Jump to content

WTF? (**NSFW**)


slacker

Recommended Posts

On 3/12/2021 at 4:42 AM, GKinnear said:

Let me say this first: I support diversity & inclusion. Some of the best officers and commanders I know aren't white males. Pick a race & sex combination and I've served with them. Personally, I'm also an advocate for girls in Boy Scouts of America and had all three of my daughters in BSA programs for the last decade...nothing against Girl Scouts, I just like the BSA programs (Boy Scouts, Venture Crews, Explorers) better.

Now...I think both sides have missed the point. POTUS was at the ceremony for the 2x women 4-Star Combatant Commander. Of course his speechwriter, like all speechwriters, was going to throw in something with wide-spectrum relevancy, so highlighting the pregnancy flightsuit and other uniform changes was on there. Based on the speed of government efficiency, I'm assuming that development started under the Trump administration. If you watch the entire segment, not just the Twitter clip, Tucker was making a comparison to China, which is going through the same issues the US is...and in a potential response, built up their navy to over 350 ships.

So Tucker, an opinion show, missed the point and tried to connect two data points that aren't directly obvious to fit his particular narrative. Who at MSNBC, CNN, print media hasn't done that?

But...so did SecDef and the rest of the Senior Military Leaders who commented. Or at least over-reacted IMO. It seemed like thy were punching down to me, and I'm not sure they would have been better off keeping their powder dry...but the reaction above "Fuck this elite, pandering piece of trash" seems to be the GO#1 for both sides of the aisle. Everyone has their Ego involved and no one is willing to realize they aren't 100% correct. Critical thinking has been abandoned. 

Again, this is just my opinion, but by responding so aggressively to this Tucker story, it's made it emotional on both sides of the argument. Every advancement for diversity in the ranks will be met with comparisons to China's growing military power. Every question will in-turn be viewed through the lens of regressive, "Neanderthal" thinking and disregarded and attacked.

A question for the SecDef, @17D_guy, and every one who agrees with him...did you have as much vitriol over RPA crews being called "baby killers" when they were listed as killing 1,700 civilians/400 kids? 

https://www.afsc.org/blogs/news-and-commentary/us-has-killed-thousands-people-lethal-drones#:~:text=According to the Bureau of,400 of whom were children.

 

If you're asking if I think Obama's RPA policies were bullshit, yes I did and do.  I also enjoy pissing on Jane Fonda's face in any bar bathroom that's got the sticker in the pisser.

I've never seen the article you listed.  I'm sure I could find thousands of bullshit articles from Slate, CNN, OAN, Newsmax, DailyBeast, BuzzFeed, etc. that I deeply disagree with as well.  This topic was specifically about the military, hence I thought it was interesting to put it here.

The "elite, pandering" is due to Tucker wrapping himself in the guise of a "normal dude" when he grew up, used and enjoys means of advancement he repeatedly "calls out."  The constant drone of him "telling it like it is" the myrmidons lap up exactly without critical thought.  I know at least Ben Shapiro has examined his arguments every time he gets on mic.

I disagree that the senior leaders over-reacted. I've had to deal with the fallout of much lower-level comments not being addressed on a unit, and Wing level (God damn Group CC's, am I right?).  We just finished a administration that never addressed anything head on, and the thrash that caused.  I personally and professionally did not find it enjoyable.

Someone, who a lot of service members watch for news (not opinion) goes loud and proud with some bullshit about how we're fucking up with women in the service, the leadership's supposed to sit back?  It's all over social media, the same thing we're all using to get bullshit call-sign non-mission-hacking bums fired.  I get on FaceBook rarely, but checked in for this and this was all over, from the hippies to the vets in my life.

Was there a response from leadership you found particularly egregious?  Most were, "I disagree, women/my daughter/my partner are doing great things in our Services, we'll keep winning."

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/12/2021 at 12:00 PM, pawnman said:

It's almost like we can respect women and recognize that pregnancy doesn't mean we should boot people out of the military, AND prepare to fight china at the same time.

Did he say we need to boot pregnant women out of the military? If he did I didn't catch it. Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't USAF women flyers DNIF after their first trimester? If that's the case why do we need these maternity flight suits? If not do we need maternity g suits? What would happen to the baby during an ejection? 

 

I appreciate our senior leaders jumping on this right away and setting the tone for everyone under them...that treating our female colleague as "other" or "less than" when they get pregnant is unacceptable. Being in the AF a long time I've never seen a pregnant airman treated as you stated. My experience is seeing them handled with kid gloves.

