. Airbus receives huge subsidies from the EU (mainly France), so they can sell their aircraft at what would otherwise be a loss and rely on the government to provide the difference. There is no way Boeing can compete in this unfair market. It is an economic model that has been applied by other countries on everything from cotton to wine. It has also been ruled illegal by the world court. However, when it comes to great powers of the world, it is very rare to apply sanctions for fear of starting a greater trade war. Congress has been looking at legislation for the past two years that would apply a tariff, but the airline industry is in such dire straights post 911, it has been put on the back burner. They funny thing is Airbus has blatantly stated they want to put Boeing out of business, when that happens they are free to charge whatever they want. The whole situation reinforces the conclusion that I have come to over the past ten years in the USAF, France is an enemy of the United States. It is one thing to vote independently on UN mandates and resolutions. I understand the argument that they are a sovereign nation and want to exercise policies that are in their interest. It is another to sell munitions, weapons systems, technology, and information to countries that mean to do us harm. I am going to France for two weeks in may to walk the battlefields of Verdun, Calais, and Normandy. Every time I think of the American lives that were lost making sure the French didn’t speak German for the next 100 years, it makes me sick to think how they have repaid us. Sorry for the rant, but I have actually done a lot of research on this subject and I truly hope our government finally decides to do something. [ 12. October 2004, 21:36: Message edited by: Clearedhot ]

I had no idea the Cirrus SR was so popular. A great friend and UPT classmate was killed on a test flight five years ago. Glad to see it was for a worthy cause. I have also noticed the FAA has lightened up on allowing major sections of homebuilts to be assembled by third party companies (51% rule).

If you want to be insulted that is your issue not mine. I can throw the family tree around as well. My great-grandfather, Pilot #26 in the world, was a barnstormer and worked on the Spirit of St Louis and for Ryan Aircraft Corp. My Grandfather also a pilot, worked for Pitcairn Aircraft. My dad flew three tours in Vietnam in the F-4. All of that means diddly-squat to your argument. You might want to look up the word isolationist in the dictionary, let me help you, Isolationism = A national policy of abstaining from political or economic relations with other countries. I said we need to level the paying field based on subsidies the EU (Mainly France) pays to Airbus to make it fair for U.S. aircraft companies. I agree with preemption which is about as far from isolationism as you can get. As for the Airbus 380, great plane I am sure, but when I look at it I see the technology France has shared with our enemies. I see the Roland missiles and all sorts of other military technology they sold to Iraq, even after the UN resolution. I see my buds in the squadron who risked their lives fighting them during ONW, OSW, and OIF while you were laying in your room starring at pictures of the Airbus. I am not for isolationism. I respect a free market economy that is FAIR. However, this is not a zero-sum world, and if someone has to lose, I choose them.

RedDog, I would never question your decision to take care of your family first. I also understand the argument about cars and that is a topic no one wants to talk about, (Hell my wife is buying the new Acura next month). Take a longer view and you might find that if the trend continues your kids may not have jobs when they grow up. It is a free world and competition is one thing, but when we have to step up to bat with one hand tied behind our back, something has to change.

Flynhigh, Actually the job base has been reduced by nearly three quarters if you look at 1970’s-1980’s numbers (I know it is hard to pick a period given the economics of the Reagan build up). The main reason the merger was allowed to go through was it was doubtful either one would survive on it’s own so they tried to save what jobs they could. Look military aircraft production under the Clinton Administration, F-15E’s at a trickle rate, F-16’s at a moderate rate and the C-17 at full production rate. This is a huge decrease from past years (the peace dividend) that has translated into a very “old” average aircraft age for the U.S. military. The problem as has been pointed out many times by the regulators, is you are left with one major company to develop new military aircraft, which stifles R&D. In the end they choose the lesser of two evils. What is the answer? Subsidy for our aircraft makers? Tariffs on EU products? I don’t know, but in my opinion we need to stop playing nice with the French, who obviously are not our friends. Flynhigh, BTW, I respect your opinion as well.

Now who is being self righteous? Sorry that my choice of making the USAF a career offended you and you guard sensitivities. Heaven forbid we use a little patriotism.

Flying high, I don’t think you are a wise guy and that it a great point, but it actually proves my point. Ever wonder what happened to all of the other big aircraft designers? making aircraft is a brutal business and I don’t pretend to understand all of the economics that are involved, but a lot of good companies have gone under or consolidated because of the unfair competition from the EU. Bottom line, it reduces our industrial base here in the US, it exports jobs to Europe, and gives us fewer choices in the long run. I was not trying to start a flame war, so I should apologize if anyone feels offended. My frustration comes from looking at the big picture, and fighting the weapons systems that our "Friends" the French have sold to our adversaries.

I have no heartburn with anyone who wants to get out and fly for the airlines. In fact, three quarters of my UPT class got out when they had the chance five years ago, (although most of them have since been furloughed). However, the first posters in this thread have not even gone to UPT yet. They have ten years after UPT to dream about flying the Airbus and an airline career. In the meantime, there are hundreds of guys and girls that want to join because they want to fly for the USAF and their country. That was my point, “WE” are the US government and we can sit back and hope the someone does something or we can speak out. The average American person has no idea about the subsidies, they just want cheap airline tickets. The problem is without expensive subsides to Boeing or tariffs on Airbus products, we might see the next generation of American Air Force pilots flying the Rafael. Self righteous because I would like to preserve American industry? Simple solution then, ignore my posts.

When you did your research did you notice that the majority of the money Airbus made went back to Europe? Sure they created a few jobs here in the United States, they had to, they were catching so much flack, but the profit went straight to European coffers. The engineering jobs created in Kansas were offset by a loss of 10:1 in American Jobs. Highly skilled trade-craft jobs performed by the people who build aircraft are now all overseas in a Airbus factory. My mistake, I forgot about our good friends the Germans who supported us in the international community during the Iraq War. Actually the majority of the subsides are paid by the French government as they own the largest portion of Airbus. They have a stated purpose of putting American aircraft companies out of business. Maybe you think that is ok, but I don’t. I am merely pointing out he bigger picture. The French sell to our enemies. They want to destroy our aircraft building infrastructure. They want to see our position in the world minimized. A lot of thanks for making sure they didn’t grow up speaking german. I could careless if it is an awesome machine, ultimately it led to loss of jobs here in America and more money for a country that provided arms to kill American troops.

I have no intention of going to airlines, never did. 15 years and the USAF has treated me good, as well as educated me in the ways of the world. I find it refreshing that you can profess to want to be USAF pilot while pimping the Airbus and a airline career in the same breath. Just what I am looking for in my Air Force... [ 11. October 2004, 23:33: Message edited by: Clearedhot ]

By the way, if you did a little research you might find that Airbus is doing so well because it is heavily subsidized by the French government. The government pays the subsidy not as a simple gesture to keep Airbus competitive, instead they do it to purposely hurt American industry. Do a little research and you will be sickened by the efforts France is going to in their effort damage our country, economy, and military.

After being chased around the desert by the Roland, I completely disagree. I think the plane is almost as ugly as the people and their politics. After ten years of OSW and ONW, I support nothing the cheese eating surrender monkeys do or build. [ 11. October 2004, 21:47: Message edited by: Clearedhot ]