Leaderboard

It comes down to what most of the other guys are saying: That we don't know where the line is, because at any point, that line can change. We're being told that gender, sexuality, and ethnicity don't matter...yet we have special months 'celebrating' (whatever word people want to use) all these differences that supposedly don't matter anymore. I'm being told that things that don't make us a better warfighter don't belong at work, yet we do things all the time that don't make us a better warfighter. And when we mention these silly issues on here that don't make any sense, for the most part we hear 'well, man up, and change things yourself'...if that's the case, why even have commander call and request feedback from the lower levels? It also comes down to the hypocrisy of all these issues. It comes down to the fact that a picture of a woman in a bikini on a work desk is 'glorifying sex, sexually offensive, whatever' but yet af.mil sites having girls in bikinis is totally acceptable, because, well, that's the AF doing it, so it's ok. I'm told that if I say one thing and do something different around the enlisted troops that I am a bad leader (which I would agree), but yet the AF (ran by senior officers) does it all the time...again, what's up with the pictures on the af.mil site? And for the record, I could care less about any pictures as I don't keep any personal pictures at work--never have, never will. But when Big Blue is making such a big deal about something, then they should check their own backyard first. If I would at least have someone with some high rank say to me 'Yea, it's hypocrisy, but that's just the way it is'...then I'll at least somewhat accept that answer because it's an honest one. But when you won't call out the hypocrisy yourself, then I call that being a 'company' man--not sure what else to call it. I'm not saying that you are setting the policies that conflict with one another, but at the same time you don't seem to have an issue with any of it...at least not on here anyway. And when there is a legitimate story that once again highlights the AF's hypocrisy (that I linked), we don't get a long answer from you to why 'this is the way things are right now and the ways things need to be' like you have done with all the sexual offensive examples, but rather we hear crickets. 90% of us on here may just totally 'not get it' when it comes to the way things are actually done and why they are done...but I do know this--perception is reality and it does affect things at the lower level. If you still think I'm completely wrong then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Bullshit. Your second sentence is baseless and without context. I told you to off for saying am a company man, try to jump higher and implying I am a cheerleader. Don't confuse professional disagreement, challenges and talking to your bosses about serious leadership issues with the anonymous and frequently whiskey influenced garbage dialogue on this blog. I get the broad generalizations about senior leadership, even when they are lacking specific details and context. I'm fine with being insulted by people who know me. You don't. Stick to the argument.

Noted... This about sums up everything the guys have been saying in this thread. In reality, senior officers don't want to be challenged and don't want to be put in a situation where they have to potentially disagree with their bosses and what they are being told to do. It confirms what many of us have been seeing over the years.

We don't give the FSOs the most effective tools they need to get the squadron flyers the lessons from a mishap. We give them AFSAS reports. We should give them the simulator recreation, with CVR, and brief the convening authority gets. You learn more from just seeing what happened in the recreation that you do in the report. The C-17 stall over Guam, the C-17 crash in Alaska, the C-5 crash at Dover, the MC-130H crash in Albania, the U-28 crash in DJ and the MC-12 crash in Afghanistan all have very powerful and informative videos that recreate the cockpit instrumentation, the relative aircraft position, and the exact crew coordination and communication that occurred. It is excruciating to listen to when you know the crewmembers, but it is an extremely effective teaching tool that will prevent future mishaps. We are allowing AFSEC and MAJCOM privilege policy, not law, to restrict our education and limit prevention. This needs to change now. The unacceptable way we handled the MC-12 mishap info clearly shows that.

They can't tell them what to do, but they can and certainly do pull the "If you want your choice of next assignment, you'll do what I say" card. Agreed that it is a good thing. I would pay good money to read some of them, because Lord knows there are quite a number of senior leaders who need to be (rightfully) slaughtered on these things. This is great college graduation or SOS guest speaker material, but just doesn't cut it in today's climate. I wish it were different, and indeed I can remember the days when you could speak out respectfully and it would be welcomed by squadron (and above) leadership. The sad truth is that these days, if you disagree with leadership, "regardless of the consequences" takes on a whole new meaning. In the last 5 years I have heard several instances of CGOs literally being threatened with 365 deployments, UAV assignments, getting non-join spouse assignments, and unfavorable rankings during the "RIF". I'm talking "You didn't agree with me over the TDY crew schedule, so I had your assignment cancelled" type things. There is a difference between possibly slowing your career/upgades/office movement down over "fighting the good fight" and "I don't get to see my family for a year because I spoke up." It doesn't take too many instances of that sort of heavy-handed "leadership" to shut everyone up. The worst offenders for this sort of behavior, in my experience over the last 2-3 years, have all made O-6 or O-7. As the saying goes, "Rule #3: There is no justice". FWIW, I'm not trying to grind an axe here. I'm just a former AD, now long time ANG guy who deploys quite a bit and watches in shocked amazement when I hear these stories from my AD buddies. I'm hopeful that the doses of current reality you are getting on BODN are helpful in fighting the good fight at the puzzle palace. We really need it.

This is a classic example of the saying " be careful for what you wish for". I have no sympathy for anyone who helps in sending Nancy Pelosi back to Congress. They got what they voted for. Elections have consequences.

Stumbled across some good quality WWII pictures; enjoy.

Welp, we're boned.

I've actually been waiting for someone to say it just like that. Please explain to me what a GLBT lifestyle is all about without mentioning sex (the act or even gender). What is this "Lifestyle" we are recognizing and can we recognize it without stereotyping a group of people? Does one have to conform to said "lifestyle" in order to be gay, lesbian, bi, or transsexual? I'm curious about the verbiage WRT the "lifestyle"...all this time I'm being told homosexuals are no different than you and I...but now there seems to be a lifestyle out there that we are supposed to be recognizing? Is there something special that makes them different that I don't know about? Still, no one can explain to me what we are recognizing with "Pride" month...probably because everyone knows it is wrong direction given the current SAPR climate. What exactly defines the GLBT culture? Liquid, I'm not calling you out on this personally, you've already made it clear that you do not support "Pride" month. I ask the question (again) because now someone is saying we are recognizing a "lifestyle." I was unaware of any special "lifestyle" a gay person lives that is significantly different than my lifestyle...with the exception of the sexual act which I'm not allowed to mention. So, excluding the sexual preference or nature of what makes a homosexual a homosexual, what is this lifestyle we speak of?

"Half naked"? Glorifying sexuality? Seriously? What's next -- PT shorts and short-sleeve shirts banned on base because they're too revealing? So, his story used as an example in his Commander's Call about the airman at Transpo who stopped filling out the Form 1800s isn't what he really meant? Or, more correctly, this is how mid-level AF leadership interpreted what he said?

I've split this discussion from the MC-12 thread into its own. If 7 day history (in the tabs) is part of the problem, it will be summarized in the report. I take it you've never looked through mishap tab data - it is mind-numbingly overwhelming. Getting the recreation videos is what you want, not tab data. I 100% agree that the AFSEC too close-hold on things like briefings and videos. I've had safety officers try on a couple occasions to get them - totally possible, but it takes longer than it should. As far as the privilege concern, I see this is a MAJCOM/leadership issue, not AF Safety as a whole. It seems like most of the concerns over the release of privileged information for punitive purposes has been in AMC. I've never seen or heard of it in ACC or AETC (not to say it hasn't happened). I have personally overseen two class A mishaps, and in both the pilot was found at least partially causal. In both cases, the pilot was required to acknowledge the findings (and allowed to provide input), and both pilots were extremely concerned about how that would affect them. I explained there was nothing that could happen to them as a result, and in both cases absolutely nothing happened. The MAJCOM/CC is the convening authority, and if they are allowing that information to be used for anything punitive, then your problem lies with leadership, not the safety process.

Anyone notice homenugget paying attention to the jumpers and not his 'lead'? No wonder he ran into the other plane...and of course the guy that caused the accident is the one that landed ok.....

I watched him speak about 2 months ago, and it was the people in the trenches he specifically addressed that to. Unbelievable.

You're definitely a 'company' man! They say jump and you say how high...and then I'm sure try to jump even higher. I'm in the military and I have to adhere to the polices, guidance, and regulations--got it. What I don't have to do is be a cheerleader for the parts that are nonsense. I'll pass on on the 'special month' lunches because like you said, it doesn't make me a better warfighter. As Nsplayr correctly pointed out...the military is kind of like a dictatorship. That being said, I don't have to believe in all the propaganda and allow myself to be indoctrinated. ETA: Liquid, you still haven't commented on this article...why not? https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/31/pentagon-manual-white-christian-heterosexual-males/

My comment, if you recall, was to juxtapose the banishing of those things which "glorify sexuality" (your words) against the special observance of a lifestyle, whose difference stems solely from differences in sexuality. Make no mistake, I'm not attempting some sleight of logic to equate nose art with gay pride--they're not the same. However, if one of the arguments against the plethora of things deemed unprofessional (eg nose art) is the improper glorification of sexuality, then the AF would be wise to understand that members are not oblivious to the seeming contradiction in official practice.

Great Goldeneye (and history probably) reference

No. That's hypocrisy and hypocrisy is approved.

Got it, those images present an unprofessional image. I also understand that glorifying sexuality is unprofessional. However, does it not concern you that the Air Force then ignores its Janus-like behavior when it glorifies sexuality in the vein of Pride Month which celebrates GLBT lifestyles?

A lot has already been posted, but I wanted reply as well - I do want to hear the CVR recordings... What information did get out and how could it have been communicated better? I would love the 72 hour and 7 day look back histories! Do any of those factors also apply to me? Can they apply to me in the future? How about my crew members? Are there common characteristics that caused maybe, a lack of sleep contributing to the fatigue, say perhaps arguing with the wife? Details matter in aviation. The accident about memorizing checklist items has explicitly contributed to me becoming more mechanical with my checklists. The C-17 is an example about adherence to TO parameters, even when you know the aircraft can do more. I can go on and on about how every accident has lessons learned. I was flying with a student last night, at night, in the weather, who looked up and said "Woah, I had no idea we were in a turn still." We had a great discussion on how every pilot is vulnerable, and then tied it into the F-16 crash that was just released. Thanks for preaching the HHQ line, but it's bunk. The "I have a secret" game is robbing us fantastic airmanship education tools, which the consequences could be dire. I agree the system won't work if privilege fails, but I have a TS/SCI clearance, wings on my chest, and fly long days full of fatigue and/or with unqualified crew members. The system is there to be safer, let it be used.

I'll pile on to say I also believe privilege has been compromised to the point that I will not participate in the AF safety process if involved in an incident. Nobody has mentioned the C-17 guy who's SIB was released to the special prosecutor during his court martial.

If you see any FHP that is zero's out (like 0.0), it's guaranteed that shenanigans like that occurred. Fraud, waste and abuse complaint, ha. Our boss walked into our office (rattled) on Sep 30th of this year and said, "I need you to spend $11,000 in the next 4 hours." I can't make this shit up.

You aren't seriously saying that this surprises you or that you think this is uncommon... are you? When I was in UPT I had the Sq DO come into our empty flight room on 30 Sept where I was sitting duty dawg and asked if there were any IPs around... when I said they were all flying he asked if I was sitting on CAP or a busted ride and then asked for my gradebook. He took a look at it and then told me he needed me to go see the Major at the Ops desk and that I was going to go fly a 1.2 "free flight"... "I don't care if you fly a 1.1 or a 1.3... you WILL log a 1.2!" Not gonna lie to you... was the most fun I had in a Tweet in UPT! Point is that since then, every Sept that I was a Sq scheduler, Wing Scheduler, ADO, etc in three airframes and 3 different MAJCOMs we did the exact same thing... and at the same time I'm answering calls from A3V answering the mail as to why Capt Snuffy landed at Bagram with 10K lbs more fuel than he was supposed to three weeks ago as part of the "fuel savings initiative". You are obviously a very smart guy and know this will change with airframe/MAJCOM, but I'm sure thinking back to your Ops Sq days you'll remember that it isn't always about scheduling smarter or better. You don't just need pilots there you need the right pilots there... and you also need jets there for these right pilots to fly. NOT zeroing out the flying hour program and just saying "training complete" was not an option. I've been on a staff tour for 2 years and things may have changed, but having a couple IP/EP types (because nobody else was around) burning dinosaurs for a 5.7 in the pattern on 30 Sept was pretty standard just to make the PowerPoint slide good. (Sorry to jump off the main topic... just wondering if this is still happening and if it ever gets above the Wing Level)

Randolph BX gun prices are nothing special. Glocks are way more than Glock LE pricing that you can get at Dury's. Ammo is more than online but no shipping might even it out. 1 box limit for 100+, 2 boxes if <100. No shit, they have "tactical" rifles but aren't allowed to have them on display.

Number 1, I guess we'll see. You clearly have a different perspective than I do. I get the culture change, and I sort of get the over-reaction...certainly gets the message out there. I'm not sure how it relates to drinking in the vault, after a night flight. You seem to have more faith it will shift back than I do. I haven't exactly seen a lot of AF policies become more relaxed in my time in the AF. The question is, how much damage will be done to squadron cohesion and camraderie before that happens? And when the beer light turns back on, how many people will be willing to stick around for it? Number 2 was an actual example of the 1-star WG/CC specifically calling out someone with colored trim on an otherwise all-black gym bag. Maybe senior leadership doesn't see it, but wing and group leadership ARE focusing on these things, not just the enlisted force. As for number 3, we received very specific guidance about not only burning our own flight hours, but all the flight hours for several other bases who couldn't make it happen. There's only so much proficiency and training that can be done when I'm flying around at max endurance so I can get another 0.1 for the man. Defensive maneuvering, low altitude training, even some of the weapons employment stuff goes out the window when I can't get above .72 Mach because I need every drop of fuel. But the bigger issue was that immediately after burning those hours, we stood down the squadron for about two weeks. It's very similar to the problem I've had since I was a 2LT with the way the Air Force buys big screen TVs and ostrich leather chairs in September, but we can't afford toner for the mission planning printers in March. Number 4, I doubt any airman or chief will say anything to a senior leader. I've seen the same tactic in the Deid that's now being deployed at home...they go after people their immediate boss outranks. Never seen the story about the guy who was removed as chief of OGV home-station because a SSgt didn't like his response to a uniform correction and went VFR-direct to the SSgt's LtCol SQ/CC for backup? We're not making this shit up, Liquid. It happens. Daily. Maybe not in your world, but just as we appreciate the perspective you bring, we're trying to highlight what gets heard down here at the bottom. What we are hearing is STS, 69, etc, are all sure-fire ways to get paperwork, and as a result, end your career. We're also hearing that sock color, gym bags, and the like are important, because that's what our wing leadership is enforcing. I feel like there is a very, very real disconnect between Gen Welsh telling me to stop doing things if they are stupid and how that is executed on the front lines.

That's what I'm thinkin. Start with 223, get an upper for 6.5 few months ahead of when I think I'll need it, then built a bolt later on once I actually win an elk tag.

Are you finished? Well allow me to retort... 1. We will be able to correct the purge over-reactions and bad decisions on heritage. They didn't burn the art. Nose art that was painted over can be painted again. Family pictures and magazines will come back. But the culture change will work and it will lead to a reduction in sexual assaults, and a reduction in the restricted reporting caused by mistrusting leadership. It isn't the only strategy, but it will help. We overcame racism and sexism. Our Air Force used to argue passionately that blacks, women and homosexuals couldn't serve. They were wrong. We will overcome the sexualized and inappropriate culture that tolerates sexually offensive material, sexual innuendos and sexually offensive jokes. It isn't very widespread in our Air Force now and it won't exist much longer. I have spoken to many, many female Airmen and officers who are very happy about this culture change. They think it will make a difference. I know you don't agree, but we will be ok. Pilots fled for the airlines in the mid to late 90s, when the sex traditions were at their peak and morale was high. Airline hiring is the biggest factor for retention, not word games, jokes, songs and porn. 2. Gym bags and sock colors are red herrings. They are rare examples of bad leadership on stupid shit. Put an Airman or NCO or lower ranking officer in their place for correcting you on stupid shit. Be careful about where you draw the line. Wearing a sexually offensive tee shirt to the gym (one that says "F*ck You" on it for example) should get you direct feedback from everyone. I've seen that shirt and corrected it. And nothing destroys a CGO's ability to lead and earn respect from the enlisted force than the selective enforcement of simple AFIs. Bitching to the finance Airman, crew chief or the 1CO about their professional failures while your sunglasses are on your head, your sleeves are rolled up, jacket is completely unzipped and your left arm has a Steeler's patch on it doesn't work. It will be difficult to have a conversation with a young Airman maintainer about the importance of discipline and following tech orders when you sport a Robin Olds mustache, are too cheap or lazy to get new boots or sport a fat dip in your lip. 3. Got it. Flying circles for 8.0 hours for no reason is ridiculous. You'll bitch about being told what color socks to wear, but when it comes to executing orders to train with your programmed flying hours, you waste fuel and flight hours to fly in circles. Do we have to give you the specific guidance about how to be good stewards of taxpayer money by turning fuel into currency and proficiency? The crazy thing is if you don't need to spend the money, it actually goes to someone who does. When you spend wastefully at the end of the FY, you are burning the opportunity for someone else to use those precious hours or ops/mx funds. And your current end of year spending actually has nothing to do with next years program. It has already been programmed and will be more informed with continuing resolution limits than it will be by last year's closeout. 4. A wayward word joke or misplace word is not sexual harassment or a hostile work environment. It won't ruin a career. Don't be so dramatic. Failure to correct the deviations (you know, be an officer), retaliating against those who complain, or constantly misplacing words and jokes, will rightfully ruin your career. Just have the courage to do the right thing, regardless of the consequences. If the right thing is stopping stupid shit from happening, then stop the stupid shit. I can't wait for this mystical airman or chief who tells me what color gym bag I can carry says something to me. You will need to convince people that it was the right thing to do. Defending porn in the vault or on the network, sexual innuendos at work and sexual assault as the right thing will be very difficult. Gym bags, colorful shoes or socks won't. What we need is an officer corps willing and able to lead our Air Force into combat and at home, with the resources, policies, talent and missions we are given, not just the ones we want. We need officers who can motivate, build camaraderie, and lead people to do things they may not be all that willing to do. We need our pilot and crewmember officers to lead the Air Force, not complain about shoe clerks, socks and songs. We are at war for f*ck's sake.

Ho Lee Fuk

C130 Driver wrote: ~~~~~~~~~~~ Per the morning news, the trailing aircraft got caught in the "tail wind" caused by the lead aircraft, causing it to ram the tail of the lead aircraft. You can't make this crap up ~~~~~~~~~~ I heard he got tangled in some flight line.

That sounds like an airtight case, Mr. Darrow. Let me know if you're going to test it, so I can grab some popcorn. Ps, I don't know if you're aware of this, but it says in the constitution that if you ask an undercover narc if he's a cop then he's required to tell you he is. I totally heard it from a friend of mine in prison. And it'll help you out next time you buy a shit dime bag before you post.

This exact argument was used to mask deployment dates from the Officer Selection Brief. Non-deployers thought the advantage given to deployers was unfair, so we took the information off the brief. You can get the AF wide combat flight hours from the HARM office. I agree with Chuck, including this factual data is a good thing.

Going active duty instead of direct to the guard/reserve.

Good point. Glorify may not be the best word. Maybe glamorize, emphasize, value, push, honor... Glorify may be too strong for the point. Not sure how to precisely say bring sex into the workplace unnecessarily. Although our society values sex in entertainment and business, it has no place in the workplace, particularly in the military. So to speak, that's what she said and 69 are perfect examples. They are stupid f*ing traditions that belong in a frat house, not in the Air Force. So is nose art that is unrelated to history and heritage, but placed somewhere solely for the point of bringing sex into a situation. Painting "Strawberry Bitch" on a C-17 for example. I agree there is a challenge sending a message that sex does not belong in the workplace, while officially observing GLBT month. Nobody said command or leadership was easy.

I had to look up the definition of Janus-like behavior. I'm personally am not a big fan of the decision to honor GLBT month, but nobody asked me. DoD and AF guidance, with specific POTUS direction has directed we do it. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/05/31/presidential-proclamation-lgbt-pride-month Like it or not, it will happen. So professionally, I will comply with the lawful guidance. I probably won't attend the luncheon. Nobody will care. There is a difference between celebrating a special observance that recognizes the GLBT lifestyle and glorifying the sex part of it. You know there is a difference between allowing the celebration of the GLBT lifestyle being accepted into the military, and allowing the graphic presentation of homosexual sex acts in the work place. Glorifying sexuality with half naked "Strawberry Bitches" nose art at the ops desk is not the same as a fabulous GLBT luncheon at the club. Comparing the two is not useful.

Easy to say looking down from your level. I have and continue to do the right thing (as do several officers around me), but have been shit on repeatedly in the past because some crybaby NCO went to daddy, because "that's how it's been, so fuck off Capt" (followed by push back based on rationale and common sense, followed by a "get in line or get out" response). Along those lines, for every NCO/SNCO that is a great troop and worth a shit, there are 10 that need to be kicked in the teeth. Doesn't matter if you're a Capt, they will tell you to fuck off (not in those words, but in their attitude/lack of action) and if you say something to the officer(s) in their chain of command you get dickless leadership who either won't do anything and also maybe add a kick to your left and right nut for trying to give orders to an enlisted member. It's not that CGOs/FGOs don't try, it's that they are shot down and stamped out at a rate much higher than you clearly know happens. I'm sure this did not happen nearly as bad when you were a Capt/Maj, and that's probably why you think I'm full of shit and "there's no way it's really like that." The buck stops at the O-6+ (and some O-5s) who allow this shit to happen or need to be seen as "visibly doing something" when someone complains the officer was mean to them or keeps making unreasonable requests, such as "do your job please." My SQ/CC is great and I am allowed a good range to execute the officership and leadership any CGO should in the SQ. Unfortunately, that latitude is not given by many of his peers and only because he's a good dude and at the "fuck it, this is probably it" point in his career, he has zero problem going to bat for his people and shielding us from the other asshole O-5 who wants us burned at the stake for being officers outside of the flight line. If CGO/FGOs were given the same latitude across the base (not just in their own corner) to be the officer and leader they should, things would be much better.

I may appear as if I almost always support Obama because I look at things with a neutral eye first, whereas 99.69% of the members here come in with a predetrmined mindset on the president. And Obama was elected when?

Did you read the quotes by the ret Generals? “People I’ve spoken to would like to see..." "I talk to a lot of folks who don’t support where Obama is taking the military..." "I hear from many off the record who are upset with the current military leadership..." A lot of "I hear" and "I talk to" yet no "I witnessed" "I can show proof" or "I can verify". Sounds like gossip to me.

Did this happen? If so when.?I know a C-5 stalled over Deigo and there is a great CRM video for that. Just asking if this was a type-o.

*sigh* One more time: if you ask me if you can READ a SIB, ANY SIB, you can read it, including the recommendations, if you have ANY remotely legitimate reason to (aircrew, maintainer, etc). But you can't HAVE it. Nor will I get you TAB access. (The Tabs have the data the SIB used to write their report.) LOL By way of explanation: I originally wrote something like: "...the c-17 mishap, even if you fly C-17s"...then I genericized it. I'll go edit it so it makes more sense.

F*ck off. Comment on it yourself.

Come on, you know. "Look at us, we're all inclusive now." You can get as mad about it as you want, won't change a damn thing.

Perhaps I'm not communicating well. I'll try again for xaarman: you do not need to see the recreations, listen to the CVR, watch the HD video of the T-38 mishap, even if you fly T-38 aircraft. You do not need the crews 72 hour and 7 day histories. You do not need to listen to the spouse interviews, or see the crash site photos, or read the autopsy reports. You don't need toxicology, or school transcripts, or training records, or FEFs. You don't need to read the SIB deliberations, the metallurgy reports, or the human factors analysis. You DO need to know what happened, and what's being done to prevent recurrence, in AFSAS final report detail. Which is why if you ask, I'll let you read the final and/or MOFE for ANY mishap. Even more importantly, the SIB has to do its job and put forth meaningful, effective recommendations to prevent recurrence...and the MAJCOM must implement them rapidly. The system won't work if privilege fails. And it's a very very good system, and works well. ETA: grammar buffoonery