I Hate Reflective Belts

[Guest Scooby]

^^ Hahahaha....I saw that too and my reaction was "Hrm...I've seen the C-130 but never saw the C-17"

Shows you how much he/she cared about sticking to the facts.

[Herk Driver]

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.

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.

Seriously...

His quote was "Eglin where I see mission support pukes (Personnel, Comm, etc.) talk about hacking the mission and being a warrior". He's not talking about PRTs or other support people deployed. He's talking about those AFSCs at EGLIN. Nowhere else... Keep it in context.

On topic: I hate refective belts...good thing I'm somewhere that only makes me wear one on the flightline.

Edited December 4, 2009 by Herk Driver

[Guest Hueypilot812]

It seems to me that those who miss the boat on the reflective belt symbolism do so because they see the current example of "leadership" and feel that's the correct way to lead people. To them, there's nothing wrong with focusing on all the queepy BS and denying crews food or turning away a sweaty Marine at a chow hall. To them, being in the military is about "standards" and "appearances", not about actually accomplishing anything. It's very much the ROTC Det mentality.

Scooby, good job in understanding where you and your mission sits. I want to add that I'm not saying support folks can't or shouldn't be proud in their jobs, or that they can't feel as though they are PART of the mission. What I was specifically targeting are the shoes who quote regs and fall back on their little world "-isms" and deny support to those who need it "because that's the rules", as if their little rule book is all that really matters in the grand scheme of things. I've had trans guys deny my crew a ride to an airplane, USAF ATOC personnel refusing to refuel my aircraft downrange (WTF on that one??) and a host of other idiotic things where some clown sat there over the phone and quoted some obscure AFI saying "I can't do that", when nothing literally or otherwise was stopping them from making a command decision to do what was needed to get the airplanes and crews back in the air, and ultimately get those crews and airplanes back to supporting the war effort. It was if their little rule book or way of doing things was all that mattered, and us aircrew were only being whiny bitches...how dare we try to hack the mission and possibly break or bend some minor rule or localism.

Anyways, please, encourage your troops to realize that they are indeed part of the mission...maybe if these guys actually understood that, they'd say "oh, hell with the rule book, I've got to get these aircrews on their way to keep the war going". That's the way my dad, grandfather and others before them got things done, and that's the way we need to return to. Rules can't possibly cover every situation, and in our rule-intensive Air Force, it hampers things instead of helps. There's a reason why Navy and Army aviation is much more laid back and open versus the Air Force...it's called "flexibility". No need to tie Navy/Army aircrew's hands with Mickey Mouse BS rules, just set the big picture and get the mission done...

[pawnman]

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.

Bingo. You're in a deployed location. Flyers are working 24/7 planning, executing, and analyzing sorties. There's NO reason why Finance, MPF, or the Education Center should EVER be closed. WTF else are you doing on your deployment? Get to work...you're not at home, there's nothing to do on weekends of evenings. Unless they physically don't have the personnel to man the support agencies 24/7 using the same 12-hour shifts the Ops and MX groups are using, there's no excuse. And yet, they're "supporting" us.

[Techsan]

One of my favorite parts of the article:

"Studies show a motorist driving 60 mph will not see a pedestrian in dark clothing until he is 55 feet away..."

Yeah, we have so many 60 mph zones on AF bases. Hell, I feel like I'm hauliing ass anytime I hit a 30 mph zone.

[pawnman]

One of my favorite parts of the article:

"Studies show a motorist driving 60 mph will not see a pedestrian in dark clothing until he is 55 feet away..."

Yeah, we have so many 60 mph zones on AF bases. Hell, I feel like I'm hauliing ass anytime I hit a 30 mph zone.

For over a dozen years, I've managed to drive in areas with 45-50 MPH speed limits, where no one wears a reflective belt...and I've never run over a pedestrian. For almost 3 decades, I've never worn anything resembling a refective belt in my own neighborhoods or my place of employment...and I've never been hit by a car.

It must be something the USAF does during those annual physicals that scrambles the brains of the men and women serving, and somehow makes them incapable of driving or looking both ways before crossing the street. It can't only be about safety, or else I'd have to wear my RB at home station too (dear God, I hope I'm not giving anyone ideas). Hell, if it were REALLY about safety, wouldn't the USAF mandate that I wear it EVERYWHERE? Isn't a civilian downtown just as likely to run me down (perhaps moreso, given the somewhat less...zealous...enforcement of speed limits in town vs on base) as someone outside the squadron?

Maybe it's just the desert that drives people crazy and makes them incapable of functioning as adults the way they do at home station, although I'm gathering that there are several USAFE bases that operate under similar assumptions. Curtis Lemay is spinning in his grave.

[PolyestherDuck]

For over a dozen years, I've managed to drive in areas with 45-50 MPH speed limits, where no one wears a reflective belt...and I've never run over a pedestrian. For almost 3 decades, I've never worn anything resembling a refective belt in my own neighborhoods or my place of employment...and I've never been hit by a car.

It must be something the USAF does during those annual physicals that scrambles the brains of the men and women serving, and somehow makes them incapable of driving or looking both ways before crossing the street. It can't only be about safety, or else I'd have to wear my RB at home station too (dear God, I hope I'm not giving anyone ideas). Hell, if it were REALLY about safety, wouldn't the USAF mandate that I wear it EVERYWHERE? Isn't a civilian downtown just as likely to run me down (perhaps moreso, given the somewhat less...zealous...enforcement of speed limits in town vs on base) as someone outside the squadron?

Maybe it's just the desert that drives people crazy and makes them incapable of functioning as adults the way they do at home station, although I'm gathering that there are several USAFE bases that operate under similar assumptions. Curtis Lemay is spinning in his grave.

This gives me an interesting idea... If all 17000 members of the Facebook page wore their reflective belts off base on a coordinated day... say, National Reflective Belt day, would it get nationwide press? If interviewed or questioned, respond with "The military taught me that wearing a reflective belt provides good visibility for vehicle drivers and makes it safer for me as a pedestrian, even if I'm in a Wal-Mart parking lot."

[nsplayr]

This gives me an interesting idea... If all 17000 members of the Facebook page wore their reflective belts off base on a coordinated day... say, National Reflective Belt day, would it get nationwide press? If interviewed or questioned, respond with "The military taught me that wearing a reflective belt provides good visibility for vehicle drivers and makes it safer for me as a pedestrian, even if I'm in a Wal-Mart parking lot."

This is the wrong approach. If "the resistance" takes up the angle of safety (i.e. it's not necessary to wear a belt in order to go about your day without getting hit by a car) we will lose. Belts do make you safer in a dark environment, even if it's the kindergarten, CYA kind of safe. Most of the press has focused on the safety aspect and they're missing the point.

We have to get this focused on the leadership and priorities aspect. The problem isn't wearing the belt per se, it's the fact that it's the "One Belt to Rule Them All" and takes priority over feeding troops, giving customs and courtesies, or launching sorties. That is the problem...I don't really care if I have to wear my belt on the flightline, I care that I will get jacked up and prevented from flying if I don't have one.

[Guest Scooby]

...where some clown sat there over the phone and quoted some obscure AFI saying "I can't do that", when nothing literally or otherwise was stopping them from making a command decision

I would say that best describes the problem in the mission support arena today.

The majority of Officers aren't willing to stick their neck on the line and make command decisions. To that, I blame ROTC and the Academy. We are drilled (literally) into obeying rules, regulations, AFIs, to the tee. We are very rarely given chances to exert our leadership capability outside of the well defined boundaries of rules/regs. We are taught to memorize the Field Training Manual and quotes about leadership word-for-word. Rather than practice leadership, we just memorize quotes about it from guys who became famous by breaking/bending/altering the rules to accomplish the mission and take care of the troops.

I fear it's only gonna get worse....especially here in AFMC. With so many full birds losing their jobs over nuke safety, strict adherence to regulations has become priority #1 for us again. Things will definitely get worse before ever getting better.

I'm only one dude and can only do so much but I try my best. I try to convince my fellow CGOs about what is really important but most are lost in the AFI sauce.

[M2]

Ask and ye shall receive...

The genius of these little beauties is that the 'IHRB' is made out of the same reflective material as the belts! I tried to capture that in the pic on the right.

To 'get some,' contact Wes at AFSOCWes@aol.com

Cheers! M2

[lost]

Just a quick observation from a Army guy that saw some of the effects of forcing that policy on a camp in Kuwait. In 04 the RB was not mandated for use while on the camp. No problem, ton of traffic, surges over 25 thousand at times. No incidents even with dust storms, TCN's driving around. Honestly most of the speeds are less than in housing areas. So 3 years later I am back at the same camp, now with the retarded RB policy in place.

I saw more Soldiers, Airman, and Sailors just walking out into the streets with zero SA of whats going on around them. So from a Safety point of view it seems to have had the opposite affect. That due to their safety bubble pedestrians feel like drivers will just stop for them. I would much rather be invisible and just look out for myself.

And there lies the crux of the problem in my opinion. A lack of individual responsibility/accountability vs. a CYA mentality and one size fits all policy that just plan sucks.

Also good on the Marines, never saw them wear the RB once, heard their CO said hell no my Marines are not wearing that crap.

[Napoleon_Tanerite]

I would say that best describes the problem in the mission support arena today.

The majority of Officers aren't willing to stick their neck on the line and make command decisions. To that, I blame ROTC and the Academy. We are drilled (literally) into obeying rules, regulations, AFIs, to the tee. We are very rarely given chances to exert our leadership capability outside of the well defined boundaries of rules/regs. We are taught to memorize the Field Training Manual and quotes about leadership word-for-word. Rather than practice leadership, we just memorize quotes about it from guys who became famous by breaking/bending/altering the rules to accomplish the mission and take care of the troops.

I fear it's only gonna get worse....especially here in AFMC. With so many full birds losing their jobs over nuke safety, strict adherence to regulations has become priority #1 for us again. Things will definitely get worse before ever getting better.

I'm only one dude and can only do so much but I try my best. I try to convince my fellow CGOs about what is really important but most are lost in the AFI sauce.

I'd say to be VERY careful going down the road of disregarding AFIs. I'm sure you understand the difference between technique and procedure. I view AFIs as procedure, and not to be broken unless emergency circumstances dictate. TECHNIQUE is the realm of the leader. If the AFI says to do X, you do X, but so long as there isn't a specific prohibition against doing Y and Z first, do Y and Z first if it promotes mission accomplishment or does a better job taking care of your people.

The major problem I see with a LOT of guys is that they read too far into the AFI, and insert things between the lines that aren't there, but they treat them like they were... invariable those inserta are shitty and exist just to make people miserable.

The major advantage to the AF treating everyone like kindergartners is you can do ANYTHING once so long as you were not specifically briefed against it and there's no specific AFI forbidding it.

I think the best piece of leadership advice I ever got came from my ROTC commander my senior year. He said "Exercise all power not specifically denied to you". Personally my litmus test for doing something is in my head I will try to get my story straight for how I'll explain it to the OG while wearing service dress and standing at the position of attention. If I can come up with something plausible, logical, and legal, it usually means it's a good decision. If I'm having to stretch, it's probably time to come up with a new plan.

[Guest IGB]

Reflective belt absurdity is being covered in the Army blogs too...

Army Helo Driver Blog

[Guest Scooby]

I'd say to be VERY careful going down the road of disregarding AFIs. I'm sure you understand the difference between technique and procedure. I view AFIs as procedure, and not to be broken unless emergency circumstances dictate. TECHNIQUE is the realm of the leader. If the AFI says to do X, you do X, but so long as there isn't a specific prohibition against doing Y and Z first, do Y and Z first if it promotes mission accomplishment or does a better job taking care of your people.

I see what you're saying. I didn't mean to imply that I straight up break AFIs when I feel like it.

I just meant that - to me - meeting the intent of the AFI is sometimes more important than the letter of the AFI. There's a reason why Officers are paid so much money and given so much responsibility. Occasionally we're expected to use our judgment and decide what is ultimately the best course of action to follow.

It also means that it is our ass on the line when the shit hits the fan and we make a command decision.

Unfortunately, too many Os I know will just fall back on the AFI and refuse to take charge.

edit: As someone taught me as a young 2Lt....even a bad decision is better than no decision at all.

Edited December 7, 2009 by Scooby

[Guest Hueypilot812]

I'd say to be VERY careful going down the road of disregarding AFIs. I'm sure you understand the difference between technique and procedure. I view AFIs as procedure, and not to be broken unless emergency circumstances dictate. TECHNIQUE is the realm of the leader. If the AFI says to do X, you do X, but so long as there isn't a specific prohibition against doing Y and Z first, do Y and Z first if it promotes mission accomplishment or does a better job taking care of your people.

Having been in both Air Force and Army flying communities, I think the above statement is the crux of the problem. I can't speak for the Army of today, but 10 years ago, we didn't have a ton of queepy rules. For those of you that have flown with the Navy, it was much like that...all the rules/regs were "big picture" and you used your common sense to fill in the gaps.

By creating a rule/reg for every little tiny issue (and trust me, we in the AF are pros at doing this), we hinder ourselves and set this whole machine in motion, building in a lack of flexibility. We've got rules/regs that cover nearly everything, I wouldn't be surprised there's a reg out there telling us how and when to take a $hit.

Unfortunately, in the Air Force, we've bred a culture that rules/regs can replace common sense. It can't, and too many rules/regs has the opposite effect you'd think it would. In all the of the cases I've mentioned in the past of support guys saying "no", the rule/reg probably wasn't really needed in the first place, and was probably created to take the thinking out of the process. If your minions aren't using their brains and making their own decisions based on their common sense, then you've got a predictable force to manage...inflexible, but predictable.

Edited to add an example:

We planned our flight to land back at our deployed destination with plenty of fuel, and all our stops were military airfields with fuel so we weren't too worried...so we pressed to fly without any planned fuel stops. Enroute to our last destination in the box prior to heading home, we were vectored all over the sky for various killbox and UAV orbit considerations. Bottom line, we were airborne nearly an hour longer than we planned, and now we were a few thousand pounds of fuel short of where we wanted to be.

No problem, since the airfield we landed at had USMC air ops (and obviously plenty of JP8). Now, we weren't going to be fuel hogs, but asked for about 4,000 lbs of gas...this would give us plenty to land at home plate with a couple thousand above desired landing fuel (we would land our Herk with about 10-11K in gas). We ran the request through the USAF ATOC folks, who then quickly responded that their local regs mandated that they deny our request for fuel. In the words of the OIC, "you have to depart with what you have". Sorry, I'm not buying it, so I press them and they keep quoting the mantra that their local regs and guidance from their leadership (they were a GSU) stated no fuel to transients.

After making a fuss with AMD, we got our fuel. I spoke directly to the USMC fuel guys and they said they had NO restrictions in giving gas, only that we avoid using them as a routine fuel source (which we weren't). But if an aircraft was running low for one reason or another, they had no problem topping us off with a few thousand to make it home. Essentially, the restriction was coming from the USAF ATOC folks. Somebody in their chain also wanted to avoid using the Marine base as a "routine fuel stop" and made a rule/reg prohibiting ALL refueling by USAF aircraft...even aircraft that originally started out with plenty and due to unforeseen events beyond their control were now short on gas.

See what I'm talking about? Rather than giving that power/authority to the locals with the intent of only fueling aircraft for required needs, they just made a rule prohibiting it at all. That way they don't have to worry about the ATOC minions making a bad decision...it's already decided for them. Problem is they also removed any and all flexibility from that equation as well. Anyone else know where I'm going with this?

Edited December 7, 2009 by Hueypilot812

[donkey]

Oh man... lol

I know a guy that claims he wore his safety belt whilst engaging in casual sex and he still caught the clap.

[zrooster99]

I see what you're saying. I didn't mean to imply that I straight up break AFIs when I feel like it.

I just meant that - to me - meeting the intent of the AFI is sometimes more important than the letter of the AFI. There's a reason why Officers are paid so much money and given so much responsibility. Occasionally we're expected to use our judgment and decide what is ultimately the best course of action to follow.

Shack. We, as officers, need to be able to exercise judgment and not just blindly follow the regs. That's one difference between an officer and an NCO, supposedly. The problem is that some NCO's don't understand that there's a difference. It is an NCO's place to ADVISE an officer on a COA. If the officer chooses to ignore the NCO's ADVICE then it's his ass.

Napoleon, I'm not trying to take a shot at you or start a flame war, but just illustrate a point: Have you ever walked up to an intersection late a night, with no traffic, and crossed against the signal? Was it against the law? Yes. Was it good judgment? I would argue, also, yes. You could have stood there for 10 minutes waiting for the light to change, obeyed the law, and been safe. But, to what end. We as officers are paid to THINK.

I'm not saying we should ignore AFIs, but there's a difference between not wearing your reflective belt and not following -1 guidance that could be dangerous. This bullshit of "if you can't follow the simple regs. how can I trust you to do the important stuff" is the same as a bullshit moral equivalency argument.

Then you have the people that say, "well, you're setting a bad example for the troops". Sorry, I've got to throw the bullshit flag on that one too. A good NCO can explain to the troops that an officer is paid to exercise judgment. An A1C is not paid to do so, or is to a lesser degree. That's why the consequences for failure are higher for officers. Furthermore, I learned from my maintenance days, that a lot of the troops recognize and appreciate it when you take a stand against bullshit queep. The inability to think critically on the part of SOME NCOs is not a good reason to relieve me of my ability to exercise judgment as an officer.

Edited December 8, 2009 by zrooster99

[Vertigo]

USAF ATOC personnel refusing to refuel my aircraft downrange (WTF on that one??)

Probably because ATOC doesn't have anything to do with fuel. POL does that... ATOC puts on your cargo/pax (more sepcifically Aerial Port does, ATOC is the C&C of the Aerial Port). Unless you've got a new concept aircraft that burns pax as fuel... wait a minute! That gives me an idea!

Edit: Ok, I commented before I saw your second post explaining it more in detail. But curious, why were you contacting ATOC for fuel? Was it because they were the only USAF personnel at the base or ??

Most likely the no fuel policy was put in place by the Marines several years ago when things were a bit rougher and when that MEF left and another took its place, followed by another, no one ever readdressed that policy. Hell they probably weren't even aware of their own policy. I can't, in any way shape or form, imagine ATOC creating a rule to deny fuel when ATOC isn't even involved in that process at all.

Edited December 7, 2009 by Vertigo

[outbreak]

Probably because ATOC doesn't have anything to do with fuel. POL does that... ATOC puts on your cargo/pax (more sepcifically Aerial Port does, ATOC is the C&C of the Aerial Port). Unless you've got a new concept aircraft that burns pax as fuel... wait a minute! That gives me an idea!

Edit: Ok, I commented before I saw your second post explaining it more in detail. But curious, why were you contacting ATOC for fuel? Was it because they were the only USAF personnel at the base or ??

Most likely the no fuel policy was put in place by the Marines several years ago when things were a bit rougher and when that MEF left and another took its place, followed by another, no one ever readdressed that policy. Hell they probably weren't even aware of their own policy. I can't, in any way shape or form, imagine ATOC creating a rule to deny fuel when ATOC isn't even involved in that process at all.

Wow, even I know this one!

There's not a separate freq for ATOC, TA, C&C, and POL. It's a person on a radio that handles the coordination between aircraft and those agencies. One radio call commonly says "I'm downloading this(ATOC), I need a power cart(TA), this much gas(POL), and parking." That freq is commonly referred to as "the ATOC freq" but is used for all those things.

[JS]

[Guest Hueypilot812]

Probably because ATOC doesn't have anything to do with fuel. POL does that... ATOC puts on your cargo/pax (more sepcifically Aerial Port does, ATOC is the C&C of the Aerial Port). Unless you've got a new concept aircraft that burns pax as fuel... wait a minute! That gives me an idea!

Edit: Ok, I commented before I saw your second post explaining it more in detail. But curious, why were you contacting ATOC for fuel? Was it because they were the only USAF personnel at the base or ??

Most likely the no fuel policy was put in place by the Marines several years ago when things were a bit rougher and when that MEF left and another took its place, followed by another, no one ever readdressed that policy. Hell they probably weren't even aware of their own policy. I can't, in any way shape or form, imagine ATOC creating a rule to deny fuel when ATOC isn't even involved in that process at all.

Yes, I know ATOC doesn't actually run the fuel trucks...

The location of this debacle was ORAT. Back in the "good old days" the Marines ran the entire operation, and enroute stops were a snap. Fast-forward to the past several years, and the USAF took over the air movement ops, but the USMC still ran the airfield. So if you're an aircraft unloading cargo/pax at the airfield, it's normal to contact ATOC and request fuel. They have the hotline to the USMC fuel guys. In the end, after our own USAF folks stiff-armed us, we went around them and contacted AMD who then got ahold of the Marine POL operators, and we got our fuel.

I think I mentioned in my post that they (the Marines) didn't want transients coming through treating their base (and limited fuel supply) as a fuel stop. However common sense would dictate that any airfield wouldn't have a problem providing any aircraft a few thousand pounds when needed for operational issues (like us having to hold for over an hour prior to arriving at ORAT). The Marines confirmed that...they said they had zero problems giving us gas, so long as we weren't planning on using their airfield as a gas stop. The USAF troops managing the transient traffic didn't seem to understand this subtlety.

The part I was discussing was our own USAF folks telling us we couldn't get fuel, and they wouldn't arrange for us to get fuel...they seemed to think it was better to force an aircraft to depart low on gas than break a local policy that was only circulated in the USAF airfield ops there. Bigger picture, try applying that same concept to nearly every other aspect of our operations...support (and even some ops) folks denying support or making crews do non-sensical things just to avoid breaking a self-imposed rule that probably need not exist in the first place. The OIC was a Major. He should have enough brain power to understand the difference of a C-130 landing low on gas due to delays and requesting a couple thousand to make it home, versus an aircraft landing and asking for 20K in gas for the rest of the day.

[HerkFE]

Yesterday I went down to the lobby of the hotel (off base, Hampton Inn) for the free breakfast. As soon as I entered the lobby I saw a bag wearing a reflective belt, 8 a.m. local, buffet line, commercial hotel . I was this close to walking over and saying "WTF?" Then it all became clear when I saw the name tag with the Red Cross on it...Aeromed. I didn't waste my breath.

[Guest Hueypilot812]

Yesterday I went down to the lobby of the hotel (off base, Hampton Inn) for the free breakfast. As soon as I entered the lobby I saw a bag wearing a reflective belt, 8 a.m. local, buffet line, commercial hotel . I was this close to walking over and saying "WTF?" Then it all became clear when I saw the name tag with the Red Cross on it...Aeromed. I didn't waste my breath.

Those free-breakfast lines can be fairly hazardous...better they see you rather than you try to avoid them.

[contraildash]

You aren't kidding! Never get between two folks in the continental breakfast line who's combined weight can be defined in terms of 'tons.'

[Crog]

Yesterday I went down to the lobby of the hotel (off base, Hampton Inn) for the free breakfast. As soon as I entered the lobby I saw a bag wearing a reflective belt, 8 a.m. local, buffet line, commercial hotel . I was this close to walking over and saying "WTF?" Then it all became clear when I saw the name tag with the Red Cross on it...Aeromed. I didn't waste my breath.

Saw the same thing last week at the Country Inn and Suites in Marietta, Ga. This time, it was a MSgt MX troop.

In his defense, the crock pot with grits looked pretty deadly.....