Leaderboard

The silver lining of this whole thing is we all get to skip PT test for an entire year! Vegas buffet line here I come!

My last PT test was Sept of 19 and I recently found out I dont need another one until Sept of 21. I'm in shock and awe that the Air Force isn't going to overnight fall apart when dozens of individuals go non-current for their test. I don't understand how we are going to continue to fight the war on terror!?!?! But my biggest sadness, is for my Senior Rater, who isn't sure how he is going to rack and stack thousands of Airman without a concrete and arbitrary number that poorly estimates their physical fitness. Its the end times for sure.

@mb1685 @Splash95 Thank you both so much for this; this is a tremendous help and exactly what I needed. I'm not sure how AFI 36-2105 managed to elude me, but again, truly appreciate both of you jumping in and helping a brother out. And just for posterity and others who may be in the same boat (and please let any of the gurus correct me if I'm wrong here): 1. It seems like "age waiver" is a bit of a more "colloquial" in nature, and if you want an "age waiver", what you're actually after is an Exception to Policy (ETP) 2. UFT Eligibility Requirements and ETP guidance can be found here in AFI 36-2105, and specifically what you're looking for are the following points: 3.1.1. - "3.1.1.1. Regular Air Force applicants must not be beyond their 30th birthday nor have more than 5 years of Total Federal Commissioned Service by the date as specified in the Undergraduate Flying Training Selection Board Announcement message (generally two months after board convenes)." 5.1.1. - "An Exception to Policy may be requested when an Undergraduate Flying Training Board applicant does not meet requirements." 5.2.1. - "[An ETP can submitted when the] Applicant exceeds age and/or Total Federal Commissioned Service limits in Section" [brackets my own words for clarity] 3. Further, in regards to 3.1.1. from AFI 36-2105 the MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD from Brig. Gen. Dunn at HQ USAF/AlP notes the following (downloadable above): "I approve a permanent blanket exception to policy for the entry age and total federal commissioned service for undergraduate flying training as outlined in AFI 36-2105, Applying for Flying Training...Effective immediately, only individuals who are beyond their 33rd birthday and/or have greater than 8 years of total federal commissioned service by the date as specified in the Undergraduate Flying Training Selection Board Announcement message require an exception-to-policy to be considered for Pilot...AFI 36-2105 will be incorporated into a new consolidated publication which will implement the new parameters for applying to UFT...This exception will remain in effect until incorporated into AFI 36-2105." This is probably ultimately non-consequential in the grand scheme of a unit looking to bring an older guy on, but only remaining question here is likely one of those "free to interpretation" for each unit: I wonder how "only individuals who are beyond their 33rd birthday" is interpreted. Does that mean up to 32 and 364 days, 33 and 1 day, or 33 and 364 days, since you're technically still 33 up until that point. Either way though, again, a tremendous thank you to you both a for jumping in and helping a brother out!

The white board in the J1 office here says “~Aug 20”. I’m guessing mid-month Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

The problem as I see it is that the experts are responsible for the backlash against expertise. I know it's fashionable to blame policy makers and political leaders, but they are still doing what they were put in position to do. Experts, however, have made a media-like move towards opinion making, not simply the hard work of science. I think the root of it is that they are no longer willing to say that they do not know. And the coronavirus was a perfect opportunity to do just that. They just didn't know. Instead, they put out models that were based on incredibly thin data, and those models had sensational implications. Rather than recognizing those implications were hypothetical at best, they used the mere possibility of a catastrophic situation to justify catastrophic action. then, as humans are prone to do, they double down as their models fell apart. Because humans are prideful. if the experts had come out as soon as the data was starting to turn and said "our bad, this thing is nowhere near as dangerous as we thought it was, we should end the lockdowns immediately," then perhaps we would have a case for trusting experts. But they didn't. This isn't the first time we've seen it either. They've been so catastrophically wrong on climate change that any good that could be done to the change that *is* based on science is probably lost. They've been wrong on diets as well. Overpopulation, peak oil, acid rain, the hole in the ozone, global cooling, they just keep getting it wrong. That's fine, science is messy, and in the long term it always tends towards progress, but in the short term it is frequently, if not more often wrong. The problem is, they don't want to admit that because it would mean a loss of authority. Power is a hell of a drug. You should trust an expert when they are interpreting a historical body of work in their field. When your doctor says your cholesterol needs to be fixed, you should trust him. when a structural engineer tells you that you need a foundation of a certain thickness, you should trust her. But if a UFO lands in your backyard tomorrow, there are no experts. New things seldom have the luxury of experts.

Thanks, @CharlieHotel47. It’s proof being a pain in the ass pays off. Haha. And @GreenArc, I appreciate the congrats and still can’t believe it actually happened half the time. But, through it all, what is quoted above is 99% of the game. If people like you because you’re a good dude(tte) that shows you want it, proves to be a solid wing that the folks around you don’t hate sitting in the jet with, and that you’re willing to put in the hustle and legwork to be ahead of the game, folks will move mountains to help make it happen. But, they’re not going to do it for you; you’ve gotta go above and beyond doing your part. If you bring a problem and no solution you’ve also brought yourself, most of your gatekeepers (recruiters, squadrons, IPs, etc.) are going to balk. Have paperwork ready before you’re asked or ASAP after getting it, offer to help where you can to move things along, and keep pushing. No biggie if you’re annoying; you’re the one wanting the job and not them, so you should be your biggest advocate. Good luck and feel free to ask away if you have questions. No one draw you an exact road map because situations are different, contacts change, and, frankly, you’d probably not be the first to ask exactly what to do. But, most folks will point you in the right direction and, if you have the hustle, you’ll find your way.

I'm going to guess October based on the J1 estimate.

I guess what I don’t understand is why we wait when the info is already available? If we’ve selected people for school why not let them know so they can start making life decisions? Also if they turn it down why not give the alternates more time as well to figure life out? I know it’s not just this we play keep a secret but it drives me insane. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nice try OSI. Or spammer.

Dude, the AFI above gets the point, but keep this mentality and don’t stop pushing. Granted, ANG can be a little different beast and I’ve heard of bumps in the road that don’t make sense per AFIs, but ETPs (waivers) are 100% possible. You just need a unit (eg, pilots/commanders of the squadron/wing) to write it up and push the signatures. The recruiter will have little to do with the actual waiver. Source: Non-prior service Reservist that recently graduated UPT and pinned on wings at 38...and my waiver went through in 2018 when the limit was still 30 and I was 36. It’s entirely possible.

AFI 36-2105 is your friend. To my knowledge there's no "age waiver" per se; you'll have to request an Exception to Policy (ETP) if above the age limit. Reference chapters 3 and 5 of that reg. I'm fairly familiar with the ETP process as I successfully worked my way through it last year. You're welcome to PM me if you have questions.

Not sure how active is handled other than I did see at OTS the active pilots interviewed for a slot at ENNJPT. I'm guard fighters and Kathy Rico handles all of the dates/locations. Everyone I know who was fighters guard/reserve and had a 90+ pcsm went to ENJJPT.

PM me and I can send the 183rd info packet. ^ 106 RQW calls went out for the 60s

You’re recruiter is full of shit. Make them provide a reg that says that.

The document I've attached is the most recent MFR I've seen regarding the age limit. I found it in the AFRC UFT Application Guide, but since the document is from USAF HQ, I believe it applies to AD + Guard + Reserve. What I find fairly interesting is that this MFR refers only to "the date as specified in the Undergraduate Flying Training Selection Board Announcement message" as the cutoff. AFI 36-2105 used that language to refer to a cutoff for AD boards, but it also had an additional sentence that delineated the cutoff for Guard and Reserve as the UPT start date. If that omission in this MFR isn't a mistake, then it seems like the new rule across the board is just "be selected by age 33" rather than "start UPT by age 33". As for age waivers/ETPs not being a thing, that's nonsense. Search around here and you'll definitely find cases where they've happened for Guard/Reserve selects. 21 - HAF_A1P Memo.pdf

I guess now we wait six-ish months for that list to wind its way through the bureaucracy.

Time to dig up an old mixtape CD or that disc we used to burn a torrented game lol

An excellent resource for any military pilot, and it's been well known (and used) for decades. And it's free. https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/media/00-80t-80.pdf

Made an account to make a shameless plug. Here's an IP Fundamentals doc for a T-6 squadron made in the spirit of the same IP fundamentals class from PIT but also referencing a few classic and widely-referenced weapon school papers on how to brief and debrief. It was a labor of love and totally open source, free to use/modify/throw spears as anyone sees fit. 434 IP Guide.docx 434 IP Guide.pdf

Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

Back in the 90’s it was more common. I flew with some awesome guys who went from herks to F-15C and A-10’s. Even a helo guy who went to fighters I found they had great perspective and probably appreciated their fighter more than others who knew nothing different.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/barr-taps-top-prosecutor-to-probe-unmasking-by-obama-officials/ar-BB14IqLo?ocid=spartanntp I will say it again, IF the power of the law enforcement/intelligence communities were used against opposition political entities, it's not good for any of us. If no one is held accountable with indictiments, then it will be done again and, likely, even more egregiously. Regardless of your political leaning, this appears to have been a bad thing and needs to be cleaned up. Otherwise it will, eventually, be used against your side. Then it won't be ok.