TheInner

So I was a FAIP, have been through a fighter FTU, and am wrapping up five and a half years as a FTU instructor. Anybody with prior experience (95% of the time FAIPs but sometimes WSOs) typically excels in the 6-9 rides prior to their Inst/Qual check. After that it is a wash. Have FAIPs been DG? Absolutely, but so have the dudes who pin on 1st Lt during the b-course and with zero time in airplanes outside formal training. Not to mention, the fighter world puts a lot of weight into attitude. For most people we can get you there tactically with a lot of effort from the student but a student with good hands and a bad attitude is destined to be one fighter assignment and done. The culture shift is what I anticipate being the greatest challenge with crossflow and I'm not talking so to speak, elbow pointing, etc. I am talking about the single seat, your best is never good enough, every action in the jet is put under a microscope mindset that may be difficult to transition to after 1000+ hours of operating much differently. Like Hacker mentioned, the AF is simply hedging their bets for IFF success based on historical data.

I have heard some substantiated rumors that leadership has basically said that we aren't going to be able to meet in the middle on retention and the focus is now simply on absorption (at least in the 11F world). The FTU business is already seeing increased numbers and reduced timelines between classes. It will take a few years to see if it works but it does seem like big blue has chosen the path of accepting a couple more years of low 11F manning and waiting for this surge of output to "fix the glitch." Of course, in standard AF sine wave fashion this same conversation will be repeated in a few years when everyone being jammed through the pipeline right now starts getting out for all the same reasons. Think that the AF will ever learn that retention really is a problem they need to solve with something other than a check?

The real key is developing the ability to effectively communicate, which I believe is what you are saying but in a more sarcastic fashion. In the flying community (at least in my corner of it) we do an exceptional job of building verbal communication skills through our brief/airborne comm/debrief but don't get exposed to any written communication skill sets unless we go to the staff. I once had a commander spend over an hour with some of us discussing email writing. On the surface it sounds ridiculous, especially when the commander has more tactical credibility then a handful of some of my past commanders combined but he made an effective point in saying that the world's greatest idea may never be heard if you are unable to communicate it appropriately.

I think I am tracking where BADFNZ is coming from. The ultimate goal of a promotion board is to select individuals who show the potential to excel at the next rank, which is why a SR may elect to leave off some strats if they are heavily weighted towards a lack of breadth. For example, we all agree on this forum that being an expert in your airframe should be a top priority but a PRF that is overwhelming geared towards flying strats (#1/69 IPs, Top 10% ACs, etc) would not "look" appealing to a promotion board that is looking for an officer with future leadership potential (don't hate the player, hate the game). That thought process is why I have seen "decent" strats left off (assuming there is a decent size pool to choose from) to include a lesser strat of a different category or even a strong bullet that highlights FGO potential (lead team of SARM NCOs through MAJCOM inspection over #1/15 Flight Leads from an OPR 3 cycles ago). Of course, if all the strats are #1 type strats it would be hard to argue leaving them off. The PRF also has limited space to relay the SRs message so filling it with "soft" starts may look more like a way of masking a perceived weakness or lack of breadth. Although determining school selects is not a separate process but a function of taking a slice off the top XX% of the PRFs, a SR could certainly shift focus on a PRF when compared to an individual he/she may be more concerned about simply making the promotion list. I would imagine an individual a SR wants to get promoted but their record isn't great would prioritize grabbing everything remotely positive when compared to an individual the SR is trying to push for school via the promotion board. That person's PRF would probably have some decent bullets/strats left off in order to present the "big picture" of someone who is primed for leadership (more whole person compared to the greatest IP I have ever seen). Although most of us would prefer to have the greatest IP promoted it is not how the system works. So this is why the SR is making the PRF look the best it can, but what is best for one person is not the best for another.

Ram, Same thing happened to me last year and I do know there is a decoder ring somewhere, just don't remember where. Sorry I couldn't be more help but I know for a fact I found it pretty easily.

