On 2004/04/04 09:03, in article
, "rjciii"
wrote:

...during my involvement with this flying program in each of the
last two decades, the maintenance of the gliders and tow planes was not
performed by military personnel but contracted out to non-military
vendors.

What's your point: that the civilian contractors are a bunch of loose
cannons -- or that the USAFA simply hasn't figured out how to manage the
program? No doubt there is a matter of resource prioritizing, as anywhere
else. On the other hand it looks very bad that the most advanced and
powerful Air Force in the world cannot handle a few dozen gliders in a
non-essential program that it also refuses to drop.

A great motivator is it? How motivational is it, when a Cadet can't have a
reasonable expectation that the program will be available, considering its
recent erratic history?

There seems to be a great concern on the part of the USAFA for the
impressions which parents, of Cadets and of potential Cadets, have of the
program. "We will take the very best care of little Johnny or Mary while we
prepare them for a career of paper shuffling and toadying to a system that
prizes appearances above reality, and affectation above effectiveness." Oh,
sorry -- did I really say that? Yes, indeed, a real bunch of warriors, those
Air Force Academy graduates -- come from a long blue line of women afraid to
defend themselves until long after the fact, and Officers whose idea of
leadership is to shut down an operation rather than making it work.

There's nothing wrong with putting safety first: but there is something
wrong when you can't make a program work, safely.


...be thankful that you can go fly your club ships without consideration
to such a high level of public visibility and bureaucratic B.S.

Exactly the term to use, and yet you defend it? We would all like to think
that the USAFA program can represent the best of the USAF, but I'm not sure
we can make that claim or would want to, for the foreseeable future.



Jack