HeloDude

Ahh yes....my mistake. Carry on gentlemen.

Spoken like a guy who never flew in a crew aircraft...which is accurate given that you quit UPT, most likely during the T-37/6 phase (if you even made it that far). By the way, I value my enlisted aircrew members and their contributions 100 times more than I value whatever you do in the Air Force. Thank you for sitting in your chair--in your 1G, zero knot environment.

Just curious....why would you go through the ass pain of getting a Class 3 for 1.5 inches of reduced barrel length? Don't get me wrong, 1.5'' can be a substantial difference in life...I just don't think it applies in this situation though.

You're 11 months behind the power curve man. On the positive side, it is pretty cool that you took enough interest in the video to post it.

I've been hearing a lot about this 'new' from Smith & Wesson that will be revealed later this week...seems that someone has leaded a picture... What do you guys think? I personally love Smith & Wesson firearms...carry a MP40c on occasion, but would definitely go for an even slimmer gun as the MP40c is a bit on the heavy/large side. I'm assuming this will be a single stack, much like a Kahr, Kel Tec, etc. As much as I am a fan of the .40, I'll probably get this in a 9mm if that's all they come out with, though I'd be willing to wager that they'll also come out with a .40 version. Not a fan of what looks like to be an external safety, but what can you do.

For all the young guys on this board (Captains awaiting their boards and younger) who want to stay in, the writing is clear as crystal looking at the stats--you need to get your masters degree. I spit out the kool-aid a long time ago, so I'm not giving you the company line...I'm telling you what it takes to get picked up for O-4. Grant it, there are obviously guys who make it without having a masters, but statistically, they're rolling the dice. It's the one thing that is 100% within your control (that and at a minimum getting SOS in correspondence)--no excuse if you want to stay in. I also know of a WG/CC who flat out told his O's that if you don't have your masters, you won't even get looked at for a DP--so you get double-screwed (just like BQZip's Mom getting DP'd).

Believe it or not (and to be fair), I know a couple of the the JA types, and they told me that within the last couple of years it's been much tougher to get selected for AF JA. The reason given is the overage of folks attending/graduating from law school, poor economy, etc. I'm not saying the AF is getting the #1 grad of a top law school, but I don't think it's as bad as it once was.

Damn it...hate seeing this. RIP brother. Thank you for giving your life to our country and her freedom.

Dude, don't knock the Boone's.... ...or even better

Irrelevant on both arguments--you either break the regs/fly in a reckless manner, or you don't. It doesn't matter if you're an AF A-10 guy or an Army Apache guy...rules are rules. The severity of the punishment IMHO should be determined by: What was the final result? Could people have been hurt?...especially those not in the aircraft? Is there a history of these guys breaking the rules?

Sorry Rainman, but I respectfully disagree with you on this one. Unless there's something from the video we don't know (ie they were authorized to perform a 'return to target' type maneuver flying less than 50-100' over their buds or doing this in a direct combat situation), flying this way, especially around people, is never a good idea. We still show videos of the B-52 pilot clearing the ridge line by less than a couple hundred feet to only then later over-bank the aircraft during an airshow practice, killing everyone onboard--fortunately it appears that nobody died from this incident. At what point does reckless/dangerous flying become (or not become) criminal? Also, how are we going to teach the young guys 'what not to do' if we can never show them concrete examples?

I know this was posted in a different thread, but IMO it definitely deserves to get posted here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDOCh6QWQm8 I think this video should be shown to every aircrew member on the next safety day. I've heard a lot of folks (especially O-6's when talking to the squadrons) discuss various things as a 'lack of flight discipline', and sometimes those things discussed as lacking flight discipline is little more than guys just having a bad day (ie guys doing their job and then just making a mistake vs intentionally breaking a reg). I think this is one is pretty clear cut...

I drink the 12-year as part of my regular rotation. It's pretty good (good price at the Class 6 too)--sweeter than most IMHO, bit of honey flavor, some fruit. A good/easy scotch to start off with as drinking whisky for the first time often takes some getting used to. I have gotten into the more smokier/peatier scotches over the last few months--Talisker, Lagavulin, Laphrroaig, etc. Though to me, there are a lot of different kinds I like, so I rotate them through pretty often. This Scotsman has done A LOT of reviews on different kinds of scotch...I've watched a lot of them. Definitely worth watching.

Ummm, isn't that what I said? Option refers to either semi-automatic or 3-rd burst. If I was referring to the M4 as only having 3-rd burst, then it wouldn't be much of an option...

I know it doesn't change your intent, but last I checked, guys in theater have automatic (3-rd burst option) rifles ie M4's (at least mine was). But back to the original point--look, Afghans aren't that bright. Neither were the Iraqis, which is pretty bad because the Iraqis are a hell of lot smarter than Afghans.

So 5-6 years ago, me and my buddy went to a Friday CGOC meeting at the club to get some free beer and snacks and to check out who was there (never know, there might have been a hot nurse or something). I can't remember what they talked about, but they specifically asked me and my fellow helo brother why more pilots don't come to the meetings/get involved--it was a fair question. I basically told them that the stereotype is that non-rated guys don't like rated guys...for similar reasons listed above. A few of the dudes there said that wasn't true, but I told them that it didn't really matter because that was the perception, and that unless something changes, that's just how it was going to continue to be. I also told him that it's different being aircrew because we have our own squadron bar, there are a lot of fellow CGO's to hang out with (unlike in the MX Sq), and that the unpredictable flying schedule doesn't allow us to go to meeting, etc. They were friendly, we got our free beer, but that was about it--we never went back. My overall opinion is that folks that want to be on the CGOC are (for the most part) tools and suck asses. I've have several close friends at bases who were non-rated officers who are cool as hell to hang out with--and those guys also thought the CGOC was made up of a bunch of tools too. So to be fair, it's not a purely rated vs non-rated thing. It's a 'tool' vs 'non-tool' thing. It just so happens (obviously so) that I've met more tools on the non-rated side and less on the rated side. Another thing that I've seen over ther years, is that non-rated guys are more likely to have a problem aircrew being so close and wanting to socially hang out with each other--regardless of rank, officer and enlisted, etc. Most support folks don't get that because they've never had an E literally save their ass. But again, my non-rated buddies understood that there were differences between flyers and non-flyers and it didn't really bother them. They also hung out with their E's at the bars and clubs downtown, so no difference there. Again, if you're cool, then you're cool. And if you're not, well....then you join the CGOC and/or go to their meetings.

Dude, what, are you kidding? 'True Romance' is an awesome movie! I can't speak for Slater's mom (just BQZip's mom), but everybody I've ever shown that movie to loved it, and quite a few went out and bought it afterwards. I heard from an old Pave (MH-53 for the non rotorheads) guy that it was a tradition to watch True Romance before they left for a deployment, but who knows. The movie provides awesome quotes as well.... "...do I look like a beautiful blonde with big tits and an ass that tastes like French vanilla ice cream?"

This looks badass! I'm all about original action movies, with cool guns, and a funny plot--hot chicks in the movie always helps too. I need to watch 'True Romance' again.

That's awesome how you compare defense spending to federal spending on the arts and food stamps. This is what is wrong with our country. Because the federal government wasn't intended to be 'Uncle Sugar' to everyone who wants a handout. If a state wants to tax the $hit out of their folks to give free handouts to folks, then so be it--I don't have to live in that state. Local governments and charities have always done a much better job in taking care of the people who can not truly take care of themselves. It's horrible that half the country thinks a bloated bureaucracy called the federal government can solve all of the problems. By the way...if you haven't seen it yet...research what percentage of income Romney gave to charity compared to Obama--very telling. And if you think that's sad, take a look at Biden's--crazy sad. Have you not seen the freaking federal debt caused by ongoing trillion dollar deficits??! The federal government can't even balance its budget and most on the left don't want any cuts (unless it's from defense). For the record, I think there does need to be some cuts to defense (even though it's actually one of the few things specifically called for in The Constitution). But like CH said, it's not the driving problem. Besides, defense spending only accounts for 20% of the federal budget but yet took half of the cuts. Yes, the GOP went for it to at least get the idea of cutting the budget on the table...at least they finally got the talk of cuts going. You mean like actually getting half of the country to pay some sort of federal income tax? Again, CH summed this one up pretty well. The country doesn't have a tax problem (other than the one I just laid out), but rather a huge addiction/spending problem. Funny...you vote for the people that make promises of good deals...or should I say good handouts.

How about the cousin of Air Force Crimes. I love it, the dems want to give free healthcare to those who don't even pay taxes...and then at the same time, want to charge extra for those who pay taxes and who also serve their country for 20 years (enduring more hardship than 95% of the rest of the country). If the military was a bigger voting block, they'd treat us as well...unfortunately current retirees and those of us who will follow are only part of the 1% (or whatever percentage it is). And yes, that was a political slam for effect.

There's a waiver authority/process to every reg. My guess is that a Wing/CC (especially in this case) can ask for/possibly receive a waiver pretty quickly. For all I know this is what happened, but I doubt it.

I can't speak for Afghanistan, but several years ago in Iraq while advising, the guidance was that when you were on the Iraqi side of the base, you could carry one loaded with one in the chamber. To be honest, very few (if any) of the ops guys ever did it. The few advises that did were the support type folks who had little interaction with our Iraqi counterparts. That being said, I would trust the Iraqis I flew and worked with MUCH more than the Afghans that my buddies now advise--shame too as my bet is that 80-90% of those serving in the Afghan military actually enjoy working with their American counterparts.

Fair enough--but there are ways to get your story out without getting too (if at all) involved with the media. Also, there are ways to remain anonymous. I would argue, based off his posts in this thread, that he does have a vested interest. As for not living in Arizona, a U.S. Representative these days do a lot more than just 'represent' their district (and most don't even do that well). I would agree with your statement if she was only running for state office, but federal office unfortunately affects us all. I'm not talking about saying stuff on an internet forum. I'm talking about saying something in a public forum, or at least disclosing it in such a way that it gets out in a public arena (not baseops). Rainman has my upmost respect, but I think it's a fair question--if he believes the issue to be this big of a deal (not out of smite, but for the benefit of the country and the district's constituents), will he then do something about it? If someone (regardless of political party) is running on a military record, and that record has been misconstrued to say the least, wouldn't people want the record set straight? Plus if he personally believes this person would be harmful to the office and knows things that hasn't been vetted, how then does the information get out? Many on here often tell us to write our Congressman when something isn't right, or to "change things" when we become part of the upper level leadership, etc...but what about this issue? Rainman is retired/a civilian and doesn't have to worry about disciplinary actions from the UCMJ like us active folks do--just curious if he'll take any sort of action, that's all. ...and if it's just about bitching and venting on baseops, that's cool--God knows I do more than my fair share.

Damn this sucks. Unfortunate reminder that this is a very dangerous profession. God Bless those guys--thank you for giving your lives to our country.

If you're able to take a 'mosque tour' downtown, then you're not in a true 'deployed' environment IMO. The Died = TDY that is not that great. Back on topic... Rainman, in all honesty, here's my question for you: If you feel this strongly against this candidate and believe there needs to be some truths told about her military service and how it relates to her values, character, etc in terms of how she will be as a Congresswoman, then do you plan on sharing this information with the media and/or other campaigns running against her? You're no longer in the military, so as a private citizen you have this right. I would also argue that if you feel this strongly about this issue then you have the obligation to yourself to make the truth known--again, not to smear her, but to let the truth out because you believe it shows how she will act as a Congresswoman. Just curious and wanting to know your what your end game plan is on this one.