jazzdude

How does this compare with the demographic makeup of our enlisted force?

And where does the funding for the FBI come from? Presidents can start initiatives, but without funding (i.e. consent) from Congress those ideas for pretty quickly.

Allowance standard 16 shows what uniform items you will be issued (it's where it says we are issued flightsuits vs having to buy them) https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.safety.af.mil/Portals/71/documents/Occupational/Resources/Allowance%2520Standards/AS016%2520as%2520of%252025%2520Mar%25202019_Special%2520Purpose%2520Clothing%2520and%2520Personal%2520Protecive%2520Equipment.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiUvuaLk8T5AhV7j2oFHQiKCQQQFnoECAcQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0Haxx0Rjc7SneiEm3TPinO A-2 jacket is on page 142 on that document, issued to rated personnel and some others. The problem with buying Pops jackets with unit funds are uniforms are supposed to be Berry amendment compliant, so the jacket would have to be manufactured in the US.

But they still send IPs there...

Good thing we're getting a higher quality pilot out of UPT 2.5 despite cutting training hours /s

This is based on a scenario where you would have more jets than crews available to fly to jets. And unlike WW2, I don't see industry (Boeing) being able to crank out jets faster than we can train replacement crews for combat losses (about a 3 year lead time to build a KC-46, and they still are being delivered late). Can a KC-46 fly single pilot? Probably on a good day. But throw in an emergency, and you can start to run out of hands pretty quickly (or just not be able to physically reach items), because the jet just wasn't designed to be operated by one pilot. Are we good with letting the autopilot fly with no pilot in the seat? Because eventually you're going to have to pee, though I guess you could use a piddle pack. If there's an operational need to look at this, generate the requirement, kick it to DT to verify single pilot procedures and OT to validate line crews can do it in an operationally relevant environment.

Looks like JTR unfortunately says no. 050601. TLE for Service Members, Table 5-12: Not Authorized a. When leaving active duty

I think the reason AETC is going the GS route vs commissioning is that it doesn't affect AD end strength, and they were able to find a wedge of money to fund extra GS positions using discretionary funds (ie the program can be killed at any point, and those GS pilots would be without a job). Basically getting an IP for "free" using budgetary peanuts and enabling an officer position elsewhere in the AF. GS also likely makes it cheaper than going the contractor route since there's no contractor management overhead or profit costs. So that brings us back to how to retain those GS employees. Unless there's an aggressive training bond ($200-300k for T-6 training?), there's not much to keep them in the T-6 if they want to leave "early." It'll be harder to keep them than a young major at the end of their UPT commitment so long as airline hiring stays strong. This will be even more true if the sqs treat them as second class IPs since they aren't military.

Copy, so the industry's worst training bond that doesn't even get you a type rating. I'm sure that will attract a lot of young CFIs

How would that commitment be enforced? I don't believe GS employment has anything that looks like an ADSC. Do FAA ATC controllers incur a service obligation for going to their academy/training? (I don't think they do)

I don't think a civilian instructor would be better than a FAIP, but I do think they could be just as good. The challenge for the AF is what washout rate they are willing to accept for CFIs going through their version of PIT. Generally, studs with prior flight time tend to do well in UPT, so hiring CFIs out of a part 141 school (more rigid environment than part 61) should increase the odds of them getting through training. Plus, there's already a significant amount of civilian instructors teaching in UPT today: something like half the syllabus is sim training. Though I will concede that most of those instructors are former mil of some sort. But they manage their work schedules fine. On the flight line as a T-6 IP I think my typical day was around 10ish hours, so that'd make for a 4 day work week. I will say it's curious they are targeting to hire young CFIs, but it's probably because they are willing to work for cheaper. Sounds like this job is hiring at GS9, while I think the sim IPs are GS12s. I wouldn't see the civilian IPs touching any of the officer development portions of UPT, just the flying skills training. I'd expect leadership in the flights to still be military, and to enforce the military unique aspects of the UPT environment. It's similar to commissioning from ROTC: civilian education with some extra mil training/guidance/mentorship layered on top. The C-17 schoolhouse is heavy on contractor led instruction. PIQ students do all their training with a contractor until their first checkride. The sim instructors also teach the first half of both the copilot and AC airdrop courses.

It's primary flight instruction... The T-6 (and T-1) do nothing tactical. And it looks like from the ad that they will have about a year's worth of training (my guess is an extended PIT) Being a military officer has nothing to do with your ability to fly and instruct fundamental flying skills, especially in phase 2. Are the IFT Doss CFIs any better or worse than the AD IPs?

But that turbine PIC time! Though it'll probably attract CFIs who might not be able to or want to live off essentially minimum wage while time building. I wonder if going through the AF T-6 CFI course counts as military trained per FAA, thereby reducing the ATP min to 750 hours, which is easily doable with 1 year of training and under two years flying the line. Throw in some civilian flying on off days and you get there even faster.

What's to keep them from punching early? Can GS employees incur a service commitment? Or is there a training bond? Then again, it'd be a good way to build time for the airlines instead of CFIing in a Cessna 172

Looks like no for TLE but yes for per diem/travel. Temporary Lodging Expense is not authorized when leaving active duty and moving from the last PDS. See 37 U.S.C. §474a. https://www.defensetravel.dod.mil/site/faqtle.cfm Also a no in JTR (table 5-12) For per diem, it looks like yes (if you are retiring). "051003. Service Member on Active Duty who Retires, is Placed on the TDRL, is Discharged with Severance or Separation Pay, or is Involuntarily Released with Readjustment or Separation Pay and Associated Dependent Travel...The Service member’s PCS travel and transportation allowances are authorized from the last PDS to a home that he or she selects, known as an HOS. The dependent’s PCS travel and transportation allowances are from the last PDS, or the place where the dependent was last transported at Government expense, to the HOS."