Hacker

This is exactly the problem right here: someone who thinks that a reference to anything sexual is "sexist". Suggest you go pick up a dictionary and look that word up, then go back and reassess if "69" is what it describes. This is as asinine as the slide I saw recently at the sexual assault stand down that said: Anything offensive = sexual assault = UCMJ violation

Yet again...."Unlawful Command Influence" seems to be a term that is completely unknown to civilian lawmakers when they comment on UCMJ cases. A reminder of the results of the previous round of commentary from civilian leadership: https://www.stripes.com/judge-obama-sex-assault-comments-unlawful-command-influence-1.225974

Why would any of these actions have an impact on a security clearance?

Nice work. It is too bad that she doesn't believe that we peasants are worthy to own an AR-15. https://startingpoint...arget-practice/

I have no issue with a superior rank correcting a subordinate rank in public. All too often, it is the opposite that takes place, and I find that to be way out of line.

When Colt's leaves Connecticut, then we'll know it is really on.

That California bill is just through the Senate -- not signed into law.

How well does that mag function?

He didn't have 1300 rounds of ammo. https://usnews.nbcnew...nds-police?lite Listen to what she says in the news conference: "If all of the magazines that we collected were in fact loaded fully, something on the order of about 1,300 rounds, and that's an estimation". She is doing math based on the number of mags they collected, NOT the actual tally of cartridges. The news media ran with the ball after COMPLETELY misunderstanding what she said, and -- weird -- the police never bothered to correct the errant reports. Anyone who has had a 500-round case of .223 ammo delivered to their house knows it is just not in any way realistic to carry around 1,300 rounds, regardless of if they're in magazines or not.

That from Cad west?

That'd be in like with the Army, whose Chief says: Not fighting a war...not supporting and defending the Constitution....but sexual assault.

At the beginning of both of those the AF wore DCUs -- ABUs didn't get issued until 2007 or so. It would be simple to just make either DCU or OCPs the standard across the DoD.

I bet the manufacturers of all these different camouflage types are going to be pissed that their cash-cow contracts to make them may be going away.

PSA also had blem lowers on sale yesterday for $69.99....and sold out almost immediately. That is getting close to their pre-craze prices.

Also simply known as "the law"...which both sides in a case are obligated to follow.

I nearly sold one of my 1260 cases of M67 during the panic when someone offered me $700 for it! Shoulda done it.

It is almost as if they were more concerned about spending their time/effort/money on the tactical and weapons systems (ergo "warfighting") capabilities of the aircraft instead of the latest and greatest capabilities to fly around the National Airspace System.

So, it sounds like he had US quals (Did the FAA yank his ATP for the 'good moral character' part after he spent time in jail?), but not the JAA certificates or medical?

WSOs are on their own separate training track as part of a normal IFF class with the pilots. I don't remember offhand how many sorties they have, but it is about half of what the pilots do. Stud WSOs don't have any dedicated sorties; they piggy-back on the pilot sorties, riding with the flight lead. When the student pilot is flying an offensive BFM ride, the WSO is in the lead/bandit aircraft on a defensive BFM ride. When the pilot is defensive, then the WSO is on an offensive BFM ride. Most of the purpose is to simply become acquainted with USAF fighter ops; simple stuff, like wearing a G-suit and helmet, un-learning stupid Navy-speak (hopefully a lot of that is gone now), brief and debrief etiquette, and learning all of the other basic formation/BFM/bombing fundamentals that the pilots do. WSOs will have to be prepped for the brief just as much as their pilot brethren (systems knowledge, EPs, threat of the day). On the ground, they may handle some comm, but there will be a division of checklist duty execution (which doesn't simulate F-15E ops very well, but there are obviously limitations with the T-38). In flight, WSOs are expected to learn to assess the other aircraft; recognize different pursuit curves, recognize range, aspect, closure, and nose position. Apply their awareness of those parameters to WEZs, and know which defensive maneuvers to execute and when in reaction to those shot opportunities. They'll primarily just be doing directive/descriptive verbal comm to the pilot and 'calling' the fight. They will not be hands-on the controls. The weakness of the program is that, since none of the rides are dedicated training for the WSO, there are limitations to what can be done. For the vast majority of the rides, the flight lead is flying a particular profile to achieve a very specific training objective for the student pilot/wingman. When the WSOs are recognizing threat WEZs and directing 'jink' or 'tighten down' or any one of other maneuvers, often the pilot they are flying with will not/can not actually perform those maneuvers because it conflicts with the profile they are flying for the pilot's benefit. Really learning how to be a "WSO" is going to happen in the F-15E B-Course. IFF is just another building block like (some) of the other building blocks from CSO school.

I wonder if the POTUS is familiar with the term "Unlawful Command Influence"?

There are several shots found on Google of MRAPs inside Atlas jets that are secured with cargo straps. I'm just a pointy nosed dude and know nothing about securing cargo loads...but it is there in the photos.

I don't think it does. Just because loads checked good at previous checks does not mean something did not break loose...

You're right -- because it never would have even gone to trial in the civilian system due to the lack of supporting evidence. The civilian court system is so burdened as is that they won't bother wasting time and money on a trial where a conviction isn't a slam-dunk. The rest of the US criminal justice system doesn't have the same hair-trigger attitude toward anything remotely sexual assault related as the military -- and the USAF in particular -- does. BTW, citizens on trial are not "found innocent"; they are presumed innocent, and "found guilty".

The 'senior' term for an E-8 is a Navy tradition. I never heard it in the AF until the last 6-9 years.

It is an AP article with information provided by the Police Department. PA didn't put that moronic word in print.