I Hate Reflective Belts

[HoHum]

So I was scouring AF Times for whatever FourFans is hyping and got to looking at the FlightLines blog that originaly profiled IHRB. In the comments at the bottom:

Doc Says:

November 6th, 2009 at 10:40 am

I am not downplaying any effort you or anyone has made toward the MISSION, however, I will match your Herk rides and 18-20 days anytime you wish and multiply it times my 33+ years time in service, 26 of it on the flight line. Kosovo, DSI and DSII. I know how it was and I know how it is now.

Seems to be matching up to THAT GUY.

Very interesting.

[capt4fans]

So I was scouring AF Times for whatever FourFans is hyping and got to looking at the FlightLines blog that originaly profiled IHRB. In the comments at the bottom:

Doc Says:

November 6th, 2009 at 10:40 am

I am not downplaying any effort you or anyone has made toward the MISSION, however, I will match your Herk rides and 18-20 days anytime you wish and multiply it times my 33+ years time in service, 26 of it on the flight line. Kosovo, DSI and DSII. I know how it was and I know how it is now.

Seems to be matching up to THAT GUY.

Very interesting.

Really....you brought he who shall not be named into this discussion......this just went south even faster than I had thought it was going.

[HU&W]

I noticed today that the price for reflective belts at AAFES has gone up drastically. About a year ago, I had to get an RB at my last base's BX for a downrange camping trip. It was $4.95. Today, I stopped by the BX to see if they had any reflective belts for making novelty items. They were $8.95 for the exact same ones. By my math, that's an 80% increase in price over the last year. The economist that lives in my brain started spitting out ideas, and I'd like some feedback on what you think.

1. This could be a result of the recent recession. Perhaps the company that produces reflective belts felt threatened by the economy and constricted production. This constriction could have led to a reduction of effectiveness according to the economies of scale and caused the 80% increase in wholesale price. This increase in price would have been passed by AAFES directly to the customer.

2. It could be a regional price fluctuation. I PCS'd from a base that had a strong mission focus to a training base. Perhaps AAFES recognizes that there is a higher demand for reflective belts at AETC bases and therefore raises the prices the strong cyclic demand. The only way I can see to prove this theory would be to develop a Reflective Belt Price Index (RBPI). If indeed the price AAFES sets on reflective belts is tied to the base, MAJCOM, region, MWS, or mission then the RBPI would indicate the level of importance AAFES believes leadership places on reflective belt wear.

3. The RBPI could also be used to prove another theory. If it is equal, or if it increases over time at an equal rate across multiple bases, then we simply have a case of AAFES recognizing a higher demand across the Air Force and adjusting prices accordingly.

Thoughts?

[BQZip01]

I noticed today that the price for reflective belts at AAFES has gone up drastically. About a year ago, I had to get an RB at my last base's BX for a downrange camping trip. It was $4.95. Today, I stopped by the BX to see if they had any reflective belts for making novelty items. They were $8.95 for the exact same ones. By my math, that's an 80% increase in price over the last year. The economist that lives in my brain started spitting out ideas, and I'd like some feedback on what you think.

1. This could be a result of the recent recession. Perhaps the company that produces reflective belts felt threatened by the economy and constricted production. This constriction could have led to a reduction of effectiveness according to the economies of scale and caused the 80% increase in wholesale price. This increase in price would have been passed by AAFES directly to the customer.

2. It could be a regional price fluctuation. I PCS'd from a base that had a strong mission focus to a training base. Perhaps AAFES recognizes that there is a higher demand for reflective belts at AETC bases and therefore raises the prices the strong cyclic demand. The only way I can see to prove this theory would be to develop a Reflective Belt Price Index (RBPI). If indeed the price AAFES sets on reflective belts is tied to the base, MAJCOM, region, MWS, or mission then the RBPI would indicate the level of importance AAFES believes leadership places on reflective belt wear.

3. The RBPI could also be used to prove another theory. If it is equal, or if it increases over time at an equal rate across multiple bases, then we simply have a case of AAFES recognizing a higher demand across the Air Force and adjusting prices accordingly.

Thoughts?

Ith uh conthpirathy!

[disgruntledemployee]

I noticed today that the price for reflective belts at AAFES has gone up drastically. About a year ago, I had to get an RB at my last base's BX for a downrange camping trip. It was $4.95. Today, I stopped by the BX to see if they had any reflective belts for making novelty items. They were $8.95 for the exact same ones. By my math, that's an 80% increase in price over the last year. The economist that lives in my brain started spitting out ideas, and I'd like some feedback on what you think.

...

