http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/aia/history.htm

____________________________

-Mike

____________________________

Words well spoken.  It has been hard watching this happen during my career...and a lot of it has, for both you and me Mike.  Personally, I thought the real milestone was the ESC stand-down.  Either way, we've been sitting here watching the culture we grew up with die a slow death for a long time.
Now that we no longer have the protections of a hierarchy in place to keep us safe, I guess we need to figure out how to work in the new environment.  It won't be as pretty as it used to be, but we've no choice.  We won't like it as much.  We'll lose some stature and some authority.  However, we'll always be right, because that is what we were trained to be.  Even if they ignore us or try to manipulate what we tell them to serve other goals, we'll still be right.  That's been our job from the first, and it will continue.  The spirit can be preserved, at least for the flying units.  Like the Eddie Perez of the lesser hair once told me about an unpleasant task, this is an "opportunity to excel."  It's just that now, people won't be as likely to recognize the outcome of our toil for what it is.
As I learned back in the days of 2013, the party doesn't end until the last person leaves, and we haven't left yet.  Let's see if they can at least get another keg so we can have way homers.  .    

--Bart

____________________________

Hey all from sunny England.

I, for one, am not mourning the "change" in AIA's status.  I feel sometimes
that AIA did not function with the legitimacy it needed to provide itself a
haven, especially among the ranks of the other commands and activities in
the big blue Air Force.

AIA never subscribed to the status-quo, and lumbered when faced with the
changes that frankly were inevitable.  When the sunlight of the conventional
flying world was finally cast upon our operations, what showed most were our
inadequacies.  These were inadequacies we were unwilling to strengthen.

I can remember an AMS telling me that crew rest and crew duty day did not
apply to us.  I remember seeing people made evaluators the day of a mission,
with no training, no certification.  I've seen an AMS say "no, don't fail
that guy, just call it a no eval".  I've seen an AMS give someone a
check ride from his seat.  I've seen an evaluation tool called a DPC that
didn't check out a guys ability to function and complete the mission, but it
sure did test a guys ability to remember 1000 different mnemonics.  I've
seen people do an "EP" test from an outdated, illegal and incomplete study
guide.  I've seen lots and lots of crazy stuff.

I guess the point is that the Air Force provides specific and
incontrovertible guidance concerning all of those issues listed above, but
AIA was unwilling to find it, or our people were ignorant of its existence.

Dismantling AIA as we know it may be the only way to improve our operations
and enhance our efficiency, standardization and safety.  Sometimes you have
to knock down the whole termite mound to get to the bugs inside.

Well, that's just one man's opinion.  I'm looking for the positive in this
change.

Mark out from sunny England (participating in HQ AFSOC Aircrew Stan/Eval
Visit of the 352nd SOG).

- Mark

____________________________

 Although I realize you have been in a lot longer than myself and have much
more experience than me, I have to disagree with some of the comments you
made.
 Within the past 8 years or so that I have been working/flying with the
6949th/97th there were some major changes in how things have been done at least as far as we interpreted the AIA instructions.  For example your first point, Crew Rest
and the crew duty day was not a suggestion, we had members have to scratch
for blatant/inadvertent breaking of crew rest as well as missions being
pushed back and cancelled for the same.  Evaluations are NOT considered if
the crewmember cannot perform his duties and to tell the truth I
(personally?? spelling) would have to contest a passed eval is his
performance was questionable.  I don't want to ever be on flight where I have
a doubt in my mind about the abilities about the crewmember next to me.  I
believe that AIA has changed for the positive in the few years past.
 I do not doubt that integration with ACC will have its good points and its
bad points but I do not agree that AIA "never subscribed to the status-quo,
and lumbered when faced with the changes that frankly were inevitable."
 No disrespect is intended, I just thought one of the young pups should put
their two cents in.

V/R
Ron "007" Bond ____________________________

Ron,
  First, let me say that I appreciate your opinion, and I think you know I
was not slamming any one person in particular.  With your eight years of
flying, you are not a new guy in my book.

I certainly agree that AIA of late has been trying very hard to clean things
up, and believe it or not, the guys assigned to special ops have tried to
help them when they would allow it.  Funny, though, the AIA instruction set
you refer to are one of the things that has always chapped my hide, let me
explain why.  The Air Force has instructions that cover things like aircrew
training, evaluations and operations (of course they also run the gamut like
personnel and food preparations, etc.)  For the flying community, we concern
ourselves with the 11 series.  All other regulations concerning these issues
are subordinate to the AFI 11 series.  OK, the 67IOW creates an instruction
that they implement to cover Stan/eval, but it is not a supplement or
subordinate to the AF instruction.  The AIA instruction is not staffed
through the proper channels, instead it goes the the wing where it becomes
law.

OK, so now you have an instruction that replicates or negates many of the
things found in Air Force instructions, so it is basically illegal.  Had it
fallen under the proper scrutiny, it would not have made it through
channels, but would have to be revised.  We have a Stan/eval instruction
that covers ground operators!  That is very unusual if not unprecedented and
completely out of place.  Another example is that here, to placate the
masses, the chief of DOV at the 488IS wants to call his shop CCV.  This is
supposed to make the LG Stan/eval guys feel better, but it is totally
unnecessary and ill advised, basically because the overriding Air Force
instruction outlines that aircrew Stan/eval will be DOV, no questions asked,
no crazy new office symbols, no buffoonery.  It is known that DOV is always
a commander's program, regardless of the fact that it looks like a DO
function.

So it's residual things like these examples that makes me shake my head and
wonder, "why, why, why?".

Do me a favor, go to your Stan/eval shop in the 97th and ask them to see
their copy of AFI 11-202 Vol II and when they show it to you, ask them to
see the 67 IOW supplement.  They'll be looking for a while, that is if they
even keep a copy of the AFI on hand, because there is no 67 sup.  There
should be, and guess what, now that they work for ACC, there will be.  The
first time an ACC Stan/eval team shows up, it's gonna be tough on your boys,
trust me.  Heck, you guys are gonna start getting issued personal copies of
instructions, look for that soon.

Anyway, I know AIA has made some moves in the right direction, but now they
are going to be pushed.

Green grass and high tides.  Mark.

 ____________________________

One last thing, please.  I'm not trying to agitate people with my heresy,
I'm just taking an objective look at what's happening.

Here's some aircrew love for all my brothers.
- Mark

 ____________________________

Mark and other heretics,
I understand your objectivity, and I understand your points, but I think
maybe you misunderstood what I was saying.

If I was at an earlier point in my career and if I didn't have so much
invested in Nebraska, I would have jumped ship at the first mention of AIA.
Your job sounds like a very challenging and rewarding one, or if I wanted to
slack I suppose I could have gone to ACC HQ  :).

Anywho, all I want to say is that for years USAFSS/ESC was/were the red
headed step children of the air force.  They didn't know how to use or, and
I suspect that many times didn't even know exactly what we did.  Sooo, we
made up our own rules.  They weren't perfect but they served us well.
Unfortunately, the innovative old guard that came up with the rules, was
eventually replaced by the stolid new guard who said "its always been this
way and we ain't changin".

That is the attitude that caused most of the problems of which you speak.
Stan/Eval not withstanding, back in the day I failed someone for missing a
distress call on an otherwise great mission.  Of course that was an MK
flight.  By my standards at the time, evals today for MKs are unsat, due to
lack o mission.  Buuut, MKs work all over the globe now in many different
functions and do superbly.

I guess to sum up, I can't find it in me to poo poo that last generation of
AIA because they/we were working with the tools we were given.  We just got
new tools and new rules and will eventually adjust into a new beastie which
will do as well as if not better than it's predecessor.  (If it can get past
the toddler stage!)

M

PS what we need now is a Farley Filter or a Shane Screen, any ideas?

 ____________________________

Thanks Mark,

I was reluctant to jump in and pee all over Bart's woe-is-us piece, cause I
know that Bart has some heart felt sentiments behind his words.  No, not all
change is good.  But not all change is bad, either. 

I would disagree with Bart in his assumption and blind faith that AFIC/AIA
have been his golden protectors from the ravages of the "real Air Force"
meanies.  I am of the belief, perhaps just as strongly, that the management
structure in San Antone has often been the airborne intel community's
inherent worst enemy.

I've seen some of the shenanigans Mark writes about...and even experienced
them first hand - like the day I was handed a form 8 listing me as Q-1 as a
SENT AMS....the day after my first SENT flight...a CAL sortie! I'm good (as
I'm sure Lee and Jesse will attest, if John McDonnell stops singing my
praises long enough for them to get a word in edgewise)...but gimme a break!
No guarantees that BS like that will vanish overnight, or cease altogether,
and I'm sure there will be other examples of outrageousness in the future,
but at least now the process will be visible to people that grew up with it,
knows how it works, and aren't just now figuring it out because "King Ed"
told them to.

Bubba liked to blow shit on me a lot for talking about "the big picture".
Take notes John...

Yes, the ultimate goal, as outlined by the CORONA guidance, is to fully
integrate the IW and IIW (that would be where the airborne clan resides)
into the Combat Air Forces...seamlessly.  Some of the fears of the field
(dumbing down the force...removal of responsibility, etc, etc)...I can't
guarantee they are without merit.  I do know that the folks that are working
on this here at the center of the belly of the beast don't have a slash and
burn, keep them boys in their place mentality.  They realize there are
things that are done today that work really well, but are sometimes very
painful. (PERSTEMPO...need I say more)

While it may sound pretty loud in Sarpy County...the voices squealing with
glee shouting MCC! and other vile phrases are not even as loud as the
mosquito wings over the tide pools here in Eastern VA.  I've seen assaults
mounted at least three times since I've been here (one was in progress as I
arrived), but every time, as the facts were separated from the histrionic
hype, the "stupid" fighter pilot crowd those guys have to convince to buy
off on the whole scheme see right through it, get bored, and move on to
things that are more important....like working out the DO golf tournament.

While ACC does have a whale of a bureaucracy here, that can be to the
collective good...they also have guidelines about the translation of the
tables in 65-503 (crew manning by MDS) into how many billets a squadron
should have to do it's mission...and they are a lot less interested in
monkeying around with those numbers, short changing the guys in the field,
and then mucking it in mumbo jumbo so its hard to tell exactly how you got
to the point that your hemorrhoids are on fire like someone poured gas on
em.

Bottom line, I see, and like, the Alexandrian solution...a la the Gordian
knot. 

Let the cutting begin. 

The "pain" we will feel next is more like the bone being set than the slow
torturous progress of gangrene.

Welcome to ACC everybody.  Bout time I had some damn company.

- Brad

 ____________________________

As usual, we're harder on ourselves than any outsider would dare to be.  I've
seen the other services at work, and their best efforts could never compare
to the quality and professionalism of an ESC/AFIC/AIA crew, even on a bad day.

I believe most people were trying to do the best job they knew how to do,
even when it might have been hard sometimes to balance unit and mission
realities, regulations, and friends.  Our "living legends" were the ones who
were the best at finding that balance easily, and to keep everyone smiling
all the while.

The only constant is change.  As long as the AMS stays enlisted, everything
else is little more than a change in letterhead.

Don

 ____________________________

Later, Ed