busdriver

Not even remotely an "always" thing.

You guys missed my point, which is most likely my fault for being unclear. Trust but verify was meant to refer to the LM. And by mentoring I meant to TEACH. I went with the assumption that the MSgt Load Planner was correct and the LM was a young guy still learning his craft. In that case said MSgt should be teaching the new guy, and therefore receptive to questions as an opportunity to teach. I've been suspect of write ups before (who hasn't) I asked the question and then on occasion, yes the crew chief/Pro Sup mentored me by showing me his TOs and explained what was actually happening and why the write up was the way it was. Sometimes I was right, sometimes I was not. In either case I learned and so did my maintainers, and as long as I approached it in the correct manner that dialoge actually improved our relationship.

Trust but verify. On the other hand if that Load Planner is experienced and a SNCO he should be mentoring and teaching said young loadmaster, everyone starts at square one. An us vs them mindset is not helpful in any way.

Now you guys are getting it!

Only two questions are required: 1. 1 or 0? Obvious answer.... 2. Would you be ashamed of yourself if seen walking around in public with her? If no, immediate re-attacks authorized....

Tactical blueberries.

Kid at work and you need to breast feed? Go find an empty office, no big deal. Pose for pictures in uniform while doing the same? Never talk to the fucking media.

Was getting ready to reply to slackline and this changed my thought process. The older guys need more recovery time or they pay the price, got it now, I'm a bit slow I guess.

I don't think it's a matter of physical strain, certainly not in the helo world. It's more a youthful acceptance of risk. We tend to get pissed at the perceiveed risk aversion in senior leadership, and I certainly think there is some of that currently, but their calculation of risk is probably also different than ours. You need your line dog dudes to be willing to charge into Satan's asshole to make the mission happen, it's leadership's job to temper that.

Doubt it. I'll take your word about how horrible she is, my gut reaction to people who tell tall tails about themselves that define who they are eventually believe their own story. At this point I honestly think she believes everything she's saying, tapes are great because they're truth data and memory is reconstructive in nature.

If religion were the defining factor shouldn't Jemaah Islamiyah be the most prolific terrorist organisation?

Agreed. Most Muslims aren't middle eastern. Is the root problem religion or culture?

Make the paperwork look good, if you're confident in your pup don't worry about it just make sure your neighbors know him. If your neighbors like your pup because he's always so happy to play with their kids, there's no chance they'll turn you in no matter what he looks like. But if that pic is no shit your dog, he looks like a straight up mutt to me.

Just picked up a gun rag because is had a picture of the Colt Gold Cup on the front and I've been wanting to buy a 1911 for awhile. Just inside the front is a Ruger add for the 10/22 take-down. I now want said 10/22 takedown, bad.

to the Nimrod boys, wish there was more I could have done for you guys. Big black smoking smear and not much else.

Summer 2006?

I thought it was actually a solid piece of inadvertent bromenship. I've heard some stories from an Aussie equivalent to our PJs; watch out for the Thai lady-boys.

Hopefully the shit storm ends up getting the problem resolved.

Don't over think it, they're still fun to watch.

Really stretching it. Those are the types of missions where we could do it, or where Rainman would say a full up RMC isn't required. Most missions I'm aware of were making up for a lack of training with balls. Danger close over the shoulder rocket attacks with the right gun hammering down is a surreal experience.

What's up with the white gloves and masks in the HMS Sheffield video?

As a community we're not even close to being able to claim RMC right now.

Cold war was well before my time, but I know what you're getting at CSAR is only one subset of the PR umbrella. Part of the problem is the joint definition of RMC is vague and based solely on that definition the AF standard Sandy package is the best answer that fits that definition across the broadest threat spectrum, as it should be. However, as an example Sandy2 is a FAC(A) why? The Marine WTI I worked with swore up and down that a FAC(A) was not required for cross FSCL CSAR since there was no GFC to require close coordination with and SCAR-C was what they were really doing. Once again, Sandy for the win over a broader spectrum as not all CSAR events will be past the FSCL. But you can see where the argument could be made for differing skill sets filling the role in certain circumstances. If there's a rescue mission, someone has to be in command of said mission doesn't that make them RMC? I'd argue that we need to establish when a Sandy1 is required, when a Jolly1 would suffice, etc. Then we can say "In scenario X, we have to deploy A-10s to sit CSAR alert." or "This threat level is acceptable for a properly trained RV to act as RMC if given the appropriate supporting players." I know you're saying that I can call it RMC but it isn't, I'd argue that Sandy1 is more than "just" RMC. No argument on that last point I quoted and by no means am I suggesting we should change our paradigm from our current CSARTF construct, it works and is the standard for good reason. I'm only saying that as a community (including Hog guys) we need to train to the contingency that it isn't an option, and know based on training to that standard when we can and cannot execute with less than the optimal solution, that goes for loss of all Sandys and a partial Sandy package.

Rainman, I don't disagree. But the fact remains that there aren't enough Sandy1s available to cover everything. How do we we train guys for the contingency where there is no Sandy1? That is the current operational reality.

If you managed this and graduated, please tell me your secret. That said, I don't think we're too far off in opinion, just delivery. There aren't enough Sandy1 qualed guys in the CAF, that's a fact and there is only so much training available to make more, we have to figure out when a no shit Sandy1 is required and when that duty can be handled by the alternate and contingency plans. Once that's figured out we can decide how to train folks for the less optimal setup. This is isn't about re-inventing the wheel, it's about making sure everyone is trained to still make the mission happen when the traditional wheel isn't an option.