pcola

Wait, she pulls it off? Going to see this right now!

Masshole, this is where you may offer your "expert" opinion without fear of retribution.

If you haven't clicked on the video yet, do so now! Gives amazing insight to just how much these people hate one another and how totally un-fuckable the situation in the entire middle east is. Dude attacks a woman on tv for being "a jew" and another dude attacks a guy on tv, also for nothing more than being "a jew" and they are hailed as "patriots."

Ouch. Didn't mean to offend with the UAV crack. This, unfortunately, is the sad state of affairs that is AMC. I sense Q-3s for all. Hey, on the bright side, if you get assigned punishment such as briefing the squadron on how to properly ensure having a fully charged IPad at show time, at least you can swing a sweet OPR bullet out of it!

We are waiting for you...

That's badass. I wonder what happens to the balloon/capsule after he jumps out of it...

We all talk about how "it's only a matter of time..." due to the excess demands placed on aircrews. Masters, xmas parties, PME, non-flying deployments, desk jobs x3, rushed upgrades, shitty scheduling and msn coord by TACC (like launching from home station out of bravo for a 24 hour day w/a 2200L alert time and an AR at the 12 hour point...) Then something like this happens, and we are all ready to crucify the guys. I myself am guilty. My first thought was "how in the hell...?" Then I stepped back, and realized that I think this was very nearly one of those "it's only a matter of time..." incidents. I'd say this should be a wake-up call. The line is stretched pretty thin, and it was lucky nobody was killed. Of course, there is a fair amount of speculation in my comments, but I just can't for the life of me see how a qualified crew could make such a mistake without a chain of extenuating circumstances resulting from the excess demands stated in my second sentence (inexperience, fatigue, barely able to maintain proficiency, stress, etc...)

I really can't tell if sarcasm is involved here...

Sounds like a teenager POV. Not you, Dupe, but whoever you were BSing with. What I mean by teenager POV is a person that knows what they know, and is confident in what they know, but due to inexperience, they have no idea of the implications of what they don't know. Am I making sense?

I think he's saying it's lazy because instead of briefing an instrument approach and setting the jet up for said approach, its easier to just say "visual approach to runway 22 from the left seat, full stop, any questions?" and then fly the airplane (which we heavy pilots can still do, contrary to popular belief.) I wouldn't expect you to understand this AMC nuance any more than you'd expect me to understand the difference between an xx and an xx. (you fill in the blanks, because obviously I don't know enough about your job to come up with an equitable comparison.)

Yeah, I'm wondering how the approach brief went. PF: "So, its a partial flap visual approach from the left seat. Approach speed will be 140 knots to an 11,000 ft runway. Landing distance is 3500 ft, planning to exit taxiway C, taxiing to the main ramp..." PNF: "Wait a minute..."

A quote from the article. My correction in bold.

Haha, wouldn't that be a trip. AF level policy being changed as a direct result of an internet forum. Well, he did say at one point that he wanted to go straight to the source to get his finger on the pulse of the JO corps... I think BO.net is a pretty good gauge of that pulse.

Nice. I hate it when I have to counsel my officers that for the sake of their self-preservation, they need to start on their AAD ASAP. FTR, my strat list doesn't take AAD into account whatsoever, which is why it doesn't always jive w/the boss's. But I still have a duty to let them know that, right or wrong, it does matter. I will go to bat all day for a guy (or girl) that is a well-rounded officer and mission contributor over one that is known to dodge the scheduler to work on the AAD, but I don't often win. That is why I want to see it masked. I would like to see the end of the madness. But I digress, we don't need yet another thread to spiral into the merits of the AAD debate. My opinions are mine, and I'm done trying to change anybody else's (at least on this forum.) Out.

So you're saying you wouldn't be stoked if they masked the AAD, got rid of blues Monday, and brought back morale patches (as three commonly complained about examples?) That can all be done with the stroke of a pen without much analysis of long term impacts, and morale (amongst the majority) would quickly climb. I'm not advocating that he shouldn't strive to fix the major issues we are facing, and I, for one, never said to fix the small stuff and the rest will follow. My point is that after what we are used to, it wouldn't take much to turn morale around. The larger problems just might be easier to tackle with a content fighting force.

