Muscle2002

A friend of mine, stationed at another Global Strike base, stated his unit sent multiple people to Dyess to support the multiple maintenance-related safety investigations occurring there now. It would seem that the firing resulted from more than a single mishap.

I changed my password intentionally (on the account settings page); however, every time I try to sign in with the new password, Baseops states the password is wrong. The only way to log in is to click “Forgot Password” and follow the email that is sent. It seems the site is not saving password changes properly.

I think some aspect of the moronic adherence to wearing glow belts stemmed from the Army's example. As I understand it, glow belts were first a thing at the Army locations (i.e. Bagram, Kabul, etc.) and metastisized to elsewhere. That is not to excuse AF leadership for following the Army's lead, though. My assignment at an Army post and working with Army folks now convinces me that no one can perform the moronic quite like the Army.

Was your PRF signed and submitted? If so, then nothing happens unless you had a reason to submit a “Stop File.”

Yes, it is/was pretty remote like 14 miles, all on base at 55 mph, from the Rosamond “gate” to seeing the guard shack and other base buildings. BUT it was an awesome assignment I'll be honest, a lot of people from the DT community seem to dislike Edwards; however, having been assigned or TDY enough times to the other DT locations, Edwards ranks pretty high for me for the exact reasons Stitch and Magellan noted. One thing they did not mention is that you are about 3 hours to everything...beach, mountains, Vegas, etc. Personally, it was great being so close to the Eastern Sierra Nevadas and all of the great hiking there. The Edwards airspace is great too...not quite as good as the NTTR, but it is the only place where the highest and lowest elevations in the lower 48 exist. More importantly, make sure you know you want to tread down the DT path. Just like in picking an airframe in UPT, you should pick TPS or non-TPS based on mission not location. For most communities, once you go to TPS, you will not return to the 'regular' AF. You'll have opportunities to integrate with the operational test and even operational squadron folks from time-to-time, especially if you are a fighter or bomber guy, but it's unlikely your old community will bring you back for leadership or other opportunities. You'll still be managed by your old communities developmental team; however, for all intents and purposes, you're a persona non grata to the old community. Unfortunately, the test world has not capitalized on this gap and talent management has suffered as a consequence. Nevertheless, the DT world has improved in its efforts to be relevant for the rest of the AF by working with current warfighters, which may help soothe the sting of not being able to do the real-world mission anymore (if that is your desire).

Yes, a technical MS is an unstated (compared to FTE) desire for the test pilot track. However, ERAU’s programs generally do not meet that bill. Nevertheless, one of the pilots in my class had a masters from ERAU and did well. For pilots, the community is looking for a great pilot with operational experience and the ability to think like an engineer--in the air and on the ground. Adaptability and a disciplined approach to exploring the unknown are also highly sought and trained to at the school.

The following comes from the current application announcement: "An Air Reserve Component (ARC) candidate may be selected each year for TPS attendance based on AFTC and ARC requirements and candidate competiveness. An ARC TPS graduate will provide a minimum of 3 years of direct support to an active duty developmental test squadron upon graduation from TPS. An ARC candidate will contact AFMC/A3F and their respective advisor office to AFMC/CC if selected for TPS to determine the attendance funding and follow-on strategy. If a funding and follow-on solution are not achieved the ARC slot will be utilized by an active duty candidate." As of right now, attending TPS as a Guardsman is possible (was not the case a few years ago). You should also investigate the application requirements and the minimum qualifications. With those guides in mind, work hard to excel in your primary duties so that when you make known your desires with your supervisory chain, they will be willing to go to bat for you.

Valid.

Behnken’s an FTE, not a test pilot.

My guess is that the AF will not retain as many as it hopes it will as a result of this pandemic. While job prospects may be thinner right now, for those on the fence, they need to ask if they are willing to take on another four years (school for a year plus ADSC) to go to school.

Just a few years ago, there was only one release of the school info, usually in late November/early December, and no option to decline without prejudice or having to separate/retire via 7-day option. So while the process is imperfect, it has improved considerably to enable exactly what you mentioned, to make decisions. That's not to dismiss your comment but to put things in perspective as the ongoing uncertainty created by the current pandemic have, at times, caused me to miss the forest for the trees.

I thought spelling JOINT, A-R-M-Y was just hype until I spent the last year in school with them.

I wonder if it is not a holdover from the old PRF; I recall that MAJCOMs allowed SRs to leave BPZ and 2+ APZ blank when PRFs were nine lines. Leaving them blank now does seem to run counter to the idea that the AF has built more "on-ramps" for officers who were late bloomers, made early mistakes, were trapped in assignments due to manning policy, etc. It is not as though writing two lines requires a significant time commitment; the great American novel it is not. Moreover, the two-line PRF intended to force a full records review. Ultimately, I never thought the corporate AF would begin to care about individuals, but I did and still do expect leaders to mentor those below them (whether shiny pennies or not). It is a responsibility of command. At a minimum, the SR owes the officer an explanation for the blank PRF; but then again, I have never received direct feedback when receiving my signed PRF. The one time I received feedback, it was from my Wg/CC, not the SR (for O-5 and above). That particular Wg/CC is not the norm, unfortunately. He held one-on-one feedback sessions with each officer whose PRF he signed much as the AFI requires. I do not think I am in the minority in my experience, and I wish there were more officers who took mentoring and feedback seriously.

Huggy, It was this guy. Granted, I don’t recall every detail of the discussion, but the implication was that AF life would get tougher (due to attrition) and then eventually better for those who stuck around because of increased opportunities.

Late last year, the AF implemented a program to allow senior Colonels to stay on an extra three years beyond the mandatory retirement time of thirty years TAFCS. The increased promotion opportunity and attempts to retain senior Colonels suggests the AF does not have enough for the out years. Six years ago, a retired two-star told a group of us he believed the AF would eventually get to a point where if you hung around, you would be promoted. It seems like we’re almost at that point.

Maybe, but it seems many O-6s have about that level. Plus, the total time may have come by way of flights around the flag pole as opposed to pond crossings. Number of sorties may be a better indicator of experience.

So much so that in various forums with senior GOs (of all branches) during my year in school, I heard many a GO state emphatically that the most important thing to do as a leader is to do the right thing. Moreover, they all stated that character was the single most important quality to possess as a leader. I know we occasionally impugn social media, but the instant spotlighting of poor behavior is seemingly having a correcting result on those who either lost their way or were never on the right path ethically from the get-go. No longer can bad actors hide behind the bureaucracy.

The system is imperfect. To that point, not only did he make O-6, but he was BPZ for O-5 and O-6. It makes one wonder if there were signs that were missed or ignored along the way.

These AoA are likely very close to L/Dmax, but I imagine that in each aircraft, test teams built in a pad to ensure acceptable handling qualities were maintained. This would be to protect against moving in-and-out of backside and frontside regimes. That said, none of the flight manuals I have read corroborate such a hunch, but I know that in evaluating "Steady-state flight-path response to pitch controller," the MIL-STD evaluation criteria requires that an "aircraft remains tractable at commonly encountered off-nominal speeds." In this case, off-nominal is 5 knots slow. Given that airspeed behavior becomes unstable at speeds below minimum drag speed, and that L/Dmax occurs at Dmin, it makes sense to build in a buffer, landing performance notwithstanding, and thus, published flight manual approach speeds are above L/Dmax.

Every fighter I have flown or evaluated used AOA, but all, with the exception of the Super Hornet and Hornet, were flown in the region of "normal command" (front side) which is more intuitive to fly, IMO.

Why would anyone think his wife is driving this?🙄 Here's an example from 2006: https://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/07/us/07brfs-brief-006.html or 2014: https://www.bakersfield.com/news/yeager-court-case-promises-to-be-slower-than-speed-of/article_2c970300-6377-5333-be51-1ac2e41496b7.html or 2015: https://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2015/02/12/court-chuck-yeager-can-sue-utah-gun-safe-company-that-named-products-after-him/ or 2018: https://www.bizjournals.com/boston/news/2018/09/17/massmutual-in-bizarre-legal-dispute-with-chuck.html or again in 2018: https://www.metnews.com/articles/2018/yeager051718.htm He spoke at one of the TPS graduations while I was there. When by himself, most of my peers thought he was down-to-earth and easy to converse with; however, it was noted that dealing with all that comes along with Chuck Yeager is something different.

A correlation coefficient, or r, of .5 indicates there is a moderate correlation between PCSM score and UPT completion. Even an r-value of 1 only indicates a strong correlation but not a direct causal relationship.

I would avoid PODS. This was our experience with PODS after they refused to honor their contract to deliver to Ft. Leavenworth. They said it was an inconvenience to deliver to post and would put them behind schedule, but they said we could pick up our stuff from the facility if we wanted to. The facility was over an hour a way.

I must have fat-fingered the quote. I meant to reply to your post. Stupid fingers!

Your strats, as stated, do not appear to be middle-of-the-road. That said, do you think there is a chance he meant middle-of-the-road as compared to other BPZ records? Given that your record only competed for an aggregate DP against other BPZ records, he may have meant that your record was "average" among the people all being pushed for a DP BPZ. Note also that the BPZ promotion rate is generally <5%, thus even with your strong strats, the odds are not high at being picked up BPZ for any officer.