jazzdude

How does this compare with the demographic makeup of our enlisted force?

And where does the funding for the FBI come from? Presidents can start initiatives, but without funding (i.e. consent) from Congress those ideas for pretty quickly.

Allowance standard 16 shows what uniform items you will be issued (it's where it says we are issued flightsuits vs having to buy them) https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.safety.af.mil/Portals/71/documents/Occupational/Resources/Allowance%2520Standards/AS016%2520as%2520of%252025%2520Mar%25202019_Special%2520Purpose%2520Clothing%2520and%2520Personal%2520Protecive%2520Equipment.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiUvuaLk8T5AhV7j2oFHQiKCQQQFnoECAcQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0Haxx0Rjc7SneiEm3TPinO A-2 jacket is on page 142 on that document, issued to rated personnel and some others. The problem with buying Pops jackets with unit funds are uniforms are supposed to be Berry amendment compliant, so the jacket would have to be manufactured in the US.

But they still send IPs there...

Good thing we're getting a higher quality pilot out of UPT 2.5 despite cutting training hours /s

This is based on a scenario where you would have more jets than crews available to fly to jets. And unlike WW2, I don't see industry (Boeing) being able to crank out jets faster than we can train replacement crews for combat losses (about a 3 year lead time to build a KC-46, and they still are being delivered late). Can a KC-46 fly single pilot? Probably on a good day. But throw in an emergency, and you can start to run out of hands pretty quickly (or just not be able to physically reach items), because the jet just wasn't designed to be operated by one pilot. Are we good with letting the autopilot fly with no pilot in the seat? Because eventually you're going to have to pee, though I guess you could use a piddle pack. If there's an operational need to look at this, generate the requirement, kick it to DT to verify single pilot procedures and OT to validate line crews can do it in an operationally relevant environment.

Looks like JTR unfortunately says no. 050601. TLE for Service Members, Table 5-12: Not Authorized a. When leaving active duty

I think the reason AETC is going the GS route vs commissioning is that it doesn't affect AD end strength, and they were able to find a wedge of money to fund extra GS positions using discretionary funds (ie the program can be killed at any point, and those GS pilots would be without a job). Basically getting an IP for "free" using budgetary peanuts and enabling an officer position elsewhere in the AF. GS also likely makes it cheaper than going the contractor route since there's no contractor management overhead or profit costs. So that brings us back to how to retain those GS employees. Unless there's an aggressive training bond ($200-300k for T-6 training?), there's not much to keep them in the T-6 if they want to leave "early." It'll be harder to keep them than a young major at the end of their UPT commitment so long as airline hiring stays strong. This will be even more true if the sqs treat them as second class IPs since they aren't military.

Copy, so the industry's worst training bond that doesn't even get you a type rating. I'm sure that will attract a lot of young CFIs

How would that commitment be enforced? I don't believe GS employment has anything that looks like an ADSC. Do FAA ATC controllers incur a service obligation for going to their academy/training? (I don't think they do)

I don't think a civilian instructor would be better than a FAIP, but I do think they could be just as good. The challenge for the AF is what washout rate they are willing to accept for CFIs going through their version of PIT. Generally, studs with prior flight time tend to do well in UPT, so hiring CFIs out of a part 141 school (more rigid environment than part 61) should increase the odds of them getting through training. Plus, there's already a significant amount of civilian instructors teaching in UPT today: something like half the syllabus is sim training. Though I will concede that most of those instructors are former mil of some sort. But they manage their work schedules fine. On the flight line as a T-6 IP I think my typical day was around 10ish hours, so that'd make for a 4 day work week. I will say it's curious they are targeting to hire young CFIs, but it's probably because they are willing to work for cheaper. Sounds like this job is hiring at GS9, while I think the sim IPs are GS12s. I wouldn't see the civilian IPs touching any of the officer development portions of UPT, just the flying skills training. I'd expect leadership in the flights to still be military, and to enforce the military unique aspects of the UPT environment. It's similar to commissioning from ROTC: civilian education with some extra mil training/guidance/mentorship layered on top. The C-17 schoolhouse is heavy on contractor led instruction. PIQ students do all their training with a contractor until their first checkride. The sim instructors also teach the first half of both the copilot and AC airdrop courses.

It's primary flight instruction... The T-6 (and T-1) do nothing tactical. And it looks like from the ad that they will have about a year's worth of training (my guess is an extended PIT) Being a military officer has nothing to do with your ability to fly and instruct fundamental flying skills, especially in phase 2. Are the IFT Doss CFIs any better or worse than the AD IPs?

But that turbine PIC time! Though it'll probably attract CFIs who might not be able to or want to live off essentially minimum wage while time building. I wonder if going through the AF T-6 CFI course counts as military trained per FAA, thereby reducing the ATP min to 750 hours, which is easily doable with 1 year of training and under two years flying the line. Throw in some civilian flying on off days and you get there even faster.

What's to keep them from punching early? Can GS employees incur a service commitment? Or is there a training bond? Then again, it'd be a good way to build time for the airlines instead of CFIing in a Cessna 172

Looks like no for TLE but yes for per diem/travel. Temporary Lodging Expense is not authorized when leaving active duty and moving from the last PDS. See 37 U.S.C. §474a. https://www.defensetravel.dod.mil/site/faqtle.cfm Also a no in JTR (table 5-12) For per diem, it looks like yes (if you are retiring). "051003. Service Member on Active Duty who Retires, is Placed on the TDRL, is Discharged with Severance or Separation Pay, or is Involuntarily Released with Readjustment or Separation Pay and Associated Dependent Travel...The Service member’s PCS travel and transportation allowances are authorized from the last PDS to a home that he or she selects, known as an HOS. The dependent’s PCS travel and transportation allowances are from the last PDS, or the place where the dependent was last transported at Government expense, to the HOS."

Our laws are pretty messed up here as well. There's no room for escalation of violence: no brandishing a weapon to deter an intruder, no warning shots, no rocksalt/beanbag shells, no shoot to wound. The legal precedent is that it is better to kill the intruder than it is to compel them to leave through escalation of violence, which I think is a problem I can see the reasoning behind states with a "duty to retreat" law, even though an intruder is violating your property and space, human life is valuable so you should retreat when possible and let law enforcement bring justice to you. That intruder could be someone looking to do you harm, or just desperate for money, or maybe they are just drunk and went to the wrong house. That being said, I don't agree with those laws being in place because there can bea myriad of reasons why retreating could have been a worse option than standing your ground, so I'd rather err on the side of allowing the homeowner more leeway to defend themselves. Now imagine that instead of your house being violated, it's your body (ie rape).

1. Who cares what the Europeans think? They do not determine what we should do as a country. But I'll entertain that line of reasoning. 2. Don't cherry pick the European laws because context matters. I'll take your word that the Europeans are more stringent on abortion. But they also have extensive paid maternity leave and access to healthcare as part of their citizenship. So that mother and child have a much more generous social safety net provided to them by the government than what exists in the US. Meanwhile in the US a childbirth easily costs thousands of dollars, and there is no mandatory paid maternity leave. The euros probably consider our healthcare system as a whole barbaric... 3. I'd wager most pro choice people are against 3rd trimester abortions, and probably would be okay with restrictions in the 2nd trimester. But that's not what's being debated or being put into law 4. The notion that we have a ruling class in the US is a tragedy, and points to our country failing to live up to it's ideals. And the abortion issue seems to be a ploy to energize the Republican base and maintain power for powers sake. The sad part is that for the wealthy or the "ruling class", the pro life laws just don't matter if they put a member of their family decides an abortion is appropriate for them.

There isn't always a choice/decision to have sex (rape). And many of the laws passed or queued up don't have exceptions for rape. "If the woman was raped, her body would know and reject the baby and prevent her from getting pregnant..."

There's a long standing supreme court precedent that abortion is legal...

Probably my posts you're thinking of, so I'll bite. The religious argument tends to be the loudest for pro-life, so that's the example I used. I also consider myself religious, and think life is precious and starts early, but life is messy and I can see situations where an abortion might be reasonable. But that decision is between that woman making that choice and God. On the flip side, supporting pro-choice tends to be portrayed as supporting killing the baby right up until birth, which I'd say is also an unfair generalization. I'm not trying to paint all pro-lifers as religious zealots. One could be prolife because it's just what they believe for whatever reason, and that's okay. If that's what you believe, then don't get an abortion, and you are free to not have to associate with those that choose to do so. But there are people that take a hard line and say there should be no exceptions whatsoever. But that subjects a woman to a year of her life (the impacts to the mother don't stop at birth...) where she is no longer free to make choices about what she does, and not just from a keeping the baby question. What she eats or drinks, the activities she can and can't do, the medicines she can or can't take to treat her medical conditions, etc. She also incurs costs, from clothes to extra medical copays/medications to transportation. Like you point out, in practice it's messy, and it's hard to draw a line. One issue is that several states either have laws on the books but not enforced or trigger laws to go into effect to effectively ban abortion as soon as Roe gets repealed, so for many people the court decision will have an a immediate effect. The problem is the lives of the mother and baby are tied together, and they both affect each other. Sometimes good, sometimes bad. The point life begins is a gray area at best and open to interpretation and context. And since the decision someone else makes to have or not have an abortion doesn't directly affect me, I'd rather not have laws that limit their decisions, even if I don't agree with their decision.

That unborn baby also infringes in the rights of the mother, and physically drains the mother for resources in order to grow, and can cause adverse health impacts on the mother. If you were faced with the decision to save either her or the unborn baby, which would you choose? It's a choice with no good or right answer.

Welfare benefits are not societal pressure to keep a baby vs giving it up for adoption It comes down to social norms that provide that pressure. I'll admit that that pressure changes based on who your peer group is and what type friends/family believe in and value. I'd say most church goers (and probably most people that consider themselves religious, particularly Abrahamic religions) consider a baby to be a gift from God, and that life is precious and to be celebrated. If you told people in that group you have up your kid for adoption (or considering it), you'd be sure to get a lot of questions on why, and be regaled with stories of the joys of parenthood and that you should give it a chance. Maybe if your were poor/not well off, people might understand. But if you were well off and just didn't want the baby, you'd be looked down upon or pushed out from your social group. I had my first kid last year. My unit was supportive, between paternity leave, time off to support Mom and baby, encouragement from other dad's in the unit, and some small thoughtful gifts. If I had come back and said "nah, we decided to give up the kid for adoption" it'd raise several eyebrows and question, especially as a lt col select on the bonus who could "afford" to raise a kid. I know my parents and in-laws also would've gone WTF if I gave up my kid for adoption. "Don't have sex unless you're willing to have a baby" really means " don't have sex unless you're willing to RAISE a baby." Because giving up that kid would be seen as a selfish act at best, and why should taxpayers have to pay to support foster care ("don't have kids unless you can afford to raise them")? Adoption, just like abortion, is a very personal decision that people will judge and second guess you on

Yes, because the government has removed decisions from the mother, so the government shares at least partial blame and responsibility for that child. Already can't get an abortion in Texas, so that is a valid scenario already. And there's significant societal pressure to try and raise the baby instead of giving it up for adoption. Not to mention that there's a physiological and emotional bond created at birth between mother and child, which will make it harder for that mother to give up the kid, even if that was the plan. Then there's also the post partum physiological/hormonal changes, which could also lead to depression. Childbirth is literally a significant emotional event, and people don't always make the best decisions while in that vulnerable emotional state. There's also the possibility of a miscarriage or still birth, which can also cause significant health problems for the mother. Should that be considered manslaughter? What if the mother was doing coke/boozing/smoking during pregnancy? Does she have an obligation to stop doing those things and living her life the way she wants to? What if she couldn't afford meds to control preeclampsia or gestational diabetes, resulting in the loss of the baby? Or just had bad luck? Oh, and maternal death by placental abruption is also another option. Especially if they don't have healthcare access and have undiagnosed placental previa and attempt a natural birth. Though there's a chance the infant could survive, so I guess this doesn't matter since they can be adopted or placed into foster care

A woman could be trying to have a baby and an abortion may be the right course of action. For example, an ectopic pregnancy. This could kill (and depending on where the placenta attaches, kill with a very high pk) the mother even though the embryo is not viable by any means. Preeclampsia/eclampsia with excessive blood pressures, potential cardiovascular damage and potential seizures/coma. Access to good healthcare and medication can help temper the symptoms in many cases, but the only way it's stopped is if the baby is born or the pregnancy terminated. Plus, even with contraception, there is still a chance of pregnancy. Condoms are 98% effective with perfect use, but in actual practice is closer to 85% effective. This issue doesn't have an easy answer. Yes, I'd rather there be no abortions. But there's enough cases where it may be the most rational thing to do (if the mother is at high risk for death due to pregnancy, should it be continued? What if she had 2 kids already, should those kids risk growing up without their mom? What if she was raped, should she be forced to give birth, and if so, who is responsible for raising that child?). Point is, it's a very individual decision. And their decision doesn't directly affect me in any way. So despite believing women shouldn't get abortions except in rare circumstances, I don't believe the state should have the authority to make that decision for a woman, as it impinges on their right to pursue life/liberty/happiness.

So how we as a country (or states) deal with pregnancy due to rape? No choice is made there by the woman, and states are paying laws that outright ban abortion for any reason. Who pays for medical care for the mother-to-be in that case, both during pregnancy and during post partum? Should she have to bear that cost on her own? Or pregnancies that endanger the mother?