Boss, I quit...

[Gravedigger]

I don't understand this issue. Are you guys not allowed/able/willing to just tell the culprits to stop sending you redundant and unimportant shit?

Through the many years of reading this site, I have continuously tried to figure out why things like this and reflective belts and pushed up sleeves and unzipped pockets and sunglasses on foreheads and the like were so heavily enforced at flying bases. I have decided it is because of two things: 1. Pilots don't lead troops until too late in their careers 2. Support people at flying bases are jealous.

It just blows my mind that the vast majority of you guys are pilots and officers stationed at bases commanded by pilots, in groups/squadrons commanded by pilots, yet you don't have the power to squash the queep. It's honestly unbelievable. MOTHERFUCKERS YOU'RE IN CHARGE.

When we went from wearing flightsuits to ABUs last year, some new MSgt came on the ops floor and told all of the crewmembers to take off their fleeces indoors because it was not authorized. The mission commander (a Capt) then told the MSgt "no." The next week the Sq/CC sent out an email saying that members should wear their fleeces indoors if they were cold per Wg/CC direction and to exercise common sense on similar issues in the future. That was it. Not a word has been spoken of it since.

Cool story, I know. My point is maybe the Air Force at large and particularly where you work doesn't have to suck so much. It really is a shame to see so many good people opting out because of shit that should be a non-issue. To compound that, if the climate is what it is now, what the hell is it going to be like with the good/sane people leaving? Freightening.

[17D_guy]

Favorite part about the post-deployment mental health computer assessment BS: you can't fill it out until 90 days after your return date. Day 91? Email straight to your commander. This seems reasonable; thanks resiliency crew!

Aircrew here get hammered because they miss this due to out-processing again at day 90.

Additional technique: Autosort all e-mails with your last name in the body to a "people who care about me" box. Autosort all e-mails with your first name or callsign in to body to a "people I care about" box. Delete everything left in the inbox.

Damn, no call sign.

[17D_guy]

I don't understand this issue. Are you guys not allowed/able/willing to just tell the culprits to stop sending you redundant and unimportant shit?

...

1. Pilots don't lead troops until too late in their careers

2. Support people at flying bases are jealous.

...

First point - CC's take the Shirt/Chief side. Or the CC is the one sending it again.

Second point (#1) - Agree, but from my support purview the flying community is very insular. Not a bad thing since you all depend on each other, but just the lack of awareness of some of the challenges within the support community hinder our ability to help/morale and enhance our crybabyness.

You know how often I get told computers/network should "just work" and the AIRCREW member who said it is dead serious. Or my second favorite, "It's just a quick fix." Is it?

Third point (#2) - To a degree yes. But you guys bitch about your heritage getting jacked, what do we have left? No patches, no ball caps, no undershirts. Those are just a short list of the things gone since I've been in. My enlisted career field had heritage dating back to the 60s! So old we had Snoopy as a mascot and were proud of it. Apparently just shortly (2~4 years) before even the Comm Sq had a bar in it.

Instead we get a shitty uniform where I look exactly the same as a finance, services, CE or POL guy. I work on f#ckinging networks, I build the BLOOD of the Air Force and make it work (including your shitty forwarded emails). We also build the tools to avoid the digital puke you get (SharePoint) but the old f#ck SNCO's/CC's won't use it the right way.

Could I get a Comm Patch with some nerdy lightning on it or something? Or maybe a ball cap that say's 9th Comm.

Also, stop outsourcing the best parts of my job to civilians, usually the retiring E5~8 who doesn't even like tech, and giving me and my Airmen only the opportunity to take your trouble call and do additional duties.

Sorry for rant.

[StoleIt]

Words

I think everyone here agrees with you.

I at least know I am disappointed there are no squadron patches for dudes stuck in ABUs. I still have my BDU's hanging up in the closet complete with pocket patches.

[Wolf424]

I don't understand this issue. Are you guys not allowed/able/willing to just tell the culprits to stop sending you redundant and unimportant shit?

You can to a point, but when the emails aren't sent directly to you (i.e base all distro, then sq all distro, then sq officers distro), there is not much you can do except tell the ADO "Hey numbnuts, thanks for sending me the FSS slides for a 3rd time". But as my mustache as my witness, for every multiple-forwarded email I get next week, I'm moving my beer time on Friday back by 10 minutes. I figure I'll be able to start drinking before 0800.

[Duck]

The problem is that a large majority of Commander's are not actually pilots. Yeah, they have pilot wings, but they have less hours and experience than 90% of the rest of the Squadrons and only flew when they "had to". They checked the boxes, planned the Christmas party and went to all their schools in residence while the rest of their Squadron bros were fighting the war. 20+ years later they are an IP, with 1500 hours and a Group/Wing Commander who never really liked flying in the first place, but loved being attached to their Commander's piss hole.

[nsplayr]

IDK...I've seen some pretty bad leadership with a lot of hours under their belt. Not sure there's a real correlation there, seems like too simple of an answer.

[Clark Griswold]

Not sure if anyone else see this as "the problem" but I see this as where the problem (leadership with no conern for the mission or common sense) starts, it is that we pre-select our leaders WAY too early in their careers and put them on the enivatble path to command before we know what we've got... been both AD and now Guard and the Guard is by no means perfect but they seem to observe their folks several years prior to picking who will eventually be in charge and from my perspective have a much better filter for stopping DB's from getting command...

There are other problems but that to me seems where they all start, you don't know who you've got but you start giving them min time upgrades, school selects, cross-flow programs, etc.... and you may have the right guy but may not but you have already invested heavily in them as a "leader" and then the AF just accepts what it has got....

[Danny Noonin]

we pre-select our leaders WAY too early in their careers and put them on the enivatble path to command before we know what we've got...

That about sums it up right there

[Azimuth]

IDK...I've seen some pretty bad leadership with a lot of hours under their belt. Not sure there's a real correlation there, seems like too simple of an answer.

Navs

[slackline]

Navs

Ok, I'll bite, I'm not a nav, I'm an experienced IP with 8 combat deployments in Rescue, and I agree. Lots of hours doesn't a make a dude a great leader. It has major potential to help, but it ain't like some kind of a golden ticket. The original post seems more to me like a guy who is pissed because he got screwed over, so now he paints with a broad brush.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[Magellan]

Maybe I am wrong here, but based on the O-6 select list that just came out I would say the Air Force is doing a pretty damn good job of promoting the right people....at least in my corner of the AF.

[RASH]

Maybe I am wrong here, but based on the O-6 select list that just came out I would say the Air Force is doing a pretty damn good job of promoting the right people....at least in my corner of the AF.

Which corner is that?

[SurelySerious]

Which corner is that?

UAVs. It's not figurative: at RF they actually put us in the corner.

Can't comment on selectees, though. Edit: After hearing list of CH selectees, 2/3 decent at least.

Edited March 9, 2013 by SurelySerious

[Duck]

Ok, I'll bite, I'm not a nav, I'm an experienced IP with 8 combat deployments in Rescue, and I agree. Lots of hours doesn't a make a dude a great leader. It has major potential to help, but it ain't like some kind of a golden ticket. The original post seems more to me like a guy who is pissed because he got screwed over, so now he paints with a broad brush.

Wow! I am impressed. Please tell me more about your IP-ness and experience! Dude, you have no f*ckin' clue.

[Guest one]

I really don't have any clue, so this is a serious question.

Do you really think that flight hours is the best indicator on someone's leadership potential?

[dmeg130]

No, of course not. But it is an indicator....

Someone who signs up to be an aviator, and is fortunate enough to be selected and graduate training is expected to enjoy their job and get really good at it. When someone appears more interested in box checking, visibility, and staff opportunities at the expense of what most of us believe should be their focus, it reeks of careerist douchebaggery.

However, practical leadership for us in the USAF is usually quite limited (especially compared to other services) until FGO levels. Some guys do well, some don't, but the guys with several ops tours usually have more credibility and an ops focus, both of which usually equal "great commander" in our minds.

I know plenty of great leaders with zero hours. But I'm wary of an O5 with 1200 hours and 6 years at the pentagon.

[Guest one]

That is one thing that is hard to understand with the Air Force. In the long term, what are they really looking for. It doesn't seem to make sense.

Just for example.. The two people selected a few years ago for the CSAF PhD program in the Air Force were both pilots with Master's degree from places like Harvard that took 2-3 years, then they went to UPT, then they spent time doing whatever in D.C., and then they get selected to do the CSAF PhD program for 3-5 years. These are the people that are supposed to have been "groomed" to be leaders. I have no idea how many hours they have in their airframe but it can't be much. They did all of that shit and they are only captains. This is like box checking to the extreme. How can that be considered the very best way to develop an officer?

Edited March 9, 2013 by one

[guineapigfury]

I don't think that an abundance of flight hours = leadership, but a lack of flight hours = a lack of credibility.

[TreeA10]

I really don't have any clue, so this is a serious question.

Do you really think that flight hours is the best indicator on someone's leadership potential?

I think so. I've seen guys promoted below the zone multiple times after doing staff tours and have minimal tactical experience in the jet and their competence reflected that. These guys were followed only out of morbid sense of curiosity as long as your life wasn't as stake. I've worked for guys with 4500+ hours that might have been a little sloppy on staff issues, still hit the range on a regular basis, and didn't miss a beat keeping the focus on getting steel on target. These guys could have asked us to attack hell with squirt guns and we would have saddled up with super soakers. Success depends on the situation. With no difficult decisions to make and good troops, the incompetent can succeed but will eventually fail under pressure. The guy with more hours and more experience in all things operational has better odds of making correct decisions under pressure and, therefore, successful under most scenarios, IMHO.

[Day Man]

sounds like a similar idea to the often lambasted "if i can't trust you to wear your reflective belt after dark, how can i trust you to fly a jet?"

"if i can't trust you to fly lead/AC/etc, how can i trust you to be a good sq/cc?"

[HU&W]

We've devolved to classic peacetime military leadership that keeps wars and warfighters at arms length. The only real way to change it is if there was a REAL need where your very way of life is threatened, the kind of need where hero leaders emerge to guide us to victory. I know these leaders exist in our ranks, but are currently being suppressed by the peacetime bureaucratic mentality. I honestly hope we never have to truly find out who those people are, mainly because of the horrible situation that would be required to draw them out, but also in case they've been so well suppressed that they can no longer emerge victorious.

[Danny Noonin]

sounds like a similar idea to the often lambasted "if i can't trust you to wear your reflective belt after dark, how can i trust you to fly a jet?"

"if i can't trust you to fly lead/AC/etc, how can i trust you to be a good sq/cc?"

Really?

[slackline]

Wow! I am impressed. Please tell me more about your IP-ness and experience! Dude, you have no f*ckin' clue.

Please continue. I'd love to know how or why it is I have no clue. I simply pointed out that I'm definitely not a nav, and I'm experienced. I normally don't agree with anything nsplayr says, but on this one instance I failed to see how his being a nav means anything. As I said, time in the jet can be an indicator of potential leadership, but it isn't the only thing. So please, give us some more of your obvious wisdom...

Go troll elsewhere. Talk about impressed. I love it when tools talk tough on the Internet.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[Tank]

Please continue. I'd love to know how or why it is I have no clue. I simply pointed out that I'm definitely not a nav, and I'm experienced. I normally don't agree with anything nsplayr says, but on this one instance I failed to see how his being a nav means anything. As I said, time in the jet can be an indicator of potential leadership, but it isn't the only thing. So please, give us some more of your obvious wisdom...

Go troll elsewhere. Talk about impressed. I love it when tools talk tough on the Internet.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD