USAF in danger due to pilot shortage
02-28-2024 | 08:31 AM
#51
Line Holder
Joined: Feb 2022
Posts: 587
Likes: 105
From: 73FO
FY1981 - 1987 washout rate - 27%, USAFA - 25%. Remove FY87 (37% washout rate!?) the rate drops to 25% overall and 20% for USAFA SUPT candidates.
FY90-96 - washout rate overall 17%, USAFA 15%.
Now more like 5%(??).
https://www.aetc.af.mil/Portals/88/D...-12-160013-593
FY90-96 - washout rate overall 17%, USAFA 15%.
Now more like 5%(??).
https://www.aetc.af.mil/Portals/88/D...-12-160013-593
Were pilots and retirees in 1996 clutching their pearls about the washout rate being reduced by ~40%? Did that mean the AF was broken and a massive safety hazard from 97-07? Somehow I don't think that is the case.
02-28-2024 | 11:43 AM
#52
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 44,857
Likes: 658
From: Engines Turn or People Swim
I was involved peripherally in an early 2000's naval special warfare initiative to increase training throughput, in a program with a notorious washout rate (even a class or two washed 100% back in the day).
This was necessitated by the ramp up of GWOT and manpower demands, and the entry argument was to not reduce standards one iota.
The solution was two-phase... an enhanced, targeted recruiting program to identify and recruit mostly direct-accessions, often standout HS and college athletes, and bring them in directly without doing the typical fleet tour(s) first. That opened up a pool of candidates who might be interested in SPECWAR, but might not be interested in rank and file fleet duty in hopes of having a shot at it years later.
Second phase was close (mandatory IIRC) PT mentoring in the months leading up to reporting for training, to build up the candidates physically for the specific demands of the program. Upon reporting they then participate in a weeks-long pre-class training program to futher get their minds and bodies into the right place to perform in the real deal (those standards were not modified).
Worked wonders, pretty much inverted the old 70/30% wash/pass rate. Sometimes you can work smarter.
This was necessitated by the ramp up of GWOT and manpower demands, and the entry argument was to not reduce standards one iota.
The solution was two-phase... an enhanced, targeted recruiting program to identify and recruit mostly direct-accessions, often standout HS and college athletes, and bring them in directly without doing the typical fleet tour(s) first. That opened up a pool of candidates who might be interested in SPECWAR, but might not be interested in rank and file fleet duty in hopes of having a shot at it years later.
Second phase was close (mandatory IIRC) PT mentoring in the months leading up to reporting for training, to build up the candidates physically for the specific demands of the program. Upon reporting they then participate in a weeks-long pre-class training program to futher get their minds and bodies into the right place to perform in the real deal (those standards were not modified).
Worked wonders, pretty much inverted the old 70/30% wash/pass rate. Sometimes you can work smarter.
02-28-2024 | 04:58 PM
#53
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 6,416
Likes: 120
From: Window seat
The question is how relevant are those numbers? There are many possible explanations behind that trend. Maybe after several decades of UPT, we're getting better at making our training more effective. Maybe as training costs rise, we have become more selective about who we bring into UPT. Maybe technology like glass cockpits has made flying easier. Maybe tools like the internet and youtube and VR and flight sims make it more likely that students that would have washed out 40 years ago are now understanding aviation concepts better and they are able to graduate. Maybe the focus is less about how many screws are in some obscure component we can't see or control and more about flying the damn plane.
Were pilots and retirees in 1996 clutching their pearls about the washout rate being reduced by ~40%? Did that mean the AF was broken and a massive safety hazard from 97-07? Somehow I don't think that is the case.
Were pilots and retirees in 1996 clutching their pearls about the washout rate being reduced by ~40%? Did that mean the AF was broken and a massive safety hazard from 97-07? Somehow I don't think that is the case.
03-01-2024 | 07:03 AM
#54
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 20,867
Likes: 183
I was involved peripherally in an early 2000's naval special warfare initiative to increase training throughput, in a program with a notorious washout rate (even a class or two washed 100% back in the day).
This was necessitated by the ramp up of GWOT and manpower demands, and the entry argument was to not reduce standards one iota.
The solution was two-phase... an enhanced, target recruiting program to identify and recruit mostly direct-accessions, often standout HS and college athletes, and bring them in directly without doing the typical fleet tour(s) first. That opened up a pool of candidates who might be interested in SPECWAR, but might not be interested in rank and file fleet duty in hopes of having a shot at it years later.
Second phase was close (mandatory IIRC) PT mentoring in the months leading up to reporting for training, to build up the candidates physically for the specific demands of the program. Upon reporting they the participate in a weeks-long pre-class training program to futher get their minds and bodies into the right place to perform in the real deal (those standards were not modified).
Worked wonders, pretty much inverted the old 70/30% wash/pass rate. Sometimes you can work smarter.
This was necessitated by the ramp up of GWOT and manpower demands, and the entry argument was to not reduce standards one iota.
The solution was two-phase... an enhanced, target recruiting program to identify and recruit mostly direct-accessions, often standout HS and college athletes, and bring them in directly without doing the typical fleet tour(s) first. That opened up a pool of candidates who might be interested in SPECWAR, but might not be interested in rank and file fleet duty in hopes of having a shot at it years later.
Second phase was close (mandatory IIRC) PT mentoring in the months leading up to reporting for training, to build up the candidates physically for the specific demands of the program. Upon reporting they the participate in a weeks-long pre-class training program to futher get their minds and bodies into the right place to perform in the real deal (those standards were not modified).
Worked wonders, pretty much inverted the old 70/30% wash/pass rate. Sometimes you can work smarter.
03-01-2024 | 07:33 AM
#55
Line Holder
Joined: Aug 2019
Posts: 332
Likes: 26
The problem is that you now have pilots arriving at operational units who can't perform all the mission requirements for that airframe. This used to virtually never happen. It's becoming somewhat common now leading to units having a A team and B team. The B team concept was soundly rejected 25 years ago but has now become accepted.
03-12-2024 | 01:19 AM
#57
Line Holder
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 1,606
Likes: 4
From: No Hats No Jackets No PAX
Truly disheartening and pathetic outcome, but definitely a cyclical type venture. Overage, RIF, High Demand Low Density vice versa, Banked, Bonuses, Airlines hiring, Airlines Not hiring, 50% at best doing the work for the remaining is never a good climate/environment to be in. Had plenty of rated Staff tour time so that's not even worth a look back. Definitely a jello machine... Phew, lucky to have lived it at a better time.
03-12-2024 | 07:25 AM
#58
Perennial Reserve
Joined: Jan 2018
Posts: 14,177
Likes: 235
Solution to USAF pilot shortage?
Air Force Plans to Divest 250 Aircraft in 2025, Shrinking Fleet to New Low
March 11, 2024 By Chris Gordon
The Air Force plans to shrink its total aircraft inventory in fiscal 2025, cutting its plans for new airframes while continuing to retire old platforms, the service revealed in its budget request, released on March 11. The Air Force plans to divest 250 aircraft in FY25, dropping its total aircraft inventory below 5,000, an unprecedentedly small number.
“We’re protecting the current force’s capabilities at what we think is an acceptable level of risk,” Secretary of the Air Force Frank Kendall told reporters ahead of the budget’s official release
“We’re protecting the current force’s capabilities at what we think is an acceptable level of risk,” Secretary of the Air Force Frank Kendall told reporters ahead of the budget’s official release
The Air Force is heavily focused on modernization, so protecting research and development comes at the cost of new aircraft purchases in the latest budget, according to top service officials. The aircraft divestment plan is worth over $2 billion in savings, deputy assistant secretary of the Air Force for budget Maj. Gen. Mike A. Greiner said.
“For the most part, our divestments were planned because we need to start moving the funding into the modernization programs,” Kristyn E. Jones, the acting undersecretary of the Air Force told reporters March 11.
