Pilot Shortage Deepens, USAF is SCREWED.

[SurelySerious]

3 minutes ago, HU&W said:

Standups are going to get a lot easier...

Your engine fails on takeoff---Boldface applies:  EJECTION HANDLE - PULL

You have an oil overtemp---Boldface applies:  EJECTION HANDLE - PULL

You have a gen fail---Boldface applies:  EJECTION HANDLE - PULL

etc...

Or, we could continue to teach airmanship and a PIC mentality.

It's been a while since I did the IFS thing, but didn't even those dudes teach us what we ought to do if the engine quit?  Similar question about civilian dudes getting their PPL in a 172?

[Danger41]

I have a hard time believing no ELP because that’s not how you do it in the Viper. The Viper flies loops different than a T-6 too. Lands different too. PA to Viper?

Having never flown the Fighting Falcon, I feel confident that the ELP requires energy management similar to a C-130 Assault landing, an F-15 BFM set, and a 60 autorotation. It’s npt the maneuver, it’s the principle that applies to all airplanes.

Edited March 13, 2018 by Danger41

[hindsight2020]

12 minutes ago, SurelySerious said:

It's been a while since I did the IFS thing, but didn't even those dudes teach us what we ought to do if the engine quit?  Similar question about civilian dudes getting their PPL in a 172?

Well, that's kind of orange and apples. The decision matrix question only exists because you have the seat available in the first place. In its absence you're expected to dead stick it obviously, so the question is moot. Actually in the -135 I heard they used to carry spare chutes for a manual bailout, but took them out. So there's that I suppose.

As to T-6s. I disagree with the dilution of the syllabus, but it's always been understood that it is preferable for the student to punch himself out than mishandle a forced land recovery and mort himself. the Air Force has also officially codified the lack of emphasis of single engine aircraft recovery with total power loss. That certainly has always been the imparted standard on our illustrious middle eastern "partners" to say the least, and they still manage to mort themselves stateside. So the practical application on the question of solos hasn't really changed, but the dilution of the syllabus and training is truly something I can't endorse as reasonable, if we're trying to remain leaders in military aviation that is.

[jazzdude]

It's been a while since I did the IFS thing, but didn't even those dudes teach us what we ought to do if the engine quit?  Similar question about civilian dudes getting their PPL in a 172?

When I did my civilian PPL, it (engine failure patterns) was introduced pretty early. Something about a) handling a possible emergency during solo, and b ) being aware of what's around me and building situational awareness. Same things once I got to Navy-land and their "I've got your PCL" at differing times in the profile (area, transitioning to an OLF, or at differing points in the pattern at the OLF). No pausing time in Navy EPs...

 

Then again, no ejection seat in those aircraft, so you didn't really have a choice-fly a good ELP or die trying.

 

Edit to add: this is the only phase where we teach fundamentals of flying. Stalls, spins, unusual attitude recoveries, descent planning when your jet turns into a glider and you don't have an ejection seat or parachutes. You don't get any of that on the heavy side after T-6s. So if we don't teach it there, then where do we teach it?

[HeloDude]

On March 11, 2018 at 7:04 PM, hindsight2020 said:

My only point was to disprove the notion that there's an anti-Anglo conspiracy behind the Air Force's present inelasticity wrt addressing non-economic retention metrics. This is easily illustrated imo, by the fact the USAF has always been this inelastic in addressing QOL metrics for the 12-13 year O-4, along with those without ADSC balances. Particularly in a world that used to be even more white than today mind you. Thence, no conspiracy, just dereliction of duty by our so-called leaders.

Here's what we know:

1) The AF has publicly stated that they want more women/minorities in the officer/pilot corps, which mathematically equates to fewer white males.

2) The AF has publicly stated that they have been looking at ways to promote more women/minorities, which mathematically equates to wanting fewer whites males being promoted. 

3) The Air Force has publicly stated that we have a "pilot crisis", yet they are not putting all their resources behind retention and/or recruiting people solely based off merit, as they are now focusing at least some recruitment efforts specifically on women/minorities.  If there's a "crisis" why is the AF then focusing on anything but retention and recruiting the best people you can get, regardless of gender/skin color?

4) Systemstic racism/sexism does not exist in the AF when it comes to recruiting/training pilots and covert racism/sexism in the AF to keep women/minorities from becoming pilots is few and far between, and when alleged is taken very seriously and if proven is dealt with quickly and harshly.  This goes for promotion as well.

So again, if we're in a "pilot crisis", why is the Air Force focusing on anything but promoting/retaining our best (regardless of gender/skin color) and recruiting the best/most qualified (regardless of gender/skin color)?  I suppose if one believes that having greater diversity of gender/skin color by itself is more important than just merit, then I suppose you'll support the initiatives started by SecAF James/Gen Welsh and continued now by SecAF Wilson/Gen Goldfien.  I have flown/served with many outstanding women/non-white males, and I would hate to believe that they were selected by anything other than their merit...they would probably hate to believe it as well.  They were able to figure out how to go to the Academy/join ROTC/apply to OTS and become pilots, so as I mentioned, I don't think there's a program to keep women/minorities from becoming pilots.

So that's where I'm at with this issue--perhaps you can answer the question in the paragraph above and explain to me in a way I can understand where I am going wrong.  Right now, all I understand is that the AF wants to recruit/promote more women/minorities...instead of solely basing it by merit.  Which is a shame, because over the last 10-15 years we've recruited/trained some pretty damn good awesome people who were women, minorities, and yes of course, white males...

[Boomer6]

22 hours ago, Fuzz said:

He’s already said they’ve been ordered by 19th AF proceed on this idea. Also he readily admits the only people “involved” was “200 UPT IPs”, OG/CCs, AETC staff, Altus and IFF, no reach out to Ops units or even FTUs as a whole. Also he’s at 500+ comments and counting, most of which are telling him it’s a horrible idea.

Also, when asked how RTUs, already struggling with absorption of new -38 grads, are going to absorb more students the officer running the brief stated emphatically, "RTUs don't have an absorption problem." Doesn't seem that way from where I'm sitting. What say you?

[dream big]

24 minutes ago, Boomer6 said:

Also, when asked how RTUs, already struggling with absorption of new -38 grads, are going to absorb more students the officer running the brief stated emphatically, "RTUs don't have an absorption problem." Doesn't seem that way from where I'm sitting. What say you?

They just don’t get it..or maybe they do; and have accepted the fact that they cannot retain talent so now they are looking at the only way to make the pilot number slides green: ramp up production. To no ones surprise, they are doing so via absurd and literally unsafe ideas.  

We are already seeing the experience sucked out of the squadrons as the squadrons get younger and younger.  God help us if we get T-6 direct students. 

[Herkasaurus]

Just heard a buddy say that he had 2 place chases approved in his squadron in the last 5 days.

Dude #1 requested almost a year off his ADSC. UPT complete, but it was a PCS or training ADSC or something. 

Dude #2: requested 16 months off ADSC for GI Bill. That one was approved by AFPC, some stipulation allowed it to remain at that level and not go to SAF.

I’ll never understand the AF, but my best guess is that you at least retain that experience in the total force since they have to serve their remaining commitment times 3 in the ANG/AFRC. Also, does this mean that ANG/AFRC is hurting even more than AD?

All the while 3 dudes in the Little Rock reserves quit at the last UTA since they were handed 120 day deployments. Yes, handed, not asked, but fvckin handed a deployment. It’s as if that AFRC squadron had an influx of AD and they feel the need to run it like AD.

I love how it’s collapsing on all sides!

(Will also post in the palace chase thread since this is pertinent in multiple areas)

-Herk

[hindsight2020]

1 hour ago, Herkasaurus said:

I’ll never understand the AF, but my best guess is that you at least retain that experience in the total force since they have to serve their remaining commitment times 3 in the ANG/AFRC. Also, does this mean that ANG/AFRC is hurting even more than AD?

All the while 3 dudes in the Little Rock reserves quit at the last UTA since they were handed 120 day deployments. Yes, handed, not asked, but fvckin handed a deployment. It’s as if that AFRC squadron had an influx of AD and they feel the need to run it like AD.

