Hacker

Anybody been to a Commander's course recently? Maybe that's what they're pushing there.

+1 In the squadrons I've been in, you add your nametag to the collection of nametags in the squadron (at the bar) when you leave/PCS. Guys who have morted have their nametags inverted.

The best part is that 20-30 years from now there will probably be Congressional Hearings on how/why/who dropped the ball on making sure we had the equipment required to maintain air superiority. Hopefully those hearings don't follow a massive loss of American lives (or worse). My bet is that in future times, after all the currently-vogue USAF "hatred of all things fighter" and use of fighter culture as the scapegoat for all of the ills of the AF, TMike will be seen as a martyred visionary for his championing of modernization/recapitalization of USAF aircraft during the '00s. Probably not to the extent of a Billy Mitchell, but in a similar vein.

Check with your Safety office -- there is a little bit of info out as of earlier this week (apparently not the complete SIB, though).

Still done at flying units in Korea.

Glad you're so confident, because there are a lot of other people who aren't (including me). Are you someone who will ever potentially have to go against a rapidly-growing number (and proliferation) of Flankers, PL-12s, double-digit SAMs, etc, in any of those aircraft?

+1 How would a Navy guy know anything about that, though?

The fact is that no DG alone really means jack squat in the grand scheme of things. If you have a record that is all ready average, then a DG out of ANY formal training program is going to help push you into that higher tier. A record that has multiple DGs from formal training programs, however, is going to be looked upon very favorably.

Valid.

It's that little line on the rate/radius diagram that says "P-sub-S=0". Were you sleeping during that part of IFF? :)

They filmed Iron Eagle IV in Canada...so they were Harvards, not Texans.

This kind of thing isn't specific to Life Support (now, apparently, called "Flight Equipment") people. You will find this sort of "I don't want to have to expend any effort to go out of my way to ensure things are correct" attitude all over the AF. Finance, Personnel, etc. Even some of the aviators you will fly with will be this way. Handle it the same way you handled these two incidents. Nobody cares about you as much as you.

Stop being retarded.

CRB results ebb and flow based on a number of factors. Circa 2003-2004, it was practically impossible for a stud to wash out of UPT....guys were getting reinstated from CRBs regularly. It is possible to lawyer up for a CRB, and have a skilled lawyer go through the student's gradebook and find every little "error" in training documentation. I know in my previous life as an AETC IP, we wrote gradesheets using wording that specifically made the grades bulletproof in such an instance, though, so YMMV as far as that route goes.

Unfortunately, I don't agree. When you get to the senior O-4 and O-5 levels, there are so many ways to become marginalized as an officer. All anyone in your leadership has to do is ensure you don't get the job you need, or don't get the OPR push you need, or don't get the PRF strat that you need....and suddenly what you think or what you stand for is just completely irrelevant, because you are not in a position to foster such change. Rock the boat too much, and you're bound to piss off somebody...and all that has to happen is for a single SQ/CC, OG/CC, WG/CV, or WG/CC to not like your act, and you are done with having the ability to change jack squat. I don't know what the right answer is. I remember having Gen Jumper speak to my SOS class several years ago, and he started off by saying, "this is my little black book, and over the last 30 years I wrote down shit that I wanted to change once I became Chief of Staff....and that's what I'm doing right now." So, I somewhat think the only feasible answer, if you as an individual really want to foster change, is to "play the game" until you make O-5 and are on some kind of Command track. Even then, that's no guarantee that you'll be able to change a damn thing outside your own sphere of influence. You are also no more than one "stand your ground" disagreement with the OG/CC away from getting fired and sent into the world of the passed-over-Majors.

<yawn> This is such a tired piece of rhetoric that gets towed out every time any community wants to pin the blame of their ills somewhere. The "fighter mafia" may have been a driving force behind top-level decisionmaking in the 1970s and 1980s, but to use that phrase to describe anything happening in the USAF in the last decade is just asinine and ignorant.

#1 In his day, the ADSC was 8 years. #2 He went to the AF Reserves shortly after his rescue ordeal.

Good luck on that one. Two decades ago, the same thing happened to Dave Lindsay -- the guy who spent millions of his own $ developing, building, and testing the aircraft that ended up as the Piper PA-48 Enforcer. Google it -- it was a kick-ass turboprop COIN airplane designed around the P-51 airframe, and it would have completely embarassed the AT-6B, the Super Tucano, and the A-67 (or whatever it's being called these days). Maj Gen Barry Goldwater prompted him to develop the thing in the first place, and he spent the next 15 years trying to get the USAF to buy it. In the end he lost 100% of his investment, his companies folded, and he never constructed another airplane. All because the major defense contractors used their lobbying power and the fast-jet Generals at TAC couldn't stomach the idea of a prop-driven taildragger made by a non "military-industrial" manufacturer. EDIT: Fixed the name of the A-67.

This was better when it was called the Ayers Vigilante.

Up next: Doc Foglesong Day! Still to come (sts): Tony McPeak Day.

Hence the 'form 682'.

I wouldn't be so quick to doubt that scenario just because he went on a media-blitz defensive threat reaction. Kelly Flynn went on a media blitz, too, and the story she was spewing out to the media ('I was punished for loving the wrong man!') was completely different than what the actual charges were against her.

Unless there is more to the story.

Remember, that homosexual orientation is the topic of the "DA/DT" policy. Homosexual activity is what is prohibited and prosecutable by the UCMJ. This should tell you that there is more to the story than simply someone saying they are homosexual.

That's a sonofabitch.... Didn't know ya, DASH...but based on what your bros think if you, I bet I would have liked to.