Leaderboard

But he's only got one hand, so it's alright...he has a waiver.

I'm surprised we are still talking about this. When I first saw the thread title I was sure we were going to laugh at shoes and the like, but I stand corrected. I had no idea that this was such a big concern. I'm pretty sure as a Lt I can count on one hand how many times I either saluted a 1Lt or received a salute from a 2Lt. Never thought twice about it. Apparently the Chiefs and Shoes have conquered the reflective belt issues and blatant disregard to PT uniform policies across the combat theaters and now are focussing on something much more detrimental to the combat effectiveness of the Air Force. Maybe when I'm an O-5+ or go do a staff tour I'll understand the "Big Picture." Until then however I'll continue joking in the bar about how Lt's saluting is gayer that two dudes fu#@ing. Cheers Edit: Spelling

It has never been a secret that selective continuation was a "as needed" basis, in addition, I think we all agree that we need to make cuts to remain within our means, but make those cuts SMARTLY. Don't just use "if member is within 5 years of retirement by the board date" as a means to determine if you're going to cut people. I hate to make this a rated vs non-rated issue, but we are the Air Force, and flying is one of our primary missions. Personnel officers and Finance officers are important to our mission, but can I cut an FGO from those career fields and and probably replace them relatively quickly with a younger one and still do the mission? Yes, very easily. On the other hand, while we have very talented young pilots, it is a little more difficult to replace 15 years of flying experience and expect that you will be as effective and efficient in your mission. It takes a while to make a fighter pilot/flight lead and a seasoned aircraft commander on a C-17/C-130 etc. In addition, we rely pretty heavily on those experienced pilots to bring up the younger ones. So, letting rated officers (both pilots and navs) go just because they aren't within 5 years of retirement as of 7 March is not cutting SMARTLY...it is just "cutting to get my numbers to where my boss told me to get them." Forget operating within our "means" for a minute, if the reductions are "affecting units" then maybe you're not operating within your REQUIREMENTS. Yes, I know there were specific AFSCs that were retained, but lets just think about the dynamics of one specific AFSC that appears to be adequately manned: the 11M. Have you thought about where T-38 trained pilots have been going over the past year or so? Thats right, they've been getting 11M assignments. If there is a projected fighter pilot shortage, do you think they are going to fill them with brand new UPT graduates, or will they (as they have in the past) have a fighter crossflow board? Where do you think they are going to get a lot of those crossflows? I'll take a guess...since they want need experience, they'll probably come from those T-38 trained pilots from that 11M career field that you keep cutting because TODAY it appears to be overmanned. There is a reason it appears to be overmanned, think about it. AFPC, start thinking about manning 5 years down the road in addition to fixing your current relatively minor manning issue. You're going to have pretty major manning issues 5 years down the road because of how these drawdown intiatives are being mismanaged. Your 11Ms are going to be needed as long as we have ground forces in Afghanistan which will most likely be the case 5 years down the road. Don't just think about getting rid of 2000 officers by the end of FY12...Think about the messages you're sending with how you're making these cuts, think about the message that was sent to you during the VSP mismanagement earlier this year, think about how many of those "overmanned" (overworked) pilots may not stay as long as you think they will, think about the airline hiring spree...or better yet, just THINK. Bit

Amish man accused of sending lewd photos to girl. I am going to guess he mailed her oil paintings.

They wanted pictures of the first -17 pilot to land gear down.

Well, I am new to this, but I thought I would give my .02 I can't remember what documentary I was watching, but the documentary was interviewing (at the time) the Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps. He said that even though he is the highest ranking enlisted man in the Marines and one of the oldest, he still salutes the brand-spanking new 2nd LT. The reason he salutes is not because he is obligated to salute as per military customs and courtesy. The reason he salutes that young LT is because it is a reminder to that LT that he/she is a leader and they have to make tough decisions if they are the ranking member. That said, IMO I believe that 2LTs should salute 1LTs based on the above example. They may have been promoted based solely on "Time in Grade", but in the end they are higher rank and should rate a salute, regardless if the person who renders the salute is a 2LT. Bottom line: More rank = More responsibility. Show some respect. Render a damn salute and carry on about your business... Vicious