Hacker

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.

Did the USAF make such a big deal about it? Or did Stain make a big deal about it?

Don't confuse your rank with my authority.

There is *a* photo at 0+37 into the video that shows him sitting in the front seat of something, but it is not a Strike Eagle. Looks like it could be a Corsair, and judging by the patches he's wearing, it's probably at the NAS Pensacola Museum.

Easy, there. Ferenbach is a WSO.

The 69th what? Is it the Werewolves, the old Viper squadron from Moody?

Excellent work, my friend. Next stop: dolphin trainers and professional bowlers.

No. Once you PCS, you will lose your quals.

Don't be a retard. This is legitimate.

Another vote for 92T0 as an IFF student.

Because guys at Vance, Sheppard, and Laughlin don't want to say "one mississippi, two mississippi, three mississippi..."

This is about the time that I'd remind the supervisor and his PT-gear clad Airman that they should be at attention when talking to an officer, and that I'd be more than happy to talk with HIS officer supervisor or Commander about it. I have no tolerance for how personnel at UPT bases seem to think that UPT students are cadets or something. It's one thing for UPT IPs to treat studs like dirt within the constructs of the training environment. It is another thing entirely for base personnel, who have precisely zero to do with training officers to fly aircraft, to do the same. I saw that crap at Moody all the time.

Who needs nipple cover? Boobs are cleared hot in UK papers and (after 2100) on television.

Jesus, what a terrible photo. You'd think that they would at least have the sense to clean it up a little in photoshop before releasing it. Or, hell, maybe their shutter-actuator is so lousy that this IS the corrected image...

+1 You should see some of the retarded arguments that happen in IP meetings when the Weapons Officer is doing their reviews of the "playbook" (how different maneuvers and such are taught). It was not uncommon to spend two hours straight arguing about if students should jink in idle or MAX, and to leave the meeting with the issue unresolved because so many people disagreed. Eventually, one of the old-school reservists would stand up, write "INTRODUCTION TO FIGHTER FUNDAMENTALS" on the white board, underline "FUNDAMENTALS" two or three times, and tell us to just decide on something because it didn't f*cking matter. %BFL is actually a primary technique used in the F-15E and F-16. Just as BeerMan mentioned, every IFF IP comes out of their MWS thinking "that's the way it's supposed to be done". The fact of the matter is, there are a lot of different ways that things are done and many MWSs do things differently. It was always hilarious to see new IPs go high PRF during their training over how they were directed to instruct a certain topic or maneuver, only to learn that people outside their MWS do that on a daily basis. I admit it, I was that way, too. I think that having been an IFF IP helped me shed a lot of my MWS biases because of this. In fact, I even picked up some techniques that I brought back to the Strike Pig and teach currently (ITP/IAA bombing is a good example).

CH, you would have a valid point if we were discussing doing those tasks as part of the SUPT T-1 syllabus. What was suggested, and what I was replying to, was the idea that IFF was superfluous as a separate squadron and training program, and that it could be rolled into the SUPT T-38 syllabus. You're actually proving my point a bit, anyway -- if a dude can't cut the night NVG landing on the dirt strip at FTU (?), he goes to an FEB and could potentially get re-rolled into another airframe. If that were part of the SUPT syllabus, then the non-hacker (sts) would simply be a washout and not a rated anything.

Sorry, hit 'reply' too soon and failed to mention the most 'political' reason to keep the course and squadron separate from SUPT ops. Another one of the important reasons IFF is a separate training course in a separate squadron is that it needs to take place outside the SUPT construct. Students going through the program are winged, rated graduates of the program. This means that anyone who washes out of the program can potentially be used somewhere else as a rated pilot. If the sorties were part of the SUPT program, anyone who could not cut Demo Pro Defensive BFM would be out on the street with no wings at all, and a total loss on the AF's investment.

Could it be done that way? Probably. Would the quality of wingmen going to the CAF suffer? Immensely. The purpose of the IFF squadron is to have a mini CAF unit manned only by fighter pilot IPs. That, in turn, allows students to learn everything from someone who has actually been there and done that. It is intended to be a clean break from the SUPT environment. It should be obvious that there is a lot more to IFF that simply teaching a guy how to fly formation, dogfight, and bomb. The non-flying portion of "fighter pilot university" is just as important as what is taught in the air. Again, in order for that education to have any sort of credibility it needs to be taught by someone who has actually been there. Unfortunately, you have T-38 squadrons that are manned with IPs who are former fighter guys, in addition to bomber dudes, and FAIPs. Additionally, SUPT T-38 squadrons are organized differently than typical CAF units. In addition, the dynamic of the IFF syllabus is that it requires direct-support sorties that are flown by flight leads. FAIPs and other IPs who have never been CAF flight leads need not apply, since it's impossible to teach a wingman how to be a wingman if the leader has never actually been one.

There are much, much bigger issues at play. There's a reason that when the IFF program was split up to all the UPT bases, that it remained a separate squadron instead of just a flight inside the UPT T-38 squadron.