HeloDude

From the article... Given the climate of things, my bet is it will be one of these two.

Of course, but it's their slot (and I'm pretty sure their money), so they can send whoever they want.

The only reason the AF started making their rotor wing pilots in the early 90's go through fixed wing phase 2 was to get higher numbers going through Tweets, to make the case for more T-6's. I think Hacker or someone discussed this years ago. It's actually silly to make rotor wing pilots spend the first 5-6 months in T-6's, to then learn a completely different kind of flying for the remaining phase 3.

Try 3/4 of the mass murders in the last 30+ years, the murders obtained their firearms legally. This is according to Mother Jones, which is about as progressive as you can get. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map If someone breaks into my house and grabs a gun I left on the counter and shoots someone, that is not my responsibility...just as if someone broke into my house and stole my car, and killed someone drunk driving. This is also why bars aren't legally responsible for someone drinking in their bars and then going out and murdering someone via drunk driving. Now I'm a big believer of securing your firearms (especially among children, and we already have laws against negligence when it comes to children), but criminals should be at fault when they steal a firearm, not the owner.

This is one of the first examples that popped up with a quick google search...there are many more like it. I'm sorry it does not support your lame progressive ideology. https://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/07/27/cincinnati-man-shoots-at-1-year-old-boy-is-shot-by-man-with-concealed-carry/ Progrssives hate to admit that armed citizens can actually protect themselves against dangerous criminals. This is about control, nothing else, as progressives would rather us be weak and unarmed then possibly challenge their ideology.

Yep--this murderer passed a background check. So the solution according to progressives: Pass background checks. https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory/latest-video-shows-shooting-tv-station-employees-33328710

Reports (link below) are that he has killed himself. The progressives are already on sites like Huff Post saying it's because we don't have enough gun control laws...even though I'll put money on him having bought the gun legally and passed a NICS background check. https://www.cnn.com/2015/08/26/us/virginia-shooting-wdbj/index.html

Too bad...the criminals there are most definitely carrying weopans.

Valid point. My original point was more of a general one with regards to mishaps: Severe maintenance problems usually concerns me more than pilot/aircrew error. Buddy Spike: Sorry to hear that. Prayers going his/her way and to their families.

Agree about the suck part and am definitely they're both safe. But why do you hope it wasn't pilot error vs a maintenance problem (for example)? Don't get me wrong, the witch hunt that can occur after a mishap can be hell for the aircrew, especially if it was pilot/aircrew error. But humans are very fallible, unfortunately, and I'd feel better knowing that a couple of well trained pilots possibly made a mistake, etc vs having severe maintenance problems with our aircraft, which would lead to the question of are there more problems with our other aircraft? Are they safe to operate? Sometimes us aircrew guys lose sight of the bigger picture when mishaps occur, which makes sense because it's easy for us envision it happening to us. I guess I'd be more concerned if we had problems with our aircraft vs accepting the fact that as humans, who perform a very challenging job in a very dynamic environment, we can make mistakes/have momentary lapses in judgement. Fortunately we'll have the SIB to tell us what happened and what we can do prevent similar future mishaps. Beers to to the life support/mx folks who made sure their seats/life support equipment were good to go.

Check this out... https://www.aviano.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123455479 Working hard doesn't always get noticed...but breastfeeding for six months does! Winning!

You just proved my point by saying the word 'feel'. This is all emotional. The RPA world is here to stay and it's growing...it's becoming more of of a priority than some other MWS's as RPA's are fulfilling an extremely important mission. If guys are fearful that they'll get an RPA out of UPT and think it's to big of a risk to not get a manned airframe and spend ten years flying RPA's then they shouldn't go to UPT...someone else will be glad to take their slot. As for the guys dropping them right now, sorry, the needs of the Air Force will always come before your personal desires--they signed a 10 year commitment to go to UPT and the AF fulfilled their end of the deal, and now the pilot must fulfill theirs. At the present time, they can always quit before graduation. I'm not saying that getting an RPA out of UPT wouldn't suck (since 99.9% of guys go to UPT for a manned aircraft) and wouldn't 'feel' the best...I empathize with them. But I've been 'promised' something by the AF several times to only have it not be fulfilled several times over the long years. What it has taught me is that the AF doesn't truly care about what I want, and the needs of the AF (whether I disagree or agree if the need is legitimate) will always come before my desire or 'feelings'. You young guys need to learn this sooner rather than later. Of course, it's always better to be lucky than good. ...and of course UH-1's are better than RPA's!! Rucker is the best track you can get!

So the AF should cross-flow all their pilots who want a new airframe for fear of them separating? If a slick 130 guy wants to go AC's or MC's but will seperate if he can't, then the AF should give him what he wants to stay? Don't get me wrong, if it makes fiscal/mission sense to do it, then fine, but why should a cross-flow from RPAs to manned aircraft be treated any differently than other cross-flows? If anything, it's worse for the reasons that have already been stated. Cross-flows are expensive, and put an experienced pilot into an aircraft where they're now going to be less experienced than their peers. A bunch of sharp Huey pilots back in the day wanted to cross-flow to MH-53's but only so many got the opportunity...just the way it was. This issue has become much more emotional (to include for the AF leadership) than logical.

A 'signed guarantee'? Have the guys who dropped RPAs seen this 'signed gurantee'? You guys are very gullible. I'm sure you also believe when leadership comes to you and says, "Have I got a deal for you!". The needs of the Air Force will always come before a retired CSAF's non-legally binded 'promise'. But hey, it's better to be lucky than good, so maybe it will work out for them, who knows? Personally I think it's a waste to cross-flow guys back to a manned aircraft after an RPA tour unless the Air Force at that time is fat on RPA guys and is hurting for guys in X MWS. Almost as much of a waste to pull a guy after UPT and send him to RPAs in the first place.

I cannot think of a single AF rotary wing mission that doesn't involve the carrying of people/passengers/survivors in the back as part of the mission...so I don't see unmanned helicopters coming to the AF anytime soon.

No...the 10 year ADSC is for going to UPT.

Go helos...avoid RPA's. Sounds like a pretty good slogan! ...oh, and more importantly, helicopters are bad ass!

If you're going to say you have a plan, then I would say you need more supplies...and I imagine you could probably use a few more firearms and a few thousand more rounds of ammunition. But I definitely agree that the trick is be surrounded with other like minded/prepared people vs not. As for bugging out, nutnfancy did a pretty good video on this topic not too long ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjK38SmrGSw

It's better to be lucky than good. I'm not saying the AF won't fulfill their 'promise', what I'm saying is that there is no legal requirement for them to do so. And I get why: Who knows what the military/ops tempo/CSAF will be like in 3-4 years? I sure as hell don't, thus I understand what the CSAF wants to do...but what he has to do will always trump what wants to do, and I don't blame him in that regard. If enough cadets/Lt's selected for UPT demanded his promise be written in the ADSC, then potential changes could be made. Or perhaps if those in UPT dropped an RPA wanted an adjustment to their ADSC with similar verbiage and if not they SIE. Make the AF put their money where their mouth is. Right now it's just a gamble, like most other things in the military. The young guys just need to know the difference between a promise and legal sense.

HU&W, see my post above. Unless what the CSAF said is explicitly written into the UPT ADSC (which is verified by legal), then it's just a 'desire'. I bet a month's flight pay that it won't be in the ADSC, and there is a specific reason for this. Who would have signed an extended ADSC in hopes of getting the bonus if the ADSC said nothing about how much money you get, but the CSAF 'promised' it would be $25K/year. Or should I also believe a politician when he 'promises' something?

For what it's worth man, I empathize with someone who got dropped/non-vol'd to RPA's...just like I would any service member who got an assignment out of left field that they did not want. Though these days it shouldn't come as a surprise that's it's a very real possibility. But I truly value the work and sacrifice you RPA guys make...not just the fact that you're flying an aircraft while sitting 1G, 0 knot, but also because I know the long hours you guys put in and that it doesn't seem to be getting much better (from what I've heard?). But in the end, we serve at the pleasure of the AF for the agreed upon time. That being said, I don't feel sorry for Big Blue when people finally say they've had enough and decide to leave in droves when their time is up--the biggest vote we have is with our feet. Good luck man.

What's this 'promise' you speak of? Was this a signed contract and verified through legal? A 'promise' that is not legally binding is only worth as much as people believe the person making the promise will honor it. The AF has always said one thing and done another because of the 'best interests of the AF'. Sometimes luck works out so that the 'promise' is fulfilled, sometimes it's not. A lesson for the younger guys: If you don't like the odds you're given/question your ability to avoid what you may perceive as less desirable options available, then don't take the deal, ie in this case, go to UPT. But if you want to go to UPT, want to serve as an aviator (in whatever capacity that could mean), then go for it!

I know an 11H that was offered continuation.

That's because this has nothing to do with killing people and breaking their stuff. This has nothing to do with making the military more competent, more efficient, or a stronger fighting force. I'm sure there are a few bright/capable people who are 4'9" who could make it through pilot training and fly fighters if the DoD only made the necessary adjustments to the trainers/systems... This is all about progressive ideology and politics. I'm not surprised, though I'm slightly surprised that it happened this soon. Then again, the President is working hard to change what he can in his last year+ of his presidency with regards to his progressive ideology and his legacy. I look forward to the upcoming training day briefings and/or CBT's addressing this new change when it occurs.