deaddebate
-
Posts
443 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Downloads
Wiki
Posts posted by deaddebate
-
-
You will very probably get a waiver. The letter alone doesn't mean much--get a copy of the clinical notes, essentially the medical record they generated for your treatment at that facility. Give that to your recruiter, and they'll process the waiver request.
-
2 hours ago, highflyer said:
Question that I haven't seen here before. Does anyone know, in FC1/MFS if you have 20/20 uncorrected vision will you still need to go through the dilation Cycloplegic Refraction test? Doesn't seem to painful, but wondering because I don't see any information on the Wright-Patterson site or elsewhere in the Medical Aviation forums.
1 hour ago, Herk Driver said:
Yes
Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network ForumsYep.
"You will have your eyes dilated as part of your FCI exam."
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/Welcome/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/853025
-
It's now on the Personal Data Form, which was updated last month. Just be honest about it.
-
On 12/19/2016 at 3:51 PM, AnonQ said:
I found this in the waiver publication guide regarding my type of injury.
[...]
Can anyone advise what this means? I can't tell if it's an unrestricted waiver for fc1 due to the minor nature of my injury or if it's automatically denied with no chance. The second paragraph seems to imply both?
Does the AF even know, need to know, or will somehow find out as I've already done my FC1?
You haven't given enough information about the injury. What specifically did you fracture and to what degree? Did you just do X-Ray or MRI? Have you seen an Orthopedist?
On 12/23/2016 at 11:29 PM, brabus said:Did you find out about this injury at flight med / Air Force hospital? If you did, then yes, the AF knows. If you went on your own to a civilian doc (not using Tricare), then no, they don't. After you answer that question, if the AF does know, you need to consult a flight doc about if a waiver is required. If the AF doesn't know, well...do you want them to know?
Though morally ambiguous, pretty much this. You should report it, and the AFI says you have to, but if you don't, will anyone ever find out and would your Commander enforce administrative action?
The Air Force probably will eventually discover it, but it'll likely be much later with a token finger wagging.
-
20 hours ago, guineapigfury said:
MFLAC, call A&FRC for contact info. They're confidential, don't keep records of any kind and most people I know who've used them (including myself) would recommend.
Start here (MFLAC), then Military One Source, then the MTF/Mil Mental Health.
-
On 12/2/2016 at 0:37 PM, stuckindayton said:
It is DQing, however easily waiverable if controlled with medication.
I didn't spend much time searching for this, but all I could find was under sleep disorders. What are you referencing for waiver likelihood?
-
3 hours ago, dallasfan12 said:
I have 20/40 uncorrected in both eyes, and my right eye is correctable to 20/20, but my left is only correctable to 20/30. Could I get a waiver for this?
You must be able to correct to 20/20 in each eye for pilot certification.
-
Good question. From my five minutes of Google, I'll defer to stuckindayton. It appears the test is not very valuable in screening for cancer, but better at gauging effectiveness of a treatment course once cancer has been identified by other means. Whether another cancer screening exam or test is worthwhile based on military pilots potentially higher radiation exposure is a question for smarter people.
A starting point may be the USAFSAM Epidemiology Consult Service at WPAFB. I could maybe PM you their contact info.
-
Agree with above posters.
Letters will be larger, the screen will be accurately calibrated, the surrounding environment will be darker, etc. Don't worry, especially as passing is only 75 or better.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, HossHarris said:
Go in person.
Social media may be of use to find out where to go/who to go to, but is not the vehicle for pleading your case.
Call, get an appointment, and spend the money to get there. Have your ducks in a row
I hope you mean go in person to the Congressman's office.
Getting an "appointment" at a MAJCOM/SG isn't really a thing, and showing up unannounced means you won't get in the door. You need to know somebody/have a connection.
But going to a Congressman's office may lead to something.
-
https://news.usni.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/SECDEF_NDAA_Letter.pdf#viewer.action=download
It's a great read and I encourage everyone to look at the full document.Highlights SECDEF Carter letter to SASC Chairman regarding NDAA, 13 Jul 2016
If a bill is presented to the President in the current form of either version of the NDAA, I will join with the President's other senior advisors in recommending that he veto the legislation. I am, however, hopeful that you will address the Department's concerns during your conference negotiations.
[...]
The Department strongly objects to provisions in the House and Senate bills which do not authorize an additional BRAC round.
[...]
The Department urges the adoption of the Senate position on the military pay raise and strongly objects to the House language in section 601 that would remove the alternate pay-setting authority provided to the President in permanent law. A 1.6 percent pay raise represents the best judgment of our military and civilian leaders on how to balance responsible compensation increases with our readiness and modernization needs.
[...]
The Department maintains its strong objection to Senate section 604. This provision undermines the current BAH structure by basing the allowance solely on grade and location (disregarding dependency status). It would reinstate previously failed policies and require the imposition of a burdensome and inefficient administrative process. Furthermore, it would disproportionately affect female service members and those military families in which both military members have chosen to serve their country. [...] Finally, this provision would have a negative impact on the recruitment and retention of the high-quality service members, and families, required for our all-volunteer force.-
1
-
-
Tinnitus is only disqualifying if it interferes with your ability to perform your duties. Possible hearing loss against your baseline hearing capability is a different (but related) standard for hearing limits to perform flying duty. Hearing loss flying waivers are a dime a dozen for aircrew (but they have additional examination hurdles/time wasters, from your perspective).
In short, if it's a problem, tell the doc. If you're only worried about later benefits, wait until you're 12-18 months from separation/retirement.
-
VA Conducts Nation’s Largest Analysis of Veteran Suicide / July 7, 2016WASHINGTON — The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has undertaken the most comprehensive analysis of Veteran suicide rates in the U.S., examining over 55 million Veteran records from 1979 to 2014 from every state in the nation. [...] an average of 20 Veterans a day died from suicide.[...]• 65% of all Veterans who died from suicide in 2014 were 50 years of age or older.• Veterans accounted for 18% of all deaths from suicide among U.S. adults. [...]• Since 2001, [...] the risk of suicide 21% greater for Veterans.• [...] the rate of suicide increased 98% among female Veterans who do not use VA services.[...]Immediate help is available atwww.VeteransCrisisLine.net or by calling the Crisis Line at 1-800-273-8255 (press 1) or texting 838255.
-
1
-
-
Read this:
http://www.benefits.va.gov/compensation/claims-postservice-index.asp
Also note any disability rating you may ultimately receive while still in the Reserves will be scrutinized by your Reserve Medical Unit.
-
2 hours ago, pawnman said:
And yet we have people who can't get Lasik because the boss won't approve the 6 month DNIF.
Yeah, but they're not part of the social justice movement. They need to prove they are being denied due to socioeconomic disparities and cultural bias.
-
2
-
-
Quote
Remarks on Ending the Ban on Transgender Service in the U.S. Military / As Delivered by Secretary of Defense Ash Carter, Pentagon Briefing Room, June 30, 2016
[...] about 2,500 people out of approximately 1.3 million active-duty servicemembers and about 1,500 out of approximately 825,000 reserve servicemembers are transgender [...] Although relatively few in number, we’re talking about talented and trained Americans who are serving their country with honor and distinction. We invest hundreds of thousands of dollars to train and develop each individual, and we want to take the opportunity to retain people whose talent we’ve invested in and who have proven themselves. And this brings me to the second reason, which is that the reality is that we have transgender servicemembers serving in uniform today, and I have a responsibility to them and to their commanders to provide them both with clearer and more consistent guidance than is provided by current policies. We owe commanders better guidance on how to handle questions such as deployment, medical treatment and other matters. [...] at least 18 countries already allow transgender personnel to serve openly in their militaries. These include close allies such as the UK, Israel, and Australia, and we were able to study how they dealt with this issue. [...] RAND’s analysis concluded that there would be “minimal readiness impacts from allowing transgender servicemembers to serve openly.” And in terms of cost, RAND concluded the health care costs would represent, again, their words, “an exceedingly small proportion” of DOD’s overall health care expenditures. Now, as a result of this year-long study, I’m announcing today that we are ending the ban on transgender Americans in the United States military. Effective immediately, transgender Americans may serve openly, and they can no longer be discharged or otherwise separated from the military just for being transgender. [...] Then, no later than 90 days from today: The Department will complete and issue both a commanders’ guidebook for leading currently-serving transgender servicemembers, and medical guidance to doctors for providing transition-related care if required to currently-serving transgender servicemembers. Our military treatment facilities will begin providing transgender servicemembers with all medically necessary care based on that medical guidance. Also starting on that date, servicemembers will be able to initiate the process to officially change their gender in our personnel management systems. Next, over the 9 months that follow, based on detailed guidance and training materials that will be prepared, the services will conduct training of the force – from commanders, to medical personnel, to the operating force and recruiters. When the training is complete, no later than one year from today, the military services will begin accessing transgender individuals who meet all standards – holding them to the same physical and mental fitness standards as everyone else who wants to join the military. Our initial accession policy will require an individual to have completed any medical treatment that their doctor has determined is necessary in connection with their gender transition and to have been stable in their identified gender for 18 months, as certified by their doctor, before they can enter the military.
