Jump to content

tk1313

Supreme User
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    373

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

 Content Type 

Posts posted by tk1313

    What will my life be like?

    in Air National Guard / Air Force Reserves

    Posted · Edited by tk1313

    1 hour ago, Rhade said:

    Hello all,

    I have been waiting in the wings this past year waiting for my TS to go through before my unit wanted to set me up with OTS and UPT dates.  It sounds like it went through and they want to start setting up my dates.  I'm a little nervous as this is potentially a major turning point in my life.  I know the next 1.5-2 years of training will be hard, but my question is what will life be like once I get back?  I am an engineer in my civilian life and I want to keep doing that.  There are lots of boards talking about airline pilot lifestyle in the guard, but how about a more traditional civilian job?  What kind of flying commitments will I have every month?  Does your military commitment adversly affect your personal career?  How do you manage two jobs and a family?

    Info on me, I'm going to be flying C-130s and I live about 3 hours from my unit.   I want to make sure this is the right call.  I'm taking a major pay cut and I'm going to be spending alot of time away from my family.  I'm getting cold feet and just wanted to know how other guys have been swinging it, and get your input.

    First, I 100% agree with RTB: The training is going to require you to continually convince yourself that you want to be a USAF pilot. If you're already questioning your desire to fly, please do some serious soul searching and decide if this is really what you want to be.

    Did you already have a secret (clearance)?

    I don't know how much you want to disclose, but your civilian job security depends on who you work for. If it's the government, and you've worked for them past your "probationary period" (should be between 1-3 years), I don't think they can get rid of you. If it's a major government contractor like Boeing, Lockheed, etc.... I believe they are more inclined to keep you too. I'm an engineer as well, working for the federal government, and my bosses are 100% supportive of my decision to move to the tip of the spear. It's a lifelong goal, period.

    One of the guys that actually helped talk me into the Guard route is a former guard C-130 pilot. He had a civilian business job before going to UPT. Throughout his guard career, he said he had a couple of times where his bosses were upset due to the time he spent flying, so he got approval to do incentive rides for his boss(es)... Apparently, getting to watch a cubicle buddy fly military planes is pretty cool... So it calmed them down.

    How do you manage two jobs and a family? Just do it. Stay positive. Tons of people have done it before you, tons will do it afterwards. "If it was easy, everyone would do it." Again, refer to RTB's post. You need to be sure this is what you want. I have no doubt in my mind. Like I said, it's been a goal of mine for as long as I can remember.

    Hope any of this helped.
     

    Upcoming Boards

    in Air National Guard / Air Force Reserves

    Posted

    Just now, Hopefulflyer389 said:

    I have been informed that the unsponsored route isn't an option any more by the local recruiter. Did someone else tell you differently or is the recruiter I talked to just another not knowing type?

    A guy I know who got picked up very late last year to fly fighters for his reserve unit was describing the program to me. He basically said if you want to fly fighters it might not be the best route, but that out of the 2 or 3 guys he knows who have done it, each got picked up by a unit in their top 5 choices (non-fighters). I thought the unsponsored boards was a fairly new thing.

    Upcoming Boards

    in Air National Guard / Air Force Reserves

    Posted

    17 hours ago, Rycast said:

    Thanks for the info. I wondered why I wasn't seeing much in the way of Reserves discussion on this board. There don't seem to be many ANG opportunities in Virginia (where I currently live). I'm not sure how viable it would be for me to relocate to a state to be in an ANG unit. Do units offer any kind of help with that? Sorry if this is a dumb question.

    It seems like you want location over mission/airframe. If that's true, I think you should put maximum effort into visiting the guard units around your location. If you're not having any success and you're running out of time, apply for the unsponsored board, fly your a$$ off, and put units close to you at the top of your list. Hopefully someone who has gone the unsponsored route will chime in.

    Navy Pilots on Strike over OBOGS Issues

    in General Discussion

    Posted · Edited by tk1313

    1 hour ago, Fuzz said:

    Now limited to a max altitude of 5,000': http://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/04/21/navy-increases-restrictions-t45-flights-new-cockpit-episode.html#.WPpoDT8OY2g.twitter

    Take a Q-tip and stick it in the cockpit louvers... Breathing that and only that the whole flight probably isn't the best thing for a pilot. Also, it could be pressure related, but it doesn't seem like that's the gripe from the pilots.

    Navy Pilots on Strike over OBOGS Issues

    in General Discussion

    Posted · Edited by tk1313

    1 hour ago, RTB said:

    If I read the article right, the modified mask doesn't tie into OBOGS?  How does that work?  And is the T-45 cockpit unpressurized?  

    My guess is, since they aren't flying above 10k', the "modified mask" is either detaching the hose from the OBOGS on the underside of the panel and possibly attaching an air filter underneath the panel that filters cockpit air (which allows the hose to remain secured to the panel), or just letting the hose dangle freely in the cockpit.

    Yes, the cockpit is pressurized as VMFA187 said. The cabin pressurization schedule can be found by anyone curious enough if you know what the Navy/Marine version of the dash 1 is...


     

    Track Selects and Assignment Nights

    in General Discussion

    Posted · Edited by tk1313

    1 hour ago, Rooster said:

    Yes, only 2 AD studs got 38s. We went through an extended period of bad wx and sub par maintenance. That combined with higher numbers of 38 studs has led to the pipeline getting backed up.

    Serious question(s): Bad Wx and down jets can decide mission/airframe for the next 10 years for an AD stud?

    Or would you guys have sent more to -38's if you felt maybe 3 or 4 guys were much stronger swimmers than the rest?

    • Upvote 1

    What should the Air Force be if it is so broken now?

    in General Discussion

    Posted · Edited by tk1313

    59 minutes ago, No2bonus said:

    A certain community was spinning up a different branch to fly their platform. Someone thought passing around a dildo and placing it into flight bags was hilarious. Reach for your thermos only to pull out a dildo. Well, those professional officers of a different branch didn't think it was funny and filed a complaint.

    Fvck it, I'll be the jackass... What was up their asses? Oh wait...

    U.S. Launched Tomahawk Strikes on Syria

    in General Discussion

    Posted · Edited by tk1313

    15 hours ago, pintail21 said:

     

     

    Is this ironic? I'm pretty sure this is ironic.

     

    That one aged well.

    Nothing like a good ole fashioned tax cut promise, followed by a promise to massively increase military spending in order to support a more isolationist national defense strategy. 

    A letter to our very foolish leader...

    You didn't need to grab tweets from 4-5 years ago to tell me Trump needs to STFU on Twitter. Also, it's funny that you chose tweets from a time (late 2012) where Obama was chastising Romney for being suspicious of the Russians. Basically, two arrogant Presidents who haven't served a day in their lives are awful at foreign policy, and have since basically switched roles... No news here.

    The Next President is...

    in Squadron Bar

    Posted

    13 hours ago, gearpig said:

    Here's how watching the "news" from our lovely mainstream sources like Fox and CNN goes for me:

    1. Pause channel flipping only when the hot news girls are in front of the camera. 

    Yep. For maximum effect, press the mute button.

    The Next President is...

    in Squadron Bar

    Posted

    Here's how watching the "news" from our lovely mainstream sources like Fox and CNN goes for me:

    1. Watch Fox because I'm on the right side of the political spectrum (in both senses of the word).

    2. Get pissed off at how stupid Fox news is after roughly 10-15 minutes.

    3. Switch to CNN so I can view the issues from the opposite side's perspective, which allows me to convince myself I'm a worldly thinker who approaches every issue from a neutral point of view.

    4. Get pissed of at how stupid CNN is after roughly 5-10 minutes (I have a shorter fuse with CNN).

    5. Angrily turn off the TV, curse politics, and decide to do something meaningful with my time (read: inebriation).

    • Upvote 7

    U.S. Launched Tomahawk Strikes on Syria

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    7 hours ago, Mark1 said:

    words

    Valid point on politicians being sh!tbags. I also agree with the previous presidents' decisions to not entirely embrace the phrase "radical Islamic terrorism" to deter recruiting efforts... I get why Bush did it, I get why Obama did it. I'm not a politician so I have the luxury of calling it as I see it. And ISIS has completely twisted the Quran to fit their agenda.

    I don't have all the "behind the scenes" intelligence, so all I have to go on is that Obama himself said he wasn't worried about ISIS or Al Queda when he pretty much did nothing about the gas attacks in Syria.

    Basically, our main disagreement is that while you assert that you're willing to turn a blind eye to occasional ethics violations to keep Syria from becoming another middle eastern sh!thole, I believe the leaders of middle eastern countries don't have to resort to banned warfare tactics to keep their country under control. At that point, it becomes a question of "who are the real monsters here?" or "which monsters should we support?" Nobody needs chemical weapons to defeat ISIS.

    U.S. Launched Tomahawk Strikes on Syria

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    6 minutes ago, Mark1 said:

    words

    Thing I disagree with strongly: It's a calculus that a horrible, yet generally sane and rational dictator who occasionally gases his own people when he feels it necessary for his own survival is unfortunately better than a group of zealots that is literally attempting to burn all of civilization to the ground in order to usher in Armageddon and the end times.

    more words (not trying to be a dick just cutting down on your wall of text to make room for mine)

    Agree to disagree. I'm not OK with gas being used to keep your citizens in check. I also don't think it's a choice between "Either Assad uses chemical weapons on his people or ISIS/Al Qaeda comes in and rules his people"... Come on, you don't believe that do you? Not even Obama believed that at the time...

    Nov. 1, 2012: Obama touts killing Osama as one of his great accomplishments, and mentions that Al Qaeda has been 'decimated'.

    Dec. 3, 2012: In a speech at National Defense University, the president again warns Assad over chemical weapons. "If you make the tragic mistake of using these weapons, there where be consequences, and you will be held accountable," Obama says.

    April 25, 2013: In a letter to Congress, the White House says that the intelligence community assesses “with varying degrees of confidence that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons on a small scale in Syria, specifically the chemical agent sarin.”

    Jan. 27, 2014: “The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a J.V. team puts on Lakers uniforms, that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant,” Mr. Obama told David Remnick of The New Yorker.

    So basically, 2013 is the year that we were more afraid of Al Qaeda and ISIS than a dictator using chemical weapons on his own people, but at the same time it was the year after Obama said Al Qaeda had been decimated and the year before Obama called ISIS the JV team? Yeah... my bullsh!t meter is going crazy

    Nov. 4, 2012: “You know I say what I mean and I mean what I say,” Obama said in Hollywood, Florida on Nov. 4, 2012.  “I said I'd end the war in Iraq. I ended it.”

    So... Obama used his big Harvard Law brains everybody keeps talking about to pretty much go around the checks and balances when he felt it was necessary, but somehow big bad George 'Dubya' made it impossible for him to NOT withdraw from Iraq... Oh but I'm sure the credit was all Dubya's if the withdrawal was a huge success instead of causing ISIS to rise up like it had. Once again, I call bullsh!t.

    TL;DR: No, I don't think using gas is an appropriate measure to make sure the country doesn't fall into the wrong hands. No, I don't think Obama made a good choice in a bad situation. I'm OK with you believing that of course (it's what makes this country the best), but my opinion is that Obama is a cocky a$$hole who's idea of foreign policy is basically to blame Bush or deny that it happened if his plan doesn't work, or take credit and write some cool line about how awesome he is so that the media crams the story down our throats for weeks. I'll take a puppet Trump with Mattis pulling the strings over Obama's "foreign policy" (if that's even what you can call it) any day.

    U.S. Launched Tomahawk Strikes on Syria

    in General Discussion

    Posted · Edited by tk1313

    12 hours ago, Mark1 said:

    More like Obama made an idiotic move by declaring a red line, but then when it was crossed, actually made the correct decision to reassess the situation and move forward in a logical manner not dominated by emotion or ego.  In the time between the red line being "established", and confirmation that it had been crossed, the situation in Syria had fundamentally changed.  ISIS surged and made huge gains in that time.  To weaken the Assad regime with military strikes would have only served to bolster ISIS's advance, as Assad's government forces were their primary resistance at the time.

    Destroying the Assad regime would have left a power vacuum that ISIS would have been in the best position of all the militant groups to fill.  The Obama administration could have never said as much, but Assad went from our chief enemy in Syria, to the lesser of two evils.  As such, targeting him was a bad option, and allowing the Russians to help broker a WMD transfer was the best among a buffet of shit sandwiches.

    Yes, it was foolish to established a "red line".  But all those in the partisan conservative camp that love to attack him over destroying U.S. credibility are short sighted, simple minded, and exploiting a political faux pas for political purposes while tacitly implying that they expected him to make a stupid move with respect to Syria just to keep his word.

    I'm no Obama fan, but I'm able to admit I was happy to have someone in the office mature enough to eat their pride in order to do what's appropriate despite the personal hit they may have to take.  I have zero faith that we enjoy the same with the current administration.  I hope active duty members are willing to sacrifice their lives for a Trump dick measuring contest, because 4-8yrs is plenty of time for foreign actors to affront his precious ego.

    Get the popcorn out if Assad has the balls to call Trumps "bluff" and use chemical weapons again.  A personality such as Trumps would have no choice but to escalate the situation.  Escalation means weakening Syrian government forces, which leaves 15 militant factions on equal footing to fill the power vacuum with none of them quite having the strength to truly accomplish it.  Cue the quagmire.  Hopefully the Joint Chiefs have heads on their shoulders and are able to hold onto Trumps reigns.

    I'm curious to see how this affects U.S. freedom of operations inside Syrian borders and airspace as up until now we were effectively the enemy of Assad's enemy and left alone to operate as necessary.

    Why didn't he assess the situation and "eat his pride" prior to establishing the red line is my only point. And my first post should've said "Mad Dawg" instead of Trump because I have every reason to believe Trump pretty much asked Mattis what his response should be (as he should).

    But sorry, no... Obama doesn't get any partial credit from me for "taking a step back" from the situation after a foreign government gasses its own citizens. And if we're talking about the rise of ISIS being a major reason why Obama couldn't be stronger in his stance, I'm just going to blame him for that one as well because he went against our military leaders' advice and pulled out of Iraq for the sake of his 'legacy' (fvcking tired of hearing about his legacy as well).

    Saddam was an evil piece of sh!t who tortured his dissidents into submission. If you're fine with accepting the necessary evil of dictators being in charge and violating human rights for the sake of "peace in the Middle East" that's your opinion. We're by far the greatest nation on Earth, so personally I think we can do better than that.

    Edit to Add: The reason I'm so forcefully behind the missile attack and somewhat giving credit to Trump is because I believe Trump has enough sense to rely on Mattis's good judgment. A vast majority of our previous presidents (Republican and Democrat) have ridden on the backs of military leadership for so long that they thought themselves capable of assessing military situations on their own, contrary to military opinion... And it pretty much destroyed a lot of good hard military work and progress. Examples: Obama in Iraq/Syria and George H.W. with not ending Saddam's bullsh!t when he had the chance.

    • Upvote 1

    Navy Pilots on Strike over OBOGS Issues

    in General Discussion

    Posted · Edited by tk1313

    3 hours ago, Steve Davies said:

    100 T-45 IPs are apparently refusing to fly because of fears over the safety of the jet's OBOGS. 

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/04/navy-instructor-pilots-refusing-to-fly-over-safety-concerns-pences-son-affected.html

    I am curious to know, is there something about the effects of this OBOGS issue that somehow makes it different to the Raptor's OBOGS issue?

    While I appreciate that one is a training asset, the other a front-line operational asset, it just strikes me that response from the two communities is startlingly different. In one case, an entire community refuses to fly, prompting a 3-star Admiral to publicly state that there is no policy of 'Fly or else...', in another a meagre two pilots speak out (one of whom is still trying to resume his AF career), and a one-star General refuses to make it clear that his pilots have a choice to not fly. 

    Histotoxic hypoxia on the ground?! Send some engineers to the absolute worst jet (immediate symptoms after breathing) for a couple weeks... Tell them to take samples of the air being produced on the ground, then tell them to R&R everything from the concentrator forward all the way to the regulator and mask... Take a sample after the new components have been installed. If everything is good, send it flying with a senior pilot... If the problem persists, time to look for contamination in the ducting upstream of the concentrator. If the pilots are more willing to breathe cockpit air than mask air, you've got a major issue.

     

×
×
  • Create New...