Leaderboard

A) I've worn ones that aren't any heavier than my ABU-color two-piece, so that's not a universal downside. They also had a better pocket layout in my opinion. B) I don't need to be camouflaged in the airplane, no one does (they're generally grey on the inside anyways), but I sure as hell want to have the best camoflauge available if, god forbid, the one little spinner carrying my ass around decides to sh*t the bed over a bad place. Same goes for any dude flying over hostile territory. If I was in charge I'd want to give every aircrew the absolute best uniform for a bailout/evasion situation as possible depending on what they fly (i.e. one-piece or two). Why have an inferior uniform when good ones are right on the freakin' shelf?

You'll find that we agree on more things than we disagree. I am an old school kind of guy...I believe that it was the Lt's or Captains job to go to the meetings and for me to handle the maintenance day-to-day. I walked my aircraft every day that I could. I walked the AGE ready line every day that I could. I wasn't a politican or a Kool-Aid drinker. Making E-9/CMSgt was a surprise...I didn't aim for it. Coming to work every day and doing my best for the aircraft and for the maintainers is what got me promoted. Not PME awards or bake sales. You missed the point on my original post. I am NOT going to call you out unless you make it a point to be an ass about it. I don't care if your sleeves are rolled up, you have a flashlight on your zipper, etc. But if you are at an off-base eating establishment, say for lunch, with your sun glasses on your head being loud in your flightsuit and garner my attention, I will calmly and politely remind you that you are off base, that you are surrounded by enlisted and civilians, and that you need to represent yourself as a professional member of the USAF. I might not be so wordy, but I will get the point across professionally. How things go after that is up to you. I have more important things to worry about/do, and honestly, I hate this part of the joib, but it comes with the territory. I will not call my O-6 buddy because you have a zipper light on your flight suit. I will call him because you were an ass and made yourself and everyone associated with the USAF look bad. We are 100% in agreement about why we have the reflective belt rule. And who makes the rules? The installlation commander is an officer, usually rated. The Chief of Safety is an officer, usually rated. The Chief of Staff of the USAF is an officer, always rated. A lot of rocks are thrown at the enlisted SNCO corps, some of them warranted, but the underlying problems and issues are caused at the paygrades that start with "O". The Command Chiefs and the SNCO Corps have been hijacked by a careerist mentality. And it came to a head when the philosophy of everyone an "Airman" instead of identifiying with your AFSC/community came about. When I came in, I came in to be an aircraft avionics (pick your flavor) specialist. That has fallen by the wayside. It is more important to do the bullshi# stuff now. It used to be more important to know your job. The Command Chiefs think they are E-10's, and use their function as gatekeepers to the WIng CC for EPR's, strats, and decorations as their tools to keep the other Chief's in line. If you are too public in your disagreements with the Wing CCM, your people suffer. The CCM position needs to go away. Revert back to SEA's. Disband the PME mafia. One PME tour in a career, then back to the field. Same with the 1st Sgt position, one tour and back to your AFSC. That would be a start to correct some of the stupidity out there. But the officer side of the house has their responsibility in this too. You guys get to make policy...I just implement it/carry it out. I agree that common sense has fallen by the wayside. And it is on both sides of the fence, both officer AND enlisted.

Thanks for jumping on board and lending your experiences and take on the situation Chief, but let's get real.... If anything, the flightline wrench turners like yourself are the worst when it comes to queep like this, because they actually WORK for a living. They cannot do their job without cutting up steel toe boots and greasing up their ABUs. Crew dogs that are worth a damn are usually too busy fixing planes and training new troops to even keep up with -2903, and when they find something to wear or use that doesn't jive with some desk jockey's paper opinion, they use it anyway because IT WORKS. Back to the issue at hand - It isn't about following directives or policy, it's about common sense (or a lack thereof). It's about taking a logical stance on a particular issue and utilizing judgement to make a decision. It boggles my mind that so many Chiefs, senior enlisted members with decades of military experience, would fail at being able to discern the difference between blind following of regulation and creative innovation. In the case of the zipper light - it is an extremely efficient tool to use while night flying, it makes reading charts and approach plates much easier, especially using NVGs; but what is more important - flying more effectively or following a uniform reg? As for the reflective belt - its a management directed CYA rule, and it is not worth discussing, PERIOD.

My $.02... The assumption: you're an active-duty MAF or CAF pilot early in your career The background: In my experience, "Normal" career progression to O4/O5 is ops tour x 2 and a ALFA/ALO/Trainer/schoolhouse/FTU/OSA/WIC/TPS then ops or staff/school then ops or staff or command, etc. The order varies a little, but if you're within your first three assignments, applying to the U2 instead of schoolhouse or OSA or WIC or ALFA should not been seen as a bad thing. If you're "due" for your next ops tour, or the "dessert" tour (OSA/schoolhouse/FTU, etc) you could apply without raising too many eyebrows. It's selective-hire (meaning you have to make the cut to go) and Sq/CCs understand that, so most see going to the U2 as a good thing for YOU and the U2 program. They should also tell you the career impacting pros/cons of going to the U2 and of staying "mainstream." You should not worry about "seeking information" about alternatives to mainstream careers. There are a LOT of cool flying jobs in the AF, and people get them by asking about them. Here are some non-mainstream examples: OSA, Test Pilot School, Big Safari, DCMA, AFFSA, green/blue door, exchange, DIA, FAA flight inspection, anything in AFMC's Test/Eval/Acquisition sections (usually after TPS or in ASC/ESC). MAJCOM staffs often have test/acquisition positions to run and fly new things the MAJCOMs are working on (C-130 AMP, uh, maybe scratch that one... KC-46, F-35, NextGen Bomber, you get the idea). The technique: If your Sq/CC or DO doesn't have the info, or presents a one-sided view of anything, then seek info from others (like here, or in other units in your airframe on deployments, or call the units you're interested in. You can also call/email your specific handler at AFPC: he or she will get notified of upcoming openings in these special units and may let you know about them. Search for "11x" (F/B/M/R, etc) authorizations on AMS website--it'll tell you the locations/units/rank of UMD positions you might find interesting. Search the AF Portal for announcements. Finally, be a bro, because sometimes the units flying these missions call to recruit YOU, and that's the ONLY way they hire. Some are classified, some aren't, some you stay in (once you're in, STS) some are one-tour only and back to your MWS. Good luck! ETA: YMMV

Because why kill the enemy when you can deliver Combat Snapple and blacked out Bowflexes? Duh.

So, you're saying Wisconsin-ists know how to Photoshop SEC college girls?

Best aviation news that I've heard in a long time. May be if not the first, one of the first times the USAF has been forced to "blink" during their current "UAV revolution". Airplanes without pilots on board are in vogue right now, they're "cool" to those in industry and the Pentagon, but "cool" doesn't mean better. Especially with higher costs and less capability - no matter how many buckets of money they've thrown at it. There may be a day when a UAV is ready to take over this role and the U-2 will fly off into the sunset, but it's not today. ...and tomorrow ain't looking good either.

Wisconsin is what makes Wisconsin look like crap.

If you're expensive as shit and can't do you prescribed capes you deserve to be cut. (F-35)

There are REAL problems with the city of Clovis and Cannon AFB that deserve "bitching" about. What happens when a junior enlisted guy PCSs in to Cannon and there aren't any dorm vacancies? They probably can't afford the $190,000 homes that are on the market and there is a NON-EXISTENT rental market. I'll tell you what happens. They live out of the squadron's alert facility or they pay $1400/month out of pocket to live in a hotel room. It's ALREADY happening, and the biggest surge of people has yet to come. These issues should have been solved 2 years ago when it was decided that the 16th would be moving to Cannon, but they weren't. The squadron move date should have been tailored to take place when the base was ready to accept the influx of people, not some arbitrary target day set years ago, but it wasn't. The base/area is not ready for what is here/coming and those are real, legitimate, complaints. But ultimately those seemingly significant problems are secondary issues. The moaning and complaining about the quality of life in Clovis is partly just growing pains. You'd get the same if you opened Altus II or Minot II and moved a bunch of guys from Hickam to staff the base. Clovis is not a fun place to live for certain demographics of people, but NOBODY is saying that they won't do their job because the Clovis area doesn't offer their favorite restaurant. Even if it may sound that way at times. The other portion of the complaints are misplaced frustration with the move. Unfortunately the real concerns about flying gunships out of Cannon were ignored and so now you get the seemingly self-centered complaints about quality of life take their place. Ultimately however, the source of the discontent with the move still lies with the ridiculousness of flying gunship training sorties out of Cannon no matter how it is verbally conveyed. The move is castrating a squadron that is arguably the most important platform in the entire Air Force to the guys on the ground in OEF (EKIA in direct support ground units would support that). Onlookers will say, "you need to adapt and find creative ways to operate out of Cannon, quit focusing on the negatives of the move". If those onlookers could see what the squadron is doing to make this work, they would shut their mouths. But the important question is why. Why were all these hurdles put in front of gunship operations? Leadership gave up on trying to give a coherent answer to that question a long time ago, because they realized their efforts to fabricate answers were digging holes for themselves. AFSOC wants a new western base? Fine. Put all the NSA, UAV, V-22, and future platforms there that you want. If there was a legitimate mission related, non-political reason behind moving gunships, you wouldn't be getting this resistance. It's as simple as informing the people doing the mission as to why they've been moved. The fact that they haven't been notified tells me that there isn't a reason to be given. At least none that anybody wants to hear. The squadron's focus is on hacking the mission because there are real people on the ground that count on it. Leadership's focus should be IDENTICAL...on creating an environment that best facilitates hacking the mission. This move was a departure from that, and that is why you get the resistance, not because Clovis doesn't have a McGuire's. You can say. "it's over, it's done, deal with it and move on with the business at hand", and the squadron has, but that's no reason to excuse the failure of leadership, so you continue to hear about it until it gets old.