Leaderboard

MBS, the Saudi crown prince, should forevermore be known as Mohammad Bone Saw after what he ordered WRT Jamal Khashoggi. Fuck that guy.

Congrats on your good timing, Duck!

I don't think your naïve but I would argue that what you saw was professional Aircrew after and the result of them having received a proper base of advanced multi-engine training and if you had observed aircrew that had a much smaller base of advanced multi-engine training, it would likely have been a different data sample from which you would have drawn a different conclusion. Likely said AC or Co would have required more supervision and training them on operational mission(s) would have entailed more risk and/or supervision to possibly make it inappropriate to do so. As to the airlines, they care about efficiency but take advantage of the base, fundamental training and experience already provided to their employees by other institutions, usually the military or other companies who earlier in the careers trained them. They get already experienced pilots, if the airlines had to start at the very beginning and provide for their pilot's training, they would not just take them at low hours and get the rest of their training done on the job. Not sure exactly what the low end of total hours for an FO in a 121 company (regionals) is but likely at least 500 hours, competitive candidates probably have around 750 hours. This is just not a good idea, case in point (tragically) - The Ethiopian Airlines 737 MAX accident 'You basically put a student pilot in there': The copilot of crashed Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 had just 200 hours of flight experience They had someone not at the proper point in their career to be in that seat, he was with an 8,000 hour Captain, and while I am sure his low experience was not the main causal factor, but it likely contributed to that tragedy. Not speaking ill of the dead, I am sure that young man did his best but IMHO, he should not have been in that seat and I think that is a salient example of why you need properly trained and experienced aircrew in heavies. Full stop. Not throwing any spears and not sure what was going on when you observed crew operations but it can get demanding quickly. Planes are expensive, people are irreplaceable and proper training is required to protect both.

I recently interviewed "Hacker" Haskin about his time as a UPT student, UPT IP and IFF IP (amongst other things!). He shared a range of advice and thoughts across about four hours of chatting. Those looking to go to UPT might find it interesting:

$70 less in my zip code...glad I’m grandfathered Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

Madison interviews will be the weekend of Feb 7-9 and invites will be out in the next two weeks. Per an individual on their team I spoke to.

What part? I know for a fact they're actually reading emails and responding to them since I asked a question and a follow up and got a response to both. The rest is speculation.

Hmm I didn’t get that email from Madison. I wonder if I should be concerned.

Ah my mistake that makes sense. My apologies and thank you for the clarification

Boise sent out invites. Madison sent out the email that the board was moved to February.

I didn't say anything about blacking out strats. I said limit the number of OPRs. Skills and experiences should matter for the job at hand, but if you're talking specific skills, those are usually already reflected as an SEI or language on the SURF...which no one is arguing to black out. What we ARE arguing to remove is some dudes glowing report from IQT 12 years ago. How is that possibly relevant to the kind of leader he would be as a Lt Col? I suspect that's part of the move. Now people who are passed over twice can't get out of a UPT or bonus commitment. They have to stay to 18+ years of service, and then they'll likely not be booted because of sanctuary. That's one way to improve retention, I guess.

Randolph with an RNLTD of 31 Aug. Anyone else in the later Randolph class?

Concur. All this seems to do is create new push-line language that tells the board who should/shouldn't be promoted. I don't see how these changes would have any impact on any current APZ folks due to the fact that our records have been so disregarded over the last few years that they look terrible (no strats, etc.) Raters are going to push for the folks they know will get promoted on their 1st, 2nd, or 3rd look. All this does is change the timeline for the shiny pennies. Will there be some type of requirement to promote a specific percentage from each "look group"? if not, how will this system allow raters to highlight the folks on their 4th or 5th look that are performing at a higher level? Those folks still won't be able to compete against the folks with better records that are on their 1st or 2nd look. In fact, I think it would be more of a negative that you have been non-selected for promotion the first 3-4 times. On top of that, if you aren't promoted on your 1st/2nd/3rd look, won't that make you less likely to be selected for a Command position or be considered for future promotion? These changes seem to solidify who the chosen ones are much more than the old system did and I think it will turn into a, "not promoted on your first 3 looks? Well, you might want to consider a different career because this isn't going to happen for you". Finally, fully support removing CGO OPR's from O-5 promotion packages. If a person performed well as an FGO, and was given leadership opportunities, then what they did as a 2LT is, for the most part, irrelevant. Looking at the last 4-5 years of a candidates professional record would a.) give the board more time to spend on reviewing packages, and, b.) Even the playing field for folks that have been riding the gravy train because they were an exec as an O-3 (or folks that had a rater crap on them as a CGO). My only other question is, what happens if you don't get promoted after your 5th look? Does the AF boot you? If my math is right, wouldn't a 5th look non-select put a lot of folks at 18-19 years active duty time if your IPZ/1st look is at 13/14 years?

Sounds like this is for all foreign students. So half of the ENJJPT students wont be flying? Of course, we have to double check the Canadians, Danes, and Dutch. Can't point out that it's only 1-2 countries that need additional screening. I'm surprised the Navy got away with grounding all the Saudi's and risked offending bin Salman.

The idea that MWS squadrons should teach what should have been taught at UPT is going to get people killed. When I get a new Copilot, I don’t need to be teaching him basic instrument skills or airmanship. I need to be teaching him how to land in an LZ, airdrop 19 year olds into hot DZs, defend against a spectrum of threats, operate in a contested environment, integrate with SEAD, CAS, JTACs, be proficient at TDL or at a bare minimum not kill himself and his crew in Afghanistan. If 18th AF/CC thinks we can train in the Ops squadrons then he is directly countering his boss who has made it clear that peer and near peer readiness is a priority.

So we have RPA operations all over the globe, why not open a few additional LREs outside of Afghanistan to keep a lid on the cesspool? We used Uzbekistan prior to 9/11, but I’m not sure how helpful the Pakis will be at this point. We just “withdrew” from Syria, yet we are targeting guys there today. There’s no reason why we can’t support the government of Afghanistan in the same way by playing whack a mole with the inevitable shitheads that will try to take over the country. It’s not a perfect solution, but lying to the American public for 20 years for no gain has to stop. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nobody should have zero s to give. If that's the case you need to exit service. Let's end this narrative. I get your point, and I hear this around the sq's, but as a community let's describe it in a more accurate manner, which fortunately is also more positive. It will set the example to the younger guys in a more positive and accurate way.