jice
-
Posts
279 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Downloads
Wiki
Posts posted by jice
-
-
21 hours ago, NoFlyZone said:
I guess it’s kinda already been brought up but will studs be formally competing during IPT? If so how will the AF be able to quality control the grading? Seems like regardless the UPT T-6 syllabus will become even more important to assess studs even though its being condensed...
Luck and timing. Competition and sorting (beyond a basic set of standards) is a nice to have.
If maximizing quality were the dominant consideration, we would want to maximize assessment in our programs. It isn’t.
Quantity is the dominant factor, which means production will be designed so that as long as the person meets the minimum standards for a higher-skill-required job they are able to end up in a higher-skill-required job. The cost is you’ll have lower quality overall because the system isn’t optimized to sort.
Right now, we have a system designed in a time when capacity (2x the production bases in a massive drawdown) wasn’t an issue, and sorting correctly was paramount (massive drawdown ongoing). It’s built backwards for the needs today. This leads to having to leverage the [actual] non-dominant factor (quality) to address the [actual] dominant factor (quantity).
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, bfargin said:
Another dumbass comparison to WWII. Seriously?
Even if your comparison was valid, none of our plans/thoughts could be worse than fdr’s. He completely had his head buried deep on pretty much any and all important policy positions (except got to extend and strengthen a depression). We didn’t do anything for years during WWII. If I remember correctly after Dec 7, 1941 we declared war on Japan but not Germany. Germany ended up declaring war on us!
Except for lend lease (‘41), tax incentives for companies producing war goods (‘39,) a peacetime draft (‘40), a government reorganization to facilitate a war footing (‘39), civilian pilot training program (‘39), embargoes against Japan (‘40), freezing Japanese assets (‘41), training Brit pilots in Texas (‘41)… the list goes on and on.
-
Similar experience recently. Recommended steps after that experience:
1) Submit claim with the TSP. They are required to pay full replacement value for a “like item.” Their definition of “like item” will be ridiculous most of the time (Nice mitre saw is “like” Fisher Price’s baby’s first mitre saw).
2) Refuse initial low-ball offer, attempt to demonstrate the difference in like items and remind them of FRV obligation. Submit counter-offer.
2b) If you’ve got a lawyer friend willing to write a letter explaining the above, that might help them understand.3) They’ll likely double down on stupidity. Submit claim through base legal. You’ll immediately be paid a depreciated value of the item. Then! The government will attempt to recoup the DV AND the difference in DV vs FRV. If they do, you’ll get a check for the difference.
4) Once the TSP gets a letter from a lawyer from the federal government telling them they’re about to be sued, they’ll likely cough up the FRV. “Go away” money is way less expensive than defending a stupid position.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Random Guy said:
What's the collateral for a credit card, @ViperMan?
I mean, the owner of the card has a right to an unsecured loan, that's the idea behind unsecured loans. The creditor has rights by law, but there's no collateral?
And what about all the leverage buyouts for equity stakes? The 'collateral' is the firm you purchase, but does a bank seize the firm when the shareholders don't pay their debts? What's the bank do with the firm?
I get that no one here works in finance, but banks create unsecured credit at every moment of every minute of every day. Saying "banks don't work that way" is incorrect.
Mods, any chance of moving the “money isn’t real” discussion to its own thread? I’d like to ask Random Guy what happens if a bank creates money out of thin air to buy a bird (obviously not real) that flies towards the edge of the flat earth… I think it might derail the Ukraine discussion, though.
-
6 hours ago, Magellan said:
You mean the people that are just trying to keep Gen. Slife happy, or are acolytes of his but not currently in AFSOC?
The reality is I can seek confirmation bias from any pocket of the Air Force at any level. Great Power Competition is the reality we need to embrace. We pulled out of the GWOT on terror, and it didn't end it just shifted fronts to Israel. Because the bad actors in that region that want to destroy the west, western values, anyone that isn't a Islamic fundamentalist just shifted to the next closest target.
Also, the foreign policy disaster of stopping Saudi from fighting the Iranian (Houthi) proxies in Yemen was idiotic from a Real Politik stand point. There are still a lot of fights in the world were AFSOC is the best game in town, but we aren't playing any more to the extent we were.I mean the people telling you that haven’t read a plan and need to retire. Go talk to an any-service human in a Joint 5, and you’ll walk away with plenty of problems for AFSOC to solve.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, DirkDiggler said:
I've heard the phrase "maintain relevance" thrown around quite a bit by senior guys in AFSOC this last year. What they really mean is they're worried our budgets will shrink because we're not leading the charge on night one into China/Russia.
The “maintain relevance” words should make the hair on the back of necks stand up when folks hear it in their organizations.
Seen it in at least two communities as they entered a death spiral.
If your advantages are not self-evident to people within the org, you’ve lost the ball years ago and failed to recognize it.At that point, it’s time to reset entirely; square one mission analysis to determine whether comparative advantages still exist and finding greener pastures for most of the leaders representing the majority ‘generational’ demographic.
-
26 minutes ago, Magellan said:
Not Applicable in the high end near peer fight if you ask anyone outside of AFSOC.
You’re not asking the right people outside of AFSOC.
-
2 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:
Either way, it's clear the Democratic party is as dead as the Republican party. I'm not sure what emerges from the ashes.
Sadly, we all know the answer to this one: The Democratic and Republican Party!.. but better. No, really; they’re totally gonna turn it around this time.
It’s time to get serious about ranked choice voting and open primaries.
-
2
-
-
-
On 8/4/2024 at 6:13 PM, LookieRookie said:
FWIW, I think IPT to T-7 a dumb idea. AETCs risks were all about losses to production but never anything about students morting themselves. There are also a lot of MAF dudes (no offense to them) making these decisions that have never flown fast jets in their life.
This. For two reasons.
1) Somebody who has never been in the fast jet business doesn’t natively understand the risks in fast jet administrative or tactical flying.
2) At some point as a theoretically ideal (but resource constrained) readiness posture approaches imminent conflict, the administrative and tactical curves cross. Ex: If war is going to happen tomorrow and I’m expecting double digit attrition by the enemy in each pulse, the smart put is on tactical tasks rather than administrative tasks. If I can save 10% of my force through weight of effort on tactical training while sacrificing 2% to administrative risks, I come out ahead… that varies across fleets, roles, locations, etc. etc. etc.
Unfortunately, we’ve not actually had that level of thought about risk in our pilot training or operational training enterprise. We tend to live on the “your mission is my motherhood” (who touched you in the motherhood, @hindsight2020? [good natured ribbing intended]) or “admin is assumed, the tactics will save you” camps, per command/commander.
Edit to add: we may have had that level of thought… but I’ve never seen it. If somebody has, please point me to it.
-
2
-
-
15 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:
This just doesn't make sense when you say it out loud. What could be a *more* correct tool for an evaluator to evaluate the performance and compliance of an aviator than... an evaluation ride? If the Form 8 is being used as a career trajectory proxy, that's not on the evaluator, that's on leadership.
We’re talking about different things, man. Correct tool for evaluating the performance of an aviator, sure (when task at hand). Correct tool for ensuring compliance across the formation (3V’s reason for being): not that guy’s form 8, until it becomes the task at hand. The first formal work shouldn’t be an individual Q-2/Q-3 if there’s a known problem.
18 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:1)
…invalidating the entire concept of the form 8 evaluation, and thus allowing it to be used for non-evaluation ….
2)
…The bro Network has limitations, and predictable outcomes.
3)
The problem in AMC … was commanders using Q3s in order to punish pilots for things they were doing, unintentionally and normally, on regular flights.
4)
… Especially when the squadron was warned ahead of time about the emphasis item, and the pilot in question was supposed to be the apex squadron instructor.
1) Clearly different cultures in different commands. I think the CAF does it right, and I suspect if COMACC has a different opinion, he’ll formally ask for a change. (I hope he doesn’t). The CAF is a small place; people know your rep.
2) Bingo. See discussion of the formal SII process and what an effective 3V does to reinforce that process a page or two back.
3) That sucks, and so do those commanders. Glad I don’t work there.
4) Making it formal allows you to PROVE this, making the ding/Q-2/Q-3 even more appropriate and bulletproof.
Thanks for indulging the derail. We’re down to differences in command culture; funny how we all end up places that match our personalities.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Lord Ratner said:
Yeah, great in theory, except in practice what you are describing is how complacency festers. There's always an excuse for why this rule isn't that important or you don't really have to follow that reg, or yeah maybe you're supposed to do it that way but does it really matter?
