Chuck17

Did you even read the next paragraph after the one you quoted? The one where I further explain what we don't have enough of...? Floated an idea of what we need more of? Advocate of the current system is a bridge too far, as I said earlier in my post when I said the first year was a waste. However, I'm an advocate of PME in some of the current forms - others need to go or be heavily modified and or incentivized. What I am not an advocate of is thinking that since I got these here wings on my chest that I know everything and need no further value-added education in any form, specifically that of PME. But I don't expect that line of thinking to resonate much here. Chuck +1 edit to clarify

Logical, fact based, unemotional opinions backing arguments of substance over an issue that matters to the future of the USAF... Seems like an anomaly around here sometimes... FWIW, I'm an in-res IDE guy who followed on to ASG. Like others, I found the first year to be almost a complete waste. It gave me a sister-service networking opportunity and a chance to write - something I plan to do upon retirement. Other than that, I went to school to go to a second year of school. The real learning was in the second year, and made the entire experience worth it. Scoff what you will, this same model (two-years of mid-career PME) has been used for centuries by some of the most successful armed forces in history. We aren't inventing new ways to educate here... We are in fact lagging behind in that department in my opinion. We don't have it all figured out. In fact, the over-education of our officer corps as they proceed toward O-6 is a real topic of discussion... But there has to be a balance. Not everyone can depart the line for two years mid career. Not everyone should. Not everyone has the drive, brains, or desire to. That's not a bad thing. That's expectation management. But sending officers of 20+ years experience to just a little under three and a half years of schooling in their service is not overeducation IMHO -- ASBC (4 weeks), SOS (6 weeks), IDE (1 year), ASG (1 year), War College (1 year) - three years, spread out over the career, is nothing. Just my opinion. And realizing there's other things that pull dudes off the line for months/years -- WIC, TPS, JPME-II, Safety School, staff, etc -- I guess my question is, what's the alternative? Where do our officers get the education they need to be effective in the joint world? Because I'm telling you, the USAF is getting murdered in the joint environment. It should be our wheelhouse, and we suck at it - something that's still shocking to me given the quality of some of the dudes I was at school with. Short of throwing folks into the deep end and letting them sink or succeed on the job, the only prep for entry into that world is PME (of all forms, correspondence included) - comments on the quality of that prep aside. These aren't things I knew about or cared about on the line. They are things that I touch daily now, in a joint and service-headquarters level environment in which there is far too little understanding of history, theory, politics, and doctrine to go around. That speaks directly to the quality and breadth (read: civilian schools and PME) of our education programs... You're on to something when you talk about broadening/diversifying the school experience. But there is an element of quantity that has to come into play as well - because flying the line forever isn't an option yet, and if you're going to go to staff anyway I'd rather have you be trained and educated at the staff than not. Spears accepted willingly. Cheers, Chuck --spelling edits

Just for transparency, state quals/schools attended...? Not trying to be a smart ass or out you, trying to illustrate the point - because I think there are a lot of in-res IDE grads who would agree with your statements. The schools could be a hell of a lot more. Myself included. But to your specific point, would leaving the mass unaware and uneducated be the right alternative? Is more civilian schooling the right avenue of attack then, or merely less military-institutions? What does that get you? There is a difference between the haves and the have-nots, which is why the AF invests in the mid career schooling in many forms. I'm on the leadership-receiving end of inbound personnel right now. Education, in its many forms, is actively sought - be it WIC, IDE, SAASS, even high-end degrees in your Masters/undergrad, etc. They're looked at and considered, something that took me a little by surprise to be honest. I still believe we could do much better when it comes to getting our force educated... But no schooling is not the answer. Chuck

They named a three star female the chief of the AF reserve... That's diverse enough I guess. Because politics! Chuck

Re: Champ - I saw the ACC/CV get up from the table at an MLR and call the Hill Wing/CC to tell him his PRFs were terrible, and that said Wing/CCs signature was about to be the reason no one from his base got promoted... So it happens! Chuck

Don't know how better to explain it brother. One is a graduated sq/cc, the other will be one soon enough. Maybe they've been there, done that re: the post-WIC tour... And now the next one they're going to work on/with is the AMC/CC...? You only owe so much commitment after getting that patch - it's not endentured servitude for life... I don't think it's a bad thing. I can think of no other programs - except for maybe SAASS - for which the USAF actively manages, places and critiques where the graduates end up working. If a command "doesn't know what to do with WIC grads" the thinking should be that getting a few in the front office would help them figure it out.... Which is why my original comment was that AMC gets it. Chuck

Don't overthink it. It makes no difference what Phoenix program you're in, if you can't pass your PT test, you will not be promoted. Patch or no patch. AMC gets it, and it's getting better. The CCs Aide and Exec are both patches - but they didn't get there because of the patch. It's just one step, of many possible and many required... Chuck

Well you had a string of commanders in the Scott zip code who refused to do C-method PRFs for a while... I'm not saying everyone can sport a C-method, but if they can, than they should. I didn't hang the "other PRF how-to" I have on hand because I need to edit it and remove the authors name (GO). Then you'll see how bad the flavor of AMC PRFs can be - especially compared to the CAF... Hopefully we've moved past that... Chuck

My bad. Let me see if I can make this work. How to for PRFs... And last year's promotions stats to O-5 from AMC... PRF 101 January 2015.pdf CY15A Lt Col Promotion Results.pdf

If you're strat'd #1 on the PRF and have the super P because (for instance) the SR had no DPs to give, well I'd say you're good. Are you on a staff? Duty above wing level at some point? That seemed to be a descriminator last year for whatever reason - I guess because we all look the same... If so, chances are good I'd say. Chuck

Pile on, and gonna play devils advocate because I'm sitting in cue for my O-5 board results, and I've just had this conversation with two flag officers. Do you, as a pilot, care if someone is the #1/20 MPF officers or #1/20 LRS officers? No? Neither does the board. The board doesn't care if you're the best pilot in the world - when you reach the FGO ranks, they care about your ability to lead, to think, to get things done. Your skill at your AFSC matters - if you've not hit IP/EP status it will detract. But # 1/20 pilots is a second rate strat, because ultimately it doesn't matter. They want to see a demonstrated ability to lead "in the field..." Hence Field Grade Officer. No decoder wheel. No slight of hand. While obviously some are more skilled at the written word and PRFmanship than others, ultimately that form comes down to the bottom line and who is signing it. Nothing else matters. Not the C-method, not the narrative, not the language. When you see it, you'll know if you're going to be promoted. If there isn't a DP checked and a strat in the bottom line, you should have realistic expectations of your chances. The numbers are out there for you to find, to support this claim - you should know where you fall. And more importantly, your commanders should have the guts to look you in the eye and tell you where you fall and why. That's the hard part of leadership. YMMV. Chuck

They're the same "level" but once you get beyond MAJCOM it's all the same in big-blues eyes. The RSAP (rated staff allocation process) has thrown the whole stratification of staffs on its ear to get certain staffs healthy this year for the summer VML. 618 AOC has a lot of talent coming in to the tune of graduated Sq/CCs, school guys, WOs, etc. Luck and timing my friends, luck and timing. Bloom where planted. Chuck

https://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a562062.pdf Educate yourselves, gents, it's the only way to stay ahead in this business. Chuck

Highly suggest you fellas take a few and go see the safety dudes on this one. Chuck

Seeing as how the 01' year group in particular was decimated over the last umpty years by every form of force-shaping initiative out there, the stats and results should be interesting to say the least. Chuck

Are you an aviator? If so I'd be GONE. Good luck. Chuck

Actually... We don't. Chuck

Fud - Check out Osinga's book on Boyd. Way better, way deeper than Corum's hagiography. https://www.amazon.com/Science-Strategy-War-Strategic-History/dp/0415459524/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1426888845&sr=8-1&keywords=Frans+Osinga Chuck

^^ Copy. Paste. Save for all eternity. Cheers, and thanks for the laugh. Chuck

It's already up. And instead of acknowledging the fact that people (including some people here) saw the merits of his argument and saying a simple "thanks bros, get em' next time," he manages to be a pretentious dickhead and make that support all about him, his views, previous baseops.net slights, injustices, cripple-fights with JQP, etc... Chuck

Bendy, I'm with you except for this ^ The second year is more what the first year should be, or at least in my mind. But not everyone that goes to in-res PME can handle the second year, and certainly many who don't attend a second year could and should. Discourse and discussion of the ideas presented are the main ways learning takes place - from peers, instructors, docs, etc, from their disection and digestion of the material. It's really what makes the course worthwhile. The 4-8 hours of prep time per class pays off in the classroom, and hopefully in what you take away from the extra year, take back to the force. I'd offer that you could conceivably do this (read, discuss, learn) outside the school environment with peers in a unit. But I think you'll agree it doesn't happen that way, not to the extent it does in what amounts to a closed-off learning laboratory. Sigma - I applied to 3 different ASG schools last year, PM me if you're looking for more info. Chuck

And your flippant statement re: such assertions clearly backs up that you have no clue what commitments exist for aircrew when they're not deployed. There's some things HQ numbers don't capture my friend. It takes a lot to keep current and qualified, even if you're not on a 1:1, not to mention the desk job... While I think you have a good point, you need to apply some give and take. Chuck

I hate me some facts... https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/no-jordans-king-abdullah-ii-not-personally-flying-planes-against-isis-1486742 I love me some Google, though. Chuck

Fellas - it may be too late, but this has been passed around recently and there's still some good info here - whether you're writing PRFs, trying to help out those who are, or stuck writing your own in self preservation mode.... Chuck PRF 101 January 2015.pdf