Swizzle

Mardon Co. had my order in a six month backlog, when i called to get an update they stated it was because of some business difficulties and machines were down. I cancelled the order. I had used them for years...never again.

There is an AETC Det. My guess is they'll PCS studs after they bed down IPs and support equipment within 6 months. It's not the only test bed. The SECAF, CSAF and AETC/CC have publically mentioned this potential COA to fix the production side of the pilot problem (Aka decrease pilot training length). Change of AvB amount to business case analysis (NDAA FY18 mandated), changing pilot QoL through policy easing/protections, and increase of ACIP are meant to slow attrition. The =<1,000 pilot voluntary recall is meant to assist in fixing the absorption problem by keeping IPs in flying squadrons, not on staffs. Previously retired geezers coming back get staff work or schoolhouse flying. Best of luck USAF, you're going to need it. Luck (or lack thereof via previously self-inflicted policies) and timing (economy) are everything...you taught me that...it's still true now. Now bloom where you're planted! What kind of desert rose might we get!?

...perhaps via Post 9/11 benefits...all to more easily fund, grow, and build accredited flying academies nationwide....

It wasn't posted this week. My guess is they'll wait to post it until end of calendar year since the FY17 NDAA AVB is offered until Dec 31st (excluding 1 & 2 yr options).

Watch during an international flight, aka ass-in-seat for more than 7.5 hours or more, movie only

We need the bodies more than the iron, but really both. Growth requires resources, Cannon's existence encourages attrition. The line and mod schedule is sporty and active. NDAA18 appears to fund more iron.

The switch from a GEO-based COCOM(s) to Functional would make interesting, complicated and new C2 relationships...and funding...and training issues

It's projected to be APZers and IPZers. I don't know if and where the APZ cutoff is...perhaps none as there is only 'IPZ' now by the new definition, or maybe they stop at 5 years APZ...who knows. I doubt they've thought of advertising this critical info.

Where do you both see that?

NDAA 2018 passed House of Reps (much like last year) with: SEC. 617. INCREASE IN MAXIMUM. AMOUNT OF AVIATION BONUS FOR 12- MONTH PERIOD OF OBLIGATED. SERVICE. Section 334(c)(1)(B) of title 37, United States Code, is amended by striking “$35,000” and inserting “$50,000”. https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/2810/text/pcs#toc-H9B96A0BBCDD9434EAE44E3AF62ABBA4B Now...what is the Senate going to do?

Easy fix: let guys take the bonus pay when they specify, namely anytime during the contract period, in any amount. Make it like a bank account from DFAS...the servicemember determines when to payout the money; and when it gets taxed. The AF would get a few more takers that way.

Are your dependents on your orders? If yes, then is concurrent or non-concurrent travel authorized? Concurrent could make you eligible for transient BAH. Or are you in the grey, I forget how many days are grey, perhaps 30?

More flexibility could mean more opportunities for balance/corrections in the force (late bloomers)...or over-extending (i.e. delaying decisions or delaying informing members) like a madman could cause falling/failing. Just-in-time IDE...new buzzword? (JITI) Guess it's already taken.... Either way it's retention of information/power and therefore mother blue is holding her cards closer for longer. That can't be a good thing overall for individuals, but that's good for the gander.

The fact that they're considering only core AFSCs as subgroups and not like-RDTM code subgroups harkens to the stupidity of the VSP days when we had too many "pilots"...despite being critically short in certain airframes (AFPC translation = RDTM)...and then masses of KC-10 or other subgroups of "pilots" abandoned ship en mass. Only after approving large portions of certain squadrons did AFPC catch their error and adjust the next Force Shaping programs decisions upon aviators on RDTM codes. History...its important... Oh yeah, nice "business case" and nice doing business with you

There is a process, policy, regulation, AFI and/or etc for everything we do. Knowing when to ignore it is half the battle. The other half is knowing where it exists. ...oh and words have meaning and intention, but words in context is key.

They're (the panel) talking about growing pilots rapidly and it's associated problems, namely lack of safety due to inexperience. They're veiled language is: "...In addition to creating new pathways to becoming a pilot, participants also agreed existing pathways should be improved and expanded to take advantage of available technology and safety research to ensure pilot training and qualification are focused on quality performance measures." Allow me to translate...MAKE NEW PILOTS FAST DAMMIT (small cough, cough, *mumble* crap); and find some of that key-characteristics-shit that'll keep those inexperienced swine safe. Where is that lipstick!!!? Break, break: Notice who had their jacket off? Oh the symbology...guess it's time to get to work boys and girls!

Hopefully it had nothing to do with the "not un-knelt light"...ha...FRED

Strats are individuals' philosophies on a feedback form, so it's been said and observed by lack of USAF guidance...so ask those individuals...or wait until/if the AFI standardizing strats comes out and follow the Bobs' instructions blindy without question - it's just easier that way....rrrriiigght!?

Yep, that's the proposal...as PRFs were only supposed to be discriminators, not the one stop shop. New strats rules are coming/proposed too...expect new AFI and policy guidance.

It keeps the $$ where they (Congress, HHQ, and others who can direct us) want it first...that is all. The stay-elsewhere if normal DTS-brokered hotels are sold out is simply because you have stay somewhere. The appearance of military paying military is no good either...but if you HAVE too After exhausting all options, well okay. And For example, how else are Clovis hotels going to grow be versus a budding AirBnB market?! (Half sarcasm...)

I reject your more reasonable idea...

Stop Loss will keep the retention rate 100%. There is no space for more FGOs under DOPMA. Carry on.

I respectfully disagree and see a different message - he is not considering it because Stop Loss is not his to consider, and not his decision to make (his own words and true); however it is in CSAF's lane to advocate for it to who does have authority to consider Stop Loss (i.e. SECDEF and higher). He didn't answer that question of advocacy, instead he mentioned Stop Loss use in case of an emergency - which aviators know can be declared at any moment, as required. The CSAF's comments about pilot shortages being a national crisis could mean emergency..right? Or perhaps I'm irrational...or something. He's certainly shaping the narrative, and definitely attempting to put-at-ease the masses. But everyone suspects something is brewing (ex. those warning on this forum) and an educated man is anything but at-ease. Freedom is at stake, and there can be no service without self - I have lived that hell and know it's true. Individuals (a 'self' make up our service), it's what makes us strong - diversity in every regard, but I'm a firm believer a great work to life balance is critically important. What is missing is work to personal life balance (too much, time to resurrect the USAF PERSTEMPO trackers and not simply deployed metrics), an energizing work-life culture (yep, it's dead), and small civilian-military pay gap (it's huge). What gets me is our CSAF is advocating outside of the USAF that we as a nation have a national pilot crisis which is a bit out of his sphere of influence - I agree we do, but would appreciate his/those efforts focused within the USAF. Introspection into the USAF is well within his sphere, why are we going external? Why is that his strategy? What affect does he think he'll get from outside his sphere? Is it simply diversion and informing?

All options are always on the table for the USAF, whatever is in the organization's interest will be considered, maybe not voiced externally, but considered. The crux lay in the signaling, messaging, and advertising (the political parts). Now two different Generals are messaging and staging something different. It's unmistakable retention-messaging is being staged, how it's staged and finally presented matters for a multitude of reasons. They control the narrative, the comm-outflow of AF, not the numbers (i.e. after an individual reaches free agency) or indivual's choices. Who else here thinks/knows that we are a focus group?! We feed input/feedback into their narrative through this forum, don't doubt it. Concerning to me is Gen Goldfein's statement along the lines of getting to what does right look like between pilots, airlines, and Air Force. What is "right"!? (Standby for quote...searching)