Leaderboard

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Office Space is the most accurate film about the Air Force ever made.

The maternity uniform updates are good. Just like the hair changes for women are good. Just like the grassroots effort (following the hair changes) to men’s shaving are going to be good. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

Heck... it's actually better than AD right now in AFRC (>2 yr gets the full treinta y cinco). It's a basically a play by play of the Office Space scene where Peter (AFRC) tells Michael (RegAF) he's getting fired, and the Bobs got him (Peter) a promotion.... 😬 P.S. Damn, that movie just keeps delivering for me 22 years later. "What?!!" Kills me every time. 🤣

Love the comment!

Gone, but not forgotten 🥃

Do you think that morale, comfort, and belonging are unimportant? The money spent on this was saved by a single B-1 MX CANX.

I think it's typically worded as 100% promotion opportunity, based on them being "fully qualified" (i.e. no legal trouble) for 1LT and Capt. Remember also promotion oppurtunity is based on the # IPZ in that particular year. If there are a few APZ then the board will not promote a few IPZ if they can justify some of the APZ possessing more promotion potential than the bottom of the IPZ.

Fair enough man—I appreciate you post and your comments (honestly). As I said, I’m not against women (and men) being more comfortable, but I do want the focus of our military to be on readiness first and foremost. It definitely is frustrating, for someone who has been in quite a while, seeing the AF brag about how it takes care of it’s people by making “real changes”...when it still can’t fix problems that effect the readiness of our force. You’re right, one doesn’t necessarily (and rarely does) affect the other to a considerable degree, but when one is being triumphed as a large success and the readiness problems are “ummm...we’re working on that”, it’s hard to believe the focus is where it needs to be. Thanks guys for the chat.

Let me ask all of you are who talking and arguing about the pregnant flight suit: What’s it f**king matter?!? I can almost guarantee that none of you are females, so you’ll never have to wear this flight suit. You all are arguing over something that literally doesn’t affect you! If anything, it is showing progression in the USAF and I’m hoping that will translate to some changes for the males (I.e. beards). But hey, if sounding like a bunch of arguing teenagers from UC Berkeley is your thing, then keep it up....

It's a small percentage of rated people that are pregnant, but you're right, I don't have the number. But don't forget all the winged enlisted as well (loads, booms, FEs, etc). And the AE folks. And that space/missile crews also can wear the flightsuit. So the population is much bigger than just pilots or aircrew. And yes, that's still a small population, but the AF has the number of pregnant airmen affected or potentially affected by pregnancy, and felt it was a large enough population to take an action. Sure, it's a small number of people who's lives can be improved by a pregnancy flightsuit. But if the life support/uniform development people have time to make an improvement for a subset of the force, for what is likely a small cost/relatively easy development effort, then why not make the improvement? I'd bet measurements for pregnant women exist within DoD since other maternity uniforms exist. So taking that info, applying it to the flightsuit, and testing it out likely was an easy effort. Can pregnant women find a flightsuit that "fits"? Maybe. But remember, flightsuits until very recently were designed/cut for men, and unlike many other clothes, are difficult to tailor to fix a dimension that might be off (namely, getting a flightsuit that's wide enough may leave the leg inseam way too long even with the short size). Here's an interesting video on human factors and designing for the "average" person. The speaker helped with human factors assessments for the AF for years, and touches on many of the (bad) assumptions that are made in designing things for humans. (And no, I didn't hunt for that video, just happened to watch it recently for some coursework I'm doing right now that's relevant to this topic). We all have small issues we'd like the AF to fix, even if it's for a small group of people and doesn't effect every airmen. To me this is just the AF addressing an easy issue to fix to help a small number of (pregnant) airmen. Will this solve retention by itself? Nope. But it helps remove what might be 1 of 1000 small paper cuts. Also related, but for AF maternity uniforms in general. https://www.military.com/daily-news/2020/09/09/airmans-idea-provide-better-fitting-uniforms-pregnant-troops-may-become-law.html Basically, even though the maternity uniforms exist in the system, doesn't mean they are available though AAFES, and the AF is working to improve that.

Not this specifically... but I've never walked away from a conversation about the Academy thinking, "man, I sure wish I'd gone there".

As someone who currently identifies as a pregnant female pilot, of course! But seriously...yes, it is important for the same reason that it is important that my daughters can look at female astronauts, the Vice President, and other women in any career field and imagine themselves in that position.

Did you already interview? Not sure what you’re trying to communicate with “69% chance.” If you’ve already interviewed, that answer should come pretty quick...those aren’t decisions a squadron is going to hem and haw over for weeks on end (at least in my experience). For reference, we hired an AD guy who couldn’t get out for a year and change, so the unit may work with you if you have to take the next assignment and try to PC off some time.

I think it's typically worded as 100% promotion opportunity, based on them being "fully qualified" (i.e. no legal trouble) for 1LT and Capt.

Ignoring morale, comfort, individual preferences in the name of readiness has helped to kill morale and retention in aviators. But as soon as the AF starts making small changes, people complain about those changes unless they directly benefit from those changes. Pregnancy flightsuits are probably just a comfort/morale/belonging issue. And that's good enough reason in my book to make a change, given that it likely took little time or money to execute. I doubt the AF see this as a big issue, but again it's an easy fix that seems to have people that want it. Sure, a pregnant flyer that doesn't fit in their flightsuit anymore could get a new bigger normal flightsuit, but the AF is still paying for a new uniform that likely won't fit well (pushing them to find a uniform that does). So why not have one available that might fit better at what will likely be the same cost to the government anyways? Why can't they just wear a different maternity uniform? Same reason I wear my leather jacket instead of the lightweight blue jacket when it's cold and I have to wear blues-because I want to and it's an option I have. Even in the flightsuit, I've got several jackets to choose from to suit my personal preference: leather, summer weight nomex, winter weight nomex, fleece, goretex, commercial softshell in green, commercial softshell in OCP. Why not just have one or two approved jackets for the flightsuit? Or should the AF eliminate the leather jacket (not approved for flight, has no readiness impact, but looks cool)? You're still avoiding the fact that other career fields besides pilots also use the flightsuit as well. Regardless of whether you feel they should wear a flightsuit, the AF decided that they should. Also, should RPA pilots wear flightsuits? Seems like they can do their job just fine in regular OCPs. (Not that I'm advocating for that, but it's a morale issue, not a readiness/operational issue). Even as a mobility pilot, the cotton OCPs would probably provide adequate flame protection for much cheaper. It's like when the AF got rid of patches for ABUs-huge outcry because many airmen lost a symbol of their unit affiliation (all while flyers kept their patches so it didn't affect us). All in the name of saving airmen like $20 a year if that on sewing costs (as well as the cost for the patches themselves, but the AF could've gone the army route and made airmen buy their patches vs issuing them). It's a small thing, but helps feed comraderie and a sense of belonging. Same for morale shirts/patches, crew patches, deployment patches, Friday name tags, sq baseball caps, etc. There's a lot of things that are starting to get looked at with a fresh eye now. I'm many ways the regs are stuck in 1947 and how people were expected to look back then. Hair standards have been relaxed to accommodate more hairstyles for other races/ethnicities. Easy kill right there that made life easier for many people for something that has minimal to no impact on readiness. There's also no reason not to allow men to grow facial hair, minus some operational concerns like oxygen mask use or gas masks. But there's no operational or readiness reason to restrict facial hair when you're not flying, besides the AF wanting to portray a certain look, which has no tie to readiness or combat effectiveness. Even when deployed there's no operational reason to have to shave, unless the conditions warrant going to mopp ready and dragging your chem gear around on your hip. Then you can shave before pulling your gear that's probably dryrotting in a conex. Another easy fix was the 1 min it took to update the AFI to allow pushing up flightsuit sleeves-zero readiness reason to do so, purely for comfort. But an easy fix. OBOGS fixes has it's own funding and manning, and support from AFRL for testing. The short answer is mil standard for evaluating OBOGS made some poor assumptions in how to verify system performance with their selection of test points for certification. Which means the AF will potentially have to pay to redesign and retrofit the system. So the AF is also after the big items affecting readiness as well; these small initiatives aren't taking away from that.

Some fair points, but the fact remains that “they” still did some speeding with its implementation, regardless of what they officially call it. A shock that big to the system hurts students and IPs both. No, not all tracks (at least in the new “2.5” phase 3 syllabus) get more flight hours...they actually get a few less (there is more simulator/device time however). Lastly on Wills, if by “putting his money where his mouth is” is making lengthy posts on FB to seem in-touch/transparent/a bro then sure. Some trusted sources who have worked close with him over the years would beg to differ...I’ll just leave it at that. Edit: Also, agreed on the divestment of the T-1 without a viable solution. I feel like they kinda thought of the CAF a little more, but definitely hung the MAF guys out to dry...

The increasing and accelerating politicization of our nation's military, along with the defense of said behavior: Good and hard. I hope those aspirations are fulfilled. Quickly.

I haven't read that much MAGA/Q fan fiction since before the inauguration. Thanks for the chuckle. Is it hard to find an audience for this trash now that Parler is off the app stores?

I caved and got F1 TV this year. If you have a TV that can download the app/channel it's 100% worth it.

Sure thing, I'll try to speak more simply. Airplanes are expensive, middle class inflation adjusted (and I mean housing healthcare and education inflation money, not that joke of a shifting goalpost CPI metric) wages are flat since we went into the neoliberal era. People in my income quintile could afford new piston in 1965, i can't afford the same in absolute terms today, by at least a factor of 3. This rank asset inflation combined with dwindling absolute demand, has made it so that the gap between turbo props/single pilot turbofan, and new piston, is no longer an opportunity cost of consequence for the remaining winners of the hunger games. So the market bifurcated straight into recreational turbine, leaving a gaping hole in the step up piston (historically crowded by the piston twin, now solely carried by the SR-22/22T). Much to the chagrin of Cirrus owners, their numbers are still paltry compared to the highs of the late 60s production. This obviously presents a problem for us imprudent poors, who are stuck attempting to maintain a dwindling supply of fully depreciated (but still overpriced) airworthiness directive laden clap traps against the headwind of purposefully declining OEM (see Textron case study on their beech 35 ruddervators and their Cessna single retract anything parts support) and uneconomic third party support willingness by fleet attrition proxy. The former want these cans mothballed right yesterday, the latter can't be blamed for exiting the market in light of loss of fleet volume. Hope that clarifies. Cheers.

Virus Tolls Similar Despite Governors’ Contrasting Actions Corona gonna Corona zb

He's a fucking moron. The fact that they haven't come out and told vaccinated people that they can do whatever the hell that they want, now that all the data has been collected on the vaccine, is nearly criminal. Our entire system of government is predicated on protecting power from any individual or small group, and this pandemic has been a resounding reinforcement of those dangers. I don't suspect there will be much honest analysis from the left on the pandemic, but thank god Florida, Texas, and a few other states had the nuts to do things their own way, so we can at least look back with definitive proof that the totalitarian answer to a pandemic was not successful.

I Chuckled

I've gone into the control panel and banned him, deleted his posts, and removed any reputation points he has given.

Anyone else think we should just start giving doses slotted for anti-vaxx holdouts to the next-lower priority? The goal is herd immunity. If a 55+ year old guy doesn't want his dose, let's stick that shot in some college kid's arm.

Right. So since I'm sure you are aware how percentages work, that reduces your chance of death from less than 1 in 100 to less than 5 in 10000. Seems like a pretty good deal to me for a mild headache and a few days of arm soreness. But hey maybe 1/100 chance of death is good enough for you. Not the response I was expecting. I guess you got me. So add a fourth one to the list, just sheer carelessness or apathy. Do you also not lock your doors at night, wear a seatbelt, or do other basic things to minimize low likelihood/high impact risk items in your life?

Of course there are other reasons. Medical conditions precluding you from getting vaccinated are basically the only reasons that hold water in my opinion. But based on this thread the only other motivations people have for rejecting it seem to be: -spite -generalized institutional mistrust -F U don't tell me what to do Here's my point. In my organization it was unbelievably easy to predict which people would refuse the vaccine. If it had been a Vegas bet I would have made a shitload of money. So why is that? Do I just have an amazing spidey sense of exactly where everyone stands on issues of personal health? Or maybe is it because vaccine refusal is inextricably linked to a particular political ideology, and it's super easy to spot the far right political loud mouth complainers in the squadron..

Because not getting the vaccine could cause you much bigger problems... I'm sorry your friend got brain fog from the vaccine. That's a new one I haven't heard about. But I would urge you to weigh the risks of the two options: Option one: give yourself ~95% protection from the virus and risk hypothetical long term side effects and the occasional case of brain fog. Option two: risk it with a virus that's killed half a million people in a year. Oh and we also don't know what covid's long term effects might be either. And If we're doing brain fog anecdotes, I'll chime in with my anecdotal evidence too: every single person that I know who has gotten the vaccine felt slightly off for one day, had arm soreness for a few days, and then went about their life.

I think we're conflating two things here. Whether or not you should get the vaccine, and the Air Force's dumpster fire policies relating to covid are two completely separate issues. Anyone who has been in the Air Force for more than a day should have been able to predict that they'd enact idiotic policies, and commanders would revert to extreme risk aversion. But none of that should play into your decision of whether or not to get the vaccine. Getting the vaccine should be based on your personal health and that is it. Big Air Force nonsense shouldn't play into that decision and neither should politics. But what I'm seeing in the 1/3rd of service members turning down the vaccine are a bunch of political blowhards refusing it out of spite. It's a selfish act of political defiance, a middle finger at big blue and the libtard lockdown people, with not a second thought given to their actual health. And that is a problem.

There are so many things I dislike about the Academy, but I can’t seem to summon any anger about this. It’s a reading room in the library. What am I missing?

'Member that time when an election was challenged, courts ruled (or didn't hear it, same thing), and the election results were duly certified by the Congress? Good times. Unless you won your Iowa seat. Then it being contested, recounted, ruled on by a court, then certified doesn't count. The House will decide. Good times. Good and hard. Quickly.