Leadership at the 'Deid

[czecksikhs]

This has been around forever with the regular uniform (ie the rule if you're going to wear a watch cap you need to also be wearing a coat/jacket with it). Makes sense to me, if it's cold enough for a watch cap why are you wearing shorts? And if it's warm enough to wear shorts why the need for a watch cap?

No denying I was out of regs according to the USAFCENT sup, I'm all educated on it now and living right. Maybe you just overlooked my main point that HE CALLED THE COPS OVER IT? That a SNCO gave multiple rude directives to a pair of CGOs without checking fire to verify who he was talking to? It's kind of like walking around in your bag and jacking everyone in PTs who doesn't salute. You have no clue who you are dealing with unless you know them previously.

[Herk Driver]

This has been around forever with the regular uniform (ie the rule if you're going to wear a watch cap you need to also be wearing a coat/jacket with it). Makes sense to me, if it's cold enough for a watch cap why are you wearing shorts? And if it's warm enough to wear shorts why the need for a watch cap?

But, the AFCENT Sup is "less restrictive" in that it allows the wear of the watch cap with a jacket or layered clothing (i.e. the mock turtleneck) which is not allowed by the basic pub. Either way, stick to the topic at hand, no jacket, no watch cap. Shorts or long pants don't get addressed here. If it's warm enough for shorts, as long as I wear a jacket, I can wear the watch cap.

So, to take it a step further, what if it's cool enough outside to wear a watch cap, but you are going running/jogging? Most people that are going to run for any distance aren't going to wear a jacket, but some do like to wear the watch cap, which is easy to remove and store. No provision for that, but I see it done a lot.

Edited December 7, 2009 by Herk Driver

[Disco_Nav963]

So... Anyone hear that aircrews pulling sandbag duty for CE is back?

[pawnman]

So... Anyone hear that aircrews pulling sandbag duty for CE is back?

Yep. We've got some guys scheduled for sandbag duty. I guess CE ran out of people?

[Stunna]

Yep. We've got some guys scheduled for sandbag duty. I guess CE ran out of people?

Not sure exactly what you mean here, actually, you probably literally mean, sandbag duty, but have you also heard aircrew members are pulling force protection duties now, too? That's right...

[JS]

Update from the other night. The base was visited by Carlos Mencia, Jesse James, and Kid Rock as part of the "Tour for the Troops" program. The concert and performances were awesome, but the highlight of the night was Mencia's comedy skit at the bra.

For those who are not familiar with him (I had never heard his work before), he is an extremely politically incorrect, f-bomb dropping comedian who apparently does comedy skits on HBO. Word on the street is that he is very "intelligent," with a college degree in engineering. Apparently he did a lot of research for his material, and was evidently tipped off to the goings on here at the Died and had read the AF Times article on reflective belts. When the skit started, he had the Vice Wing CC (of infamy from the emails he sent out requiring guards be posted at all Services facilities to check for reflective belts - see posts a few pages ago) a few rows back off the left side of the stage, and the general (wing commander) was in the middle of the crowd, by the second support pole for the bra tent.

Anyway, his opening salvo unloaded a several minute, curse-laden, lambasting of the stupidity of the reflective belt policy and several personal attacks on the Vice Wing CC himself. I have a short 1-minute portion of the attack on video, and am working on getting other portions of it.

For those who can't access youtube from a government computer, here is a transcript:

Just before this video clip started, he called the Vice Wing CC a fucking idiot for having such a stupid fucking policy in a place with very few vehicles that you can see coming from "8 miles away."

As he pointed right at the Vice CC he said (and I quote from the video) "It's not like there's a lot of traffic in this bitch! By the way, you know what, Vice Commander, what you should do is get rid of that fucking rule, and here's why - if anyone does get hit [by a car,] they're fucking dumb and shouldn't be here in the first place..... [interrupted by several seconds of 2,000 people screaming and cheering]....even if you were actually walking with someone who was mentally retarded, he would be like [in a typical retarded, Corky-sounding voice] 'hey, that car gonna be here soon'"

He later took another stab at the fag belt policy by talking about how impressed he was with the troops because we always follow orders - even the stupid reflective belt rules. After that, Kid Rock gave the performance of a lifetime, and he too cracked a few jokes about the stupidity of the reflective belts. I believe he said something to the effect of how great it was to see all of us out here serving, and that he couldn't miss seeing us because of all of the reflective belts.

Next Kid Rock said "the general told me I could have anything I wanted out here, well here is what I want. General, I think you should lift the 3 beer limit here."

I must say, I am going to leave this place with good memories of combat missions, reflective belt stupidity, and vivid memories of the other night. It may sound kind of funny, but it was truly a night for the ages here at the Deid to see a professional comedian personally call out the Vice Commander and his reflective belt policy as thousands of cheering airmen screamed with delight, followed by Kid Rock echoing the same thoughts on the stupidity of the reflective belt debacle.

Some pictures from the event:

Edited December 9, 2009 by JS

[nsplayr]

Epic win for Carlos Mencia. Great post man.

[skinny]

Chances of the same thing happening tonight at Ramstein? Might make it worth the trouble of trying to find a damn parking spot!

