Joining the USAF

"BUFDRVR" wrote in message
...
BUFF, I'll have to disagree, but I'll preface this by saying I only
worked
in 2 units during the great "reorganization circus".

I only worked in two as well, but it was a success story in each one.


Just taking a wild guess here, but were they B-52 units? grin
I seem to recall that most of the positive comments I ever heard were from
people that worked either fighter units, or bomber units. The flyers there
seemed to have a better grasp of "teamwork", and a much higher respect for
the wrench-benders. And I guess that there were much fewer fliers assigned
than in my units (AWACS and JSTARS).

We, the
flightline folks, stayed where we were at, because we located next to the
flightline.

In many cases around the Air Force, I'm sure this was true and in a
perfect
world working in the same building would be the norm, but I don't think
its
required to make the ops-mnx cooperation successful.

Never saw the bosses come down to the shop

Failure of leadership, not the system.


Agreed.

If you went over to the OR
and walked into the building in BDU's, EVERYBODY looked down at you.

I'll have to take your word for it, but I find it hard to believe. I
thought
more highly of our young enlisted folks than I did many of our young
officers.


Not to say that it never happens. Like anywhere, I met my share of
outstanding folks, and real idiots.

From my point of view, it's entirely the right thing to do. Again,
that's
MY view, a 16 year maintainer working E-3's and E-8's.

Obviously you're not alone or the reorganization would not have taken
place.
I've been at the Pentagon since July, but as I was leaving, some of the
old
(pre-1993) problems were beginning to surface and nearly everyone I talk
to
about the reorganization feels it was a mistake, you're the first I've
seen in
favor of it.


I think it's the "full-circle" theory at work. Every few years you make a
change to the system, and eventually you'll come back around to the
beginning again (don't like the weather? Wait, it'll change). Since the
start of my career coincided with the separate MX/OPS squadrons, I MIGHT be
a little biased to that system.

Pete

"Vee-One" wrote

"BUFDRVR" wrote
If you went over to the OR
and walked into the building in BDU's, EVERYBODY looked
down at you.

I'll have to take your word for it, but I find it hard to believe. I
thought more highly of our young enlisted folks than I did many of our
young officers.

Not to say that it never happens. Like anywhere, I met my share of
outstanding folks, and real idiots.

AWACS and JWACS squadrons have very few pilots, and you would be
hard pressed to find them in the sea of other positions. I think it's these
other positions that you may have identified as being BDU sensitive.

If there's one kind of people we all liked to bail out of jail, it was the
crew chief's and cooks.

Course now, I've only been TDY to Tinker twice in my life, but I never saw
so many enlisted crew dogs in my life. The gomers were everywhere.

"Gene Storey" wrote in message
news:Ueesb.872$6p6.283@okepread03...
"Vee-One" wrote

"BUFDRVR" wrote
If you went over to the OR
and walked into the building in BDU's, EVERYBODY looked
down at you.

I'll have to take your word for it, but I find it hard to believe. I
thought more highly of our young enlisted folks than I did many of our
young officers.

Not to say that it never happens. Like anywhere, I met my share of
outstanding folks, and real idiots.

AWACS and JWACS squadrons have very few pilots, and you would be
hard pressed to find them in the sea of other positions. I think it's
these
other positions that you may have identified as being BDU sensitive.


You're right of course. A few minutes to clear my head and re-read the
posts can do wonders for my comprehension (but not for my ego).
But there were also the folks who really believed in the hard-crew concept,
and they stuck together like rats on a ship (sorry, Navy).

If there's one kind of people we all liked to bail out of jail, it was the
crew chief's and cooks.

Course now, I've only been TDY to Tinker twice in my life, but I never saw
so many enlisted crew dogs in my life. The gomers were everywhere.


Not hard, considering a typical crew. The number of back-enders far
outweigh the flight crew, and it seems like more and more them are enlisted.
As a rule, the only ones we (maintenance) got along with were the ones that
we worked with (i.e. Radar troops and the Airborne Radar Techs, the com/nav
folks and the Comm Techs, etc.)

Note- "Success Story" from the ZSSG(1) point of view is very different from
the definition of "Success Story" from the LGM(2) point of view . . .

