Muscle2002
-
Posts
362 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Downloads
Wiki
Posts posted by Muscle2002
-
-
1 hour ago, MCO said:
1/4 to 1/2 of O-6 jobs are command, so if you have too many people that make O-6 with no aspiration to command, it turns into a numbers problem. Letting people not command that don’t want to is a good thing I think, but you still have to fill all the commands. Good or bad, O-6 command is also seen as a valuable experience to inform certain future jobs as an O-6, not just promotability, which also makes it tough. I think where it gets weird is how much slack do you want to give the system and how it’s messaged. Plus everyone has their own opinion when messaging.
Your last two sentences capture the issue at heart I think. Leaders should not equate a lack of desire to command with something less than selfless service. After all, as you note, there are plenty of non-command jobs to fill. Some of these jobs demand a significant amount of sacrifice and are just as thankless as command (see ClearedHot's description of Pentagon assignments).
It's not an easy problem of trying to balance AF needs with individual desires, but inconsistent messaging does not help solve it.
-
1
-
-
On 11/21/2021 at 10:49 AM, DirkDiggler said:
To your point on leadership "understanding" opt outs, that's probably a pretty tough thing to make happen with any regularity unless attitudes about leadership and what it means to serve change in the AF.
It is interesting that you mention the difficulty some senior leaders have in understanding a desire to serve but not command. How many times have you heard senior leaders tell a group or an individual that one's service can be meaningful absent command and that not everyone will command even though there are more highly qualified people than there are positions? In effect, the message they convey is that to not command is acceptable, so long as the system makes the choice. Turn the tables, and it is anathema to suggest that someone can serve faithfully while turning down command. In short, I have sensed from some leaders a willingness to use "service before self" as a cudgel to bludgeon people whose desire to serve somehow does not comport with the other's ideal. Certainly, we need people who are willing to bear the burden of command, but I do not think forcing someone who does not want to is good for the service, the person, or the people being led.
-
49 minutes ago, Blue said:
Because the majority of people who claim to "fight racism" are really just a bunch of useful idiots who are doing what they're told. They only make noise about racism when their newsfeeds tell them to.
The reality is things like identity politics and racism are just used as a distraction. They keep people from focusing on actual important things like income inequality, and the fact that the quality of life is eroding away for everyone but most wealthy.
The below comes off a little tinfoil-y, but I think it gets the point across.
The above is not exactly tinfoil hat material. One well respected political scientist wrote about this idea.
Francis Fukuyama on identity politics .
-
1
-
-
MCO mentioned towards the end of the linked post a desire to steer conservations back toward AF-type stuff.
As such, and on the topic of command, last year's O6 command board had ~40% of eligibles opt out from competing for command. Rumor is that the policy of "all in" will return. So for the crowd, which is worse for the AF:
- Selecting your group/wing commanders from a much smaller pool (nearly half as small) that results from letting people opt out from competing
- Or, forcing Colonels to compete and, if selected, take command unless they retire under the policy of "all in"?
I think there can be a middle ground. If I were CSAF, I would want as big a pool of candidates as possible, but knowing that there is an O6 shortage, especially among rated officers, I would institute a policy to allow commander-selects to decline as long as there was a mutually beneficial assignment besides command to keep from bleeding talent.
Thoughts?
-
3
-
57 minutes ago, Prozac said:
I don’t feel vulnerable & fuck those who are (or may be going home to family members who are). I guess that’s where we’re at as a country these days. Not willing to make even small changes in our behavior for the greater good. It’s a bit depressing.
I agree with your sentiment, but we must acknowledge that making changes for the greater good works both ways. I loathe the idea of legislating health, but many of those espousing taking one for the team will not concede the point that personal choices to be unhealthy have already hurt our society far more than COVID has. Perchance we should create exercise and eating vegetable mandates.
Admittedly, the libertarian in me (sts) likes the Ron Swanson approach.
Ron Swanson on freedom to eat what you want
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, bennynova said:
The comment above is similar to the following comment.
“There’s is zero data that shows there are long term effects of the vaccine”I am guessing near zero religious accommodations are approved yet is because they aren’t that far along in the process.
ive done all of my paperwork and meetings within the first day allowed, and my package is still with the RRT
Don’t get me wrong. I do not approve of how the system has basically removed any reason or logic in order to display fealty to the current agenda. Just sharing an article indicating where things stood.
-
1
-
-
14 minutes ago, HeloDude said:
Likewise I think it’s interesting that in this culture of “equality”, why can’t men have the exact same grooming/uniform standards as women? How does it hurt the mission to allow men to have long hair, earrings, etc?
You raise a good point. It seems that "tradition" and status quo preclude making allowances if the reason for deviating is based solely on personal preference. Perhaps the only accommodations should be for valid medical reasons.
-
9 minutes ago, HeloDude said:
Unfortunately the joke is on everyone who applied for a religious exemption, as I’m definitely not surprised. Big blue never had any intention of seriously looking at each individual case for valid concerns, if they did, we would be hearing about quite a few getting approved, and instead, I have yet to hear of a single one (though here might be a handful that I’m just not aware?).
As of last week, zero religious accommodations have been granted.
-
3 hours ago, Shakermaker said:
5 year look is not in play, and probably won't be for quite a while until DOPMA is changed.
In some ways, it seems the AF pulled a sleight-of-hand by pulling BPZ while stating they were moving to a five-year window. In effect, you now have one look much like the other services, notwithstanding the single digit odds APZ.
-
1
-
-
39 minutes ago, Guardian said:
No one is questioning that she flew it. Just what sense it makes to say that you flew it on your bio? It doesn’t. We flew 200 hours in UPT in aircraft and solo’d in them. I doubt she did that at TPS but I am wrong on a regular basis.
I flew the A-10 as a TPS student and employed the gun and dropped BDUs (I know, cool story, right?). Am I not supposed to say I flew it? Or in another instance, I flew just 10 hours in a prototype but never had a Form 8. Does that count?
-
2
-
-
41 minutes ago, Guardian said:
So you just cut someone loose with an afterburner which isn’t experienced in it?
Yes
-
55 minutes ago, Guardian said:
Since when does someone put on their Bio aircraft they have rode in but never really flown or been qualified? She’s already lost credibility.
She’s a TPS graduate, which explains the difference. She may not have been Form 8 qualified, but test pilots periodically fly front or left seat in aircraft where they are doing all of the flying, to include ground ops. These flights are called qualitative evaluations. The IP, if there is even space for one, is only a safety observer, nothing more. Moreover, test pilots are allowed to log primary time on qualitative evaluations as they are performing the role of pilot-in-command and experimental test pilot, gathering data on handling, flying qualities, systems performance, etc. for later tests and evaluations.
I do not take umbrage with her doing so as much as seeing a "run-of-the-mill" pilot turned general stating they flew aircraft in which they were really a passenger while in their commander role. Take, for instance many of the Nellis Wg/CCs. I doubt any of them have actually flown all of the aircraft listed or were qualified given their typical CAF background.
Is it okay to state you flew the T-37, T-38, T-1, etc. while in UPT even though you lacked a Form 8 or had an IP onboard?
Edited to add: The fighter-type aircraft she listed were syllabus aircraft at the TPS.
-
2
-
1
-
-
On 7/21/2021 at 8:58 AM, Hunter Rose said:
The current take rates are out there. I think it's on that aircrew task force website. It's a not well advertised link that you have to hunt for. I looked at them two weeks ago, and they are abysmal, as should be expected with such a shitty bonus. Overall rate was like 36% or so. Fighter/bombers were even lower. A couple months left for folks to sign it so the numbers may increase, but it looked like it was shaping up to be the worst take rates in the last 5+ years.
I'll track it down today at work.
Why worry about retention when PA can just write a chintzy article about retention and how the Total Force hopes it can preserve talent that “The nation has invested millions of dollars in training these great Americans to protect and defend our way of life."
Pilots Leaving Active Duty Have Safe Landing Place in Reserve/Guard
-
44 minutes ago, pawnman said:
Last DoD memo I saw mandated mask wear if you were unvaccinated.
For clarity, DepSecDef Hicks’ memo stated that unvaccinated personnel “should” follow CDC guidance on masks.
-
7 hours ago, Sua Sponte said:
You can blame the officers who allow E-9s to act like E-9s. A true Chief is worth their weight in gold.
I’ve been fortunate enough to work with one, and having such a Chief makes all the difference in getting the unit to work as one (large mix of officers, enlisted, civilian, and contractors).
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, slc said:
Can local base medical "ask" you to send them a copy of your vax record (if received off base) for wing "tracking" purposes?
Unknown about the specific ask, but they will use the card to update MyIMRS which already contains your vaccination record.
-
13 minutes ago, Hacker said:
Apparently they're not interested in high AOA maneuvering with that thing.
They were…just high negative AoA. Apparently, they scoff at “no negative g gun jinks.”
-
1 hour ago, jazzdude said:
What about if they tested positive and still knowingly came to work without a mask?
Even if an airman catches a mild case of COVID with no lasting impacts, at best they are still out for about 2 weeks, and potentially could knock out coworkers as well for a couple weeks due to quarantine requirements due to known exposure. So even if you don't believe COVID to be serious, the practical effect on personnel availability can have a significant mission impact.
It's similar to the occasional norovirus outbreak. I've seen norovirus destroy a UPT class due to the faip scheduler pushing the studs to get cleared for sims to stay on/ahead of timeline (and flight med being liberal with not putting people on quarters when they are infectious), and had half the class out for several days to illness and required a couple weeks to catch up. Haven't seen it be as bad deployed, but those docs seen to be more willing to put people on quarters for communicable disease.Knowingly coming to work while positive is different than not donning a mask when one has natural immunity. Folks like to assert that vaccines are a known quantity, which is true, but when they cite 94% effectiveness, they fail to understand that the effectiveness is at the population level, not individual level. Vaccine effectiveness is derived stochastically. It cannot be translated to a deterministic chance for the individual. Context matters.
I agree with your readiness argument, but again, that is different than the issue over someone who recovered and does not wear a mask. At best, one can make the good order and discipline argument, as you did, and perhaps that is the only rationale needed. However, how does that line of logic square with CSAF guidance to stop doing dumb things that are inherently regulation and instruction based? Who becomes the arbiter?
But to point to public health concerns for those who recovered and do not wear a mask ignores the scientific data extant.
-
13 hours ago, pawnman said:
Oh no, holding people accountable for violating SECDEF orders. The horror!
What would be your course of action for those who contracted the disease—verifiable via medical records—and deduced that natural immunity (which a significant body of science supports) is more than sufficient to prevent further spread, yet they did not wear a mask? If you punish them, are you truly “following the science” which purportedly undergirds the mask/no mask guidelines?
-
What exactly changed here? I love how they roll this out as an incentive when it does not differ from previous CDC guidance. Moreover, they like to modify the phrase “return to normal” with “more” suggesting they may keep moving the goal posts.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, 08Dawg said:
I love how the AF thought the Rona had put the airlines down for 3-5 years and short changed the bonus....only for most airlines to rebound in a year and open up hiring again. Bold strategy, Cotton...
I'm not defending the AF, but Congress had the biggest hand to play in the bonus. After all, Congress has had its eyes on the bonus for a while, and according to some discussion with A1 folks, the AF had to fight to even keep the paltry numbers programmed this year.
-
26 minutes ago, Waingro said:
I don't know a single pilot that stayed in, took another assignment, took the bonus etc. because of the pandemic. Maybe five guys in my squadron retired or separated during the pandemic, all are gainfully and happily employed now, to include those who wanted airline work. UPS and FedEx never slowed down. Maybe it was different in the heavy world, but in the fighter world, the pandemic did virtually nothing for retention.
Anyone who stuck around because of it was likely a tire-kicker and not ever serious about getting out anyway.
I know one fighter pilot who retracted their retirement paperwork last spring because of the pandemic. I do not recall what their plan was had they retired, though. However, I think you're right. The pandemic may have delayed exits ever-so-slightly but not enough to fix the problem.
-
On 4/18/2021 at 10:14 PM, pawnman said:
Oof. So they relieved a commander because some crew chief left their iPad in the inlet and the aircrew didn't spot it on the walk around?
A friend of mine, stationed at another Global Strike base, stated his unit sent multiple people to Dyess to support the multiple maintenance-related safety investigations occurring there now. It would seem that the firing resulted from more than a single mishap.
-
I changed my password intentionally (on the account settings page); however, every time I try to sign in with the new password, Baseops states the password is wrong. The only way to log in is to click “Forgot Password” and follow the email that is sent. It seems the site is not saving password changes properly.
Covid Injection Tyranny - Share and Discuss
in General Discussion
Posted · Edited by Muscle2002
Two same. I felt worse from the JJ vaccine (worst chills and shaking I have experienced with any illness) than from having COVID a few months before. Hard pass on booster.