Air Force is hiring for civilian T-6 IPs

[Danger41]

4 hours ago, HeloDude said:

So a 23 year old, 50 hour CFI, who has never gone through any military training (flight or otherwise) will be better than a 25 year old officer who has gone through a commissioning source, graduated UPT (they still wash people out btw), and has successfully gone through the current PIT syllabus (which also still washed people out)?
 

 

That 50 hour CFI will have a bare minimum of 300 hours (any part 61 gurus feel free to fact check me but I’m confident in that number) when they’re hired. I’d guess they’ll get at least 100 more from the AF in the T-6 (not to mention sims) before they hit the line. 
 

I’d trust that individual more than a FAIP simply due to the real world experience they’ve had, especially if they have a Part 61 CFI background. 

[Danger41]

27 minutes ago, kaputt said:

As a former non-rated officer that jumped into aviation and is actually currently teaching mil students in one of the IFS programs, this sounded like an awesome opportunity. Way better than slinging gear at the regionals, even with the GS-09 starting pay.

But I reached out to AFPC and the program is strictly limited to aviation major students who got their degree and flight training at the same time, and you have to have graduated in the last two years. Bummer. It will be interesting to see how this program does. Having spent some decent time in the civilian aviation world now, I'm not sure this program will get all that many takers in the end. Most civ students want the airlines and nothing else, and those with mil flying interest will probably want to be actual military aviators and not T-6 only instructors. It's a pretty niche group of people that would actually look to do this job.

Selfishly speaking here of course, but it seems a bit of a missed opportunity to not find a way to include folks like myself that have military experience and at least understand some of the demands the students have beyond just flying. I've found that to be super helpful in my current role.

Let's be honest, this is a definitely just a grasp to try and fill IP manning with bodies that cost pennies on the dollar to even a FAIP. 

That’s interesting/disappointing that it’s that limited to accession. I think they could really open up pipelines from ERAU, UND, and then other smaller aviation schools to siphon those folks for a few years to build time then make the airline leap. 
 

Another thing I would love to see is an option at the end of their contracts for CAIPs to get commissions and pilot spots. Talk about a safe bet to make it through UPT with those folks. 

[Shakermaker]

10 minutes ago, Danger41 said:

That 50 hour CFI will have a bare minimum of 300 hours (any part 61 gurus feel free to fact check me but I’m confident in that number) when they’re hired. I’d guess they’ll get at least 100 more from the AF in the T-6 (not to mention sims) before they hit the line. 
 

I’d trust that individual more than a FAIP simply due to the real world experience they’ve had, especially if they have a Part 61 CFI background. 

They will go through the full 2.5 T-6 syllabus and the full PIT syllabus, plus a TBD version of TI once they are in the unit before flying with a student.  So I agree that skill wise they may have a leg up on the FAIP.

[jazzdude]

I wouldn’t call close formation and ET3 “fundamental flying skills”…and I’m pretty sure they don’t teach this in IFT.  A civilian IP can definitely learn/be able to teach it, but it will take much more training since they’ve never seen it in UPT.  Oh, and here’s a data point:  Some T-1 trained FAIPs have gone through CRs at T-6 PIT (and some have even washed out) for lack of formation flying abilities due to the cuts in UPT.
As far as being a military officer, UPT is centered around flight instruction based on the foundation of military bearing, integrity, etc.  If this wasn’t necessary, then mil cap wouldn’t be a thing.  It’s not to say that 23 year old civilian pilots can’t also have these qualities, but there’s no training program to weed those people out who aren’t a good fit.  Just think about people you’ve met who said they’ve wanted to be a military pilot but just didn’t have the qualities we seek in a military officer…there’s a reason why we’re different.  Also, unless they rewrite the rules, you can’t work a civilian more than 40 hours a week without permission, compensation, etc.  This changes the ball game quite a bit.  
Rucker, Kirtland, and other programs have had civilian/contractor flight instructors, but I’m pretty sure the vast majority have been very experienced military pilots in the past, and their instruction has been more/less limited to contact/instrument flying…they leave the formation and other stuff to the mil IPs.
That all being said, my biggest concern is with the comments on this page who think this will make a better IP than those graduating from PIT…and across the board, I just don’t see it.  Do you agree with Jice that these young civilian CFIs with 50 hours of C172 IP time will be better than a UPT graduate going to PIT to be a FAIP?  
 

I don't think a civilian instructor would be better than a FAIP, but I do think they could be just as good. The challenge for the AF is what washout rate they are willing to accept for CFIs going through their version of PIT. Generally, studs with prior flight time tend to do well in UPT, so hiring CFIs out of a part 141 school (more rigid environment than part 61) should increase the odds of them getting through training.

Plus, there's already a significant amount of civilian instructors teaching in UPT today: something like half the syllabus is sim training. Though I will concede that most of those instructors are former mil of some sort. But they manage their work schedules fine. On the flight line as a T-6 IP I think my typical day was around 10ish hours, so that'd make for a 4 day work week.

I will say it's curious they are targeting to hire young CFIs, but it's probably because they are willing to work for cheaper. Sounds like this job is hiring at GS9, while I think the sim IPs are GS12s.

I wouldn't see the civilian IPs touching any of the officer development portions of UPT, just the flying skills training. I'd expect leadership in the flights to still be military, and to enforce the military unique aspects of the UPT environment. It's similar to commissioning from ROTC: civilian education with some extra mil training/guidance/mentorship layered on top.

The C-17 schoolhouse is heavy on contractor led instruction. PIQ students do all their training with a contractor until their first checkride. The sim instructors also teach the first half of both the copilot and AC airdrop courses.

[Blue]

5 hours ago, nunya said:

Unfortunately I think this is about giving the AF bodies for staff while staying under end strength, not keeping bodies in cockpits. 

32 minutes ago, Shakermaker said:

They will go through the full 2.5 T-6 syllabus and the full PIT syllabus, plus a TBD version of TI once they are in the unit before flying with a student.

Yeah, from the outside looking in, it seems like this is just a play to reduce the number of AF pilots needed to man AF planes.  Freeing up pilots to go work staff.  Since, if you're gonna send someone through the above training, it would seem to make sense to tack on a couple months (or whatever it is) at OTS and make these civilians into Air Force officers.

[08Dawg]

1 hour ago, Danger41 said:

That 50 hour CFI will have a bare minimum of 300 hours (any part 61 gurus feel free to fact check me but I’m confident in that number) when they’re hired. I’d guess they’ll get at least 100 more from the AF in the T-6 (not to mention sims) before they hit the line. 
 

I’d trust that individual more than a FAIP simply due to the real world experience they’ve had, especially if they have a Part 61 CFI background. 

Maybe less than that since they’re targeting 141 programs.   Commercial mins are 190 for Pt 141. CFI does not take long after that. So, could easily be sub-300. 50 hrs of instruction given is MAYBE one month’s experience teaching at some place like UND or ERAU. 

[kaputt]

I will add, from my corner of the IFS world, IPs with military experience still tend to do better with instructing and relating to the students than straight civilian experience instructors. The absolute best (besides previous mil pilots) are the former CSOs, WSOs, NFOs, etc... that understand the nuances of briefing and debriefing appropriately, but even the former mil non-rated instructors understand better how formal training works in a military environment. That's not to say the civilians don't do well, but you can see students respond differently when they are dealing with a former mil IP vs civilian only.

My one question is why has the Air Force not just made GS-12 or 13 T-6 IP positions that's open to hire anyone? Yeah that's not amazing pay and it would be hard to compete with the airlines, but certainly there are some guys who don't want to do the airlines that would be interested in being a T-6 IP after their time on active duty? Heck, I'm 400 hours short of heading to the regionals right now and I would gladly jump into a GS position T-6 job over going to the regionals. 

Haven't there been a couple of RFIs put out for contractor T-6's as well? What happened with those?

Edited June 8, 2022 by kaputt
typos...

[hockeydork]

2 hours ago, kaputt said:

As a former non-rated officer that jumped into aviation and is actually currently teaching mil students in one of the IFS programs, this sounded like an awesome opportunity. Way better than slinging gear at the regionals, even with the GS-09 starting pay.

But I reached out to AFPC and the program is strictly limited to aviation major students who got their degree and flight training at the same time, and you have to have graduated in the last two years. Bummer. It will be interesting to see how this program does. Having spent some decent time in the civilian aviation world now, I'm not sure this program will get all that many takers in the end. Most civ students want the airlines and nothing else, and those with mil flying interest will probably want to be actual military aviators and not T-6 only instructors. It's a pretty niche group of people that would actually look to do this job.

Selfishly speaking here of course, but it seems a bit of a missed opportunity to not find a way to include folks like myself that have military experience and at least understand some of the demands the students have beyond just flying. I've found that to be super helpful in my current role.

Let's be honest, this is a definitely just a grasp to try and fill IP manning with bodies that cost pennies on the dollar to even a FAIP. 

They told me to get lost as well since I didn't graduate 141 program. I respectfully made it clear how foolish that was. I guess 3 engineering degrees with 7 years work experience, no busted rides and training coast guard cadets on the weekends just doesn't compare to that fresh 141 CFI. 

 

Whatever man. If that isn't already a redflag indicator that you'll likely be treated as a fourth rate citizen I don't know what is. 

Edited June 8, 2022 by hockeydork

[kaputt]

7 minutes ago, hockeydork said:

They told me to get lost as well since I didn't graduate 141 program. I respectfully made it clear how foolish that was. I guess 3 engineering degrees with 7 years work experience, no busted rides and training coast guard cadets on the weekends just doesn't compare to that fresh 141 CFI. 

 

Whatever man.

Yep... I think it's how they've structured the program. Its under the federal government's internship program, so I think they're required to get new grads and even be very specific on the major/experience they have. In my active duty life I worked with civ finance people that were under a very similar program and the requirements to get in were very strict.

I'm not sure why they went this route, but my guesses are it was either the best way to slap a commitment onto the people that get hired, and/or it's much harder to find budget for stand alone GS positions that are open hires to anyone.

If the Air Force really wants to make sure people don't leave, I'd gladly sign a 3 year deal to teach in T-6s as a GS-12. Go teach form, aerobatics, XC, in a bitchin turboprop without the BS of active duty life; sign me up. Much better than commuting to fly Charlotte to Savannah in a clapped out CRJ. 

Edited June 8, 2022 by kaputt

[hockeydork]

17 minutes ago, kaputt said:

Yep... I think it's how they've structured the program. Its under the federal government's internship program, so I think they're required to get new grads and even be very specific on the major/experience they have. In my active duty life I worked with civ finance people that were under a very similar program and the requirements to get in were very strict.

I'm not sure why they went this route, but my guesses are it was either the best way to slap a commitment onto the people that get hired, and/or it's much harder to find budget for stand alone GS positions that are open hires to anyone.

If the Air Force really wants to make sure people don't leave, I'd gladly sign a 3 year deal to teach in T-6s as a GS-12. Go teach form, aerobatics, XC, in a bitchin turboprop without the BS of active duty life; sign me up. Much better than commuting to fly Charlotte to Savannah in a clapped out CRJ. 

Same. But if there is one thing I've learned in life it's to runaway as fast as you can from people who grossly undervalue you and what you can offer. I see it all the time at GD, it's depressing. I'm not talking about myself either, I work with some dudes who are straight up geniuses. 

Edited June 8, 2022 by hockeydork

[LookieRookie]

1 hour ago, kaputt said:

I will add, from my corner of the IFS world, IPs with military experience still tend to do better with instructing and relating to the students than straight civilian experience instructors. The absolute best (besides previous mil pilots) are the former CSOs, WSOs, NFOs, etc... that understand the nuances of briefing and debriefing appropriately, but even the former mil non-rated instructors understand better how formal training works in a military environment. That's not to say the civilians don't do well, but you can see students respond differently when they are dealing with a former mil IP vs civilian only.

My one question is why has the Air Force not just made GS-12 or 13 T-6 IP positions that's open to hire anyone? Yeah that's not amazing pay and it would be hard to compete with the airlines, but certainly there are some guys who don't want to do the airlines that would be interested in being a T-6 IP after their time on active duty? Heck, I'm 400 hours short of heading to the regionals right now and I would gladly jump into a GS position T-6 job over going to the regionals. 

Haven't there been a couple of RFIs put out for contractor T-6's as well? What happened with those?

GS-13s (non-ART) for T-38s exist for IFF/PIT and are coming to T-38 UPT2.5/FBF because it’s now a graduate program, since they are UPs and not SPs now.

 

T-6s can be 13s now as well because that’s what the CAIPs will be in 3 years

9 target 13

 

 

Edit: And no one cares about the T-1 since it’s going away and will be traditional sim/VR sim only.

Edited June 8, 2022 by LookieRookie

[StoleIt]

8 hours ago, nunya said:

I’m not sure it will.  50 hours of instruction is more than a FAIP has when they’re “hired.”  
 

As much as we want to think mil aviation is special, it’s simply not at the T-6 level.  It’s a Hershey bar wing with easy stall characteristics, forgiving landings, and no mission.  As long as these CAIPs stay in their lane and teach stalls, falls, and landings and leave the Blue-ing to the MAF and CAF bros, they’ll be an asset.  

The airlines use instructors that have never flown an airliner.  Certainly isn’t the same as a line pilot teaching you, but as long as they stay in their lane and teach the books, a wise student learns from them, too.

But the FAIP is already an "expert" (or at least knowledgeable) on that airframe. All they have to do is learn how to teach at that point. The AF is assuming a 50 hour CFI/II already has the teaching down (and maybe they do).

This CAIP will have to go through basically a UPT 0.5 to get to a passing PIT level, then go to PIT, then can teach. So my gripe is why didn't this dude or dudette just join the AF to begin with? Or, better question, why didn't the AF try and commission this dude or dudette with a pilot slot? They are obviously qualified.

