brabus

And ironically, "picking Generals" at O-3 is one of the leading reasons why many of the "chosen" dudes get out after their last ADSC. There's a lot of "high caliber officers" who would probably stay in longer if they weren't forced onto the COCOM track at O-3.

Maybe things have changed, but I remember several dudes I was at UPT with who needed prodding by Academy leadership to take a pilot slot. One guy in my class said he said "no thanks" multiple times before they pretty much just "broke" him and he took the slot. Maybe things like that have decreased and that's good, but I bet it still happens to some extent.

So they're changing from the current standard? I have zero problem with women in these jobs, being firemen, etc, but they need to pass the same, unchanged standards, not some newly made up "general neutral" ones. The ones that currently exist are general neutral simply because there is not a distinction between male and female. This line can only communicate they think the current ones are too hard for women to achieve, therefore they will adjust so women can achieve them, all while hiding behind the "gender neutral" moniker to defend them as "not lowered for women because the men have the same standards."

Long road to recovery from what I've heard through the bro network, but he's with us, and that's what matters the most.

How many met the board at your wing? It's strange that you'd be in the top 5%, but your WG/CC only had enough DPs for the top 4%.

I think our WG/CC said 70% across the board, but I'm only about 90% sure I'm remembering correctly.

Situation: A squadron needs help filling spots on a deployment, so you want to help. BUT, your wing is not tasked with filling that "spot." Is it an AFPC function to hand out "taskers" to Wings and can the squadron that needs help ask for these taskers to be filled by a specific wing? Bottom line, how do you help out another squadron as an X band guy (not currently on a CAF AEF), but get credit for that deployment so your Wing doesn't "lose a guy" on that band (i.e. there were 10 spots to fill, but you went on this random help a bro out deployment, so the wing really "lost" 11 individuals during that band) AND you get credit for deploying in that band (i.e. checked the "I filled a tasker" container during your X band). Hopefully this makes sense...anyone dealt with this / know how to make everyone play nice to make it work for all parties involved?

Recruiter's assistance has to be approved by your SQ/CC (I also did this as a casual 2 LT) - I imagine it's low probability his Aviano SQ/CC is going to approve this right before his PCS (and if he did, that still means your bro would have to come back to Aviano after leave to out process). How much leave does he have in the bank right now? He can take a ton of that if he wants, but I wouldn't burn it all personally, he's going to want some leave to use in Korea.

I know a couple dudes who transferred to the Reserves and AMEX pulled SCRA from them, even though they're ARTs/full time (they had SCRA benefits for years prior while on AD). They never said anything to AMEX, didn't try to add/change cards, change address, etc. AMEX obviously does periodically check your AD status.

Dude in the squadron just did this about 2 months ago, no problems. If you talk to someone who says no, they don't have any idea what they're talking about. Hang up and call back to get someone else. If only such thing worked so easily with all the non-support agencies on base.

Maybe he can get 10 days of permissive for house hunting CONUS wherever his family is going to stay for the year? I bet he could argue that point since it's unreasonable to expect him to move his family to the US and not take time to find a place. Don't have the AFI/JTR in front of me, but COT leave is another option, though he may want to save that for a midtour.

The restricted auto become a full when you hit 1500 TT. Even if you're short now at the time of doing your ATP checkride, I'd be really surprised if you didn't hit 1500 TT by the time you finished your 10 yrs ADSC and were able to go to an Airline. No way I ever see the AF letting the FAA come in and certify any fighter sim.

Agreed it's 1 in a million and I certainly do not advocate for more regulation, just more general awareness via increased education. If you know where you are in relation to IAFs, what the MVA is, etc. that's far more than the average private ticket holder has SA on and would certainly pay dividends towards reducing the risk of similar accidents. Do you monitor approach's freq after T/O - sure you won't typically hear a fighter's response, but you'll hear the controller's words - actively listening to those radio calls would also raise one's SA on what's going on w/in 6-9 NM of the civ airfield.

Went to skyvector - CHS is 17 NM south, the IAF for 15 is 17 NM north of CHS and the IAF for 21 is 10 NM north of CHS. Back in the day I would not have talked to ATC, I would have done exactly what these guys did. But my knowledge level now would absolutely drive me to talk to ATC if I took off to the south from MKS, considering I'm pretty much bracketed by two IAFs. You're taking off damn near directly into the radar pattern (or at least extremely close to it, not sure how CHS approach typically vectors dudes around). I think in this situation a flight plan combined with a courtesy call to CHS approach just prior to takeoff roll could greatly reduce the risk of this type of accident. Not a guarantee, but certainly better than ATC "being surprised" late in the game when they finally get/notice a skin track in/around the radar pattern.

Not at all, I didn't mean to communicate that, but my choice of words obviously did. My real beef is we have ONE accident involving a mil jet (who's on a published approach, not "hot dogging" around), and people get up in arms about how the mil needs to do X, and combat aircraft need to have Y prioritized over much needed other items, etc. All from people's mouths who clearly have little to zero understanding of fighter aviation, requirements, future procurement, etc. Replace F-16 with Bizjet X and we're not even having a mil-related ADS-B conversation - that could have easily been the alternate case. I feel very bad for the two that died, and of course more so for their families. They didn't deserve it, nor do I think they were complete idiots for doing what they were doing. However, taking an objective and unemotional look, one large piece of this problem is fact: they were not communicating with ATC. Not required I get it, but these gentleman were very possible failed by instructors and maybe the current Part 61/141 system at large. They didn't know what they didn't know and that was a contributing factor in losing their lives - would you fly at MVA through a radar pattern for a busy airfield without talking to anybody? Legal yes, smart decision no. But again, I bet they had no idea because they were never told, and that's not their fault; I wish somebody had educated them more on this. I wish someone had educated me more on this back in the day - I just got lucky nothing ever happened I guess, considering I was the 1200/not talking guy flying "just outside" required airspace to talk to ATC, at my normal GA altitudes - which coincided with MVA, fixes, etc....that I had zero SA on. I support GA and really miss it to be honest - I can't wait to start flying when I have time/money to do so, teach my kids to fly, etc. I support 1200/not talking (the Cub dudes as you said), but I also support an improvement in GA education during the private process where you learn more about times/locations when it's a good idea to talk to people even when you're not technically required to. I will certainly teach my kids a hell of a lot more about this related topic than I ever received in my "full up" 141 program back in the day - and it was a good program, but shockingly lacking IMO now that I have far more SA on flight in general. Keep flying GA Whitman, I support it, keep pushing for ADS-B, etc. on civ aircraft, I support it. I also support continuing education, something for those of us here who fly both sides can help our civ only bros out with. Lastly, it's maybe a "harsh reality" apparently for some here, but mil aircraft are made for war, and yes have to conform to a lot of NAS operation rules, BUT they are and should not ever be forced to 100% the same as all civilians because simply put, we don't have the time, money or certain products may make a jet less combat capable. Our focus is and needs to remain on combat capability with as much safety and NAS flying compliance as we can, but we can not afford to decrease our primary capabilities because of something that will in reality make extremely little difference - and this is not to minimize what happened a few weeks ago.

To move ADS-B discussion here.... Mudhen nailed it. What the FAA says in public ("2020 or else!") can be very different from what's being said in private (i.e. between the DOD and FAA). This is NOT conjecture on my part. So yes, there's an extremely likely chance most mil aircraft will not see ADS-B in 2020 and it will not be surprising if many don't see it (or it's predecessor?) until well into the 2020s.

Way to blow it out of context Mark. Don't make this a philosophical argument about service, volunteering, blah blah - that is not even remotely what this topic is about. 1. Fighters are NOT the hazard, the dud not squawking/talking and flying IVO/through "busy" airspace is. The lack of education for many GA pilots is. It's not their fault...I also had zero SA when I predominantly flew GA back in the day; I didn't know what I didn't know. Unfortunately that applies to a lot of GA pilots putting around in a 150/172, whether you want to admit it or not. There are a lot of high SA, good GA pilots, but they are not the majority (and many of those are mil/prior mil or airline-type guys). 1a. Again, one midair between a mil aircraft and a civilian and you blow your gasket - show me anything statistically relevant that demonstrates mil aircraft are dangerous/a hazard to civilian pilots. 2. You have no idea what you're talking about (we'll come back to this again)...it's not about "just losing an RWR". You have zero SA on how acq/procurement works, what it cost in time or money to procure extremely important items, and how we already lose out on potential great capes because of the first two parts. So when you look at a list of things we need, something like ADS-B is well down the line, for good operational reason. After all, that's what the military is for, to fight and win wars, not have to sacrifice capability because civilian joe can't be bothered to communicate with ATC via voice or at minimum electronically. 3. DFresh mentioned one of the good reasons it's bad - read that. 4. You have no idea what you're talking about as you clearly have incredibly through-the-basement low SA, as "my MDS" has been at combat since about 1990. My MDS will be in combat through nearly 2050 - so yes, it's very important to keep up with emerging threats and improve current capabilities, even for the current fight, as this is not just a soap box for "the next war." 5. I routinely fly in a very congested civilian area, so I'm very familiar. Turns out decent ATC, all of my sensors (including my eyeball) are pretty effective at avoiding conflicts. Far more effective then some guy in a C150 glued to a small screen (not looking outside) trying to figure what to do about this blip going 400 kts, then he hits someone else as he's task saturated staring at my blip (the guy who already knew he was there 10 miles ago)...great.

Money/time should always be prioritized on what keeps me alive in combat while allowing me to win the fight, NOT on providing civilian joe a poor man's Link-16 surveillance feed. I'm absolutely not against ADS-B and think it's a great concept/system, but there's about a 1000 good reasons why it's low on the list for some mil aircraft. I'm sure it'll eventually get shoved down our throats (sts), but it's going to be a long time.

Well below the cut line - not going to happen anytime soon. As R-Dub said, this is not going to stop accidents. Even if you make the "reduce" claim - well, how many fighter midairs are there with civilian aircraft? Not enough to be statistically relevant / demand a fighter has ADS-B.

Lots of time and money we don't have to spend (or want to spend because this is low priority stuff in a fighter, as it should be).

oooooor, MAYBE. He didn't say.

Are you tied to the area/have a desire to keep the house and rent it for years to come? It's not just a year at UPT, it's the following ten years as well - you could be living overseas for the next 10 years post-UPT, you could be 1/2 overseas, 1/2 living on the opposite coast, etc. So if she's going to live there during UPT, then I take that to mean you want to hold onto the property for rental income and/or you plan on returning to that house in 10-20 years. If that's not true, I suggest you sell the house early and avoid having to deal with it while on your 2nd, 3rd PCS, maybe from overseas, etc. I know several dudes who love having rental properties and slum lord it up - good for them. Not my thing. Just think hard about which side of the fence you and your wife are on. It's only going to be a bigger pain in the ass as time goes on if you decide to not play the rental game.

You can live in the dorms and collect BAH from where your spouse lives - it requires a SAF level waiver. So you can try to make an argument as to why the AF should pay you her location BAH vs. yours, but you're at the mercy of SAF approval. Honestly I think you stand little chance of approval because the argument of "it's more convenient for us since she makes more money there" is probably not going to be strong enough to garner support from big blue. If it gets disapproved, you're only options are she moves with you or you collect BAH w/ dependent at the UPT location and pay for your rent and her's - which sounds like a bad financial move unless she's making shitloads of money. And even then, I'm a big fan of not choosing to be apart - you'll get plenty of involuntary time apart in the future.

Contradictory statement - they CAN route IFR traffic through an active MOA...by calling airspace back. It's semantics, in the end they're putting an IFR aircraft through the MOA. That said, I don't care because everyone knows what's going on and it's generally safe.

Good points - as I typed the above I thought about Alaska and how that would be very challenging to meet for a lot of GA. Maybe at min the military could publish appropriate freqs in NOTAMs and the GA dude could at least make an entry/exit position call when a MOA is hot - ideally on a C2 freq. But like you said, the bottom line is education. Overall I fully support GA, have enjoyed it myself, and don't want to crush the freedom of airspace we enjoy in the US, just thinking of ways to make it safer for all - I know I've come far too close for comfort a few times in the past and each time it came down to more luck than anything else that a similar tragedy to this one didn't happen. Maybe not normally, but it certainly happens.