RTB

Sad situation when filling a DS position is even on the radar. At the Wings I served in, that didn't exist until just a few years ago. But now there's so much queep that Wing CCs feel the need to shack an otherwise mission-flying O-4/5 as the queep master for the Wing. UFB.

If it's the dream, absolutely go all in - AD / AFRES / ANG. Since you're currently USAF, you understand some of the pain associated with life on AD, and these boards are full of legitimate (and sport bitching) gripes from AD flyers. By all accounts, the best QoL with least amount of queep or pain would be a stand alone ANG or Reserve unit that isn't integrated with AD. But you can't just send an application in to them and expect to be hired. You need to visit the unit during drill weekends. Find out who their hiring POC is and figure out how and when to visit. Get to know them, let them see you're not a douche (don't act like a douche). Do this for multiple units. Find out when they're hiring and who to contact about it by visiting some of the websites that specialize in tracking that stuff...you can find the info on them here on Baseops. I think there's a new one that recently launched that has all the upcoming hiring board info (Bogidope?) But also put applications in to AD for a slot. Cast the net wide as I've said before. You'll undoubtedly find people who will tell you no or you're too old or whatever to discourage you. Screw them. Find someone else and keep at it until you find the right path. And the right path is most likely whichever path leads to a pilot training slot soonest. And since age is becoming an issue for you, try to transfer to complete the degree sooner. As for USN and USMC, that's a whole different rodeo. Significantly different lifestyle than AF. Read up on what some Marine guys on here have to say about flying there. Good luck!

And at the same time, probably lost another fighter pilot who would have stayed in had they been given that assignment. Brilliant AFPC!!

But it's important to note that they offered you what many would consider a great assignment flying F-16 Aggressors in AK. So while it wasn't on your list, it was still a pretty good offer!

strange question. Unrelated to my comment. I was saying that it's fucked up that the dude got chiefed. It's fucked up that he was forced to do a FOD walk at 0700 after landing at midnight. It's fucked up that pilots were mandated to participate in the FOD walk in the first place. It's fucked up that his leadership didn't tell him to just go home because he just landed. But to answer your question, my reaction to getting chiefed varied based on the situation, the alleged infraction, and my general attitude at the time of said chiefing. The unfortunate practice of Chiefing didn't really gain much traction in my neck of the woods until I was an FGO. Usually, I responded with something like "Fantastic, thanks for letting me know!" and then carried on about my business.

That is so fucked up on so many levels.

Insert Face palm meme. That statement belongs in the "What's wrong with the Air Force" thread.

Ah yes, the Queen of all the acrobats...

Ain't that the truth!

Wow, that's a pretty stinging indictment of Marine Corps leadership.

5 38s and 15 T-1s? Is that the normal distribution these days??

Understands?? Hell no! He's a GENIUS in his own eyes! He's still riding the wave of his BPZ as a result of the fact that he "Saved the AF $4.3 Billion Dollars..."

Since you're an AGR, you are treated like Active Duty where outside employment must be approved by your boss and reviewed and approved by the JAG. You will need to fill out AF Form 3902, get it signed by your AGR job boss and commander, and then get it reviewed by Legal. If they approve it, you're GTG. I've seen this done plenty of times in the past, although usually with enlisted personnel. However, I remember a few officers doing it as well.

I actually think it is pretty complicated. How do you ensure the CAT III systems are always available? And if they're not, do you divert and land immediately? For me, it's not always working, either at dispatch or enroute/on approach for various reasons. Granted, CAT II is usually available and can autoland without the redundancy of CAT III systems but my point is that shit breaks, and not just automated systems. We fly without ACARS from time to time because some 'tron somewhere ain't firing right. Or it stops working in flight. Nothing works all the time and everything breaks at inopportune times, and when it's a system you need to ensure 200 people get back on the ground safely, it's a problem. Do you now require a flight to land asap if a system fails in flight just in case the pilot becomes incapacitated and then the jet can't land itself? Seems like there'd be a lot less on time arrivals just knowing how things break in real life. Will aircraft be capable of single pilot ops if everything is working in the near future? Yes, probably soon. It's the "what ifs" and implications of shit breaking in those rare circumstances that push it way out into the future for passenger aircraft IMO.

I just don't think it's going to work with the flying public anytime soon. IMO we are generations away from people willingly climbing aboard a drone, in a nasty rainstorm, to fly across the ocean at night with no humans driving from the front. I also think it'll take all-new design aircraft before it's feasible...too much retrofit required on the existing fleets, fleets which will be around a long time. There are other significant issues to overcome but I think human nature will be a huge obstacle for a long time.

There's probably never been a better time to try to get a pilot slot with a less than stellar GPA. Make them tell you no by applying to every opportunity you can. Keep studying and get that PPL and if they say no, try again. I lost count of the number of times I was told no before I finally got a pilot slot. I was rocking a 2.8 GPA. Don't give up.

So? How did it go? When will we see the published results?

Likelihood is high? Aren't they the most overturned appeals court in the country? Not wasting any more time on this topic...we all have our opinions and ours are 180 out

Ha! Valid. Not a millennial, more like an old broken retiree, but point taken...

OK, I read it. Disagree with your assessment that it's not legislating from the bench, but I'm no legal scholar and wouldn't know a well written ruling from a bad one. But saying that Washington state's economy and Universities were irreparably damaged by the EO is absurd IMO. I really don't care that 2 'scholars' planning to visit from an EO country were temporarily unable to fly to Washington state. Obviously the EO was rolled out horribly without clear guidance and caused some problems both here and overseas for people who should absolutely have been been able to travel. It shouldn't have stopped valid green card holders and others who had already been vetted (like Iraqi interpreters, etc). Terrorists probably aren't flooding in here now more than the past 8 years, but why is that the standard we have to follow? If ANY have flowed here or plan to flow here, why should we keep the status quo? Going to be an interesting few months to see how this plays out.

Ridiculous but predictable from the 9th...seems they missed the point entirely. Pretty dumb that the standard they used is that no one committed a terrorist attack from those countries...I thought we wanted to prevent them, not react to them. The list was made up of countries that, 1) are unable to properly vet travelers, and 2) have elements of their populations that are a high risk and are therefore a risk to the US. It's specifically NOT a list of countries where people who have attacked us have come. Why this is considered a bad idea is beyond me. It's just a pause to make sure we're doing the right thing to verify visitors to our country.

While I don't have first hand knowledge of the what's happening today at USAFA, these articles basically describe the attitude and focus of the AF as a whole. Our culture has gone from combat to corporate. Front line folks still have the right focus, but that seems to be in spite of the overall culture, not a result of it. Depressing to see.

I think you might want to hold fire for now. From what I've been told, this was the result of a face to face discussion with guys at WEPTAC and was an answer to the question "what can we do that's an easy kill right now". This was a topic apparently brought up among many others and was addressed by HAF in about a 2 week period. Is it going to solve the problem? No. Does it remove a stupid restriction to the wear of the bag? Yes.

There was a lot of that in the F-22 after the initial flood of "#1 of x"'s were brought in. Severely limited the pool of pilots who were eligible for quite a few VMLs. Apparently there was a need to get younger blood in after the initial flurry of FGO IPs and Patches got things going. I've often wondered if the Navy and ANG method of simply transitioning an entire squadron with the existing personnel isn't a better way to do things.