I Hate Reflective Belts

[Guest Sandlapper]

The bottom line is this...if you can be replaced by a computer or a contractor, you probably aren't a warrior as the annuls of history would define it.

Uh-oh...

Just kidding. Great post...

[zrooster99]

Jarhead's right, the RB issue (along with all the other queepy issues like tucking shirts, types of socks, etc) has nothing to do with safety or even with real discipline. It has everything to do with egos and trying to prove who's in charge. One phrase that consistently pisses me off: etc...

Others have already said it, but this is a great post and hits the nail squarely on the head. Sometimes I second guess myself because I don't think like "them", then I realize that's exactly what I want.

[BQZip01]

[BQZip01]

Let me first say I agree with the general tenor of the thread. The guy who flips burgers isn't a warrior. Is the guy who makes our food critical to the mission? Maybe. It depends on the location and the mission as well as the supplies available.

I'm a flyer and I "make the mission happen", but let's not pretend that there aren't other missions out there. While ISR may not put a bullet in the head of someone directly, it may make diplomatic efforts more effective and the bullet unnecessary. That computer guy who is stopping you from accessing www.hotnakedfatchickswithbraces.com may not be a warrior, but part of his job is to make the computer products we use each day more effective and make our jobs significantly easier; while we COULD call for all of our NOTAMs, file a handwritten paper copy of the flight plan with base ops, get handwritten orders, etc, if you pile up enough of those problems, the mission can't get done due to crew rest. Moreover, that same guy that protects our network may have his next job attacking another country's network systems.

I personally divide military tasks into four categories:

mission (putting bombs on target or whatever your WING mission is; if you aren't on an ATO or some variation on that theme, you aren't doing the mission)

critical (enabling someone to do the mission, but without your efforts the mission CAN'T get done)

support (easing the restrictions/making jobs easier, without your efforts the mission CAN get done, but it will be more difficult)

morale (if morale is too low, it can stop all 3 of the above, but it is separate from support)

REMFs, shoeclerks, and RB advocates largely fall into the counterproduction arm of the Air Force. Unfortunately, these people attempt to kill all 4 of the above (usually unintentionally, but due to their own ignorance or arrogance) by attempting to make themselves feel more important. They enforce the letter of the law in such a ignorant/calloused manner that even if they are legitimately helping safety or accomplish the mission, their detrimental effects on morale outweigh any potential benefits.

Edited November 19, 2009 by BQZip01

[old crow]

But the Airman's Creed says I'm a Warrior...

"I am an American Airman.

I am a Warrior.

I have answered my Nation's call.

Blah blah blah"

[capt4fans]

SO, driving into work this monring at the ass crack of dawn, it's pitch black, minus the street lights, and the weather is dog shit as well. I'm headed across base and see the member in ABU's crossing the street from a good 300 yards away. When I finally get within 50 feet of the guy is when his RB is finally visable. And it's being worn correctly. So, you tell me. Does this shit really work???

[Guest Grey]

SO, driving into work this monring at the ass crack of dawn, it's pitch black, minus the street lights, and the weather is dog shit as well. I'm headed across base and see the member in ABU's crossing the street from a good 300 yards away. When I finally get within 50 feet of the guy is when his RB is finally visable. And it's being worn correctly. So, you tell me. Does this shit really work???

Well, obviously the AF needs larger RBs.

[Guest Hueypilot812]

That computer guy who is stopping you from accessing www.hotnakedfatchickswithbraces.com may not be a warrior, but part of his job is to make the computer products we use each day more effective and make our jobs significantly easier; while we COULD call for all of our NOTAMs, file a handwritten paper copy of the flight plan with base ops, get handwritten orders, etc, if you pile up enough of those problems, the mission can't get done due to crew rest.

I completely agree that the other career fields in the Air Force that aren't flying related make things much easier/efficient/effective for us. But consider this: we got the mission done years ago without computers, without world-class gyms, and so on.

[disgruntledemployee]

I completely agree that the other career fields in the Air Force that aren't flying related make things much easier/efficient/effective for us. But consider this: we got the mission done years ago without computers, without world-class gyms, and so on.

Long time ago in another thread, I relayed a similar discussion in that comm folks think that we would not be able to do our mission if all computers failed. A failed computer system does not change the MX status of an airplane, it will still fly, especially an E model Herc. A failed computer system does not change the readiness of aircrew. Without computers, we can still schedule planes and crews, still put gas on the planes, still load them with cargo, still fly to places around the world. Do computers make it all easier, sure. Does our reliance on computers make it harder for us to perform our job when they fail, sure. Do we need to train ourselves to operate with out radios and computer, absolutely. Because it will happen. The enemy knows that we need Blackberrys in order to function. Its our crutch!

[Guest Hueypilot812]

The enemy knows that we need Blackberrys in order to function. Its our crutch!

Why do you think the various enemies and competitors of the US are rapidly expanding their capabilities to try and shut down our networks? Yes, losing the internet and computer systems would be a huge disadvantage to us, I agree that comm has its place in our Air Force, however they exist to enable us to do the flying (and space) job better. Same thing for the other non-ops related functions. They are there to make things easier and more efficient. Unfortunately, due to the mind set in our current Air Force that downplays ops and aircrew in particular (and attempts to elevate the other career fields and treat them as though they are just as important) many young guys joining the military today are indoctrinated that their job is just as critical and vital to the "mission" as a flyer, and perhaps even more so. Unfortunately, the primary "mission" of our Air Force has become obscured and blurred, and I think if you ask the typical non-ops A1C what our branch "mission" is, it probably wouldn't be "to drop bombs on the enemy's head and to support the Army".

[outbreak]

Long time ago in another thread, I relayed a similar discussion in that comm folks think that we would not be able to do our mission if all computers failed. A failed computer system does not change the MX status of an airplane, it will still fly, especially an E model Herc. A failed computer system does not change the readiness of aircrew. Without computers, we can still schedule planes and crews, still put gas on the planes, still load them with cargo, still fly to places around the world. Do computers make it all easier, sure. Does our reliance on computers make it harder for us to perform our job when they fail, sure. Do we need to train ourselves to operate with out radios and computer, absolutely. Because it will happen. The enemy knows that we need Blackberrys in order to function. Its our crutch!

Even us newbs are taught from the beginning to do the mission without computers. I never used CFPS until the very end of Nav School, we did everything with pencil, paper, and whiz wheel. I didn't have access to the laptop on the airplane until I got to my first duty station (I think. I don't remember using laptops at Little Rock), and I never saw a DTM (they were magical, mythical devices that were never used) till my first deployment. It would be a huge PITA, but I could take a chart, pencil, DR kit, and blank nav log and plan a whole mission, and go fly it without any automation. We don't do it often, and some airframes might not be able to do it (no navs) but if the network went down tomorrow, Herks could still hack missions.

And not to leave the rest of the crew out, Loads can still do paper form F's, and Engineers DO still run TOLD manually.

Edited November 22, 2009 by outbreak

[frog]

[

Napoleon:

Yes, other AFSCs are important and have their role, but the mission of the Air Force doesn't come to a screeching halt if they suddenly don't show up. I don't know how many times I've had to roll my eyes when I hear finance (sorry finance guy, but I think you understand), CE, services, comm or some other support guy say without him, the Air Force stops. No it doesn't. The Air Force stops if we don't have pilots, maintainers, and other ops support folks (POL, etc). Jets can still get off the ground if we don't get paid. Sure, we'll bitch and moan, but we can still fly. Airplanes will still get airborne if our office air conditioner breaks, and if the network crashes, we can get our NOTAMS through other means, even though yes, it will be a huge pain in the ass to go dig out the FLIP and start making phone calls.

CE guy here, just want to let you know where I'm coming from.

That's a pretty typical misconception. You've seen the CE guy fix your HVAC, the finance guy jack up your voucher, and the comm guy reconfigure your email account. What you HAVEN'T seen is the CE guy fixing the airfield lighting or runway spalls, the finance guy moving money to fund flying ops, and the comm guy fixing the TACAN. These are what the support squadrons are actually there for, but you aren't a part of it and don't see it happening. This stuff happens everyday and you don't hear about it because it is done right the first time.

And yes, I have seen the mission stop due to runway damage. Runway repair coordination with the Balad SOF was the best ops/support relationship I've ever seen. Our guys busted their ass to fix the runway to meet sortie times and the ops guys really took care of them.

Back to reflective belts, we really need to stop calling each other out from an AFSC perspective. There are mission hackers and non-hackers in every career field. We need to unite the misson hackers and do away with the idiocy.

Edited November 22, 2009 by frog

[disgruntledemployee]

Back on topic everyone...I hate reflective belts.

[Guest Rubber_Side_Down]

I hate them, too. I've been looking for the interview with Reflective Belt in the AF Times, but I'm coming up short. Did I miss it?

[Jughead]

I was walking around the KMCC for the first time and noticed about 20 or so people wearing their RB's.

I didn't know what to make of this & other examples I'd read on here. Unplanned layover at Ramstein, grabbing a rental car & lunch at the KMCC before going out to play tourist, I saw the same thing: midday, folks in uniform (lots of blues, but utilities here & there), and about 1 in 6 wearing RBs. Looked very strange/out of place, especially on the blues. One guy (blues) had one w/ cute little lightning bolts embroidered on it....

I'm proud to say I didn't see a single flight suit meeting that description. As for those I did see... I just don't get it....

[contraildash]

I didn't know what to make of this & other examples I'd read on here. Unplanned layover at Ramstein, grabbing a rental car & lunch at the KMCC before going out to play tourist, I saw the same thing: midday, folks in uniform (lots of blues, but utilities here & there), and about 1 in 6 wearing RBs. Looked very strange/out of place, especially on the blues. One guy (blues) had one w/ cute little lightning bolts embroidered on it....

I'm proud to say I didn't see a single flight suit meeting that description. As for those I did see... I just don't get it....

most guys/gals I know here in bags hide them under jackets or put em in a pocket till needed. The people i just bought a dog from are enlisted and were telling me how out of hand the RB wearing rules here are getting in thier side of things. For example, as I previously posted about RBs with PT gear, this E4 was telling me that now the rule is unless you have the full jumpsuit on you have to have a RB. Despite the fact that the shorts and shirt are more reflective than the pants/jacket are....basically everyone wears them all the time because certain individuals make a huge deal out of it if you don't. It's not that they want to, just the asspain is too much to deal with.

[HU&W]

On topic - tonight I was driving back to base and saw the craziest thing. Someone was walking toward the base on the side of the road wearing a hoodie, deeply sagged pants, and a bright green reflective belt that perfectly followed the waistline of the sagged pants.

[Techsan]

On topic - tonight I was driving back to base and saw the craziest thing. Someone was walking toward the base on the side of the road wearing a hoodie, deeply sagged pants, and a bright green reflective belt that perfectly followed the waistline of the sagged pants.

Thats gangsta. Good thing he was wearing green, and not blue or red.

[JeepGuyC17]

You know what I fucking hate? Reflective belts.

[Guest Alarm Red]

And yes, I have seen the mission stop due to runway damage.

[capt4fans]

I hate them, too. I've been looking for the interview with Reflective Belt in the AF Times, but I'm coming up short. Did I miss it?

Check this weeks issue according to the Facebook Group.

[Guest JollyFlight21]

And yes, I have seen the mission stop due to runway damage.

Not for us you haven't...

Reflective belts suck!

[Guest Sandlapper]

Wow.

[outbreak]

So does that mean the long awaited interview has arrived?

[BFM this]

Not for us you haven't...

2

Reflective belts suck!

AAAnnnd 2