Leaderboard

Probably tied to the reason they're seeing a civilian doc.

Who are you talking to? He didn't reference a major in his post at all in any unique way...he merely pointed to a rank based peer group. How is major different here? Are you encouraging him to use the words "Top Tier" on his PRF? I suspect you'd look through the documents again to make sure you didn't miss something. Of course there is a way to write to TRY to differentiate 30th from 70th...that statement doesn't really say anything. The "box checking" mentality is a direct symptom of not doing this part well. "Top tier" is fluff, fluff that most of the 30 to 70 percentile has in their reports. Perhaps you do a better job distinguishing..."excellent squadron RA, ready for group RA!" Yup, got it, but that isn't a strat... May be? I disagree with you here that it's "pretty easy" "using all positive words". Write out 10 strats using all positive words that even half of a board would order the way you intend them to. If you can, that's what we should be teaching everyone if we aren't going to strat everyone. Get past the literal words? It's like you've never sent an email before or something...this is ludicrous. Look for the message being sent? Which one? You mean the one being conveyed by the words on the paper? I think you might be on the other side of the kool-aid line here. I feel like you're trying to help here, I do. I think this is one of the issues that belongs in the "what's wrong with the Air Force" thread. Part of the problem is it doesn't really matter if your in the 30th or 70th percentile...only in the top 20 or not. It's a self-ball licking situation...except that lick you own balls would have benefits. Maybe I don't "understand the bigger picture". I think the biggest problem the Air Force has is people that "understand the bigger picture". That's implicit code wording for conformity. Bendy

So I have a speculation for the delay to VSP, particularly for 11M's. Within the past month, I have seen 3 of my friends get approved for Palace Chase. Two 2004 11M's and one 2006 11M. I'll bet ya that they are cranking through the PC app's to knock out as many FM requirements before they start approving our VSP apps. If you think about it from their perspective, it's a smart move, but they should have been honest and up front from the beginning instead of giving us the "will process in monthly batches" "strategic pause" "process all remaining and adjudiacated apps after 1 May" "were rusty at Force Managment" Seriously, AFPC is in the business of dealing with peoples lives and they have delayed this proccess to the point where it's straight up unprofessional. Someone mentioned earlier in this thread that if we had been 50+ days late on a suspense, there would be paperwork and/or firings. It amazes me that the AF will fire 9 CC's for a cheating scandal, but no one has taken any responsibility for this debacle. Days since... Original FY14 PSDM release: 125 VSP application window: 80 # PSDM iterations without any result...4 # Days AF personnel will have to find a job by the time AFPC "gets around" to approving VSP apps...150 or less

For anyone interested: In my experience, the following are the "tiers" of stratification: 1: x/xx Capts (or Lts, Majs, whatever.. specific to your rank) 2: x/xx CGOs/FGOs (larger pool, but not as specific. The only way a "CGO" strat would be top-tier would be a Lt getting a #1 or 2/XX CGOs strat because it implies that he/she is performing above the level of Capts also in that CGO category. Open to interpretation.) 3: x/xx pilots, ACs, instructors, whatever. No number=not a strat, and therefore fluff. If a CC truly wanted to mark someone as "top tier", they would stratify them as such, not use words in a push line. I hate that I know this.

Why would they take your cell phone and why is that legal?

Or if you are really good your push will say "joint staff." But if you are really shit hot it will say "Joint Staff." Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Because programming requires logic. And there is no logic to the things Big Blue requires its aircrew to do outside of flying. It would get stuck in an infinite loop very quickly trying to integrate in to the self licking ice cream cone.

Capital, State, and Magnolia are all on base. Audobon Cove is an off base location. If you are looking for on base, the Cove is a non-factor.

That's part of the problem....the boards shouldn't be trying to interpret what may or may not be bad on an OPR. I thought they didn't have time to think about why someone was an IP in one MWS and an FP in the next. Stick to what the OPR actually says instead of trying to interpret what the writer might be trying to say. There are many reasons why someone would be an IP in one MWS but an FP in another. One example comes from the old Little Rock days back in 2007 when the 41st was still transitioning to the J-model. It was squadron policy to be an FP until one deployment and then you couldn't upgrade to IP until you deployed once as an AC. If someone had shitty timing and just crossflowed from being an IP in another airframe to an FP in the J just prior to their promotion board and some numbnut O-6 tries to interpret why, they'd probably be screwed because the O-6 would get it wrong not knowing how the 41st did their upgrade training. Epic fail. Now fast forward to Ramstein in 2009 when they started transitioning to the J-model and upgraded everyone as soon as they had 50 hours of FP time (LR TR course time included). Same airframe, same crew position, same upgrade...different criteria. (no knocking the Ramstein bubbas, just trying to show perspective). Rock bottom line...non-rated O-6s (or anyone for that matter) have no business trying to interpret what aircrew progression (or perceived regression) really means. Chances are, they will get it wrong. If someone was an IP and is no longer an IP for performance reasons, their records SHOULD should show some kind of derogatory information...but we don't do that. Everyone gets a trophy in today's Air Force. So we leave it to some jacknut at a promotion board to ask questions about something that isn't even in an individual's records. Edit to add: Yeah, we aren't creating any more cockpits, we're fixing the pilot shortage without having to train any additional pilots. It is the numbers game. Oh, and by the way, we're still going to do more with less!

One of the co's in our squadron just came from Columbus and said to avoid State at all costs Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

God, I love sarcasm.

FIFY

Fuck keeping your personal firearm in the SFS armory.

I wonder if OSI stamps little birds on the side of their building every time they get a colonel fired.

Almost correct: 28 of the 32 remaining airframes were built in the 80's (the last being delivered in 1989). The other four were built in the 1968 build. In any case, it's irrelevant: - the airframes have 50,000 more hours of life on them. - the "stuff" that does the ISR mission is somewhat "modular"... i.e. there is a ton of "new stuff" on the jet, in the from of MULTI-INT "stuff". -- yes, it's true! The sensors on the U-2 are from the 21st century! Stop focusing on the airframe as the only piece of the equation!! Oh... and no need to do a bunch of flight testing and integration with said sensors: we've already proven they work on the U-2. Good luck with the RQ-4! And watch out for the icing.

So, basically what you're saying is, sometime around 2020 a U-2 pilot is going to take some nice high-res photos of Southern Arizona while out on an FTU training mission. Photos where, if you zoom in enough, you'll be able to see the row of Global Hawks sitting out at AMARC.