HuggyU2

I arrive Friday at 0930. Name tag says HUGGY Name on the side of the jet will say "HUGGY". Short grey hair. Prematurely grey. I'm only 31 years old. Big forehead. Most people call it a fivehead. 5'10", 200#. I will still beat most of you in the PT test... Even with my artificial hip. I'll generally be with Kent Pietsch (performer). Come say hi and join us.

$22 says those that chime in will say "you can, as long as you avoid commuting".

If you're PCS there. Taking leave to go. Maybe even if you're there TDY (good luck). See you there, hopefully.

... they're...

Yes, Scott is honest, and very meticulous. I flew with him for 3 years at PIT, and would highly recommend him, based on that.

If you are ever in an interview that asks you that question... a. You are doing it wrong. Raise your standards. b. You need to stand up and leave that interview... run as fast as you can. c. re-evaluate what you are looking for in a career job, as a pilot with quality turbine time. d. tell your friends what happened so they will not make that bad choice also. e. All of the above. E.

Aviation, and the experiences that make it what it is, aren't just about "bang for the buck".

Why? 1. Because it is a professional certification for pilots. I happen to be a professional pilot. 2. Because I enjoy flying. And if I'm going to spend time flying, I see no reason not to brush up on the FAA/ Civilian part of things, and get the rating. It was a great time. 3. Because I get to opportunity to learn something from the IP and the DPE that I worked with. 4. Because it gives me another opportunity to interact with my local FSDO. As it turns out, my FSDO is made up of a great group of inspectors, and I have a very good rapport with them. 5. It gave me the excuse to get checked out in another aircraft. I like that. I'm up to about 95 different types that I've flown. I'm a better pilot for it. 6. I could list more, but you get the idea. But if it's too much of a hassle for you, don't bother. I guess.

I haven't been to an "AMS" Dining Out, but have been to many others. If he is wearing a Mess Dress, you should be in "cocktail attire".

Get the cherry picker. You'll need it. I'll keep this brief. I went to AFPC in Oct, walked in the front door planning to go see two people in 2 different offices. I'd been there many times throughout my career, and know my way through the building. However the foyer was different. There were now doors leading to the hallways that take you into the building. I walk past the receptionist (hmmm... why do they need that), and went to open the door. It's locked. I try again... And get the "Excuse me??" from the receptionist. I turn, and notice about 6 people staring at me like I've invaded the place. It turns out the building was "upgraded" so that you have to have a badge, and use it on the electronic door scanner to get in. You cannot just go in to AFPC anymore. So,... I have to have the receptionist call the person I was going to see, wait for someone to find them and send them to the foyer, and have them ESCORT me (you know...the guy in uniform with the ID card) in. While I'm waiting, some guy in a suit starts talking to me, and explains how they had to change things. "It's too dangerous. We've had people come in and yell at our people, even act threatening." Wow. The Air Force Personnel Center... the place where the people in the AF can go to openly discuss their careers... on a guarded military installation... has intentionally found another way to reduce our ability to speak with the those that affect our career development. Apparently partly under the guise of "security" and "work place safety". Many of you may not agree that this is another significant step backwards. However, the symbolism,... the further lack of transparency,... as a minimum, speaks volumes. The pussification continues.

Based on the size of the guy in your avatar, there's room for two of you.

I attended the Hoover Gala last month in LA. You are absolutely correct. https://hooverhallofhonor.com/hall-of-honor/ And you can include Col Bud Anderson. Great American.

Here's a letter a retiree wrote. I'd recommend changing some of it (and shrinking it down). It's not perfect, but it's a good start. For example, the RQ-4 is out of electrical power. You can't plug any more into it. (Correct me if I'm incorrect, RQ-4 drivers on here). Oh... and be sure to mention the fact that they just announced the RQ-4 will require $1,900,000,000 in upgrades to match the U-2 capes. Of course, you KNOW that figure is probably way high, and the contractors will come in under budget... just like the RQ-4 did. Oh wait!!! Hi Mr Nunn! Hi Mr McCurdy! Subject: DO NOT LET THE AIR FORCE RETIRE THE U-2 Last year, the US Air Force received congressional direction to reverse their decision to de-fund the remaining three Global Hawk Block 30’s and put almost $500,000,000.00 into the Global Hawk account and killing the U-2 program in the process. The United States, the Combatant Commands, the warfighter, and the taxpayer cannot afford the loss of the venerable U-2! The Global Hawk unmanned system has served this country well. Its capability, in terms of autonomy and endurance are very noteworthy. It has provided valuable intelligence data for use by decisionmakers. But…at best, the Global Hawk is merely complementary to the U-2. While it's understandable to view the Global Hawk and U-2 as interchangeable reconnaissance aircraft, they are not! It does appear that the congress has received and acted upon information on the Global Hawk that is false! The U-2's multi-INT reconnaissance sensors are far superior. The U-2 operates in all whether conditions at altitudes ten to fifteen thousand feet higher than the Global Hawk and carries a robust defensive system that allows for operations in more challenging environments. The Global Hawk doesn't have any self-protection equipment and is limited to operating in clear skies since it doesn't have an anti-ice capability. That said, the Global Hawk does not possess the aggregate capabilities of the U-2. The Global Hawk does not fly as high as the U-2, it does not “see” or “hear” as far as the U-2. While the U-2 soars through 65,000 feet in less than 30 minutes and operates between 65k and 70+k feet, the Global Hawk takes many hours to pass through 50,000 and takes 15+ hours to climb to its maximum ops altitude of 57,000 feet. And much more… The U-2 does so much more. The U-2 has the ability for Multi-Int (IMINT & SIGINT) cross-cueing that can be dynamically re-tasked. The Global Hawk does not. The U-2 is modular in design and can “plug-in-play” its sensors. The Global Hawk does not. The U-2 has a defensive system. The Global Hawk does not. The Global Hawk requires dedicated, and expensive, AWACS for DUE REGARD in the PACOM AOR, the U-2 does not. The U-2 is also communications node for 5th to 5th and 5th to 4th fighters and US Navy combat ships. Fortunately for the taxpayer, the U-2s have been modernized, been re-engined, have glass cockpits, and have a service life well past 2050. With the incredible budget challenges facing the United States, we cannot afford to fund a partially capable system of the Global Hawk and force the USAF to ramp down the U-2. Just ask the Combatant Commanders!! Therefore, I request action: Provide congressional direction to Defense Department and USAF to continue to fund, sustain, and improve the U-2 program until such time as an adequate system is developed to replace it. Signed, US Citizen & Taxpayer

Don't worry about it... Mountain's been shown the door of the bar before. He's used to it.

Don't throw our squadrons into this generalization. Life if good over here, thanks in large part to our squadron leadership.

Add 30.

MEMORANDUM FOR ADDRESSEES FROM: ACC/A3 205 Dodd Blvd, Ste 101 Joint Base Langley-Eustis, VA 23665-2789 SUBJECT: ACC/A3 FY14 Aerial Event Guidance 1. This guidance is provided to consolidate and expand upon the FY14 Aerial Event references within the attached CSAF FY14 Spending Control Guidance Memorandum; and the issued and attached OSD/PA FY14 USAF Outreach Criteria. This guidance supersedes all previous ACC Aerial Event guidance, and is to remain in effect until further notice. Complete NAF coordination prior to meeting all referenced suspense timelines that follow. 2. Orientation Flight Program guidance in reference to the CSAF FY14 Spending Control Guidance: a. Familiarization Orientation Flights which incur no additional cost to the Air Force, and do not impact training, may be accomplished IAW AFI 11-401, Aviation Management. Follow AFI 11-401 ACC SUP 1 Table 1.1 delegated approval levels for Familiarization Orientation Flights. b. DV, Incentive, and Spouse Orientation Flights may NOT be delegated below the MAJCOM/CV. Therefore, submit these requests to ACC/A3 no later than 20 DUTY DAYS prior to the flight for those flights which require an ACC/CV approval; and 30 DUTY DAYS prior to the flight for those flights which will require a HAF level or higher approval. Include within the request a full justification identifying the direct benefit to the Air Force, while also addressing all additional costs that will be incurred; and any associated impacts on training that are expected. c. Following further coordination with AF/A3O, the ACC Spouse Taxi-Ride Program will revert back to following AFI 11-401 ACC SUP 1 procedures, allowing for WG/CC approvals, delegated to no lower than the OG/CC. If it is determined that your program will include additional costs to the Air Force, and/or will have an impact on training, then an ACC/CV approval will be required. 3. Additional guidance in reference to the OSD/PA FY14 USAF Outreach Criteria: a. Public Affairs Media Flights may be accomplished IAW AFI 35-103, Public Affairs Travel. Follow the Delegation of COMACC Authority letter for Media Flight OPERATIONAL approvals ONLY. Follow PA channels for the also required Media Flight PARTICIPATION approvals IAW AFI 35-103. Submit requests that require ACC/CV approval no later than 20 DUTY DAYS prior to the event. Ensure to fully justify, in coordination with PA as delegated, that the direct benefit to the Air Force outweighs all additional costs that will be incurred; and any associated impacts on training that are to be expected. b. Public Affairs Non-Media (Civic Leader) Flights now require SAF/PA participation approval, and will be considered on a case by case basis. Follow PA channels for SAF/PA consideration. c. Funeral Flyovers may be accomplished IAW AFI 11-209, Aerial Event Policy and Procedures. Submit these requests for ACC/A3 approval no later than 7 DUTY DAYS prior to the funeral, subject to notification. IAW AFI 11-209, funeral flyovers are to be accomplished as an adjunct to a normal training sortie. d. Static Displays are authorized when in support of a SAF/PA Approved USAF Open House, and now require MAJCOM approval. Therefore, Units are now to volunteer on the SAF/PA Website, and then submit a Static Display request for ACC/A3 approval no later than 7 DUTY DAYS prior to the event. Include within the request a complete cross country itinerary; the planned training objectives to be accomplished; and a justification if any additional costs, and/or impacts on training will be realized. e. Aerial Demonstrations and Flyovers are authorized for those Wings hosting an Open House, subject to utilizing organic Wing assets only. Units will now volunteer on the SAF/PA website to support their own Open House, and then submit a request for ACC/A3 approval no later than 10 DUTY DAYS prior to the event. 4. OSD/PA and AF/CV remain the Exception to Policy (ETP) waiver authorities for all other Aerial Event requests. Such ETP requests are to be forwarded to ACC/A3 for consideration no later than 30 DUTY DAYS prior to the event. Include a full justification which identifies the direct benefit to the Air Force, while also addressing all additional costs, and associated impacts on training that may occur.

Almost correct: 28 of the 32 remaining airframes were built in the 80's (the last being delivered in 1989). The other four were built in the 1968 build. In any case, it's irrelevant: - the airframes have 50,000 more hours of life on them. - the "stuff" that does the ISR mission is somewhat "modular"... i.e. there is a ton of "new stuff" on the jet, in the from of MULTI-INT "stuff". -- yes, it's true! The sensors on the U-2 are from the 21st century! Stop focusing on the airframe as the only piece of the equation!! Oh... and no need to do a bunch of flight testing and integration with said sensors: we've already proven they work on the U-2. Good luck with the RQ-4! And watch out for the icing.

Gen Hostage, ACC Commander: “It appears that I will be told I have to continue to purchase Global Hawks, and given the budget picture that we have, I cannot afford both the U-2 and the Global Hawk,” the Air Combat Command leader said. “What that means is that we are going to have to spend buckets of money to get the Global Hawk up to some semblance of capability that the U-2 currently has. It is going to cost a lot of money and it is going to take time, and as I lose the U-2 fleet, I now have a high-altitude ISR fleet that is not very useful in a contested environment.” If... and that's a big if... they continue down the path to retire the U-2, the plan appears to be that the FTU shuts down 1 Oct 2015, and the rest of the U-2 program will end 1 Oct 2016. .

You should plan on 60-70 on, 60-70 off. It might end up being less than that, but do not count on it. Expect that pace for your first 18 months on the line (which starts about 10 months after you arrive). 1. If you are applying soon, have you called to speak to the Recruiting branch at Beale? If not, why not? DSN 368-4447/8464. 2. "I'm guessing... ". Why guess? You have an opportunity to go to an assignment that minimizes AFPC's control over your life. For once, you have control over the decision. Make sure it is what you want. Don't guess. Take leave and fly to Beale for a few days and visit the squadron and local area. Talk with the pilots that are AT Beale NOW, and flying the line. if you end up getting hired to the U-2, and after a year or two you wish you hadn't done it, you have no one to blame but yourself. AFPC didn't force you to come here. It is all-volunteer. Choose carefully.

Anyone that would like more U-2 info from me, please pm me. I'm not checking the forums anymore, but will strive to check my inbox on occasion.

So,... how much experience does he have with dealing with the AF? From Wiki: "He supports allowing openly transgender persons to serve in the military..."

Ridiculous. Have you seen your mental health rep lately?? Until you do, stop taking Crazy Pills.

Yep. About 1300 on furlough at United. Some of those guys were hired in 1999. Yes,... 1999. ---------- For those at the 11 year point who are considering this 9 year bonus, please read the fine print. My question is this: If you get passed over for O-5, can the AF involuntarily separate you? If you are RIF'd, will the AF require you to pay back your remaining bonus? Bottom line: - under what terms can YOU get out of the bonus early? - under what terms can the AF terminate the contract unilaterally? ----------- Let's analyze the word "BONUS". It comes from the Latin root "BONE",... a verb,... which means "to sexually assault". The "US" suffix is the third-person-plural of the verb BONE. Therefore "BONUS", in the vernacular, translates loosely as "bone us".

What happens when sexual orientation with animals is the preference? How about with dead people? How about "my sexual orientation means I am attracted to having multiple wives"? What about cross-dressing? Can a squadron commander wear a woman's uniform? Some things that seem far-fetched now might be quite plausible in 10-20 years. For me, a candidate's orientation is relevant. Why? One reason is because it is a given they will push their agenda. And they will often do that at the expense of what is right, and what is needed. Not to go off on a tangent, but let's face it: we had folks being required to wear reflective belts pretty much 24/7, and anywhere outdoors. Then DADT gets repealed. Now this. Am I the only one that sees a connection here?