jazzdude

It's a close parallel. Better comparison here would be a security guard. But the situation is very close to a cop accusing a civilian of trespassing even though the civilian has a right to be at a particular location (like private property the civilian owns). SF can do a lot more than waste your time, especially if they're jumpy and you get frustrated and show it. They also carry tasers and are armed. Though there are some military unique characteristics that help tamp escalation. I'd bet SF get more training than the average civilian police officer, and punishments can be harsher than the civilian world (through the addition of UCMJ punishments, and if they screw up bad they could be dishonorably discharged, which will follow them for the rest of their life, unlike getting fired from a civilian job). This is something that helps reduce bad interactions between SF and the rest of the military/public as compared to civilian police. I'd bet military members are more compliant with authority in general compared to the general public because of our training and culture. And as an officer, I know that if I'm in the right, all I have to do is wait and trust that the chain of command will fix the issue. So all I have to do is get back to my circle and wait it out. This helps reduce the chance of escalation, so long as I keep my cool. A civilian generally doesn't have someone with authority/power (like a military commander) to put pressure on law enforcement to correct problems unless they have the time and money to litigate, their story makes the news and creates public outcry, or they are politically connected with government leaders. If you're poor, none of those options are likely. And bad cops know this as well, which can lead them to abuse their power, especially if they're department is stretched thin and supervisory controls are lacking. Difference from a defensive student backed into a corner is that the defensive student has no authority; but the cop does (regardless of rank based on their positional authority). The power balance is different with a student: you as the instructor have authority over the student based on your position, so if the student gets mouthy you can just tell them to shut up and color (though probably not the best instructional technique, especially if your student outranks you or is a commander). Try doing that to an SF cop and it probably won't end well for you, even if the cop is wrong. Contrast that with an over zealous chief, who has zero authority over officers, and basically just waste a bit of your time. They can't detain you, and aren't armed, so the worst that can come out of that interaction is them yelling at you. The most they can do is try to convince someone with authority to do something with you, which may or may not happen. Was a newly pinned on major (just pinned on the month this happened) going from UPT IP back to the C-17. Altus SF sucks (seem to be over zealous because of how boring it is out there, and not just on the flightline but traffic enforcement as well), and I know I'm not the only person who thinks that.

And my point is that screw ups by police (doesn't matter if they're a SrA or a MSgt SF, or a new cop or someone who has been in the police force for 20 years), whether accidental or intentional, damages the relationship with the public, and can create distrust of the police in individuals. That distrust takes time to repair, and takes positive action from the police (or authorities in general) to rebuild that trust. The fact that you're not shocked that an SrA cop who didn't know one of the basic parts of their job, did not take input from their partner that they might be wrong, and was unwilling to call for advice to clarify the policy is disappointing. I don't expect a SrA to be an expert, but I do expect them to know their basic job and to ask for help if they don't know the answer. (I mean, I have the same expectation from the SrA ATC controller in tower/approach, so why should SF be held to a lower standard...) Talking to the SFS/CC would've done zip. OG had a call with the MSG (that got my situation resolved), and I'm sure crap rolled downhill. Nothing really (good) would come from random TDY pilot trying to talk to the SFS/CC that hasn't already come down from the MSG, no matter how good it'd feel to say WTF or vent in the moment. Strongly considered it, but ultimately decided it wasn't worth doing so in this case.

Didn't feel embarrassed or disrespected, just frustrated that my early morning alert sequence for my sortie got screwed because someone with authority didn't know their job and didn't own their mistake, regardless of either their rank or mine. Their parting words were to get a line badge (again, base policy didn't require it for TDY students). Also turns out SF's line badge printer hadn't worked in several months anyways, so I wouldn't have been able to get one even if I wanted one (hence the base's flightline policy). I'm sure any flyer would be pissed if a support agency caused a delay to a mission or sortie because that support agency did their job wrong. Especially if that support agency asserts they did nothing wrong. At a conscious level I know they (flight line SF) are doing their job, and most are probably decent people doing their best. But I still have that initial thought every time I see them on the flight line of "F the police" because of a bad run-in with them. Then again, I've also been stopped when leaving base by SF and detained in my car for 15min or so because someone called in a suspicious person taking pictures on base. That time was much more cordial, though still equally stupid, as it was for an SF exercise, and the description of both the car and suspicious person weren't even close to my car or me. But they at least acknowledged their mistake before sending me on my way. They also treated me like a person throughout the interaction, and I don't have the same gut reaction to gate guards like I do for their flightline counterparts.

If the dollar crashes and destroys the financial markets (which is why I'm assuming your wife distrusts long term financial future), buying airplanes/stuff and property only works if you can defend your property and that property retains value through an economic crises/collapse. I guess what I'm trying to say is to buy more guns and ammo :)

That's easier said than done, especially when there's a perception (or in some cases, reality) that there are cops out there doing the wrong thing, whether it's unintentional or intentional. I generally agree with your statement's intent, but there are bad cops out there as well who are willing to abuse their authority. That complicates the response from the civilian. By the same token, Cops also shouldn't stress out the people (who likely have zero training in deescalating situations) any more than necessary either. De-escalation goes both ways. Fighting the legal battle typically means you have the time and money to do so. Look at how messed up civil forfeiture laws are, especially regarding firearms. I've been detained by SF when I knew I was clearly in the right, but they didn't understand the base policy (no line badge on the flighline as a TDY requal student at the FTU, base policy was TDY students only need CAC and flight auth, which I had and presented). Took everything I had to not lose my cool since we just got to our jet for an early morning sortie, and I'm generally non-confrontational. Funny thing was that the A1C cop was trying to tell his SrA partner that detained us that we were right, but the SrA berated the A1C for missing the email that "changed the policy last week" and refused to confirm the policy. So 3 pilots were wrongly detained and cuffed for over an hour and a half, marched off to sit on the edge of the flight line surrounded by what felt like was every SF airman on duty (around 10-12 SF to detain 3 pilots). We were only released after the OG/CC got involved (wtf call to the MSG) without so much as an apology acknowledging they were wrong. The other funny thing was they didn't even bother to check the civilian mx crew chief who was out there with us and didn't have his line badge displayed. SF clearly targeted is based on our group affiliation (pilots). I wanted to cancel the sortie, but one of the other students couldn't take a training delay since they were trying to close on a house and needed to make it out on our scheduled graduation day. But man, I wanted SF to take a cancelled sortie for being stupid (and FTU Sq/DO was good with us doing so via an ORM canx), especially given that the FTU had been running behind because a bunch of FTU IPs had recently gotten out to go to the airlines. And now, right or wrong, anytime I see SF on the flightline my initial gut reaction is "F those guys." And then you read about some rando hopping the fence at Andrews and walking a mile on the flight line and going onto one of the 89th jets that was left open...

Found on not being taxed without representation, not just a blanket not paying taxes period. In other words, we wanted to have a say in our destiny as states and as a country

That success doesn't exist in a vacuum. Who should pay to keep the free market free? Including the legal system to settle disputes, and law enforcement to enforce those legal decisions. Plus national defense/diplomacy to keep outside forces in check and not have undue influence on our markets. Successful businesses and a free market rely on government to keep some semblance of societal order and "fairness". Otherwise, things get messy quickly. How we get to what is fair and how to pay for it doesn't have an objective answer. It's all subjective based on your values, assumptions, and biases. Especially when you scale up a system to include a large number of people. The other part that gets weird is that in theory, in a democracy, everyone has the same amount of say in what the country does. But in practice, being wealthy substantially increases your influence on the country's decisions, especially when it's not a direct democracy and you can lobby a smaller number of voters (representatives or senators).

Fair is only a matter of perspective. Fair tax shifts extra burden on the lower income people while cutting taxes on the very rich (in terms of percentage of income). Lowering taxes on the upper end of income earners lowers overall (absolute) tax revenue, which necessitates an increase in tax rate for everyone in the fair tax system. Most of the discussion centers on personal taxes. Should businesses also be on a flat tax system? Or would that hurt smaller businesses s and startups? Another way to look at the progressive tax system is that the more successful you are, the more you should pay into the system that created the environment for your success. That environment isn't just the business environment, but at a national level, things like defense, economic policies, legal system, law enforcement, education, research, etc. That's not to say you can't be rich; a progressive system allows you to keep accumulating wealth, just at a shower rate the further you get on the upper extreme.

Is a minivan a necessity or a luxury? Most cars seat 5 on paper... And where do you draw the line of what a luxury car is? And would there be a market for a non-luxury car that is missing key features to keep it from being labeled as luxury? Would manufacturers be okay being labeled as luxury and incurring extra tax on their goods and driving away prospective customers (comparing low end "luxury" vs high end "basic")? Or would the manufacturers lobby hard for an exception that benefits their business at the expense of government tax revenue that funds government programs (including the military)? Is internet access a luxury? What about smartphones? Are firearms luxuries? Or [insert any leisure activity]? Point is, it's hard to draw the lines, and people have no problem labeling things they don't use/do as luxuries when voting. Excluding rent (since my rent is about the same as my BAH which isn't taxes anyways), I spend somewhere around $3k/mo. Federal taxes (income, social security, and Medicare, all of which would need to be covered) are about $1450/mo, and based on my typical tax refund, I can subtract $100/mo from the tax liability. State/local sales tax (~6%) is included in my monthly spend amount. This puts a rough ballpark on what the fair tax should be to get the same federal tax revenue from me at about 48%. And this assumes that I keep consuming at the present rate (which is likely, barring things like a luxury tax which may affect what I spend money on). That tax rate is easy for me to absorb as I'm not hurting for essentials or rent. But lower on the pay scales and that tax starts to hurt, unless there were exceptions based on income (and how do you capture losing a well paying job half way through the year and being unemployed the second half?) It also places the burden for any exceptions at the point of sale, creating frustrations for businesses and consumers that are normally reserved for tax season and the IRS. This also excludes state income taxes, as I'm a resident of another state without a state income tax, so in a sense I don't pay my "fair share" to my local community I'm stationed at.

I think timelines vary with the specific VSP offering. I want to say 6 months is the lowest they can go (and maybe the individual can request a faster separation), but too lazy to look it up. VSP and RIF both aim to reduce manning quickly (to make the budget). Almost all the transition programs are a nice to have. The VSP/RIF payouts replaces those nice to have transition programs with cash. TAP is the only program I can think of that's mandated, and there's always the GI Bill as well to help with transition to civilian life.

I'm pretty sure what the nurse advice hotline said was right. Could also try calling United Concordia to confirm. https://www.tricare.mil/CoveredServices/Dental/ADDental/ADDP But the ER visit should generate the need/referral for emergency dental that you'd normally get from base dental to go off base.

And AstraZeneca as well

That's what's expected out of them in their career fields. I mean, where else do you put them after sq/cc? Only so many spots on staff, and it's not like they can just go back to the line like a flyer

Back on topic, COVID shot#2 complete after having COVID over Christmas. Typical symptoms of fever, fatigue, headache, etc, which I also had on shot #1 as well. Made for a crummy few days.

There's two pieces to this puzzle: verifying you are who you say you are (both at the time of voting and when registering), and verifying you have a right to vote (citizen, resident for local/state elections, and not restricted from voting). Like you point out, the latter is typically done when the voter rolls are compiled, to include registering to vote. The identity piece is harder, especially when it has to be verified for all methods of voting, particularly votes that are mailed.

I think you make several good points, especially about how a lot of race issues are intertwined with socioeconomic issues. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/health-equity/race-ethnicity.html That being said,

You're right in those three points, I'm not arguing the top level characteristics, and my post came off that way. The paper looked at how to measure the those characteristics. Cognitive ability was easy to measure and quantify objectively. Motivation and emotional stability were harder to measure and quantify objectively. Sure, there are traits that likely are likely important (how you handle stress and anxiety, being goal seeking/achievement driven), but outside of that, it gets fuzzy, and that's the point I was trying to make. The paper also points out another issue: what is the definition of successful? Is it completing UPT? Is it being promoted to O-6 and beyond? Is it some tactical measure? Selection criteria) emphasis could change as you shift focus between different goals, even though the AF needs all 3 goals met for different reasons. I'll still argue that PPL doesn't (directly) matter, mainly because the flying time is still captured in the PCSM (which does predict performance in UPT). I'd be for PPL weighing into PCSM as a negative factor: have 80+ hours but no PPL? Maybe your flight hours should weigh less in your PCSM score since you're taking more time than average to obtain the PPL. Also, should a PPL weigh more than a sport pilot license or recreational pilot license? Should more weight be given to instrument rating, or commercial pilot/ATP? I guess what I'm getting at is that the PPL shouldn't just be a box check to show motivation. Otherwise, it's like having a box for the major promotion board for a master's degree: completing an AAD shows motivation, drive, and commitment, as well as increased knowledge, but is costly in terms of money and time. Having a masters degree *is* valuable to AF, but with the pace of deployments in the post 9/11 world, and doing more with less as we took cuts to personnel, the AF couldn't afford to keep the master's "requirement" at the O-4/O-5 level without impacting retention, so it got masked until the O-6 board (which shows that it's still valued). Not to mention the cottage industry that popped up happy to take government tuition assistance money to provide a not very meaningful check the box degree, undercutting why a master's was valuable in the first place. There were outside forces restricting women from competing, regardless of their ability. - By AF policy, females were not allowed to fly combat aircraft until 1993 - Women tend to be smaller than men, and many women just don't meet anthro standards (have to be above average in height/sitting height/reach/etc) -- Medical waivers, including anthro waivers, used to be less much less prevalent -- Most fighter aircraft were designed to fit the AF pilot population in the 60s (F-15, F-16) through 80s (F-22). Which again, was only male during that time period -- The AF did not mandate requirements for anthro considerations in aircraft design accommodate women until 2020 (and to use more than just the historical population of AF female pilots, who again, were above average in height compared to the general population of women in the US). So like men, women had to be above average not only in mental and cognitive abilities to compete to be a pilot. However, women also had to be above average in physical size as compared to other women because airplanes were designed to accommodate men due to legacy policies, which significantly shrinks the pool of women eligible to compete in the first place. Here you and I agree. Don't think subpopulations (like pilots, or a subset of pilots like fighter pilots) have to match the greater US population distribution. But I do believe we should remove any barriers to entry that don't contribute to combat effectiveness. Some of the issues go beyond the AF's scope, like K-12 education. That being said, the better education (particularly STEM, but I think physical education/fitness is also important and has fallen off to the wayside) that is provided across the board (rich/poor, majority/minority) increases the pool of people to select from for officer candidates, which increases the pool for pilot candidates. But that's a discussion for another day in another thread. One other topic that might be interesting to look at is how personalities/attributes in different jets changed when we moved to an track select system, where fighter/bomber studs were identified much earlier in UPT than in a single track system.

Yup front, I'll say I generally agree with you. But... Interesting paper, but there are limitations, and you're drawing a causal link when the paper does not show a causal link.

PPL is just a proxy for some skills relevant to military flying. Maybe this argument is different based on component (AD vs Guard or reserve). AD probably can accept more risk that a student washes out, while a guard/reserve unit can't (a washout potentially means a position they can't fill for a year or two). So I can see why using a PPL on hiring applications could be important for the guard/reserve hiring boards. Is there a way to identify those skills/attributes without having applicants spend a huge chunk of change? Is there another way to measure drive, dedication, and commitment than obtaining a PPL? PPL doesn't reduce UPT training (aside from IFT), so is it just practice bleeding? Should a person who paid their way through college by working get more consideration than someone on scholarship (or going to/graduated from the academy)? Put another way, there are many AF pilots who have never touched a civilian airplane, and have done well in their military aviation careers. So what attributes/skills did they have that led to their selection and success, and what are the best ways to identify those skills and attributes?

$100/hr for a wet Cessna 152 (lower end) $40/hr for the instructor, 20 hr min $100 for class 3 medical $160 for written $200-400 for the examiner A 2Lt takes home about $3560 take per month in basic pay (assuming no state income taxes). At the bare minimum (40 hours, 20 dual, 1hr checkride), that'll run $5360. About 1.5 months pay assuming no expenses besides rent (bah) or food (bas). At a more typical pace (65 hours and 35 hours dual), it's about 3.5 months pay. So doable, if you have a good job and no other debt, and nothing else going on in your life. Add one more months pay to get to 100 hours. If nothing else, LT pay only roughly doubled since you did your PPL, while hourly costs for an aircraft rental quadrupled. If you're working a min wage job (like a high school or college student summer job), assuming no other bills, 1200 hours of work (30 weeks full time work) to pay off the typical PPL in a C152. Add another 12.5 weeks (42.5 weeks total) of full time work to get to 100 hours. And again, this is without any other essential expenses like food, housing, and transportation. If you figure disposable income is 50% of take-home (which I'd say it's pretty generous), it's 2 years of work to fund that flight training, just to have an improved *chance* at getting picked up. Add about 25% if you're flying in something bigger like a C172, either for availability or weight (as in, if you weigh more than 170#, C152 probably isn't going to work out for you). All the PPL does is show that you have some aptitude for flying, and had the means to do flying in the civilian world. The AF gets the same info through IFT/IFS. Alternatively, you can do well on AFOQT and the TBAS, and your PCSM score will likely be high enough to be competitive without a significant amount of flight hours.

You mean like this? https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Holm-Center/AFJROTC/Flight-Academy/ https://www.maxwell.af.mil/News/Display/Article/2483043/hq-afjrotc-announces-2021-flight-academy-scholarship-winners/ 230 PPL training program scholarships given out this year for AFJROTC cadets (from 1340 applicants, so about a 1 in 6 chance). Includes flying training, transportation to/from training, room and board, so pretty much a funded TDY flying training for cadets. Not solely funded by the AF, but the AF is leading the initiative.

What's a PPL run these days? $15K? Plus the free time to fly and study? In addition to participating in organized athletics (which also involves time and cost). That's a huge hurdle to overcome to increase your chances, especially if you're trying to remain competitive in other selection factors (grades, athletics, community service). That being said, the AF is trying to help bring more people who may not be able to afford a PPL into the selection pool (including minorities/women) with scholarships for PPLs: https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Holm-Center/AFJROTC/Flight-Academy/ Plus, generally UPT studs who have (only) a PPL are generally indistinguishable from those who don't by the end of the first T-6 contact checkride. My hunch is that having a PPL decreases your odds of washing out (initial solo is one of the big milestones), mainly because having previous flying experience makes the learning early on a bit easier on average and making that individual a safer investment for the AF. One problem in modeling (like figuring out who to select for UPT) is once you identify a maximum in the model (like maximizing UPT graduation rate based on selection factors), the question becomes "is that a local maximum, or absolute maximum." In other words, just because I find a peak in the model, doesn't mean I've necessarily found the best solution in the solution space. You may also have potentially competing goals (minimizing UPT washout vs producing the most skilled pilots). Maybe selecting athletes produces a handful of "great" tactical pilots, but if there's a higher washout rate, is it worth the cost? Or is it better to select to minimize washout rates and accept "average" or "acceptable" pilots (if the minimums weren't good enough, they'd be higher...)? For better or for worse, pilots run the AF. If we select pilots to only focus on being the best tactically, it hurts our ability to groom operational and strategic level planners with tactical experience (unless the AF were to allow non-pilots to fill those higher level roles). At the same time, focusing solely on the operational and strategic levels may leave us unable to win at the tactical level to achieve those operational/strategic goals. So we need a mix of pilots with different skills, backgrounds, and career desires. And since the AF is run by pilots, it acts as the greatest filter into who is allowed to lead within the AF, so it gets a lot of scrutiny.

Probably because Raytheon, Lockheed, and Boeing have better lobbyists. And the AF messaging that there isn't a need for a T-1 replacement.

It's similar, but not quite the same. But any gap/difference is readily crossed in the FTU. But it's also not just teaching CRM, but teaching the AMC way of doing things. That being said, you're right, doesn't take the T-1 to teach it. And from the looks of it, the AF doesn't think so either, and isn't replacing the T-1 after it's retired in a few years.

Thanks for the clarification, Marines doing quality spread was what the Marine studs were saying when I was going through way back when at Whiting, so secondhand info. Though that may have been on career fields, not flying assignments. Lots of discussion from the Marines I be if it was better to be bottom of top third, or top of middle third from what I remember. Either way, I'll defer to you. My whiting class has a primary completion spread of about 2 months, no real extenuating circumstances besides scheduling and luck. Still technically the same class in the Navy's eyes despite the wide range of completion dates and different PCS dates (and different phase 3 classes, I want to say my class was split over 3 or 4 Vance classes for phase 3) for follow on training. That's very different than the AF system, when everyone in the class finishes/tracks on a predetermined date and tracks together. For reference, my track select night at Whiting consisted of only 1 stud (me) tracking from any class that week. Copy on the rockstar getting rolled to get what they want-but that's happening to someone with a 70+ NSS, and not the guy just making it at 55-60 NSS. Luck and timing...