deaddebate
-
Posts
443 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Downloads
Wiki
Posts posted by deaddebate
-
-
49 minutes ago, rbigred300 said:
Does anyone know what the latest guidance is for sleep apnea in the reserves and while on flying status? If you are already in the reserves and diagnosed with sleep apnea and require a cpap machine...what is the normal outcome? I have seen everything online from just getting a waiver to you are not worldwide deployable and therefore go to an MEB and most likely get kicked out. I assume that you are automatically grounded for a while? If you can be treated by a cpap machine I don't see why it would be a huge issue to get a waiver.
Depends on severity of the apnea, if drowsiness is controlled via cpap or other methods, compliance with treatment, any other concurrent conditions, etc.
95% I've ever seen are MEB, retained with ALC C-1, and flying waiver. Needing a bipap is usually a C-3 or separation.
-
The November AFRC UPT board completed on Friday and results began to be publicized today. Talk to your commander or recruiter.
-
1
-
-
The answer here is not nearly as important as the question. Mr. Cook gives a great redirect and non-answer, but the point is the SECDEF is actively trying to see what he can legally change independent of Congress for a major restructure of the DOD, and will then make recommendations to the HASC/SASC in early 2016 for what the legislative branch could do further.Department of Defense Press Briefing by Pentagon Press Secretary Peter Cook in the Pentagon Briefing RoomDecember 8, 2015Q: Can you give us just some more information on Secretary Carter's Goldwater-Nichols review? What's the scope of it? Who specifically both here in the Pentagon and outside people, is he meeting with on this? What's the timeline and what's the final product going to look like?MR. COOK: The review has just begun. But this is something that the secretary feels is important to take a look at the department and the structure right now within the DOD and to make sure that we're doing things as efficiently as possible. There are a host of things on the table for review. He's getting input from the services, from the service secretaries, from outside the building as well, people who have experience in these matters. And he wants recommendations. I don't have the exact timeline for you but I know he's looking early into next year to have some recommendations to move forward. I know Congress is looking at some of these issues as well and the secretary welcomes the interest of Congress. But this is something that he's initiated here within the department itself, to take a hard look at how things are structured right now. Whether or not things could be done differently in the spirit of Goldwater-Nichols and the changes that resulted from that many years ago.Q: And would the end result be legislative proposals or things that he thinks he can do under his authority or for something else?MR. COOK: I'd imagine at this point, and again, we're waiting for the recommendations to come back. But, the secretary thinks there are things that he can do on his own again. If these are changes that make sense and again, withstand his own review of whatever recommendations come forward, but obviously this is something that is substantial would require, potentially, action from Congress and Congress is also looking at these issues, both the House and the Senate Armed Services Committee. And so, I think you can expect, probably at the end of the day, probably a mix of both. Initiatives that he can carry out here on his own and things that might require some Congressional action.
-
Remarks on the Women-in-Service Review
As Delivered by Secretary of Defense Ash Carter, Pentagon Press Briefing Room, December 3, 2015
[...] approximately 10 percent of positions in the military – that is, nearly 220,000 – currently remain closed to women…including infantry, armor, reconnaissance, and some special operations units. Over the last three years, the senior civilian and military leaders across the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Special Operations Command have been studying the integration of women into these positions, and last month I received their recommendations – as well as the data, studies, and surveys on which they were based – regarding whether any of those remaining positions warrant a continued exemption from being opened to women. I reviewed these inputs carefully, and today I’m announcing my decision not to make continued exceptions – that is, to proceed with opening all these remaining occupations and positions to women. There will be no exceptions. This means that as long as they qualify and meet the standards, women will now be able to contribute to our mission in ways they could not before. They’ll be allowed to drive tanks, fire mortars, and lead infantry soldiers into combat. They’ll be able to serve as Army Rangers and Green Berets, Navy SEALs, Marine Corps infantry, Air Force parajumpers, and everything else that previously was open only to men. And even more importantly, our military will be better able to harness the skills and perspectives that talented women have to offer. ‘No exceptions’ was the recommendation of the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Air Force, and the Secretary of the Navy, as well as the Chief of Staff of the Army, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, the Chief of Naval Operations, and the commander of U.S. Special Operations Command. While the Marine Corps asked for a partial exception in some areas such as infantry, machine gunner, fire support, reconnaissance, and others, we are a joint force, and I have decided to make a decision which applies to the entire force. [...] Accordingly, I am directing all the military services to proceed to open all military occupational specialties to women 30 days from today [...]