Thoughts?

Yeah, I slept through economics in college. But it could be linked to the Blues on Monday conspiracy and the PT uniform conspiracy, both of which cause an increase in sales to AAFES. Now if they start mandating that we wear ribbons on our PT uniforms and this causes another run on clothing sales stores... Besides, the GARBs are probably made in china with banned chemicals and hazardous materials.

Out

[Vertigo]

UFB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Fail at the Epic level on your part Vetter......do you even use your brain, or have you had that much Kool-Aid already today?

Methinks vetter was using something I like to call humor. I'm fairly confident he knows who RB is.

Edited November 13, 2009 by Vertigo

[HoHum]

Really....you brought he who shall not be named into this discussion......this just went south even faster than I had thought it was going.

It was the stink of "I know how it is now" that clued me in.

Edited November 13, 2009 by The_Ginger

[contraildash]

Really....you brought he who shall not be named into this discussion......this just went south even faster than I had thought it was going.

What's even more awesome is how the German recycling/trash guy mentioed him at our base intro brief the other day...

Edited November 15, 2009 by contraildash

[capt4fans]

It's hit a whole new level of ness. I saw a spouse today running around the base 4 hours after sunrise wearing a reflective belt.

Who does that?????

[zrooster99]

Her husband's probably a DD and wouldn't feed her unless she wore it.

Edit: punctuation

Edited November 17, 2009 by zrooster99

[contraildash]

I need to start taking pictures of what I see on a daily basis.

I could be wrong but if you are wearing the official AF PT jumpsuit/coleman tent, you don't have to wear a RB correct? I ask because I saw a bunch of dudes running around in full PT gear, with RBs. Time of day: 1330.

[JarheadBoom]

I could be wrong but if you are wearing the official AF PT jumpsuit/coleman tent, you don't have to wear a RB correct? I ask because I saw a bunch of dudes running around in full PT gear, with RBs. Time of day: 1330.

Within the bounds of AFI 36-2903, you are correct.

The problem comes in the various (and somewill say illegal) supps to the parent AFI, like the AFCENT sup, the AUAB sup, the AETC sup, etc. That's where the shoeclerks have struck with the RB-at-all-times-no-matter-what bullshit.

[contraildash]

I know some shoe clerk is probably reading this going "Woah...he's right! We need to start enforcing them all the time!"

Maybe that wife running around base with a RB is married to said shoe clerk and is testing this up-coming EPR/OPR bullet for enhancing safety.

[Stitch]

"At all times," ....unless you're not in uniform! The fact that we're not required to wear RB's while in normal clothes on base completely disproves the notion that RB's are a legitimate safety precaution.

Think about it, the Wing/CC doesn't say: "The base speed limit is 25 mph...unless you're not wearing your uniform, then you can drive however fast you want." OR "Seatbelts are mandatory on post....unless you're in civies, then it's optional."

It's stupid. I know some shoe clerk is probably reading this going "Woah...he's right! We need to start enforcing them all the time!" So sorry for opening pandora's container, but does no one else see the glaring contradication??

Great, give em more ideas. What about us retired folk? They gonna have disposal RB dispenser, that works like a box of kleenex (pull one out (sts) and another pops into its place) at the front gate? Perhaps it really is only a matter of time where RB usage will be mandatory 24/7 in or out of uniform, on duty/off, on leave, drinking beer, wooing juicy girls, etc...

But excellent point on the uniform vs. civies point of view.

[HU&W]

"At all times," ....unless you're not in uniform! The fact that we're not required to wear RB's while in normal clothes on base completely disproves the notion that RB's are a legitimate safety precaution.

Think about it, the Wing/CC doesn't say: "The base speed limit is 25 mph...unless you're not wearing your uniform, then you can drive however fast you want." OR "Seatbelts are mandatory on post....unless you're in civies, then it's optional."

It's stupid. I know some shoe clerk is probably reading this going "Woah...he's right! We need to start enforcing them all the time!" So sorry for opening pandora's container, but does no one else see the glaring contradication??

I'm currently on an AETC base and watch the Airmen in Training wear them with civvies every day. That's the standard our new accessions are being taught. I frequently see them outside the gate with them on, walking to Sonic, etc... I've even seen them wearing RB inside the mall downtown on a Saturday.

[FalconXtreme]

that makes me sick. you should ask them who is making them wear RBs in civies.

[JarheadBoom]

"At all times," ....unless you're not in uniform! The fact that we're not required to wear RB's while in normal clothes on base completely disproves the notion that RB's are a legitimate safety precaution.

Think about it, the Wing/CC doesn't say: "The base speed limit is 25 mph...unless you're not wearing your uniform, then you can drive however fast you want." OR "Seatbelts are mandatory on post....unless you're in civies, then it's optional."

It's stupid. I know some shoe clerk is probably reading this going "Woah...he's right! We need to start enforcing them all the time!" So sorry for opening pandora's container, but does no one else see the glaring contradication??

I agree 100% with your assessment that this really isn't about safety, once we're talking about RB wear off the flightline and during daylight. I was responding to contraildash's question about wearing a RB with the official, already-reflective AF PT gear.

Believe me, we all see the contradiction, hence our "rebellion". It's the shoe-tools that think it's a great idea... not us at the pointy end of the spear (well, I'm closer to that generally-sharp area behind the point, than the point itself...).

I'm currently on an AETC base and watch the Airmen in Training wear them with civvies every day. That's the standard our new accessions are being taught. I frequently see them outside the gate with them on, walking to Sonic, etc... I've even seen them wearing RB inside the mall downtown on a Saturday.

UFB...

that makes me sick. you should ask them who is making them wear RBs in civies.

That would be the MTIs/MTLs. Could also be an AETC sup to 36-chowmyhog.

(I just shivered involuntarily, thinking about the implications of that.)

Regardless, agreed - it's fucking stupid.

edit for multiquote

Edited November 18, 2009 by JarheadBoom

[Guest Shaggy]

well, I'm closer to that generally-sharp area behind the point, than the point itself...

No JHB, you are the tip of the shaft that holds the spear.

[capt4fans]

No JHB, you are the tip of the shaft that holds the spear.

Better to at lest be on the shaft than to be at the base of it like the rest of the DD's, shoeclerks and REMF's are.

[Guest Hueypilot812]

Jarhead's right, the RB issue (along with all the other queepy issues like tucking shirts, types of socks, etc) has nothing to do with safety or even with real discipline. It has everything to do with egos and trying to prove who's in charge. One phrase that consistently pisses me off:

"if you can't wear your reflective belt correctly in the DFAC, how can I expect you to fly combat missions for me?".

UFB. Sure, you've discovered the key to being a mission hacker or the road to being the next ace. Genius. Actually, what they are saying is:

"I don't want to actually exercise my leadership so I'd rather issue/enforce all these CYA safety and uniform rules to make running a squadron/wing/base as brainless as possible, and to remind you daily that I'm here to tell you what to do".

Honestly, real leadership can use a very rare power that seems to be missing in today's leadershp/SNCO force: common sense and discretion. I don't mean discretion as in being discreet. I mean the following meanings:

Discretion: The ability to make responsible decisions; the result of separating or distinguishing

The problem is, using discretion when enforcing good discipline and order requires making gut calls, using your brain, and finally standing behind your decisions. Instead, these guys (and gals) construct these ridiculous-to-enforce rules so they can go hide behind them and say "sorry, hands are tied because AFI 36-chow-my-hog or Base XYZ sup 1 says so.

To the guy who once posted the fact that the PT requirement came about from women wearing revealing clothes, so what? Maybe our leadership should have used their discretion and common sense and told them next time they wore something that pissed off the wing king, there would be paperwork. But no one wants to do that because it requires being a real leader...when the kid who gets in trouble for having their ass hang out of their pants fights back saying there isn't a rule specifically forbidding it, you've got to have stones and say "look moron, *I* forbid you wearing that". The rules should say "be tasteful" and leave it at that. Same thing with the safety issue...rather than stand up and say "hey, be safe, don't do anything stupid", they'd rather cover their rears and put everyone in RBs so that they can say "I did my job".

Anyways, enough on that subject.

Edited November 18, 2009 by Hueypilot812

[Napoleon_Tanerite]

*snip*

i think the real, underlying problem here is how "leaders" are developed in the Air Force. Not only is the Air Force risk averse, it will absolutely HAMMER you for daring to take such a risk. Thus, the most cowardly weenie around is seen as the best "company man" and thus most fitting to lead. Anyone who would take a risk to reap a reward is seen as too dangerous to lead, and thus must be weeded out.

On top of that, you have the whole culture of deglorifying the flying aspect of the Air Force, ESPECIALLY pilots. How many times have you seen "official" propaganda, be it recruiting material, PME, etc that emphasize just how small the pilot force is ("not everyone in the AF is a pilot, in fact only 6.9% are!") and trying to prop up the shoe AFSCs as if their job is just as critical to hacking The Mission (capital T, capital M... aka, killing people and breaking their shit) as a pilot's.

I'm sorry, but if you're not killing people and breaking their shit, you are SUPPORTING people who do. If you fly a tanker, you're giving gas to the guys who are killing people, if you're an ISR guy, you're finding the people who need killing, if you're a fighter guy you're making sure the guy who is killing people and breaking their shit doesn't get shot the hell down.

And if you're not a pilot, you're on the next tier of mission support. If you're a MX guy, you're making sure the jets fly, if you're a services guy you're making sure the pilots are fed and get good rest, if you're a finance guy you're making sure the pilots are paid and happy....

Yes, The Mission doesn't happen without everyone, but there are only a select few actually performing The Mission, and MANY more in support of it.

Back on track after that little rant-- the way this affects leadership (or the lack thereof) is the guys who make pilots as insignificant of a part of their world (even if they themselves are a pilot) and ingratiate themselves to the shoes are the ones who get ahead. Again, spineless cowards are promoted over warriors and mission hackers because they make people around them "feel good".

Not sure how to correct it, because the machine of Big Blue is such that any LTs and Captains who have the correct amount of jaded salt on them to be good leaders get burnt out with the queep and bullshit by the time they make O-4 or O-5 and don't stay in long enough to make a real impact to fix the service. I've only got 4 years in and I can already see just how hard it will be to make it the next 16 to finish out, especially if we keep going down the road we're going down.

And I have no idea how to really fix it.

[Bayou_Eagle_Driver]

Jarhead's right, the RB issue (along with all the other queepy issues like tucking shirts, types of socks, etc) has nothing to do with safety or even with real discipline. It has everything to do with egos and trying to prove who's in charge. One phrase that consistently pisses me off:

"if you can't wear your reflective belt correctly in the DFAC, how can I expect you to fly combat missions for me?".

UFB. Sure, you've discovered the key to being a mission hacker or the road to being the next ace. Genius. Actually, what they are saying is:

"I don't want to actually exercise my leadership so I'd rather issue/enforce all these CYA safety and uniform rules to make running a squadron/wing/base as brainless as possible, and to remind you daily that I'm here to tell you what to do".

Honestly, real leadership can use a very rare power that seems to be missing in today's leadershp/SNCO force: common sense and discretion. I don't mean discretion as in being discreet. I mean the following meanings:

Discretion: The ability to make responsible decisions; the result of separating or distinguishing

The problem is, using discretion when enforcing good discipline and order requires making gut calls, using your brain, and finally standing behind your decisions. Instead, these guys (and gals) construct these ridiculous-to-enforce rules so they can go hide behind them and say "sorry, hands are tied because AFI 36-chow-my-hog or Base XYZ sup 1 says so.

To the guy who once posted the fact that the PT requirement came about from women wearing revealing clothes, so what? Maybe our leadership should have used their discretion and common sense and told them next time they wore something that pissed off the wing king, there would be paperwork. But no one wants to do that because it requires being a real leader...when the kid who gets in trouble for having their ass hang out of their pants fights back saying there isn't a rule specifically forbidding it, you've got to have stones and say "look moron, *I* forbid you wearing that". The rules should say "be tasteful" and leave it at that. Same thing with the safety issue...rather than stand up and say "hey, be safe, don't do anything stupid", they'd rather cover their rears and put everyone in RBs so that they can say "I did my job".

Anyways, enough on that subject.

A great read....just a shame to know that it was all typed out in futility. :sigh:

[contraildash]

It's going to come down to the guy/gals that sacrifice their own 'career' to take a stand on changing things. I'll be the first to admit that, as of right now, I need this job. It's a disgusting catch-22. I want to change it, but changing it means I'll probably not be in for very long, but I need the job and hell I just got here.

I just need to win the powerball so I can say f-it, I've got a few mil to live off of comfortably, let's rock the mother-f'ing boat and start changing shit. Oh passed over for captain...shucks...I'll just go be a ski-bum and enjoy my millions. I'd even start a 'retirement fund' for anyone else who wants to join in the quest.

Now I just need to win the powerball....

[Guest Hueypilot812]

Napoleon:

As a C-130 pilot I'm more than happy to admit I'm supporting the real warriors. I'd never call myself a "warrior". To me, the warriors are the 11Bs (infantry) on the ground, or the 11F (you know what an Air Force 11F is) folks dropping bombs, or the 152F (AH-64 pilot) dudes firing 30MM into the bad guys.. Those are the warriors. I see the trend towards calling everyone "combat ###" (ie, Combat Comm) or "warrior" within the Air Force as nothing more than shameless self-glorification. Unless you're rucking a 60 pound pack and carrying a weapon all day through the streets of Baghdad or some other third world shithole, you don't deserve to pompously call yourself a warrior just because you wear ABUs in your air conditioned office.

On the flip side, I DO believe that I'm the bread and butter of the Air Force. As aircrew, we ARE the Air Force. Yes, other AFSCs are important and have their role, but the mission of the Air Force doesn't come to a screeching halt if they suddenly don't show up. I don't know how many times I've had to roll my eyes when I hear finance (sorry finance guy, but I think you understand), CE, services, comm or some other support guy say without him, the Air Force stops. No it doesn't. The Air Force stops if we don't have pilots, maintainers, and other ops support folks (POL, etc). Jets can still get off the ground if we don't get paid. Sure, we'll bitch and moan, but we can still fly. Airplanes will still get airborne if our office air conditioner breaks, and if the network crashes, we can get our NOTAMS through other means, even though yes, it will be a huge pain in the ass to go dig out the FLIP and start making phone calls.

But reverse that picture...have the pilots/maintainers/fuel guys stay home, sure you'll have a base that still has a great basketball court, the chow hall will serve food, and people will get paid, and the office weenies can continue to surf the web at work. But what's the point if you're not putting jets in the air? Why even be an Air Force? You might as well be the United States Support Force.

The problem today is we have leadership that is so focused on making everyone feel like "warriors" when they aren't, or make them feel like their job is equal with everyone else's despite the FACT that our Air Force revolves around a flightline, not a damn computer, not a security checkpoint, not a customer service counter.

[kdwntwn]

Napoleon:

As a C-130 pilot I'm more than happy to admit I'm supporting the real warriors. I'd never call myself a "warrior". To me, the warriors are the 11Bs (infantry) on the ground, or the 11F (you know what an Air Force 11F is) folks dropping bombs, or the 152F (AH-64 pilot) dudes firing 30MM into the bad guys.. Those are the warriors. I see the trend towards calling everyone "combat ###" (ie, Combat Comm) or "warrior" within the Air Force as nothing more than shameless self-glorification. Unless you're rucking a 60 pound pack and carrying a weapon all day through the streets of Baghdad or some other third world shithole, you don't deserve to pompously call yourself a warrior just because you wear ABUs in your air conditioned office.

On the flip side, I DO believe that I'm the bread and butter of the Air Force. As aircrew, we ARE the Air Force. Yes, other AFSCs are important and have their role, but the mission of the Air Force doesn't come to a screeching halt if they suddenly don't show up. I don't know how many times I've had to roll my eyes when I hear finance (sorry finance guy, but I think you understand), CE, services, comm or some other support guy say without him, the Air Force stops. No it doesn't. The Air Force stops if we don't have pilots, maintainers, and other ops support folks (POL, etc). Jets can still get off the ground if we don't get paid. Sure, we'll bitch and moan, but we can still fly. Airplanes will still get airborne if our office air conditioner breaks, and if the network crashes, we can get our NOTAMS through other means, even though yes, it will be a huge pain in the ass to go dig out the FLIP and start making phone calls.

But reverse that picture...have the pilots/maintainers/fuel guys stay home, sure you'll have a base that still has a great basketball court, the chow hall will serve food, and people will get paid, and the office weenies can continue to surf the web at work. But what's the point if you're not putting jets in the air? Why even be an Air Force? You might as well be the United States Support Force.

The problem today is we have leadership that is so focused on making everyone feel like "warriors" when they aren't, or make them feel like their job is equal with everyone else's despite the FACT that our Air Force revolves around a flightline, not a damn computer, not a security checkpoint, not a customer service counter.

Huey,

I couldn't agree more! Very well said! I came to a similar epiphany the other night when I heard the term "warrior day". The sound of that term irked me like an untuned guitar for some reason. It's BS that we're all warriors. The truth is that some people are heroes, true "warriors" who place their lives at risk everyday to directly defend the nation. Then there are those who have a job and an honorable duty to support said heroes. Deploying to a well fortified base in a middle eastern country does not make me a warrior. Wearing a reflective belt at 1pm at the BRA does not make a warrior either.

The logic behind calling everyone the superlative term "warrior" is honorable but misguided IMHO. When you anoint everyone with a superlative term, you reduce its importance. ie- if I'm already known as a warrior if I deploy to OTBH, work 8 hour shifts and play bingo every week, why would I ever volunteer to go to a FOB in Afghanistan just for the same title and honor?

The bottom line is this...if you can be replaced by a computer or a contractor, you probably aren't a warrior as the annuls of history would define it.