Other questions are. If a pregnant woman flies into combat does the baby get combat time? Air Medal? Does the baby have to be put on a pax manifest?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, arg said:

Other questions are. If a pregnant woman flies into combat does the baby get combat time? Air Medal? Does the baby have to be put on a pax manifest?

Did he say we need to boot pregnant women out of the military? If he did I didn't catch it. Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't USAF women flyers DNIF after their first trimester? If that's the case why do we need these maternity flight suits? If not do we need maternity g suits? What would happen to the baby during an ejection? 

So, by that logic, every DNIF dude should be coming to work in OCPs or blues as well, right?

Also, I think you're behind the times...first trimester isn't an automatic cutoff point anymore.
https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1968299/air-force-reduces-barriers-for-pregnant-aviators/

Being in the AF a long time I've never seen a pregnant airman treated as you stated. My experience is seeing them handled with kid gloves.

Good for you.  Tucker didn't handle them that way, and leadership responded, rightfully so.

Quote

Or maybe the 1st Amendment.

Agreed, because a whole lot of people seem to think the First Amendment means the military is required to play Tucker's show every day on military bases.

Edited by pawnman
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, 17D_guy said:

Was there a response from leadership you found particularly egregious?  Most were, "I disagree, women/my daughter/my partner are doing great things in our Services, we'll keep winning."

Add the II MEF Information Group to my informal list of official DoD PA Twitter accounts overreacting.

https://meaww.com/us-marine-corps-under-fire-for-saying-they-messed-up-after-pregnant-remark-to-tucker-carlso

If I had seen the DoD IO enterprise act in a similarly coordinated effort against Iran shenanigans when they were planting mines and boarding vessels in the AG, or firing drones/cruise missiles against allies in the the area, I might not have such a large soapbox right now. This was a constant source of agitation with CENTCOM leadership at the highest levels.

I try to keep a principle that the DoD (and all Federal Gov agencies) shouldn't single out a private US citizen on purely political stances. We have Congress to do that and they ultimately have to answer to the voters.

Again, on the topic of saying "we've got our female Airmen/Soldiers/Sailors/Marines back" is fine and admirable...but this ain't it Chief.

Exit thought: give credit to the II MEF IO Group for acknowledging that they act in a manner that fell short of the standard professionalism...although I may keep "get right before you get left Boomer" in my arsenal with some contractors.

Edited by GKinnear
Minor grammar edits
Link to comment
Share on other sites

China Joe's pandering to identity groups was just his playbook, and helped to get him elected.   Disgusting, but that's his party.

The horrifying thing about his prerecorded speech was that he had one of his mental breakdowns during the speech.    He gets off the teleprompter, starts to try and thank SECDEF, but not only can poor pathetic Joe not remember the Secretary's name, he can't even remember where 'that guy over there' works.  

This man is NOT President.  There is clearly a reason he never gives press conferences any more. 

Harris has gone beyond just measuring the Oval Office Curtains. She's already hung hers up.

 

 

Edited by JimNtexas
added link
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JimNtexas said:

There is clearly a reason he never gives press conferences any more. 

Harris has gone beyond just measuring the Oval Office Curtains. She's already hung hers up.

Sometime around November/December 2022 is when I anticipate you'll see the formal transfer of power.  Post mid-term elections.  Ol' Joe will probably experience "a fall," or some other mundane injury that'll put him in the hospital for a week or two.  They'll invoke the 25th amendment, and Harris will be "temporarily" in charge.  Joe will emerge from the hospital after a couple weeks, but it will be revealed that he's suffered "something" (a blood clot, a minor stroke, a minor heart attack, etc) that prevents him from continuing to serve.  At that point, the Presidency will formally transfer to Harris.

Some of the unfolding of events will occur over the holidays.  The parts they don't want you to pay attention to are easier to mask during the holidays (much like bad corporate news is always released on a Friday before a three-day weekend).  At the same time, they'll try to leverage the "spirit of the season" to rally the nation behind Biden and his family.  Expect candid pictures of Dr Jill Biden and a bunch of grandkids waiting patiently at Walter Reed for news on Grandpa Joe, complete with a Christmas tree or two in the background.

January 2023 will dawn with Kamala Harris as President of the United States.  What that means, who the hell knows.  I'm sure there will be renewed federal support for transgendered non-binary circus clowns, and other such theatrical nonsense.  More importantly, any remaining roadblocks to our increased intervention in the Middle East will be dropped.  Who ever is our Enemy #1 in the desert will be attacked with renewed vigor (either overtly or covertly).  Iran would be the first guess, but if not, maybe some second-tier player like Libya in the early 2010s.  At the same time, they'll crank up the monetary printing presses for good, and break-off the knob.

Fun times I'm sure.

Edited by Blue
  • Haha 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, pawnman said:

So, by that logic, every DNIF dude should be coming to work in OCPs or blues as well, right?

I’m not aware of the AF designing specific flight suits for dudes who are DNIF..unless I’m missing something?  My wife wears a flight suit and when she was pregnant and it didn’t make sense anymore/wasn’t comfortable, she wore the maternity ABU—she never once complained about not having a flight suit that didn’t fit comfortably...because at that point, she couldn’t fly anyway.  So the question I have is this:  What percentage of pilots annually are pregnant, on flying status, and can no longer wear a traditional flight suit due to discomfort, etc  (even if they require a different size)?  My guess is that’s it’s an extremely low number, but I’m willing to see the data that says otherwise as perhaps this issue is affecting ops in a bigger way than I realize?

And I’m not saying I disagree with your overall points, but if a point (DNIF guys wearing flight suits) isn’t based specifically on designing/procuring specific uniforms for X condition, then you need to argue apples to apples.

Full disclosure:  I think what Tucker said was stupid and unnecessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Blue said:

Sometime around November/December 2022 is when I anticipate you'll see the formal transfer of power... 

I haven't read that much MAGA/Q fan fiction since before the inauguration. Thanks for the chuckle.

Is it hard to find an audience for this trash now that Parler is off the app stores?

  • Haha 4
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m not aware of the AF designing specific flight suits for dudes who are DNIF..unless I’m missing something?  My wife wears a flight suit and when she was pregnant and it didn’t make sense anymore/wasn’t comfortable, she wore the maternity ABU—she never once complained about not having a flight suit that didn’t fit comfortably...because at that point, she couldn’t fly anyway.  So the question I have is this:  What percentage of pilots annually are pregnant, on flying status, and can no longer wear a traditional flight suit due to discomfort, etc  (even if they require a different size)?  My guess is that’s it’s an extremely low number, but I’m willing to see the data that says otherwise as perhaps this issue is affecting ops in a bigger way than I realize?
And I’m not saying I disagree with your overall points, but if a point (DNIF guys wearing flight suits) isn’t based specifically on designing/procuring specific uniforms for X condition, then you need to argue apples to apples.
Full disclosure:  I think what Tucker said was stupid and unnecessary.


I think the underlying question is: is the flightsuit also an office uniform, or is it strictly a functional uniform?

If it's strictly a functional uniform, should the flightsuit be worn when performing office duties, regardless of if you're pregnant/DNIF/not scheduled to fly? Also, should aviators on staff be allowed to wear a flightsuit (when not in their fly break, if applicable)? That's the apples to apples comparison, pregnancy is just a subset of that.

Also tangentially related, female versions of the flightsuit are also pretty new, was developing those wasted time/money/effort to get uniforms that fit women better?

If the flightsuit is also for office duties as an aviator (which it essentially is), should pregnant airmen have to choose a maternity uniform that potentially further highlights their difference in the squadron? Put another way, if everyone in the office is wearing flightsuits, wearing OCPs makes you stick out. Granted, 2-piece flight suits are becoming more common, so they won't stand out as much, at least in the MAF.

Plus, I assume pregnancy flightsuits would be issued (just like every other flightsuit), versus having the member go out and buy maternity OCPs out of pocket. Pretty much every flyer I've ever met is pretty against purchasing uniforms unless absolutely necessary (who here has actually bought regular OCPs or ABUs?).
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, jazzdude said:

 


I think the underlying question is: is the flightsuit also an office uniform, or is it strictly a functional uniform?

If it's strictly a functional uniform, should the flightsuit be worn when performing office duties, regardless of if you're pregnant/DNIF/not scheduled to fly? Also, should aviators on staff be allowed to wear a flightsuit (when not in their fly break, if applicable)? That's the apples to apples comparison, pregnancy is just a subset of that.

Also tangentially related, female versions of the flightsuit are also pretty new, was developing those wasted time/money/effort to get uniforms that fit women better?

