What's wrong with the Air Force?

[HeloDude]

I’ll just put this right here…

I definitely think we need to bring in the brightest and hardest working from all backgrounds and walks of life and in doing so brings greater diversity of thought and talents, but when the focus is on changing the demographics of the force just for the sake of doing so, then recruiting, promoting, etc based on merit is no longer the top priority.

 

 

https://www.ramstein.af.mil/News/Photos/igphoto/2002546376/fbclid/IwAR3FOGm-DOXiozcIbxZo1Fn4zKSalRVW-xk4Fs_47w7FIBgOE2KLe9Z-Hgw/

https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2021/11/02/travis-airman-arrested-in-connection-with-alleged-murder-of-19-year-old-woman/

[herkbier]

Am I missing something? What does the story with diversity (which happens to use this dudes photo) have to do with the murder?

Have there been an increase in violent crimes by military members since we started this diversity push, years ago? Was there something in this dudes past that would have normally disqualified him for service but was overlooked in the name of promoting diversity?

[Sua Sponte]

Another charge he should get is paying for that haircut.

[HeloDude]

36 minutes ago, herkbier said:

Am I missing something? What does the story with diversity (which happens to use this dudes photo) have to do with the murder?

Have there been an increase in violent crimes by military members since we started this diversity push, years ago? Was there something in this dudes past that would have normally disqualified him for service but was overlooked in the name of promoting diversity?

Yes, you did miss some something.  Not too long ago the Air Force decided to post this Airman’s picture under the headline of “Diversity Makes Us Stronger”…not that he won some award, that he was doing great things in his job,  helping out with the community, etc…literally just because he is a minority and that by that fact alone, he makes us a stronger force.  And now we come to find that the same Airman was arrested for being involved with a murder.  

Now think of all the great Airman at Ramstein that were doing great things that weren’t highlighted by the Air Force…and who aren’t being arrested for heinous crimes.  I don’t know if A1C Peralta was good at his job or not before his arrest, but the only reason the Air Force have to the public that they wanted to highlight him was for minority background…no other reason, and it turns out that he’s obviously not that great of an Airman.

There are plenty of Airman, minority or not, doing great things that are worthy of PA posting their picture and telling us about them, and yet that’s obviously not what happened here.

Still confused?

[Ryder1587]

Maybe he carved a bomb ass pumpkin?!

[HeloDude]

4 hours ago, Ryder1587 said:

Maybe he carved a bomb ass pumpkin?!

Haha.  Then say that and show us the awesome pumpkin!

[herkbier]

I guess, I see an article about a pumpkin contest that a squadron held; there they “learned” (what a ing stupid term for the PA reporter to use) they have people from a variety of backgrounds. The title says “diversity makes AF stronger” without a single sentence to support the statement. A photo of a non-white Airman from the Sq is used. 
 

In another article, Amn from above photo is accused of killing someone. 

I honestly see it as just another set of shitty PA articles.. but reading you reply again, I see what you’re saying about this particular piece. 
 

Don’t get me wrong, I’m with you; diversity based solely on skin color alone is dumb. 

[ViperMan]

8 hours ago, herkbier said:

Am I missing something? What does the story with diversity (which happens to use this dudes photo) have to do with the murder?

Have there been an increase in violent crimes by military members since we started this diversity push, years ago? Was there something in this dudes past that would have normally disqualified him for service but was overlooked in the name of promoting diversity?

It highlights a potential blind spot. The PTB in the force, the people who run the show and set the tone, absolutely favor the sort of nonsense that centralizes the trivial relative to the significant. It's all about what someone looks like - the diversity article is the prototype of that theme.

Whether it has something in actuality to do with the murder article is unproven, but there is something to what I'm saying above.

[ThreeHoler]

So on the topic of “toxic leadership” and command pressure to fly, I’d love to get opinions on this scenario. And spears as well but hopefully someone can learn from my thought process and your responses.
Several times in deployed environments, other AC’s have elected to cancel based on low weather given instrument approaches available (e.g. 300&3/4 when an ILS with 200 & 1/2 is available) with no forecast showing it will get worse or significantly better). The phrase they’d always use is it’s the “conservative” choice. Well one time I’m the DO deployed and a guy who is a bit notorious for canceling in that scenario comes to me and says he’s going to cancel. I ask why and he says for weather. I had him walk me through it and there was usable weather at the field at Takeoff and Land +\- 1 hour and also a viable alternate (which admittedly was 250 miles away and would reduce 75% of station time). After showing that, I said I didn’t understand the cancel decision. There was then a bleeding heart speech about backing up AC’s and undue pressure to fly when it was unsafe etc. I’m not particularly proud of my response but I said that I’d back up his decision every time, but I asked if we need to look at our evaluation criteria because we don’t have Pilot Weather Categories and all of our AC’s are approved to what’s on the plate. He said no (he was a SEFE) to which I retorted why aren’t you going then? “Because that’s my decision” and I said “then why do we have the 202v3 if it’s just up to your gut”. He then asked if I was ordering him to go when he felt unsafe and I said no, I don’t have that authority and wouldn’t do that if I did. We canceled the line, NBD and then I get feedback at the end of the deployment from this guy about how I set up a toxic environment and he cited this particular case. That pissed me off but I just let it go and moved on but it ate at me for awhile. A few other guys made similar comments while others praised me for upholding the standard, etc.
Debrief? Is that toxic? Where’s the line between toxic and upholding the standard? Is this in the same ballpark as the Tinker OG?

Wow. 300 and 3/4 is touch and go weather for KC-10 IPs.

Not toxic and it sounds like the community needs a good recentering on accepted risk and mitigation strategies. Maybe there were other pieces, but a highly experienced dude (SEFE) who can’t hack 300 3/4 (when the required weather should be vis only for the straight in and likely 2400 RVR depending on the country) is a drain on your MWS.

[ThreeHoler]

No, def not toxic.  I’ve been in shoes similar to you in a deployed environment.  At a certain point we are appointed with executing the mission. I’d look at any of my ACs sideways if they cancelled due to WX being 300-3/4 when mins are 200-1/2.  Just go out there and get er done dude.  However, like you, I was sensitive about having my AC’s backs if they did make the tough call even if I disagreed with said decision.
Tinker, different story.  Crews were not safe to fly and got their butts chewed for ORM. Not to mention it was a training environment. That’s a huge foul on part of said OG.  
Let’s cultivate a climate where ACs are empowered but at the same time are willing to lean forward and get the mission done in the grey zone. 
 
 

Mins in UPT (AETC) are ceiling and vis. Mins in ACC are ceiling and vis. Mins in AMC are vis only for straight ins (but most AMC pilots never figure that out and keep spewing this 200-1/2 bullshit). What are the mins to fly this approach in AMC?

https://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/2111/00150IL6.PDF

[Lord Ratner]

I'm not in anymore, but my opinion was always that if you're not willing to fly under allowable circumstances, then you're not allowed to fly at all. If you don't trust yourself to fly to the training standard, which are the regulatory minimums, what else aren't you comfortable with that you might encounter?

 

Every once in awhile in the kc-135 someone would say that they won't do a 50 flap landing. They'd gotten so complacent with 40 flap landings that they somehow convinced themselves it was unsafe to do the landing the plane was designed for. Eventually 50 flap landings were added as a required currency item, but it was always a fun conversation with someone asking them why they weren't skilled enough Pilots to fly the plane in accordance with SOP.

Edited November 4, 2021 by Lord Ratner

[CaptainMorgan]

Mins in UPT (AETC) are ceiling and vis. Mins in ACC are ceiling and vis. Mins in AMC are vis only for straight ins (but most AMC pilots never figure that out and keep spewing this 200-1/2 bullshit). What are the mins to fly this approach in AMC?

https://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/2111/00150IL6.PDF

Looks like 1800 RVR to me. In the C-17, I’ve never done a T&G in anything other than VMC because we don’t often do instrument approaches on locals.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[di1630]

A decade or so ago. A fighter guy at UPT was at the ops desk upset because weather was at mins (alternate was VFR) and he said he wasn’t going to fly.

I took his jet instead, never understood why anyone argues a black and white item like mins. You are qual’d or not.

[jazzdude]

Looks like 1800 RVR to me. In the C-17, I’ve never done a T&G in anything other than VMC because we don’t often do instrument approaches on locals.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

1800 RVR assuming you have the equipment operable to go below 2400 RVR

I take it you've never been through Altus in the winter if you haven't done an IMC T&G in the C-17

[Sua Sponte]

3 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

I'm not in anymore, but my opinion was always that if you're not willing to fly under allowable circumstances, then you're not allowed to fly at all. If you don't trust yourself to fly to the training standard, which are the regulatory minimums, what else aren't you comfortable with that you might encounter?

 

Every once in awhile in the kc-135 someone would say that they won't do a 50 flap landing. They'd gotten so complacent with 40 flap landings that they somehow convinced themselves it was unsafe to do the landing the plane was designed for. Eventually 50 flap landings were added as a required currency item, but it was always a fun conversation with someone asking them why they weren't skilled enough Pilots to fly the plane in accordance with SOP.

Which is funny to me since 30 and 50 flap landings were the norm until about 2010. Having someone do a 40 flap landing before then would elicit a weird look.

[Bigred]

13 hours ago, joe1234 said:

Look, I'll take weather down to mins any day of the week (what can I say, I'm a badass), but if you put a PIC's name on the flight authorization, then the decision to go or not yours; it's his. Doesn't matter if you think he's being weak, or isn't living up to his qualification level, or whatever else. The only opinion that matters is the PIC's. Doesn't matter if it's 300-3/4 or CAVOK. It's his prerogative.

Either cut a new authorization with a new PIC, or deal with it. You don't like how he makes decisions? Stop putting him on flights. Maybe there's another conversation to be had with that guy's unit commander, but lol if he's a guard dude, because nobody is going to believe some deployed active duty DO nerd over one of their own experienced EPs.

Using the weather example above, if a PIC says no to flying with 300 & 3/4 when the mins are 200 & 1/2, I’ll back up his decision and he doesn’t fly that day. I’d also recommend he lose his PIC designation and needs to go through requal.

Edited November 5, 2021 by Bigred

[Lord Ratner]

26 minutes ago, Bigred said:

Using the weather example above, if a PIC says no to flying with 300 & 3/4 when the mins are 200 & 1/2, I’ll back up his decision and he doesn’t fly that day. I’d also recommend he lose his PIC designation and needs to go through requal.

Shack

[HeloDude]

14 hours ago, joe1234 said:

Look, I'll take weather down to mins any day of the week (what can I say, I'm a badass), but if you put a PIC's name on the flight authorization, then the decision to go or not yours; it's his. Doesn't matter if you think he's being weak, or isn't living up to his qualification level, or whatever else. The only opinion that matters is the PIC's. Doesn't matter if it's 300-3/4 or CAVOK. It's his prerogative.

Either cut a new authorization with a new PIC, or deal with it. You don't like how he makes decisions? Stop putting him on flights. Maybe there's another conversation to be had with that guy's unit commander, but lol if he's a guard dude, because nobody is going to believe some deployed active duty DO nerd over one of their own experienced EPs.

Air Force pilot:  I don’t feel comfortable flying a mission I was told to fly because I perceive risks that could possibly jeopardize my safety and it doesn’t matter that my leadership thinks it’s totally safe to go fly.

Air Force pilot:  I don’t feel comfortable getting a new vaccine that I was told to take because I perceive risks that could possibly jeopardize my safety and it doesn’t matter that my leadership thinks it’s totally safe to take. 
 

Either we trust our people to be able to make their own call when it comes to their safety and how it affects the mission or we don’t.

Full disclosure—I think if you’re in the military and are ordered to get the covid shot then that’s part of the job, whether I personally like it or not, and if you refuse when the leadership thinks it’s safe, then there should be consequences. Likewise if you’re ordered to fly a mission you’re qualified to fly and you refuse, and leadership thinks it’s safe, then there should be adverse consequences.

[arg]

I remember back in the day when I learned you could take off from an airfield that didn't have landing mins as long as you had an alternate that did. Seemed weird. But I lived to fly another day.

[FLEA]

11 hours ago, HeloDude said:

Air Force pilot:  I don’t feel comfortable flying a mission I was told to fly because I perceive risks that could possibly jeopardize my safety and it doesn’t matter that my leadership thinks it’s totally safe to go fly.

Air Force pilot:  I don’t feel comfortable getting a new vaccine that I was told to take because I perceive risks that could possibly jeopardize my safety and it doesn’t matter that my leadership thinks it’s totally safe to take. 
 

Either we trust our people to be able to make their own call when it comes to their safety and how it affects the mission or we don’t.

Full disclosure—I think if you’re in the military and are ordered to get the covid shot then that’s part of the job, whether I personally like it or not, and if you refuse when the leadership thinks it’s safe, then there should be consequences. Likewise if you’re ordered to fly a mission you’re qualified to fly and you refuse, and leadership thinks it’s safe, then there should be adverse consequences.

Well, leadership recently ordered a crew at Tinker to fly a mission that by the book was legal but in reality was stupidly non-sensible. 

To me that's the role of the AC. If you're go/no-go factors as an AC are simply whether or not its legal by the book to take off or land, than we are paying you too much. Fuck the Nav can look in a book and tell you if you have the mins or not. I would say the guy at the TMO desk could do it but I don't think they've ever cracked and AFI in their life so I won't go there.

Anyway, the AC is there when by all accounts you should be allowed to do something, but for whatever extenuating circumstances or factors that guidance doesnt capture, its just a really stupid idea. 

[CaptainMorgan]

Same pay for zero responsibility sounds like a hell of a deal to me.

Need those PIC hours for later. Also, you could be looking at an FEB.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LookieRookie]

22 minutes ago, FLEA said:

Well, leadership recently ordered a crew at Tinker to fly a mission that by the book was legal but in reality was stupidly non-sensible. 

 

The crew members didn’t have adequate rest. It was not legal.

[FourFans]

On 11/4/2021 at 9:24 AM, Lord Ratner said:

I'm not in anymore, but my opinion was always that if you're not willing to fly under allowable circumstances, then you're not allowed to fly at all.

On 11/4/2021 at 9:28 AM, CaptainMorgan said:

Looks like 1800 RVR to me. In the C-17...

On 11/4/2021 at 10:19 AM, di1630 said:

A decade or so ago. A fighter guy at UPT was at the ops desk upset because weather was at mins...

13 hours ago, Bigred said:

Using the weather example above, if a PIC says no to flying with 300 & 3/4 when the mins are 200 & 1/2, I’ll back up his decision blah blah blah....

11 hours ago, HeloDude said:

Air Force pilot:  I don’t feel comfortable flying...

1 hour ago, joe1234 said:

Same pay for zero responsibility sounds like a hell of a deal to me.

41 minutes ago, FLEA said:

Well, leadership recently ordered a crew at Tinker to fly a mission that by the book was legal but in reality was stupidly non-sensible.

39 minutes ago, CaptainMorgan said:

Need those PIC hours for later

Curtis Lemay is turning over in his grave and muttering something to the effect: They're F'ing clouds.  Fly through them and get the F'ing job done like warriors should!  Don't bring it weak, you weak dick pussies!

[Alpharatz]

10 minutes ago, FourFans130 said:

Curtis Lemay is turning over in his grave and muttering something to the effect: They're F'ing clouds.  Fly through them and get the F'ing job done like warriors should!  Don't bring it weak, you weak dick pussies!

Yeah dammit...that's what B-29's are for...now git...

[FourFans]

57 minutes ago, Alpharatz said:

Yeah dammit...that's what B-29's are for...now git...

In my civil life, I operate a plane that will land itself in bad weather.  Why on earth is weather even a discussion topic in military aviation at this point?  It should be motherhood that in a briefing would sound like: "we'll autoland if needed, standard, next?"

I know.  I know.  I also fly basic female dog airplanes in the reserve... 

I'm just saying, Lemay would be very sad at the state of how our military leverages tech right now...rightly so...