jazzdude

China isn't looking to change Afghanistan like we were, they just want access. If they're willing to cut deals with the Taliban, they may get to a mutually agreeable position (say weapons and money in exchange for pipelines and access). China probably will be willing to let the Taliban do whatever they want in Afghanistan so long as they get their access. What will be interesting is how China's treatment of Uighurs (as a Muslim minority in China) affects the Taliban's willingness to work with China. The challenge we faced was trying to change their way of life and culture to match US culture and ideals (and largely ignoring what they value culturally). That creates a lot of resistance (and violence) that China might not see since China's goals would likely be different.

I mean, there's no real investigation needed for the decision to takeoff. Either leave a strategic asset in a hostile environment, or have the Ravens start shooting to get people off the jet (which also would've played terribly in the media). Civilian casualties were unfortunate, but given the situation unavoidable. As for the videos, what do you think you'd get with a bunch of passengers on board?

I want to believe your line of thinking, but my money is on: "Mishap pilot failed to adequately complete exterior inspection, enabling personnel to hang onto the exterior of the aircraft during takeoff, resulting in the tragic death of 2 civilians." Barring external pressure to not punish the crew. My sq tried to Q3 my loadmaster following a fire on the jet for doing an emergency ramp blow down with the cargo toes installed downrange. Nevermind that the Fire chief said to open the cargo ramp or they're cutting a hole in the jet because they couldn't find the fire in all the smoke, or that there was 6 pallets of ammunition right by where the smoke was coming from, and nothing prohibited leaving cargo toes from being left installed in the first place. The aircraft damage occurred when mx tried to close the ramp, messed up the door/ramp sequencing, and ripped the door seal off. Only reason the LMs didn't Q3 was that the caution about the door seal hadn't been released yet. So yeah, AMC is pretty ridiculous and I wouldn't put it past them to try to be Q3 the crew. Impounding the jet makes sense though, and not just because of the mishap procedures. Lots of people touching the jet who shouldn't be, worth at least a once over by maintenance to ensure nothing's wrong with the jet.

This one's on CENTCOM as the COCOM. JCS probably had little to no influence on the operational planning for the evacuation. But there won't be any accountability there either.

They'd have to not just be standing, but standing and packed like sardines. C-17 carries 18 pallets, which would work out to roughly 2 sq ft per pax if they were solely on the cargo floor. Might get a bit more room standing in the galley or on the cargo door, and maybe a few more upstairs in the crew rest area. For reference, typical pax load is roughly 100, 150ish with seat pallets, and 250ish of you floor load the pax (aka have them sit and throw a cargo strap over their legs). Kudos to the crew for managing a difficult situation and making it happen.

You can claim unreimbursed moving expenses (above what the gov reimbursed you for) on your taxes. Generally you're right though, a DITY move reimburses above what your moving expenses were, so like you said, your reducing the taxable amount of the dity incentive.

Don't think there is a workaround if you want to get paid, have to have the weight tickets if you want to get paid for the weight moved, and I don't believe there's any flexibility in the JTR on that. You should get paid at least for the truck rental, tolls, packing materials, etc if you have the receipts. And if you itemize on your taxes, claim the difference between your moving cost and what the gov paid you for the move.

So she ORM Canx'd to take care of herself... Nobody died as a result, no mission failure with any real impact. [emoji2369]

A few points: All models throw out data-the more variables you look at, the more complex the model gets, and that complexity doesn't necessarily mean better. Saying machine learning can account for environmental factors is a hand wave ignoring the problem. Especially if it's a decision tree. Models are only as good as the information put into them, and missing information doesn't always come out in the wash, especially if a significant unknown factor is left out of the model. Start moving into neutal nets and larger data sets, and then yeah, it might pick up on new correlations, but again, it's limited to the data it can see. The paper doesn't say harder degrees increase your likelihood of graduating UPT, it says if you have an aviation related degree, you're more likely to graduate, followed by engineering degree, then all other degrees. Nothing about strength or difficulty of degree. At face value, I take that as people who are interested in aviation do better in pilot training.

You're missing the point I'm making: a descriptive model is not the same as a prediction model. Just because you have a model that looks back to a point in time and can model with high success the outcomes at that time does not mean that model will be useful for predicting outcomes in the future. Extrapolation can be dangerous. You're right that you have to look back to build the model, but then it has to be continually assessed for validity, particularly when variables can be subjective, or are affected by environmental factors. For example, degree choice could be affected by other factors: maybe one year an EE degree was required to be on ROTC scholarship, and maybe the next year it's not limited. This would drive good candidates who would've already been successful in UPT to certain degrees to satisfy other goals (like paying for college), which make that variable less useful. Think casual relationships: does an EE degree (or insert any degree) make you a good pilot (or more likely to pass UPT), or do pilots who graduate UPT happen to have EE degrees? The paper also talked about race being an important factor, though interviews seem to point towards a bias toward white students, leading to the recommendation to continue expanding diversity/inclusion efforts. So in a similar vein, the environment affects how the variables are included in the models.

Exactly. One of the dangers of a backwards looking prediction is that the data is biased because selection criteria were applied already. Because there is selection criteria, other potentially causal factors or better predictor variables may have been excluded. So the best this methodology can do is say the selection criteria is adequate, but not enough information exists to say it's the best selection criteria. It's like saying back in the 80s that women can't be pilots because all the successful pilots in the past were men. Technically true and backed by data, but the data was biased because of the selection criteria used in the past. The other issue is this study used graduation from UPT as the success criteria, which may or may not be the real measure of success we want. FTU graduation might be a better success criteria (as it also evaluates if the right assignment to airframe was given)

So to do the "normal" job of JOPEStering, you can have enlisted do that (and you'll see that about half the people doing JOPES are enlisted there). Initially, that would take about 3/4 of my shift, though after a few weeks, as a shift lead, you'll probably spend less than half your shift doing JOPES. The other piece is doing action officer stuff, and it helps to have a rated person to beat back some of the crazy and ridiculous ideas the army comes up with in initial planning. Plus, part of the validation process is reviewing notional load plans, so helps to have someone in the office that can provide context to load plans. I also worked on initial planning into new airfields, so familiarity with giant reports, planned ground time, etc helps put together a better plan before it goes down to AMD for scheduling. Didn't replace what the tactics shops had to do, but more of a first pass "here's where your friction points are going to be" (including things like ground support, aerial port capacities, customs, dips, etc). Yeah, the AMLOs attached to the army units should be doing that stuff, but, well, some are better than others. Most of the other officers will be loggies, but they also have to get spun up on JOPES since that is also not their normal job. ETA: Overall it's not a bad gig if you have to deploy to a non flying deployment.

Can't pull down the full article, but I'd bet "predict" is not the right word in the way we think of it since the prediction pool is based on people already selected to attend UPT, and those predictive characteristics may not be correct if you were looking to see who to select for UPT in the first place. In other words, the machine learning can only tell you if the UPT selection criteria works, but not if it is the best selection criteria since the variables were limited before the analysis.

Did that job 2 years ago. You'll be a JOPESter validating requirements and have a few people you supervise on shift, and also help with other logistics related tasks, like working with the different TF mobility shops in planning. You'll be working for CENTCOM CCJ4, but a lot of time will be spent interacting with the Army, and living on an army base, though you'll be in a joint unit. O-4s/O-5s (and O-4 selects) get a roommate, though when I was there they let FGOs have single rooms if they were available. O-3s live in bays, though when I was there the unit had a handful of rooms for the night shift where CGOs were 2 to a room as well. 8 hour shifts, 1 full day off and a half day off per week. Chow halls are good, plenty of restaurant options. We had people get forward deployed as well to work specific logistics problems, such as dips. It was interesting to see logistics from the other side, especially since I had done an AMD deployment as well. Can't say there necessarily a career benefit, but you'll get a joint medal out of it.

I mean, that seemed to be the C-17 standard during my time actively flying the line... (Not saying it's right, especially for an exercise) Nothing like waking up after a good sleep while on Charlie alert and getting the call to go into crew rest for an alert in 13 hours with a basic crew. Fun times.

Extended stay hotels work as well. I stayed 2 months at a pit pad before moving to an extended stay hotel. No more worrying about getting blocked in the driveway or fighting a bunch of other dudes for fridge space or the bathroom to get ready in the morning.

If a company gets big enough, they can kill competition in their infancy. Either buy them out, undercut pricing to drive them out of business, or create barriers to entry into the industry. It's why monopolies are so dangerous. But get big enough, and you can lobby Congress or other oversight agencies to carve out exception for you (look at how successful Disney has been at doing this) People in general seen to be hesitant to change industries. Throw in either high requirements for entry level jobs (why do so many jobs require a college degree?) or low pay during apprenticeship, and it can make the jump difficult. Especially if you're good at what you already do, and even though you took pay cuts, the pay is still enough scrape by. Moving is also not without risks. It can be expensive to move (even if you get rid of most of your stuff, a small uhaul is still going to run you several hundred dollars if you're moving any real distance). You lose the support network you've grown up with: family, friends, acquaintances, and may not have any support network where you land to make a new start. There may also be cultural changes that you need to adjust to (rural vs city, regional norms/cultures). Look at how hard Congress fights against BRAC, especially if a base in their district is on the chopping block. If a base closes (say like in Enid or Altus), there may not be enough jobs in the town to support the former on-base workers, even if they are willing to switch industries. In addition, other businesses get affected by the outflow of people (restaurants, retail, hotels, etc), which could cause then to also cut workers as they adjust to new levels of demand. All that leading to fewer people in the congressional district (decreased influence) and/or a shrunken economy. Even if a town isn't run by a single company, a large company (or a military base) in a small town has a big impact on the town's economy. There may not be enough jobs for a large number of people to leave the large company without also needing to leave the town to find work. Or there may not be enough jobs if the large company closes or moves elsewhere. I do think you're argument holds water in a larger city with multiple industries, at least for individual workers. Should shopping at mom and pop stores be considered a luxury?

But what if we throw a lot of money at the problem? Plus what good are cool military toys if you don't use them? /s

Yes, just like they can ask you for documentation for any other off base medical care (which you are responsible for providing to them in the first place), and use medical info in aggregate to brief medical readiness of a unit. (Like number of people on profile/quarters, etc)

Looking at just fatalities, it's likely low enough that it's acceptable to leadership. So you're right, it'll unfortunately take a lot more deaths to cause a change. However, anecdotally, there seems to be a lot more near misses. And the near misses don't get logged on a slide or metric, and "hides" the safety issues on the line. Sure, there's the ASAP program, but that requires people to fill out paperwork after a long day with competing priorities. I don't think the solution is paying pilots 100k extra a year to compete with the legacy airlines. It's more fixing the culture/environment where people enjoy their work and it doesn't become a grind, and the only way to do that is to decrease ops while we rebuild. That's not to say no bonus is needed, but money isn't the only issue that needs fixing to improve pilot retention. If there's a legacy that our time in Afghanistan (and the primacy that CENTCOM enjoyed for the past 2+ decades) has on the AF, it's that we've burned out our crews and airframes for little to no strategic gain.

Short answer is yes. I did something similar my last PCS (full DITY because of COVID) except the move was short enough (2 hour drive) that we took both cars down a few days early, dropped one off, then took one car back to grab the uhaul. We weighed the cars everytime we went down, and got reimbursed for all the weight in the multiple car trips (3 full tickets for car 1, 1 full ticket for car 2, 1 full ticket for uhaul). Only got mileage and tolls paid for the last trip (uhaul and 1 car). Another option is to have a friend or family member drive the second car and fly them back, or to consider shipping one car (depending on the cost of plane tickets and hotels needed for a separate drive, it might be cheaper if you can do without a second car for a bit). Or just tow the second car behind the uhaul, you lose the mileage payment and can't claim the weight of the car, but you simplify the transport problem and avoid the cost of a second trip. I think you can claim the expense of the tow dolly as a moving cost (and if not, you can claim it on your taxes as an unreimbursed work moving expense), so really you're just losing the mileage payment for one car.

Only thing to add is to inspect your stuff well when you take delivery if you're going to put it right back in storage.

Would you sign on to fly for another 10 years? What about if the bonus was $1M in exchange for that 10 year commitment? Could the AF convince enough pilots to take that bonus to actually ramp down UPT/FTU production? It's not just training costs, but predictability in manning, which the AF gets through the initial ADSC as well as a 5+ year bonus ADSC. Part of the problem is DOPMA, and ceilings for the number of FGOs, and it would take a huge cultural shift to having line captains that stay on for a career (where pro pay or better bonuses would have a greater effect, since the promotion carrot goes away). But that requires a change in the up or out mentality (which Congress gave us the option to do, along with the 5 year promotion windows and merit based promotions). The airlines have the pressure of seniority to keep pilots from jumping ship elsewhere, and those golden handcuffs get tighter the longer a pilot stays with the company. Sure, airline pilots can quit if they don't like it there, but it means starting over at the bottom at another company's seniority list in a volatile industry that is no stranger to furloughs or companies going bankrupt/out of business, or moving to a different industry. I think you're theory is right, but it's not a secret. The AF is fine with airlines poaching pilots, as long as a good portion of those pilots also participate in the ARC. The airlines are fine with absenteeism due to guard/reserve commitments because it locks those pilots in (if you drop 5 years straight off mil leave, you probably won't leave the company because of your accrued seniority). And the individual pilot plays airline commitments against mil commitments to improve QoL/schedules. So everyone wins, especially that individual reservist pilot.

There isn't an apples to apples comparison. The AF can hire a doctor off the street, it can't hire a pilot off the street. Recruitment and retention are two different problems. The AF can rely on an outside training source to train doctors. So doctors have more choice in where they work, and can move in/out of the service relatively seamlessly. So if the AF has too many doctors, it can separate them easily, knowing that if they need more doctors in the future, they can just hire off the street. If the AF could do the same for pilots, it would. But that wouldn't mean competing with legacies for pilots (with the pay that brings), it's really competing against the regionals and part 135 operators for pilots. Plus, what legacy pilot is going to quit to go on AD, and lose their seniority? Especially when they could just go to the ARC of they want to scratch that itch. The retention of flying experience is in the ARC. AD needs pilots to fill staffs. So as long as people punch out of AD and go to the ARC as at least a TR, the total force stays okay experience-wise for flying ops. Where it gets hurt is losing good pilots on AD staff to guide the AF, in planning/requirements/acquisitions/policy/etc. But it all comes back to the budget being a zero sum game. Roughly 12k pilots on AD, $100k pro pay for everyone comes out to $1.2B/year. Rough wag if you only give pro pay to pilots who complete their initial ADSC is $600M/year. Assuming it is worth it, what gets cut to pay that bill?

I'll also add that there are some serious downward pressure on doctor salaries nationwide as well. Doctors are expensive, so many healthcare systems are turning to nurse practitioners, physicians assistants, CRNAs, etc. Those can do many of the basic tasks that a doctor can, to include waiting some prescriptions, but they don't get as much training (no residency required, shorter training programs). So the healthcare system is doing what the AF is doing: quantity over quality in the production pipeline to meet demand.