Was told today that to do a Coronet to Hawaii, per AMC, crews will have to check out guns, arm while flying, A-Bag, and ground chem mask. This is for all TACC tasked missions that aren't CONUS, unless otherwise specified in the IFM remarks.

I'm so done with this shit.

They expecting to divert you mid-mission to Africa or something?

They expecting to divert you mid-mission to Africa or something?

No, apparently the stowaway on the Herk at Ramsteim scared some folks at AMC.

No, apparently the stowaway on the Herk at Ramsteim scared some folks at AMC.

How do pistols help if there's a stowaway in the wheel well? That location seems to take care of aliens on its own.

How do pistols help if there's a stowaway in the wheel well? That location seems to take care of aliens on its own.

That's common sense, which isn't apart of AMC.

Was told today that to do a Coronet to Hawaii, per AMC, crews will have to check out guns, arm while flying, A-Bag, and ground chem mask. This is for all TACC tasked missions that aren't CONUS, unless otherwise specified in the IFM remarks.

I'm so done with this shit.

Welcome to four months ago.

Welcome to four months ago.

Four months ago I was in AETC.

"Guys, the Chief of Staff won't be around much longer, get your master's degrees done. You don't want to be caught off guard when they change it back." Just a FYI stake in the ground from my sq/cc at our commanders call the other day--in case anyone is looking for a benchmark at how well the CoS' changes are being received down here at the sq level. Anyone else seeing similar?

I don't know a single dude/dudette who has stopped working on their masters. Word we got was basically "do it now, you'll have no time as an O4/O5"

"Guys, the Chief of Staff won't be around much longer, get your master's degrees done. You don't want to be caught off guard when they change it back." Just a FYI stake in the ground from my sq/cc at our commanders call the other day--in case anyone is looking for a benchmark at how well the CoS' changes are being received down here at the sq level. Anyone else seeing similar?

It's not a matter of people not taking the Chiefs guidance seriously. It's a matter of people not trusting the system not to change in a very short amount of time and screw them in the long run by following old guidance.

It's not a matter of people not taking the Chiefs guidance seriously. It's a matter of people not trusting the system not to change in a very short amount of time and screw them in the long run by following old guidance.

...and a distinction without difference.

So essentially the AF is so systemically dysfunctional, that not even an inspirational and respected leader--placed at the very top--can affect the service in a lasting and meaningful way? Sounds about right I guess.

A good read. This caught my eye:

If you are always on the hunt for complacency, argues Mattis, you will reward risk-takers, and people who thrive in uncertainty. "Take the mavericks in your service," he tells new officers, "the ones that wear rumpled uniforms and look like a bag of mud but whose ideas are so offsetting that they actually upset the people in the bureaucracy. One of your primary jobs is to take the risk and protect these people, because if they are not nurtured in your service, the enemy will bring their contrary ideas to you."

And then we ignore them, becuase 85 on a PT test and getting PME done at the last minute shows current leadership they don't have what it takes. Too bad they were busy flying as an IP 4 times a week and making sure the schedule was good and his LTs had good OPRs.

Edited October 17, 201411 yr by matmacwc

The first question the AF asks its potential leaders is not whether or not you did a good job but did anything go wrong on your watch? Even if your performance was at best mediocre but nothing went wrong (probably because said "leader" was so paranoid and conservative that hardly a wheel turned unless that pro-sortie just had to be flown to kill those beans) then you move up. If your approach by hiding behind a reflexive no to anything that entails any risk allowed you to move up, why would you change it when you move up and the stakes get higher to move up to the next level?

Edited October 17, 201411 yr by Clark Griswold

So essentially the AF is so systemically dysfunctional, that not even an inspirational and respected leader--placed at the very top--can affect the service in a lasting and meaningful way? Sounds about right I guess.

It sounds right because it is. I've never met the CSAF, but he seems like a solid bro who's trying to get shit done. I have met and worked with a couple hundred CGOs, NCOs, and Airmen. For the most part they're good people doing amazing stuff. So if the problem isn't the top or bottom, then it must be somewhere in between.

the guys who are Sq/CCs now are the ones who were burned by decision to unmask AAD last time. Therefore they have no trust and actually think they're helping you not get painted into the same corner they did.

I don't agree with them, but as with any advice, consider the source.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

the guys who are Sq/CCs now are the ones who were burned by decision to unmask AAD last time. Therefore they have no trust and actually think they're helping you not get painted into the same corner they did.

I don't agree with them, but as with any advice, consider the source.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

That's probably the crux of it. Little to no trust remains within the system and so guys are forced to play defensively.

In my US Airways indoc class, out of 7 military dudes, 5 were DGs from CGO level PME. If you want to get hired by an airline, make sure to check that container.

There seems to be so much wrong with this post.

1. Why are pilots making DG at SOS?

2. Why would any airline care?

3. Why are DG types bailing out?

4. Why doesn't the AF care?

5. Finally, I'm very confident the pilot interview board members were not DG at SOS!

There seems to be so much wrong with this post.

1. Why are pilots making DG at SOS?

2. Why would any airline care?

3. Why are DG types bailing out?

4. Why doesn't the AF care?

5. Finally, I'm very confident the pilot interview board members were not DG at SOS!

...not sure if serious?

...not sure if serious?

I'm not the greatest communicator, I guess. Probably because I never went to a PME school. All multiple choice via mail...

The point I was trying to make is that being DG at SOS is not very important to Airline recruiters.

Conversely, the AF should be concerned why some of their top performers are leaving.

Maybe I missed some sarcasm in Vetter's original post?

I'm not the greatest communicator, I guess. Probably because I never went to a PME school. All multiple choice via mail...

The point I was trying to make is that being DG at SOS is not very important to Airline recruiters.

Conversely, the AF should be concerned why some of their top performers are leaving.

Maybe I missed some sarcasm in Vetter's original post?

SOS DG != top performer.

Sometimes, yes, but not always.

Dude, my post was all sarcasm. No one in the airlines gives a shit if you were a DG. No one.

Everybody knows that DGs make the best airline pilots. It takes a top AF Captain to fly that ILS to a quitter.

The issue isn't whether or not the airlines care about SOS DGs, or even why SOS DGs are leaving the Air Force. The issue is why the Air Force has determined that SOS DG is somehow an accurate indicator of leadership ability/potential. It's truly amazing how content the Air Force is to watch so much talent and potential walk right out the door everyday. "Thanks for your service!"

You know who cares about SOS DGs? Other Captains at SOS. And maybe some Lts hoping to someday go to SOS. I have never once heard anyone above O-3 talk about SOS DGs. Will it make it to the PRF? Yep. That's pretty much it.

You know who cares about SOS DGs? Other Captains at SOS. And maybe some Lts hoping to someday go to SOS. I have never once heard anyone above O-3 talk about SOS DGs. Will it make it to the PRF? Yep. That's pretty much it.

Unfortunately, you couldn't be more wrong. I've seen commanders ask for year group lists that included if they have been a Flt/CC, completed a masters and if they were an SOS DG. Every rack and stack that I've seen at the Group and Wing level had a column for whether or not you were an SOS DG. Oddly, the people at the top of the lists were always SOS DGs. Recently a "nobody" in my Wing went from barely having a crappy squadron level strat to suddenly getting a Wing CGO strat. The only reason that I could see for this happening was that he "returned from SOS as a DG."

I can't tell you how much I hate SOS and the weight that SOS DG carries. It makes me sick.

Edited because I can't write good.

Edited October 23, 201411 yr by Spartacus

As an SOS DG, I can tell you that it is complete crap how much weight is put on it. I got DG because my flight did really well at the point earning events and I tried to help out in that regard. I have several bros that were better individually than I was while at SOS but did not earn DG due to the fact that their flight didn't do well.