Leaderboard

It's a simple equation...

Amn (Pilot) exits USAF due to QOL concerns - ball slathering, high-fives with drinks and bro-fists Amn (non-Pilot) exits UPT due to QOL concerns - non-hack homo who couldn't cut it in any AFSC/Service Did I get it right? If I have to listen to another Ops person tell me about how hard they work, and how soft us "support" types are and how easy we have it with our "8 hour" days I might actually flick my eyes in a circular direction. Yea, you work 18 hr days, every day (I've been told this). No time in the Sq bar, ever. No naming ceremonies. No change of command parties. No sweet deal TDY's to air shows at Hurlburt or Pensacola or.. you know.. flying in a god damn magical steel tube that weighs thousands of pounds. Meanwhile. I send my Amn taskers about getting some Bullet Background Papers for the new Wing King, figure out how to explain to Ops types the newest cyber-directive that's come down to stop the stupid things they were doing. Another rape. Another DUI. Another Amn who's... probably going to be an active shooter. Data call on hours spent responding to data calls. Ops would like 15 tablets set up in 2 days for <insert DV visit here>. Does anyone here think Missilers had it soft and were a bunch of pussy crybabies? The jobs are different, they require different skills, mindsets and abilities. Just because you don't value it, doesn't mean it's not of value. Like I said in my other post, I'm in deep w/ the Ops Group at my base because that's the mission. I execute the mission I'm given - making sure you fly, fly well, and more importantly - land well. But don't fucking tell me, or GraveDigger, you don't have just as many fuckup, non-hack, wastes of space who contribute 0 to the mission as the MSG side. Don't tell me IFS, UPT, IQT and MQT didn't let some through just because they were on the line and the paperwork to kick them was just a little too difficult to do that day. Don't tell me you have a co-pilot that worries you, or a bag-wearing exec that constantly fucks up your paperwork, or schedulers that'll screw you. In fact, I would argue your pieces of shit are of even greater detriment since peoples lives are on the line. You have your guys that don't show up for days in a row, don't train, do unsafe shit, etc. One of my guys fucks up - no NIPR. One of your guys fucks up - lifetime benefits to some widows and kids with a folded flag to display. Don't tell me the MSG is full of slacker Amn who don't show up until 8, give poor service (because they enjoy pissing people off), and cut out early for "training days" just to make the CAF/MAF dudes pissed. I had to go to down Fridays in the CFP where I'm at. Why? We needed the time for training. Not CBT's, not SABC, fucking skill training. Because the AF separated all the experience (VSP/RIF/PT). Sounds like I'm writing about the same things you guys bitch about with the full-qual IP's getting bounced and keeping the party planner, doesn't it. Most of you fly. Super cool gig! It's awesome. I still run to the window to watch the flight-line. But don't tell me we're not working hard to get that magical vehicle floating, holding up the worst piece of shit you can find while you compare them to the Patch-wearing full-up IP.

That's enough internet for today.

Why does anybody do non-flying stuff past, say, 4:30 in the afternoon? The only work I do "after hours" is 100% mission related--usually trying to figure out why my mission is all jacked up while I'm trying to crew rest somewhere. Sorry, but that other queepy b.s. can wait till tomorrow. Nobody gets paid for their overtime in this business.

Where's Finance Guy been? That guy's the tits.

And what a And what a damn fine plan that is. I'm an IDE and on-time SDE select and the sooner we get rid of selects and treat everybody as a candidate, the better.

392 rooms with 784 NCOs housed in them. Sounds like the same criteria for BPC occupancy will be used. Translation: aircrew are staying in the CC. As predicted. Fucking shoe clerks.

