.jpg.16a1cc85c7f8ea1a3ed3127e7f2f2e34.jpg)
Learjetter
-
Posts
801 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
20
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Downloads
Wiki
Posts posted by Learjetter
-
-
..,
It is a professional credential.
Professional pilots should have these type of credentials...
Which is why the AF should send you to get yours on their dime, like they promised us in 1996...
-
...Life isn't just blowjobs and ice cream.
Then you're doing it wrong
-
2
-
-
^^^truth
Randomizer concept:
Jan: if 4th digit of SSN = 5 or 8 then select for golden flow
Feb: if 7th digit of SSN is 3 then select.
You get the idea.
-
Saw the FY15 ARP take rate chart (on AFPC personnel statistics site, static reports section).
Fascinatingly dismal.
-
I would think that if you still owe ADSC for VA TEB, this memo may apply to that ADSC. If you've completed your ADSC for VA TEB, this memo is NA.
Edit: to remove distracting buffoonery, and add link:
http://www.benefits.va.gov/gibill/post911_transfer.asp
Thanks nunya
-
3!2
-
Absolutely, not only that, but EMPs are not just some sci-fi stuff that only exists in the matrix movies.
34 mins later, NK would be vaporized, with hardened 1950s technology.
And they know it's true, because we've done it before.
-
This is most egregiously UNSAT. This line was the most powerful one considered on the recent promotion board I sat on.2. My previous base wouldn't let us put EKIA in OPR/EPRs.
Edit: unless it was an acronym war...but the accomplishment was still described. No one should lose credit for closing with and killing the enemy on OPRs.
-
COCOM = combat command (authority, like OPCON/TACON)
CCMD = Combatant Command (e.g. CENTCOM/SOUTHCOM)
CCDR = Combatant Command Commander
PME acronym review complete.
-
2
-
-
The only factor that should be considered regarding a change in policy is,
"Will this change improve our fighting forces?"
It would be impossible to demonstrate that it WON'T "improve" fighting forces...which is why DoD probably will make some changes.
-
Our fatality and Class-A rate during that training was also astronomical -- not a good example.[/]
We've also trained probably millions of piper cub, maule, Cessna 170/185 etc drivers.
You're right about the Class A rate in WWII, but not all mishaps were due to the aircraft being a tail dragger.
My point only is this: conventional gear configuration isn't THAT difficult, and with modern training sims and methods, would likely not appreciably add to the training timeline or mishap rate.
-
....I agree with the ground loop comment though-big tail draggers are a chore and consume lots of training time that could be spent teaching dudes how to kill bad guys.
Disagree. Taxi/TO/LAND in even a "big" three-pointer wouldn't be any tougher than off the perch in a -38.
Maybe easier considering we trained thousands to successfully fly WWII fighters...with modern sims, the ground loop rate would likely be very close to zero.
-
Bums on the street do it everyday and people across the US give them millions...stupid Americans.
Warm-hearted, forgiving, unselfish, charitable and loving Americans, willing to freely give a little to help out someone less fortunate.
That makes 'em vulnerable to swindlers and cheats....not stupid.
-
...perhaps it's time for you to go if you don't 100% tow the line. As we wring our hands over what a mess the Air Force is becoming and wondering why leadership doesn't "get it", we may be overlooking the fact that they do, in fact, "get it" and outspoken critics and the disillusioned punching out isn't nearly as concerning to them as it may be to us.
100% accurate assessment.
-
Perhaps you should read the separations afi. It's painful, but the "lt Col with more than 18 years declining an Adsc that would take him to/past 20" is specifically addressed in the nightmare of a chart. It might be the assignments afi...I forget. Read them both.
You can't beat the shoes unless you understand their rules better than they do.
Concur
Read the ADSC reg too...
You'd be surprised how many guys are accepting erroneous ADSCs...
-
You can apply to retire up to 1 year out (normally), eg apply 1 mar 15 for a 1 mar 16 retirement date. If you don't have 3 years TIG on your selected retirement date, you'll be retired in the next lower grade. Your retired PAY, based on your 1405 date, is computed from your highest 36 mos of base pay. So, in your example: you began service 1 jan 2000, promote to lt col on 1 jan 2018. On 1 Jan 2019 you apply for retirement effective 1 jan 2020. Since you don't have 3 yrs TIG, you're retired in the grade of major, but your retired pay is 2 yrs o5 + 1 yr 04. Which is A LOT less, for the rest of your life, than 3 yrs as an O5.
DFAS and AFPC sites have some very good calculators...check them out.
-
How is that cost effective?
Who said that it needed to be? Or even should be?
Flying hours are cheap. Fuel is cheap. Salaries are cheap.
Real estate is expensive. Cut infrastructure.
-
...build the curricula and allocate the time to develop the cadre....As an AF and especially as aircrew, we've got to try to breakdown the stove-pipe mentality that once you're given wings you do only one kind of career path and that's it.
Preach it, brother!
And...UPT ADSC to 6 years, no bonus.
Amen
-
10 years after what?
10 years after the AF implements universal assignability due to use of a common training platform and program, crossflowing between MDSs won't be a big deal...especially for promotions, staff tours, etc
I see it like this: the AF wants you to be a combat-ready pilot for about 5 years, after 4 years of tng (regardless of MDS).
Of the next 11 years, It wants you to spend 2 in school, and 10 on staff/ALFA and in the schoolhouse, then retire you as a Maj or Lt Col at 20-22 yrs. if they can get 100 to do that, about 20 of those 100 will also get command tours and/or early promotions.
Point being: the AF believes there will ALWAYS be just enough "old heads" around in every MDS to take the young uns to war...and your proficiency/capability in the jet is assumed A-OK--which is why your OPR must be filled with non-flying achievement.
The AF doesn't have a problem filling cockpits, it has a problem filling the insatiable staffs and exec billets and CAGs with pilots. So, let's go back to a standard program for all, 60-70 student class sizes, a 40% washout rate, and budget for the increased flying hours and maintenance, plump up the transition courses, and man every squadron and staff to 95%.
Oh yeah, at the same time, reduce pilot initial ADSC back to six years, and eliminate the bonus and advanced flight training ADSCs.
-
Anyone having fun with the change in policy about the USB hard drives?
I chose to interpret the new rule as "no connecting anything via USB while the machine is connected to the network, unless that anything is on this list"
So I pull the RJ45 cable out, do my biz, (STS), and get back in the network.
Isn't everyone doing this?
-
Disagree. Ten years after implementation of universal assignability post a common trainer, this wouldn't be a big deal at all.I don't think so.
-
Now's your chance, boys. If there's a zero percent take rate, there will be positive changes....to ADSCs, to bonus rates, to RSAP, to assignment policies, to abominations like TAMI-21.
Prove Chang wrong and don't take the bait.
Vote with your brain.
Your freedom to choose your fate is priceless. Don't sell it too cheaply.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Mar96,
Since you didn't comprehend my earlier post, I'll revise my advice:
Go Navy.
-
4
AF Religion Guidelines
in General Discussion
Posted
Matthew 16:23