brabus Posted October 15, 2011 Posted October 15, 2011 Is this for real? Unfortunately, yes. Now there's even signs posted on doors around base stating "Disco belts mandatory, blah blah." I wonder who the hell pitched this new rule? The past 353CTS/CCs I knew wouldn't have pushed this It's from "well above" the CTS, but not outside of the Wing if you catch my drift. Can't say I'm surprised even the least amount. Apparently reflective belts are the mission at Eielson, not RFA. Literally, leadership is saying you will not be allowed to do Eielson's primary mission if you don't wear a reflective belt.
Whitman Posted October 15, 2011 Posted October 15, 2011 Did somebody get hit by a moose while walking to the class six?
brabus Posted October 15, 2011 Posted October 15, 2011 That's most likely the cause. Well at least I don't have to waste energy looking both ways while crossing the street, cars will just see me since I have a reflective belt on. At least it seems to work for all the Airmen. By the way, when did parents stop teaching their kids looking both ways before crossing the street might be a good idea? I'm guessing somewhere around 18-20 years ago.
Guest Posted October 15, 2011 Posted October 15, 2011 Having done a long tour @ Eielson, I thought it was one of the last places where folks could be left alone. I thought that, too. I was wrong. I went up to augment the IG team (to fly) and was briefed by OGV that they had made it mandatory to talk to Anchorage Center before entering the fucking MOA. They were so fucking proud of that. I asked for clarification and they confirmed it was a requirement on every sortie, including CT for the local guys who were VFR. I said, "isn't that kinda difficult to do from 100' AGL?" and the guy said, "we don't fly low anyway, that's just the Hog guys." I couldn't believe it. Reflective belts are bad. Fucking up airspace procedures is far worse.
brabus Posted October 15, 2011 Posted October 15, 2011 (edited) Reflective belts are bad. Fucking up airspace procedures is far worse. Agreed. You have to talk to ANC to get into the airspace and you have to talk to them to get out of the airspace, or have Range cancel for you if it's a VFR day. Nothing better than "negative, you can't enter the airspace because it doesn't start until 5 min from now." Really, because there's so much traffic in the Alaskan interior. Nothing like having to come back with 15 miles space between 2 ships when its IFR. Unbelievable...I never thought flying overseas would be so much easier and less of a PITA, but every time I come back to here I'm reminded of just that. At least when you're in the airspace it's pretty bad ass. Edited October 15, 2011 by brabus
Striper_WSO Posted October 15, 2011 Posted October 15, 2011 To be fair, the walk from the Q to the RF-Alaska building is pretty dangerous. You cross, what, 2 active streets? One of which is lightly trafficked? UFB.
Homestar Posted October 15, 2011 Posted October 15, 2011 To be fair, the walk from the Q to the RF-Alaska building is pretty dangerous. You cross, what, 2 active streets? One of which is lightly trafficked? UFB. Someone just needs to take one for the team: step out in traffic with dual reflective belts and put this madness to rest once and for all. If this man should fall, who will lift the flag and carry on?
Pitt4401 Posted October 16, 2011 Posted October 16, 2011 I have to say your updates are pretty enlightening... I thought the big draw (and talking points) of the JPARC was the fact that you can rule the roost up there. Looks like the company line isn't 100% true....who'da thunk it?
brabus Posted October 16, 2011 Posted October 16, 2011 Well, as long as there is legit flying in the JPARC and the Big R down the road, it's still not a bad deal. But hell, I'm about to take Homestar's advice and step out in front of a bus wearing 5 reflective belts...someone has to pick up the flag.
schokie Posted October 16, 2011 Posted October 16, 2011 Careful with that advice. Such an action might just be what it takes to prompt them to bring in crossing guards from the local elementary school.
BitteEinBit Posted October 16, 2011 Posted October 16, 2011 It is really difficult for me to believe we have come to this as a professional organization...I still don't believe it. Sure, it is a minor detail in the grand sceme of things, but seriously...there really are more important things on which to focus. Any safety types have any statistics about pedestrian deaths before and after this reflective belt push? As much as they push this shit you would think we had 6-9 deaths a day 10 years ago. In theory, no one should ever die again in low-visibility conditions since the reflective belt seems to take away any personal responsibility from someone who decides to cross a busy street without clearing for traffic. We are truly at the lowest common denominator these days. Really? Cancel Red Flag sorties because someone isn't wearing a reflective belt? There is no way that is true...(or that they'd actually do it) I remember a time when a Wing CC said to do something and it was done without question because people respected the LEADERSHIP...nowadays, they politely ask you to do something and if you don't they'll take away your toys! Example #69 of the differences between "Leadership" and Management...
Karl Hungus Posted October 16, 2011 Posted October 16, 2011 It has absolutely nothing to do with safety, and everything to do with the appearance of safety. Appearances get you promoted. And if, against all odds, someone actually does get hit by a car, the careerist "leadership" can point to their stupid policies and say, "well I tried! Promote me!". This organization is completely fucked. Last one out don't forget to turn off the lights. 2
Magnum Posted October 16, 2011 Posted October 16, 2011 This organization is completely ######ed. Last one out don't forget to turn off the lights. Lights were turned off years ago. Everyone has been using their tactical zipper flashlight to see 6" in front of them. 1
sky_king Posted October 16, 2011 Posted October 16, 2011 Uh, where does is say you can have a flashlight attached to your zipper?
