When someone has a payout for a 90% disability, and they're not really 90% disabled...and yet go on to claim full health and draw a thick, juicy salary only possible as a healthy, whole aviator, and the taxpayer picks up the tab, there is a problem. A big, big problem.

I've worked for quite a few.

Of course, there's a great deal of what the military does, which is handled by contractors who will never see disability or for that matter, a flag on their coffins...

Oh hell yes, he should. And he probably will.

And if he decides to pursue an airline career, no doubt he'll be honest about it, too.

Most here aren't old enough to remember Dana Bowman, who lost his legs in a parachute mishap with the Golden Knights, and who kept jumping and remained in the service, and many have never heard of a personal hero, Douglas Bader.

Then again, with many of these, ask them if they're handicapped, and they'll tell you "no."

I have no issues with someone who is 90% disabled being paid for being 90% disabled, especially as they've lost it in service to their uniform, country, and flag. What I have a massive issue with is the schmuck who takes pay for 90% disability when he's not really disabled, and demonstrates it by doing a job that a 90% truly disabled person couldn't do.

I sat next to a young man, a staff sergeant, on a flight one night over Basrah, and as I was preparing to do a rapid descent, asked if he had any sinus or ear issues. He told me he had just one ear drum. I enquired as to why; it was an RPG in Baghdad, he said. I told him we'd save the rapid descent for another time. No problem sir, he said, "If the United States Army wants me to have another ear drum, they'll give me one."

I appreciated the kid's candor. It doesn't really work that way, of course, and while his guns-ho attitude is commendable, he had what's the most common disability in the military; hearing loss. With one ear drum blown out, significant hearing loss that would be with him for life. I have no issues with him receiving a diagnosis and a determination of disability, or the pay. I hope he gets it, and whatever he gets won't make up for the loss he'll live with the rest of his life. The same for someone who is truly 90% disabled.

That's not at all the same as what we're discussing, and for the person who is 90% disabled, but has no problem holding a free and clear medical and operating as if no disability exists, I ask, "which is it?"

Shall we have the cake and eat it too, or there a line in the sand there, somewhere?