[Day Man]

who is the chick?

[pawnman]

who is the chick?

Jesse James...country singer.

[JS]

Here is another clip from a few seconds before the one posted above. Sorry for the horrible quality, but it is a recording of my computer screen because I could not transfer it from the government computer to my personal laptop (for those at the Deid, most of the skit is now on the Media Web under Movies...Comedy...Mancia [name spelled wrong]).

For those who can't access Youtube or can't make out the wording, here is a transcript:

"Hey, what's up with having to wear the fucking retarded reflector shit???.......[solid 15 seconds of screaming and cheering]........I'm going to get in trouble for it, but this is for you. People tell me all the time, 'thank you for saying the shit we want to say, but can't," this is for you.......FUCK THE VICE COMMANDER FOR DOING THAT STUPID SHIT!.......[clip ends with screaming and cheering of thousands of fans]"

My only problem with the whole thing is that somehow the Vice Commander took the fall for a policy that I have personally heard the general take credit for on three occasions. Oh, well, I guess it is the sign of a true fast-burner in the Air Force to be able to come up with such a morale-killing, stupid policy and then let someone underneath you take the blame for such stupidity.

[BQZip01]

Here is another clip from a few seconds before the one posted above. Sorry for the horrible quality, but it is a recording of my computer screen because I could not transfer it from the government computer to my personal laptop (for those at the Deid, most of the skit is now on the Media Web under Movies...Comedy...Mancia [name spelled wrong]).

For those who can't access Youtube or can't make out the wording, here is a transcript:

"Hey, what's up with having to wear the fucking retarded reflector shit???.......[solid 15 seconds of screaming and cheering]........I'm going to get in trouble for it, but this is for you. People tell me all the time, 'thank you for saying the shit we want to say, but can't," this is for you.......FUCK THE VICE COMMANDER FOR DOING THAT STUPID SHIT!.......[clip ends with screaming and cheering of thousands of fans]"

My only problem with the whole thing is that somehow the Vice Commander took the fall for a policy that I have personally heard the general take credit for on three occasions. Oh, well, I guess it is the sign of a true fast-burner in the Air Force to be able to come up with such a morale-killing, stupid policy and then let someone underneath you take the blame for such stupidity.

I hope the USO rebooks this guy for the next few years. MAYBE things will start to change...

I also agree that the Vice Wing King is in a quite unenviable position. He also has the responsibility to follow the orders of those over him...which is a single insane person, apparently. I'm sure these concerns have been voiced and the commander dismissed them. Then he probably said something to the commanders like this:

"We're going to have this reflective belt policy, period. If you have any suggestions on how to enforce this program, let me know. If you have any complaints, talk to the vice..."

Dumping the entire problem on his shoulders.

If the "success" of this morale-killing, no-one-saving, conduct-prejudicial-to-good-order-and-discipline program is any indication, this general is in line for a General ********* type rise in power. He was the last AF leader in power that had so many "great" ideas.

<removed name of former AFCoS...he doesn't need his name promoted any more...>

Edited December 9, 2009 by BQZip01

[Guest REMF]

Of course, the first thing I do is start this the wrong way by creating a new topic instead of replying...

As a sitting squadron commander at Al Udeid, I've been watching this board kind of laughing at a lot this. Half the story a lot of the time and not a full understanding of why things are.

So, if you guys are actually interested in the other side of the story, not the rumors, I will be more than happy to provide it to you. Some of the time, probably most, you will still disagree with the decision. But, I can at least give you the logic and thought process behind the policies.

And, no, I'm not the PA officer or one of the Wing's minions. Just another guy stuck over here for a year who gives a shit about the Air Force and what we are trying to do here. And while I think the reflective belt simply helps the drivers see the folks walking, I do think some of the other stuff is silly. But, we all did sign up to obey the orders. And, as a Sq CC, my role is fairly clear.

I'm not trying to out anyone on this board...and if my presence makes anyone uncomfortable, I will simply become the troll I once was. But, you guys had to know we were always here. I'm at least willing to engage in a dialogue.

REMF

[BQZip01]

Of course, the first thing I do is start this the wrong way by creating a new topic instead of replying...

As a sitting squadron commander at Al Udeid, I've been watching this board kind of laughing at a lot this. Half the story a lot of the time and not a full understanding of why things are.

So, if you guys are actually interested in the other side of the story, not the rumors, I will be more than happy to provide it to you. Some of the time, probably most, you will still disagree with the decision. But, I can at least give you the logic and thought process behind the policies.

And, no, I'm not the PA officer or one of the Wing's minions. Just another guy stuck over here for a year who gives a shit about the Air Force and what we are trying to do here. And while I think the reflective belt simply helps the drivers see the folks walking, I do think some of the other stuff is silly. But, we all did sign up to obey the orders. And, as a Sq CC, my role is fairly clear.

I'm not trying to out anyone on this board...and if my presence makes anyone uncomfortable, I will simply become the troll I once was. But, you guys had to know we were always here. I'm at least willing to engage in a dialogue.

REMF

Sir,

First, I LOVE the fact that you actually label yourself as an REMF. If you are a flyer, I'll be happy to send you an unauthorized tab patch so you can proudly & boldly wear it to show your honesty.

