Info on flight boots

[Bode]

Sorry going to have to continue to disagree with you here on "CC is clearly articulating policy, not much more"  He is mandating "NEW and IMPROVED minimums to the PT standard.  On top of that he is requiring those not meeting his higher standard (for no justifiable reason) to have additional duty requirements (PT at 0600 is likely outside normal show time for his squadron and thus additional time). 
If he really want's to do group PT then do it on the company time.  If the Air Force wants to put its money where it's mouth is then it will provide ample opportunity for people to get their PT in during normal hours.  One of my older squadrons 2-3 times a week would kick every one out of the squadron at 1530 or so for group PT, have us PT for 30-45 mins and release every one home to spend some extra time with the family.  Considering we all deployed/TDY 6+ months a year on average this did two things.  Took care of your people while at home through additional family time to attempt and pay some of that lost time back, and incentivized the PT as it was an easy ticket to getting out of the office early.  Even better he made it very clear he expected people to head home, and made sure the individual shop chief's were not expecting their people to head back into the office post PT protecting us from overly zealous workaholic types.    
So yes is JQP off base at times? Sure.  But in this case I can find no fault with his reasoning.  This commanders policy is shit.  If you are provided time in the day to get your work out, and fail to utilize it and fail then you are punished great.  But until you fail they need to back the F#$% off.

I fully support this statement and can say that the CC involved (From what I have heard) has brought the squadron down by implementing policies like this. Rumor is his enlisted leadership is against it. The parts that aren't on the letter are the worst. The mock test require supervisor AND flight chief present as well as a CPR certified observer. Have to remember the majority of that squadron is ATC and AFE. These guys work opening and closing shifts. Last I talked to one of their SNCOs opening and closing shifts have to attend and the rest of the crew has to figure it out without them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DirtyFlightSuit]

Good Leader - 0 Policy letters

Bad Leader - 50 Policy letters

Policy Letters are for the weak and lazy.  Real commander doesn't need some letter to support their actions.  Their actions speak for themselves and the validation comes with continual mission focus.  Recently I had a commander come in and within his first week or so deleted every policy letter he could find from previous squadron commanders.  Some of these policies had been in "place" for 4+ commanders ago and had just festered as Air Force officers we learn nothing can beat the Air Force if we just pile on more policy....

Granted at some point we found out that we were required to have certain policy letters per wing/group/AFI Guidance and adjusted accordingly, however the initial response was a win.  I rather ask forgiveness than be chained down as a commander and require mental retardation with what was shown with this OSS commander.  Nothing like forcing additional work for your lower level commanders to supervise, rather than trust them to lead their people.  Can't teach this stuff if you hold their hand with strict requirements, how about we let people fail and learn from their mistakes and grow. 

My leadership experience while very limited, rarely did I go search for some written guidance to tell me how to handle a situation.  I started with what made sense to me, and adjusted if I found additional information down the line if I needed too.  What won me over big time once was when the decision I made was contrary to written guidance, but was in the best interest of one of my students.  My commander backed me, and we essentially ignored that written guidance as it did not make sense in our specific situation.  Ideally I would have known about that limitation first, and that was my sin, but I still stood by my decision and was likely more free to make it with my ignorance.

  

[Chuck17]

13 hours ago, DirtyFlightSuit said:

Good Leader - 0 Policy letters

Bad Leader - 50 Policy letters

Policy Letters are for the weak and lazy.  Real commander doesn't need some letter to support their actions.  Their actions speak for themselves and the validation comes with continual mission focus.  Recently I had a commander come in and within his first week or so deleted every policy letter he could find from previous squadron commanders.  Some of these policies had been in "place" for 4+ commanders ago and had just festered as Air Force officers we learn nothing can beat the Air Force if we just pile on more policy....

Granted at some point we found out that we were required to have certain policy letters per wing/group/AFI Guidance and adjusted accordingly, however the initial response was a win.  I rather ask forgiveness than be chained down as a commander and require mental retardation with what was shown with this OSS commander.  Nothing like forcing additional work for your lower level commanders to supervise, rather than trust them to lead their people.  Can't teach this stuff if you hold their hand with strict requirements, how about we let people fail and learn from their mistakes and grow. 

My leadership experience while very limited, rarely did I go search for some written guidance to tell me how to handle a situation.  I started with what made sense to me, and adjusted if I found additional information down the line if I needed too.  What won me over big time once was when the decision I made was contrary to written guidance, but was in the best interest of one of my students.  My commander backed me, and we essentially ignored that written guidance as it did not make sense in our specific situation.  Ideally I would have known about that limitation first, and that was my sin, but I still stood by my decision and was likely more free to make it with my ignorance.

  

Exactly. As you'll find out, some of the queep is required, with YOU held responsible for lack of presentation/enforcement.

Furthermore, the real trouble with thinking like a captain is that eventually you're not a captain anymore...

One of the biggest problems we have in the USAF (and in the Joint fight) is that for the most part we as airmen have no clue "what the book says." I always found it an amazing dichotomy that as IPs we crush new kids for not knowing what the book says, only to turn around as O5s and O6s and be completely oblivious to how a targeting cycle works, ROE, commander's guidance, JOPP, etc etc. 

The cowboy captain is effective. The dipshit O5/O6 who doesn't know how things work is often dangerous, and generally a pain in the ass creating more work for everyone by NOT knowing or caring how it's done.

Food for thought.

Chuck

[pawnman]

19 hours ago, DirtyFlightSuit said:

Good Leader - 0 Policy letters

Bad Leader - 50 Policy letters

Policy Letters are for the weak and lazy.  Real commander doesn't need some letter to support their actions.  Their actions speak for themselves and the validation comes with continual mission focus.  Recently I had a commander come in and within his first week or so deleted every policy letter he could find from previous squadron commanders.  Some of these policies had been in "place" for 4+ commanders ago and had just festered as Air Force officers we learn nothing can beat the Air Force if we just pile on more policy....

Granted at some point we found out that we were required to have certain policy letters per wing/group/AFI Guidance and adjusted accordingly, however the initial response was a win.  I rather ask forgiveness than be chained down as a commander and require mental retardation with what was shown with this OSS commander.  Nothing like forcing additional work for your lower level commanders to supervise, rather than trust them to lead their people.  Can't teach this stuff if you hold their hand with strict requirements, how about we let people fail and learn from their mistakes and grow. 

My leadership experience while very limited, rarely did I go search for some written guidance to tell me how to handle a situation.  I started with what made sense to me, and adjusted if I found additional information down the line if I needed too.  What won me over big time once was when the decision I made was contrary to written guidance, but was in the best interest of one of my students.  My commander backed me, and we essentially ignored that written guidance as it did not make sense in our specific situation.  Ideally I would have known about that limitation first, and that was my sin, but I still stood by my decision and was likely more free to make it with my ignorance.

  

Policy letters have their place.  At least if I have a SQ/CC policy letter to point to, the RA won't push back when I request a certain kind of gear.  I agree that you don't need a policy letter for everything...but they have their place.  Sometimes it's less for the people inside the squadron and more for those throwing stones from the outside.

[DirtyFlightSuit]

11 hours ago, Chuck17 said:

The cowboy captain is effective. The dipshit O5/O6 who doesn't know how things work is often dangerous, and generally a pain in the ass creating more work for everyone by NOT knowing or caring how it's done.

Food for thought.

Chuck

I got to give you credit on this one, well put and agreed. 

My reaction is more along the lines of commanders resorting to establishing a new rule or policy any time something goes wrong or just because.  Some times the human element just screws ups, and the only required response is to make sure your people are safe and understand where the failure is.  Every failure doesn't require a new squadron wide policy or power point presentation, some times that failure can just be learned from those involved. 

 

 

[Swizzle]

12 hours ago, Chuck17 said:

Exactly. As you'll find out, some of the queep is required, with YOU held responsible for lack of presentation/enforcement.

Furthermore, the real trouble with thinking like a captain is that eventually you're not a captain anymore...

One of the biggest problems we have in the USAF (and in the Joint fight) is that for the most part we as airmen have no clue "what the book says." I always found it an amazing dichotomy that as IPs we crush new kids for not knowing what the book says, only to turn around as O5s and O6s and be completely oblivious to how a targeting cycle works, ROE, commander's guidance, JOPP, etc etc. 

The cowboy captain is effective. The dipshit O5/O6 who doesn't know how things work is often dangerous, and generally a pain in the ass creating more work for everyone by NOT knowing or caring how it's done.

Food for thought.

Chuck

There is a process, policy, regulation, AFI  and/or etc for everything we do.

Knowing when to ignore it is half the battle. The other half is knowing where it exists. 

...oh and words have meaning and intention, but words in context is key.

[HeyWatchThis]

On 5/28/2017 at 3:25 PM, gearpig said:

He must not have known that it was "wear whatever you want" day.

Sorry man but my standard issue Bellvilles were like wearing a brick strapped to a barge on each foot.  I'll stick with my Rocky Sv2's that actually perform like a boot should....

This same guy also threw a fit over people not wearing issued sun glasses....

Needless to say the morale within the T1 squadron on both the studs and IPs was horrid under this guy.....

Edited May 30, 2017 by HeyWatchThis

[Fuzz]

1 hour ago, HeyWatchThis said:

This same guy also threw a fit over people not wearing issued sun glasses....

Needless to say the morale within the T1 squadron on both the studs and IPs was horrid under this guy.....

Where the hell do these people come from? Honestly who gives a shit about sunglasses as long as they are within regs? I got issued a pair in UPT and a $5 pair from the gas station wear better quality and more comfortable. Sorry I'll stick with a quality pair like my Oakleys instead of that shit.

[ThreeHoler]

Where the hell do these people come from? Honestly who gives a shit about sunglasses as long as they are within regs? I got issued a pair in UPT and a $5 pair from the gas station wear better quality and more comfortable. Sorry I'll stick with a quality pair like my Oakleys instead of that shit.

Technically Oakleys that meet the dress and appearance reg may not meet the impact requirements of the other reg.

It isn't a haze. It is eyeball protection.

That said, I'll take the risk and wear my Oakleys.

[pawnman]

26 minutes ago, ThreeHoler said:

 

Technically Oakleys that meet the dress and appearance reg may not meet the impact requirements of the other reg.

It isn't a haze. It is eyeball protection.

That said, I'll take the risk and wear my Oakleys.

 

Wait, I'm REQUIRED to wear sunglasses in the aircraft now?  News to me.  It's one thing to meet impact resistance while deployed on a convoy...it's a different thing to use impact-resistance as justification at a UPT base stateside.

[alphadeltaIII]

10 hours ago, HeyWatchThis said:

Sorry man but my standard issue Bellvilles were like wearing a brick strapped to a barge on each foot.  I'll stick with my Rocky Sv2's that actually perform like a boot should....

This same guy also threw a fit over people not wearing issued sun glasses....

Needless to say the morale within the T1 squadron on both the studs and IPs was horrid under this guy.....

I'll be down at XL in August, curious to know what the morale is like down there right now.

[Danger41]

On 5/28/2017 at 6:56 PM, DirtyFlightSuit said:

Good Leader - 0 Policy letters

Bad Leader - 50 Policy letters

Policy Letters are for the weak and lazy.  Real commander doesn't need some letter to support their actions.  Their actions speak for themselves and the validation comes with continual mission focus.  Recently I had a commander come in and within his first week or so deleted every policy letter he could find from previous squadron commanders...

Granted at some point we found out that we were required to have certain policy letters per wing/group/AFI Guidance and adjusted accordingly, however the initial response was a win.  I rather ask forgiveness than be chained down as a commander...

My leadership experience while very limited, rarely did I go search for some written guidance to tell me how to handle a situation.  I started with what made sense to me, and adjusted if I found additional information down the line if I needed too.  

  

Dude, your heart is in the right place, but this is not the way to do business. I'm going to assume (based on your post/context) that you're a FAIP that hasn't been around too much. I love your enthusiasm, but actions like yours is exactly what creates micromanagement. Going with your gut will usually be the right thing, but sometimes it can get you in trouble/killed. Overly dramatic example but are you going to disregard a missed approach point/MDA because your gut tells you the weather is breaking and you'll be okay? I know you wouldn't. The reason is because you're armed with the knowledge of the consequences of those actions. Why not know what the books say in a different situation before going off half-cocked? 

From the other side of your situation, if I was your commander I wouldn't trust your decision making based on what you're telling me in this post until you proved otherwise. Unfortunately, that's a lot like a batting average in that it's super easy to lose and a bitch to get back.

I am not trying to sound like I'm lecturing, but I see this attitude often (I used to be this way). One of the best things you can do for your career in airplanes/officership is know wtf you're doing before you do it and have to pick up the pieces later.

[Danger41]

2 hours ago, alphadeltaIII said:

I'll be down at XL in August, curious to know what the morale is like down there right now.

Honestly, why does it matter? Show up and form your own opinion. I guarantee no one on this site will say, "it's pretty darn good." 

[Fuzz]

6 hours ago, ThreeHoler said:

 

Technically Oakleys that meet the dress and appearance reg may not meet the impact requirements of the other reg.

It isn't a haze. It is eyeball protection.

That said, I'll take the risk and wear my Oakleys.

 

That's the stupidest argument I've heard, not a chance the POS sunglasses the Air Force issues me provide better protection than Oakley lenses. Also if we really care about impact resistance what about when I'm not wearing sunglasses? Pretty sure anything that hits my Mark 1 eyeball when I'm not wearing them is going to hurt regardless, so unless UPT is also issuing clear lenses to be worn at all times that argument is junk.

[ThreeHoler]

That's the stupidest argument I've heard, not a chance the POS sunglasses the Air Force issues me provide better protection than Oakley lenses. Also if we really care about impact resistance what about when I'm not wearing sunglasses? Pretty sure anything that hits my Mark 1 eyeball when I'm not wearing them is going to hurt regardless, so unless UPT is also issuing clear lenses to be worn at all times that argument is junk.

If you've ever seen a hammer against flight frames and Oakleys...then you'll understand.

Go read the source reg or have someone show you just how fragile the off the shelf glasses are compared to the ugly-ass ones the AF issues.

I will never challenge someone for wearing the wrong boots or glasses. I don't have time for that level of micromanagement; also, like I said, I fly with my non AF sunglasses. But it would suck to have that one commander who did a line of duty determination decide you ed yourself up because you chose to ignore the regs.

[Fuzz]

9 hours ago, ThreeHoler said:

 

If you've ever seen a hammer against flight frames and Oakleys...then you'll understand.

Go read the source reg or have someone show you just how fragile the off the shelf glasses are compared to the ugly-ass ones the AF issues.

I will never challenge someone for wearing the wrong boots or glasses. I don't have time for that level of micromanagement; also, like I said, I fly with my non AF sunglasses. But it would suck to have that one commander who did a line of duty determination decide you ed yourself up because you chose to ignore the regs.

 

Yeah Oakley makes videos showing the impact tests on their lenses and all their lenses exceed ANZI standards. I've seen friends hit in the face with line drive baseballs and the doctors tell them the only reason they still had their eyesight is due to their Oakley sunglasses. I get where you are coming from with the line of duty determination and my previous comment still stands since I'm never required to wear eye protection in the first place.

[tk1313]

Done a little bit of research on boots... I'm primarily concerned with getting good boots that are lightweight and good/comfortable for running in. What do you guys think about Nike SFB vs Rocky C4T? Those seem to be the two that guys are comfortable running and spending a lot of time in.

[JustHangingOut]

1 hour ago, tk1313 said:

Done a little bit of research on boots... I'm primarily concerned with getting good boots that are lightweight and good/comfortable for running in. What do you guys think about Nike SFB vs Rocky C4T? Those seem to be the two that guys are comfortable running and spending a lot of time in.

If you have wide feet like me, nike's aren't that great.  for everyone else...they are pretty awesome

the Rocky's tend to fit more people and are also a light boot.  If you need something for the field work... Rocky s2v all the way.  They are super tough, comfortable for long ruck marches, and the dry out fast after they get soaked. 

Another great boot for all around garrison or field work is the Garmont T8.  I'm not sure if they are flight approved though.

Another thing to consider is good socks.  Darn Tough socks are expensive, but the best out there.  They have a lifetime no questions asked warranty.  I have a few pair of them and quality socks make a huge difference.

[tac airlifter]

7 hours ago, tk1313 said:

Done a little bit of research on boots... I'm primarily concerned with getting good boots that are lightweight and good/comfortable for running in. What do you guys think about Nike SFB vs Rocky C4T? Those seem to be the two that guys are comfortable running and spending a lot of time in.

I’ve been doing a lot of running in boots lately.  Highly recommend Lowa: https://www.gsaboots.com/footwear-brands/lowa/task-force-boots-shoes-mens.html

that site has great prices if you have .mil email address.  

[BFM this]

34 minutes ago, tac airlifter said:

I’ve been doing a lot of running in boots lately.  

...why?

[Smokin]

Makes sense for elk hunting.  Otherwise, not so much...

[Vimix22]

The rocky S2V is certified safe to fly for the USAF. There is a link to the official memo on their website. 

https://www.rockyboots.com/safetofly/

[Breckey]

On 5/27/2017 at 9:46 AM, polcat said:

Danner Rivot TFX are on the safe to fly list. I just got a pair a month ago and love them. I think they're even more comfortable than Rocky S2Vs (not flight approved).

I just got the TFXs in coyote through AAFES for only $200 with free shipping. They are outstanding boots.

[mp5g]

4 hours ago, Breckey said:

I just got the TFXs in coyote through AAFES for only $200 with free shipping. They are outstanding boots.

Are these the ones?

https://www.danner.com/rivot-tfx-8-coyote-gtx.html?currency=USD&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIy8SBp6vU2QIVzbbACh0FggrMEAQYAyABEgIzaPD_BwE

Because they are on sale through Danner for $108 right now. If they are that good I may pick up a pair. 

[Breckey]

Those are them. I like them way more than the Rocky S2V or the C4.