Napoleon_Tanerite

Ok sir, I probably did exaggerate a bit with my comment. The USO shows and base improvements/niceties certainly do go a long way, and shame on anyone who doesn't appreciate that fact. As for the belts and other "queep" that has been highlighted in this thread and elsewhere-- I realize that leadership is very keen on one-size-fits-all approaches to problem solving, and I certainly understand their position on that. I know leaders hate griping about problems without good solutions in hand, so with that in mind, here are a few, in my opinion, good one-size-fits-all policies that are as easy to enforce as the current ones, while at the same time addressing and releiving some of the major "queep" concerns that many have. 1. The reflective belts. My easy fix to this is to simply say that you MUST have 360 reflectivity if you are traversing ANYWHERE that is readily accessible to vehicles. I understand that the RB is the AF's (not just AUAB) chosen means for making pedestrians more visible to vehicles, so employ the threat mitigation in a more targeted manner. The reality is that the MAJORITY of areas around AUAB are not accessible to vehicles, period. If you're not traversing on or across a road (for example a trip from your trailer to the cadillac or the bra) there should be no need for you to have a reflective belt. If your planned trip includes crossing a road, you need to have a belt with you to at least put on as you cross the roadway. This policy is enforceable just as easily as the current policy. If someone is seen on a road with a belt they should be stopped and corrected on the spot (well, not ON the spot-- clear the road first). It is 100% in line with the stated goal of RB wear and removes the ridiculousness of the current policy. If a vehicle is traversing areas not normally accessible to vehicles (i.e. CE servicing an air conditioner at a trailer) that vehicle is limited to idle speed with its emergency lights on. 2. The BPC and CC should be declared "residential areas" and have special, relaxed rules within the declared residential areas. You still have to wear your PT or duty uniform within the residential areas; however, you can wear crocs or closed toe sandals with back straps (same shoes that were allowed for years under the old policy). Furthermore you do not have to have your shirt tucked in within residential areas. Residential areas should also be declared "hat optional, no salute" areas. The CC and BPC are our homes when we're at AUAB and it would be nice to feel like we're "at home" at least a little bit. 3. The rest of the base is declared a "duty area". When in a duty area you must be in either your duty uniform or PTU up to the fullest standard of wear for that applicable uniform. If your duty section exists within a residential area (for example finance) personnel working in those areas must adhere to "duty area" standards. This includes airmen receiving service from such facilities. For example, if you're in the CC and going to finance, you must be up to duty area standards to receive service from finance. I think the above three changes would go a LONG way to improving morale on the base while at the same time having no negative effect on good order and discipline. In fact, it might actually improve GO&D due to the reduced conflicts between people breaking what they see as queep rules and someone confronting them over breaking those queep rules. I'm sure the concern then becomes "well, with as many people transit the base, how can we expect them to know the special rules at AUAB?" That solution is simple as well. EVERYONE has to transit customs and persco, correct? How hard is it to create a one page briefing pamphlet to be distributed with the rest of the welcome material? I see it as a 0% increase on the burden of ANYONE, while at the same time greatly improving the climate and morale at AUAB.

very doubtful unless it is coming from the congressional level-- how many generals do you think would willingly give up their tax free months for their one day trips to the AOR?

Sir, Sorry, but I have to disagree. At least from the operator's perspective, the mission does NOT come first at AUAB. The mission happens very much IN SPITE of the efforts of many people who are at AUAB and have lost sight of what is really going on and at stake there. If the mission truly came first at AUAB, aircrew would not be denied use of the restroom or dining facilities for lack of a reflective belt. If the mission truly came first at AUAB, finance wouldn't only be open 9-5 when the majority of the people at AUAB actually performing the mission are either flying, working on shift or in crew rest during that time. If the mission truly came first at AUAB, aircrew wouldn't be pulled out of crew rest (and thus off of combat sorties) because they needed to go to a right start briefing (the same briefing they attended 4 months prior when they were deployed to AUAB a previous trip). If the mission truly came first at AUAB, aircrew and maintainers just getting off of 12-18hr shifts could walk to the chow hall without being harassed by someone who works 9-5 about the PT shirt they put on after peeling off a sweat soaked flight suit or set of ABUs is "not tucked in enough". If the mission truly came first at AUAB, wear of the ONLY other authorized clothing other than a flight suit or ABUs (the PTU) would be as least restrictive as possible (for example, why were crocs and other comfortable shoes banned?) If the mission truly came first at AUAB, commanders of ops squadrons wouldn't be forced to pull additional duties on top of their 12-18hr work days launching combat missions to go run a reflective belt RAM in front of the chow hall denying the aforementioned airmen performing The Mission access to food because they don't have a reflective belt. EVERY one of the above examples has happened to either myself or a member of one of my crews or sq when deployed to AUAB... they're not some abstract thing, they're concrete examples of the kind of things that go on at AUAB that create the kind of strife you see there. Sir I realize that a lot of this can be boiled down to a bunch of boo-hooing by a bunch of spoiled pilots, but when you spend literally half of any given year (if not more) deployed to AUAB as many of us do, these things add up. How many times have we all been told that "perception is reality"? Well, the perception among many operators is that leadership as a whole is completely out of touch with the actual goings on at AUAB, and their efforts are a direct and significant detriment to morale, good order and discipline, and mission accomplishment. AUAB SHOULD be a shining beacon of high morale in the AF. It is one of the few places where airmen go to do their actual combat job. They're not training, they're doing their real, no-kidding, this-is-why-i-joined-the-Air-Force AFSC. I am EXTREMELY proud of the things I do at AUAB supporting combat operations on the ground, and I'm sure that it would be very difficult to find too many people at AUAB who didn't feel the same way about their actual duties at AUAB. It's the additional queep that wears down on people. Instead of accommodating airmen to the best extent possible to try to make their stay away from their home and family as pleasant as possible, there is a real perception that the opposite is true-- that leadership genuinely tries to make being deployed to AUAB as miserable as possible through pointless queep rules and half hearted, limp wristed explanations for the logic behind them (if the response isn't just "shut up and color"). We could go back and forth as to who is doing more damage to good order and discipline; however, my position is that I can't think of too many examples where people blatantly and willfully disregarded the rules and orders of AUAB. They may bitch piss and moan about it, but they do comply. Those who do not deserve to be corrected accordingly, but not in a manner that is just as prejudicial to good order and discipline as breaking the rules of AUAB in the first place (for example an E physically ripping a chow tray out of an LT's hand because he didn't have a reflective belt). My final point in this long and rambling post is regarding the lack of recourse. It seems that rules at AUAB are a one way street-- they come down from above, and any feedback from the people effected by them is greeted by responses that range from deafening silence to an extended digit that rests between the index finger and ring finger of any given hand. AUAB is the only base I've ever been at that doesn't have some sort of "climate survey" every other week, and I'm sure it's because leadership just doesn't want to hear how bad things really are there. Beneficial change can be affected from the top, and the first step is to actually listen to the airmen and CGOs who are out there doing The Mission. They're doing more than just bitching-- usually they have a good solution that we have yet to find a willing ear to tell.

I'd say to be VERY careful going down the road of disregarding AFIs. I'm sure you understand the difference between technique and procedure. I view AFIs as procedure, and not to be broken unless emergency circumstances dictate. TECHNIQUE is the realm of the leader. If the AFI says to do X, you do X, but so long as there isn't a specific prohibition against doing Y and Z first, do Y and Z first if it promotes mission accomplishment or does a better job taking care of your people. The major problem I see with a LOT of guys is that they read too far into the AFI, and insert things between the lines that aren't there, but they treat them like they were... invariable those inserta are shitty and exist just to make people miserable. The major advantage to the AF treating everyone like kindergartners is you can do ANYTHING once so long as you were not specifically briefed against it and there's no specific AFI forbidding it. I think the best piece of leadership advice I ever got came from my ROTC commander my senior year. He said "Exercise all power not specifically denied to you". Personally my litmus test for doing something is in my head I will try to get my story straight for how I'll explain it to the OG while wearing service dress and standing at the position of attention. If I can come up with something plausible, logical, and legal, it usually means it's a good decision. If I'm having to stretch, it's probably time to come up with a new plan.

You're on the right track with your example, and I really wish there was more of it going around. Another good example I saw in action was with our deployed location at Clownville. Our Sq/CC would organize regular briefings for the MX folks and bring them in on some of the things we were doing with our jet-- things we found and bad guys that got dead as a direct result of the dots generated by our airplane-- the plane that would never have taken off without the miracle work the MX guys did to get it to work. The solution to this misguided "warrior culture" horseshit is to guide it in the right direction. Most airmen buy into the bad side of the "warrior culture" for lack of being presented with the good side. If leaders, and I mean REAL leaders would directly tie their efforts to real results on the ops side, I think it would do a lot to channel a LOT of potential positive energy in the right direction, instead of getting people all fired up to be warriors, and then giving them no real fight to feel like they're supporting.

methinks there needs to be a letter writing campaign to AF Times pointing out just how far they are off the mark on this. This isn't about safety... I don't think anyone wants to make the AF "less safe" it's about priorities, and leadership's lack thereof. Cite examples such as aircrew being denied food after missions due to lack of belts, or guys being pulled out of crew rest (and thus off combat sorties) to go to "Right Start" even though they had been in the AOR on a previous deployment less than 6 months ago (no bullshit, happened to a guy on my crew last trip).

ALLEGEDLY, he was wearing his sunglasses on his head in the chow hall, a SSgt told him to take them off his head, he said "i don't take orders from airmen" so the SSgt got a LTC (who was in PTs) to come back him up, the Maj got mouthy and he was arrested for disrespecting a superior officer... I guess respecting superiors is a one way street.

that's easy.... just create a yahoo or gmail account from a public computer... the perfect crime

it's not just supersonic aircraft-- it's pretty much all LARGE aircraft. AFIK, all airliners use the entire horizontal stab for trim, as do most private jets. It's a matter that it simply takes too much force to trim a big airplane using the elevator surface alone.

can't really make out in the pic, but taking a guess I'd say it is marking where the stab trim is set to.

i think the real, underlying problem here is how "leaders" are developed in the Air Force. Not only is the Air Force risk averse, it will absolutely HAMMER you for daring to take such a risk. Thus, the most cowardly weenie around is seen as the best "company man" and thus most fitting to lead. Anyone who would take a risk to reap a reward is seen as too dangerous to lead, and thus must be weeded out. On top of that, you have the whole culture of deglorifying the flying aspect of the Air Force, ESPECIALLY pilots. How many times have you seen "official" propaganda, be it recruiting material, PME, etc that emphasize just how small the pilot force is ("not everyone in the AF is a pilot, in fact only 6.9% are!") and trying to prop up the shoe AFSCs as if their job is just as critical to hacking The Mission (capital T, capital M... aka, killing people and breaking their shit) as a pilot's. I'm sorry, but if you're not killing people and breaking their shit, you are SUPPORTING people who do. If you fly a tanker, you're giving gas to the guys who are killing people, if you're an ISR guy, you're finding the people who need killing, if you're a fighter guy you're making sure the guy who is killing people and breaking their shit doesn't get shot the hell down. And if you're not a pilot, you're on the next tier of mission support. If you're a MX guy, you're making sure the jets fly, if you're a services guy you're making sure the pilots are fed and get good rest, if you're a finance guy you're making sure the pilots are paid and happy.... Yes, The Mission doesn't happen without everyone, but there are only a select few actually performing The Mission, and MANY more in support of it. Back on track after that little rant-- the way this affects leadership (or the lack thereof) is the guys who make pilots as insignificant of a part of their world (even if they themselves are a pilot) and ingratiate themselves to the shoes are the ones who get ahead. Again, spineless cowards are promoted over warriors and mission hackers because they make people around them "feel good". Not sure how to correct it, because the machine of Big Blue is such that any LTs and Captains who have the correct amount of jaded salt on them to be good leaders get burnt out with the queep and bullshit by the time they make O-4 or O-5 and don't stay in long enough to make a real impact to fix the service. I've only got 4 years in and I can already see just how hard it will be to make it the next 16 to finish out, especially if we keep going down the road we're going down. And I have no idea how to really fix it.

didn't an IL-76 shoot down a chopper in afg during the Russian war there?

it was a trap, all officers were arrested.

not sure about others, but i've pushed this up through my chain last time I was at the deid, both through my squadron, and through wing safety, and got nowhere. My lowly 1Lt rank doesn't go far for making things like that happen. I'll fight the good fight through resistance, but this is a battle suited for O-4 and above I'm afraid.

fail. 1 year = 365.25 days, hence why every four years we have a leap year, containing 366 days

some of our guys had this patch made up, figured you guys would get a kick out of it

hopefully. every media outlet has missed the mark so far. this isn't about the belts, this is about the queep

2!

I'm not sure if there is actually an 11-2E-8v3... I think the entire operation of the MWS is based on "the way it's always been done" *disclaimer: there really is a v3 and I've read it and heed every word!

lulz.... gotta watch out for those homo 135 pilots from TYS

i've dealt with AIM on many occasions. They're good people, buy with confidence

I used to be in the cadet program back when I was in high school. I got out partly due to going off to college and partly due to burnout with poor leadership and douchebaggery among the senior members. I'm thinking of getting back in as a senior member, but am not sure if I should. My biggest reason for wanting to get back in is a desire to provide mentorship for current cadets. I hated how the senior members were when I was a cadet and I'd like to provide a positive influence for current cadets. On top of that, I'm also interested in getting into CAP flying, if not for the SAR aspect of it, at least for the training and proficiency aspect of it. The problem is I'm deployed anywhere from 4 to 6 months out of the year in addition to my normal home station work time commitments. The listed meeting time for the local CAP squadron is compatible with my normal home station work schedule though. So my question to current CAP members-- is it worth it? Would it be feasible for me to join CAP and be able to get out of it what I'm looking to get out of the experience?

i'd rather wear a reflective belt and have pockets than the other way around. no more murse!

Word on the street is there are TWO new varieties of PT shorts out there. The first kind is the marathon shorts which are shorter and lighter, and those are confirmed to exist. The other kind I've heard about (but have yet to see in person) are supposedly a longer pair with POCKETS. Does such a new PTU short exist, and if so, is it worth me dropping some coin on it before I head back the the Deid in another month?

did you actually have the grapes to send it to him? If you did, BRAVO! I gotta admit my bean bag isn't stuffed THAT full to do something like that, unless I cooked up an anonymous @yahoo email address and lobbed that grenade from behind SOLID cover.