BQZip01

Anyone have any other ideas? My wife has an embroidery machine and I am SO going to make a few of these. Right now I have "UCME" and "IHRB" to be sewn onto old reflective belts. I'll let y'all know how they turn out. I wore mine for a roof stomp on Friday. The outgoing Minot Wing/CC thought it was hilarious.

SHACKED! I'm gonna have to disagree with you there. Our commanders are also subordinates. They are obligated to follow orders. However, they should also voice their concerns through appropriate channels. If the Wing Commander wants to make a stupid rule, we have to follow it. Passive resistance, to a certain extent (to emphasize the problem is all right; people have to able to blow of steam or they will explode), is fine. But outright disobedience is not. A squadron commander should take orders (even those he protested) and say, "Guys, we are doing XYZ now." He is a leader and those orders from the commander need to be appropriately followed and disseminated. It shouldn't matter if they came from the CAOC, NAF, Wing, Group, or Squadron level. As long as it is a valid order, it should be followed. Passing the buck by saying, "The Wing Commander says we have to do XYZ from now on," is poor leadership. The squadron commander should stand up and say, "We're gonna do XYZ from now on. If you have any concerns, bring it up through your chain of command," and deal with those concerns appropriately. It is BS to say to a subordinate, "Listen, I know you have a concern about it, but I'm not going to bring that up. It'll just get shot down." That is acquiescence, not leadership or followership. The Squadron Commanders answer to the GROUP Commander, not the Wing King. They should voice their concerns to their Group Commanders, preferably en masse. The solution here is for the group commanders to get together and discuss it and come up with a unanimous concern to bring to their Group Commander WITH a solution. That way, the Gp/CC can tell the Wg/CC, "100% of my commanders have a problem with this and propose the following to alleviate that concern..." The rest of your assessment is right on the mark or at least is the impression that leadership is giving.

Make sure you designate a drop off area...like the chow hall or the BRA. Perhaps you should "seed" the project by dropping off a few bottles filled with lemonade...

CONFESSSSSSSSS!

Blamestorm (verb): "To brainstorm about ways to blame others or publicly assign blame"

At least you wouldn't have to leave your room to take a leak... ...The problem is not the reflective belts; we all want people to be safe. It is the excessive mandated use (why do you need it if you aren't going anywhere near a road? Why on earth would you need it indoors? Why would you need it to eat?) and the punitive actions taken against those who say, "wait a minute, this doesn't make sense." The commanders needs to stand up and ask for some common sense to lead the way. If you still want to be anal about it, make a rule that no one can be within 30 feet of a road at night without a reflective belt on...or better yet, simply provide adequate lighting to make the belts unnecessary.

http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-43639120091103

This would be called "cooking the books" but it results from a maintenance group that views every opportunity of conflict with the ops group as an "Us versus Them" battle that must be won so they don't look bad. Its the bean counters that only care about the number of jets that take off. The solution is to hold both the Ops AND Mx responsible if a sortie doesn't get off the ground. We fail as a WING, not as a group. While someone may indeed be to blame, it doesn't change the fact that a jet didn't get off the ground and training/combat didn't get done. We can't bicker amongst ourselves; we have to generate sorties! A few things need to be accepted: 1. Things break 2. People get sick Now we should do everything we can to mitigate those, but accept that they happen and do what you can to prevent/minimize them.

Hell, he's even good for being an Eagle guy!

on a related topic...

Wow...just wow... Call me strange, but it seems to me there is a simpler solution here. Let the squadron commanders deal with their own personnel. If Johnny no-brains has the gaul to intentionally ignore the lawful orders of a full bird Colonel, then you ask him for the name of his supervisor and bring it up with them. The problem is that this would result in confrontation by people who don't want to be confrontational and some people would slip through the cracks because they are "too cool" to follow the rules or too wimpy to confront someone. Guess what, that means you have to take responsibility for your people and do the right thing even if its difficult. Now this entire statement is irrespective of whether or not the belt is a good or bad idea. The problem here is that this rule and its overbearing enforcement is significantly disproportionate with the safety risk involved. More importantly, they are not providing firm guidance "I'm not going to dictate how you do it..." which will invariably lead to someone taking it too far. Then there is the lack of common sense: why do you need a reflective belt if you aren't going anywhere near a street? From what I remember, most people can walk to the BRA, the bar, the BX, etc without crossing a road. If so, then what is the problem? Why do you need a reflective belt? It is simply impractical. If they are really going to go this route, here's the nice-guy, simple solution. Simply have a table set up in front of the BX checking IDs and uniforms. If someone isn't in uniform and refuses to change, simply take down their name & unit and let them go on their merry way. Then send the names to the squadron commanders and let THEM deal with it. I think this reflects poorly on the leadership if this is such a hot-button issue. I contend there are significantly more important things to do than waste so much time on this. I think this is the result of having too much down time. If people were there to do a job and do a job only, this wouldn't be a problem. Instead, unlike when I was there, guys have 5 days of work 8-10 hours a day. This leads to excessive down time in a "combat zone". Invariably, these folks are going to have too much free time and get into trouble. For some reason, leadership seems to think reflective belts are the problem. I should also note that even General Patton made his troops wear ties into battle. The difference with him is that he told his troops to do it and they respected him enough to comply.

Actually, the Marines have never been permitted to wear the reflective belts (by their regulations). If boneheads in the Air Force think they can make someone violate the rules of their chain of command or they don't eat, they are sorely mistaken. Even the guys at Gitmo eat better than that... ...some to think of it, why aren't the prisoners wearing any reflective clothing?...

Nicely done...

I couldn't agree more. I know many guys who washed out of UPT and went on to do very well in the "back-seater" role (to include my father who retired as an O-6). I also know others who SIE'd from UPT and UNT who did superbly in follow-on career choices. The difference between these and those who didn't do well is largely attitude. Those who SIE'd knew they didn't want to fly under the circumstances of the Air Force training complex, but they still tried their hardest; they just didn't want it. Those who washed out were in the same boat: tried their hardest, but just didn't succeed. If you are bitter about the whole experience, it will reflect in your OPRs and your life-lessons. Also, realize that if you SIE, you won't be a navigator/WSO/CSO/EWO or UAV driver (if you get intel, there's still a chance you could fly). In any case best of luck to you on your decision. Let us know how it turns out. Yes, and there usually are a couple dozen of these each year as guys fail medical evaluations or SIE prior to the start of UPT.

So...you're saying there's a difference... ...interesting...

I think it is important to note that no one here is against following the rules, per se, but we're merely stating that rules need to make sense and have a reason. If the rationale was "safety first" and everyone wears a belt even if you are wearing PT gear, I think that would have a LOT less flak. The problem is that the rationale given is "we need to standardize how we enforce the standards." Well, WTF? You are going out of your way to make people's lives more complicated so people can come up with a self-appointed duty (pretty sure that no one deployed as a "reflective belt hall monitor") to harass people in an alleged war zone? Our personnel can tell an AIM-9 from an AIM-120; I think they can figure out if someone is wearing a reflective belt or reflective PT gear and just let them go. Then we have the genius who takes it a step further and orders that people have to wear it indoors...WTF? What is the purpose of a reflective belt anyway? It's to protect you from getting hit by a vehicle. Call me strange, but it seems that if there is a need to wear a belt indoors, perhaps the safety focus needs to be on the drivers who are causing the safety issue... Then you have TCNs enforce the policy because some Light Colonel doesn't have the balls to stand up there and face the troops himself?

And therein lies the problem: Anyone publicly and arrogantly correcting a superior in public in such a manner is "conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline. Airman Snuffy has the obligation to let Capt Nutsinavice when his uniform is improper, but he should do it quietly and respectfully; I've told Colonels they were out of uniform (i.e. collar turned up), but done so respectfully and offered to help them fix it. The problem here is Airman Snuffy is a shirt who is blatantly calling out officers in front of enlisted troops. They may be 100% correct (for the sake of argument only, I'll concede they are right about the reflective belt), but the manner in which they are enforcing it violates the UCMJ. Then let's go to the level that "leadership" endorses this buffoonery and that, IMNSHO, shows an abdication of leadership and violates many core principles to include the UCMJ. Which is the bigger foul here? Good job helping out guys from not getting smacked around... ...but this doesn't help the rebellion...

Promote that man!

1. Wing Safety is really that stupid? "How can we enforce the standard..."? WTF!?!? The standard is already spelled out for you: PT gear=reflectivity & no need for an additional belt. If they aren't wearing reflective PT gear, then they need a belt. This is NOT difficult to grasp. 2. Wing Safety encouraging you to go through your first sergeant is an amazing abdication of authority by the officer corps. They are the leadership of the Air Force, not the first shirts! Step up and be a leader! Officers shouldn't have to get 1st Sgt approval before things get done. IMNSHO, you should get every officer (and enlisted if you want) together who agrees with you and go to your COMMANDER. Where the hell is the leadership?!?! ...oh wait, this is the 'deid... AUABI XX-SUCKIT doesn't matter if higher headquarters directs otherwise. If an AFI and local instruction are in conflict, the AFI wins. In this case HHQ has uncharacteristically come up with the common sense solution. Characteristically, the 'deid has seen fit to ignore common sense... And good on you for following orders from HHQ in the face of stupidity at lower levels! I assume you've been able to eat chow?

Sounds like an interesting "article", slacker... ...kinda early to be so drunk, but whatever floats your boat...

"Call the cops"? WTF? If this is a discipline issue, you call his supervisor (or anyone up his chain of command), not the cops. Wearing Crocs isn't a crime... ...yet...?... ROTFLMAO We want to hear results! ...might want to carry a copy of the AFCENTI with you...

Common sense at the 'deid?!? I don't know about you guys, but I'm looking for four horsemen...

Wait... ...what?... Did anyone bother to check the latitude, longitude, and average temperatures before writing that piece of garbage?

Be glad she didn't listen to the ACLU; she would have been sued and LOST. You don't give up your free speech rights just to live in an apartment. While they have control over the appearance of their property, they certainly have NO control over what car you drive or what it has on it. The irony... You ban the very symbol of peace and freedom from oppression...to preserve peace... Typical liberal hippie nonsense and this is why the military is viewed as peacekeepers, not instruments of war. In other words, he has no spine and won't tell you when you are right or wrong=the worst kind of boss.

When the AFI says "it is not required to tuck in your shirt." and some genius says, "In my command, we will all tuck in our shirts" When is AF leadership going to stand up and say, "Hey, dipstick! We gave our troops an option for a good reason: it's friggin' uncomfortable to wear it tucked in and forcing them to tuck it in allows assho1e shoeclerks to nag people about something else. Let them do as they please and leave 'em alone."