Prozac

Another thought/data point to consider in this discussion: Years ago, there was great fanfare in the bizjet community as many manufacturers designed and certified some of their less complex aircraft for single pilot ops. Today, the number of these aircraft that are actually operated single pilot is exceedingly small. Why? It’s often impossible or prohibitively expensive to get insurance for such operations. Why is single pilot so hard to insure? Because the safety record is fukkking abysmal. And that’s for relatively simple aircraft that were expressly designed to be operated by a single pilot on relatively short A-B legs. Now, take an inexperienced kid who probably wasn’t at the top of his UPT class, put him in a 767, and ask him to do a complex mission that may last upwards of 10 hours and involve receiver refueling ops, a combat zone, coordination of dozens of receivers, bad weather, night, and systems degradation and/or emergencies. Sound smart to anyone here? This dumb idea has got to be somewhere in the top ten epically dumb ideas of all time. But hey, someone’s probably hoping for another star on this one, so what the hell, why the fuck not? Not that guy’s ass on the line. In fact, I’ll bet a hundred bucks that the brass that’s pushing this garbage will be the first in line demanding heads on a platter when guys inevitably start bending metal. EPICALLY. STUPID. IDEA.

Honest question: What’s the safety record of communities that fly single pilot hard IFR look like vs the heavy communities? Related: what’s the cost (monetary, lives, collateral damage) of putting, say, an F-16 in the dirt vs. a large transport category aircraft? Also related: Would the single seat communities ever consider ditching their chutes and pinning their seats for the duration of any flight? Also, also related: How often do single seat guys fly single ship, without mutual support? Ever have lead set your shit straight when you were a clueless wingman & used up all your brain cells trying to walk and chew gum? That’s the AC’s role in a big airplane.

Ya know, it certainly doesn’t do much for unity or engaging with the other side when you refer to the gay community as “mentally disturbed” and “homos”.

It’s all good as long as he didn’t go ninja’n anyone that didn’t need ninja’n.

As others have said, be careful here. If you’re claiming a non-income tax state, but own property somewhere else, be prepared to answer questions like: Where do your kids live/attend school? Where does your wife live? Where do you get your mail? Where do you receive medical care? Also, providing proof you spent 180 days + somewhere gets difficult when you spend a good chunk of your life on the road. States are serious about hunting you down for taxes these days and, like trying to maintain multiple simultaneous romantic relationships, the effort required in dodging & deflecting the probing questions of a spouse or state tax agent usually outweighs the benefit being sought (though we all have our theoretical “worth it” scenario pretty well thought out), with the added detriment that you’re only one slip up away from an expensive trip to a lawyer and/or accountant. IMHO: not worth it. YMMV.

This.

You’re right that other countries seem to be more willing to (if not necessarily better or even good at) plan(ing) decades or even generations in to the future. What the West is good at, and what Americans excel at, is being able to roll with the punches and take advantage of opportunities or mistakes our adversaries make when they arise. China may have a long term plan, but their kind of top down structure makes them rigid, unable to think outside the box, and ultimately predictable. Liberal Democracy certainly seems, and is messy at times, but our more decentralized style has served us and the rest of the world well over the last century or so. I think China’s “rise” has been greatly exaggerated and Xi in particular has way overplayed his hand. He’ll be coronated for his third term here in a few days, but I’d put money on one of two things happening within the next decade: either the Chinese economy collapses, pulling the CCP down with it, or the party realizes they backed the wrong horse and Xi gets served up on a platter for the damage he’s done.

And often.

Fair ‘nuff but you might want to talk to your hotel committee about securing a better location. 😉

I was there this weekend. Fog wouldn't let up. Everything above the Golden Gate Bridge deck was obscured. Sucked they couldn't do the show. From the amount of people on the streets & in the parks eagerly awaiting the Blues, I'd wager the majority of SF does not agree with Mr. Preston. Side note, after hearing so much about how awful SF has become, I was expecting much worse. Yes, there is a homeless problem, and yes, if you hang out in the Tenderloin, you're likely to see some unsavory things. But for the most part, the rest of the city was relatively clean, and at no point did I feel uncomfortable walking around with my kids. Politics aside, it's still a cool city. Go visit.

The Ukrainians knew this would royally piss off Putin. Better to leave things somewhat ambiguous than to invite his wrath. Looks like they got it anyway. Today’s missile strikes didn’t hit a single militarily significant target, instead hitting parks, pedestrian bridges, and playgrounds. Putin continues to do a great job recruiting pissed off Ukrainians who want nothing more than to kill untrained, poorly equipped, elderly Russian “soldiers” by the bushel.

Of course it is. Let’s be real. Putting politics before country is hardly a tactic exclusive to the left.

But you could argue that he acted Ramius's XO on Red October...😉

It'll probably be a few decades before the general public has a clear idea of the American involvement in this conflict. That's a good thing.

To piggyback on ViperMan, nuance is great and all, but some things are self evident, no nuance required: - The American political system is better than Russia’s. Despite all our flaws, I’ll take a representative democracy over Putin’s kleptocracy every time. - The liberal world order (again, I’ll remind the less educated amongst us that “liberal” does not refer to US domestic politics here) established after WWII is better than an alternative where strong countries simply take what they want. The “establishment” that Putin and his apologists like to rail against has kept the peace for seven decades. Some of us have become so accustomed to that peace that it’s become hard to believe that it’s not just the de facto state of the world. It’s not. It takes a lot of work. - Invading a sovereign nation, no matter what cultural and ethnic ties you think you have, is wrong. That’s it. No need for discussion (or nuance). Respect for sovereignty is a key to peace in the modern world. It should be defended vigorously by anyone who doesn’t want to see the planet flattened by war. I could go on. Point being, there’s no gray area to hang out in here. No we aren’t perfect. Yes, we have our problems, some of them major. Despite all of that, we are objectively better than the alternative, regardless of which party is in power, regardless of our internal differences. Objectively. Better. Full stop. I choose to support OUR institutions, flawed though they may be, because it’s a far better option than operating in the wilderness of thought where the Russian and Chinese fact twisters want us. There are forces in this world that are true existential threats to our way of life. They are NOT your neighbor with the coexist bumper sticker (naive as he may be) or the Trump flag on his truck. They are not even Nancy Pelosi (who I guarantee you is FAR more of a free market advocate than Putin or Xi), or Mitch McConnell. It continuously blows my mind that some of us continue to point fingers at each other when there is no shit, painfully obvious evil rearing it’s head in the world with despots outright stating their desire to destroy western cultural values. It’s time to recognize what’s right in front of our faces, put our differences aside for a bit, and start pulling in the same direction.

On the agenda. Cheers! 🍻

Agreed. Great job by the police.

Free speech is great. You can say whatever you like. It’s a two way street though so don’t get all butthurt when someone calls you out on your bullshit. I stand by my assertion that amplifying enemy propaganda is not something that someone who loves their country generally does. I personally do not consider baseless accusations of one’s own country committing an act of war during a time of great international tension to be just “asking a few questions”.

Then maybe consider not re-posting the adversary’s propaganda. You don’t like the current politicians running the country. Fine. You don’t like them so much you’re willing to amplify Russian propaganda (Don’t fool yourself. That’s EXACTLY what you’re doing.)? Not fine. You’re falling into the Russian trap. You know, the one where they amplify our political and cultural differences & try to convince us that the real enemy is the hipster in the pussy hat or the neighbor with the gun collection and not the belligerent dictator seizing land & committing atrocities overseas? Putin’s an ocean away after all. What threat could he possibly be to us when we have so many existential threats right in our own neighborhoods? Standing by for downvotes from the usual suspects…

I don’t think too many people outside Russia will believe the US is behind this. If by “brilliant strategic plan” you mean Putin committing yet another unforced error and shooting him self in the foot for the umpteenth time, well, ok I guess.

Sorry, but this is a potentially misleading statement. I suppose this could be true in a very specific set of circumstances. For instance, if you mean that a KC-390 operating out of, say, Bagram could have the same offload capability overhead Kabul as a KC-135 coming from Manas and carrying winter divert fuel, then yeah, maybe I can see it. If, however, you’re saying that a KC-390 could depart Fairchild and dump 110K into a BUFF over the North Pacific, I’m gonna need to see some pretty significant modifications to the airframe (like a stretch & a couple more engines) or I call bullshit. That said, this concept does have some potentially game changing advantages, especially when you need more booms in the air & want to be closer to the fight. I don’t think it trumps the need for a “strategic” KC-10 replacement that can provide large offloads over long distances (it’s a long way from Guam to Taipei). But this thing could be promising, particularly if ACC decides it wants to pony up for its own tanker support.

Little luxuries that most people take for granted: Running water, a flush toilet, workable temperature control, an APU that can be run in the blocks without overheating, a chair for the boom operator, floors mad of something other than plywood, thrust reversers (I think….Gucci boys correct me if I’m wrong), an autopilot designed in the Nixon era (vs probably Truman for the 135), a galley that included a working oven and (gasp) a refrigerator, and airline style telex headsets (double hearing protection pretty much required in the 135) were all things the Gucci guys got that the “real tanker” crews who had hair on their chests and when TDY in your town, you’d want to hide your wives, daughters and livestock from, didn’t need to accomplish the mission (which mostly consists of finding clouds and turbulence to fly their receivers through). NKAWTG!

Disagree. I think the only way is for both at once, that way both sides get a “win”. Dems get the “pathway” & Republicans get border security.

I appreciate the fact you’re willing to engage here, but hear me out ‘cause I don’t feel like I’ve made myself abundantly clear yet. I (a guy who has voted predominantly Democrat for the last decade or so) absolutely support border security. You seem to think one party cares more than the other about this issue. I don’t believe that’s the case. Republicans have offered simplistic, feel good solutions that have no hope of working. You’re obviously at least partially aware of this fact as you correctly identified the fact that the wall created a readymade road network in what was once one of, if not the most formidable natural barrier to exist between countries. You then attempt to use Hungary as a successful immigration example. Our country has a far more successful and complex economy and deporting everyone here illegally would break it overnight. Republican strategists understand this, hence the reason they keep offering solutions that fire the base up but do nothing to address the real issue. Don’t take my criticism of one side as defense of the other. While immigration and border security have been major issues for decades, I’ve yet to see a workable solution emerge from either side & this is far from the only issue where this kind of impasse exists.

Absolutely, yes. Violence is bad. An attack on our seat of power BY a sitting president? Objectively worse. I’m not opposed to voting for Republicans. I have many times in the past. But as long as the party insists on pushing the full MAGA agenda, I’m out & so is a whole bunch of this country.