deaddebate

Some follow-up, looks like you won't need a waiver if you indeed do qualify for a FCII application (again, dependent on the airframe). If you do need a new IFCI, you don't meed waiver criteria and would probably be DQ'd. Stick with your current platform.

Necro thread bump. I have a relative who is seriously considering joining the military as a hopeful pilot applicant. I and several other people have attempted to convince him the Air Force is a better choice due to the substantially better quality of life. His counter-argument is the brotherhood and community pride of the Marines is unparalleled. I'd appreciate any recent commentary and opinions on this topic. Hopefully some posts will reinforce my position and recommendation, but what I really want is for him to be informed of the realities of the services before he makes a life decision. Thanks for any input.

You should only need the FC II retention standards if you are transferring to the same or similar platform. This is slightly open to interpretation, but generally equates to Fighters are Fighters, Heavies are Heavies, etc. I don't have the vision standards in front of me right now, but I'll check this tomorrow. I think you will need a waiver, which is likely to be approved. Dilated manifest is what counts. 81L BLR could elaborate, but it's my understanding that dilated exam is closer to your true refractive error.

As 81L BLR said, the uncorrected visual acuity doesn't really matter. The focus is on your ability to correct to 20/20 and the strength of the vision Rx to get to that level (AKA the refractive error). There are a few other things I could say about waivers and testing, but I would be creating more silly questions by posting minimally relevant information. Long story short, I believe you're over-thinking this. Slow down, trust that the folks at MFS aren't trying to screw you over, and that they are the best Physical Standards folks in the Air Force.And yes, waivers for "Excessive Refractive Error" are very common and usually approved without much trouble.

https://takano.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/rep-mark-takano-introduces-the-keith-nolan-air-force-deaf-demonstration

https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/15-29%20-%203-18-15.pdf Wednesday, March 18, 2015

https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/15-31%20-%203-19-15.pdf Thursday, March 19, 2015

https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/15-29%20-%203-18-15.pdf Wednesday, March 18, 2015 https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/15-31%20-%203-19-15.pdf Thursday, March 19, 2015

https://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/02/american-military-deserters-canada.html

Western Lancaster, around Avenue J and 50th west is a good community. I imagine the schools are good too. A little north is the prison, but don't let that throw you. Just south of it is nice. North is desert and nothing. Avenue I and 40th east is good, but it's a little pocket. All around it is hood. South into Palmdale around R and 60th east is a growing community, wherever the new Target is, but that's probably further from base than you'd want to drive. Stay away from Rosamond, Mojave, North Edwards, California City, and Boron if you want good schools (or civilization). Quartz Hill is pretty and quaint, but again probably too far. Tehachapi is on the edge of sanity for commuting. Only live there if you have some connection to Bakersfield and want to drive there regularly. Most folks live in Lancaster. The area around the Lancaster boulevard would appear to have a "home town" feel--don't be fooled. Wander any distance and it rapidly becomes sketchy. The Lancaster boulevard is great too visit, but a terribly bad choice to live.

Super Troopers 2 https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/super-troopers-2 On day 1, they raised over 1 mil of the 2 mil goal. This shit is happening. Update: It's now 100% funded, in under 48 hours.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?324888-1/hearing-defense-department-fiscal-year-2016-budget 1:54:00 - 1:58:30, listen to Rep Gallego's question and CSAF Welsh's response. He's getting tired of this question, and he's certainly nailed down a good response. Whether you believe his reasoning or not, he appears to have real conviction in what he's saying. It's a good clip. I love that Rep Gallego forgot the name of the CSAF. 2:53:45 - 2:58:30, Rep McSally argues against the A-10 cut decision. As said by JQP, she both deftly and angrily pushes the SECAF and CSAF into a corner. Meh, she sure is angry but I doubt any of her comments will have lasting effect.

The final transformation from the misunderstood shell-shocked to the PTSD buzzword. Painful is not the same as traumatized. TRIGGER WARNING: I don't give a shit about self-diagnosing, social-media-activist ice-cream-cones. Aim a little lower on the neuroses list toward Panic Disorder or Adjustment Disorder. The idea that our society needs trigger warnings is also retarded. https://militaryspouse.com/coping/guess-which-one-suffers-from-ptsd

There is an unlimited supply of money for the F-35 due to political and industrial interests. There is very little money for existing weapons platforms only valuable to servicemembers because it doesn't significantly grow stock values. Cutting money from the boring A-10 does create money for some other boring stuff politicians and leaders do think we need, but can't leverage billions of dollars to support. We need that money for SARC briefings, suicide prevention, or cyber security CBT's.

https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/LaPlante_Holmes_Wolters_03-19-15.pdf March 19th, 2015 / SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2016 Air Force, Force Structure and Modernization Programs / STATEMENT OF: Dr. William LaPlante / Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Acquisition) Lt. Gen. James M. “Mike” Holmes, USAF / Deputy Chief of Staff (Strategic Plans and Requirements) Lt. Gen. Tod D. Wolters, USAF / Deputy Chief of Staff (Operations) More of the same, just different people saying it.

https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/James_Welsh_03-18-15.pdf https://docs.house.gov/meetings/AS/AS00/20150317/103091/HHRG-114-AS00-Wstate-JamesD-20150317.pdf Fiscal Year 2016 Air Force Posture / Witness Statement of / The Honorable Ms. Deborah Lee James, Secretary of the Air Force / General Mark A. Welsh III, USAF Chief of Staff Fuckin' heroes, man.

https://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/580356/secaf-to-host-tweet-chat-march-18.aspx The previous event was 16 Dec 2014, only four months ago.

What I love about Satanists is they would never say "Hail Satan" so publicly and wildly (at least LaVey-style Satanism). They know it would get immediate, negative reactions that would work against their personal and general goals. They are generally brutally pragmatic and strive to master their individual "super-ego" or "executive functions." I'm not advocating Satanism or saying I like the individual believers (teachings usually re-inforce selfishness and greed), but that I respect their pragmatism. The dude who's arguing this point grossly misunderstands how Satanists actually live.

The FS can submit a waiver at any time, but if it goes against the waiver guide recommendations, it's unlikely to be approved, therefore, you need to have a very good reason to submit ahead of schedule. Even then, the FS is disinclined to do it early because they're working for something with a small chance of desired results. Keep in mind that the waiver guide is de facto policy, while AFI 48-123 and the waiver authority provide de jure policy. Plenty of people have gone against the waiver guide and been approved because they had significant support to overcome the generic "rules" to convince the waiver authority. Talk to your FS and see if he thinks this applies in your case. I haven't seen many waivers for this particular diagnosis, but you probably need the CT/MRI on top of the X-ray to push this route.

AFI 36-2110

This isn't the direct answer you're hoping to get, but it is a lead to find one. Look in the PPC directory on myPers. There are a number of codes for CONUS remote assignments, and each one has a POC listed with a phone number and often an e-mail address. You could look for something at the location in question, or just find a good POC somewhere in AFPC.

In this same vein, fivethirtyeight.com has a big report about which airports and airlines have the most delays, and which ones actually beat their predicted time. There's a lot of nerdy calculations involved. Here's what they found: In this second chart, the number on the right is the time difference from what the airline publicizes, meaning they "pad" the time, so they are giving themselves extra protection by under-promising and over-delivering. The score on the right is a calculation of how well the airline performs compared to the other carriers flying the routes, meaning it's totally performance based instead of whatever is advertised. There's also a really fancy interactive map showing which routes are the slowest, based off the performance of the airports, but I don't think it's very useful because routes usually aren't options for most passengers. For me at least, I have to fly the same main route unless I have beaucoup bucks to burn for fewer connections or a direct flight. Something I would ask anybody currently employed at or soon to be interviewing for one of the major airlines is this: Could you extrapolate this data to help you choose an airline that displays efficiency and coordination instead of incompetence? Or would it signify the airline's has a stickler culture of scrimping and pushing employees? So to wrap up, this is one more way to measure how great or crappy your flying experience is. There are many other studies and comparisons about how airlines perform. I always enjoy fivethirtyeight's reports because they are very heavily data driven and they try to account for human variables.

Army guys get paid to shoot targets, win competitions, and go to the 2016 Olympics. Seems like a pretty sweet gig. https://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=128329

The waiver guide is what matters. Further, standards for IFC I/IA are uniformly enforced because the certification and waiver authority are MFS/AETC (AFI 48-123 Attch 2). Meaning that ANG may be the ones sponsoring you, so you are more likely to get a waiver requested, but almost no better chance at getting it actually approved. This only differs if you are an existing flyer/inter-service transfer, meaning you would only need an IFC II, and ANG would then be your approval authority. In short, you are "untrained," and therefore at much lower likelihood for approval.