|
USAF in danger due to pilot shortage
|
Originally Posted by SonicFlyer
(Post 3602353)
|
Originally Posted by Otterbox
(Post 3602358)
Theres talk on the Navy side of things of increasing winging commitments… again… to help retention. Wonder if the Air Force is considering the same.
I'll be honest, even at age 18 I might have balked at going down a road that involved a 15-year commitment after wings... at that point, might as well stay for 20. |
for a minute I thought I was reading this circa-2000 RAND report
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/ran...007/MR1204.pdf 23 years later, and we are still "looking at ways to solve this problem" |
“In the 1990s, they divested too many aircraft, they closed down too many pilot training bases,” she said. “They simply don’t have the capacity to produce the number of pilots that they need, and they don’t have the aircraft required to absorb the pilots they do create.” Ther once was a base called Mather AFB and the flyers out of there had a shoulder patch that said Air Training Command Headquarters West. At the time I think only two ATC bases were west of the Mississippi (Williams In Tempe, now also gone, and Mather itself). I thought the whole HQ West thing was more than a little arrogant until I got to digging into the history. During WW2 there were apparently over 100 ATC bases in California alone. |
“Ther once was a base called Mather AFB and the flyers out of there had a shoulder patch that said Air Training Command Headquarters West. At the time I think only two ATC bases were west of the Mississippi (Williams In Tempe, now also gone, and Mather itself).”
I’m not sure what timeframe this might have been. I know Mather was still training Nav’s when I graduated college in ‘89, but there are numerous ATC bases west of the Mississippi. |
Originally Posted by USMCFLYR
(Post 3602650)
“Ther once was a base called Mather AFB and the flyers out of there had a shoulder patch that said Air Training Command Headquarters West. At the time I think only two ATC bases were west of the Mississippi (Williams In Tempe, now also gone, and Mather itself).”
I’m not sure what timeframe this might have been. I know Mather was still training Nav’s when I graduated college in ‘89, but there are numerous ATC bases west of the Mississippi. AFD does have a caution note for T-38 traffic still. |
Originally Posted by USMCFLYR
(Post 3602650)
“Ther once was a base called Mather AFB and the flyers out of there had a shoulder patch that said Air Training Command Headquarters West. At the time I think only two ATC bases were west of the Mississippi (Williams In Tempe, now also gone, and Mather itself).”
I’m not sure what timeframe this might have been. I know Mather was still training Nav’s when I graduated college in ‘89, but there are numerous ATC bases west of the Mississippi. https://military-history.fandom.com/...raining_Center https://i.ibb.co/Df3BV65/69-A49-BD5-...5715-A8-BF.jpg |
UPT instructor friends have told me they are cranking out pilots as fast as they can. It's insane!
|
Originally Posted by Irondrivr
(Post 3607759)
UPT instructor friends have told me they are cranking out pilots as fast as they can. It's insane!
https://media.defense.gov/2015/Sep/1...150911-028.pdf Now they are struggling to produce a small fraction of that output: https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/y...ious-position/ Some excerpts: “In the 1990s, they divested too many aircraft, they closed down too many pilot training bases,” she said. “They simply don’t have the capacity to produce the number of pilots that they need, and they don’t have the aircraft required to absorb the pilots they do create.” Air Force officials have seen hints of progress. The service closed out fiscal 2022 with about 200 more active duty pilots than it had three years earlier. Now, though, military officials and civilian experts alike argue the Pentagon needs to amass a more robust pilot corps to prepare for the next conflict. The service put 1,276 airmen through undergraduate pilot training last year, about 100 fewer than in fiscal 2021, Riley said. It typically aims to graduate 1,500 new pilotseach year, and is shooting for 1,470 pilots in 2023. Keeping the pipeline running smoothly was tricky in 2022. The service continues to struggle to find enough civilian workers to run flight simulators despite a slate of hiring incentives. About one-quarter of those sim instructor jobs — 135 of 518 — remain empty. |
Any discussion of bonuses for guard and reserve retention. When the new round of airline contracts kick in the exodus there is going to increase!
|
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 3608512)
Any discussion of bonuses for guard and reserve retention. When the new round of airline contracts kick in the exodus there is going to increase!
16 Mar 2023 Military.com | By Rebecca KheelThe Defense Department within "weeks" will take the next step on a report that will pave the way for National Guardsmen and reservists to receive higher incentive pay, a department official pledged Wednesday. At a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee's personnel subpanel, Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., confronted officials for being nearly six months late in following a congressional mandate to give members of reserve components incentive pay equal to the bonuses given to active-duty service members. Under the 2021 annual defense bill, the Pentagon was required to submit a report to Congress before increasing the pay, but the report has yet to be finished. "I think you guys are slow-rolling this because you don't want to implement it," Duckworth said after a department official gave a jargon-heavy answer to her question about why the report is six months late. Read Next: Pentagon Unsure It Can Recover Drone Downed by Russia While the official demurred on a timeline to provide the report to lawmakers, he promised staffers would be briefed in "weeks or less." "Not years, not months," Thomas Constable, the acting assistant secretary of defense for manpower and reserve affairs, told Duckworth. "I think the answer is weeks. Obviously, faster when I go back than before I left the building." Duckworth demanded lawmakers get the report in four weeks. "You need to do this," she said. At issue are 18 categories of incentive pay used to attract recruits or retain service members with specific skills or qualifications. Many of the bonuses, which can add hundreds of dollars a month to a service member's paycheck, require specialized training or involve duties that put a service member at greater risk. Current Pentagon policy caps the incentive pay for Guardsmen and reservists lower than for active-duty troops, despite the fact that they are required to do the same training or duties as their active-duty counterparts to receive the bonuses. For example, Duckworth said Wednesday, both active-duty and reserve paratroopers are required to keep up their skills with three jumps a month, but reservists get only $5 compared to active-duty members getting $150. To close the disparity, the National Defense Authorization Act passed in 2021 requires that the bonuses be the same for reserve components and active duty. But it also required the Pentagon to first submit a report laying out an implementation plan for incentive pay parity and certifying in writing that parity will not have a detrimental effect on force structure. That report was due Sept. 30. Duckworth, a retired Army National Guard lieutenant colonel, and five other Senate and House members from both parties sent a letter weeks after the report was due bemoaning the delay. At the time, the Pentagon told Military.com it would have an update on the report "within the coming months." At Wednesday's hearing, Constable suggested the delay has revolved around some bonuses that officials don't want to increase and concerns that offering higher incentive pay to Guardsmen and reservists could lure some troops away from active duty. "Not all special skills, not all special pays are created equally or should be treated the same," he said. "We just have to find the right mix of places wherein we seek equal dollars versus equal consideration. And of course, cognizant of creating incentives to draw people from one force to the other." Duckworth said she found that argument insulting. "This idea that you can slow-roll this and that an active-duty troop is going to leave the active duty to go to the reserves because he's gonna get 150 bucks extra a month for three jumps is an insult to the troops who are on active duty," she said. "And it's still an insult to the [reserve] troops who do those same three jumps every single month in order to meet those standards." -- Rebecca Kheel can be reached at [email protected]. Follow her on Twitter @reporterkheel. Related: Delay to Incentive Pay Boost for Guard and Reserves Draws Rebuke from Lawmakers Show Full Article |
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 3602361)
I'll be honest, even at age 18 I might have balked at going down a road that involved a 15-year commitment after wings... at that point, might as well stay for 20.
|
Originally Posted by aeroengineer
(Post 3608908)
Interesting. If someone's ultimate goal were the airlines then the current hiring wave will be a distant memory after that many years. Of course, if I could read the tea leaves that far out, I would be getting paid a lot more as an analyst for someone.:eek:
|
Originally Posted by aeroengineer
(Post 3608908)
Interesting. If someone's ultimate goal were the airlines then the current hiring wave will be a distant memory after that many years. Of course, if I could read the tea leaves that far out, I would be getting paid a lot more as an analyst for someone.:eek:
All that said, USAF doesn’t have a pilot recruitment problem. It does have a pilot training problem and a retention problem. |
Logistics, logistics, logistics…
T-38 Talon engine repair woes could slow pilot training for monthsBy Rachel S. CohenMar 16 at 11:20 AM https://www.airforcetimes.com/resize...QSMY247POE.jpg Airmen conduct pre-flight operations with the T-38 Talon training jet as part of undergraduate pilot training at Vance Air Force Base, Okla., Dec. 9, 2021. (Airman 1st Class Christian Soto/Air Force)The Air Force’s T-38 Talon training jet fleet is digging out of engine maintenance delays that could slow military pilot production for at least another six months. Service officials say the main contractor, Arizona-based StandardAero, hasn’t delivered enough freshly refurbished engines to train American and foreign combat pilots. Those deliveries have lagged the usual rate for several months due to a web of complications https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/y...ng-for-months/ In fairness, the J85 never really was engineered for longevity. It was designed to power Bomarc missiles on a single one way trip. |
The J85 was designed for the ADM-20 originally, but has been a very successful engine over the years; in the civil world, the same engine without afterburner is the CJ610, and was adapted into the CF700. The engine and it's variants has a very successful history.
The early J85 developments for drone/missile use were built with lower grade materials; and are not the same as the J-85's and CJ610's used for manned aircraft. The notion that the J85 is a missile engine that wasn't engineered to last, is a myth. |
Missiles and civil aircraft engines both spend most of their time at steady-state cruise power, in straight & level flight.
Mil tactical engines get cycled a lot, and are subject to a lot of maneuvering forces. Even more so for a trainer. You could argue the engine wasn't "designed", or optimized for that role... but how much would a clean-sheet engine cost? Those costs have to be balanced with the utility. Sometimes cheaper in the long run to use off the shelf, even if that's not the perfect technical solution. I'm pretty sure the B-21 engines are something off the shelf, they simply buried it enough ducting to provide the needed LO and airflow characteristics. |
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 ObadiahDogberry
(Post 3627648)
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?
I agree an experienced pilot could probably spool up faster in the air mobility community, or for things like AWACS, but it would require a custom course. Probably the big thing is formation flying... almost all platforms have some mission which requires that, air drops in mobility and AR for pretty much everyone including AWACS, MPRA, TACAMO. Military training has a very strong formation flying foundation so IMO you'd have get folks through that at the very least. But the fundamental problem todays isn't one of lacking enough entry-level pilots... it's retaining those with experience who can lead and train the junior folks. That's a very big deal given the complexities of Joint military operations... many hours going into preparing for each flight. Also the mil has a very large overhead of "management pilots", mostly mid or senior-grade pilots who fill staff (non-flying) jobs at major headquarters. Yes that's absolutely essential to ensure that all of that Joint (and international allied) warfighting gets planned with proper guidance from those who know the intricate ins and outs of air warfare. Same applies to all other military specialties... you don't want a Army artillery officer planing the air warfare part of Joint ops, or vice versa. When the mil says they have a "pilot shortage" it's not really at the squadron level, it's the staff positions which suffer first. The really never has been a shortage of kids who want to fly jets in the mil, and once they get them they're obligated for 12+ years. The problem now is keeping them after that. The crux of the matter today is the airline demand and opportunities which is attracting mid and senior mil pilots. |
Originally Posted by ObadiahDogberry
(Post 3627648)
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" |
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. |
Originally Posted by ObadiahDogberry
(Post 3627648)
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. |
Originally Posted by GunsUp77
(Post 3627860)
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. 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 But that was then and this is now… https://youtu.be/XLKSVI4sGm8 |
Originally Posted by Excargodog
(Post 3627937)
https://i.ibb.co/RSTMPD6/DB4-CE61-F-...74-B9-D572.jpg
But that was then and this is now… https://youtu.be/XLKSVI4sGm8 Bong also died because he probably forgot to switch on a fuel pump. |
Unfortunately, Bong was among the many to prove being a great combat pilot didn’t make you great test pilot material. Only a few guys of that era truly thrived in both worlds. Yeager being the most famous.
|
Reminds me after WWII VE-Day, American pilots took turns flying between the legs of the Eiffel Tower. My dad had a buddy who witnessed it and took photos of it.
|
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.
|
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. - 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. 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.: 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 |
Originally Posted by Irondrivr
(Post 3607759)
UPT instructor friends have told me they are cranking out pilots as fast as they can. It's insane!
|
Originally Posted by ObadiahDogberry
(Post 3627648)
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?
|
I am curious how much has changed, since I finished AF UPT back in the dark ages. I was just talking to a friend whose daughter will be a senior in high school this year and is interested in aviation. She had the impression from talking to a recruiter, that her daughter just had to sign her life away for ten years after college, and boom, she'll get a free ride scholarship and become an AF pilot.
Well. Way back when, it wasn't so easy. You had to compete nationally for a scholarship and had to maintain a 3.0 GPA to keep it (you could only get a scholarship in a technical field, if you changed your major to a nontechnical field, you lost the scholarship). Men were awarded pilot slots at the local detachment level in their sophomore or junior year, women had to compete nationally for 1% of the total pilot slots. If you made it to UPT, there was a high washout rate. One guy in my class washed out with 2,000 flight hours already, and my spouse said 40% of their class washed out. There was zero guarantee you were going to finish, no matter what kind of experience you had. So while I realize there's plenty of recruiter BS going on, I'm curious what the real story is. Are they giving out far more pilot slots and is training that much easier to get through? I'd heard that many people are given drone assignments after graduation, which wasn't something we had to consider back in prehistoric times. |
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 rickair7777
(Post 3657789)
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
(Post 3657809)
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
(Post 3659268)
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.
https://www.realcleardefense.com/art...em_893993.html |
Originally Posted by Excargodog
(Post 3659346)
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
(Post 3659432)
How did you feel about Gen. Jim “Mad Dog” Mattis?
|
Originally Posted by tnkrdrvr
(Post 3659516)
He was not an Air Force officer. Not bad for a Marine though.
Do you think he was a political brown noser? |
Originally Posted by TransWorld
(Post 3659564)
Never said he was an Air Force officer. Remember Marines fly planes, as well.
Do you think he was a political brown noser? |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:57 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands