brabus

She has to be your legal dependent to get an ID card, legally reside at your on-base house, shop at the commissary, etc. So unless you have legitimate reason for her to be your dependent, then no, this will not work in a legal sense. That said, you can get here base passes for X days (not sure what the max is at Vance) and she can obviously come stay with you often, but I wouldn't count on her being there for 100% of UPT. I'll also add I cannot imagine having your in law live with you is a good idea during UPT, regardless of baby. It'll be a stressful year and you don't need mom in-law making it more stressful - she will, no matter how good of a relationship you have.

Don't lie, but don't embellish. When asked have you smoked pot, the answer is "yes." When asked how often, the answer is "one time only." Those are true answers, and will display to the questioner your drug use was not habitual, but a one-time "recreational use" mistake. I wouldn't pile on a bunch of extra info (i.e. the whole anxiety thing) unless they specifically ask you about that stuff. Don't offer up additional info until it's directly asked for. After that, all you can do is hope for the best. If you lie, they will find out and you will almost certainly lose any chance you did have at flying jets.

This question will not be answered on the internets.

I know it has happened (ex: B-1 dude to UPT instructor, then went to a Viper guard unit), but at the current state I expect it'd be a very difficult sell for a fighter unit to higher a heavy guy. There are a lot of very qualified fighter pilots getting out of AD and going ANG/AFRES, and probably will be for the foreseeable future - why would a fighter unit, in general, higher a non-fighter guy over the aforementioned? That all said, anything is possible. Why not start looking around at fighter units to potentially get hired by prior to UPT (i.e. they send you to UPT)? If that's what you want, go for it; I imagine your chances of getting into a fighter going that route are higher than staying the heavy path and trying to swap once you're a C-X pilot. You have a good perspective and in the end, do not pass up a good opportunity to be a mil pilot - at some point if the fighter route hasn't happened, but you have a job offer for a heavy unit, you have to think very hard about passing on that opportunity.

Doesn't sound crazy at all - he probably flew F-4s, F-15s, etc. mostly beforehand through the 80s/early 90s, did a TX to the Viper for a bit and left AD. Comes back as a GS to fly the F-4 drones for X years, and then did a SOC at Luke as the 82nd transitions to purely F-16 drones.

Auto-delete rules - the one good thing about Outlook.

I'l be the witch here - while Champ, myself and everyone else have solid reasons for being disgruntled with AD and many dudes jump off the burning ship for those solid reasons, I would still absolutely recommend to you (or any young dude wanting to fly in the military) to go for it. What you see in those threads referenced above is a lot of bitching (many valid) and negative outlooks derived from years of this lifestyle and dealing with the bullshit. Do not read those threads and change your mind or lower your desire to serve and fly in the AF. You may very well be "us" at 8+ years into your AD time, but despite all the assholes and bullshit you'll run across, you'll still do awesome things, go awesome places and have a job that is untouched by 99% of the world. Yes, some people get hosed more than others, but there is risk in all walks of life - you could not do the AF and risk wanting to suck start a shotgun every day you drive in an hour of traffic to get to your shitty cubicle job you thought for sure would be a great career after finishing college. So, don't get discouraged by anything you read here, continue to work your ass off (as you clearly have been) and get a pilot slot. It will be awesome and you'll never regret the decision - even if you say "fuck this place!" and leave at 10 years.

So you think the guy who is the mission commander for a 100 aircraft, led the planning and/or the actual mission execution isn't utilizing multiple types of leadership skills? This is MDS agnostic, but being a mission commander (100 was a large example, but the point still stands for the guy running 20-30 assets) in training and combat is a huge leadership role and by far shadows a lot of other "leadership" roles out there. Budha made great points above.

I get the gist of your point, but disagree flying doesn't at minimum enhance and grow one's leadership capability. There's a lot of leadership skills required in aviation - maybe some communities/areas more than others, but overall there is leadership required and increasing ability to lead is generally required as one's experience and position in their community increases.

Shockingly there are several positive ideas in there - what are the chances of those being implemented as intended; probably low given the the abysmal performance track record of A3 and friends. Hope I'm proven wrong; the AF and its people could benefit a lot from this.

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.