Hacker

Hell, most active duty fighter "leadership" doesn't even know what an X-C is outside of an organized deployment to a Flag or to do adversary support or some other direct HHQ tasking. Giving guys the keys to the jet on a weekend to go burn flying hours and fill RAP squares was a totally foreign concept in the units I was in.

Well...Mississippi University for Women....

Ya know, back in the day, if a self-important, un-self-aware nugget showed up to UPT, opened his mouth, and this tripe spilled out of it, he would have had (in person) the exact type of no-nonsense attitude adjustment the dignified members of BaseOps have attempted to give him here. Let's hope that the bro-level IPs at CBM show him the same courtesy our IPs showed us when we were ignorant dumbasses that didn't know a f'in' thing about a f'in' thing but walked around as if we did.

Since many of the online sources for this vid seem to be drying up (reminds me of the crusade against the Gold Bond Powder video...), here it is as an attachment. Delta_Captain_PA.mov

Yes. Line bidding allows you to know before hand exactly how the contract language will allow you to manipulate your vacation days (sliding/moving days, among other things) against known days off and known trips that will be impacted. PBS doesn't allow you to do that, even if implemented the way you say. It would still be "surprise!" with whatever schedule PBS puked out for you based on dozens of seniority factors that are tough/impossible to predict, rather than the single seniority factor that determines what you can hold while line bidding (and which it is substantially easier to predict). I liked PBS when I was at the regionals for most of the reasons you do...but mostly because I'd never worked anywhere that gave me anything to compare it to. Now that I've worked under both, give me line bidding forever and PBS can lick my taint.

At my airline, allowing PBS to arrive on property to replace line bidding would destroy the real benefit of our vacation system. PBS would simply efficiently schedule a reduced-block set of trips around the footprint of my vacation days/hours. Screw that. Efficiency benefits the company, not me or my bank account. PBS is ass.

While the pay scale is an issue at Alaska, the lack of a scope clause is the substantially more problematic issue. Look no further than AAG's whipsaw of Horizon vs Skywest over the last few years to see how Mr Tilden is happy to play his own company against subcontractors if it saves a buck. Hopefully the addition of all the Virgin pilots to the seniority list will shake up the head-in-sand mentality of the high longevity AS pilots on scope.

If the main complaint of exiting airmen is the quality and conduct of leadership, then this stuff is part of the necessary course correction. Of course...you do have to hire competent replacements....

Definitely go to your Commander and let them help you before going much further.

Excellent mixed metaphor!

So let's see just how many different possible solutions the AF can come up with to sidestep fixing the actual retention issues.

IFF has never sought to teach BFM tactics -- it teaches basics. The concepts of control zone BFM are the same today as they were in WWI, and still just as valuable today regardless of changes in tactics, sensors, and weapons. This is like saying it is no longer useful to teach fingertip formation since we have radars and datalink and in the "real world" only fly sit-visual detached mutual support and tac line abreast. IFF-style BFM is learning a basic building-block concept that will be relevant as long as we are flying airplanes that turn in circles while fighting.

So, I stand both corrected and impressed. The sky-dick Growler aircrew apparently met their FNAEB a couple days ago as well as received their findings today.

Names been released yet?

Spoken like a true AF leader, trying to rationalize poor leadership exercsed in pursuit of how things look.

I happen to have a little knowledge of an FEB in the AF that had substantial CSAF interest a couple years ago, and it took 90 days to actually begin the board proceedings.

Remember, the term is unlawful command influence. I think many senior level officials don't think about the second-order effects of opening their mouths when this type of "high vis" thing comes up.

#1. The USN does not have FEBs, they have Field Naval Aviator Evaluation Boards (FNAEBs). #2. If a FNAEB was decided upon, organized, and scheduled to begin less than 5 days after an event, that would be an unprecedented accomplishment for any bureaucracy. A competent attorney would have a field day defending someone who was being railroaded on that timetable. In the AF, there are multiple stops along the timeline that makes initiating an FEB in much less than 60-90 days nearly impossible.

Ahhh yes....now that the AF might look bad, time to take action!

The Lautenberg Amedment is grade-A bullshit. Anyone who has sworn an oath to protect and defend the Constitution should have a problem with the government having the ability to completely remove a Constitutionally-protected right to people who have not been convicted of anything. It should make your skin crawl every time you even see these forms and it reminds you of the mere existence of this law.

Definitely a consideration for civilian formation flying.

The Federalist Papers are mandatory reading for anyone who wishes to have any serious conversation about Constitutional issues with respect to what the Founders really intended. Folks should also dig deeper into the philosophy aspect of the Founders mindset by reading stuff like Locke's Two Treatises on Government (the second one being the relevant one). Although it was published well after the Founders did their thing, John Stuart Mill's On Liberty is great foundational reading, too.

And yet, every day hundreds of millions of firearm owners do absolutely nothing illegal or immoral with them. This type of crime is still exceedingly rare, thus the logic of his point is still completely valid.

So, you would not consider the incremental addition of firearms laws over the last 100 years... - NFA 1934 - GCA 1968 - Brady Bill 1993 - AWB 1994 - the varied state AWB/magazine/etc bans implemented since then ...as prima facie evidence a "slippery slope" of increasing restrictions over time? BTW, the fundamental difference between a topic like gay marriage and gun control is that one issue is trying to increase liberty, and the other is trying to restrict it. Increasing liberty has no finite end...it is potentially boundless. Restricting liberty has a very specific finite end that it can reach.

Yeah...actually you are. There are plenty of legally owned fighter aircraft that are capable of employing ordnance, and explosives may be legally owned as destructive devices under the NFA.