Jump to content

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, jazzdude said:

Your post

Fair enough man—I appreciate you post and your comments (honestly).  
 

As I said, I’m not against women (and men) being more comfortable, but I do want the focus of our military to be on readiness first and foremost.  It definitely is frustrating, for someone who has been in quite a while, seeing the AF brag about how it takes care of it’s people by making “real changes”...when it still can’t fix problems that effect the readiness of our force.  You’re right, one doesn’t necessarily (and rarely does) affect the other to a considerable degree, but when one is being triumphed as a large success and the readiness problems are “ummm...we’re working on that”, it’s hard to believe the focus is where it needs to be.

Thanks guys for the chat.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 7.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

In a gesture of goodwill, Southwest named a row of seats after her.

Been doing this long enough now to see the slide from something I dreamed of doing all my life to something that is absolutely unbearable at times.  Dad flew for 28 years before me and both of my gran

No dog in the fight.  But the 480FS Wikipedia page has an awesome “Woke era to present write up.” never seen that before must be a new AF Historian.

Posted Images

Well, we usually don’t redesign/make new uniforms if there isn’t a readiness issue.  Actually, scratch that—we mess with our uniforms all the time.
As to your earlier point about shaving changes...not going to happen anytime soon, at least not before I retire.  If it does, I’ll buy you a bottle of your choice at the Class Six.


Not sure how much time is on the clock but that does sound interesting.
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, HeloDude said:

I didn’t ask what percentage of those who wear flight suits are pregnant...I asked what percentage are pregnant, on flying status, and can no longer wear a regular flight suit in order to perform flying duties...I’m betting that it’s an extremely small percentage.  As for enlisted aviators, don’t most (if nearly all?) wear the flying OCPs?  But either way, same question as above.

I keep asking—is this a readiness issue or an issue of comfort, sense of belonging, morale, etc?  My bet is that this isn’t much of a readiness issue as only an extremely small percentage of flyers require this to perform their flight duties.

So if it’s an issue of comfort, morale, etc...sure, that’s fine.  There’s a lot of things I would rather change due to comfort (see below).  I’m just asking then why can’t they wear the maternity uniforms already in place?  And I agree...not having them available due to supply/logistical issues is messed up.

 

As for the AF seeing this as a big issue (comfort, etc) that needed to be addressed, hey I would rather not have to shave everyday without attempting to get a shaving waiver, but the AF sees it differently...and unless I need to shave specifically to perform my job, then why not remove it?  More importantly, I wish the AF would focus more attention on actual readiness issues (only so much money and resources to spread around)...OBOGS come to mind?  

Do you think that morale, comfort, and belonging are unimportant?

The money spent on this was saved by a single B-1 MX CANX.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, pawnman said:

Do you think that morale, comfort, and belonging are unimportant?

Is It Though GIFs - Get the best GIF on GIPHY

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
200.gif



As someone who currently identifies as a pregnant female pilot, of course!

But seriously...yes, it is important for the same reason that it is important that my daughters can look at female astronauts, the Vice President, and other women in any career field and imagine themselves in that position.
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, M2 said:

Is It Though GIFs - Get the best GIF on GIPHY

Judging by how people here react to the idea of not wearing flight suits on staff tours, having callsigns taken away, or reaching way back, blues on Mondays...yes.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, pawnman said:

Do you think that morale, comfort, and belonging are unimportant?

The money spent on this was saved by a single B-1 MX CANX.

It’s not that I don’t think comfort is unimportant (my wife didn’t think the maternity ABUs were uncomfortable when she stopped wearing her flight suit, so there’s one data point)...rather that when this is bragged about as “real change”, it becomes a distraction from the other important problems that don’t seem to get corrected in a timely manner, if at all.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, ThreeHoler said:

 


Not sure how much time is on the clock but that does sound interesting.

 

Another couple years—keep me posted on when I can stop shaving! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Another couple years—keep me posted on when I can stop shaving! 
On one hand, I shave about once a week since I'm on max telework, and have been for about a year.

On the other hand, between a non-flying deployment followed by a PCS to staff (and COVID halting my flying requal plan to get as much flying in before going to staff), I haven't touched a jet in a year and a half.

Not a great trade, but I took the blood money. Has been interesting to see how the sausage gets made on the staff though.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Been doing this long enough now to see the slide from something I dreamed of doing all my life to something that is absolutely unbearable at times.  Dad flew for 28 years before me and both of my grandfathers lived into their mid 90s.  Both were WW2 vets and I knew them both well.  I listened and learned from them and their stories.  

There’s a reason BO.net has seemingly endless threads with countless pages devoted to the self induced shenanigans of the military/AF.  Truthfully, I wasn’t even sure which thread to post my response in.  But, it’s the Tucker issue that has my attention so I’m posting here.  Ben Shapiro has a really good take on the situation.  Once again, he’s spot on.  His point, as well as Tucker’s, is that the military has lost focus.  The simple question is, what makes the military more lethal and more effective?  There’s a reason we have standards.  Those standards start at the very beginning of service.  It actually starts in the selection process for service in the military and continues on through basic training.  Those selection processes are designed to weed out people who are not fit for service.  Am I saying that pregnant women should not serve?  Of course not.  But, I do agree with Tucker and Shapiro when they speak of this loss of focus - or misguided focus of our current military leadership.  There’s a shitload of energy that is fired in the wrong direction by military leadership right now.  