http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1530.html
QuoteRAND - Assessing the Implications of Allowing Transgender Personnel to Serve Openly
[...] we estimated, as an upper-bound, 130 total gender transition–related surgeries and 140 service members initiating transition-related hormone therapy (out of a total AC force of 1,326,273 in FY 2014). [...] We estimate that AC MHS health care costs will increase by between $2.4 million and $8.4 million annually [...] What Lessons Can Be Learned from Foreign Militaries That Permit Transgender Personnel to Serve Openly? [...] In many cases, personnel are considered exempt from physical fitness tests during transition. Because the gender transition process is unique for each individual, issues related to physical standards and medical readiness are typically addressed on a case-bycase basis. This flexibility has been important in addressing the needs of transgender personnel. The foreign militaries we analyzed permit the use of sick leave for gender transition–related medical issues and cover some, if not all, medical or surgical treatments related to a service member’s gender transition. In no case was there any evidence of an effect on the operational effectiveness, operational readiness, or cohesion of the force. [...] First, military surgeons may currently have the competencies required to surgically treat patients with [Gender Dysphoria], and, second, performing these surgeries on transgender patients may help maintain a vitally important skill required of military surgeons to effectively treat combat injuries during a period in which fewer combat injuries are sustained.Now, some quick math, as we will probably be barraged with many sound bites and quick numbers in the coming months. There will be an estimated 2,450 Active Component transgender servicemembers every year, considering newly transitioned, existing transgendered people, and retirements. The estimated actual increased cost for medical care will be $7,100,000 annually (RAND study, pg 36, averaged values of analysis #2). Meaning the average increased medical cost would be about $2,900 per Active transgender servicemember.
However this does not include impacts to convalescence/readiness (est. 14 to 45 days convalescence, 12 months non-deployable, RAND study, pg.s 41 & 67), personnel education/training programs, leadership policy oversight, and facilities/construction. There is a larger cost that RAND and the SECDEF have not addressed. That down-played mentality may not be visible in my excerpts above, but it is certainly very strong if you read the full source documents. They are obscuring it in the larger number of total DOD manpower and budgets. The argument for adoption seems to be grounded in politics, morals, and principles, not simple math. And this is fine--we have many, many policies in place not driven by a ruthless cost/benefit mindset. But I'm poorly swayed by good reasons and bad math--just give me the good reasons to justify the actual math.
This is a quick response to a very new study and announcement. If any of my math is wrong, or I've wrongly cited something, please correct me. If any of my opinions are wrong, please post your own.
-
http://www.armed-services.senate.gov/hearings/16-06-16-nomination_-goldfein
Personal highlights of the Advance Questions for General David L. Goldfein, USAF / Nominee for the Position of Chief of Staff of the U. S. Air Force
In your view, what are the major challenges that will confront the Chief of Staff of the Air Force?
The most pressing challenge for the United States Air Force is the rise of peer competitors with advanced military capabilities rivaling our own. Adversary advances are challenging our control of the Air. Space, long considered a sanctuary, is an increasingly contested environment. Airpower contributions to the rise of revisionist states will compete for resources with the ongoing demands of intractable conflicts and continued fiscal uncertainty. The next Chief of Staff, in support of the Secretary, must enable the innovation and agility of our Airmen, preserve the Air Force’s competitive advantages, find solutions for readiness and modernize force structure and capabilities.
Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for addressing these challenges?
The Air Force is taking a number of steps to position us to fly, fight and win against a peer competitor with advanced capabilities. It starts with the continued development of Airmen and then we have to address a number of important modernization programs—including new platforms such as the F-35 and B-21, which will ensure a qualitative edge against likely adversaries. We also have a number of upgrades to existing platforms, which will extend their life and ensure their survivability in all but the most denied environments. But more importantly than platforms, we have a detailed, multi-year strategy to become a multi-domain force that integrates air, space and cyberspace capabilities to accomplish Air Force missions. This is a new way of thinking about the application of airpower, where once separate and distinct mission areas will operate synergistically to offer the Joint Force Commander multi-domain solutions.
What do you consider to be the most serious problems in the performance of the functions of the Chief of Staff of the Air Force?
Balancing the demands of Combatant Commanders for the capabilities the Air Force provides today, against the requirement for a healthy, ready Air Force that is prepared for contingencies against peer adversaries with advanced capabilities tomorrow. This is the central challenge for all Service Chiefs. In our role as members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, we work closely with the Secretary and Chairman to articulate requirement to preserve readiness and modernize our aging fleet to be prepared for future threats.
If confirmed, what management actions and time lines would you establish to address these problems?
The first step is to acknowledge that the Air Force will almost assuredly be engaged in continuous combat operations for the foreseeable future. So the central question is how to conduct persistent combat operations while also recovering readiness and modernizing the force under the current budgetary constraints. We must continue to find more efficient ways to present forces to forward combatant commanders with less cost and footprint. And we must also continue, in line with Secretary James’ priorities, to make every acquisition dollar count. And finally, we must recognize that we’re not going to buy our way to a more capable Air Force. Tomorrow’s Air Force will be built on the new concepts, developed by Airmen and enabled by technology. If confirmed, I’ll focus on harnessing the innovative spirit of our Airmen to find opportunity in the challenges we face.
[...]
What do you view as the major readiness challenges that will have to be addressed by the Air Force over the next 4 years, and, if confirmed, how will you approach these issues?
Decades of constant deployment and focus on counterinsurgency operations have reduced the Air Force’s overall readiness. These issues along with critical skills shortages and an aging aircraft fleet and training infrastructure that need recapitalization to ensure viability and readiness against a near-peer adversary continue to provide challenges for the Air Force. I will address these issues by balancing our effort between top acquisition programs, sustaining our current force, modestly growing end-strength, and investing in our full spectrum training and exercise programs. Sequestration in FY18 would further exacerbate these challenges and limit the AF’s ability to recover readiness.
[...]
What do you consider to be the key to the Air Force’s success in recruiting the highest caliber American youth for service and retaining the best personnel for leadership responsibilities?
The Air Force is known as a technological force. It is also known as a force that values its personnel and their individual and collective contributions. We are meeting our recruiting targets both in numbers and quality, however the size of the youth market, propensity to serve, and market competition (especially for highly-skilled areas such as aviation/remotely piloted aviation, cyber, engineers and special operators) are all growing concerns. As such, it is important that we continue to offer a competitive compensation package, give individuals challenging opportunities to lead, and have a talent management system designed to extract the most productivity and value from an organization’s greatest asset – its people – to meet mission objectives.
[...]
Do you agree, if confirmed, to reevaluate the Air Force’s practice of offering the aviation retention bonus equally to all platforms, as a way to better shape and manage the Air Force’s pilot force across disciplines?
We will tailor any potential bonus based upon specific platform and overall Air Force requirements. The requested increase is not a set amount. If approved, this will give us the flexibility to tailor bonus amounts and contract terms by platform.
[...]
Do you believe additional rounds of BRAC are warranted at this time?
Yes. Drawdowns in force structure have greatly outpaced reductions in infrastructure. As a consequence, we pay to maintain and sustain installations that we don’t need. Closing unneeded bases is one of the few ways we can achieve significant savings and use that money to recapitalize and sustain our weapons systems, enhance our readiness training, and invest in the quality of life of our airmen.
If so, how do you quantify the Air Force’s excess capacity driving your decision?
The Air Force estimated excess capacity through parametric analysis of force structure to quantity of infrastructure. DoD’s April 2016 report to Congress stated the AF had 32 percent excess infrastructure capacity based on the projected FY19 force structure. In the last round of BRAC, the Air Force reduced its infrastructure by less than one percent, and since then we’ve reduced our size by hundreds of aircraft and thousands of personnel. Reductions in force structure have greatly outpaced reductions in infrastructure.
-
1
-
-
I've seen many Congressional complaints. The are received by a low level staffer, pushed to the MAJCOM that dq'd you, given a token response explaining how nobody broke the law, and it's closed. If you aren't connected, then it's a cold-call to the Congressman, so you'll only get lip-service. Your Rep.s and Senators are not waiting by the phone for your call, to spring into action and fight for you. More likely, they're calling you for money.
You as an individual can't really contact the MAJCOM/SG. Well, you can, but they have no obligation to respond to you. Everything should go through your Congressman, Recruiter, MEPS, or local FS, explaining medical justification / requesting reconsideration. It sounds like what you are really trying to do is an ETP, and that thread is over there.