It is the American way. Why wait for something to develop and have to make an effort on something that may not work out when you can stack the deck and all but guarantee a result? Even the little bit of "mentoring" I have received or observed is usually directed at steering someone towards a "good deal," guaranteed XYZ of the month/year, or face time with the boss and not towards building confidence/leadership/etc. A squadron commander should focus on his flight commanders, really challenge them, teach them, mold them, etc. Once the boss has established his priorities and expectations with the flt/ccs then they can continue to push that type of stuff down hill. As a community we tend to expect nothing from lieutenants, a little bit more from a captain but are more likely to correct what they have done without much feedback and then all of a sudden a major is supposed to have their stuff in a sock without exception. If the Chief can really push empowerment of subordinates and some freedom to learn via controlled trial and error I would be incredibly pleased with those changes. The root problem is squadron commanders who don't feel they have the ability to lengthen the leash without it possibly coming back to bite them.

Just like anything else, the record as a whole is what matters and an SOS DG can help but can't completely make up for years of sub-top 10-20% material. I imagine there are probably three categories of people who have SOS DG on their records. First are the people with records that indicate DG is almost a given and the SOS DG just validates everything else to a board and results in essentially an auto-IDE select, i.e. consistent #1 or 2 strats, jobs ahead of peers etc. Second are the people with strong records but maybe they are a late bloomer or have had some ebb and flow with top tier strats, in this case the SOS DG probably helps the most. Third are the people who either pull the wool over the eyes of people at SOS or suck at their job but thrive in the canned SOS environment and get DG, in this case the DG may draw some attention from the board but if it is all that the person has going for them then I sure hope it doesn't equate to the IDE/BPZ career path. If I were Chief of Staff for a day and my focus was SOS... I would shorten the window for in-residence eligibility, i.e. send folks with just 1 or 2 years as a captain, after that anything of actual value at SOS risks becoming too little, too late. I would then open up the correspondence course after that window of eligibility to guarantee you only do one or the other. I would also make sure SOS was 5 weeks at the absolute most, the one thing that was somewhat valuable was the interaction with a variety of personalities/AFSCs. It may not build confidence in the force as a whole, but it was worth it to me to see what different people and career fields value and deem important.

While I agree that you couldn't ask for much more in terms of teaching the kind of stuff the AF values, they have already shown their cards with the online masters that gives several credits to WIC grads but not a free pass. The question that I don't know the answer to is does the AF really care that we will have less people getting IDE credit these next couple years, cause if they don't it would make the equivalency credit debate a lot easier. I have no idea what the numbers are, but from personal experience I know that there are more than a handful that weren't selects but relatively low compared to the "general population."

This would be awesome! I absolutely believe that the O-5/6/7 crowd is where this can be fixed. They have grown up in the AF with the same ideals the young bucks have now and still remember what it is like to be in the trenches, but they just need some legit support from above to fall in line with CSAF's ideals without the fear of being fired or not getting promoted.

IMHO, it all boils down to leadership and personal accountability. However, we have all contributed to a culture that equates leadership to metrics and personal accountability to blaming it on someone else. Because we are so concerned with competing for COCOMs and such we have to pick our future commanders so early it's crazy. These dudes must go to school first look, in the case of a fighter guy this means they are probably just getting to the point where they are an IP who has legitimately done and seen it all and not just a "wide eyed, just finished IPUG, must get hours to get picked up for WIC" IP. It also means they have been a flight commander with a whopping 5-8 (I would have said 6-9 if it was still authorized) dudes under their charge and maybe did a stint as a TDY projo where the MSgt from MX and LRS probably carried them through. After that they do a year of school where they broaden their perspectives on the rest of the AF but really just strengthen their desire to just serve with fellow fighter pilots. Probably do a tough and go on the staff where they learn a bit more about big blue and become powerpoint warriors and then a DO job somewhere. While a DO they may get some actual real world leadership experience (the legit leading people, not leading a gorilla package against the hordes) but in my experience they end up spending a bunch of time getting their feet wet again in the tactics, beating the AMU OIC into submission, micromanaging the scheduling shop because he failed to beat said AMU OIC into submission, and still trying to fit in with the bros. Now they become a commander. When, where, and how does the operational community learn, and more importantly practice, the leadership that is required?

