I Hate Reflective Belts

[Guest CA]

Wow.

That's awesome!! Too bad I don't have a subscription so I can't read it.

[Stunna]

That's awesome!! Too bad I don't have a subscription so I can't read it.

Yar! and we just got the edition from the 23rd here. I anybody could post the article that'd be awesome.

Oh, and ###### yo' reflective belt.

[EnriquePallazo]

AF Blues does it again:

[DFRESH]

Can anybody that read the article enlighten us as to whether or not it actually covers the heart of the issue?

[Breckey]

It does not cover the issue to the level that needs to be. There are only two little blurbs about leadership but neither actually tackle the issue.

Feelings of loathing for the reflective belts are not simply a reaction to an isolated instance of ridiculousness, but rather the built-up frustration from the countless frivolous requirements. The popularity of the 'I Hate Reflective Belts' group on Facebook is in fact a very real indicator of sentiments that are much more widespread that most wish to acknowledge

Most of the article is about the safety aspect of the disco belts and is a shoe-clerk rebuttal to the groups existence. Doesn't even touch on the mandatory wear of the belts indoors in the daytime.

Edited December 1, 2009 by Breckey

[skinny]

Sounds like typical AF Times, great headlines, less than adequate reporting. Everything I want to know from an issue can be read right on the cover at the checkout line. That's too bad....

[Guest Rubber_Side_Down]

I just read it. For a front page feature, that was a pretty weak d|ck article. So much for shining a light on the resistance.

[Napoleon_Tanerite]

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).

[GKinnear]

Can anybody that read the article enlighten us as to whether or not it actually covers the heart of the issue?

Warning: Stream of consciousness rambling ahead!

It seemed to gloss over the meat of the RB issue. Capt4Fans, I assume, gave an anonymous interview, but it was only but it was only 1 paragraph long and one other person was little closer to the truth about the insubordination over improper wear.

My favorite part was a quote from Elmendorf AFB's website:

"More than once, you have probably been driving through a parking lot early in the morning and almost ran over a pedestrian not wearing their reflective belt. If you see someone not wearing their reflective belt during the prescribed times, please give them a friendly reminder to put their belt on. You may have just prevented the next ground mishap at Elmendorf."

Obviously this statement is full of paradoxes. How can you see someone if they aren't wearing a reflective belt and if you only "almost hit" someone not wearing it, doesn't that prove they aren't needed?

Some people in the article have also sold their soul to the devil that is the reflective belt. One TSgt is quoted saying, "If people didn't wear them more lives would be lost" and this gem "Stop crying about wearing something that can save your life."

So using the same logic, the AF should stop flying airplanes immediately since people die when planes crash. Stop crying and let someone else do your thinking for you. If you can't be trusted to not make the right decision and not get on an airplane that may crash, you can't be trusted with anything.

I would like to ask the good TSgt exactly how many more people would die with out wearing a reflective belt and how many have they saved? This is where the AF Times could have really done a good article and shown some research into the subject or any research the AF itself has done on the matter. I wonder if this is like Climategate? Let's call it Reflectivegate or Beltgate.

Anybody with safety stink on 'em to talk about a study of reflective belt effectiveness?

Ramble off

[Q]

i want my $3.25 back...what a waste. First time I've ever purchased that bad mag and it won't happen again.

Edited December 3, 2009 by Q

[Guest C17Wes]

The reflective IHRB Flight suit Tab patches I order came in today.

If you some can use some. Send me an email at afsocwes@aol.com

[capt4fans]

UnF$%^ing believable. I can;t understand how AF Times bothce that article that bad. The cover says one thing, and the article is a piece of crap that barely mentions the interview with RB and his comments on the situation over there in Clown City and AF wide for that matter.

I've spent my last $3.25 on that piece of crap rag and won't be reading it much more either. I'm sorry that the article was soooooooo bad.

[Guest Scooby]

Did you guys read the editorial in the front of AF Times? They at least agreed with the overall sentiment that the AF has gone insane with the RB requirement.

But it was upsetting to see so little attention paid to the fact that this entire resentment of ours has less to do with RBs than it does with the overall insanity of the AF and the fact that we've forgotten about our primary mission: sortie generation and supporting the war fighter.

O well....good to see it getting attention but I'd rather see no article at all rather than one that gets the message wrong.

edit: In every article I've seen, the anti-disco belt crowd keeps getting portrayed as whiny bitches complaining about RB usage...people keep missing the fact that the RB is symbolic.

