Leadership at the 'Deid

[Napoleon_Tanerite]

As a side note, I am now sporting my new black reflective belt. Getting lots of compliments by my fella Herk brothers but have been unable to hook a shoe yet.

I rocked the black batman belt for a month and never so much as a nibble from the shoes. I think next time I'll get pouches and make a reflective utility belt out of it or something... I've gotta figure out some new way to troll them.

[Day Man]

And to the brave Captain out there with no belt who we will never know....

back at ya

[capt4fans]

2

You have to read everything I said. I said that would never happen. I've actually have other people in my shop that I go to dinner with who have chosen not wear theirs while we're out at night. I think it's great.

Edited September 6, 2010 by capt4fans

[zrooster99]

You have to read everything I said. I said that would never happen. I've actually have other people in my shop that I go to dinner with who have chosen not wear theirs while we're out at night. I think it's great.

Which indicated to ME that you thought by not doing so you weren't setting the right example. Personally, I think you are, depending on the situation...

Edited September 6, 2010 by zrooster99

[capt4fans]

Which indicated to ME that you thought by not doing so you weren't setting the right example. Personally, I think you are, depending on the situation...

I totally think I'm setting the right example. Sorry if I came off as a dick. Too much desert sun that day.

I must say, part of it is my stubbornness about how gay it is to wear one while in CC with reflective PT gear on, but my other half is a continued silent protest to a WG/CC (and I'm on my third here with this policy) who will let people ride in the bed of a truck at 40 kph, and still claims to care about the "safety" of his people, and use "safety" as the reason for the reflective belts. If safety was their #1 goal, and making sure people didn't get hurt, they'd ban the practice of riding in the beds of trucks. Talk about dangerous. If I've stated this before, I apologize, and I will now get off of my soapbox.

[Guest wenfield]

5 Days and 114 pages later, i'm ready for my first sixth trip to the deid. Thanks for all the information everyone, and when i get there sometime real soon, i'll also keep everyone up to date on any shoeness that goes on.

[BQZip01]

I totally think I'm setting the right example. Sorry if I came off as a dick. Too much desert sun that day.

I must say, part of it is my stubbornness about how gay it is to wear one while in CC with reflective PT gear on, but my other half is a continued silent protest to a WG/CC (and I'm on my third here with this policy) who will let people ride in the bed of a truck at 40 kph, and still claims to care about the "safety" of his people, and use "safety" as the reason for the reflective belts. If safety was their #1 goal, and making sure people didn't get hurt, they'd ban the practice of riding in the beds of trucks. Talk about dangerous. If I've stated this before, I apologize, and I will now get off of my soapbox.

It strikes me that that belts seem to be more about control over the masses and showing they have the power (i.e. beating down their spirit) than actual safety. I would like to see the statistics that show any decrease in safety due to non-reflective belt usage.

[SurelySerious]

I would like to see the statistics that show any decrease in safety due to non-reflective belt usage.

These stats probably don't exist. I can imagine them pulling up Band Of Brothers, scrolling forward to Moose Heyliger being shot by friendly forces, and saying, "if Moose had been wearing one, it wouldn't have happened."

[BQZip01]

These stats probably don't exist.

FIFY

[capt4fans]

It's official. This place has gone off the deep end. New newsletter that is sent out electronically by WG/PA so as not to waste paper and costs less as well. It's official tongue in cheek title. "SLAM SPAM." Yep, that's right it's total SPAM. so much so that the first thing I did when I saw it was create another rule in Outlook to auto-delete anything with PA in the "From" line.

On the plus side they are working their asses off on a new deck for the new Fox Sports Lounge (or a bathroom to attach to it, cause it could really use one.) And the new bowling alley that they've started cutting ground for out by the new CAOC should be open around spring next year. Can't wait to come back and go bowl at "Slam Lanes"

[JS]

It's official. This place has gone off the deep end. New newsletter that is sent out electronically by WG/PA so as not to waste paper and costs less as well. It's official tongue in cheek title. "SLAM SPAM." Yep, that's right it's total SPAM. so much so that the first thing I did when I saw it was create another rule in Outlook to auto-delete anything with PA in the "From" line.

On the plus side they are working their asses off on a new deck for the new Fox Sports Lounge (or a bathroom to attach to it, cause it could really use one.) And the new bowling alley that they've started cutting ground for out by the new CAOC should be open around spring next year. Can't wait to come back and go bowl at "Slam Lanes"

I just learned a new technique from an IP that sounds pretty neat (have yet to try it). Instead of creating auto-delete rules in Outlook, he gets creative with the Outlook rules options and rigs it so if the letter is from XXXX, then send a response to XXXX with some smart-ass, anti-spam type message.

For example, he has a rule that anytime he receives a letter from the CGOC, it auto-replies to the entire CGOC mailing list with some sort of message like "This is an automated email. I am not a CGOC member and would never consider being part of such a group, etc." I would set up a similar rule for emails from PA. Just think, if 20 or 50 guys had auto-response rules like that, every time the CGOC or PA sent out an email, they would immediately receive 50 pieces of SPAM in their box. Would work even better of hundreds were on board with the concept.

[schokie]

I've heard an urban legend that someone tried that once. The problem is that if you auto respond to the listserv it sends another email to you since you're on the list. It then starts the cycle of autoresponding to yourself as fast as the system can handle, which very quickly becomes not fast at all. What was once a great idea now chokes the base email server into submission. While some might argue that's actually a good thing, you probably won't be one of them when leadership is mad at you.

I think the idea of autoresponding a 'noted' or 'thanks!' to whoever sent the email is great, I just don't want someone to get too eager and accidentally take one for the team here.

[Odium]

I've heard an urban legend that someone tried that once. The problem is that if you auto respond to the listserv it sends another email to you since you're on the list. It then starts the cycle of autoresponding to yourself as fast as the system can handle, which very quickly becomes not fast at all. What was once a great idea now chokes the base email server into submission. While some might argue that's actually a good thing, you probably won't be one of them when leadership is mad at you.

I think the idea of autoresponding a 'noted' or 'thanks!' to whoever sent the email is great, I just don't want someone to get too eager and accidentally take one for the team here.

At least in Outlook, you could always setup the autoreply rule to not respond to a message from your email address on the listserv or any message containing some phrase the rule automatically include in your initial autoresponse to avoid falling into an infinite loop of replying to yourself.

Edited September 21, 2010 by Odium

[Napoleon_Tanerite]

can anyone confirm or deny that MALAK is dead?

[Right Seat Driver]

can anyone confirm or deny that MALAK is dead?

I sure as hell hope not, although I have been hearing that they have been trying to get rid of it for some time now. Hello 13 mile ILS, it has been a long time.

[Napoleon_Tanerite]

I sure as hell hope not, although I have been hearing that they have been trying to get rid of it for some time now. Hello 13 mile ILS, it has been a long time.

exactly, especially when going to 16

[Right Seat Driver]

exactly, especially when going to 16

Or being 18 DME out with a P-3/C-130 in front of you.

EDITED: For Clarity

Edited September 25, 2010 by Right Seat Driver

[Butters]

It strikes me that that belts seem to be more about control over the masses and showing they have the power (i.e. beating down their spirit) than actual safety. I would like to see the statistics that show any decrease in safety due to non-reflective belt usage.

Well, last time I was wearing one in broad daylight I was hit by a car, broke my back, and was DNIF for 4 months.

Reflective belts KILL.

[capt4fans]

I can confirm that Malek is dead until the end of the year. If you don't believe me, go check the NOTAMS for this horrible place. Sorry for all the flyers....guess too many dudes were trying to check out the chicks at "Mantanistan" aka the Pool when they did the visual.

Any other questions, PM me and I'd be happy to answer.

Edited to add the NOTAM.

USE CAUTION: ALL 379 EOG AIRCREWS ARE DIRECTED TO FLY AN

AVAILABLE INSTRUMENT APPROACH UPON RETURN TO AUAB AND ARE PROHIBITED

FROM AUAB MIDFIELD (MALAK) ARRIVALS AND ALL VISUAL RECOVERIES UNTIL

FURTHER NOTICE UNLESS NO INSTRUMENT APPROACH IS AVAILABLE OR

EMERGENCY CONDITION EXIST. 18 SEP 13:37 2010 UNTIL 15 DEC 23:59 2010. CREATED:

18 SEP 13:34 2010

Edited September 22, 2010 by capt4fans

[capt4fans]

I just figured out how to make the shoe clerks absolutely blow their stack. The reg just says that you have to wear a reflective belt. It doesn't say that the reflective part has to be on the outside. If you're up to the challenge, and I don't wear one here, so count me out, see how far you can get at night with a belt on and it turned inside out. If they hassle you, tell them nowhere in the reg does it say you have to have the reflective part on the outside. The belt just has to be visible. Let me know how this pans out.

[HuggyU2]

Let me know how this pans out.

Tell you what,... you let us know how it pans out for you.

[pawnman]

I just figured out how to make the shoe clerks absolutely blow their stack. The reg just says that you have to wear a reflective belt. It doesn't say that the reflective part has to be on the outside. If you're up to the challenge, and I don't wear one here, so count me out, see how far you can get at night with a belt on and it turned inside out. If they hassle you, tell them nowhere in the reg does it say you have to have the reflective part on the outside. The belt just has to be visible. Let me know how this pans out.

You mean that often quoted "360 degrees of reflectivity" they use to make us put an additional belt on our backpacks doesn't actually say "reflectivity"?

[capt4fans]

Tell you what,... you let us know how it pans out for you.

I will point out that I have yet to wear mine on this rotation or my last rotation at night. 8 months, and I've been spokenn to once. And that was in the 10 feet between my dorm and the caddie. I find it funny that this is supposedly a huge deal out here, but I can go 8 months without wearing it, and look, I'm still alive.

I don't wear a belt, so I won't be testing this policy, just thought you all would like another way to spin the shoes.

Edit for spelling.

Edited September 22, 2010 by capt4fans

[capt4fans]

You mean that often quoted "360 degrees of reflectivity" they use to make us put an additional belt on our backpacks doesn't actually say "reflectivity"?

Here's the reg. It says visibility.

4.1.9. For safety purposes, all members assigned to/transiting the installation will wear a reflective belt with their PTU/IPTU during all hours of darkness or reduced visibility to provide 360-degree visibility of member. Reflective belts will be worn around the

waist only.

6.1.4. Reflective Tape, Belts, Jackets, and Arm Bands. For safety purposes, all members assigned to/transiting the installation will wear a reflective belt during all hours of darkness or reduced visibility to provide 360-degree visibility of member. Reflective belts will be worn around the waist only. It is prohibited to wear reflective belts across the chest. When reflective belt wear is required, it must be visible at all times (not under clothing etc.).

6.1.4.2. If members are wearing a backpack, etc. that prevents 360-degree visibility of the reflective belt, a second reflective belt must be worn around that item as well to facilitate 360-degree visibility.

And yeah, I tried to look up "reflectivity", and didn't see that one in the dictionary. Not sure if that's going to be in the new version of the Oxford or Websters.

More sarcasm available upon requuest....I'm at day 120 of doing the Deid this time around.

[bfargin]

Here's the reg. It says visibility.

4.1.9. For safety purposes, all members assigned to/transiting the installation will wear a reflective belt with their PTU/IPTU during all hours of darkness or reduced visibility to provide 360-degree visibility of member.

Why does the AF want to see your member from all 360 degrees??