Leaderboard

My thoughts as an 11F after 20+ in the AF: - Promotions up to Lt Col generally get it right. But occasionally blows it big time. - Continuing education SHOULD be a good thing...implementation in the form of our current slate of PME offerings is horrible and is NOT continuing education. After IDE in res (after correspondence of course!) and SDE correspondence, all 3 programs, IMO, were years behind the times, taught by out of touch, irrelevant instructors, using terrible courseware. Each felt like a huge waste of time. - Command selection process at the Squadron level leaves a LOT to be desired. Many good, far too many bad. The good seem to retire afterwards at too high a rate. My reaction of "WTF?" happens WAY too often. Too many baffling picks for Sq/CC in the CAF. Same holds true for OGs and FW/CCs, many good but still too many not. How do the crappy ones continue on when their Groups and Wings can't stand them? At the Squadron level, too many GO-directed disruptions of 'gameplans' to ensure 'their guy' got hooked up. - Too much career risk-aversion from senior leadership. Too much unwillingness to do the right thing for fear of what might happen to them if doesn't turn out roses. So many missed opportunities because someone with Stars was unwilling to trust their subordinates... - SOS DG after a 7 week program as a young Captain carries WAY too much weight in a career. Guys ride that strat all the way to Squadron Command! Crazy. - Combat experience SHOULD be a discriminator. Unfortunately, our "system" has passed out combat medals for the most mundane stuff diluting their significance. - AADs add nothing to the experience and if the AF feels they are necessary for senior command, they should send you to get one after a squadron command tour. I have my ERAU degree and it is useless outside the AF. Aerospace Technology? I think I was able to re-use the same paper 3 times. I was just trying to get through and survive the load flying the line at work, keeping the family happy (failed) and chugging through the masters at the same time. Having guys flying the line, going through IPUG, working scheduling in an undermanned squadron while attending night or online classes is stupid. Family is so important to the AF? People are our biggest asset? Bullshit. The AAD is too important to the machine. Get it or get out. Your family will understand...makes me fume! Actually stood in a FS MBR and heard a General tell one of our pilots that he just wasn't good enough at time management if he couldn't juggle everything. We thought he was joking. He was dead serious. YGBFSM. - Good leaders and pilots punch out way too early because the requirements of the machine are too onerous. And then there are the 365 iTDYs... Really? To WHERE??? I've seen way too many guys bail who would have been great for the AF. Too bad. At least the Guard got their talents. I sound bitter. I'm really not. I was offered command "opportunities" but they didn't match up with my family QOL requirements so I bowed out. And I'm very happy about it. But my list of observations about the AF machine still frustrate me on a daily basis.

I stand corrected. I've seen the term widely used to divide ops and support. The mindset and attitude you describe should be stomped out.

I almost posted a long winded response that pretty much says the same thing this one does. No one in upper management will ever say the "system is broken" because it is working for them. But that "system" is actually perpetuating this environment where people are becoming more and more self serving. I have NEVER met anyone who volunteered for a staff job in order to make improvements for an organizational process...or improvements to anything else for that matter. They volunteer for staff assignments so they can get a school push or a PRF written by a 3-star or above. The goal today is not to make the organization better, but rather to secure a promotion so I can make it to 20. Just ask around and see who actually plans to stay past 20...I haven't met any yet. Why 20? What is so magic about that number? Why aren't people talking about making it to 30? Why, because we have a self-serving goal...and for a lot of people, it isn't making this organization better, but rather, doing enough to get by without changing anything or making any important decisions that could get me in trouble, non-selected for promotion, and (nowadays) possibly kicked out of the service....I have to make it to 20. That my friends, is the min-run Air Force...and we have created this environment and have rewarded people for living it. The reality is if you want to make it to that magic number, you have to play the game and take care of yourself first....which from what I remember in SOS several years ago is exactly opposite of those things they call "Core Values." Mission first (alone) will not help you succeed. It is self first, and I'll get to the mission after I'm done with my Masters paper, but I'm only going to do enough to get noticed for my efforts and not get in trouble. The secret to success in this organization is simple given the current environment: take care of yourself, prepare for life outside the Air Force, do the best you can while you are still in the Air Force (in that order). People on this thread aren't just making this sh*t up. If leadership is lurking, please listen to what your junior members are saying. Junior members, bitch, yes, but give some solutions to the problems as well. Sure, this isn't going to change overnight, but we need to change the culture back to the real "Core Values"...whatever they are these days. Stop rewarding self-serving behavior. Ok, so that was still long winded...

You guys really are disgruntled about this OPR nonsense, almost as pissed off as PYB and I am about our government's big power overreach and direct violation of the Bill of Rights. You have a senior leader here, a flag officer, engaging in conversation with you. He has opinions, naturally, but is respectfully conversing. Rather than seeing this as a grand opportunity to have your personal perspective heard and possibly to influence high level promotion/PRF positive changes, you act like fukkers questioning his motives and leadership. That's baseops for ya!

Said no one ever.

Liquid, My #1 issue with our system is that it emphasizes the wrong things. I and many others that have AADs can testify that most of the work doesn't truely make us better leaders. Sure there are small areas where it makes us better, like maybe a better writer. Maybe you received your masters in a classroom. Most kids today get theirs from a diploma mill. There are a few that decide they will invest their time and get a masters that means something, say engineering because TPS is something they might like doing. When flyers are doing AADs alongside UPT/UNT/Grad Flying Training because the AF telegraphes its promotion criteria in the stats it puts out post board, I lower my head in shame. If the AF would say instead, if you get DG in Undergrad or Grad flying training, that counts twice as much as SOS in Res, people will put more energy there. All I'm trying to say is that people will put their energy into what the AF thinks is important and what the individual thinks is important. If the AF wants AADs that will benefit, delete the AAD requirement for selection to Maj. Send Majs to ACSC and other PME that have AAD options and send enough for to cover the LTC personnel numbers for each board. Send the technical types to Wright-Patt. Now you have your Maj with an AAD in something that is more applicable to the AF and PME complete. And then you're back to job performance to rack and stack for LTC promotion. Simplistic description, but you get the idea. As for the system selecting squadron commanders, that is for another thread another day. I really needed to highlight this item. Maybe the retarded will see it. Good chat Out

You could, ya know, call the 714 TRS. Oh, look, here is a document in Baseops.net: https://www.baseops.net/c130gouge4/TIPS-Guide-20Apr09.pdf I'll bet there are phone numbers in there. I recommend Miss Marti. Out

This is my #1/69 beefs with "the system." I despise those who push the first draft onto the ratee. My experience with my own OPRs has been similar. I was actually taken aback when my rater wrote my O-4 PRF draft and sent it to me to make sure he didn't miss anything important. I was expecting to have to write it myself. I start every OPR by opening the shell with blocks IV and V blank. I write almost every bullet from scratch, except in the case of a 'team' bullet that all my ratees worked on, then I might craft one bullet for the team and re-use it in their OPRs. Is it time consuming? Yes. Does it take a lot of work? Only if my ratee gives me lackluster inputs. But that is my job as a rater. I do my best to accurately reflect the contributions of all my ratees and I write each OPR to the level of stratification (or lack thereof) they have earned. I hate writing OPRs. But I hate watching people struggle to write their own more. However, I give my ratees the option to attempt writing bullets should they wish. Most of the time I don't use their bullets in any way, but it gives them an opportunity to see how they wrote a bullet versus how I would write a bullet for the same event. Hopefully, it will help them when they have to write bullets for their ratees. Sadly, this is one of those things that we, the unwashed masses, can address and fix by standing up as a group of FGOs and CGOs to write OPRs instead of pushing it to our ratees.

You will fall under the FY14 ACP (or whatever they decide to call it). Based upon your dates, you will not be eligible for the uncommitted bonus (3,4, or 5 years at $15k). The only bonus you will be eligible for is the initial bonus (5 years at $25k). Disclaimer: This is assuming they don't change any of the criteria. Edit: When we had the 8 year UPT commitment, the uncommitted bonus seemed more feasible as guys could not take the initial and delay a year or two to take the uncommitted bonus. As we get to where those groups are not eligible for the uncommitted, it would seem like that criteria may have to change if they plan on keeping it around. With the 10 year, most people are not going to be eligible for the uncommitted bonus, so why keep it around?

someone in this thread wrote Love it.

Liquid, I agree with most of what you say. Most of those who are promoted deserve it and do a great job...most meaning as little as one promotee better than 50%. I understand that we can't promote everyone...even if 100% of those up for promotion were sh*t hot, but there was only a 90% promotion opportunity, 10% of those sh*t hot officers would be denied promotion. Got it. There is some consistency in your posts that actually relates to what we are talking about here...and it is no secret. YOU the individual don't get promoted, your records do. So, yes, the bottom 50% are easy to identify if you are using criteria like AAD, PME, etc to select them. Without ever looking at one single OPR, I could probably predict with accuracy who was going to get promoted on this last Majors board if you just give me information on PME/AAD, in-res/corr completion alone. The stats don't lie. Don't tell me they weren't racked and stacked mainly based on AAD completion. Job performance? Really, we had IPs and EPs (presumably experts at their jobs) shown the door. Please tell me those dirtbag officers weren't out there training and evaluating our rated force. Ok, I know they weren't dirtbags...I knew several of them. They were some of the most experienced aviators in the squadron. What did they all have in common? BAC+ or less. I know they were racked and stacked based on that...I witnessed the process. Clean kill? Depends on how you look at it. I can't imagine any other flying organization in the world who would pick the guy with the AAD in cultural studies over the experienced IP/EP...but thats just me. Believe me, AAD does not make the officer. It just means in a lot of cases, those guys took themselves off the flying schedule or a TDY to finish that Masters. Sure, probably just in my small corner of the world, but it happened too often to be just something happening in my squadron. Certainly someone else out there not in my squadron has seen the same things. My real point is that the record does not always accurately describe a great leader....they look like a great leader because of a great writer. Inversely, the poor records don't mean a poor leader...just a bad writer...and most likely written by the member anyway. In 15 years of service, I had a rater write exactly 3 of my many OPRs. I wrote the rest. That is a problem in our Air Force. I can list many instances where our "top" strat officers on paper are really less than stellar in real life...like the one who shows for work at 0900, takes a 2 hour lunch with wife and family, races for the door at 1630 (or before to avoid retreat), avoids the schedulers phone call for that weekend mission because he has to take the kids to Legoland or finish a Master's paper (not on leave by the way), or the guy who manages to avoid deployments and even pulled strings to get a staff job to get out of one after being identified on the short list for that iTDY. Their records look spectacular, and some of them are "good dudes," but they hardly fit the model of quality "leadership" (IMHO). They just managed to do a couple of pretty good things in the past...so that plus an AAD completed 5 years ago makes them a better leader. Got it. Tell me where the mission first mentality is? The ones I know that think mission first are exactly the ones taking those weekend missions and not doing the Masters papers...they also aren't getting promoted. I think that is where the arguments about OPRs and the promotion process are coming from. We see it at our level...promotion boards do not see it...and realistically can't see it. So, we need to be more accurate in those "records" that seem to be so important. Our OPR system is so inflated because we so don't want to hurt anyone's feelings that even the obviously bottom 1% guy who is passed over for promotion is surprised he/she didn't get promoted.

Agreed, my friend, I think I paid around $225 for 1260 rounds of M67 (Yugo 7.62x39) at a gun show on the same day as the 2011 Tucson shooting, and I thought that was expensive. Most I've bad during these "Dark Ages" was $350/1000. Not too bad, and I've stocked up on the stuff (although it's all destined to end up on the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico...) Hopefully we'll see some normalcy one of these days... Cheers! M2

Looks like you could have used an exec.

Ha these guys are great. https://www.duffelblog.com/ https://www.duffelblog.com/2013/02/air-force-musical-showcase-ensemble-sees-tryout-surge-one-year-after-dadt/

If the motivation is simply to have better-trained pilots, then I would see it as incredibly useful for many of the same reasons... if the motivation is to reduce cost to the minimum and try to maintain the same standard of effectiveness then it is a loosing battle. I sometimes feel that the AF logic on flying hours is like a guy that mortgages his house to buy a Lambo, but can't afford to insure it, fuel it, or risk driving it... but if it ever came down to racing for pinks, he hopes that he can just rely on his Mario-cart skills. It becomes a self-fulfilling iteratively-reducing process, as long as the race never occurs we justify that we can reduce even more, since we haven't technically lost yet. As to your idea: why stop with a simple proficiency program when you can actually do a lot more... put a fixed-sight gun out the side and teach/maintain basic gunship theory/skill. Airdrop JPADs out the back of a twin otter. Put a sensor ball on a helicopter and teach basic CSO stuff. Setup training with the ground pounders and cheaply work on 9lines, etc.... formation... tanker orbits, well maybe not. But, the problem with even the basic flying you discuss is: $ to a congressman's constituency so that you can get support for such endeavors; then an acquisition program, & mx, etc...i.e. how can we MAXIMIZE the cost. We had a decently-effective program to have all pilots get their Privates before UPT from a, *gasp, civilian instructor. But that went away for a more costly, more complex endeavor with IFS... I doubt we have any data on whether or not that actually affected anything, but it sure helped out a few companies along the way.

My apologies - copy and paste from word doesn't work like a champ.

Remember everyone, "Shoe Clerk" is not a job ... "Shoe Clerk" is a mindset and attitude. "Shoe Clerk" is a 2-hour lunch or taking gym time when there's actual mission to be done. "Shoe Clerk" is surfing Facebook while someone stands waiting at the customer service desk. "Shoe Clerk" is closed for training and not actually getting any better. "Shoe Clerk" is saying 'no' rather than actually trying to help people or solve the problem. "Shoe Clerk" is thinking the bureaucracy and/or the processes are more important than the results. Don't be a Shoe Clerk. It's a decision YOU make.

So..... It's the "system" and nothing else? The best and brightest our nation have to offer can't turn the rudder on this ship? "Well, I had to do it, so the next crop will have to do it as well." I say "spineless" because I see men and women appointed to "leadership positions" that make it clear through their priorities and decisions that they are in it to continue advancing in this bureaucratic machine. I acknowledge that there are exceptions. But for the most part, many of these people that have prospered under the "up or out" system fall into the category of "spineless". Yes, Liquid, I take exception to your assertion that the promotion system works. My focus is not necessarily on those who don't pay to play and wind up getting passed over. I am talking about the officers among us that calculate their next move to rise on the corporate ladder versus making things better and taking care of their Airmen. I have seen this type of management first-hand on multiple occasions, and it is a cancer to our service. So, please tell me again how you can say that our promotion system does it right yet people that simply cannot lead prosper in our current climate because they can bang out AAD/PME, schmooz with the best of them, and write one hell of an award package.

Every time I open this thread, my decision to volunteer for VSP and subsequently getting passed over are further proven the right direction for me. It's good to just walk away.

Don't have your answer - just speculation. Seems the AF doesn't care about the $ too much; it's just a means to get you into another ADSC. I'd bet they wouldn't let you out of the ADSC because the ADSC is more valuable to them than the money.

Most Baseopers agree with what you are posting. However, this is a very disgruntled community of members and they don't come here to read the things they hear at work/PME from their leaders. They come here to bitch about those things. By the way, are you Gen Welsh? I've long suspected he is a lurker. If so, when is my vector coming?

Not all MUTE sites are created equal unfortunately. Some are nice and allow for good scenarios and debriefs, but many are just a guy visually pointing a dish at the plane. They are always threatening to close or downsize our ranges, and so more people crowd into the ones we have, so getting slots are difficult. Getting good ECM, terrain and challenging wx is easy in the sim, not so much in the ECM ranges.

Fair enough. I guess my sim experiences are different. I went went through United Airlines' sims during my brief foray into the airline world back in 2000. I found it to be very good in realism, and establishing solid normal and emergency procedures. Like Evil Eagle, I also went though Flight Safety for the B-300. While I was disappointed with Flight Safety's training overall, I did find that the sim did a good job of getting me comfortable with the airplane very quickly. However, I whole-heartedly disagree that "Sims make you a shittier pilot than actually flying". Your experience may be different than mine. Before AETC had contract sim instructors, the IP's did them. I spent almost 500 hours in the T-38 sim, and I am a significantly better T-38 pilot than I would have been had I spent 500 more hours in the aircraft. Is that heresy? Maybe. Burn the witch! Ram, get me another Ensure!!

A good experiment would be to put the RPA pipeline graduates into a T-6 and see if their 50-60 hours of T-6 sim time actually taught them how to fly.

That and the fact that even tornadoes don't want to go to Enid....

Continue

Funny, except these are actual Obama voters. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gXOV_XWJck