Drone Pilots: We Don’t Get No Respect

[magnetfreezer]

5 hours ago, ViperMan said:

From defensetravel.dod.mil:

"Uniformed Members

3. Is a uniformed member required to check availability/use Gov’t Qtrs?

A DoD member ordered to a U.S. installation (as opposed a geographic location like a town or city) is required to check Gov’t Qtrs availability (e.g., through the CTO/TMC) at the U.S. installation to which assigned TDY. The AO may direct adequate available Gov’t Qtrs use for a DoD uniformed member on a U.S. installation only if the DoD uniformed member is TDY to that U.S. installation. The DoD member should use adequate Gov’t Qtrs on the U.S. installation at which assigned TDY.

FOR COAST GUARD, NOAA, and PHS PERSONNEL ONLY:  Gov’t Qtrs are available only if use is directed in the travel order, per JTR, par. 2550 .

The DoD member is not required to seek/check for Gov’t Qtrs when TDY to a U.S. Installation/ Reservation after non-availability documentation has been initially provided (JTR, par. 2560 )."

Don't feel like diving into a 1000+ page pub right now, but I'm pretty sure the JTR will say the same thing. I don't disagree with people being upset about being forced into a housing situation, but I do struggle to understand why they're making the base leadership out to be in the "wrong" somehow, when it is clearly the government's policy that TDY members should use base billeting...

The use of Govt quarters is a should not a will... if you go off base w/o a non-A your reimbursement is limited to the base lodging rate. It doesn't say you can be ordered to stay on base or you won't be reimbursed at all.

[tac airlifter]

5 hours ago, ViperMan said:

From defensetravel.dod.mil:

"Uniformed Members

3. Is a uniformed member required to check availability/use Gov’t Qtrs?

A DoD member ordered to a U.S. installation (as opposed a geographic location like a town or city) is required to check Gov’t Qtrs availability (e.g., through the CTO/TMC) at the U.S. installation to which assigned TDY. The AO may direct adequate available Gov’t Qtrs use for a DoD uniformed member on a U.S. installation only if the DoD uniformed member is TDY to that U.S. installation. The DoD member should use adequate Gov’t Qtrs on the U.S. installation at which assigned TDY.?......

 I do struggle to understand why they're making the base leadership out to be in the "wrong" somehow, when it is clearly the government's policy that TDY members should use base billeting...

Are one bedroom quarters with only a microwave for cooking considered "adequate" for a 9 month TDY?  I don't know, but it does suck.  Given how much suck is inevitable in our careers, and how much of it is beyond our control..... I find myself philisophically opposed to leadership decisions which increase suck merely to be in compliance with regulations, rather than produce some quantifiable increase in mission effectiveness.  Officers exist to make smart choices in precisely these kinds of circumstances.  Your logic above is soundly IAW applicable regulations.  Unfortunately, zealously following regulations made by faceless bureaucrats has significantly increased the personal discomfort of this segment of our war fighting force without increasing their lethality.  That's not the kind of leader I want to be, and probably not you either.

Perhaps a better leadership angle would be: "I know this training is taking longer than we thought.  I know many of you brought your families here and these accommodations are placing a strain on your personal life.  Because I care about you being the best RPA operators possible, I recognize that your living environment should be conducive to optimal learning and my on base facilities simply aren't there yet.  I'm rescinding my policy and I encourage each of you to find lodging within your budget that best enables an environment where your training is optimized.  This is not an efficient use of funds or equipment on my base, but let me worry about those justifications.  Our nation needs you to focus on honing the precision engagement skills which have become the bedrock of our strategy against AQ/IS.  Do your best, be your best, and thank you for helping me identify a personal strain I can alleviate so you can focus on our mission.  Go kick ass."

[sqwatch]

Perhaps a better leadership angle would be: "I know this training is taking longer than we thought.  I know many of you brought your families here and these accommodations are placing a strain on your personal life.  Because I care about you being the best RPA operators possible, I recognize that your living environment should be conducive to optimal learning and my on base facilities simply aren't there yet.  I'm rescinding my policy and I encourage each of you to find lodging within your budget that best enables an environment where your training is optimized.  This is not an efficient use of funds or equipment on my base, but let me worry about those justifications.  Our nation needs you to focus on honing the precision engagement skills which have become the bedrock of our strategy against AQ/IS.  Do your best, be your best, and thank you for helping me identify a personal strain I can alleviate so you can focus on our mission.  Go kick ass."

Billeting does not great make a droid commander. Experience, spidysense, ability to follow direction, and to be able to coerce your SO to function as well as your thumb and index finger. If you're suck at droids and the skape goat is billeting (is it ACd?) there's more to the story.

[Herk Driver]

Lots of good words and philosophically, I don't disagree.

However, the first page or so of the JTR says that the JTR is administrative but has the "force of law".

I would argue fail to follow it at your own peril. Additionally, schoolhouse Commanders have the ability to set what per diem rate is followed etc.

18x guys should follow the rules to the max extent. If they don't want to live on base then refuse on-base quarters and move along. Bitching rights are fixing rights.

[war007afa]

12 hours ago, magnetfreezer said:

The use of Govt quarters is a should not a will... if you go off base w/o a non-A your reimbursement is limited to the base lodging rate. It doesn't say you can be ordered to stay on base or you won't be reimbursed at all.

Except the local commander can always be more restrictive than the parent regulations.

[ViperMan]

13 hours ago, magnetfreezer said:

The use of Govt quarters is a should not a will... if you go off base w/o a non-A your reimbursement is limited to the base lodging rate. It doesn't say you can be ordered to stay on base or you won't be reimbursed at all.

Ok, but the the government's "should" beats your "want to" every time.

13 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

Are one bedroom quarters with only a microwave for cooking considered "adequate" for a 9 month TDY?  I don't know, but it does suck.  Given how much suck is inevitable in our careers, and how much of it is beyond our control..... I find myself philisophically opposed to leadership decisions which increase suck merely to be in compliance with regulations, rather than produce some quantifiable increase in mission effectiveness.  Officers exist to make smart choices in precisely these kinds of circumstances.  Your logic above is soundly IAW applicable regulations.  Unfortunately, zealously following regulations made by faceless bureaucrats has significantly increased the personal discomfort of this segment of our war fighting force without increasing their lethality.  That's not the kind of leader I want to be, and probably not you either.

Perhaps a better leadership angle would be: "I know this training is taking longer than we thought.  I know many of you brought your families here and these accommodations are placing a strain on your personal life.  Because I care about you being the best RPA operators possible, I recognize that your living environment should be conducive to optimal learning and my on base facilities simply aren't there yet.  I'm rescinding my policy and I encourage each of you to find lodging within your budget that best enables an environment where your training is optimized.  This is not an efficient use of funds or equipment on my base, but let me worry about those justifications.  Our nation needs you to focus on honing the precision engagement skills which have become the bedrock of our strategy against AQ/IS.  Do your best, be your best, and thank you for helping me identify a personal strain I can alleviate so you can focus on our mission.  Go kick ass."

Probably not, honestly. I would be upset if I was forced to live (for > 1/2 year) in some of the sub-standard billeting I've stayed in. However, my point is that it is not always the CCs in charge of the base that make decisions like these. Everyone has a boss (including wing/CCs), and when I first became aware of this "issue" at Holloman, I was a little surprised because my reaction was "it's not within the Wing/CCs authority to override the JTR, what are these people complaining about?" (then again, that's only my "thought"...who knows, maybe they can override it and do what they want...).

I sport bitch all the time about stuff that is annoying and irritating about the Air Force - and I agree that this is one of those things...buuuuutttt, I don't start Facebook groups and letters petitioning for O-6s to change policies over which they have (I think...) little to no control. To me it just seems like this group is highlighting that they are completely out of touch with how the military operates and who and what it reports to.

I like that leadership angle, but I'd rather have the guy tell me "hey I hear you and it is BS, but that's not in my power to control. When you get out at the end of your commitment, cite the JTR as your reason for separating, and maybe it'll change for the next guy...see ya."

Edited June 30, 2016 by ViperMan
Double post.

[Jaded]

Wing commanders have control over what they choose to have control over. It sounds like you have a wing commander who is choosing not to pick this battle. Sounds like the wrong decision here from the peanut gallery. My experience has been when your number one priority is taking care of your people everything else works out. People ARE separating over stuff like this, so while the USAF wins this battle (saving pennies on lodging), they're losing the war (pilot retention). O-6s with the proper priorities have enough authority to fix these issues, and are choosing not to.

[pawnman]

2 hours ago, ViperMan said:

Ok, but the the government's "should" beats your "want to" every time.

Probably not, honestly. I would be upset if I was forced to live (for > 1/2 year) in some of the sub-standard billeting I've stayed in. However, my point is that it is not always the CCs in charge of the base that make decisions like these. Everyone has a boss (including wing/CCs), and when I first became aware of this "issue" at Holloman, I was a little surprised because my reaction was "it's not within the Wing/CCs authority to override the JTR, what are these people complaining about?" (then again, that's only my "thought"...who knows, maybe they can override it and do what they want...).

I sport bitch all the time about stuff that is annoying and irritating about the Air Force - and I agree that this is one of those things...buuuuutttt, I don't start Facebook groups and letters petitioning for O-6s to change policies over which they have (I think...) little to no control. To me it just seems like this group is highlighting that they are completely out of touch with how the military operates and who and what it reports to.

I like that leadership angle, but I'd rather have the guy tell me "hey I hear you and it is BS, but that's not in my power to control. When you get out at the end of your commitment, cite the JTR as your reason for separating, and maybe it'll change for the next guy...see ya."

So why do the Viper students not live on base?  Why does the JTR win when it comes to billeting but PCS vs TDY rules lose even though these guys are clearly there for more than 179 days?

[ViperMan]

48 minutes ago, pawnman said:

So why do the Viper students not live on base?  Why does the JTR win when it comes to billeting but PCS vs TDY rules lose even though these guys are clearly there for more than 179 days?

Legal answer? Because the JTR says so. It's literally that simple...and that's my only beef. The studs (IMO) are picking a straw man battle.

Philosophically? I totally agree. There is basically, qualitatively, no difference whatsoever.

Difference? Students should be pissed at what the JTR says, not that the base leadership is following it (appropriately so). Or alternatively, that the AF puts them there in TDY status vs PCS status.

Edited June 30, 2016 by ViperMan

[magnetfreezer]

12 hours ago, war007afa said:

Except the local commander can always be more restrictive than the parent regulations.

JTR  Intro: 

a. When necessary, a Uniformed Service: (1) May supplement the JTR with administrative regulations (see pars. 1015 and 1020), but (2) May not prescribe allowances that differ in amount or type from those authorized by the JTR, unless specifically permitted.

They can be more restrictive but not deny/change reimbursement.

 

[Lord Ratner]

JTR  Intro: 

a. When necessary, a Uniformed Service: (1) May supplement the JTR with administrative regulations (see pars. 1015 and 1020), but (2) May not prescribe allowances that differ in amount or type from those authorized by the JTR, unless specifically permitted.

They can be more restrictive but not deny/change reimbursement.

 

Exactly. They (CC) can order you to stay on base, and you can ignore them and follow the JTR on refusal of govt quarters. They have to pay you the prescribed amount, but your CC can also write you an LOR for article 92.

[SurelySerious]

Just because it's legal for the CC to do so, doesn't mean that it's smart (or right).

[Duck]

Or that he won't still do it...

[Fuzz]

For you guys looking to escape RPAs, I'm back at Altus & I've seen at least 3 pilots here going back through requal (C-17 side).

[viper154]

1 hour ago, Fuzz said:

For you guys looking to escape RPAs, I'm back at Altus & I've seen at least 3 pilots here going back through requal (C-17 side).

At least there is hope. We just received a couple C-17 guys and a buff guy so they are still coming to the robot spy planes. But I think people would be much less bitter knowing there might be a light at the end of the tunnel.  I think the impending heavy shortage combined with the 18x increase is going to be a golden ticket for us heavy guys. 

 

I also spoke to the rated assignment road show  guys a couple weeks ago. They seemed rather receptive to getting us (UPT direct) guys back to a manned jet. Or maybe they could see my soul was gone inside and didn't want me to off myself. 

 

Hopfully the first option, but knowing the Air Force the second is more probable. 

Edit for grammar. The guy who flys a computer can't type. 

Edited November 16, 2016 by viper154

[Homestar]

Didn't the enlisted RPA board announce like 300+ names for the program? 

[HU&W]

2 hours ago, Homestar said:

Didn't the enlisted RPA board announce like 300+ names for the program? 

Not quite.  Those are the 300 candidates selected out of the 800ish that applied.  Now those 300 have to jump through a few more hoops (FCII and another board for starters) to get it down to the final number.  As of now, the final selectees will only go to the GH, nothing armed.  Personally, I expect that may change in the next 2-3 years, but we'll see.

11x pilots that have not recatted will be released back to manned based solely on TOS.

[MooseAg03]

If they wait too long, I'll 7 day opt to avoid the additional 3 year ADSC for flying training. I'm not sure I even want that commitment even if it means returning to fly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guest]

If they wait too long, I'll 7 day opt to avoid the additional 3 year ADSC for flying training. I'm not sure I even want that commitment even if it means returning to fly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You won't get a flying training ADSC that takes you past your UPT commitment if you're going back to a plane you were previously qual'd in. You'll still get the 2-yr PCS ADSC.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MooseAg03]

You won't get a flying training ADSC that takes you past your UPT commitment if you're going back to a plane you were previously qual'd in. You'll still get the 2-yr PCS ADSC.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Everyone says that, except the C-17v1 and the course info on the ETCA site for AC & IP re-qual say otherwise. Anything other than a local requal incurs a 36 month ADSC. Maybe they don't enforce it, who knows, but I won't take my chances.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[nrodgsxr]

20 minutes ago, MooseAg03 said:

Everyone says that, except the C-17v1 and the course info on the ETCA site for AC & IP re-qual say otherwise. Anything other than a local requal incurs a 36 month ADSC. Maybe they don't enforce it, who knows, but I won't take my chances.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

AFPC removed my ADSC for C-17 IP Requal so you should be good. I just cited their own regs and it worked like a charm.

[Guest ThatGuy]

Is the $175K bonus worth it for 5 more years?

[POKESC17]

AFPC removed my ADSC for C-17 IP Requal so you should be good. I just cited their own regs and it worked like a charm.

They didn't even try to give me an ADSC for my requal.


Sent from my iPad using Baseops Network Forums

[MooseAg03]

AFPC removed my ADSC for C-17 IP Requal so you should be good. I just cited their own regs and it worked like a charm.

Which reg did you cite? The note in the ADSC reg that says "No advanced flying training will extend your commitment beyond 10 years of rated service"? That's the one I would use even for a PIT commitment.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[nrodgsxr]

 

 

On 11/17/2016 at 4:39 PM, MooseAg03 said:

Which reg did you cite? The note in the ADSC reg that says "No advanced flying training will extend your commitment beyond 10 years of rated service"? That's the one I would use even for a PIT commitment.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

that's the one