Do You Think Blue-Suiters in T-6s Would Help?

[Clark Griswold]

1 hour ago, xcraftllc said:

Nope, I'd say the WO thing would have all the same issues that 2020 and matmacwc are talking about with the added complication of a Warrant corps in the AF and still come along with all the military lifestyle obligations and queep etc...

Valid points.  Just throwing it against the wall to see what sticks, apparently not much. 

The real solution is two fold:

Make UPT Instruction a more desirable assignment by putting UPT in decent locations with additional career opportunities offered for extended tours.  Higher educational opportunities, homesteading, professional development, etc... if you put some decent carrots out there, the Line will respond.  If you continue to put shit sandwiches on the plate, they'll respond again but with their feet.

Use the pilots you already have trained more in your Guard / Reserve force.  The AF spends over 5 billion a year in training, I am not sure what X percentage of that is UPT but probably a good chunk.  Train fewer pilots but offer more work to your already trained crew force.  This is more complicated than my simple one sentence answer but the cost in terms of time and money to make new trained / qualified pilots is more than to use the ones already trained.

1 hour ago, Duck said:

If they are as pissy and short tempered as the Sim guys at my base... sounds like a recipe for success.
Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

Doing the same thing day after day in a cold, sunless, sterile Borg cube flying a computer to the same virtual places to see the same screw ups with just a different name doing it, that would never wear down a man's soul to a hard edge curmudgeon... never...

[Duck]

I actually get it. I was dual qual'd as a sim guy for a while and I wanted to shoot myself. You can only try to hit a kid with a viper head on so many times before slitting your wrist.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[BFM this]

CG: what locations did you have in mind? Our current UPT locations are specifically located under sparsely traveled airspace, leaving plenty of room for MOAs.
I'm all about what you're suggesting, and I've been vocal here about the colossally stupid basing decisions in the RPA community--those could be installed in any office building/base/location--pretty much anywhere you can build a SCIF . Not so with trainers or any MDS that needs some form of range space. Best example is RND, where the daily struggle with San Antonio approach and Houston Center creates real production impacts.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[TnkrToad]

13 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Historical item for the topic:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Air_Forces_Contract_Flying_School_Airfields

Beyond IFS and sims I don't see Big Blue going for this but is this another place in flight operations where a WO program would make sense?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Contract Flying Schools had at least three huge things going for them when they were seeking to hire talented pilots/ground instructors/mechanics--especially early on--which don't exist today. First, CFS were exempted from the draft. Not hard to find smart, capable instructors when you offer that carrot during wartime. Draft avoidance ain't much of a motivator today. Second, the US (heck the world) was just barely coming out of the Great Depression; you could hire talent for pennies on the dollar at the time. As already extensively discussed on this forum, the military can't compete financially today. Third, the civil aircraft industry was way ahead of the military in terms of aircraft technology and trained pilots. As late as 1939, the Air Corps still only had 13 B-17s. Meanwhile, despite the Depression, Douglas produced 36 DC-3s in December 1937 alone. In other words, the civil air industry was flying higher-tech equipment than the military, by a long shot, and it had been way ahead for a long time. Even though the T-6/T-38/T-1 ain't the height of current technology, they're well beyond what the vast majority of junior civilian pilots have flown. Whereas before, experienced CPS pilots would have to step down to older/slower technology early in the war in order to train mil pilots, the exact opposite would have to occur today.

I could maybe see contracting out T-1 training to civ instructors, but good luck holding onto them once they build up to ATP min hours.

I do think there's a strong argument to be made for a US Merchant Aviation Academy. The US subsidizes training for commercial shipping industry through the US Merchant Marine Academy (USMMA). Given the vital importance of aviation to the US economy, why not do the same for aviation?

TT

 

[Clark Griswold]

7 hours ago, BFM this said:

CG: what locations did you have in mind? Our current UPT locations are specifically located under sparsely traveled airspace, leaving plenty of room for MOAs.
I'm all about what you're suggesting, and I've been vocal here about the colossally stupid basing decisions in the RPA community--those could be installed in any office building/base/location--pretty much anywhere you can build a SCIF . Not so with trainers or any MDS that needs some form of range space. Best example is RND, where the daily struggle with San Antonio approach and Houston Center creates real production impacts.

Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

Not the easiest question to answer, it should have:

- Multiple runways or numerous satellite airfields.

- Low civilian air traffic for MOAs & Low-Levels

- WX conditions generally providing good VFR and mild winter conditions

- A desirable location for retention and volunteers for extended tours.

- Close proximity to a major airline domicile for a strong Reserve participation

My opinion would be to open up Robins for UPT, a LONG shot would be to put a training wing at Beale.

5 hours ago, TnkrToad said:

The Contract Flying Schools had at least three huge things going for them when they were seeking to hire talented pilots/ground instructors/mechanics--especially early on--which don't exist today. First, CFS were exempted from the draft. Not hard to find smart, capable instructors when you offer that carrot during wartime. Draft avoidance ain't much of a motivator today. Second, the US (heck the world) was just barely coming out of the Great Depression; you could hire talent for pennies on the dollar at the time. As already extensively discussed on this forum, the military can't compete financially today. Third, the civil aircraft industry was way ahead of the military in terms of aircraft technology and trained pilots. As late as 1939, the Air Corps still only had 13 B-17s. Meanwhile, despite the Depression, Douglas produced 36 DC-3s in December 1937 alone. In other words, the civil air industry was flying higher-tech equipment than the military, by a long shot, and it had been way ahead for a long time. Even though the T-6/T-38/T-1 ain't the height of current technology, they're well beyond what the vast majority of junior civilian pilots have flown. Whereas before, experienced CPS pilots would have to step down to older/slower technology early in the war in order to train mil pilots, the exact opposite would have to occur today.

I could maybe see contracting out T-1 training to civ instructors, but good luck holding onto them once they build up to ATP min hours.

I do think there's a strong argument to be made for a US Merchant Aviation Academy. The US subsidizes training for commercial shipping industry through the US Merchant Marine Academy (USMMA). Given the vital importance of aviation to the US economy, why not do the same for aviation?

TT

I'm actually not really for civilian instructors on the flight line but not adamantly opposed to it in some phases/sections. 

Agreed on a Merchant Aviation Academy, do you see it from zero time to ATP or from PPL to the higher certificates?

My only reservation is that it would change the culture of the AF, having all pilots graduate from a military course does build some culture, camaraderie, etc..

[BFM this]

Haha, having visited both Robins and Beale in the last year, all I can say is,...well, at least they're not Del Rio by the Sea.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[Clark Griswold]

Not terrible spots, not the best but definitely on the better end of the spectrum. 

At these locations, you could get long term instructors (civilian, AD mil or Reserve mil) as the locales are nice enough (IMO) and they fit the other requirements (mostly).

[08Dawg]

11 hours ago, TnkrToad said:

I do think there's a strong argument to be made for a US Merchant Aviation Academy. The US subsidizes training for commercial shipping industry through the US Merchant Marine Academy (USMMA). Given the vital importance of aviation to the US economy, why not do the same for aviation?

TT

 

That seems to me to be what places like LA Tech, Delta State, UND and ERAU kinda already are. Tack on a government subsidy to the flight training programs and voila, a starting point to begin addressing the civilian pilot shortage.  

[ClearedHot]

It can and is being done by other services and commands.

I have a friend from high school who flew Falcon jets in the Coast Guard, he retired after 20+ years and they brought him back as civilian instructor on a two year contract (turned into four years), and now he is at jetblue.

AFSOC uses civilian IPs for PC-12 and U-28 training, the Rockhill Group always has openings.

Location is of course the issue for UPT bases, but if the pay is high enough I would think the supply demand curve would bring some folks in.  I would NOT make the GS types, limits the pay options, cut a contract with room to pay location bonus and try to surge production for a few years until the airline demand goes away...oh wait...it is not going away.

Edit - I would not limit the contracts to T-6s, every platform will eventually be short, but the shortage on the fighter side is helping drive the argument right now...don't eat your seed corn sending a bunch of O-3 fighter pilots to teach T-38's.  Preserve, season, and grow your combat capability in the CAF with some contract guys in T-38's as well.

 

Edited February 23, 2017 by ClearedHot

[BFM this]

Edit - I would not limit the contracts to T-6s, every platform will eventually be short, but the shortage on the fighter side is helping drive the argument right now...don't eat your seed corn sending a bunch of O-3 fighter pilots to teach T-38's.  Preserve, season, and grow your combat capability in the CAF with some contract guys in T-38's as well.

Already cresting the horizon in black jet AdAir.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[viper154]

Our entire RPA program/pipeline relies very heavily on contract instructors that do everything (sims, local flights, inerts) only thing they can't do is fly combat lines. I am sure they have no problem keeping guys at Randolph (UPT guy so I didn't go through the school there) but having been through schools at Holloman, Creech, and Cannon, the location/pay ratio have to work. All these places have enough guys to keep them going but usually people get out of mil and transfer as a civilian instructor because of temporary personal reasons or getting their foot in the door at a much better paying place. (and the handful of old crusty dudes just waiting to die). As said above, how do you plan retaining these guys in places like DLF when they can rack up a few thousand hours in 2-3 years and make bank in a desirable location. Its cheaper for the AF to force Lts to be FAIPs for $33,000 a year +BAH/benefits than  to shell out 6 figures to a civilian dude. 

[Clark Griswold]

1 hour ago, viper154 said:

As said above, how do you plan retaining these guys in places like DLF when they can rack up a few thousand hours in 2-3 years and make bank in a desirable location. Its cheaper for the AF to force Lts to be FAIPs for $33,000 a year +BAH/benefits than  to shell out 6 figures to a civilian dude. 

I wish I could refute that but it pretty much sums it up.

[ViperMan]

3 hours ago, viper154 said:

As said above, how do you plan retaining these guys in places like DLF when they can rack up a few thousand hours in 2-3 years and make bank in a desirable location. Its cheaper for the AF to force Lts to be FAIPs for $33,000 a year +BAH/benefits than  to shell out 6 figures to a civilian dude. 

Is it though? The USAF puts > $1M bucks into a guy over 54 weeks and then an additional $300K over the following 3 years to do that "job" - so call it $1.3M bucks for 4 years of work. Then, you wind up getting only 6 years out of the guy when he finally gets to an MWS...so...?

[stract]

On 2/20/2017 at 3:55 PM, hindsight2020 said:

You guys are missing the point. Nobody is gonna take a paycut to live in DLF.

There will ALWAYS be people who want to, or don't mind living in, places that would seem less desirable to many others.  Case in point, Mother Rucker. 

[Ram]

But the money has to be there. I've heard rumors that Sonoran Inc (the contractor for the KHMN Viper RTU) is considering upping the compensation package to $225k/yr plus bennies for F-16 sim/academic instructors...to attract more potential hires.

That's airline money for a 9-5 (relatively easy) job that doesn't require travel.

Still, it's Alamogordo...$225k might not be enough for some, despite how rewarding and stable the job might be.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[Polar Bear]

Does Lockheed come anywhere close to that for the guys at Luke or Hill?

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk