Author Topic: Pilot- arts applicants vs science  (Read 17219 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Smitty1690

  • New Member
  • **
  • 220
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 33
Pilot- arts applicants vs science
« on: March 16, 2008, 17:24:42 »
Hey,
I would really like to become a pilot with the CF (ROTP), and was wondering if your program type effects your chances. i.e Arts or Sciences. I've done some research, and know that someone persuing an arts degree can become a pilot, but do the science/engineering applicants have a better edge?
Smitty  :salute:

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 211,437
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,271
Re: Pilot- arts applicants vs science
« Reply #1 on: March 16, 2008, 17:36:46 »
Doesn't make a bit of difference.

Offline Lumber

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 56,214
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,011
Re: Pilot- arts applicants vs science
« Reply #2 on: March 16, 2008, 17:37:24 »
Hey,
I would really like to become a pilot with the CF (ROTP), and was wondering if your program type effects your chances. i.e Arts or Sciences. I've done some research, and know that someone persuing an arts degree can become a pilot, but do the science/engineering applicants have a better edge?
Smitty  :salute:


There are no degree requirements for becoming a Pilot. You just have to have a degree to become an Officer, and you need to be an Officer to become a pilot.

Why do you assume that someone with a science/engineering degree would have a better edge? Are you assuming those with an Arts degree (or in pursuant of one) are not as smart as science/engineer types? Some engineers are know are dumb as door knobs, some artsmen I know are the most enlightened people I've ever met. Maybe you think they arn't as capable? I know some engineer who can do math that has impressed the professors, but who on course couldn't learn figure out to set there god damn hoochies (tent...sort of...) up. You pick a degree partly because of what you actually enjoy, not because one is for 'smart' people and the other isn't.

Ignore rant if I assumed incorrect.
"Aboard his ship, there is nothing outside a captain's control." - Captain Sir Edward Pellew

“Extremes to the right and to the left of any political dispute are always wrong.”
― Dwight D. Eisenhower

Death before dishonour! Nothing before coffee!

Offline George Wallace

  • Army.ca Fossil
  • *****
  • 436,375
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 31,578
  • Crewman
Re: Pilot- arts applicants vs science
« Reply #3 on: March 16, 2008, 17:37:58 »
Are you and BrianBB one and the same?  Pilot wannabe's.  Over use of saluting smilies.  Makes me wonder.
DISCLAIMER: The opinions and arguments of George Wallace posted on this Site are solely those of George Wallace and not the opinion of Army.ca and are posted for information purposes only.
Unless so stated, they are reflective of my opinion -- and my opinion only, a right that I enjoy along with every other Canadian citizen.

Offline infamous_p

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Full Member
  • *
  • 1,475
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 289
  • ex-GGHG
Re: Pilot- arts applicants vs science
« Reply #4 on: March 16, 2008, 18:00:00 »
Hey,
I would really like to become a pilot with the CF (ROTP), and was wondering if your program type effects your chances. i.e Arts or Sciences. I've done some research, and know that someone persuing an arts degree can become a pilot, but do the science/engineering applicants have a better edge?
Smitty  :salute:

Nope, having (or working towards) a Science degree as opposed to having (or working towards) an Arts degree does not give you 'an edge' over other applicants who are applying for pilot as well. However, that being said, there are areas of study within both degree programmes respectively that are "preferred" with respect to the pilot trade over other areas of study.

Reference my attached image. When you download it rotate it twice clockwise to see it right-side up (and zoom in a few times), and my apologies for it being cut off near the top, however what is up there does not really matter. If you locate the pilot trade on the very left hand side and move rightwards, you will see a number either '1' or '2' corresponding with a specialization listed above.

You will notice that there are specializations within ALL fields (Engineering, Science, Arts) that are preferred, having the number '1' beneath that specific specialization (reference the Legend at the bottom left of the graph). You will notice that, for example, Chemistry is a "preferred" specialization (being a Science program), while International Studies or Political Science (being Arts programs) are ALSO preferred specializations. There are also a great deal of Engineering programs that are deemed "preferable" - General Engineering, Aeronautical, Aerospace, Computer, and Electrical Engineering.

That does not mean that these specific programs are your only options if you hope to get an offer for pilot. The MAJORITY of degree programs listed on that sheet (either within Engineering, Science, or Arts) are listed with a '2' - meaning "acceptable" for that specific trade.

That being said, say you have a degree in Political Science (Arts), and your competitor has a degree in Physics (Science) - you will be more "competitive" over this other guy, simply because you hold a "preferred" degree over an "acceptable" degree, regardless of your individual degree programmes, regardless of the fact that he holds a Science degree and you hold an Arts degree. However, say you hold a degree in Geology (Science), and your competitor holds a degree in International Studies (Arts) - HE will be more competitive simply because, again, he holds a "preferred" degree.

Therefore, it is irrelevant what field you are in (Science as opposed to Arts), as there are preferred degree programs in both (and of course, within the Engineering field as well).

Why do you assume that someone with a science/engineering degree would have a better edge? Are you assuming those with an Arts degree (or in pursuant of one) are not as smart as science/engineer types? Some engineers are know are dumb as door knobs, some artsmen I know are the most enlightened people I've ever met. Maybe you think they arn't as capable? I know some engineer who can do math that has impressed the professors, but who on course couldn't learn figure out to set there god damn hoochies (tent...sort of...) up. You pick a degree partly because of what you actually enjoy, not because one is for 'smart' people and the other isn't.

We already had this argument - please, let's not get into it again...
« Last Edit: March 16, 2008, 18:05:13 by infamous_p »
Nulli Secundus

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 211,437
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,271
Re: Pilot- arts applicants vs science
« Reply #5 on: March 16, 2008, 18:03:18 »
There are no degree requirements for becoming a Pilot. You just have to have a degree to become an Officer, and you need to be an Officer to become a pilot.

Why do you assume that someone with a science/engineering degree would have a better edge? Are you assuming those with an Arts degree (or in pursuant of one) are not as smart as science/engineer types? Some engineers are know are dumb as door knobs, some artsmen I know are the most enlightened people I've ever met. Maybe you think they arn't as capable? I know some engineer who can do math that has impressed the professors, but who on course couldn't learn figure out to set there god damn hoochies (tent...sort of...) up. You pick a degree partly because of what you actually enjoy, not because one is for 'smart' people and the other isn't.

Ignore rant if I assumed incorrect.

It seemed like a simple straight-forward question to me.

By the way, Smitty1690, I have a high school diploma, and no degree. When I went through degrees were only required for doctors, lawyers, engineers etcetera. I saw no need to spend three years doing something completely irrelevant.

Degrees don't make better pilots. In fact, more DEOs (with degrees) than OCTPs (without degrees) failed on my courses. I suspect that that was due to lack of motivation, as they had something to fall back on and therefore put less effort into flying training.

Offline Lumber

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 56,214
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,011
Re: Pilot- arts applicants vs science
« Reply #6 on: March 16, 2008, 18:04:04 »
We already had this argument - let's not get into it again...

We did? Can you link me the thread so I can read it over?
"Aboard his ship, there is nothing outside a captain's control." - Captain Sir Edward Pellew

“Extremes to the right and to the left of any political dispute are always wrong.”
― Dwight D. Eisenhower

Death before dishonour! Nothing before coffee!

Offline infamous_p

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Full Member
  • *
  • 1,475
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 289
  • ex-GGHG
Nulli Secundus

Offline Lumber

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 56,214
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,011
"Aboard his ship, there is nothing outside a captain's control." - Captain Sir Edward Pellew

“Extremes to the right and to the left of any political dispute are always wrong.”
― Dwight D. Eisenhower

Death before dishonour! Nothing before coffee!

Offline Smitty1690

  • New Member
  • **
  • 220
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 33
Re: Pilot- arts applicants vs science
« Reply #9 on: March 16, 2008, 18:32:53 »
Thanks for your replies, that was pretty fast. I'll assume that there isn't any difference what program you're in... I only ask because military airplanes are sophisticated pieces of technology, so it only made sense to me that recruiters would be looking more for people with a science sortof background, but luckily for me that's not necessarily true ;D


Are you and BrianBB one and the same?  Pilot wannabe's.  Over use of saluting smilies.  Makes me wonder.
No sir :salute:

Offline infamous_p

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Full Member
  • *
  • 1,475
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 289
  • ex-GGHG
Re: Pilot- arts applicants vs science
« Reply #10 on: March 16, 2008, 18:42:14 »
Thanks for your replies, that was pretty fast. I'll assume that there isn't any difference what program you're in... I only ask because military airplanes are sophisticated pieces of technology, so it only made sense to me that recruiters would be looking more for people with a science sortof background, but luckily for me that's not necessarily true ;D

Well... Science is a very broad discipline.

Also, although your primary function will be to fly, you will not be spending every hour of every day in the cockpit of an airframe. You must remember that being an Officer will come with a sea of other duties that come with being just that - an Officer.

For example like I referenced before - a degree in International Studies. As an Officer in the CF you will be establishing and maintaining relationships with individuals from different countries in a broad range of circumstances. You may also be sent on operations in differing parts of the world, thus it being helpful to have a great deal of knowledge about countries and cultures abroad.

Good luck.
Nulli Secundus

Offline Smitty1690

  • New Member
  • **
  • 220
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 33
Re: Pilot- arts applicants vs science
« Reply #11 on: March 16, 2008, 18:48:57 »
Also, although your primary function will be to fly, you will not be spending every hour of every day in the cockpit of an airframe. You must remember that being an Officer will come with a sea of other duties that come with being just that - an Officer.

For example like I referenced before - a degree in International Studies. As an Officer in the CF you will be establishing and maintaining relationships with individuals from different countries in a broad range of circumstances. You may also be sent on operations in differing parts of the world, thus it being helpful to have a great deal of knowledge about countries and cultures abroad.

Good luck.

Very true, and thanks.

Offline benny88

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 8,740
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 657
Re: Pilot- arts applicants vs science
« Reply #12 on: March 17, 2008, 01:37:15 »
Smitty,

    If you're looking for an edge, I recommend taking some flying lessons. I don't think it "officially" helps, but it shows you're interested in the trade, which you can say during your interview, and at least gives you some sort of idea of what you're getting yourself into. Plus it's fun! Be wary though, you will get hooked on flying, and it can get very, very expensive.
    Also, if you're looking into "pilot-relevant" programs, check out this thread: http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,71815.msg687699.html#msg687699

 Cheers

   
The people trying to make this world worse, are not taking a day off.

Offline mhawk

  • New Member
  • **
  • 330
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 26
Re: Pilot- arts applicants vs science
« Reply #13 on: March 17, 2008, 01:54:09 »
infamous_p  that chart doesn't seem to be that accurate in portraying what trades are available to what degree you have.  Biggest thing I noticed was the Cbt Arms trade being not acceptable to certain degrees, which seems kind of odd.  Just wondering, where did you find this chart.

Offline Lumber

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 56,214
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,011
Re: Pilot- arts applicants vs science
« Reply #14 on: March 17, 2008, 02:17:04 »
infamous_p  that chart doesn't seem to be that accurate in portraying what trades are available to what degree you have.  Biggest thing I noticed was the Cbt Arms trade being not acceptable to certain degrees, which seems kind of odd.  Just wondering, where did you find this chart.

Really, I mean, what's the difference between a degree in English and a degree in Journalism in terms of how it will affect an Infranty Officer's performance?
"Aboard his ship, there is nothing outside a captain's control." - Captain Sir Edward Pellew

“Extremes to the right and to the left of any political dispute are always wrong.”
― Dwight D. Eisenhower

Death before dishonour! Nothing before coffee!

