AEWingsMN

uhh... this is pretty much how it is now days. 3 Yrs. I'm almost mission qual'd and when I get to it, I will be just short of 3 years. I'm probably toward the front end of being MR outta my UPT class. Couldn't have streamlined it more, I even got bumped up 2 months before UPT and then started FTU 3 months earlier than scheduled. Pretty similar for just about every ROTC guy I know. Academy guys get through about 6-9 months quicker (literally), at least from my class, because they went straight to IFS, skipped ASBC and went right to pilot training without stalling. God forbid you're a ROTC guy who went to Whiting, even the academy guys I know who went to Whiting and graduated UPT when I did are about to pin on captain and just getting Mission Qual'd. My ROTC bros on the other hand got the generous 6 months of no pay, no scholarship eligibility, no TA, and no G.I. bill. Work full time to pay rent/food, not enough time to then work for the money to pay for a masters and take the masters class. DOR is 3 months into that 6 months. Those 6 months + 5 months ASBC/IFS/random weeks in between trainings/Casual + 1 year of pilot training + 10 months for PCS/SERE/FTU/Mission Qual'ing = just short of 3 years from commissioning streamlined to Mission Qual. I don't really care that it took me this long, and I plan on having my masters early enough into being a Captain that it won't matter. But I had to throw in my 2 cents because evidently those who saw what must have been a better system just seem to really have a hard time fathoming that it is currently taking this long now to get pilots Mission Qual'd. There's plenty of ways to streamline the overall system even more. Evidently we just have to go back to the way it was when some of the older members of the board went through. Maybe this AF wouldn't be so fucked up if you could make rank by using the mind set of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Instead, now we have everything "fixed".

No... he's saying that in the civillian world, you aren't always forced to search for a new career half way through (with the exception of the few who are able to make it to a high enough rank to last that long). In a civilian career, you can, with the right attitude in most situations, work the whole time in one career field. It's not as common anymore, but definitely more common than in the military. I know you're just being a bit of a devil's advocate in a few of these threads, but come on man.... His point was a valid one which is not brought up frequently, and you are certainly intelligent enough to understand what he meant.

Anyone else notice the "Woody in Toy Story" style attempt of proving the 3rd member of the party hadn't been eaten by the captain yet? (but we all know the truth on that one) At least the 3 of them could coordinate their uniforms....

fail x2. it's in the link Clearedhot posted that's labelled "Fail"... I will however agree with the intent of your post. Whether or not it's the same arch, WTF? That's still impressive.

1. After my home purchase, I'd never deal with a mortgage representative/broker I couldn't sit down with. There were way too many times he wanted more info/to update me/meet in person to discuss things that I would NEVER want to do it over the phone. My broker fought tooth and nail for me, pretty much ensured the buyer and the mortgage company knew their position in the deal when they tried to get out of line. Things worked out as well as they possibly could have. He knew the local market including what the likelihood of different VA appraisers giving us the value we were looking for (as he knew them/their reputation well). My broker and my real estate agent were good friends and worked very well together. Short anecdote, the house already had a previous FHA appraisal, which was lower than what we wanted (found out cuz the broker dug for the info for us). So we didn't want to pay for the VA appraisal if it had a chance of coming back just as low and the seller would walk. So, he ensured the seller understood that if we went for it, and he walked, he would be forced into finding a cash buyer since he wouldn't get another appraisal that was any higher. Then we found a way to work out (basically an ultimatum, haha) a deal he would accept based on the appraised value so he wouldn't back out. Bottom line, it worked, and having someone right there was perfect. He also worked out some funky situations with the actual mortgage company wanted more proof we would be faithful since we were first time buyers. As for Rainman's first post of pictures... #4. Lastly, I've been impressed with USAA's auto insurance. When I switched it was much lower, and they keep dropping it ever since. I'm amazed it's as cheap as it is.

well, all this bitchin and zero effort trying to defend what their taking just leads to them taking more. Just saying we could start showing them that we'll just find other ways of taking pride in our job (even if it's an effort solely to piss them off) rather than just letting them stick it to us (STS) repeatedly. It can be done inside the books of the law too, that's all I was saying.

Unfortunately I cannot say the same sentiment was placed at my base. I knew it was a queepy one to start with. In fact, they've been sure to re-hash the new regs several times. I propose a few solutions to this problem: 1. A petition with as many aircrew members as we can from all bases claiming the reg serves no purpose but discrimination against them all for the only purpose of lowering their morale. 2. A " 'Staches for Patches" campaign where we get all Pilots/Navs to grow out mustaches until they realize we'll always find a way to thwart them and give in and give us back our regs. 3. An all aircrew AAFES boycott (Bx, Comissary, Gas stations, class six and base restaurants) until the point that this does affect a lot of us in a useless way that only degrades morale is noticed and they give us back our Friday T-shirts. I think we could hit their wallets deep enough that people would notice. All completely legal ways of saying "Stop fucking with us".

turn the sarcasm detector back up again for a minute.... it was a joke.

you might be right. I realize now that what's stayed the same was the verbiage about "morale patches", but I can't say for sure that what you quoted about "pen cover area" isn't new. Also, the add-on patches can be approved part is still in there but took out the pen flap velcro section. So it seems like before it was contradictory, now it's not... again, pointless and it shouldn't stop anyone. It looks better than open velcro anyway. It's just jealousy.

So Navs are about as useful for intelligent thinking, decision making and SA as Jet A, copy.

Actually, the verbiage on morale patches doesn't seem to have changed. When I looked yesterday, it was all the same as what is quoted in this thread from a few years back... so if it hasn't stopped us before, why should it stop us from wearing them now? And Friday shirts too for that matter... I really don't think of this as a reg change anymore as much as it is just discrimination against bag-wearers, thus I don't think it's even legit, haha.

black t-shirts were too readily available at stores other than those that are AAFES run. Now unless you really want to go out of your way, your choices are limited. Duh. Well, my original thought was that it was easier to not have to supply black and green shoes to Serviced Members, but your point pretty much defeated that thought... so now I'm down to the only other thought of "Shoes were too butthurt that since the BDUs were going away, they couldn't wear black boots, but flyers still could, so they needed to take it away". So I don't see anything in the regs that prohibits utilizing that second hat in the other leg, nor do I see it saying it cannot have a velcro'd spot on it for a morale patch since it's just a second hat for decoration anyway.... maybe something like this:

Haha, yes, because I really know their DOR if even they don't. I for one did not miss it, and I didn't think it was all that difficult to keep track of until the last few months when others have said something about it in passing... "turns out I was supposed to be wearing these a week ago". That being said, most of us have like 6-9 different dates around the same time due to the 6 months delay from commissioning to EAD. We have a DOR, a date our pay changes, an official date of service... etc, and I think a lot of people don't understand which is which. My only real question about them is whether DOR means put the rank on that day, or the next, because it didn't change in vMPF until the next day.... I also think it is throwing people off that our DOR is less than 2 years of actual time working as a 2 Lt, mine was after 21 months because it is at a half way point between Commissioning and EAD. So I think people just aren't expecting it for another couple of months. I had a good eye on my DOR coming up, but I can definitely see where someone else would overlook it. Anyway, that was all a sidenote... the reason I mentioned it in the first place is because it was an emphasis for how little of a difference there really is between a 1st and 2nd LT.

alright, my .02, Most Lt's whether 1st or 2nd have a similar sense of experience, "I'm the FNG... and so is that Lt." At least in a rated community, I think a big part of it comes from the fact that for the most part we're all in about the same stage of training, no matter if 1st or 2nd. We have no sense of a real difference between the two ranks. Part of this is because some of us have been delayed 6 months to EAD (which messes with DOR), then sat casual for 6-9 months, and then started UPT/UNT with a bunch of other guys that have +/- 1 year of time since commissioning and have done just about as much with their career whether they have pinned the blue on based on a technicality. Some spent a year extra in college with rank on their shoulder, but are just as new to the Active AF in their mind. So now we just become a bunch of know nothing LTs in a UPT/UNT class together, some have hit that magical date of 2 years, some haven't, but we give each other all the same respect and just treat each other as fellow students. And even after graduation, the only difference amongst us and our fellow peers who haven't graduated yet is already labelled with whether or not we have wings on our chest yet. So yes, while some of us now have wings, none of us (for the most part) have any true experience working operationally, deploying, leading, or anything that makes us feel we stand out in any deserving matter that our peers should be saluting us. This isn't the same as enlisted not saluting officers, or even us saluting our bosses if they are also a LT. I think a lot of the issue isn't stemming from the 2 Lt not wanting to salute the 1 Lt in their peers, I think it stems from them being shot down originally (or just flat out told not to). I remember when I was first told to stop, and I just didn't understand it. Then as I went through my UPT/UNT training it clicked that they just don't feel they have done anything different than their LT peers to be deserving of a salute from them. That and we end up in such a big mix of LTs in training at most places that they spend time (UPT/UNT/ASBC/IFS) that it'd be constant salutes. Hell, I remember even the Capt's in my UPT class wanted us not to salute them (still did). And on top of all that, most of my bros lately haven't even realized they are a 1 Lt for a few weeks until they can't figure out why their paycheck went up or they randomly check MPF and have the "damn, I was supposed to be wearing blue on my shoulders for a few weeks now." There's no notice, no board, no reason to really feel like anything's changed. I'd gladly have saluted 1sts and have nothing against them doing it to me, it's just not the way things are done, so I've been convinced to stop as it's a futile fight to fight.

some of those don't look so uncomfortable... at least for one of the parties involved.

can't let the enemy know if we ever take breaks to enjoy a good brew every now or then... or else all the brewery's in america will be target #1.

Ironically, I was about to post a screenshot of that exact article on CNN, but decided to see if anyone had already posted it.... but my screenshot is different. Did you read the article? if so, did you catch this Gem of an epic typo?

hey now, it all depends on your sources as to where we should point the finger for this 600,000 sculpture... https://nation.foxnews.com/pentagon/2011/04/01/obama-administration-spending-600000-gurgling-toad-sculpture funny how the news can sound so different, yet report the exact same thing.

I definitely recommend golfing Capitol Hill in Prattville if you're into golf. Beautiful course. Also, it's a DG program now? That's dumb, how's that gonna affect those of us who are gonna go to Maj Boards and some Shoe looks at 2 of us from the same year group when half went to UPT first and then got DG for drinking/golfing class at Maxwell, while the rest of us did ASBC first? It really shouldn't make a difference, but I see some shoe looking at promotion boards and not even thinking (or knowing) how retarded a DG out of that program was. There was some award thing for top of the flight and stratification, but it definitely wasn't a DG program a year and a half ago.

Let me clarify, cuz I wrote that poorly. What I meant was in "NCAA Football", the difference in caliber between #8 and #1 is very small. Not saying it isn't in Basketball, but that's why basketball has a tournament. The point of an 8 team format to me would be that it's a nice round tournament number in which you'd also have enough teams in there to nearly guarantee that anyone who would be able to stake any claim at being the #1 team on any given year would have be included. Any undefeated or 1 loss teams would typically make it. And if you were on the outside looking in (#9, #10), and didn't make the 8 team tournament, you probably weren't really staking a claim for the top spot. Still a really good team, but not good enough to actually be able to claim they should be ranked #1. And the other half of the statement you highlighted, I was saying I don't think the Air Force has been a top 8 caliber team anytime recently.

well, then in the same thinking as the article, why even have bowl games... lets just wrap it up at the end of the season and thank everyone for playing because the champ has already been crowned. but i don't think anyone is actually asking for a 64 team tournament. If it was an 4 or 8 team tournament, there wouldn't be any chance of AF beating Florida and Florida St (that's just awesome btw), because they'd never make it into the top 8. Any week in the NCAA #8 has a legit chance of beating #1, and all of those teams are top notch schools. But a tournament also ensures that teams can't go undefeated and not be given a proper chance to prove their worth.

ERAU all over again. Any AF planes there, looks like there was at least a C-130

Probably an actress having fun with props on set... And I'm gonna take a guess at DelDOT being Delaware DOT (not Michigan)... but didn't really look into where the story came from, so I may be wrong.

I understand zero tolerance, and am against it in times like this. However, I'm not a parent, but if I was, in this situation I would tell my kid "they have to suspend you because it's the rules, so what we'll do is I'm taking that time off work, what would you like to do for the day, anything... you're gonna have more fun on this suspension than you could imagine"

And I have seen at least one IP that seemed to do such. Not even at my base, but definitely a case of where the bros I knew pretty well in that group under him definitely got that jive. Just cuz you don't apply to his statement doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Never ran into this at all on my way through UPT at my base, but again never say never.