Red Fox

I advise anyone looking to invest to be very very careful. This should be standard advice for anyone at anytime, but I believe today's market is even more risky. This belief is based on that roughly 95% of our nation's wealth is controlled (not owned, but controlled) by roughly 1% of our population, which IMHO, makes the entire market a speculative trader's market and not an investor's market. Its not just the gold market that is being manipulated. We also have a government (congress, Fed, FDIC, Treasury, etc.) that are taking unprecedented actions (like the Fed buying billions of $$$ worth of mortgages)that will have unknown unintended consequences. About comparing the stock indexes vs gold. The data depends on where you take the data. If you compare gold to stocks from 1980 to present, then stocks outperformed. But, 1980 was also a time of high inflation and unemployment (remember the misery index?) and gold was a speculative investment. When our economy turned, the money left gold (burst the bubble) and went into stocks for a great 20 year run. If you compare gold vs stocks from 1999 to present, I think one will find that stocks were flat while gold increased threefold. I personally believe that buy and hold stocks no longer works. I don't have faith in our economy which is saddled with growing entitlements (including mine), more than 10 trillion in debt, and a system which is more and more becoming services oriented (meaning a greater disparity between the haves and have-nots). The have's money will leave our country in a heartbeat if they perceive greener pastures outside of our country. For the long run, I have invested in a fund that shorts the US long bond. I can't see how the 30 year bond can remain at less than 4%. Our lender nations have already started shifting out of the longer term bonds into shorter term treasury notes (less than 10 years). I believe longer term interest rates HAVE TO increase. Thus, the current bonds will lose value and shorting this market will be profitable. Also, there has been discussion of metals. I believe that all materials and material stocks will increase. That means metals, coal, agriculture, etc. If you don't trust the US dollar and want to protect yourself, you can invest in countries that have a strong commodity industry like Australia and Canada (look at a chart of their dollar vs ours). That's my take. Good luck. Red

As sure as death and taxes, if you ask an aviator for an opinion (no matter the topic), you will get one. First, I seriously hope this isn't the only place you looked for advice. If you are a person of faith, talk to a priest, rabbi, pastor, etc., if not, then find someone else who is professionally trained to give objective advice to you and your girlfriend. But since you came to this forum, here is my 2 cents. Do not give up your dream for anyone. The fact you are agonizing over this the way you seem to be, gives me concern you are not ready for the rigors of pilot training. Get your priorities right. First, IMHO, you need to become who and what you want to be, before deciding on who you want to be with. Do it with a singular focus and minimize the distractions (like her). Until you know yourself, you cannot know who you're going to love (infatuation is a different story). Do not let yourself be defined by another person. It doesn't work. If this woman doesn't want you to pursue your dreams, then she truly doesn't love you, she loves herself and is using you to gratify her own needs. You will not be happy trying to make her happy (in the long run, neither will she). Once you have achieved your career dream, then look for a spouse. It is easier to make compromises (and marriage requires many) when you are personally successful. If you believe your personal success hinges on getting married to this woman, then once again, you don't have your priorities right. Also, after graduating UPT, your perspectives probably will change and you may find yourself no longer attracted to her. I probably graduated UPT before some of the people on this board started elementary school. I got married (to the woman I'm still married to) over six years after I finished UPT. Did I marry my first love? No. Do I still think about her? Sometimes, but I have no regrets. Ultimately the decision is yours to make and not her's. Also, your outlook on life, no matter what you decide, rests on you and the type of attitude you choose to have. Will you let things happen to you or will you make things happen? Good luck.

Gentlemen, I'm one of those ORFs who applied for the program (and was accepted). Yes, the paperwork was a headache. I submitted the application in early June and though accepted for the program, my orders are yet to be cut (should be hearing from the AFPC orders shop any day now, so I'm told) which is the final step. The memo about the program states that applicants should be specific about their goals and I was. I don't know how it has been for others, but I essentially got the very job and location I requested (and it wasn't the Died). I retired from the AF Reserves (with 17 years of active duty service) and used to tell my AF Reserve squadron mates that no amount of $$$ was worth spending the additional 3 years to get the active duty retirement, but time and economies change attitudes. Advice to those who are faced with the decision to leave or stay in the AF (I left active duty after my bonus commitment expired at 14 years service). In my opinion, there is nothing in the civilian world that can match the camaraderie and job satisfaction one finds in a flying squadron. Find a reserve/guard unit to join. I did and found the camaraderie and job satisfaction were just as good if not better as the active duty (with less nit-noy). I love where we live (great place to raise a family, but tough place to find a job) and was naive enough to think I would be happy with any job (even Walmart greeter) as long as I could pay the bills and live here. I was wrong! I've had a couple of jobs that payed the bills, but royally S#CKed. A positive attitude can only last so long (for me its about a year), before the tedium becomes unbearable. I didn't want to be an airline pilot and never pursued the career. So, if your like me and are not going the airline route (or if they're not hiring), make sure you have something lined up that you will enjoy. For me, my AF Reserve squadron was not only a good paying second job, but also an escape from the civilian job. One more thought, I believe there is still plenty of $$$ available for Reservists to work extra, but don't plan on that always being the case. The money-well can dry up quickly and unexpectedly. Red

Kaman, Many of the heroes (McGuire, Dyess, etc.)that AF bases are named after were from the local area where the bases are located. Karl Richter is well known among most AF pilots and has been honored by the AF. When the Air University at Maxwell AFB commissioned a statue to commemorate the fighter pilot, it was sculpted in the likeness of Lt Richter (and may even be dedicated to him). Gen Boyd (who was a POW in Vietnam and flew F-105s at Korat when Lt Richter did) was the Air University commander at the time and stated he couldn't think of a better example of the fighter pilot than Karl Richter and wanted him as the model for the statue. Frankly, I can't think of a finer honor (respect by one's peers). Red

Glenn Beck on Goldman Sachs Has anyone else has seen this (I hope I inserted the link correctly). IMHO, its all about the $$$ and to hell with what is good for the country. It really pisses me off. I'm interested in what others think. Regards, Red

Steve, it seems to me that the British press has a better working relationship with the British military. They certainly are not Pravda or TASS, but they seem to at least respect those that serve in their military. There is the instance in the Falkland War (if my memory is correct) where a British reporter reported on a military operation which was about to occur, thus tipping Argentina. The local commander, Lt Col H. Jones was livid and wanted the reporter arrested. Col. Jones was soon killed during the battle for Goose Green. I don't know what happened to the reporter but apparently his report may have led to Col. Jones' death. This seems to be an anomaly with the British press. However, I believe that type of thing happens often in the US. Geraldo Rivera revealed information on TV during a broadcast on Fox in 2003 while in Iraq and I know Dan Rather was believed (by military) to have made up stories while a correspondent in Vietnam. I could give more instances if I spent time researching. I believe there are many in the US press who have a general antipathy for the US military. I get the impression that some think we are hayseeds who can't do anything else in life. I believe a lot of this started in Vietnam, where many in the press didn't just try to report the facts, but tried to end the war by undermining the US military. Its not just our press, some of our politicians do it also.

Fat Boy, Your post was informative. I based my first post on the assumption the person who started this thread is in pilot training and will be in the active duty. You made some good points and I did not realize that AD tankers fly Pacific channels. In my previous post I did write I haven't flown down-range since 2004 (I'm retired) and that my opinions were not set in stone (meaning fallible). But in my 20+ years of experience, I didn't see AD tankers (ANG/Reserve is different) flying regularly scheduled channels (very often). I certainly saw them flying fighter drags and sitting alert (many years ago). Are the active duty 135s regularly flying channels now? Do KC-10s? In the past, the -10 was in such high demand for fighter movements/deployments that I had the impression they weren't available for channels. When I attended HQPACAF exercise/tanker conferences, I saw how hard it could be to get -10s for a fighter drag (big deal when flying across the Pacific). I also wrote MOST tanker pilots are not receiver qualified. I know -10 pilots are, but how many -135 pilots? Also, are there many assignments to the -10 straight out of SUPT? My assumption (could be wrong) is no. If so, then a pilot straight out of SUPT will likely fly -135s, at first, if he/she takes the tanker route and will be stationed at an AD -135 base (Mildenhall, MacDill, McConnell, etc). That also means he/she will be flying missions assigned to the AD -135 squadron he/she will be assigned. Its my impression that ANG/Reserve 135s have more choice in the missions (like channels)and that the AD units tend to be deployed more in order to support current operations. I am surprised to learn than -10s fly into the theater, especially without a defensive system. I guess the taxiways have been widened and the threat diminished enough to warrant the risk. The -10 should be considered a HVAA (if not already). The USAF should have bought more when it had the chance. I'm interested in any additional thoughts you may have. Regards, Red

