Thanks for the help.

Thanks for the point.
That's exactelly what i've been trying to say, so far.
Life at AMF will be miserable, no question asked and if you dare to speak up....
that's what's gonna happen, either you are fire or they make sure you are not hired anywhere else.
Let's not forget that recruiters know each other and if you are not in line with AMF, chance are that you won't get your next job.
No they won't write anything on your PRIA, they'll just call each other.

The best things to do is not have anything to do with AMF in first place!
If you have logged 1200hrs to go AMF keep doing whatever you are doing and log 1500 and than go for a reagional.

I promise I'll work on my spelling but it won't be to send you my resume.

Anyone know the possibility of doing a base transfer. I.E OMA- SLC while staying in current equipment? New hires are going into into SLC, so I couldn't imagine it would be a issue to "trade" me into SLC, while a new hire into OMA.

Thoughts?

Oh! Thanks for playing. To the Back of the line.

I know inter-base if possible. There is a pilot in OMA that started in Texas.

If there is an opening in SLC that they plan to put a new hire in, then I think it might just be a matter of making sure everyone involved (both ACPs, BL and SH) is aware of it. Though I can't make any guarantees about that.

Part of the question would probably be, why move if it is just lateral?

You are obviously letting the bias of your viewpoint cloud what I was saying. The only case of two people (not necessarily pilots) in an aircraft that can be flown single pilot that I mentioned was aerial photography. And the second person there doesn't need to be a pilot because all he is doing is handling the camera. The other references involving regulation were for aircraft too complex to be handled by one pilot.

And my SAC comments were how important PIC time was before commanding an aircraft that not only had two pilots, but 2 - 4 other required crew members as well needed to accomplish the mission. So your "summary" of my remarks is totally OFF the mark.

First off, there are many more aircraft than just fighter/attack types and ALL of them (bomber, transport, tanker, AWACS, etc.) require two pilots, again because of the complexity of the aircraft, not just to make the basic flying safer. And for fighters, there are only a handful of types that HAVE been two crew (F-4, F-14, older FA-18s, a couple of F-15 variants, A-6.) And for the most part, the second crew member was normally a pilot. So I don't really see the change in the fighter ranks you are alluding to.

I don't want to commit to another year contract. Mine expires in 4 months, and would like to keep my options open.

Did you mean normally [not] a pilot?

Of the **older** F/A-18s - only the USMC 'D' model has two aircrew - one pilot, one Weapons Systems Operator (WSO) - like the F-15Es.
Of the *newer* variants, the F/A-18Fs (replacing the F-14s) has a WSO too, instead of the F-14 RIO.

Now...back to AMF....

The way I see is that you keep on saying over and over again that a two pilot crew is "better" to handle more complex situation than a single pilot.
So, once again, why going to AMF?
I don't see the point today.

As far as you knowledge in fighter I'll let the Marine to replay to you.

What?
You don't like AMF?