The Air Force wants to purchase 42 F-35As and 18 F-15EXs—a total of 60 new fighters. That will not meet the service’s stated long-term goal of at least 72 new fighters annually. The Air Force is moving towards awarding the first contracts for Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCAs), semi-autonomous aircraft that will accompany the manned fighter fleet. CCAs will “rethink our definition” of the USAF fighter fleet, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David W. Allvin said on March 7.
The Air Force is heavily focused on modernization, so protecting research and development comes at the cost of new aircraft purchases in the latest budget, according to top service officials. The aircraft divestment plan is worth over $2 billion in savings, deputy assistant secretary of the Air Force for budget Maj. Gen. Mike A. Greiner said.
“For the most part, our divestments were planned because we need to start moving the funding into the modernization programs,” Kristyn E. Jones, the acting undersecretary of the Air Force told reporters March 11.
The Air Force wants to purchase 42 F-35As and 18 F-15EXs—a total of 60 new fighters. That will not meet the service’s stated long-term goal of at least 72 new fighters annually. The Air Force is moving towards awarding the first contracts for Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCAs), semi-autonomous aircraft that will accompany the manned fighter fleet. CCAs will “rethink our definition” of the USAF fighter fleet, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David W. Allvin said on March 7.
The service is seeking to ditch 65 aging F-15C/Ds, some of which are barely airworthy, and divest 56 A-10 Warthog aircraft, which the USAF wants to retire from the force entirely by 2029. The service also wants to get rid of 26 F-15E Strike Eagles with less powerful Pratt and Whitney F100-PW-220 engines but upgrade the portion of the fleetwith more powerful engines with the Eagle Passive Active Warning and Survivability System (EPAWSS), which provides “an advanced digital electronic warfare system capable of defeating modern threat systems in contested airspace,” the service’s budget documents state.
Some of the Air Force’s retirement plans are controversial: leaders are once more trying to retire 32 of their oldest F-22s, which they argue are no longer viable in combat. Instead, they want to fund “investments in F-22 sensor enhancements to more closely track and stay ahead of potential adversaries,” according to the Department of the Air Force’s budget request.
“Block 20 airframes lack many of the enhanced capabilities of the Block 30/35 jets,” an Air Force spokesperson said of the rationale. “Upgrading them to Block 30/35 is not feasible due to cost and time constraints.”
Congress has long balked at the prospect of retiring any models of what many see as the world’s best air superiority fighter and passed legislation prohibiting any such retirements until fiscal 2028. However, the Air Force has held firm in its desire to retire the old Block 20 aircraft—reducing the F-22 fleet from 185 to 153 aircraft—for several years.
“We’ll comply with the law, obviously, but we’re putting those F-22s back on the table in order to fit in the other things we think are higher priority,” Kendall said
Some of the Air Force’s retirement plans are controversial: leaders are once more trying to retire 32 of their oldest F-22s, which they argue are no longer viable in combat. Instead, they want to fund “investments in F-22 sensor enhancements to more closely track and stay ahead of potential adversaries,” according to the Department of the Air Force’s budget request.
“Block 20 airframes lack many of the enhanced capabilities of the Block 30/35 jets,” an Air Force spokesperson said of the rationale. “Upgrading them to Block 30/35 is not feasible due to cost and time constraints.”
Congress has long balked at the prospect of retiring any models of what many see as the world’s best air superiority fighter and passed legislation prohibiting any such retirements until fiscal 2028. However, the Air Force has held firm in its desire to retire the old Block 20 aircraft—reducing the F-22 fleet from 185 to 153 aircraft—for several years.
“We’ll comply with the law, obviously, but we’re putting those F-22s back on the table in order to fit in the other things we think are higher priority,” Kendall said
03-12-2024 | 12:58 PM
#60
Line Holder
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,344
Likes: 41
From: 765A
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
The Air Force should adopt the Army model. The bulk of pilots should be Warrant Officers. There is nothing magic about flying that requires a four year degree. Two years college, make them a W-1 and send them to UPT.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
