FITREP Code Words

[phrogdriver]

I agree... some of the terds I have seen make command (some of my peers when I was in the Navy).... I wouldn't want to launch with on a dark night, let alone have them lead me into "battle". Coast Guard is the same way... some of the leaders are great. Some have just kissed enough ass and sucked enough di@k to make the right impression. When you have someone leading a "squadron" that is more concerned with your/his (her) MBA then your flight/officer experience, you know you are in for a shiity ride...

I had an XO that wanted 100% GMT completion by the end of the CY. He made night maintainers come in during the day to watch the shitty lessons I recorded from the training lectures (yes, I WAS the f'ing training officer). Now, I am flying a helo, that has been worked on and QA'd by someone that has been up all day so that the crappy "sexual awareness in the workplace" module can be completed AHEAD of schedule? F-me...

Oh, I was walking out to the bird, when same terd' wanted the training spreadsheet on his desk asap. "Sir" I says. "I will have the(non-urgent, non-important) document on your desk as soon as I return from my hop". "No, I want it NOW." "Ok" says, I. "...but you are taking me out of my flight box." "Who cares" was the general response I got.

...and same job, different day, different "leader" wants another copy of some report/spreadsheet/bar graph on his desk. I am home, have weekend SAR duty the next morning, and my friend has just died in a C-130 crash. Wife hears the said leader screaming obscenities into my ear on the phone. I hang up on him, but do come in (it is about 1900 now, and I have to be in at 0730 for duty the next morning). He says "In all my 15 years, nobody has ever hung up on me!" Says I "Sir, in my 14 years of service, I have never had a senior officer scream in my ear for something so petty and trivial". Well, the rest didn't go over well for me...

Oh, I was a crappy Training O by the way, in case you were wondering (except with the pilot/crew aviation related type stuff. Then, I was told my presentations were solid and funny and stupid).

So....you've had some bad bosses. Show me a workplace that doesn't have them.

The right people don't always get picked to be in charge. Look at the Congress if you don't believe me. The only thing unique to the military is that it tends to invade more of one's life, and it's harder to quit.

 

[KBayDog]

So....you've had some bad bosses. Show me a workplace that doesn't have them.

The right people don't always get picked to be in charge. Look at the Congress if you don't believe me. The only thing unique to the military is that it tends to invade more of one's life, and it's harder to quit.

There is plenty unique to the military. For starters, death isn't a very real consequence of Bill Lundberg sucking as a boss. It is a legitimate concern in our line of work.

The parallel to Congress is not valid, either. Last time I checked, I don't elect my bosses in this rod and gun club (except for the CINC, I suppose).

 

[helolumpy]

So, how do we fix the problem? Lots of folks feel leadership is lacking, how do we realistically select leaders in the military since the present system is failing (according to some in this thread)?

 

[exhelodrvr]

How to fix the problem?
The rewards for doing well "administratively" are too significant relative to the rewards for doing well "operationally." (That applies within all departments - "operationally" refers to the actual performance of the job in question, whether that be maintenance, flying, or training.) Change that ratio, and the problem goes away within a couple of years. But until that changes, the problem stays.

 

[phrogdriver]

There is plenty unique to the military. For starters, death isn't a very real consequence of Bill Lundberg sucking as a boss. It is a legitimate concern in our line of work.

The parallel to Congress is not valid, either. Last time I checked, I don't elect my bosses in this rod and gun club (except for the CINC, I suppose).

My point is just that bad bosses are a universal truth. They pervade the human experience. Congress is just a timely example, not a parallel. Every large organization in the world has some crappy managers in it. We're stupid if we think the military is unique in having better or worse people than the rest of the world.

Can we do things to better select our leaders? Definitely. Good luck with that, though. The people in charge are those who rose to power under the existing system.

Is the leadership today worse than 10, 20, 30 years ago? I doubt it. That's where this discussion started.

 

[hscs]

How to fix the problem?
The rewards for doing well "administratively" are too significant relative to the rewards for doing well "operationally."

What do you base this statement on - do you have examples? COs that I have seen were ranked upon things such as (in no particular order): ability to meet tasking, RBA, FMC rates, both assist visit AND AMI discrepancies, aircrew performance and safety. And yes, they told me this! Not once did I see the re-instituted ISIC inspections (all admin in nature) take any sort of close precedence to these types of criteria/inspections. Seriously, what is going to have a more adverse impact - your aircrew screwing up, not being able to make a deployment on time OR not meeting some admin wicket from your ISIC? Ask any CAG / Commodore. I will guarantee that I am correct.

I see many posts about the 'I need this now' type stuff, but I am going to play devil's advocate and ask if you did all that you could do to have the item / training ready and weren't waiting to the last minute? Prior proper planning.....

I do agree that there are CO / XOs out there that have lost there nerve - I have seen DHs the same way. My take - by the time that a person hits the start of their CO/XO tour - they probably have spent 2 of their 5 previous tours out of the cockpit (40%!) and mainly due to the disassociated sea tour. They have lost their experienced base. I personally think that we should maximize super JO tours in squadrons for a couple of reasons - 1) By the time you leave a production job, you have really figured out how to fly and fight your aircraft and less likely to lose your nerve 2) your quals and experience aren't thrown away while you are 'broadened' as the Fuels Officer, 3) you don't have to spend a year or more getting back qualified as a DH, 4) better programs - what would be better - a first tour or third tour NATOPS O or QAO?, and finally, it saves money (50+ hours x airframe CPH x # of DHs per year = a ton of money saved at the FRS alone). ( stepping down from soap box)

 

[Brett327]

This notion that today's COs are more concerned with administrative duties than operational results is a red herring. They're responsible for both and the good ones excel at each facet of managing a squadron. Each CO is ultimately responsible to his boss (CAG, CDRE, Etc) for managing their squadron and its operational performance. If a squadron as a whole can't land on the boat, or hit the target, or take down an IADS - CAG is going to start asking questions. Likewise, if a squadron's Admin Dept can't get correspondence, awards, etc to CAG on time, or fails an Administrative inspection - CAG is going to start asking questions. Perhaps the perception that the administrative side has taken on more weight can be attributed to the fact that the "fight" we've been engaged in (at least from the Naval Aviation perspective) isn't all that challenging. It's the same mission we've all been doing for 10 plus years, low threat environment - it's routine. You make your lines on the ATO, employ IAW ROE and bring your jets back to the boat safe and sound, you're fulfilling CAG's operational expectations. So, let's stop pretending that doing well on the admin side of the house means the CO or the squadron itself is below average operationally. It's not a zero-sum situation.

The second fallacy I've seen from some of you is the idea that, these days, only ass kissers are screening for CO. I suspect that the most vocal supporters of this idea are those who haven't made the cut over the years and are now on the outside looking in. That notwithstanding, every instance of blatant ass kissing I've been witness to has been met with disdain by those it was intended to sway. CO's want results, not a boost to their self-esteem. Guys who get competitive FITREPs do so because they produce results. Guys with a record full of competitive FITREPs screen for DH and command - it's that simple. Not once, in my five operational squadrons, have I seen a guy get a competitive FITREP because of ass kissing instead of performance. Has it happened in the recent history of Naval Aviation? Of course, but it's the exception that proves the rule. At the end of the day, perception plays a big part in this, so I suspect that some of those (some of YOU) who never had a chance because they weren't able to perform see the world through their own lens and they invent self-serving fantasies to make them feel better about themselves. It's a lot easier for one's ego to swallow the "he's just Skipper's favorite" line then to look inward at one's own shortcomings.

Brett

 

[phrogdriver]

Flying is more important than admin, or cleaning the spaces, or whatever.....but, there is a correlation between the two. Someone much senior to me said it the other day,"You can tell a lot about a unit by looking in the maintenance head." You may think you're the living embodiment of the Black Sheep Squadron, tactically proficient, don't-give-a-shit-about-paperwork renegades, but 99% of the time, you're kidding yourselves, and you're just a bunch of fucking slackers. There's usually a big correlation between doing things right in one thing and doing them in another. As a stan guy, I've had to fly with a bunch of different squadrons. Invariably, the ones that look good, have a professional ODO brief, an organized Maintenance Control, etc, etc, also have the best flights. If the ODO brief goes 10min late, Control doesn't have my ADB safed, I can tell that it's going to be a long day.

As far as CO's, Brett is largely correct. I don't think it's ass kissing that gets people ahead--a certain degree of self-promotion and having a good rabbi, maybe. The bigger problem is that fitreps for subordinate positions are kind of like the SAT. They are a decent, but not entirely accurate, means of predicting future success. The things that make a successful career leading up to command do not entirely correlate to what that CO needs once he's in the position.

 

[phrogdriver]

Don't look at me, I'm a passed-over major. 15 years on DIFOP probably hasn't helped with that. I'm just a student of human behavior.

Don't be a hater. Besides, if someone wanting to be a CO makes one a bad person, then by definition all COs are bad people. Kind of a tough standard, don't you think?

 

[helolumpy]

Sounds like we have some CO's (former/present/future/wanna'be's) types weighing in here...

Not to mention your old RAG instructor....

 

[bert]

....


I personally think that we should maximize super JO tours in squadrons for a couple of reasons - 1) By the time you leave a production job, you have really figured out how to fly and fight your aircraft and less likely to lose your nerve 2) your quals and experience aren't thrown away while you are 'broadened' as the Fuels Officer, 3) you don't have to spend a year or more getting back qualified as a DH, 4) better programs - what would be better - a first tour or third tour NATOPS O or QAO?, and finally, it saves money (50+ hours x airframe CPH x # of DHs per year = a ton of money saved at the FRS alone). ( stepping down from soap box)

Look, I'm the first one to support staying in the cockpit (18/20 years here), but exactly how are you going to keep first tour guys "on track" with squadrons full of "super" JO's? Best case you have two #1 and two #2 competitive EP's a year/squadron - that's it.

And no, nobody is going to convince me that flying skills are the driving factor in CO screening. And I'm fine with that - the CO is there to be the big-picture guy making the trains run on time. The DH's and senior LT's should be leading the tactical charge. Tactical proficiency hasn't been the most important factor in CO selections at any time since I've known enough to understand selection board results. To me, that means that anybody currently on active duty on this board has no right to be surprised by that, because it's never been different in their career lifetime.

 

[KBayDog]

And this thread is in the Humor section...

The real humor lies in the fact that it's a perfectly good Saturday night and you're posting on AW.

Oh...wait...

 

[AirPirate]

Brett, not trolling at all...you guys kept bringing up your experience and seniority as sources of credibility, or trying to throw it back at me, so that's the only reason why I replied to you about seniority.

 

[AirPirate]

Pretty interesting thread. What do people want out of their COs? What trait should the ideal leader in naval aviation have?

So, how do we fix the problem? Lots of folks feel leadership is lacking, how do we realistically select leaders in the military since the present system is failing (according to some in this thread)?

It looks like Big Iron and helolumpy are going somewhere with this. I actually don't know if we're failing. I just think that we aren't living up to our potential, and that's frustrating for any type-A personality to deal with. I'm not so bitter...the thread mainly got my attention when I noticed the tactless bullying and poorly chosen battle lighting off with Brett on Masterbates. If we are failing, then why do we still have the most amazingly dominant Naval force on Earth? My suggestion for how to fix the problem would be to attack our cultural beliefs on failure and risk, but I don't think that's in the cards for us. I never thought I would be a force for change either.

I'd agree with Brett about the ass-kissing fallacy, but if the path to skipper is not paved with ass-kissing, I'd say it is paved with mediocrity. Ticket punchers, corporate talkers, group-thinking back slappers, these are the guys who will make it because they are "good dudes," as if anyone knows. What I've always complained about are failures when our leaders are tested. I've got about six different stories I'm thinking of, but to give you an idea of the level of testing I'm talking about is one example is where a pilot committed suicide following a mishap investigation. That's the big leagues, and guys are failing at that stuff left and right. But my wimps and nerds comment that drew fire was about focus. We are promoting guys who are not innovative, focused more on wickets, bureau advice, likeability, and corporate gamesmanship. We inevitably promote guys who do the wrong things under fire, and don't promote those who do the right things (as much). We promote guys with clean records who have never made mistakes, and discard those who have made mistakes. My only guess at is that guys are fearful to make the right decisions because Big Navy will never let a good deed go unpunished. The same goes for Big Army or Big Air Force if there is such a thing. We get so wrapped around the axle with managing risk and saving money that the right decisions become elusive, if not undesirable.

If we are to maximize our potential, then we need guys who have been forged in flame. Guys who have taken some heat or failed at something substantial. The guy who is there because he has never tripped up is the guy waiting to fail when tested and someone else is going to pay the price. Such a system is self-sustaining because there is never any backlash and no accountability. That's how a leadership culture becomes weakened.

 

[Pags]

I'll be the first to admit that administrivia sucks and if done poorly can be the downfall of a good squadron. No one wants to be the AO, but a strong, organized, and well run Admin Dept can make a squadron run like clockwork. If everything the XO gets that's supposedly smooth is actually smooth then he can spend his days doing other things instead of correcting punctuation and mispellings so the Skipper doesn't have to. If all the CO has to do when it comes to paperwork is sign it, then he can do other things that are more worthy of his time. I guarantee that very few Skippers get a thrill from mountains of paperwork, but they know they need it to make sure that the squadron is doing what it needs to do.

The key to making paperwork easy for the front office is to make sure that the DHs are on top of their game and are staying ahead of their paperwork. It may seem silly to say, but it pays to get stuff done early in this line of work due to the nuances of the flight schedule. If you're stuff is in ahead of time and your superiors can read it before the last minute then they can have you make corrections in a timely manner and all of a sudden it's not a crisis. Seems like pretty basic stuff, but it's very hard to get there. If the CO and XO can trust the squadron to handle their paper correctly then they start trusting in other areas.

No one wants to be known for enjoying or being good at paperwork, but it's all pretty easy stuff. If you can't be trusted to get the commas right, how can you be trusted to with the aircraft? Is it world ending if the CO says to have everyone get their dental taken care of? The CO doesn't want to hear whining about what should be an easy task, he just wants to see it done. It's not like it's an unlawful order and it should take maybe 1hr of your day. Same for the annual IA certificate. If instead of whining about it for 45min like I do every year, if I actually just did it, it'd be done in 30min.

Annual GMT? Training morning. Everyone goes to the base theater, start off with an awards quarters so the AO gets that part of the tickler cleaned off and then everyone spends 3hrs of boredom getting green for the year. I guarantee that the CO isn't thrilled about GMT, but I bet he likes being able to tell his ISIC that he's done with that and then he get on to more pressing matters.