Canada and RC Log Books
03-29-2023, 06:12 PM
#1
Canada and RC Log Books
"Dead Hobby Walking" as one person put it. Canadian RCers are now required to keep 4 sets of log books for each "aerial vehicle" and flight for 24 months according to this on RCGroups.
https://www.rcgroups.com/forums/show...is-true/page10
https://www.rcgroups.com/forums/show...is-true/page10
03-29-2023, 08:58 PM
#2
I think Canadians and Brits in general are more "NEW WORLD ORDER OBEDIENT" than those of us who have lived as FREE MEN for the past 200 years or so.
The Royal Subjects will cope with whatever their overlords put on their plate ...much better than Americans who place a higher value on their God given rights.
In Canada...it is totally illegal for a man to defend himself, his loved ones and his property with a firearm..
In England it is illegal for a man to be openly critical of the NEW WORLD ORDER FORCED IMMIGRATION AGENDA.
They will arrest you for doing that.
The Royal Subjects will cope with whatever their overlords put on their plate ...much better than Americans who place a higher value on their God given rights.
In Canada...it is totally illegal for a man to defend himself, his loved ones and his property with a firearm..
In England it is illegal for a man to be openly critical of the NEW WORLD ORDER FORCED IMMIGRATION AGENDA.
They will arrest you for doing that.
03-30-2023, 04:17 AM
#3
I find it somewhat amusing that some people have proclaimed that they couldn’t care less about the conversations on RCG and that a certain Canadian resident has been discriminated in this forum because Canada has nothing to do with AMA. That is of course until the happenings in Canada fit certain individuals narratives.
Not to disparage CP but having posted that video that was taken from a random field one mile from an airport and while a Cessna was in the vicinity, would certainly have received negative comments had it been posted by other members. Remember, I was criticized for not commenting on a RCG thread that I wasn’t aware existed. Just goes to show the level of hypocrisy in these threads.
Not to disparage CP but having posted that video that was taken from a random field one mile from an airport and while a Cessna was in the vicinity, would certainly have received negative comments had it been posted by other members. Remember, I was criticized for not commenting on a RCG thread that I wasn’t aware existed. Just goes to show the level of hypocrisy in these threads.
03-30-2023, 05:44 AM
#4
Just read through the last two pages of the thread at RCG. The guys up in Canada are, to keep in clean, TORQUED OFF!!!!!
I do think MAAC and the Canadian version of the FAA took it too far however. I can see a flight and aircraft maintenance logs since that's what is required for a full sized plane and pilot but what I can't see is a maintenance log for a transmitter. Transmitters rarely have issues that require more than a battery pack replacement so what's the point? Heck, my first radio set still works fine, even though it's a wide band 27MHz twin stick from 41 years ago. I can't get battery packs or servos that will work with it any more so it just sits on a shelf. Same with my 37 year old wide band 72MHz four channel. I'm seriously thinking about sending it to Radio South and have it gutted and have a 2.4 board installed, just for the fun of it
I do think MAAC and the Canadian version of the FAA took it too far however. I can see a flight and aircraft maintenance logs since that's what is required for a full sized plane and pilot but what I can't see is a maintenance log for a transmitter. Transmitters rarely have issues that require more than a battery pack replacement so what's the point? Heck, my first radio set still works fine, even though it's a wide band 27MHz twin stick from 41 years ago. I can't get battery packs or servos that will work with it any more so it just sits on a shelf. Same with my 37 year old wide band 72MHz four channel. I'm seriously thinking about sending it to Radio South and have it gutted and have a 2.4 board installed, just for the fun of it
Last edited by Hydro Junkie; 03-30-2023 at 05:59 AM.
03-30-2023, 06:19 AM
#5
I’ve been staying away from the topic over at RCG. Like anything else, more opinion based than fact based. I’m friends with a member of the Canadian F3A world championship team for 2023 ( being held in Australia ) and he just says it’s going to be a little more work. He’s not overly concerned. In fact I’ve seen him invest a good 20K+ getting ready for the WC with two new builds.
Now, the big question is whether or not the FAA is going to follow suit? I see no evidence of this. I see evidence the other direction with event waivers, FRIAs and higher altitude agreements that are already in place with more in the works. It seems to me that the FAA is going to be content with two groups of traditional model pilots. One group that does not desire to join a club that will fly with a RID module ( I anticipate the date will be moved out again due to lack of availability ) that are flying smaller models that don’t fly above 400’. The second group that will be flying on FRIAs with larger models that will eventually be granted either 800’ or 1,200’ limits depending on manned traffic in the area.
The FAA is well aware that there are those that will continue to fly over 400’. They have no resources to enforce so it makes good sense that they provide an avenue for us to do so legally in a location they can keep us contained. This is where CP and I agree, it’s an established precedent that here in the US that citizens can shape law. Gun control, cannabis, gay marriage are all examples of this.
Now, the big question is whether or not the FAA is going to follow suit? I see no evidence of this. I see evidence the other direction with event waivers, FRIAs and higher altitude agreements that are already in place with more in the works. It seems to me that the FAA is going to be content with two groups of traditional model pilots. One group that does not desire to join a club that will fly with a RID module ( I anticipate the date will be moved out again due to lack of availability ) that are flying smaller models that don’t fly above 400’. The second group that will be flying on FRIAs with larger models that will eventually be granted either 800’ or 1,200’ limits depending on manned traffic in the area.
The FAA is well aware that there are those that will continue to fly over 400’. They have no resources to enforce so it makes good sense that they provide an avenue for us to do so legally in a location they can keep us contained. This is where CP and I agree, it’s an established precedent that here in the US that citizens can shape law. Gun control, cannabis, gay marriage are all examples of this.
03-30-2023, 03:35 PM
#6
I find it somewhat amusing that some people have proclaimed that they couldn’t care less about the conversations on RCG and that a certain Canadian resident has been discriminated in this forum because Canada has nothing to do with AMA. That is of course until the happenings in Canada fit certain individuals narratives.
Not to disparage CP but having posted that video that was taken from a random field one mile from an airport and while a Cessna was in the vicinity, would certainly have received negative comments had it been posted by other members. Remember, I was criticized for not commenting on a RCG thread that I wasn’t aware existed. Just goes to show the level of hypocrisy in these threads.
Not to disparage CP but having posted that video that was taken from a random field one mile from an airport and while a Cessna was in the vicinity, would certainly have received negative comments had it been posted by other members. Remember, I was criticized for not commenting on a RCG thread that I wasn’t aware existed. Just goes to show the level of hypocrisy in these threads.
The city / airport is in the property development business They have a vast amount of land that reaches a highly populated commercial zone.
That plane in the video was less than 1/4 mile from a very busy freeway and about the same distance from a very busy retail business center and less than 200 feet up. That's what the issue is here.
The plane had no business flying that low so close to the freeway and to 1000s of people at the shopping centers. There's nothing hypocritical about taking issue with a pilot who would end up killing who knows how many people if his engine quit..just because he wants to fly low with no hope of reaching the runway.
Last edited by combatpigg; 03-30-2023 at 03:44 PM.
03-30-2023, 05:08 PM
#7
I was 1 mile from "Arlington Airport Property"..which is mostly commercial / industrial buildings that they rent...I wasn't 1 mile from the runway....more like 2 miles plus.
The city / airport is in the property development business They have a vast amount of land that reaches a highly populated commercial zone.
That plane in the video was less than 1/4 mile from a very busy freeway and about the same distance from a very busy retail business center and less than 200 feet up. That's what the issue is here.
The plane had no business flying that low so close to the freeway and to 1000s of people at the shopping centers. There's nothing hypocritical about taking issue with a pilot who would end up killing who knows how many people if his engine quit..just because he wants to fly low with no hope of reaching the runway.
The city / airport is in the property development business They have a vast amount of land that reaches a highly populated commercial zone.
That plane in the video was less than 1/4 mile from a very busy freeway and about the same distance from a very busy retail business center and less than 200 feet up. That's what the issue is here.
The plane had no business flying that low so close to the freeway and to 1000s of people at the shopping centers. There's nothing hypocritical about taking issue with a pilot who would end up killing who knows how many people if his engine quit..just because he wants to fly low with no hope of reaching the runway.
On a side note the Eastridge shopping mall in San Jose has GA traffic flying over it daily. The airplanes need to overfly the mall at about 150’ altitude on final. There have been several crashes on the main building and parking lots. I don’t think there have been any injuries of people on the ground.
03-30-2023, 06:49 PM
#8
I'll bet your example of pilots flying low over a shopping center at San Jose is due to the fact that they have no other choice if they want to land.
The community planners / leaders are to blame for that.
With my example the pilot has a minimum altitude
(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.
(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.
The community planners / leaders are to blame for that.
With my example the pilot has a minimum altitude
§ 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.
(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.
03-30-2023, 08:20 PM
#9
Again, no arguments. The airport was once a training facility owned by the US Army. The community developed around it and it was sold to the county.
Could your pilot claim he/her was in the process of landing? Regardless of him/her being in the wrong does not trump the fact that right of way always goes to the manned aircraft. Reason why I am familiar with the Eastridge ( Reid Hillview ) airport is because at one time my home was about 1.75 miles from the active runway. At times aircraft would pass by at around 300’ sometimes lower while on final.
I have taken quite a bit of heat in this forum for being honest about exceeding 400’ momentarily while flying at an AMA chartered club field. No more or no less dangerous then what is seen in the video you posted, yet my critics remain silent. That’s the hypocrisy of which I speak of.
Could your pilot claim he/her was in the process of landing? Regardless of him/her being in the wrong does not trump the fact that right of way always goes to the manned aircraft. Reason why I am familiar with the Eastridge ( Reid Hillview ) airport is because at one time my home was about 1.75 miles from the active runway. At times aircraft would pass by at around 300’ sometimes lower while on final.
I have taken quite a bit of heat in this forum for being honest about exceeding 400’ momentarily while flying at an AMA chartered club field. No more or no less dangerous then what is seen in the video you posted, yet my critics remain silent. That’s the hypocrisy of which I speak of.
03-31-2023, 02:01 AM
#10
In a word, NO
The road CP was flying next to runs parallel to the approach/departure flight path so the pilot had no business being as low as he was. In fact, the pilot was roughly half a mile west of the flight path and would have had to be at his observed altitude less than a quarter mile south of the runway while on his final to Runway 34. The only way he could have been attempting a landing from where he was would have been if he was landing on Runway 4, one that has been closed for decades
The road CP was flying next to runs parallel to the approach/departure flight path so the pilot had no business being as low as he was. In fact, the pilot was roughly half a mile west of the flight path and would have had to be at his observed altitude less than a quarter mile south of the runway while on his final to Runway 34. The only way he could have been attempting a landing from where he was would have been if he was landing on Runway 4, one that has been closed for decades
03-31-2023, 05:26 AM
#11
Hydro, now we are getting into semantics. None of us know exactly what that pilot was thinking. You and CP could very well be correct or he could have called a short final coming from a different direction.
Regardless of whether the pilot was in the wrong or not, he still has right of way. CP continued to fly ( I do realize he had no way to shut the engine off ) but did not appear to be flying in an evasive manner. If we were to look up that location on one of the apps what do you think the legal altitude for drone flight would be?
Like I said before, I have no problem with the video and as I have said before I see it no more or no less of a danger then me breaking 400’ momentarily 6 times as I fly my pattern sequence which I have been highly criticized for on this forum. If Andy, Propworn or I had posed a video taken 2 miles from an active runway with a GA in view of the camera what conversations would follow? That’s the hypocrisy and the question you and CP seem to be avoiding. Please forget all the bias and reply with an honest answer.
Regardless of whether the pilot was in the wrong or not, he still has right of way. CP continued to fly ( I do realize he had no way to shut the engine off ) but did not appear to be flying in an evasive manner. If we were to look up that location on one of the apps what do you think the legal altitude for drone flight would be?
Like I said before, I have no problem with the video and as I have said before I see it no more or no less of a danger then me breaking 400’ momentarily 6 times as I fly my pattern sequence which I have been highly criticized for on this forum. If Andy, Propworn or I had posed a video taken 2 miles from an active runway with a GA in view of the camera what conversations would follow? That’s the hypocrisy and the question you and CP seem to be avoiding. Please forget all the bias and reply with an honest answer.
03-31-2023, 08:28 AM
#12
Regardless of whether the pilot was in the wrong or not, he still has right of way. CP continued to fly ( I do realize he had no way to shut the engine off ) but did not appear to be flying in an evasive manner. If we were to look up that location on one of the apps what do you think the legal altitude for drone flight would be?
Like I said before, I have no problem with the video and as I have said before I see it no more or no less of a danger then me breaking 400’ momentarily 6 times as I fly my pattern sequence which I have been highly criticized for on this forum. If Andy, Propworn or I had posed a video taken 2 miles from an active runway with a GA in view of the camera what conversations would follow? That’s the hypocrisy and the question you and CP seem to be avoiding. Please forget all the bias and reply with an honest answer.
Last edited by Hydro Junkie; 03-31-2023 at 08:31 AM.
03-31-2023, 08:58 AM
#13
The fact he was below 500ft says the pilot was in the wrong, regardless of what CP was doing
As I’ve stated, regardless of right or wrong, manned aircraft have the right of way.
IIRC, this was before the FAA started clamping down on R/C altitudes so it really didn't matter. I will agree, CP did need to "give way" to stay in compliance with FAA regs but it's extremely difficult to fault CP for flying legally until his area was infringed upon by a GA pilot not not flying at a legal altitude. What must also be considered is that the Arlington Airport is an UNCONTROLLED FACILITY!!!! Gliders, parasails and several other kinds of aircraft fly in and out of the facility so being diligent on meeting regulations and verifying the area around your plane is clear is highly important
The video was posted in 2020. The last FAA reauthorization act was in 2018. Clearly after the FAA took control of UAS. In 2020 LAANC was in effect.
I would be looking at his altitude, for starters. If he was flying at a legal altitude, then I would look at what you're doing. If he was flying below 500ft, I might be calling the FAA. One thing you do have to remember is that CP's plane was smaller in span than just one of your plane's wings and that means you can fly higher than he can for visibility reasons. Then again, the video that gets me all fired up is the one where the guy flies a turbine over a busy freeway interchange, you know the one
As I’ve stated, regardless of right or wrong, manned aircraft have the right of way.
IIRC, this was before the FAA started clamping down on R/C altitudes so it really didn't matter. I will agree, CP did need to "give way" to stay in compliance with FAA regs but it's extremely difficult to fault CP for flying legally until his area was infringed upon by a GA pilot not not flying at a legal altitude. What must also be considered is that the Arlington Airport is an UNCONTROLLED FACILITY!!!! Gliders, parasails and several other kinds of aircraft fly in and out of the facility so being diligent on meeting regulations and verifying the area around your plane is clear is highly important
The video was posted in 2020. The last FAA reauthorization act was in 2018. Clearly after the FAA took control of UAS. In 2020 LAANC was in effect.
I would be looking at his altitude, for starters. If he was flying at a legal altitude, then I would look at what you're doing. If he was flying below 500ft, I might be calling the FAA. One thing you do have to remember is that CP's plane was smaller in span than just one of your plane's wings and that means you can fly higher than he can for visibility reasons. Then again, the video that gets me all fired up is the one where the guy flies a turbine over a busy freeway interchange, you know the one
03-31-2023, 01:11 PM
#14
I think Canadians and Brits in general are more "NEW WORLD ORDER OBEDIENT" than those of us who have lived as FREE MEN for the past 200 years or so.
The Royal Subjects will cope with whatever their overlords put on their plate ...much better than Americans who place a higher value on their God given rights.
In Canada...it is totally illegal for a man to defend himself, his loved ones and his property with a firearm..
In England it is illegal for a man to be openly critical of the NEW WORLD ORDER FORCED IMMIGRATION AGENDA.
They will arrest you for doing that.
The Royal Subjects will cope with whatever their overlords put on their plate ...much better than Americans who place a higher value on their God given rights.
In Canada...it is totally illegal for a man to defend himself, his loved ones and his property with a firearm..
In England it is illegal for a man to be openly critical of the NEW WORLD ORDER FORCED IMMIGRATION AGENDA.
They will arrest you for doing that.
Last edited by Propworn; 03-31-2023 at 01:14 PM.
03-31-2023, 01:34 PM
#15
LOL when has playing with toy airplanes ever been considered a right. You need to be able to comprehend the difference between what is a right and what is a privilege. This common misconception by a good number of your citizens provide endless entertainment for the rest of us with the sovereign citizens and Karen's and Kevin's on YouTube.
"Kevin" is the male equivalent of "Karen"???
I thought a male Karen was "Chad" .....
Chad (slang)
Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Chad_(slang)
In modern internet slang, the term can be similar to "bro" and generally refers to an "alpha male" or otherwise obnoxious hyper-masculine yuppie male.
Origins · Manosphere
Allrighty then, , , , carry on.....
Last edited by init4fun; 03-31-2023 at 01:36 PM.
03-31-2023, 01:47 PM
#16
LOL when has playing with toy airplanes ever been considered a right. You need to be able to comprehend the difference between what is a right and what is a privilege. This common misconception by a good number of your citizens provide endless entertainment for the rest of us with the sovereign citizens and Karen's and Kevin's on YouTube.
I agree about the difference between a right and a privilege. That said, sometimes we need to fight for our privileges, our government is supposed represent the people. Placing major restrictions on an activity that represents virtually zero danger to the general public is outside the criteria of lawmaking as defined by our constitution.
03-31-2023, 04:21 PM
#17
LOL when has playing with toy airplanes ever been considered a right. You need to be able to comprehend the difference between what is a right and what is a privilege. This common misconception by a good number of your citizens provide endless entertainment for the rest of us with the sovereign citizens and Karen's and Kevin's on YouTube.
Better be careful or I'll let your Canadian Overlords know that you should surrender your internet privileges......plus they should have you SUBMIT to your 6th booster while they are at it.....
I think that Military Vets have earned a right to fly RC and that there are several "under used" military facilities where this right could be exercised.....https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1207/11-8-2...etime-pass.htm
Last edited by combatpigg; 03-31-2023 at 05:05 PM.
04-05-2023, 12:16 PM
#18
Hate speech
Propworn has been a victim of hate speech in this forum more then anyone else. I wonder at times why certain individuals didn’t get dinged for it.
While I appreciate anyone who has served in the armed forces, I do not believe that doing so should entitle anyone to special privileges. I think taxpayer funded healthcare is thanks enough. My dad was military for 26 years and never tried to leverage his veteran status for special privileges.
While I appreciate anyone who has served in the armed forces, I do not believe that doing so should entitle anyone to special privileges. I think taxpayer funded healthcare is thanks enough. My dad was military for 26 years and never tried to leverage his veteran status for special privileges.
04-05-2023, 02:48 PM
#19
Propworn has been a victim of hate speech in this forum more then anyone else. I wonder at times why certain individuals didn’t get dinged for it.
While I appreciate anyone who has served in the armed forces, I do not believe that doing so should entitle anyone to special privileges. I think taxpayer funded healthcare is thanks enough. My dad was military for 26 years and never tried to leverage his veteran status for special privileges.
While I appreciate anyone who has served in the armed forces, I do not believe that doing so should entitle anyone to special privileges. I think taxpayer funded healthcare is thanks enough. My dad was military for 26 years and never tried to leverage his veteran status for special privileges.
As for special privileges, veterans do receive special privileges on military bases, which I think was the general idea of CP's post. We get discounted Disney tix, discounted Seaworld, discounted theater, camping, sport equipment rentals, discounts on name brand merchandise (have bought three new Hamilton watches at considerable discount), etc. So while you may not think more is warranted, thankfully the Congress does.
And why? Well perhaps because they understand that the vet may never know what else they'll face after their service because of their service. Just in the last two weeks that because of my service I'm at 87% greater risk of melanoma, 39% greater risk of thyroid cancer, 16% greater chance of prostate cancer, and 24% greater chance of cancer of all types.
Last edited by franklin_m; 04-05-2023 at 02:51 PM.
04-05-2023, 03:45 PM
#20
Propworn has been a victim of hate speech in this forum more then anyone else. I wonder at times why certain individuals didn’t get dinged for it.
While I appreciate anyone who has served in the armed forces, I do not believe that doing so should entitle anyone to special privileges. I think taxpayer funded healthcare is thanks enough. My dad was military for 26 years and never tried to leverage his veteran status for special privileges.
While I appreciate anyone who has served in the armed forces, I do not believe that doing so should entitle anyone to special privileges. I think taxpayer funded healthcare is thanks enough. My dad was military for 26 years and never tried to leverage his veteran status for special privileges.
At least in the Army there were certain amenities that were required for a duty station or else that duty stationed was classified as a "Hardship Duty".
Like it or not...that's the way they could use it as a recruiting tool.
So there is no such requirement for designated model plane areas..but it wouldn't cost too much to make the "BACK FORTY" of any state side Army Fort I ever visited a designated place to fly.
Way back in the day I worked for a CW2 who was one of the most enthusiastic RC modelers I've ever met. I actually feel ashamed now that I didn't show much interest about what he was telling me about his hobby. I was about 21 years old at the time and was only interested in my 68Camaro.
He would be in his 80s now...and now that I think about it I should make an effort to look him up.
CW2 Bowden was a great influence in my life.
04-05-2023, 04:36 PM
#21
CP, I have no issue with that. In fact I would have no issue with flying fields on military property even if only military personnel were granted access. I grew up on Travis AFB and Dyess AFB. I’ve flown R/C demonstrations at Travis and Moffett NAS. I have no issues with the privileges service members receive. I understand that my previous comments may have been taken to the contrary. What I don’t agree with is guys using their military service to gain favoritism. Especially in an R/C forum where there is no relevance. I’m certain someone will end up spinning my comments but there is a good reason why my career has been with companies such as Lockheed Martin, L3 Harris, Aerojet Rocketdyne and currently Curtiss Wright Defense Solutions.
04-05-2023, 04:51 PM
#22
CP, I have no issue with that. In fact I would have no issue with flying fields on military property even if only military personnel were granted access. I grew up on Travis AFB and Dyess AFB. I’ve flown R/C demonstrations at Travis and Moffett NAS. I have no issues with the privileges service members receive. I understand that my previous comments may have been taken to the contrary. What I don’t agree with is guys using their military service to gain favoritism. Especially in an R/C forum where there is no relevance. I’m certain someone will end up spinning my comments but there is a good reason why my career has been with companies such as Lockheed Martin, L3 Harris, Aerojet Rocketdyne and currently Curtiss Wright Defense Solutions.
I wish I could trade career paths with you..seriously!
I think Franklin is a good guy who wants what is fair..nothing more nothing less.
May God bless THE WHISTLEBLOWERS and THE WATCH DOGS.
BTW..I just looked up CW2 Bowden and it only took a minute to locate and to connect with him. We had a great chat [after a 50 year time lapse] and he was pleased to learn that he was a big part of why I got involved with this hobby.
That really made my day.!
Last edited by combatpigg; 04-05-2023 at 04:56 PM.
04-05-2023, 05:44 PM
#23
Benefits from being a veteran? Not so much if you didn't stay in for at least 20 years. The one's I know of, if you had a GD or higher, are:
On the other hand, I would have gotten many more benefits if I had received a medical discharge, like my younger brother. He has full access to most military bases in the country due to shattering his leg while on weekend liberty. He was listed as having a disability so he gets almost the same benefits as someone that retired with 20+ years of service.
- being eligible for VA home loans
- medical care, on a space available basis, at some VA hospitals
- discounts at some businesses, that is if you can prove you are a veteran. Usually that means carrying your discharge papers with you since you won't have a retired military ID
- I can be a member of the American Legion and, if I was in specific designated combat zones, the VFW
- no on base, commissary, exchange/PX or Welfare & Rec access
On the other hand, I would have gotten many more benefits if I had received a medical discharge, like my younger brother. He has full access to most military bases in the country due to shattering his leg while on weekend liberty. He was listed as having a disability so he gets almost the same benefits as someone that retired with 20+ years of service.
Last edited by Hydro Junkie; 04-05-2023 at 06:06 PM.
04-05-2023, 06:16 PM
#24
WOW..!
I wish I could trade career paths with you..seriously!
I think Franklin is a good guy who wants what is fair..nothing more nothing less.
May God bless THE WHISTLEBLOWERS and THE WATCH DOGS.
BTW..I just looked up CW2 Bowden and it only took a minute to locate and to connect with him. We had a great chat [after a 50 year time lapse] and he was pleased to learn that he was a big part of why I got involved with this hobby.
That really made my day.!
I wish I could trade career paths with you..seriously!
I think Franklin is a good guy who wants what is fair..nothing more nothing less.
May God bless THE WHISTLEBLOWERS and THE WATCH DOGS.
BTW..I just looked up CW2 Bowden and it only took a minute to locate and to connect with him. We had a great chat [after a 50 year time lapse] and he was pleased to learn that he was a big part of why I got involved with this hobby.
That really made my day.!
04-05-2023, 06:25 PM
#25
Benefits from being a veteran? Not so much if you didn't stay in for at least 20 years. The one's I know of, if you had a GD or higher, are:
On the other hand, I would have gotten many more benefits if I had received a medical discharge, like my younger brother. He has full access to most military bases in the country due to shattering his leg while on weekend liberty. He was listed as having a disability so he gets almost the same benefits as someone that retired with 20+ years of service.
- being eligible for VA home loans
- medical care, on a space available basis, at some VA hospitals
- discounts at some businesses, that is if you can prove you are a veteran. Usually that means carrying your discharge papers with you since you won't have a retired military ID
- I can be a member of the American Legion and, if I was in specific designated combat zones, the VFW
- no on base, commissary, exchange/PX or Welfare & Rec access
On the other hand, I would have gotten many more benefits if I had received a medical discharge, like my younger brother. He has full access to most military bases in the country due to shattering his leg while on weekend liberty. He was listed as having a disability so he gets almost the same benefits as someone that retired with 20+ years of service.
I only did 4 years but I only pay $30 / month for a couple of prescriptions, and have a free yearly blood test that is reviewed by a doctor. If I need more than just that I can go to anhy local hospital and the VA will at least help with the bill.
On the negative side...I filed a disability claim for hearing loss and tinnitus. Never heard a word back from the VA for several years until I found a letter from them in my mail box.
Boy oh boy was I EXCITED...was my claim finally accepted...?
NOPE
The letter stated that they had some how lost my claim and that I needed to resubmit the whole thing.
More years passed after I resubmitted my claim and they finally decided to reject my claim....even though none of the folks at the VA had any way of knowing first hand how much non-stop noise I was subjected to day after day for the 3 plus years I spent working my MOS.
A totally disgraced director named Shensicky was in charge of the VA back then
Last edited by combatpigg; 04-05-2023 at 06:29 PM.