itsokimapilot

If you finish SOS by correspondence your SURF will reflect completion. It doesn't matter which DL course you complete. No need to do multiple versions of DL SOS.

I wasn't asking you. I intended to capture your question for relevance. The question was for the board.

Honest question, how can leadership consider sending families on an accompanied PCS to a declared hostile fire zone? Is someone working on correcting the HFP to the Deid?

Based on everything you've posted in this thread I'm certain you've never been a member of a flying squadron. You really don't seem to know what a young pilot or navigator should do to better their career. You should probably stop talking.

Don't just take my word on this. Talk to your 'ahem' finance office. It is an advance, you haven't earned it yet. I've taken the PCS advance once and I don't recall paying any tax on the advance. Good luck.

It's an advance on pay. You won't be taxed on the advance when you receive it. You get taxed on your income not the loan. It's the same as if you went to a bank and got a loan except you won't pay any interest on this loan. It's a pretty sweet deal.

Damn it!

You don't earn gate months as an enlisted aviator. As Longhorn said it's two different programs. Rightfully so, I don't want my time as a loadmaster to count towards gate months as a pilot. That just means I'm closer to that staff job. No thanks...

You can try to polish a turd all you want, but it's still a turd. They can have all the Mercedes and AC they want. I couldn't imagine ever taking my family to that place. Ever. If I had to choose between Cannon and Doha, it's really a no brainer.

I thought this was the reason for STEP promotions.

Haha, zing! We are too focused on the number of rings in our checklists than to be bothered by those types of details. Seriously.

Every interaction I've had with them in the past would suggest screws.

All well and good practice to see and avoid. AMC is pushing us to be overly conservative with this crap. I had a TCAS RA (non AOR), filed the HATR and didn't think about it again. Six months later I got an email from AMC stan/eval that went something like this. We just reviewed the MFOQA data on a C17 you flew on x date. We noticed you received an RA. Did you file a HATR? I've got five bosses Bob, five.

Looks like she made it on Fox news. Interesting contrast between her and the other women in the interview. http://video.foxnews.com/v/1769889818001/?intcmp=features

Hahahahaha, I'm sure that would've solved the problem!

Sounds like a typical TACC mission to me.

I had a buddy just go through safety school and they told him that privilege is no longer a guarantee. You have to ask for privilege in order for them to grant privilege. It's no longer automatic. If you are in a SIB make sure you verify the information you're providing is privileged before you give a statement.

Really? Wow, I'm a prior load and would never expect them to do that. That would be equal to a load expecting a pilot to properly calculate restraint criteria or doing a load shift formula. Thanks for the help, but I'll take it from here...

Do you like watches that have an E6B because of the style? Or do you intend to use the E6B on the watch?

I can't speak to all of the legalities of the UK. For the country we were going to be residing in, they would allow my spouse to get a resident visa once we arrived. We just needed to take a trip to the capital city and fill out the paperwork at their immigration office. Tricare standard covers family members overseas that don't have command sponsorship at the local base. Healthcare is available, but you may have to pay up front depending on the location. Tricare will reimburse you. Info available on the tricare webpage. The one thing I found that was sketchy was that without command sponsorship your family members can't be med evac'd. So, if they get injured in a bad accident or get sick and need to get back to the states you'll have to foot 100% of that cost.

WTF did you think happened at a little league game? UFB! http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/06/22/new-jersey-woman-hit-with-baseball-sues-little-league-player/?test=latestnews#ixzz1yapNhc7Z MANCHESTER TOWNSHIP, N.J. – A New Jersey woman who was struck in the face with a baseball at a Little League game is suing the young catcher who threw it. Elizabeth Lloyd is seeking more than $150,000 in damages to cover medical costs stemming from the incident at a Manchester Little League game two years ago. She's also seeking an undefined amount for pain and suffering. Lloyd was sitting at a picnic table near a fenced-in bullpen when she was hit with the ball. Catcher Matthew Migliaccio was 11 years old at the time and was warming up a pitcher. The lawsuit filed April 24 alleges Migliaccio's errant throw was intentional and reckless, "assaulted and battered" Lloyd and caused "severe, painful and permanent" injuries. A second count alleges Migliaccio's actions were negligent and careless through "engaging in inappropriate physical and/or sporting activity" near Lloyd. She continues to suffer pain and anguish, incur medical expenses and has been unable to carry out her usual duties and activities, the lawsuit says. And Lloyd's husband, in a third count, is suing for the loss of "services, society and consortium" of his wife. They've demanded a jury trial. Anthony Pagano, a lawyer for the Migliaccios, said the lawsuit is frivolous and without merit. "I just think that it's disgusting that you have people suing an 11-year-old kid for overthrowing his pitcher in the bullpen," Pagano said. "It's horrible this can actually happen and get this far. Ultimately, hopefully, justice will prevail." The count alleging negligence and carelessness is covered by homeowner's insurance, Pagano said, but the other counts are not. Little League has denied any coverage. Lloyd's lawyer was out of the office Friday and could not be reached for comment. Steve Barr, a spokesman for Little League, declined to comment on the litigation. He said each local league is required to have accident insurance, but that only covers personnel. "That includes coaches, players, even concession stand workers. But it does not cover spectators," Barr said. Matthew's father, Bob Migliaccio, said they were concerned for Lloyd when it happened. Then his son started receiving threatening and nasty letters, he said, and he started getting angry. "The whole thing has almost been surreal," Migliaccio said. "We keep thinking it's just going to go away, and then a week and a half ago a sheriff shows up at my door to serve my son the papers." Migliaccio said if his son had been horsing around, he would feel differently. But Matthew was doing what his coaches told him to do, he said, and noted Little League players aren't always accurate in their throws. "It's absurd to expect every 11-year-old to throw the ball on target," Migliaccio said. "Everyone knows you've got to watch out. You assume some risk when you go out to a field. That's just part of being at a game." Migliaccio said he and his wife, Sue, would love to beat the charges in court, but it could cost them tens of thousands of dollars. They also don't want to put their son and other kids on the team through all the questions and depositions a trial would bring. "It's to the point now where we just want it to be over," he said. Matthew, described by his father as a "baseball junkie," still plays on three different teams. But Migliaccio and his wife have stepped down from coaching and managing the concession stand because of the suit. Migliaccio said as angry as he is about the lawsuit, he's almost more angry with Little League. He said they've volunteered hundreds of hours over the years, and he believes Little League should assist in defending their son. "Somebody else has to step in here and help us out," Migliaccio said. "I just feel people should know about this, and maybe Little League can figure out a way to protect these kids."

That may be the case in general. However, my wife was denied her clearance because no common sense was applied to the governing regulations. It's still a bureaucracy. If x occurred in the last five years then no medical clearance. She had x three years ago and requires no further treatment, but was denied. We missed out on an awesome assignment because the medical team couldn't see the forest through the trees. Not every case is cut and dry. Use common sense and know your family. If you think it could be an issue later then, yes Rainman I totally agree with you. I knew my wife was good to go, but I chose not to take the assignment (or challenge the wing CC) because the Wing commander has made it clear no non-command sponsored family members at his base.

I saw this video and this thread was the first thing that came to mind. I thought it was pretty damn funny, and true.

I'm not busting your chops, but it's not PIC responsibility, it's authority. I don't care the rank of anyone on board my jet, it's my jet period. The way an AC talks to any crew member may be slightly different depending on rank, but the authority is always with the AC. I have a buddy who was the AC with a 4 star as a pilot, the AC sent him around. Why? Because the Captain had the authority to and it was the right thing to do.