Slyde 0 #1 May 23, 2009 Does ANYBODY know whether ANYBODY - an American Military Veteran - has yet been able to draw VOCATIONAL TRAINING benifits from Uncle Sam for vocational training in the field of sport parachuting? Say a rigger's certificate or an AFF rating perhaps? If not, what's taking so long? Other countries have done it for more than a DECADE. USPA's president and Vice President are both grunts. Shouldn't they have figured this out long ago? No. Wait. It's USPA. Nevermind. They're too busy with beginners and amateurs. eDo onward luv slydeA Peace Prize within minutes of Bombing the Moon. Coincidence? "Beware the Military Industrial Complex." You GO Ike! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #2 May 23, 2009 Nice insult. Remove my name from your "My Indy 500" wish list, if this forum is any indication of who I would work with, no thanks. So many people speak so highly of you and your single handedly ruining your reputation. FYI- Soldiers tried, the GI Bill doesn't recognize sport Parachuting as a vocation as there is no acredited University or Trade School established. MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lost_n_confuzd 0 #3 May 25, 2009 No, the G.I. Bill does not pay for any parachuting certs. The new Chapter 33 G.I. Bill (effective 1 Aug 09) will only pay for accredited schools that offer a degree program (i.e. Masters, associates, etc...). No more vocational/trade schools either. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #4 May 25, 2009 QuoteNo, the G.I. Bill does not pay for any parachuting certs. The new Chapter 33 G.I. Bill (effective 1 Aug 09) will only pay for accredited schools that offer a degree program (i.e. Masters, associates, etc...). No more vocational/trade schools either. Because California doesn't charge "tuition" at its universities (charges "fees" instead), the new GI Bill is pretty lousy for those who wanted to use it here. There is some hope that feds will quickly fix this technical failure. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fasted3 0 #5 May 25, 2009 QuoteBecause California doesn't charge "tuition" at its universities (charges "fees" instead), the new GI Bill is pretty lousy for those who wanted to use it here. There is some hope that feds will quickly fix this technical failure. Very sad to read this post; veterans deserve better than this. I think trade schools should qualify too. I have the GI bill to thank for jump starting my life after getting out of the army in 72. They paid for commercial diving school, at a trade school in Cali. in fact. They did not cover SCUBA lessons though, and I don't expect they would have paid for skydiving either.But what do I know? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 558 #6 May 25, 2009 So the USA is doomed to become over-populated by mediocre Masters of Philosophy and too few plumbers. Where does that leave you? "Discussing whether or not you up to your ankles in sh$#@~!" Sure, I may have a "piece of paper that says I am smart" from the University of Ottawa, but I have worked most of my adult life as a technician. Excluding trade schools from the GI Bill is silly. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stratostar 5 #7 May 25, 2009 QuoteFYI- Soldiers tried, the GI Bill doesn't recognize sport Parachuting as a vocation as there is no acredited University or Trade School established. Good now maybe we can get all our wasted tax dollars back and disband the Golden Knights, Black Kinghts and all the other "Mil teams" that waste our tax money.you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Slyde 0 #8 May 26, 2009 QuoteQuoteNice insult. Remove my name from your "My Indy 500" wish list, if this forum is any indication of who I would work with, no thanks. No worries, Matt. Perhaps you might change your mind one day. USPA has a serious problem on staff. Illuminating such with caustic comedy also reveals some who cannot smile as they look, listen and learn. Thank you, sir. Pork R And that's MY iNDY 500. Your capital I is still automatic, me thinks. The Sphincter Brothers are on the air. eDo onward. The Brewmaster at Sacramento's BrewItUp.com is an extreme sportsman, and exNavy photographer, and has been planning for years to enter our sport with characteristic enthusiasm. His name is John. If we can help him accomplish his goals, I believe he will make ours a better and less thirsty world in which to fly to the center of the earth. rock on Matt hew. hue 2 ... 4QA Peace Prize within minutes of Bombing the Moon. Coincidence? "Beware the Military Industrial Complex." You GO Ike! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites matthewcline 0 #9 May 26, 2009 Your hatred for the Mil Team's must be deeply Personal. They work within the scope of PR, CR and Recuiting. I for one am glad to have been a part of two of the Teams and glad they still continue. Looking at the history of our sport we would not have some of the remarkable things we have now if it where not for our Mil Teams. And of course the Military does recognize the skill subset of Freefal Parachuting. To the OP, yep the "I" was based on THE Indy 500, I guess I should have relooked the e-mail you sent out. But you do see the double edged sword of your argument don't you? Saying USPA has gotten to big for its britches and should stay out of some affiars and then telling USPA to get bigger in its britches and do some thing about the GI Bill. To accomplish that end they would have to become the very thing so many here rant against, a large governement like enforcment authority. Don't get me wrong the rules we have should be followed as they are for safety, but I think we need no more rules than what we already have. Becomming the University Skydiving Authority would just add to the "woes" some see already. Skydiving is a great and fun sport, but not nearly large enough to garner the attention it would need for the DOD to recognize it as a "trade". Maybe the better way is to find a subset skill in skydiving that can be funded, much like Auto Racing is not recognized but Auto Mechanics skills are/where (if the wording is not fixed). Now, we need to identify the subset skill. I come up with engineering, drafting, design and all sorts of air space related topics. Or Get a University to put it in a program, it would not fund all the skills stuff but at least it would fund some. MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites EvilEagle 0 #10 May 26, 2009 One of the guys at work mentioned that the new (Post 9-11) GI bill has a sub-section in it for "licenses" - and that you can use it for any certification: boat captain, flying ratings, etc. I assume you can use it for jumping. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Slyde 0 #11 May 26, 2009 QuoteQuoteYour hatred for the Mil Team's must be deeply Personal. Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder. Hatred is not in mine. Your other thoughts are respectable. Thanks.A Peace Prize within minutes of Bombing the Moon. Coincidence? "Beware the Military Industrial Complex." You GO Ike! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites LouDiamond 1 #12 May 26, 2009 QuoteOne of the guys at work mentioned that the new (Post 9-11) GI bill has a sub-section in it for "licenses" - and that you can use it for any certification: boat captain, flying ratings, etc. I assume you can use it for jumping. While that is true, I don't think it's a solution to the problem. What IS covered by the post 9/11 GI bill can be found HERE. The base line requirements remain the same. That being, all training must be done by an Institution of higher learning and approved for GI Bill benefits. Question What does the Post-9/11 GI Bill cover? Answer Approved training under the Post-9/11 GI Bill includes graduate and undergraduate degrees, and vocational/technical training. All training programs must be offered by an institution of higher learning (IHL) and approved for GI Bill benefits. Additionally, tutorial assistance, and licensing and certification test reimbursement are approved under the Post- 9/11 GI Bill. If you are also eligible for chapter 30, 1606 or 1607, you may be eligible to pursue training for on-the-job training, apprenticeship, correspondence, flight and preparatory courses under the Post-9/11 GI Bill. Unless an approved college offers rigging as one of their courses, I can't see this being covered by the post 9/11 GI Bill either."It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required" Some people dream about flying, I live my dream SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites stratostar 5 #13 May 26, 2009 QuoteYour hatred for the Mil Team's must be deeply Personal. Nope but when "we" tax payers are told that the Gov can't afford any longer to let the boy & girls who fly the KC 135 tankers have bail out rigs because it cost to much money to buy and maintain the gear http://militarytimes.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1565649, then I don't think "we" need to funding a bunch of GI's to have play time taking cheerleaders for tandems or having a wingsuit unit, 4,8,16 way team, demo team and the like. These teams should not be compeating in the national or world meets at our expense and taking away from those who are civ's who pay their own way and train on their nickel, while funding the Mil teams tunnel time, gear, packers, jumps, gear and travel expense. We sure as hell don't need all those teams, GK's, BK's 4way, 8way, 16way, demo, Navy CS, Leap frogs, USAF teams, wingsuits, tandems and the rest on top of 3 brand new twin otters http://www.aviation.ca/content/view/5444/117/, how about no new airplanes for the GK"s and buy some bail out rigs for those who do a real job for "US"! I would support 2 people from each branch of service being on ONE national team only for airshows/pr events for getting folks to sign up, and that is it, no more multi team units and high priced tandems and all that other bullshit.you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites matthewcline 0 #14 May 26, 2009 Not to side track this too far. I have only been on a KC-135 3 times, but each time the crew had rigs. The last time was about 14 months ago. I think that issue is more of a Service Chief and how he funds his service. Plus thearticle you linked state cost as oneof the reasons, not THE reason. and it would appear the service was happy with the call any way. Each service spends 10's of thousands of dollars per recruit. The services all agree that thier Demo Teams get the most bang for the buck. The othere place they compete is CISM, where they consistantly win or place high enough to attrack others to come to the US to train. I guess you see it as an unwarranted expense and I see it as a good expense. But isn't that great about this country? We can have this difference of opinion, argue it and go have a beer later!Matt An Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites matthewcline 0 #15 May 26, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteYour hatred for the Mil Team's must be deeply Personal. Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder. Hatred is not in mine. Your other thoughts are respectable. Thanks. That part was for my reply to startostar's post, sorry for the confusion. MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #16 May 26, 2009 QuoteWe sure as hell don't need all those teams, GK's, BK's 4way, 8way, 16way, demo, Navy CS, Leap frogs, USAF teams, wingsuits, tandems and the rest on top of 3 brand new twin otters, how about no new airplanes for the GK"s... How many civilian skydivers go out and make a first jump after being inspired by viewing one of the military team performances? How many people join a branch of the armed services after being inspired by viewing one of the military team performances? It could be that their budgets are a bargain, compared to what we get out of them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites demoknite 0 #17 May 27, 2009 I got the fee for my Senior Riggers ticket test reimbursed. But that was through the education office and not the actual GI Bill. Since its an FAA certification its reimbursable. Getting an A license is not done through a federal agency or accredited university so not reimbursable. Also, the demo teams are definitely worth the money. If you knew how much money was spent on tons of other programs you would know those teams money is a drop in the bucket. Its a good recruiting tool inside the force as well and all the caliber people it takes to run a team pay dividends once their time is up and they pass on their experiences at their next assignment. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
matthewcline 0 #9 May 26, 2009 Your hatred for the Mil Team's must be deeply Personal. They work within the scope of PR, CR and Recuiting. I for one am glad to have been a part of two of the Teams and glad they still continue. Looking at the history of our sport we would not have some of the remarkable things we have now if it where not for our Mil Teams. And of course the Military does recognize the skill subset of Freefal Parachuting. To the OP, yep the "I" was based on THE Indy 500, I guess I should have relooked the e-mail you sent out. But you do see the double edged sword of your argument don't you? Saying USPA has gotten to big for its britches and should stay out of some affiars and then telling USPA to get bigger in its britches and do some thing about the GI Bill. To accomplish that end they would have to become the very thing so many here rant against, a large governement like enforcment authority. Don't get me wrong the rules we have should be followed as they are for safety, but I think we need no more rules than what we already have. Becomming the University Skydiving Authority would just add to the "woes" some see already. Skydiving is a great and fun sport, but not nearly large enough to garner the attention it would need for the DOD to recognize it as a "trade". Maybe the better way is to find a subset skill in skydiving that can be funded, much like Auto Racing is not recognized but Auto Mechanics skills are/where (if the wording is not fixed). Now, we need to identify the subset skill. I come up with engineering, drafting, design and all sorts of air space related topics. Or Get a University to put it in a program, it would not fund all the skills stuff but at least it would fund some. MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EvilEagle 0 #10 May 26, 2009 One of the guys at work mentioned that the new (Post 9-11) GI bill has a sub-section in it for "licenses" - and that you can use it for any certification: boat captain, flying ratings, etc. I assume you can use it for jumping. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Slyde 0 #11 May 26, 2009 QuoteQuoteYour hatred for the Mil Team's must be deeply Personal. Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder. Hatred is not in mine. Your other thoughts are respectable. Thanks.A Peace Prize within minutes of Bombing the Moon. Coincidence? "Beware the Military Industrial Complex." You GO Ike! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites LouDiamond 1 #12 May 26, 2009 QuoteOne of the guys at work mentioned that the new (Post 9-11) GI bill has a sub-section in it for "licenses" - and that you can use it for any certification: boat captain, flying ratings, etc. I assume you can use it for jumping. While that is true, I don't think it's a solution to the problem. What IS covered by the post 9/11 GI bill can be found HERE. The base line requirements remain the same. That being, all training must be done by an Institution of higher learning and approved for GI Bill benefits. Question What does the Post-9/11 GI Bill cover? Answer Approved training under the Post-9/11 GI Bill includes graduate and undergraduate degrees, and vocational/technical training. All training programs must be offered by an institution of higher learning (IHL) and approved for GI Bill benefits. Additionally, tutorial assistance, and licensing and certification test reimbursement are approved under the Post- 9/11 GI Bill. If you are also eligible for chapter 30, 1606 or 1607, you may be eligible to pursue training for on-the-job training, apprenticeship, correspondence, flight and preparatory courses under the Post-9/11 GI Bill. Unless an approved college offers rigging as one of their courses, I can't see this being covered by the post 9/11 GI Bill either."It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required" Some people dream about flying, I live my dream SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites stratostar 5 #13 May 26, 2009 QuoteYour hatred for the Mil Team's must be deeply Personal. Nope but when "we" tax payers are told that the Gov can't afford any longer to let the boy & girls who fly the KC 135 tankers have bail out rigs because it cost to much money to buy and maintain the gear http://militarytimes.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1565649, then I don't think "we" need to funding a bunch of GI's to have play time taking cheerleaders for tandems or having a wingsuit unit, 4,8,16 way team, demo team and the like. These teams should not be compeating in the national or world meets at our expense and taking away from those who are civ's who pay their own way and train on their nickel, while funding the Mil teams tunnel time, gear, packers, jumps, gear and travel expense. We sure as hell don't need all those teams, GK's, BK's 4way, 8way, 16way, demo, Navy CS, Leap frogs, USAF teams, wingsuits, tandems and the rest on top of 3 brand new twin otters http://www.aviation.ca/content/view/5444/117/, how about no new airplanes for the GK"s and buy some bail out rigs for those who do a real job for "US"! I would support 2 people from each branch of service being on ONE national team only for airshows/pr events for getting folks to sign up, and that is it, no more multi team units and high priced tandems and all that other bullshit.you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites matthewcline 0 #14 May 26, 2009 Not to side track this too far. I have only been on a KC-135 3 times, but each time the crew had rigs. The last time was about 14 months ago. I think that issue is more of a Service Chief and how he funds his service. Plus thearticle you linked state cost as oneof the reasons, not THE reason. and it would appear the service was happy with the call any way. Each service spends 10's of thousands of dollars per recruit. The services all agree that thier Demo Teams get the most bang for the buck. The othere place they compete is CISM, where they consistantly win or place high enough to attrack others to come to the US to train. I guess you see it as an unwarranted expense and I see it as a good expense. But isn't that great about this country? We can have this difference of opinion, argue it and go have a beer later!Matt An Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites matthewcline 0 #15 May 26, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteYour hatred for the Mil Team's must be deeply Personal. Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder. Hatred is not in mine. Your other thoughts are respectable. Thanks. That part was for my reply to startostar's post, sorry for the confusion. MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #16 May 26, 2009 QuoteWe sure as hell don't need all those teams, GK's, BK's 4way, 8way, 16way, demo, Navy CS, Leap frogs, USAF teams, wingsuits, tandems and the rest on top of 3 brand new twin otters, how about no new airplanes for the GK"s... How many civilian skydivers go out and make a first jump after being inspired by viewing one of the military team performances? How many people join a branch of the armed services after being inspired by viewing one of the military team performances? It could be that their budgets are a bargain, compared to what we get out of them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites demoknite 0 #17 May 27, 2009 I got the fee for my Senior Riggers ticket test reimbursed. But that was through the education office and not the actual GI Bill. Since its an FAA certification its reimbursable. Getting an A license is not done through a federal agency or accredited university so not reimbursable. Also, the demo teams are definitely worth the money. If you knew how much money was spent on tons of other programs you would know those teams money is a drop in the bucket. Its a good recruiting tool inside the force as well and all the caliber people it takes to run a team pay dividends once their time is up and they pass on their experiences at their next assignment. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
LouDiamond 1 #12 May 26, 2009 QuoteOne of the guys at work mentioned that the new (Post 9-11) GI bill has a sub-section in it for "licenses" - and that you can use it for any certification: boat captain, flying ratings, etc. I assume you can use it for jumping. While that is true, I don't think it's a solution to the problem. What IS covered by the post 9/11 GI bill can be found HERE. The base line requirements remain the same. That being, all training must be done by an Institution of higher learning and approved for GI Bill benefits. Question What does the Post-9/11 GI Bill cover? Answer Approved training under the Post-9/11 GI Bill includes graduate and undergraduate degrees, and vocational/technical training. All training programs must be offered by an institution of higher learning (IHL) and approved for GI Bill benefits. Additionally, tutorial assistance, and licensing and certification test reimbursement are approved under the Post- 9/11 GI Bill. If you are also eligible for chapter 30, 1606 or 1607, you may be eligible to pursue training for on-the-job training, apprenticeship, correspondence, flight and preparatory courses under the Post-9/11 GI Bill. Unless an approved college offers rigging as one of their courses, I can't see this being covered by the post 9/11 GI Bill either."It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required" Some people dream about flying, I live my dream SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stratostar 5 #13 May 26, 2009 QuoteYour hatred for the Mil Team's must be deeply Personal. Nope but when "we" tax payers are told that the Gov can't afford any longer to let the boy & girls who fly the KC 135 tankers have bail out rigs because it cost to much money to buy and maintain the gear http://militarytimes.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1565649, then I don't think "we" need to funding a bunch of GI's to have play time taking cheerleaders for tandems or having a wingsuit unit, 4,8,16 way team, demo team and the like. These teams should not be compeating in the national or world meets at our expense and taking away from those who are civ's who pay their own way and train on their nickel, while funding the Mil teams tunnel time, gear, packers, jumps, gear and travel expense. We sure as hell don't need all those teams, GK's, BK's 4way, 8way, 16way, demo, Navy CS, Leap frogs, USAF teams, wingsuits, tandems and the rest on top of 3 brand new twin otters http://www.aviation.ca/content/view/5444/117/, how about no new airplanes for the GK"s and buy some bail out rigs for those who do a real job for "US"! I would support 2 people from each branch of service being on ONE national team only for airshows/pr events for getting folks to sign up, and that is it, no more multi team units and high priced tandems and all that other bullshit.you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #14 May 26, 2009 Not to side track this too far. I have only been on a KC-135 3 times, but each time the crew had rigs. The last time was about 14 months ago. I think that issue is more of a Service Chief and how he funds his service. Plus thearticle you linked state cost as oneof the reasons, not THE reason. and it would appear the service was happy with the call any way. Each service spends 10's of thousands of dollars per recruit. The services all agree that thier Demo Teams get the most bang for the buck. The othere place they compete is CISM, where they consistantly win or place high enough to attrack others to come to the US to train. I guess you see it as an unwarranted expense and I see it as a good expense. But isn't that great about this country? We can have this difference of opinion, argue it and go have a beer later!Matt An Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #15 May 26, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteYour hatred for the Mil Team's must be deeply Personal. Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder. Hatred is not in mine. Your other thoughts are respectable. Thanks. That part was for my reply to startostar's post, sorry for the confusion. MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #16 May 26, 2009 QuoteWe sure as hell don't need all those teams, GK's, BK's 4way, 8way, 16way, demo, Navy CS, Leap frogs, USAF teams, wingsuits, tandems and the rest on top of 3 brand new twin otters, how about no new airplanes for the GK"s... How many civilian skydivers go out and make a first jump after being inspired by viewing one of the military team performances? How many people join a branch of the armed services after being inspired by viewing one of the military team performances? It could be that their budgets are a bargain, compared to what we get out of them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites demoknite 0 #17 May 27, 2009 I got the fee for my Senior Riggers ticket test reimbursed. But that was through the education office and not the actual GI Bill. Since its an FAA certification its reimbursable. Getting an A license is not done through a federal agency or accredited university so not reimbursable. Also, the demo teams are definitely worth the money. If you knew how much money was spent on tons of other programs you would know those teams money is a drop in the bucket. Its a good recruiting tool inside the force as well and all the caliber people it takes to run a team pay dividends once their time is up and they pass on their experiences at their next assignment. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
JohnRich 4 #16 May 26, 2009 QuoteWe sure as hell don't need all those teams, GK's, BK's 4way, 8way, 16way, demo, Navy CS, Leap frogs, USAF teams, wingsuits, tandems and the rest on top of 3 brand new twin otters, how about no new airplanes for the GK"s... How many civilian skydivers go out and make a first jump after being inspired by viewing one of the military team performances? How many people join a branch of the armed services after being inspired by viewing one of the military team performances? It could be that their budgets are a bargain, compared to what we get out of them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
demoknite 0 #17 May 27, 2009 I got the fee for my Senior Riggers ticket test reimbursed. But that was through the education office and not the actual GI Bill. Since its an FAA certification its reimbursable. Getting an A license is not done through a federal agency or accredited university so not reimbursable. Also, the demo teams are definitely worth the money. If you knew how much money was spent on tons of other programs you would know those teams money is a drop in the bucket. Its a good recruiting tool inside the force as well and all the caliber people it takes to run a team pay dividends once their time is up and they pass on their experiences at their next assignment. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
