Hueypilot
-
Posts
384 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Downloads
Wiki
Everything posted by Hueypilot
-
What unit are you in?
-
Governors and the president have powers of pardon, and while its raises eyebrows with some of the shady people pardoned in the past, no one is screaming to get rid of pardoning rights. In the case of the military GCMCA powers, overturning a conviction is reserved for doing do when there are irregularities with the conviction. While there is nothing stopping a GCMCA from overturning a conviction for any reason, you'd be hard pressed to find any officer who'd do so without compelling reason. Pardons, on the other hand, seem to be granted for just about any spurious reason, to include political favors (see Clinton's list of pardons). At least the UCMJ had a rhyme and reason for the process.
- 219 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- Military law
- Sexual assault
- (and 1 more)
-
You assume someone needs a real reason to lie. I'll submit that the reason may only exist in that persons head. I gave the example of my divorce because she would often lie with no real motive other than in her own reality she truly was a victim. She was diagnosed with borderline personality disorder during our breakup. I was always civil and people who know me know I'm not the confrontational type, yet she'd consistently paint me as a monster to her friends and even my leadership, because in her mind...well, even I don't know what was going on in there. Lucky for me she got caught lying by my leadership red-handed and crossed a few lines with them, but I cringe to wonder if she hadn't been caught in a lie. Again, she had no real reason to make sh1t up, but she did. I can't say that the woman in this story is like that or not, but simply saying "she has no reason to lie" is conjecture in itself. As someone else stated, it appears you've never dealt with a bat-sh1t crazy female. Edited to remove multiple repeat posts...
-
People can fail polygraphs talking about totally truthful things...they aren't reliable. You can ask "why would she lie" all day long, the point is, sometimes people do. I had an ex that pulled that crap all the time, and while we were divorcing even threatened to tell the cops I beat her. I was advised by a legal friend to take those threats seriously, because even there was zero evidence of abuse, at a minimum I'd still wind up in the lock-up for a while until the legal system did its thing. My commander caught her telling him a bunch of lies too, and he even remarked that he couldn't believe someone would lie like that, but that's what some people do to protect #1 or whatever it is they perceive they need to lie for. I'm not saying the accuser in this case did lie. But there's no hard proof that he lied either, at least not about anything central to the case. Most people you can take at face value. But I've learned the hard way that not everyone acts with honorable intent. "She said, he said". There's a reason why those cases that only rely on the word of the parties involved are tough to convict, because barring a smoking gun or a slip up that convincingly demonstrates guilt, it's a long road to meeting the legal requirement for a conviction. You put a lot of trust in juries. They've convicted innocent people before. And if they couldn't find OJ guilty, this man needed to walk.
-
I know this may be hard for some people to grasp but in our justice system you aren't supposed to be "found innocent". You are innocent and it's the prosecution's job to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you're guilty. Given media reaction and other comments I've seen in various cases in the media, it doesn't surprise me that many people see it the other way around, which is why despite the conviction by a jury, there is still a process of judicial review....to ensure our justice system was followed correctly. I am fairly confident that reversing jury findings by a GCMCA is pretty rare and only exercised in cases that have substantial doubts. I know enlisted troops feel that officers get away with stuff...I was enlisted for a while. But I know for a fact that officers can get f$cked over too, it's just rarely ever publicized.
- 219 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- Military law
- Sexual assault
- (and 1 more)
-
Ugh, enough already with the officer vs enlisted diatribes....reading some of the other military forums that's all anyone seems to care about in this case.
-
I think even the general acknowledged that something fishy *could* have happened, but from what I could see and apparently from Lt Gen. Franklin's point of view, there were still large inconsistencies that left the door wide open to serious doubts. I saw nothing that caused me to say "oh yeah, he got nailed there (sts)". Last I checked we don't convict people based on "could haves" or "seemed to appears". In my experiences with friends and even myself, when it comes to these highly politicized charges like rape, sexual assault and other gender-based crimes, the man is very often guilty until proven innocent. In many cases they are right, but I know of people who were accused of stuff that were only involved in situations they believed (at the time) in good faith to be "ok".
-
I never cared about that stuff. I was called L-T plenty by enlisted types. As an Army warrant I was called "Chief" a lot too even though nothing in the ARs says that's appropriate. Just more queep to worry about while people are disregarding the rules that matter most.
-
Even after the release of the general's letter and the court documents, the public opinion is still tilted against the general. Reading some articles makes your blood boil, like this one: "Air Force General Defends Overturning Sexual Assault Conviction By Blaming Victim" https://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/04/11/1851221/general-overturn-sexual-assault/?mobile=wt The author obviously read the memo with their mind already made up. The facts they cherry picked for the article were the weaker facts and they completely left out the bigger holes in the case. The comments are even more maddening, and it's obvious 99% of those commenting didn't even read the memo but instead threw out their Jump To Conclusions mat... Worse, now Hagel is jumping on the popular bandwagon and suggesting that GCMCAs be stripped of any ability to overturn or set aside any part of convictions... "Hagel wants military brass stripped of ability to overturn convictions, officials say" https://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57578482/hagel-wants-military-brass-stripped-of-ability-to-overturn-convictions-officials-say/ Did any of these clowns READ any of the trial testimony? I read a lot of it today as well as the general's letter and there are HUGE question marks. There were NO smoking guns or clean kills presented by the prosecution. And Gen Franklin did say that it wasn't impossible for the events to happen the way the accuser stated they did, but he felt strongly that it was also not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that it did happen. After reading the court information, I also had significant questions that were not addressed. Unfortunately we live in an era where in these types of cases you are often guilty until proven innocent.
- 219 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- Military law
- Sexual assault
- (and 1 more)
-
Dupe, the point is, there's a lot of duplication in those overall costs. Yes, there is a depot system, MICAP, engineering, and so on. But those people and systems support multiple airframes, and the "ownership costs" should not be promoted as if they are hourly operating costs. Compare it to a car...lets say you own a BMW...someone might ask how much it costs you to commute to work for a week. A reasonable answer might include gas, insurance, and preventative/unscheduled mx. If you came up with costs like the article mentions, you'd include the annual cost of gas, the money BMW spends on supporting their mx/parts distribution, the manpower spent by the insurance company, the cost of maintaining and operating the gas stations you fill up at... My point is, your BMW went from costing $200 or so a week to thousands of dollars a week...but it's not a realistic cost because those other costs are spread out over other people's cars as well.
-
It appears they took the cost of an entire program (development, operating costs, etc) and then divided it up by flying hours. For example, the C-130E was listed at $18,000 in 2008 but by 2012 the cost per hour went to $89,000. I'm not the smartest guy in the room but as far as I know fuel costs didn't rise THAT much...however total C-130E flying hours plummeted due to retirements. Unfortunately, these figures are being sold to the public as "it costs $89,000 to keep a C-130E airborne", yet it factors in everything related to the program, including non-flying related costs.
-
Eventually the IP course will be sim-only, like the C-130J. It'll take a couple years to wind up at that end state. Meanwhile, starting this summer the ANG will start sending crews down to the FTU. As they pick up the FTU, they'll gradually stop doing the IP course.
-
Your biggest hurdle will be the fact you're in a low density high demand AFSC, and still owe a number of years. As for the declining UPT thing, it depends on if you declined it as a ROTC cadet and never received orders, or were you on your way to UPT and decided "no thanks, I want another career field". If the AFPC system only knows you as a CRO and they have no record of you telling your PAS "no thanks boss I wanna be a CRO, not a pilot" then I think you're ok. If there's nothing in writing saying you turned down a UPT slot for a CRO slot, don't worry about it. It never existed in the minds of AFPC staffers. I know the USAF has always hurt for CROs so good luck. You can always apply, but realize once you do, you're showing your cards. Good leadership will support you as long as you still work hard and don't go FIGMO, but other leaders will turn their backs on you like mine did, and treat you like you're traitorous scum. Either way, think about it because if the odds of PC-ing are low, 2-3 years is a long time to go with leaders that are unsupportive.
-
I said this in the other string of comments about TEB and an ADSC....read the fine print on the ADSC. It states that a transfer incurs a 4 year service commitment in either the regular military OR the selective reserve (ie any normal active reservist). If anyone tells you that you must stay on active duty because of TEB they are WRONG. The Guard/Reserve ADSC for TEB reads just like my RegAF ADSC did. The only ADSCs that matter with regard to Palace Chase are UPT, advanced flying training (for some) or initial service commitments. TEB ADSCs only matter if you're trying to completely separate from the military entirely. Palace Chase requires service in the selective reserves and thus meets the requirement for continuing to fulfill your ADSC. Just because someone works at AFPC or is otherwise in a position of authority doesn't necessarily mean the know the rules 100%. I had to remind AFPC people of their own rules on occasion when I PC'd. Know the rules. Know your rights.
-
Yes.
-
"A couple of years" is relative...the 61st won't see their first J till late in FY13, unless it slid further to FY14. With the ACC/AFSOC J-model build-up its been taking AMC J-model squadrons 2ish years to acquire all their PAA airframes. I wouldn't expect Yokota to get a J until FY16 at the earliest, given that DoD has a huge target on its budget right now. The 50th will more than likely be the LRF TFI unit. I've heard distant rumors that the 314th may gain a second J-model FTU squadron in the future, but who knows. They can barely handle the PFT from the current level of AMC/AFSOC/ACC/International students.
-
I wonder if this is a product of AFFSA saying we have to cancel IFR to descend below IFR enroute altitude to get to IFR drop altitude...or vice versa...
-
As Spinner noted, those four options are the ones most often cited. If I were you, if they give you a choice go AFSOC or white jets. The MC-12 has a questionable future IMHO. Right now it's getting funding because of what it's doing in Afghanistan, but when the strategic focus shifts more to conventional threats like China (and it likely will at some point) the MC-12 will probably be dispersed to the ARC due to its niche mission....then you'll wind up being homeless all over again. The last round of iron swaps and cuts saw DoD try to put the MC-12 mission more with ARC units, and over time it will probably get its way. At that point, you'll be an ISR pilot ready-made for one of those UAS slots. Just my .02 cents. White jets, you're looking at doing the FAIP thing or maybe even OSA. I flew the C-21 a while back and that mission is a blast, but again, you're opening yourself to having AFPC decide your fate again after a UPT/OSA tour. At least if you found a real MWS in AFSOC you'd be (relatively) safe. Plus assuming since you were a T-38 grad you originally wanted to wind up in the CAF, getting an AC-130 of some flavor or even an MC-130 puts you back in the fight. Then again, you might not have any say. In that case, good luck.
-
All in all, it depends on where you were headed. If you had orders for Yokota or one of the current TFI units (Peterson, WY or Pope) you'll probably continue. If you were going to a LRF H-model unit, you may get sent to another airframe. If Little Rock was your final destination, then prepare for a change of plans. That does not mean you will get a change of assignments, but as the 53rd closes, the 61st goes J and the 50th transitions to a smaller footprint (no one is entirely sure what it will look like just yet), there's plenty of uncertainty for LRF-bound legacy pilots.
-
Back to the subject...here's the latest RUMINT: LRF: 41AS, 61AS will be J. 48AS will probably take the 62AS flag. I've heard faint rumors that if the J-model PFT picks up, there's an outside possibility of a second J-model schoolhouse squadron (48AS redux?). The ANG (154TRS) will become the H-model schoolhouse. The AFRC wing will have C-130H2s and will be combat coded (likely the 913AW) and will have an AMC TFI squadron that is yet-to-be announced (prob the 50AS). 53AS will probably close. Yokota at some point in the future will probably go J-model as well. All the RQS units will have HC-130Js and AFSOC MC-130Ps and AC-130Hs will switch to the MC-130J and AC-130J. AFSOC will keep the MC-130H, MC-130W and AC-130U for a little while longer. Several ANG units that lost their airplanes will probably get a limited number of C-130Hs...not sure which ones though. At some point, the entire active duty USAF will be a J-model based fleet, to include AFSOC. Eventually that will happen to the ARC but most of their tails are new enough to last a while longer. I've heard the AF would really like to put the Rockwell-Collins avionics suite into their H fleet, but our f'd up procurement system is going to make that a challenge. It would give us digital avionics with CNS/ATM compliance and GPS approach capability for a fraction of the cost of the full-up Boeing AMP program. The USCG has modded their H-models with it and if you google it, it's a pretty sweet set up. Since it's purely an avionics set up and doesn't change how the rest of the airplane works, the H's will retain the FE and keep Navs onboard for tac flights.
-
There's a lot more to the J than that...that being said, having the automation available to use has benefits. A. I've got about 2k hours in E-H2.5s and Js. About 1,500 of those hours are in legacy airplanes and about 500 hours in Js. I've shut down one motor in the J for a low pitch stop fail ACAWS in Afghanistan, and that was precautionary. I've shut down no less than 6 engines in the E and H, some were precautionary and some just failed or were about to fail. So what's your point again? The low pitch stop fail issue is a known defect that's being worked at the AFMC and manufacturer level to redesign the PCU. The low pitch stops don't actually fail, it's just a sensor problem. From my time working wing safety, the legacy had the J beat in ESPs by a mile. B. As for the ALZ issue, dunno about that one. Operator issues, I guess. I clear the ALZ just as fast in a J as I do in the E or H. C. The "Super Hercules" thing is said mostly to irritate the legacy dudes, IMHO. Who cares. D. The J can do no-flaps. There's a reason they don't on a regular basis...the J-30 WILL strike a tail skid if you land it zero flap. The short Js can do it just as fine as the legacy Herks, but they don't practice in the airplane because 95% of the fleet comprise the J-30 and it's just one of those USAF-isms of "if most of the fleet can't do it without risk of damage, then none of them should". It lands just like a legacy bird in zero flap configuration....and other than emergency procedures that necessitate it, why risk damaging the airplane? E. Actually, the airplane only takes a snapshot of data every few seconds, so if your overspeed is very transitory, it may not even capture it...not any worse than a FE that notices your overspeed. Again, what's your point? F. This is the part that is most controversial...and having gone from E/H to J and back to H again, I can say with 100% honesty that I'd rather have the J flight deck. You have lots of SA from all the displays and only a few people talking on intercomm. It's actually much more chaotic on a legacy flight deck on a low level and I'm always having to tell someone to "standby" so I can catch a radio call...plus if I lose SA, I have to have a conversation with someone in order to regain it, versus in the J I can just pull up a display and figure it out. The legacy intercom system sucks, I have to listen to the copilot breathing into his hot mic and the nav talking over the radio calls...you get my point. For what it's worth, I love both the legacy and the J...both great airplanes. But the J is a very good improvement. You can't speak to that if you've never flown one.
-
53AS will likely inactivate. 50AS will probably be an associate to the LRF AFRC unit (probably gonna become the 913AG). 53WRS (WC-130Js at Keesler...Hurricane Hunters) will remain at BIX while their sister squadron the 815AS will close. The 815th's slick Js will probably go to Pope to the 440AW, and I've heard the future 913AG will get Pope's old H2s. Note my liberal use of the word "probably".
-
The squadrons at LRF were the only remaining non-TFI H-model units other than Yokota...so it's safe to say unless you're going there, you're gonna be in a TFI squadron or you were ARC to begin with. As a disclaimer, things change every week with the future Herk roadmap. But as it stands today expect that the AD USAF will plan to divest itself of the C-130H except for the TFI units. At some point even Yokota will become a J-model squadron. There are plans on the books for a H-model TFI squadron at LRF but few details yet...it's not even officially announced but that's the direction things are going.
-
I wanted to clarify this for you...I PC'd last year while deployed. It's true that in general you cannot PC while deployed, but there's an exception for aircrew. Reference IC-2 from AFI 36-3205, dated 12 Nov 2009. Look at Rule 27, it excepts aircrew members from the deployment rule. I had this hurdle and both the PC office and my recruiter said no dice, you're deployed. I quoted this part of the reg and they did a 180 and accepted my packet because they had to per the AFI. Another thing regarding the scrolls...I don't know of anyone who didn't get scrolled, but it will take 3-6 weeks for the unit to receive your AO (Appt Order) and you can't show up for duty prior to that, although your gain date will reflect the day after you separate from AD. Best thing is to contact your gaining unit and have them check on the scrolling the couple weeks leading to your sep date. And it took me about 8 weeks...if you want to know where it's at, get ahold of the PC office phone number and call them. They can tell you what stage it's at. It goes to them first, then your career functional manager, then the AFPC assignments chief, then it's forwarded to SAF/PC. Chances of approval are pretty good if its at the SAF level because that means AFPC said they don't need you and at that point, SAF is only looking at overall officer end strength.
-
So... Judging by the picture with that article it's now ok to wear my PT shirt backwards under my ABUs? Or is that an exemption reserved for Chiefs since its just a prop (much like NBCs David Gregory and the 30 round clip he wielded in DC)?
