Chuck17

History is a great guide in this case. I'd keep collective expectations low... The mantra at the squadron levels (this is WORST EVER crisis, everyone is leaving, etc) is largely absent in the halls of HQ. Neither side of the issue has a complete picture, resulting in GOs talking past the line pilots telling them how it is in the trenches... looking past most input from the line (no matter how many initiatives are being worked). This has happened before, and there's no clamoring rush to fix it based on the USAFs previous experience. Given some of the economic projections for the next 2-4 years, maybe they're onto something to simply remain patient and make minor concessions. It makes for lousy morale in the squadrons though... Chuck

Now you've cracked the code... Not saying I agree with it, just saying... Chuck

Inexcusable. That is most definitely a thing... Glad it worked out. Chuck

AF Portal A1 site has some stuff there, as does the AMC/A1K site. If you can't find info there I'm 69% positive there's examples hung throughout this thread as painful as it is to reread so many pages... PM me with an email address and I will send you a couple of briefs I got over the last few years (if all else fails). Writing PRFs can be a pain and a challenge but it's important. Personally I think it's a shame that we have "language" and "style" instead of just good ol fashioned narrative, but that's a different argument. Chuck

Exactly. As you'll find out, some of the queep is required, with YOU held responsible for lack of presentation/enforcement. Furthermore, the real trouble with thinking like a captain is that eventually you're not a captain anymore... One of the biggest problems we have in the USAF (and in the Joint fight) is that for the most part we as airmen have no clue "what the book says." I always found it an amazing dichotomy that as IPs we crush new kids for not knowing what the book says, only to turn around as O5s and O6s and be completely oblivious to how a targeting cycle works, ROE, commander's guidance, JOPP, etc etc. The cowboy captain is effective. The dipshit O5/O6 who doesn't know how things work is often dangerous, and generally a pain in the ass creating more work for everyone by NOT knowing or caring how it's done. Food for thought. Chuck

Recently attended one - and had the exact opposite experience. It included some of the best one-on-one mentoring of my entire career, and has facilitated further discussion since then. Half-assing it sucks and I'm sorry to hear that not all are created equal. Like anything else, you get out what you put in - for the individual and the command, it seems. Chuck

Now that we've got no-shit dudes who've got the experience chimed in, none of us have to rely on heresay. I meant it when I said thanks for your perspective - it helps everyone steer the ship. That said if a dude really wants to do this, part of my job is to get him in touch, connected with info from the people who have. They're owed as much regardless of personal opinion. Chuck

Absolutely. Totally valid. I don't have first hand knowledge, so conjecture is in play, and why I (we) appreciate your statements about the realities of the program. I've based my own opinion on the statements of senior officers who've sat multiple boards. I trust their opinions to confirm what my own intuition says... That's good enough to be "promotion board level dismissal" in my book. I'm not saying "if you do this, you're screwed." I am saying if you do this, your path is different no matter what service you're in. Up to you whether that's good or bad. Given my outsiders view and the circumstances surrounding folks who've BTDT (not to mention the politics and complexity surrounding that slice of heaven in the world) I'll continue to advise as I have. Chuck

Great post. The problem is that it IS dismissed out of hand. Discussion is great, as is understanding... but it's the GO and promotion board level dismissal that make this program radioactive. Thanks to you and CJ for the great posts. They help expose Changs bullshit for what it is. Chuck

What a crock. Total number of GOs and O-6's with AFPAK HANDS in their record? Im sure there's some O-6s, I'm doubtful on the GOs. And I don't give enough of a shit to look. You Chang, however, as our lead A-1 koolaide peddler, surely have access to such figures. I'm interested in those numbers. Until then, I'll stand by my intuition and the advice of the actual GOs I trust: pass. Chuck

Great aircrew bitchfest question (because we aren't talking about fixing the USAF at large, we are talking about what it will take to fix our slice of that heaven). Good points above. The law of unintended consequences says that they need a lot of investigation, but there's merit here. I'd add: 1. Up the $ and make it progressive. Sign the bonus? Great. The five year standard bonus goes to yr 1: 25k, yr 2: 30k, yr3: 40k, yr4: 45k, yr 5: 50k. Or keep it within the 48k or whatever originally authorized, however you so choose. 2. Add progressive options (think MLB contracts) after that: 2 more years: 35k a year, 4 yrs: 40k, 6 yrs: 45-55k. That way you're at least competing with the airlines and you're not crushed by a long commitment unless you chose to be. 3. Break the "Line" category out for promotions - flyers compete with flyers, and quotas be damned. Understand this will drive us toward an army style rating system change where you are placed Avove, Below or in the Center of Mass, and those ratings have quotas too. So be it. 4. Technician vs Leadership track. This, along with the increased bonus, has I believe the best chance of implementation. It works elsewhere. Caveat: it is possible to breed egomaniacs this way, so we have to not be afraid to outright fire those self-serving poor examples of leadership who merely want to "command" and not lead. This is a problem. Also, you're gonna have to create a method to cross from technician to leadership, otherwise it becomes a Warrant Officer corps in all but name and the mouthbreathers who suck at the jet but have the big offices will only breed more poor leadership in their own image. Just some thoughts... Chuck

It's been going on way longer than that - the track record goes back further than BGen. Much like another 3-button in the HAF hierarchy right now, there's sometimes decisions made based on demographics... if you catch my meaning. But they're not the only problem. Dont worry (yet), there were far more qualified personnelists that didn't get a fourth star. My prediction is we get laughed out of the meeting, but it won't be the gut check it needs to be. Had many interesting conversations about this lately, with people asking what they should tell their squadrons. There's only one answer: the truth, because anything else is bullshit and results in a further loss of credibility. Pilots have more opportunity and leverage than at any time I've seen in my short career in the service. If they walk, they win; if they stay, dice roll. Guys are turning down incredible opportunities to walk and go get a line number. So the service is going to have to get on its knees to keep people from walking, or stop loss and slit its own throat. i wouldn't hold my breath for either, Chuck

Not if the leadership team in the Scott zip code has anything to say about it... the case for change is coming. How successful that push is remains to be seen. (Old ways of doing thing die hard though, so they'll have to "show me" for me to believe it...) Chuck

"Go to bed old man..." Chuck

The mobility enterprise is way ahead of you on this, for once. There are folks with stars asking the same questions, making the same arguments, and that's a good thing... Similar to the MAAP function consolidation from "home", they're also asking why we need a separate AMD... why mobility isn't integrated with the rest of everything else... why we can't do more C2 from the 618th... even working (from above and below) to force a discussion on things like OPCON and TACON... because right now in the mobility and some other communities (GS, etc), we operate between the lines more often than not in execution of global missions. It's nice to see smart, engaged leadership re: these topics instead of just going along with "the way it's always been." Chuck

This one really took a turn for the "what the hell?!" I'm sure we've each had good, bad, or nonexistent experiences in the mentoring department. Just like mentors you learn from the bad ones almost as much as from the good. Or at least you should. What I'm saying is you should be able to take something away regardless of the advice given. You may not like what you hear. You may think said mentor is out to lunch. Thems the breaks. It's equally an opportunity to provide the two way street you lament not receiving here, Slick. Be an instructor. Don't tell everyone CH's advice isn't mentoring... tell them why. (Youre wrong by the way, IMHO) Tell us "What I'm looking for is ...." You alluded to your time spent joint - what's mentoring look like to those joint guys you mentioned? What would they expect if they asking the same questions? Please tell us, because I for one want to compare it to my similar experiences with our sister services. Otherwise the petulant whine (and the cry me a river 'everyone is ganging up on me' self-pity BS) has no place, especially in a conversation about mentoring... Chuck

A booger-eater turned commander lacking OPERATIONAL credibility..? Say it ain't so! Chuck

I'd think that's part of it, but the Herk WICs been around ten years longer than the C-17 WIC. I think what the C-17 community is experiencing is a bubble in leadership that happens to wear a patch. The crop of dudes in that demographic/year groups is truly phenomenal, and those people would be there doing that job regardless of the patch. I agree with you, that there 'should' be many more than Smokey in the future. I think there are some great O-5s to O-6s out there who have a serious shot at making GO from that start (the WIC). My comment is more addressing the previous obsession with breadth in the command that is now being slowly shunted. The stars are moving the conversations back towards depth due in part to the character of future mobility employment. A2AD is a thing, and even on its softer side will affect us in C2, comms, and connectivity in ways we can't yet fully comprehend due to our relative freedom of action currently. Risk Aversion is actively being addressed in the command, among many ways by bringing balance to the breadth vs depth conversations. Dont get me wrong, breadth is valuable, if not essential to our success in the mobility enterprise. It gives commanders and staffs options - opens up possibilities for people to serve in many facets other than their primary aircraft - whether that means AMOG, C2, or simply bringing outside perspective and cross-education to another community (integration). But we've been full stop on the "breadth" for so long in AMC that expertise is short - enough to get the attention of leadership. And fixing that is only goodness. Thanks for the shout out to McChord - it's too bad that the recognition doesn't go above group level though - after all it says AIRLIFT WING in the unit title... food for thought. Chuck

I'll bite, but have to clarify a few things first. 1. Not an O-6 to O-8, haven't even pinned on O-5 yet. 2. Will embark on the sq/cc experience next summer. 3. Never been an exec, but spent the last two years close enough with enough GOs to speak from that experience. 4. Lastly, I stopped commenting here so much largely due to the many who refuse to engage in discourse in which there is an actual conversation. That and there's just not enough hours in the day. Opinion: There's too much TL/DR bullshit on this site. While brevity is the soul of wit, these problems won't be solved in 140 characters. To solve them, even to understand them, you have to engage your brain. That takes effort, god forbid. But... I still read this site everyday... Seriously! That said, retention of the right people-aviators-is one of many problems facing the officer corps in the USAF today. It's is a nasty problem that the USAF has no clue how to fix and that's going to deepen before it eases. This is evident in the hamfisted closing of loopholes fits and starts we've seen thus far. The USAF as the tech force throws money at problems (or punts), whereas the Army for example throws people at problems... There's more to it than money or easing the add'l duty burden or reinvigorating the squadrons. QOL plays a part, and part of that is morale - the feeling that your work matters, that you are accomplishing the mission. When you treat people like crap, overwork them, and give them no hope that things will change, morale plummets. That's what's happened. Read General Tunner's description of aircrew morale in China-India when he arrived there in his book 'Over the Hump' and you'll see. We have a morale problem manifesting as a retention problem. Period. (Though it is not universal, this is what is killing the squadrons...) Next let me clear up a common misconception... Colonels and low ranking GOs have far less power to affect change and make things better than you'd think. Not all colonels are equal, just as relationships (at least in public) between GOs shows that they are not all equal. (Reference: any staff, anywhere) While in some aspects their words are holy writ, in much of their daily duty they have very little power to make changes. Everyone gets a say, so consensus building logically takes time. You better get it cleared with your boss and your bosses boss and the the lawyer, etc. or else your neck is on the line... this manifests in bureaucratic delay and stagnation of decisions, at the worst case it shows up as risk aversion. Rarely are "go-do" orders so easily given, thus change is slow. This reality can be frustrating for the young. For the most part it's good that change is slow (ironically) because we have a lack of depth, experience, and real education out there at those ranks. Yes, people have been to the schools, but many retain little and few are genuine experts (not to mention the wide variety on quality of the school experience). We use variance of assignments to get people "experience" thereby producing an effect that broader and broader officers are seemingly always in charge, always getting their feet wet. General Officers are for the most part exactly that: generalists, by design. Some communities have taken this to the extreme, my own included, in making younger and younger officers as broad as possible - with the result being a lack of depth in the general population, but especially at the senior ranks, again with few exceptions (WOs - take a look at how many MAF GO WOs there are out there...). That reality is only further exasterbated by the fact that we don't expect pilots to just be pilots, nor do we reward, promote, or encourage expertise in that narrowest of measures. We evaluate and promote everything else, and what gets measured gets done. We've done this to ourselves, simply by allowing it to be accepted as the norm. You fix the morale problem with a focus on what matters - job performance and mission accomplishment. And I don't mean job performance like as in "Captain X, who is scheduler # 12 is really good, I think he's our CGOQ..." I mean take a look at who the best is in their primary job - start with the flyers and work your way from there. Stop with the "well all he did was fly missions, no volunteer hours or anything in self-improvement." That's how you reinvigorate the squadrons. MAF dudes - how many units out there have a "top hauler" or "top boom" award for the most missions/tonnage flown, hours flown, or gas passed in a month/qtr/year? My guess is few to none - I've never seen it. That speaks volumes when everyone knows who the Volunteer of the Qtr is for the wing because they have a parking spot at the commissary.... Now then, as for the bonus - I tell guys to follow their hearts, do what's right for the family. And I don't mean the USAF family. I've had a lot of success in my career, and struggled as much as I've done well. I earned a divorce out of it, and don't have kids. As an "old" major, about to be sq/cc, that makes me the oddball. I have a wonderful woman in my life now and that's made me reevaluate what and how I operate. But I don't wish the lousy parts on anyone. I nonetheless have no regrets, even though I'm facing a one-year remote amid a budding relationship. But my situation is not the norm, and I take that into account when advising my guys. If you come for career advice, you'll get it with the bark on - that's what you're owed for asking. And some people don't like hearing they're not the best or that they should pursue other endeavors. While I won't temper my fire, I've never scoffed anyone who wanted out or to take care of their family. I won't. My own experience made the difference, and I'm not sitting here chugging blue kool-aide. You must do what's right for you, regardless of if it aligns with big blue's plan.... This problem is bigger than the O-6 to O-8 crowd indicted in the post above... and none of us can change it alone. You'll never push over the wall, but if you try you can find loose bricks... Chuck

Correct me if I'm wrong, but when I last looked at the DL site, the guidance was posted there and I was not allowed to sign up for any DL as a select. Period. if so, you can send your boss the link. Solved. Chuck

Perhaps. Certainly not a requirement for all to attend. It'd be nice if we could up the collective game/understanding of the communities writ-large, but that's why we send guys to Nellis it the first place, right? I remain unconvinced there is any other way to go about educating the uneducated to that level - and that's the requirement right now. You cannot build a Rosetta Stone without learning a different language - that language is taught through integration, employment, planning, etc. Nothing else comes close. I've done every course a MAF guy can do - nothing compares to the experience and knowledge gained at Nellis. Chuck

Right. The MAF doesn't have a patch problem. The MAF may in fact have an O-6 problem. Until CC's who grew up with patches reach the O-6 level (talking my own community here) it won't stop. It's starting... But until there is an across the board understanding of the roles and responsibilities, it won't change. Case in point, there is a whole reg that governs how patches will be used, placed, developed. AFI 11-415 I think. It was hell convincing wing level leadership that it is a no-shit reg that applied to their wing. It took a unit compliance inspection ding for squadron leadership to pull their heads out. That's not good, and admittedly was almost five years ago, but it's getting better... And there will always be the one who gets shit done, who's smart, has a good rep, and good hands, who gets pulled into the bosses circle (read: exec, though I've never been one) so he can get pushed. That's how the game is played. Not for all but for some. You can rage against it or accept and drive on. What shouldn't be happening is wing/cc's hoarding the smart people, insulating their nests. Doing it to push a guy, okay. Doing it to the detriment of the squadrons, tread lightly. To Champ's point: The fire and forget mentality is something that happens everywhere, it's just that it is exasterbated in the MAF because you have plenty of folks that spent their careers inside an insular community, generally devoid of integration with the rest of the USAF, in command of units that are now doing more integrating, both in training and in mission execution -- and these captains and majors wearing the target on their arms are speaking a language they don't speak, doing things they were never trained to do. Not just with other Air Force units but with the Army too. So they are forced to trust them. Once proven, they go back to that well... Again, and again, and again. I've been on the receiving and am now on the giving end of having patches working for me - they're the easy button. It takes disciplined leadership to do it right and make sure everyone, not just your bright shiney project, benefits from having them in the squadron. YMMV. Chuck

Perhaps not. Come to the AOC, it'll open up a whole new world for ya... The MAF literally doesn't know what it's missing. Literally. As in - the MAF is clownshoes compared to how the CAF thinks about, plans for, trains to, and then executes the mission of the USAF. That's the reason the MAF needs WOs. The future is integrated.... the (insert scoff here) "we're the MAF, we're different" garbage doesn't work anymore. Chuck

Iron is slated to transition to the ANG, and so far that's the only discussion on the table re: Elmendorf... The rest is whispers and conjecture. They're trying to figure out what that means to PACAF, the ANG, and the bros - MX and the flyers - on the line, not to mention the Army, 3rd Wing, etc etc. MTF. But if I were a betting man... And Hickam isn't going anywhere. Chuck

Chang, I get what you're saying, but I'm living it, and I disagree. Im sure it manifests differently and is amplified at the GO level. Education lays the foundation for experience, just as experience does for leadership - we aren't getting that right. Chuck