BQZip01

thanks M2

3...but let's be realistic, AFSOC is going to take a little more than their "fair" share for a while

skinny, I think it largely depends on the airframe/mission. AC-130s/MC-130s/U-28s all have different styles, deployment rates, osp tempos, etc. You wanna be in one place for a while, Hurby & Cannon are it for Spec Ops and those specialized airframes that are only at one base or the other.

I learned this one the hard way (noobs/shoeclerks/those stuck being an Exec take note) I was a Wing Exec and spent the better part of a day (about 8 hours) redoing about 25 decorations. Nearly all of them misspelled the word "ordinance"... ...until I stopped to look it up and discovered what "ordnance" was. Ordnance=weapons Ordinance=law or regulation Soooooo I had to go back and fix all of those and recall a couple dozen e-mails looking like a d-bag... Pet peeve of mine: insure vs. ensure

Why? Well, when a dipstick Major refuses to let some flightcrew guys into a chow hall because they are wearing white socks, it is important to know the rules. When a full bird Colonel walks over (with the now-angry-and-hungry flightcrews) to said Major with a printout of said rules asking why the Major is hassling flightcrews who have limited time to eat with upcoming crewrest requirements, you can be the Major needed to know the rules... (true story from the 'Deid)

Actually, the AFI states you can wear white socks with a flightsuit...

Mindless idiocy in the desert Mindless idiocy in CONUS ...you're right. The two have nothing in common...

nsplayer, I empathize and understand the dilemma. il I was at Hurby for a while as an Exec and I remember more than a few Fridays handling paperwork until the wee hours of Saturday morning so guys could take off and START their training missions. That said, if there were some way to "force" a mandatory roll call/beer call at SOME time, it could work wonders to promote more camaraderie, pass on some informal lessons learned, and inspire informal leadership. If you have ever pissed someone off (badly) and you visit Minot AFB, drop me a line and I'll bring you to one of our calls as my guest.

Then you are going to have to consider letting all AF personnel on the plane know ("Captain, I'm sorry, we can't leave. There's a General in the back that refuses to wear a reflective belt..."). "Dress to egress" comes to mind as well, which dictates everyone wearing a flightsuit on airlines... This is a bad idea that can only lead to worse ideas...

I'll take one

While they aren't the most professional actions displayed in the video, they aren't completely inappropriate. The guy didn't put up any struggle and it was all meant in good fun. Considering Squadron leadership signed off on it, it sounds legit. ...that said, I wouldn't have posted it until the statute of limitations had run out... :-)

2

Not sure why? I still have plenty of space, but I deleted some just to be sure. Please try again.

Sir, I have to say I REALLY respect the way you've decided to address the problems and talk with the troops. I must say I'm not sure other commanders feel the same way. I truly feel that my commander in my current assignment understands our problems, issues with leadership,lets us blow off steam, his open door policy is truly an open door to talk about ANYTHING. I can also say that this hasn't been the case with every commander I've had, so props to you. Let's give a little perspective on the subject from my point of view. I spent 2 tours at the Deid. Once, I worked in the J6 at an entity on base. The second time I served as the Exec for a Wing on Base. I've seen both the lower levels of leadership and the staff issues. Sometimes it is hard for those mid-level leaders to grasp the problems of their subordinates. However, you seem to grasp the issues better than most and I hope you can pass along our concerns... ...I also think that it is in poor taste for someone to bring a superior a problem without making a reasonable attempt to find a solution, so I will also attempt to address those subjects. "...why we damn near hit the sortie requirement from the ATO everyday..." The sortie requirement is EXTREMELY important. If you weren't hitting the sortie requirements, the 'deid would be a place where careers would go to die...however, my point was that safety isn't job #1 with the military and it never should be (apparently leadership above both of us feel otherwise). The mission comes first, but the morale killers are actively detracting from that rightly achieved success. BTW, I will ALWAYS respect leadership and follow their orders. The creative resistance you see is an attempt to show leadership how poorly they've implemented their ideas...of course, some are also sophomoric/juvenile antics that aren't productive. I agree you cannot have separate rules, but perhaps that point should be brought to leadership. When I was there, alcohol was permitted in the quarters of those there longer than 180 days. At the CAOC, they had an unlimited bar. This is simply one example of notable inequities. You don't need separate rules, but you do need to recognize different needs. Flyers wear flightsuits and ground troops wear ABUs. Women are allowed longer hair than men. Some religions are permitted extra time off to engage in religious ceremonies. We treat people unequally, but it is not always unreasonable. I too have been corrected, but if it is done in an appropriate manner (even from a subordinate) it need not be unpleasant. I've corrected O-6s on uniform wear. I've been corrected by E-2s. I've also been corrected by peers, subordinates, and superiors in significantly inappropriate ways (such as in front of peers and in a condescending manner). While I certainly don't enjoy being corrected, I've come to appreciate an odd sort of philosophy: I don't mind being wrong as long as someone on my team is right. Why? Because, as a team, we have the right answer. I also agree that the AF PT gear isn't completely reflective and, if you are going around dark places, being safe is appropriate. The problem is the all around use and its enforcement as being overbearing. It truly should be as simple as "I order you to do XYZ". If someone doesn't do it, politely reminding them would be appropriate. Next appropriately asking them to comply or face consequences. If they still don't, they should be appropriately reported to their chain of command and dealt with there. If we did things that way, commanders would be held accountable any subordinate's behavior that wasn't corrected. Instead, the appearance is that leadership is requiring people to go around and narc on their peers. Some hasty decisions by the base commander (such as refusing food to those not wearing reflective belts...apparently including Marines who are required to not wear reflective belts) have left subordinates questioning their leadership abilities. I deployed to a joint unit and I am well aware of the varying kinds of thoughts from subordinates in different services; some are quite interesting... The ease of enforcement is the problem. It should be something that benefits the safety of our troops, not because it is easy to enforce. Some genius running without any reflective gear? That kind of idiocy should be brought up to his commander, but you raise an interesting point. Why is the base so poorly lit? Adding more lighting could make things far safer. "Shoeclerkishness"... glad I coined the term. It seems to be catching on! :-) But what is a shoeclerk? I tried to explain it to someone today. A "shoeclerk" is someone who is more interested in enforcing the rules than getting the mission accomplished, a person more interested in keeping the shoes in their supply in perfect order than making sure people have proper footwear. I will NEVER, EVER knowingly fail to follow a lawful order. However, if I can point out the absurdity of some orders while still following the orders, it can serve to let leadership understand the problem and at the same time boosting morale. I also concur that the base has settled into an equilibrium, but it seems to be an uneasy peace; not a lasting one. Respect is a street that runs both ways. Sir, I would be happy to buy you a beer anytime, any place. If you're ever up in Minot or we're going to be in the same locale, drop me a line and the first round is on me. This respect is not lost on myself nor many others on this board. Shacked! First time I've heard a commander express that opinion. Glad to hear it. Please continue to enforce that policy.

Sir, First, I LOVE the fact that you actually label yourself as an REMF. If you are a flyer, I'll be happy to send you an unauthorized tab patch so you can proudly & boldly wear it to show your honesty. Second, I can only speak for myself, but I'd love to hear the logic. Please realize that the reflective belts aren't the problem, they are a symptom of a larger problem: shoeclerkishness; a mentality that some things have to be done the exact right way at the exact right time or it's worth ruining someone's day over a minor issue while ignoring problems with the larger issues of the day. Third, I think the problems mentioned in the AF Times article are worth noting Safety isn't #1; the mission is #1. Everything else supports that mission. This guy cites a study on motorcycle clothing. Since typical motorcycle wear tends to be dark, you will see a marked difference. The Times even points out that pedestrians aren't included within that study. Considering where people tend to walk at the 'deid (nowhere near roads), reflective belts for traffic safety don't make a lot of sense. Forcing people to wear them indoors to shop or get food, makes even less sense. The article then goes on to state that ~50% of pedestrian fatalities occur between 6PM and midnight, but fails to explain why we ALWAYS wear them for even longer than that. It also doesn't break out what the sources of those fatalities are. At the end, the pose a scenario that isn't generally applicable roads with sidewalks (I don't know of any roads here you can go 60 and there are regular pedestrians on it. In short, the conclusion is a poor synthesis of information and jumps to many erroneous conclusions based upon poor logic and poor deducive reasoning skills.. Lastly, I think >65% started the same way you did. Welcome.

I hope the USO rebooks this guy for the next few years. MAYBE things will start to change... I also agree that the Vice Wing King is in a quite unenviable position. He also has the responsibility to follow the orders of those over him...which is a single insane person, apparently. I'm sure these concerns have been voiced and the commander dismissed them. Then he probably said something to the commanders like this: "We're going to have this reflective belt policy, period. If you have any suggestions on how to enforce this program, let me know. If you have any complaints, talk to the vice..." Dumping the entire problem on his shoulders. If the "success" of this morale-killing, no-one-saving, conduct-prejudicial-to-good-order-and-discipline program is any indication, this general is in line for a General ********* type rise in power. He was the last AF leader in power that had so many "great" ideas. <removed name of former AFCoS...he doesn't need his name promoted any more...>

NICELY DONE!!! Keep fighting the good fight. If people are going to technically and methodically (not to mention in the most obnoxious way...) enforce the rules, we might as well be technically and methodically sitting on the edge of the rules without breaking them.

What incident? Just wanting to be clear on what we're talking about... Soooooo, we're all in agreement that we should PCS the REMFs to Happy Valley?

It actually served just that purpose during a flight I had. The BUFF checks that at 12,000 feet and as we passed 10,000, I checked my watch, which showed 10,500, indicating the jet was not properly pressurizing. While the AC also properly called out that the pressure gauge was reading the outside altitude and we all were to remain on the hose, he's also the only one with a gauge. We found the problem, fixed it, and continued on our mission. If that gauge fails, the AC misreads it, or the AC becomes incapacitated first due to a slow loss of cabin pressurization, there is no backup and no one else can verify that information. Kind of nice to have your own personal gauge... M1 Garand? NICE rifle. I'll take one too.

2 WTF is going on? Has the deid banned this website?

The pathfinder is awesome. That "little dim in low light" isn't a problem for the Pathfinder. It has a strong backlight; easy to read. Plus it has a feature that if you bring your arm up and tilt your wrist to look at it in low light, it will automatically light up. Worth every penny!

I personally can't see spending that much money on something that just keeps time (ok, it has a stopwatch and a nifty little gauge to tell you how fast you are going if that time is over a 1-mile distance...how often can you wag that?). If you are looking for a watch that is quite practical for aviation, I'm a huge fan of the pathfinder line from casio: altimeter, barometer, atomic clock, digital compass, thermometer, etc. http://pathfinder.casio.com/ Damn straight...

Time to do more with less, folks! (Pretty soon we'll be doing everything with nothing) http://www.military.com/news/article/af-to-jettison-3700-airmen.html?ESRC=airforce-a.nl My comments on the article WTF? We can't manage an extra 4000 people spread across the world? That's like more people at each base!?! As usual, the Air Force solution is to reduce the number of experienced, active duty experts in their fields while continuing recruiting efforts in the same manner. So we realized there was an experience gap and plussed up our forces. We have new missions in addition to the old ones...so we are cutting forces?!? Where's the logic in that?!?!

What would y'all want for Christmas? It can be anything military-related, aviation-related, cool kick-ass guy/gal stuff, books, movies, etc?

Let me first say I agree with the general tenor of the thread. The guy who flips burgers isn't a warrior. Is the guy who makes our food critical to the mission? Maybe. It depends on the location and the mission as well as the supplies available. I'm a flyer and I "make the mission happen", but let's not pretend that there aren't other missions out there. While ISR may not put a bullet in the head of someone directly, it may make diplomatic efforts more effective and the bullet unnecessary. That computer guy who is stopping you from accessing www.hotnakedfatchickswithbraces.com may not be a warrior, but part of his job is to make the computer products we use each day more effective and make our jobs significantly easier; while we COULD call for all of our NOTAMs, file a handwritten paper copy of the flight plan with base ops, get handwritten orders, etc, if you pile up enough of those problems, the mission can't get done due to crew rest. Moreover, that same guy that protects our network may have his next job attacking another country's network systems. I personally divide military tasks into four categories: mission (putting bombs on target or whatever your WING mission is; if you aren't on an ATO or some variation on that theme, you aren't doing the mission) critical (enabling someone to do the mission, but without your efforts the mission CAN'T get done) support (easing the restrictions/making jobs easier, without your efforts the mission CAN get done, but it will be more difficult) morale (if morale is too low, it can stop all 3 of the above, but it is separate from support) REMFs, shoeclerks, and RB advocates largely fall into the counterproduction arm of the Air Force. Unfortunately, these people attempt to kill all 4 of the above (usually unintentionally, but due to their own ignorance or arrogance) by attempting to make themselves feel more important. They enforce the letter of the law in such a ignorant/calloused manner that even if they are legitimately helping safety or accomplish the mission, their detrimental effects on morale outweigh any potential benefits.