It was also a major area of discussion. Short answer is that the prior, oversimplified "everybody with BMI of 40 or more gets a sleep study" was replaced with a more complex, but I think more appropriate screening process based on criteria of the recognized medical experts in the area - the American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) (https://www.aasmnet.org) - this makes sense to me because there are people with BMI of > 40 who don't have obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and some with much lower BMI's who do. And untreated severe OSA really is an aeromedical safety issue. The current (as of today) guidance is here: https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/aam/ame/guide/dec_cons/disease_prot/osa/ Longer answer: Every applicant for every class of medical is screened and ends up in one of six categories by a flow chart (contained as a pdf reference in the link above). We are required to document this in the exam portion of the system for all applicants. Here's my brief summary (for the definitive info see the FAA documentation) - you will end up in one of the six categories below: 1. If you already have a special issuance (SI) certificate for OSA you'll stay in that category. In most cases if your OSA treatment is satisfactory and you're otherwise qualified, your AME will be able to issue your follow-up certificates through the AASI process (the first SI certificate must still come from OKC). If you have permanent treatment (i.e. substantial weight loss or UP3) that rids you of OSA there's a way to get out of this but it's complicated. 2. If you've already been diagnosed by your doctor with OSA and are being treated (and haven't yet reported it to the FAA), but you're otherwise qualified - you'll need to report it on MedExpress. If otherwise qualified you'll receive a certificate from the AME. But the FAA will write you and want documentation on their Spec sheet "A" (see link) which means data from the recording function of your CPAP machine. They want 6 hours use per night, and they understand and are willing to accommodate those with irregular schedules such as commercial pilots with irregular overnight schedules who may travel with a portable non-recording machine. 3. If you don't have 1 or 2 and you have no risks for OSA (not obese, no large neck size, no daytime drowsiness) the AME just marks that on the record that there's no risk for OSA and that's all. 4. If you have some risk factors for OSA but not at severe risk, the AME will issue your certificate if you're otherwise qualified and educate you about OSA (it's a real thing with significant consequences). The risk factors are those developed by the AASM - references available on the FAA link. Nothing else happens and your certificate is good for whatever duration it's otherwise good for. 5. If you have severe risk factors for OSA but don't seem to present an immediate flight danger, you'll be issued your certificate by the AME if otherwise qualified but you'll get a letter from the FAA wanting an evaluation within 90 days (see Spec sheet B in the reference) - this does not necessarily require a sleep medicine specialist or a formal sleep study - your personal physician can do it if he/she feels qualified. But they must follow AASM guidelines (again doesn't necessarily require a formal sleep study) 6. High risk for OSA that, in our judgment is in immediate aeromedical safety risk. - this is the only category where we are told to defer the application to the FAA rather than issue with required follow-up. Examples given to us are - the airman has multiple OSA risk factors and is found asleep in your waiting room waiting to be called back for exam or falls asleep during the exam (without an acceptable explanation such as being up all night at work the night before the exam). ***THIS IS THE ONLY APPLICANT WHO WILL NOT LEAVE THE AME OFFICE WITH A CERTIFICATE BASED ON OSA ISSUES*** However if you have a certificate issued by the AME and the FAA sends you a letter requesting additional info and you don't provide it, your certificate is voided. It's complicated, but I think makes a lot of sense and is much better than the first (now rescinded) version of "everybody with BMI>= 40 gets a sleep study" In fact, we're not allowed to use BMI as the sole criteria for any of these decisions we are required to use the AASM criteria (of which BMI is one). One last thing - OSA is a real disease with real, sometimes fatal consequences. Patients with BMI >= 40 have a 90% probability of having significant OSA. It;s something to think about for your health in general, not just your fitness to fly. For those interested, the most current guidance for AME's is always available (to the public as well as AME's) at : https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/aam/ame/guide/. We are encouraged to always consult the latest internet version, rather than any paper versions we may have since the official version (always the one on the internet) may change sometimes several times in a month. There's also a lot of good information about the AME process - including the OSA issue with videos - at https://www.faa.gov/go/ame (sorry for multiple edits but this is both important and high profile so I wanted to be sure I had it right)

(I feel a negative vote coming) You know, such a plane would indeed be very cost-effective, and there are some good ideas out there, but every time I see these proposals, all I can think is; just reset the A-10 air frames and update the avionics. I mean, OV-10s and Skyraiders are cool in Vietnam Era terms, and I'm sure Light Air Support aircraft will play a crucial role in the security of small nations like Afghanistan, but they have their limits. Could you imagine what they would've been able to do with A-10s in Nam? Many of the lessons learned in the era of OV-10s and Skyraiders were applied to the Hawg's design. Not to mention all the logistics and experience that is already in place. I will now excuse myself from this thread...

LOL x69....an F-16 pilot in this scenario is helping the supporting agency (space) to support the pilot appropriately. Essentially the F-16 pilot is supporting himself, a skill perfected having done many support jobs himself during the non-combat workweek because the supporting agency was at PT, closed for training, on a 2 hr lunch break, outside the Std work hours of 0930-1530 (again 3:30 pm for you) C'mon Gravedigger, I'm just having fun. I appreciate the support weenies (mostly) and have a healthy respect for their work (usually), and I admittedly love to sport bitch (commonly misunderstood as whining). Do you think I really believe I'm under appreciated, under paid and more valuable than EVERY other AFSC? Of course not, is what I'd say if I were lying to make you feel better about yourself and your subpar I feel sorry for you AFSC compared to my pilot Godliness.

You guys are seriously giving the dude shit because he made a decision that was the best for his family? I personally can't imagine doing something other than flying but I can respect another persons (never mind fellow AF officer) decision based on the circumstances. I'm sure you've all said it/heard it but the Air Force will be there when your career is over, your family might not be. And enough with the woe is me crap about support agencies. Learn to manage your time and delegate. Some of them suck complete ass, I agree. Notch appropriately.

Actually, I do. On another note, Welsh was at my base a few weeks ago and did mention online forums and their impact a couple of times.

The 380HLD and MX-15 are within 1/2" of each other in height, per the datasheets on their respective websites. On the .civ side; the FLIR 380HDc is several inches shorter (specifically configured for under-nose rotary-wing installations), but I don't know if that particular model will support all the capes required for a .mil application. You'd need something with more balls than a PT6. The most powerful PT6A-series (turboprop) engine is just under 2000hp; the original Wright 3350 was cranking out a little over 2700hp. Sticking with a Pratt, a PW127-series engine is in the ~2700hp range, and other engines in the PW100 family are pushing 5000hp.

The AF is a comfortable place for those mediocre types that don't have the skills or work ethic to succeed in truly competitive workplaces - you know, the types that punch out of difficult training. Those (you) are not the one with the options I was talking about on the outside. Enjoy your time-based promotions and keep scoffing those who finished what you couldn't. You fit right in.

When you find yourself in a hole, STOP FUCKING DIGGING. Technique only.

Couldn't hack it? Puss'd out? GMAFB. I have not complained about my decision to leave UPT, ever. I asked my leadership for advice and guidance, and the consensus was that "making it work" between two married pilots that are not in the same year group or airframe is incredibly difficult. While people do it successfully, it frequently ends badly. Flying in the Air Force wasn't that important to me, it was more important to me to serve as an officer first and be stationed with my wife. I was fortunate in that I was assigned to a career field that I find very rewarding, but had I not been, it would have been because I chose to leave UPT, and that was a pill I was willing to swallow. There is absolutely nothing wrong with pilots (or anyone else) deciding to get out of the Air Force. I have never said I had anything against pilots choosing to leave; and I hope those that do find a better life in another career. What I am trying to convey is that AF pilots are some of the best paid and best taken care of service members in the entire DoD, so the complaining seems a lot like Saudi princes at UPT complaining about having to park their M3s with the rest of the studs, whereas in Saudi Arabia, they drive a Maserati, and they get to park wherever they want. I hope that BODN represents the vocal minority on this issue and these discussions don't happen in front of the maintainers or AFE folks you guys work with. We are clearly not going to find common ground here, so we'll just have to go with I'm right on this one, trust me.

I'm a general surgeon, civilian pilot and former navy corpsman - I was in OKC at the FAA Civil Aerospace Medical Institute (CAMI) in the AME basic course when this went down. Obviously it initiated a lot of discussion while we were there - although many of the details we now know came out after we left for home. My thoughts are this: About a year ago (of course before the Germanwings incident) the FAA did a study of pilot-aircraft suicide. It does happen, but it is extremely rare in U.S. aviation (see link below for details). The full-time FAA docs (almost all of which are retired military or NASA flight surgeons and are BC in aerospace medicine) "get it" that it's safer to have a pathway for certification for pilots with mild/moderate depression on SSRI's than an absolute prohibition which results in the problem being hidden - which most know was the case until recently. They "get it" that the current process is cumbersome and interrupts medical certification for at least 6 months, and finding a HIMS AME is sometimes not an easy task (for example there isn't one in Arkansas at all - there is one in Memphis who is the closest). And they also "get it" I think that the Germanwings incident was an anomaly that it would be difficult - if not impossible - to effectively screen for and would be better prevented by operational measures rather than tightening aeromedical standards. I think the FAA docs would very much like to find a way to simplify the depression/SSRI med program. But they live in a very political system and will have their hands full fending off proposed "solutions" to the Germanwings incident based on political expedience rather than sound aeromedical logic. I think they will be effective in preventing any unwarranted changes to the current system, but I'm guessing the political fallout will prevent any significant progress in improving (read: simplifying) the current process for a while. Here is a nice read in the MSM (now several days old but still a good read) about why enhanced aeromedical screening probably isn't a reasonable way to prevent another incident: https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/german-plane-crash/could-better-screening-catch-suicidal-pilots-n331406

