All these "tools" are useless unless "leadership" (in some cases tools themselves) actually follow them.
Story time: Had an instance deployed where a tac airlift Bravo crew showed clearly fatigued for a mission in OIF because of the switch from days to nights on the flying schedule. Bravo crews were rarely used at the time, so sitting Bravo was like a day off, and generally AMD never launched them...regardless, for some reason the crew wasn't well rested. They all signed in maxing out the ORM for fatigue so it required OG or WG/CC approval. They were all still willing to fly, they just wanted to make it known that they were tired. OG said go. DO didn't want the crew to fly because they physically looked exhausted and this happened to be a high priority mission with a max duty day so, the DO said "nope ya'll aint going. " In other words, he exercised some leadership and judgment knowing that the crew had minimal sleep the night before for whatever reason. Information the OG/CC didn't care to ask about before just saying "go"
Anyway, DO calls AMD to recommend canceling the first line of the day (normally scheduled water pallet shuttle) to cover for the Bravo crew, which is exactly what AMD did. Word gets back to the OG and the DO got scolded, the original crew nearly got sent home, and...that's right...the ORM got changed so that you could max out fatigue on ORM and still be legal to go without OG or WG/CC approval. Basically the "leadership" didn't want to have to make a decision on a high priority mission that might make them look bad if it goes badly. That was the moment I realized we have been promoting the wrong people.
No one with any authority wants to make decisions anymore...it might make them look bad. They pass it to the lowest level so they can hang them when things don't go well. ORM shouldn't be used to try to get the lowest possible score so decisions can be made at the lowest level, but rather the highest potential score so you can identify ALL the risk and mitigate them if possible. If it requires senior leadership approval, then that should be your red flag. Yet, we pass off high-risk decision making to the lowest level relying on a pseudo 'experience' levels that may only exist on paper. Problem is we are running out of leadership above and experience at the execution level. Its ok though...we'll just keep blaming those at the lowest levels and the cycle will keep repeating itself...and we'll keep asking why and paying for more studies when the "why" is in our "leadership" or lack thereof.
Another J. Daniels rant...ya'll are doing a great job! Keep it up...blah blah blah.
Exactly right pcola, the problem is "leadership" above still wants their fingers in the chili on this, but want to only blame the crew when shit goes badly. Sometimes there just isn't enough experience on a crew to make a well informed decision to call out TACC like you mention above. Some of our youngest go getters are just trying to stay looking good for "the man" so those school slots are still attainable.
What do you think really happens to the guys to alter the commander's priority 1 mission because they didn't feel safe completing it as fragged?