nsplayr

Ask them because they'll tell you don't sell yourself short, which is exactly the big picture point I'm trying to make. Not sure why you wanna have a real post-AF career path discussion for a nav since, like you said, you're not a nav. WRT what you said, anyone have real data on that claim that more navs stay in? I don't, but my anecdote is that I've seen just as many dudes punch from both 11S and 12S, timing is a little different due to different initial commitments. YMMV. Anyone who thinks the only thing they can do for money is fly is an idiot. That applies especially to navs who think they'd better stay in because they have no prospects on the outside.

Holy shit, outstanding photos. A loss to art as well as the world Def post something when there's a fund created for his family.

Dude, listen to yourself. You're jaded, you've seen good dudes get fucked over and bad dudes get promoted, I got it. But if I'm so green and young and getting some "words of wisdom" from wise old dsigruntledemployee, then why am I the one basically encouraging dudes not to sell themselves short and you're the one telling them to just stay in, stop giving a shit, and collect their paycheck? Or are you really saying that? I'm necessarily totally disagreeing with the factual parts of your assessment of the current system and if you've read my other posts in this thread you'll see I'm pretty much in favor of some of the more sweeping reforms that Tim Kane called for in his articles. Here's what lead us to this point in the first place, and it wasn't something you yourself said: Do you agree with this attitude? This is what I most disagree with. Maybe if you're 5-10 years further down the road you can speak to this and whether or not dudes should just put up with just enough BS to get by. Dude, I'm not monster.com, you can easily find this information out. If someone is looking to be a navigator in the civilian flying world obviously that's not really gonna work out, but... Imagine, outside the narrow confines of exactly what you or I do in our airplanes, what a military officer with a security clearance, combat experience overseas, a Master's Degree of some kind, self-discipline and a good work ethic can bring to a civilian company. Is it seriously so hard to see why a HR person would want to hire someone like that? If you don't believe me, fine, I'm still on active duty and haven't been in the civilian job market for 5+ years. Ask the old heads around here if they think a lot of mil guys sell themselves short. Ask Rainman how he's doing in the civilian sector. Ask M2 if that AMU degree was truly worthless. Ask CH if some of his peers who didn't stay in as long are making it outside of Big Blue.

Yea, I really don't get the negative, uber-jaded, whoa is me, can't make a difference so I'll just stop trying attitude. Why would I want to get that? Disgruntledemployee is a fitting screen name. You may be entitled to a free shoulder-chip removal device if you go see a flight doc. A) I know several jobs on the outside that offer basically the same thing as what some of us are doing now with +50% pay, but that's besides the point B) If all you think you can do is fly planes then we've discovered the root of your shortsightedness. If you want to fly planes then great and that gets you up in the morning like nothing else, you can fly planes and make good money, I know several guys who are doing just that. But if you're willing to open your eyes, even just a crack, you might realize that dudes can retire or get out, do something completely different yet apply the KSAs they got on active duty, and do very well for themselves and whatever field they choose to go into. BL: Saying mil officers, especially aviators, don't have many options on the outside is complete and utter BS.

To revive what this thread was supposed to be about... Starting tomorrow, 17 of us from AFSOC are doing a ~450 mile ruck march from HRT to the SOCOM Memorial down at MacDill to honor the memory of the guys on Ratchet 33 as well as Lt. Col. John D. Loftis, another air commando who was killed in Afghanistan the same week. It's a 24-hour team relay march and it'll take us about 6 days to get down to Tampa. There are also 2 other folks climbing Kilimanjaro in the near future as part of the same effort. The primary purpose is to remember and horor our brothers who fell in the line of duty, but we're also raising money for the Special Operations Warrior Foundation. If you're not familiar, they provide education counseling and no-cost grants to the kids of Special Ops troops who are killed on active duty. Darin left behind two young ones and we want to support them as well as other eligible children by making sure they can all go to college just like their parents would have wanted. If you're inclined to support us, we've got a facebook page with all the details as well as a First Giving site through which donations are sent directly to the SOWF. Any support from the BO.net community is greatly appreciated and if you're in the Hurlburt/Eglin/Tyndall/MacDill areas feel free to come out and ruck a few miles with us along the way. Hit me up via PM and I can give you our projected timeline. To the heroes, Ryan, Nick, Justin, Julian & Darin *Disclaimer- this event is not endorsed or sponsored by AFOSC, the USAF, DOD, or the SOWF*

I have never been able to understand this. So, supposedly the military aviation profession is filled with Type A, hard-charging, "my dick is bigger than yours" competitive guys, but a lot of them have this attitude too? At least one of those assumptions cannot be true, I say both. A) I think there are all types no matter what community you come from, but more importantly, B) dudes are selling themselves way too short. If you're smart and driven enough to made in the service in the first place, promoted to O-3+, earned your wings, have flown in combat where lives are on the line, have done some PME/MA work beyond the standard college degree, and have put up with the long hours additional duties grind, I find it extremely hard to believe that your options outside the military are quite as dim as some people believe.

I'm betting it will be OBE this news cycle due to this.

Perhaps that will happen...all the "trial" integrations you speak of above were banned under the former policy in terms of women actually being assigned to ground combat units, going through the ascessions process, etc. Now that the policy is changed, the services can proceed with doing exactly this if that's what they determine is best and everyone signs off on it. I'm also betting leadership would argue some of the "trial" steps have been accomplished via women being attached to infantry units rather than assigned, i.e. they've already been there on engagement teams, as medica, etc. but not as official members of the infantry unit they're deployed with.

You're right, it was a slightly different example due to already being in service. The point was that this person developed a condition that would limit his job performance, got it corrected to the standards, and was allowed to give it a shot again. Although this is way down the wrong rabbit hole...at what point are you calling something a "disability" that's disqualifying versus something that can be corrected to meet standards? Uncorrected poor eyesight is a disqualifier for flying, unless you get LASIK/PRK to meet standards. Being too fat is a disqualifier, unless you un-fat yourself. I'm not a f*cking doctor here but obviously there are things that can be brought up to acceptable standards and things that can't...not even sure why we're at this point in the debate. Here's my rule and I've said it before: if you can meet the min ascessions standards you're welcome to try out. If you then continue to meet the standards of whatever unit/community/MOS/AFSC you're trying to join, continue and GL to you. If not then thanks for playing, there are plenty of other fish in the sea. It's a pretty simple principle, judging people based on their proven ability rather than some arbitrary measure, taken ahead of time and across the board, that has nothing to do with actual no-shit job performance.

Hey, we all can't be matmacwc, pretty high standard there.

Yea my bad, definitely could have blamed the copilot (or navy equivalent) in this situation. At least the gear was down and they didn't crash into the Peter O. Knight Reef a couple miles down the road.

Here's where I disagree with you. Ask yourself this: what did all those "years of study and preparation" achieve before allowing openly gay people to serve? The word went out that, "we're studying this, BPT change the policy," a bunch of hangs were rung, some CBTs were clicked through, and the policy was changed just like everyone thought it would be eventually. Why not just save people the heartache and just make the change and be done with it? The great thing about this policy is that it's done, no real need to debate the merits one way or the other. No time like the present to end policies that are no longer working and move on with life.