I think right now, most folks would call it a success if even one thing improves. We're so used to/tired of the expectation that all change will somehow end up bending us over, that most would be happy with even the slightest glimmer of positive hope. Get rid of blues Monday = new hero! Bring back morale patches = new hero! Mask the AAD = new hero! It's not like he actually has to win the war and end unnecessary deployments or stop non-vol'ing pilots to UAVs forever or fix the F22 or anything else of any consequence to win the "hearts and minds" Just make a change that isn't for the worse.

I don't really see how this is possible, unless things have changed for the better in the last couple of years. You make the call about the likelihood of that! Last time I PCS'd was from OCONUS to CONUS with a TDY en route. Family could not stay OCONUS, and they wouldn't pay my California housing allowance until I completed the TDY and checked in at my gaining base. This was all in the regs, I know because I fought it and lost. Furthermore, they would not put my family on my TDY orders. They paid me the CONUS base rate for BAH which was a measly $1000ish a month, not enough cover expenses in California. I really had no choice but to take them to San Antonio with me, and they wouldn't give me a non-A or TLF since my family weren't on my TDY orders. That's when I decided on the corporate housing I mentioned in the previous thread. The moral is I'm pretty sure they aren't putting families on TDY en route w/PCS orders, especially on a CONUS to CONUS move. If you're collecting BAH somewhere, use it to lodge your family (and yourself) off base at Randolph. Your $39/day and BAH should more than cover your expenses.

thought this was appropriate here: "Wanted: 500,000 pilots" https://video.msnbc.msn.com/nightly-news/48180713#48180713 edit: how the F do you embed a video (not from youtube) in this forum?

In San Antonio, take a look at corporate rentals. I stayed in a fully furnished (utilities/phone/cable/internet included) 2 bedroom apt in a nice complex in Northern San Antone for ~4 months during C-5 ACIQ/ACAR. After the $39/day, I think I may have spent $150/month out of pocket. More than worth the convenience of having an apartment for my family/pets and probably saved money considering I had a kitchen and could eat at home more often.

Why would you assume that because someone could not leave the flight line (or any other place of duty, for that matter) that they didn't spend money to eat during that period of time? Delivery? Carry out? That is simply not your call to make; from thousands of miles away you can't presume to know the conditions imposed on the individual filing the claim. Furthermore, it doesn't matter if they spent one penny of that $102. What matters is that the JFTR says that if gov't provided meals are missed, they are entitled to per diem. You don't get to decide how they spend it.

Right. Unfortunately, I'm not only arguing this on this forum. There is a real push right now to enforce this flight kitchen bullshit on real people that are going to get screwed by the powers that be. Nuff said about that here and now...

Sure... Plenty of times... No, you implied that a 24/7 flight kitchen is a suitable substitute, when it's clear that the JFTR says its not. So, if its a suitable substitute once, it's a suitable substitute all the time. Presumably, the reason a troop at Ramstein would file missed meals is because his work schedule would not allow him to visit the DFAC during its operating hours, to which your suitable alternative was a box nasty. What's to stop this from being 3 meals/day for someone with so unfortunate of a schedule? There is no line. Haven't seen this in the JFTR, but then again, I'm a pilot, not a Finance-O. USCENTCOM-AOR policy does not apply here. Apples to oranges. We are talking about a hypothetical situation in Ramstein, or Guam, or Hawaii, or anywhere else that a person would expect to receive full M&IE when they have to pay out of pocket for a suitable alternative. I am well aware of the 11-208. Again, apples to oranges. The essence of a failing argument. This regulation, particularly this paragraph, has absolutely zero bearing on per diem. 11-208's concern: moving the mission. 65-103's concern: rebuking an inconvenient paragraph in the JFTR to save the AF money at the Airmen's expense. Nowhere in 11-208 does it mention that their definition of "acceptable nutrition" should define a member's per diem entitlement. In fact, IMO, it supports the JFTR It says that in lieu of a gov't provided hot meal, sub-standard meals will provide adequate nutrition in order to move the mission. No way would I interpret this to mean that those types of food are adequate to sustain a member for an entire deployment. This is the line you draw by including a 24/7 flight kitchen box nasty as an adequate substitute as long as it is not eaten in the air. There is nothing to keep the line mx dude from being forced to eat that crap for an entire deployment because his schedule rarely allows him to make it to the DFAC, thereby costing him out-of-pocket to get real food. Believe it or not, CCs use judgement when they determine that a missed meal form is valid. Some finance guy sitting behind a desk talking about "what about box nasties" shouldn't be the one to make the call. The officer in charge on location should be the one to make it. Oh and don't worry, I'm aware of the chain of command, thank you. You can also see how much faith I have in them to fight a broken system, hence my mention of the IG.

