?s on ADSC (Active Duty Service Commitment)

[Jaded]

49 minutes ago, FLEA said:

If you are on a dependent restricted tour and decide to 7-day opt because of this BS requal ADSC, what happens? Does your DEROS and DOS get moved to the day your ADSC ends and you are stuck without your family for potentially 3-4 years? Asking for a friend. 

You ask as if you think anybody thought about any of these things before changing this reg.

[ThreeHoler]

If you are on a dependent restricted tour and decide to 7-day opt because of this BS requal ADSC, what happens? Does your DEROS and DOS get moved to the day your ADSC ends and you are stuck without your family for potentially 3-4 years? Asking for a friend. 

Your friend should ask this question in the MAF Assignments Facebook page. They are pushing all questions and feedback like this up to HAF. No guarantee HAF will un themselves but worth a try to get relief from this policy.

[Fuzz]

Updates we received said this only applies to those returning from a different airframe/staff. This does not (for now) apply to long term DNIF, overdue checkrides, Q3s etc requals.

[Guest]

Updates we received said this only applies to those returning from a different airframe/staff. This does not (for now) apply to long term DNIF, overdue checkrides, Q3s etc requals.

Still sucks if you get tapped for a non flying assignment at around the 7 year mark, or 15 on if you’re planning on staying til 20. Then your options are get out with no recency or incur an ADSC for doing your primary fvcking job during a pilot shortage.

[Motofalcon]

10 hours ago, Fuzz said:

Updates we received said this only applies to those returning from a different airframe/staff. This does not (for now) apply to long term DNIF, overdue checkrides, Q3s etc requals.

Yeah, well given how the AFPC folks responded back when the AFI had two conflicting notes (always pick the note that kept the member in sts), I'm pretty sure that now if it it came down to the AFI vs "a guy at the porch told me"  there is a 0.0% Pk of being let out of an ADSC. I won't believe it until there is a written change to the reg. 

[pawnman]

15 hours ago, Fuzz said:

Updates we received said this only applies to those returning from a different airframe/staff. This does not (for now) apply to long term DNIF, overdue checkrides, Q3s etc requals.

Don't most of those cases involve a PCS anyway?

[HossHarris]

18 hours ago, Fuzz said:

Updates we received said this only applies to those returning from a different airframe/staff. This does not (for now) apply to long term DNIF, overdue checkrides, Q3s etc requals.

Get it in writing ....

[Jaded]

"They told me on Facebook that I wouldn't have an ADSC!" 

[cragspider]

I’ll share this with the group. It was posted on the MAF fb page that the AFI is under review at HAF. Once that review is complete it will be shared with the group.  So hopefully all of our gripes and issues with this change can be at least heard and possibly addressed. 

 

However I’m not holding out much hope for this change to be reversed. While with the number of folks saying that they are going to 7 day opt and walk hopefully that will open their eyes to the stupidity of this new change. 

[LookieRookie]

44 minutes ago, cragspider said:

I’ll share this with the group. It was posted on the MAF fb page that the AFI is under review at HAF. Once that review is complete it will be shared with the group.  So hopefully all of our gripes and issues with this change can be at least heard and possibly addressed. 

 

However I’m not holding out much hope for this change to be reversed. While with the number of folks saying that they are going to 7 day opt and walk hopefully that will open their eyes to the stupidity of this new change. 

You mean HAF is doing a "review" after the AFI mandatory review/coordination A1 had to do in order to publish the new version?

Aka: We've investigated ourselves and have found no evidence of wrong doing.

 

Lip service because while this "review" goes on it's the letter of the law.

Edited August 10, 2018 by LookieRookie

[cragspider]

12 minutes ago, LookieRookie said:

You mean HAF is doing a "review" after the AFI mandatory review/coordination A1 had to do in order to publish the new version?

Aka: We've investigated ourselves and have found no evidence of wrong doing.

 

Lip service because while this "review" goes on it's the letter of the law.

Yeah, from what it sounds like none of the MAJCOM A1’s where coorded on the new AFI. So maybe that’s why they are reviewing it? Who knows, but you are correct it is the letter of the law. 

[Fuzz]

11 hours ago, Jaded said:

"They told me on Facebook that I wouldn't have an ADSC!" 

Sad that it’s mostly come to that, watching SQ/CC ask on a facebook page why they are finding official news from a Facebook page instead of official channels is entertaining.

Also that info came from my commander in response to a direct question.

[HU&W]

4 hours ago, LookieRookie said:

You mean HAF is doing a "review" after the AFI mandatory review/coordination A1 had to do in order to publish the new version?

Aka: We've investigated ourselves and have found no evidence of wrong doing.

 

Lip service because while this "review" goes on it's the letter of the law.

They can publish a GM to immediately 'fix the glitch' while it goes through full review or awaits republication of the next version.  This would restore some level of the institutional integrity that was lost by them saying one thing and doing another.

[WheelsOff]

1 hour ago, Fuzz said:

Sad that it’s mostly come to that, watching SQ/CC ask on a facebook page why they are finding official news from a Facebook page instead of official channels is entertaining.

Also that info came from my commander in response to a direct question.

And how much you wanna bet his source was the MAF FB page? 😂

Edited August 11, 2018 by WheelsOff

[ThreeHoler]

They can publish a GM to immediately 'fix the glitch' while it goes through full review or awaits republication of the next version.  This would restore some level of the institutional integrity that was lost by them saying one thing and doing another.

If by immediately you mean 2-3 weeks then sure.

But yes, it can be in writing very quickly.

[jice]

1 hour ago, HU&W said:

They can publish a GM to immediately 'fix the glitch' while it goes through full review or awaits republication of the next version.  This would restore some level of the institutional integrity that was lost by them saying one thing and doing another.

But that would admit fallibility. Wouldn’t want to sew seeds of doubt. Might damage credibility...

Does anybody have SA on real labor-force experts being commissioned on a long-term basis on the retention issue? A task force of pilots/personnellists is an anecdotal perspective; the behavior of a unique/specialized labor force is probably not intuitive or conducive to analysis from untrained folks whose in-group perspective prevents objectivity.

I bet a rigorous, multi-disciplinary assessment (as opposed to the process-as-product spreadsheets and voice-of-the-Uncited PowerPoints we tend to produce) would be an interesting read. Like to see it if it exists. 

[FourFans]

But that would admit fallibility. Wouldn’t want to sew seeds of doubt. Might damage credibility...
Does anybody have SA on real labor-force experts being commissioned on a long-term basis on the retention issue?

Maybe Debbie James can help.

[ThreeHoler]

But that would admit fallibility. Wouldn’t want to sew seeds of doubt. Might damage credibility...
Does anybody have SA on real labor-force experts being commissioned on a long-term basis on the retention issue? A task force of pilots/personnellists is an anecdotal perspective; the behavior of a unique/specialized labor force is probably not intuitive or conducive to analysis from untrained folks whose in-group perspective prevents objectivity.
I bet a rigorous, multi-disciplinary assessment (as opposed to the process-as-product spreadsheets and voice-of-the-Uncited PowerPoints we tend to produce) would be an interesting read. Like to see it if it exists. 

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR1400/RR1455/RAND_RR1455.pdf

[Chuck17]

14 hours ago, cragspider said:

Yeah, from what it sounds like none of the MAJCOM A1’s where coorded on the new AFI. So maybe that’s why they are reviewing it? Who knows, but you are correct it is the letter of the law. 

Not totally accurate... the MAJCOMs cut on this change. And because there are next to no bag-wearers working in A-1s, many MAJCOMs sent no comments. The few that did send back critical non-concur’s were effectively ignored. 

Part of this problem is that from the top-down the manpower/personnel folks have been allowed to do their jobs from strictly a manpower/personnel perspective, and completely decoupled from the pulse of the force. This started most recently in the James era (last bag-wearing A-1 was LtGen Sam Cox, who fought James and lost) and has continued, filtering down to the MAJCOMs. The willful ignorance of current ops in the -1’s the last couple of years has been astounding. What’s worse is nobody’s stopped the madness... 

But when the only bag-wearer you’re accountable to is the CSAF, it should surprise nobody that this happened. How can the lowest level of integration be the four-button-in-charge...?!

All that said, this is exactly as it appears to be - an extension of your Service Commitment by other means (*or means other than stop-loss) based on the data available for the demographics the AF targeted for “retention.” It was 100% intentional. 

Occam’s Razor, not Hanlon’s Razor... I’m happy to be proven wrong, but I don’t think that’s the case.

Chuck

edit: clarity

Edited August 11, 2018 by Chuck17

[ThreeHoler]

Not totally accurate... the MAJCOMs cut on this change. And because there are next to no bag-wearers working in A-1s, many MAJCOMs sent no comments. The few that did send back critical non-concur’s were effectively ignored. 
Part of this problem is that from the top-down the manpower/personnel folks have been allowed to do their jobs from strictly a manpower/personnel perspective, and completely decoupled from the pulse of the force. This started most recently in the James era (last bag-wearing A-1 was LtGen Sam Cox, who fought James and lost) and has continued, filtering down to the MAJCOMs. The willful ignorance of current ops in the -1’s the last couple of years has been astounding. What’s worse is nobody’s stopped the madness... 
But when the only bag-wearer you’re accountable to is the CSAF, it should surprise nobody that this happened. How can the lowest level of integration be the four-button-in-charge...?!
All that said, this is exactly as it appears to be - an extension of your Service Commitment by other means (*or means other than stop-loss) based on the data available for the demographics the AF targeted for “retention.” It was 100% intentional. 
Occam’s Razor, not Hanlon’s Razor... I’m happy to be proven wrong, but I don’t think that’s the case.
Chuck
edit: clarity

If a critical comment was rejected un-adjudicated then that is still a MAJCOM failure since critical comments essentially mean the MAJCOM/CC non-concurs with the reg as written.

However, at least in A3, most of the MAJCOM “critical” comments are admin comments at best...and when queried about the comment the MAJCOMs usually say that they don’t really care about it but some GS-11 thought it was important.

Not defending the other HAF weenies, but there is blame to go around if MAJCOMs truly did critical comment this change to the AFI.

[jazzdude]

So how do you fix no bag wearers in A-1? Staffs are all already short, and many pilots would rather get out than go to staff.

Companion trainers so staff can keep flying would be a good start. But it's probably already too little, too late.

[dream big]

12 hours ago, HU&W said:

They can publish a GM to immediately 'fix the glitch' while it goes through full review or awaits republication of the next version.  This would restore some level of the institutional integrity that was lost by them saying one thing and doing another.

Yepp, kind of like the MAF AFMAN vol 1, two interim changes in 1 month and still haven’t gotten it right with utter confusion across the squadrons.  But still, better than nothing. 

[BADFNZ]

3 hours ago, Chuck17 said:

Occam’s Razor, not Hanlon’s Razor... I’m happy to be proven wrong, but I don’t think that’s the case.

Chuck

 

I don't care who's razor it is, just give it to me so I can slit my wrists and be done with this.

[jice]

1 hour ago, jazzdude said:

So how do you fix no bag wearers in A-1? Staffs are all already short, and many pilots would rather get out than go to staff.

 

The best way is to make going to staff as a flyer even less palatable with a de facto half-decade ADSC if they want to fly again.

[Fuzz]

3 hours ago, dream big said:

Yepp, kind of like the MAF AFMAN vol 1, two interim changes in 1 month and still haven’t gotten it right with utter confusion across the squadrons.  But still, better than nothing. 

I literally have no idea what I need for currency between the Published Vol 1, the released admendments, the cluster that is ARMS in both the AF wide change and the fact that ARMs doesn’t reflect our new Vol 1 plus all our logging sheets for sorties are now outdated.