Weezer
-
Posts
149 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Downloads
Wiki
Posts posted by Weezer
-
-
4 minutes ago, LookieRookie said:
Unless it's on a contract counter signed by AFPC/CC I don't believe it.
Not sure I would trust it even then: was on a 365 back in the early days with about 120 others. AFPC/CC at the time came out and was "so impressed," that he personally guaranteed we could have any assignment we wanted afterwards. He went so far as to say he would move people out of jobs to get us where we wanted to go.
Needless to say, he issued a correction a few weeks later to say that AFPC would "do their best" to get us where we wanted to go.
-
22 minutes ago, HeloDude said:
The vast majority of rated O-5s not picked up for command are not going to staff. For example, there's a reason why PIT is full of O-5 non-commanders...
And there's that problem that DOPMA creates: if you want to keep people in, you have to promote them. But, militarily speaking, O-5s shouldn't be instructing future IPs...they should be providing their experience on a staff so that everything from personnel policy to logistics to operations don't continue to get screwed up. But, your most experienced fliers are Lt Cols, so you have to use their experience as rated instructors instead of in a staff billet to take advantage of their operational knowledge to make the Air Force better. So, you put some non-rated guy (like me) in there who has no idea how to manage rated manpower, or how to plan an air campaign, and you get what we currently have.
-
1
-
-
Just going to put this here for your amusement.
-
11 hours ago, budderbar said:
When does your "as met" record pop up on PRDA? Does it actually say "as met"? I just had a folder pop up today labeled "P0417B" on PRDA and was wondering if that was my as met record for my Majors board.
Yes. The P0517A folders showed up three weeks or so before release.
-
13 hours ago, SurelySerious said:
Yet again more evidence promotions should be separated by AFSC types.I've got to believe that they take into account floors and ceilings in the promotion board, even if they don't publish it. If there are 200 rated Lt Col jobs they have to fill, and 800 non-rated ones, then surely they make sure that the cut line includes something greater than 200 rated guy. Can anyone speak to that?
Then, follow on question: If you were the rated guy who isn't going to get picked up for rated squadron command, and further advancement means you will probably command a recruiting squadron somewhere or sit on staff the rest of your career, then do you still want to be promoted?
-
4 hours ago, ihtfp06 said:
How did you come to this conclusion? There hasn't been anything posted to static reports yet.
MS historically outperforms the other categories in IPZ. Pilots usually come out way ahead on BPZ.
-
1 hour 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.
Even passed over he should have been offered continuation...
-
10 hours ago, ihtfp06 said:
DTS in and of itself isn't the main issue. It's the approvers and finance types creatively applying their interpretation of the JTR that causes the headaches. I broke in Rota for a week and my Flt/CC denied taxi reimbursement because I had meals available (I was in Bravo the whole time, so this was BS). I also once took a POV in lieu of Airfare/Rental Car and was denied vicinity mileage (even though the approver originally authorized it) because the language of the JTR said "may approve" instead of "should" or "will." That marked the last time I chose to drive my own vehicle anywhere. Approvers at my current base often amend my voucher (usually to my benefit, but at least once to my detriment) without coordinating the change with me first.
The one real issue I take with JTR/DTS is the "where you are at midnight local" rule. I flew a mission where I transited many high per diem/expensive locations, but was airborne at midnight for several nights in a row (thus showing in transit on my voucher). When we finally hacked 0001 on the ground, it was in Gander, so all those in transit dates were reimbursed at the shitty Gander MI&E rate.
True statement: I was a duly deputized DTS approving official for my squadron back when this happened. Although it was the PCS budget that those guys were busted for, it had an impact on TDY policy as well, at least from where I sat.
We sent teams TDY all the time, many times including young Airmen. I made every effort to make sure those guys were taken care of. I had a folder full of MFRs documenting the chapter and verse of the JTR, but I did whatever was moral, legal, and ethical to make sure dudes got paid.
After the event I linked above, the base CPTS started putting out all sorts of "guidance" that our Resource Advisor started giving me crap about. I often pulled out the JTR to show how he and they were wrong, and won every fight. Fortunately, I left that unit soon after.
Bottom line, Approving Officials have broad latitude to approve things within the JTR. Local management often curtails it due to risk aversion.
-
16 minutes ago, Guardian said:
So if you were the AF in the middle of a pilot crisis would you be passing majors over for continuation? My buddy was just let go.
Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network ForumsIs there more to the story? MyPers strongly implies everyone "determined by the board to be fully qualified" will be continued.
Pilots (11X) are listed as a critical skill that will be offered continuation to 24 years.
-
4 hours ago, hatedont said:
Some people in AF are biased as hell. There will always be a cool kids club in the AF. Bros taking care of bros. I take care of everyone, especially the dudes people tend to kick to the curb because they might be strange.
Don't beat yourself up when people claiming to be leaders, ultimately failed you.
Are you calling me strange?
-
3 hours ago, GKinnear said:
IMO, the problem with the strat process, in the AF as a whole, is a lack of transparency. I'm not saying its nefarious as Commander's schedules are busy and they might not always have the ability to speak to officers on why Capt Snuffy got X and you got Y strats. If you have questions, make the effort to make an appointment and ask the boss. Strive for the honest feedback and put yourself in his shoes and do an honest comparison against your peers. Ask questions from that point of view. Find out what factors (both subjective and objective) are important to your boss, your boss's boss, etc and how you improve.
I wish I'd had the benefit of this advice 8-10 years ago. I went 4 years in a unit, and the only stray I got was "#X/XX as group CGOQ." The one time I asked what it asked to actually get a strat, my boss, who had been the CGO assignments officer for my career field at AFPC, lied and said "X/XX as award winner IS a good strat."
I didn't figure out how hard I'd been screwed until three years later, when an O-6 sat me down and told me I was a good officer and a hard worker, but I was probably not going to able to make Lt Col and was very likely to get RIFed because of those non-strat years.
Super bad on me for not better knowing what it takes to get promoted and even worse on me for not asking harder.
-
1
-
-
17 minutes ago, joe1234 said:
(where their worth is measured in ability to contribute to the war)
Why would you not measure everyone in this way?
-
1
-
-
I apologize profusely for assuming those designated as leaders in our service could operate their weapons systems.
Is it fair to say that most could at one time operate a weapon system to some degree of competence?
-
46 minutes ago, Hacker said:
There's zero technical training in the MX officer school, nor is any allowed on the job.
Once I was back from AMOC, I actually tried to get a Job Qualification folder started so I could get trained to perform some wrench-turning tasks. That got squashed rather quickly from QA, who could find no AFI authorization for a 21A AFSC to receive such training or qualification.
So much for leading from the front. Good on you for trying.
-
Just now, Sprkt69 said:
Both.
Like I said...that sucks. And those commanders suck.
So I might as well come out of the closet: I'm not a pilot or even an operator. I'm an MSG guy (CE) who cares about where the AF is headed. These forums seem to have pretty good gouge on what the nuts and bolts of the rated force is thinking.
When people ask me how I like my job, it's mixed. I like the technical nerdery, but I always wish I was working more directly with operations. It's kind of like working at Microsoft...unclogging toilets. It's cool to say I work at Microsoft, but...
I'm not sure if I'll ever be a squadron commander...I got to be a deputy for a year overseas. Tried my best to bust my a$$ to make the mission happen, and also make sure our Airmen understood the impact they were having on the mission. It wasn't easy...the MSG has its own kind of salt...but I tried to do my best.
Now I'm on Joint Staff working plan sourcing, as I said. If we were sitting down at a bar, what would you say to me that I can do to help?
-
7
-
-
Just now, Sprkt69 said:
I couldn't even begin to count how many times I have found this to not be the case.
Do you mean as far as knowing what they are, or connecting their squadrons to the bigger mission, or both? Either way, that sucks.
-
16 minutes ago, HU&W said:
I expected that response, and you are right, that's where we're weak. That still doesn't make large masses of people the AF weapons system, nor does it equate the background required to manage those large masses of people with the background required to win wars. It takes a whole lot more than learning the acronyms in ACSC to understand integrating airpower. Also, you can't just have the Air Force GENERAL officer delegate the portion of a war that involves fighting to his/her Combat SME that happens to be a pilot.
I get it that airpower is more than just acronyms. But integrating airpower is also more than just airpower. Personal example: my job right now involves plan sourcing on a joint staff. Every single joint officer up here, regardless of service, understands that A-10s do CAS...the pointy end of the spear. Easy. The ground pounders make sure that they have JTACs as integral part of their units, and the JMD guys make sure there's the requisite number of 11F dudes on the JTF staff. The integrating I get to do is going back on all those TPFDDs and adding in the shaft to the spear...everything from maintenance, to logistics, to medical, to engineering. There are very few AF functional capabilities that stand alone.
The AF as a whole (not just the operational side, as Beerman pointed out) does a pis-poor job of integrating our vertical stove-pipes such that our field grade officers, who are our face to the joint staffs (which actually fight wars, since services just organize, train, and equip, if I remember my ACSC correctly) understand how to do that.
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, HU&W said:
We are not the Army, where the weapons system is people.
Can't do much with that weapon system without effectively leading and managing people...I'm pretty sure there are countless examples on this very forum of how the AF has failed to manage people. It doesn't do well to have billion dollar weapons systems sitting idle because all of our pilots have walked out the door because no one's doing leadership above the tactical level. I have no doubt every general in the AF can operate their weapon system effectively and I have no doubt they can tactically lead. It's the leadership of large and complex organizations that we're often missing.
6 hours ago, BeerMan said:I usually get a blank stare, and words to the effect of..."I don't care about that stuff, that's your job."
This infuriates me.
Support functions are important. Hell, OCA-Escort is a support function. I think increased leadership opportunities outside the cockpit are important, but we shouldn't forget that a package lead, mission commander, or weapons officer (speaking from a CAF perspective) does a whole lot of leading and does/should apply that leadership experience. Somewhere in the last 10-20 years in the Air Force and DoD we decided to downplay that experience; at our detriment in my opinion.
Don't be an asshole, but we need to stop downplaying tactical leadership. Working well with others, not being a jerk, as well as leading, planning, executing, and debriefing with 300 other aviators to get better after flying a 40 v 60 is pretty relatable to leading a squadron. Just one man's opinion...
The problem is not lack of tactical leadership. But, we're not translating that tactical leadership into the large organization management skills that are required to run the AF. As a result, all of that tactical leadership is heading out the door.
Quick side note, though...other services graduate to operational and strategic leadership much earlier than we do. As a result, we are behind when we sit on joint staffs. Joint staffs (specifically COCOMs) are what does the strategic and operational planning to fight the nation's wars. Those plans are what drives the demand for the combat power the AF provides. We need to make sure we're dialed into the bigger picture, while maintaining tactical expertise.
It is garbage that some mission support O's are not dialed into the mission of our service...the questions you give above are pretty easy ones (although a non-pilot can't be a JFACC). I will say that the more successful ones who have risen to Sq/CC level and above that I've met are well aware of these things and don't lose an opportunity to connect their squadron mission with the wing and theater mission. I wouldn't expect them to know how to but an OCA package together, but knowing the acronym should be something they learned way back in per-commissioning, or at least ASBC/SOS.
-
1
-
-
20 minutes ago, D_Vezencuando said:
Any details on the APZ stats ... P vs. DP, etc.?
No...my source was limited to the joint officer and overall stats.
-
18 minutes ago, ihtfp06 said:
I think an interesting way to prepare pilots for command would be to do away with or substantially cut the MX officer career field and have fliers voluntarily rotate through for a 2-3 year assignment. It would give fliers an early opportunity to see if command is for them or not. It sure would function better than our current system where we end up with leaders who know when to use straight vs curly quotation marks.
Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkOooorrrr...you could incorporate maintenance back into OGs and have it be a legit leadership position and still fly.
-
11
-
-
23 minutes ago, ihtfp06 said:
What??? ICARUS is far better than flicker ball!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, 17D_guy said:
Next SOS class was cancelled to do a course re-write. Gouge is they're going to add another week back, so future schedule is in the air also.
Class was supposed to start 5 Jun, so lots of people just had summer plans nixed.
Hope they add flickerball back in. Probably would increase retention.
-
19 minutes ago, 17D_guy said:
Reading fail on my part, I thought someone was saying the AF did this and I was generally wondering which community.
STOs/CROs probably do this, as do security forces and some elements in CE. Maintenance and LRS, I think, get good opportunities to lead sections/flights. However, when an Army/USMC captain is a company commander, he/she actually has UCMJ command authority. AF flight commanders (I'm sure there are exceptions) cannot issue Article 15s, etc. Being an actual commander on g-series orders is an order of magnitude different level than supervisory flight "commander."
I think fliers/space dudes are at a huge disadvantage when they are suddenly thrust into Wing command. MXG officers get a pretty decent exposure to both supporting flying operations and the mission support side (through dealing with so many Airmen). MSG officers co-exist in a multi-function group of 6 different types of squadrons. Most fliers/space Os go from operations squadron commander of their primary type of squadron, to operations group commander of their primary type of group, to Wing commander of everything there is. And its all well and good to lead through your Group/CCs, until something comes out of left field that catches you off guard because you couldn't read the tea leaves because it's a whole other language (contracting, for example).
-
2
-
-
5 minutes ago, pcola said:
B/I/APZ is all a stupid holdover of an antiquated system of "paying your dues." Everyone should always be eligible to compete for the next higher grade, regardless of time in rank. That's where the cream is able to rise to the top. The best talent often get frustrated at the prospect of having to wait 20 years to be in a position to make any real changes and move on long before then. Tim Kane wrote a great book about it..."Bleeding Talent." I think the moment one pins on Capt, he/she should be eligible to compete for Maj the next year, and so on. You keep competing until you get out. Everyone is ITZ all the time.
Sent from my iPad using Baseops Network ForumsHow about instead of a flat out time standard (3 years TIG, minimum by DOPMA, waived for BPZ), you have a performance-based one? Pick a key qualification or upgrade (or set thereof) that you have to meet before you're eligible...could be as simple as "Pilot" rating for Captain, "Senior Pilot" for Major, and "Command Pilot" for Lt Col. Could be something else. Similar to how the enlisted have to have a certain skill-level at a certain grade. That way, you balance experience with quality.
Probably have to figure out something similar for maintenance and mission support, but the possibility is there.
-
1
-
What's wrong with the Air Force?
in General Discussion
Posted
A lot of what they're promising has more to do with combatant commanders, component commands (e.g., AFCENT), Joint Staff, and SecDef. These aren't things the A3 can just decree away.
Granted, the CSAF may have administrative influence over the AF component commanders for the COCOMs, it's not as simple as just telling AFCENT to stop asking for rated staff.