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?

Originally Posted by rickair7777

My understanding is that they have challenges recruiting officers, so opportunities should be more available.

Don't know about technical degrees, but I'm sure they require a specific GPA while on scholarship.

UPT wash rates are significantly lower, due to both need to be more efficient and also fear of offending anyone. If you wash someone out, you had darn well better have given them every chance they had coming, and annotated all of the i's and t's.

Originally Posted by busdriver12

I was just reading that graduation rates from UPT are far higher than they used to be. But graduation rates in the mid nineties percentile seem awfully high, unless they are massively screening people out ahead of time. Seems like if they were letting just anyone make it through, skilled or not, there would be a much larger number of military airplanes crashing.

Originally Posted by tnkrdrvr

My understanding is that the class A mishap rate has gone up, but I’d be lying if I said I’m tracking it closely. My recommendation to kids who show interest in the military today is to establish themselves in a good civilian career and then join the Guard or Reserves to pursue their dreams of military service. The USAF can’t hold onto quality officers today and dropping quality control for incoming officers of any specialty will only accelerate the loss of the best officers.

Originally Posted by Excargodog

Until we can get better quality people promoted to the highest levels - not just political brown nosers playing the game - I wouldn’t recommend ANYONE go into the military. Nor does it surprise me we can’t retain the best people.

https://www.realcleardefense.com/art...em_893993.html

Originally Posted by TransWorld

How did you feel about Gen. Jim “Mad Dog” Mattis?

Originally Posted by tnkrdrvr

He was not an Air Force officer. Not bad for a Marine though.

Originally Posted by TransWorld

Never said he was an Air Force officer. Remember Marines fly planes, as well.

Do you think he was a political brown noser?