gearhog

I was paraphrasing the news source which I probably shouldn’t do. Great point from what might be a more accurate perspective.

Sounds like he tried to bury scandals instead of properly investigating allegations to protect some of his subordinates.

It’s Puss in Boots, not Piss in Boots, fellas. From the news: The head of the California Air National Guard has been sacked after a newspaper released the details of several scandals under his command, including someone urinating in the boots of a female Air Guardsman. Major General Clay “Slam” Garrison has been replaced by Brigadier General Gregory Jones in the aftermath of the scandals, which were leaked to the press by whistleblowers at the California Air Guard’s Fresno base. In 2015, Staff Sergeant Jennifer Pineda was changing into uniform at the 144th Fighter Wing headquarters when she discovered someone had urinated in her boots. According to the VC Star, Security Forces investigated the incident, but found little in the way of evidence and closed the case. In a filed complaint, Pineda mentioned that she was afraid of being kicked out of the Air Guard, specifically due to speculation that she urinated in her own boots for attention.

I scanned the whole thread. The same types of words occurred in nearly every response from the Gen: Listening, measuring, communicating, understanding, discussing, engaging, facilitating, thinking, ... Doing anything? Not so much. Same as the last 5 years. Same as the next 5 years.

I know 2 people who punted within the last month. One walked away from a guaranteed AGR from now till retirement and the other left a full time tech position. First guy was happy to pay back the AGR pilot bonus he recently received.

Here’s hoping. It won’t happen for me, but I hope the younger guys get a bonus big enough to tolerate whatever the AF throws at them.

Given the attitude among our own higher chain of command pilots about current QOL grievances, do you think those career officers will be more or less likely to intervene on your behalf when you are making $100k more? Sure, it’d feel good to give some lesser ranking dude the “what for”, but I don’t have faith in many the higher ranking pilots who currently exist above them. No one should believe the current status quo will remain and an unlikely hypothetical big bonus won’t come with some strings attached. Your every concern will be met with: “That’s why you make the big bucks.’

You can bet every non-pilot in the AF will have less than zero consideration for any pilot quality of life/work issues. As a matter of fact, it’s likely fair to assume they’ll feel more than justified in making you earn that kind of bonus.

The inverted opposing scissor edge maneuver is always a crowd favorite.

But how many modern social progressivist liberal CCs have any of us encountered? I don't think I know of any. What I do know is most careerists I've met lately are concerned with 1. Metrics and 2. Avoiding risk. Inflate the positives numbers, eliminate the negative numbers, and avoid anything that may complicate either of the above. Human behavior, especially in the military is risky, messy, and unpredictable. It requires leadership to effectively handle it. But effective leadership cannot be quantified, therefore it is not rewarded nor promoted. Maybe because I'm older and perhaps more cynical, it easy to see when someone is mimicking how a leader might speak/act vs. being one. Because it has become harder to find and/or teach our CCs how to handle human behavior in an organization that values face to face interaction less and less, it's easier to just draw ever constricting circles around the individual and tell them that their behavior or anyone else they are responsible for shall not stray beyond it. How long before people begin to reject what they're defending?

Maybe.

You make some great points.

I agree it would be unusual, but most if not nearly all crashes are caused by accidents, mistakes and failures, not suicides. I don't think it's right to go down that path just yet only to satisfy our desire to fill in the missing piece of the puzzle.

Not suicide. A few ways for this to happen. Example: Say they level off in turbulence and accidentally or mistakenly push the TO/GA, perhaps in an attempt to disengage autothrottles. Autopilot may or may not automatically disconnect depending on altitude and flaps, but aircraft initially pitches up rapidly as throttles move toward max. Control column gets shoved forward with nose down trim running. Autopilot disconnects. If both pilots are making different elevator inputs, fighting each other when they think they're fighting the aircraft and/or weather, one control column will breakout (if it's like other Boeing aircraft). The nose down elevator yoke wins the fight and confusion ensues as both yokes move indepedently. I'm not saying that's what happened. Only saying there are a few reasons why the yoke/elevator would command nose down outside of someone suddenly deciding to end it all after a 2 hour flight deviating around weather.

He’s not wrong, but he’s oversimplifying it. Google MCAS. Flown the max dozens of times. A bad input would likely catch someone unfamiliar by surprise, but everyone should know how to handle it after Lion Air. Might be a good time to buy Boeing. JK.

I saw this, also. TL/DR. There's a lot of books and research into how complexity causes collapse... in systems, organizations, societies, civilizations. The Air Force seems to be following the roadmap precisely. Some of the biggest hallmarks are: - Continuous increase in complexity in spite of diminishing and even declining returns - Reaching a level of complexity that is unsustainable due to.... - An exhaustion of resources. (Labor and funding) - Insufficient response to circumstances due to set thinking/creeping normalcy - Mismanagement by an out of touch elite leadership. All we're missing are external shocks from the economy, competition (in progress), and conflict.

I always made my studs do the double-pinch with gloves on a 3" HSI. They loved it.

It seems to be a requirement nowadays. If you want to be an empowered female, you have to make vague references to a dark past of innocent and helpless sexual victimization. Then you indignantly argue that any questions or criticisms about anything you say or do are examples of how the patriarchy continues it's oppression.

Watched Apollo 11 at an IMAX last night. There's no narration. The story, launch through landing, is told through original footage and audio, with some music added. Many of the film scenes I had never seen before. Almost all of it was restored to look as if it were shot yesterday on UHD digital cameras. The Saturn 5 launch will blow your mind. The whole movie was F'n inspiring. Best theater experience I've had in years.

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/visualizing-worlds-largest-airline-companies/ What problems?

How would I make you, and why would I want you, to explain anything? You entered the conversation, created an argument I didn’t make, attributed it to me, and used it as an opportunity to suggest you’re smart. Not interested.

Please move the above comments to the other thread.

That’s great and I wish it worked like that, but the realism of “Your job is going away. Deal with it.” likely will not get people elected who set policy and create tomorrow’s reality.

Those poor poor horses.

You should run for office with that campaign slogan. 😆