I would choose airlift, for the following reasons: 1. Tankers don't fly to Antarctica. 2. Tankers don't fly channel missions throughout the Pacific to places like Wake Island, Guam, etc. 3. Tankers normally fly to a theater and stay (i.e. Manas, the Deid). The strat airlift crews mostly fly into and out of the theater (unless they're part of the AEF) 4. Airlift crews get to land in Afghanistan and Iraq (to me that's a plus). Tanker crews don't as far as I know. 5. Airlift crews (C-17, C-5, and Spec Ops C-130's) get qualified in air-air refueling (once again a plus). Most tanker pilots are not air-air qualified (receiving end). 6. KC-135 bases are at RAF Mildenhall, Fairchild, McConnell, and MacDill. (Can't remember anymore). C-17 units are in better locations like McChord, Travis, Charleston, Elmendorf, Hickam, etc. I'm an ORF and haven't been to SW Asia in almost 5 years, so I may be out of touch with recent events or missions. I flew the C-130 and the C-17. I flew both to places that I know a tanker would never go. (Like dirt strips in the Canadian Arctic). I'm biased, but I think the C-17 has the best mission in the AF. These are my opinions and they are not written in stone. Good luck! Red

My favorite war scene is the last scene of The Green Berets, starring John Wayne, where the Duke's character walks down to the beach with the Vietnamese orphan. The orphan asks "What will happen to me now?" and the Duke responds "Let me worry about that Green Beret (as he is putting the late Peterson's beret on the boy) and then says "You're what this is all about." They then walk into the sun on the beach to the playing of the last stanza of the Green Beret song. This movie was the Duke's answer to the antiwar movement in Hollywood. Its on YouTube, but I'm too internet incompetent to upload the video. The other scenes mentioned on this threat are all good. The boot camp scenes (R.Lee Ermey again)from the Boys in Company C are also worth mentioning. Red http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QksTWzzwfEI

I finally decided to respond to the WX Boy about the SEC. I'll mostly write about Auburn, since I'm an alum. First, War Damn Eagle! to Slacker and any other Auburn grads on the board. I take it that WX Boy is an Ohio State grad since that is where his allegiance is. So I'll contrast, Auburn with Ohio State. Auburn has less than half the students of OSU, but boasts 50% more astronauts as alum than OSU (6 to 4). Also, 2 of the last 3 Chairmen of the JCS are Auburn alum. As a personal experience, I know of ONLY one pilot in my long AF career that is an Ohio State alum. I'm willing to bet that Auburn (a school far smaller than OSU) produces more pilot candidates for the military. Now I'm sure WX Boy can come back with stats of his own, but that is not the point. WX Boy, I'm not disparaging OSU, like you are the SEC. I'm sure OSU is a fine school. It certainly has a larger source for $$ than most (maybe all) SEC schools. Auburn does well for what it is (a small state land grant university). It has one of the best vet schools and fisheries schools in the nation. When I was in Aerospace Engineering (yes, that is an offered degree), I got to study rocket propulsion under one of the top men in his field. Now about SEC football. The schools in the Big 10 don't have to compete as much for recruits as the SEC. The SEC has a smaller population base to draw on and has to compete with ACC schools (FSU, Clemson, Miami, etc.). Auburn is smaller in population than Kent State (as are other SEC schools), yet is able to compete in a major conference and though its been 50 years since it has won a national football championship, it does well for a school its size. The final nail is that Jimmy Buffet went to Auburn. That trumps all! Red

I was a T-37 Spin Demo and FCF pilot several years ago. The only time I "allowed" the jet to be over-G'd was during a flight in which I was upgrading another pilot to FCF. Part of the FCF profile was to roll inverted at 240-250 KIAS and push to between 0 to -1 G and hold it to check oil and fuel pressures and to catch any FOD that might float out from under the seat, panel, etc. Its not a comfortable feeling and common errors were to not push enough to hold the neg G's. To compensate for this, the pilot I was upgrading, rolled inverted and slammed the stick forward (much like the spin recovery). So, we over-G'd the jet with negative G's. Maintenance had not seen that before. Much beer was bought for them and I got to explain to my CC why I let it happen. Also, I enjoyed giving spin demo rides (better to give than receive). I think the wrong rudder recovery was my favorite. The slow spin prevent took some finesse to get the spin to achieve max rotation, but was fun also. To anyone flying the T-6: Does the Texan remain in the spin once the spin is developed or will it fly out by itself? Also, does AETC still emphasize the spin recovery and prevent as much as it did with the Tweet? I also remember that trying to teach fingertip formation in a high area (above about 14,000 ft) was useless. The plane was a real pig. How does the T-6 perform? Red

I have to confess some poor SA. I was reading this thread and having a great laugh, when my 12 year old daughter walked in and exclaimed "Dad what are you looking at!". OOPS! Well, after much explaining about irreverent humor, sarcasm, etc. the issue was soothed. Thankfully I have a cool wife who explained it also. Next time I better lock the door.! Red

I gave this guy way too much leeway. I thought he was a victim of the poor leadership we had a Dyess long ago. After reading some of the stuff he attempted or said, I believe it can't be due to poor examples, but for having one's head up one's arse (the ultimate in self-absorption). Col McDonald attended "pre-nav" school at Del Rio (if I remember correctly). When I attended UPT in '86, the wash-out rate was about 50% (+/- 5%). I felt glad to graduate. I always respected those who did wash out, but went on to have respectable careers in the AF. I thought that was the case with Col McDonald. Obviously, I was wrong. Kudos to whoever turned him in. The behavior referenced in this thread can't be tolerated.

I was a T-37 flight/CC more than 15 years ago and was at Randolph AFB (as an instructor) when the T-6 was selected as the Tweet replacement. So, I'm a bit long in the tooth and may be out of touch. My experience while sitting on a TRB (where we determined a stud's fate) and part of the Commander's Review Process was that we would look at the stud's training history and performance. Did the student have a history of failed rides (not just check-rides). Were the busted check-rides one item busts or multiple item busts. We also looked at the student's training continuity. Did he/she fly regularly and receive continuity with IPs? This stud is obviously on CAP and therefore should only be flying with a few IPs. Did the stud have personality conflicts with any IPs or any personal issues which detracted from training (like a sick child, etc.). Finally and most importantly, we would get the opinion of the Flight CC/ and IP/IPs to hear how many extra flights it would take to get the student up to speed and if they felt the stud could complete UPT within the constraints of the syllabus. That was key. I had one student that failed his initial contact check, then his 88, and then 89. They were all one item busts due to bone-head mistakes. His daily performance was good, but he would get check-ride-itis. After his 89 bust, I want straight to the SQ/CC (good guy and Vietnam Vet) and told him this student can make it, but the CRB would keep him out of the jet for too long. He went to the OG/CC with my opinion and OG/CC reinstated the student on the spot. The stud did not get any 87 flights to "practice" and I told him that he had the ability to pass, but this next 89 was last chance. He didn't bust anymore checks after that (including T-38s). I had other students I had to give a thumbs down, which was in the best interest of all. If your friend his having a lot of trouble (is he in T-6's?), it might be in his best interest to wash-out. Its hard on the ego, but if a person is not meant to fly then they should move on. Otherwise, its a lot of pain for the stud and the AF. Best of luck to your friend.

"ol-IEWO", I salute you for your service. Anyone who flew into RP-6 has my utmost respect. I can't EVEN imagine what that was like. What years were you at Takhli? I've read "Thud Ridge" (as have many). "Going Downtown" is on my "Books to Read" list, but should be on my "Books I HAVE Read" list. I believe Chuck Yeager was one of the officers on Col Broughtan's court martial board and that the board fined him $1 for destroying government property. Is my memory correct? First, I have flown in Afghanistan and Iraq and have my own combat experience (which was pretty benign). My combat time does not compare with that of the pilots of the Vietnam era or of the Gulf War. So, I'm not claiming to be an expert. This is my disclaimer. This is my take on the commanders (SQ/CC and above) I have observed in the AF. The CC's that I served under who had combat time seemed to be much more big picture. Example, my 1st operational SQ/CC was a below the zone, "Golden Boy" who did not have much flying time and no combat time. He had been a MAJCOM/CC's exec as a 1LT (so I was told). He was a nice person, but focused more on proper wear of the scarf than on proper employment of the airplane. I remember as a 2LT, my SQ was deployed to EGUN. I was in Base Ops on my scheduled day off (in my flight suit) trying to learn more about the European airspace system (OAT vs GAT, etc) and he walked in. He asked what I was doing and where my scarf was. He then told me he better not EVER see me again while not wearing it. I wasn't expecting an ATTABOY for studying (doing my job), but I didn't expect to be chastised for not wearing the scarf. To this impressionable (at the time) 2LT, he cared more about the scarf and less about flying competence. My next CC in that squadron was a good guy who cared about the people he led and a good pilot. He had flown AC-130's in Vietnam and had a different focus than the previous CC. Sadly he retired a Lt Col (may have been his choice) while the predecessor (the "Golden Boy") moved above and beyond. I could list other examples, but this would become a book. It seems to me that those individuals who have flown in environments where their life was at risk, where they weren't sure if they would see their wife and kids again, or where they may have seen a friend blown out of the sky have a different perspective. They don't seem to sweat the minutia (like a scarf) and focus on the mission and the people. They do this by setting the example. They excel as aviators and are demanding of their units. Not to be A-holes, but because they know the more prepared and proficiant their aircrews are, the more likely they will survive in combat. They also know you can overwork a person, so they focus less on the relitively unimportant (parties, base beautification, etc.) I'm not saying that one has to log combat time to be an effective leader (I imagine there are many fine CC's without combat time), but I have seen a general difference between those that have and those that have not. This is my observation after 20+ years. Thanks "Slacker" for welcoming me to the "Board". I enjoy reading all the inputs and appreciate the forum.

You are correct. The accident at Indian Springs was 6 years before I got to Dyess, but the impact was still felt. Dyess did not do SOLL/II, but started a SOLL/I program. I'm not sure how viable SOLL/I was. Pope was the place to be if one wanted to fly the actual slick 130 mission. Pope was the lead wing for Grenada, Panama, and the first stateside slick 130 unit to deploy for the Gulf War. Pope also participated in major international exercises, like Bright Star (in Egypt). Dyess basically backfilled Pope. I did a lot of TDY to Pope to support the 82nd and JFKSWC. I also did a lot of airdrops at Ft Benning. My personal experience with special ops was to provide them a platform for training. I flew a lot of support training missions for them at Pope (HALO, Mackall AAF, etc.) and in AZ (SEAL teams practicing HALO/HAHO). Unfortunately, Dyess did not have a good reputation while I was there. There was much grumbling among the senior captains that MX ran the wing. I do remember how much emphasis was placed on the on-time take-off. Unfortunately, the poor legacy (through a bad Wing/CC) of Dyess still impacts the AF. I want to finish by writing that though I did not think highly of the 463 TAW, I knew many hard working and well meaning individuals. They too were mostly frustrated.

772 TAS was my first operational assignment. The WG/CC's at Dyess when I was there were Buckingham, Hart, and McGuire (sp?). Buckingham moved on to be the Pope CC, Hart the Little Rock CC, and I don't know where McGuire ended up. I PCS'd before he left Dyess. I can't remember when McDonald left. I remember a particular rote to Mildenhall in '87 where a bunch of us would have a noon basketball game and he would play. He seemed like a regular crew-dog then. I was naive about the politics and probably had rose colored glasses on that weren't fully removed until I was asked to fly a bad airplane in order to make an on time takeoff. I stayed away from the parties and such and focused on the flying. What you write is consistent with what I remember about Dyess. The airlifter's ball (I never attended) seemed to be a big deal in addition to the Christmas party. The navigators in my squadron seemed to try to do a lot of additional duties to get "ahead". But, once again, I didn't pay much attention to that stuff. Another Dyess story, is that the 463 TAW was supposed to be the lead C-130 wing for Just Cause (Panama). The wing just had a squadron return from a Mildenhall rotation and told HQ MAC they couldn't turn the planes in time to support the operation. I'm amazed the Wing/CC and Wing/DCM (maintenance CC) kept their jobs. Once again, the priority wasn't the mission.

