usaf36031

So far everybody I've talked too who's come back from IFS has been so cynical about the whole experience. What makes it so bad? Other than not flying..I'm not flying now.

no, but i've got another one for you... two navs walk into a bar and grab a table by themselves, and they look over and see all of these cocky ass pilots sitting there surrounded by the ladies having a great time. One of the navs says, "shit man, we need to become pilots!" The other one says "I KNOW, this sucks!" So one of the two navs walks up to the bartender and says, "hey man, what would we need to do to become pilots?" and the bartender says, see that vending machine over there? It's easy , just go put in 90 cents and you'll get yourself a pair of pilot wings to wear." So they walk up to the machine, One nav reaches into his flight suit and pulls out a dollar bill, the other starts digging in his pockets but only comes up with .80 cents. So he gets all sad. But the first Nav says, "hey man, don't sweat it, i'll get my wings and then give you my .10 cents change and you can get yours! Cool, says the other Nav. So the first nav puts in his dollar, out pops his dime and a shiny new set of pilot wings, so he pins them on. Nav number two looks at him eagerly and says, "Cool man! now let me get that dime so I can get mine!" The first guy looks at him smugly and says, "pssh..fuck you nav!"

Is that better? Look man, you seem pretty smart, and I really don't think that our opinions on the topic are that much at odds. I've conceded that some compromises are necessary, and we're making them, you've conceded that we ALSO need to keep our paranoia in check and keep an eye on exactly which freedoms we decide to give to "big brother". It's a thin line to walk. I see both sides of the coin, I just chose to plant my heels on one side of the argument because M2 sounded to me to be so far toward the other.

Also...read what I wrote above about "constitutional amendments". Then find a list of them and I bet you'll find those two examples somewhere in there.

Is that what it would take? Listen, my concern isn't that it's happening now at crisis levels, but that we're laying the foundation FOR IT TO HAPPEN. Don't think the "patriot" act is already being abused? Dig a little. Google works. Did the founding fathers know anything about wiretaps, international terrorism or Al Qaeda? Of course not. Did they know a thing or two about balancing power in order to ensure lasting liberty for Americans? You bet your ass they did. That's why protecting the judicial process is VITAL. And as for the 9/11 comment, YGBFSM! Just like you I joined the military to fight for those families and the freedoms that they love, and to protect the constitution and the liberties that it guarantees. I just never thought that I'd have to be defending them from a fellow member of the military. Jesus, I can't believe I'm the only one arguing this point. Al-Qaeda cannot defeat the United States. They know that. What can they do? Change our way of life to the point that our country is no longer recognizable even to those who live in it.

"The threat we face today would have been unfathomable to them, and too much has changed to apply their philosophy blindly. " - M2 Obsolete, adj. - a: no longer in use, b: of a kind or style no longer current - Webster You implied the quote isn't valid because of both it's age and the fact that "too much has changed" for it to be relavent. I guess I just connected the dots. Also, when did I ever say "blindly"? your words, not mine. As far as research, I think i'll let my History degree check that box. I also never said that every american agrees with everything the founding fathers did. I said that you're the first one I've encountered to disregard the wisdom of Thomas Jefferson because the quote is "old" and you know better. That's why there have been amendments to the constitution...b/c they were smart enough to know that there would be a need for changes. But there's a reason that they're rediculously hard to create, so that people don't knee jerk and do something stupid. Here's something for you to read up on, Do you honestly think that this is the first time that the US has faced threats from within that tempted us to sacrifice freedom and rational thinking for perceived security? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Scare I'll be waiting...

Wow. Until today I'd never met an American who thinks that the founding father's views on government have become obsolete. Unbelievable. Maybe that constitution which was written around the same time period by the same people is obsolete too. I hear that Belarus has some great security measures in place. Clearly a balance needs to be struck, but completely sacrificing our values out of fear is exactly what Osama sits in his little cave dreaming about.

For those of you that drove to Pueblo. Did you get there the day before your inprocess date or did you just drive there ON your inprocess date. I know the website says report no EARLIER than 1000. So I guess as long as you weren't too far away, you could make that drive same day.

I'm always wary of the whole "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" argument. Of course if anti-terror legislation is used just to catch terrorists, and never abused, then I will have no problem. My only concern is that when restrictions on the ability of government to infringe on privacy are removed, it becomes much much easier for the people (corruptable) who are running it to abuse it. History has shown that when a government is given enough power, tyranny becomes inevitable. Any dictatorship, absolute monarchy or fascist regime that has ever existed eventually comes to demonstrate this. Our rights and freedoms are what make us different from any government which has existed before us. That is why I get nervous when i'm presented with that justification. Of course I want to be safe, of course security is important. I just don't accept the "trust us and everything will be ok" mentality. "Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms (of government) those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny". — Thomas Jefferson

I partially agree. Is it necessary to compromise on certain things in order to ensure safety and security? Yes. Should we be unconcerned about the government running unchecked all over our civil liberties? absolutely not. We fight and die for freedom. When does freedom stop being worth it?

Space and Missile...We've been waiting for you

I'm 99% certain our det didn't even do "DG". It sounds to me like it's become an internal thing.

Wait...are you guys implying that ROTC awards actualy mean something on active duty? I thought that his post was a joke and I was about to congratulate him on it. I can understand DG from SOS meaning something, but ROTC?

I have to agree. The USAF should have adopted the ACU. The ABU is a knock off copy with an inferior design. I personally don't mind the greenish gray boots, just as long as I don't have to wear them in my bag. Desert would have been fine.

Are FAIPs predator immune?

assuming the cabin was in fact depressurized of course.

I didn't go to ERAU, but if you can get a ROTC scholarship and go to a state school, it would seem to me that a lot of the money saved could go towards LOTS of flying hours. Plus it might save you from taking out lots of loans...oh yeah, state schools have better looking girls and more fun things to do. Just my $.02

Still, it's hard to believe that they wouldn't put them in pressure suits given the altitudes that they're launching into. Just one of those things where hindsight is 20/20 I guess. I hope they were unconscious.

False. pressure suits and parachutes weren't added until the first launch following the Challenger disaster. I found the following transcript during my google search. On July 28, 1986 Rear Admiral Richard H. Truly, NASA's Associate Administrator for Space Flight and a former astronaut, released this report from Joseph P. Kerwin, biomedical specialist from the Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas, relating to the deaths of the astronauts in the Challenger accident. Dr. Kerwin had been commissioned to undertake this study soon after the accident on January 28, 1986. A copy of this report is available in the NASA Historical Reference Collection, Hstory Office, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.] RADM Richard H. Truly Associate Administrator for Space Flight NASA Headquarters Code M Washington, DC 20546 Dear Admiral Truly: The search for wreckage of the Challenger crew cabin has been completed. A team of engineers and scientists has analyzed the wreckage and all other available evidence in an attempt to determine the cause of death of the Challenger crew. This letter is to report to you on the results of this effort. The findings are inconclusive. The impact of the crew compartment with the ocean surface was so violent that evidence of damage occurring in the seconds which followed the explosion was masked. Our final conclusions are: the cause of death of the Challenger astronauts cannot be positively determined; the forces to which the crew were exposed during Orbiter breakup were probably not sufficient to cause death or serious injury; and the crew possibly, but not certainly, lost consciousness in the seconds following Orbiter breakup due to in-flight loss of crew module pressure. Our inspection and analyses revealed certain facts which support the above conclusions, and these are related below: The forces on the Orbiter at breakup were probably too low to cause death or serious injury to the crew but were sufficient to separate the crew compartment from the forward fuselage, cargo bay, nose cone, and forward reaction control compartment. The forces applied to the Orbiter to cause such destruction clearly exceed its design limits. The data available to estimate the magnitude and direction of these forces included ground photographs and measurements from onboard accelerometers, which were lost two-tenths of a second after vehicle breakup. Two independent assessments of these data produced very similar estimates. The largest acceleration pulse occurred as the Orbiter forward fuselage separated and was rapidly pushed away from the external tank. It then pitched nose-down and was decelerated rapidly by aerodynamic forces. There are uncertainties in our analysis; the actual breakup is not visible on photographs because the Orbiter was hidden by the gaseous cloud surrounding the external tank. The range of most probable maximum accelerations is from 12 to 20 G's in the vertical axis. These accelerations were quite brief. In two seconds, they were below four G's; in less than ten seconds, the crew compartment was essentially in free fall. Medical analysis indicates that these accelerations are survivable, and that the probability of major injury to crew members is low. After vehicle breakup, the crew compartment continued its upward trajectory, peaking at an altitude of 65,000 feet approximately 25 seconds after breakup. It then descended striking the ocean surface about two minutes and forty-five seconds after breakup at a velocity of about 207 miles per hour. The forces imposed by this impact approximated 200 G's, far in excess of the structural limits of the crew compartment or crew survivability levels. The separation of the crew compartment deprived the crew of Orbiter-supplied oxygen, except for a few seconds supply in the lines. Each crew member's helmet was also connected to a personal egress air pack (PEAP) containing an emergency supply of breathing air (not oxygen) for ground egress emergencies, which must be manually activated to be available. Four PEAP's were recovered, and there is evidence that three had been activated. The nonactivated PEAP was identified as the Commander's, one of the others as the Pilot's, and the remaining ones could not be associated with any crew member. The evidence indicates that the PEAP's were not activated due to water impact. It is possible, but not certain, that the crew lost consciousness due to an in-flight loss of crew module pressure. Data to support this is: The accident happened at 48,000 feet, and the crew cabin was at that altitude or higher for almost a minute. At that altitude, without an oxygen supply, loss of cabin pressure would have caused rapid loss of consciousness and it would not have been regained before water impact[/b]. PEAP activation could have been an instinctive response to unexpected loss of cabin pressure. If a leak developed in the crew compartment as a result of structural damage during or after breakup (even if the PEAP's had been activated), the breathing air available would not have prevented rapid loss of consciousness. The crew seats and restraint harnesses showed patterns of failure which demonstrates that all the seats were in place and occupied at water impact with all harnesses locked. This would likely be the case had rapid loss of consciousness occurred, but it does not constitute proof. Much of our effort was expended attempting to determine whether a loss of cabin pressure occurred. We examined the wreckage carefully, including the crew module attach points to the fuselage, the crew seats, the pressure shell, the flight deck and middeck floors, and feedthroughs for electrical and plumbing connections. The windows were examined and fragments of glass analyzed chemically and microscopically. Some items of equipment stowed in lockers showed damage that might have occurred due to decompression; we experimentally decompressed similar items without conclusive results. Impact damage to the windows was so extreme that the presence or absence of in-flight breakage could not be determined. The estimated breakup forces would not in themselves have broken the windows. A broken window due to flying debris remains a possibility; there was a piece of debris imbedded in the frame between two of the forward windows. We could not positively identify the origin of the debris or establish whether the event occurred in flight or at water impact. The same statement is true of the other crew compartment structure. Impact damage was so severe that no positive evidence for or against in-flight pressure loss could be found. Finally, the skilled and dedicated efforts of the team from the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, and their expert consultants, could not determine whether in-flight lack of oxygen occurred, nor could they determine the cause of death. /signed/ Joseph P. Kerwin EDIT: a link about the history of the pressure suit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Crew_Escape_Suit

I had no idea that they didn't all disintegrate in the explosion, but a google search indicates that after the explosion a few (at least) did remain conscious for at least a few seconds (long enough to activate their emergency air packs) before the remains of the shuttle fell over 65,000 feet to the ocean, where the bodies remained submerged for weeks before being recovered. If the cabin depressurized at that altitude however, it is unlikely in my opinion that any remained conscious for more than a few seconds. Very sad stuff.

XX Newcastle Shiner Bock Sam Adams Boddingtons NOT: Heineken but hey, i'm always up for a cold case of 'Stones. back in school we called them "sluts" because they were cheap, plentiful, went down easy and ALWAYS showed up at our parties.

The junior nav class here at randolph recently rolled out with "Nav-a-sutra...we're always in the right position" Apparently it got approved. I found that humorous. Not sure what pic they chose yet.

Yeah, I think we're supposed to show up with flight suits gloves and boots. Are you on casual? Your squadron should cover those expenses, although you might be in a different situation. Print off your required items list and take them to your supervisor, see if they can help.

I've been flying a DA-20 in my free time. So far 5 hours. I leave in 3 weeks for Pueblo. After 1 flight in the area and 3 pattern flights, I can say that I feel leaps and bounds ahead of where I would have been without it. Even if for no other reason than to go to Pueblo knowing where the throttle, fuel shutoff valve and cabin heat lever are located. Landing the diamond is a little strange too just because the thing floats so damn much (11:1 glide ratio) so it's nice to get 10-15 landings in just so you have that much of a leg up at pueblo. 700 bucks well spent.