Danny Noonin

Dude, you're not thinking clearly right now. Why don't you slow down and take this a little more slowly. You are still underneath the new relationship spell with this one. Don't even think about SIE-ing now. UPT is a year long. You have plenty of time to make that decision. By then you will have seen the light and realized that this relationship won't work anyway. If you SIE, you will face down a lifetime of misery, regardless of how hot she is. If you are going to marry this chick, then she has to have some respect for you and your dreams. According to what you wrote, she really only has respect for her own dreams, career, family, etc. Like the other dudes have said, you're in the AF now. You can't just get out on a whim over a chick. SIE doesn't mean you are cut loose. You will simply go to missiles. Then you will be sad and lonely underground. In North Dakota. With no chicks anywhere. And it's fuking cold there. Read some of the highlights of what you wrote and then think very carefully about what is really important to you--and I don't mean job versus girl. I mean just how much of "you" are you willing to give up for her? She told you she didn't want to be second place, but she's putting you way lower than that in her life. Just how far down her list of life priorities are you happy to sit? So far you're at least below her career, state of residence, and her mom. You may love her. That doesn't mean you will be happy with her. As far as trying to marry a professional woman, yes it can be done and both dude and chick can be happy in life. I know military pilots married to doctors, lawyers, accountants, PhDs, nurses, teachers, strippers, etc. All of those chicks are actually quite successful and happy, even though it did cost them some career stability to move around for their marriage. However, they would not be happy at all if those chicks had put career before their marriage. If she is so tied to her specific marketing gig that she isn't willing to take her MBA and do something else with it in order to be with you, then it won't work. If you SIE for this chick, then I guaran-fukin-tee you there will be a time in your life that you will grow to hate her because she made you give up your dream. You will always feel like you sacrificed for her, but I promise she won't give you full credit for that. And that will make you bitter every day for the rest of your life.

The point is: Some dudes are fat dumb and happy with their 95% academic average if it's "pretty close" to the top guy. It doesn't matter if 95% is a good score or a bad score relative to 50 years of UPT students. It only matters where it ranks in YOUR class. If the top guy has a 97%, most of the class has a 96%, and you have a 95%, then you get the min points. You don't get 2 points less than the top guy. There is a curve. Brabus is spot on about not worrying about it and about prioritizing the more important things like checkrides. But every dude comes home dead tired one night with a test/EPQ the next day and has to make a choice...watch Seinfeld reruns and unwind or study a little extra for that test. Maybe a couple questions over the course of a thousand won't make a difference. Maybe it will. I've said it before: I watched a kid miss a T-38 by one spot. When we looked at the numbers, if he had gotten THREE QUESTIONS more correct, he would have gotten that slot. Do you think if he knew that going in he might have studied a little bit more? You bet.

Most of you have a gross misunderstanding of how academic scores go into the big picture. It doesn't matter if your average is 1% away from the top dude. It doesn't matter if it is 10% away. It matters where your average RANKS within your class. You might have a 95% average, but that doesn't mean you get 95% of the available points. If a 95% makes you the last dude in your class, then you get the min...and the difference in points between the top and bottom dude (sts) in a class is way more than the difference in academic percentage. The top guy gets the max points. The last guy gets the min points. Everyone else is in between. It's COMPETITIVE and while it may look like close enough is close enough, it is not.

Dude, the holdup is that you have: 1) a problem with your credit report (regardless of validity) 2) a weapons charge that you admitted to (regardless of juvenile) 3) family legal problems 4) your neighbors are drug dealers and they hate you. You know all of this is a problem because you brought it up. Hell yes it will take longer to get your clearance. But you'll likely get it. You just have a shit ton of red flags that they need to further investigate and it will have to go to a higher bureaucratic level to get adjudicated. Now stop worrying.

You can't be serious. They over sped the flaps by ONE or TWO KNOTS. What do you think they were flying, an airplane made out of popsicle sticks? Do you really think the engineers set the overspeed numbers such that a one or two knot overspeed would literally damage the airplane to the point of causing disaster for the next flight? What in the wide wide world of sports is going on here? Why does everyone feel the need to tell on everyone else. Doesn't anyone have any balls to handle problems themselves anymore? Well...in this case I guess that's a poor choice of words.

Seriously? That's possibly the most ridiculous comment I've ever read. We don't have stealth to protect our homeland. We have stealth to attack someone else's homeland. What kind of special "motivation" does some other country need to shoot at us over their territory?

Quit reading kid. It makes you stupid.

10 min? no

Oh please. No one said it was. But since you brought it up, what is the historical washout rate for guys "going to the assault strip, NVG dirt landings, or shooting auto-fixed 1:1?" Seriously. What's the percentage? This isn't a "my job is tougher than yours" contest. Statistically 10% of dudes wash out of IFF. The same cannot be said for any other flying program in the military. Throw on another 3 to 5% of dudes who statistically will wash out of fighter FTU depending on airframe. Do you suggest that we just cut those guys away after we just dropped a million bucks on them when we are short on pilots? Or does it maybe make sense to send them to something else if their problems were specific to fighter-type tasks? By the way, I didn't make those numbers up...they are 19th AF numbers so you can look them up yourself. Quit being sensitive and start being realistic.

<shrug> right back at ya. You completely missed the point. Yes, you are correct that it doesn't really matter whether the gunsight they use in IFF looks like the fighter they go to. But why on earth wouldn't you use it if you got it? It makes no sense not to. By the way, not sure how you fly BFM in the mud pig, but offensive BFM does not change if you have all aspect weapons.

That's exactly what was supposed to happen, but not based any Eagle dudes in IFF...it was Tyndall's input that I personally made as the C-model rep at the IFF syllabus conference in 06. The only reason that I was given as to why everyone used the funnel was so that everyone would be the same. That wasn't good enough for me, and no one could give me a better argument, so I asked for the change for C-model students and they said they would make it. Whether that ever actually happened or if it stayed that way, I don't know. I could give a crap if the LCOS is not "accurate" at all ranges--it's a pretend gun! The only thing I give a crap about in IFF is that they learn concepts like lead fire, POM, and recognizing if they are in range. By the way, they better get used to mil sizing--we use that all the time. If they learn with a gun sight that is more representative of the aircraft they are going to, then that made sense to me.

Just what is it that you are talkin bout willis? Actually, nope, not clear enough. Not clear enough at all when paired with the first sentence: The reason that is not clear enough is that there is NO resistance to buying an airplane AND a sim. Not anywhere in this thread. Not in the original article. Nowhere. There is only resistance to buying just a sim.

Why not go sims only? Because its impractical and absurdly expensive. It costs $7K an hour to run an F-15 sim. No that's not a typo. It's cheaper to fly a trainer. Why no F-16 trainer in UPT? Seriously? How bout it's expensive to buy and operate. Trainers are cheap. No amount of "dumbing down" an F-16 will make it cheap. I'll leave it at that instead berating you like I really want to.

The reason dudes go to the pork falcon for a topoff prior to the F-22 has zero to do with running intercepts and working a radar. It has everything to do with pulling a lot of G's in a 2-seater to make sure dudes don't G-loc and mort going from an airplane that hardly pulls Gs, to an airplane that pulls and sustains more Gs than any other on earth. I can tell you that that is the biggest fear in the general's minds about putting B-coursers through the F-22 and exactly the reason it took so long to start that up. There is zero chance we will replace a weak-G pulling trainer with a 1-G pulling sim. We will literally kill dudes as a result. A couple years back I went to a conference as the F-22/F-15 rep where AETC announced plans to introduce synthetic targets on one of the T-38C MFDs and have students run intercepts against ghosts during IFF. You would be able to switch scope types to make it look like an Eagle or falcon tube depending on the student. Dumbest thing I ever heard of and I said no. They were floored as they thought it was a brilliant idea. I even called back to run it by the bosses to make sure I wasn't on crack and they were so profanely opposed I cannot fully describe it here. The AETC bubbas could not understand why that was not a good idea. There is no reason in the world to pay for fuel and maintenance costs on an airplane to teach a guy the basics of how to set intercept geometry. That is EXACTLY why we have simulators.

I believe 2 FS would close before the 95 based on the original plan. If both of them close, then all at K-falls

What if he can afford both? This isn't a debate about whether cadets should wear flight suits. It's about whether THIS cadet should be the only pilot select at his det without one. If he has the coin and wants to spend it, I say go nuts. By the way, cadets with pilot slots have been wearing flight suits for at least 20 years. Don't tell me you would have abstained out of some sort of moral indignation when you clowns were cadets.

Well Huggy, since the local congressman and the Wing CC commented on it WELL BEFORE the DoD even proposed the budget that cut 250 more fighters, I'd say they were just rumors at the time, regardless of whose cakehole they emerged from. The results of that budget were a well-kept secret from just about everyone...specifically to avoid congressmen and the like from whining about all the cuts before they were announced. Tyndall was not BRAC'd, so any loss of squadrons there will purely be tied to how many squadrons close in the CAF. If we keep enough Eagles flying in the CAF, then we need enough FTU capacity to train the pilots and thus need some Tyndall help. One of the options on the table was to keep more Eagle squadrons around if we were in fact going to terminate the F-22 production line. Doesn't seem like that happened, since they announced 250 more fighter cuts, but there is no official info released on who exactly is affected by that 250. And by the way, all Evil said was that dudes were still getting Tyndall assignments. That a 100% certain fact. Anything else would qualify as pure rumor, and is certifiably false at that. If the Tyndall Eagle squadrons close, it is not an instant process. It will take a long time to come up with a plan and move people and iron off the ramp. None of that planning is done yet. It would be unreasonable to think that we'd stop training any new dudes at Tyndall right now, when there is still a need for that training capacity all the way up until the point where all of the CAF squadrons close. K-falls cannot cover it by themselves until we get down to the end of the cuts.

Off topic, but I could not disagree more. The Brits have always had the biggest brass ones out there. Look at what they did in WW storm. Then for years, we used their jets as chum trying to get them shot at so we could blow something up in ONW/OSW and they did it without flinching. I've flown with those dudes for many years on many missions and have tons of respect for them. I'm guessing that they are under enormous political handcuffs now. On the other hand, I have no respect for a fighting falcon LT. They are too naive to know that they can't actually do all missions well.

From what I can tell from your other posts, you washed out of a fighter RTU. From my experience, unless you have clean cut syllabus deviations in your gradebook THAT WERE A FACTOR TO YOUR PERFORMANCE you are going to have an extremely difficult time getting back in the program. I've been on an FEB board and I've personally written an AETC fighter syllabus, so I know that they are written with lawyers in mind. I don't mean to rain on your parade, but I just don't want you to get your hopes up. An AETC fighter syllabus has very little latitude in terms of "syllabus implementation" that you could argue. They are pretty black and white, exactly for this reason. I'd say it's very unlikely that they didn't follow the syllabus flow, since GTIMS would have caught it beforehand (assuming F-15C, F-22, or F-16). That's (unfortunately for you) the only leg you'd really have to stand on that might work. Your opinion as to how you think it SHOULD have been implemented won't count unless they clearly violated the letter of the law. And that would have had to directly had a negative impact your performance. For example, if they screwed up something with your radar academics, but you washed out for defensive BFM, it would be a pretty tough sell that the two were legitimately related. You never got defensive BFM academics, but washed out in defensive BFM...different story. Too many/too few IPs? Won't win that one. Techniques vs procedure? not going to win that one either. Did you execute IAW 3-1/the brief? that's all that matters, along with the course training standards...which by the way mostly point back to 3-1 and defer to the brief. Breaks in training? Might have a case, but only if they didn't give you ADD rides when they were REQUIRED to (as opposed to "OG/CC may approve...") and you had some trouble in that phase. Remember, the board is going to consist of IPs from your base, genarally dudes from another squadron that you did not fly with. they'll understand the syllabus from an IP perspective. You won't be able to sneak much by them. On Bud Day...he has zealously represented some dudes on FEBs in the past. Having said that, the standard story is that he tried to burn down the barn to get his boys reinstated. As a result, he has pissed a lot of people off because they know he's going to try and paint all the IPs as idiots/miserable failures/dishonest liars/etc. Reference previous paragraph. The board consists of IPs. How would that go over with them? Start with the area defense council. If he's retarded AND you really believe in your heart that you have a factual case (not just an emotional one), then hire someone. But I've seen many dudes waste serious coin on FEB attorneys...they'll take your money regardless of whether you have a case. Realistically, almost zero FEBs result in reinstatement.

Yeah, dude, it is petty. Not because it is incorrect protocol wise, it's because of your REASON for doing it, sts. Read your own post..."IF YOU DON'T WANT TO CALL SOMEONE SIR, call them by their rank...that usually pisses people off..." Why don't you "want" to call someone sir? I'm sure you've got a really good reason that has nothing to do with your own ego. I think dudes who do that are juvenile. And it's always obvious when dudes are doing that and why. But if it makes you feel better about yourself to not say sir to someone, go crazy. You can always hide behind "protocol." And then keep wondering why LTs don't show you more respect in return. After all, you've earned it with your highly professional attitude.

It doesn't piss anyone off, it's just blatantly obvious that tools who do that are doing it specifically to avoid using the word sir. That's petty and makes you look like a child instead of the mature grown up you think you are acting like. It's kind of like the airmen who will cross the street and look away instead of having to salute a 2nd Lieutenant. Dudes will literally cross the street to avoid lifting their arm! Like a salute is self degrading or something. Come on. You salute officers. You call them sir. It's been that way for thousands of years. Get over it, accept it, and you'll be a happier person. On the other hand, it is perfectly acceptable to call a UPT student "dude."

That just about sums it up right there.

For fighters, Australia is usually fragged for a WIC grad...and usually for a multi-role kind of dude, i.e. pork falcon or strike pig. I know they do have an AETC style exchange in Perth flying their version of the T-6...I think you need UPT IP experience for that. Not sure if they have a herc exchange or anything else. These jobs show up in the normal list of what's available via the AFPC website when assignment time comes around. Not much way to predict if one will be around for your drop.

False. As of now.

well as far as clocks in the airplane go, it depends... the one in my jet is a wind up type that was installed in 1973. I'll get GPS time eventually once I start up, but as a fighter dude, you live and die by time, even before the jet gets started. We brief, step, start, etc all on an exact time. Airplanes like the Tweet still tell time by sundial. I don't know a single fighter dude who does not have a watch on his wrist hacked to the US Naval Observatory Master Clock. dudes wear anything from $20 wal mart specials to $3000 custom Breitlings. All personal preference. Some dudes go all digital, lots go with a watch that has analog AND digital on there. Most dudes avoid watches that are all analog, since they are difficult to hack (i.e. synchronize to the exact time) in the brief. It's nice to have something that has glow in the dark hands and/or a light up digital display for night flying. I'd say the average dude has either a G-shock type digital watch or a very large metal digital/analog combo watch. Some dudes wear a nice watch most of the time, but swap over to a crappier one when they fly so they don't get the good one all hacked up.