I returned from my 6th deployment to the Middle East exactly 8 days ago.  It was another 120 day deployment which is standard for my community.  It was my 11th deployment if you consider other parts of the world.  This time was much different though.  I’m Guard so entitlements and pay matter.  We didn’t get our tricare 6 months out.  We didn’t get paid on time.  We didn’t get hostile fire pay as we should have.  The AF had NO consistent plan for dealing with COVID and how that related to getting to the theatre.  There was a major battle between our home unit and the deployed wing commander as to who is responsible for the health of our folks and where they quarantine.  We ended up quarantined for 2 weeks at an Army base.  Other units didn’t have to.  I could go on and on.  And this was not on our local wing’s level of responsibility.  This was absolutely the fault of big AF.  Things were no better in theatre.  Every mission we flew included issues with flight plans, local services (water, power), local pax services, local aerial port, local trans and the same could be said at EVERY stop we made around the theatre.  It was a complete shit show from start to finish.  Day after day after day.  

My point of all of this is not to sport bitch.  

It’s this.  About a month into our deployment, the AF Chief of Staff, CMSgt of the AF and the Sec of the AF came to our base for a visit.  I was one of the lucky ones who was invited to hear them speak.  I couldn’t wait.  I had many questions to ask based on the shit we’d been through leading up to the deployment and in the first month that we’d been there.  There were about 5 questions asked that were pre screened.  That was it.  They spoke for about an hour.  Only about 10 minutes of it were them talking about issues related to the theatre, procurement, budgets, manning etc.  Nearly their entire speeches consisted of social justice issues.  I was struck by the feeling of being preached to by two women and a black four star general about being held back.  I really struggled.  Everyone did.  After a quiet ride back to the squadron we talked about it.  I don’t see and have never seen issues that they spoke of.  And their success proves we get it right as a whole.

I get it.  My view from a flying squadron isn’t the end all be all regarding issues in the military.   I’m sure my squadron is very different than a ship in the Navy or a barracks full of 19 year old paratroopers in the Army.  

But, I am getting really tired of fixing big picture problems at the point of execution while being bitched at about things I don’t see my military having problems with.  There is a lot of mis-directed energy in the military and our society.  I think that was Tucker’s point.  And I agree with him.  
 

  • Like 12
  • Upvote 17
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/14/2021 at 8:40 PM, Tank said:

Let me ask all of you are who talking and arguing about the pregnant flight suit:

What’s it f**king matter?!?

I can almost guarantee that none of you are females, so you’ll never have to wear this flight suit.  You all are arguing over something that literally doesn’t affect you!  If anything, it is showing progression in the USAF and I’m hoping that will translate to some changes for the males (I.e. beards).
 

But hey, if sounding like a bunch of arguing teenagers from UC Berkeley is your thing, then keep it up....

How it matters, and the point I think Tucker Carlson was trying to make (poorly), is that our president made it a point to talk about pregnancy flight suits, which have zero-to-nearly-zero effect on our military readiness, while failing to talk about the litany of real military threats that face us.

 

This is the go-to move of the political left these days. When you are failing to accomplish anything of substance, or in this case, failing to address a real and escalating immigration crisis at the border, do some low-impact SJW bullshit and know that your side will trip over their equity erections to attack the conservatives tripping over their social-collapse erections, and both sides (of voters) once again completely miss the chance to unite against our shared enemy, the politician class.

 

Both the GOP and Dems had zero appetite for dealing with the most glaring threat facing us: China. Trump, in all his clownishness, saw it clear as day. Now he's gone and the politicians can get back to what they really care about: enriching their families. China has been great for that. Taiwan will be a great pawn in this. The US will "recognize" them in a variety of venues (a can of worms Trump opened), while doing nothing of substance to support them. China will feign outrage so our "leaders" can look like they're being tough on China, but as long as we don't actually do anything, China will be pleased, and the money can flow. 

 

You and I won't see any of it, of course, unless you happen to be invested in the same stocks.

  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Having said that... I'll play devils advocate again here and say that making a pregnancy flight suit isn't a very heavy lift for an organization with more than half a million people. 
 

Tucker is presenting a false choice here between accommodating people and lethality. An organization as large as ours can actually do both. Making a uniform to accommodate pregnant women does not come at the expense of lethality. There are those of us who go to work every day and train to China and Russia and Iran and Syria scenarios and that training keeps going no matter what new uniform is being developed. Obviously the job of the military is to kill people and break their shit. But the military is made up of individuals and individuals have needs.. other than simply being a badass tactician.

 

I'd even argue that accommodating people does make us more lethal because it improves quality of life allowing service members to actually focus on tactics instead of not having a uniform that will fit your body. This is the entire philosophy behind all of the MWR resources the government pours money into at every base. 
 

I wonder how big of a conniption tucker would have if he found out that most bases have a golf course, bowling alley, auto hobby shop, arts and crafts shop, thrift store, etc...

 

I get that people like him and Shapiro want to fight back against the endless woke bullshit that's pushed on us every day. But he did it in a really really stupid way, and chose a bad example.  I'm not surprised at the backlash at all and frankly he deserves it.  If we can make a flight suit to accommodate women flying non ejection seat aircraft well into their second trimester to support the killing of our enemies, that is awesome.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Pooter said:

Having said that... I'll play devils advocate again here and say that making a pregnancy flight suit isn't a very heavy lift for an organization with more than half a million people. 

That’s exactly the point.  The Commander in Chief shouldn’t be commenting on this.  Uniforms designed for a fraction of the total force shouldn’t rise to his level.  I’d like to hear more about strategy, procurement, budgets, technology, manning, etc from the boss.  

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pooter said:

 

 

  If we can make a flight suit to accommodate women flying non ejection seat aircraft well into their second trimester to support the killing of our enemies, that is awesome.

How far into a pregnancy can a woman fly a fighter on a combat, or training mission? Honest question, I tried to find the info. What kind of support mission would be okay into the second trimester? I would have a hard time being okay with my wife, or daughter, or granddaughter now(ha) doing six or seven sorties a day in a Herk supporting operations in wherever the AOR might be. But then again if the woman can handle it she can go to the back, have the baby, hand it to the loadmaster, then come back up front in time to complete the checklist and fly an overhead approach to an assault landing.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, lloyd christmas said:

That’s exactly the point.  The Commander in Chief shouldn’t be commenting on this.  Uniforms designed for a fraction of the total force shouldn’t rise to his level.  I’d like to hear more about strategy, procurement, budgets, technology, manning, etc from the boss.  

 

Agreed that there are bigger priorities, but when has a president not paraded around for getting some low hanging fruit?  And it really didn't take up much of anyone's time until Tucker decided to go wildly high aspect about this issue. 
 

1 hour ago, arg said:

How far into a pregnancy can a woman fly a fighter on a combat, or training mission? Honest question, I tried to find the info. What kind of support mission would be okay into the second trimester? I would have a hard time being okay with my wife, or daughter, or granddaughter now(ha) doing six or seven sorties a day in a Herk supporting operations in wherever the AOR might be. But then again if the woman can handle it she can go to the back, have the baby, hand it to the loadmaster, then come back up front in time to complete the checklist and fly an overhead approach to an assault landing.


Current guidance says non-ejection seat aircraft and it can go at least part way into the second trimester.  Those regs have existed for a while so this is really just a case of uniforms catching up with already existing policies.  

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Pooter said:

 

Agreed that there are bigger priorities, but when has a president not paraded around for getting some low hanging fruit?  And it really didn't take up much of anyone's time until Tucker decided to go wildly high aspect about this issue. 
 


Current guidance says non-ejection seat aircraft and it can go at least part way into the second trimester.  Those regs have existed for a while so this is really just a case of uniforms catching up with already existing policies.  

 

Are you saying women can deploy and fly combat missions while pregnant?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

Are you saying women can deploy and fly combat missions while pregnant?

You do know we fly training lines at home station, right? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, pawnman said:

You do know we fly training lines at home station, right? 

Yes I am aware.  Now that I’ve answered your question, kindly answer mine: Did I ask about training lines, or did I ask about combat lines?

recommend you read the original question from arg, which specifies combat lines, then read the reply, which indicates pregnant women can fly those aforementioned combat lines.  Hence my inquiry.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

Yes I am aware.  Now that I’ve answered your question, kindly answer mine: Did I ask about training lines, or did I ask about combat lines?

recommend you read the original question from arg, which specifies combat lines, then read the reply, which indicates pregnant women can fly those aforementioned combat lines.  Hence my inquiry.

Apologize for any ambiguity. No I don't think you're combat deployable once pregnant.  But that still leaves most of the flying that happens in the Air Force as fair game. 
 

I'm not sure why you're so intent on splitting hairs over this. Pilots should be flying as much as possible. 4-5 months out of the jet is a hell of a lot better than 9 months out of the jet. The Air Force has a policy that actually makes sense (for once) granting pregnant pilots some flexibility to continue to do their job. And now they've made a uniform so they can do that job comfortably. Both of those things are wins in my book. 

Edited by Pooter
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Apologize for any ambiguity. No I don't think you're combat deployable once pregnant.  But that still leaves most of the flying that happens in the Air Force as fair game. 
 
I'm not sure why you're so intent on splitting hairs over this. Pilots should be flying as much as possible. 4-5 months out of the jet is a hell of a lot better than 9 months out of the jet. The Air Force has a policy that actually makes sense (for once) granting pregnant pilots some flexibility to continue to do their job. And now they've made a uniform so they can do that job comfortably. Both of those things are wins in my book. 
Plus they may not need a RQ because they're not 6 months out of the aircraft. Doing a couple recurrency flights is a whole lot easier than a CC directed RQ.
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...