Hacker

That's seriously your answer to me when you later say, Yes, exactly. None of us were drafted -- we all volunteered. Everyone -- EVERYONE -- knows the score when they sign on the dotted line. Anyone who claims they didn't know are either ignorant or in denial. Too many completely lose that perspective. Not willing to serve in that UAV job? Shoulda stayed a civilian, because everyone knows the bottom line when they sign up to be in service to Uncle Sam. All of us who are line officers, when it comes down to it, can do anything up to and including grabbing the rifle and charging the machine gun nest. We ALL serve at the pleasure and convenience of our leadership, and it's not Burger King where you can "have it your way". Career hasn't gone the way you wanted? Boo-fucking-hoo -- join the club. It's called "the service" because it ain't about you.

So much for "Officers First".

The irony of it all... The last time I ran into any "customs and courtesies" issue was at Bagram, and it was with an Army 1Lt and some kind of senior NCO. I was in my AF PT gear walking to the chow hall, and walked past said 1Lt and Senior NCO. As I passed them, the NCO said (to nobody in particular, but loud enough to make it obvious that I was the target), "I guess they don't salute OFFICERS in the Air Force any more!". I stopped walking...pondered for a second if they were actually talking to me, and when I turned around they were both staring at me as if expecting me to genuflect and apologize to this obviously disrespected Army officer. Then, I thought, 'naaah...can't be ME they're talking to...why would they assume that I was either enlisted or a 2Lt?' Regardless, I fished my ID card out, walked up smartly to the senior NCO and held it about 4 inches from his eyeballs, saying, "No...in the Air Force, we don't salute officers that are two ranks lower than we are." I wish there were a better slam-dunk end to the story, but what really happened was the NCO's sails deflated, he sheepishly said, "oh, sorry sir," saluted, and turned around to walk away. I've never had any problem with any enlisted folks outside the AF, actually. It's the Airmen in our very own blue service who all seem to think we're all equal, regardless of what we're wearing on our sleeves or collars/epaulets. The ones who feel they need to shout at me across the parking lot that it's against the uniform reg to have my flight suit sleeves pushed up....

We'd all be better off if we acknowledged and embraced that our whole damn service is support...and that's okay.

Right or wrong, regardless, that's how it happened for me, and the document is there to prove it.

You sure about that? I went to my Capt board in '98 and I most definitely had a PRF written. I never saw it until well after the fact...it was handled all at the CC/exec level in my squadron, I only got my hands on a copy purely by accident (a copy was in my PIF and I saw it when I PCSd). It would be very entertaining to sit on a promotion board and sort out which officers sucked the most. I'll bet those would be some very interesting PRFs to read!

I don't think that has ever been a consideration in ANG/AFRES hiring. I wouldn't expect it to start now.

What possible motivation would an ANG or Reserve unit have to hire a passed over 1Lt??

Considering that it used to be done up until 2002, what's the difference? I have my "Capt PRF" and it looks nothing like the meticulously thought out and wordsmithed document that my O-4 and O-5 PRFs looked like. Unless Commanders decide that they're going to put that type of effort into it (which, clearly, isn't required based on the promotion rate) then that's their own doing.

You should have told him you're responsible for making sure the pilots do their job correctly.

Good, hopefully that's an indication that there's been a change.

Sure...every time there was a "cooperate and graduate" moment, many stud WSOs were looking over their shoulder and waiting for the cheating police to bust down the door. I had more than one stud WSO report to me that there had been "cheating" during the academics. My response was, #1 are you really in here ratting out your bros, and #2, it's not cheating when the academic instructor gives you a 35-point review just minutes prior to proctoring the 35-point academic test. Obviously this doesn't describe *every* WSO who I saw go through IFF...not by a long shot. But there were certainly more moments like this from the Navy-trained folk than from the USAF-trained folk. What is it you're disagreeing with? Were you/are you an IFF instructor? I never went through Pensacola, but I sure saw plenty of the product of Pensacola that came through IFF on their way to the F-15E, and that's how I formed the opinion I posted.

The biggest problem with WSOs going through IFF is that they've been raised in the Navy's NFO training system up to that point, which has absolutely no "cooperate and graduate" aspect to it.

It's been the rare exception in my experience. What I've seen in the AF is absolutely childsplay compared to the walk-on-your-bros culture that exists in the O-3 and O-4 ranks in the Navy as they compete for promotions. Really, there are far greater cancers in the AF culture than backstabbing.

It's usually the sucker-punch to the gut when seeing such stuff that makes a lasting impression.

Weren't the Balad airframes all retrofitted aircraft that were purchased off the commercial market? I'm wondering if the custom-built 350ERs that make up the bulk of the fleet now had the civilian stuff left out.

