USAF in danger due to pilot shortage
04-22-2023, 07:07 AM
#21
Line Holder
Joined APC: Feb 2022
Position: Cherokee FO
Posts: 31
Originally Posted by ObadiahDogberry
Just a casual observer here, but why hasn't the military (at least publicly) looked at doing with pilots what they are doing with other specialty positions like doctors and lawyers? If I am a licensed civilian doctor, my civilian licensing and education is recognized, I can join the military up to age 48, and go through a 5.5 week OTS. If someone had told me at 40 or 45 that my FAA ATP and 8,000 hours of flight time would be recognized by the Air Force, I would have happily applied. The military does not send experienced and licensed doctors or lawyers back to year one of medical school or law school, but at least the last time I looked at it 20 years ago, they did send experienced and licensed pilots back to day one of flight school. If you are going in active duty as an experienced doctor, you are going to be in the military as a doctor. But If you were going in active duty, as an experienced pilot, you may not even get a pilot slot (again, this is the last I looked at it 20 + years ago, when I was still in my 20s, may be different now), the only way to ensure you get a pilot slot was to get hired by a guard or reserve unit. I get that there is some kind of front line combat flying you might not want a 45 year old jumping in to, I certainly wouldn't expect the Air Force to throw someone like me in to an F-35 or F-22. But being an experienced Boeing pilot, how much of a transition would it be to put me in a C-5, or C-40, or KC-135? I am not expecting a six to eight week airline style training program, I get that it would be a longer training program. But if you accept that someone is arriving as a licensed and experienced pilot, just as you would if they were a licensed and experienced doctor or lawyer, that would certainly reduce training timelines and expense, and may increase the pool of potential pilots, especially among the guard or reserve. For you military guys, is this faulty thinking, or is there any merit to this idea?
The downside is that the age limit is a pretty firm 33, not sure about geographic hiring preferences and service commitment.
"Civil Path to Wings"
04-22-2023, 08:48 AM
#22
Occasional box hauler
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 1,683
The downside to throwing civ pilots directly into heavy airframes is you wind up with the ultimate in “stovepiped” officers. These guys would know nothing about how the rest of their peers operate and have aa weak grasp of the big picture. In a big WW2 type conflict where you just need bodies and most guys will never progress beyond aircraft commander, this doesn’t matter. In a small “peacetime” military continually called on to operate in brush wars it becomes very limiting to have officers who struggle to do anything outside of their primary AFSC.
As has been said, the USAF’s primary struggle is retention not pilot production. Part of the solution will be compressing the timeline for going from operational pilot to staff geek so the service gets the needed pound of flesh prior to a pilot punching out to the airlines.
As has been said, the USAF’s primary struggle is retention not pilot production. Part of the solution will be compressing the timeline for going from operational pilot to staff geek so the service gets the needed pound of flesh prior to a pilot punching out to the airlines.
04-22-2023, 12:17 PM
#23
Line Holder
Joined APC: Feb 2023
Posts: 38
Originally Posted by ObadiahDogberry
Just a casual observer here, but why hasn't the military (at least publicly) looked at doing with pilots what they are doing with other specialty positions like doctors and lawyers? If I am a licensed civilian doctor, my civilian licensing and education is recognized, I can join the military up to age 48, and go through a 5.5 week OTS. If someone had told me at 40 or 45 that my FAA ATP and 8,000 hours of flight time would be recognized by the Air Force, I would have happily applied. The military does not send experienced and licensed doctors or lawyers back to year one of medical school or law school, but at least the last time I looked at it 20 years ago, they did send experienced and licensed pilots back to day one of flight school. If you are going in active duty as an experienced doctor, you are going to be in the military as a doctor. But If you were going in active duty, as an experienced pilot, you may not even get a pilot slot (again, this is the last I looked at it 20 + years ago, when I was still in my 20s, may be different now), the only way to ensure you get a pilot slot was to get hired by a guard or reserve unit. I get that there is some kind of front line combat flying you might not want a 45 year old jumping in to, I certainly wouldn't expect the Air Force to throw someone like me in to an F-35 or F-22. But being an experienced Boeing pilot, how much of a transition would it be to put me in a C-5, or C-40, or KC-135? I am not expecting a six to eight week airline style training program, I get that it would be a longer training program. But if you accept that someone is arriving as a licensed and experienced pilot, just as you would if they were a licensed and experienced doctor or lawyer, that would certainly reduce training timelines and expense, and may increase the pool of potential pilots, especially among the guard or reserve. For you military guys, is this faulty thinking, or is there any merit to this idea?
A focal point of going through a leadership course and full curriculum of flight training is to get everyone on the same sheet of music. This can be seen in the way airlines run Indoc classes and initial sims. Everybody completes the program regardless of type ratings, prior experience, etc.
Now take that concept increased in magnitude several times over and you have what the military flight programs are aiming to accomplish. There is no room for anyone who wants to "do their own thing" in the cockpit. I believe this is also a reason for the somewhat rigid age cutoff requirements.
04-22-2023, 04:26 PM
#24
Perennial Reserve
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 11,503
Originally Posted by GunsUp77
In my opinion, standardization is the reason why you don't see exactly what you're describing.
A focal point of going through a leadership course and full curriculum of flight training is to get everyone on the same sheet of music. This can be seen in the way airlines run Indoc classes and initial sims. Everybody completes the program regardless of type ratings, prior experience, etc.
Now take that concept increased in magnitude several times over and you have what the military flight programs are aiming to accomplish. There is no room for anyone who wants to "do their own thing" in the cockpit. I believe this is also a reason for the somewhat rigid age cutoff requirements.
A focal point of going through a leadership course and full curriculum of flight training is to get everyone on the same sheet of music. This can be seen in the way airlines run Indoc classes and initial sims. Everybody completes the program regardless of type ratings, prior experience, etc.
Now take that concept increased in magnitude several times over and you have what the military flight programs are aiming to accomplish. There is no room for anyone who wants to "do their own thing" in the cockpit. I believe this is also a reason for the somewhat rigid age cutoff requirements.
In 1942 a young P-38 pilot flew his fighter under the Golden Gate Bridge and, just in case no one had noticed him yet, he buzzed the downtown San Francisco area. No word on exactly how low he went but there were complaints from all over the San Francisco area about the buzzing including at least one woman who had her laundry blown off the clothesline.
Shortly the young Lieutenant found himself in the office of a very unhappy commanding general being dressed down by the top man himself. After the general chewed him out for awhile, he asked the Lieutenant how the then new P-38 handled at low altitude. To the general’s surprise the young lieutenant seemed to completely ignore the chewing out he received and enthusiastically described how beautifully stable the P-38 was and described its performance in glowing terms.‘The general looked at the young pilot, threw the complaints in the trash basket and gave the punishment to the lieutenant. He was ordered to report to the woman who complained about the laundry being blown off her clothes line and told do her laundry for her and generally help around the house for awhile.
‘Shortly thereafter, the general – George Kenney – was posted to the South Pacific to command all US Army Air Force units in the area. When he left, he specifically asked for 50 P-38 pilots to be assigned to him in the Pacific. The top of the list was Richard Bong, the young lieutenant from this story.
‘Bong became the highest scoring US pilot in history and a Medal of Honor winner
Shortly the young Lieutenant found himself in the office of a very unhappy commanding general being dressed down by the top man himself. After the general chewed him out for awhile, he asked the Lieutenant how the then new P-38 handled at low altitude. To the general’s surprise the young lieutenant seemed to completely ignore the chewing out he received and enthusiastically described how beautifully stable the P-38 was and described its performance in glowing terms.‘The general looked at the young pilot, threw the complaints in the trash basket and gave the punishment to the lieutenant. He was ordered to report to the woman who complained about the laundry being blown off her clothes line and told do her laundry for her and generally help around the house for awhile.
‘Shortly thereafter, the general – George Kenney – was posted to the South Pacific to command all US Army Air Force units in the area. When he left, he specifically asked for 50 P-38 pilots to be assigned to him in the Pacific. The top of the list was Richard Bong, the young lieutenant from this story.
‘Bong became the highest scoring US pilot in history and a Medal of Honor winner
But that was then and this is now…
https://youtu.be/XLKSVI4sGm8
04-22-2023, 05:16 PM
#25
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,289
Originally Posted by Excargodog
Bong also died because he probably forgot to switch on a fuel pump.
04-23-2023, 07:50 AM
#28
Perennial Reserve
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 11,503
The Eighth Air Force flying B-17s out of England had a loss rate of about 5% PER MISSION. Not all those people died, some became POWs, but either way your chance of coming back to base on average was 95%. Now multiply that by a 25 mission tour and that comes out to be (0.95)^25 or roughly 28% of getting through without dying or becoming a POW. Not surprising they were a little crazy. It was likely a job requirement.
04-24-2023, 04:58 AM
#29
Abused Spouse of PBS
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Posts: 439
The concept of a "fly-only" track definitely needs some fleshing out prior to implementation. The thought of staying in the cockpit for 20 years, guaranteed to make O-5 provided you don't step on your junk along the way is a start. The needs to be better, much better. I separated after 10 1/2 years on Active Duty and finished up my last 16 in the AF Reserve. It took a while before my combined AF/Airline pay matched and surpassed the pay comensurate with an AD O-4/O-5 on the bonus. As many of you know, it is not about the money because I had the opportunity to return to active duty and I had no desire to do so. I won't state the reasons why because they've been hashed out multliple times on this forum over the years. I agree that retention is the issue and not production. How long does it take to season a 12-15 year AF pilot? About 12-15 years!
Back to the idea of the "fly-only" track, there are some concepts needing some serious thought for it to be appealing. Granted, I have hindsight and the 2005 version of me would not have the experience and wisdom to recognize how importnat some of these concepts are.
1. The MDS Vol 3 needs stronger "contractual" type language. Ask a TR or Guardsman who is voluntarily/involuntarily activated on flying orders. They will fly you to the maximum, calculate your post mission crew rest to the minute, and send you back out again.
Alas, I don't see any major changes. On the day that President Trump shut down the economy in 2020, I am sure some staff officer woke with a smile and shortsightedly thought the pilot retention problem was solved. There was talk of reducing or eliminating the bonus. How wrong they were!! I see increased UPT service commitments. They were 6 years, I was at 8 years..now it is 10 years... standby for 12 years.
I loved flying in the AF and wouldn't change a thing. If I were king, I would increase the USAFR/ANG footprint with a simpler roadmap to return to active duty for those wanting to jump back for reasons such as furlough, loss of medical qualification, etc.
Just my humble thoughts..
Fly Safe.
C17D
Back to the idea of the "fly-only" track, there are some concepts needing some serious thought for it to be appealing. Granted, I have hindsight and the 2005 version of me would not have the experience and wisdom to recognize how importnat some of these concepts are.
1. The MDS Vol 3 needs stronger "contractual" type language. Ask a TR or Guardsman who is voluntarily/involuntarily activated on flying orders. They will fly you to the maximum, calculate your post mission crew rest to the minute, and send you back out again.
- That pace is manageable for a short season, but over a career, that would be brutal. Imagine trying to have and raise a family with a pace like that. Granted, that pace would not be perpetual, but would be brutal nonetheless. Our current MDS Vol 3 and 202-v3 talk about crew rest. Other than calling "Safety of flight," it is very difficult to turn down a mission.
- There are no protections to the hotel language...wait, there is no hotel language. How many have come off a long crew duty day, show up at ETAR lodging only to wait hours for a room. Or, there are no rooms and you get the coveted Non-A slip and then find your own room. And when you have to get a taxi, get a room at/under the per diem rate, you get screwed over by your finance office when you file your voucher. Oh yeah, and during that whole time you are trying to procure a room for you and the crew, your crew rest is eaten up and expected to still be ready for the same report time tomorrow. TACC says you got your minimum crew rest, so you must be good to go. Again, your only tool is "Safety of flight."
2. Flight pay / Pilot Bonus- There are no protections to the hotel language...wait, there is no hotel language. How many have come off a long crew duty day, show up at ETAR lodging only to wait hours for a room. Or, there are no rooms and you get the coveted Non-A slip and then find your own room. And when you have to get a taxi, get a room at/under the per diem rate, you get screwed over by your finance office when you file your voucher. Oh yeah, and during that whole time you are trying to procure a room for you and the crew, your crew rest is eaten up and expected to still be ready for the same report time tomorrow. TACC says you got your minimum crew rest, so you must be good to go. Again, your only tool is "Safety of flight."
-. Monthly fight pay needs a huge increase. Yeah, people will complain. My response: "To be where I am, you have to go where I've been.:
- The Bonus: This is where I am torn. With hingsight and where I am now (two airlines and a furlough), I ask myself how much the bonus would need to be for me to stay in. The 10 year 2006 Captain version of me would have jumped at a $50K/year bonus to stay in. The grizzled retired O-5 version of me would say that is no where near enough. The ACIP bonus is no where near $50/year Knowing what I know now and how those next ten years would have been, the current bonus is grossly inadequate. If I could go back in time and whisper in my younger version's ear, I would recommend accepting no less than $75K/year ( I would also tell him to invest in Google and Amazon). I said earlier it is not about the money, but I probably would fold if presented with that amount.
3. Quality of Life- The Bonus: This is where I am torn. With hingsight and where I am now (two airlines and a furlough), I ask myself how much the bonus would need to be for me to stay in. The 10 year 2006 Captain version of me would have jumped at a $50K/year bonus to stay in. The grizzled retired O-5 version of me would say that is no where near enough. The ACIP bonus is no where near $50/year Knowing what I know now and how those next ten years would have been, the current bonus is grossly inadequate. If I could go back in time and whisper in my younger version's ear, I would recommend accepting no less than $75K/year ( I would also tell him to invest in Google and Amazon). I said earlier it is not about the money, but I probably would fold if presented with that amount.
- To numerous to list here. The queep is the queep. I retired almost a year ago and I do not miss the queep. I do not miss fighting to get paid for every cent I am owed and not a penny more.
I am sure many can add to this list. I am curious to hear what other's thoughts are regarding how much the bonus would have to be for y'all to stay in knowing what y'all know now.Alas, I don't see any major changes. On the day that President Trump shut down the economy in 2020, I am sure some staff officer woke with a smile and shortsightedly thought the pilot retention problem was solved. There was talk of reducing or eliminating the bonus. How wrong they were!! I see increased UPT service commitments. They were 6 years, I was at 8 years..now it is 10 years... standby for 12 years.
I loved flying in the AF and wouldn't change a thing. If I were king, I would increase the USAFR/ANG footprint with a simpler roadmap to return to active duty for those wanting to jump back for reasons such as furlough, loss of medical qualification, etc.
Just my humble thoughts..
Fly Safe.
C17D
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