If the flightsuit is also for office duties as an aviator (which it essentially is), should pregnant airmen have to choose a maternity uniform that potentially further highlights their difference in the squadron? Put another way, if everyone in the office is wearing flightsuits, wearing OCPs makes you stick out. Granted, 2-piece flight suits are becoming more common, so they won't stand out as much, at least in the MAF.

Plus, I assume pregnancy flightsuits would be issued (just like every other flightsuit), versus having the member go out and buy maternity OCPs out of pocket. Pretty much every flyer I've ever met is pretty against purchasing uniforms unless absolutely necessary (who here has actually bought regular OCPs or ABUs?).

 

Well, you didn’t answer my specific question...but that’s ok as I’m sure you don’t know the numbers (in fact neither do I, though I imagine it’s pretty darn low).

But to specifically address your questions, the flight suit is most definitely a utility uniform, first and foremost.  I know most of you guys aren’t old enough to remember when those in many non-flying jobs (both flyers and non-flyers) were required to wear blues, except perhaps on Friday.  This was pre 9-11...things have definitely changed quite a bit since then.  And of course there are still plenty of us who remember Monday’s blues. When that started and I was in an operational squadron, most guys would fight to get on the flying schedule to avoid wearing blues.  Later on it was realized that guys would fall out of the schedule and we would have to ops cancel lines, so our leadership started allowing non-DNIF guys to wear the bag on Monday so as to not lose lines for wearing blues...but if you were attached in a different squadron or at the group or wing, you still had to wear blues.  And then when I got sent to my staff job, yep, Monday’s blues were back until it went away.  What I’m trying to say is that there is plenty of precedent for not wearing a flight suit if you’re not going to be performing (or possibly performing) flight duties that day.  
 

As to not buying uniform items, that’s definitely a perk of being a flyer...but again, it should definitely be tied to performing flight duties, hence while you’re only authorize limited/certain quantities.  Once again this old guy typing remembers sequestration and when you had to turn in your old flight suits to get new ones...sad, but true.  For the record, I think it’s messed up that flyers don’t have to buy their uniforms but the non-flyers do.

So circling back to the pregnant piece, is this a readiness issue or an issue of people feeling that they’re being treated differently because they’re pregnant?  If it’s the later, I think pregnant people are most definitely treated differently...no PT tests, limited duty hours if needed, DNIF at a certain point in their pregnancy, etc.  I’m not at all against those occurring (makes sense actually), but let’s not pretend that wearing a maternity uniform was such a hardship, at least it wasn’t for my wife.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

Well, you didn’t answer my specific question...but that’s ok as I’m sure you don’t know the numbers (in fact neither do I, though I imagine it’s pretty darn low).

But to specifically address your questions, the flight suit is most definitely a utility uniform, first and foremost.  I know most of you guys aren’t old enough to remember when those in many non-flying jobs (both flyers and non-flyers) were required to wear blues, except perhaps on Friday.  This was pre 9-11...things have definitely changed quite a bit since then.  And of course there are still plenty of us who remember Monday’s blues. When that started and I was in an operational squadron, most guys would fight to get on the flying schedule to avoid wearing blues.  Later on it was realized that guys would fall out of the schedule and we would have to ops cancel lines, so our leadership started allowing non-DNIF guys to wear the bag on Monday so as to not lose lines for wearing blues...but if you were attached in a different squadron or at the group or wing, you still had to wear blues.  And then when I got sent to my staff job, yep, Monday’s blues were back until it went away.  What I’m trying to say is that there is plenty of precedent for not wearing a flight suit if you’re not going to be performing (or possibly performing) flight duties that day.  
 

As to not buying uniform items, that’s definitely a perk of being a flyer...but again, it should definitely be tied to performing flight duties, hence while you’re only authorize limited/certain quantities.  Once again this old guy typing remembers sequestration and when you had to turn in your old flight suits to get new ones...sad, but true.  For the record, I think it’s messed up that flyers don’t have to buy their uniforms but the non-flyers do.

So circling back to the pregnant piece, is this a readiness issue or an issue of people feeling that they’re being treated differently because they’re pregnant?  If it’s the later, I think pregnant people are most definitely treated differently...no PT tests, limited duty hours if needed, DNIF at a certain point in their pregnancy, etc.  I’m not at all against those occurring (makes sense actually), but let’s not pretend that wearing a maternity uniform was such a hardship, at least it wasn’t for my wife.

 

So...do you want to go back to the days when the flight suit was utility only, and you must wear a different uniform in the office?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, pawnman said:

So...do you want to go back to the days when the flight suit was utility only, and you must wear a different uniform in the office?

Do I want to, of course not.  At the same time if they wouldn’t allow me to wear a flight suit because I didn’t need to wear one that day, would the AF be wrong? Also, if I had a condition which DNIF’d me and prevented me from being able to comfortably wear the flight suit, but I could be comfortable in ACUs, then what’s the problem?  Nobody is saying that there shouldn’t be a maternity uniform...but one already exists.  So unless a pilot can’t find a flight suit that is comfortable to perform flying duties, then what exactly is the problem?  
 

Again, what percentage of pilots annually are pregnant, on flying status, and can’t find a flight suit that comfortably allows them to perform their flight duties?  I’m not saying it’s zero...but I can’t imagine it meaning too high.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do I want to, of course not.  At the same time if they wouldn’t allow me to wear a flight suit because I didn’t need to wear one that day, would the AF be wrong? Also, if I had a condition which DNIF’d me and prevented me from being able to comfortably wear the flight suit, but I could be comfortable in ACUs, then what’s the problem?  Nobody is saying that there shouldn’t be a maternity uniform...but one already exists.  So unless a pilot can’t find a flight suit that is comfortable to perform flying duties, then what exactly is the problem?  
 
Again, what percentage of pilots annually are pregnant, on flying status, and can’t find a flight suit that comfortably allows them to perform their flight duties?  I’m not saying it’s zero...but I can’t imagine it meaning too high.


It's a small percentage of rated people that are pregnant, but you're right, I don't have the number.

But don't forget all the winged enlisted as well (loads, booms, FEs, etc). And the AE folks. And that space/missile crews also can wear the flightsuit. So the population is much bigger than just pilots or aircrew.

And yes, that's still a small population, but the AF has the number of pregnant airmen affected or potentially affected by pregnancy, and felt it was a large enough population to take an action.

Sure, it's a small number of people who's lives can be improved by a pregnancy flightsuit. But if the life support/uniform development people have time to make an improvement for a subset of the force, for what is likely a small cost/relatively easy development effort, then why not make the improvement?

I'd bet measurements for pregnant women exist within DoD since other maternity uniforms exist. So taking that info, applying it to the flightsuit, and testing it out likely was an easy effort.

Can pregnant women find a flightsuit that "fits"? Maybe. But remember, flightsuits until very recently were designed/cut for men, and unlike many other clothes, are difficult to tailor to fix a dimension that might be off (namely, getting a flightsuit that's wide enough may leave the leg inseam way too long even with the short size).

Here's an interesting video on human factors and designing for the "average" person.

The speaker helped with human factors assessments for the AF for years, and touches on many of the (bad) assumptions that are made in designing things for humans. (And no, I didn't hunt for that video, just happened to watch it recently for some coursework I'm doing right now that's relevant to this topic).

We all have small issues we'd like the AF to fix, even if it's for a small group of people and doesn't effect every airmen. To me this is just the AF addressing an easy issue to fix to help a small number of (pregnant) airmen. Will this solve retention by itself? Nope. But it helps remove what might be 1 of 1000 small paper cuts.

Also related, but for AF maternity uniforms in general. https://www.military.com/daily-news/2020/09/09/airmans-idea-provide-better-fitting-uniforms-pregnant-troops-may-become-law.html
Basically, even though the maternity uniforms exist in the system, doesn't mean they are available though AAFES, and the AF is working to improve that.
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jazzdude said:

 


It's a small percentage of rated people that are pregnant, but you're right, I don't have the number.

But don't forget all the winged enlisted as well (loads, booms, FEs, etc). And the AE folks. And that space/missile crews also can wear the flightsuit. So the population is much bigger than just pilots or aircrew.

And yes, that's still a small population, but the AF has the number of pregnant airmen affected or potentially affected by pregnancy, and felt it was a large enough population to take an action.

 

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?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, ThreeHoler said:

Did you even read one post above yours before ranting about preggo flight bags? No, most CEAs do not wear OCPs.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

Well, since you’re thrashing about me not reading posts (which is fine, I don’t mind some thrash)—can you please answer this simple question that I keep posting:  What is the annual percentage is of flyers who wear a flight suit, who are pregnant, who are on flying status, and who cannot comfortably wear a flight suit to perform flying duties?  What is your guess?  I ask because this is the readiness question...yet Jazzdude is the only one who has even attempted to answer it, and he didn’t even answer the actual question...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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....

Edited by Tank
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, since you’re thrashing about me not reading posts (which is fine, I don’t mind some thrash)—can you please answer this simple question that I keep posting:  What is the annual percentage is of flyers who wear a flight suit, who are pregnant, who are on flying status, and who cannot comfortably wear a flight suit to perform flying duties?  What is your guess?  I ask because this is the readiness question...yet Jazzdude is the only one who has even attempted to answer it, and he didn’t even answer the actual question...


Who gives a shit? It makes people’s lives better and should have happened a long time ago. C’mon, man. Go drink some Ensure.
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?  


Ignoring morale, comfort, individual preferences in the name of readiness has helped to kill morale and retention in aviators. But as soon as the AF starts making small changes, people complain about those changes unless they directly benefit from those changes.

Pregnancy flightsuits are probably just a comfort/morale/belonging issue. And that's good enough reason in my book to make a change, given that it likely took little time or money to execute. I doubt the AF see this as a big issue, but again it's an easy fix that seems to have people that want it.

Sure, a pregnant flyer that doesn't fit in their flightsuit anymore could get a new bigger normal flightsuit, but the AF is still paying for a new uniform that likely won't fit well (pushing them to find a uniform that does). So why not have one available that might fit better at what will likely be the same cost to the government anyways?

Why can't they just wear a different maternity uniform? Same reason I wear my leather jacket instead of the lightweight blue jacket when it's cold and I have to wear blues-because I want to and it's an option I have. Even in the flightsuit, I've got several jackets to choose from to suit my personal preference: leather, summer weight nomex, winter weight nomex, fleece, goretex, commercial softshell in green, commercial softshell in OCP. Why not just have one or two approved jackets for the flightsuit? Or should the AF eliminate the leather jacket (not approved for flight, has no readiness impact, but looks cool)?

You're still avoiding the fact that other career fields besides pilots also use the flightsuit as well. Regardless of whether you feel they should wear a flightsuit, the AF decided that they should. Also, should RPA pilots wear flightsuits? Seems like they can do their job just fine in regular OCPs. (Not that I'm advocating for that, but it's a morale issue, not a readiness/operational issue). Even as a mobility pilot, the cotton OCPs would probably provide adequate flame protection for much cheaper.

It's like when the AF got rid of patches for ABUs-huge outcry because many airmen lost a symbol of their unit affiliation (all while flyers kept their patches so it didn't affect us). All in the name of saving airmen like $20 a year if that on sewing costs (as well as the cost for the patches themselves, but the AF could've gone the army route and made airmen buy their patches vs issuing them). It's a small thing, but helps feed comraderie and a sense of belonging. Same for morale shirts/patches, crew patches, deployment patches, Friday name tags, sq baseball caps, etc.

There's a lot of things that are starting to get looked at with a fresh eye now. I'm many ways the regs are stuck in 1947 and how people were expected to look back then. Hair standards have been relaxed to accommodate more hairstyles for other races/ethnicities. Easy kill right there that made life easier for many people for something that has minimal to no impact on readiness.

There's also no reason not to allow men to grow facial hair, minus some operational concerns like oxygen mask use or gas masks. But there's no operational or readiness reason to restrict facial hair when you're not flying, besides the AF wanting to portray a certain look, which has no tie to readiness or combat effectiveness. Even when deployed there's no operational reason to have to shave, unless the conditions warrant going to mopp ready and dragging your chem gear around on your hip. Then you can shave before pulling your gear that's probably dryrotting in a conex.

Another easy fix was the 1 min it took to update the AFI to allow pushing up flightsuit sleeves-zero readiness reason to do so, purely for comfort. But an easy fix.

OBOGS fixes has it's own funding and manning, and support from AFRL for testing. The short answer is mil standard for evaluating OBOGS made some poor assumptions in how to verify system performance with their selection of test points for certification. Which means the AF will potentially have to pay to redesign and retrofit the system. So the AF is also after the big items affecting readiness as well; these small initiatives aren't taking away from that.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, ThreeHoler said:

 


Who gives a shit? It makes people’s lives better and should have happened a long time ago. C’mon, man. Go drink some Ensure.

 

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.

Link to comment
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...