tac airlifter

Who will you guys be training on the aircraft? Seems odd to give it to you guys unless a lot of others exist for you to upgrade people on. Or will yo be getting a new mission?

Be that as it may, the blog in question here had 19 year old SF girls on it. Not to be sexist or 'ageist' but I don't think their skills equate to the Tier 1 assets, no matter what schools they attend. But back on point, the Deid is gay. Wait, I guess in light of DADT dissolving I should instead say "the Deid is a bastion of homosexual liberation and frolicking!"

It may have happened to more than one crew. But yup, early 2006 that was me. The rest of the story was a backend full of rowdy PUC's and some shenanigans with the Army that almost became a major international incident while the O's watched helplessly from the field; but I'll refrain from details. Bottom line, the herc schoolhouse tells everyone to run into a field during an EGE because in the 80's some guy got hit by the fire truck responding to the incident (driving on the runway). I recommend staying on a paved surface when you're at an isolated shithole with the potential for mines; we were a solid crew but this is one of those things you just never think about.

I also agree with pretty much all your points except about Hassan himself. Especially the fact that Peters just smells like a passed over LtCol who is pissed at everything and looking for public revenge. But you are incorrect that this would be blown over if he had not been Muslim. If he had been a white supremacist this would be a major news story and would have led to all manner of additional CBT's. If this had been a homophobe angry at the imminent dismissal of DADT this would be headlines everywhere with long term repercussions in the military. The government treats crimes committed with an ideological bent as more dangerous than simply a dude whose wife dumped him and went nuts. The reason ideology is more dangerous is that it's contagious. And the military was wrong not to recognize this freak. This guy was a terrorist, the FBI has even said so now and they have access to the classified report. A terrorist attack doesn't have to be coordinated to be effective. Hassan was influenced by his religion to commit this act, shouted "allah akbar" while doing it and the federal authorities have concluded this was terrorism. Ralph's personality issues aside, why do you disagree with this labeled terrorism? Edited to add: didn't see your post below when I wrote mine, and you answered the question about why you don't see this as terrorism. I guess we'll just agree to disagree.

I've had my share of close calls, but getting scared while flying? Scared usually happens afterwards when I realize how close to disaster I came and how little my own skill had anything to do with averting it. That being said, I remember feeling genuine panic when I emergency ground egressed a smoking aircraft and ran my ass into an unmarked minefield. That sinking feeling that you've lost control of your own fate is definitely scary.

Exactly what in the article did you disagree with?

Obviously I read articles written by Ralph with a grain of salt, but I've got to agree on this one. With even POTUS now calling this a terrorist attack and not the work of a lone gunman I am suprised at how incomplete and empty this report is. Hood Massacre Report Gutless and Shameful By RALPH PETERS January 16, 2010 https://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/ hood_massacre_report_gutless_and_yaUphSPCoMs8ux4lQdtyGM There are two basic problems with the grotesque non-report on the Islamist- terror massacre at Fort Hood (released by the Defense Department yesterday): * It's not about what happened at Fort Hood. * It avoids entirely the issue of why it happened. Rarely in the course of human events has a report issued by any government agency been so cowardly and delusional. It's so inept, it doesn't even rise to cover-up level. "Protecting the Force: Lessons From Fort Hood" never mentions Islamist terror. Its 86 mind-numbing pages treat "the alleged perpetrator," Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, as just another workplace shooter (guess they're still looking for the pickup truck with the gun rack). The report is so politically correct that its authors don't even realize the extent of their political correctness -- they're body-and-soul creatures of the PC culture that murdered 12 soldiers and one Army civilian. Reading the report, you get the feeling that, jeepers, things actually went pretty darned well down at Fort Hood. Commanders, first responders and everybody but the latest "American Idol" contestants come in for high praise. The teensy bit of specific criticism is reserved for the "military medical officer supervisors" in Maj. Hasan's chain of command at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. As if the problem started and ended there. Unquestionably, the officers who let Hasan slide, despite his well-known wackiness and hatred of America, bear plenty of blame. But this disgraceful pretense of a report never asks why they didn't stop Hasan's career in its tracks. The answer is straightforward: Hasan's superiors feared -- correctly -- that any attempt to call attention to his radicalism or to prevent his promotion would backfire on them, destroying their careers, not his. Hasan was a protected-species minority. Under the PC tyranny of today's armed services, no non-minority officer was going to take him on. This is a military that imposes rules of engagement that protect our enemies and kill our own troops and that court-martials heroic SEALs to appease a terrorist. Ain't many colonels willing to hammer the Army's sole Palestinian-American psychiatrist. Of course, there's no mention of political correctness by the panel. Instead, the report settles for blinding flashes of the obvious, such as "We believe a gap exists in providing information to the right people." Gee, really? Well, that explains everything. Money well spent! Or "Department of Defense force protection policies are not optimized for countering internal threats." Of course not: You can't stop an internal threat you refuse to recognize. The panel's recommendations? Wow. "Develop a risk-assessment tool for commanders." Now that's going to stop Islamist terrorists in their tracks. The Fort Hood massacre didn't reflect an intelligence failure. The intelligence was there, in gigabytes. This was a leadership failure and an ethical failure, at every level. Nobody wanted to know what Hasan was up to. But you won't learn that from this play-pretend report. The sole interesting finding flashes by quickly: Behind some timid wording on pages 13 and 14, a daring soul managed to insert the observation that we aren't currently able to keep violence-oriented religious extremists from becoming chaplains. (Of course, they're probably referring to those darned Baptists . . .) To be fair, there's a separate, classified report on Maj. Hasan himself. But it's too sensitive for the American people to see. Does it even hint he was a self-appointed Islamist terrorist committing jihad? I'll bet it focuses on his "personal problems." In the end, the report contents itself with pretending that the accountability problem was isolated within the military medical community at Walter Reed. It wasn't, and it isn't. Murderous political correctness is pervasive in our military. The medical staff at Walter Reed is just where the results began to manifest themselves in Hasan's case. Once again, the higher-ups blame the worker bees who were victims of the policy the higher-ups inflicted on them. This report's spinelessness is itself an indictment of our military's failed moral and ethical leadership. We agonize over civilian casualties in a war zone but rush to whitewash the slaughter of our own troops on our own soil. Conduct unbecoming.

That was a pretty gay blog. I really don't think a hostage situation on a military base would be handled by SF. I know some more qualified people pretty close by.

I've never heard of students wearing the poopy suit, but I've never instructed at pilot training so I could be wrong. Only times I know guys wear them is single engine well beyond power off glide distance to land. Think single engine crossing the Atlantic. I can't imagine wearing one to cross a relativly small lake.

I flew 130's for almost 5 years and this was not my experience at all. Everyone always told me how flying was secondary, but from what I saw that was only true if you allowed it to be true. I choose everyday when I went to work to make being good at my flying job my number 1 priority, and I'd like to think I succeeded. Did I catch some flak from my CC sometimes for flying instead of doing Flt/CC stuff? Sure, sometimes, but I always managed to get my ground job done. My point: everyone will tell you how it is but ultimately you get to decide what kind of officer/pilot you're going to be. I decided to put flying first; I got lots of cool missions and I got the job I wanted next, so being a good pilot first worked out well for me. And as a Flt/CC, I always strated guys who put flying first, not the office trolls-- if we're going to turn this queep around that's how it starts.

Listing your fellow Air Force members names online so you can mock them is highly unprofessional and makes you look like an idiot.

I've heard that rumor about every humorous AF video I've ever seen, and it's probably true.

Sheep gives birth to lamb with human face. edit: link

Who came up with a NLT 8000' flight restriction for small arms, and what were they smoking? I've not seen anything that restrictive anywhere else in the world.

Why would anyone clutter their brain with this useless nonsense? I will never in my life care what an AFI says about my sock color or underwear; it won't change anything I do. When leaders make stupid rules they just water down the legitimacy of all rules. Case in point, 202v3 specifically states only AF issue sunglasses can be worn while flying, but that rule is broken by literally every person I've ever flown with. How about we all just worry about shit that matters and expend energy memorizing things that matter?

Agreed. I thought Air Force gayness had hit rock bottom; looks like I was wrong. Edit to add: Anyone sense the irony that the one charged with keeping us sane uses language that makes us crazy?

No suprises there.

Agreed, I worked a full day Christmas Eve and then had to pick my folks up at the airport and they wanted to stop at stores on the way home; had you stopped me and said some shit I may have soiled the holiday spirit. My experience is 0-1s and E-1s may go places dressed in their uniform to look cool, but anyone with any TIS wears it in public when changing after work is too inconvienent. You know what they say about assumptions.

Bingo. I have a wife and two kids and spend pretty much every weekend hanging out with them, which is what I want to do. But Friday afternoons and night flights I'm cracking a brew and staying at the squadron. This is not a normal job where we work and go home, at least it isn't for me. I want to be there talking about flights & hanging with the bros, these guys are my friends. I don't have some other cool group of civilian friends I want to go be with, I like hanging out with the same guys I work with. I think a mandatory fee if I don't show up is pretty gay, but I understand the desire to cultivate a culture. My old squadron tried several times unsucessfully to mandate fun but it just doesn't work. My current squadron is an FTU and they always suck for students. The right answer is what Chuck said: dudes who don't want to hang out, single or married, just aren't part of the bro network. And they should know why.

I have empathy with your plight. The situation sucks and it isn't going to change unless we lose a war and get all our leadership replaced. The same system that you are fighting now produced the officers in charge; where is their incentive to drastically change the system since it picked them to be leaders? They think the system works quite well. All of the best pilots/aircrew/officers I know either went ANG, SOF or left the AF after their third tour.

Can anybody explain these wierd blue light over Norway without aliens or conspiracies?

I'd pass on the SOCOM 16. A barrel that short on a .308 is deafening. I couldn't enjoy shooting it at all, and if used indoors it will suck pretty bad.

The article isn't premature because it doesn't make an assesment. First line of my post: "it doesn't claim to have the conclusion." I am also not making a final judgment. Rememeber this "I'm in wait and see mode for a final understanding of the entire event." But you answered my question, you think the peopel calling this terrorism are the media just sensationalizing it. Thats fair and the media has certainly proved itself overzealous to paint a picture without facts (example, looks like Munnely didn't may not have even hit Hasan, but the media certainly jumped right into calling her a hero). My point was the Casey came out immediately after the attack without any facts known and said basically, this isn't terrorism and we shouldn't let diversity suffer. I think he was foolish to do that, because it drove the image of Army leadership trying to cover up someone who was a muslim radical and anti-american. Now it looks like his coworkers knew he was a jihadist but they were to afraid of being labeled discriminatory. All I'm saying is that just because this dudes lawyer says he'll plead not guilty, does not prove this wasn't terrorism.

Did you read the article? It doesn't claim to have the conclusion, but it comes down pretty hard on the side of this being a terrorist event, and interestingly, it calls out the Army leadership for being so hasty to call this the actions of a lone deranged indivudual. From pg 27 "The massacre at ft hood was, depending on whom you believed, yet another horrific workplace shooting by a deranged nutcase who suddently snapped, or it was an intimate act of war, a plot that can't be foiled because it is hatched inside a fanatics head and leaves no trail until it is left in blood. In their first response, officials betrayed an eagerness to to assume it was the first; the more we learn, the more we have cause to fear it was the second" Granted that is the begining of the article but that is the consistant theme. So I say again, the rush to judgement based on incomplete evidence just screams "agenda!" Your assesment is premature, and if you were tuned in to the national dialouge and actually reading articles you cite, you'll see how bad this looks to quickly jump on the "lone gunman" train when so much evidence is mounthing to couter that. Why don't we wait and see? I don't understand the eagerness to claim this wasn't terrorism without even close to all the facts.

Solid advice.