The Shoe Clerk 500 race.

Wake up, bro. It's not just about money, it's about QOL, working for an organization you're proud of and (yes) compensation. QOL - I serve in the RC doing the same job as on AD. I also have a stable location near family, leadership that ensures 12-hour days are not standard, a wife able to pursue a career without the threat of moving and control over when/where/if I deploy. The AD needs to compete with (or compensate for lack thereof) this option. I serve for the same big picture company, but there are two distinct differences. First, leadership is better. Some of it trickles down to the ANG but that if it gets way worse (similar to AD) that brings me to point number two: options. On the bonus in AD I'm screwed; here I have options. Money: like it or not we are not all equal. Even moreso, Some younger pups are far more productive that the below average dude that is 5 years older - which is why the Sec Def is looking into some changes. The business world is not handcuffed by time-in-grade and compensation limits, which provides a situation with more open competition for money, leadership and promotion than we currently have. My BIL is SF (same age too) and we got to talking about this subject. He basically admitted that he only common jobs on the outside that make the same money right away for him would involve personal security in the Middle East, minus the pension plan of AD with more time away. Sorry, but I have more options. People can bitch all they want about aircrew (or legal, docs entering late, and eventually cyber) making more, but the AF needs to compensate for the fact that I have more options on the outside. In my case, the bonus (as big as it is) was not enough. A lot of people agree with me - I dont think it has influenced anyone to stay that wasn't already doing so. The SF dude doesn't need a bonus because his options aren't the same. Life isn't fair, it's real. If you want options, develop a skillset or experience that opens them up for you. Don't just sit back and bitch about others that have the work ethic to set themselves up in a better place.

What a bunch of fucking whiners. You're so poor, your life is so difficult, airlines are so much better...GTFO. Aircrew does get paid more. When you consider the tax advantages, incentive pays, and retention bonuses it's significantly more. Maybe the issue isn't pay at all, maybe you're entitled and forgot the point of military service. Clue, it wasn't to get rich. I've served with officers and enlisted from each service and many career fields, and I've never heard as much complaining as I do from AF pilots. Are your lives that much shittier than everyone else's? Or are you just that much more entitled?

So in dumb pilot speak, is this to say at least 5th gen should prioritize more weight of training effort to the "virtual" side in order to take advantage of full system capes? I'm well aware of all the "we can't go full up" limfacs, but no sim will ever replace the training available in live fly, even if there's some "trick fucking the system" that has to be done. Sims are great training tools, but they belong in the 10-20% max category when it comes to training allocation.

