Jump to content


Supreme User
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


hindsight2020 last won the day on May 31 2023

hindsight2020 had the most liked content!

About hindsight2020

  • Birthday 10/18/1981

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

hindsight2020's Achievements

Gray Beard

Gray Beard (4/4)



  1. Apropos of nothing, the gays, grannies and grandes fiasco was a windfall for the offender because of doxxing. Based on the online environment so far, it seems possible this FO could end up laughing all the way to the bank with a similar outcome.
  2. not to mention the scores of UIFs created on aircrews over kerfuffles with leadership over social media posting of aircraft/cockpit et al in the past. The reality on the ground is that outcomes are hardly consistent in this space. Then there's the witch hunts over political lampooning of senior leadership on social media, the doxxing that ensues. The whole thing is a mess.
  3. ...the Operation Warp Speed guy? 😁
  4. Has there been any discussion on legislation to make sub 50%ers offset-exempt for active retirees? That's about the only way I'd even bother with it tbh, given my generally favorable *knock on wood* state of health and unwillingness to malign range of motion potato.
  5. From where I sit, the implication appears to be that a guard baby is presumed to have a higher opportunity cost against airline work income access and progression vis a vis his regAF year group mirror, due to not being saddled with an ADSC while otherwise eligible for 121 shangri-la. That's a reductionist view of guard babies of course, though it is true the statistical majority of them do become airline pilots. I am an AFRC baby, I'm not an airline pilot. At any rate, if I was an 11F, the reasons for not pursuing it would be the schedules. My motivation for being a baby were always homesteading/control/schedules related. I only speak for n=1, but that's one answer from one baby. ymmv teto et al.
  6. Hold on, I need back of the room running start for this one....
  7. Weird, certain locales are even running CGOs doing the DO job, the lack of FGO bodies is that deep. You're either being too picky, or someone who is a somebody, doesn't like you. 😄 /s AETC will get ya mad air under ass, if you're willing. Sure, these well-to-do 121ers will make fun of ya, but pay them no mind. Come join us "scutwork flyers" down here in the salt mines. I got zero staff, zero ragrets for all my troubles in this life.... hell they're even promoting me! Unironically running in tandem with the best of what's left crowd, gets me 5k TT and 3k Talon patch (now that the T-7 is DOA before 2030 anyways) pretty much guaranteed at current book, before I even hit 20 TAFMS. IOW... So my fvcko roomates nicknamed me 'catfish' in undergrad, bfd..... sure as hell wasn't "Picky". More cushin' for the pushin' served me well. Rent was paid and I ate a hearty meal every other month. I'm a self-made man, so sue me. 🤣
  8. Numerically the egalitarian thing (especially for the much larger age 60 to 65 jump kerfuffle) would have been for the age extension to be enforceable on DOHs AFTER the govts' ratification date aka grandfathering. Alternatively, the other fair alternative, if they were arguing in good faith, would have been to implement without fencing, but support the extension of immediate recall rights (with full seniority restoration of course) to those previously mando-retired who were still younger than 65 (minus reasonable training footprint) by the govt's implementation date [December 13 2007]. ...And maddafacking crickets is what you hear when you proffer the latter. Tells me all I need to know about people's so called "sincerely held beliefs" on the age discrimination crusade front. In the end I don't think it's a generationally unique reflex, which is why I prefer a more all-inclusive terminology. I call them Twixers: Because no matter what you ask them, the answer is always Two for me None for you... 😄
  9. Fantastic shot. Reminds me of that [de]motivational poster lol.
  10. I've been in the AETC-flavored side of the TFI unholy alliance for 13 of my 18 years in this so-called career, and I can't say I've ever heard of an unqualified AFRC accessions incurring a UFT ADSC via RegAF switcharoo. I'm not aware of any accessions vehicle that would cover that request. Technically, he'd be stealing an OTS pilot slot in the current fiscal year in doing so, but that's also a hypothetical. What I do know is he has a a 10 year UFT RSC upon completion of wings to AFRC, and AFRC paid for him to go to UPT, not regAF. VLPADs do exist however, as does IMAs who can get activated for years (know of one who rode it for like 5). Both are, definitionally, temporary programs/statuses. They also generally deal with experienced folks in current and qualified status in whatever air force mission there is a shortage of full time manning. So that generally wouldn't help your buddy right now, as a 92T0 cannon fodder.
  11. apropos of nothing, CTP is prob going the way of the neanderthal with the B-21. Be that as it may, all bombers could drop from AMF-potato and the J85 hampered production wouldn't substantively improve.
  12. He meant his buddy was at the 'fuge and needed to complete the viper profile since that's what he got out of enjjpt. Not all assignable airframes have the same centrifuge profile requirement. Yes, A-10s are going away. A portion of Re-cats will naturally flow to 35s, but you'd be surprised the amount of people who don't want anything to do with 5gen potato (will digress on expanding on that for brevity). I know several here who do not want fat amy as a re-cat, but they were getting out anyways so the drawdown is merely a convenient segway.
  13. Correct, there is no threat of being involuntarily assigned to the RPA track for performance issues as a Guard/Reserve 92T0. You can CR out of UPT as a Guard/Reserve guy, and go home wingless, that has always been a possible outcome.
  14. That is incorrect. Guard Reserve students have a MASS score calculated, but it is never used against AD peers for eligibility to track -38s. I think what you may be confusing for policy, was that it was colloquially understood that sponsoring units wanted to see upper-50% relative performance. But none of that is neither written, nor procedural in the tracking of the trainee to phase III. What does exist, is the discretion for the sq/cc to provide feedback to the sponsoring unit of either (i) non-T38 (frankly very rare) or (ii) non-IFF recommendation (much more common). AD does not pay for the billet, AFRC does (yes, even Guard bureau slots are centrally managed by AFRC now), so it's their [gaining unit] call. In fairness, the sponsoring unit can and usually does concur with the retread recommendation to heavies or bombers. Seen it happen many times, with (ii) being more common in my experience, through 13 years in the AETC TFI AFRC (that's a lot of letters lol) business. If you performance meets the CTS for T-6s, you will track 38s are a 11f bound Guard/Res guy, regardless of your relative ranking in your class, unless your gaining sq/cc concurs with a non-recommendation from the upt sq/cc. He is incorrect. AFRC buys the billet, the kid owns the T-38 slot, not AD. When he was sent to UPT, he went in with a centrally funded class allocation for T-38 from the jump. AFRC footprint does not change the AD calculus. I know the whole "different color of money" stumps some people, but AD cats nervous about tracking 38 need not look at their ARCF/ANG classmates as anything but guys who for all competing purposes, are there just "auditing the course". They're not your problem, nor your competition, just like internationals.
  15. meh, AA did the same thing to an app I had in there, when they went into the new portal last year or whatever. IT buffoonery appears an equal opportunity employer.
  • Create New...