Herk Driver

I agree. He was one of the good guys here. There are a few others, but losing him will have an impact. He gets it.

I'm with Ken on this one. Not saying it's a great plan, but...my $.02 added below. I've seen all across these boards how ALL the good people get out and ALL that's left are the riff raff and that's who you are left with for commanders and leadership. Well, the powers that be are trying to get rid of the riff raff and lots of what I'm hearing is how I should have been allowed to get out of my commitment early and get paid to do it. I don't know...maybe if you only have 5-10% to get rid of and you think that you may have that many with quality force issues then I'm all for getting rid of the ash and trash instead of the people that still have something to contribute; whether they think they were entitled to VSP or not. I also don't think that many 11/12's will be let go with the RIF, but to suggest that an RFF not be accomplished or be minimally done would only invite the BS after the RIF when people actually did get booted since their paperwork looked like shit compared to everyone else. The announcement for the RIF said that the board is not looking at AFSC targets so whether AFSC is masked or not, I don't know, but there are no quotas. I wouldn't be surprised if there are a few surprises to go along with the more "obvious" RIF choices that you mention. However, the math isn't adding up for me. Total to separate equals what ~2K to 2.5K? So VSP =300 plus the FAQs A1 (?) just put out says another ~300-ish through the RIF. Are they going to get another 1.4K to 1.9K through SERBs of O-5s and O-6s and retirements? That's a lot of passed over O-5/6's that are just hanging around. I know a few, but I also know several that met the last round of the SERB and therefore are not eligible this time around. Some of them are still around and others are retiring or will be shortly. Maybe the numbers add up, but I'm not seeing it.

If you were eligible for VSP, you are eligible for the RIF; except for the JAG and some other AFSC in certain year groups which they allowed enough VSP takers to get out. The accountability date just hit so they are putting out the list by senior rater which determines who actually writes/signs your RRF (matters if you are or just did a PCS).

2

Yeah, I just caught that.

Gunmen using silenced pistols shot dead a senior Iraqi general in Baghdad on Thursday, an official said, the latest in a spate of assassinations of top military and civilian officials. The killing of Brigadier General Mohammed Alaa Jassim was the fourth of a senior Iraqi official in the past week, with at least three others having narrowly escaped death in that time. Jassim, the deputy commander of the Iraqi air force's Al-Muthanna base in central Baghdad, was in his car on a busy thoroughfare in the Ghazaliyah neighbourhood in the capital's west when he was killed, an interior ministry official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. Not a good month or two for those that are trying to lead this place. Today: https://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/2/8/10964/World/Region/Senior-Iraq-general-gunned-down-in-Baghdad.aspx April 24: https://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/04/24/iraq.violence/ Mar 9: https://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/03/201139132346446141.html Mar 6: https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/06/AR2006030600798.html Feb 8: https://english.ruvr.ru/2011/02/08/43357186.html

Champ, I'm sure it has. Again, you have to live with your decisions at the end of the day and be able to answer for your decisions. I've never let the thought of a Monday morning QB session deter me from my decisions about whether to take an aircraft or continue a misson.

Right and in order for you to not take that out of context and add the context back, I also wrote, "I don't mind the training rules nor do I mind flying by the rules and then explaining myself or my actions when given the chance during the Monday morning QB session." I get it.

Not trying to be cynical at all. I, too, am sick of the zero risk tolerance attitude by leadership and fortunately I work for a great boss right now that has the right sight picture wrt risk. Big picture: When properly managed, risk is OK. In that same breath, I don't mind the training rules nor do I mind flying by the rules and then explaining myself or my actions when given the chance during the Monday morning QB session. I mean if you look at the way we fly into AFG there is substantial risk associated with day-to-day operations and the PIFR system that we use. We are, as an AF, taking additional risk everyday. Following those rules to the "T" is what keeps all of us safe within the confines of knowing what the other guy is doing. But that doesn't always happen. As a matter of fact sometimes crews don't exercise even a basic amount of common sense. I mean, hell, I know crews that have put the sunshades up in the cockpit to block out the light so they could watch a damn movie while flying on the PIFR. Doing this all the while saying, "well, we had TCAS to back us up". Really? When you say does stateside training needs to be "de-pussified" are you saying the TTPs and AFIs that we use are too restrictive? Or just the way that many people try to employ leads to that. Flew just the other day and had a problem that I know several people would have went back in to MX for both in the states and in the AOR. But, Chap 4 clearly allows you to take the aircraft with this particular problem. Let's face it, flying a 40-50 year old aircraft isn't easy and you will hardly ever have the perfect airplane. I will grant you that there are times when your decisions are limited, but if your boss doesn't back you when you've pushed to the end of the day and could not have done anything more then your boss needs to find a new line of work. However, I've seen many crews try to break for something that was clearly allowed, yet some crewmember "didn't feel comfortable with it". When we had the waivers (2003) for half the equipment on the airplane we routinely flew with way more "problems" and I never heard anyone claim to not be comfortable with any of it. What has changed? I would argue that basic systems knowledge is lower these days for the "average" crewmember and that leads to people not understanding how to work around issues or what the implications of certain problems are. I've flown over here for a long time, as I know others have. There were a lot more waivers for a lot more high-time failure items back in the day. Simply put the JFACC or DIRMOBFR was willing to take more risk. Those days don't exist anymore. Even with the extra problems these restrictions impose, I've watched several squadrons rack up some out of this world numbers, all without breaking the rules and without taking an aircraft that was not "legal". The difference was hanging with the mission until you couldn't and pushing forward within the rules, when you could. In the end, I think that we (C-130s) need to modify, again, how we train to meet the demands of our operating environment. I just don't see that big of a difference right now and am willing to explain what happened when I can't finish the mission for some maintenance related reason. YMMV.

Why are we doing things differently in wartime than in peacetime? Why not train the way we fight? Our TTPs don't really have a TTP for peacetime and a TTP for wartime. If you use your TTPs for training and the same ones for war fighting then you don't have this dilemma. The only caveat being if the powers that be have waived certain elements of the AFIs to give themselves more flexibility. But then again they are assuming the elevated risk associated with that decision, right?

From what I saw today, but is not "official" yet: Normal short tours (i.e. Korea, unaccompanied Turkey, ITDYs, etc) still get credit for a short tour (see 36-2110, Table 3.3). Also, if you are already boots on the ground as of the new policy hitting the streets, you can still get short tour credit if you hit 181+. This of course is still word of mouth until the PSDM gets released and it could get changed before being sent out. If anyone gets their hands on the actual implementation message, which I am told is soon to follow, post it here.

Which has nothing to do with DADT training. It is based on recent SCOTUS rulings and a ruling by the US Military Court of Appeals. Champ, couldn't take that long. I read on here somewhere that it would take less than 10 minutes and be a couple of PowerPoint slides, at the most.

Talked with a guy yesterday that was also stationed with him when he was a Capt. I'll take the dirt, if you want, now that you have me interested.

Not letting a guy fly until the investigation is complete is pretty standard for most. YMMV. No 'guilt' or 'innocence' assigned by telling a guy not to fly until you've had a chance to look into his alleged actions.

I'm guessing you mean no H1's in the 62nd?

Wrong guy. This guy has only been in -130's (banked early on).

SurelySerious already beat me to it, but this is all so 1985. Never say never.

Part of this has been discussed elsewhere. Depends on where you look and what you believe, but about 35% go to some form of IDE. 20% selects and 15% candidates. Don't know exactly what the board looks at but what you put forth is probably a good start. I would think it is very much like a promotion board for data looked at. Stratification and whether you were recommended or not is alot of it, I would imagine. Edit: Bad data

I cannot believe that you would suggest such a thing. [/sarcasm]

Really?

Some bases were still doing that in the '90's. I think Fort Gordan, GA still does.

Agreed and I don't know what the circumstances are/were, but he gave up his wings... An Art 15 can't take your wings. For an officer, the punishment is pretty limited. Maybe they were seeking an FEB or some other form of punishment in addition to the Art 15. Anyone here know and willing to say?

The article gives some bad verbiage as to the rule. You state it correctly above. However, I have to assume the article is correct when quoting the AF report when it says "According to the investigation, the highest elevation of the stadium is at the northwest corner of the press box, which is 160 feet above ground level." All things being equal, it doesn't really matter. He was too friggin low.

Right and wrong...

2 months forfeiture of Major's pay through an Art 15 is not possible. Maximum permissable punishment for an officer depends on the rank of the Commander imposing punishment. 1) General Officer or General Court-Martial Convening Authority and you are an officer: Forfeiture of one-half month's pay for two months, 60 days restriction, 30 days arrest in quarters and a reprimand. 2) Colonel and you are an officer: 30 days restriction and a reprimand.