HiFlyer

Yeah, it's really up to the individual dentist as to how he/she defines "unacceptable" in relation to the overall AF rules. If it's badly impacted, it's probably not acceptable; if it's "going to become impacted", then they may let it slide. You never really know what they'll say until you have the exam. If they decide it's bad, they'll probably follow the path of my earlier post. If they decide its okay for now, you're good.

Unless they have changed something in the last year or two, you will not pass the FCI with impacted wisdom teeth. If wisdom teeth are not impacted, you'll be okay, but if you have even one impacted, you will not pass the dental exam. The normal procedure is then to mark you as Class 2 (not pass for an FCI or FCIa at least) and be told to get them out on your own dime. The FCI will be held until the dental is corrected. You normally get the impacted teeth removed, then either fax/mail copies of the treatment records back to the dental clinic or go back for a dental re-exam (or wherever they tell you). They'll review the treatment record and/or look at you again and upgrade the dental exam to Class 1 if it meets their standard. Same procedure as having cavities filled. Again, not 100% positive, but that was the procedure for a few others I knew a year or two ago.

Specifically, not much chance of moving to another career field unless something happens like a medical DQ down the road. Not frequent, but it does happen. However, as one remains on the military there is a tendency to slowly move out of direct operations to management and weapons system support. For instance, you may become an 18X (career RPA pilot) and do a couple of tours flying and supervising RPA ops, but after about 6-8 years, you may start sliding into staff positions at the Major Command and/or HQ AF level, or even into system support jobs at an AF Material Command Center. They are still RPA oriented, but could be in future system development jobs or acquisition-related jobs. If you don't screw up, you may later trasition back to ops, but in a supervisory or command position. As for the deployment issue, be careful about how you define the term. Most aviators interpret "deploy" as going overseas something like a 3 to 6 month tour to a forward location. However, many also go on shorter trips (10-15 days) or so, come home for a few weeks and go again, repeating frequently as part of a normal job...not a deployment, but sometimes adding to 150 or more days a year. The airlift community (C-5, C-17, C-130) does this frequently, as do other non-rated people who support forward operations (comm, CE, Special Ops, etc). I also agree that you and your spouse need to talk about this. The military's job is to deter and, if necessary, fight/support the fight. If your spouse can't understand and adapt to that, you're both in for an uncomfortable life. You WILL be deploying, making temporary trips, moving every three years or so, perhaps taking a one-year remote (un-accompanied) tour, etc. because that's the job you're taking on. Also, keep in mind that the way the AF operates now is largely driven by the wars in the middle east. Five (even three) years from now that won't necessarily be the case. Times change and the military reacts, and sometimes doesn't get a vote!!

Who sent the-mail?? Where is the vehicle located for insurance purposes (i.e., outside of Florida?)?

Seems to me it's an issue because the helicopter did not follow ATC instructions in very congested and politically sensitive airspace. Just because you maintain visual separation doesn't relieve you of responsibility to follow ATC instructions unless they specifically relieve you of that requirement (in this case, to stay below and pass behind...at least one of which he did not do). As for your last sentance, no arguement on this end!

U.S. gov't program in the early 60s to provide the ROCAF with aircraft for overflight of the mainland. We provided the acft and training, and shared the take, they flew the missions.

Had at least one running until short final, and the airplane was configured a mile or two out. "All" he had to do was keep it flying on one or less on a steep approach. There is no limit to man's stupidity and gross overconfidence. The tanker community's equivilenty of Bud Holland?

Absolutely. All things being equal, be upfront with the instructor and let him help you. The unequal might be if he has a personal grudge (you know of) against the military or something similar.

Perhaps I am dating myself, but the -135 did not have recorders like civilian airliners when I was flying them. Did we equip them with FDR/CVR equipment over the last few years? After careful re-reading of the article, it sounds like its full of questionable assumptions and half truths.

The way it was explained to me was the IP (or FE) was running several people through trying to get beans accomplished. They hit bingo at the out base and should have started home. He chose to stick around for "one more approach", got delayed a bit, and finally started home well below bingo. Headwinds were higher than forecast going home, another routing delay, etc. and flat ran them out of gas. Not great judgement, but the only guy I've ever heard of to dead-stick a tanker to a successful landing!

Well, at least he wasn't on Okinawa...

At least one that I heard of. It was on a local training sortie several decades ago (70s?) between Wurtsmith and K.I. Sawyer. The IP screwed up and ran out of gas on the way home. The crew didn't think they'd make the runway and bailed out 10 or 15 miles short of landing as the engines began flaming out, except for the IP, who glided it in almost undamaged as the last engine ran (or was running) dry. The AF tried to hammer him for damage to AF property, but the only "damage" was the lost crew escape hatch door. The IP searched back along the flight path on final and found the door in a marshy area basically undamaged, and brought it back, which eliminated the charge. Of course, his career was finished, but at least he didn't have to finish it in jail. I wasn't there...could be urban legend, I suppose...but that's what the tanker guys at Beale told me when I was flying with them in the 80s.

Based on the pictures, I suspect what they saw was a piece of aircraft structure "floating" down, not a chute. Clearly the aircraft came apart in the air (based on pictures of the boom, vertical stabilizer, and wing structure substantally separated from the main crash site), but the question to be answered is why? Fatigue? Excessive loads from CAT? Excessive loads from improper aircrew input? The board will figure that out. Interesting picture items...it appears the flaps were still partially down on the right wing segment (still close to departure end?), and the relatively limited amount of apparent damage to the rudder attachment points on the vertical stab (although there could be more damage on the other side, or seen from the rear).

Hmmm. I have no SA either, but I could offer a guess. Let's see, its a "companion trainer" for the U-2... 1. 4-ship?? Don't see that very often in the duece (did it once (5-ship) in 1955 for a PR photo).. 2. Low level? Well, on max range cruise you might get down in the 60s 3. Bank in excess of 60 degrees in close trail? Nope, not likely to see that much in the duece either, anytime! 4. Aerobatics in trail?? Nah...not much training crossover there either. Sounds like upper management tweaking the training to avoid the appearance of a good deal (which, of course, it most certainly is!). I'm surprised they let 2-ship stay in the program. The way we justified it years ago was to train for pacing the SR-71 in an emergency recovery, and the SR's long gone. I'd be curious to see who directed the changes. EDIT: It was pointed out to me that this appears to be a slam on the program. Nothing is further from the truth. I think the companion trainer program provides enormous benefits to the U-2 program (as well as similar programs for other aircraft). Due to lack of airframes and cost of flying, you can't fly the U-2 at home with sufficient frequency to maintain a lot of basic skills over the long run (I'm sure that is equally true for the B-2 and other programs that use companion trainers). The T-38 provides that capability at a much reduced cost compared to the primary aircraft. I was only speculating as to why an outsider might not see the longer term benefits.

Reminds me of one of my contemporaries ("Big Al") many years ago. Somehow he missed the briefing on cutting the UCD to fit; the stock UCD is basically a cone at the penis end which decreases in size to something the size of your little finger at the very end...you cut it to match your particular anatomy. For his first high flight he struggled mightily to get it on, then had to abort about half way through the flight due to pain. When he got down, the flight doc had to cut the UCD off his extremely swollen dick, and he was DNIF for a week while the swelling went down and the pain stopped. There was some concern about permanent damage due to blood starvation of the tissue. His wife was really spooked!!

Sorta...except when they shot back.

(sigh)......tugs at my heart when I see something like this. I flew one of the Langley OVs long ago in a land far away.

Why do you think lots of hours has anything to do with being a good (or bad) leader??

I agree with this completely. As a (successful) student, you haven't got the free time to be worried that much about your off duty hours...you'll mostly be sleeping or studying, and they're all about the same anyway. I've been to all of them and each has its minor pros and cons. If you were going as an IP it might be slightly different, and if nearby family was a consideration, that might be a tiebreaker. Otherwise it won't really make much difference, so take what you get and be happy.

Here's the message from the CMSgt of the AF...the sky hasn't completely fallen in yet. Note the bolded parts... As you know, our Nation and our Air Force are working through some significant fiscal challenges. The combined effects of continuing resolution and sequestration are forcing some very tough decisions. Unfortunately we'll likely be forced to furlough nearly 180,000 civilian Airmen for 16 hours per pay period for the remainder of the fiscal year starting in April. This is one of many impacts on your units and our Airmen and Families. Given this environment we've had to make the decision to suspend military Tuition Assistance (TA) for the remainder of this fiscal year. Effective 1700 EST, 11 March, Active Duty Airmen will no longer be able to submit requests for Tuition Assistance. Believe me, this was a tough decision because our Air Force truly values education. This is evidenced by our requirement for a Community College of the Air Force (CCAF) degree for senior rater endorsement (SRE) eligibility. SRE means a great deal in the promotion of Master Sergeant to Senior Master Sergeant, and this will not change. We understand suspension of TA benefits makes things tougher, but there are other ways for Airmen to complete CCAF degrees. CLEP exams, the G.I. Bill, scholarships, and federal grants are some options. We remain as committed as ever to ensuring Airmen have the opportunity and means to pursue educational goals. We're still looking at the impacts for FY14 and will do our best to have TA reinstated, although we'll likely need to review the eligibility requirements to ensure sustainability. We owe you more information on this and will provide details as soon as we can.

Well, that's for the input anyway. He'll just have to see what the dentist says, which is an answer by itself.

Ahh, reminds me of the great JSTARS saga. "Lets buy all those old 707-300 freighters cheap. They still have lots of flying time left and we can get them cheap!" $40+ million apiece later (plus the $4m each to buy them) replacing the back half of the fuselage of almost all of them after decades of hauling cattle, sheep and pigs in Africa, it turns out we could have bought brand new ones with the latest engines for less. Boeing tried to warn them, but the iron major in the Pentagton was to "smart" to listen!

I have had exactly the same experience. I have been directly involved in three aviation events covered by the media and they were all grossly mis-represented and put out of context. We had a tanker blow a tire on rollout at Beale back in the late 80s and they stopped it at the end of the runway to change the tire before towing it in. The local news hounds (who monitored the base freqs to keep up with things) first wanted to know about the "crash", then when we said there wasn't one and couldn't produce a crashed airplane, they accused us of lying and "hiding the evidence". How the heck do you hide a crashed airliner-sized airplane at Beale? It's flat as a pancake on the flightline and for 10 miles around! I finally came to the same suspicion about the media's accuracy in other matters.

Down safely, no problems. Landed at St. Louis Int'l.

Latest: Not a C-21. The incident a/c is a civilian Lear 45 with nose gear problems, but there was an AF C-21 in the pattern at the same airport on a training sortie (probably from Scott) and the newsies locked on to it at first.