Skitzo

I have used the Chaplain, MFLC, and military one source over my 20+ years. I have also known folks who have recovered from clinical depression who after a year of being stable successfully resumed flying. Thanks to the OP for bringing this up! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What is the context? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Me laughing at Hezbollah getting their stuff blown off with explosives in pagers while reading this on an iPhone produced in China. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Corporate / MAJCOM policy to craft SIIs was at the time to scan OG SEB minutes for common items across all MDS plus Special Tactics. SIIs were approved by the A3…BGEN. I’ve also enjoyed the convos in this derail. As explained earlier I had debriefed the issue prior. I’ll explain. Annual MSN eval with patch from the squadron I was attached to. He was wearing a ring and also deviated 500 feet during a “mission event,” from desired altitude. During debrief I made the exact point someone made earlier, on both the altitude and the ring. Stating that he was the one everyone was looking to and everyone follows / watches / listens to what a patch says / does. He quibbled a little bit about the altitude discrepancy stating that he deviated with awareness, I then told him I could buy that if he would have at least verbalized that to his crew. But if it were a demo/do for a young ac he would have terminated and set back up for a proper demo. Pressing 500 feet below and well outside of Q- tolerances in front of his crew was not what I wanted him to do. Combat fine, lives on the line fine do it. But during a training ride / eval why??? Not being a heartless a-hole contrary to other evidence I gave him a downgrade on that event. That Eval with a patch and my daily rides with the squadron led to my informal email to squadron leadership. Looking back on it maybe the SII would have been the correct way to go but I’d also had been sniped by squadron commanders for being too heavy handed and not allowing them to fix things at the lowest level—issuing something from my office directly to a GO for approval is the opposite of what all the commanders I’ve worked with have ever desired. So like I said, that led to the email which stated “If we see X, Y and Z during our inspection then it’s probably going to be more than a Q-“ Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This Also, maybe fear is the wrong word? Whatever adjective that would drive a change in action / training prior to the inspection that would focus the unit on getting back to basics that might have fallen off in the last 18 months. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What context of intent are you inferring? I feel like you think the point of my post was to flex all over the little guy to show how much riz the MAJCOM has fr fr no cap. I think you are missing the point of my original post. When ASEVs were lumped into overall IG inspections it became included into the overall mindset of emphasis on “detecting unidentified non compliance” versus measuring compliance in the Stan/Eval programs. With standalone ASEVS I was in squadrons where there were prep sessions (MQT testing internal to the squadron, OGV SAVs, and N/N evals independent of the ASEV). I once saw a guy removed from IP upgrade or was it AC for failing the practice test required by the squadron commander. That was my original point and the point of my anecdote. ||BREAK BREAK|| As far as the MAJCOM role to help subordinate units — certainly there is a time and place for that. But the MAJCOM can’t just unilaterally SAV a unit unless asked. And in my experience we more than helped units that did ask for help with no penalty to the unit being SAVed. As far as other efforts I more than certainly subscribed to the motto “a call from the unit isn’t it a nuisance it is the reason your job [expletive] exists.” There is a tension between a MAJCOM’s purpose to OT&E and A3V’s role to also provide oversight of subordinate OGVs / CCVs. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don’t know. Don’t ignore the Vol3 blatantly in front of a MAJCOM evaluator? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A.1 - The transformation of the ASEV process into the larger IG inspection process that dilutes focus and has made Stan/Eval inspections friendly instead of feared. True story as a Team Chief for an A3V inspection I issued a WARNO to the squadron commanders noting a lack of discipline wrt professional equipment - lack of gloves and wearing rings despite V3 guidance prohibiting it and a lack of aircrew having equipment to secure their EFBs during critical phases of flight. I noticed this during my pro sorties and verbally debriefed it many times. When we got to our inspection site I flew a N/N with the squadron patch who was wearing a ring and whom I politely asked to remove his ring before he started the engine. I did this for the rest of the crew but I did not witness anyone else doing so. After we landed I Q2d him because he was the person everyone looked to, violated V3 standards after I warned his commander. Before you flame me for issuing a Q2 for rings, I debriefed it multiple times in sorties and gave verbal corrections and notified commanders directly in advance. For everyone who flies regularly with rings safely everyday as an airline pilot cool I get it. Had a 679 to change the regs to allow silicone rings in coord. It wasn’t a silicone ring btw. When the MAJCOM speaks to commanders and people don’t listen it is a problem. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Take your next event seriously. Never sell out your bros or sisters. Help others when you are excelling and appreciate help when you are struggling. Enjoy the ride… Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://taskandpurpose.com/news/air-force-eglin-fired/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR2v40IkU7eG3apikxTZ28ZXIPUzDsxuFxaW0xxdaqXBX3uukYqfLjiw74c_aem_yBKV7xzsJrM1361I-pHWUQ 3 days from CoC Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

@M2 I wish, but no, the OP on the Amn/NCO/SNCO FB page clearly makes a way better / more salient argument than I did. But maybe this poster is a lurker here? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Call this my official transition to old guy / get off of my lawn but can anyone explain the logic behind non obvious duty identifier patches? ATC I get, Ammo, yup that checks. LRS, okay. SVS - I understand that one too. But today I saw UNLTD — Unlimited Warrant Contracting Officer. Some folks are wearing their AFSCs and not obvious ones like a 2T2 but CE AFSCs - 3E3 - Structures. If I have to google the patch it does not identify your duty. Turning to some obvious ones but unnecessary…You can wear PILOT, NAV, EWO or ABM on your left sleeve if the wings don’t give you away?? Anyone else? Probably just me. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

.

How did I know this was going to be the Heat is On before I clicked it? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Same also you got the hook after 15 mins IIRC. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk