Leaderboard

May I suggest you find out, and write a short email to that effect, including the name of the Airman who helped you? I make it a point to offer praise where earned as quickly as complain when warranted--goes a long way. If nothing else, the two-striper who worked your voucher will get a bit of recognition, which may inspire him to continue to provide excellent service to the next guy....

You're a smart guy... Surely you know that words are shit - even on a forum of nothing but words. Acknowledge, Acknowledge, Acknowledge... Words - they may get you promoted, but they won't get you respect, nor will they fix any issues. You say that you can't fathom how to better acknowledge how ragged our force is...right after you acknowledge that our BS AAD requirement is bad policy and a waste of time. How about we acknowledge a tired and overworked force with a reprieve from the BS, and not another wordy acknowledgement? Novel idea, right? The solution isn't that cosmic, but it somehow seems overly difficult for senior leadership to either grasp or embrace, not sure which. Stop wasting our time with extraneous nonsense when what we really want is to be dedicated to the mission. Actively de-emphasize the AAD at the CGO level. Tear up the SOS correspondence program (we're all supposed to go in res anyway, right?) And stop telling us we're over-manned when 80% of the Sq still has use/lose leave in August.

Polishing a turd: Leadership Piss on my back and tell me it's raining: Not leadership.

This whole discussion is really moot. You have Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3 officers. Your tier is determined as a Lt/young Capt. At that point, your career is pretty much mapped for you. Why worry about anything after that?

Depends on what criteria you use to determine who is "better" than who...hint: AADs is not it, and that could be why a dude is an APZ to begin with. Sure, his fault for not doing what he knew was considered by the board...but it doesn't necessarily make him less qualified to lead. Dont worry, we'll start to figure that one out. Why don't we just stop treating all APZ bubbas as "not promotable" and lacking leadership potential just because they didn't get picked up in their IPZ board. Sure, most will probably never be promoted because of the quality of their records, but we already know some good ones slip through the cracks...but the APZ label rarely gives them a chance to rebound. Remember, the dudes in the last three promotion cycles (96-99) joined this AF at a time where 12 years was the average pin on time for O-4. There was plenty of time back then to get a Master's degree or finish PME. Just look at some of the senior leader bios of guys who didn't get a Masters until their 12-14 year point. That would get them kicked out of the AF these days. It was the AF who accelerated promotions to O-4 to the 10 year pin-on point (that is an 8-year IPZ point). Add a war in there when these young bucks were deployed 300 days a year without the online degree mills we have now and you have a significant number of bubbas who are behind the power curve when it comes to AAD completion. I'll be willing to bet the statistics would show that specific AFSCs fall into this category. Add in the Gen Jumper "we'll-send-you-to-get-a-degree-if-we-want-you-to-have-a-degree-just-focus-on-the-mission" roadshow, and it didn't help matters either. Does it make them poor leaders because they didn't complete that Masters by their 6th year while the REMF who might have one deployment under their belt was able to get it done? No. Stop using BS criteria to determine who future leaders are. I assure you it isn't necessarily the guy who got his AAD/PME completed in record time like some want to believe. Leadership is way more than AAD completion dates. Leadership is mostly about connecting with people and motivating them, inspiring them, molding them, mentoring them...leaving a lasting impression. Until someone can show me how obtaining an AAD in record time somehow gives dudes the ability to lead this way, I'll stand by my assertion that AADs as a leadership indicator is the wrong way to identify your leaders. My opinion only. Edit to change my definition of "leadership"

You're out of your mind. At what point do you pause to consider that after 169 long winded, redundant posts, maybe there is a problem with the presentation rather than the comprehension?

BTW, it was just released today that the FAA will be requiring Commercial Pilots to have 1500 hrs and an ATP... but military pilots only need 750 hrs. Not good for the Embry Riddle kid about to graduate, but with the 65 yr old crowd starting to retire at the Majors and this new ATP requirement it looks like the military pilot hitting his ADSC might have some considerable options when weighing whether to study for his ATP or his AAD. https://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-10/pilot-qualifications-raised-by-u-s-faa-to-improve-safety.html

Do you think one has something to do with the other? I'm a gambling man, and I would wager that if you don't spend much time on APZs with a P, the resulting stats would indicate they don't get picked up much either....thats just me though. Liquid, I already understand that by law, we can't promote everyone. There has been (in past boards) an 85% promotion opportunity for Lt Cols. Even if 100% of those eligible were shit hot, we'd still have to pass over 15% shit hot officers...we get it. We also get that the top 20% really do stand out on boards. But do you really think there is a distinction between the guy who falls in the bottom 15% range and that 16% guy who makes the cut? I know, that is the gray area and I think that is where we lose some of those quality officers because of the asinine criteria our SRs are using WRT rack and stack. I would say the bottom 50% of records (minus the bottom 5%-10%) look pretty much the same...so this is where these stupid rules regarding AAD completion dates are becoming a factor WRT the gray area. I think that is where the AF is getting it wrong, and it starts with the SRs. When an SR rack and stacks those who end up competing in the gray area based on AAD completion/completion date, then the system is skewed. Yes, it is happening...I witnessed it first hand. I may agree that a small percentage of those who wait until the last minute to complete AAD/PME may really be slackers in your bottom 15% (their records would show it though), but to assume that 100% of those who finish AAD/IDE before they pin on Major are somehow great leaders is absolutely the wrong assumption...and THAT is how those competing in the gray area are being rack and stacked. So yes, there are some outstanding bubbas in that "bottom 15%" that don't really belong there but are put there because they were a little more mission focused than the one guy above him who dodged deployments and the flying schedule to finish his AAD/PME as early as possible. I guarantee you everyone on this board knows at least one of those guys who got promoted on last year's O-5 board. Not everyone has the same amount of free time...especially when you are actually leading on the line instead of in that cushy 0800-1630 staff jobs I hear exist. So, to grade someone's leadership potential based on WHEN an AAD was completed is completely asinine. That is part of the problem with your gray area. I've seen the rack and stack process in action...the only difference between my view and the WG/CCs view was I actually knew the people he was stacking higher because of AAD completion/completion dates. And I know, at least by my criteria, they weren't leadership material. They were the ones who race for the door at 1635 (after retreat and national anthem so they won't thave to stand at attention) to get home before the boss comes down to the office for a line of sight tasker at 1645...yes, the same guys who after they were Lt Col selects basically said (to junior officers none the less) "Now if I can just skate to 20 without a 365, life will be good." How can we take those guys seriously?! But who am I to determine leadership potential? Just my personal observation. Yeah, regarding the top 50%, the AIr Force does get it right MOST of the time. (not sarcasm) BT

Liquid, Let me guess-you take leave on Saturdays and Sundays so you don't ever have use or lose... smh

The Lowdown on Korean pilots: From a retired UAL Guy: Very Interesting! After I retired from UAL as a Standards Captain on the 400, I got a job as a simulator instructor working for Alteon (a Boeing subsidiary) at Asiana. When I first got there, I was shocked and surprised by the lack of basic piloting skills shown by most of the pilots. It is not a normal situation with normal progression from new hire, right seat, left seat taking a decade or two. One big difference is that ex-military pilots are given super-seniority and progress to the left seat much faster. Compared to the US, they also upgrade fairly rapidly because of the phenomenal growth by all Asian air carriers. By the way, after about six months at Asiana, I was moved over to KAL and found them to be identical. The only difference was the color of the uniforms and airplanes. I worked in Korea for 5 long years and although I found most of the people to be very pleasant, it’s a minefield of a work environment ... for them and for us expats. One of the first things I learned was that the pilots kept a web-site and reported on every training session. I don't think this was officially sanctioned by the company, but after one or two simulator periods, a database was building on me (and everyone else) that told them exactly how I ran the sessions, what to expect on checks, and what to look out for. For example; I used to open an aft cargo door at 100 knots to get them to initiate an RTO and I would brief them on it during the briefing. This was on the B-737 NG. Many of the new captains were coming off the 777 or B 744 and they were used to the Master Caution System being inhibited at 80 KTs. Well, for the first few days after I started that, EVERYONE rejected the takeoff. Then, all of a sudden they all “got it” and continued the takeoff (in accordance with their manuals). The word had gotten out; I figured it was an overall PLUS for the training program. We expat instructors were forced upon them after the amount of fatal accidents (most of the them totally avoidable) over a decade began to be noticed by the outside world. They were basically given an ultimatum by the FAA, Transport Canada, and the EU to totally rebuild and rethink their training program or face being banned from the skies all over the world. They hired Boeing and Airbus to staff the training centers. KAL has one center and Asiana has another. When I was there (2003-2008) we had about 60 expats conducting training KAL and about 40 at Asiana. Most instructors were from the USA, Canada, Australia, or New Zealand with a few stuffed in from Europe and Asia. Boeing also operated training centers in Singapore and China so they did hire some instructors from there. This solution has only been partially successful but still faces ingrained resistance from the Koreans. I lost track of the number of highly qualified instructors I worked with who were fired because they tried to enforce “normal” standards of performance. By normal standards, I would include being able to master basic tasks like successfully shoot a visual approach with 10 knot crosswind and the weather CAVU. I am not kidding when I tell you that requiring them to shoot a visual approach struck fear in their hearts ... with good reason. Like this SFO Asiana crew, it didn't‚ compute that you needed to be a 1000’ AGL at 3 miles and your sink rate should be 600-800 Ft/Min. After 5 years, they finally nailed me. I still had to sign my name to their training and sometimes if I just couldn't pass someone on a check, I had no choice but to fail them. I usually busted about 3-5 crews a year and the resistance against me built. I finally failed an extremely incompetent crew and it turned out he was the a high-ranking captain who was the Chief Line Check pilot on the fleet I was teaching on. I found out on my next monthly trip home that KAL was not going to renew my Visa. The crew I failed was given another check and continued a fly while talking about how unfair Captain Brown was. Any of you Boeing glass-cockpit guys will know what I mean when I describe these events. I gave them a VOR approach with an 15 mile arc from the IAF. By the way, KAL dictated the profiles for all sessions and we just administered them. This captain requested two turns in holding at the IAF to get set up for the approach. When he finally got his nerve up, he requested “Radar Vectors” to final. He could have just said he was ready for the approach and I would have cleared him to the IAF and then “cleared for the approach” and he could have selected “Exit Hold” and been on his way. He was already in LNAV/VNAV PATH. So, I gave him vectors to final with a 30 degree intercept. Each time he failed to “extend the FAF” so he couldn't understand why it would not intercept the LNAV magenta line when he punched LNAV and VNAV. He made three approaches and three missed approaches before he figured out that his active way point was “Hold at XYZ.” Every time he punched LNAV, it would try to go back to the IAF ... just like it was supposed to do. Since it was a check, I was not allowed (by their own rules) to offer him any help. That was just one of about half dozen major errors I documented in his UNSAT paperwork. He also failed to put in ANY aileron on takeoff with a 30-knot direct crosswind (again, the weather was dictated by KAL). This Asiana SFO accident makes me sick and while I am surprised there are not more, I expect that there will be many more of the same type accidents in the future unless some drastic steps are taken [to teach third world pilots basic flying]. They are already required to hire a certain percentage of expats to try to ingrain more flying expertise in them, but more likely, they will eventually be fired too. One of the best trainees I ever had was a Korean/American (he grew up and went to school in the USA) who flew C-141's in the USAF. When he got out, he moved back to Korea and got hired by KAL. I met him when I gave him some training and a check on the B-737 and of course, he breezed through the training. I give him annual PCs for a few years and he was always a good pilot. Then, he got involved with trying to start a pilots union and when they tired to enforce some sort of duty rigs on international flights, he was fired after being arrested and JAILED! Koreans are very bright and smart so I was puzzled by their inability to fly an airplane well. They would show up on Day 1 of training (an hour before the scheduled briefing time, in a 3-piece suit, and shined shoes) with the entire contents of the FCOM and Flight Manual totally memorized. But, putting that information to actual use was many times impossible. Crosswind landings are also an unsolvable puzzle for most of them. I never did figure it out completely, but I think I did uncover a few clues. Here is my best guess. First off, their educational system emphasizes ROTE memorization from the first day of school as little kids. As you know, that is the lowest form of learning. so they act like robots. They are also taught to NEVER challenge authority and in spite of the flight training heavily emphasizing CRM, never-challenge-authority still exists either on the surface or very subtly. You just can't change 3000 years of culture. The other thing that I think plays an important role is the fact that there is virtually NO civil aircraft flying in Korea. It’s actually illegal to own a Cessna-152 and just go learn to fly. Ultra-lights and Powered Hang Gliders are OK. I guess they don't trust the people to not start WW III by flying 35 miles north of Inchon into North Korea. But, they don't have the kids who grew up flying (and thinking for themselves) and hanging around airports. They do recruit some kids from college and send then to the US or Australia and get them their tickets. Generally, I had better experience with them than with the ex-Military pilots. This was a surprise to me as I spent years as a Naval Aviator flying fighters after getting my private in light airplanes. I would get experienced F-4, F-5, F-15, and F-16 pilots who were actually terrible pilots if they had to hand fly the airplane. It was a shock! Finally, I'll get off my box and talk about the total flight hours they claim. I do accept that there are a few talented and free-thinking pilots that I met and trained in Korea. Some are still in contact and I consider them friends. They were a joy! But, they were few and far between and certainly not the norm. This is a worldwide problem involving automation and the auto-flight concept. Take one of these new first officers that got his ratings in the US or Australia and came to KAL or Asiana with 225 flight hours. In accordance with their SOP, he calls for the autopilot to be engaged at 250 feet, just after takeoff. How much actual flight time is that? Not even one minute. Then he might fly for hours on the autopilot and finally disengage it (MAYBE?) below 800‚ after the gear was down, flaps extended and on airspeed using the auto throttle. Then he might bring it in to land. Again, how much real “flight time” or real experience did he get. Minutes! Of course, on the 777 or 747, it’ the same only they get more inflated logbooks. So, when I hear that a 10,000 hour Korean Captain was vectored in for a 17-mile final and cleared for a visual approach in CAVU weather, it raises the hair on the back of my neck.

Maybe Liquid can answer this question for me or maybe Herk... Why is it that with our promotion system we have essentially limited ourselves to giving our officers only one shot at getting promoted? Yes, for O-5 and O-6 there is the possibility of getting promoted below the zone, but that is an approximate 1% chance. For everyone else you essentially have your IPZ look and that's it. The reason I ask this is because I had two good friends who were part of the 157 that were shown the door at 15 years when they were non-continued after being passed over for O-5. The reason they were both given for being passed over IPZ was because they had not had a Staff job... of course they were both told this when the results came out 6 months after PCSing to Staff. Both were late rated pilots (prior Nav/WSO) who were told by AFPC that they needed two Ops tours as pilots before they could go to Staff, so them even going to Staff before they did was not even an option. I have heard the anecdotal story of someone getting promoted APZ, but those are almost too rare to even consider mentioning. Every O-6 and above that I have asked about this topic have said that essentially when they have the Boards there are 4 piles of PRFs... DPs BPZ, DPs, Ps IPZ, and then the Above PRFs that essentially are there to rest coffee on. If the AF is going to give every Wing CC or equivalent on Staff 1 BPZ DP that doesn't count against the IPZ DPs then why would they also not give them a DP APZ that doesn't count against the IPZ DPs that is their option whether they want to use it or not? Every time Board results come out you see the names of those who didn't make it and most of those names won't surprise anyone, but there is always that one or maybe even two folks that even the Wing CC is scratching their head surprised that Maj Snuffy didn't make the cut. I get that "timing is everything", but giving Wing CC's or those at Staff this option may be a way to keep some good leaders that if they PCS'd or got commissioned 3 months earlier or later would have made the cut. BTW... both my buds mentioned above who were part of that 157 are working full time Res and Guard and are now O-5s. All boxes checked for their IPZ look on their PRFs (except Staff, although when the actual board met they were both at Staff), IP/EP types with competitive strats and both had the "Super P... If I had one more DP to give"... just to give some background.

Relevant: (again) "Children of Magenta" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3kREPMzMLk

PME on Leadership edit: fixin linky

At the Corona last fall, the MAJCOM CCs and CSAF talked about what we value as an AF and what we should value at promotion boards. I helped chop on the input below that was sent to CSAF and HAF A1 from our MAJCOM CC. He sent this in Oct: "What we value in every officer for promotion (in priority order) Capt to Major 1. Job performance (AC, IP, EP, WIC, AMU OIC, FLT CC, etc) 2. Leading Airmen both in garrison and deployed 3. Combat deployments, deployed mission commander 4. SOS 5. Additional duties: exec, safety, training, current ops & scheduling, plans, etc. This provides us insight into which officers can master their primary skill set and also handle increased responsibility. 6. Optional: Masters Degree Major to Lt Col 1. Job performance 2. Leading Airmen both in garrison and deployed 3. Combat deployment mission commander 4. Joint job - GCC, OSD, JS, Inter-agency 5. HQs job- HAF, MAJCOM 6. IDE either in-residence or correspondence 7. Masters degree Lt Col to Col 1. Job performance 2. Squadron commander 3. Leading Airmen both in-garrison and deployed mission commander 4. Joint job - GCC, OSD, JS, Inter-agency 5. HQs job- HAF, MAJCOM 6. SDE either in-residence or correspondence 7. Masters degree" Not sure what the response was or if there was one. I've heard the CSAF and A1 are working on the vector and new promotion board guidance. Hopefully this guidance will include masking AAD at O-4 board, MLR and prohibit using it for DP consideration.

If there is an exit survey when you separate, then I didn't get it. Along that same line, when I said I was separating, no one in my chain wanted to know why i was getting out...apparently a 15 year 11F, Lt Col(S) pitching out didn't seem odd to anyone....The OG/CC, WG/CC...not one "dude, what's up?" Cheers, Cap-10

I'll give credit to the finance folks at my base after my recent PCS. An Airman sat me down in their office and walked me through PiPS (step-by-step) for what ended up being a relatively painless and intuitive process that I certainly could have figured out on my own with minimal frustration. I had to use PiPS one other time for an extended TDY and was relatively happy with the process. This begs the question... why the ###### do we use DTS?! After 7 years and over 900 TDY days in AMC I never figured that shit out.

I love to hear stories like this--don't get them often. 2 on what Jughead said. I found one of the glitches has to do with Compatibility Mode in IE. SO for all you out there who have not used PIPS, when you do get logged in, click on the Compatibility Mode in IE. Doing so will prevent hang ups whenever you select from addresses previously entered. I brought this to the PMOs attention and said if they knew this was a problem, then why not program the page to enter in that mode to begin with. I even sent them the Bill Gates technical details on how to set pages up on the IIS server to auto load the compatibility mode. DTS has some of the same issues on certain things. Later FG Edit for dumb grammar

Good discussion all around I respect what you're saying and agree with it for the most part. I think were into semantics. What you call polishing a turd is what I call having a positive attitude and making the best of things. As in bitching vs whining, i see those as different things. A turd is still a turd and can't be shined into granite. When CCs at any level try to sell to some young pup that that 179 with three weeks notice than means he'll miss the birth of his first kid is really a great deal because he'll be able to get X kind of stink on his resume, that's polishing a turd to me. It's not a good deal and everyone knows it. It might be a great professional experience for a guy in the end, but it's a fucking turd. I've seen that crap. That kid didn't give a shit about his résumé at that point and that CC was full of crap. Other obvious example: a CC with 3,000 hours telling some poor kid who dreamed of flying his whole life and had his wings for just a year that he'll never fly a manned airplane again (TAMI) and what an awesome deal that really was. Any bullshit pep talk in cases like that are disingenuous at best and take away all credibility for that cc. Sometimes you have to call a spade a spade instead of being a spin meister. Dudes respect honesty out of their leaders. Don't you? Spin is rarely totally honest and everyone can see through that crap. That does not mean that CCs can't lead by positive attitude and point out the opportunities and the unconsidered bright sides of bad deals. But that doesn't make them stop being a bad deal to a guy who just got the news. Being unhappy about a deal does not necessarily make one toxic and doesn't mean that guy won't bloom and excel where he's planted and/or eventually love what he originally thought was a turd. Am I making sense? Positive attitude but no bullshit. That's what dudes need.

Yet every mountain in Korea seems to be an F-5 magnet.

I was drinking my 7th third beer at the MUFF one night with a Navy and Marine O-6 who were both Wing CC equivalents at home, but deployed to the CAOC (both flyers, both great dudes) who were "venting" to me about the young AF guys they had working for them. It completely blew them away that these guys were on a "combat" deployment and they were working on PME and AADs... neither of them could even comprehend it. They were asking me about it in the hopes of calling BS on these guys who as young Capts and Lts told them they needed to get their AADs and SOS done in cor or they wouldn't get promoted and that being deployed was the easiest time for them to do it... not only that, doing it while deployed was highly encouraged by their Commanders. When I confirmed what their guys told them and that it was what was being pushed by Commanders the response from the Marine O-6 was, "No offense, but shit like that is why nobody takes you guys too seriously from the other services. If one of my Marine Capt pilots working for me was taking Masters classes over here I'd kick his ass because that's not why he is here!"

Awesome! Compliance while getting around it at the same time!

Agreed, location = QOL for my family when I'm deployed; a happy family is the only way I can sustain the 1000+ days deployed I've already accumulated. And a shitty assignment location is the most likely thing to make me punch, despite how much I enjoy the fight. Keeping CVS open and a sole location for numerous AFSOC platforms is a national scandal with a direct negative impact on our ability to prosecute the mission by driving away talent.

I used PiPS for the second time during my recent PCS and I have to say the experience was incredibly painless. There are a few software glitches still, but nothing major. My base is over 30 minutes away from the servicing finance office, so not having to step foot in an office was a huge plus. I also have to give credit to the finance troops at Andrews. They didn't just reject my voucher like my last base, they called me to personally ask about corrections and make edits for me. When I wasn't around, they left detailed messages about what I needed to do and how to contact them directly without going through the Andrews 1-800 number. What a refreshing experience, and kudos to whomever is the CPTS/CC over there.

I know this is my second post however, this thread is absolutely miserable. We went from airmen in uniform prancing around in nail polish and finely groomed goatees, to Indian, Mexican, French constitution amendments and Star Trek gifs, . These are probably the top things that I could give the least amount of shits over. Seriously, in that order. (Minus the nail polish and finely groomed goatees in uniform. That shit still pisses me off that it's even up for discussion.) For the love of sweet baby Japanese Jesus please make it stop!

I'll go ahead and nominate the above as the greatest picture to ever grace this forum... nay, the internet in its entirety.