December 27, 20177 yr A great one here:Location - a lovely ‘Stan Unit - the only one doing 365sProblem - TSgt get sent home early for med issues (very legit issue)AF Solution - send in a temp tech after putting them through training (5 weeks worth) at the same time as the person who is scheduled to replace the TSgt. Then deploy the temp for less than 40 days and schedule temp to leave before the permanent tech even arrive so zero turnover given. To make matters worse when I found out about the gap I asked the permanent tech if he would be interested in deploying early. He said hell ya. Took that solution to leadership and was told “that sounds like more work than its worth”. So instead we send another person (on short notice) through training with the permanent tech and deploy him for 36 days. I was livid when I found out. We were all told it was a forward deploying tech from the Deid. How the hell can people believe this makes sense??
December 27, 20177 yr 22 minutes ago, Champ Kind said: Dude I get it. I just don’t know what mechanisms we have in place for CSAF to ID weak managers so that he can appropriately respond. If a risk averse Wing CC still levies ridiculous requirements on his groups/squadrons based on fear of getting canned for not adhering to archaic and non-applicable regs, how does CSAF find out about that (short of a poor showing during an inspection)? There’s no hotline for the Sq CC at the end of the whip to go VFR-direct to Goldfein and tell him that his guidance isn’t being followed. And the offending wing CC certainly isn’t going to come up on the net and self ID. I seriously welcome your thoughts as to how this part gets solved. Maybe actually having exit surveys that mean something. All I was asked was “are you hired by an airline?” it’s not the best option, but an option
December 27, 20177 yr If I was a Sq/Grp/Wg CC here’s what I would do: Once outdated regs or processes are identified in my organization, I would draft a policy letter identifying that additional duty or process that my people will no longer execute and give the CSAF guidance as justification. If Congress or someone else wanted to then investigate why we weren’t executing some program that was mandated, I think the CSAF is pretty good top cover. But who the hell knows, they’d probably try to throw me in jail anyway for not having a unit voting assistance monitor. That’s why I’ll never be a CC in this organization.
December 27, 20177 yr 1 hour ago, MooseAg03 said: If I was a Sq/Grp/Wg CC here’s what I would do: Once outdated regs or processes are identified in my organization, I would draft a policy letter identifying that additional duty or process that my people will no longer execute and give the CSAF guidance as justification. If Congress or someone else wanted to then investigate why we weren’t executing some program that was mandated, I think the CSAF is pretty good top cover. But who the hell knows, they’d probably try to throw me in jail anyway for not having a unit voting assistance monitor. That’s why I’ll never be a CC in this organization. Its being done already. Baby steps.
December 27, 20177 yr 9 hours ago, General Chang said: Ok, I'l be your huckleberry. Look, there's a ton of blame to go around. The good news: we have a current CSAF & SecAF who "get it." The bad news: layers of leadership between the CSAF & the common man simply will not break out of their stovepiped thinking. CSAF: "Stop doing stuff that doesn't make sense." Wg/CCs: "Until regs change, keep doing the stupid stuff." For instance, despite the mandate from CSAF that Majors are 100% for the next 3-4 years, Wings are still required to produce narrative-only PRFs for guys going to schools. Why? "Because that's what the regs say." Just one example of many where leaders can't think for themselves...JUST SAY NO! I understand your point but how many captains are going to school? This falls under the AFIT gig I assume? Just curious.
December 29, 20177 yr On 12/27/2017 at 3:32 PM, MooseAg03 said: If I was a Sq/Grp/Wg CC here’s what I would do: Once outdated regs or processes are identified in my organization, I would draft a policy letter identifying that additional duty or process that my people will no longer execute and give the CSAF guidance as justification. If Congress or someone else wanted to then investigate why we weren’t executing some program that was mandated, I think the CSAF is pretty good top cover. But who the hell knows, they’d probably try to throw me in jail anyway for not having a unit voting assistance monitor. That’s why I’ll never be a CC in this organization. There’s even a form for this to streamline documentation of stopping things (AF679). Continuing working on a system of record to process and retain all waivers for the entire enterprise so this shit becomes easier than Trump tweeting.
December 29, 20177 yr On 12/27/2017 at 9:54 AM, Champ Kind said: Dude I get it. I just don’t know what mechanisms we have in place for CSAF to ID weak managers so that he can appropriately respond. If a risk averse Wing CC still levies ridiculous requirements on his groups/squadrons based on fear of getting canned for not adhering to archaic and non-applicable regs, how does CSAF find out about that (short of a poor showing during an inspection)? There’s no hotline for the Sq CC at the end of the whip to go VFR-direct to Goldfein and tell him that his guidance isn’t being followed. And the offending wing CC certainly isn’t going to come up on the net and self ID. I seriously welcome your thoughts as to how this part gets solved. Bro network, rumor Mills, and even JQP. You don't even need to fire a bunch...just enough to get people thinking again. I'd bet after 5-6 wing kings and a couple GOs go, the rest would get the message. Edited December 29, 20177 yr by raimius
January 27, 20187 yr Shout out to the "leaders" who said, "Staff's all in for this exercise." Then wouldn't clarify what that meant until 1500 on Friday. That clarification - 12's for 10 days straight, sorry-not sorry about your weekend plans.
January 27, 20187 yr Shout out to the "leaders" who said, "Staff's all in for this exercise." Then wouldn't clarify what that meant until 1500 on Friday. That clarification - 12's for 10 days straight, sorry-not sorry about your weekend plans.Can you articulate for those of us outside the loop on this one?
January 27, 20187 yr 16 hours ago, 17D_guy said: Shout out to the "leaders" who said, "Staff's all in for this exercise." Then wouldn't clarify what that meant until 1500 on Friday. That clarification - 12's for 10 days straight, sorry-not sorry about your weekend plans. You're not at Dyess, are you?
January 28, 20187 yr 3 hours ago, pawnman said: You're not at Dyess, are you? Negative. 15 hours ago, di1630 said: Can you articulate for those of us outside the loop on this one? We were told we're participating in an exercise. Last time we were all in, 12 hour coverage, split amongst the minions. Found out Friday it's 12's for all 10 days straight including weekends.
January 28, 20187 yr 57 minutes ago, 17D_guy said: Found out Friday it's 12's for all 10 days straight including weekends. Do you have the manning to work a Panama schedule (break your flight/SQ into 2 "crews" each with a day shift and night shift)? Crew A does 2 days on 2 days off, 3 days on 3 days off. Crew B does 2 days off 2 days on, 3 days off, 3 days on. Just make sure you have some sort of mechanism for handoff between shifts/crews (logs, slides, etc...) The squadron I'm in now does that in perpetuity and while you don't get every weekend off you do get two 3 days weekends every month...
January 28, 20187 yr We were told we're participating in an exercise. Last time we were all in, 12 hour coverage, split amongst the minions. Found out Friday it's 12's for all 10 days straight including weekends.What’s your role in the exercise? If you can help/train, fine, if not, it’s BS.My sq was TDY at a base during a ORE...base told us not to interfere, DO said “we’ll participate in full chem gear etc” so that he could look good.
January 28, 20187 yr 8 hours ago, di1630 said: What’s your role in the exercise? If you can help/train, fine, if not, it’s BS. My sq was TDY at a base during a ORE...base told us not to interfere, DO said “we’ll participate in full chem gear etc” so that he could look good. You don't happen to be a Dyess guy do you?
January 29, 20187 yr 11 hours ago, BADFNZ said: You don't happen to be a Dyess guy do you? Second time someone has asked if said dude is from Dyess, seeing a pattern here..
January 29, 20187 yr On 1/27/2018 at 8:32 PM, abmwaldo said: Do you have the manning to work a Panama schedule (break your flight/SQ into 2 "crews" each with a day shift and night shift)? Crew A does 2 days on 2 days off, 3 days on 3 days off. Crew B does 2 days off 2 days on, 3 days off, 3 days on. Just make sure you have some sort of mechanism for handoff between shifts/crews (logs, slides, etc...) The squadron I'm in now does that in perpetuity and while you don't get every weekend off you do get two 3 days weekends every month... We do not. We're terrifyingly under-manned for what we're supposed to be doing. For example, in the exact same section in other orgs there's 4+ people working together on tasks. We've got 1 person, same amount of tasks and coord. It'll be interesting to see this coming week because I'm not doing anything real-world since I'm not staying longer than 12hrs. 19 hours ago, di1630 said: What’s your role in the exercise? If you can help/train, fine, if not, it’s BS. My sq was TDY at a base during a ORE...base told us not to interfere, DO said “we’ll participate in full chem gear etc” so that he could look good. It's not the fuck-fuck exercise games. It's the fuck-fuck passive-aggressive for 2 weeks so we make family plans while getting vaguely told we're "team players." Exercises aren't surprises, just our level of effort. "So, am I working this coming weekend?" Reply, "We're team players." Got to cut out my dudes early today since they were doing nothing related to it...just being "team players." On a positive note I found out I could put in for retirement this December.
January 29, 20187 yr 8 hours ago, dream big said: Second time someone has asked if said dude is from Dyess, seeing a pattern here.. Our tenant AMC wing is working as hard as they can to rope the rest of the base into their self-led ORE.
January 29, 20187 yr Maybe they can do an ORE on how to be on the same tower frequency as the rest of the base first
January 29, 20187 yr 2 hours ago, mcbush said: How much do these Dyess shenanigans have to do with this guy being in charge? Shitty leadership from the C-17 community? Weird.
January 30, 20187 yr 5 hours ago, Azimuth said: Weird. Dewey is a known quantity... Chuck Edited January 30, 20187 yr by Chuck17
January 30, 20187 yr 4 hours ago, Chuck17 said: Dewey is a known quantity... Perhaps in the C-17 community. Care to share with the rest of us?
January 30, 20187 yr 7 hours ago, FourFans130 said: Perhaps in the C-17 community. Care to share with the rest of us? He might be. But the Herk community has had a rash of C-17 dudes that come over and start messing things up. Now the big question is to how can we stop this silly trend in AMC?
January 30, 20187 yr 19 hours ago, mcbush said: How much do these Dyess shenanigans have to do with this guy being in charge? 99.69%..the guy is a total D bag. Last year there were a handful of 0-4s who wanted to stay in because morale was so good at Dyess. Now, they all talk about bailing for the airlines.
Create an account or sign in to comment