I agree with HOSS. I was part of a small group sit down with our O-7 wing king and he gave us a no holds barred discussion on PRFs/strats/etc. He explained that based on his experience, a board adds some assumptions to strats, i.e. #10/100 CGOs on your O-4 PRF doesn't necessarily equal top 10% material. Logic being someone on the board may assume 50 of those CGOs are Lts, which then drives the strat to #10/50 Capts at best. Drilling down more says ~12 of those 50 Capts are meeting their O-4 board and so, in theory, that strat could equal #10/12. This is clearly a "glass half empty" thought process but one my wing king said he has to be prepared for when writing PRFs. The bottomline is that he encourages a strat that clearly states the individuals standing, so like HOSS said the CGO strat as a Lt is better than the #1 Lt strat, an FGO strat as a Maj would be better than one as a Lt Col, excluding a #1/2/3 strat. The example he referenced was dealing with an O-5 BPZ PRF where he wants to ensure everything screams top 3-4% or better because that is who is statistically likely to be promoted so he may exclude a #8/100 type strat in favor of a smaller pool but better percentage/more competitive breakdown.

I think GC has a valid point when looking at the individual, if their records have DGs and #1 strats and annual awards then there is no reason I shouldn't think that individual is a strong performer. However, to be able to rack and stack throughout that person's year group I would certainly have to dig a little deeper. Even when comparing apples to apples there will be some variability. As a former UPT IP I can tell you that not all DGs are created equal, so the argument that a UPT DG is an auto-winner over some other tech school DG can only hold so much weight. In the grand scheme of things there probably are some people on an O-4 board who lose a school slot or even a promotion because someone applies the logic implied in GC's post but ultimately the playing field starts to level out (to some extent) as people get wing, staff, etc level positions where you get racked and stacked across AFSCs more so than when a young pup.

In some ways the cockpit shortage makes retention even more difficult because the opportunity to get a break doesn't exist anymore. How many guys would really, truly fight for back to back ops assignments when you factor in every variable involved, i.e. constant flail to make CMR, steady TDYs/Deployments, 13 hour days every day plus a few hours on the weekend, etc. Everybody loves flying but you know that is such a small portion of the equation. I know a dude who has yet to leave the jet starting his 4th ops assignment in a row with only one of them being the ROK and even that was a 3-yr stop at Osan, no idea how he and his family are still sane.

Not surprised. What does surprise me is that you even left in the first place. Luke has been running science experiments for a year on how to push max numbers through the TX to include significant waivers, etc. At least you have remained flying and haven't been gone for long, wouldn't be surprised if you get a qual check and depart but that is just me thinking out loud and probably not what will happen.

A bit repetitive of other posts since I am a slow typer. Liquid, I think there is no doubt that the USAF wants AAD/IDE complete prior to the board. I personally think that PME is a no-brainer. My beef lies with the AAD because a degree from "Container Checking University" that was earned through credits courtesy of SOS/WIC/RTU/etc and classes "taught" by a bro somehow equates to officer potential. This wastes the time of the individual, both personally and professionally, and costs the AF a ton of TA money. I do believe education is important and the O-5 board is a logical place for it to become a discriminator but the key word is education. We have created a culture that appears to value wasting our time instead of learning at least a little something of use. I was a military brat so I know that getting a BS masters is nothing new, just pick a few bios and you are likely to find a few Golden Gate University and the like. But if the AF wants to continue to value education, they should at least care about the degree to some extent. Does the OLMP carry any weight with boards/SR? I would think that Big Blue would value a person getting a degree from the Air Force a little bit at least. .