Leadership at the 'Deid

[JS]

Would someone please forward this thread to all deployed base commanders? They obviously have no f'ing clue.

Oh, also note that the Wing King himself personally is aware of, endorses, and defends these policies. I went to two CGO meetings where he had an open forum, and it got brought up in both of them. His response was that we all need to be standardized with the Army and everyone else on the base. He also spoke to use at Right Start and was asked again about the stupidity (saluting in PT gear, reflective belts, etc). He gave the same response, and threw in something about "it is just not that hard to wear a reflective belt and salute, etc." I then ran into one of our senior NCO's who just returned from a Senior NCO dinner/open forum with the general similar to our CGO meeting. I asked him if anyone brought up the stupidity factor at the dinner. Nope; the general preemptively brought it up with a "I know people are going to ask about reflective belts and saluting in PT gear, but...." and gave the same responses.

Bottom line, making him aware is not the issue. Changing his mind is (although I have a sneaking suspicion that one of the multi-stars at AUAB might have prodded him a little to support the stupidity rules).

One would think that after your CGO's, your NCO's, your squadron CC's, and your airmen all bring up how the mass stupidity is watering down the credibility and effectiveness of the military leadership, you would act. Instead, they increase the intensity of the stupidity and give Major doucebags like the services CC more support. I agree that the gay belt and saluting in PT gear is not that big a deal, but putting a stop to the stupidity train before it really runs off the track is important, so I say fight this one and keep bringing it up to the so-called “leadership.”

[Guest Hueypilot812]

I agree that the gay belt and saluting in PT gear is not that big a deal, but putting a stop to the stupidity train before it really runs off the track is important, so I say fight this one and keep bringing it up to the so-called “leadership.”

It has nothing to do with how "easy" or "difficult" it is to wear a reflective belt or any of the other dozens of uniform queep issues. The problem is the focus those items get from the leadership. Leaders are more concerned with that crap, they miss the entire big picture. It's not just uniforms either, it has crept into the operational side. I distinctively remember back when I was a basic AC and arriving at Balad in 2006. The ORBD leadership put a new NOTAM out stating that all C-130s will shut down their inboards during EROs (even though this is NOT standard procedure anywhere else, and increases the risk of having a broken jet taking up ramp space). We pressed to test and asked ATOC for a 4-engine ERO, and they said approved (FYI, it was also February, so heat wasn't an issue either). So we offloaded the cargo, and got everything uploaded. Just as the loads were pushing the last pallet on, ground called and told us to go up on the SOF freq. So we call the SOF, and he said their OG/CC saw us doing a 4-engine ERO and wanted us to shut down our inboards. Right then, the load stated they were locking down the last pallet, so I stated "well, we're about to taxi so it's moot now, but thanks for the heads up". So just a minute later, as the loads called "Cleared to taxi", ATOC called us stating the OG/CC was standing in their building demanding we shut down our inboards. I called them and said "we're taxiing now". ATOC's response? "The O-6 said you MUST shut down your inboards". I responded "Copy, will do next time" and we taxied and departed. Our DO got the phone call from the pissed off O-6 and asked what happened...he had our back stating their ATOC was to blame for approving the 4-engine ERO. But these days, you won't find leadership like that outside the squadron anymore, and even in some squadrons the DO would have sold us up the river.

IMO, reflective belts are just a symbol of short-sighted leadership gone wrong. Sure, we can all wear them, and it's easy, but that's not the point. Bottom line, they don't get it.

[JS]

It has nothing to do with how "easy" or "difficult" it is to wear a reflective belt or any of the other dozens of uniform queep issues. The problem is the focus those items get from the leadership. Leaders are more concerned with that crap, they miss the entire big picture. It's not just uniforms either, it has crept into the operational side. I distinctively remember back when I was a basic AC and arriving at Balad in 2006. The ORBD leadership put a new NOTAM out stating that all C-130s will shut down their inboards during EROs (even though this is NOT standard procedure anywhere else, and increases the risk of having a broken jet taking up ramp space). We pressed to test and asked ATOC for a 4-engine ERO, and they said approved (FYI, it was also February, so heat wasn't an issue either). So we offloaded the cargo, and got everything uploaded. Just as the loads were pushing the last pallet on, ground called and told us to go up on the SOF freq. So we call the SOF, and he said their OG/CC saw us doing a 4-engine ERO and wanted us to shut down our inboards. Right then, the load stated they were locking down the last pallet, so I stated "well, we're about to taxi so it's moot now, but thanks for the heads up". So just a minute later, as the loads called "Cleared to taxi", ATOC called us stating the OG/CC was standing in their building demanding we shut down our inboards. I called them and said "we're taxiing now". ATOC's response? "The O-6 said you MUST shut down your inboards". I responded "Copy, will do next time" and we taxied and departed. Our DO got the phone call from the pissed off O-6 and asked what happened...he had our back stating their ATOC was to blame for approving the 4-engine ERO. But these days, you won't find leadership like that outside the squadron anymore, and even in some squadrons the DO would have sold us up the river.

IMO, reflective belts are just a symbol of short-sighted leadership gone wrong. Sure, we can all wear them, and it's easy, but that's not the point. Bottom line, they don't get it.

I agree with the lack of focus. Here is a timeline of major events at AUAB in early October:

Saturday, October 3rd - The largest firefight in years occurs in Waristan, Northern Afghanistan. 8 Americans and over 100 bad guys are killed

Monday, October 5th - there "happens" to be a large Fallen Warrior ceremony here outside of a C-17 returning from Afghanistan

Wednesday, October 7th - another Fallen Warrior ceremony with 4 caskets passes through AUAB from Afghanistan

Thursday, October 8th - AUAB 36-2903 "Change 1" comes out to highlight the importance of why we are here and what we are fighting for.

That is where the fucking priorities are these days. Here's to the guys who passed through here on the way home to their final resting place while the management was thinking up new stupid regs:

[loadsmith]

I don't believe that wearing reflective belts and saluting is going to go away anytime soon nor do I see it as a major problem. My main problem is watching people being turned away from eating because of a lack of a reflective belt or being asked by the services folks who should be monitoring the TCNs or making sure the food is the right freaking temperature enforcing this policy. I am trying to find the legality and importance of the EFSS CC placing signs in his facilities stating that during hours of darkness "no belt, no service." This is not addressed in any reg that I know of. I have found the only 2 references I could find and unless you define "anywhere" as indoors as well then I am clueless to his logic.

AL UDEID AIR BASE INSTRUCTION 91-1001 21 November 2008 Safety

15.1. All personnel will wear around their waist a reflective belt that is visible from 360 degrees any time they are outdoors during hours of darkness or reduced visibility anywhere on the installation, regardless of the uniform or civilian clothing being worn

AUABI 36-2903

6.1.4. Reflective Tape, Belts, Jackets, and Arm Bands. For safety purposes, all members assigned to/transiting the installation will wear a reflective belt during all hours of darkness or reduced visibility to provide 360-degree visibility of member. When reflective belt wear is required, it must be visible at all times (not under clothing etc.).

Edited October 23, 2009 by loadsmith

[Disco_Nav963]

But... 2.3.10.2 "Because of the reflective nature of the AFPTU, COMUSAFCENT considers the AFPTU uniform as the equivalent of a 'reflective belt' in joint and combined domains."

So AFPTU should = reflective belt under AUABI 91-1001.

Who is the apellate authority for stuff like this? AFCENT/A1 who issued the contradictory guidance? AFCENT IG? JAG?

Update:

Here is the e-mail I sent to the DO, the e-mail I drafted to the EFSS/CC, and the response from the DO.

---

Maj ----,

For your comment before I hit “Send,” here is the text of an e-mail I’ve drafted to Maj Kopecki (the EFSS/CC) in response to an incident that happened last night at the CC Chow Hall. Knowing the ongoing friction between people in the EFSS and people in Ops, transient personnel, etc. I’ve tried to make it as diplomatic as possible. Please advise if you think there is a better way of wording this or simply a better COA altogether. Sorry to bring something so queepy to your attention.

Very respectfully,

1Lt ----

----

Sir,

Last night I was kicked out of the Independence DFAC by a MSgt --- who told me you were his supervisor. He initially refused to serve me the T-Bone steak I requested due to my not having a reflective belt with me “during hours of darkness.” He remained obstinate even after I explained to him that the new USAFCENTI 36-2903 superseded the previous local policy (para. 2.3.10.2, “Wear of the reflective belt is not required in the AFPTU. Because of the reflective nature of the AFPTU, COMUSAFCENT considers the AFPTU uniform as the equivalent of a “reflective belt” in joint and combined domains.”*) and showed him the regulation.

I then proceeded to serve myself from the salad bar and he physically grabbed my tray and told me to leave. Not wanting to create a scene, I asked him who his supervisor was and left. I was forced to buy my own dinner from Burger King.

I’m sure MSgt ---- was well intentioned and simply trying to enforce the policies he was familiar with; I would appreciate it if you would make sure he understands the new reflective belt policy and that the individual in PTs whose tray he decides to grab (raising all kinds of issues) just might be an officer.

Very respectfully,

<signature block snip>

* Also see AFI 33-360, para. 2.3 “Conflicting Publications. When guidance in a publication issued by a field unit conflicts with the guidance issued by a higher-level unit, the higher-level publication takes precedence.”

---------- And response -------------

---,

I understand the frustration....it's a hard line when you don't let our

Airmen eat and enforcement muddles the lines of respect. Unfortunately the

wing has the authority to make our instruction or supplement more

restrictive than the USAFCENT Instruction. So your statement is incorrect in

that sense.

I/the Shirt are also concerned that they have not properly warned/prepared

the AUAB populace of the impending rule enforcement as well as the resultant

denial of service. I will talk with the EFSS leadership, convey these

concerns and suggest that another form of violation tracking/enforcement be

implemented. My thought was to write down names and infractions and make

commanders address it with their personnel. Not sure if it will be accepted

but will try.

If acceptable to you I and the Shirt will take this incident to the EFSS

staff in hopes of changing the enforcement process. I'll follow up with you

afterwards.

R/Maj ---.

-------------and my response-------------

Sir,

I'll let you and the Shirt deal with the EFSS — this is definitely not the issue I want to be known for around camp, and I do appreciate it.

Speaking only for myself, I think the wing is mistaken in this case. AFI 33-360 para. 2.9 says verbatim, “Supplementary guidance cannot be less restrictive than the basic publication, but it can be more restrictive. Supplementary guidance must not contradict the basic publication.” (Page 41) The second sentence is as valid as the first and given that the contradictory guidance was issued by an organization HQed here and the lengths to which they emphasize its applicability in “joint and combined domains” (their wording), I think they almost certainly had AUAB in mind. That said, I’m going to shut up and color.

Very respectfully,

<signature block snip>

[funny_haha]

One of our guys has to go see the Squadron CC today because some shirt jumped his ass in the gym for having his shirt untucked while lifting weights. This is getting out of hand, I am glad I am leaving in 42 days.

[Vertigo]

One of our guys has to go see the Squadron CC today because some shirt jumped his ass in the gym for having his shirt untucked while lifting weights. This is getting out of hand, I am glad I am leaving in 42 days.

Pfft... The Squadron CC? No biggie considering he could have been arrested.

Edited October 23, 2009 by Vertigo

[brickhistory]

One of our guys has to go see the Squadron CC today because some shirt jumped his ass in the gym for having his shirt untucked while lifting weights. This is getting out of hand, I am glad I am leaving in 42 days.

I hope the guy will ask the SQ/CC "Why?"

Politely and respectfully, but a simple question of "Why is this buffoonery being tolerated? Is the price of "good order and discipline" vs. the asspain of this clerking to the nth degree something he or she, personally, agrees with?

[slacker]

I haven't been to the deid in years, so feel free to ignore the post below-

Here's the deal- Rules are rules- stupid or not, they're still the rules. Most "leaders" could give a shit about reflective belt policies or saluting in PT. They know the rules are asinine and know they serve little purpose, but they have a real job or mission with real concerns. They don't have time or the energy to fight a hoard or hopped-up shoe-clerks in shoe-clerk-Camelot/Redflag. Would they love to crush the retarded policies of the last 100 REMFs to write policy at AUAB? Sure, but they have to look past the everyday queep to see the real mission.

<warning, unpopular statements below>

If you go to your leadership bitch about the stupid rules, you are wrong. Let them focus on the mission. Now, if someone enforces these stupid rules overzealously (i.e. grabs my tray), that is when you can pursue. But, you are absolutely wrong if you do not correct disrespectful behavior the moment it happens. Make it the military again, don't be a wuss.

If this shit happens every day, you should be geared for the confrontation with the next REMF before it happens. Know your angle and the rules. If you're walking around with your shirt untucked- you're breaking a rule and you'll lose that battle. But if the untuck is an honest mistake (i.e working out) and the "enforcer" of said rule is disrespectful, change the situation from the uniform infraction to the disrespect. Hammer the toolbag for customs and courtesies- tie it back to core values, have the tool recite the core values. Ask them what is more important- disrespecting a officer or a PT shirt untucked- what sets a bad example for airmen?

You can't change the rules, they're locked in some vault hidden in some first shirts room. You can change the culture- take the military back, follow the stupid rules and shwack the next REMF who thinks they can enforce rules with out proper military customs and courtesies.

[Guest CA]

I thought about doing that, but I figured a 70-page thread from an "unofficial," semi-anonymous website coming from little old me would probably not be the best thing. Nor do I think that my Sq CC would be very keen on provoking the general with said 70 page thread from the internet.

What about someone emailing this thread to him from a commercial gmail/yahoo account back in the states? I can provide email addresses for those interested, even though it would not be that difficult to figure them out on your own.

I downloaded the thread and started removing the names but the forum will only allow you to download the first 15 pages.. Anyways, here's the first 15 pages with the names removed: Leadership.doc

[funny_haha]

Pfft... The Squadron CC? No biggie considering he could have been arrested.

The CC was trying his best to sell the new rules at our last CC call. He is a C-17 driver by trade, so he knows what we are saying.

Edited October 23, 2009 by funny_haha

[Stiffler]

but they have a real job or mission with real concerns. They don't have time or the energy to fight a hoard or hopped-up shoe-clerks in shoe-clerk-Camelot/Redflag. Would they love to crush the retarded policies of the last 100 REMFs to write policy at AUAB? Sure, but they have to look past the everyday queep to see the real mission.

Dude really? There is no real focus on the mission anymore....I can promise you that. I have spent time in Al Udeid, and in another unnamed place that would make you cry at how awesome it was (No reflective belts, no hats, no saluting, etc) just guys doing their jobs.

Allowing the REMF's to grab a tray out of your hand (by the way, THAT is the issue...not the lack of a T-bone) only emboldens them to cause the same problems down the road on more important things...and it happens.

[funny_haha]

I have some real smart asses that work for me, one of them just walked in and says hay gotta story to you. He was at the CC chow hall and while he is putting a tuna sandwich together, some jackass MSgt says hay you got a reflective belt. My guy replies yep sure do, he still keeps making his sandwich. The MSgt tells him hay i need to see your belt before you can finish. My guy lifts his ABU top to show the belt and walks off, not 15 feet later some other clown yells hay where’s your reflective belt. Troop tells him I already showed it to someone else and I am not showing it again. Shoe had a butthurt look on his face when he walked away.

[JS]

AL UDEID AIR BASE INSTRUCTION 91-1001 21 November 2008 Safety

15.1. All personnel will wear around their waist a reflective belt that is visible from 360 degrees any time they are outdoors during hours of darkness or reduced visibility anywhere on the installation, regardless of the uniform or civilian clothing being worn

AUABI 36-2903

6.1.4. Reflective Tape, Belts, Jackets, and Arm Bands. For safety purposes, all members assigned to/transiting the installation will wear a reflective belt during all hours of darkness or reduced visibility to provide 360-degree visibility of member. When reflective belt wear is required, it must be visible at all times (not under clothing etc.).

So the million dollar question is: does the 36-2903 actually call for the fag belt to be worn while indoors? When it reads "all hours of darkness," does that include indoors?

I realize they will just change the regs to match the highest level of stupidity, but if we can score a few small victories here and there, it can only help morale.

<warning, unpopular statements below>

If you go to your leadership bitch about the stupid rules, you are wrong. Let them focus on the mission. Now, if someone enforces these stupid rules overzealously (i.e. grabs my tray), that is when you can pursue. But, you are absolutely wrong if you do not correct disrespectful behavior the moment it happens. Make it the military again, don't be a wuss.

If this shit happens every day, you should be geared for the confrontation with the next REMF before it happens. Know your angle and the rules. If you're walking around with your shirt untucked- you're breaking a rule and you'll lose that battle. But if the untuck is an honest mistake (i.e working out) and the "enforcer" of said rule is disrespectful, change the situation from the uniform infraction to the disrespect. Hammer the toolbag for customs and courtesies- tie it back to core values, have the tool recite the core values. Ask them what is more important- disrespecting a officer or a PT shirt untucked- what sets a bad example for airmen?

You can't change the rules, they're locked in some vault hidden in some first shirts room. You can change the culture- take the military back, follow the stupid rules and shwack the next REMF who thinks they can enforce rules with out proper military customs and courtesies.

So, Slacker, do you think the right thing to do is just give up on this whole thing?

Along the lines of bitching out the people who bitch you out, the General (at the CGO meeting I mentioned a few posts ago) specifically said he doesn't want to see his CGO's jacking up the airmen who are out there correcting people on the rules, simply because they are outranked. Sets a bad example.

[ExBoneOSO]

Along the lines of bitching out the people who bitch you out, the General (at the CGO meeting I mentioned a few posts ago) specifically said he doesn't want to see his CGO's jacking up the airmen who are out there correcting people on the rules, simply because they are outranked. Sets a bad example.

There's a difference between a NCO approaching a CGO respectfully, saying "Sir, can you please tuck in your shirt/show me your belt/etc" and an NCO getting in a CGO's face, yanking the food tray away, and otherwise acting like a douche. The "bad example" the General alludes to can go both ways.

[slacker]

So, Slacker, do you think the right thing to do is just give up on this whole thing?

Along the lines of bitching out the people who bitch you out, the General (at the CGO meeting I mentioned a few posts ago) specifically said he doesn't want to see his CGO's jacking up the airmen who are out there correcting people on the rules, simply because they are outranked. Sets a bad example.

No. I'm saying crush the nuts of the next fuckchop who grabs your tray or some other equivalent crap, right then and there. But you've got to choose the correct shit to fight. Fighting the stupidity of the regs is going to get you nowhere. You'll waste time and breath fighting about wearing sunglasses on your head, saluting in PT gear, etc.

But the chow hall crap- The chow hall reflective belt shit is riduculous and worthy of complete insubordination. And anyone who corrects you without proper respect for rank or military customs- should be crushed.

And like I said- I've avoided the deid for sometime- so take it for what it's worth.

[Guest fourtenwedge]

Received the new PTU wear policy this morning at work. Highlights:

1. THIS MESSAGE REPLACES THE GUIDANCE IN AFI 36-2903, FIGURE 2.6, AND WILL BE INCORPORATED IN THE UPDATE OF AFI 36-2903 CURRENTLY UNDER REWRITE. FOR PURPOSES OF THIS MESSAGE, PTU REFERS TO THE EXISTING PT UNIFORM ITEMS AND IPTU REFERS TO THE IMPROVED PT UNIFORM ITEMS THAT WILL BE AVAILABLE, IN LIMITED QUANTITIES, LATER THIS YEAR.

B. REFLECTIVE BELTS, REFLECTIVE ARMBANDS, ETC. ARE REQUIRED DURING PERIODS OF LOW LIGHT CONDITIONS WHEN WEARING THE OPTIONAL RUNNING SHORTS AS PART OF THE PTU/IPTU. REFLECTIVE BELTS, ARMBANDS, ETC ARE OPTIONAL WHEN WEARING COMBINATIONS OF THE STANDARD ISSUE PTU/IPTU ITEMS THAT CONTAIN REFLECTIVE MATERIAL ON THE TOP AND BOTTOM GARMENTS.

I guess there is PT gear that doesnt have reflective material?

H. SHORT-SLEEVED PTU/IPTU SHIRT: WILL BE TUCKED INTO SHORTS OR RUNNING PANTS AT ALL TIMES. DO NOT REMOVE OR CUT SLEEVES.

I. OPTIONAL LONG-SLEEVED IPTU SHIRT: WILL BE TUCKED INTO THE PTU/IPTU SHORTS OR RUNNING PANTS AT ALL TIMES. DO NOT PUSH UP, REMOVE, OR CUT SLEEVES.

U. EXCEPTIONS:

2) WEAR POLICY FOR THE PTU/IPTU IN A DEPLOYED ENVIRONMENT CAN BE FURTHER DEFINED BY THE AIR FORCE FORCES’ COMMANDER SPECIFIC TO THAT AREA OF RESPONSIBILITY (AOR).

3) INSTALLATION COMMANDERS MAY TEMPORARILY ADJUST WEAR POLICY TO ADDRESS IMMEDIATE SAFETY OR MISSION/OPERATION CONCERNS, AND MAY BE MORE RESTRICTIVE WITH WEAR POLICY (E.G., NO HATS DURING ORGANIZED FITNESS EVENTS, NO HEAD/EAR PHONES DUE TO SAFETY CONCERNS, ETC.) TO SUPPORT UNIT COHESION AND PRESENT A STANDARDIZED IMAGE. HOWEVER, LONG-TERM EXCEPTIONS TO POLICY MUST BE SUBMITTED THROUGH MAJCOM TO HQ USAF/A1 FOR APPROVAL.

That last part (exceptions 2&3) seems a bit disconcerting. I'm sure you guys may see this soon.

[skinny]

This thread is like a train wreck....I can't look away. I haven't been to the Deid since 2005 but the more I read the more I realize things haven't changed; they've only spiraled further and further out of control. How's that whole war thing going?

[JS]

Received the new PTU wear policy this morning at work. Highlights:

1. THIS MESSAGE REPLACES THE GUIDANCE IN AFI 36-2903, FIGURE 2.6, AND WILL BE INCORPORATED IN THE UPDATE OF AFI 36-2903 CURRENTLY UNDER REWRITE. FOR PURPOSES OF THIS MESSAGE, PTU REFERS TO THE EXISTING PT UNIFORM ITEMS AND IPTU REFERS TO THE IMPROVED PT UNIFORM ITEMS THAT WILL BE AVAILABLE, IN LIMITED QUANTITIES, LATER THIS YEAR.

B. REFLECTIVE BELTS, REFLECTIVE ARMBANDS, ETC. ARE REQUIRED DURING PERIODS OF LOW LIGHT CONDITIONS WHEN WEARING THE OPTIONAL RUNNING SHORTS AS PART OF THE PTU/IPTU. REFLECTIVE BELTS, ARMBANDS, ETC ARE OPTIONAL WHEN WEARING COMBINATIONS OF THE STANDARD ISSUE PTU/IPTU ITEMS THAT CONTAIN REFLECTIVE MATERIAL ON THE TOP AND BOTTOM GARMENTS.

I guess there is PT gear that doesnt have reflective material?

H. SHORT-SLEEVED PTU/IPTU SHIRT: WILL BE TUCKED INTO SHORTS OR RUNNING PANTS AT ALL TIMES. DO NOT REMOVE OR CUT SLEEVES.

I. OPTIONAL LONG-SLEEVED IPTU SHIRT: WILL BE TUCKED INTO THE PTU/IPTU SHORTS OR RUNNING PANTS AT ALL TIMES. DO NOT PUSH UP, REMOVE, OR CUT SLEEVES.

U. EXCEPTIONS:

2) WEAR POLICY FOR THE PTU/IPTU IN A DEPLOYED ENVIRONMENT CAN BE FURTHER DEFINED BY THE AIR FORCE FORCES' COMMANDER SPECIFIC TO THAT AREA OF RESPONSIBILITY (AOR).

3) INSTALLATION COMMANDERS MAY TEMPORARILY ADJUST WEAR POLICY TO ADDRESS IMMEDIATE SAFETY OR MISSION/OPERATION CONCERNS, AND MAY BE MORE RESTRICTIVE WITH WEAR POLICY (E.G., NO HATS DURING ORGANIZED FITNESS EVENTS, NO HEAD/EAR PHONES DUE TO SAFETY CONCERNS, ETC.) TO SUPPORT UNIT COHESION AND PRESENT A STANDARDIZED IMAGE. HOWEVER, LONG-TERM EXCEPTIONS TO POLICY MUST BE SUBMITTED THROUGH MAJCOM TO HQ USAF/A1 FOR APPROVAL.

That last part (exceptions 2&3) seems a bit disconcerting. I'm sure you guys may see this soon.

Where the hell did this come out of, and from whom? Is it policy?

[Guest fourtenwedge]

Where the hell did this come out of, and from whom? Is it policy?

From HQ/USAF A1. It will all be in the update of 2903 due out later.

[Napoleon_Tanerite]

48 hours now and counting sans-belt in PTs. Nobody has said anything to me yet.

Word on the street today was they were kicking people out of the chow hall for not wearing their belt INDOORS. Several of our crews came in today with tales of this buffoonery. A few fashion police SMSgts and Chiefs were patrolling the chow hall looking for violators and showing them the door.

I looked all through applicable AFIs to include local sups and could find NOTHING that stated that the ######-belt had to be worn indoors. Methinks it's time to fight d-baggery with d-baggery. If someone tries to make you wear a belt indoors, he should get a homework assignment. Within 24 hours, email paragraph and line where it says that belts are required INDOORS.

Not sure if it's just me or not, but it really feels like in the past few days a bit of a rebellion has ignited here.

[Guest Hueypilot812]

48 hours now and counting sans-belt in PTs. Nobody has said anything to me yet.

Word on the street today was they were kicking people out of the chow hall for not wearing their belt INDOORS. Several of our crews came in today with tales of this buffoonery. A few fashion police SMSgts and Chiefs were patrolling the chow hall looking for violators and showing them the door.

I looked all through applicable AFIs to include local sups and could find NOTHING that stated that the ######-belt had to be worn indoors. Methinks it's time to fight d-baggery with d-baggery. If someone tries to make you wear a belt indoors, he should get a homework assignment. Within 24 hours, email paragraph and line where it says that belts are required INDOORS.

Not sure if it's just me or not, but it really feels like in the past few days a bit of a rebellion has ignited here.

Wearing it indoors? WTF? Why not just say "hey, do you have a reflective belt on you?". Again, wearing a reflective belt isn't a big deal. If I forgot mine, it would be nice to be treated like an adult and told "hey, you should be wearing your reflective belt". Sad thing is, I can totally buffoon things up in the airplane and get Q-3'd almost killing someone in the process, and I would still be allowed to eat...but forgetting to wear your disco belt indoors is grounds for denial of food? Really?

[MKopack]

Wearing it indoors? WTF? Why not just say "hey, do you have a reflective belt on you?". Again, wearing a reflective belt isn't a big deal. If I forgot mine, it would be nice to be treated like an adult and told "hey, you should be wearing your reflective belt". Sad thing is, I can totally buffoon things up in the airplane and get Q-3'd almost killing someone in the process, and I would still be allowed to eat...but forgetting to wear your disco belt indoors is grounds for denial of food? Really?

[Napoleon_Tanerite]

more like "NO CURRY FOR YOU!"

not necessarily a bad thing except for the lack of other options-- camel burger, tuna wrap, and... uh.... peanutbutter sandwich

[loadsmith]

We had a great idea last night to take some extra reflective belts that we had and to carry them to the chow hall with us for dinner to pass out if anyone we saw had forgotten theirs. Well we get to the DFAC and there is a big dry erase board as you enter that basically said “no belt, no service.” On one of the reflective belts I had wrote “services rental”, it was my plan to hand it out as deemed necessary. Upon seeing the giant dry erase I decided to hang it there in case someone needed it. No kidding, I was in there for a few minutes and in walked someone wearing my belt. After speaking to him later on I learned he was part of a C-17 transient crew and he had forgotten his belt, I explained my reasoning and he was thankful, even returned the belt so that it may be passed on another day. I actually saw the Services folks give someone a reflective belt so that they could eat, still puzzled as to why you need one to eat but I will continue to be a good “wingman” and help my fellow airmen out if they forget their belt.

Edited October 23, 2009 by loadsmith