Anybody know what the MC-12 guys are flying with? Are they using civil-impedance headsets, or does the airplane use single-plug military impedance headsets?

This is what I did mine in; a relatively nice 2000 PA-44.

Three days. If the airplane hadn't had a maintenance squawk on the first day, it only would have taken two days (one day of academics and two prep sorties, and one day taking the checkride). It has to do with the 4 factors that create a "critical engine" on a piston/prop twin (one which has the engines both turning in the same direction, at least) when one engine is failed. They teach the memory aid "PAST"; P-Factor, Accelerated Slipstream, Spiraling Slipstream, and Torque. These 4 factors all create additional forces trying to roll and yaw the airplane into the dead engine when one is failed (amplifying the obvious asymmetric thrust created by having one engine out). Jets simply don't have three of these forces; P-factor has to do with prop behavior in high angle of attack, accelerated slipstream has to do with wind behind the props moving over the wing and creating lift, spiraling slipstream is the turbulent air coming off the prop and pushing against the side of the fuselage and vertical stab. Torque is a bit of a factor, but not enough to really affect aircraft performance in any of the jets I've flown. I have a PDF I can email that has an expanded discussion on this topic if you're interested. This topic, and the factors which affect Vmc, were the core of the ground evaluation before the flight.

You know that the FAA considers the "flight time" to start when the aircraft first moves under it's own power for the purposes of flight, ergo, at taxi time. So, guys who are logging "taxi time" (ergo, that extra .2) in their own logbooks aren't doing anything anywhere near what you're accusing them of. Naturally, if they're doing it on the 781, then the issues you brought up are valid.

Just an update on this: The deal over at Tulsa CC totaled just about $1200, including ground instruction, aircraft rental, and DPE cost for the checkride. Started off with a morning of ground instruction on light piston twin aerodynamics. I thought beforehand that this would be throwaway information, but it turned out to be legitimate (and now I get why most fighters have the centerline thrust restriction -- it's more about pistons and props than it is how far the engines are away from aircraft centerline). Then it was 2 sorties, just under 3 hours of total time, in a PA-44 Seminole. First sortie was mostly aircraft fam, although we practiced all of the maneuvers that were required on the checkride, too. Second sortie was a typical rehearsal of the checkride profile. Checkride itself was just under an hour on the Hobbs, with a 2-ish hour ground eval. With one notable exception, the events came directly from the Commercial/Multi PTS that I quoted above (more on that later). Ground eval: - Critical Engines and aerodynamic forces - Vmc certification criteria, and how Vmc changes with changes in each of those criteria - Weight and balance, TOLD calculation - Some Seminole systems GK Sortie: - Engine failure on takeoff, takeoff aborted - Engine failure on departure - Engine failure in the practice area, full engine shutdown/prop feather - Vmc demo - Sim IMC/hooded instrument approach, single engine - Single engine landing You'll note that the PTS quoted in my earlier post says "approach and landing", with nothing about an "instrument approach". Well, it turns out that the most current version of the Commercial PTS was issued in 2002 and has an error in this particular section. In addition, since 2002, the FAA has issued a ruling that says if you want to be able to exercise instrument privileges with ANY certificate you're earning/modifying/changing, you have to include instrument flying and an approach in the checkride (surprise, cock bag!). So, the toughest part of the whole affair was learning to use the meager avionics in the Seminole to fly the approach. It had dual VOR/NAVs, but no DME, so that was a little tough to gain situational awareness with a crosscheck based on an aircraft with much, much better toys (and with only one practice attempt before the checkride...get up for it). Overall, the staff and instructors at Tulsa Community College was top notch -- very thorough and well prepared, and treated us well as 'students'. I'd highly recommend them to anyone interested in doing the same thing. I can give details on the FAA examiner via PM to anyone who is interested. Without a doubt, a very fair checkride and an examiner with a great sight picture.

And how will the iPad get that data in the cockpit? Through what wireless connection up at altitude?

Hopefully those FAIPs were heavily shit-on by the MWS IPs. I know if I saw that act out of one of the FAIPs in my squadron, we'd have a little mentorship session on the side about what they've 'earned' so far in their career.

That actually doesn't suck all that bad. It's not all that awesome, but considering some of the crap that we've seen from the AF that tries desperately to be hip this actually approaches something listenable and isn't entirely lame. Well, except for the 2nd half of the song when we're being preached to about core values -- that part is pretty lame. If you check out some of their other YouTube videos, they're performing in flight suits without a hint of wings to be seen on them anywhere...that, too, is pretty lame. All that being said, I'd rather see these dudes than TIB or the AF Band any day of the week.

Or not. The airplane you're thinking of was called the "Lancastrian". I think he's mixing the Lanc up the "Avro Manchester", which was a sort-of 2-engine version of the Lanc.