tac airlifter

That was a pretty gay blog. I really don't think a hostage situation on a military base would be handled by SF. I know some more qualified people pretty close by.

I've never heard of students wearing the poopy suit, but I've never instructed at pilot training so I could be wrong. Only times I know guys wear them is single engine well beyond power off glide distance to land. Think single engine crossing the Atlantic. I can't imagine wearing one to cross a relativly small lake.

I flew 130's for almost 5 years and this was not my experience at all. Everyone always told me how flying was secondary, but from what I saw that was only true if you allowed it to be true. I choose everyday when I went to work to make being good at my flying job my number 1 priority, and I'd like to think I succeeded. Did I catch some flak from my CC sometimes for flying instead of doing Flt/CC stuff? Sure, sometimes, but I always managed to get my ground job done. My point: everyone will tell you how it is but ultimately you get to decide what kind of officer/pilot you're going to be. I decided to put flying first; I got lots of cool missions and I got the job I wanted next, so being a good pilot first worked out well for me. And as a Flt/CC, I always strated guys who put flying first, not the office trolls-- if we're going to turn this queep around that's how it starts.

Listing your fellow Air Force members names online so you can mock them is highly unprofessional and makes you look like an idiot.

I've heard that rumor about every humorous AF video I've ever seen, and it's probably true.

Sheep gives birth to lamb with human face. edit: link

Who came up with a NLT 8000' flight restriction for small arms, and what were they smoking? I've not seen anything that restrictive anywhere else in the world.

Why would anyone clutter their brain with this useless nonsense? I will never in my life care what an AFI says about my sock color or underwear; it won't change anything I do. When leaders make stupid rules they just water down the legitimacy of all rules. Case in point, 202v3 specifically states only AF issue sunglasses can be worn while flying, but that rule is broken by literally every person I've ever flown with. How about we all just worry about shit that matters and expend energy memorizing things that matter?

Agreed. I thought Air Force gayness had hit rock bottom; looks like I was wrong. Edit to add: Anyone sense the irony that the one charged with keeping us sane uses language that makes us crazy?

No suprises there.

Agreed, I worked a full day Christmas Eve and then had to pick my folks up at the airport and they wanted to stop at stores on the way home; had you stopped me and said some shit I may have soiled the holiday spirit. My experience is 0-1s and E-1s may go places dressed in their uniform to look cool, but anyone with any TIS wears it in public when changing after work is too inconvienent. You know what they say about assumptions.

Bingo. I have a wife and two kids and spend pretty much every weekend hanging out with them, which is what I want to do. But Friday afternoons and night flights I'm cracking a brew and staying at the squadron. This is not a normal job where we work and go home, at least it isn't for me. I want to be there talking about flights & hanging with the bros, these guys are my friends. I don't have some other cool group of civilian friends I want to go be with, I like hanging out with the same guys I work with. I think a mandatory fee if I don't show up is pretty gay, but I understand the desire to cultivate a culture. My old squadron tried several times unsucessfully to mandate fun but it just doesn't work. My current squadron is an FTU and they always suck for students. The right answer is what Chuck said: dudes who don't want to hang out, single or married, just aren't part of the bro network. And they should know why.

I have empathy with your plight. The situation sucks and it isn't going to change unless we lose a war and get all our leadership replaced. The same system that you are fighting now produced the officers in charge; where is their incentive to drastically change the system since it picked them to be leaders? They think the system works quite well. All of the best pilots/aircrew/officers I know either went ANG, SOF or left the AF after their third tour.

Can anybody explain these wierd blue light over Norway without aliens or conspiracies?

I'd pass on the SOCOM 16. A barrel that short on a .308 is deafening. I couldn't enjoy shooting it at all, and if used indoors it will suck pretty bad.

