Jump to content


Supreme User
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Muscle2002's Achievements

Flight Lead

Flight Lead (3/4)



  1. It is almost certain that he would only fly a fighter during the course and then go back to heavies for his test assignments.
  2. Yes, this process is still followed with minor tweaks. Your Record of Performance, Flight Evaluation Folder, application statement and recommendations, interview, and in-flight performance at Edwards determine your overall score, with the first three determining if you are invited to the interview.
  3. That may be why there are rumors swirling around that Gen Berger will get the nod for CJCS because of his willingness to upset the apple cart in his approach to “Force Design.”
  4. Even now, we have GOs and senior O6s with less than four years of command time. I know a few who did a quick one-year squadron command tour, followed later with a one-year wing vice commander stint, and then wing command.
  5. The Marines allow members to substitute their PFT run with a rowing machine above age 45.
  6. The DAF just released a new policy governing body composition effective April 2023. No more waist measurements. Now, it’s waist-to-height ratios. The first measurement will be non-retributive. Afterwards, not meeting the required ratio “will be considered a failure to meet standards and will require enrollment in a formal self-directed BCIP that may result in consideration for administrative action, including separation for continued failures.” https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/3262830/department-of-the-air-force-outlines-new-body-composition-program-for-airmen-gu/
  7. For instance, this tripe: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/10/covid-response-forgiveness/671879/ I readily admit that I make mistakes and want to learn from them. However, a handful (or more) of people who got it wrong, rather than admitting as much, taking responsibility, and trying to correct it for the future, want their records cleared. These articles are meant to appear as a mea culpa, but they are not. They are merely another sleight-of-hand trick performed to dupe the masses. Further, the article above is just another instance of virtue signaling. The author is trying to signal her side's moral superiority—note her exhortation to not gloat—by declaring a newfound erudition while advertising an outright revisionist narrative that does not just strain credulity but shatters it. While one cannot lay the blame for one person's actions at the feet of a movement, we all distinctly recall the diatribe coming people when anyone dared oppose. A generally unified front used "trusting the science" as a cudgel to beat actual scientists, critical thinkers, and others. To attempt to overlook numerous ethical failings—after all, when one takes actions counter to one's thoughts, it belies moral weakness—by simply sweeping them aside as the fruit of uncertainty is intellectually dishonest. That she does so under the guise of civility is ironic and disgusting. The audacity to write, "But dwelling on the mistakes of history can lead to a repetitive doom loop as well. Let’s acknowledge that we made complicated choices in the face of deep uncertainty, and then try to work together to build back and move forward" is galling. For an apparent vanguard or thought-leader in the "trust the science" movement, it seems that they would welcome an intelligent, fact-based, civil discourse that offered ways to avoid the mistakes of the past. Yet, "trust the science" was always just a bumper-sticker moniker to short-circuit frontal lobe activity among the masses with docile compliance the aim.
  8. Whoa, even mainstream sources (NPR) are backing away from the party line that held fast the last 2+ years. Apparently, it’s okay now to question how mortalities were counted, the riskiness of COVID, etc. 🙄 Before someone says, “But the science is different now,” I acknowledge that contextual factors have changed regarding the disease. However, non-scientific reasons are also driving the shift in attitudes, which undermines the credibility of the cult chant of “trust the science.” Scientists debate how lethal COVID is. Some say it's now less risky than flu
  9. I’m surprised the general wrote the above in today’s Air Force. After all, in the spirit of inclusion and calling everyone a warrior, is it okay to say that non-flyers will never be CSAF? I sense many shoe clerks were triggered.
  10. World War II nose art is generally forbidden because some think it objectifies others or celebrates violence. Is not the emblem below equally problematic because it reduces people to simply a set of sexual proclivities?
  11. It's notable that he doesn't list the F-15 as an aircraft flown in his biography but lists his 6-9 month stint at the RTU.
  12. The White House just announced the President's nominations for the next USSTRATCOM/CC, USAFE/CC, and AFSOC/CC. https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/3056641/general-officer-announcements/
  13. We need to require rank and year-group stratifications that go #1-to-end. This way, everyone knows exactly where they stand in relation to others of the same rank and their immediate peers. The SCOD OPRs and highly constrained strats (Department of the Air Force Grade, Command Position, and Duty Position are only allowable; no more percentages) go a long way in clarifying relative performance. However, I think most raters will choose NOT to stratify someone as #6/12 Capts, for example, so that they can then use #2/20 IPs as the secondary strat—the current guidance requires a DAF Grade strat to use a Duty Position strat. My guess: raters will use the typical fluff if they cannot give a "good" strat, leaving both the member and board guessing where the person fell compared to their peers for the rating period.
  14. I found the attached on AFPC's public website as I was trying to find some info for a mentee (not related to promotion non-selection, thankfully). There are a handful of helpful inputs; however, this document contradicts itself many times and may reflect what's wrong with the Air Force. I especially take umbrage with the part mentioning that officers should advocate for themselves to receive strats, awards, or be pushed for jobs. AFPC thinks it is wrong for officers to believe the system will take care of them. In one sense, they are correct. A system cannot take of someone, but leaders can. I don't think it's too much to expect leaders to build, teach, or lead those in their charge. Take a look. I'm interested to see what others think. OfficerPromo_LLs.pdf
  • Create New...