I love how it’s collapsing on all sides!

(Will also post in the palace chase thread since this is pertinent in multiple areas)

-Herk

This is the part where regAF guys don't have the full picture when it comes to retention. See, when 19th went to HAF and told them to carve AETC out of the bullshit make-work so-called deployments that the USAF historically and institutionally has used to justify its money-footprint and existence to the Joint Chiefs and the Congress, they scored a win for their fiefdom. But there isn't much understanding around regAF low level circles as to where that pound of flesh was gonna be taken from. As you're finding out, that's coming out of ARC, which you folks commonly know as the AFRC and ANGB Command/Bureau.

Picture this little happy Bob Ross winter scene for a second: You're a regAF dude. You're happy to get paid O-3/4 money with tax free 25% of your check on the 15th and 30th and get free medical, plus 30 days vaction a year you can't use but at least you're banking. Then regAF grinds you to a pulp. You try to hold on to the end of the commitment but say fuck it, I'm out. So you look up the hill to the AFRC/ANG. While you're tripping over yourself to submit that palace chase application to the Dementors at AFPC, 19th is scoring a big win on the QOL by shielding their boys from CENTCOM's rent-seeking combat desk 179s/364s non-flyings' to Bullshitstan. But by the time you get out it's ripe time for AFRC to get hit with the new word of the day: involuntary individual mobs for all TRs. Coincidence? If only. So now here you are, happy wife happy life, never gonna do that again and wham! You get hit with the very tasker you quit Active Duty over in the first place, while the peers you literally left behind in Active Duty are shielded from it. Which is noted, you're going in their place after all. And you potentially lose your CJO at Delta for all your troubles. How you like them apples? Think I'm kidding? Like you said yourself, "not asked, but fvcking handed". Try hiring folks in that environment, plus a double commute. 

So that's what's going on right now in the ARC. Caveat emptor.

[Fuzz]

5 hours ago, DirtyFlightSuit said:

You should look to pilot network to see just how well the community at large regards your DO.  He is a special child. 

Apparently he’s about to take command of one of the T-6 squadrons.

[Fuzz]

7 hours ago, YoungnDumb said:

Also, new T-6 syllabus was briefed today.  Here's the short version of what UPT (at least T-6 side), also I am merely the messenger.

Phase 1

-Academics and 20 sims with a sim check ride.  Rumor/hope is that a green suiter will administer the check ride and that more mil sim IP's will help bridge the sim/flt lint gap.

Phase 2

-20 Transition sorties which will be a combination Instrument/Contact.  1 check ride and 1 solo.

-8 Nav sorties (can be done XC)

-8 form sorties with 1 form solo

Track Select

-If going T-1/Helo the stud will go do 6 more Nav sorties.  If helo the sorties will be VFR/NTA/Low Level focused

-If going T-38 the stud will do 3 advanced aero rides, 6 advanced form rides, and 4 tac form/2-ship low level sorties.

Then they go to Phase 3.

 

According to the slides it will save 17k sorties per year and shorten UPT by ~6 weeks (3 of that occurring in T-6's).  Also, they are getting rid of teaching students EP patterns.  Basically if the kid has an engine problem they want him to fly home normally, and if it gets bad just eject.  So ya...

So what happens when said 38 track studs suck at aero & advanced form? Are we just going to send him anyways, re-track, wash out?

ETA: I’m talking about the extra rides in the T-6 post track just so there’s no confusion.

Edited March 13, 2018 by Fuzz

[ThreeHoler]

And you potentially lose your CJO at Delta for all your troubles. How you like them apples? Think I'm kidding? Like you said yourself, "not asked, but fvcking handed".

If you lose your CJO to any airline because of an involuntary mob...that airline is about to be paying your lawyers a f u c k ton of money.

[hindsight2020]

36 minutes ago, ThreeHoler said:

 

If you lose your CJO to any airline because of an involuntary mob...that airline is about to be paying your lawyers a f u c k ton of money.

 

Except, you're not employed *until you show up at indoc. Ever heard of anyone dropping long tour mil leave one day after a CJO is granted? Of course not. But we've heard plenty of that one jackalope that did do such a thing on the first week of indoc (after he got an unwanted domicile on day 2, to be specific). Why do you think that is? That's the *distinction, and the reason why.

The airline has zero legal obligation to protect your employment if you''re not yet employed by them. BTW, this isn't the only scenario where this applies. I've had peers get pinched by a reserve service commitment balance that yielded a denial of curtailment and involuntary retention (whoopsie!), which yielded the expiration of a CJO, fair and square. Yeah buddy. Otherwise every AD cat could interview with Delta, get CJOs then say hey I've been invol retained, which clearly isn't the law. Now, that guy got lucky in that he had interviewed with a second legacy and by the time that airline's training date was offered to him he was able to re-submit his curtailment request outside the RSC balance, get approved, and make the class date. Big brass ones on that guy.... 

Look, this is just like the Cuban wet foot dry foot policy. You gotta touch sand before USERRA kicks in hermano. You think people are gonna gamble with a multi-million dollar job offer over mickey mouse, invol Operation Deny Airline Blue Dick fucketry in the AFRC? I certainly wouldn't and I'm a lifer (for reasons that don't pertain to this thread). But this new "wellness and morale" program we're rolling out in the ARC is already making it difficult to keep the lights on in the place, let alone legitimately staffed.

Edited March 13, 2018 by hindsight2020

[Jaded]

I already thought that the ARC was about >< close to a mass exodus after these last contracts got signed. People are already losing money for every day they work in the reserves. Involuntary mobilization would shove that rock right off the cliff. 

[YoungnDumb]

11 hours ago, DirtyFlightSuit said:

You should look to pilot network to see just how well the community at large regards your DO.  He is a special child. 

Luckily I'm in the other squadron.

[YoungnDumb]

10 hours ago, Danger41 said:

I have a hard time believing no ELP because that’s not how you do it in the Viper. The Viper flies loops different than a T-6 too. Lands different too. PA to Viper?

Having never flown the Fighting Falcon, I feel confident that the ELP requires energy management similar to a C-130 Assault landing, an F-15 BFM set, and a 60 autorotation. It’s npt the maneuver, it’s the principle that applies to all airplanes.

I'm just passing on what I was told/briefed.  We were told one other big reason they are getting rid of them is that they had to get rid of things since it's a condensed syllabus and they would rather have a focus on patterns/instruments.  Again, just what I was told.

What really needs to happen is the Viper community needs to raise a stink and get it changed.  Though in all honesty some kid is gonna eject when he could easily have glided it in before the AF sees the error of its ways.

[YoungnDumb]

6 hours ago, Fuzz said:

So what happens when said 38 track studs suck at aero & advanced form? Are we just going to send him anyways, re-track, wash out?

ETA: I’m talking about the extra rides in the T-6 post track just so there’s no confusion.

Send them anyways.  Timeline doesn't care about proficiency.

[Buddy Spike]

5 hours ago, Jaded said:

I already thought that the ARC was about >< close to a mass exodus after these last contracts got signed. People are already losing money for every day they work in the reserves. Involuntary mobilization would shove that rock right off the cliff. 

Yup.  Used to be year 4-5 that you'd start losing money.  Now it's year 2.  

[MDDieselPilot]

10 hours ago, Herkasaurus said:

Just heard a buddy say that he had 2 place chases approved in his squadron in the last 5 days.

Dude #1 requested almost a year off his ADSC. UPT complete, but it was a PCS or training ADSC or something. 

Dude #2: requested 16 months off ADSC for GI Bill. That one was approved by AFPC, some stipulation allowed it to remain at that level and not go to SAF.

I’ll never understand the AF, but my best guess is that you at least retain that experience in the total force since they have to serve their remaining commitment times 3 in the ANG/AFRC. Also, does this mean that ANG/AFRC is hurting even more than AD?

All the while 3 dudes in the Little Rock reserves quit at the last UTA since they were handed 120 day deployments. Yes, handed, not asked, but fvckin handed a deployment. It’s as if that AFRC squadron had an influx of AD and they feel the need to run it like AD.

I love how it’s collapsing on all sides!

(Will also post in the palace chase thread since this is pertinent in multiple areas)

-Herk

Where is said thread? 

[di1630]

...Though in all honesty some kid is gonna eject when he could easily have glided it in before the AF sees the error of its ways.

Dudes, 16.9 years ago people went t-37 to t-38 to viper having NEVER done a flame out pattern.

This might be an ok idea in my opinion.

[ARAMP1]

17 hours ago, YoungnDumb said:

Also, new T-6 syllabus was briefed today.  Here's the short version of what UPT (at least T-6 side), also I am merely the messenger.

Phase 1

-Academics and 20 sims with a sim check ride.  Rumor/hope is that a green suiter will administer the check ride and that more mil sim IP's will help bridge the sim/flt lint gap.

Phase 2

-20 Transition sorties which will be a combination Instrument/Contact.  1 check ride and 1 solo.

-8 Nav sorties (can be done XC)

-8 form sorties with 1 form solo

Track Select

-If going T-1/Helo the stud will go do 6 more Nav sorties.  If helo the sorties will be VFR/NTA/Low Level focused

-If going T-38 the stud will do 3 advanced aero rides, 6 advanced form rides, and 4 tac form/2-ship low level sorties.

Then they go to Phase 3.

 

According to the slides it will save 17k sorties per year and shorten UPT by ~6 weeks (3 of that occurring in T-6's).  Also, they are getting rid of teaching students EP patterns.  Basically if the kid has an engine problem they want him to fly home normally, and if it gets bad just eject.  So ya...

One of the reasons the Navy bought the T6B with the HUD, HOTAS, etc was to fly several of the T45 rides in the cheaper T6.  Turns out, the studs were significantly behind the power curve and needed those T45 rides in the T45 and the program was scrapped.  

[matmacwc]

2 hours ago, di1630 said:

Dudes, 16.9 years ago people went t-37 to t-38 to viper having NEVER done a flame out pattern.

This might be an ok idea in my opinion.

Living up to his login name.  I did the above route, never had a problem.  I think more of the reverse is true, silly T-6 with its prop and P-Factor, how many AF aircraft have to deal with this?  I know there's a few, but not the majority.

[Shamrock]

8 minutes ago, joe1234 said:

That's day-for-day.

You can actually make way more money if you live in base with your domicile and your guard unit. Strategically drop mil leave to clear out your schedule (especially useful if junior) and then pick up efficient premium trips in open time.

And that's exactly what you are not supposed to do with USERRA.  Not only is it not there for you to make a profit, you probably should use judgement posting that you are overtly using it to make a profit.  If there's a big legal push someday for companies to reduce USERRA rights, one of the first things they're going to do is search the net for quotes just like this and probably try to figure out who you are.

If that's what you do with your USERRA right, none of us can change your mind probably, but at the very least try not to be public about exploiting it.  When you drop trips like that, you are screwing over your fellow pilots, which include a lot of military guys that choose not to make money off of USERRA and just take the bad trips.  It seems similar to the guy bragging that he got out of a deployment for some BS reason, while watching his squad mate pack up last minute, and then adding that "Oh great! now I also get to take my buddy's upgrade slot that he'll be deployed for."

[Buddy Spike]

30 minutes ago, joe1234 said:

That's day-for-day.

You can actually make way more money if you live in base with your domicile and your guard unit. Strategically drop mil leave to clear out your schedule (especially useful if junior) and then pick up efficient premium trips in open time.

 

Really?  What do you fly?

[YoungnDumb]

2 hours ago, di1630 said:

Dudes, 16.9 years ago people went t-37 to t-38 to viper having NEVER done a flame out pattern.

This might be an ok idea in my opinion.

Having discussed with a few other IP's, the larger issue at hand is the seemingly casual way leadership wants the students to handle emergencies.  There is a sense that we're sending the students the wrong message when it comes to handling emergencies.  While the actual ELP may/may not help them down the line somewhere, the actual proper handling of the EP is what bothers most of the people I have talked to.  Adding to that is it now tells students to start disregarding boldface.

 

55 minutes ago, matmacwc said:

Living up to his login name.  

Doing my best.