Promotion and PRF Information

[hatedont]

What does ACSC measure? I don't know why but I'm tired of mandatory learning. I haven't used a single thing from SOS. Either you got it as a leader or you don't.

[AlphaMikeFoxtrot]

48 minutes ago, hatedont said:

What does ACSC measure? 

Your ability to write. That's all it measures.

[HU&W]

1 hour ago, hatedont said:

What does ACSC measure? 

Persistence in queep.  How many times you're willing repeat a quiz or activity that adds nothing to the mission, but advances your career.

*correspondence

[pawnman]

10 hours ago, AlphaMikeFoxtrot said:

Your ability to write. That's all it measures.

Not even.  I wrote my papers at a level that matched my freshman year of college and passed with flying colors.

[brickhistory]

Intellectual exercise.  Please take the question as that and not sport b1tching against zipper-suited sun gods:

Lots of complaints since the results of the last board(s) released (and even more since Air Force time began).  Comments about "saving the top 15% of a commander's strats for pilots" or the like abound.  I do not for a minute defend how Big Blue does promotions (trust me, I have my own war story that absolutely no one but me cares about anyway), but if you are going to complain, then at least spend a few minutes on a way to fix it (that will never be considered.  The leviathan likes what it does since what it does got those in power there in the first place.)

A few comparison have been made about MX guys and other support fields leading airmen while highly-qualified pilots are doing the mission.  I agree, but think bigger.

The ops personnel in the Air Force are, largely, technicians.  Highly, and expensively, trained, but still technicians.  Even AC's of big jets run a very small fire-team equivalent.  Again, stay with me.  Not at all blowing off the absolute library of information that every pilot has to know, the amount of buffoonery he/she has to overcome in order to accomplish the mission, etc, etc, etc.

But the actual operating and employing the equipment - jet, missile capsule, computer keyboard, satellite keyboard - is the job of a technician.  Obviously, not including the CC or DO of a unit (but USAF does a piss poor job of getting those people practice at the junior ranks so a good one is more a matter of luck than training/growth).

IF, again, IF the purpose of a promotion board is to reward and encourage the growth of future leaders, then doesn't the technician enter the fight at a disadvantage?  Leave aside the PME and other square-fills, but the currency here seems to be "being good in the jet."  Which I don't disagree with. 

Uncle spent a helluva lot of money on you, and you expended a helluva lot of sweat to earn the wings, then keep them and be awesome (hopefully) at employing the jet.  He opened his wallet to make you a world-class technician, in my opinion.  He's hoping that you'll figure out on your own how to be a good leader.  Not a great investment strategy in my mind since if you don't, Big Blue will get rid of you.

So if the board is looking at leadership, then Capt Snuffy leading a flight of 200 would seem to have an advantage over Capt Bag O' who, even though a Patch and a mission commander, might lead a flight of 10 at the squadron.  Apples to razor blades comparison regarding level of difficulty in the warfighting, but technical, aspect.  But the amount of asspain in dealing with 200 airmen does equate in time and frustration for that captain as it does for the jet-jockey captain who is held back by the shoe-world.

As an aside, and one that won't gather much agreement, the proposal to auto-give the top strats to rated over support does seem to be against basic fairness.   As an institution, the Air Force already does that, at least so far, with the numbers of support GOs compared to the numbers of rated GOs.  We are the Air Force, after all, so the big chief should be a rated guy.  But the mantra of a rated guy running AFPC and doing a better job just because he's rated seems a little unionized to me (he wouldn't do a worse job, very much agreed!).  But if Capt Snuffy sees he has no chance of a successful career simply because of his job, then he, like you will punch and take his talent and skills where he can advance.

The difference between him and you, largely and a huge generalization, is the amount of money Big Blue spent on you.  And in today's environment, you have some golden opportunities which I wish you well and hope you go for it.  But if he leaves, Big Blue has to spend its resources on finding his replacement as well.  Much cheaper to do so, admittedly, but a few hundred here, a few hundred there, and pretty soon it's some real money.

One proposal has been the promote by AFSC.  How long until the b1tching about 11Fs far out-promoting 11Rs?  Or pick your shred-out to complain about. 

My thinking runs somewhere along the lines of making a dual-tracked commissioned and call it whatever you want, but for my purposes, warrant officer program.  Similar in concept to Army rotary wing, but not run the same.  You still have to grow future WG/CCs, etc, but you make the officer pilot a leader at a much younger age.  Put MX back into a squadron and have Capt Bag O' be a department head (er, sts) like the Navy does.  True, he won't likely be your Night 1, #1 guy, but there is no reason he couldn't be #3 or the second -4-ship lead.  You also reduce the need for the MX officers.  Meanwhile, your Warrants are the tactical technicians that you all seem to strive for. 

BTW, the pay for these Warrants would be a very special duty pay like ACP but much larger.  Fly and you get a lot of money but don't have the BS PME and other squares that Big Blue demands.  But you have to fly to get it. 

 

Soooo many holes in this way too long post to identify, but the bottom line is the Air Force says it promotes based on past performance, including leadership and on the expectation that you will continue to perform and lead, with more emphasis on the latter as you progress in rank.  A flyer not in a command position would seem to be defensive at the board merge.

[HossHarris]

The one hole in your long post is that without the pilot/flying/operations side of the Air Force, there is no Air Force ....regardless of how good capt snuffy is at leading his 200 CE troops or running an mpf. 

If there's no tip of the spear left, then all you have is a shaft. 

[brickhistory]

Agree 100%.

But if the promotion boards don't see it that way, then what?

[tac airlifter]

2 hours ago, pawnman said:

  I wrote my papers at a level that matched my freshman year of college and passed with flying colors.

I assume by correspondence?  Most folks found it takes more effort to write well in residence.  I agree with AMF: in res ACSC measures your abilty to write.  Correspondence is worthless except as proving you care enough to suffer through it.

[soupafly06]

14 minutes ago, tac airlifter said:

Correspondence is worthless except as proving you care enough to suffer through it.

I wouldn't say it's completely worthless.  It helped me hone some crazy PDF ctrl+F skills.

[SurelySerious]

Sport bitching about 11F vs 11R aside, whatever, I guess my main things in suggesting AFSC typed boards are this:
1) the records will be more apples-to-apples than when you have entirely different career fields with board members reading between the lines
2) it makes it more straightforward to promote the AFSC that you know you need X number of '0Y 11FZ.
3) if we're not putting any non-rated dude in charge of the flying sq, ops group, flying wing, or flying MAJCOM, why are we competing against non-rated officers anywhere below 0-6?

[pawnman]

1 hour ago, brickhistory said:

Intellectual exercise.  Please take the question as that and not sport b1tching against zipper-suited sun gods:

Lots of complaints since the results of the last board(s) released (and even more since Air Force time began).  Comments about "saving the top 15% of a commander's strats for pilots" or the like abound.  I do not for a minute defend how Big Blue does promotions (trust me, I have my own war story that absolutely no one but me cares about anyway), but if you are going to complain, then at least spend a few minutes on a way to fix it (that will never be considered.  The leviathan likes what it does since what it does got those in power there in the first place.)

A few comparison have been made about MX guys and other support fields leading airmen while highly-qualified pilots are doing the mission.  I agree, but think bigger.

The ops personnel in the Air Force are, largely, technicians.  Highly, and expensively, trained, but still technicians.  Even AC's of big jets run a very small fire-team equivalent.  Again, stay with me.  Not at all blowing off the absolute library of information that every pilot has to know, the amount of buffoonery he/she has to overcome in order to accomplish the mission, etc, etc, etc.

But the actual operating and employing the equipment - jet, missile capsule, computer keyboard, satellite keyboard - is the job of a technician.  Obviously, not including the CC or DO of a unit (but USAF does a piss poor job of getting those people practice at the junior ranks so a good one is more a matter of luck than training/growth).

IF, again, IF the purpose of a promotion board is to reward and encourage the growth of future leaders, then doesn't the technician enter the fight at a disadvantage?  Leave aside the PME and other square-fills, but the currency here seems to be "being good in the jet."  Which I don't disagree with. 

Uncle spent a helluva lot of money on you, and you expended a helluva lot of sweat to earn the wings, then keep them and be awesome (hopefully) at employing the jet.  He opened his wallet to make you a world-class technician, in my opinion.  He's hoping that you'll figure out on your own how to be a good leader.  Not a great investment strategy in my mind since if you don't, Big Blue will get rid of you.

So if the board is looking at leadership, then Capt Snuffy leading a flight of 200 would seem to have an advantage over Capt Bag O' who, even though a Patch and a mission commander, might lead a flight of 10 at the squadron.  Apples to razor blades comparison regarding level of difficulty in the warfighting, but technical, aspect.  But the amount of asspain in dealing with 200 airmen does equate in time and frustration for that captain as it does for the jet-jockey captain who is held back by the shoe-world.

As an aside, and one that won't gather much agreement, the proposal to auto-give the top strats to rated over support does seem to be against basic fairness.   As an institution, the Air Force already does that, at least so far, with the numbers of support GOs compared to the numbers of rated GOs.  We are the Air Force, after all, so the big chief should be a rated guy.  But the mantra of a rated guy running AFPC and doing a better job just because he's rated seems a little unionized to me (he wouldn't do a worse job, very much agreed!).  But if Capt Snuffy sees he has no chance of a successful career simply because of his job, then he, like you will punch and take his talent and skills where he can advance.

The difference between him and you, largely and a huge generalization, is the amount of money Big Blue spent on you.  And in today's environment, you have some golden opportunities which I wish you well and hope you go for it.  But if he leaves, Big Blue has to spend its resources on finding his replacement as well.  Much cheaper to do so, admittedly, but a few hundred here, a few hundred there, and pretty soon it's some real money.

One proposal has been the promote by AFSC.  How long until the b1tching about 11Fs far out-promoting 11Rs?  Or pick your shred-out to complain about. 

My thinking runs somewhere along the lines of making a dual-tracked commissioned and call it whatever you want, but for my purposes, warrant officer program.  Similar in concept to Army rotary wing, but not run the same.  You still have to grow future WG/CCs, etc, but you make the officer pilot a leader at a much younger age.  Put MX back into a squadron and have Capt Bag O' be a department head (er, sts) like the Navy does.  True, he won't likely be your Night 1, #1 guy, but there is no reason he couldn't be #3 or the second -4-ship lead.  You also reduce the need for the MX officers.  Meanwhile, your Warrants are the tactical technicians that you all seem to strive for. 

BTW, the pay for these Warrants would be a very special duty pay like ACP but much larger.  Fly and you get a lot of money but don't have the BS PME and other squares that Big Blue demands.  But you have to fly to get it. 

 

Soooo many holes in this way too long post to identify, but the bottom line is the Air Force says it promotes based on past performance, including leadership and on the expectation that you will continue to perform and lead, with more emphasis on the latter as you progress in rank.  A flyer not in a command position would seem to be defensive at the board merge.

Counter-argument - I could do a finance officer's job with a week of OJT.  How long would it take him to do my job?

[brickhistory]

5 minutes ago, pawnman said:

Counter-argument - I could do a finance officer's job with a week of OJT.  How long would it take him to do my job?

Argh...I knew this wouldn't go well nor would I do a good job of asking the question, but to your point:

IF the board sees finance officer leading a flight of 10-15 accountants and you flying as #1 in a 4-ship, what does it see?

A leader vs. a technician.  Just a quick, probably not very accurate example, but I am desperately trying not to get lost in minutiae or get out-lawyered.  Concept vs. details.

I am not agreeing with the premise of all things are equal, but if the underlying concept of a promotion board is "potential for leadership" and not "potential to become a mission commander" then one of those things is at a disadvantage.  Hence the board results you are seeing.

So how do you fix that?  Promote by AFSC?  Put it in the ADSC that along with the 10 year, soon to be more, commitment for UPT, you WILL get promoted at the appropriate time, i.e., guarantee promotion?  Does it matter about that outstanding, but non-rated officer who busts his ass to support the mission, but he gets passed over yet a dirtbag (and there are those in the cockpit - see Rhatigan, et al threads) makes it?  Something just not right to me about that scenario, but that's just me.

[Homestar]

20 minutes ago, pawnman said:

Counter-argument - I could do a finance officer's job with a week of OJT.  How long would it take him to do my job?

Counter-counter argument. I'm actually pretty good friends with our wing FM officer....I wouldn't know the first thing about his job after a week of OJT. Do you have any idea what the wing FM OIC actually does?

Now, could you do the Amn's job at rh customer service counter after a week? No doubt. 