Incorrect. Was addressed by deaddebate, but if you meet the physical standards to join the service, you are allowed to give it a shot. My community had a dude at the schoolhouse get his leg crushed in a motorcycle accident (I'm light on exact details here, only sorta know of him). Well guess what, you need 2 legs to be a U-28 pilot. So he got kicked out right, now that he's "disabled." Nope, got a prosthetic, demonstrated he could handle the aircraft controls with it vice a real leg, and he's GTG and mission qual'd. Yes, and there is an extensive medical screening process that I seem to remember going through that certifies whether or not you can join the service and whether or not you're qual'd for certain positions or not (i.e. pilot/nav/etc.). Never was in the Army or the infantry so I'm not sure if there are special medial quals to be a grunt vice a regular Joe in the army. Sure, if they can meet the standards let them serve; I was never a fan of up or out anyways. If you're 67, look like this, and really want to kick down doors in Iraq, by all means, have at it. Amen...if your community is passing people who aren't competent you have no one to blame but yourselves (and your leadership most likely). Do something about it at your level and/or don't let yourself or your peers make the same mistakes when you're higher-level leaders someday. Never a better time than the present to get the policy right IMHO. Equality of opportunity immediately, stronger fighting force in the long-term. If a woman really could gut it through infantry school, a couple years in a regular unit, ranger school, SF training, etc. etc., don't you think you'd want that person on your team? Sounds like a certifiable bad ass to me. My point is not that I want women on the front lines (ya know, more than they are now) kicking down doors, I want them to have the ability to try out rather than be banned from doing so because of what's between their legs rather than their abilities on the battlefield. The funny thing is that there are already women fulfilling this role, they just don't get a CIB out of it because they're "attached" to front-line units rather than "assigned" to them. Do guys in your squadron not miss training/deployments/etc. due to weddings, childbirth, parents dying/getting sick, etc.? Should we only let single men with no desire to father children, certifiably healthy parents and no worldly possessions into our combat units? There is no need for warrior-monks here man, people fall out for all kinds of reasons otherwise knows as "life" and I don't begrudge them for it. On the other hand if "life" becomes a habitual problem to fulfilling your work duties then that's an issue that should be solved via leadership, not some kind of blanket policy of discrimination from on high. Enjoy more free time ya old man! I will continue to enjoy your avatar, thanks for that at least.

SDP really is the best deal I've ever heard of; maxed it out during my last two deployments. I tell anyone who doesn't know about it or isn't putting in as much money as they possibly can that they're idiots since 10% with no risk is indeed unheard of and all it takes if a few clicks of the mouse and a quick swipe of eagle cash or writing a check. That tool is ok (also an iOS app) but I used it last year just for fun and it significantly underestimated my refund because it specifically says it does not account for EITC or the child tax credit. If those things are a factor in your taxes, it will not give you an accurate picture of your refund.

Shitty situation all around...damaged priceless reef, destroyed pricey ship. Could have used a nav on that ship apparently! Recommendation: make sure you CHUM your charts to include coral reefs next time.

Not sure if serious... I can't think of even one serious medical problem a man could have that a woman would be immune to. /sarcasm. Are you actually making "the period argument?" I'm not even sure this requires a further response if that's the case.

If there is a forced integration of unqualified women into ground combat units, then the concerns by some military or former military folks who are opposed to this would be well-founded. That's not what the new policy entails and in almost every post I've written on this issue, I've encouraged absolutely no one to lower their standards or give a person of any gender a pass; quite the opposite. Ok, I'll skip on the free therapy session if you don't mind. I'm definitely not an extremely competitive, "my dick is bigger than yours" kind of dude...can't say that's a very flattering way to characterize yourself or most mil aviators anyways. I do enjoy supporting the killing of the enemy with impunity though, not sure that requires the attitude I think you're falsely painting the entire military with. Great, so we're on the same page. I am concerned with our nations well being and although people have philosophical political and policy differences, I honestly don't think almost anyone is truly acting out of bad faith. Including the Joint Chiefs and SECDEF that put this policy change into effect or (most) of the military people who are writing pieces outlining their opposition. That fact that my views are different than yours does not make either of us "right" or "wrong," it's just a different point of view and since the policy I support is the one being implemented we'll let history judge whether that was a good idea or not in the long run.