Second, I can only speak for myself, but I'd love to hear the logic. Please realize that the reflective belts aren't the problem, they are a symptom of a larger problem: shoeclerkishness; a mentality that some things have to be done the exact right way at the exact right time or it's worth ruining someone's day over a minor issue while ignoring problems with the larger issues of the day.

Third, I think the problems mentioned in the AF Times article are worth noting

‘Safety is No. 1’

Official Air Force safety policy requires airmen to wear reflective belts while near traffic or on the flight line when it’s dark out and “running near traffic from 1 hour before sunset to 1 hour after sunrise.” Beyond that, the wearing of reflective belts is at the discretion of installation commanders.

“Commanders always have authority to assess the situation and make a more stringent policy if warranted,” according to Paul Carlisle, acting deputy chief of Air Force ground safety.

...

“Safety is No. 1,” he said, “and that’s why we established the policy. It does, in fact, save lives.”

Carlisle cited a 2004 New Zealand study to prove the effectiveness of reflective clothing. The study found motorcycle riders who wore fluorescent material lowered their risk of being in an accident by 37 percent. Pedestrians weren’t included in the research.

Almost 50 percent of pedestrian fatalities in the U.S. occur between 6 p.m. and midnight, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Studies show a motorist driving 60 mph will not see a pedestrian in dark clothing until he is 55 feet away, and a vehicle traveling at that speed needs 260 feet to stop safely.

Safety isn't #1; the mission is #1. Everything else supports that mission.

This guy cites a study on motorcycle clothing. Since typical motorcycle wear tends to be dark, you will see a marked difference. The Times even points out that pedestrians aren't included within that study. Considering where people tend to walk at the 'deid (nowhere near roads), reflective belts for traffic safety don't make a lot of sense. Forcing people to wear them indoors to shop or get food, makes even less sense.

The article then goes on to state that ~50% of pedestrian fatalities occur between 6PM and midnight, but fails to explain why we ALWAYS wear them for even longer than that. It also doesn't break out what the sources of those fatalities are.

At the end, the pose a scenario that isn't generally applicable roads with sidewalks (I don't know of any roads here you can go 60 and there are regular pedestrians on it.

In short, the conclusion is a poor synthesis of information and jumps to many erroneous conclusions based upon poor logic and poor deducive reasoning skills..

Lastly, I think >65% started the same way you did. Welcome.

[Guest REMF]

Sir,

First, I LOVE the fact that you actually label yourself as an REMF. If you are a flyer, I'll be happy to send you an unauthorized tab patch so you can proudly & boldly wear it to show your honesty.

Second, I can only speak for myself, but I'd love to hear the logic. Please realize that the reflective belts aren't the problem, they are a symptom of a larger problem: shoeclerkishness; a mentality that some things have to be done the exact right way at the exact right time or it's worth ruining someone's day over a minor issue while ignoring problems with the larger issues of the day.

Third, I think the problems mentioned in the AF Times article are worth noting

Safety isn't #1; the mission is #1. Everything else supports that mission.

This guy cites a study on motorcycle clothing. Since typical motorcycle wear tends to be dark, you will see a marked difference. The Times even points out that pedestrians aren't included within that study. Considering where people tend to walk at the 'deid (nowhere near roads), reflective belts for traffic safety don't make a lot of sense. Forcing people to wear them indoors to shop or get food, makes even less sense.

The article then goes on to state that ~50% of pedestrian fatalities occur between 6PM and midnight, but fails to explain why we ALWAYS wear them for even longer than that. It also doesn't break out what the sources of those fatalities are.

At the end, the pose a scenario that isn't generally applicable roads with sidewalks (I don't know of any roads here you can go 60 and there are regular pedestrians on it.

In short, the conclusion is a poor synthesis of information and jumps to many erroneous conclusions based upon poor logic and poor deducive reasoning skills..

Lastly, I think >65% started the same way you did. Welcome.

Concur...mission is #1. Which is why we damn near hit the sortie requirement from the ATO everyday. The times we don't is almost always because of reasons out of our control for the most part.

Now, you and I will probably enjoy having multiple beers discussing discipline and leadership. The one thing I can say is that as a commander you always strive to have fairness and equity. The rules remain the same, all the time. And, I beg you to remember, that the largest part of the AF is composed of enlisted troops. So, how do we have separate rules? Rules for the gear in the rear and different rules for the guys flying over Afghan every day? Simply, you cannot.

Having been corrected myself, I can tell you, it is not pleasant. And, it really isn't about how "nice" someone is. No one person I've ever met in the USAF enjoys being told they are not in compliance. Let's at least be honest on that. No matter how nice or not is irrelevant. Everyone takes being corrected as a "bad" thing.

Now, since I get to drive a vehicle around the base, I will tell you that the AF PT gear isn't nearly as reflective, uniformly, as you everyone espouses. I've seen AF members running around the base and the only piece of them I can see is the shirt. The shorts, for some reason, seem to lose reflectivity a lot quicker and the new shorts have no reflectivity. Guess what, the reflective belt makes you stand out. Not a bad thing IMHO.

And, as a BASE commander, the Wing CC has to deal with all the services across the entire range of Combatant Commands. We no kidding have the CAOC, CENTOCM Fwd HQ, SOCCENT HQ, a Patriot Brigade, a Patriot Battalion, a Navy EP3 squadron, and a USMC DV flight sq all working on this base...and I'm sure I missed someone. All with different thoughts on this entire thing.

So, he has to adopt a uniform policy that can easily be enforced. And, it's not for naught. No kidding, I almost ran over a guy running between BPC dorms and the hospital the other night...totally blacked out...black guy, black shirt, black shorts...only thing that keyed me in was the small reflective pieces of his shoes. As he ran in the road...

So, count me in on the whole "why we need to wear reflective belts all the time" crowd. It's the easiest way to make sure we can all be seen and avoid a pedestrian fatality. Notice I said 'avoid' not a 100% guarantee against. There is always the one that proves me wrong. But, again, as the guy driving around, I gain my SA on pedestrians by seeing the belts. If you aren't wearing one...well, guess what. I don't see you. Don't worry...we'll put your rant from here on your tombstone.

Insofar as the 'shoeclerkishness', you guys brought that on yourself. I believe that everyone in this forum believes in following orders. What some of us REMFs cannot understand is why some of you, at relatively junior ranks, have decided that you have the authority to decide which orders are to be obeyed and which ones are to be defied. We charge our Airmen, NCOs, and SNCOs to enforce the rules. Along with the officers. And so, we have this tension.

So, it settled into a battle of wills. And the Vice Wing CCs email. That was simply a response to make sure that the chow hall troops weren't being the only police on this entire thing. Honestly, I think the base has settled into an equilibrium. But, just my impression.

My final thought tonight...a lot of us REMFs (not necessarily me) have served forward multiple times. In multiple theaters. In many different combat conditions. So, I appreciate the "Sir" at the beginning as it denotes respect. Right back at you.

REMF

[Beaver]

Maybe a lower-impact solution would be to take away all the squadron commanders' cars. That will also help with the AF's new emphasis on energy reduction.

[Jaded]

So, count me in on the whole "why we need to wear reflective belts all the time" crowd. It's the easiest way to make sure we can all be seen and avoid a pedestrian fatality. Notice I said 'avoid' not a 100% guarantee against. There is always the one that proves me wrong. But, again, as the guy driving around, I gain my SA on pedestrians by seeing the belts. If you aren't wearing one...well, guess what. I don't see you. Don't worry...we'll put your rant from here on your tombstone.

Is anyone here arguing against the policy of wearing reflective belts if you're running in a road at night? How do you feel about requiring people to wear reflective belts in the DFAC? During the daytime? In between their tent and the bathroom? This policy doesn't keep people safer, it reduces the wing commander's liability if there's an incident on base. It's about being able to shift blame away from himself, not about leadership, safety, or discipline.

Insofar as the 'shoeclerkishness', you guys brought that on yourself.

I don't even know what to say to that.

[snoopyeast]

The things that will destroy America are prosperity at any price, peace at any price, safety first instead of duty first, the love of soft living and the get rich quick theory of life.

-THEODORE ROOSEVELT

[capt4fans]

Is anyone here arguing against the policy of wearing reflective belts if you're running in a road at night? How do you feel about requiring people to wear reflective belts in the DFAC? During the daytime? In between their tent and the bathroom? This policy doesn't keep people safer, it reduces the wing commander's liability if there's an incident on base. It's about being able to shift blame away from himself, not about leadership, safety, or discipline.

I don't even know what to say to that.

SHACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Napoleon_Tanerite]

Concur...mission is #1. Which is why we damn near hit the sortie requirement from the ATO everyday. The times we don't is almost always because of reasons out of our control for the most part.

Now, you and I will probably enjoy having multiple beers discussing discipline and leadership. The one thing I can say is that as a commander you always strive to have fairness and equity. The rules remain the same, all the time. And, I beg you to remember, that the largest part of the AF is composed of enlisted troops. So, how do we have separate rules? Rules for the gear in the rear and different rules for the guys flying over Afghan every day? Simply, you cannot.

Having been corrected myself, I can tell you, it is not pleasant. And, it really isn't about how "nice" someone is. No one person I've ever met in the USAF enjoys being told they are not in compliance. Let's at least be honest on that. No matter how nice or not is irrelevant. Everyone takes being corrected as a "bad" thing.

Now, since I get to drive a vehicle around the base, I will tell you that the AF PT gear isn't nearly as reflective, uniformly, as you everyone espouses. I've seen AF members running around the base and the only piece of them I can see is the shirt. The shorts, for some reason, seem to lose reflectivity a lot quicker and the new shorts have no reflectivity. Guess what, the reflective belt makes you stand out. Not a bad thing IMHO.

And, as a BASE commander, the Wing CC has to deal with all the services across the entire range of Combatant Commands. We no kidding have the CAOC, CENTOCM Fwd HQ, SOCCENT HQ, a Patriot Brigade, a Patriot Battalion, a Navy EP3 squadron, and a USMC DV flight sq all working on this base...and I'm sure I missed someone. All with different thoughts on this entire thing.

