Swizzle

Absolutely MWS affects career opportunities; however, as a rule of thumb, not absolute rule. Big MWS = more opportunities but more competition, and typically more relesability later in career for different options/paths. Smaller MWS = fewer competitors however not necessarily less opportunities, depends how far apart the asset is spread. Positions like staff, test, DETs, etc. vary in size, location, and impact. For both types of MWS, big amd small fleet: Look at mission, typical TDY locations (i.e. MSN/CC or DET/CC), etc. Opportunities abound in the next few years due to high attrition in the near past. Some briefs now say whomever, Officer-wise, is still in-service in mid-2020's will command whether they like to or not. Don't know if COVID change that on a macro level or not, but do know several (~10) who are staying in for lack of outside opportunities. FGOs will bloat the next few years for this reason surely, and Aircrew Retention TF/CC recently, publicly said this. LD/HD assets typically experience personnel burnout, attrition, and therefore little releasability when you want it. LD assets have people jump ship for better opportunities on the outside.

PPM isn't normally allowed for Transocean PCS', requires a big waiver Mailing was HHG for me, USPS shipping receipt listed price and weight for reimbursement. That was 12 and 8 years ago

...can't imagine the runway which the 4 Horsemen could've form-landed ...near Edward's maybe? Oh yeah, ...A long time ago in an Air Force far, far away...dinosaur Herk pilots ruled the sky in 4 ship fingertip form

..."and weather forecaster"... Wonder if he knew his forecast was cloudy with chance of $h1tstorm?

Yup

It came from thin air, and biased preference. Simple economics, think recruitee supply and demand. I know a guy who got a 4 yr AFROTC scholarship for a BA in Psychology, 2005 commission era. He DG'd 3 flying formal schools, so the system wasn't so abrasive to/of him. Seems an engineering degree isn't required to do well in flying courses. Perhaps pedigree is more important in later career, only time will tell ...or not. My $0.02 on the real reason and answer to your question - perception. Its predominantly perceived that doctors and engineers are capable, responsible, and accountable. Mother Blue wants the best she can get (the moment the board decides)[because most important AF decisions are boarded by a panel to mitigate bias], who wouldn't; so she accepts the best she can when she can, which in an ideal state, is the perceived best. Biases are strong, but time can prove them wrong; sometimes a career's worth of time. Othertimes a generation-long or even an inter-war period. It all depends. What is your context? Here's to moonshine and sunshine, and COVID for the opportunity! God rest those not so fortunate. Drink responsibly and to those at peace and those not, a 6' distance, if prudent. BTW - what do any of us really know? Philosophically speaking that is...

They still doing these...? https://www.afpc.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1330125/retired-air-force-pilots-welcomed-back-on-active-duty/ https://www.afpc.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/940896/vlpad-adds-multiple-career-fields-vacancies/

A Bait and Bleed strategy has been and is being used against us for at least two decades; It will continue. However, we "swatted" and squished a nuisance - onlookers will take note that the irritation is working and likely double-down on their subversive strategy to bleed us into weakness (i.e. loss of global influence/power/quality-of-life/way-of-life). Its a slow, progressively weakening strategy meant to engage on level below significant threat to the engagors self-preservation. A new political line was drawn, a new standard set inferring what is significant. What will the new response be to that line? Keeping in-line with their strategy and weaker position most likely more subversive actions?

https://www.sipapu.ski/active-military-ski-free/ North of Santa Fe

Checks with how I read that legal'ese, outside their "window-of-opportunity"

Wonder if 5 year-buckets are because some O-4(S) two boards ago were 8APZ... 100% promotion "opportunity" (98% in reality was it?) had some interesting effects.

Stray thought: Was she in the "co-pilot" car seat? ... wingman dont let wingman drive drunk and all that jazz. That was probably asked by Zoo leadership already...if yes, had to be at least a verbal Wonder how each MAJCOM would treat that these days, opinions anyone?

Good record, sorry man. With what info you provided, I question the #12/71 O4s and #2/8 I/APZ...makes me think BPZ took the DPs from the Wing and not you. The WG/CC gambled. Look around to your 1&2BPZ competitors if you want to know, but know the past is unchanging. There are paths forward towards what you want, just make sure in pursuit of them to keep your options open as much as possible.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/299 Became Law, law has details....page 9 and 10 for fees... Excerpt pg. 9 attached...law has other details with which VA must comply.

Exactly....will these on-loan positions be valued in the new system? Or will only core events for the functional areas be valued towards promotion by only that functional area? Aka outisde the tribe penalty...

It depends greatly upon ole' radiator wings being administratively used as leader-in-general/of anything "badge" and recognized, valued outisde a cockpit, in functional area promotion boards. In short, more Ops functional board quotas than support or other functional areas. In this doesn't happen, how many ops O5s by manning document posirions are needed in squadrons/groups/wings....not many, thus Ops promotion rates will drop. Support functional areas will have this fairness debate, it's in their interests. This new system could be the rise of 'support' I wholeheartedly presume A1 hasn't had this conversation in great enough detail. Case example/food for thought: Pilot put in charge of MX or LRS or other support area, not their functional promotion category...in which promotion pool will they compete? What functional area gets the quota? It'll probably be granted now based upon manning documents for which A1 is responsible.

Effective 1 Jan 2020

Looks like a tight ELP, thought we didn't teach those patterns anymore! ...ha But seriously, was said AC a previous FAIP? (T-6 ya, ya...)

UPT production numbers aren't where they publically stated they should be, but they've risen slightly. Don't think the former is the cause (read: luck), maybe just slightly retention influenced however UAV production #s on the other hand seem to have spiked upwards. To AFPC a pilot is a pilot is a UAV pilot is a # on a spreadsheet

...partial rhino resemblance? ..Not to assume Israel's Legacy Herk namesake. And it is grey...and can probably sneak up on some poor fool like a 'gray rhino'

Probably because it's in the wrong spot...the switch is normally on the yoke/wheel/stick because it's used so much. More convenient that way, ya' know.

Everyone will take closer note when the biggest pool of pilots by MAJCOM/core AFSC declines year over year 5-6%. The faster that pool declines into the red, the more attention and political support retention methods will get. Majority rules. Chalk it up to a psychological effect, or put in other words, damn the biggest group flopped from overage to major shortfall that fast (bureaucratically speaking)...!? Side note: an interesting development is the politcal language created to say we are deepening in this crisis to a point we can't produce our way out of it...in a big way "absorption" problems = too few IPs to train new recruits production rate needed IMHO. When they advertise unforeseen delays in training non-MX or WX related, it is real baaadddd. Why not spin that language! Don't waste a good crisis! Right, right? ...ugh

I heard in the fall directly from AMC/A1KD that they hand picked the candidates to ensure their "records" would be competitive for future advancement (aka promotion), thus a few average Joe's who applied were denied entry. It was what, 8 who applied and 5 picked...forget. The reasoning was if they're not competitive now it wouldn't assure long term program success, put another way if these few don't promote the program will wither and die.

HASC NDAA FY20 version just renews last year's offer...present "business case" does not appear to be max -performed yet thus no bureaucratic justification or urgency to change policy yet. However, as everyone knows, that's faulty logic considering the pilot exodus trend is accelerating not in govt's favor... https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-115hr5515rh/pdf/BILLS-115hr5515rh.pdf