I must say, in my opinion Capt4fans, has by far the best avatar. As I've written previously, I was in the same squadron (772 TAS) with the Pope CC. I can't imagine the John McDonald I knew 20 years ago behaving or doing the things I've read about in this forum. I guess I didn't know him well enough or time/command changes a person or both. I will say that Col McDonald may have had an example set for him early in his career. There was a wing commander at Dyess (then the 463 TAW) who trashed his office when he found out he didn't make BG. His wife was called to calm him down. This same commander, when flying a local, expected the engines to be running and the aircraft taxied as closely as possible to wherever he might be on base at the time (wing HQ, base ops, etc.). One day, he showed at the plane wearing his blues with flight gloves. On another day, the seeing-eye IP didn't taxi the plane to the expected location (some kind of mix-up with command post). This CC was livid and as retribution wrote "Intentionally left blank" in the additional endorser section of this IP's OPR (called an OER back then). When I arrived at Dyess, this CC was gone, so I only heard the stories and met aviators that had their OPR's downgraded by him. One older pilot told me that the commander didn't get what he wanted (BG) was mad and "took down as many people as he could" before he left. I believe this particular commander was Col McDonald's first operational CC. Our squadron CC at that time was a low flight time, fast mover who seemed more concerned about wearing a scarf properly than flying ability. Another example for Col McDonald. We also had an OG/CC (then called the DO) and our squadron DO execute an emergency ground egress without shutting-down the engines. So I would say at Dyess, the focus was not on the flying, but on the nit-noy. One made rank or was recognized more for being an executive officer than for flying skill. Many of our better pilots were career Captains. I think this was inherent in MAC and is now in AMC. We also had a wing CC who was attempting to burn through our training hours prior to the end of fiscal year. He had current operations create and schedule an over-water nav trainer to Bermuda in which he flew himself and his family. This "crap" goes on way too much. It did 20 years ago, still does, and sets a bad example for future leaders. Until commanders are held responsible for their behavior, it will continue. While I feel badly for the John McDonald I knew 20 years ago, I'm glad to see a bad commander removed. On a different subject, my father flew F-105s in Vietnam with the 388th TFW in Korat. He was shot down and captured in Jun '67. If one wants to read about real leaders, read about some of the F-105 commanders. There were BG's flying combat missions. In one 6-month period, the 388th at Korat lost its Wing CC, Wing CV, and Wing DO (if my memory serves me well). If you want to read about one helluva squadron CC, read the bio about and by Lt Col Robert Smith of the 34th TFS. You can find it if you google him or the 34 TFS at Korat AB, F-105 website. He was the kind of commander I would like to have served under. I had the pleasure of meeting him and Lt Gen Spence Armstrong (another hero in my mind) when I took my dad to an F-105 reunion. Another squadron commander lasted only two weeks before he was KIA. He was inexperienced in the F-105 and had been a below the zone staff officer type and died while leading a formation of F-105s in combat. I could write volumes about these kind of men. Unfortunately, it wouldn't include any recent commanders. I know this last bit digresses from the topic, but thought it would interest others.

I knew the ex CC at Dyess AFB. We were in the same squadron (772 TAS) and did a rote to Mildenhall in '87 (if anyone remembers, there once was a 772 TAS and rotes to Mildenhall). Back then, he was a regular crew dog (played basketball with the rest of us, etc.). I'm not an apologist, but moving up in the AF as a navigator is tough. I think one gets to the point where they have invested so much time and effort into their career (sometimes while sacrificing a marriage or two) that he/she loses sight of what's important. Unfortunately, the AF fosters valuing the nitnoy. Does anyone remember renaming ATC to AETC? That was really important! Or changing MAC to AMC? The best CCs I've experienced didn't make O-6. They either got tired of the mickey-mouse and retired or fell on their sword for something truly important (like the people in their squadron). Tea-bagging someone's gear (unless its a friend's) is horses#*t. This is my first post and am glad to have the forum. Regards to all.