The article isn't premature because it doesn't make an assesment. First line of my post: "it doesn't claim to have the conclusion." I am also not making a final judgment. Rememeber this "I'm in wait and see mode for a final understanding of the entire event." But you answered my question, you think the peopel calling this terrorism are the media just sensationalizing it. Thats fair and the media has certainly proved itself overzealous to paint a picture without facts (example, looks like Munnely didn't may not have even hit Hasan, but the media certainly jumped right into calling her a hero). My point was the Casey came out immediately after the attack without any facts known and said basically, this isn't terrorism and we shouldn't let diversity suffer. I think he was foolish to do that, because it drove the image of Army leadership trying to cover up someone who was a muslim radical and anti-american. Now it looks like his coworkers knew he was a jihadist but they were to afraid of being labeled discriminatory. All I'm saying is that just because this dudes lawyer says he'll plead not guilty, does not prove this wasn't terrorism.

Did you read the article? It doesn't claim to have the conclusion, but it comes down pretty hard on the side of this being a terrorist event, and interestingly, it calls out the Army leadership for being so hasty to call this the actions of a lone deranged indivudual. From pg 27 "The massacre at ft hood was, depending on whom you believed, yet another horrific workplace shooting by a deranged nutcase who suddently snapped, or it was an intimate act of war, a plot that can't be foiled because it is hatched inside a fanatics head and leaves no trail until it is left in blood. In their first response, officials betrayed an eagerness to to assume it was the first; the more we learn, the more we have cause to fear it was the second" Granted that is the begining of the article but that is the consistant theme. So I say again, the rush to judgement based on incomplete evidence just screams "agenda!" Your assesment is premature, and if you were tuned in to the national dialouge and actually reading articles you cite, you'll see how bad this looks to quickly jump on the "lone gunman" train when so much evidence is mounthing to couter that. Why don't we wait and see? I don't understand the eagerness to claim this wasn't terrorism without even close to all the facts.

Solid advice.

If the gov doesn't fully investigate the very real possibility that an extremist Muslim was operating in accordance with an organization of extremist Muslims to commit this attack, it will become a conspiracy that will never die. 20 years from now families will be doing specials on CNN about "why did the gov come out so fast denying this could have been a terrorist attack before we even knew who shot who (remember the initial reports about some casualties being from friendly fire?)?" I cannot understand the reasoning behind the premature bid to label this either terrorism or the act of a lone crazy gunman. Why don't we all just wait to see what the investigation uncovers and proceed from there? The rush to assumptions based on incomplete evidence just screams "agenda!" More devastating than the loss of lives would be the loss of credibility in the governments ability to be straight with people about what happened and why. So I hope you don't take this the wrong way M2, but I really think your assessment is premature and unhelpful to the national dialogue.

I think your assesment is premature. Perhaps we should wait and see exactly what he does and says instead of relying on what little information his lawyers allow out. Still a lot of rumors about funds transfers to Pakistan and all manner of suspicious contacts; not saying any of it is true but this whole affair has been prematurly judged from the initial report. I'm in wait and see mode for a final undestanding of the entire event.

By this time you've either committed yourself to this task and are fighting in the primary or you have called it quits. Either way, I'd love an update. PM me if you don't feel like making it public.

I'm not a fan of the writing style (or lack thereof) either, however, if 1/3 of what he says actually happened--- wow. And that sortie at the end? I stayed up all night reading it, I literally couldn't stop myself and wait for another time to finish.

Possibly the greatest aviation book ever written.

You ought to rethink your post. If an 0-7 installation Commander issues an order that I think is stupid, I still have an obligation to obey. And I wouldn't tolerate open insubordiation or mutany or whatever it is you are calling for with the "do anything about it" line. I can't do anything about it except bring it up to my boss, which happens ALL the time. Ergo, people come here to bitch about this inane policy because what else can we do without going to jail? The fact is, if the boss orders me to dress like a clown I still have to do it. I lead in my capacity, who are you to say I (we) don't?

Thats a good point, and the logical follow up question is: How much of their culture is influenced by their religion? Any verse from just about any religious text can be quoted in isolation and misunderstood or misrepresented. So instead look at the great men (or women) of a particular faith to get an idea of what it teaches. When you contrast Mohammed with Jesus any attempt to equate the two faiths rapidly fails. They were opposites. Bottom line, if this attack originated from his religious beliefs then I think you have to call it terrorism. But if this act originated from the fact that he was an crazy asshole, it's hard to lable that terrorism. Until we interview him and know for sure what his intent was, I think in this climate today it is reasonable to lable this as terrorism since he had to know the act and his faith would be linked.