jango220

I am in a similar boat as you (going CONUS instead of OCONUS however). TMO here at Maxwell said the same thing you heard last year: as long as your family is listed on the orders in block 17 at a different address, they will move from two locations. It appears that you have to build it as separate moves on move.mil however - likely 3 for you with the unaccompanied baggage? I will have the third on mine for the partial DITY/PPM. There is some verbiage listed in the AFI that swizzle posted about putting "request agent review" in the remarks for a somewhat related situation, but no idea if that will draw the ire of the logistics and finance demons who will subsequently smite you. Granted, this is all YMMV and has not encountered first contact with JPPSO/finance/etc but that is how I intend to press.

Colombian AC-47 is a Basler conversion with pretty interesting capes. Tough ol' Spooky Gooney bird. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/39236/theres-one-place-in-the-world-where-ac-47-spooky-gunships-still-fly

Interesting. The realignment seems like a good change. Kind of interesting that the last class' outplacement was so Scott-heavy. Bode, trying to do your follow-on at McGuire will come down to a roll of the bones. It has happened recently, but definitely YMMV and not a guarantee.

If that is on your radar, keep in mind that both the EC/EOS and CRW are at McGuire as well. That includes all of your air advisor, contingency response, AOC, and combat training positions, as well as the EC A-staff. Many of those positions are API-6/8 slots too. A good friend graduated ASAM a couple years ago and then rolled right into AMCTES (also at WRI) and is about to pin on O-5. Granted, the flying in those attached positions is essentially quarterly if you don't fly the -10 or -17, but it is an option as well. One aspect of ASAM that is not well known is that the EC commander (2 star) personally works your outplacement, in conjunction with the EOS commander (O-6). I know this is a bet on things aligning in the future, but you can and should be very frank with them on what is best for you and your family. Scott and Ramstein are the most common outplacements from ASAM, but with a DT co-chair directly working your follow-on, your probability of success is pretty high to get something else more in line with your hopes/desires.

DFAS appears to not have an IG, but rather an Internal Review office (DFAS IR). This page steps you through the process, and as always, DoD IG is also an option.

To echo what @otsap said, don't take what TMO is saying as gospel. All they do is input that you are moving and then your regional JPPSO will then divy it out to the moving contractors. One of my people was told on Monday by TMO that they were SOL after some en route training was added, moving their dates up a month. After much freaking out and calling moving companies over the next couple days, the government moving contractor called up yesterday saying that they can do a move next week. I would be willing to bet that they are telling everyone looking to move in June and July to pound sand because it is the busy season and not necessarily based on any facts. The actual scheduling is up to JPPSO and the moving contractors.

You know, that's an argument that I have heard for a long time and completely disagree with. A lot of people in the tanker community also believe that for some reason as well. The Bone and Buff hold a crap ton of gas (~265K and ~312K, respectively), even compared to the legacy tankers (~200K for the -135 and ~340K for the -10), in addition to their weapons loadout. A large aircraft with weapons doesn't equate to a leaky gas can and a lit fuse. Edit: Adding weapons decreases fuel capacity, but still, each bomber holds a lot of gas The P-8 has both hard points and a bomb bay, and is a great model for future weapons employment methods for large aircraft. It is absolutely do-able for a platform like the KC-46 (sorry, C-46...).

Airbus has definitely gone all-in on the MRTT as of late. They are currently flight testing an automatic version of their boom, as well as an avionics and aerodynamics upgrade. While the KC-46 may be the "next-gen" tanker, the 330 MRTT is definitely going to make up a large chunk of tankers worldwide. Just off the top of my noggin: Australia and England have been flying theirs (with the UK looking to add a boom as well) for a while,the European consortium is doing a bulk buy, several middle east countries are flying/have bought, India finally paid for theirs, the South Koreans and Singaporeans are buying, etc etc. Oddly enough, they have one big LIMFAC: landing gear configuration. They are twin-tandem just like the -135 but weigh about a hundred K more. They are gross-weight limited at a huge number of military airfields worldwide as a result.

Got mine added this past December at the Philadelphia FSDO. FAA Order 8900.1 figure 5-88 on the most current version (02 feb 16) shows that the KC-135 equates to the B707/B720 types.

David Clark is currently testing a one-ear version of the DC Pro (http://www.go-dcpro.com/passive-headset-features). There are a couple test sets floating around both McGuire and Travis. A lot lighter than the current DCs, so we'll see if they decide to market them. I personally am not a fan of the Telex. Definitely miss the Bose A20 from my previous jet. The KC-10 comm system uses a non-standard PJ-051 plug, that as far as I know is not used on any other military aircraft. While many commercial aircraft have similar one-ear setups since their cockpits have decent noise insulation, the -10 fleet is limited to either the specific DC or Telex options due to that plug. The jet basically has a bunch of military equipment shoehorned into a FAA-cert'd airframe, so without going into a big history lesson, this is one of the "solutions."

Completed my ATP at Tulsa Community College a couple weeks ago. To echo all of the other reviews on here, overall it was a great course for a great price (~$2500 including flight time, examiner fee, gas, hotel). They have a newer model Seminole with a G500, and they are setup to "teach to the test" - exact words from their chief pilot. They love us military pilots since we show up more or less instrument proficient and are able to get thru all of the training in 1-2 flights, and then press to check. Couple LIMFACs to be aware of: 1) Aircraft availability - only 1 plane currently, they are working on getting another leased with a G1000. I had to mx canx flying on my first day due to a shredded alternator, and it took about a day to fix. 2) Evaluator availability - the DPE is a Southwest check pilot with an extremely busy schedule, due to supposedly being the only ATP-qual'd DPE in all of Oklahoma. She only schedules 2 weeks out prior to the next month. However, she is an awesome pilot, extremely knowledgeable and fair. They are all full up until January, but PM me for evaluator/TCC contact info to schedule.

Definitely agree. Hampton goes into incredible detail about the development of both SAMs and the Weasel mission from day 1 until the Vietnam War ended. I bought it purely on a whim at a bookstore because I recognized the author's name from "Viper Pilot." I happened to hear Col Leo Thorsness speak at Maxwell a couple days earlier, and the book explains the events that led to him being awarded the MoH. I've already bought a couple extra copies and handed them out to people. Highly recommend.

I suggest you find a tanker patch (I swear they exist) and have an actual discussion about that.

The former Vice Chief of the Army, Gen. Peter Chiarelli, is on a similar crusade in his retired life. That article is an excerpt from a terrific book written by the Starbucks CEO called "For Love of Country," which is a collection of stories of both organizations that are looking to advance veterans' issues smartly, as well as some combat stories. There is one story in particular about a op gone wrong in Afghanistan after they landed in the middle of minefield while attempting to roll up a target. Read the whole book in an evening after reading the initial article, it was that good.

How easy was it to schedule dates? Lots of openings or something you have to lead turn 6-9 months?

Just a note, the SYD is powered by the rudder power system. Turn the rudder power off, the SYD turns off. With the rudder power on, the pilot can choose to turn the SYD on or off. With the rudder power on (hydraulically powered), the rudder has +/- 25 degrees of movement, versus +/- 13 degrees manually. The SYD can only actuate the rudder +/- 4 degrees, but it requires hydro going to the rudder to operate. The SYD itself is nothing but a rate gyro giving commands to the rudder PCU to move the actual control surface. Another important thing to note is that the SYD inputs do *not* move the rudder pedals. The biggest thing to take away from the AIB is how out of phase the actual yaw of the aircraft was versus the actual flight control inputs. I have read the SIB more thoroughly than the AIB so I'm not going to get into the how/why that occurred on this forum. If any fliers want to have that conversation, feel free to PM me a .mil. I'm not certain I could have correctly diagnosed the issue that was affecting them in the same time frame. I think the crew force as a whole is going to be better educated as a result of this accident.

Rip-it stockpiling begins in 3, 2, 1... There is going to be a lot of jittery, caffeine-deprived people running (and flying) around all of the bases in CENTCOM. Green Beans will be the real winner in all of this.

Or use them for the pre- and/or after-drop party. We started drinking around noon on the day of our drop in the flight room and I don't quite remember when we stopped. The following Monday morning sounds about right. We had the crew bus take us to the club.

There are a few Edwards and Pax River guys with "Cold Iron" morale patches.

Cold iron = full power off reboot of the jet

2. I propose taking the discussion about this article to sipr baseops because I am genuinely interested in the rebuttals from the CAF guys. EDIT: Or the discussion can stay here, it just seems like this could turn into a vault-type discussion.

I am not trying to downplay the role the -10 plays. It does its job well. And it is needed in the future, especially wrt Pacific pivot/global strike, etc. However, the key is it is a poor aircraft for use in CDO. The 3-1 has details, but we're not just talking about GATM here. I've flown on a KC-10 before, and the lack of SA due to a handcuffed FMS and displays that can't show boundaries was astonishing. Watching the crew break nearly every boundary of the area we were in and get called out by ATC was just further proof. Trying to fly off a falconview display with a $15 GPS puck isn't a good setup for a CDO scenario. If the avionics upgrade gets implemented, I may very well raise my hand and ask to go fly the -10. What I'm trying to say is that there is a reason the KC-10 isn't invited to play in certain scenarios and OPLANs and it is purely due to the equipment on board, and the AF currently seems unwilling to invest the money to change that. It was my understanding that the boom control unit was reaching its end of life and required replacement. Any A3/A4-types have any details? I could be wrong, just something I've heard. All potential jokes aside... I think you are severely underestimating the number of KC-135 current and former receiver pilots (both from our airframe and cross-flows) when it comes to our attitude towards receiver considerations.

I never realized how much the Navy/Marine guys hated tanking on the iron maiden until I did some Navy test support and actually got to sit around and talk with them. Lipping the basket is almost a given for most of the young guys on their first approach. I also realized that most Navy guys prefer the 250-275 knot range and Marines love tanking at 200-230. Probably a result of what they are used to doing in the fleet (buddy tanking on a Hornet and drogues from a KC-130, respectively). I'd be willing to guess that a majority of the difficulties are mental, just from stories passed down over the years from experienced guys to new. Back to the topic at hand, some receivers may love tanking with the -10, but there is no better (current) tanker suited for a contested/degraded environment than the KC-135. The AF decided to make that investment in the -135 several years ago, while also decided to make minimal upgrades in the KC-10. Is the -10 better for dual-role? Yes, and that is why it was purchased. But it is going to take a lot of money to make it compliant for the mandatory avionics upgrades over the next 10 years just to allow it to fly in existing airspace, and that is before we begin to address issues with their boom control unit. The AF is going to have to make a decision on this one, and the reign of the Gucci boys may very well be coming to an end.

The past few pages have become "What's Wrong with AMC," which could literally fill a book. AMC has developed some weird corporate mentality that rewards the extremely few shiny pennies and takes it out on the masses. Probably one of the biggest issues with checkrides/evaluators is that AMC for the most part views the upgrade to EP as something that enhances your career vs a position given to your experienced instructors. As a result, many evaluators view the sortie thru a soda straw and seemingly take pride in producing bloody form 8s. Not trying to throw spears, but this phenomenon appeared to begin in the airlift world and due to the "excellent" Phoenix crossflow program, has manifested itself in the tanker world. And as an aside, the evaluator boom referenced earlier gave a n/n to a boom on one of my flights last year. From my point of view, I have nothing bad to say about him at all, and thought he was a great crew member.

Had to add a BODN classic. Does anyone still have the audio?