Danny Noonin

True

Personal foul. Man card violation, number mp5g, 15 yard penalty, replay 3rd down.

You need to be talking to your new unit. They should be the ones shepherding the process and they should be able to tell you what's up with the paperwork, etc.

I didn't get TAMP many years ago separating under the same circumstances, but looking at the Tricare website it sure as shit says you should be eligible. Edited to unfuck what I said previously

Maybe if no one got your intended point, the problem is with your piss poor delivery, not with them.

Well then. I wasn't trying to have an argument either. I'll work on my technique. As for touch and gos, I frankly couldn't give a shit either way. Wasn't my point. Just legitimately never dawned on me that any community didn't do them in RTU.

No. Fighters have only one pilot on board. Landing currency is updated with one landing. Absolutely no need for multiple for currency purposes.

Copy, A-10 guys go with one to a full stop on dude's second ride ever in the jet in RTU. Interesting. I'm with you on "beating up the pattern" in an operational squadron or in the tactical phase of RTU. I got nothing for that. But in the RTU transition phase on ride 2--I think it's perfectly reasonable to get a couple turns off the perch out of the way. So I guess I'm not with you on scoffing the patterns in this particular case.

1. No flaps are to be logged, not flown 2. Extra patterns...on Fridays? Re-read Rainman's post then feel shame. 3. Smiley face...awesome.

What's the matter with you? Seriously.

At RTU on the first couple rides. You guys didn't at RTU?

Just microsoft flight simulator. I'm a wannabe. And I live in my parents' basement.

As would I. Especially someone transitioning from another side-stick electric piece o' shit jet as in this case. But ride 2 in any new airplane generally ain't real tactical.

You guys jump right to gun employment at Hog RTU?

Wow. You guys must have awsome sims in the fighting falcon. Do you wear your g-suit in the sim to handle those 9Gs? Do they feel the same as 9Gs in the jet or is it more like the how the centrifuge feels? Do the sim operators debrief your L-1 breathing over the intercom? I wouldn't want to be the first guy to GLOC in the sim. That would be embarrassing.

Go help yourself to some milk and cookies.

Exactly right

I'm nearly positive the AF doesn't operate destoyers, Patriots or Abrams tanks. So I'm going to take a shot in the dark and say that those weren't just Air Force toys on the list.

The craptor problems do not always happen at high altitudes or after having been at high altitudes, so it does not seem like that would have anything to do with this particular scandal.

No. Similar theories but different systems.

Same here. The problem is that I don't think the AF is covering anything up. While John Q. Public may never have paid attention to this topic before last night, it's certainly not because it wasn't reported on.

You mean like the VTOL spaceship that transforms into a C-17 to evacuate wounded civilians out of a futuristic post nuclear-apocalypse city? That was a badass commercial.

I don't quite understand how they "stuck it to the man". Everything they said was already public knowledge and had been reported on repeatedly. They just said it again and in person. The AF hasn't been hiding any of this stuff, believe it or not.

No. This is what I'm trying to bitch slap into your skull. You are not right. And it does affect the paper's core argument. You can pull whatever math textbook geekery out that you want, but there is no fucking way that you can say with a straight face that your risk is more than manned guys. I don't do statistics and probabilities, but I do caveman math and here's how it plays out: Falling to sleep on the way to work--How many dudes have you lost in the last 10 years doing that? Creech terrorist attack--How many guys have you lost to that? Then why don't you tell me how many dudes we've lost in manned airplanes in theater and tell me if that's more than the others. No formulas and gibberish can get you past that one. The fact is that this does affect your core argument because your core argument 1) includes the concept of risk with regard to combat and 2) is intended to try and influence an audience. Your intended audience cannot see past your ridiculous statment. Therefore making that ridiculous statement--and continuing to defend it--means that your core argument is ineffective because it's not being heard. FYI...you should know that your article has gone viral on AF email and the commentary all reads something like "UFB". I know you are trying to help your bros--and that's admirable--but this risk argument is an embarrassment to them. An absolute embarrassment.

That's the problem dude. It's not plausible. Not at all. If you think your pink body is even potentially more at risk at the controls of an RPA than a guy in a manned airplane (which is what you said) then your entire argument is tainted by your emotions. That just doesn't pass the sniff test. The risk in combat is not entirely from enemy fire, although despite the statistics that danger does exist. It also simply includes the risk of riding a piece of metal through the air and is amplified by difficult, sometimes extremely challenging circumstances...troops in contact, weather, night, mountains, etc. That risk is there whether the bad guys are shooting at the airplanes or not. Take note of the aircraft losses in the last 10 years that were not caused by enemy fire. It seems to me the risk of flying in a combat theater caught up to those guys regardless of exactly why. The ground--it turns out--has a Pk pretty close to 1.0 and that's not a problem you face as an RPA pilot. You might also take note of a few other threads near the top of the stack in this forum. Seems to me we lost a couple of airplanes quite recently. My point with any of this is not to discredit what RPA guys do and the sacrifices you make (and I do believe they are sacrifices) . I would never do that. I sympathize and agree with much of what you said. I just can't believe you lobbed that ridiculous grenade out there in the midst of saying something potentially good. I wish you had focused more on the "what defines combat" part--which is a discussion worth having-- than the "we face more risks" and "we deserve medals too" parts which came across as pure whining and served to distract from the rest.