hindsight2020

I don't feel it's that as much as it's only more because we have more airplanes in the sky. I think people take off without clearance with some degree of frequency, and have done so before on a per capita basis. I did it too back the good ol day...granted it was UPT and as part of a formation takeoff lead as an added distraction, looking at the world through a soda straw at the time for sure. Granted, that was with a background of CFII with 400 civilian hours at the time. Point being, it happens, and it's not something reserved for complete neophytes. To the point about 121, yes, a two person crew should be able to ameliorate that. Then again my IP didn't do anything either at the time (oh how my username checks in this life, lucky to be alive). Meaning he too was behind the 8-ball. It happens. Sure, we can point to the subtext of regional flying being intimated as a de facto single pilot operation, given the degree of outsized/remediating OJT that occurs at that level. But then AA106 enters the chat and takes a big crap on that presumption. So you can't just blame it on "those FFD carriers boi....". Not saying any of it is ok, just saying, this stuff happens, and it's not just the regional perma-IOE ranks doing it either. Solution? Less airplanes in the sky I guess. Cuz we sure as sheet don't have the means to tighten staffing to attrit anybody left of the mean on the bell curve. That ship sailed a decade ago.

oooooooouh you gonna get that @ss red round hea'h for saying some like dat. 😄

dayum, regAF is extra petty. If that's the level of toxicity I stand corrected then, that's a good caveat.

And? What I mean is, by that metric, Walmart has a CJO for me 2 years from separation date too, and I don't even have to apply for that one. It's not the draw you think it is. Now, let me sit day one of indoc on personal leave, grab that line number and come back in 2 years, now you got my attention.

He's not asking about retirement orders, he's asking about what pay tables are used to calculate his high-36 for the active retirement. It's stipulated his active retirement order will say O-5, but that doesn't answer what the high-36 months for the active retirement are. To wit, I know plenty of O-5 bums/troughers who sloooowly piecemealed their way into 7305 AD points, separating out of Active duty many years before as O-4s. By your logic, their active retirements in AFRC would be calculated using 36 months of O-4 tables because that's the grade their active retirement order will have published. That is not correct. ETA: #oof. I stand corrected. According to section 1407, the provisions of retired pay high 36 month calculations of a Regular retirement and a non-Regular retirement are different. 10USC1407(c) and (d) respectively. You can count months in active duty status towards a non-regular retire high 36 calc, but you can't count months in non-active duty status for the regular retire high 36 calc. Looks like it doesn't really pay to stay past 20 active in the ARC as a TR just to seek a higher grade month, if all it gets me is 500 bucks more....at age 60. womp womp. Learned something new today!

Again, if you pinned on in 2019 you already have TIG for O-5 for grey zone accrual considerations. active duty service in that grade is not required.

I think we're conflating things. For the vanity shadow box yes. For the jelly of the month club? That is not how retired pay is calculated under the High-36 Plan for an active retirement. According to the DoD retirement page: Defined Benefit that equals 2.5% times the number of years of service times the average of the member’s highest 36 months of basic pay. It makes no such stipulation that the member's qualifying "months of basic pay" occurred in active status. It's just that regAF folks consider that a given. But that isn't a given for Reservists who do attain Active Retirements. To get the the piece of paper saying you're active retired in the grade of O-5, yes you'd have to get 3 years of AD as an O-5, otherwise the paper says O-4.

That doesn't seem right. Being on MPA shouldn't matter. Once he pinned on in 2019 that's valid TIG, regardless of status. He's got more than 3 years.

6 is standardish for afrc fighter or upt. Which is to say, 8 would be an outlier footprint for a heavy unit, even in afrc (and by extension, almost always tfi).

That's tame compared to Bent Spear '07 for that base. That place is...radioactive. I'm here all week good night!!! *badum tsk* 😄

I had 6% with HSBC as recently as 2005, didn't last long. I'll take whatever I can get, but I don't expect these high yield saving accounts to persist for a decade or two, like I'd need to in order to amass the kind of retirement-expediting increases I'd need. But yes, been eyeballing Amex savings since I already use them as a primary grocery getter. Chase is doing nothing for my war chest right now.

Military "BOP" lol. ...and my exwife told me she loved me too. 😄

It is different. 11Fs have the highest participation/readiness yearly commitments out there, by far. It's a lot of tasks to stay proficient on (11F DSG participation requirements) and still handle the squadron qweep (full timer 11F). Other AFSC don't have the same burden. As such, no one size fits all. Also forget AGRs, they're not statistically representative of [officer pilot] full timer life, ARTs are. I've worked with heavy AFSC ARTs, those guys are homesteading more than your DSGs, though there is no reason an 11F ART would be principally encumbered by operation deny Xmas TSPs. A cursory understanding of 10 USC 10216 (1)(c) and (3) makes that patently clear. They're not AGRs; they're not meant to [generally] deploy. A lot of people don't understand title V. ART is not all concessions like it's always portrayed, and I say that as an AGR mind you. The problem for ARTs in the 11F variant isn't statutory, it's always been medical. An ART can make it to 57-[MPA90 x n] no sweat as an 11M; as an 11F in continuous 1A status? Not really. That's where the mileages diverge, even after acknowledging what @SocialD has already brought up as the primary objections by the peanut gallery: people getting tired of the groundhog day aspect of full time support. And now back to "debating" the merits of taking a regAF AvB 🤭

Don't be a playa hata. Those air medal commendations aren't gonna write themselves. A kill's a kill homey. 😄

Excellent summation of the historical problems of the ARC, especially the AD-Lite subset (AFRC) within it. I will say, regAF has always struggled with the concept of strategic reserve, and they certainly made a mockery of it during our foreign excursions to Iraq and AFG in the prior 20 years. It is also absolutely the case that for upper management, this all has always boiled down to a contemptuous affair singularly devoted to shorting people a retirement and benefits. No different than a private corporation attempting to minimize legacy labor costs. It's just that it's viewed with greater skepticism to suggest government managers to be engaging in such attempts at govt sanctioned wage theft, since it's not a for profit organization. Given the sacrifices and opportunity costs @FourFans130 already spoke about (and personally resonates with me, especially the impacts my service had on my ability to even make a family in the first place, and I'll save the details in the interest of my 5th), it becomes insult to injury since, while on status, we're not free to just quit like civilians can. As to regAF, it has always been a rank cake and eat it too, hypocritical organization. Bitch bitch bitch about folks leaving over an "up or out" management focus on promotions whilst the rank and file favor "tactical technician" track careers, which are anathema to regAF (and the reason I never did bother with regaf). But then they turn around and systemically kvetch about the ARC's existence writ large, which @Chida post expanded on in detail. I've always told the Alzheimer's ward that is the AvBonus thread: regAF doesn't care about money, they care about control. If they short you money that's a twofer. That's why they won't barter with their chattel even if it saves them money. The money is secondary to them: They want to control and throttle your time, in a way that suits them. That's why they hate Reservists, they've always found our legal ability to say no and leave money on the table for the sake of our lives (the very premise over reserve service as promised on the brochures mind you), too uppity for their liking.

That's AGR/regAF retirement, not TR/DSG. For a TR/DSG retirement, the grey area (time during retired reserve, aka the grey years, which usually top most people out at 30) payscale longevity accrual is based on retired grade, which would be O-4 for an O-5 without 3 year TIG. See chida's response. As such, that's why this mickey mouse business about TIG potato has always been centric to TRs, not AGRs or regAF (a mere vanity on paperwork for the latter two). break break According to Army sources, TR O-4s should still be golden on 6 months TIG. Typical of the DoD: WTFK Link source ETA: Just saw Dec 2021, not 22. Perhaps the latest change made the inclusion of non-regular retirement retired grades.

I never said he did, you inferred that. I said I did. Not where I was going with it, but you are probably correct, statistically speaking. 2,586 instructional sorties as of last week... with an ASD of 1.14 #oof. 3,100 IP/SEFE combined AETC hours, 2,100 or which are in the fatality-laden MDS in question. 4,200 total AF time, if you add the grey jet time. And still 4.5 years of flying duty to go to active retirement. So yeah, that's a lot of fingertip at 2-4* bills (*you'll have to wait til my retirement to hear the declass number lol). Fair amount of close calls, To say nothing of all the funerals of direct co-workers(2), and students (2) in the last 6 years than I care to share on this message board. I just wanted to clarify I was not being facetious about your combat story. I meant it unironically when I said it is a BAMF anecdote. I'm just a REMF living vicariously by comparison. The only thing I was mocking was my own career (I've earned that right after all). Apologies for any confusion, inflection in humor doesn't always land in written format. Cheers. 🍺

BAMF story. Good thing I dealt with my combat cred inadequacies years ago. To wit, and take a page from a certain POTUS: Tumon Bay was my Vietnam.

the real question is, is it ADSB-out compliant? Otherwise someone call the FSDO, they're prob not busy seeing as they don't accept walk-ins for IACRA CFI renewals.... 😄

Don't look now, but you just described every fvcking airline pilot I've ever worked with. Talk about schemers, grey collar workers is the demographic bullseye of that remark my friend. 😄

Maybe it's the written format on the forums, that makes inflection/tone difficult to put together. Apologies if I misread the incorrect inflection. Yeah my question was merely posted in the interest of keeping the conversation going for everybody; though I was genuinely interested in your perspective, since I know you're closer to the CAF than most on here. No worries though, I copy loud and clear you're not willing to discuss further. Cheers 🍺

I really don't think he meant anything by it Huggy, no need for the notch/auto-chaff. I know this sub-sector of the hobby is close to your vest. Back to the point, the question I would pose is: would the airboss' actions, especially the audible to shackle show lanes while co-altitude with both elements flying trail internally, be considered "customary" to the organization and/or other airbosses writ large? I think that is a point of exploration that can shine a light on accepted practices, inside or outside CAF. One that could also lead to potential re-evaluation or tightening, in the furtherance of safety. It may be too late for all we know, but that will be for the regulators and the insurance market to adjudicate, as I've pointed out in the past. I continue to hold my position that to home-on-jam on Hutain's individual execution within this audible, is reductive to a fault. But that's just one man's opinion. Everybody stay safe out there. 🤙

Not at all what i said, ill leave ya to your usual strawmen. I'm not advocating for regAF by daring to make a critical comment about 121 work rules on this regAF-hating echo chamber. I'm not even regAF, and my career lifetime paycut (indexed to a job I've never intended to pursue as primary payer mind you) has been a matter of public record for 17 years now. Theres really no need for that whataboutism. Tbh, if you've tactically vol-mildropped or vol-mloa at any point in your 121 stint, you aren't really in a position to get defensive about JA et al existing in your cba. i dont care how crappy the work pay ratio is at .mil either, as people recognize pay is not the feature behind chasing mildrop or MLOA. if JA isn't a real threat at DL, that's excellent news. It shouldn't be at all at any outfit paying top 10% US individual income; which was my actual point, before it got strawmanned to hell. BL it's reality at swa though, based on what i witness at work (plurality swa cohort). I just find it a bit unbecoming one has to feign sickness or hide behind the Uniform in order to not be treated like a sonic carhop 5 minutes late to a $11/hr shift. Frankly id take the 11 bucks in lieu of 220, if they threw in not treating me like i didnt just flew 150 people and brought everything back in one piece. But that's my "future retiree" privilege talking, which I of course wont apologize for and fully own. To each their own as we say. Back to lurking mode on this one. Happy new year!

I used to think JA (or equivalent terminology) was only an FFD carrier dynamic. Do all airlines effectively have JA work provisions? Kinda smears the glitter off the airline humblebrag about days off....