-
Discussion with Secretary Carter at the John F. Kennedy Jr. Forum, Harvard Institute of Politics, Cambridge, Massachusetts
Q: [...] an article The Atlantic wrote last month about the brain-drain in the military. The first part of my question, do you indeed think, like, there is a brain-drain? And how would you address the issues that the article brought up, such as the rigid pipeline that is really turning a lot of people away from the military?SEC. CARTER: Well, it is worry -- it is a concern to me. [...] And it's important to me that the best stick with us. [...] We have a personnel management system that isn't as modern as our forces deserve. And if we're going to retain, we've got to modernize it.
-
Discussion with Secretary Carter at the John F. Kennedy Jr. Forum, Harvard Institute of Politics, Cambridge, Massachusetts
SEC. CARTER: I'm not one of those people who believes war, cold or otherwise, with China is likely. It's certainly not desirable. But you don't get anything for free in this world. We have to create the conditions under which change can occur, including a change of great consequence in the Asia-Pacific region in a way that is -- preserves the peace and stability. That the peace and stability that for 70 years has allowed prosperity and the rise of, first of Japan, then of South Korea, Taiwan, Southeast Asia. Today China and India. This is good. But it has been able to occur because there has been peace and stability in the region. And the single most important factor in that 70-year history has been the American -- pivotal role of American military power in the region. We aim to keep that going. Now, that's not a matter of stopping China from rising. It's on the contrary. That's not our approach at all. Our approach is everybody rises. That's fine with us. It's not to exclude. Our approach has always been an inclusive one. So we actually seek to include China, India. I was in Vietnam a couple of months ago. And you know some of us go back long enough to remember when it was otherwise with Vietnam. But this is the single region of the world, Graham, which will be of greatest consequence to our nation's future. And I say that for the very simple reason it's where half of humanity lives. It's where half of the economic activity of the globe is. And so keeping peace and stability there is a very important thing to do. And we need to do that. Now, you know, that involves everybody else in the region and China. Everybody needs to play their part. So that is a politico-military task of great consequence. I pay a lot of attention to it. We have something called the rebalance, which is a big and probably not the greatest word in the world. But all it means is we aim to keep going what has worked for 70 years in this region and has allowed everyone, including China and their -- if Chinese think about it, and many do recognize that this has been great for China. China can do its own thing, raise hundreds of millions out of poverty, develop in a way that is congenial to China. [...] a few weeks ago, I was aboard the Theodore Roosevelt in the South China Sea. Now, why was that even noticed, is the question you might ask? American Naval vessels have been in the South China Sea for 70 years. We weren't doing anything new. Why was it in the newspapers? Because China has been doing something new, namely, dredging islands in the South China Sea, and making unilateral claims to territory. Now, they're not the only ones that are doing that out there. There are other countries that have been doing the same. We oppose that, we say, that's no way to stake claims, by China or anyone else. And for our part -- it's not going to change what we do. We're going to sail, fly, operate anywhere international law allows, like we have for decade upon decade upon decade. So that's what I was doing. Now you said what do other people think about it? Well, with me was the Malaysian defense minister. And what does that tell you? That tells you that in the region there, there are others who are concerned also about this conduct. And basically the over-weaning and domineering attitude that goes with dredging. As I said, the Chinese aren't the only ones that are doing that, but they're the principle one that causes concern. And it's having the effect of causing the entire region to rally in opposition to China. Is that really what China wants in the end? That's certainly not what we want. I told you, our approach is not to exclude. Our approach is to include. But if they self-exclude by behaving this way, that's what will happen. And that's what you see happening. [...] But I think the interesting point is it wasn't new that the American aircraft carrier was in the South China Sea. It was interesting that I got so much press attention. But that's because of what the Chinese are doing that's new, not because of what we're doing. [...] I don't know what is the most likely. I can certainly say what is the most desirable. And that would be a South China Sea in which territorial claims are settled peacefully and without military activities, where everyone has freedom of navigation. Remember, those are the seas through which most of the world's commerce flows, including to China, both imports and exports, energy and everything else. So we all depend upon the freedom of the commons. And I'm fine with having China you know at sea also. They have a navy. They can go anywhere the United States Navy goes. And we can partner with China's navy, and we are in things like dealing with piracy, trafficking in human beings and drug trade. [...] Everybody can share those oceans. There's no reason why anybody has to dominate them. We're certainly not seeking to dominate them. So that's the future I hope for. [...] we oppose all reclamation and further militarization. We think everybody ought to knock it off. That's no way to do things. You can resolve these disputes, territorial disputes in some other way. Let's not forget the big prize here, which is free commons for everyone. -
In my job, I talk to Recruiters at least weekly. They are typically in a shitty situation, trying to keep many plates spinning, so I'm not surprised when they're under-informed.
If you're already in the AF, you could have someone higher in your chain (O-6+) send an e-mail to HAF/A3, but that's nearly a hail mary. Sending a vMPF request is about as helpful as a magic 8-ball.
-
I heard a rumor that the USAF is looking for helo pilots? Any truth to it? Or where would I go to find out?
There's this thing called a Recruiter.
http://www.airforce.com/joining-the-air-force/commissioned-officer-overview/
-
The Air Force had an unfair advantage--we're used to working while sitting down.
http://www.defense.gov/News-Article-View/Article/630839/air-force-team-wins-sitting-volleyball-tournament -
You can probably get into ANG. Even if one unit/state doesn't take you, another one will.
Good luck getting into Reserves. Under 15% is doable, but I haven't seen them take higher than about 25-30%. You could get another physical though, and argue for a lower disability rate (counterintuitive, I know), but I've seen this work.
Also this all depends on what your specific diagnoses are. Tinnitus isn't as bad as ankle instability, but they might both be rated at 10%.
-
I posted a summary of his recent speech over at General Failure but it looks this is the main section for this discussion so I'll just post this link.
-
are all of them authenticated?
What do you mean? Did SECDEF Carter really say it? Are we really going to do it? Am I a real boy? Does it come with a satisfaction guaranteed warranty?
-
1
-
-
Pentagon Press Secretary Peter Cook: [...] the secretary this afternoon is attending a meeting with current and former military leaders of the department and with independent experts to discuss possible Defense Department reforms. This is one in a series of meetings being held to discuss areas of potential reform to the defense enterprise in the spirit of the Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986. The series of meetings will examine potential overlaps or redundancies and areas in which performance could be streamlined or improved within the department. These meetings will help set the department's reform agenda and determine the path forward to ensure our continued strength.
"Building the First Link to the Force of the Future" Remarks by Secretary of Defense Ash Carter at the George Washington University Elliot School of International Affairs, Washington, D.C.
With more young Americans pursuing internships today – including 9-out-of-10 GW graduates – this is imperative for attracting civilian talent. That’s why we’re making our internship programs better managed, and also more effective at transitioning promising and successful interns into permanent employees – so that if you’re an intern with us and do great work, we can do better at connecting you with job openings. [...]Also, to make sure we benefit from innovative entrepreneurs who aren’t technologists but have advanced skills of other kinds, we’re going to bring in resident entrepreneurs, who will work with senior leaders on some of our most challenging projects just for a year or two at a time. And we’re also going to hire a chief recruiting officer, who’ll serve as a headhunter to help bring in some of America’s best qualified executives for stints in top civilian leadership roles in the department.
[...] we want to make it easier for more of our people to gain new skills, experiences, and perspectives – whether in the private sector, in academia, or elsewhere – experiences that they can bring back into the military to help keep us strong, creative, and forward-thinking in that force of the future. And there’s added value in that offering those kinds of opportunities will make us more attractive to future generations, too. It might surprise you that we’re actually pretty good at offering a variety of experiences already. [...] But to make ourselves even better at this, we’re going to expand our fellowships and sabbatical programs so more of our service members can spend time in America’s top industrial, governmental, and academic institutions, and bring back what they learned to keep us on the cutting edge. [...] I want more people to have these kinds of broadening opportunities [...] without hurting their career, but instead helping it, which after all makes sense. So we’re going to expand this program by doubling the size of it, by opening it up to qualified senior enlisted leaders, and by offering not just tours in industry, but also elsewhere in government, including state and local government, because they work on important problems too.
Another program is our Career Intermission Program, which lets people take a sabbatical from their military service for a few years while they’re getting a degree, or learning a new skill, or starting a family.
[...] we’re also updating and modernizing our retirement benefits. [...] Right now our troops have to serve 20 years before getting any retirement benefits, but 80 percent don’t serve that long, which means they leave with no retirement benefits at all. But we’re changing that, and starting in the next few years, we’ll be able to offer a portable, it’s a 401k-like plan, which all who serve can take with them whenever they move on to whatever’s next in life for them. [...]
For our military personnel, we’re going to launch LinkedIn-style pilot programs that help match-up service members looking for their next assignment with units who are looking for qualified people to fill an opening. Think of a soldier logging on, setting up a profile, seeing what they’re qualified for, and selecting what they want to do, while the unit looking to bring someone on sees the profiles that fit their criteria, and chooses who they’re interested in. And when there’s a match, they’d get connected. You may have heard of some apps that perform a similar function. The Army’s already tested this with some of its engineering officers, and it was very well received. So we’re going to pilot this across the services, and eventually scale it up for everyone. It makes a lot of sense. Should have happened a long time ago. But we’re also going to improve our data-crunching and how we leverage big data to inform our personnel policies. We don’t do that very well right now. So we’re going to bring in some top data scientists to help fix that. [...] And that’s going to fill some gaping holes in our data, starting with exit surveys that ask people who decide to leave why they did so; that way, we can make changes to keep our best. For some reason we’ve never comprehensively done that before. While there have been studies, articles, and entire books written about how the military is ‘bleeding talent,’ most of these are anecdotal. And because DoD hasn’t been gathering the data, we couldn’t quantitatively prove or disprove that, let alone fix it. So while it’s much overdue, this change will make a big difference in how we manage talent going forward. [...]
We also want to make sure we strive to recruit from the broadest possible pool of talent. If we don’t, we risk becoming isolated and insular, and that’s not the path to success in today’s security environment. [...] Right now, DoD has a higher percentage of senior women leaders, for example, than America’s most profitable companies do. And a few years ago, we repealed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” allowing gay and lesbian Americans to serve their country openly and proudly. But as I’ve said before, we’ve got to do better. That’s why I recently announced we’re supporting the [...] Lean-In Circles – if you’re familiar with the book Lean In, by my good friend, very admired friend Sheryl Sandberg, of Facebook, the COO – those Lean-In Circles have cropped up across the department, and it’s why also we’re reevaluating our transgender policy, and why we’ve been opening up ground combat positions to women. And we intend to do more in the months to come. [...]
While all these changes I’ve described today are exciting and important, they’re just the beginning. So stay tuned in the coming months. For example, we’re taking a serious look at making some common sense reforms in our officer promotion system. We’re also looking at ways to improve how we manage our civilian personnel, working with the government-wide Office of Personnel Management as well as federal employee unions. And we’re figuring out how we can do an even better job of meeting our commitments to the health and well-being of our people and their families in the 21st century.
-
Isn't URT at Randolph/Holloman direct to RPA?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
But there is no pipeline direct to RPA, yet. He still needs to go through normal pilot training, including normal FCI standards. RPA MSD criteria only apply to trained assets for now.I mis-spoke. He needs to go through normal pilot selection.
-
Nothing to worry about at this point. Depth perception requirements for RPA Pilots were dropped when the 28 July 2015 MSD (Medical Standards Directory) was released.
But there is no pipeline direct to RPA, yet. He still needs to go through normal pilot training, including normal FCI standards. RPA MSD criteria only apply to trained assets for now.
-
RPA standards aren't separate from normal IFC I processes. Yes, this waiver exists and a very common request, usually approved after additional examination. See the waiver guide linked in my sig block.
-
http://www.armed-services.senate.gov/download/deptula_11-05-15
SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE HEARING: Revisiting the Roles and Missions of the Armed Forces
Thursday, November 5, 2015
Witness statement of Lieutenant General David A. Deptula, USAF (Ret.)
[...]
However, while Air Force officers are perhaps the most joint of all the services (almost half the Air Force budget goes to enabling the other military services), they have been historically excluded from joint command and staff positions. To optimize the solutions that our military provides to the nation, it is imperative that the options of exploiting the dimensions of air, space, and cyberspace be well understood and considered in military course of action development, planning, and execution. However, the military can’t do any of those activities if Air Force leadership is absent from the key military organizations involved. To put this in context, here are the facts why this is an issue, and requires attention. From 2006 to early 2010, there were no U.S. Air Force officers in any of the top 11 positions in the Pentagon—the Chairman, the Vice Chairman, the Director, the J-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 on the Joint Staff—almost 4 years with no leadership position on the joint staff. A look at the historical record of how the Air Force has fared in command assignments in the combatant commands is quite revealing. Since the establishment of regional combatant commands—the warfighting commands—on January 1st, 1947, there have been a total of 105 commanders—only 6 have been Air Force officers. That is less than 6 percent of the regional combatant commanders in the entire history of the Department of Defense have been from the Air Force. There is a story behind those statistics, and it is not a good one from a joint perspective. The issue here is not simply that the Air Force has not been given its “fair share” of joint task force command assignments, but that far more than just 6 percent of those areas of responsibility could have benefited from an air-centric perspective, as is the case in today’s fight against the Islamic State. Furthermore, the Air Force needs to look at itself in the mirror in this regard to appreciate more honestly how it grooms, selects, and offers officers for these critical positions. The situation involves more than just other-service prejudice and turf protection.