Yeah, no doubt absorbing On-Equipment Maintenance into the Ops squadrons was
a wonderful idea . . . from the Ops point of view. But was it a success
from the USAF point of view?

Nope.


1: Zipper Suited Sun God
2: Little Green Mo********ers

Steve


"BUFDRVR" wrote in message
...
BUFF, I'll have to disagree, but I'll preface this by saying I only
worked
in 2 units during the great "reorganization circus".

I only worked in two as well, but it was a success story in each one.

We, the
flightline folks, stayed where we were at, because we located next to the
flightline.

In many cases around the Air Force, I'm sure this was true and in a
perfect
world working in the same building would be the norm, but I don't think
its
required to make the ops-mnx cooperation successful.

Never saw the bosses come down to the shop

Failure of leadership, not the system.

If you went over to the OR
and walked into the building in BDU's, EVERYBODY looked down at you.

I'll have to take your word for it, but I find it hard to believe. I
thought
more highly of our young enlisted folks than I did many of our young
officers.

From my point of view, it's entirely the right thing to do. Again,
that's
MY view, a 16 year maintainer working E-3's and E-8's.

Obviously you're not alone or the reorganization would not have taken
place.
I've been at the Pentagon since July, but as I was leaving, some of the
old
(pre-1993) problems were beginning to surface and nearly everyone I talk
to
about the reorganization feels it was a mistake, you're the first I've
seen in
favor of it.




BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

The typical breakout is "On Equipment" vs. "Off Equipment."

There are indeed "Organizational Management" reasons for either centralizing
or decentralizing functions in an organization; regrettably, those who make
the decisions don't generally learn these things.

Too busy flying to learn.

Steve Swartz



"BUFDRVR" wrote in message
...
One experience was more recent, 2001 Cope Thunder in Eilsson
(sp?). , where ops and the flight gear clubhouse (complete with
lockers and showers) was in a totally seperate building than the
hangar and maintenance.

Space is always at a premium. Our Life Support shop was located across the
street in a seperate building, but there was no room in the squadron
building,
perhaps the same is true at Eilson?

I'm taking it that line specialists, bomb loaders,
maintenance, flight gear, and ops are all different squadrons?

As of 1 OCT 2002 you are correct, kind of.. There are now Ops Squadrons
and
Maintenance Squadrons. I'll pleade ignorance on how they've got the
maintenance
squadrons broken up (crew chiefs in one, hydraulics in another, etc.),
however,
from 1 OCT 1993 till 1 OCT 2002 we were all (except the back shop guys) in
one
squadron. This current "break up" is considered a mistake Air Force wide.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

From: (BUFDRVR)


snip

In my experience with the Air Force flying 'O's, you guys never set
foot on the hangar deck and have no clue who works on your jets.

Must be pre-1993 experience.

You don't even work in the same place

Then who the hell were all those guys downstairs wearing the BDU's? Some of
them were the same crew chiefs that I "just signed the jet from". They came
to all our squadron meetings and functions too. Who the hell were they?

snip

The relationship between OPS and maintenance is always changing and may never
actually be ideal. Maintenance keeps changing how they run themselves every few
years. If you want examples of Chinese ceremonial goose stuffings look up POMO,
COMO etc. I was in maintenance as part of OPS units, my last was 9 SOS,
separate maintenace squadrons and CAMS. The average wrenchbender couldn't care
less what you call the unit as long as he gets good leadership, treatment and
support.

In the Navy

snip

sarcasm onYeah, the Navy has some great officer-NCO or officer-enlisted
relationships sarcasm off

I spent a little over one month on the Theodore Roosevelt and was astonished
at the adversarial relationships between officers and non-officers. You guys
may
work and live togather closer than the Air Force, but you certainly don't
respect and get along better.


I went to sea with the Navy a few times on the little boats like the USS
Okinawa. I didn't see the adversarial relationships you describe, but the rank
differences are much more defined in the Navy than the Air Force. Examples;
"officer country," top 3 going to the head of the chow line etc. Things are
only slightly better than WW2 where boats like destroyers had such a class
difference you'd see officers eating fresh fruit at one end of the chow hall
and enlisted at the other end eating slop. Shipboard life is very much a feudal
system and probably always will be which explaind why the ship's captain has a
Marine guard.


Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired