Toro

I thought it was excellent, but the ending was a cop-out <<no actual spoilers, but potential for follow on spoilers>> The entire movie did a outstanding job on building the complicated multi-layered concepts of dreams and how difficult it was to distinguish them from reality. So difficult that DeCaprio's character - a professional at dealing with them - can't even tell the difference without his "totem". The entire movie builds the subplot of his personal life and yet it ends about 6-9 seconds before we know what truly happened. I'm all about figuring trying to figure out what happened, but there are so many subtleties in either direction that there is no definite answer because they don't want you to have one. Weak. But other than that, it was fucking awesome.

We had a revision of a bunch of ours at Seymour around 2006 and the OSS handled it.

Did the exchange in Saudi - didn't have quite the pad that you had, Hoss. From talking to guys who have flown with the Iraqis, I am positive that the mentality, work ethic, and airmanship throughout much of the Arab population is very similar (which is to say it's poor). The things that made it tolerable were the Americans I was with, our living conditions (not stellar, but above average for what I would have expected), the pay benefits, and getting to choose a follow-on in exchange for volunteering. Right, but if they handle this like they handle the exchange remotes (for guys like Hoss and myself), they will give guys their choice of follow-on for volunteering. If you get non-vol'd, they'll do whatever they want with you.

Agreed. As much as I hate this douche, this seems to actually be an example of where he (or his collective party) is doing the right thing. It almost doesn't belong in this thread.

Our flight docs banned Red Bull for a few months circa 2003 after a few folks got "heart palpatations" from drinking 18 in a night with Vodka.

Fatal Shooting outside MacDill AFB Highlights -

Any car will work fine. I'm in Germany and was previously in England - the car size isn't an issue here like it is in England, but the average parking spot is smaller. German weather isn't an issue either (again, not like England). It rains in the winter, but no more than any particular place in the states.

Agreed, I've split it to it's own topic. Here's some highlights from the e-mail sent out:

This thread is getting pretty long and probably has old/outdated/redundant info in it. If anybody familiar with LR wants to suggest posts for removal, PM me with post #s and I'll take them out.

You're too kind M2. I have deleted his account, banned his e-mail address from re-registring, and banned his IP address from logging onto this site.

I've merged your thread to this existing one, so read through some of the previous info. Bottom line, it's possible, but don't expect to be together all the time and expect one or both of you to make some sacrifices. As far as track selecting (dropping?) 'the same', if you're talking about at the same time, you will be out of synch until your assignments (PCS dates) get synched up. I believe you have to be on station 24 months before you are eligible to PCS for Join Spouse, so if you were stationed at the same location, one of you could extend slightly and one request an early PCS to get synched up. If you're talking about dropping to the same aircraft, this will probably be a bigger issue. There are bases with different types of aircraft, but not many. Your better bet is to go to the same aircraft and follow each other around - assuming at least one of you doesn't care what they fly. No. You don't switch airframes unless you go to a UPT base (or crosstrain, but you won't do that for a Join Spouse PCS). And if you are a pilot, you do not switch jobs to a 'non-flying' job to accommodate a Join Spouse unless Big Blue says so (like a staff job). You mentioned in your other thread that you are considering Intel - if your husband flies fighters (not sure on heavies) and you are an Intel, you would have a chance of being stationed together as well. OMFG! Two whole months - how did they do it?!

You joined yesterday. This site has been around for 6+ years. You didn't think somebody already thought of this?

Looks like it's coming to an early end at ETAR.

Pretty much any training in the AF incurs an Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC). FTU, PME, WIC.

Revival Chive's tribute to Hot Chicks in the Military Sample: Good work, Chive, good work.

I don't know, but I've spent the last 20 minutes removing the polls (kept most of the threads). If I find out who did it, I'm going to brain them with a ball-peen hammer.

Try it now

Horrible accident, absolute terrible odds. Miles of beach and this jogger gets killed by a dead-stick kit-plane whose windshield is obscured by oil. Beach jogger killed by plane likely never heard it

Of the female pilots I've known, only one was married to a non-military guy. Ditto Brabus - not a big deal, he came and hung out at the parties and squadron events, but didn't do any of the spouse stuff.

Marijuana affects your security clearance, it has nothing to do (directly) with becoming a pilot. If you have clearance issues because you smoked, or if your Det/CC ranking is affected by your history, then this could indirectly affect you.

But this is the point I was trying to make. Why did they lose those jets? Other than the T-6, the only class A info I could find was the T-38s fatality due to a Unless there was a failure to follow maintenance procedures, this is an accident where there is no fault. There is nothing a safety officer can do to cause or prevent this kind of thing. Maybe some of these incidents were attributed to an individual's failure to follow procedure or practice good airmanship - but these are not remedied with sweeping safety programs, and a lack of these type of incidents should reflect more on the instructors than the wing safety officer. For this award to be valid, there should be a direct input to stop a cause and effect action. Valid would be... - "Created a CBM BASH program that changed flying procedures and resulted in a decreased number of birdstrikes." - "Analyzed a string of MX-related IFEs, found a casual procedural MX factor, changed that factor, and eliminated further IFEs." - "Reviewed syllabus of training procedures following a number of solo student mishaps and revised the syllabus prerequisites to eliminate further mishaps" Valid is not saying "Let's give the safety officer an award because we had less safety mishaps since less jets are breaking and people aren't doing stupid shit."

I'm curious what the requirements for this award are (I Googled and the article from the OP was the only return). It strikes me as odd that an individual safety award goes to somebody whose accomplishment was not a direct involvement in a flight safety issue (i.e. recovering a jet during an IFE). I don't care what the citation says, I seriously doubt that those reduction in mishaps were a "direct result" of his efforts. He may have come up with some great programs, but attributing a decrease in mishaps to safety programs - and specifically to the guy running the shop - gives all the credit to one when it is due to those flying and turning wrenches. This is an award that should have gone to Wing Safety as a whole, or the Group/Wing. But I guess if you're good at metrics, you can spin your stats into an award that sounds great.

The links in the previous posts are right on. Most likely they were using AHAS when you were at Seymour Johnson. For low level flights, part of the pre-flight prep includes checking the AHAS condition along your route (it will break it down by legs). If AHAS is down, then they would revert to BAM (which I believe was slightly more restrictive). What Nunya mentioned about the varying levels of restriction is the same with SJ (it's a local reg). There were three levels of bird condition - low, moderate, severe. Low was ops normal, moderate meant you couldn't fly below 1500AGL you had to stay below 450 knots, and severe meant you couldn't fly below 4500AGL. After numerous birdstrikes and an ejection caused by birdstrikes (and almost a second), the safety folks were very cautious with bird status. As with everything else, flight leads can be more restrictive than the reg, but not less. So if you see birds on a route that was previously labeled as bird low, you can bump it up to moderate and fly higher (along with reporting it to the SOF), but you cannot go lower and faster unless AHAS is updated.