?s on ADSC (Active Duty Service Commitment)

[Homestar]

5 hours ago, HuskyPilot said:

How about the dudes that get tagged to go deploy to Afghanistan to fly Cessnas (or some other comparable bad deal), then have to come back and requal into the life they left 365 days ago?  Is that a 3 year ADSC for the Cessna, and then a rehack on that 3 year ADSC for the requal back into their MWS upon the completion of the deployment?

Disclaimer:  I'm not one of those dudes in this situation, just curious.

There was no ADSC for C-208 training.

[Bode]

There was no ADSC for C-208 training.

Still isn’t. Probably because it gives more people the ability to opt out.

[GoodSplash9]

19 hours ago, Sling Blade said:

Any second assignment RPA folks that tack on an extra year or three at the end of their UPT commitment for the privilege of meeting airline hiring mins are chumps.  Any three letter contractor will pick them up for equal to or better than airline pay starting on day one.  The folks that do take the bait are going to end up eating 365s and other shit deals and never see the flying experience they hoped to get.  Not to mention the ops squadrons would be getting inexperienced copilots that are mostly worthless training burdens with no return...as majors...with huge chips on their shoulders.  But you know YOLO.  Let me know how it goes.  AFPC counting on RPA returns to backfill demand is a pretty dubious proposition in my opinion.  All those folks are getting out.  Ask me how I know.

 

16 hours ago, tunes said:

Seniority is everything. You should do what gets you on the seniority list the fastest.

Sling Blade...I'm a second assignment RPA dude with 2.5 years left on my sentence. I've heavily pondered options including returning to white jets, guard/reserve, RPA contractings(plus traditional guard/reserve) and CFI to get me from 350 hours to 750 for R-ATP mins. I reached the same conclusion tunes did...

With that being said, right now I'm really hoping to return to teach in T-6s. I had a blast flying them in UPT and I legitimately enjoy teaching, but my calculus also figured that my best path to seniority at a major ASAP is starting to log more flight hours (however I can) while I'm still active duty. I'm obviously going to incur an additional 1-1.5 years if the T-6 gig happens, but I'm also going to hopefully have an additional 800-1000 hours in the next 2.5 years ahead of what I would have if I waited. It probably won't eliminate my need to fly for a regional or smaller cargo carrier, but it will definitely reduce the time it takes to bump up to a major (and increase my marketability for a flying guard unit).

Were you talking about RPA contractors or deployed flying contracts? I'm very familiar with pretty much all of the RPA contracting jobs. They pay great....but I'd like to pick where I live and quality of life to spend time with my family and on other priorities is a bigger factor for me than pay (I don't want to work in Vegas, New Mexico, or 3 on 3 off to various crap holes of the planet). Also, the gravy train will end at some point when the Air Force realizes it is shooting itself in the foot with RPA retentio. Deployed ISR flying contracting is something I hadn't really thought about though as another possible path to get to my 750 hours for the R-ATP. Anybody have gouge on co-pilot hiring requirements, pay, ops tempo, and the types of aircraft (assuming MC-12 and King Air type stuff). Admittedly, I haven't googled it yet. 

[war007afa]

6 hours ago, Day Man said:

upvote for 'pickles'

“RIFLE”

[pcola]

You guys are crazy. No way you get an ADSC for in-house, CC directed requals. AFPC can’t even track that level of training. I’m pretty sure the reg is referring to formal ETCA courses that are conducted in the unit.

[jazzdude]

With that being said, right now I'm really hoping to return to teach in T-6s. I had a blast flying them in UPT and I legitimately enjoy teaching, but my calculus also figured that my best path to seniority at a major ASAP is starting to log more flight hours (however I can) while I'm still active duty. I'm obviously going to incur an additional 1-1.5 years if the T-6 gig happens, but I'm also going to hopefully have an additional 800-1000 hours in the next 2.5 years ahead of what I would have if I waited.

Nice thing about UPT is it's pretty much all turbine PIC time. 1000 hrs post PIT in 2.5 years is easily doable in the T-6, even if you end up as an attached flyer in the OSS or STUS for a year.

I found instructing in the T-6 to be fun and rewarding, and would go back in a heartbeat.

[pilotguy]

1 hour ago, jazzdude said:

 

Nice thing about UPT is it's pretty much all turbine PIC time. 1000 hrs post PIT in 2.5 years is easily doable in the T-6, even if you end up as an attached flyer in the OSS or STUS for a year.

I found instructing in the T-6 to be fun and rewarding, and would go back in a heartbeat.
 

I thought the T-6 time doesn’t count in the airlines eyes because the jet weighs less than 12,500 lbs...

Edited August 1, 2018 by pilotguy

[sixpack]

1 hour ago, pcola said:

You guys are crazy. No way you get an ADSC for in-house, CC directed requals. AFPC can’t even track that level of training. I’m pretty sure the reg is referring to formal ETCA courses that are conducted in the unit.

You thought wrong.  That's the intent of the updated reg.  

[pcola]

Says who?

[STOIKY]

34 minutes ago, pilotguy said:

I thought the T-6 time doesn’t count in the airlines eyes because the jet weighs less than 12,500 lbs...

It's organizationally dependent. Most (if not all) of the airlines carrying pax don't care. Airlines carrying boxes are a different story. (I think UPS specifically uses the hiring stipulation you're referring to.)  Generally speaking though, that 1000 or so hours of Turbine time PIC you'll log from a UPT tour won't hurt your application. No matter who you're trying to fly for.

Edited August 1, 2018 by STOIKY
Typo

[pilotguy]

[pilotguy]

Everyone needs to get out as fast as humanly possible before this gets worse

[pcola]

Thanks for posting that. So they are waiting on the answer for the CC directed, in-house requals...

[sixpack]

6 minutes ago, pcola said:

Thanks for posting that. So they are waiting on the answer for the CC directed, in-house requals...

Here's a whole copy/paste from the MAF assignments page.  Looks like in-house requals already fall under the new guidance.....  BL:  get out ASAP!

 

AFPC AOs and AMC/A1K have been working together to engage with HAF to get some more answers. 

What we do know is this:
-Requalification was added as an ADSC-incurring event on purpose as a return on investment effort. The verbiage from the previous version was not removed in error as a return on investment effort for the cost of training. 
-In-house requalification also is an ADSC incurring event (we asked about the different types of in unit requalification, and they should be getting back to us with an answer).
-HAF/A1P is willing to hear our feedback and asked for a consolidated email with our concerns so they can understand our frustrations better.

What we asked about and are waiting for a response:
-Is it possible to have a grandfather clause to establish a start date for when the new policy is implemented?
-Some communities were delayed assignment loads due to constraints outside the AOs’ control, so would there be exceptions for the transition phase?

We are working to compile all of the questions posted on this thread and we will pass it on to HAF/A1P. 

Please continue passing on your concerns so we can also funnel them up.

Edited August 1, 2018 by sixpack

[BADFNZ]

10 minutes ago, pcola said:

Thanks for posting that. So they are waiting on the answer for the CC directed, in-house requals...

If a Q3-led in-house requal leads to an ADSC, this will put a huge pressure on pilots, CCs, and evaluators alike.   Can you imagine being the evaluator with your hands tied, knowing your decision could potentially affect a pilot's life for years and cost him millions of dollars?  I've seen Big Blue do some stupid shit, but this is next level. 

 

[pcola]

Or a non-vol 365 that requires an in house requal... So many possible reasons to raise the BS flag on this one

In any event, my requal started before the effective date on the new reg so... doesn’t effect me either way. Still I’ll be very surprised if they start nabbing dudes for 3 years for these CC directed requals. I still think it’ll ultimately work out on the side of common sense. And a CC sending a dude down to the MPF to sign a form 63 for his X-ride requal program doesn’t pass the sniff check.

[sixpack]

1 minute ago, pcola said:

Or a non-vol 365 that requires an in house requal... So many possible reasons to raise the BS flag on this one

Even worse a short notice 179 where the pilot can’t get fully current before leaving, like AR currency in the jet.  Come back unqual and have to sign a 3year commitment to get flying again  

 

 

[Sling Blade]

2 hours ago, GoodSplash9 said:

 

Sling Blade...I'm a second assignment RPA dude with 2.5 years left on my sentence. I've heavily pondered options including returning to white jets, guard/reserve, RPA contractings(plus traditional guard/reserve) and CFI to get me from 350 hours to 750 for R-ATP mins. I reached the same conclusion tunes did...

If getting a seniority number at an airline is the goal given that situation, I am of the opinion that getting out and slumming it as a CFI/regional pilot is a better bet than taking another three year ADSC.  I also don't think that AFPC is going to find a glut of drone guys so desperate for some flying hours that they take orders hoping the next three years will be different from the last ten.  Maybe I'm wrong.

Regarding your other question, I plan on picking up a deployment gig after I get out.  I'll end up being gone six months out of the year, which isn't any different than what I'm doing now.  I'll spend the other six month a year building time.  That's my get well plan at least.  The contractors aren't going away because the AF can't retain people.  And if all that falls through, I think the McDonald's around the corner is hiring so I have options.

[FourFans]

1 hour ago, sixpack said:

Here's a whole copy/paste from the MAF assignments page.  Looks like in-house requals already fall under the new guidance.....  BL:  get out ASAP!

 

AFPC AOs and AMC/A1K have been working together to engage with HAF to get some more answers. 

What we do know is this:
-Requalification was added as an ADSC-incurring event on purpose as a return on investment effort. The verbiage from the previous version was not removed in error as a return on investment effort for the cost of training. 
-In-house requalification also is an ADSC incurring event (we asked about the different types of in unit requalification, and they should be getting back to us with an answer).
-HAF/A1P is willing to hear our feedback and asked for a consolidated email with our concerns so they can understand our frustrations better.

What we asked about and are waiting for a response:
-Is it possible to have a grandfather clause to establish a start date for when the new policy is implemented?
-Some communities were delayed assignment loads due to constraints outside the AOs’ control, so would there be exceptions for the transition phase?

We are working to compile all of the questions posted on this thread and we will pass it on to HAF/A1P. 

Please continue passing on your concerns so we can also funnel them up.

Thanks for re-posting. 

Does anyone need more proof of where this is going?

[FourFans]

For reference, go see the dumpster fire on the MAF Assignments and Mentoring facebook page (if you're a member) concerning the release of this guidance.  Goldfein has been tagged in the comments.  I'll be curious to see if anyone with authority answers the questions there, or if they just pawn it off on the poor assignments team folks.

Edited August 1, 2018 by FourFans130

[ImNotARobot]

How many times and in how many ways does Big Blue have to show that it will always defend the institution? I don’t need popcorn to watch reruns of shows where I already know the ending.

I read this as no change. Business as usual. And if this is a dumpster fire, it has not yet reached peak temperatures. Stop gap measures will continue to patch together additional handcuffs for pilots to be trapped into ADSCs bringing them so close to 20 YoS that it would be madness to get out due to the cliff-vested retirement system.

Ironically, BRS, while designed to save the institution money in the long run, would have provided all the golden trump card to simply walk away when the flames reached a prerequisite height. The generation behind us will have that option...20 YoS won’t mean the same thing to the millennials.

It’s bizarre to think that a pension and lifetime medical is holding pilots back from preserving their family life and personal sanity.

[matmacwc]

Opt out, move along.  Seriously folks, at some point in the last 2 decades I heard there might be a reg that says nothing can take you past your initial commitment, not even a training ADSC.  I’d also look up indentured servitude, might be something there for you serious folks. I’d do it but I gots my DD-214

[jazzdude]

Good thing they considered all those fancy second- and third- order effects of a new policy before implementing the policy. /s

[baileynme]

Opt out, move along.  Seriously folks, at some point in the last 2 decades I heard there might be a reg that says nothing can take you past your initial commitment, not even a training ADSC.  I’d also look up indentured servitude, might be something there for you serious folks. I’d do it but I gots my DD-214

You are referring to a note in the ADSC reg which was discretely removed and published with zero heads up to Sq/CCs and crewdogs, that’s why this all started.

[Homestar]

So I'm curious now...If I get orders back to my original airframe, which would incur a 3 year ADSC, but I am within 3 years of retirement, can I opt out and set a retirement date 3 years in the future?  This is basically how the PCS ADSC works with the 2 year sanctuary period before retirement, no?