Jump to content

Champ Kind

Moderator
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,019

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    42

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Champ Kind

    WTF? (**NSFW**)

    in Squadron Bar

    Posted

    WTF, are there really no Robin Olds types left?  The big brass balls lead from the front types are really gone?  Big Blue has really done itself good with that program.  Heaven help us if we get in a no-shit near-peer shooting match.   


    Very rare in the MAF. Most O-6 and above are senior officer qualified. Means they did a two week sim course, are airland only, and are required to fly with an IP.

    Hell, a significant number of squadron commanders I've had, while being "IPs" on paper, rarely fly without a seeing eye. I've had one, maybe two, that I'd no-shit want to fly with when the chips are down.
    • Upvote 1

    Promotion and PRF Information

    in General Discussion

    Posted


    If the IPZ group is delayed due to TIG concerns, then the BPZ year groups couldn't possibly meet the board. If so, heads must be exploding all around the Air Force....

    .....Regardless, if the O-5 promo is delayed due to TIG issues, this indicates a real challenge for the Air Force. 


    I think this was pretty much a given aside from the promotion board rolex.

    What's wrong with the Air Force?

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    When he was a Sq/CC at KSKA, he would print out your emails, call you in his office, and berate you about your poor grammar and not knowing your past participles or whatever. Of course he was an English major at the Zoo and SECAF speech writer.
    He also hated being included in Sq wide emails. So you would have to click the plus sign in email distro address and remove him, as the Sq/CC, or he'd call you in his office and berate you about "spamming his inbox."
    Good riddance

    I'm in no way defending Rhat's douchiness, but I've seen some pretty dumb Sq/All emails.

    Aviation Continuation Pay (ACP - The Bonus)

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    11 hours ago, ViperStud said:

    Mods, can we put this retarded conversation about an LT measuring his wife's legitimacy via credit score where it belongs - in the WTF thread?

    Valid.  Retarded conversation removed.

    If you guys would like to continue the BAH/finance/marital advice discussion, search for an existing thread or start a new one.  

    Redirect discussion back to the bonus (or lack thereof at this point).

    What's wrong with the Air Force?

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    13 minutes ago, VMFA187 said:

    Do you guys not get automatically passed for not doing PME? Our distance PME, EWS, is a two year program and a number of guys who are not complete - Purposely or not, despite being great in all other aspects, have been and continue to be passed over for O-4.

    Simple answer:  lack of BVR PME all but takes you out of the running for a "DP" on your PRF to O-5 (LAF), which automatically takes you down to about a 50/50 chance of promotion.  

    • Upvote 2

    What's wrong with the Air Force?

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    1 hour ago, pawnman said:

    "That' doesn't matter"...until it's time to pick your flight lead for night one, or deciding who is leading your Red Flag push, or otherwise executing your most challenging sorties.

     

    It's not about the strat...it's about being able to recognize that performance in others.

    I was being sarcastic and whole-heartedly agree with you.

    I don't think that type of expertise is recognized or rewarded in the current state of affairs.

    Promotion and PRF Information

    in General Discussion

    Posted · Edited by Champ Kind

    3 hours ago, NKAWTG said:

      They just won't tell you that your record no longer has O-6 potential.  You're on your own to figure that part out.     

    So true, and this is absolutely one of the worst parts of our "system".  

    The best CCs out there would find a way to sit down their new Lts and explain to them how the system works from the onset, but at the same time, have them leave the room with the expectation that they are to focus on being an expert in the plane and let everything else (upgrades, jobs, PME) play out as it will for the time being.  

    Additionally, from what I have seen, "late bloomers" don't even know that is a thing until it is too late to affect any change.  The difference now, though, is that those late bloomers have more options on the outside and are way less incentivized to stay and chase the carrot.

     

    I've heard we will go to one line "prfs" and let the records speak on their own

    all oprs will go to 5 lines and have static close out dates like eprs

    If this is the case, and to truly focus on job performance, any SR worth his/her salt would mandate inclusion of 942/Form 8s in the supporting documents (along with SURFs/past reports) as OPRs come up for stratification/reviewer signature.

    • Upvote 1

    What's wrong with the Air Force?

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    2 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

    Good discussion.  I often hear some version of "the AF sucks at training tactical officers for leadership, we do it too late compared to the Army" or similarly worded observations.  But you can be a technically proficient Army soldier as a 2LT, and OJT the details of soldiering while also leading 100 folks and learning that skillset; at least according to Army infantry folks I know.  You can't do the same with an AF pilot; it takes years to grow a new pilot into a value added member of the SQ.  That necessarily takes away early career opportunities to experience leading large organizations.  Bottom line, spend an officers first 1-6 years leading people or honing airmenship (which involves tactical leadership).  We can do one of those things, not both.

    In my opinion, this whole conversation speaks to the need for formally tracked AF officer aircrew paths.  I think you should fly your full first operational tour then track either leadership (JQO, AF support functions, etc.) or tactical (which again, involves leadership of a different type).  Some formal bifurcating of career trajectories would be a win-win for an individuals career aspirations and force management issues writ large.  Too much time is spent by the system forcing people to do things they don't want, while willing volunteers for the same things become frustrated.  We could solve that problem while deliberately growing folks into what they want and what the system needs.  

    Great ideas at fixing these issues are out there and well know.  The biggest obstacle is how to start.  What authorities are required to initiate a change this large?  Who are the stakeholders that need to be convinced, and can we speak intelligently to studies predicting the second and third order effects of said proposed change?  What principals need to be philosophically aligned?  What cabal of GOs will force this issue by socializing a consistent message at all internal & external levels?  Those questions are the meat & potatoes of making any big change in a bureaucracy, and answers are totally lacking therefore change of this scope is not forthcoming.  

    Great post, as usual.

