Napoleon_Tanerite

there were some tanker dudes cruising around a few days ago with tripple wide belts... they looked like reflective girdles! two thumbs up!

Look into the Fort Clark gun club out of Bracketville. Something like $50/yr and you can use the range whenever you want. It's a decent range out to 475yrds or so, and it's where I shot when I was at pilot training.

ygbfsm! when a man used to be serious about fighting someone, he'd roll up his sleeves. when he was REALLY serious, he'd take off his jacket. These days nothing says ass whipping like putting on the reflective belt!

shutuppa your face! this is just the kind of "good" idea you need to give them! Especially with the current issue of saluting in PTs. coming soon: all enlisted will wear yellow belts, CGOs will wear orange, FGOs red, and GOs will wear white or some other silliness.

sometimes no, oftentimes, yes... TECHNICALLY they're not supposed to mandate something you have to buy out of pocket, but good luck getting 2, 3, 4+ belts issued... at least in JSTARS land

it was posted in this thread a few pages back. It's the AUAB SUPP to AFI 36-2903 dated something like 4 Oct 09 or so.

I didn't add this to the existing gun thread since this isn't regarding "which gun is better" or similar argument (though it's quickly devolving into just that). I was merely curious as to the legitimacy of Glock's claim.

that's all I've ever flown with too and heard of other airframes flying with... just want to see if I'm missing something from a different MWS, or if personal weapons are allowed ANYWHERE these days, much less to the extent that would support an advertising claim by Glock.

So i've been in the market for a compact 9mm pistol, and in the running is the Glock19. On Glock's site, it has the following paragraph about the pistol: This paragraph is complete with a picture of the pistol and F-16s in the background. I'm not sure about other airframes, but everything I've come across both stateside and especially in the AOR forbids personal weapons on the job, and I've never heard of the G19 being issued to anyone. Anyone got any further details, or is this just blatant BS on Glock's part?

hammer + nail. It's not about the belt at all... in reality, the belt is a non-issue. It's the fact that so much time, effort and energy is spent forcing people to wear it that is the problem. i say let the policy exist, loosely enforce it (if at all) and absolutely HAMMER people who Darwin tracks down violating it (I.E. ran out in the street sans belt and got hit by a car)

who said I was advocating landing gear up? I'm simply saying that if you're going slow enough to throw gear at the break, you're a vag.

so if that's coming from the AFCENT shirt, is the gist to "knock it off, you look like a bunch of buffoons" or a "crush the resistance" message? This has finally broken free of being contained within the Deid. The polka dot pants and red rubber noses of several "leaders" are starting to show to people not directly related to the Deid.

blindly accepting queep as "too pointless to fight over" does nothing but embolden people looking for their next OPR/EPR bullet to come up with some other bullshit queep to invent and enforce on the apathetic masses. There's a reason that morale is so low at deployed locations, and it's not because you're out there doing the job you're trained to do. Nothing makes me feel like part of the fight like coming home from a 13 hour mission finding people who need killing to be hassled because the shirt on the PT gear I put on after I peeled off my sweat soaked flight suit isn't tucked in "enough" (think I'm kidding? You haven't been to the deid).

HAH! CX chicken! I've played that game plenty of times-- unfortunately it's like a game of gay chicken! Nobody wins. Last time I played that stupid game it was SUPPOSED to be a 0800-1500 sortie on a friday. Well, a good ole game of CX chicken ensues, and it ended up being a 2000-0000 sortie... on a friday night. Much like gay chicken, both MX lost and so did ops. The MX guys were out there turning wrenches and performing whatever black magic and voodoo it took to fix the jet all day, and then had to catch the jet when we came home, and the ops guys had to fly a sortie late on a friday night. If either side had relented we all could have had a nice short day. Of course the DO and pro super who were having it out hauled ass home as soon as the jet was green enough to fly. (AKA, still yellow, but with enough of a tinge of green to squeeze a sortie out of it)

Just an opinion question here. Do you think MX is inadvertently torpedoing efforts to modernize and upgrade older aircraft by reporting a higher than actual mission capable rate? Not to take anything away from MX, those guys are miracle workers; however, from a bystander's perspective, it seems like it is a lot harder to pitch "we need new engines" when on paper your aircraft is reporting an 80-100% mission capable rate. The obvious retort to the request for new engines then becomes "well, if your airplane is functioning so well, why do we need to spend the money on new engines?" I have a strictly ops oriented point of view, with no real grounds in MX or acquisitions, so I might be way off here. Would reporting how broke the entire fleet is be more beneficial than simply reporting how capable we are at generating the required tails, regardless of how many broken ones sit on the ramp?

That email needs to be forwarded to AF times

Seeing how the only crash in our airframe has been a direct result of low vis ops, pilots get hammered pretty hard on being ready for low vis work. To my knowledge there's no specific requirement that says you MUST fly a certain way, it is a CRM technique that pilots can use to provide the best possible means of performing the safest approach. There are three major schools of thought on how to do this. 1. Pilot flies/pilot lands. The way this goes is that the pilot who flies the approach flies the airplane the whole time. The copilot monitors the approach and assists, but does not do the flying. Generally the CP will call go around if something unsafe develops such as an excessive sink rate, getting too slow, etc, but will not generally call go around simply for not seeing the runway. The inverse of this method is possible (CP flies, CP lands) Pros: Guy landing has warm hands and is already into the flying frame of mind, airplane is trimmed how he likes it, etc. Cons: Transition from instruments to visual can be difficult and requires a very fast cross check. It's possible to lose sight of the runway environment while looking down to check instruments and have difficult re-acquiring what you were just looking at outside before looking down. 2. Copilot flies/Pilot lands. With this one, the CP is dedicated to the instrument approach, and only the approach. He flies the best possible approach, while the pilot is outside just about the whole time looking for the runway environment. Once the pilot has the runway in sight, he takes over and performs the landing. The inverse of this is also possible. Pros: Transition from instruments to visual can be easier, as presumably the pilot doing the landing already has a good view of the runway environment before taking over control. Cons: Guy doing the landing takes over with cold hands and has to very quickly get up to his A game for a very challenging landing. 3. Autopilot flies/pilot lands. This works kind of like method 2, but the AP flies the approach instead. This would not work so well in the E-8, as the autopilot is questionable at best for flying an approach, but would work better with a more trustworthy autopilot. Pros: Both pilots can dedicate more time to looking outside to see the runway environment Cons: The AP must be totally trustworthy. Also, without autothrottles (another fun thing the E-8 lacks) you need to keep a close eye on your power to prevent getting slow. The cold hands issue from the CP/P method is also in play here. I've flown with guys who use all methods. PF/PL seems to be the most popular, but I've only done it in no-kidding down-to-mins weather a few times. I'd say my preferred method would be PF/PL, so long as your crosscheck is good. This is definitely something to brief up as early as possible, and BOTH guys need to be spring loaded to go around BEFORE things get ugly, because bad WX can mask an ugly situation until very late in the game. If you break out and are not already in a pretty safe position to land, it's time to go around. Bad WX is not the time to try to save a bad approach. My 2c at least.

If a C-17 is the size of Dennys, what does that make an E-8? And don't forget the added thrill of not knowing if the wings are going to fall off that old-ass hog every time you crank the yoke to the stop

oh, i'm sure of it.... but you gotta make do with what you've got, and for most people at the deid it's a 40 year old 707 or 707-300

dropping gear at the break = spreading your vag at the break

by whom? the same faceless dickless jackasses that instituted the RB policy in the first place? that's the problem with the deid-- one hand shakes the other whenever it comes to "looking into" things. I've NEVER heard anyone not bitch about the RB policy, they always pass the buck to someone else, and their only job is to "enforce the policy". YGBFSM. Generally, people are not apt to enforce a policy they have no interest of belief in. I sure as shit don't, at least when it comes to Deidtardedness.

anyone manage to get a picture of the sign? Sounds like a GREAT thing to send in to AF times, drudge and anyone else who might be interested in just what the focus seems to be around here.

only if you're not a vag about it. if you're not doing 300+ and quick roll to at least 45 degrees of bank, you officially classify as vag material.

more like "NO CURRY FOR YOU!" not necessarily a bad thing except for the lack of other options-- camel burger, tuna wrap, and... uh.... peanutbutter sandwich

48 hours now and counting sans-belt in PTs. Nobody has said anything to me yet. Word on the street today was they were kicking people out of the chow hall for not wearing their belt INDOORS. Several of our crews came in today with tales of this buffoonery. A few fashion police SMSgts and Chiefs were patrolling the chow hall looking for violators and showing them the door. I looked all through applicable AFIs to include local sups and could find NOTHING that stated that the ######-belt had to be worn indoors. Methinks it's time to fight d-baggery with d-baggery. If someone tries to make you wear a belt indoors, he should get a homework assignment. Within 24 hours, email paragraph and line where it says that belts are required INDOORS. Not sure if it's just me or not, but it really feels like in the past few days a bit of a rebellion has ignited here.