Jump to content

What's wrong with the Air Force?


Catbox

Recommended Posts

On 9/21/2017 at 2:00 PM, tac airlifter said:

No bro, if you’re just having coffee and waiting for brief time to start.  Am I not allowed to look at mission slides before official brief time?

some of you guys are so official it’s amazing anything gets done.

Different communities, different atmospheres.  

I got burned by a load one time because she "didn't get a full 12 hours crew rest."  At an undisclosed location in southwest asia, I set my crew for alert around 15hrs prior.  I went by her room but she didn't answer after knocking several times and there was no chow hall/cadillac/bra note on her door.  I wrote the alert time on her board, and left.  Alert time rolls around and no call.. I eventually call the DO and he said they canx'd my line because I never notified my (1 of 2) loadmaster.  Evidently, this young gal was sleeping when I came by, stumbled out of her room with 9 hours left until alert, saw the legal time, and called in to say she wasn't going to get a full 12 hours of rest... EVEN THOUGH SHE HAD JUST BEEN SLEEPING.  I was irate, but how do you explain to a very new airman when to bend rules when she could very easily burn me again with "Well Capt DieselPilot said it's okay to violate this AFI." 

I'm guessing you're in a crew community as well, but sometimes we have to account for the lowest common denominator which means following the rules past any reasonable expectation.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/21/2017 at 1:30 PM, ThreeHoler said:

Different communities and MAJCOMs have different rules/interpretations.

If we show to the jet, AMCC, squadron, etc. then my crew has started the FDP. Brief time doesn’t start our clock in AMC; show time (at the aforementioned locations) does.

If I’m awake and check the weather or SMS from my hotel room, then I’m not breaking crew rest by 202V3 2.1.2. If I get on the bus, I am still in the 12 hours of crew rest set aside for transportation, meals, etc.

This is why we have MAJCOM and Wing supplements...MAJCOMs have operational authority.

That sound awful.  Our crew rest ends when we set foot in the squadron for the mission brief followed by the step brief.  That is, according to our interpretation of the AFI, "performing official duties" and therefore not "time away from official duties".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, pawnman said:

That sound awful.  Our crew rest ends when we set foot in the squadron for the mission brief followed by the step brief.  That is, according to our interpretation of the AFI, "performing official duties" and therefore not "time away from official duties".

I think you guys are saying the same thing. 

Edited by Herkbier
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems like a lot of violent agreement. I'm for the change because it makes it easier for me as the PIC to make a reasonable decision and get a much faster response, but leaves me the ability to refuse if I think its unsafe. Unless I'm interpreting this wrong. Just my 2 cents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems like a lot of violent agreement. I'm for the change because it makes it easier for me as the PIC to make a reasonable decision and get a much faster response, but leaves me the ability to refuse if I think its unsafe. Unless I'm interpreting this wrong. Just my 2 cents.

The downside is when you refuse and TACC bitches to your CC who then decides you’re not a “team player.” Not a risk with my current boss, but seen some who like to second guess their ACs decisions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites


The downside is when you refuse and TACC bitches to your CC who then decides you’re not a “team player.” Not a risk with my current boss, but seen some who like to second guess their ACs decisions.


Is that like when weather always seems like it is exactly within the minimums even when you walk back from the aircraft soaked/covered in snow.

Gotta love that crap.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/5/2017 at 11:28 PM, Lawman said:

 


Is that like when weather always seems like it is exactly within the minimums even when you walk back from the aircraft soaked/covered in snow.

Gotta love that crap.

 

Or when home station coordinates with AMD behind your back to extend duty day to 18 hours so you can bring a tail back home a day earlier for the purposes of an Air show.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:
On 10/7/2017 at 2:59 PM, dream big said:
Or when home station coordinates with AMD behind your back to extend duty day to 18 hours so you can bring a tail back home a day earlier for the purposes of an Air show.  

This only stops when ACs have the backbone to say "no."

Good point, they will fry you if you screw up during "extended" crew rest, don't do it.  As a fighter guy I'd say no  and crack a beer.......done.

Edited by matmacwc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good point, they will fry you if you screw up during "extended" crew rest, don't do it.  As a fighter guy I'd say no  and crack a beer.......done.
I've had to do it once. Got a satcom call in the jet saying our duty day was "approved for extension to 18 hours." I told them since I wasn't the originator of the extension request, I couldn't accept it. Got an incredulous O-5 who didn't think it worked than way, but I quoted the reg and asked if we had a waiver from HAF for me not requesting it. Issue dropped. Didn't even need the extension anyways.

Standard disclaimer about getting in the bad Graces of your CC or DO, but these days they don't have the luxury of black balling people for following the regs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/9/2017 at 12:00 AM, Lord Ratner said:
On 10/8/2017 at 12:59 AM, dream big said:
Or when home station coordinates with AMD behind your back to extend duty day to 18 hours so you can bring a tail back home a day earlier for the purposes of an Air show.  

This only stops when ACs have the backbone to say "no."

I did say no ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, matmacwc said:

As a fighter guy I'd say no  and crack a beer.......done.

It's all about S.A. on your event timing.  And this should be briefed early.  

Crack the beer at the earliest possible point... THEN take the phone call from the caller ID that says "SQ/DO"... THEN say "Unable".  

Amateurs...

Got a satcom call in the jet saying our duty day was "approved for extension to 18 hours." 

Hmmm... my advice on cracking the beer would be more difficult.  But you'd be legendary if you used it in this case.  

Edited by HuggyU2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, HuggyU2 said:

It's all about S.A. on your event timing.  And this should be briefed early.  

Crack the beer at the earliest possible point... THEN take the phone call from the caller ID that says "SQ/DO"... THEN say "Unable".  

Amateurs...

Hmmm... my advice on cracking the beer would be more difficult.  But you'd be legendary if you used it in this case.  

You guys didn't carry a tube of beer for just such an ocassion?

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Since this deals with PT tests (which we all hate)I figured it could fall under "what's wrong with the Air Force" category.

I'm PCS'ing next week with an approx 4.5 month enroute Conus TDY.  My MPF is telling me I have to retake my PT test prior to leaving even though I am current through Jan.  My interpretation of the reg was that I fell into an extended TDY exemption.  They were citing a newish policy that says you have to be current at gaining PCS location plus 42 days.  However, unless I get excellent there is no way the math would work out anyway based on the length of my TDY.  I would still not have the 42 days after RNLTD even if I took one day prior to my class start (assuming only a SAT score).

I really don't want to quibble but I don't want to unnecessarily take it because of a WOM.  Any thoughts or experiences on this?

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, bronxbomber252 said:

Show them the reg, then ask them to show you where it is written that you need to meet what they are saying.

Yeah it seems the push is related to this new SECAF policy letter I only saw once a few months ago.  I get the intent but doesn't seem like it was meant to apply to extended TDYs.  But, my base now has it fully implemented on every possible checklist and even the wing front office told me I had to retest.  Figured someone else on here might have dealt with it already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, epsilon said:

unless I get excellent there is no way the math would work out anyway based on the length of my TDY.  I would still not have the 42 days after RNLTD even if I took one day prior to my class start (assuming only a SAT score).

I assume you’ve pointed this out to whoever is directing you to test; what is their answer?  If you cannot fulfill requirement of the reg by testing prior to PCS, what is the point of doing so?  Can you take a PFT at your TDY location?  Sorry to answer your question with 3 questions, but understanding their rationale is a prerequisite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, tac airlifter said:

I assume you’ve pointed this out to whoever is directing you to test; what is their answer?  If you cannot fulfill requirement of the reg by testing prior to PCS, what is the point of doing so?  Can you take a PFT at your TDY location?  Sorry to answer your question with 3 questions, but understanding their rationale is a prerequisite.

Yes I've tried to use common logic and reasoning and have shown them the reg, but they seem to think this new policy letter supercedes all. I can also take the test at randolph (TDY).   At the same time I don't want to come across as trying to snake out of a PT test.  I'm at a small remote base and don't want to damage the reputation of the bag wearers further.  But yeah, I'll reattack.

Edited by epsilon
Jack daniels
Link to comment
Share on other sites

.....don't want to damage the reputation of the bag wearers further.

Bag wearers need to stop rolling over at the whim of admin shoe clerks. If the reg is on your side, don't let it slide. If not, smile and take your test. Don't let feelings get in the way of doing what's right because this shit will just continue if nobody stands up to it.

  • Like 5
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, di1630 said:


Bag wearers need to stop rolling over at the whim of admin shoe clerks. If the reg is on your side, don't let it slide. If not, smile and take your test. Don't let feelings get in the way of doing what's right because this shit will just continue if nobody stands up to it.
 

Not sure why this should be limited to bag wearers...shoe clerks shouldn't have to be at the whim of...other shoe clerks either.

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, epsilon said:

Yes I've tried to use common logic and reasoning and have shown them the reg, but they seem to think this new policy letter supercedes all. I can also take the test at randolph (TDY).   At the same time I don't want to come across as trying to snake out of a PT test.  I'm at a small remote base and don't want to damage the reputation of the bag wearers further.  But yeah, I'll reattack.

If they reason that a policy letter supersedes written regulation that's fine.  We also have a policy letter from CSAF saying stop doing dumb shit.  Who adjudicates which letter wins?  Commanders.  Not their front office or worker bees.

  This should, clearly, fall into the realm of dumb shit since you wouldn't be in compliance with the policy even if you execute their proposed COA (for arguments sake, assume you get <90).  I recommend elevating this past the front office to an actual commander, and presenting it as simply as possible: I can't take the test early and still meet the requirement, so I'm planning to take the test a KRND.  If they say execute, do so.  Understand your desire to avoid appearing whiny, but you can attack this very nonsensical policy interpretation in a professional manner (which you're already doing); if folks are offended buy that, it's not your fault. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, tac airlifter said:

If they reason that a policy letter supersedes written regulation that's fine.  We also have a policy letter from CSAF saying stop doing dumb shit.  Who adjudicates which letter wins?  Commanders.  Not their front office or worker bees.

  This should, clearly, fall into the realm of dumb shit since you wouldn't be in compliance with the policy even if you execute their proposed COA (for arguments sake, assume you get <90).  I recommend elevating this past the front office to an actual commander, and presenting it as simply as possible: I can't take the test early and still meet the requirement, so I'm planning to take the test a KRND.  If they say execute, do so.  Understand your desire to avoid appearing whiny, but you can attack this very nonsensical policy interpretation in a professional manner (which you're already doing); if folks are offended buy that, it's not your fault. 

Good insight and I think that's my gameplan.  Appreciate your responses. I tread lightly because I'm an old guy in the wing staff and I know that eyes of the young airmen are on the Wg leaders.

But I really just don't understand why the hell the AF keeps putting in place stupid knee jerk policies that cause everyone to flail.  This "memo" I've seen once and promptly deleted months ago...and it looked legit since it came from AFPC.  But what the hell?  Oh, and despite a dozen searches on the internet it hasn't come up.  It just resides with the Chiefs and AFI sticklers.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...