-
Though S.2943 passed yesterday, it is likely not the bill that will be passed by the House and presented to the President. /https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/2943/all-actions
H.R.4909 already passed the House on 18 May and was placed on the Senate calendar on 26 May. This bill does not have the BAH change. /https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/4909/all-actionsNow the two bills differences need to be resolved, and only one will proceed with amendments and repeat passage in the first chamber to then advance to the President. /https://www.congress.gov/legislative-process/resolving-differences
The Senate passed its own version so that both bills may be discussed in a conference committee. Thus both chambers have their own bills and criteria to defend, which is particularly important as the Senate has a Democratic Majority and the House has a Republican Majority. /https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_conference_committee /http://uspolitics.about.com/od/thecongress/a/conference.htm
H.R.4909 will very likely be the bill that is amended and eventually accepted, but whether the . In short, it is a concern, but this individual fight and the full NDAA at large are FAR from finished.
-
7
-
-
That level of esophoria is too high for any waiver potential. Surgical correction is possible but a waiver would then be needed for that surgery. So your essentially switching from a condition with no waiver chance to a surgery and a waiver with little chance.
I personally think it's not worth getting a surgery that you probably don't need for your civilian life and probably won't get approved/waiver to become a flyer. Talk to a civilian optometrist, and weigh your options.
-
On 6/6/2016 at 9:35 PM, bb17 said:
What day exactly is the June AFRC board and how long does it take for results to come out? Also, where can you find the results of the board?
On 6/7/2016 at 4:13 PM, pancho17 said:For the June Board applications are due 18 May. I do not have the exact date that the June board convenes although I assume it will be the first Monday of June. Last year packages were due 31 Oct and Board results came out Dec 9, so following that pattern results should be out early July.
Mostly what pancho17 said.
The hard deadline for packages was 27 May, but Recruiters and their bosses probably wanted the paperwork early so they could review everything at their level first.
The "board" reviews the packages for about 3-5 days in the beginning of the month and provides their list through the chain to the 2-star at AFRC, who ultimately authorizes it. This routing and review usually takes the rest of the month, as admin folks (legal, medical, personnel, etc) verify records as needed and the bosses make decisions.
Results are typically published in the first or second week of the next month, and filtered through the unit commanders/recruiters to notify their individual applicants.
-
1
-
-
On 6/6/2016 at 4:11 PM, hookemTX93 said:
I also heard recently that you could go to Wright-Patt as a civilian to get the FC1 and just say you're a pilot candidate. can anyone confirm this
On 6/6/2016 at 9:32 PM, bb17 said:I highly doubt that you can just show up like that. FC1 physicals tend to be booked up about 1 or 2 months or more into the future so you really have to work with a recruiter to get it set up and scheduled in the future. It is a lot of paperwork and coordination to make it happen. Also, when you show up, the nurses have a package with all your paperwork prepared, so that's something that definitely takes them some lead time to get ready.
This. You need to have already passed MEPS, and have a supporting memo from your recruiter or gaining Unit (somebody has to pay for lodging, tickets, etc, and confirm you're not just wasting everyone's time).
On 6/4/2016 at 11:26 AM, FishBowl said:FAA Class 1 is a joke compared to the still pretty easy-to-achieve FC1.
On 6/4/2016 at 10:03 AM, nunya said:Without comparing actual standards, my gut says they're not even close. Lots of airline dudes would never pass an AF FC1, especially when you consider the number of AMEs around airline hubs that specialize in keeping guys flying.
I don't want to say it's a much tougher or stricter standard, but ... it's a much tougher and stricter standard. Look at the Aviation Medicine thread. There are many posts of folks getting DQ'd or needing waivers for otherwise minor conditions that wouldn't be any concern to civilian aviation.
-
1
-
-
G14 - History of spontaneous pneumothorax. NOTE: A single episode of spontaneous pneumothorax does not require waiver if the condition has completely resolved, PA inspiratory and expiratory chest radiograph and thin-cut CT-scan show full expansion of the lung and no demonstrable pathology which would predispose to recurrence.
You'll need some work-up, but hopefully you'll be good to go after about 2 weeks DNIF.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, chizz said:
damn, thanks. scary you know all that or did you have it in your notes?
It really doesn't take long to research the answers to folks questions. All that was about 10 minutes of searching, reading, and then writing.
-
1
-
Thunderbird crash, pilot reported ok
in General Discussion
Posted
http://www.acc.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/5725/Article/1029543/f-16cm-thunderbird-accident-investigation-released.aspx