What's wrong with the Air Force?

[matmacwc]

SEA=Metzger?

[17D_guy]

SEA=Metzger?

Doesn't highlight her "victim" status enough and the writing's not masculine enough.

I'd like to meet the person that can complain about something like our promotion/PME system and know how to fix the whole thing. Or how about this, the AFI to wear "not loud" shoes at a PT test. What's the fix action for that. Allow all shoes, determine the brands/models we're allowed to wear, issue shoes.

Or we could just do what we did before and not give a damn what shoe you're running in. Add sock color to that as well. Guess I'll stay in till 30 to fix that.

/Done with troll

On a side note talked with some squids about their rating/promotion system and didn't hate ours as much afterwards.

Edited October 20, 2013 by 17D_guy

[stract]

Not sure what you mean by Phase 2- that doesn't exist in the Navy world. But yes, Primary studs do get lost from time to time on their first solo flying the course rules back to Whiting. They are notoriously complicated, and can be a bit overwhelming to a new stud especially in low vis. (no joke they include such directions are pick them up at the chicken ranch, turn towards the triangle of trees - which no longer contains trees - then follow the 2nd red dirt road towards the water tower, east at the factory and report the initial.) 99.5% don't have a problem though. But hey, since we're throwing stones I'm sure all of the AF "phase 2" studs fly I'd like to see them fly the course rules around a triple class C airspace and not ###### it away from time to time.

Somehow I survived Whiting without fucking up the course rules...

[ARAMP1]

Interesting that Whiting course rules are of such infamy that they're talked about on a (predominantly) air force forum.

Edited October 20, 2013 by ARAMP1

[Swanee]

Somehow I survived Whiting without ######ing up the course rules...

As did I. We did have a couple of guys get lost. I don't think they made it through the program.

Interesting that Whiting course rules are of such infamy that they're talked about on a (predominantly) air force forum.

When I was in intermediate/advanced we had a few dudes tell us about the stand up EPs they had to do at Vance. Holy hell - another case of infamous hazing coming out of one service.

[JarheadBoom]

Truly remarkable forum. Must be meant for whiny Air Force aircrew who can not maintain simple standards. Come join the USMC, we'll teach you how to fly right.

CMC is adding thousands of duty roster openings Corps-wide, to be filled by CGOs and SNCOs, and wiring every Marine barracks for video surveillance, because the USMC is "flying right" and maintaining simple standards. Got it.

Been there, done that, couldn't be happier now that I'm on the other side of the fence getting paid the same as an equal rank Marine while enjoying a better quality of life. Enjoy your "fighting hole" while I collect a fat per diem check.

THIS.

As fucked up as the AF can be (even from my limited view as enlisted Reserve swine), it could be a hell of a lot worse.

[SEA]

Constructive feedback, if you are not happy with a regulation or manual, I am certain there are processes available for you to make a recommendation to change it. Most of you seem to be junior officer or enlisted on here, if you are not sure of the change process, talk with your leadership. If you have with no success, move through your chain. If still no success, file an IG complaint. Relative to my normal work environment, a few of you sound like whiny babies with no legitimate complaints. It seems as if you have no direction or clue on how to fix or attempt to fix things.

[brabus]

Here's why we cannot fix the problems: careerism. I know exactly how to get an AFI changed, as do many other people. The problem is not the "how to," it's the simple fact a stop along the approval chain is a careerist asshole who will not "rock the boat" or do anything they think there's even a 1 in a million chance of ruffling their boss' feathers. Middle management just holding on in their current position so they can make it to the next rank/job is what is killing the AF. It doesn't matter one bit if the AFI change makes complete sense, enhances warfighter ability or is simply just a stupid annoyance that needs to go away. There is an O6-O9 98% of the time who will kill it to stay in the perceived good graces of the dude above them. That's the cancer we have in our AF and just like "real" cancer, it's not an easy fix.

[mcbush]

...talk with your leadership. If you have with no success, move through your chain. If still no success, file an IG complaint.

It seems as if you have no direction or clue on how to fix or attempt to fix things.

It's not this entire community that's out of touch, it's you. How do you expect these conversations to go?

"Hey boss, it's stupid that I have to get a Master's while I'm still trying to figure out this jet." Noted.

"IG, this uniform reg is pointless and a waste of time." Ok...

"Sir, the promotion process seems like it could be handled better." You're telling me.

What do you think any of them are going to do about it? Send it up the chain? It's not as if these issues are a secret.

The average poster on this board is probably an O-3: senior enough to have a voice, but not senior enough to be heard by anyone in a position to really change anything. I can't speak for everyone, but the general feeling is that there's a huge disconnect between leadership and the guys flying the line. Ergo, most of us appreciate the fact that a few supposed senior leaders have dropped by the forum recently to offer their perspective and, in turn, listen to what the crew dogs have to say. That's about all your average O-3 can do: bitch about what needs to be changed when the venue is appropriate, and until then, do the best he can with the hand he's been dealt.

[sqwatch]

. Relative to my normal work environment, a few of you sound like whiny babies with no legitimate complaints. It seems as if you have no direction or clue on how to fix or attempt to fix things.

Not sure if this final attempt passes the gear pig muster.

[Hacker]

The more I see what SEA posts, the more I am convinced that he actually is senior level military leadership.

[Red Fox]

I read the forums often and seldom post. It's my impression that the purpose of this particular thread is to provide an outlet for people to vent. In proper brainstorming sessions all ideas are accepted and not deemed BS. That is for later. Seems this thread is similar - to blow of steam about an institution that I imagine we all love (in some fashion) and that we want to see succeed at its mission. I think frustration builds when a person feels like they are inhibited in contributing fully to its mission or if the focus of said institution seems to have drifted from what's truly important.

First, I'll write what I think is right about the USAF - 1st rate training and equipment for its aircrew. I helped run many LFE's in AK and Nellis. I saw the noticable difference in the capabilities of our USAF vs. many of our Allies and sister services. Unfortunately our equipment has suffered in the last 10+ years. Also the professionalism of our CAF aircrew is bar none. As an airlifter and ATC IP (yes I was actually in ATC) by trade, I was an outsider looking in with the CAF. But damn, I was impressed. I think it is an attitude that is permiating to the MAF via the WIC (my observation). Also, I think our UPT is the best. I may be biased since I was an IP at Willy and Randolph. I saw products from other services and from a few Allies. Again the difference was telling. I don't know how UPT is now, but when I went through 25+ years ago, we all flew the T-38, had to be able to fly fingertip at the 3G, 90 degree bank standard. The program was 48 weeks and my class had a 50% wash-out rate. Standards were high. If you graduated you were good, if you got a fighter, you were great. I don't know how it is now with SUPT with the different tracks. I like to think the standards are just as high now as they were then. Regardless of yes or no, from what I experienced/observed throughout my career was that USAF aircrew are outstanding at what they do WHEN GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY.

Now for what's wrong with the USAF: The personel system. Many times it does not allow our aircrew to achieve their potential in their particular mission skill. It is the great inhibiter, whether it's a demand for an advanced degree, PME, 3-years at one place and then move, ALO tours, etc. The USAF has shown many an exceptional aviator the door because their career, "on paper", wasn't satisfactory or tried to send them down a career path that didn't allow them to do what they loved or for what they were trained. Also the USAF takes a cookie cutter approach to all career fields. I think we all know how important cyber security and space ops are becoming. IMO, there is no way the USAF can recruit the best and the brightest in these fields by expecting them to fit the USAF norms and put-up with all the Micky Mouse BS. They can do the same type of job in the civilian world with better pay and no nonsense. I think pilots can put up with it better. Yes, there are the airlines, but that is not the same as flying military jets. I was a spin-demo IP in the T-37. Loved it and doubt I could find a comparable job in the civilian world. Also, I'm worried about our emphasis on LO and RPA's (shouldn't go into much detail about either). The cost of the JSF is taking needed $$$ for other platforms, like a new AWACS, more F-22s, updated F-15s, block-60 F-16s, non-lethal SEAD platorms, more strat-airlift, and more tankers than programmed. RPA's are leaching skilled aviators from jobs where they need to remain and it's misguided to think that they will be of any use in a contested environment. We cannot afford the $$$ in our diminished budget to put $$$ and people into an airframe that can only operate uncontested. What good will they and the aircrew be when we are fighting a determined foe with an air-defense? I also think it will be a huge mistake to moth-ball the A-10 fleet. The A-10 community has a skill set at a level that is not easily gained. It would be a shame if that is lost. So, I'm worried about our ongoing airframe procurement strategy. I think it is misguided. Again, my opinion only, based on working many LFEs. One last thing on what's wrong - to me rank shouldn't have its privileges, it has its responsibilities. I've heard and seen too many instances of senior leaders making themselves the focus of what matters instead of things truly important. Examples: had an aquantaince that I ran into at the Deid back in '03 who worked DV issues at the CAOC who told me about all the O-7's and above who wanted rides on aircraft to different places in theater, but didn't want any cargo on the plane, a certain USAFE/CC who wanted the motor pool arranged by taller-tap, wanted leaves raked out of trees, missappropriated funds for personal preferences and when visiting Nellis, demanded that a running course on base be marked specifically for him with mile markers posted (I guess the jogging path at runner's world wasn't good enough), an ATC/O-9 who demanded all the mailboxes on Randolph AFB be painted beige (against the wishes of the USPS) and who was caught using the C-word in reference to a female who had just briefed him (he had to make a sexual harrasment video for us to watch for that), a 3 WG/CC who wanted all the street names and numbers changed because he couldn't figure out how to navigate around Elmendorf (even though everyone else managed over the years), a C-130 WG/CC (463 TAW) who ordered a training mission to Berumuda and then happened to put his family Space-A on the flight, two CSAFs who seemed to care more about changing the uniform than anything else, etc. etc. I have many more examples and imagine all of you have your BS stories about senior leadership privilege. Senior leadership focus should always be on the mission and those that do the mission. IMHO, everything else is fluff.

I read a lot of good stuff on Base Ops. I appreciate the forum. Regards, RF.

[ForgotPassword]

I read the forums often and seldom post. It's my impression that the purpose of this particular thread is to provide an outlet for people to vent. In proper brainstorming sessions all ideas are accepted and not deemed BS. That is for later. Seems this thread is similar - to blow of steam about an institution that I imagine we all love (in some fashion) and that we want to see succeed at its mission. I think frustration builds when a person feels like they are inhibited in contributing fully to its mission or if the focus of said institution seems to have drifted from what's truly important.

First, I'll write what I think is right about the USAF - 1st rate training and equipment for its aircrew. I helped run many LFE's in AK and Nellis. I saw the noticable difference in the capabilities of our USAF vs. many of our Allies and sister services. Unfortunately our equipment has suffered in the last 10+ years. Also the professionalism of our CAF aircrew is bar none. As an airlifter and ATC IP (yes I was actually in ATC) by trade, I was an outsider looking in with the CAF. But damn, I was impressed. I think it is an attitude that is permiating to the MAF via the WIC (my observation). Also, I think our UPT is the best. I may be biased since I was an IP at Willy and Randolph. I saw products from other services and from a few Allies. Again the difference was telling. I don't know how UPT is now, but when I went through 25+ years ago, we all flew the T-38, had to be able to fly fingertip at the 3G, 90 degree bank standard. The program was 48 weeks and my class had a 50% wash-out rate. Standards were high. If you graduated you were good, if you got a fighter, you were great. I don't know how it is now with SUPT with the different tracks. I like to think the standards are just as high now as they were then. Regardless of yes or no, from what I experienced/observed throughout my career was that USAF aircrew are outstanding at what they do WHEN GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY.

Now for what's wrong with the USAF: The personel system. Many times it does not allow our aircrew to achieve their potential in their particular mission skill. It is the great inhibiter, whether it's a demand for an advanced degree, PME, 3-years at one place and then move, ALO tours, etc. The USAF has shown many an exceptional aviator the door because their career, "on paper", wasn't satisfactory or tried to send them down a career path that didn't allow them to do what they loved or for what they were trained. Also the USAF takes a cookie cutter approach to all career fields. I think we all know how important cyber security and space ops are becoming. IMO, there is no way the USAF can recruit the best and the brightest in these fields by expecting them to fit the USAF norms and put-up with all the Micky Mouse BS. They can do the same type of job in the civilian world with better pay and no nonsense. I think pilots can put up with it better. Yes, there are the airlines, but that is not the same as flying military jets. I was a spin-demo IP in the T-37. Loved it and doubt I could find a comparable job in the civilian world. Also, I'm worried about our emphasis on LO and RPA's (shouldn't go into much detail about either). The cost of the JSF is taking needed $$$ for other platforms, like a new AWACS, more F-22s, updated F-15s, block-60 F-16s, non-lethal SEAD platorms, more strat-airlift, and more tankers than programmed. RPA's are leaching skilled aviators from jobs where they need to remain and it's misguided to think that they will be of any use in a contested environment. We cannot afford the $$$ in our diminished budget to put $$$ and people into an airframe that can only operate uncontested. What good will they and the aircrew be when we are fighting a determined foe with an air-defense? I also think it will be a huge mistake to moth-ball the A-10 fleet. The A-10 community has a skill set at a level that is not easily gained. It would be a shame if that is lost. So, I'm worried about our ongoing airframe procurement strategy. I think it is misguided. Again, my opinion only, based on working many LFEs. One last thing on what's wrong - to me rank shouldn't have its privileges, it has its responsibilities. I've heard and seen too many instances of senior leaders making themselves the focus of what matters instead of things truly important. Examples: had an aquantaince that I ran into at the Deid back in '03 who worked DV issues at the CAOC who told me about all the O-7's and above who wanted rides on aircraft to different places in theater, but didn't want any cargo on the plane, a certain USAFE/CC who wanted the motor pool arranged by taller-tap, wanted leaves raked out of trees, missappropriated funds for personal preferences and when visiting Nellis, demanded that a running course on base be marked specifically for him with mile markers posted (I guess the jogging path at runner's world wasn't good enough), an ATC/O-9 who demanded all the mailboxes on Randolph AFB be painted beige (against the wishes of the USPS) and who was caught using the C-word in reference to a female who had just briefed him (he had to make a sexual harrasment video for us to watch for that), a 3 WG/CC who wanted all the street names and numbers changed because he couldn't figure out how to navigate around Elmendorf (even though everyone else managed over the years), a C-130 WG/CC (463 TAW) who ordered a training mission to Berumuda and then happened to put his family Space-A on the flight, two CSAFs who seemed to care more about changing the uniform than anything else, etc. etc. I have many more examples and imagine all of you have your BS stories about senior leadership privilege. Senior leadership focus should always be on the mission and those that do the mission. IMHO, everything else is fluff.

I read a lot of good stuff on Base Ops. I appreciate the forum. Regards, RF.

Wall of text. Will. Not. Read.

[Bobby]

Wall of text. Will. Not. Read.

Thanks for quoting the entire text.....

[Seriously]

Also, I think our UPT is the best. I may be biased since I was an IP at Willy and Randolph. I saw products from other services and from a few Allies. Again the difference was telling. I don't know how UPT is now, but when I went through 25+ years ago, we all flew the T-38, had to be able to fly fingertip at the 3G, 90 degree bank standard. The program was 48 weeks and my class had a 50% wash-out rate. Standards were high. If you graduated you were good, if you got a fighter, you were great. I don't know how it is now with SUPT with the different tracks. I like to think the standards are just as high now as they were then.

I don't know about that these days. Seems like a lot of crap comes out at the bottom of the T-1 barrel.

a certain USAFE/CC who wanted the motor pool arranged by taller-tap, wanted leaves raked out of trees

This kind of crap is always justified using the "broken window theory" and "attention to detail." It's all a load of crap and just an easy distraction from fixing the real problems in the Air Force. Its the same reason our promotion system is messed up. The boards look for easy discriminators to identify guys to promote, i.e. master's degrees.

[Lawman]

Its the same reason our promotion system is messed up. The boards look for easy discriminators to identify guys to promote, i.e. master's degrees.

That's not just you that's a military wide ###### up.

You could never defend our promotional system in the private sector.

-Putting emphasis on a 300 pt score above the NCO that can actually write a sentence with some manner of grammar... Hey guys I know mongo is a retard but he can run fast and do lots of pull-ups he'd be perfect for VP of sales.

-Every write up having the bullshit fluff language of everybody being a winner some are just bigger winners than their peers... Tell people they are ######tards... And do it early so they learn to apply for work elsewhere. Stop making reading/writing an OER an exercise in decoding some secret language.

-PME that is conducted long after it would have been useful. Like teaching officers public speaking in a course when they've operated on staffs and been in command for years...

-everybody gets an award because if they don't they won't be competitive with all the candy medals we handed out in the beginning of the war...

Edited October 20, 2013 by Lawman

[RASH]

Wall of text. Will. Not. Read.

Your loss. You might learn something...

[Lord Ratner]

I don't know about that these days. Seems like a lot of crap comes out at the bottom of the T-1 barrel.

Was anyone in AETC when the T-1 came online? Seems like a way for the AF to save money by lowering the standard for passing UPT and thus wasting less money on wash-outs. What was the party-line back then? Disclaimer: I went through T-1s.

[SuperWSO]

Wall of text. Will. Not. Read.

You were over tasked by two paragraphs? I know Twitter is setting pretty low expectations for literature these days, but is your Dash 1 all pictures?

I'd abuse you some more but I don't want to exceed your capacity.

[Hacker]

Was anyone in AETC when the T-1 came online? Seems like a way for the AF to save money by lowering the standard for passing UPT and thus wasting less money on wash-outs. What was the party-line back then? Disclaimer: I went through T-1s.

Here are the historical UPT washout rates per year -- the T-1's IOC was in '92 or '93.

[RASH]

Was anyone in AETC when the T-1 came online? Seems like a way for the AF to save money by lowering the standard for passing UPT and thus wasting less money on wash-outs. What was the party-line back then? Disclaimer: I went through T-1s.

I was a T-37 IP at Reese when they brought the T-1 into the mix, and it was sold as a way to extend the life on the T-38s while providing more realistic training for the heavy drivers. I personally don't think it led to the reduction in wash-outs (see below).

Here are the historical UPT washout rates per year -- the T-1's IOC was in '92 or '93.

FY91 was also the beginning of the "Banked Pilot" program, where we had too many pilots and not enough seats for them to sit in. The AF cut way back on pilot slots (my first full class as an IP at Reese had 6 students for 16 IPs in the flight), which IMHO led to a slightly higher quality of student going through the program because it was more competitive. We definitely had less "problem students" than in the past...

Just one ORF's opinion.

[Seriously]

Here are the historical UPT washout rates per year -- the T-1's IOC was in '92 or '93.

Where did you find this data?

[Hacker]

Where did you find this data?

It was from a 2006 ACSC paper on the effectiveness of pre-UPT screening programs.

http://testrakeaviation.editme.com/files/Backupfiles/Baker-5472.pdf

[Warrior]

Has anyone else done the cyber awareness challenge formerly known as information assurance? I think it changed in October-new FY and all. Who dreams this shit up? And fire extinguisher training for all my friends?

I know I should have gotten over CBTs long ago, but wtf is up with the latest iterations? How do we find money to keep changing them?

[Lord Ratner]

Has anyone else done the cyber awareness challenge formerly known as information assurance? I think it changed in October-new FY and all. Who dreams this shit up? And fire extinguisher training for all my friends?

I know I should have gotten over CBTs long ago, but wtf is up with the latest iterations? How do we find money to keep changing them?

Cake compared to the (new?) Risk Management Fundamentals. Took over an hour, and that was while max performing the left mouse button.