…
Nobody’s arguing for violating the rules. Copy the normalization of deviance discussion. It’s a good one and I agree with you.
I’m saying there’s a better way to ensure compliance when commanders deem something important than making a random example of some schmuck (and yeah, that schmuck should have done better.) I think we agree: that evaluator remains right. The examinee remains wrong. My point is that evaluator ALSO remains a human choosing the wrong tools for the right job and can do better, in order to further the mission of his organization.
1 hour ago, Lord Ratner said:Sorry, just to add, this is incorrect. The FAA and the majcom evaluators exist for effectively the same function. To ensure the smooth operation of the civil/military aviation Enterprise, and to protect the organization from mishaps and liability.
Sometimes an adversarial relationship is simply a required component for compliance. Human nature. Hang out at any grocery store until you see some little puke screaming at his parents because he wants a candy bar, and you'll see exactly why a purely cooperative existence is rarely desirable or effective.
Negative. The reason the MAJCOM, its staff organs (including 3V), and subordinate units exist is to OT&E forces to fight wars (and sometimes fight wars, COMREL depending.)
The airline flying your FAA evaluator exists to make money. The FAA is there (in part) to protect the interests of the traveling public and ensure safe and smooth operations within the entire NAS (not of that airline.)
The squadron and the 3V have different functions within the same mission. The FAA and airline have different missions and meet at the point of function.
The day to day might feel the same for a line guy, but the FAA doesn’t HAVE to care about doing its job in a way that maximizes the performance of the airline. The MAJCOM absolutely SHOULD, which is why pulling the most efficient and effective levers is important.
-
10 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:
Sorry dude, but there's a difference between being sniped by an evaluator in your squadron on a daily flight and flying with a majcom evaluator. Not knowing when to play the game is a foul in itself.
And this absolutely translates to the airlines. There are all sorts of regulations and directives that are bent or ignored based on the aircrew's experienced understanding of what rules are and are not critical. But when you have an FAA jumpseater, you better believe we follow every damn rule in the book. Those who don't are rightfully punished, if not for violating the rules, then for violating the rules of common sense.
Yeah… dude. Play the game. Protect yourself. But if an evaluator is leaning on that game or focusing on queepy, non-mission-related things: that evaluator is a non-mission-enhancing waste of time and the org and/or process is broke. The organization should weed those humans out and fix those processes, not punish folks for failing to waste their life on behalf of a MAJCOM 3V staffer’s ego.
Yeah, still protect yourself when you go to the airline. Common sense. But the FAA doesn’t work for your airline; that douchey FAA jump-seater isn’t paid to care whether your airline is effective at its job. That should be the MAJCOM’s only concern if they’re sitting in my cockpit.
-
5 hours ago, TreeA10 said:
If I sent word out through informal channels to Sq CCs, DOs and Weapons shops that too many pilots are pressing weapons abort criteria, buffoning instrument procedures or failing to comply with published regs regarding wearing rings and then I show up on an announced check ride only to find pilots are pressing weapons abort criteria, buffoning instrument procedures, and failing to comply with published regs regarding wearing rings, I'd have no problem complying with checkride grade criteria and grading appropriately.
You’re absolutely within your rights to do this. You’re flat out right… but (IMO) informal isn’t the best answer when the result is a formal process that takes things away from subordinate commanders. (Humans, time, resources for retraining.)
There’s a formal process already, and that formal process exists so that commanders at all levels (the ones buying risk for their formations) are informed and have input/recourse.
The formal answer is an SII plus HHQ N/N and/or SPOTs (usually ICW a planned inspection/visit.) A good HHQ Stan-eval program will also send informal coord that might sound something like “Bros, we have a problem. This is a command priority. Expect spot objectivity checks with an emphasis on SIIs. Don’t make your dudes force a choice between your Q3 or theirs.”
The folks running those HHQ 3Vs are just schmucks (div/branch chief) working for a dork (director) working for the commander, who actually buys risk. They’re not the MAJCOM speaking unless they’re explicitly and formally speaking for the MAJCOM. (Doesn’t need to be queepy; “I trust you, do what you think is right” is just as good as a 100-page eSSS.)
It’s all about risk. Abort criteria & instrument proficiency? Guarantee a 3V staffer and commander are of the same mind for corrective actions that are going to take somebody out of the fight for retraining. Send it.
Rings and boots? Dude, depending on how maintenance is doing, it might be faster to medically return to fly after an unplanned 4th finger amputation than a Q-3 (tongue in cheek… except for the B-1.) I wouldn’t want to table drop the 3/4-star his new “no rings” SII, but would bust the door down with actions I took on his behalf if folks are nearly morting as a trend.
Everything has a cost, even following the rules, but following them harder. Commanders are the ones who decide how to pay the bill; that’s why the formal process exists.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Skitzo said:
What context of intent are you inferring?
I feel like you think the point of my post was to flex all over the little guy to show how much riz the MAJCOM has fr fr no cap.
I think you are missing the point of my original post. When ASEVs were lumped into overall IG inspections it became included into the overall mindset of emphasis on “detecting unidentified non compliance” versus measuring compliance in the Stan/Eval programs.
With standalone ASEVS I was in squadrons where there were prep sessions (MQT testing internal to the squadron, OGV SAVs, and N/N evals independent of the ASEV). I once saw a guy removed from IP upgrade or was it AC for failing the practice test required by the squadron commander.
That was my original point and the point of my anecdote.
||BREAK BREAK||
As far as the MAJCOM role to help subordinate units — certainly there is a time and place for that. But the MAJCOM can’t just unilaterally SAV a unit unless asked. And in my experience we more than helped units that did ask for help with no penalty to the unit being SAVed. As far as other efforts I more than certainly subscribed to the motto “a call from the unit isn’t it a nuisance it is the reason your job [expletive] exists.”
There is a tension between a MAJCOM’s purpose to OT&E and A3V’s role to also provide oversight of subordinate OGVs / CCVs.
Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkUnderstand your main point fully.
Re: inference of context: I’m not inferring any, but if you have some additional data I might understand better. If homeslice was being openly hostile to the rules and pressing to test: he deserves to walk away with a Q2. If your prior efforts never broke squelch at the unit and it’s normal to wear rings (like not wearing gloves is accepted in some communities)… his FEF isn’t a useful tool, and an evaluator giving the patch a Q2 for a ring under those circumstances is teaching the wrong lesson at the wrong level. I don’t know what the examinee’s intent and context was, so I don’t know if the evaluator in your story was being a turbodouche. If turbodouchey: I hope ops sups are checking his safe to fly boots and not-tumble-dried flight suits at step on every flight.
I don’t understand the gen Z speak.
Tension? I think I understand. I would say A3V fulfills a role within the MAJCOM’s OT&E responsibility: quality control. For many, the only MAJCOM staffer they’ll see in daily life is a HHQ FE. When those dudes show up worried/mark up FEFs at the unit for things that don’t break squelch at the lower echelons, the ability of the MAJCOM (not it’s 3V) to support the unit is degraded due to a lack of mutual trust.
-
3
-
-
8 hours ago, Skitzo said:
I don’t know. Don’t ignore the Vol3 blatantly in front of a MAJCOM evaluator?
Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkOk… regarding rings in the cockpit and a particular evaluator, sure. I suspect Joe average also learned something about a forest, trees, and to not trust the humans on staffs that supposedly support the mission.
Wasn’t there; context of the examinee’s intent matters. I’m sure you did the right thing. This just strikes me as perpetuating the “you’re incapable of understanding the divine calculus that resulted in an AFI” attitude that’s resulted in a generation of officers who choose compliance over problem solving and reading assignments over leadership.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Skitzo said:
A.1 - The transformation of the ASEV process into the larger IG inspection process that dilutes focus and has made Stan/Eval inspections friendly instead of feared.
True story as a Team Chief for an A3V inspection I issued a WARNO to the squadron commanders noting a lack of discipline wrt professional equipment - lack of gloves and wearing rings despite V3 guidance prohibiting it and a lack of aircrew having equipment to secure their EFBs during critical phases of flight. I noticed this during my pro sorties and verbally debriefed it many times.
When we got to our inspection site I flew a N/N with the squadron patch who was wearing a ring and whom I politely asked to remove his ring before he started the engine. I did this for the rest of the crew but I did not witness anyone else doing so.
After we landed I Q2d him because he was the person everyone looked to, violated V3 standards after I warned his commander.
Before you flame me for issuing a Q2 for rings, I debriefed it multiple times in sorties and gave verbal corrections and notified commanders directly in advance.
For everyone who flies regularly with rings safely everyday as an airline pilot cool I get it. Had a 679 to change the regs to allow silicone rings in coord.
It wasn’t a silicone ring btw.
When the MAJCOM speaks to commanders and people don’t listen it is a problem.
Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkWhat lesson do you think the average Joe flight lead learned from this?
-
-
13 minutes ago, fire4effect said:
Force Multiplier.
Had this discussion years ago with a former military member who was a cop and that's what he called it. Few wanting to fund the cost was and is the issue. Avoid a few multi-million-dollar payouts and I say it's paid for itself. Of course, sophisticated/expensive unmanned systems are another though potentially reasonable discussion. When word gets out you can't outrun it you also have a potential deterrent effect to not run in the first place.
Exactly. And in cases where this isn’t available… get a warrant and serve it.
-
6 hours ago, ViperMan said:
Wait, who put who at risk? The cops are always going to escalate. That's what they're paid for. All three of those guys have killed people. They didn't run because they thought they were getting busted for a minor drug charge. Don't be so naive.
The suspects who ran on a busy highway put people at risk. The police who continued the pursuit on a busy highway decided to continue putting people at risk. “Protecting and serving” is one way to say what they’re paid for… this is not that.
Nobody involved except the suspects knew why they ran, but unless they’re actively murdering somebody in there, that amount of risk for bystanders is unwarranted.
Naive? Copy. Don’t be a bootlicker.
-
53 minutes ago, M2 said:
Do you thing those being chased simply shoplifted at a Walmart?
People don't get pursued like that unless they've committed a serious crime and are a threat to society. It was proportional to the situation.
Had your family member been their victim, or would be a victim after the police let them get away, you'd feel a lot different about it!
The stupid ones are those that flee, not the cops chasing them! It's their decision to endanger everyone on the road, not the police's.
Well… according to the info on the YouTube post, these guys were being chased because they failed to pull over for a traffic stop… initiated to investigate drug possession.
So yeah, the folks in the truck are idiots because they chose to run… but putting innocent bystanders at risk to conduct an investigation of a non-violent crime police THINK is occurring: that’s not proportional. That’s fucking dumb.
-
1
-
-
14 hours ago, Danger41 said:
Any updates on this? Saw it on the VML. I was curious if it has changed with the Raptor FTU moving out to Langley.
Talked to a couple of their dudes recently. They love it; high QOL, enthusiastic young’uns, and lots of flying to be had.
-
https://apnews.com/article/holloman-air-force-base-f16-jet-crash-84504e14dbb43837839d4d2e824c08eb
Pilot ejected and taken to the hospital and released.
-
On 4/12/2024 at 3:47 PM, busdriver said:
The dumber point of this is that higher costs to oil and natural gas on federal land will predominantly affect offshore production. And the rapid expansion capability within the US system is private land fracking.
So this move is really just incentivizing increased investment into/growth of fracking.
The royalties may mean actual money… everything else is budget dust to budget dust. The lease bond is returned after conclusion of the lease, unless there’s an issue—then it becomes budget dust on the insurer’s books.
Probably won’t make gas cheaper, but once the dust settles it likely won’t have a meaningful impact.
Except, as bus driver pointed out: Incentivizing extracting the same product in places where the Public has less of a stake.
This is a nothingburger.
E-7A Wedgetail
in General Discussion
Posted
I’m curious what differentiates manned ISR from UAS in the “zero game” assessment. What difference does one having a human in it vs. the other not make?
Attritable assets don’t have more game; they’re just cheaper to lose. And once you invest in making something ‘survivable’ in the way I think you’re using the term, it is likely not attritable anymore.
UAS also introduces a data logistics tail (assuming you want to task and receive the collect) that is as costly to guard as it is to create; it’s been a long time since we’ve shot down or lost a manned airplane because the pilot refused to listen to commands like ‘come home.’
Agree though, maybe we’re all thinking about different scenarios… but this is a VERY common trap people fall into, usually precipitated by somebody saying “you have a problem you don’t know you have. Don’t worry I have a solution, at cost plus.”