FourFans

yup. NORAD knew what it was the whole time. The only reason it was addressed is because it was seen. Then it became something that our administrators had to address...and they had to make the best of it.

I don't think he's pointing to an organized plan. He's pointing to the fact that there are innumberable military events in the air and on the sea that get largely ignored or suppressed by the country's leadership due to 'national security considerations' ... until it's politically, personally, or militarily useful to highlight them. Consider the Gulf of Tonkin incident. No one would have ever know about it except that it was politically handy to our 'leaders' at the the time to use as an excuse to get involved. Hell, the Navy has events very often in the Persian Gulf that could easily be used as an excuse to engage Iran if, and only if, that were the hot topic of the day for this administration.

That's fair enough. I will point out that past failures are neither acceptable nor an excuse for future incompetence. We need competence in the FAA and in transportation right now. An administrative leader with some vague experience would definitely help with prioritizing some things in that realm. I'll agree that mastery is not a necessity for administration. However a basic familiarization is probably a good idea. When's the last time an AMC guy led ACC, for example. Your point is fair, and open to opinion. Not mandatory, but again, familiarity is probably good. So, I'm assuming you're ok with this: Reminder, Phil Washington has managed two major airports. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Washington#:~:text=Phillip A. Washington (born 1958,Joe Biden's transportation transition team. Should he be able to answer all those questions? Absolutely not. Should he be able to answer at least one of those questions? DEFINITELY. Any pilot, dispatcher, or certified airfield manager would have gotten at least two of those questions. This guy's been a CEO of Denver and LA Metro, and can't even talk about at least ONE of these topics...especially considering the most recent history of air traffic close calls? That's not lack of expertise, that's just doing your homework before getting interviewed by Senate of the United State. It's simply lazy. We don't need any more lazy. But by your logic, that's ok. The predecessors were ignorant of the specifics, so the next guy can be ignorant. Experience entirely gained by OJT for a federal administrator is cool. But bear in mind that a Senator, who's job is even more general than this guy's would be at the FAA, did some homework and was able to talk with even a fake level of expertise. Again. Lazy. FFS, this guy was an Army CSM. He should know better. This kind of political appointee laziness needs to stop. I don't give a shit how bad they were in the past. I am very concerned about our future. Considering the fact that you have adamantly reinforced that you agree with this administration and all it's been doing: the disastrous and treacherous withdrawal from Afghanistan, our completely opaque and apparently open ended involvement in Ukraine, the suppression of a free investigation into hunter biden's dealing, dismissal of President Biden's own mishandling of classified documents while vilifying Trump doing the same exact thing, a suppression of fossil fuels production in the US for no obvious reason...except...the uplifting of green renewables despite overwhelming science to counter their sustainability, the affirmation of providing gender transition surgeries to minors without parental consent, and in general endorsing an agenda over and over that gender and skin color make a difference in one's ability to do their job, the intentional increase of inflation through endless spending of money we don't have, and on, and on, and on...I'm not surprised.

Weird. It's almost as if having your transportation department focused on diversity, equity, inclusion, social sensitivity, skin color, gender, and other such things instead of focusing on proper procedures in the operations of aircraft, trains, trucks, and ships...they end up focusing on diversity, equity, inclusion, social sensitivity, skin color, gender, and other such things instead of focusing on proper procedures in the operations of aircraft, trains, trucks, and ships. There's only so much bandwidth in the human focus. DEI and other wokeness is distracting technicians from focusing on their technical skills, and is further severely cluttering the CRM on flight decks, in ATC centers, and other technical environments. When you're more worried about offending someone's delicate sensibilities than you are about making sure the job is done correctly, safety gets easily compromised. It's a slippery slope, I've experienced it first hand, and it needs to stop. Immediately. Is DEI and woke garbage the root cause in these cases? Nope, in one case it's a tower controller issuing, and the crews accepting, a landing clearance without sufficient spacing (6 miles dude). In the other...without the flight deck tapes, who knows...but obviously distractions. Any professional in technical employment or the heavy machinery industries knows that you don't simply ignore distractions. You actively eliminate as many as possible because there will be more than enough that you can't eliminate. So no, these accidents are not the fault of DEI, but that garbage is definitely a loud background distractor that is being forced into the system by our administrators, and one that is low hanging fruit that could be easily culled. Beyond that, it's an analysis of correlation vs causation. We have administrators who were clearly picked for their political reliability, their diversity, gender, etc...INSTEAD of their expertise. Our current transportation secretary is a political appointee, not an expert in transportation. He is responsible to set the policy and priority for the transportation department...and now we're experiencing lots of mishaps in that department. Correlation? Definitely. Causation? Not easily proven, but not to be ruled out either. Why is he still employed in that job?

So long as there's no break in service between AD and IMA/AFRC status.

FilthyLiar Disappears...Chang Reappears... Coincidence?

@TheNewGazmo What these two dudes above said. If you want some solid, no-nonsense advise that's written in a form even a pilot can read quickly, read "The Simple Path to Wealth" by J.L. Collins. He discusses all this stuff in there.

Yes.

@FLEA So I'll lead with this: I agree with you on the problem. ANY hierarchy structure that allows older/stronger to prey on younger/weaker is not a responsible structure. An argument could be made that in these JROTC units, even without rank structure...there'd still be rank structure in the form of 8th grade vs 9th vs 12th grade...etc. That's not going away. I'm betting JROTC definitely exaggerated the problem by providing a backed-up rank structure to work within. Yup. That's a problem. It's also been a problem in the active duty. Your experience as an aircrew member is BY FAR not the norm in historical standards. Having a Col as a Nav who has to listen to you as an aircraft commander is overwhelmingly weird in the history of ranks structure, even in modern militaries. Because we're technicians who are also officers, things get sideways real quick, thereby making our experiences a poor example. 10 minutes of observing US Army up close will show that. Read your Robert Heinlein for excellent clarification about the heart of officership. My real argument here is not the problem that you've admired and spelled out so well. My issue is with your solution. You point out a correlation (rank structure and abuse) that may, or may not, be causal. Contributing? Definitely. But there is so much cultural specific influence going on here that it's very difficult to breakout the root cause. The solution is very simply though. Why, for the love of pete, do you come out with the solution of "ban all ranks in all JROTC"? Aside from the obvious fact that you don't like them because...well you obviously don't seem to understand them at a macro level (which is fine). The obvious answer is shut those units down. Permanently. If they are a detriment, get rid of them. It's a localized problem that requires a localized solution. You don't kill a man for a broken leg. You deal with the leg. Your supported answer is akin to saying "don't ever let this man outside again". It's foolish and mis-aimed. There are plenty of JROTC units with NONE of these problems. You quoted 50% OF INNER CITY UNITS. That's a localized problem. What's the number come to if including all units nation-wide...which is where you would apply your answer? You are calling something systemic that is, in fact, due to a local unit culture problem. Put in other terms, if 50% of T-6's go landing gear up, should we change to T.O. for every single airplane in the air force, regardless of their gear-up landing numbers? Or perhaps make everyone fly around with their gear down because retractable gear are stupid and I don't understand why we need them! The analogy breaks down, but hopefully you see the point. The obvious answer is if the units are a detriment, shut the units down. The end. Instead you choose a solution that should be implemented country wide without any thought to 2nd or 3rd order effects.

Thanks for the references! @nsplayri'll let you know if we go down that road.

You mind sharing the bank where you've got that high-yield saving account? USAA has lost me.

Haven't seen these rates since the 80's Edit, I stand corrected

That's one hell of a broad brush. Would you care to elaborate how some recent and admittedly horrible events in Chicago overshadow the entirely of the JROTC program? I'm not a JROTC guru, but in making such a large claim, you clearly must be. So, by your standard, if a program fails in one location we should change the rules everywhere? That doesn't check. You're willing to trash a whole program based on the outcomes of one section of society. But let's walk the dog a little: What's your take on service academies? Ban those too? What about CAP? They've had scandals. Executive staffs? Political interns? Oh yeah, and Colonels. LOTS of sex scandals with Colonels. Get rid of all those too. Where do you draw the line. Restructure and reorganization? Definitely. Rip away the foundational bits? Ummmm no. You might as well get rid of uniforms, saluting, flags, marching, PT, and all forms of decorum. Heck, just say whoever's the biggest and strongest gets to make the rules. That works out well, right? Hyperbole aside, consider what the military will look like when these kids who started their military experience with no rank then become leaders. Consider an active duty general in AFPC someday recommending we get rid of ranks, because he saw it work once when he was young... Seriously. That kind of shit has happened. Moreover, casting aside rank is the first step towards casting aside responsibility and accountability. I'm a history guy, and yes, there are 1000's (plural) of years of written history with ranks involved. There were periods when social status fed into that, but rank has ALWAYS been associated with responsibility. It's one of the first tiers that separates the professional military from a militia or a band of civilians. According to you. If it was so dumb, did you burn your rank in effigy about how you were being oppressed? I doubt it. It wasn't dumb, you simply didn't understand it. Just because you think a tradition or structure are 'dumb' because you don't see with a long vision, don't mean jack in reality. I have no doubt many people have thought you are dumb, that doesn't make you dumb. The facts of history don't give a shit about our emotions. Ranks structures have for 1000's of years created order, unity, cohesion, and a clear line of authority in military structure with members down to the age of 12...and younger if you're Greek. Step back and look at the nearly 300 year tradition of the military in this country alone and you might grow some respect for rank, structure, and responsibility. You don't have to like it. You DO have to understand it, especially as an officer. Some failures in that system don't make the system bad. They mean that the system is populated by imperfect people. The system can be improved, but not by wiping away it's foundations. If we based our military authority structure solely on the moral success or failure of the individuals, we'd have cast it aside right about the time Benedict Arnold decide he didn't like how things were being run here.

From TreasuryDirect

Pundits only have the power you give them through your attention. Our media has been a shit throwing fest since the 1800's. Stop blaming them for, well, anything. In any case, you've done a horrible job of supporting your point with facts, and you've not even attempted to explain how and why you support this administration....just like EVERY SINGLE LIBERAL I ASK. Without fail whenever I ask for facts and logic the response is "you don't understand" or "I don't want to talk about it" UNSAT. I misunderstood nothing. Exact words you said: Please go find some rational and factual support for your statement. Claiming that what Biden is doing with relation to Ukraine is potentially disastrous on a thermonuclear scale is not understating the facts. He is currently acting like a little kid with his daddy's shotgun, flexing his muscles, only he's doing so with a nuclear armed country who is increasingly backed into a corner. Meanwhile our OTHER major rival is hinting at helping Russia out of that corner. All the while there is very real mounting evidence that our sitting president's immediate family members may well have been working with both the Chinese and Ukrainians as a useful idiots (I severely doubt they're some kind of knowing spies...they are dupes at best). How is following those facts to it's logical conclusion a "hyperbolic narrative"?

Thoroughly agree. Unfortunately do you see a realistic outcome, under this administration's policies, where we don't fail to keep our word to Ukraine? I am of the belief that "keeping our word to Ukraine" entails restoring the entirety of Ukraine's sovereign borders. That's definitely how they see it. I don't see any outcome where that happens with our current leadership.

You make it sound as if the good outweighs the bad. So, let's get specific. What are you criticisms and what are you praises of the Biden administration? Make it simple, like a pros vs cons bullet list. I'm curious to hear how Biden supporters validate that he's been a good president with specific unemotional examples and a wholistic view. I'll kick off your list with a pro: Micro chip production brought back to the US. Please make your case.

You mean this guy @pawnman? How dare you go calling people out for words they said!

Not today AFPC

Sunday?

I’ll be interested to hear how the training for the sky warden will address that problem. The PC-12 is relatively clean by comparison. Hopefully they reach out to the cropdusting community for some lessons learned so we don’t have to re-experience some avoidable crashes.

I find the full timeline graph even more interesting. Not a single administration in the past 40 years has done this. That includes the Gulf War, OIF, and OEF, just to name a few massive possible drains on our reserves...

What does that have to do with the violently liberal shut-up-and-comply agenda that's clearly being implemented by our elected officials...predominately democrats? Trump is a raging twit. Fact. Stop saying his name like it's some kind of defense or excuse for the horrific policies of the current administration. Our current administration has exacerbated or outright caused complete failures in America's economy, foreign policy, military readiness, immigration policy, border security, energy and transportation management, trust in our healthcare system, and faith in our baseline governing civics. The former president had nothing to do with ANY of that.

...sarcasm but not really...good point...

C-130J-30 has a 1 second reaction written in books, at least in the last -1-1 I read. Then again I'm retiring. In reality it's a 3 second reaction from recognition to throttle and brake actuation. The book numbers are all way off anyway because they never updated the performance numbers for the carbon brakes, which makes all the numbers "conservative" and the actual performance during a reject is WAY better than the book number, both in the sim and the airplane. I've heard they fixed that in block 8.1 though. Any 8.1 dudes here that can set me straight?