[Danger41]

I completely agree that just because you're a pilot doesn't mean you are a good leader and deserve promotion. Even a MC doesn't mean you should get auto promoted. Conversely, because you are a MSG guy in "charge" of 300 airmen doesn't mean you're a good officer. It means that's what you were assigned to do. 

I like the idea of separate promotion boards simply because it aggravates me to no end when clowns with multiple Q-3's but make great excel trackers get promoted/selected for school when the ace of the base who is a great leader but has been kept in the squadron to help the war fighting aspect go well get shit on.

[Duck]

We do a terrible job teaching/giving pilots opportunities to lead. I am firmly against a Tech/lead track. I think a dual track system would only further breed problems from those on the "leadership" track.

I know this is not going to be popular, but I think we get rid of a vast majority of Officer AFSCs. Mx officer should be a pilot, support should be a pilot, both LEADING the enlisted who are doing the j-o-b.

How many times have you tried to get something done at MPF/Finance and eventually talk to the OIC, just to get some BS excuse which you know is just that Officer "protecting" her airmen? Imagine if it was a Pilot who was the OIC and he was once in your squadron. "Hey bro, your boy, Amn Snuffy told me he couldn't process my new cac because they were about to close and it would have pushed him past his 4pm exit time"

After seeing what little my SOS buddies were actually doing, I realized that this was pretty much the way forward. Most hadn't been deployed and their biggest challenges were how to organize the next CGO Club Social.

This would be a way to expand the "flying" opportunities while developing pilots and leaders who actually understand the plight (Mx) or laziness (some career fields come to mind, you can find them leaving base at 3pm on Tuesday) of our enlisted.

I'm interested in what you guys think.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[Danger41]

The main issue I see there is basically a cabal of bro network deals eventually causing significant issues. I know if I was in charge of MPC, I would treat the process of CAC issuance etc as an ancillary duty and that would screw things up for the rest of the base.

[Duck]

The main issue I see there is basically a cabal of bro network deals eventually causing significant issues. I know if I was in charge of MPC, I would treat the process of CAC issuance etc as an ancillary duty and that would screw things up for the rest of the base.

I disagree. I have seen some of my buddies get put in some truly screwed up jobs that seemed to be broken due to lack of care and watched them get back to something that was lean and worked, while getting rid of the extra bloat. I think you over estimate how little they actually do over there.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[hatedont]

3 hours ago, Duck said:

We do a terrible job teaching/giving pilots opportunities to lead. I am firmly against a Tech/lead track. I think a dual track system would only further breed problems from those on the "leadership" track.

I know this is not going to be popular, but I think we get rid of a vast majority of Officer AFSCs. Mx officer should be a pilot, support should be a pilot, both LEADING the enlisted who are doing the j-o-b.

How many times have you tried to get something done at MPF/Finance and eventually talk to the OIC, just to get some BS excuse which you know is just that Officer "protecting" her airmen? Imagine if it was a Pilot who was the OIC and he was once in your squadron. "Hey bro, your boy, Amn Snuffy told me he couldn't process my new cac because they were about to close and it would have pushed him past his 4pm exit time"

After seeing what little my SOS buddies were actually doing, I realized that this was pretty much the way forward. Most hadn't been deployed and their biggest challenges were how to organize the next CGO Club Social.

This would be a way to expand the "flying" opportunities while developing pilots and leaders who actually understand the plight (Mx) or laziness (some career fields come to mind, you can find them leaving base at 3pm on Tuesday) of our enlisted.

I'm interested in what you guys think.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

Your points maybe the exact reason why the promotion numbers for pilots are dropping. Why?

We think we are above the rest of the Air Force. Some of our guys have treated people like utter crap at the Pentagon, creating a negative perception of some communities. When you piss off the wrong people long and hard enough, they will eventually start to push back. 

I'm guilty of it myself. Returned from a deployment and the MDG/CC was behind the automatic entrance doors at the clinic having her butt kissed. I didn't see her initially, just 5 to 6 E's and O's but I was in a rush. So I proceeded to head through the second set of doors and she said hi to me like you need to acknowledge my superior rank and presence. I said hi back and kept walking. I was trying to get my inprocessing checklist signed off and this was my second time in the clinic because ITR didn't give me a return checklist.  I was rushing so I can take leave the next day. After you return from a deployment you are in a different mindset and just want to get away from the base altogether. But the MDG/CC wants to be acknowledged. Got it. There is nothing that says I have to issue a greeting indoors to an O-6.  The OG/CC doesn't expect you to kiss his ass every time he is in the squadron. Damn, the ops world is different.

Guess what? When she retires and I retire in 3 years, I will still walk by her ass in civilian clothes and not say a word. 

 

Edited May 27, 2017 by hatedont

[pawnman]

2 hours ago, Duck said:

We do a terrible job teaching/giving pilots opportunities to lead. I am firmly against a Tech/lead track. I think a dual track system would only further breed problems from those on the "leadership" track.

I know this is not going to be popular, but I think we get rid of a vast majority of Officer AFSCs. Mx officer should be a pilot, support should be a pilot, both LEADING the enlisted who are doing the j-o-b.

How many times have you tried to get something done at MPF/Finance and eventually talk to the OIC, just to get some BS excuse which you know is just that Officer "protecting" her airmen? Imagine if it was a Pilot who was the OIC and he was once in your squadron. "Hey bro, your boy, Amn Snuffy told me he couldn't process my new cac because they were about to close and it would have pushed him past his 4pm exit time"

After seeing what little my SOS buddies were actually doing, I realized that this was pretty much the way forward. Most hadn't been deployed and their biggest challenges were how to organize the next CGO Club Social.

This would be a way to expand the "flying" opportunities while developing pilots and leaders who actually understand the plight (Mx) or laziness (some career fields come to mind, you can find them leaving base at 3pm on Tuesday) of our enlisted.

I'm interested in what you guys think.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

I think you've got the right idea.  This is what the Navy does, BTW...you are a flyer and also an OIC for a MX or LRS or similar shop, including all the enlisted guys that fall under it.

[ViperMan]

3 hours ago, brickhistory said:

Intellectual exercise.  Please take the question as that and not sport b1tching against zipper-suited sun gods:

[...]

IF, again, IF the purpose of a promotion board is to reward and encourage the growth of future leaders, then doesn't the technician enter the fight at a disadvantage?  Leave aside the PME and other square-fills, but the currency here seems to be "being good in the jet."  Which I don't disagree with. 

[...]

As an aside, and one that won't gather much agreement, the proposal to auto-give the top strats to rated over support does seem to be against basic fairness.   As an institution, the Air Force already does that, at least so far, with the numbers of support GOs compared to the numbers of rated GOs.  We are the Air Force, after all, so the big chief should be a rated guy.  But the mantra of a rated guy running AFPC and doing a better job just because he's rated seems a little unionized to me (he wouldn't do a worse job, very much agreed!).  But if Capt Snuffy sees he has no chance of a successful career simply because of his job, then he, like you will punch and take his talent and skills where he can advance.

The difference between him and you, largely and a huge generalization, is the amount of money Big Blue spent on you.  And in today's environment, you have some golden opportunities which I wish you well and hope you go for it.  But if he leaves, Big Blue has to spend its resources on finding his replacement as well.  Much cheaper to do so, admittedly, but a few hundred here, a few hundred there, and pretty soon it's some real money.

One proposal has been the promote by AFSC.  How long until the b1tching about 11Fs far out-promoting 11Rs?  Or pick your shred-out to complain about. 

My thinking runs somewhere along the lines of making a dual-tracked commissioned and call it whatever you want, but for my purposes, warrant officer program.  Similar in concept to Army rotary wing, but not run the same.  You still have to grow future WG/CCs, etc, but you make the officer pilot a leader at a much younger age.  Put MX back into a squadron and have Capt Bag O' be a department head (er, sts) like the Navy does.  True, he won't likely be your Night 1, #1 guy, but there is no reason he couldn't be #3 or the second -4-ship lead.  You also reduce the need for the MX officers.  Meanwhile, your Warrants are the tactical technicians that you all seem to strive for. 

BTW, the pay for these Warrants would be a very special duty pay like ACP but much larger.  Fly and you get a lot of money but don't have the BS PME and other squares that Big Blue demands.  But you have to fly to get it. 

Soooo many holes in this way too long post to identify, but the bottom line is the Air Force says it promotes based on past performance, including leadership and on the expectation that you will continue to perform and lead, with more emphasis on the latter as you progress in rank.  A flyer not in a command position would seem to be defensive at the board merge.

To jump in to the exercise, yes, I would say that the goal of a promotion board should be to promote those with demonstrated leadership ability, so long as they have achieved a standard of technical excellence earlier in their careers - yes, this rules out large groups of people from "go" (though I do think I have the solution to this problem as well). Too often, we promote those we "like" (or who we must be "fair" to) without their fulfilling of the opposite end of the contract (that being technical excellence) - which is problematic.

While your 'fairness' argument speaks to a central value many of us hold deep in our sub-concious, what is important to remember is the mission of the Air Force, and not to improperly subordinate that to what we feel is 'fair.' Some people won't like it. Some people weren't selected to be pilots our of their commissioning programs. Life isn't fair. Implementing a program of "fairness" in an organization that is deemed necessary for the survival and defence of our nation is wholly inappropriate, and if I was a simple taxpayer, with no insight into the functioning of a modern Air Force, I would be 'upset' (to say the least) about the use of my tax money and time being utilized to implement an affirmative action program in the military.

2 hours ago, brickhistory said:

Argh...I knew this wouldn't go well nor would I do a good job of asking the question, but to your point:

IF the board sees finance officer leading a flight of 10-15 accountants and you flying as #1 in a 4-ship, what does it see?

A leader vs. a technician.  Just a quick, probably not very accurate example, but I am desperately trying not to get lost in minutiae or get out-lawyered.  Concept vs. details.

I am not agreeing with the premise of all things are equal, but if the underlying concept of a promotion board is "potential for leadership" and not "potential to become a mission commander" then one of those things is at a disadvantage.  Hence the board results you are seeing.

So how do you fix that?  Promote by AFSC?  Put it in the ADSC that along with the 10 year, soon to be more, commitment for UPT, you WILL get promoted at the appropriate time, i.e., guarantee promotion?  Does it matter about that outstanding, but non-rated officer who busts his ass to support the mission, but he gets passed over yet a dirtbag (and there are those in the cockpit - see Rhatigan, et al threads) makes it?  Something just not right to me about that scenario, but that's just me.

I don't think accountants require leadership - at least not in the sense that we consider in the military. In fact, that entire function could be executed by GS workers.

Yes, that's how you fix it. The AF selected you for higher potential out of your respective commissioning programs. I mean we choose Generals when they're Captains...why not choose Lt Cols when they're cadets, right? Sarcasm aside, I think the fix is to go the opposite direction from a Warrant Officer (or the like) program. What needs to happen (someone said it elsewhere) is a SIGNIFICANT reduction in the number of officer AFSCs that are in flying wings. Yes, there are many that are needed and which have valid functions. Many, however, do not. Want tactical/technical leaders to gain experience "leading" a finance shop? Fine, throw a Capt/Maj in as the head of that office with some E-8/E-9 "expert" help. I bet you'd see similar results, if not better.

As far as there being "Rhatigans" (whom I know nothing of personally), that's a different type of failure in the promotion system - according to what I've read on this board over the years. What we currently have is a systemic malfunction in our promotion system that is degrading our AF.

[Disco_Nav963]

4 minutes ago, pawnman said:

I think you've got the right idea.  This is what the Navy does, BTW...you are a flyer and also an OIC for a MX or LRS or similar shop, including all the enlisted guys that fall under it.

Checks. If a rated officer can lead crew comm or AFE troops in the OSS, he can lead maintainers or finance folks. ... Which reminds me, whatever happened to our old inside source, Finance_Guy?

[RTB]

3 minutes ago, pawnman said:

I think you've got the right idea.  This is what the Navy does, BTW...you are a flyer and also an OIC for a MX or LRS or similar shop, including all the enlisted guys that fall under it.

They also use LDO's a lot for support jobs.  LDO's are former enlisted who were good at their support specific job, got promoted, maybe even without a degree, and lead support functions up to the O-4 ish level.  No future of command but fill a niche in areas that a full-up O, or especially a pilot, might not be ideal for.

[Lord Ratner]

We do a terrible job teaching/giving pilots opportunities to lead. I am firmly against a Tech/lead track. I think a dual track system would only further breed problems from those on the "leadership" track.

I know this is not going to be popular, but I think we get rid of a vast majority of Officer AFSCs. Mx officer should be a pilot, support should be a pilot, both LEADING the enlisted who are doing the j-o-b.

How many times have you tried to get something done at MPF/Finance and eventually talk to the OIC, just to get some BS excuse which you know is just that Officer "protecting" her airmen? Imagine if it was a Pilot who was the OIC and he was once in your squadron. "Hey bro, your boy, Amn Snuffy told me he couldn't process my new cac because they were about to close and it would have pushed him past his 4pm exit time"

After seeing what little my SOS buddies were actually doing, I realized that this was pretty much the way forward. Most hadn't been deployed and their biggest challenges were how to organize the next CGO Club Social.

This would be a way to expand the "flying" opportunities while developing pilots and leaders who actually understand the plight (Mx) or laziness (some career fields come to mind, you can find them leaving base at 3pm on Tuesday) of our enlisted.

I'm interested in what you guys think.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

We had a guy in my SOS class who was being completely genuine when he said he was too tired to go out because he had never worked past 4pm, or on a Friday, every, since finishing tech school.

Not saying all not rated jobs are like this, but have you ever once even heard of a flying job like that in the AF? When I told them what a week in a flying squadron was like, they looked sorry for me, as though working a 16 hour day was inhumane.

But I agree with brick. If all a pilot does is fly, why should they be promoted into a leadership rank? I think many of us are talking out of both sides of our mouths. We want to fly a lot, but also get promoted to a leadership rank (LtC)? I don't think that's fair or good for the org.

I think what we need is to drop the idea that staff jobs help leadership. Sure, it's useful to know how sausage is made. But a captain or Major will get more out of leading a shop of 100 airman than he will out of a desk job crunching numbers, as far as leadership of airmen is concerned.

If we still want the AF run by pilots, which is not necessarily the best idea IMO, then we should change the system so exec, staff, aide, and all the other "broadening" jobs go to the support officers, while the pre-ordained future senior leaders go run a mx or SF shop, with 360° feedback, to see if they really have what it takes to run a squadron.

But that means the people who choose to fly for four assignments in a row (with only flying related jobs) don't make it past Major or Captain, which doesn't seem unfair to me.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

[Lord Ratner]

Your points maybe the exact reason why the promotion numbers for pilots are dropping. Why?
We think we are above the rest of the Air Force. Some of our guys have treated people like utter crap at the Pentagon, creating a negative perception of some communities. When you piss off the wrong people long and hard enough, they will eventually start to push back. 
I'm guilty of it myself. Returned from a deployment and the MDG/CC was behind the automatic entrance doors at the clinic having her butt kissed. I didn't see her initially, just 5 to 6 E's and O's but I was in a rush. So I proceeded to head through the second set of doors and she said hi to me like you need to acknowledge my superior rank and presence. I said hi back and kept walking. I was trying to get my inprocessing checklist signed off and this was my second time in the clinic because ITR didn't give me a return checklist.  I was rushing so I can take leave the next day. After you return from a deployment you are in a different mindset and just want to get away from the base altogether. But the MDG/CC wants to be acknowledged. Got it. There is nothing that says I have to issue a greeting indoors to an O-6.  The OG/CC doesn't expect you to kiss his ass every time he is in the squadron. Damn, the ops would is different.
Guess what? When she retires and I retire in 3 years, I will still walk by her ass in civilian clothes and not say a word. 
 

Jesus I never know what the f*** you're talking about.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

[hatedont]

4 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

Jesus I never know what the f*** you're talking about.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
 

I'm saying by the way our leaders have represented us at the top maybe a significant factor in promotion results. I've heard countless times when someone has been treated poorly it's normally by someone from the good old boys club in the flying community. Some flight suited gods think they walk on water but tend to treat others like crap. I've heard it from a lot of women too. People maybe pushing back on promotion the boards in a sense if you think about it.

Okay, remember when RPAs complained about lack of promotion? Why were they being held back despite a huge manning crisis? Was it pilots, the boards, or our top brass not promoting? I totally understand the record of those sent to RPAs wasn't anything to shout about. Then after someone complained to Congress, they are definitely being promoted now. Hmmmmm Now pilots are being out promoted. I ask you why, despite a retention issue?

 

Edited May 28, 2017 by hatedont