kaputt

Good to know. It will be interesting to see if they actually decide to set that option up for T-6s as well. I believe the pilots that fly the CSO T-1s are also GS employees. I’ve also heard that’s a “you better know someone” type deal to actually get hired.

Yep... I think it's how they've structured the program. Its under the federal government's internship program, so I think they're required to get new grads and even be very specific on the major/experience they have. In my active duty life I worked with civ finance people that were under a very similar program and the requirements to get in were very strict. I'm not sure why they went this route, but my guesses are it was either the best way to slap a commitment onto the people that get hired, and/or it's much harder to find budget for stand alone GS positions that are open hires to anyone. If the Air Force really wants to make sure people don't leave, I'd gladly sign a 3 year deal to teach in T-6s as a GS-12. Go teach form, aerobatics, XC, in a bitchin turboprop without the BS of active duty life; sign me up. Much better than commuting to fly Charlotte to Savannah in a clapped out CRJ.

I will add, from my corner of the IFS world, IPs with military experience still tend to do better with instructing and relating to the students than straight civilian experience instructors. The absolute best (besides previous mil pilots) are the former CSOs, WSOs, NFOs, etc... that understand the nuances of briefing and debriefing appropriately, but even the former mil non-rated instructors understand better how formal training works in a military environment. That's not to say the civilians don't do well, but you can see students respond differently when they are dealing with a former mil IP vs civilian only. My one question is why has the Air Force not just made GS-12 or 13 T-6 IP positions that's open to hire anyone? Yeah that's not amazing pay and it would be hard to compete with the airlines, but certainly there are some guys who don't want to do the airlines that would be interested in being a T-6 IP after their time on active duty? Heck, I'm 400 hours short of heading to the regionals right now and I would gladly jump into a GS position T-6 job over going to the regionals. Haven't there been a couple of RFIs put out for contractor T-6's as well? What happened with those?

As a former non-rated officer that jumped into aviation and is actually currently teaching mil students in one of the IFS programs, this sounded like an awesome opportunity. Way better than slinging gear at the regionals, even with the GS-09 starting pay. But I reached out to AFPC and the program is strictly limited to aviation major students who got their degree and flight training at the same time, and you have to have graduated in the last two years. Bummer. It will be interesting to see how this program does. Having spent some decent time in the civilian aviation world now, I'm not sure this program will get all that many takers in the end. Most civ students want the airlines and nothing else, and those with mil flying interest will probably want to be actual military aviators and not T-6 only instructors. It's a pretty niche group of people that would actually look to do this job. Selfishly speaking here of course, but it seems a bit of a missed opportunity to not find a way to include folks like myself that have military experience and at least understand some of the demands the students have beyond just flying. I've found that to be super helpful in my current role. Let's be honest, this is a definitely just a grasp to try and fill IP manning with bodies that cost pennies on the dollar to even a FAIP.

Isn’t there a whole thread for this?

Did anything ever move forward from those RFIs for GO-GO and/or CO-CO multi engine training?

Will raising the age limit really help? It seems to me the big shortage right now is regional Captains.

That’s fantastic his mother made that CHOICE. If she felt having the baby despite her situation was the best option then I don’t think anyone believes there is anything wrong with that. But the important thing is there is choice based on each persons own individual values. Values that you may not share or agree with. A female teammate on my track team in college faced this same decision. 19 years old, not on birth control because it can impact athletic performance. Gets a little carried away one night with her college boyfriend (my roommate), as 19 year olds with raging hormones are prone to do, misses her next period, and oh shit she’s actually pregnant. She’s a pre-med major, outstanding athlete, on full scholarship and comes from a family that can’t pay for her college all on their own. She makes the excruciating painful decision to terminate the pregnancy very early as she simply was not in a position life to care for a child. Heck even carrying the child to birth and then putting it up for adoption would have had life altering consequences. Now I’m sure some will look at this situation as a selfish decision, or be quick to condemn her with the line of “if you have sex, these are the risks you take”; and in my experience these people are frankly hypocrites who are in no position to judge another’s scenario or decisions. I have seen what some of my pro-life “friends” on Facebook have been posting, a few of which I know quite well who they were when they were 19, and they are in absolutely no position to judge another. They just simply got lucky and didn’t have to make the same tough call. Personally I don’t see how anyone could look a young woman in the eye facing that scenario and tell her with a straight face, “Sorry, but you must have this baby and permanently alter your life simply because you made a mistake that any 19 year old in the history of human kind could make”. Should there be limits on abortion? Absolutely. Enough time for a woman to know she is pregnant but before a fetus would be viable outside the womb seems pretty reasonable to me. I will let the doctors and scientists figure out where that falls. The biggest issue I have with the pro-life crowd in general (not accusing anyone here specifically) is the assumption that anyone that supports a choice to have an abortion is somehow against someone who decides that path is not right for them. If someone believes abortion is not the path for them then that is fantastic and I support that choice wholeheartedly. Each person on earth is going to have different values and different life situations at various times in their life, and I certainly am in no position to judge what is right for someone else, even if it’s not something I would have done. I think we tend to forget that as a society.

Regardless of how one feels on abortion itself, this will likely strategically backfire on Republicans/Conservatives. Roe v Wade to the left is like the second amendment to the right, and all the stops are going to come out to spin this against conservatives. Also many moderates in this country were fine with the status quo. Look at the polling, 60% of Americans did not want to see Roe v Wade overturned, despite what their personal views on abortion were. All the shit going wrong in this country right now and reversing Roe v Wade is what conservatives are going to hang their hat on as a midterm approaches. Absolutely moronic; thank you Bible Belt southern states (and I live in one), for bringing this to the forefront at such a crucial time.

Their decision to appeal certainly proves they had zero intent of letting the mandate expire after their latest two-week extension.

I don’t think so, but I’m in the IMA reservist world now so not fully up to speed. The base I workout at doesn’t require masks in the gym so I figured that was the same elsewhere on base.

Gives them two more weeks for cases of COVID to “surge” and then “justify” a longer extension. I’ll gladly eat crow on this if I’m wrong, but I think the TSA mask mandate will exist at least through the midterms. Fauci was just on the news the other day saying he thinks the airline mask mandate should be extended beyond the 15 days. This has become just another classic example of complete COVID hypocrisy and lunacy. When this all started it was determined and stated widely that flying on airplane was one of the safest things you could do because the air filtration systems on board; yet the airlines are one of the last places you are forced to wear masks.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/cdc-extends-travel-mask-mandate-15-days.amp Extended. 15 days, because, science? This clown show isn’t going to end until people start voting differently.

https://www.inquirer.com/health/coronavirus/indoor-mask-mandate-philadelphia-businesses-20220411.html The madness isn’t done in Philadelphia yet. Soon to return to a city near you?

How about some more videos of Ukrainians stacking Russians?

I think it’s mostly Tesla rates that are jacked up because of the morons falling asleep or banging chicks while on “autopilot”. Don’t think it has to do with it being an EV.

I agree with your post @nsplayr about the need to embrace energy abundance, but I don’t think the signs are pointing to this administration increasing domestic oil production as part of that solution. Biden is flying to Saudi Arabia soon, so here we go again embracing another autocratic regime for oil. I posted a link in the “Next President” thread so as not to try and distract this thread, but so far this administration seems hell bent on their anti domestic oil position. They’ve got some nice top cover from the new war for right now, but time will tell if this ends up being the hill they die on. Elon Musk saying we need to drill oil now should be a wake up call. The US populations anger isn’t going to stay directed at Putin if in 6 months people in big cities are paying $7 a gallon and even middle America is at $5.

Possible Biden Saudi Arabia trip could mean embracing oil, ignoring brutality Still have yet to see an article about this administration looking to re-embrace domestic oil production.

The sad thing is, a headline like that doesn’t even shock me these days.

Elon Musk supports increasing oil output in wake of Ukraine invasion (yahoo.com) So will the current admin go down this path or will they cling to their "green energy" addiction for dear life?

I’ve elaborated multiple times already. Eastward expansion of NATO as a threat to Russia is a Putin derived fantasy tale used to justify his own personal goals and desires for power in the region. It’s clear you believe that story line though.

I haven’t once said that. This whole burst of debate was caused by another poster claiming that the US is at fault because we “expanded NATO to Russia’s door step”, which is such a load of bullshit it’s laughable. Yeah, yeah, you’ll both follow up with that, “that’s just your western opinion man”. That’s such a lazy statement and you could literally counter every terrible thing that’s ever happened in the world since the beginning of time with “well the other side saw it this way”.

Sorry man, but the bolded part just proves your arguments aren't based in any sort of reality. The only way your argument makes sense is if we could all travel back in time to the dissolvement of the Soviet Union and disband NATO at that time. I think there is a small case that could be made that a move like that may have been the right call to reset the clock in Europe in 1990s. I would also say our distraction in the middle east led to the Vladimir Putin problem going unchecked for too long. But none of that can be changed now and suddenly we're back to facing a ruthless autocrat showing signs of a desire to re-divide Europe. We now have to approach the world in the current reality, not look back on what if's and coulda, woulda, shouldas. You've kind of been all over the place in what you're arguing, but it seems ultimately it comes down to you have a disdain for the NATO alliance in general. NATO has its problems, that's for damn sure, but at this moment in time it's probably the only thing keeping one man from re-carving up the continent to fit his personal whims. So yeah, I do think defending Lithuanian sovereignty is a worthwhile objective because that defense goes beyond one country and is an answer to ruthless, state-controlled system that has no place in the modern world.

Dude, everyone here gets what you're saying. The Russians (well, mostly Putin) view NATO and its growth differently than we do. That's not in dispute. Decades old promises from former US and other world leaders is great, but geopolitics changes and, like it or not, the people that lived in these former Soviet republics get a say in how they want to live and be governed, and they have overwhelmingly clamored to be part of the western system and NATO.

The events in Ukraine since 2014 have proven that is not the case.