[...]
Air Force aerospace power will inevitably be pivotal in future wars. This is by far the most preeminent unifying theme that has emerged from the collective global combat experiences of the last quarter of a century. Operation Desert Storm in 1991; Operations Deliberate Force and Allied Force in the Balkans in 1995 and 1999, during the major combat phases of Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan in 2001; Operation Iraqi Freedom in Iraq in 2003, Operations Odyssey Dawn and Unified Protector conducted over Libya in 2011, and most recently, combat operations in Syria and resumed operations in Iraq. These operations underline the fact that the Air Force has been at war not just since 9/11/2001, but since 1991—now approaching 25 years. The nature of the modern security environment demands that we focus on not just sustaining, but accelerating Air Force contributions. Whether providing stand-alone options or serving as an integral part of joint operations, the Air Force is a vital national asset. Modern combat operations are simply not feasible without the capabilities afforded by the Air Force. Our nation has three services that possess air arms—the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps. Those air arms primarily exist to facilitate their parent services’ core functions—their mastery of operations on the ground, at sea, or in a littoral environment. However, our nation has only one Air Force. Its reason for being is to exploit the global advantages of operating in the third dimension of air and space to directly achieve our security objectives around the world. It is this unique and specific focus of the Air Force that makes aerospace power America’s asymmetric advantage. Said another way, while the other branches of the U.S. military have localized air arms suited to supporting their respective domain activities, only the U.S. Air Force possess the capabilities and capacity required to facilitate sustained global operations anytime, anywhere—and the perspective to exploit those capabilities in a way no other armed service has the expertise to provide.
[...]
-
2
-
-
Could somebody please tell Graham, Jindal, Pataki, and Santorum to just get out of the race?
-
1
-
-
Butthurt Christian pilot posts stuff on christianfighterpilot.com.
Some people find it offensive and complain to Gen Welsh.
Eglin Wg/CC gives the pilot an LOC.
Pilot writes an impressive rebuttal.
Original documents, with inconsistent redaction. You can skim it pretty quickly; it's not as long a read as you'd think.
-
Care to drink from the firehose?
Go to https://www.efoia.af.mil/palMain.aspx
Click "AF FOIA Library"
Search for "SERE School Curriculum"
Download file (~16 MB)
Read pages 104 through 1714
-
I don't read this thread much. Was this ever posted before?
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA608598
Anybody seen this?
-
Go to https://www.efoia.af.mil/palMain.aspx
Click "AF FOIA Library"
Search for "2013-04175-F_Releasable Rec'ds_AFMC"
Download file
Read pages 15-24, 30-44, & 98-106
-
I read on the Air Force website that a requirement for pilots was that they couldn't have any sign of allergies after the age of 12. I'm currently 16 and I have seasonal allergies that might show up one month out of the whole year if that. Should I be worried??
No. Seasonal allergies are certainly very common among pilot applicants and those serving. As long as you're controlled with a single medication (Allegra, Claritin, etc), you're fine.
-
http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/673363.pdf
[VA and DOD] acknowledged that they do not expect to complete a number of key activities related to their electronic health record system efforts until sometime after the December 31, 2016, statutory deadline for deploying modernized electronic health record software with interoperability. Specifically, deployment of VA’s modernized VistA system at all locations and for all users is not planned until 2018. Meanwhile, DOD has yet to define all the additional work that will be necessary beyond 2016 to fully deploy the DHMSM system, and full operational capability is not planned to occur until the end of fiscal year 2022. Thus, for the departments, establishing modernized and fully interoperable health record systems is still years away.
Wow. Even with my already low expectations of the VA, that is astounding.
Sleep Apnea
in Aviation Medicine
Posted
Somebody else could answer the specifics of the different types of apnea better than I could, however the main point is a BiPAP manages very severe apnea. While the CPAP is just pressure, the BiPAP also controls the rate of breathing. BiPAP people are typically too broken for the AF.