Comment: First group of UPT pilots graduate from Predator training
As a long-time military pilot, serving in two uniforms and alongside every aviation-equipped branch, I personally have to disagree with the UPT to UAV track, unless there is going to be some sort of maintenance program for piloting skills such as the "squadron hack" airplanes we used to have around to keep our skills sharp when the real hardware had to be combat-ready, loaded, and on alert. These new pilots' skills are so very fragile at their stage, and millions have been spent teaching them to fly the highest performance aircraft. To remove them from the cockpit at this stage of their skill set development is to waste those millions, in my opinion. They need continuous skill enhancement in the simple monkey skills of flying at their stage. A C-12 or T-34 or some such excess inventory aircraft should be assigned to these squadrons to maintain their skills we have invested in so dearly. Three years from now, when they haven't actually manned and flown an aircraft since UPT, they'll be starting from scratch while trying to fly not a trainer anymore but a more demanding front-line machine. Flying a UAV is not going to keep those same skills honed any more than my desktop computer's flight sim program. View story
Lt. Col. Robert A. Wunderlich
Scott Air Force Base, Ill.
4/30/2009
Comment: A lesson in listening
Colonel Metzler's third point about listening is probably the toughest one to actually do -- "Listen to understand, not to respond." For me, it takes incredible self-discipline to remain silent when I think I have something worthwhile to say. But the colonel is right, sometimes the speaker doesn't want a "solution;" they just want to be heard. My wife has had to remind me of this more than once. So, as hard as it may be, try keeping your ears open and your mouth shut. You just may be surprised at the results. View commentary
Capt. (Ret.) Dan Purdy
Scott Air Force Base, Ill.
4/30/2009
Re: Post 9/11 GI Bill
Although I am excited that this is finally becoming a reality, I can't help but question the rules in regards to personnel who serve 20 years and may still have an additional service requirement in order to transfer these benefits to their family members. I think that serving 20 years in itself should be justification enough for automatic transfer, if elected. Why should we be required to serve an additional one to three years? I think this is a disservice to all servicemembers who have served their country proudly for 20 years. I am proud to serve my country and have done so without question for 18 and a half years; but, this rule just doesn't seem to make much sense.
Master Sgt. Melanie Holmes
Lackland Air Force Base, Texas
4/30/2009
Re: Post 9/11 GI Bill
I find it completely appalling that anyone who serves 20 or more years would have extend their service requirements to be able to transfer their GI benefits.
Tech. Sgt. Aaron LeBleu
Aviano Air Base, Italy
4/30/2009
Re: Separating E-7, E-6 promotion release dates
According to the facts stated in the Airman's Roll Call, there should be no need to have the technical sergeant selects wait until June to get their results. Perhaps May should be the release month for both ranks, just separate days.
Master Sgt. David Underwood
Pearl Harbor, Hawaii
4/30/2009
Comment: Deployment volunteers needed
This is a great article. There are some of us civilians who would be more than willing to deploy; however, because of the funding and associated expenses we are either not allowed to, or our commands, etc., are not willing to fund these. Therefore, we are locked into a situation of being able to help but can't. This is my own personal expression, and I do not hold my current station of assignment and/or command responsible for my expression. "Happy to serve!" View story
Mr. Rod Krause
Minot Air Force Base, N.D.
4/30/2009
Re: Separating E-7, E-6 promotion release dates
Officials want to go ahead and give each respective promotee their day in the sun. Well, didn't they already ruin it when they went to the virtual release? When they did that, it took away the luster. All you do is to go to work, log in and check the list; no special feeling there. I am sure there are commanders that still do the walk around for notification, and I say thank you. However, most people have already looked and know.
Tech. Sgt. Greg Parker
Cannon Air Force Base, N.M.
4/29/2009
Comment: Separating E-7, E-6 promotion release dates
I do agree on the separate date for promotion to master sergeant and technical sergeant. I understand about having” their day in the spotlight,” but I see no reason for them to be more than a month apart. Master sergeant and technical sergeant test in the same cycle months and take the same tests. If for the past 12 years it has been a day together for promotion, then change it to a week apart or even a few days. An entire month seems a bit extreme. View Airman's Roll Call
Staff Sgt. Mike Ott
Goodfellow Air Force Base, Texas
4/29/2009
Post 9/11 GI Bill
In reading the Federal Register, I noticed in the "Final Rules" for the 9/11 GI Bill that Title 32 military member are be specifically identified as not eligible for the new GI Bill because we don’t meet the definition as “active duty." I’ve spent the better part of the last 29 years in the military: four years regular Air Force and 10 years Army National Guard, which included more than six years as a Title 32 AGR. The remainder of my time has been in the Air National Guard, of which the last 11 years have been Title 32 AGR.
I have willingly worked extended hours, have deployed and have worked in support of personnel being deployed. As a matter of fact, if it wasn’t for the support that my Title 32 brethren provide on a daily basis, there literally wouldn’t be any traditionals that would have been available for deployments. I’ve stood my share of posts as security and have complied with all rules regarding personal and professional conduct. My ID card even states that I’m active duty.
But, according to the final rules published by the VA in the Federal Register, apparently the VA and DOD believe that I don’t count. Excuse me if I take issue with this. To exclude Title 32 AGRs is wrong and, regardless what the directors of the VA think, I refuse to assume the position of a secondary Airman…not a real player in the defense of the country.
Master Sgt. Michael Huffman
Hulman ANGB, Ind.
4/29/2009
Comment: Air Force chief offers perspective to acquisition community
There is a lot of talk about hiring new acquisition personnel, but what about those already hired but would gladly move into the acquisition world? The civilian hiring system is hardly adequate to permit a change in career tracks. One keeps getting rejected as "not qualified," yet they will hire someone off the street with the same or less education but no understanding of how the Air Force works. What about the active-duty Air Force retiree who really understands the real needs of the warfighter but is blocked from actually helping out because of this non-responsive hiring system? You want to do things better? Try fixing the personnel system. View story
Marcus L. Haberichter
Choctaw, Okla.
4/29/2009
|
