albertschu
-
Posts
97 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Downloads
Wiki
Posts posted by albertschu
-
-
... 7 deployments .. burned out in a community.. extremely high ops tempo.
... just how much the USAF sucked away from me. ... tired of the queep, the bullshit that went along with it, ...
7 weeks ago I walked back into the squadron as a contract FCF pilot and Qual IP, and it's been an awesome feeling. I get to come into work every day and my primary job is to FLY (though it is a little feast or famine), and I don't have to worry about all the AD crap. A part of me is still proud that I'm indirectly contributing to the mission.
It's like a great weight was lifted from my shoulders, and I highly recommend it.
I'm not blaming you for working the system to your advantage--kudos! But this is a big driver in what is wrong with the system. We hire contractors because the are "cheaper" and more "efficient", we don't give them the queep or have them deploy. This means fewer AD guys to do the queep and deployments. That make the contractors look even more efficient because they aren't doing the queep. If a squadron were 50% contractors and 50% AD, the AD would get 100% of the queep and << 50% of the flying. The response from the Pentagon is more contractors AND more queep. The result is an AD force that is burnt out from deployments and feed up with queep.
Not contracting out these positions would give the opportunity to catch their breath between deployments and would spread the queep thinner.
Also they need to send less queep.
-
1
-
-
You might want to go read up on how the EU's open immigration policies are affecting England, specifically the influx of Romanian cheap labor and the spikes in crime from the new immigrants.
I guess EU didn't implement it well. I've never heard anyone from Rhode Island complain of an influx of Michiganian cheap labor and the spikes in crime the new immigrants bring.
People in Florida complain of all the New Yorkers and people in Oregon complain about all the Californians, but no one is suggesting restricting immigration between states.
-
Nice criticisms, Albert.
Thanks.
Ever read the JAG reports on sexual assault convictions?
No.
Do you have any ideas on how to do these three things: 1) create a service culture that abhors sexual assault? 2) ensure credible sexual assault claims are fairly and thoroughly investigated, and 3) to eliminate the threat that non-credible sexual assault claims have on careers?
Well, I would start by making those stated objectives. Instead, SECDEF has tasked the services to "improve safety and reduce the risk posed by alcohol" and to prepare an "implementation plan." The focus is on alcohol and on the plan--not on sexual assault. The wording you used would be much more effective guidance. Your words put much more focus on the actual problems and don't micromanage the solution.
Regarding how to "create a service culture that abhors sexual assault", I would start by looking patterns. Do we know what sexual assault abhorrence looks like? Would we know it if we saw it? Do we have some communities that already abhor sexual assault? What things are those communities doing differently? Do some leaders appear to have a history of tolerating sexual assault? Can they be eliminated? Can we predict which units will have more sexual assaults? Can we identify other conditions that can predict sexual assault? [side note: I don't think that alcohol consumption by itself is an effective predictor of sexual assault because, by far, the majority of times alcohol is consumed no sexual assault occurs.]
Without voicing your ideas, the service will keep coming up with their own.
Unfortunately, the service won't come up their own, they'll do what SECDEF told them to do.
ETA: your critique that this is a distraction from mission focus is spot-on.
But the service does have a basic responsibility to provide a relatively safe working environment for all of us. Hazard mitigation includes crime prevention.
100% agree that that we have a responsibility to provide a safe working environment, which includes crime prevention. For clarification my comment was directed at the alcohol risk reduction implementation plan, which I don't think will accomplish anything towards reducing sexual assault. I don't think that legitimate efforts to prevent crime is a distraction.
-
4
-
-
She said Sears asked them a few questions and then asked them to "rate it" from a scale of one to ten.
The girl said she really believed that he was doing a study and didn't think much of the incident which is why she never made a report.
That's why I use a clipboard. I think that extra touch (sts) of professionalism goes along way towards establishing credibility.
FWIW, so far I'm been getting impressive results, 8.27 mean rating w/ a standard deviation of 1.27 among all female-nursing-students. However, among female-nursing-students-who-have-consumed-at-least-3-drinks-in-the-last-hour, my average rating jumps to 9.87 with a standard deviation of .07. I think this could be a major break through, but much more research is needed.
Speaking of alcohol, that Hagel article is one of the most ridiculous things I've seen in a long time.
In two out of every three sexual assaults, alcohol is involved in some way.But also in 99.997% of alcohol events, no sexual assault occurs.
new anti-drinking campaign that will target the way alcohol is served and sold on military bases and in nearby communitiesWhich will push alcohol off base and to communities further away, where there will less ability for us to police our own.
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel ordered the four services to find new ways to “improve safety and reduce the risks posed by alcohol” and prepare an “implementation plan” no later than Nov. 1Further taking focus away from the mission
“Do you really need to sell someone five fifths of bourbon at 2 o’clock in the morning? Probably not,” Nate Galbreath,Is there any evidence that people who buy 5 bottles of bourbon at 0200 are more likely to assault someone? Restricting the hours the Class Six is open only forces people to plan ahead further or to go off base.
growing belief at the Pentagon that the problems of sex crimes and binge drinking are inextricably linked.Is this belief based on facts? If so, do we understand the linkage? Will a 10.7% reduction in binge drinking result in a 10.7% reduction in sexual assault?
On base, the services can consider measures such as restricting the time window for selling alcohol, discouraging happy-hour drink specials that lead to binge drinkingDo we know that happy-hour drink specials lead to binge drinking? If so, are the sexual assaults that are inexorably linked to binge drinking linked to the binge drinking that results from going to O-Club at 1600 or the binge drinking that occurs at Lt Col Wilkerson's house parties?
More simply, do we know of any cases where an on-base drink special played a significant role in a sexual assault?
That could be as simple as asking bars to routinely offer food menus with drinks as a way to encourage patrons not to drink on empty stomachsOk, so now rapists will have to buy their victims dinner first. Not really addressing the problem.
-
8
-
-
Cause that's worked so well in the EU.
If it didn't work in the EU, that is because of they way they implemented it, not because it doesn't work. In North America there is an economic and political union of sovereign states where you can cross sovereign borders with any border control at all. This union even has a common currency, that has been considered by many to be very successful.
-
See you could've stopped right there. Most SWOs are back stabbers, and most P-3 pilots/NFOs are just SWOs with wings.
That said, I know some epic dudes from the P-3 community, and very few of them stayed past O-3, on active duty anyway. That definitely is a very different community from the rest of Naval Aviation.
Good to know as well. I don't want to derail this thread anymore, but it would be interesting to know why SWOs are backstabbers (i've worked more closely w/ flyers, so all my anecdotes were related to flyers, but I felt it was more of a SWO characteristic). Also would be interesting to know why you say P-3 pilots are SWOs w/ wings. It correlates with my experience, but is not a dynamic I would have expected.
-
That sucks, but it also sounds like you interacted with 3 douche bags and perhaps a couple more. I can point out the same number in just about every other walk of life/job. It's all relative. FWIW, I've flown with a lot of Navy dudes from multiple communities who are good people, pilots and officers.
Good to know others haven't had the same experience. I've worked with just as many Army officers and more AF officers and haven't seen the same level of douchary. The dude that went home without a decoration was definitely an outlier: I thought he was a jackass the first time I talked to him and every one agreed. The other 2 were great dudes, right up to the second that they weren't.
-
Which will be closed Mon, Wed, and Fri from 0800-1100 and 1100-1600 for "training".
Don't be ridiculous. In order to be closed for training from 1100-1600, the standard hours would have to be open until 1600.
-
Communities of said back stabbers?
I've worked mainly flyers (mostly P-3 pilots and EA-6 NFOs) and SWOs.
The two most memorable examples were committed by flyers (see "availability bias").
I signed comsec gear over to an EA-6 NFO, he secured it in his office. When it came time to take inventory, rather than look for it, he tried to make it look like I lost it. Fortunately, I had the paperwork.
After a deployment, when my joint decoration got lost, my helicopter-pilot boss didn't return my phone calls or reply to my email requesting assistance. He had a chip on his shoulder, because he thought I was too casual with him. Fortunately, an army officer to whom I reported via dashed line had a copy of the paperwork and resubmitted.
While I was working as an LNO from a joint task force HQ to an OGA, I saw a lot of selfish behavior. Again, best example comes from a flyer (P-3 pilot). Since he'd been there longer than I, he thought he knew everyone in the OGA. Whenever he didn't like the products I provided, he would directly contact people in the OGA and attempt to discredit me, both with the TF staff and the OGA leadership. Eventually, the OGA refused to continue working with the TF. He went home without a decoration. (I came home w/ 2) The majority of the Navy officers on this staff were SWOs, but I didn't work with them as closely. In general, most of them appeared out to make themselves look like they were winning the campaign by themselves by singlehandedly creating enormous piles of worthless staffwork.
Hope this doesn't sound bitter. I'm not. Everything has worked out fine for me.
Recently, I started working with a few supply corps officers and have not observed anything.
-
Your experience? Which is what exactly?
2 joint deployments
Year long school w/ Navy officers
Currently commanding joint unit
-
"Never talk to the media" I believe is the conventional wisdom...
Perhaps the root of all problems in the Nuke world is the failure to apply "conventional" wisdom.
-
Not sure if the root cause is the FITREP system or something else, but in my experience Navy officers tend to be backstabbers. Chiefs, however, tend to be solid dudes.
-
1
-
-
PII fix question...if I print it as a PDF and password protect it, can it be read by the cyber dorks?
1) Print your document
2) Staple a PII coversheet over it
3) Place the document with coversheet in scanner
4) Email the scanned coversheet.
You should be good.
-
1
-
-
It's common for bases in the less free states (California, east coast) to sign agreements with the state government requiring emissions testing for all PCS-assigned vehicles - even those w/o in-state plates.
I'm assigned to a GSU in one of those less-than-free states. I received an email from the nearest base saying I need to fill out some form to certify that I've had my vehicle inspected. It sounded like a load of crap to me, so I looked it. Turns out it is required by Section 118 of the Clean Air Act.
Each department, agency, and instrumentality of executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government having jurisdiction over any property or facility shall require all employees which operate motor vehicles on the property or facility to furnish proof of compliance with the applicable requirements of any vehicle inspection and maintenance program established under the provisions of subpart 2 of part D of this subchapter or subpart 3 of part D of this subchapter for the State in which such property or facility is located (without regard to whether such vehicles are registered in the State). -
Haven't stepped foot into the BX in a couple years. I would have a list of things I needed and the BX would not have them but, oddly enough, the items were always allegedly on a truck arriving on next Tuesday.
This happened to me. On a Tuesday. Afternoon. I said, "Great, what time does the truck usually come, maybe I'll just wait". Answer, "Uhhh,.... or it could be on the truck that is coming Thursday."
-
Here ya go
No new RIF Board Matrix?
-
Damn glad to hear it, brother. I got responses too, but they were non-answer answers. Very frustrating.
Gents and ladies,
This moment of introspection has been interesting, but it's time to get crackin' again. 1 April was rumored to be a deadline....so everybody pimp your CCs and buddies at staff and see what the hell we can dig up before it trickles down the FSS chain.
Can you keep us posted on that? Could be interesting.
Input: a few telephone calls / emails with staffer to explain the situation.Outcome: non-answer answer in the form of a memo signed by O-6 at LL.Was it worth it? Absolutely.While the situation was not fixed nor adequately explained, it did force someone at AFPC to try to justify their buffoonery to LL and exposed the said buffoonery to staffers. If Air Force leadership can't put enough pressure on AFPC to fix their stuff, maybe a little Congressional interest will help. I recommend making the phone call. Enough inquiries could very well make a difference. If not, at least you'll get a cool souvenir. -
You'd think so, wouldn't you? Unfortunately it's just not true. I just finished a round of Congressional inquiry (8 Congressional offices, to be exact) for a different issue, and I can tell you that unless the Congressman/woman takes personal interest in your case it'll just be a bureaucratic exercise that wastes your time. You'll deal with a VERY low-tier person in the Congressional office who has no power or motivation. That person has to deal with an entire AF office dedicated to answering Congressional inquiries, and believe me when I tell you they work very hard to avoid real answers. It's like working a claim with an insurance company that doesn't want to pay out, only more shady. It doesn't matter if you're right, even with the AFIs on your side.
Now if ALL of us did this, maybe there'd be some impact, but that isn't going to happen either. It's like saying we're all going to rebel against the SOS in correspondence as an informal prereq for residence by refusing to take ANY SOS tests in correspondence. If everyone does that, would they simply cancel the In-res classes? Nope. They'd fill them anyway. But there will always be the careerist douchecopter who sees the situation as an opportunity to set himself apart from the crowd and just do one test, and the situation will revert within a few weeks.
In short, an email from you would be ALL OVER the AF in a matter of hours, and get lots of attention. Unfortunately, it'll also get YOU lots of attention--and not the kind of attention you want. It's as close to falling on one's sword as we can get these days. I doubt any of us consider that worth it.
FYI. We got a response back from an inquiry started in our squadron. Zero bureaucracy. Zero time waste. (For us).
-
If I can't trust a guy to keep his hands out of his pockets, how can I trust the same guy to get bombs on target? Or turn the key in the silo when ordered? Or make a patty melt correctly at the chow hall? Or properly scan an ID at the gate? Or create a CBT correctly? Or install a flight control component correctly? Or monitor a satellite orbit?
Or draft, coordinate, and publish a PSDM correctly?
-
3
-
-
A guy I know at the medical group says your records are lost.
See? I also can post random, uninformed rumor based on a general distrust of an organization.
Oh yeah, well I know a guy at Finance that said the f'd up your pay.
Just because it's a rumor doesn't mean it isn't true.
-
How would one go about getting General Cox's e-mail address? I am at my wits end with AFPC. I have still yet to hear any sort of answer from them concerning why some people with the exact same AFSC and remaining ADSC remaining have been denied for VSP and some are still at the BPO? I have called the TFSC numerous times and opened tickets with no answer.
If they are supposed to start processing these applications this week and people still have theirs in the system, but guys like me have been denied what happens if they start approving them and we miss out?
Your Congressman can probably get it.
And a Congressional inquiry would probably have more impact than an email from you.
-
I can't believe this is still being discussed. I only read 6-9 lines of the link, but he mentions "Air Force planners helped develop Rolling Thunder, a bombing campaign designed to force Hanoi out of the war. The campaign wreaked significant destruction on North Vietnamese economy and society but failed to budge Hanoi’s leadership."
Pretty sure Rolling Thunder's success wasn't tied to the USAF's planning or execution.
Edited: In order to ward off the grammar police
Using that logic, we should also abolish the Marine Corps because of Beirut.
-
1
-
-
Do you really expect AFPC to do something on a certain date just because their website said they would?
-
There is NO integrity left in this system. None. It's gone.
That's Ok. Whatever they lack in integrity and excellence, you can make up for in service.
-
9
-
So You're Getting Out...Why?
in General Discussion
Posted
You separated because you were burnt out from deployments and tired of the queep, so you took a job that you are saying is entirely queep and still has a chance to deploy. Congratulations.