jazzdude

The abortion (and by extension, pregnancy and children's) issue doesn't live in a vacuum. It touches on healthcare access, economic issues, and societal/community support both during pregnancy and through when that child becomes an adult. 1- The state isn't making that decision to abort a pregnancy, typically it's the mother. If we were looking at state-directed abortion or sterilization, then you have a point here, but that's not the case. However, the US still allows forced sterilization, which was upheld by the supreme court...(you could argue that this just prevents life from starting, or that this is the government's way of killing off kids before they can even be conceived) 2- Your argument doesn't address problems with triage. How do you weigh the life of the mother against the life of the unborn baby? If carrying the baby to term will kill the mother, who's life is more important? And who should make that decision (the mother who's life is in danger, or someone else)? 3- It also ignores the need for access to medical care, both for the the mother and baby, and not just for the pregnancy, but through the first several months after birth, assuming no complications. 4-We also don't have any real mandated maternity leave (sure, they can take 12 weeks of unpaid leave through FMLA assuming they meet the criteria, but what pays the bills then?). Maybe if you work for a decent company and have decent insurance, they'll get some maternity pay, but likely reduced from normal. 5-Should women who have a miscarriage be charged with manslaughter? 6-Should a mother with a fetus with known serious genetic disorders be forced to give birth to the child, when that child will suffer and live a very shortened life? What if the parents have no means to pay for the medical care for that child? It's laughable to think the gov will pay for that child's medical bills-the parents would likely go bankrupt doing what they can for the kid, or be judged harshly (or criminally) for "letting" the kid die if they don't exhaust every avenue for medical treatment. 7- There's the personal choice argument as well-don't have sex unless you're ready to have a baby. Sure, if you want to take that hard stance, then why not apply it elsewhere and be consistent? Should a drunk driver that wraps their car around a tree receive medical treatment? Should insurance be forced to cover their medical bills for an objectively bad (science shows alcohol degrades cognitive and motor skills needed to operate a car) and illegal personal choice? Should they be allowed to discharge the medical debt through bankruptcy, or should they be forced to pay off what they owe for services provided or harm/damage caused regardless of how long it takes (or maybe cap it at 18 years of payments...). I don't see how people can believe so strongly that abortion is wrong, and yet work so hard against helping that child be born healthy (specifically, access to healthcare and paid maternity leave), as all of those issues show how society values life. If it's so important to society that the child is born, even against the mother's wishes, society should pay to ensure the child is born healthy and has a support network after birth (which means people need to be willing to adopt or foster kids when the birth parents do not wish to raise the kid). I'm not advocating for abortion, nor do I believe that is generally the right choice. But there's enough edge cases where it may be the best option available given the circumstances involved. So I'd rather defer the choice from government to the individual, to make the choice that is right for them, rather than have the government dictate what to do.

LNAV only for the C-17, unless something's changed in the last year

Yeah, stupid things like not being in/out of OBS or a bad direct to, or not confirming the course guidance greens up at the FAF on a GPS approach. But studs also do things like fly a "VORilizer" approach (attempt to fly ILS/LOC approach but on the VOR/DME course guidance), or not updating the course at the FAF. The good part about teaching GPS approaches in UPT is understanding TAAs and NoPT routings. But that doesn't really need to be done in the jet, it can be taught in the sim without worrying about certification of the GPS unit. This teachers the basic principles of GPS approaches that can be built on in phase 3 or the MWS. Sure, teaching PBN in UPT would be nice, but are any of our MWSs PBN compliant for RNP-approaches? I'm guessing it's just our big OSA jets that can fly those approaches anyways, so unless there's a lot of investment in our MWSs, PBN training doesn't really do much, or would be so old to basically not be relevant and have to be re-taught anyways. (Just like how GPS approaches had to be re-taught when introduced to the C-17, particularly for the specific quirks of the C-17 MC, to the point where AMC felt C-17 pilots needed a 4-page checklist to do terminal RNAV operations). I'd rather see more training on visual approaches so we don't land at the wrong airfield...(or just now VFR nav training and planning on how to enter unfamiliar fields VFR, lays the foundation for flying tactical approaches)

That looks like the take big AF is taking as well. If it was important, well, there'd be money to upgrade. I'd bet it eventually gets fixed, but probably not for a few years.

Performance based navigation. Usually RNP approaches is what gets talked about.

Well, that's where I think the solution lies, so yeah.

A minority isn't always in need of protection from the government. But it requires the majority to not abuse power to harm the minority. Otherwise, the minority could be left to either suffer, or turn to violence to fight back. And at times, a minority can violate the majority as well. History is full of examples of individuals or small groups, and not just governments, inflicting their will on a larger population after they have consolidated some means of power, often through force/violence, technological advantage, or through control of key resources. Any number of groups can and have consolidated and abused power throughout history, such as religions, organized crime, businesses, terrorists/freedom fighters, etc. And that ignores outside forces like rival countries. So the real problem is how to manage power within a society. That power can reside in either a majority or minority, though within our form of government, it largely rests with the majority for government matters. I'd rather see power reside at lower levels of government, since they are closer to the people they represent. At the same time, issues that affect all Americans should be handled at the federal level.

Political compromise helps mitigate/resolve those negative consequences through facilitating debate from multiple viewpoints. And yes, for any policy/law there will likely be at least some negative consequences that affect someone. But that's just a fact of life with any form of government, at least with a representative government you get input into the process, and it's the price that's paid to live in the society being governed. My point is the people that wanted to pull those government levers to effect a change will find other levers elsewhere within society to do so if that lever is removed from government. Those negative consequences don't go away just because a different organization is now controlling the lever. Really, the only way to reduce government power (in a functioning representative government) on an issue is if we as a society agree on that issue and use informal (i.e. non-governmental) methods and power to enforce that norm or standard. However, this still creates negative consequences for people in the minority, and can leave them with no recourse except to appeal to government to protect them through laws if their basic rights are being violated. So if you're in the majority in the country on an issue, removing government power has no effect on you, and may be a benefit since removing power removes the costs associated with enforcement of that power. But if you're in the minority and that government power was protecting you from the majority, you'll lose out. So the question becomes to what extent do we protect the rights of the minority from the majority? Otherwise, it just turns into mob rule, which negates any benefit of democracy or representative governments.

I agree. Unfortunately, both Republicans and Democrats don't want to compromise, and both sides are happy to fuel the fire and polarize politics, largely on single issues to try and get a majority and push things through unilaterally.

The challenge I see is that someone or some group will step in to fill that power gap, and they might not be accountable to the citizens. Look at speech on the internet (facebook, twitter, get al). Government doesn't really have much in the way of laws or regulations here (there is some, but largely seems to be extensions of rules for older media rather than addressing unique qualities of social media). So largely it was left up to the tech companies to self regulate behavior. Their incentive to self regulate was to prevent actual laws being put on the books, which could hurt their business model. That was great, right up to the point where the tech companies started acting in their own interests based on their views of society. This created a dilemma. On one hand, social media/tech companies are private organizations and should be free to censor whatever they want, since the first amendment only prevents government from restricting speech. On the other hand, since social media companies can have broad influence in controlling narratives and what gets promoted or seen, they can sway how people think and potentially vote, giving social media companies undue influence on our laws and social norms. I doubt less regulation (reduction in scope of government power) would fix this particular problem. The challenge is, if laws or regulations are soght, the same large companies who are the cause for needing those new laws are also the same ones with money to lobby for their interests. Basically, it all just comes down to "don't be a dick to other people." The difficult part is that statement encompasses a wide range of definitions for what constitutes acceptable behavior, which is amplified by how diverse our country is (and not just race/ethnicity, but also regional norms/beliefs, religions, and the wide range of upbringings). And there's only a few ways to deal with people/groups being dicks: laws and a system to enforce those laws (which consolidates authority/power in those who enforce the laws), social norms and unwritten standards enforced by shame and ridicule, or just straight up violence (power through strength).

That's because Amazon has enough money to influence outcomes and brings enough jobs that site selection can have significant impacts to that site. A small business bringing maybe 100-200 people won't have the same impact as Amazon bringing several thousand jobs. Coincidentally, that's similar to why labor unions work: an individual worker can't negotiate as well as a large organization, unless they have unique/rare abilities. Same goes for businesses- a small business won't be able to negotiate with government as well as a large business, unless they possess something the government is interested in. I'd bet younger people are flocking to the far left because there's no real middle ground when it comes to voting. I don't think younger people necessarily care if large businesses are treated better than small businesses, they care about making end meet and getting paid well enough to do the things they want. Republicans have doubled down on backing business interests, particularly when wages have been stagnant for so long when compared to productivity expected from workers. So yeah, if you're in a position where you feel financially squeezed, you're going to vote for someone who will at least consider a minimum wage increase, or better worker protections like sick leave or access to healthcare. They're going to vote for someone who will help them meet basic needs, all the other politics don't really matter if you're struggling. And since Republicans won't even entertain any debate on those subjects (and use the "free market" as an excuse to not engage in meaningful debate, or to acknowledge that there might be a problem), of course they'll vote Democrat, even if they don't fully agree with their platform. The unfortunate byproduct of that is that it enables the far left to push their agenda on many other unrelated fronts.

So what's your solution? There's no such thing as a free and unencumbered market-something or someone will consolidate wealth and power and use that to influence both the market and the surrounding society that enables the market. That could be government (communism at the extreme) or individual actors (corporate monopolies or individuals), or anywhere between. Since we don't live in a society that controls businesses directly, how does government incentivize the behaviors it wants to see? Attracting a large business to a city brings people, and if those people are paid well, it injects money into other industries and businesses in the city, as well as increased tax revenue in and screaming other businesses. But there aren't many carrots a city has to attract an industry or business. It's mainly financial benefits, such as reduced taxes (whether it's on profits or on property taxes), or funding infrastructure for the business (like funding a stadium for a sports team, or public transportation like a metro stop). If a business gets large enough, it gains influence through it's wealth, both directly and indirectly. It gives them negotiating power when dealing with government (particularly lower levels), particularly if their industry isn't dependent on location. Just like AF pilots, a business can vote with their feet to go somewhere they feel better appreciated. If a business can influence government and laws, why shouldn't it do so to make conditions favorable for themselves to make more money? Arguably, for a publicly traded company, it's their fiduciary responsibility to do so. So why is corporate influence on government bad? Is it because they might not be acting in the best interests of society at large? So then what? Well, government can enact laws/regulation to curb certain actions or behaviors, but this often gets played as "attacking the free market" and/or being socialist/communist. The only real way to reduce corporate influence in government is to reduce their ability to influence, which is through limiting how much wealth they can accumulate. And the way that's done it's through taxes. However, this creates a danger with government overreach, especially if the ideals elected government officials hold do not match the people they represent. That tax money has to go to funding what society wants or needs, otherwise, the problem just gets shifted from undue business influence to some other segment of society having undue influence (like the 2 major political parties...).

That's pretty dumb. Math seems to be one of the few subjects where there's some level of tailoring to the student (via accelerated paths). It helps meet the need of the student by providing an appropriate level of challenge. A better fix would be better teaching in lower grades and building confidence in math earlier, which would pay dividends in high school and beyond.

Also, if you're looking to get an ATP, going to a good school can help. I used Mil2ATP and had a great experience training with them. Sounds like there are a few other good ones out there as well that cater to military pilots.

2 on sheppard air for any written test. I've used them 4 times, only missed one question on 4 tests. Worth the cost. Outside of that, FAA has some decent materials, though navigating around them can be a pretty big shift from the military. Info is generally similar, just arranged differently. A good CFI is worth their weight in gold. And just like any checkride, ask around for gouge on examiners, as most have a script or common questions they go through. Advisory circulars are kind of like FCIFs or FCBs, lots of info out there arranged by topic, released or updated as needed, if you want to self study on topics. AIM is another good general reference https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim_html/index.html CFRs are your regulatory guidance, part 61 and part 91 are good places to start. https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=2cae74ca26976e27b503c11b598ffada&mc=true&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title14/14cfrv2_02.tpl#0 If you're a military IP, don't forget to also grab your CFI. Just takes a written exam (again, use sheppard air to prep). Though once you get it, make sure you don't let your CFI cert go non current, since you'll have to do a checkride to reinstate your CFI. Typically all you have to do is a set of CBTs (multiple vendors out there, $100-200 for the course) once every two years.

Here's the checkride task list and standards. There's a table (Additional Rating Task Table towards the end) with what tasks you'll have to do to add the rating. https://www.faa.gov/training_testing/testing/acs/ Expect to do a full ground eval as well as the flight, though what constitutes a full ground eval and how in depth it is depends on the examiner. When I added commercial single engine sea to my multi engine land ATP, the ground eval focused on water ops, some aircraft systems, performance (TOLD, W&B) and emergencies, and took maybe 30-45ish minutes.

I'll be honest, I didn't pay close attention to that portion of the gi bill brief since I elected to take the bonus and stay on AD. Here's a news article that describes the issue: https://www.stripes.com/news/us/dozens-of-military-families-have-had-to-repay-va-for-gi-bill-benefits-1.646937 Basically, if you don't complete the additional 4 years (after the initial transfer approval date, not just serving or 10 years of service) required to transfer the benefit, VA may recoup benefits paid. I know there's differences between AD and Reserve GI Bill administration, but not sure how a change in component affects your eligibility for either, or if/how service time transfers (specifically for GI Bill transfer to dependents purposes). Definitely worth reaching out to a VA GI Bill counselor.

Only thing to add is the service (AF) can drop the GI Bill transfer ADSC, but the VA *will* cancel the transfer benefit and retroactively recoup any payments if you don't complete the ADSC (people have been bit by being days short of completing the gi bill transfer commitment and hit with a massive bill).

Probably as in I give most people I don't know the benefit of the doubt that they are doing their best at their job. Look at this forum and see how much people complain about any other career field. Finance, MPF, comm, etc. Hell, even GOs. Most are probably good people doing their best. I'd say a good chance/probability they are good people. But there are But bad experiences tend to stick out, and disproportionately affect perceptions. Plus, conscious and unconscious thinking/reactions are affected differently, and it takes much more time and positive events to make a change in unconscious behavior. This makes fixing the policing problem (and poor perceptions) much more difficult, and on a longer timeline than people want to see the change in.

You can do that, but there are consequences... AFI 36-2501 2.10.3.2. An officer who causes his/her non-selection through communication to a selection board is not entitled to involuntary separation pay.

Yeah, I was in a similar boat-passed over, and then had a only a few months until the next PRF was due. Fortunately got picked up on the second look (Wg/CC have me a DP, no other real change to my record, not enough time to really do another OPR). I elected to stay in, and meeting the O-5 board this year, so we'll see how that goes. Luck and timing...

Sorry to hear that, unfortunately have been in your shoes. Here's my hack at your questions. 2. Being passed over twice sets a mandatory separation date, and overrides any ADSC. Be careful on the GI Bill transfer though, if you don't fulfill the ADSC, the transfer gets voided. If you accept continuation, any ADSCs sticks (at least through the end of the continuation period). 3. I believe so, but worth confirming 4. Declining continuation shouldn't have an effect. 5. Accepting continuation removes the involuntary separation, so you won't get the ISP later unless it's through a RIF or other force shaping measure. Also, make an appointment with the AFPC promotion non-select counselor. They'll do a records review and give you feedback on your record. Shouldn't be any surprises though (they'll talk about awards, strats, etc), and compare your records with those just above and below the promotion cut line. You'll have a big choice to make. If you stay in, APZ chances historically haven't been high, especially after the second board. But if you're happy to just fly the line as a Capt on AD, then good for you. There's always the guard/reserves, or you can make a clean break and go do something else. Best of luck to you in your decision.

Don't know where you got your info... https://www.linkedin.com/company/hilton-software-llc

If the AF really wanted to update the T-6 GPS , it would find the money and POM for it. It's easy to chuck spears at the acquisition folks, but if the operators don't make it a priority requirement in their rack and stack, and get the staff to buy off on it being necessary, acquisition won't get the funding to fix it. The acquisition itself would likely be easy, getting the money to do the acquisition is the hard part. I am surprised we got foreflight given DoD paid to develop the aero app. Though if I remember correctly, foreflight is purchased by individual wings using their funds. I guess we'll just have to bring back the fix to fix in the mighty T-6... :)

Well put, though I would add that the police need to do the same and not come across as threatening. The challenge is that both sides (police and public) to some extent are afraid of the other. Fear can make you do stupid things, and can put you in fight or flight. Individuals may have bad experiences with police and do things to protect themselves, such as stopping in well lit public areas when pulled over, or recording the interaction. Both are reasonably reactions if you're wary of the police (or criminals impersonating the police), and shouldn't be seen as escalating actions (well, maybe not sticking a cell phone in the cop's face). Or they are just plain afraid of the police, whether it's for a good or bad reason. On the other side, police do have be prepared to deal with potentially violent and armed criminals, and will do things to control the situation and protect themselves. Unfortunately, sometimes those self protective actions are perceived as aggressive and escalate the situation when it's not needed, and make what should've been an simple interaction into something much worse. And most people in general don't like being filmed doing their job by people looking for mistakes that can have career impacts or cause embarrassment. This problem gets worse when different cultures collide, and normal mannerisms for one group are misinterpreted as threatening or aggressive by the other. (And yes, this is more than just race, look at the differences between west coast and east coast mannerisms, or how the military talks, etc) There's not going to be an easy fix, since it requires trust to be rebuilt, both by the police and by the public/their community. That takes time, and generally is a local issue. And since the police are in that position of authority, I believe they are the ones that have to make the first steps in repairing the relationship with their communities and the public at large. Then there's the question of if you have to comply with a police officer's demands. There are many situations where you don't have to comply with their demands, and have no legal reason to be compelled to. For example, a cop asking to search your vehicle during a routine traffic stop. It's your legal right to decline unless they get a warrant, but they can make your life very difficult if you decline and they don't want to drop the issue for whatever reason. Another example is the police asking to see your phone, or come into your house to ask questions.