1stCavDiv (Airmobile)
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
Donate to the 229th
My (controversial?) view of B Company. Pixel

Archived Forum! Click here to View

Latest topics
» Application-Zeek
My (controversial?) view of B Company. EmptyFri 05 Mar 2021, 03:34 by (A/229) Zeek

» Announcing the 229th Wiki Page
My (controversial?) view of B Company. EmptyMon 15 Feb 2021, 14:17 by (B/229) Sundog

» Application - Coach
My (controversial?) view of B Company. EmptySat 30 Jan 2021, 19:42 by (A/229) Spooky

» Happy new year!
My (controversial?) view of B Company. EmptyWed 06 Jan 2021, 21:48 by (A/229) Spooky

» Fall 2020 Promition List
My (controversial?) view of B Company. EmptyWed 30 Dec 2020, 10:20 by (C/229) Wallaby

» Application
My (controversial?) view of B Company. EmptyMon 02 Nov 2020, 03:06 by (A/229) Cactus

» Mission Night
My (controversial?) view of B Company. EmptyFri 16 Oct 2020, 19:51 by (HHC/229) GunfighterSIX

» KA 50 Training 13 OCT 2020 2000 CDT
My (controversial?) view of B Company. EmptyTue 13 Oct 2020, 18:34 by (HHC/229) GunfighterSIX

» New applicant
My (controversial?) view of B Company. EmptySat 10 Oct 2020, 03:45 by (A/229) Gator

January 2023
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031     

Calendar Calendar


My (controversial?) view of B Company.

+6
(C/229) Highway
(B/229) Nage
(B/229) evilivan
(B/229) Cib
(D/229) Xtra
(D/229) Froggy
10 posters

Go down

My (controversial?) view of B Company. Empty My (controversial?) view of B Company.

Post by Guest Mon 25 Apr 2016, 11:21

My (controversial?) view of B Company.

Firstly, I sincerely state that this view is not a criticism of anyone, we all have lives to live other than this virtual world of the 229th and additionally everyone has different ideas and aspirations as to what the 229th is, should become or what they want from this community.... It is simply how I see it.

Secondly, I have nothing but sincere and high admiration and respect for 229th stalwarts  especially SIX, Xtra & senior pilots such as Hawkeye, who have given so much of their friendship and time to assist me and others as FNG’s

This then is my view, probably controversial but maybe it will stimulate some thought, action or rebuttal, all is good, discussion is not bad. Sitting still thinking plenty and doing nothing is bad.

In B Coy we have had new officers after the old ones faded away, AWOL I presume rather than a resignation route. Since then I’m not aware of open discussion between the B Coy Officers and anyone else, as to where we are going, what do we want, if anything of course.... (exception: I’ve personally chatted to Cib, and shared ideas)

There is no procedures to welcome new pilots and to integrate them within the Coy other than a cursory ‘Hi & welcome ‘ post on the forum.

There is no encouragement to get people to fly together and develop new skills, either personal or team related.

There is no use of, nor encouragement to design / host, any team building Company or even Platoon (if these have been defined/exist?) level missions.

Unfortunately, as I see it, B Coy as an operational unit is non-effective with no leadership initiatives nor comradery or ‘esprit de corps’

I posted a lot of messages (too many LOL) within B Company forums in attempt to get something started and for a while it succeeded and people showed up, IP’s and senior pilots from A Coy responded, came across and got us sorted and trained up - FANTASTIC, GREAT & REALLY APPRECIATED, but now it is dead again.  

I expected more but perhaps I am too optimistic in my expectations.

In reality B Coy is just a #tag for people interested in Helicopters and who have an IP address somewhere in europe.

There is loads of B Coy registered pilots, some seen, most not. Quite a lot of B Coy members log on daily to have a look at the 229 web site but that's it.  

C Coy despite some apathy are getting their act together and I am happy to get up at 6am to fly with C Coy at the weekends when STRUT kicks a few asses.  

I would love to see a healthy B Coy ACTIVE roster and agreed direction - I keep looking with envy at some other co-ordinated units in the multi player sections of DCS but then the grass is always greener on the other field and my friends and allegiance is with the 229th.

I have asked to Xtra for some training and if I am good enough, I intend to leave B and apply to D Coy as I have an interest in realistic tactics.  Perhaps that will keep me quite for awhile..

On that note is anyone out there GS trained (or tactical aware) and available for some training missions - Xtra orders me to practice and I annoy Froggy at weekends but someone around during the week would be good.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

My (controversial?) view of B Company. Empty Re: My (controversial?) view of B Company.

Post by (D/229) Froggy Mon 25 Apr 2016, 12:21

I'd hardly say you annoy me mate, always happy to fly with you. I'm running out of mission ideas though so if you've gott any PM me a brief and I'll build some.
(D/229) Froggy
(D/229) Froggy
Chief Warrant Officer 4
Rated Aviator
Chief Warrant Officer 4 Rated Aviator

Messages : 63
Age : 47
Location : United Kingdom

Back to top Go down

My (controversial?) view of B Company. Empty Re: My (controversial?) view of B Company.

Post by (D/229) Xtra Mon 25 Apr 2016, 18:37

Well said Gizzy. Hopefully B coy can be involved more again with weekly missions or training sorties. Still for me, I would love to be online and available more for you guys, but cant really do more atm. So Ill be sticking with weekly training and occassional missions.
Eventhough Id like to talk more about LZ ops or basic FTM tasks with the new guys. Like you said, B coy roster is huge, but only a handfull are online regularly.
(D/229) Xtra
(D/229) Xtra
Major
Company Commander
Instructor Pilot
Rated Master Aviator
Major Company Commander Instructor Pilot Rated Master Aviator

Messages : 441

Back to top Go down

My (controversial?) view of B Company. Empty Re: My (controversial?) view of B Company.

Post by (B/229) Cib Tue 26 Apr 2016, 06:59

I hope to be on TS this evening after my absence. Got 6 cows left to calve Sleep
(B/229) Cib
(B/229) Cib
Chief Warrant Officer 4
Rated Senior Aviator
Chief Warrant Officer 4 Rated Senior Aviator

Messages : 1070
Age : 56
Location : North East England

Back to top Go down

My (controversial?) view of B Company. Empty Re: My (controversial?) view of B Company.

Post by (B/229) evilivan Tue 26 Apr 2016, 15:53

It is definitely very quiet around here (and I have been one of the people whose RL has got in the way the last few weeks), but I think problem is pretty simple: there might be a lot of registered B Coy pilots, but there isn't enough regular and keen pilots to keep the momentum going... Is this the fault of anyone? I don't think you can call it that really - gaming time is "personal time" and people will only be as dedicated to something as they want to be. Can't knock people for doing what they want in THEIR spare time! Cool

You have put efforts in to get things moving (and as has been said before, thanks for doing that), but the response petered out - mine included, in my case due to other RL stuff taking priority, and I imagine that is true for most. I don't think this was the fault of what you were trying to do, but rather that maybe this group is too niche to maintain regular activity? It’s just a thought, but given the nature of the game/SIM, I believe the majority of the pilots are 30+ and will mostly have busy lives and gaming time will be limited. Having a group that is mostly helicopter focussed will reduce an already small group of people into an even smaller subset, resulting in not enough people to keep a regular thing going...

Stuff like this needs really keen, easy-to-get-on-with, dedicated people to be constantly organising and enthusing others to join in. Unfortunately we are all old, miserable, cantankerous old farts with more opinions than wrinkles.... Razz

None of that helps at all of course - just demonstrates my final point. I don't know what the answer is........ however, I hope to have more time to join the servers soon.

(B/229) evilivan
Second Lieutenant
Unit Training Officer
Rated Senior Aviator
Second Lieutenant Unit Training Officer Rated Senior Aviator

Messages : 381

Back to top Go down

My (controversial?) view of B Company. Empty Re: My (controversial?) view of B Company.

Post by (B/229) NeF Tue 26 Apr 2016, 17:23

I feel you gizzy. As a personal excuse I started full time work 2 months ago which annihilates all my former playtime.
I do keep this organisation in sight and I'll be back some day, and way sooner if they make the multicrew available in DCS... in that case I'll quit my job without hesitation Wink
(B/229) NeF
(B/229) NeF
Chief Warrant Officer 3
Rated Senior Aviator
Chief Warrant Officer 3 Rated Senior Aviator

Killed In Action: : At least a six pack
Messages : 924
Age : 38
Location : Brussels

Back to top Go down

My (controversial?) view of B Company. Empty Re: My (controversial?) view of B Company.

Post by Guest Tue 26 Apr 2016, 17:35

(B/229) evilivan wrote:... Is this the fault of anyone? I don't think you can call it that really - .....

No, no one is at fault per se, however, I would say that the Officers of the Company, if volunteers, rather than press ganged (or peer pressure), - I will not avoid the issue here -  have procrastinated.   Now this is not a finger of blame, far from it, but part of an identification of issues that in my eyes needs sorted.  

I'll repeat what I see as the most important...

(B/229) Gizzy wrote:There is no procedures to welcome new pilots and to integrate them within the Coy other than a cursory ‘Hi & welcome ‘ post on the forum
New people come in... maybe have a look at the server and drift off.... shy, (like me) quiet, introverted, possibly but probably good fun to fly with once the ice is broken and could be excellent team mates and a good addition to the Company..

Apart from the standard welcome letter from the 229th some sort of simplistic proactive engagement should be made to show them the ropes, explain a little bit further and see if they fit us and we fit them.... so to speak. Officers do not have to do it all, just delegate ....

(B/229) Gizzy wrote:There is no encouragement to get people to fly together and develop new skills, either personal or team related.

(B/229) Gizzy wrote:There is no use of, nor encouragement to design / host, any team building Company or even Platoon (if these have been defined/exist?) level missions.

If steps are not made to engage these two areas people will just drift away and do their own thing.  

There is no challenge, no initiatives nor comradery or ‘esprit de corps’ - there is a real danger we'll end up as a roster of individuals whose only lookout is for ourselves as individuals, 'jack men' we used to call it...  

In fact I would go as far as to say I personally feel like it is treating the valuable time and experience given by the IP's and senior members in formal training, with contempt - hence raising my 'head above the parapet' in initiating this discussion. ('head above the parapet'  = http://www.learnersdictionary.com/definition/parapet)

Officers do not have to do it all, just delegate ....

(B/229) evilivan wrote:You have put efforts in to get things moving (and as has been said before, thanks for doing that), but the response petered out - mine included, in my case due to other RL...... I don't think this was the fault of what you were trying to do, but rather that maybe this group is too niche to maintain regular activity?

Honestly I'm no concerned about things I tried, I am too long in the tooth for that and I realise as some of you have already guessed... I speak too much....

(B/229) evilivan wrote:..... Having a group that is mostly helicopter focussed will reduce an already small group of people into an even smaller subset, resulting in not enough people to keep a regular thing going...

I would disagree on this one, 3 times a week, once a week, once a month, no matter I think there is plenty of pilots about IF THEY wanted to engage.

But then would they want to if the 2 main points above are not in place?

STRUT's kicking ass against apathy in C at the moment... and it is working so far... there is encouragement, there is a mission, there is engagement, there is fun....  Xtra, Froggy, Nage and I are getting up at 6AM ON A SUNDAY MORNING to enage with a bunch of gruff forthright aussies with a weird sense of humour, why, because we want to....  Nothing in 'B'...

Officers do not have to do it all, just delegate ....

(B/229) evilivan wrote:we are all old, miserable, cantankerous old farts with more opinions than wrinkles....  Razz

Speak for your self old man Very Happy , I'm not old, maybe cantankerous and the kids call me an old fart, but not old - at least in my head anyway... Laughing

(B/229) evilivan wrote:None of that helps at all of course - just demonstrates my final point. I don't know what the answer is........

I do.... at least I think I do....


  1. Put in place a procedure to welcome new pilots and to integrate them within the Coy within a realistic time frame.
  2. Assign an experienced pilot to mentor a new pilot to attain Basic Wings if he indeed decides to stay with B Coy /229th
  3. Publish a ROSTER of those pilots active.
  4. Transfer piots who do not fly in say 60 days in the 229th, to a Reserve company - after 120 days of no activity WITH NO contact of any kind, discharge them.
  5. Publish a ROSTER of experienced pilots capable and willing to assist others in perfecting other skills or learning new airframes.
  6. Actively encourage people to fly together and develop new skills, either personal or team related whilst maintaining the freedom of choice to 'just do your own thing' if that is what desired by a anyone.
  7. Actively encourage experienced pilots to attain senior wings and additionally encourage them to pass those skills onto others, overseen of course by IP's.
  8. Actively encourage the design / host, of team building Company or even Platoon (CSAR, GS etc) level missions.


SOMETHING IS BETTER THAN NOTHING - easy said when you're looking into 'D' Coy though.....

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

My (controversial?) view of B Company. Empty Re: My (controversial?) view of B Company.

Post by (B/229) evilivan Tue 26 Apr 2016, 18:10

All excellent points, Gizzy - and I agree with all of them. I do think you missed my central point though, which has little do with all those details and possible solutions - and maybe I should have emphasised it more...

- This group is made up of people using their spare time (including "officers")
- These people, for whatever reason, are not currently interested / engaged / enabled to put the time and effort in required to keep things going#
- That's about it, really

Lot's of solutions, mostly relying on 'someone' taking it on. And keeping it going. And I'm not sure that there are enough of people to go along with that 'someone' to then allow the thing to self-propel along. Make sense?

Very negative, I know. But to make things to happen, it requires people to want to do them (and other people to regularly join in with the results).

Totally agree on the welcoming new members point, though - that in itself could be the trigger point to turn things around.



(B/229) evilivan
Second Lieutenant
Unit Training Officer
Rated Senior Aviator
Second Lieutenant Unit Training Officer Rated Senior Aviator

Messages : 381

Back to top Go down

My (controversial?) view of B Company. Empty Re: My (controversial?) view of B Company.

Post by (B/229) Nage Tue 26 Apr 2016, 18:34

My opinion on the matter

All this is going the wrong way cuz its all talking and no real decision being made which could heat up if things get out of hands. I`ve seen this happen on more than couple of occasions.
There is the group leader here (officer) to our Coy and i think whether he is present or not is of no importance if you are willing to fly. Adapt and overcome on your quality time when flying (luckily i didn`t say improvise cuz i think i`ve heard this one somewhere Razz ). Gizzy step up and lead the way, people will follow.

This is what i think would help much more to get us all together.
1. Place TS bar on this site so anyone who is here can see whoever is online at the moment (although you can always get on TS if you are to fly DCS)
2. Every flight on DCS modules is training session (No matter what module you fly or with whomever you fly is training and you can learn something new. Something couple of us did this Sunday with C Coy)
3. It does not have to be our own 229th server per se for the group of people to fly together. There are other servers where we can implement what we learned and have fun as long we fly as group
(B/229) Nage
(B/229) Nage
Chief Warrant Officer 4
Rated Aviator
Chief Warrant Officer 4 Rated Aviator

Messages : 171
Age : 44
Location : Zagreb, Croatia

Back to top Go down

My (controversial?) view of B Company. Empty Re: My (controversial?) view of B Company.

Post by Guest Tue 26 Apr 2016, 19:47

(B/229) evilivan wrote:
- This group is made up of people using their spare time (including "officers")
- These people, for whatever reason, are not currently interested / engaged / enabled to put the time and effort in required to keep things going#
- That's about it, really.........Very negative, I know. But to make things to happen, it requires people to want to do them (and other people to regularly join in with the results).
.......

I understand Ivan but I do no accept all as true or that any aspects should limit us in any way... I think negativity is a mindset but then with me the glass is only ever half full and then I drink it and it's empty  Crying or Very sad  - it is never half empty...  Very Happy

Behaviour clearly shows Cib, Froggy, Xtra (Both D but still B by location) and myself are willing as also is Flick who loves building missions and of course you would help out too when about unless I've judged you wrong.. and I have probably missed others in B, sorry...

(B/229) Nage wrote:My opinion on the matter ...All this is going the wrong way cuz its all talking and no real decision being made which could heat up if things get out of hands....

Hopefully not, I think we are all mates and its better to discuss this than not.  Besides I know you so little, I would have had no idea of your views without starting this topic ..  I do know that Razorback has a demanding job and was concerned about his available time to devote to the Coy and also Cib has been playing nursemaid most nights for a few months... so I hope none of the appointed Officers see a slight or personal attack.

(B/229) Nage wrote: Gizzy step up and lead the way, people will follow.

No issues stepping up but we have Officers appointed by the C.O. and that's not my place to question that or them - I have just made suggestions which may or may not help.  I gave my word to a Company Officer that I have no desire on an appointment and that stands true but at the same time I will assist in any way possible, if asked..

(B/229) Nage wrote: This is what i think would help much more to get us all together.
1. Place TS bar on this site so anyone who is here can see whoever is online at the moment (although you can always get on TS if you are to fly DCS)
2. Every flight on DCS modules is training session (No matter what module you fly or with whomever you fly is training and you can learn something new. Something couple of us did this Sunday with C Coy)
3. It does not have to be our own 229th server per se for the group of people to fly together. There are other servers where we can implement what we learned and have fun as long we fly as group

With you all the way Nage...

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

My (controversial?) view of B Company. Empty Re: My (controversial?) view of B Company.

Post by (C/229) Highway Tue 26 Apr 2016, 22:10

Please excuse my butting in, it's not my place to tell you chaps what to do, but you're on the right path. You're identifying issues, without getting into a mud slinging competition and that's the right thing to do.

Your next task is to build the way out of the hole that you're in and mapping out with your discussion.

C Coy is on the road to recovery again, but this isn't our first time and we've tripped. Strutt is working hard to get things on track.

To be successful you need a few things in my view;

1. A stable sim. Out of your control, but when DCS is broken as happens from time to time, consider if it's worth trying to fly, or taking a break until it's patched.

2. Something to do! This is in my opinion the most important and difficult thing to achieve. Missions need to be challenging, but not ridiculously difficult, and you need plenty of them.

3. Participation. Getting together and flying the missions is the easy part, coming up with the ideas, building them and testing them is the hard part, and this is where everybody needs to help otherwise you'll find that those that enjoy mission building burn out. (Speaking from personal experience here...)

4. Patience. Everybody needs to want to be there. By all means pull people up if they continually turn up late, but like you said we mostly all have jobs, wives, kids, bills, pets, stress and strain in our lives. The 229th needs to be that place where we come to enjoy ourselves, not to face confrontation.

If you can all take a bite out of the shit sandwich and share the load of planning, building testing, and briefing the flying will be fun for everyone!

I wish you all the very best of luck!
(C/229) Highway
(C/229) Highway
Captain
Company Commander
Rated Senior Aviator
Captain Company Commander Rated Senior Aviator

Messages : 835
Age : 49
Location : Melbourne, Australia

Back to top Go down

My (controversial?) view of B Company. Empty Re: My (controversial?) view of B Company.

Post by (B/229) Sleipner Wed 27 Apr 2016, 07:38

As I reported to Cpt Razor (proceeding up the chain of command) I'm not very available these times. So I was not the guy to be promoted as an officer. I see no problem to be downgraded. No problem neather to transfered or even discharged if it might help the B company's dynamics.

I agree with you all. It's time for a new, "full of power" team.

I wish you the best and i'll join as soon I can.

Cheers,

Sleipner
(B/229) Sleipner
(B/229) Sleipner
Chief Warrant Officer 3
Rated Senior Aviator
Chief Warrant Officer 3 Rated Senior Aviator

Messages : 199
Age : 56
Location : France (UTC +1)

Back to top Go down

My (controversial?) view of B Company. Empty Re: My (controversial?) view of B Company.

Post by (D/229) Froggy Wed 27 Apr 2016, 14:29

Some of you know that C Coy has started a new regular mission time on Sunday afternoons their time. I'm building missions for this, and soon C Coy (and anyone else on at that time) will be going to war during their regular mission time.
I will do the same for B Coy if you guys select a regular day and time to get together and fly I'll create missions to fit into an ongoing war campaign alongside C Coy. If A wants to do the same I'll do that too. I'll make a more detailed post later in the mission builders forum, but for now, you guys pick a day and time and I'll ensure that you have a mission each week.
(D/229) Froggy
(D/229) Froggy
Chief Warrant Officer 4
Rated Aviator
Chief Warrant Officer 4 Rated Aviator

Messages : 63
Age : 47
Location : United Kingdom

Back to top Go down

My (controversial?) view of B Company. Empty Re: My (controversial?) view of B Company.

Post by Guest Wed 27 Apr 2016, 15:50

(B/229) Sleipner wrote:......I wish you the best and i'll join as soon I can.. Sleipner

Thanks for coming back Sleipner, I understand your position, I really do...  I hope I haven't offended you by speaking up..

and Nef and Highwayman, your inputs are very valid.

(D/229) Froggy wrote:  ....will do the same for B Coy .... you guys pick a day and time

Cheers Frog, but I think there a bit of sorting to be done before we could agree on anything Smile  Anyway, I know your prefix says 'D' but you location is 'B', a bit of a hybrid like Smile BUT I am sure we will be counting on your enthusiasm and spirit for missions once we get on stream so to speak....

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

My (controversial?) view of B Company. Empty Re: My (controversial?) view of B Company.

Post by (B/229) NeF Wed 27 Apr 2016, 19:48

I like to see this as a sand castle, enjoy when you achieve something. Then see it naturally get eaten by the sea, without feelings, it's normal..
And when the tide is low, start it all over again as a new adventure.
(B/229) NeF
(B/229) NeF
Chief Warrant Officer 3
Rated Senior Aviator
Chief Warrant Officer 3 Rated Senior Aviator

Killed In Action: : At least a six pack
Messages : 924
Age : 38
Location : Brussels

Back to top Go down

My (controversial?) view of B Company. Empty Re: My (controversial?) view of B Company.

Post by Guest Wed 27 Apr 2016, 23:11

An interesting analogy Nef, but once the castle has been destroyed, someone has to build it again - that's where flood defences come in... and my grand daughter has feelings - she gurns when her castles are destroyed...LOL

Barman, I have a pint of what Nef's drinking please..... and of course another for him... Smile

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

My (controversial?) view of B Company. Empty Re: My (controversial?) view of B Company.

Post by (A/229) Chuck Thu 28 Apr 2016, 00:25

(B/229) Gizzy wrote:
Transfer pilots who do not fly in say 60 days in the 229th, to a Reserve company - after 120 days of no activity WITH NO contact of any kind, discharge them.





Well, this means folks like me would likely be given the boot. I wished I had more time to fly, but sadly I don't since work and Master's got in the way and eat up my non-existent free time.

(A/229) Chuck

Messages : 67
Location : Montreal, Canada

Back to top Go down

My (controversial?) view of B Company. Empty Re: My (controversial?) view of B Company.

Post by Guest Thu 28 Apr 2016, 04:05

(A/229) Chuck wrote:.....Well, this means folks like me would likely be given the boot. I wished I had more time to fly, but sadly I don't since work and Master's got in the way and eat up my non-existent free time.

Sure... If someone does not fly for 2 months, not even for 5 - 10 minutes, then for a further 3 months with no contact whatsoever, no note, email, forum post, or chat in TS then in my book that indicates little real interest. Of course there will always be mitigating or exceptional circumstances but reinstatement costs nothing.

But this is controversial and probably a mute point as generally people here are passive rather than progressive and I cannot see consideration of implementation.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

My (controversial?) view of B Company. Empty Re: My (controversial?) view of B Company.

Post by (HHC/229) flyer Thu 28 Apr 2016, 21:30

Unfortunately, I too would be in the same situation as Chuck and having been a founding member and written 95% of the initial criteria to start this group, I would be disappointed to be relegated as a footnote in the history of the organization. Its unfortunate that I can't spend more time flying but I'm studying for my Masters as well and this has to take precedence until I graduate. I certainly intend to increase my participation when time allows so I believe that the reserve designation that is being proposed should be on a case by case basis...but...I do believe we need to clear the non-participants from the roster.
(HHC/229) flyer
(HHC/229) flyer
Major
S1
Instructor Pilot
Rated Master Aviator
Major S1 Instructor Pilot Rated Master Aviator

Messages : 1278
Age : 62
Location : Titusville, Florida

Back to top Go down

My (controversial?) view of B Company. Empty Re: My (controversial?) view of B Company.

Post by Guest Fri 29 Apr 2016, 02:54

(B/229) Gizzy wrote:[*]Transfer piots who do not fly in say 60 days in the 229th, to a Reserve company - after 120 days of no activity WITH NO contact of any kind, discharge them.[/quotee]

and then clarified somewhat later with...

[quote="(B/229)... If someone does not fly for 2 months, not even for 5 - 10 minutes, then for a further 3 months with no contact whatsoever, no note, email, forum post, or chat in TS then in my book that indicates little real interest.  Of course there will always be mitigating or exceptional circumstances but reinstatement costs nothing......

Flyer, let me be clear, it would be wrong and disrespectful to relegate anyone to be a footnote of the 229th let alone someone of your presence and status, period.

Originally I mentioned 2 months + 4 months = 6 months of no contact whatsoever for a discharge action.  I cannot see how you will ever fall into this criteria so the Reserve Tag (after 2 months), well that probably where there is an issue.  

This 'Reserve' tag I envisaged as an identifier of inactive flying - or non-operational status on the 'Roster'.  Other members looking for someone to fly with or for advice or training, would know that 'name' on the roster is non-operational in game as such and that point in time. That is the only function, it was not envisaged as a punishment, downgrading or any such similar relegation.

On my side of the pond, we have the Royal Naval Reserve, Royal Air Force Reserve, Territorial Army etc... all supporting regular units.  In fact my father fought throughout the entire WW2 across africa and Europe in a Territorial Unit and I myself signed up initially for 6 years with the Colours and 22 years with the reserves (later nullified by law due to my later occupation)

What I am trying to say is that in the UK a military Reserve 'tag' is not seen as disrespectful in any way and the Reserves maintain a full rank and status hierarchy and many Reserve specialists, Officers, Pilots etc recently fought in campaigns in this current time frame.  I hope this clarifies what was in my mind with the Reserve bit....

I started this thread to stimulate thought on what B Coy wanted, may be able to achieve, how we could improve things a little...  and eventually put forward 8 points that may help some.  

Maybe this was a good thing maybe not, most people resist change and they feel more comfortable with the present.  Maybe I upset Razorback, Cib, & Sleipner (Company Officers at that time) in a personal manner with my remark about procrastination, if so I apologise that was not my intention to upset.

I regard my individual attempted rallying of B Coy of the last 4 months as a complete failure so perhaps my vision of modus operandi within 'B' company is not in alignment with others, and that's okay.  

Sure I caused some aggravation amongst some but I think for a few others it maybe helped some or was of assistance.

Cib has been silent on this thread with no input or debate - probably sensibly keeping his powder dry until he knows where he wants to go with this or not as the case may be.

He has been promoted to Commanding Officer.  Its time for this thread to be closed.  I feel it would be wrong to continue and we must give the new CO space Smile

Thanks to all contributors, debate is a good thing, in my view anyway...  

I will keep quite for a long time now and fade into the background of the friendly obscure ranks of the 229th whilst I personally attempt to master the intricacies of Xtra's Tactical GS flying along with the Ka-50 & Gazelle... adiós, adieu, addio, adeus, aloha, arrivederci, ciao, auf Wiedersehen, au revoir, bon voyage, sayonara, shalom, totsiens, vale, zàijiàn

My last words here on this thread.... Muted mumbles of 'Thank Christ', 'Gobshite' 'About Time' amid loud cheering I hear..  lol!

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

My (controversial?) view of B Company. Empty Re: My (controversial?) view of B Company.

Post by (B/229) Cib Fri 29 Apr 2016, 08:43

Don't worry I have been reading this thread with interest. I obviously have some ideas of my own for progressing. I will be announcing a TS meeting for Bravo pilots later so we can get together to discuss the direction we want to take as a group Smile
(B/229) Cib
(B/229) Cib
Chief Warrant Officer 4
Rated Senior Aviator
Chief Warrant Officer 4 Rated Senior Aviator

Messages : 1070
Age : 56
Location : North East England

Back to top Go down

My (controversial?) view of B Company. Empty Re: My (controversial?) view of B Company.

Post by (B/229) NeF Fri 29 Apr 2016, 19:57

Gizz, my man, I admire your motivation. But we're all grown up males and we do what we can to feed our families. The 229th has always been very welcoming, and nobody owes jack to anybody.
Try to keep it headache free, we're all here for fun Wink

NeF.
(B/229) NeF
(B/229) NeF
Chief Warrant Officer 3
Rated Senior Aviator
Chief Warrant Officer 3 Rated Senior Aviator

Killed In Action: : At least a six pack
Messages : 924
Age : 38
Location : Brussels

Back to top Go down

My (controversial?) view of B Company. Empty Re: My (controversial?) view of B Company.

Post by Guest Fri 29 Apr 2016, 21:09

(B/229) NeF wrote:.......NeF.
I'm don't really understand the meaning in your last post , maybe something got lost in translation somewhere... but I'm cool man... totally and so I think is everyone else, it's just a discussion... we all have opinions I just tend to voice mine ...as far as B is concerned Cib get'll a handle on that soon that'll fit the members, I'm sure... and I said last post they were my last words... LOL

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

My (controversial?) view of B Company. Empty Re: My (controversial?) view of B Company.

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum