Jughead

Ah, a math geek!

Since no one else has commented on this, it seems likely that things may have changed since I went through UPT 100 years ago; but.... When I went through, we were explicitly prohibited from outside flying, and it didn't matter if you had never flown before or commanded the last Space Shuttle mission, or anywhere in between. You probably want to know the status of that before putting any irrevocable planes in place. Yes, I realize any such prohibition is likely unenforceable if push comes to shove. Consider, however, the BS that the AF wraps around "high risk" activities (among which it lists GA flying), and which AETC enhances. As a student in a program that will determine the shape of your entire professional life yet to come and which will likely be the toughest undertaking you have yet experienced... do you really want to get in that fight? Again, my information may be woefully out of date, but, I'd check if I were you....

Common misconception. Hand-in-hand with the "you're on duty 24/7" philosophy, pretty much anything not resulting from something causing a negative line-of-duty determination is "service related": if you're on AD, and skiing "legally" (not contrary to lawful orders to the contrary, or AWOL, or whatever else could render it non-LOD), any injury resulting from that is "service related".... PS: Yes, I know this is an old(ish) post I'm replying to....

No direct experience either way, because by my math, they don't make sense unless you will regularly hit the catastrophic cap ($3K / yr, last I looked) via ongoing issues driving co-pays & deductibles. That doesn't apply to my wife & me ("yet"?), so we've foregone any of the supplementals. Ultimately, you will have to make the call on what's best for you / your family; either way you go will be based on past history & future guessing, but only you can decide. Prime vs Standard: The only folks I know for whom Prime makes sense are those who live near a base and wish to use a military facility for PCM. Otherwise, Prime does little for you while costing premiums & limiting your options. Once again, you'll have to bounce your own particular situation and maybe craft a few likely scenarios to decide what's best for you.

FIFY *750 hours w/ 50 hours multi; because this is the RPA thread, I'll add the sad caveat that RPA hours don't count....

Not 100% clear on where you are right now--but is the combination of "currently assigned" and "at the time of the practical test" what's getting you? Are you still "currently assigned as a flight crew member"? Otherwise, I've no ideas....

Well... that oughta just about cover the fly-by....

Generally when drilling down from the main forums page to a sub-forum [say, from, https://www.flyingsquadron.com/forums/ to https://www.flyingsquadron.com/forums/forum/4-general-discussion/] or, when moving between sub-forums or "up" to a sub-forum from a specific thread. I can't reliably repeat it, since I don't control which ad(s) will be presented by any given refresh, but it happens pretty regularly and always with that same site & "waiting on..." message. FWIW, I can't recall seeing any actual eBay ads showing up....

Routinely having my browser (Firefox 45.0.1) lock up with a particular "waiting for..." message when accessing BODN (and nowhere else). I assume it's an ad, and my caveman-level of ability to read what shows up when I navigate directly leads me to believe it's eBay.... Anyway, the specific site is: dco-cdn.w55c.net

I think you may run afoul of the SAPR folks if you stay on this dirty path....

Huggy, we talking about the airplane or about you...?

59 years ago today, the prototype for the mighty -135 flew its first transcon test. Check out the 10th picture for ol' Tex Johnston's briefing style...!

Shit, I was in my mid-forties by the time I retired. What would your plan entail then--just leave the damn thing plugged in the whole time...?

Not only that, he doesn't need any prep....

Piling on, I have the Citizen watch ("previous version") as well; it's my second one (I had the version before that, too); when it's time to replace it, I'll likely get the one that JeremiahWeed linked as its replacement....

Butters--is it possible... I mean, just. Maybe. Possible... that you "don't know what you don't know" on this topic...? Weren't you the guy on here who loved to shout down anyone who so much as speculated that an airline hiring boom was looming? (You know, the one that's currently in full swing?) Seriously, anyone who uses ECIC et al is a "scared little kid"? That comment's a five-yard penalty for douchemanlike conduct, friend.... Everyone will get something different out of interview prep. Maybe you really DO have everything that could possibly be relevant to getting & succeeding in an interview already in your skill set--in which case, good for you!! But, if you don't think it's worth $400 bucks & a day of your time to "verify" that you're already perfect (or, perhaps, uncover those areas where a little polish just might help...), well.... Good luck!

Well... If there's a different standard for men & women, isn't that what we're all always bitching about on here to begin with? From reading the article, it doesn't sound like anyone's advocating allowing women to get heavier than men--but, rather, to increase the limit (maybe to whatever the limit is for men?) in recognition that whatever limit is in place may not be realistic for a woman who is working out to deliberately bulk up, so better to perform her military duties. There will never be an apples-to-apples comparison so long as there are "men's standards" and "women's standards"; I don't think this is in the same category as lowering a standard on, say, how much weight a Marine needs to be able to carry a specified distance (which I believe is part of their test?)....

I did so. Mostly just mileage and the one or two books that I actually bought, in my case, since TA covered 100% of my pay-the-fee/get-your-B degree, but the same logic would apply to excess tuition. Standard disclaimer: YMMV, and I am NOT a tax professional....

Uncommon, no doubt--but, I was fortunate enough to have just such a CC back in the day. It wasn't me in the hot seat, but a fellow pilot & crew was in the spotlight for something they were being threatened with total BS Q-3s for; our CC told the OG point-blank (I was in the room) that any such Form 8 would never make it into the members' FEFs so long as he was commanding the squadron. My respect for the man went way up, and I filed it for future reference (fortunately, never used). I just wish the mid-level captain I was at the time had had enough savvy to realize just how rare this was....

Any home-station CC worth the title would (a) call the deployed commander and tell him he's a douche and (b) accidentally misplace the Form 8 so that it regrettably could not be included in the FEF going forward....

Disclaimer: NOT a tax professional.... In general, any item to be (potentially) deducted on one's income taxes is limited to the actual out-of-pocket cost one incurs. If the course cost you nothing, there's nothing to deduct. If you claim the cost of the course, and if you further somehow dodge the GI Bill money as being a "reimbursement" for the cost, then the money becomes "income." No free lunch--the totals will all even out somewhere on your form. Unless you have some reason specific to your own tax situation to "move" the money around to different areas on your return, I wouldn't suggest trying to game the IRS on this.... I definitely wouldn't recommend claiming the tuition as an expense and making no accounting of the GI Bill money....

What M2 said....

Yikes.... Senior moment (I mentioned I was retired, yes...?). Forget the acronym--point stands (it's an entitlement, Finance can't screw you out of it). Now, get off my lawn while I go to the commissary for some cigarettes....

DISCLAIMER: My info is stale--I retired in 2013. Yes to both questions. I exceeded the annual deferral limit every year (since the TSP started) during which I had any deployment (it wasn't always $18K; I think it was about $10.5K when the Uniformed TSP first started; the deferral limit increases over time, though it's still $18K for 2016). Unlike your experience, it was automatic--in other words, my elections stayed whatever I set them to (or changed them to), and the contributions came from the CZTE pay (without regard to the deferral limit). I maxed it once, when I had six months deployed in a calendar year. I fell short of maxing a second time by about $2K (four months deployed). Single, yes (no real money getting spent at home), but O-5 on flight pay for a 180 & a 90-day, respectively (and, thankfully, not Kabul for either). I had (three different deployments) the issue you describe with the system "not catching up." Search on posts I've made in the past for details--but, bottom line, the "E" in "CZTE" stands for entitlement (translation: Finance's rules can't take it away from you); the TSP is an entitlement; your ability to contribute from CZTE money in excess of the deferral limit is an entitlement. It will be a pain in the ass, and you will ultimately have to "write a check" if you want to go down this road--but, in three separate cases of refusing to take the Finance airman's "no" for an answer and insisting that they open a case file with DFAS, I retroactively made a contribution for the initial month of the deployment which had already "closed" by the time the system flagged me for CZTE. One big "gotcha" is the limit on officer CZTE. If you're senior enough (in my day, that meant "12-year O-4 on flight pay") to be affected by that (OR, during the month your ACP hits, if applicable), you need to be careful about maxing out your CZTE contribution before maxing out your deferred contribution. Again, search my past posts on the subject for details if you're interested.

Movie was a lot of fun, no doubt, and certainly very high production values.... ...but, am I the only one who felt the whole thing was recycled? I don't mean the obvious continuity-of-storyline stuff or the original characters. I'm talking about just about every single plot element being a damn-near direct copy of previous movies (primarily Ep IV, but shades of V & VI, too); even all the supposedly "new" characters were carbon-copies of their predecessors.... Disappointing. Enjoyed the movie, and it could totally suck and still be a blockbuster just because of its pedigree--but, the story writers phoned it in....