I have some pics of this test launch that I haven't been able to find anywhere on the www. Unfortunately they are on my home computer and I won't be home for another month! I've heard it hypothesized by a very unofficial source that the intent was to make each C-5 a "nuclear capable platform." Numbers game... Nevertheless, it makes Fred the most heavily armed airborne platform in the history of the AF! Booya!

Seriously? How many box nasties have you eaten? You are arguing that people who's work schedules don't allow them to make it to the DFAC during their opening times should count a box nasty as a suitable substitute? The AF wants a "culture of fitness" but at the same time they want airmen to eat up to 3 box lunches a day to cut costs? No thanks. And BTW, the AF's interpretation of the JFTR in this case is way off. This will absolutely be taken to the IG if/when the day comes that someone ever expects me to count a box nasty as a gov't meal... JFTR: It is clear that their intent is that in-flight meals provided by flight kitchens are not to be considered a gov't meal. Ordinary interpretation of their obvious intent: "1. Box lunches, 2. in-flight meals and, 3. rations furnished by the GOV’T on military aircraft are not a GOV’T dining facility/mess for per diem computation purposes." The only reason the words "on military aircraft" are included in that sentence are to distinguish any other type of ration that could be provided onboard a military aircraft from the ordinary box lunches and in-flight meals. Some jackass at AF finance has bastardized this to be interpreted in the following manner: "1. Box lunches (only when served on an aircraft), 2. in-flight meals (only when served on an aircraft), and 3. rations furnished by the GOV'T on a military aircraft... This does not even make any logical sense. If a box lunch was to be considered a meal, what difference does it make if it is eaten while airborne or when on the ground? None. Clearly the intent was that any and all box lunches are not to be considered gov't mess for per diem computation. I'll guarantee that jackass came up with this interpretation because A: he needed to boost his OPR and B: he won't be the one eating that shit 3 times a day. For reference, the AF's bastardized interpretation of the JFTR in this incidence: (AFI 65-103)

That does sound like a scam. I think that was his point. Seems to me that they missed meals often enough that instead of deal with the massive amount of missed meals forms, somebody made the judgement call to grant full per diem. I'm sure they still missed meals, but they ate at the DFAC when they could (hence the point of the massive amounts of missed meals forms in the first place.) Just an educated guess...not in the loop with this incident. What do current budget issues have to do with spending TDY funds that were budgeted for and allocated prior to the current FY? Question: when has any CC at any level reached the end of the FY and said "looks like we were over funded this year. Better give the rest back."? None that I know of. More likely conversation "hey, we have $XXXK extra, lets get it spent before the end of the FY." So, what you're saying is, that since the money is already allocated and will be spent regardless, it is shameful to receive it in the form of per diem to offset actual missed meals and hardship incurred while TDY? That money should be spent in a better way, such as new plasmas so the chow hall can display AFN propaganda and daily menus? Really? Then why is it a flat rate that seems vastly over estimated in most foreign locales? Who in their right mind would think that an aircrew lodged off base in Germany for a week needs $110+ per day merely to reimburse expenses? ROFLMAO! Yeah right, finance can barely handle the cookie cutter vouchers we currently task them with. The system would shit itself if we tried to add this workload. Get real, that would require accomplishing your "mandatory training" after normal business hours, with no random closed days, and actually providing customer service from 07:30-16:30 M-F (possibly more during contingencies and exercises.)