GearMonkey

Didn't he say a million pages ago that FY2014 force shaping was going to be a bloodbath? Based on the memo a few days ago it doesn't look much different than every other year (no Palace Chase for you, NEXT!).

Can you provide a little context here? What made this person stand out from his/her peers? In what mission oriented criteria did he/she excel? My initial thought was WG/CCE mostly because that is the only case I know of where a non-AAD & non-PME individual made the cut. The "proximity equals quality" theory is popular at my current base and was strong at the previous one as well. Do you and your peers get together and talk about the ways each of you rack-and-stack people in order to identify best practices and weed out some of the lazy methods detailed in this thread?

I never said they were. I'm sure there are important O-4 & O-5 jobs at all of these staffs which is why the whole idea of one being better than the other is retarded. I'm sure there are plenty of MAJCOM staff dirtbags who have a bigger impact than their joint or HAF peers. Too bad the Air Force is too wrapped up in it's secret code to recognize that it is based on a false premise.

I love that USAF assigns value to this differentiation despite the fact the person will be a nameless slide jockey at any of these locations.

I usually use "traffic in sight, blow me" when I"m fortunate enough to be 1,000' above the conflict.

Got a mirror nearby? Interesting technique with the self quote. I can't decide whether I should be impressed or not.

Surely you can't be serious. Tell me again how the FE saved the day on the KDOV C-5?

True in any airframe. And here on the interwebs too! Famous last words. If you look at the vast majority of aircrew involved in incidents you will find very serious people who expect excellence from themselves and others. Nothing scares me more than someone who doesn't think that they could be next.

I've seen very little of this attitude during my six years flying the C-17. Considering our recent history I believe that the few people left who still feel this way aren't even members of the C-17 community. Everyone has incidents and everyone ######s up. Lets wait for actual details of this one before we dust off and rehash our standard upgrade/training/HUD/AAD/PME arguments.

This is exactly the kind of real world experience I was looking for. Thank you for adding these details. That is why I asked the question. If and when the situation presents itself I will consult OGV and/or A3V as needed. Until then I'm going to work further down the food chain. The bro network, both in person and on this forum, is an invaluable resource and a logical place to start when faced with a question.

Fixed it. Occupational hazard having worked with A3T for almost a year. And by "worked" I mean I emailed them questions when the Vol1 was ambiguous (pretty much all the time). They would routinely ignore my questions (which may be part of why I like to interpret the AFIs myself) since they were as undermanned as we were. If they'd spent a little less time adding random simulator requirements without first modifying the TS contract they would have had far more time for customer service. But I digress. . .

With all due respect. or Permission to speak freely? I know I can ask OGV or A3V for clarification and may do so some day. I asked you the question because your previous post gave the impression that you personally knew what the AMC/A3V answer would be. I was curious if you knew this because of interactions with or as them on this specific topic. If not, your previous statement is confusing and misleading. I don't need or want you to say "I work in A3V and this is our interpretation", I would simply like to know if your previous post was a fact or an opinion. I don't think I do either. I've looked in AFI 11-401, AFI 11-202v3, and AFI 11-2C-(X, XX, or ###)v3 as well as the related MAJCOM and Base Supplements, FCBs, and FCIFs. Based on the specific wording in the only two sentences related to my question I'm convinced (as are about 50% of the folks contributing here) that there is no restriction against transporting family members as passengers. In addition to not reading selectively I also don't read added meaning into what is presented. When the AFI says that family members cannot perform airborne duties on the same aircraft it means exactly that. Passengers don't have airborne duties. The Air Force tends to be very clear when detailing prohibited actions (passengers occupying primary crew positions in flight, unauthorized aerial displays, etc.) so I don't think my interpretation of paragraph 1.10.2 is unreasonable or selective. 11-401 could just as easily say "members will not serve as aircrew on missions transporting family members" but, currently, it doesn't. Nor have I, but that isn't the issue as married flyers on the same AOs are clearly prohibited by 1.10.2. I have, however, seen multiple cases of one pilot spouse operating while the other pilot spouse is on the passenger manifest. These cases, authorized by multiple FAAOs from at least three different Wings, lend further credence to my interpretation of 1.10.2.

Can you tell us this based on precedent or are you assuming? It is difficult to distinguish facts from opinions on the internets.

Got a reference? The word "family" appears only three times in the 11-401 and they are all in paragraph 1.10.2. Nothing in this this section is applicable to passengers. All mentions of "spouse", "parent", and "relative" are equally inapplicable.

It is but it specifically uses the term "airborne duty" which applies to aircrew and/or MEP but not passengers. The Spouse Orientation Flight section doesn't even include a restriction although this is the most obvious case where one would exist. I'll check the Sup.

Anyone know of an AFI which outlaws operating a jet on which family members are traveling space-available? A lot of folks mention this restriction but I have yet to find it in print anywhere. The only thing I've ever found was the Flight Authorization AFI which states that immediate relatives cannot be on the same set of flight orders. I missed a chance to fly my brother out of Afghanyland a few years ago, despite the fact that nobody could show me an applicable AFI, and would like to find out if there is any basis for this belief in case I encounter a similar opportunity in the future. It would be relatively easy to make it happen, since the pax terminal doesn't know I'm the AC and I never look at the manifest, but I'd still like to know if there is actually a rule against it. Sorry if this is a repeat. I thought I may have asked a few years ago without success but after I UTFSF it appears that was all in my imagination. Thanks!

Careful here. We appreciate the info but I'd hate for you to get in trouble with the court. You never know who is watching.

Don't tell OGV. I don't think Foreflight is on the list of one (or in some cases two) approved apps.

I haven't run the math but I suspect that the advantage may not be as high as people think it is. At USAFA you're working with (on paper at least) a population of pretty high speed folks. While the pilot numbers out of ROTC are certainly lower the USAFA folks would probably be ranked pretty high within this more varied population.

Here's one I just discovered. . . Why can't we change the itinerary without overwriting the entire per diem expenses tab (i.e. the previously completed, entered, and unchanged portions of the trip)? I'm currently on a multi-destination TDY and have been updating my hotel info as I go along. I figured this would save me time and help out with the end of fiscal year goat-######. Unfortunately, I ended up arriving at my current destination two days late and when I made this minor change all my previous entries were deleted. Also, why doesn't DTS have a functional and easy to locate feedback tool for suggestions and/or bitching? The one I found after about ten minutes of searching took me to, of course, a dead URL. ###### the ######ing auto-censor! What are we a bunch of ######ing church ladies?

The CVR was released and has been part of multiple C-17 CRM refresher and quarterly safety meetings. The recordings were chopped up for the briefing to match up with multiple slides which has its merits but I think a start to finish play of the tape would be even more eye opening. I think the elapsed time would add a whole new perspective to this incident. I'm not sure what the deal is with the video. I heard the KTCM Reservists got to see it but none of the Active Duty briefings include any of it. Privacy issues maybe? Regardless, one big lesson I learned is never to let Combat Camera film me at work!

Can't believe AMC didn't get the SII out before COB. . . Monday should be fun.

In my limited experience I've found that the Army will say or not say whatever it takes to keep the drops coming. Sadly their understanding of the risk and acceptance of the inherent danger are far greater than USAF's. Axle is easily one of the top five most skilled and experienced Airdroppers on base. . . I throw up a little in my mouth when I think what I would have done with less experience and far less proficiency. This situation makes me question whether keeping the Airdrop Qual is worth the risk.

In all fairness, he did say at the end of the very same sentence that he supports the F-22 as a hedge against China.

As the sole deciding factor no, as part of a more rounded and representative dataset hell yes! Under the current system we all look the same. Everyone has an AAD (or an “AAD”), SOS, and 6.9 deployments under their belt. I think the promotion board would benefit from knowing whether we earned our degrees as full or part-time students as well as if they were awarded by a reputable institution or a diploma mill. If this was enacted along with a deployment metric of some sort it could help even the score for folks who are on the road all the time. For example, a distance learning degree from a reputable institution for an AFSOC guy with a 1:1 dwell suddenly looks a bit more impressive than an in-residence AFIT degree for an Acquisitions bubba who has served a single 179 as a Wing Exec. This could also help highlight the fact that 69%, or more, of our AADs are a total joke which offer no benefit and were a complete waste our time and the Air Force’s money. Everyone knows this already and admitting it might be the first step towards walking back this retarded requirement.