So, he has to adopt a uniform policy that can easily be enforced. And, it's not for naught. No kidding, I almost ran over a guy running between BPC dorms and the hospital the other night...totally blacked out...black guy, black shirt, black shorts...only thing that keyed me in was the small reflective pieces of his shoes. As he ran in the road...

So, count me in on the whole "why we need to wear reflective belts all the time" crowd. It's the easiest way to make sure we can all be seen and avoid a pedestrian fatality. Notice I said 'avoid' not a 100% guarantee against. There is always the one that proves me wrong. But, again, as the guy driving around, I gain my SA on pedestrians by seeing the belts. If you aren't wearing one...well, guess what. I don't see you. Don't worry...we'll put your rant from here on your tombstone.

Insofar as the 'shoeclerkishness', you guys brought that on yourself. I believe that everyone in this forum believes in following orders. What some of us REMFs cannot understand is why some of you, at relatively junior ranks, have decided that you have the authority to decide which orders are to be obeyed and which ones are to be defied. We charge our Airmen, NCOs, and SNCOs to enforce the rules. Along with the officers. And so, we have this tension.

So, it settled into a battle of wills. And the Vice Wing CCs email. That was simply a response to make sure that the chow hall troops weren't being the only police on this entire thing. Honestly, I think the base has settled into an equilibrium. But, just my impression.

My final thought tonight...a lot of us REMFs (not necessarily me) have served forward multiple times. In multiple theaters. In many different combat conditions. So, I appreciate the "Sir" at the beginning as it denotes respect. Right back at you.

REMF

Sir,

Sorry, but I have to disagree. At least from the operator's perspective, the mission does NOT come first at AUAB. The mission happens very much IN SPITE of the efforts of many people who are at AUAB and have lost sight of what is really going on and at stake there. If the mission truly came first at AUAB, aircrew would not be denied use of the restroom or dining facilities for lack of a reflective belt. If the mission truly came first at AUAB, finance wouldn't only be open 9-5 when the majority of the people at AUAB actually performing the mission are either flying, working on shift or in crew rest during that time. If the mission truly came first at AUAB, aircrew wouldn't be pulled out of crew rest (and thus off of combat sorties) because they needed to go to a right start briefing (the same briefing they attended 4 months prior when they were deployed to AUAB a previous trip). If the mission truly came first at AUAB, aircrew and maintainers just getting off of 12-18hr shifts could walk to the chow hall without being harassed by someone who works 9-5 about the PT shirt they put on after peeling off a sweat soaked flight suit or set of ABUs is "not tucked in enough". If the mission truly came first at AUAB, wear of the ONLY other authorized clothing other than a flight suit or ABUs (the PTU) would be as least restrictive as possible (for example, why were crocs and other comfortable shoes banned?) If the mission truly came first at AUAB, commanders of ops squadrons wouldn't be forced to pull additional duties on top of their 12-18hr work days launching combat missions to go run a reflective belt RAM in front of the chow hall denying the aforementioned airmen performing The Mission access to food because they don't have a reflective belt.

EVERY one of the above examples has happened to either myself or a member of one of my crews or sq when deployed to AUAB... they're not some abstract thing, they're concrete examples of the kind of things that go on at AUAB that create the kind of strife you see there.

Sir I realize that a lot of this can be boiled down to a bunch of boo-hooing by a bunch of spoiled pilots, but when you spend literally half of any given year (if not more) deployed to AUAB as many of us do, these things add up. How many times have we all been told that "perception is reality"? Well, the perception among many operators is that leadership as a whole is completely out of touch with the actual goings on at AUAB, and their efforts are a direct and significant detriment to morale, good order and discipline, and mission accomplishment.

AUAB SHOULD be a shining beacon of high morale in the AF. It is one of the few places where airmen go to do their actual combat job. They're not training, they're doing their real, no-kidding, this-is-why-i-joined-the-Air-Force AFSC. I am EXTREMELY proud of the things I do at AUAB supporting combat operations on the ground, and I'm sure that it would be very difficult to find too many people at AUAB who didn't feel the same way about their actual duties at AUAB. It's the additional queep that wears down on people. Instead of accommodating airmen to the best extent possible to try to make their stay away from their home and family as pleasant as possible, there is a real perception that the opposite is true-- that leadership genuinely tries to make being deployed to AUAB as miserable as possible through pointless queep rules and half hearted, limp wristed explanations for the logic behind them (if the response isn't just "shut up and color").

We could go back and forth as to who is doing more damage to good order and discipline; however, my position is that I can't think of too many examples where people blatantly and willfully disregarded the rules and orders of AUAB. They may bitch piss and moan about it, but they do comply. Those who do not deserve to be corrected accordingly, but not in a manner that is just as prejudicial to good order and discipline as breaking the rules of AUAB in the first place (for example an E physically ripping a chow tray out of an LT's hand because he didn't have a reflective belt).

My final point in this long and rambling post is regarding the lack of recourse. It seems that rules at AUAB are a one way street-- they come down from above, and any feedback from the people effected by them is greeted by responses that range from deafening silence to an extended digit that rests between the index finger and ring finger of any given hand. AUAB is the only base I've ever been at that doesn't have some sort of "climate survey" every other week, and I'm sure it's because leadership just doesn't want to hear how bad things really are there. Beneficial change can be affected from the top, and the first step is to actually listen to the airmen and CGOs who are out there doing The Mission. They're doing more than just bitching-- usually they have a good solution that we have yet to find a willing ear to tell.

[pawnman]

Sir,

Sorry, but I have to disagree. At least from the operator's perspective, the mission does NOT come first at AUAB. The mission happens very much IN SPITE of the efforts of many people who are at AUAB and have lost sight of what is really going on and at stake there. If the mission truly came first at AUAB, aircrew would not be denied use of the restroom or dining facilities for lack of a reflective belt. If the mission truly came first at AUAB, finance wouldn't only be open 9-5 when the majority of the people at AUAB actually performing the mission are either flying, working on shift or in crew rest during that time. If the mission truly came first at AUAB, aircrew wouldn't be pulled out of crew rest (and thus off of combat sorties) because they needed to go to a right start briefing (the same briefing they attended 4 months prior when they were deployed to AUAB a previous trip). If the mission truly came first at AUAB, aircrew and maintainers just getting off of 12-18hr shifts could walk to the chow hall without being harassed by someone who works 9-5 about the PT shirt they put on after peeling off a sweat soaked flight suit or set of ABUs is "not tucked in enough". If the mission truly came first at AUAB, wear of the ONLY other authorized clothing other than a flight suit or ABUs (the PTU) would be as least restrictive as possible (for example, why were crocs and other comfortable shoes banned?) If the mission truly came first at AUAB, commanders of ops squadrons wouldn't be forced to pull additional duties on top of their 12-18hr work days launching combat missions to go run a reflective belt RAM in front of the chow hall denying the aforementioned airmen performing The Mission access to food because they don't have a reflective belt.

EVERY one of the above examples has happened to either myself or a member of one of my crews or sq when deployed to AUAB... they're not some abstract thing, they're concrete examples of the kind of things that go on at AUAB that create the kind of strife you see there.

Sir I realize that a lot of this can be boiled down to a bunch of boo-hooing by a bunch of spoiled pilots, but when you spend literally half of any given year (if not more) deployed to AUAB as many of us do, these things add up. How many times have we all been told that "perception is reality"? Well, the perception among many operators is that leadership as a whole is completely out of touch with the actual goings on at AUAB, and their efforts are a direct and significant detriment to morale, good order and discipline, and mission accomplishment.

AUAB SHOULD be a shining beacon of high morale in the AF. It is one of the few places where airmen go to do their actual combat job. They're not training, they're doing their real, no-kidding, this-is-why-i-joined-the-Air-Force AFSC. I am EXTREMELY proud of the things I do at AUAB supporting combat operations on the ground, and I'm sure that it would be very difficult to find too many people at AUAB who didn't feel the same way about their actual duties at AUAB. It's the additional queep that wears down on people. Instead of accommodating airmen to the best extent possible to try to make their stay away from their home and family as pleasant as possible, there is a real perception that the opposite is true-- that leadership genuinely tries to make being deployed to AUAB as miserable as possible through pointless queep rules and half hearted, limp wristed explanations for the logic behind them (if the response isn't just "shut up and color").

We could go back and forth as to who is doing more damage to good order and discipline; however, my position is that I can't think of too many examples where people blatantly and willfully disregarded the rules and orders of AUAB. They may bitch piss and moan about it, but they do comply. Those who do not deserve to be corrected accordingly, but not in a manner that is just as prejudicial to good order and discipline as breaking the rules of AUAB in the first place (for example an E physically ripping a chow tray out of an LT's hand because he didn't have a reflective belt).

My final point in this long and rambling post is regarding the lack of recourse. It seems that rules at AUAB are a one way street-- they come down from above, and any feedback from the people effected by them is greeted by responses that range from deafening silence to an extended digit that rests between the index finger and ring finger of any given hand. AUAB is the only base I've ever been at that doesn't have some sort of "climate survey" every other week, and I'm sure it's because leadership just doesn't want to hear how bad things really are there. Beneficial change can be affected from the top, and the first step is to actually listen to the airmen and CGOs who are out there doing The Mission. They're doing more than just bitching-- usually they have a good solution that we have yet to find a willing ear to tell.

SHACK!

There are several people in my squadron who, with varying levels of seriousness, have discussed getting out when their committment is up. Are they getting out because they hate flying? Because they deploy too much? Even because their ground job sucks, and we work long hours at home station? Nope. Every one of them has said (and at least one case, used the exact phrase), "This is just getting too gay for me". It's these queepy, one-size-fits-all rules and their enforcement that are sapping morale and making people who otherwise love their job consider finding employment elsewhere.

REMF, with all due respect, I fully understand and endorse reflective belts for the flight line, or for running in the street. But am I really safer wearing one under the Bra? Is it really necessary to wear one on the running track, surrounded as it is by concrete barriers?

I'd add the tucked in PT gear as another example...but turns out AUAB was just ahead of the curve on that one and it's now USAF-wide. The quality of our PT gear, and the sense in wearing it tucked in, is a matter for another thread, although I will agree that if it is the ONLY off-duty uniform available, there is no reason to make it such a pain to wear (no sandals, no crocs, no "finger shoes", etc). There are many times I opt for the flightsuit even off-duty, simply because it's easier to get by with. I don't have to wonder if my shoes have too much color on them, or if I'm wearing my MP3 player on the proper arm.

So, sir, yes, I agree that rules need to be followed. But loyalty is a two-way street, and I'm not seeing alot of top-down loyalty here at AUAB. What I am seeing is aircrew pulled off sorties for exercises (to make sure we're ready to deploy, I guess?), or to fill sandbags (again, I guess CE ran out of people?), squadron leadership pulled away from leading their squadrons to enforce these policies because the SNCOs keep getting their feelings hurt, and just a generalized feeling of "queep" that I haven't been a part of since OTS...I feel like many of the rules are just there to HAVE rules, and that they do NOTHING to enhance the mission, good order and discipline, or morale. And indeed, are actually contrary to said goals.

Finally, sir, you're half-right in your observation about being corrected. But I have seen it done properly and improperly. As an officer in the USAF, I outrank all the enlisted guys. That means there should be a "sir" and a respectful statement when correcting some deficiency, not a SSgt barking "get those f-ing sunglasses off your f-ing head" at me. I've seen those corrections made respectfully, and I appreciated it. I've seen them made disrespectfully, and I've resented it. I submit that probably 60% of the problem is the perception by aircrew that the enlisted ranks don't respect them. I've heard the phrase from a table full of double-D's in the chow hall that "Fliers aren't real officers anyway".

So I'll continue wearing my reflective belt everywhere I go when it's dark. Just realize I'll continue to think it's absolutely dumb and unwarranted in places like the DEL, the track, or inside the chow hall.

[capt4fans]

Shack Again and Again!!!!!!!!!! You guys are on fire tonight. That's 3 PI's in a row from 40,000 AGL.

Sir,

I'll add this one to the laundry list of crap we have to put up with while at AUAB......EXERCISES in a delpoyed environment!!!!!!!!!! And every person on the base being told to go inventory a chem bag for the LRS when it's their DAMN job to ensure that we're taken care of properly. Please tell me why the LRS who is in charge of inventoring those bags can't do their own job???

[Guest REMF]

SHACK!

There are several people in my squadron who, with varying levels of seriousness, have discussed getting out when their committment is up. Are they getting out because they hate flying? Because they deploy too much? Even because their ground job sucks, and we work long hours at home station? Nope. Every one of them has said (and at least one case, used the exact phrase), "This is just getting too gay for me". It's these queepy, one-size-fits-all rules and their enforcement that are sapping morale and making people who otherwise love their job consider finding employment elsewhere.

REMF, with all due respect, I fully understand and endorse reflective belts for the flight line, or for running in the street. But am I really safer wearing one under the Bra? Is it really necessary to wear one on the running track, surrounded as it is by concrete barriers?

I'd add the tucked in PT gear as another example...but turns out AUAB was just ahead of the curve on that one and it's now USAF-wide. The quality of our PT gear, and the sense in wearing it tucked in, is a matter for another thread, although I will agree that if it is the ONLY off-duty uniform available, there is no reason to make it such a pain to wear (no sandals, no crocs, no "finger shoes", etc). There are many times I opt for the flightsuit even off-duty, simply because it's easier to get by with. I don't have to wonder if my shoes have too much color on them, or if I'm wearing my MP3 player on the proper arm.

So, sir, yes, I agree that rules need to be followed. But loyalty is a two-way street, and I'm not seeing alot of top-down loyalty here at AUAB. What I am seeing is aircrew pulled off sorties for exercises (to make sure we're ready to deploy, I guess?), or to fill sandbags (again, I guess CE ran out of people?), squadron leadership pulled away from leading their squadrons to enforce these policies because the SNCOs keep getting their feelings hurt, and just a generalized feeling of "queep" that I haven't been a part of since OTS...I feel like many of the rules are just there to HAVE rules, and that they do NOTHING to enhance the mission, good order and discipline, or morale. And indeed, are actually contrary to said goals.

Finally, sir, you're half-right in your observation about being corrected. But I have seen it done properly and improperly. As an officer in the USAF, I outrank all the enlisted guys. That means there should be a "sir" and a respectful statement when correcting some deficiency, not a SSgt barking "get those f-ing sunglasses off your f-ing head" at me. I've seen those corrections made respectfully, and I appreciated it. I've seen them made disrespectfully, and I've resented it. I submit that probably 60% of the problem is the perception by aircrew that the enlisted ranks don't respect them. I've heard the phrase from a table full of double-D's in the chow hall that "Fliers aren't real officers anyway".

So I'll continue wearing my reflective belt everywhere I go when it's dark. Just realize I'll continue to think it's absolutely dumb and unwarranted in places like the DEL, the track, or inside the chow hall.

Ok...I'll try to address in turn.

Does the reflective belt make you "safe" at the Bra, going to the Cadillac, etc.? Nope, sure doesn't. But, again, I ask you to remember the context in which that rule was made and why it is there. The last time I checked, we have about 10,000 folks on this base at any given point and time...across the 4 services and mulitiple Combatant Commands. So, like a lot of things in the military, there is a one-size fits all rule regarding reflective belt wear. That one ain't changing anytime soon if ever. But, I also understand that it is a symptom of what you guys are saying is a larger problem. The Queep.

We're always going to have rules we don't like or understand...I simply don't lose a lot of sleep over the ones I have no say over. Personally, I think the PT uniform stuff and no crocs sucks. However, I don't get to make those rules, so I don't worry about it. I just press on enjoying my beers as I surf the free internet.

Why I stated above that you guys brought the "shoeclerkishenss" on yourselves is because of the active resistance. Read back through your posts...you guys are actively trying to find ways around the rules which does nothing but feed the problem. The military is a rules-based organization...and without enforcement, the rules are useless. So, yes, there will always be "that guy" who is a jerk and takes things too far. But, I don't buy that because you had to go back and get your reflective belt that the "mission doesn't come first." What do you do if you hit the gate back at base X only to find you forgot your CAC? I always wind up going back home to get it because of the rules... There are too many things going right out here and I say that without having drank the koolaid...I get it that things aren't perfect.

I checked and you are correct...finance is open 9-5...on Sunday's. The other 6 days of the week they are fully functional between 0700-1900. And, they are a tiny unit that stays open way longer than any other Finance shop I've seen with a heck of a lot less people. CE hasn't run out of people. We are trying to fill around 20,000 sandbags so that this year tent city and other places on base don't get flooded...we need a reserve of sandbags ready to go if/when the rain starts. The Chiefs are organizing a base-wide detail vice it falling to just the wing or the EMSG to make it happen. Aircrew aren't being pulled for Force Protection duties. We are looking at implementing a selective arming program to assist in internal defense just in case. No one is going to be pulling guard duty and I can't see anyone being armed in the very near future...but it has to be looked at and worked out. I, along with every other Sq CC that I know, work 12-14 hour days, every day with a day "off" every once in a while. I know that pretty much every base-wide customer service center is open 24-7...not 100% but pretty close. Some rumor control here.

One other thing that everyone needs to keep in mind. The flying mission here is critical to the war effort...no one disputes that. But in case you guys haven't noticed, we also have other missions on the base. Between the CAOC, CFH SOCCENT, the Army Patriot batteries providing theater wide TBMD, we have multiple missions that go on at the base. During the CFH plus up, you couldn't swing a dead cat without hitting a GO. So, some of what you guys are seeing is the natural result of a high-profile base with a lot of DVs that come here. We aren't some sleepy, back-water base that no one visits...and, that drives a lot of the rules and enforcement issues you guys are complaining about.

Exercises...boy, we hear that one all the time. The exercises are very simplistic and revolve around the threat we face here. Incoming missiles and terrorist attacks. And while everyone on the base is probably comfortable finding their bunker and putting on their gas mask, the wing, group and squadron leadership has to work out our C2 issues every once in a while. We've already discovered real defecincies in our procedures and in other areas like Giant Voice. I know it is a pain in the ass but we honestly don't do those that often, there is a good reason behind them, and we are constantly making improvements to our defense posture. Now, I'm not going to go out on a limb and say the threat is really there, but as responsible leaders we have to plan, train and operate as if it is. That's our responsibility to you and the Nation.

Regarding enlisted troops correcting officers. Again, I've been corrected...while in uniform. So, I know what you are talking about. And, all I can tell you is that I've absolutely instructed my Airmen to do what they need to do in a polite, courteous manner. I continously tell them that I never want to have thier unprofessional conduct become the issue. And, if I run across a situation where my troops are disrespectful while correcting someone, I consider that to be a seperate issue altogether. Just because someone is being unprofessional does not give my troops, or any of them for that matter, cause to lose their professionalism. What I would ask of everyone is if someone is being rude or disrespectful, get their name and unit. And then call their First Sgt or Sq CC. And, I will tell you that all the Sq CCs feel the same way. You guys are absolutely correct that customs and courtesies don't stop because you aren't wearing a reflective belt.

I wish I could make the discontent go away and keep people from feeling like they have to quit the AF. Especially the guys flying the missions everyday. But, like a lot of professions, there are issues that are going to drive you crazy if you let 'em. Again, I'm not trying to convince anyone of the righteousness of any of this. Just trying to give the other side and hear your side as well. I'm sure I missed someones concern in all this but I've got to run...

REMF

[Guest BBB]

Apparently he did a lot of research for his material, and was evidently tipped off to the goings on here at the Died and had read the AF Times article on reflective belts.

He was tipped off to the reflective belt story...by the Wing Commander and Vice Wing Commander. Carlos asked them what would be good to get the crowd worked up, and the CV said reflective belts and me. Carlos said "so should I blame the General" The CV said "no you should blame me".

[capt4fans]

He was tipped off to the reflective belt story...by the Wing Commander and Vice Wing Commander. Carlos asked them what would be good to get the crowd worked up, and the CV said reflective belts and me. Carlos said "so should I blame the General" The CV said "no you should blame me".

Need the proof for that one. I'd like to know your job and how you were in on that discussion.