Offline infamous_p

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Full Member
  • *
  • 1,475
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 289
  • ex-GGHG
Re: Pilot- arts applicants vs science
« Reply #15 on: March 17, 2008, 02:24:56 »
infamous_p  that chart doesn't seem to be that accurate in portraying what trades are available to what degree you have.  Biggest thing I noticed was the Cbt Arms trade being not acceptable to certain degrees, which seems kind of odd.  Just wondering, where did you find this chart.

That chart doesn't tell you that certain degrees are plain and simple not acceptable for certain trades, i.e. Cbt Arms. The chart is not saying "if you have such and such degree, we're sorry, but you cannot be an Armoured Officer." That chart is simply an outline for someone hoping to get education sponsorship through ROTP.

If you want to get a Physics Oceanography degree on your own dime, then all the power to you - you should not have any problems applying to the CF as an Officer with that degree. It will be perfectly acceptable.

However, if you expect to attain an education on the Queen's dime through the ROTP entry plan, you are not going to be sponsored under (for example) the Physics Oceanography or Earth Observational Science degree programmes if your choice for ROTP is any of the Cbt Arms trades. Notice the title of the chart: "Occupations and Course Patterns for ROTP Subsidized Education at a Civilian University". If your choice is Cbt Arms for ROTP, why would the government sponsor your education in the discipline(s) of Physics Oceanography or Earth Observational Science? Your skills in those degree programmes will likely be better utilized elsewhere - perhaps in other MOCs.

The chart was provided by CFRC/D Toronto.
« Last Edit: March 17, 2008, 02:27:41 by infamous_p »
Nulli Secundus

Offline Breacher41

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 17,601
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,080
  • Per Pietas et Virtus
Re: Pilot- arts applicants vs science
« Reply #16 on: March 17, 2008, 03:03:52 »
That's pretty much the reason behind the charts. For example, a Journalism Degree is better suited for a PAFO position as that is the best use of your degree and the CF's dime. Just like you'll never get an M.D. On the CF's dime unless you want to be a Military Physician :)
هناك [هس تو] كنت يستعصي طريق

Offline Smitty1690

  • New Member
  • **
  • 220
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 33
Re: Pilot- arts applicants vs science
« Reply #17 on: March 17, 2008, 09:17:53 »
If you're looking for an edge, I recommend taking some flying lessons. I don't think it "officially" helps, but it shows you're interested in the trade, which you can say during your interview, and at least gives you some sort of idea of what you're getting yourself into. Plus it's fun! Be wary though, you will get hooked on flying, and it can get very, very expensive.
    Also, if you're looking into "pilot-relevant" programs, check out this thread: http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,71815.msg687699.html#msg687699

 Cheers

   
I've finished ground school and am about 25 hours into my flight training. (PPL) I'm already hooked ;D my poor wallet...

Offline benny88

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 8,740
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 657
Re: Pilot- arts applicants vs science
« Reply #18 on: March 17, 2008, 10:46:54 »
I've finished ground school and am about 25 hours into my flight training. (PPL) I'm already hooked ;D my poor wallet...

  Oh good! Well if you're not dead-set on RMC, check out that link, in that program you have the chance to get PPL, CPL, and multi-engine IFR on the Queen's shilling.
The people trying to make this world worse, are not taking a day off.

Offline ballz

    ...

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 113,541
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,201
Re: Pilot- arts applicants vs science
« Reply #19 on: March 17, 2008, 16:00:55 »
I've finished ground school and am about 25 hours into my flight training. (PPL) I'm already hooked ;D my poor wallet...

I'm gonna recommend you don't get your PPL until after the aircrew selection course. That way if you fail, you'll simply need a couple more hours before you can redo it. If you get your PPL beforehand and fail, you'll have to get your CPL to redo it.

Mind you, take my advice with a grain of salt. I'm just trying to amount to something in the military like yourself. I'm don't know the ins and outs of it all thats for sure.
Have you ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight?

Offline Smitty1690

  • New Member
  • **
  • 220
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 33
Re: Pilot- arts applicants vs science
« Reply #20 on: March 17, 2008, 19:47:28 »
I'm gonna recommend you don't get your PPL until after the aircrew selection course. That way if you fail, you'll simply need a couple more hours before you can redo it. If you get your PPL beforehand and fail, you'll have to get your CPL to redo it.

wow I had no idea it was possible to redo ASC if you end up failing it. I haven't heard of that before, where did you see that?

Offline benny88

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 8,740
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 657
Re: Pilot- arts applicants vs science
« Reply #21 on: March 17, 2008, 19:54:44 »
wow I had no idea it was possible to redo ASC if you end up failing it. I haven't heard of that before, where did you see that?

   Search some ASC threads. It's possible to be granted another shot at Aircrew, but usually (if not always) they require you to get the next stage of license, (IE no license-->PPL,  PPL--->CPL) AND also wait a year, I believe.

   Ballz made a very good point, not getting your license (fly the hours, just don't write the test) before you go is a good idea.
The people trying to make this world worse, are not taking a day off.

Offline Rowshambow

  • Member
  • ****
  • 455
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 191
Re: Pilot- arts applicants vs science
« Reply #22 on: March 18, 2008, 18:44:09 »
Yes smitty it's true, ask anyone who has not passed CAPPS, (like myself) I can redo if I get my PPL. They also told us that, when we were there. They (the staff) also told us about 1 guy who failed, then got PPL and passed, and about another guy who failed, got PPL failed again, then got CPL, then passed! So it's true! Not sure if I would spend all that money, (like guy 2) on CPL just to "relearn" how to fly from a military instructor! I think if you have a CPl you should at minimum get a CAPPS bypass (for sim, not medical).
Let's play hide and go f^*k yourself...I'll go hide!

Offline Hippie

  • New Member
  • **
  • 380
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 41
Re: Pilot- arts applicants vs science
« Reply #23 on: March 18, 2008, 19:03:44 »
I think if you have a CPl you should at minimum get a CAPPS bypass (for sim, not medical).

I'm an Aviation College graduate and was given a CAPSS bypass when I went thru in 2003..  Not sure if that has changed or not.  Thought I heard from one of our baby pilots that they stopped doing that.  Maybe one of you wannabe's can confirm or deny it!

Offline ballz

    ...

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 113,541
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,201
Re: Pilot- arts applicants vs science
« Reply #24 on: March 18, 2008, 19:14:39 »
From what I've learned on here, they no longer let anybody skip the ACS. If you have your CPL, I don't think you have to do PFT.

As for the talk of the Arts vs Science degree, no one is saying that Science degrees make you a smarter person. That being said, it can help define what kind of thinker you are. Obviously you would expect somebody in a field of engineerings or phyics of chemistry or math to have a brain that is geared in a different away than someone with an arts degree or english or journalism or whatever, the writing courses (minus business. thats an exception)....

I would think a flying a plane would have you thinking in a very mechanical/physics type of way, meaning that someone who is a math-type person would probably be able to learn the necessary stuff a lot easier and faster and more efficiently.

Have you ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight?

Offline benny88

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 8,740
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 657
Re: Pilot- arts applicants vs science
« Reply #25 on: March 18, 2008, 19:25:18 »
From what I've learned on here, they no longer let anybody skip the ACS.

  True

If you have your CPL, I don't think you have to do PFT.
   
 
   False. The only way to a PFT bypass these days is the Commercial Aviation Management Program at UWO, and only for ROTP that I'm sure of. I'm not sure what would happen if someone came out of this program and joined as a DEO.
The people trying to make this world worse, are not taking a day off.

Offline C1Dirty

  • New Member
  • **
  • 60
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 47
Re: Pilot- arts applicants vs science
« Reply #26 on: March 18, 2008, 19:40:10 »
Quote
False. The only way to a PFT bypass these days is the Commercial Aviation Management Program at UWO, and only for ROTP that I'm sure of. I'm not sure what would happen if someone came out of this program and joined as a DEO.

There are some OJT guys I work with going directly to MJ (PFT bypass) based on aviation college programs (Confed/Chicoutimi/Sault etc.).  They're definitely not ROTP. 

Offline benny88

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 8,740
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 657
Re: Pilot- arts applicants vs science
« Reply #27 on: March 18, 2008, 19:44:28 »
There are some OJT guys I work with going directly to MJ (PFT bypass) based on aviation college programs (Confed/Chicoutimi/Sault etc.).  They're definitely not ROTP. 

   Hm. It must be quite recent. As Hippie said, it happened to him in 2003, so not that long ago. I don't think college programs get you the bypass anymore. Did these guys get a degree, then their aviation college program (or vice-versa) then join DEO?
The people trying to make this world worse, are not taking a day off.

Offline Hippie

  • New Member
  • **
  • 380
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 41
Re: Pilot- arts applicants vs science
« Reply #28 on: March 18, 2008, 19:50:26 »
  True
   
 
   False. The only way to a PFT bypass these days is the Commercial Aviation Management Program at UWO, and only for ROTP that I'm sure of. I'm not sure what would happen if someone came out of this program and joined as a DEO.

Has that policy changed as well??  Again, when I went thru, anybody that had gone to a DND approved aviation college program (of which there are / were 12 I believe), you would skip PFT and ACS (not the medical part obviously).  I was one of them, and I certainly didn't go to UWO.  From my basic trg platoon, about 10 out of 20 or so pilots skipped PFT all together, mostof which were CEOTP (one went to UWO).   Benny88, maybe since you're working at a CFRC, you're more privy to this kind of info.  Are you absolutely sure about your information?  I would hate to think that prospective applicants here are being lead astray by bad info.

Just a reminder to all, don't take everything you read on these forums as gospel.  There's lots of good info on here, but naturally not everything will be correct.

Cheers,
Hippie

Offline benny88

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 8,740
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 657
Re: Pilot- arts applicants vs science
« Reply #29 on: March 18, 2008, 20:00:30 »
  Benny88, maybe since you're working at a CFRC, you're more privy to this kind of info.  Are you absolutely sure about your information?
   

   No, I don't work at a CFRC, sarcasm? To be honest, I was quite sure about the PFT thing, but C1Dirty said otherwise and I have no document and can't even remember who told me, so I will defer to him and say it IS possible to bypass with a college program.
  To the best of my knowledge, NOONE bypasses ACS though.


Check out this post my Maniac in an ASC thread:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,63367.msg678996.html#msg678996

    I was wrong about PFT looks like, but right about ASC. A look at Maniac's profile shows he DOES work in a CFRC, so I would call that a fairly firm answer.
    Sorry for the confusion and my error. Hippie is right, remember not to take anything as gospel on these forums.
    Anyways, we're off topic, and this is all covered in that forum I quoted. Back to Science vs. Religion, or whatever... ;D
The people trying to make this world worse, are not taking a day off.

Offline Hippie

  • New Member
  • **
  • 380
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 41
Re: Pilot- arts applicants vs science
« Reply #30 on: March 18, 2008, 20:11:15 »
   

   No, I don't work at a CFRC, sarcasm?

Ha!  I appears I miss-read your profile.  How the hell did I mix up ASU and CFRC.  Probably too much St. Patricks Day holy water cloudin the brain still.   >:D

Offline benny88

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 8,740
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 657
Re: Pilot- arts applicants vs science
« Reply #31 on: March 18, 2008, 20:17:01 »
Ha!  I appears I miss-read your profile.  How the hell did I mix up ASU and CFRC.  Probably too much St. Patricks Day holy water cloudin the brain still.   >:D

  Haha no worries. As penance I sentence you to buying me a holy water in a few decades when I finally get to a squadron.
The people trying to make this world worse, are not taking a day off.