nsplayr Posted October 16, 2011 Posted October 16, 2011 (edited) More importantly, where does it say you can't have a flashlight attached to your zipper? And just for clarification, this question is rhetorical...they can take my photon light from my cold dead hands... Better yet, who said you could have a knife clipped to the pocket rather than fully inside the pocket? Who said you could roll your sleeves up once or twice so long as they still looked all the way down? Who said you could tie your boots in regular knots rather than wrapping the laces around? Where are you damn flyboys getting these ideas from?!? We need another uniform jihad to rid our ranks of the regulation infidels! Edited October 16, 2011 by nsplayr 1
Breckey Posted October 17, 2011 Posted October 17, 2011 Had this discussion with a Chief on Friday. He said that if it's not approved in the AFI, then it's not allowed. I did some researching and discovered that that language was in the previous version of the uniform reg but is absent in the new one. So as long as its not forbidden or modifying the purpose of a uniform then its good to go.
nsplayr Posted October 17, 2011 Posted October 17, 2011 IDK, the AFI doesn't say I can pull my flight suit down around my ankles to take a shit, maybe that's not authorized... My humble view is that in general (and especially on queepy stuff like uniform wear), if it doesn't say it's not authorized then it's authorized UFN.
BitteEinBit Posted October 17, 2011 Posted October 17, 2011 Had this discussion with a Chief on Friday. He said that if it's not approved in the AFI, then it's not allowed. I did some researching and discovered that that language was in the previous version of the uniform reg but is absent in the new one. So as long as its not forbidden or modifying the purpose of a uniform then its good to go. "Excuse me Sir...according to AFI-36-2969 (pushing up glasses)...anything modifying the purpose of a uniform is prohibited, and well, by you putting that flashlight on your zipper, it turns your flight suit into a giant light emission source which is not the purpose of that flightsuit. It is a flight suit, not a lightsuit. Can you please remove it before you blind me, Sir?" (joking, but I could totally see it happening) 1
JarheadBoom Posted October 17, 2011 Posted October 17, 2011 What's wrong with the Air Force? Commissioned officers who are afraid of enlisted personnel. I wanted to puke every time I heard an officer whining about "being Chiefed" during my latest stay at Camp Cupcake... Re: the disco belts - I gave a young A1C an ass-chewing a couple weeks ago, when he walked out in front of our crew bus without turning his head in any direction (he was wearing a belt). If the look on his face was a reliable indication, my words did not strike a single functioning brain cell as they transited his skull from one ear to the other.
BitteEinBit Posted October 17, 2011 Posted October 17, 2011 What's wrong with the Air Force? Commissioned officers who are afraid of enlisted personnel. I wanted to puke every time I heard an officer whining about "being Chiefed" during my latest stay at Camp Cupcake... Re: the disco belts - I gave a young A1C an ass-chewing a couple weeks ago, when he walked out in front of our crew bus without turning his head in any direction (he was wearing a belt). If the look on his face was a reliable indication, my words did not strike a single functioning brain cell as they transited his skull from one ear to the other. It's ok...He was wearing a belt...The Air Force has assured him that he is safe....
Hacker Posted October 17, 2011 Posted October 17, 2011 (edited) What's wrong with the Air Force? Commissioned officers who are afraid of enlisted personnel. I wanted to puke every time I heard an officer whining about "being Chiefed" during my latest stay at Camp Cupcake... The real root problem with "Chiefs" is the O-6s they work for who empower them to act that way. Every time I have seen an officer do anything but kotow to a Chief over his asinine 'correction', it has resulted in a direct ass-chewing from an O-6. It's to the point where the Chiefs believe they are carrying all the rank of the guy with the Eagles whom they work for - and the Colonels are not only allowing it, but they're ENCOURAGING it by their actions. The Chief knows he can confront ANY officer he sees, because he knows that if he is rebuked, he'll be able to go tattle to daddy Colonel, who will then show that officer who's the boss. It's sickening...it's like the Commander's wife who thinks she is the "commander" of all the spouses, or that she wears her husband's rank around base. We can complain about Chiefs until the sun burns out, but the REAL issue is the O-6s they work for. Until they decide to stop allowing E-9s to go on these rampages, and put their feet down about policy, there will never be a fix. Edited October 17, 2011 by Hacker 5
Breckey Posted October 17, 2011 Posted October 17, 2011 IDK, the AFI doesn't say I can pull my flight suit down around my ankles to take a shit, maybe that's not authorized... My humble view is that in general (and especially on queepy stuff like uniform wear), if it doesn't say it's not authorized then it's authorized UFN. You know it doesn't say that you can put your wallet in the pockets of your flight suit. Must not be authorized.
Champ Kind Posted October 17, 2011 Posted October 17, 2011 it's like the Commander's wife who thinks she is the "commander" of all the spouses, or that she wears her husband's rank around base. Well now we know what's going on behind closed doors, both at home and at deployed locations. Hacker's cracked the secret! The E-9s and O-6s must be fucking each other! That's the only explanation to this spouse-like behavior!
discus Posted October 17, 2011 Posted October 17, 2011 THIS is a huge problem today. It used to be that if it was important enough, the Air Force would set up a class taught by live human beings and you might actually learn something. Now, it just seems as if anyone and their brother can make a CBT and require us to take it and I have to spend 69 hours doing useless stuff and looking up the answers on Answers.com instead of actually doing something productive with my day.
Homestar Posted October 17, 2011 Posted October 17, 2011 (edited) Aug - Oct must have been a slow coupla months for you... :) Edited October 17, 2011 by Homestar
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now