    I have to wonder, though:  if we got rid of up-or-out, how many willing volunteers would you have to get on the "leadership" track?  I see the current status quo as officers checking boxes so as not to show their cards too early and retain maneuvering airspace as they chip away at their ADSC.  If up-or-out went away, I can't imagine there would be a large line of people waiting to deal with the things that a Sq/CC has to deal with in the current environment, not to mention the non-flying path that must be taken to get there. 

    Promotion and PRF Information

    in General Discussion

    Posted · Edited by Champ Kind

    3 hours ago, jazzdude said:

     


    I would add that, if this becomes the norm, this could help ease career pressures, and maybe even make the AF a better place. It attacks one of the fundemental problems where everything is done by year groups. This seems like the first step in making year groups matter less, and would provide a bigger pool of experience to select commanders from, so the AF wins (no longer has to pick from the best of what's left in a year group for command, and hopefully screen out toxic officers from taking command by virtue of just not getting out).

    But the average officer wins as well: less pressure to check boxes on an artificially short timeline to meet what in the past was essentially a one shot at promotion (where APZ really did seem like correcting for a margin of error), and time to learn a job and make a difference. Maybe there would be less pressure for commanders to cycle people through jobs every six months to make them look good on paper, and allow people to acquire some semblance of depth of knowledge and experience. And once there are people with actual knowledge and experience in jobs, maybe they can start to fix a broken system (vs now, when, by the time someone is knowledgeable enough to start to fix problems in their shop, they are moved out elsewhere, so nothing ever really gets fixed, or no meaningful changes are ever enacted). Or they could choose to just fly the line for a few years, but not completely close the door to promotion later down the line. Or just fly the line under continuation. It gives us career options again, and I think that's a good thing.

    Maybe I'm just trying to be (cautiously) optimistic about the AF, despite all the problems I've seen/experienced. I don't really get mad at the AF anymore, just disappointed that what the AF says it values and what it values doesn't always line up. I think increasing APZ rates is a step in the right direction though.

    In full disclosure, I was APZ to major. My commanders were shocked when I got passed over, and happy the AF "righted a wrong" about 7 months later. I had decided if I want picked up APZ that I'd decline continuation, primarily because there was no real career path for a continued Capt (also, I remember how AMC treats anyone not on the golden path, especially the passed over guys). That being said, once I came to that conclusion, I had an incredible amount of freedom to say no to stupid stuff (what are you going to do, kick me out? My airline apps are just waiting for an availability date, and I hear there's a hiring wave going on). It's amazing how good life gets when you don't feel like you have to play the game anymore.

     

    I think you're giving the AF way too much credit.  I applaud your optimism, though.

     

    It's amazing how good life gets when you don't feel like you have to play the game anymore.

     

    Absolutely spot on.

    Promotion and PRF Information

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    So with an overall promotion opportunity of 85%, that equates to a 75% I/APZ selection rate if the 10% BPZ opportunity is used completely.
    If I was a betting man, I'd put this year's IPZ rate at 73% and APZ at 5%.
    So:
    There were around 1439 IPZ elibles.  the 85% opportunity equates to ~1223 promotions available.  ~122 are available for BPZs.  That leaves ~1101 for I/APZs to share.  The IPZ DP rate was 50%, so there were 719 DPs, so 382 Ps that got promoted in the I/APZ category (assuming 100% of DPs got picked up).  So the P selection rate for I/APZ (with ~1063 APZ) was 382/(719+1036) or 21%.  Realistically, that'll skew towards IPZ vice APZ.
    Historically, IPZ rates are (from AFPC):
    2016:  74.13%
    2015:  72.03%
    2014:  67.00% (opportunity was only 75% that year I believe)
    2013:  74.40%
    2012:  75.43%
    2002-2011 average:  73.69%
    So, USUALLY (2014 and 2012 being probable exceptions), 10% gets taken off the 85% opportunity to give to BPZ.  Some small percentage of the remaining 75% goes to APZ guys, and the rest goes to IPZ.


    Where are you getting 10% BPZ? It's typically ~3%.

    Promotion and PRF Information

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    They don't lower the "IPZ opportunity."  What they've done for the past few years is instruct the board to discount the IPZ/APZ status of the record and compete them equally.  So, the IPZ opportunity isn't lowered, but APZ records that have good paper on top could "steal" an IPZ slot.


    Words matter and I didn't precisely phrase my comment. The point stands, though. IPZ guys that otherwise would have gotten promoted in favor of APZs only to create the same issue next year. Doesn't make sense.

    Toxic Communities

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    6 hours ago, Weezer said:

    So if the goal deploy to dwell for AD is 1:2, then 179s mean 6 months away, 12 at home.  365 means 12 away, 24 at home.  I found 179s can be more disruptive, depending on the frequency...it's hard for either you or your family to really get settled.

    Are you saying you'd be willing to do multiple 365s in the name of stability?

    • Upvote 2

    Toxic Communities

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    3 hours ago, ThreeHoler said:

    The official email a few months ago was STRD of 1998/1999 for O-5 365s an 2002 for O-4 365s.

    If the O-5 list has already jumped to 2001...fence in quickly.


    Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

     

    3 hours ago, ViperStud said:

    Somehow I doubt this. I was bros with my porch guy and he told me (in 2013, almost 4 yrs ago) that I was top 10 of Viper majors with a 2003 STRD. I realize you're talking all-AF, not just Viper guys. Can it really still be that far back?

    I saw the same email as ThreeHoler and the dates check.  Also, this checks with data that I saw several years ago and the STRDs based on the elapsed time make sense as well.  As ViperStud pointed out, though, the average STRDs are probably skewed when it comes to required DAFSCs (certain MDS, W or S codes, etc.)

×
×
  • Create New...