WTF? (**NSFW**)

[Waingro]

15 minutes ago, Blue said:

Sometime around November/December 2022 is when I anticipate you'll see the formal transfer of power... 

I haven't read that much MAGA/Q fan fiction since before the inauguration. Thanks for the chuckle.

Is it hard to find an audience for this trash now that Parler is off the app stores?

[jazzdude]

I’m not aware of the AF designing specific flight suits for dudes who are DNIF..unless I’m missing something?  My wife wears a flight suit and when she was pregnant and it didn’t make sense anymore/wasn’t comfortable, she wore the maternity ABU—she never once complained about not having a flight suit that didn’t fit comfortably...because at that point, she couldn’t fly anyway.  So the question I have is this:  What percentage of pilots annually are pregnant, on flying status, and can no longer wear a traditional flight suit due to discomfort, etc  (even if they require a different size)?  My guess is that’s it’s an extremely low number, but I’m willing to see the data that says otherwise as perhaps this issue is affecting ops in a bigger way than I realize?
And I’m not saying I disagree with your overall points, but if a point (DNIF guys wearing flight suits) isn’t based specifically on designing/procuring specific uniforms for X condition, then you need to argue apples to apples.
Full disclosure:  I think what Tucker said was stupid and unnecessary.

I think the underlying question is: is the flightsuit also an office uniform, or is it strictly a functional uniform?

If it's strictly a functional uniform, should the flightsuit be worn when performing office duties, regardless of if you're pregnant/DNIF/not scheduled to fly? Also, should aviators on staff be allowed to wear a flightsuit (when not in their fly break, if applicable)? That's the apples to apples comparison, pregnancy is just a subset of that.

Also tangentially related, female versions of the flightsuit are also pretty new, was developing those wasted time/money/effort to get uniforms that fit women better?

If the flightsuit is also for office duties as an aviator (which it essentially is), should pregnant airmen have to choose a maternity uniform that potentially further highlights their difference in the squadron? Put another way, if everyone in the office is wearing flightsuits, wearing OCPs makes you stick out. Granted, 2-piece flight suits are becoming more common, so they won't stand out as much, at least in the MAF.

Plus, I assume pregnancy flightsuits would be issued (just like every other flightsuit), versus having the member go out and buy maternity OCPs out of pocket. Pretty much every flyer I've ever met is pretty against purchasing uniforms unless absolutely necessary (who here has actually bought regular OCPs or ABUs?).

[HeloDude]

2 minutes ago, jazzdude said:

 

I think the underlying question is: is the flightsuit also an office uniform, or is it strictly a functional uniform?

If it's strictly a functional uniform, should the flightsuit be worn when performing office duties, regardless of if you're pregnant/DNIF/not scheduled to fly? Also, should aviators on staff be allowed to wear a flightsuit (when not in their fly break, if applicable)? That's the apples to apples comparison, pregnancy is just a subset of that.

Also tangentially related, female versions of the flightsuit are also pretty new, was developing those wasted time/money/effort to get uniforms that fit women better?

If the flightsuit is also for office duties as an aviator (which it essentially is), should pregnant airmen have to choose a maternity uniform that potentially further highlights their difference in the squadron? Put another way, if everyone in the office is wearing flightsuits, wearing OCPs makes you stick out. Granted, 2-piece flight suits are becoming more common, so they won't stand out as much, at least in the MAF.

Plus, I assume pregnancy flightsuits would be issued (just like every other flightsuit), versus having the member go out and buy maternity OCPs out of pocket. Pretty much every flyer I've ever met is pretty against purchasing uniforms unless absolutely necessary (who here has actually bought regular OCPs or ABUs?).

 

Well, you didn’t answer my specific question...but that’s ok as I’m sure you don’t know the numbers (in fact neither do I, though I imagine it’s pretty darn low).

But to specifically address your questions, the flight suit is most definitely a utility uniform, first and foremost.  I know most of you guys aren’t old enough to remember when those in many non-flying jobs (both flyers and non-flyers) were required to wear blues, except perhaps on Friday.  This was pre 9-11...things have definitely changed quite a bit since then.  And of course there are still plenty of us who remember Monday’s blues. When that started and I was in an operational squadron, most guys would fight to get on the flying schedule to avoid wearing blues.  Later on it was realized that guys would fall out of the schedule and we would have to ops cancel lines, so our leadership started allowing non-DNIF guys to wear the bag on Monday so as to not lose lines for wearing blues...but if you were attached in a different squadron or at the group or wing, you still had to wear blues.  And then when I got sent to my staff job, yep, Monday’s blues were back until it went away.  What I’m trying to say is that there is plenty of precedent for not wearing a flight suit if you’re not going to be performing (or possibly performing) flight duties that day.  
 

As to not buying uniform items, that’s definitely a perk of being a flyer...but again, it should definitely be tied to performing flight duties, hence while you’re only authorize limited/certain quantities.  Once again this old guy typing remembers sequestration and when you had to turn in your old flight suits to get new ones...sad, but true.  For the record, I think it’s messed up that flyers don’t have to buy their uniforms but the non-flyers do.

So circling back to the pregnant piece, is this a readiness issue or an issue of people feeling that they’re being treated differently because they’re pregnant?  If it’s the later, I think pregnant people are most definitely treated differently...no PT tests, limited duty hours if needed, DNIF at a certain point in their pregnancy, etc.  I’m not at all against those occurring (makes sense actually), but let’s not pretend that wearing a maternity uniform was such a hardship, at least it wasn’t for my wife.

 

[pawnman]

17 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

Well, you didn’t answer my specific question...but that’s ok as I’m sure you don’t know the numbers (in fact neither do I, though I imagine it’s pretty darn low).

But to specifically address your questions, the flight suit is most definitely a utility uniform, first and foremost.  I know most of you guys aren’t old enough to remember when those in many non-flying jobs (both flyers and non-flyers) were required to wear blues, except perhaps on Friday.  This was pre 9-11...things have definitely changed quite a bit since then.  And of course there are still plenty of us who remember Monday’s blues. When that started and I was in an operational squadron, most guys would fight to get on the flying schedule to avoid wearing blues.  Later on it was realized that guys would fall out of the schedule and we would have to ops cancel lines, so our leadership started allowing non-DNIF guys to wear the bag on Monday so as to not lose lines for wearing blues...but if you were attached in a different squadron or at the group or wing, you still had to wear blues.  And then when I got sent to my staff job, yep, Monday’s blues were back until it went away.  What I’m trying to say is that there is plenty of precedent for not wearing a flight suit if you’re not going to be performing (or possibly performing) flight duties that day.  
 

As to not buying uniform items, that’s definitely a perk of being a flyer...but again, it should definitely be tied to performing flight duties, hence while you’re only authorize limited/certain quantities.  Once again this old guy typing remembers sequestration and when you had to turn in your old flight suits to get new ones...sad, but true.  For the record, I think it’s messed up that flyers don’t have to buy their uniforms but the non-flyers do.

So circling back to the pregnant piece, is this a readiness issue or an issue of people feeling that they’re being treated differently because they’re pregnant?  If it’s the later, I think pregnant people are most definitely treated differently...no PT tests, limited duty hours if needed, DNIF at a certain point in their pregnancy, etc.  I’m not at all against those occurring (makes sense actually), but let’s not pretend that wearing a maternity uniform was such a hardship, at least it wasn’t for my wife.

 

So...do you want to go back to the days when the flight suit was utility only, and you must wear a different uniform in the office?

[HeloDude]

1 minute ago, pawnman said:

So...do you want to go back to the days when the flight suit was utility only, and you must wear a different uniform in the office?

Do I want to, of course not.  At the same time if they wouldn’t allow me to wear a flight suit because I didn’t need to wear one that day, would the AF be wrong? Also, if I had a condition which DNIF’d me and prevented me from being able to comfortably wear the flight suit, but I could be comfortable in ACUs, then what’s the problem?  Nobody is saying that there shouldn’t be a maternity uniform...but one already exists.  So unless a pilot can’t find a flight suit that is comfortable to perform flying duties, then what exactly is the problem?  
 

Again, what percentage of pilots annually are pregnant, on flying status, and can’t find a flight suit that comfortably allows them to perform their flight duties?  I’m not saying it’s zero...but I can’t imagine it meaning too high.

[brickhistory]

The increasing and accelerating politicization of our nation's military, along with the defense of said behavior:

 

 

Good and hard.  I hope those aspirations are fulfilled.  Quickly.

[jazzdude]

Do I want to, of course not.  At the same time if they wouldn’t allow me to wear a flight suit because I didn’t need to wear one that day, would the AF be wrong? Also, if I had a condition which DNIF’d me and prevented me from being able to comfortably wear the flight suit, but I could be comfortable in ACUs, then what’s the problem?  Nobody is saying that there shouldn’t be a maternity uniform...but one already exists.  So unless a pilot can’t find a flight suit that is comfortable to perform flying duties, then what exactly is the problem?  
 
Again, what percentage of pilots annually are pregnant, on flying status, and can’t find a flight suit that comfortably allows them to perform their flight duties?  I’m not saying it’s zero...but I can’t imagine it meaning too high.

It's a small percentage of rated people that are pregnant, but you're right, I don't have the number.

But don't forget all the winged enlisted as well (loads, booms, FEs, etc). And the AE folks. And that space/missile crews also can wear the flightsuit. So the population is much bigger than just pilots or aircrew.

And yes, that's still a small population, but the AF has the number of pregnant airmen affected or potentially affected by pregnancy, and felt it was a large enough population to take an action.

Sure, it's a small number of people who's lives can be improved by a pregnancy flightsuit. But if the life support/uniform development people have time to make an improvement for a subset of the force, for what is likely a small cost/relatively easy development effort, then why not make the improvement?

I'd bet measurements for pregnant women exist within DoD since other maternity uniforms exist. So taking that info, applying it to the flightsuit, and testing it out likely was an easy effort.

Can pregnant women find a flightsuit that "fits"? Maybe. But remember, flightsuits until very recently were designed/cut for men, and unlike many other clothes, are difficult to tailor to fix a dimension that might be off (namely, getting a flightsuit that's wide enough may leave the leg inseam way too long even with the short size).

Here's an interesting video on human factors and designing for the "average" person.

The speaker helped with human factors assessments for the AF for years, and touches on many of the (bad) assumptions that are made in designing things for humans. (And no, I didn't hunt for that video, just happened to watch it recently for some coursework I'm doing right now that's relevant to this topic).

We all have small issues we'd like the AF to fix, even if it's for a small group of people and doesn't effect every airmen. To me this is just the AF addressing an easy issue to fix to help a small number of (pregnant) airmen. Will this solve retention by itself? Nope. But it helps remove what might be 1 of 1000 small paper cuts.

Also related, but for AF maternity uniforms in general. https://www.military.com/daily-news/2020/09/09/airmans-idea-provide-better-fitting-uniforms-pregnant-troops-may-become-law.html
Basically, even though the maternity uniforms exist in the system, doesn't mean they are available though AAFES, and the AF is working to improve that.

[ThreeHoler]

The maternity uniform updates are good. Just like the hair changes for women are good. Just like the grassroots effort (following the hair changes) to men’s shaving are going to be good.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[HeloDude]

1 hour ago, jazzdude said:

 

It's a small percentage of rated people that are pregnant, but you're right, I don't have the number.

But don't forget all the winged enlisted as well (loads, booms, FEs, etc). And the AE folks. And that space/missile crews also can wear the flightsuit. So the population is much bigger than just pilots or aircrew.

And yes, that's still a small population, but the AF has the number of pregnant airmen affected or potentially affected by pregnancy, and felt it was a large enough population to take an action.

 

I didn’t ask what percentage of those who wear flight suits are pregnant...I asked what percentage are pregnant, on flying status, and can no longer wear a regular flight suit in order to perform flying duties...I’m betting that it’s an extremely small percentage.  As for enlisted aviators, don’t most (if nearly all?) wear the flying OCPs?  But either way, same question as above.

I keep asking—is this a readiness issue or an issue of comfort, sense of belonging, morale, etc?  My bet is that this isn’t much of a readiness issue as only an extremely small percentage of flyers require this to perform their flight duties.

So if it’s an issue of comfort, morale, etc...sure, that’s fine.  There’s a lot of things I would rather change due to comfort (see below).  I’m just asking then why can’t they wear the maternity uniforms already in place?  And I agree...not having them available due to supply/logistical issues is messed up.

 

As for the AF seeing this as a big issue (comfort, etc) that needed to be addressed, hey I would rather not have to shave everyday without attempting to get a shaving waiver, but the AF sees it differently...and unless I need to shave specifically to perform my job, then why not remove it?  More importantly, I wish the AF would focus more attention on actual readiness issues (only so much money and resources to spread around)...OBOGS come to mind?  

[ThreeHoler]

Did you even read one post above yours before ranting about preggo flight bags? No, most CEAs do not wear OCPs.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[HeloDude]

12 minutes ago, ThreeHoler said:

Did you even read one post above yours before ranting about preggo flight bags? No, most CEAs do not wear OCPs.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

Well, since you’re thrashing about me not reading posts (which is fine, I don’t mind some thrash)—can you please answer this simple question that I keep posting:  What is the annual percentage is of flyers who wear a flight suit, who are pregnant, who are on flying status, and who cannot comfortably wear a flight suit to perform flying duties?  What is your guess?  I ask because this is the readiness question...yet Jazzdude is the only one who has even attempted to answer it, and he didn’t even answer the actual question...

[Tank]

Let me ask all of you are who talking and arguing about the pregnant flight suit:

What’s it f**king matter?!?

I can almost guarantee that none of you are females, so you’ll never have to wear this flight suit.  You all are arguing over something that literally doesn’t affect you!  If anything, it is showing progression in the USAF and I’m hoping that will translate to some changes for the males (I.e. beards).
 

But hey, if sounding like a bunch of arguing teenagers from UC Berkeley is your thing, then keep it up....

Edited March 15, 2021 by Tank

[ThreeHoler]

Well, since you’re thrashing about me not reading posts (which is fine, I don’t mind some thrash)—can you please answer this simple question that I keep posting:  What is the annual percentage is of flyers who wear a flight suit, who are pregnant, who are on flying status, and who cannot comfortably wear a flight suit to perform flying duties?  What is your guess?  I ask because this is the readiness question...yet Jazzdude is the only one who has even attempted to answer it, and he didn’t even answer the actual question...

Who gives a shit? It makes people’s lives better and should have happened a long time ago. C’mon, man. Go drink some Ensure.

[jazzdude]

I didn’t ask what percentage of those who wear flight suits are pregnant...I asked what percentage are pregnant, on flying status, and can no longer wear a regular flight suit in order to perform flying duties...I’m betting that it’s an extremely small percentage.  As for enlisted aviators, don’t most (if nearly all?) wear the flying OCPs?  But either way, same question as above.
I keep asking—is this a readiness issue or an issue of comfort, sense of belonging, morale, etc?  My bet is that this isn’t much of a readiness issue as only an extremely small percentage of flyers require this to perform their flight duties.
So if it’s an issue of comfort, morale, etc...sure, that’s fine.  There’s a lot of things I would rather change due to comfort (see below).  I’m just asking then why can’t they wear the maternity uniforms already in place?  And I agree...not having them available due to supply/logistical issues is messed up.
 
As for the AF seeing this as a big issue (comfort, etc) that needed to be addressed, hey I would rather not have to shave everyday without attempting to get a shaving waiver, but the AF sees it differently...and unless I need to shave specifically to perform my job, then why not remove it?  More importantly, I wish the AF would focus more attention on actual readiness issues (only so much money and resources to spread around)...OBOGS come to mind?  

Ignoring morale, comfort, individual preferences in the name of readiness has helped to kill morale and retention in aviators. But as soon as the AF starts making small changes, people complain about those changes unless they directly benefit from those changes.

Pregnancy flightsuits are probably just a comfort/morale/belonging issue. And that's good enough reason in my book to make a change, given that it likely took little time or money to execute. I doubt the AF see this as a big issue, but again it's an easy fix that seems to have people that want it.

Sure, a pregnant flyer that doesn't fit in their flightsuit anymore could get a new bigger normal flightsuit, but the AF is still paying for a new uniform that likely won't fit well (pushing them to find a uniform that does). So why not have one available that might fit better at what will likely be the same cost to the government anyways?

Why can't they just wear a different maternity uniform? Same reason I wear my leather jacket instead of the lightweight blue jacket when it's cold and I have to wear blues-because I want to and it's an option I have. Even in the flightsuit, I've got several jackets to choose from to suit my personal preference: leather, summer weight nomex, winter weight nomex, fleece, goretex, commercial softshell in green, commercial softshell in OCP. Why not just have one or two approved jackets for the flightsuit? Or should the AF eliminate the leather jacket (not approved for flight, has no readiness impact, but looks cool)?

You're still avoiding the fact that other career fields besides pilots also use the flightsuit as well. Regardless of whether you feel they should wear a flightsuit, the AF decided that they should. Also, should RPA pilots wear flightsuits? Seems like they can do their job just fine in regular OCPs. (Not that I'm advocating for that, but it's a morale issue, not a readiness/operational issue). Even as a mobility pilot, the cotton OCPs would probably provide adequate flame protection for much cheaper.

It's like when the AF got rid of patches for ABUs-huge outcry because many airmen lost a symbol of their unit affiliation (all while flyers kept their patches so it didn't affect us). All in the name of saving airmen like $20 a year if that on sewing costs (as well as the cost for the patches themselves, but the AF could've gone the army route and made airmen buy their patches vs issuing them). It's a small thing, but helps feed comraderie and a sense of belonging. Same for morale shirts/patches, crew patches, deployment patches, Friday name tags, sq baseball caps, etc.

There's a lot of things that are starting to get looked at with a fresh eye now. I'm many ways the regs are stuck in 1947 and how people were expected to look back then. Hair standards have been relaxed to accommodate more hairstyles for other races/ethnicities. Easy kill right there that made life easier for many people for something that has minimal to no impact on readiness.

There's also no reason not to allow men to grow facial hair, minus some operational concerns like oxygen mask use or gas masks. But there's no operational or readiness reason to restrict facial hair when you're not flying, besides the AF wanting to portray a certain look, which has no tie to readiness or combat effectiveness. Even when deployed there's no operational reason to have to shave, unless the conditions warrant going to mopp ready and dragging your chem gear around on your hip. Then you can shave before pulling your gear that's probably dryrotting in a conex.

Another easy fix was the 1 min it took to update the AFI to allow pushing up flightsuit sleeves-zero readiness reason to do so, purely for comfort. But an easy fix.

OBOGS fixes has it's own funding and manning, and support from AFRL for testing. The short answer is mil standard for evaluating OBOGS made some poor assumptions in how to verify system performance with their selection of test points for certification. Which means the AF will potentially have to pay to redesign and retrofit the system. So the AF is also after the big items affecting readiness as well; these small initiatives aren't taking away from that.

[HeloDude]

6 minutes ago, ThreeHoler said:

 

Who gives a shit? It makes people’s lives better and should have happened a long time ago. C’mon, man. Go drink some Ensure.

 

Well, we usually don’t redesign/make new uniforms if there isn’t a readiness issue.  Actually, scratch that—we mess with our uniforms all the time.

As to your earlier point about shaving changes...not going to happen anytime soon, at least not before I retire.  If it does, I’ll buy you a bottle of your choice at the Class Six.

[HeloDude]

8 minutes ago, jazzdude said:

Your post

Fair enough man—I appreciate you post and your comments (honestly).  
 

As I said, I’m not against women (and men) being more comfortable, but I do want the focus of our military to be on readiness first and foremost.  It definitely is frustrating, for someone who has been in quite a while, seeing the AF brag about how it takes care of it’s people by making “real changes”...when it still can’t fix problems that effect the readiness of our force.  You’re right, one doesn’t necessarily (and rarely does) affect the other to a considerable degree, but when one is being triumphed as a large success and the readiness problems are “ummm...we’re working on that”, it’s hard to believe the focus is where it needs to be.

Thanks guys for the chat.

 

[Tank]

Love the comment!

 

[ThreeHoler]

Well, we usually don’t redesign/make new uniforms if there isn’t a readiness issue.  Actually, scratch that—we mess with our uniforms all the time.
As to your earlier point about shaving changes...not going to happen anytime soon, at least not before I retire.  If it does, I’ll buy you a bottle of your choice at the Class Six.

Not sure how much time is on the clock but that does sound interesting.

[pawnman]

13 hours ago, HeloDude said:

I didn’t ask what percentage of those who wear flight suits are pregnant...I asked what percentage are pregnant, on flying status, and can no longer wear a regular flight suit in order to perform flying duties...I’m betting that it’s an extremely small percentage.  As for enlisted aviators, don’t most (if nearly all?) wear the flying OCPs?  But either way, same question as above.

I keep asking—is this a readiness issue or an issue of comfort, sense of belonging, morale, etc?  My bet is that this isn’t much of a readiness issue as only an extremely small percentage of flyers require this to perform their flight duties.

So if it’s an issue of comfort, morale, etc...sure, that’s fine.  There’s a lot of things I would rather change due to comfort (see below).  I’m just asking then why can’t they wear the maternity uniforms already in place?  And I agree...not having them available due to supply/logistical issues is messed up.

 

As for the AF seeing this as a big issue (comfort, etc) that needed to be addressed, hey I would rather not have to shave everyday without attempting to get a shaving waiver, but the AF sees it differently...and unless I need to shave specifically to perform my job, then why not remove it?  More importantly, I wish the AF would focus more attention on actual readiness issues (only so much money and resources to spread around)...OBOGS come to mind?  

Do you think that morale, comfort, and belonging are unimportant?

The money spent on this was saved by a single B-1 MX CANX.

[M2]

6 hours ago, pawnman said:

Do you think that morale, comfort, and belonging are unimportant?

[ThreeHoler]

As someone who currently identifies as a pregnant female pilot, of course!

But seriously...yes, it is important for the same reason that it is important that my daughters can look at female astronauts, the Vice President, and other women in any career field and imagine themselves in that position.

[pawnman]

3 hours ago, M2 said:

Judging by how people here react to the idea of not wearing flight suits on staff tours, having callsigns taken away, or reaching way back, blues on Mondays...yes.

[HeloDude]

12 hours ago, pawnman said:

Do you think that morale, comfort, and belonging are unimportant?

The money spent on this was saved by a single B-1 MX CANX.

It’s not that I don’t think comfort is unimportant (my wife didn’t think the maternity ABUs were uncomfortable when she stopped wearing her flight suit, so there’s one data point)...rather that when this is bragged about as “real change”, it becomes a distraction from the other important problems that don’t seem to get corrected in a timely manner, if at all.

[HeloDude]

18 hours ago, ThreeHoler said:

 

Not sure how much time is on the clock but that does sound interesting.

 

Another couple years—keep me posted on when I can stop shaving! 

[jazzdude]

Another couple years—keep me posted on when I can stop shaving! 

On one hand, I shave about once a week since I'm on max telework, and have been for about a year.

On the other hand, between a non-flying deployment followed by a PCS to staff (and COVID halting my flying requal plan to get as much flying in before going to staff), I haven't touched a jet in a year and a half.

Not a great trade, but I took the blood money. Has been interesting to see how the sausage gets made on the staff though.