zmoney

Reminds me of something a buddy heard from a GO once... https://www.af.mil/AboutUs/Biographies/Display/tabid/225/Article/104639/lieutenant-general-robert-r-allardice.aspx

Saw this on social media.

'He later told Air Force Magazine that the B-1B “community” also needs a respite from nonstop deployments' Lots of communities need a respite from nonstop deployments.

Commanders will notify affected officers on the public release date (26-Jan). The list will be posted on myPers on 27-Jan.

Shack.

Buy enough T-X's to cover both the present T-38 track and T-1 track. Benefits: Eliminates an entire fleet--the CSAF has repeatedly stated this is how we save moneyEnables the AF to delay the Heavy / Fighter decision until later in a student's timelineSome might say that the T-1 is necessary to train our heavy pilots... I'm not so sure. My community has a bunch of T-38 trained folks and they seem to be doing fine. Bottom line, the AF could eliminate the T-1 while retaining elements of the T-1 syllabus--trained in the T-X.

CFETPs exist in the flying world. Flight Engineers, Boom Operators, and Loadmasters have CFETPs that rated folks should be aware of. Although training is still dictated by formal course syllabi and Vol 1s, CFETPs still play a role in how that training is developed and how skill levels are awarded.

T-1s: We would washout about 2/year -- usually only students who had trouble flying AND had bad attitudes. Student pilots that possessed a good attitude and at least borderline ability almost always graduated. I remember one or two that washed out, despite having the right attitude.

I've pressed to test this rule recently. I got a fair amount of weird looks, but the following references back it up: BTW: The new lodging reg has removed the "two stop" requirement. In other words, they can split your crew up as much as they want... as long as its all on base or all off base. JTR: Paragraph 2565, line 4. https://www.defensetravel.dod.mil/Docs/perdiem/JTR.pdf "The Services have predetermined that Gov't Qtrs are not available: 4. For any TDY/delay of only 1 night at one location (stopover or multiple locations);" AFI 65-114: Paragraph 4.10.1. https://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/saf_fm/publication/afi65-114/afi65-114.pdf "4.10.1. Members who perform TDY of 24 hours or less at a military installation are encouraged to use available government quarters to the maximum extent possible. Per diem cannot be reduced if a member does not use government facilities when the duration of TDY or delay is less than 24 hours, even though the travel order directs use of such facilities (JFTR, par. U1045-B4). A member whose original delay was 24 hours or less, and is extended at the location (to include circumstances beyond their control), reverts to the rule for members TDY for more than 24 hours and must use available government facilities, unless the government quarters use would have adversely affected mission performance. If a member voluntarily uses quarters at a nearby military installation, use of available non-availability documentation, see JFTR, par. U1045-C." AFI 34-135: Para 3.2.5.1 https://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_a1/publication/afi34-135/afi34-135.pdf "3.2.5. Per JFTR, Volume 1, government quarters are considered not available when the TDY is less than 24 hours. Therefore NA numbers are not issued in such circumstances. This should be stated on the member’s travel orders or the TDY member should note this on his/her travel voucher. (T-3)."

AF Times has an article breaking down some of the FY14/FY15 cuts: https://militari.ly/1zRmrId "On the officer side, the cuts fell most heavily — both proportionally and numerically — on 11M mobility pilots. When the force management program began last December, the Air Force had 4,399 mobility pilots in its ranks, which equated to 6.9 percent of the officer force. But the Air Force cut 386 mobility pilots — mostly through voluntary separation pay — which amounted to 14.2 percent of the officer cuts. Cox said that the Air Force decided it could get its strategic airlift job done by lowering the crew ratio for active duty mobility pilots. For example, Cox said, the Air Force in the past has required each C-17 to have three crews. That crew ratio is being lowered to two crews per aircraft."

Translation: "Quit worrying about this crap. #1: Do your jobs. #2: Spend time with your families (until Colonel)."

https://www.af.mil/forcemanagement.aspx The new matricies are posted there, publicly available. No need for a CAC.

Also created the "Denton Program." https://www.usaid.gov/work-usaid/partnership-opportunities/humanitarian-responders/denton-program The program is still very alive today. I brought some cargo to Nicaragua for this program.

Liquid, I know that leadership shouldn't feel the need to explain itself. However, since most of us are at the tail of the proverbial whip, a candid explanation like you gave can help folks keep the faith. It doesn't fix the system, but it gives me hope. Thanks.

That training cost is already spent. The current budget issue is that we're overmanned and we can't spend that extra O&M money on payroll. Either we're overmanned in those year groups, or we aren't. It doesn't matter what the training cost was.

Shack.

After reading in the bonus thread that the bonus might not be offered to mobility pilots this year, I decided to create what I call: "The timeline of ridiculousness." Please feel free to add, I've left out quite a bit. - December '13: Force Management '14 programs announced. CSAF tells us we need volunteers... we won't force folks out if we get enough vols. - 23 Dec: VSP matrix released... pilots listed as eligible - Early Jan: RIF matrix released. Gives concrete numbers showing pilots eligible. - Late night 5 Feb: 1-3 hours before midnight CST, AFPC states that UPT ADSCs will NOT be waived, ref PSDM 13-65. - Next 2-3 weeks: Conflicting info presented. AFPC says RIF eligibiles will get ADSC waivers IAW PSDM 13-130, AFPC also says RIF eligibiles won't get waivers IAW PSDM 13-65. Still no one truly knows what's going to happen. - Late Feb: Officer RIF / FSB pushed back & PSDM 13-130 rescinded. Nobody knows why. The AF released a weird statement basically saying it wasn't ready. - Early March: Reports coming in that mobility pilots will not be offered the bonus. Some questions: Why didn't the A1 think to request UPT ADSC waiver authority from the SecAF before the officer VSP window opened? Why didn't the phone operators at AFPC know what was going on wrt these waivers. Why did the info only come out at the last minute? I apologize for the vent, but this is getting to be too much. I've seen too many folks get jerked around with this personnel crap. We've all given lots of time and energy to this organization. Everyone, including those who plan on staying, should demand better from the AF.

I stand corrected, I missed that note. A1/AFPC misled all the rated eligibiles.

I'm not sure about the GI Bill part, but the UPT ADSC part seems inaccurate. AFPC posted revised versions of PSDM 14-08 and 13-65. 13-65 contains the list of ADSCs AFPC is willing to waive. On that list you will find "Technical Training" and that they're willing to waive the "Full" amount. I suppose it might be up to interpretation what "Technical Training" means, but I think it probably includes UPT Disclaimer: I do not work for AFPC, but it seems like they WILL waive your UPT commitment. Read the updated PSDMs for yourself. Edit: I was wrong. See 13-65 p 10, note 4.

It's still business as usual in the 10. Unit climate is similar to about two years ago. Folks are still upgrading at a normal rate. If you come to the -10, you'll have the same opportunities to succeed as other MAF pilots. In other words, don't worry about it.

Concur with everything, except: I'd say expect a desk job immediately after finishing IQT.

First, awesome handle (Star Trek VI is a favorite of mine). Second, as an 11M... I agree with your post. I thought it made sense. Thanks for the insights.

Just in time for summer: https://www.cnn.com/2013/06/13/politics/syria-us-chemical-weapons/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 Looks like the "red line" has been crossed.

Victoria was a former student of mine at Vance. A photo of her class hangs in my office. =\. It's a sad evening.