HU&W

Three years ago was 2014, when Debbie James cut the pendulum string.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2017/11/17/a-navy-pilot-drew-a-penis-in-the-sky-its-not-the-first-time-something-like-this-has-been-investigated/?utm_term=.6c277b06902f

Ground school's not adequate prep. Good advice is AFOQT-specific book and timed practice tests.

In other words, the staff work would be too hard?

I'll be that idiot. Enlisted RPA pilots would be the solution to return EVERY medically qualified 11U to a manned cockpit, with the 18X RPA only pilots taking on a leadership/supervision role. It's not a 100% solution, but it would help.

Not at all. Welcome back. Just give the flight doc a heads up so they can get a sufficient supply of depends.

State of the AF press conference. Live streamed on af.mil. Just ended.

No. Gen Goldfein translated it to a $10B loss. They said there's a 1-star evaluating 8 complementary lines of effort to correct the problem. No mention if either of those lines of effort are to restore the perceived leadership or A1/AFPC credibility gaps. He also mentioned that his 84 year old father is excited about coming back off retirement to AD.

SECAF just reported that we're now 1926 pilots short.

I'd recommend attending a Dave Grossman seminar. He directly addresses each of your questions, specifically regarding churches.

Then you missed his stopover in Pahrump.

As credible as Iron Eagle, but without the great music.

I swapped to rated 10 years ago. The process wasn't particularly difficult, but the selection rate was low. IIRC, boards are once a year, around right now.

I'm thinking the B52 alert and 1000 pilot recall are connected. We're going to need SMEs from that era, like Huggy, to stand up SAC again. Reminds me of a great movie.

A quick reminder from 2014. I know what I'd like the subject of the next congressional hearing to be. ********************************************* "We're going to be a smaller Air Force, we project over the next five years, and we have a plan on what's going to happen when," James said. "It's heavily in FY15, a little bit in FY16. That was a conscious choice. We're going to do it as quickly as possible and get it behind us." James, who was previously an executive at SAIC, said that her experience conducting downsizings in the private sector has convinced her it is best to get them over with quickly. "I've done them slow, and we convince ourselves sometimes that if you drag it out over five years, that that's actually better for people, because it'll be a more gentle slope, and you can manage it better," James said. "But you know what? If you take five years, people will worry about it for five years. If you take one year, people will worry about it for one year. So during the period of uncertainty, people are going to worry. There's no way around it. The best you can do is tell them what you know, tell them what you don't know — but get back to them — and tell them when certain things are going to happen as best as you know it, and keep updating it because things change."

Sub a expired in 2011. He activated 688 and 690 which don't have the voluntary provision you listed. Here's the link to 688. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/688 Pay particular attention to the verbiage in (f) compared to the words in the EO.

I completely agree about going to the source. If note, the EO doesn't limit it to 1000.

That's why you put the non-vols on a staff. Then you push the AD guy that's replaced on staff back to a cockpit.

Go to the source, not the news articles. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/10/20/presidential-executive-order-amending-executive-order-13223 "The authorities available for use during a national emergency under sections 688 and 690 of title 10, United States Code, are also invoked and made available, according to their terms, to the Secretary concerned, subject in the case of the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, to the direction of the Secretary of Defense." Of particular interest is item F in 688, which says "(f)Waiver for Periods of War or National Emergency.—Subsections (d) and (e) do not apply in time of war or of national emergency declared by Congress or the President." Which he just declared. Sub (d) is the one that excludes certain retirees. Sub (e) is the one that sets time limits on the recall. For 690, a similar provision removes the 25 cap during national emergency, as declared. There is no cap of 1000. There is no cap. There is also no provision in either the EO or Title 10 that says it has to be voluntary.

Is anyone else a little concerned about the vague language describing the restrictions in HR 3999? The way it's written seems that it could be construed to prohibit any aftermarket part that improves the functionality, if it improves rate of fire, of any semiauto rifle. This isn't just bump stocks and gat cranks. Lots of things can improve your rate of fire.

ACC does an excellent job managing and employing things that are pointy and fast.

It can, but it would have to change for everyone. I'll check with the design team to see how that design looks. Here's a photoshop rendering. Looking for feedback from those potentially interested. EDIT: Latest edition updated with graphic per discussion with interested parties. PM if you want in.

Thanks, I think so too. Sarcasm aside, I do think it would deter establishments from arbitrarily disarming their customers without cause, thereby denying them self protection without providing an adequate substitute. I agree. Hughes is part of the problem. I recommended repealing it in my original post.

I will add that one way I think attacks could be deterred (not prevented) would be to hold companies and local government entities liable for the security of people on their property if it's a 'gun free' zone. But that kind of legislation wouldn't have a chance of ever passing.