Gen Welsh spoke to the AFA at a monthly event. Here's the AF news link: propaganda https://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/583428/csaf-discusses-air-forces-need-to-reset.aspx And the actual speech if you want to listen (it's about 80 minutes long): https://secure.afa.org/events/Breakfasts/Breakfast-4-2-15-GenWelsh.mp3 He begins with typical speech material, meaning recent successes and changes, including: review of PME material with re-focus on core values, total force inclusion in training and readiness vs the tiered readiness mind-set of other services, increasing importance of job performance in EPR, resetting Air Force priorities due to limited future resources in an unpredictable world, Capstone week at BMT, new Profession of Arms Center of Excellence (PACE) at Lackland, Total Force Commission Program at Maxwell, and landing a 4-Star slot for the AF Global Strike Command for re-emphasis and leadership in the nuclear enterprise. He also states the intention of setting written expectations/milestones for Officer's advanced/master’s degree or other course completions for promotion vice the current word-of-mouth guesswork and unit-level standards. Also that job performance should be the top deciding factor for retention/promotion of Officers. At 21:00, he talks about something like the end of "live virtual constructive training" and transitioning to "virtual constructive" training first with live training supplementing it. I don't really understand what he's talking about. I assume it's all pilot training. Could somebody tell me what the hell this is? Next there's the need for inter-industry communication with DOD and acquisition and development reform. Then he speaks about the 2020 deadline for the Budget Control Act/sequestration--nothing really new there. He re-emphasizes the end of Force Management Programs (re-sizing) measures for AF, saying Airmen shouldn't be distracted by these now peripheral concerns. Here's my key quote of his whole speech, discussing the major problems of internal communication with Airmen: This is exactly why I read the speeches, publications, and hearings about the Air Force, communicate with my local leadership, track myPers releases, and follow what my Career Field Manager says. It's all there, and you can be leagues ahead of your peers if you stay connected. AF Times is as worthwhile as used toilet paper. Get your information from the source, filter it through your bullshit detector, piece it together with previous information, and you're greatly empowered.This leads splendidly to his next point: pay and compensation concerns. He says that military compensation over last 12 years has increased about 40 percent, and the AF can't continue on that same cost-growth curve. He says we need a manageable growth rate. Let's compare that old line from the previous NDAA discussions that compensation is devouring our budget by comparing the Base Pay of an E-6 at 8 years and an O-4 at 10 years from 2000 (pre-9/11), 2003 (his "last 12 years" citation) and 2015. Yr: 2000 / E-6 @ 8: 1932.60 / O-4 @ 10: 4040.40 | Yr: 2003 / E-6 @ 8: 2400.90 / O-4 @ 10: 4954.50 | Yr: 2015 / E-6 @ 8: 3261.00 / O-4 @ 10: 6659.10 Pay increase for an E-6 between 2000 and 2003 was 19.5%. Pay increase for an E-6 between 2003 and 2015 was 26.3%. Pay increase for an E-6 between 2000 and 2015 was 40.7%. Pay increase for an O-4 between 2000 and 2003 was 18.4%. Pay increase for an O-4 between 2003 and 2015 was 25.6%. Pay increase for an O-4 between 2000 and 2015 was 39.3%. That seems pretty reasonable right? 40% is not chump change. Well compare that to the USD inflation and you tell me. Between 2000 and 2003, inflation was 6.9%. Between 2003 and 2015, inflation was 27.6%. Between 2000 and 2015, inflation was 36.3%. Here are some pretty charts to visualize my point. What happened between 2000 and 2003? 9/11 drove an enormous increase in funding and recruiting. We had major overhauls and increases of benefits due to the huge demands on the military and sweeping nationalism. Afterwards, pay crept back to a comparable level with inflation. When Gen Welsh says compensation increased 40% over 12 years, he's just repeating the false statistics spun in the FY14 and FY15 NDAA shenanigans. In truth, we must look back 15 years for that 40% increase and all that was just to keep pace with inflation. The last 12 years pay increases have been slightly BELOW the inflation average. And the DOD must maintain these benefit increases if they want to continue to compete with a now rapidly growing economy and an aggressive airline industry, as discussed in congressional testimony I previously quoted. Finally, at 1:12:00 through 1:18:00 is Gen Welsh's rebuttal to JQP about Creech and the "suck it up" misquote. JQP has since mad a small correction to his blog to correct any confusion. Gen Welsh was certainly fired-up about it.

Rest in peace to my Uncle George Kopack who passed away last night. George, born in 1917, was a former US Army combat medic and was one of those that waded ashore in Normandy early on D-Day in 1944 and fought across Europe until the end of the war. George was a member of a different generation - the last of the five Kopack brothers to serve in WWII - and until the past ten years would walk the five miles each way to the VA Hospital in Wilkes Barre, PA, three or four times a week, year round - just because he didn't think any of the "old guys" in the hospital (most of whom were much younger than he) should have to be there alone. Salute George, until we meet again. Next time the drinks are on me.

TruGreen will also not stop calling you after you cancel service. I have 5 numbers from them that get auto blocked because they call at least 3 times a week even after I told them I moved to an area without service and don't even own a house anymore.

Ironically? So you couldn't hack it...puss'd out...and now you call us "a bunch of ing whiners." The irony indeed.

Copy, could not hack UPT, punched out under guise of marital stress.