jice

The best way is to make going to staff as a flyer even less palatable with a de facto half-decade ADSC if they want to fly again.

But that would admit fallibility. Wouldn’t want to sew seeds of doubt. Might damage credibility... Does anybody have SA on real labor-force experts being commissioned on a long-term basis on the retention issue? A task force of pilots/personnellists is an anecdotal perspective; the behavior of a unique/specialized labor force is probably not intuitive or conducive to analysis from untrained folks whose in-group perspective prevents objectivity. I bet a rigorous, multi-disciplinary assessment (as opposed to the process-as-product spreadsheets and voice-of-the-Uncited PowerPoints we tend to produce) would be an interesting read. Like to see it if it exists.

Where it exists, please actively and strategically educate this rumor away in your place of business. Though surely unintentional (right... right?!) , it functions like an element of PSYOP. For a young guy whose first thought of requal ADSCs is a mistaken “tacking onto the end” concept, replacing it with the new rule doesn’t seem so bad. “What’s the big deal?” they might say. That young guy may completely miss the collossal foul that is changing a rule, without pre-change messaging, without post-change explanation, and without an apparent understanding of effective incentive structures beyond authoritarianism [bad labor economics!!], which will have significantly negative implications for both individuals and the force. (Read: Loss of trust, more 7 days, lower quality staff, X to fill [X-lots] non-vol 365s etc.) Don’t allow anything to persist that normalizes this environment or teaches the next generation of leaders that it’s OK to implement bad policy without doing the math or talking about it as long as it doesn’t seem like anybody will notice.

And furthermore! if the rules are subject to change in sneaky, spineless ways who’s to say the rest of the calculus holds? I can stand on my cranium for 10 years... but if there’s a X% chance of surprise total game-rule change, my family isn’t going to be held hostage.

Does anybody have a friend at A1 or AFPC/DP3A who can confirm that the ADSC change was intentional and not a mistake in editing? Seems like the least the organization can do is own the decision. There’s a massive difference between a cowardly trap and a calculated bad deal.

Syllabus standardization... that’s the one where we sacrifice effectiveness in order to avoid a kid whining about not getting his jet of choice? We’re talking about guided sims in advance, not an entire UPT phase. If a kid going through USAFA ends up better prepared for UPT than somebody off the street, it sounds like USAFA did it’s job. Also sounds like a great start for rolling it out to all pre-commissioning sources. It all comes out in the wash. The OTS kid may be a 2,000 hr airline captain and aerobatic competitor. The ROTC kid is going to be able to talk to chicks and rock a road soda through the main gate. Ivan doesn’t care about perfect syllabus standardization.

Any recent student life-admin experience with IFF at RND? Is on-base lodging directed? We’d like to unload our house ASAP, not have to board our dogs, and understand that current policy at Randolph doesn’t allow students to live in the pet-friendly TLFs.

You are missing something. You’re missing a great opportunity to hold at convenient points, crossing midnight 99 times per leg and making yourself entitled to 99x Guam per diem... as long as we’re making up rules.

So to summarize ACC’s requirement to endorse EFB use over paper: EFBs are backed up with EFBs because EFBs can fail in ways that paper pubs cannot. Makes sense.

Slide 1) the benefits are huge. Force quality, flexibility, retention. Slide 2) there is real risk. You may orphan children. Likely your exec's/sub cc's (only so much time in a day) Slides 3-5) 3x points on a spectrum from exposure only through fully quallified and pushing abilities. Slide 6) weak swimmer plan. Slide 9) lead.

Is this a good buy? VID for homeland defense (their homeland, assuming some risk of intercepting a shooter) is out the window at .76 mach & the kinematics basically limit it to point defense... temporarily. Same effect less money: buy something cheap for attack and a patriot battery or two.

This is the crux of the issue. I've seen a lot of folks on this thread say that the CC can order a member to use a particular type of lodging, but what is the legal basis here?

Holy sphincter, Batman. I reached for the ring just watching that video. Lucky for the cameraman that the pilot was only issued two hands.

If we are going to have IPOE DLOs for recce/PED players then we should provide reasonable time for IPOE. 1/2 hour prior to the vul for collect that we call IPOE is insufficient. Happy to work/fly a full day on the Saturday/Sunday prior to each week for pattern of life development (yes this requires $), and to get collect that (should) have been conducted years in advance. The "all the information required has been provided" game renders ISR contributions largely OBE when the sensors on our tac assets push. Good for demonstrating that ISR has a long way to go WRT integration? Yes, absolutely. Good for the warfighter's understanding of what ISR provides prior to night 1? Not at all. Good for exercising ISR processes and skills? Not under the current construct. A small investment here would pay huge dividends if we're serious about replacing the white card with real recce capes.