Dual qualification

[Clark Griswold]

New thread for the sidebar topic in Track Select and Assignment night threads...

Dual qualification, is it time for the USAF to try it with either some test wings with platforms / qualification levels that could support this for operational needs, manning retention/morale, crew force development (varied experience, technical proficiency,  expanded talent pool) and efficiency?  

I put efficiency last as I think that it is probably the last factor that should be considered for a strategy for implementing dual qualification as a semi-general rule than an a seldom or unique policy.

Considering what it takes to make and maintain an aviator - aero rating, qualification & certifications, currency, proficiency and eligibility-viability (catch all term for medical qual, security clearance, career profile, etc..) - how could you make this work?  Not whether you it is a good idea or not but how could you build the professional community of two MDS's to be realistically viable?

IMO there are some compatible pairings:  LAAR & RPA, Fighter/Bomber & Aggressor/Trainer, RPA & Companion Training Aircraft (T-6 or a like platform)... All of this dependent on being intentionally  and carefully implemented with no hesitation to do things differently than are typically done, like maintaining full MQT in one platform and BMC in another with a spin up if needed to fully generate for the other MDS. 

Thoughts, comments, jabs, smart a$$ comments requested but come from the perspective that you were at your desk at 1629(L) on Friday and the good idea fairy e-mails you this and you are to brief COAs for this at Monday's stand up and failure / not doing it are not COAs... you have to have some kind of plan.

[Muscle2002]

My first question: what exact problem are you trying to solve?


Sent from my iPad using Baseops Network Forums

[Majestik Møøse]

2 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Thoughts, comments, jabs, smart a$$ comments requested but come from the perspective that you were at your desk at 1629(L) on Friday and the good idea fairy e-mails you this and you are to brief COAs for this at Monday's stand up and failure / not doing it are not COAs... you have to have some kind of plan.

Are you saying that someone asked you to do this?

The way most Air Force guys are dual-qualified (B-2, F-22, U-2 and TPS guys flying T-38s) isn't for everyone. It takes solid leadership to stiff arm the queep so guys are current enough in both jets to be safe. I just don't think that's realistic in a lot of wings, even with something safer than a T-38.

[dream big]

No no and no! Maintaining qualification and currency let alone proficiency in any USAF MWS is a full time job....the ground duties/admin queep is a second full time job.  Being an instructor/flight CC/commander is arguably a third.  Oh I also like to spend time with my family and get time off.

We aren't going to assume another full time job because the Air Force has royalty mismanaged its rated force and shot itself in the foot due to its own incompetence.

[BFM this]

In 2010 I was told that I'd received an assignment to RPAs.  At the time, I was told that RPAs would be a "one way door": that I would likely never get a traditional flying assignment going forward..  Let's suppose that I would have a choice between the following two options:

A) I could participate in a dual qual program, where there would be ____ available to fly 1.5 times per week while I was in RPAs.  All else would remain the same.

B) With my orders, I would be loaded into a TX to return to my grey-tail jet in FY+4yrs, reflected on my orders.

I'd take B, hands down.  Two of the three hypotheticals that you state are RPA, and the idea of having an ACE or companion trainer program in RPAs is not new.  However, two points: first, while in an RPA assignment, it's a full time gig.  Whether in lean times and you're spending large chunks of time as seat meat so that your bros can take leave, or when big blue starts to scratch the surface of adequate manning, leaving time to get in the vault, develop some skills in a CT setting, etc., it deserves full time attention, just like ALO, DAO, white jets, etc.  Let me go for a day so that I can go do AHC in the MOA or at best pew-pew some .50 cal into the rags, and that's a day that my bro can't take leave, or at the very least that the mission suffers.  Second, an ACE or companion trainer at RPAs wouldn't have sweetened the bitter pill of the "one way door" mantra being peddled by HHQ.  The only antidote to that was when guys started getting jets (TAMI, UPT-d, everybody) in 2013.  

Time out of the cockpit is not a new concept.  You're introduced to the idea in your commissioning source: remember the career progression pyramid that includes a "broadening" tour somewhere.  That pyramid also showed that broadening is followed by a return to ops.  Here's the rub: big blue hasn't been budgeting for a return to ops, at least not in the decade that I've been paying attention.  Everyone departing for some gig out of the jet always had the same concern: having to "compete" for a TX to get back in the jet.  "TX slots very limited, likely only available for leadership, Chief of Safety, or BNR this cycle.  Korea will be the highest Pk for all others,..."  Remember that boilerplate caveat on the Fighter Porch page in the portal?  That's what folks saw (likely the first thing they looked at) when they had orders in hand to ALO/RPA/AETC/Staff, and it set the tone--it sent a value message to those that big blue NEEDED for the task on their orders.

Takeaways for Big Blue:
1) If you're not planning on a TX for every "broadening" bill paid, then you will reap what you sow for failure to adequately plan.  It's nothing more than paying off one credit card with another.

2) Pulling the CPIP punch at 10.0 crews/CAP?  Fuck you, Big Blue.  Standby for another round of soul searching (RAND, CBO, CPIP-II report) in 4-6 years.  You never learn: until an RPA squadron is staffed and put on the same battle rhythm as any other AF squadron, the rest is all BS eyewash. 

3) Someday, you'll need 11x's to help out and/or broaden in areas that might be fenced off today.  When that time comes, if some A1 good idea fairy utters the idea of a "one way door", act swiftly and surely.  Crush that idea in the crib, and quietly (or fuck it, publicly and loudly) remove said nearsighted dipshit from any remote chance of doing damage in the future--allow them to seek opportunities elsewhere.

Edited July 26, 2017 by BFM this

[ATIS]

I've seen CAG staff and others dual qualed in multiple platforms.  Basically they were exceptional in one TMS (typically the one they were "birthed" in), and NATOPS safe for flight/bring the bird back aboard the carrier in the other.  Tactically proficient in the second (or more) platforms : "no chance Paddles". 

In this aviators experience; airborne ISR/CAS is something I wouldn't mix with RPA (keep your drink neat).   

ATIS

[jice]

Slide 1) the benefits are huge. Force quality, flexibility, retention.

Slide 2) there is real risk. You may orphan children. Likely your exec's/sub cc's (only so much time in a day)

Slides 3-5) 3x points on a spectrum from exposure only through fully quallified and pushing abilities.

Slide 6) weak swimmer plan.

Slide 9) lead.

 

[Clark Griswold]

On 7/25/2017 at 11:13 PM, Muscle2002 said:

My first question: what exact problem are you trying to solve?

Sent from my iPad using Baseops Network Forums

Legit analytical question.

My primary response would be a philosophical one, to arrest the drift of the officer cadre to equating the administration and management of the Air Force to their Operational Skill.  

By having an intense period of focused operational duties, ideally in the first six years or so of an officer's career, it may be possible to inoculate a cohort again queepitis.

My secondary response is this could be a legitimate strategy to get Big Blue to acquire programs/systems that they are reluctant to by giving BB a less resource intensive method of having a capability but not being obligated to sustain it like favored or primary capabilities. 

23 hours ago, Majestik Møøse said:

Are you saying that someone asked you to do this?

No - just asking the forum for opinions.  I was discussing this with others in another thread and this sidebar topic was going full deflection so I thought moving the discussion to a dedicated thread was better.  

15 hours ago, ATIS said:

I've seen CAG staff and others dual qualed in multiple platforms.  Basically they were exceptional in one TMS (typically the one they were "birthed" in), and NATOPS safe for flight/bring the bird back aboard the carrier in the other.  Tactically proficient in the second (or more) platforms : "no chance Paddles". 

In this aviators experience; airborne ISR/CAS is something I wouldn't mix with RPA (keep your drink neat).   

ATIS

Copy - being safe and basically capable might be the best COA for the secondary aircraft.  If that is the approach, then really what I think it lends itself to is a companion manned aircraft for RPA and staff assignments.  

The intentions then would be morale, skill maintenance and operational community engagement (rated staff dudes flying with the line enough to remember where they came from and keeping that in their cross check).

10 hours ago, jice said:

Slide 1) the benefits are huge. Force quality, flexibility, retention.

Slide 2) there is real risk. You may orphan children. Likely your exec's/sub cc's (only so much time in a day)

Slides 3-5) 3x points on a spectrum from exposure only through fully qualified and pushing abilities.

Slide 6) weak swimmer plan.

Slide 9) lead.

Agreed and well thought out.  

This would not be for everyone and not being chosen or not participating (declining an assignment with dual qualification as a duty) could not be viewed or documented as a negative against a member.  

 

Thinking a bit on this:

Instrument qual would only be required in one aircraft and all instrument events would dual log from aircraft to aircraft.

Basic flight events (takeoff, night landing, etc...) could be dual logged.

Mission sortie events would be the kicker, RAP count would have to be adjusted in the tables but not so much to be meaningless.

Dual qual assignments might require on-premises simulator capability or at a minimum part task trainers.

[HU&W]

For was you're talking about Clark, a Cirrus like the Academy uses would be perfect.

[Clark Griswold]

On 7/27/2017 at 8:56 PM, HU&W said:

For was you're talking about Clark, a Cirrus like the Academy uses would be perfect.

Possibly, particularly for an RPA / manned aircraft pairing.

 

[Fuzz]

If we didnt have to keep waiving NMR for a couple of weeks at the end of the semi for the 2nd or 3rd consectutive semiannual period so a good percentage of our pilots didnt go NMR or if we werent barely keeping people current with proficiency being a pipe dream then I would give some thought to the dual qual. This says nothing about the additional time required to even stay qualified, not just talking sims/flying but time required to be a baseline compotent pilot in said 2nd airframe to mitgate the risk of buying a Q3 and hurting your current or post-mil career. As it stands now, I just dont see it being feasible. The only way I see it working is if we got back to a healthy manning level where pilots could be pilots and not travel coordinators, personnelists, finance etc. 

[JeremiahWeed]

On 7/26/2017 at 1:16 PM, jice said:

Slide 2) there is real risk. You may orphan children.

????Orphan????

'Cuz the guy's wife is in the pit working the radar when they auger? 

[SurelySerious]

1 hour ago, JeremiahWeed said:

????Orphan????

'Cuz the guy's wife is in the pit working the radar when they auger? 

"I almost orphaned him today. I've never even seen him."

[HuggyU2]

I seem to recall that young SAC co-pilots were dual qualified (until Gen Loh foolishly killed the ACE Program in 1994).  As crazy as it sounds, these 25 year olds were flying all over the CONUS... in pairs... and sometimes in supersonic jets.  

Does being dual-qual'd really need to be so difficult???

[brabus]

Dual qualed with inst form 8s (e.g. ACE), easy. Dual qualed (and actually worth a shit) with msn form 8s, nope. 

[JeremiahWeed]

On 7/30/2017 at 0:23 AM, SurelySerious said:

"I almost orphaned him today. I've never even seen him."

IMDB for Top Gun under "goofs":  https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092099/trivia?tab=gf&ref_=tt_trv_gf

When turning in his wings at the beginning of the film, Cougar talks about 'almost orphaning' his new baby.  If he'd died he would still have a mother.

[Azimuth]

8 hours ago, HuggyU2 said:

I seem to recall that young SAC co-pilots were dual qualified (until Gen Loh foolishly killed the ACE Program in 1994).  As crazy as it sounds, these 25 year olds were flying all over the CONUS... in pairs... and sometimes in supersonic jets.  

Does being dual-qual'd really need to be so difficult???

BMC in one non-trainer jet and MR in another?  Maybe.  However MR in both jets?  No way.  

[HuggyU2]

Brabus/Azimuth:

Yes, I understand that.  

There are plenty of ways to get specific pilot (and nav) communities more flying experience, using dual-qualification.   And to save resources at the same time.  

As with anything complex in flying, it isn't a "one size fits all".  But because it will not work in some scenarios does not mean one should throw out the baby with the bathwater.  

Edited July 31, 2017 by HuggyU2

[tac airlifter]

7 hours ago, brabus said:

Dual qualed with inst form 8s (e.g. ACE), easy. Dual qualed (and actually worth a shit) with msn form 8s, nope. 

Agreed but there is a third way: single platform with multiple mission sets and roll on/off capability.  This theory was touted on the AC-130W back in 2009 ish but it never seemed to work, in my opinion.  Lots of METLs.  Other folks have played around with the concept of having an infil/exfil aircraft with roll on palletized ISR and strike capacity.  It's not dual qual per se, but you can have multiple mission form 8s for different configurations of the same aircraft, and the configuration changes include avionics and instrumentation display differences.  That said, the only folks who can pull it off with uniform quality are selectively manned units.

[BFM this]

38 minutes ago, tac airlifter said:

Agreed but there is a third way: single platform with multiple mission sets and roll on/off capability.  This theory was touted on the AC-130W back in 2009 ish but it never seemed to work, in my opinion.  Lots of METLs.  Other folks have played around with the concept of having an infil/exfil aircraft with roll on palletized ISR and strike capacity.  It's not dual qual per se, but you can have multiple mission form 8s for different configurations of the same aircraft, and the configuration changes include avionics and instrumentation display differences.  That said, the only folks who can pull it off with uniform quality are selectively manned units.

That sounds like Air Force standard for over complicating the simple.

[brabus]

4 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

Agreed but there is a third way: single platform with multiple mission sets and roll on/off capability.  This theory was touted on the AC-130W back in 2009 ish but it never seemed to work, in my opinion.  Lots of METLs.  Other folks have played around with the concept of having an infil/exfil aircraft with roll on palletized ISR and strike capacity.  It's not dual qual per se, but you can have multiple mission form 8s for different configurations of the same aircraft, and the configuration changes include avionics and instrumentation display differences.  That said, the only folks who can pull it off with uniform quality are selectively manned units.

I think that makes a lot more sense.  You're still flying the same aircraft, just using it for a different mission set at different times...sounds like every multi-role fighter.  It's worthwhile to point out that doing multiple mission types in DIFFERENT aircraft is a far more significant gap to jump than what you are talking about, even though it might seem not such a leap at first glance.  Not saying you are implying that, but I'm sure there are those who might think that.

Edited August 1, 2017 by brabus

[gucci]

I'm already dual qual'd. In my MWS and my desk job.

[SurelySerious]

13 hours ago, JeremiahWeed said:

IMDB for Top Gun under "goofs":  https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092099/trivia?tab=gf&ref_=tt_trv_gf

When turning in his wings at the beginning of the film, Cougar talks about 'almost orphaning' his new baby.  If he'd died he would still have a mother.

Pretty sure we're all well aware of that. I was simply making the movie reference. 

[Bode]

So a legitimate question to dual qual. Can anyone provide guidance on dual qual for different positions on the same aircraft? I'm currently deployed as a C208B EP and we are trying to determine who would need to sign off on me being qual'd as MSO (Mission Systems Officer). This is mostly to teach/eval our counterparts how to do ISR and airdrop. We currently are using an FE from the helo world but he will be departing shortly and need a plan of action.

The way I read the 11-202v2 we fall under host nation rules (they don't talk about dual qual). The 11-401 says we need MAJCOM approval to fly foreign aircraft (which we are already doing). So the way I read it as long as our host nation signs off on it we are good.

What am I missing on all this? I feel like there is something I'm not taking into consideration.

[Clark Griswold]

On 7/25/2017 at 11:13 PM, Muscle2002 said:

My first question: what exact problem are you trying to solve?

Sent from my iPad using Baseops Network Forums

Wanted to circle back to your question and kind of answer it rhetorically.  

Gonking some on this, dual qualification is thought of in the AF as a one off or seldom thing, usually temporarily but what if it is how we are to build depth and breadth simultaneously?  Why not change the paradigm that you are an F-16, MQ-9 or C-130 pilot but a fighter/recon/mobility pilot?  That we will accept and encourage pilots on those career tracks to fly and lead in those fields not just in one airframe?  This basically obliterates the justification for collateral or additional duties (not necessarily a bad or good thing) but make this part of the Operational or Technical career track.

Just initial thoughts on this, assignments would likely be 6 years at one location (could be good or bad), crew position would likely not be reciprocated without formal training (i.e. AC in one is not AC in the other unless single seat but then flight lead in one would not be flight lead in another) and the intention would be for this to be used for SME development, not just in an airframe but a mission set...