I know....I know...preaching to the choir.

Edited December 3, 2009 by Scooby

[Guest Scooby]

Napoleon:

As a C-130 pilot I'm more than happy to admit I'm supporting the real warriors. I'd never call myself a "warrior". To me, the warriors are the 11Bs (infantry) on the ground, or the 11F (you know what an Air Force 11F is) folks dropping bombs, or the 152F (AH-64 pilot) dudes firing 30MM into the bad guys.. Those are the warriors. I see the trend towards calling everyone "combat ###" (ie, Combat Comm) or "warrior" within the Air Force as nothing more than shameless self-glorification. Unless you're rucking a 60 pound pack and carrying a weapon all day through the streets of Baghdad or some other third world shithole, you don't deserve to pompously call yourself a warrior just because you wear ABUs in your air conditioned office.

On the flip side, I DO believe that I'm the bread and butter of the Air Force. As aircrew, we ARE the Air Force. 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.

But reverse that picture...have the pilots/maintainers/fuel guys stay home, sure you'll have a base that still has a great basketball court, the chow hall will serve food, and people will get paid, and the office weenies can continue to surf the web at work. But what's the point if you're not putting jets in the air? Why even be an Air Force? You might as well be the United States Support Force.

The problem today is we have leadership that is so focused on making everyone feel like "warriors" when they aren't, or make them feel like their job is equal with everyone else's despite the FACT that our Air Force revolves around a flightline, not a damn computer, not a security checkpoint, not a customer service counter.

I love this site

I'm an LRO (Logistics) and I have no problem knowing that I support the war fighter. I do not call myself a warrior and I know that my job is to support those who actually put warheads on foreheads.

I am disgusted by fellow support personnel who try to make themselves feel important by calling themselves warriors, reciting the Airman's Creed, etc. I refuse to take part in that nonsense. I know that my job is important but I also know that it isn't the end-all-be-all. I take pride in Logistics but I know that I am first and foremost a support dude to those who actually do the fighting.

The mission support arena is more disgusting than you ops guys probably realize since you're so removed from it. I go to commander's calls where we try to act all rough and tough....it makes me want to puke all over everyone. If I hear one more fellow support troop call him/herself a warrior, I'm gonna punch them in the face.

A couple people have touched on this earlier....the RB requirement, shirt tucking in, etc. is absolutely about a power trip. "Leaders" who worked 20 years to obtain their rank by pushing paper want to feel better about it by enforcing uniform standards. My first assignment was with an operational unit in AFSOC...we never worried about this nonsense, because we had an actual job to do.

Here at Eglin...there is no job. No mission to be done. So our "leaders" talk about stupid nonsense to try and make up for the fact that what we're doing really isn't that important. Our "leaders" won't admit it but they place all the emphasis they can on stupid BS because it's all they have. It's hard to get someone excited about a mission when you have none.

Edited December 3, 2009 by Scooby

[busdriver]

Scooby, don't loose heart. There is a strong need in the support field for folks like yourself and Finance_Guy. When a support agency falls back on their regs, in full CYA mode at the expense of mission effectiveness, we need strong leadership who can step in and raise the BS flag.

However I would caution you in fighting the "warrior BS" too hard. While a loggie calling himself a warrior is a bit retarded, the young enlisted guys probably don't have the broader perspective and need to feel that their efforts are both worthy and appreciated. Your challenge is to keep them properly focused and motivated. If it sounds like I'm talking down to you, I apologize, I don't' mean to, but I've seen some of our young PJs scoff at our maintainers embracing the rescue motto, but the fact is connecting their efforts to the end result builds morale. Just showing those guys some pictures after a mission and telling them our story makes a huge difference in their job satisfaction. Not the perfect analogy, but hopefully my point is coming across OK.

[Napoleon_Tanerite]

Scooby, don't loose heart. There is a strong need in the support field for folks like yourself and Finance_Guy. When a support agency falls back on their regs, in full CYA mode at the expense of mission effectiveness, we need strong leadership who can step in and raise the BS flag.

However I would caution you in fighting the "warrior BS" too hard. While a loggie calling himself a warrior is a bit retarded, the young enlisted guys probably don't have the broader perspective and need to feel that their efforts are both worthy and appreciated. Your challenge is to keep them properly focused and motivated. If it sounds like I'm talking down to you, I apologize, I don't' mean to, but I've seen some of our young PJs scoff at our maintainers embracing the rescue motto, but the fact is connecting their efforts to the end result builds morale. Just showing those guys some pictures after a mission and telling them our story makes a huge difference in their job satisfaction. Not the perfect analogy, but hopefully my point is coming across OK.

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.

[Guest Scooby]

Scooby, don't loose heart. There is a strong need in the support field for folks like yourself and Finance_Guy. When a support agency falls back on their regs, in full CYA mode at the expense of mission effectiveness, we need strong leadership who can step in and raise the BS flag.

I am very grateful for the fact that my first assignment was with AFSOC. Many LTs come out of ASBC and think that the regs are the absolute end-all-be-all of any argument.

I see them more as a guideline where my job is to meet the intent. As long as I'm meeting the intent, we can take methods to make everyone's life a little easier.

Short story: Back at my previous base, I worked Log Plans and frequently worked with the IDO (from the host unit). By our regs, pax had to be held in a sterile environment to ensure personal accountability. Because of this, the IDO would never let people leave the processing line to get food. Despite the fact that we had a processing line at least once a month cause we always went TDY (on our own planes, mind you). The intent of the AFI is to ensure personal accountability...since we own the planes, they aren't going anywhere w/o the pax!!! My take on it was that if you're late cause you got food, you can explain to the O5 msn/cc why you made him and his own plane take off late. But the host unit LTs never saw it that way and we constantly argued about it. Ugh....so glad I don't work with tool bags like that anymore. They would rather inconvenience several chalks of pax and make them sit in a warehouse with no food than slightly bend the AFI while still meeting intent.

I was fortunate in that several ops guys got to me early on and I always did w/e I could to make their lives easier, as well as the lives of the troops easier. Shockingly enough, I got along well with the ops guys and everyone wanted to punch the hard ass LTs in the face...

I know...cool story, bro.

However I would caution you in fighting the "warrior BS" too hard. While a loggie calling himself a warrior is a bit retarded, the young enlisted guys probably don't have the broader perspective and need to feel that their efforts are both worthy and appreciated. Your challenge is to keep them properly focused and motivated. If it sounds like I'm talking down to you, I apologize, I don't' mean to, but I've seen some of our young PJs scoff at our maintainers embracing the rescue motto, but the fact is connecting their efforts to the end result builds morale. Just showing those guys some pictures after a mission and telling them our story makes a huge difference in their job satisfaction. Not the perfect analogy, but hopefully my point is coming across OK.

I keep my resentment to myself. It's just extremely hard to go from AFSOC (where I frequently went TDY as the lead A4 dude in charge of large redeployments) where I actually took a lot of pride in my mission to AFMC where I'm treated like a 5 year old again and we have no mission. Fortunately my Flight Chief (retired Chief) doesn't drink the kool aid so I mainly rant to him. I don't say what I'm saying on this thread to my troops. It's important that they take pride in their job and I do my best to put everything in perspective. I remind them that our job matters but I don't make stuff up either. I don't try to make our job any more important than it is. Eglin is, after all, a test base but I remind them that our job is sortie generation to test weapons/train pilots for the fight.

But I won't lie to my troops about our level of importance and I don't think you were implying that I should, either. I won't get up there and talk about how we're warriors because that is a word that I reserve for guys who are actually in the shit and getting the mission done. It's important to take pride in what you do but many MSG units take it way too far. This whole "everyone is a warrior" mentality is absolute garbage and belittles the real fighting done by the real warriors. I guess being around PJs, CCTs, CROs/STOs for two years taught me what being a real warrior is all about...those guys deserve the title. To go from that to Eglin where I see mission support pukes (Personnel, Comm, etc.) talk about hacking the mission and being a warrior....it makes me want to punch someone in the face.

I do my best to keep my resentment inside but I've only been at Eglin for three months and I'm not sure how long I'll be able to last before I explode. My only chance is to get over to Herbie, which I am desperately trying to do right now.

[zrooster99]

I see them more as a guideline where my job is to meet the intent. As long as I'm meeting the intent, we can take methods to make everyone's life a little easier.

Short story: Back at my previous base, I worked Log Plans and frequently worked with the IDO (from the host unit). By our regs, pax had to be held in a sterile environment to ensure personal accountability. Because of this, the IDO would never let people leave the processing line to get food. Despite the fact that we had a processing line at least once a month cause we always went TDY (on our own planes, mind you). The intent of the AFI is to ensure personal accountability...since we own the planes, they aren't going anywhere w/o the pax!!! My take on it was that if you're late cause you got food, you can explain to the O5 msn/cc why you made him and his own plane take off late. But the host unit LTs never saw it that way and we constantly argued about it. Ugh....so glad I don't work with tool bags like that anymore. They would rather inconvenience several chalks of pax and make them sit in a warehouse with no food than slightly bend the AFI while still meeting intent.

I was fortunate in that several ops guys got to me early on and I always did w/e I could to make their lives easier, as well as the lives of the troops easier. Shockingly enough, I got along well with the ops guys and everyone wanted to punch the hard ass LTs in the face...

Funny how an assignment in AFSOC will do that. I was a maintainer in AFSOC and it definitely had a positive influence on my attitude toward mission accomplishment. That's one big reason why I have little patience for this reflective belt and shirt tucking silliness and why I've been trying to get back to the command since I became a flier.

[Mephisto]

To go from that to Eglin where I see mission support pukes (Personnel, Comm, etc.) talk about hacking the mission and being a warrior....it makes me want to punch someone in the face.

Right now there are many mission support personnel operating as warriors in Iraq and Afghanistan as Provincial Reconstruction and Embedded Training team members. With the nature of these wars being counter insurgency, these individuals are getting the job done on the ground, outside the wire directly contributing to the fight. So just because someone has a mission support AFSC doesn't necessarily mean they haven't been a warrior.

[GearMonkey]

Right now there are many mission support personnel operating as warriors in Iraq and Afghanistan as Provincial Reconstruction and Embedded Training team members. With the nature of these wars being counter insurgency, these individuals are getting the job done on the ground, outside the wire directly contributing to the fight. So just because someone has a mission support AFSC doesn't necessarily mean they haven't been a warrior.

True. And to varying degree those people deserve the title.

I think what most folks here are referring to, however, are the countless other "support" folks hacking their deployment cred at the 'Deid (and similar places) or "working" back at home station. These are the folks at a 24/7 base who work banker's hours and close for training several afternoons a week. They are the TCN monitors, the folks who arrange 'Deid Idol competitions, and the ones for whom "thats not my job" is the easy answer. Wearing ABUs and reciting a stupid creed don't make you a warrior.

To those who are in the fight, thank you. To those who are pretending they are, get over yourselves and focus on doing your job in a friendly and efficient manner.

[Mephisto]

True. And to varying degree those people deserve the title.

I'm not sure what you mean by varying degree. These two wars are a counter insurgency fight and PRT/ETT are one of the lead functions in such a battle.

I think what most folks here are referring to, however, are the countless other "support" folks hacking their deployment cred at the 'Deid (and similar places) or "working" back at home station. These are the folks at a 24/7 base who work banker's hours and close for training several afternoons a week. They are the TCN monitors, the folks who arrange 'Deid Idol competitions, and the ones for whom "thats not my job" is the easy answer. Wearing ABUs and reciting a stupid creed don't make you a warrior.

In that case its probably best to call those people out individually instead of making blanket statements about an entire AFSC or careerfield. Every career field is going to have its slackers, along with having individuals who really are warriors.

[Guest Scooby]

Right now there are many mission support personnel operating as warriors in Iraq and Afghanistan as Provincial Reconstruction and Embedded Training team members. With the nature of these wars being counter insurgency, these individuals are getting the job done on the ground, outside the wire directly contributing to the fight. So just because someone has a mission support AFSC doesn't necessarily mean they haven't been a warrior.

Of course - and those people deserve all the credit as well. They are absolutely hacking the mission.

I'm talking about people back home station who don't deploy and don't do anything.

But as an LRO, I'm well aware of mission support dudes who hack the mission. When I deploy, it'll probably be a JET tasking with the Army outside the wire.

[capt4fans]

Back to the regularly scheduled topic of discussion in the thread....Reflective Belts suck a$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

*Rant switch off*

[Guest Scooby]

I just did my part to support the cause. I bought the AF Times yesterday and left it on our secretary's desk in our office...my SNCOs asked what it was all about and I went on a 10 minute rant about AF leadership.

They had no idea how bad things were at the D...

[capt4fans]

Here's the best part about the article. Said reporter actually wrote that the airplane that was pictured in the group and encircled with reflective belts was a C-17.