Copy, don't absorb lessons learned, not even from past endeavors by your own military. Proceed with reinventing the wheel. It's taking American exceptionalism WAAAY too far when you can't even learn from the successes and mistakes of others who undertook very similar actions. Like I said before, I frankly do not care if a single woman is able to pass Ranger school, the SF assessions course, BUD/S, etc. I don't. What I do care about is that they have a fair shot to try is they think they can hack it and that if in fact some crazy-tough female could pass, that she would be allowed to serve right alongside others who had made it through the tests same as her. Equality of opportunity. That fact that some people here can't even fathom that any woman could ever, not in a million years, possibly pass these tests is amusing and I think very shortsighted and pessimistic. Quoted for truth. I absolutely, 100% recognize that the opinion I'm offering here on most political issues is not what is the norm in the BO.net or military aviation community. I have no problem with this. If you're more comfortable in an ideological bubble then by all means follow M2's advice and block my posts and anyone else who disagrees with you. You have your young daughters call you something different? I don't even get what this was supposed to mean... There's no way a person with my type of views could have any knowledge of what goes on in the military or on the battlefield, right? I'm obviously not a ground pounder (and I'm betting neither are you), but I'm not exactly a hippy liberal smoking pot and protesting nuclear war our at Beale either... What exactly is your critique here? What are your creds again that make you such an expert on "what being militant entails?" I mean, we might have a genuine badass running around here that I just wasn't aware of.

How have we already overcome these problems in units where women previously didn't serve? How did other militaries solve these problems with they fully integrated women? We don't need to reinvent the wheel here.

Nice! Don't think my tax rate can possibly get any lower than it is right now w/ mortgage, kids, deployments, etc. I'd greatly prefer to pay taxes on my non-Roth TSP now than when I'm 69 or whenever. Good find man.

I'm cool with there being discriminators that relate to performance, I just don't think gender should be or needs to be one of them. Well that's stupid, sounds like it's something your community needs to work on. If they're not good enough don't pass them on their checkride and certainly don't upgrade them to AC. If they are, then continue. I just have not seen this, honest to god. I can emphatically say I have noticed absolutely no special treatment for women, or minorities, or men, or anyone in my community. You're either at or above the standards or you aren't and 99% of the time progression in the platform follows as appropriate. And the 1% I've seen who got a couple of BS upgrades/promotions/good deals nor commensurate with their abilities were all men FWIW. Small sample size but that's where I'm coming from. The solution is to uphold the standards, which I don't think is that freaking hard to do. People talk about having backbone and character and values, well if you see something going on like you described and you know it's not right do something about it and fix the problem where you live. If you're that person's EP, give them the Q3 if they're really below standards. If you Commander overturns that for a BS "equality of outcome" reason then he's not worth the rank on his shoulders and when you or your peers rise to the level where you're commanding squadrons/groups/wings don't make the same mistakes.

Ah, got it. Not everyone does, as evidenced by the debate on here. Note the emotional, stereotypical arguments you already pointed out. What I'm arguing for is that anyone who can meet the established (rigorous) standards should be allowed to perform the job. That's it, no more, not less. I honestly do not care if women are on the front lines or not, I want the best people available. If the SF or other elite door-kicking units remain all-male because no women could make the cut then NBD. I honestly do not know a single woman who could make the cut for some of those units; I also don't know very many men who could either. What I don't think is right is when people are discriminated against by policy rather than, like you said, by capability. Equality of opportunity, period.

Women weren't always allowed to be pilots, do you have lower standards for female pilots in your squadron? I don't change the standards I instruct to based on gender or anything else. If you're an instructor in a ground combat assessions unit and you are lowering the standards to allow women to join you're causing the problem and have no one to blame but yourself. I'm not totally naive though; this is obviously ignoring the ones and twos who get in via BS "guardian angels" with stars on their shoulders...I'm not sure you can ever get rid of shenanigans like that. I'm 100% against anyone getting a pass or an upgrade or a promotion when their performance doesn't warrant it. If you know how to solve that problem, patronage and special "good ole boy"clubs and the promotion of expert pepper-grinders I'd love to hear it and I'm betting so would everyone else.

Well if you ignore what I'm saying why do you care? To answer though, she's probably right, I don't know a lot of women with a hard-on to go be a grunt. I don't know a lot of dudes who want to do that either. HOWEVER, if someone of any gender wants to go be a door-kicker, a snake-eater, whatever and they can hack it, by all means I say let them do it. Equality of opportunity. If not one woman successfully joined the infantry/SF/etc. due to the new policy change because they simply couldn't make it, it'd still be the right policy to have gotten rid of the gender ban.