[hockeydork]

20 minutes ago, StoleIt said:

But the FAIP is already an "expert" (or at least knowledgeable) on that airframe. All they have to do is learn how to teach at that point. The AF is assuming a 50 hour CFI/II already has the teaching down (and maybe they do).

This CAIP will have to go through basically a UPT 0.5 to get to a passing PIT level, then go to PIT, then can teach. So my gripe is why didn't this dude or dudette just join the AF to begin with? Or, better question, why didn't the AF try and commission this dude or dudette with a pilot slot? They are obviously qualified.

Just guessing, but maybe because if they don't need you in 3 years they can cut you loose? Instead of having to pay ya for 10 years? And they save money by not making you an officer/not paying for any of your education? Idk, spit balling. 

 

As to why people who are applying wouldn't just go become AF officers, maybe they wanted to but couldn't get the stars to align to make it happen the AD route and that ship has sailed, or they have a condition that makes them non deployable but totally fine to teach flying, or maybe they are actively trying to get hired in the guard but haven't gotten picked up, would rather stay teaching the T-6 for three years than move onto a C-130 etc. 

Side Question: Can you get hired as a reserve T-6 IP off the street?

Edited June 8, 2022 by hockeydork

[BrightNeptune]

11 minutes ago, hockeydork said:

Just guessing, but maybe because if they don't need you in 3 years they can cut you loose? Instead of having to pay ya for 10 years? And they save money by not making you an officer/not paying for any of your education? Idk, spit balling. 

 

As to why people who are applying wouldn't just go become AF officers, maybe they wanted to but couldn't get the stars to align to make it happen the AD route and that ship has sailed, or they have a condition that makes them non deployable but totally fine to teach flying, or maybe they are actively trying to get hired in the guard but haven't gotten picked up, would rather stay teaching the T-6 for three years than move onto a C-130 etc. 

Side Question: Can you get hired as a reserve T-6 IP off the street?

It's not about the pay. The Air Force is giving bonuses to people to get them to stay past 10. There are plenty of T-6 IPs that are bailing at 10 when they make $120k+/year. They would love to have a GS-8 fill that slot for half the pay.

I've never seen a LT reserve IP. I'm pretty sure no UPT reserve squadron is hiring off the street. 

I've flown with civilian IPs at my MWS schoolhouse. They were good, but they were not off the street either. They had a ton of experience and were all retired AF pilots. They were also not GS.

A civilian T-6 pilot that this program is targeting is going to get zero respect from the current IPs. 

[kaputt]

1 hour ago, LookieRookie said:

GS-13s (non-ART) for T-38s exist for IFF/PIT and are coming to T-38 UPT2.5/FBF because it’s now a graduate program, since they are UPs and not SPs now.

 

T-6s can be 13s now as well because that’s what the CAIPs will be in 3 years

9 target 13

Good to know. It will be interesting to see if they actually decide to set that option up for T-6s as well. 
 

I believe the pilots that fly the CSO T-1s are also GS employees. I’ve also heard that’s a “you better know someone” type deal to actually get hired. 

[hockeydork]

40 minutes ago, BrightNeptune said:

 

A civilian T-6 pilot that this program is targeting is going to get zero respect from the current IPs. 

Do you mean any non former civilian hired to be a T-6 IP or the 141 warm body their targeting?

 

I could deal with being hazed/knowing my place/working hard to earn the credibility if it meant time in the T-6 with like minded bros...... but being forced to lick shit off the bathroom floors and being treated like some moron I will not, I've worked way too hard at this point. 

[Blue]

2 hours ago, kaputt said:

Yep... I think it's how they've structured the program. Its under the federal government's internship program, so I think they're required to get new grads and even be very specific on the major/experience they have. In my active duty life I worked with civ finance people that were under a very similar program and the requirements to get in were very strict.

The Air Force Intern program always seemed like a good deal if you were fresh out of school and considering a career in civilian service.

Knew a couple of engineers who did it.  The starting pay was low, but you were escalated pretty quick, and you had a relatively defined career path.  That said, the whole program was designed around engineering, cyber, intel, etc.

The fact that they're trying to shoehorn T-6 IPs into the AF Intern program is suspect.  If they really wanted civilian T-6 IPs, there is a path to creating and staffing GS billets.  If you don't have the time and/or horsepower to create civilian billets, the normal path is to hire contractors.

Smells like someone got a visit from the Good Idea Fairy, and came up with the idea of civilian T-6 IPs.  Getting GS billets or contractors was to tough a mountain to climb, but they found that the AF Intern program could be used as a workaround.

Also, the "pamphlet" thing in the first post, the upper right hand corner reads "Positions available in the follow field."  Shouldn't that be "following?"

The whole thing just seemed half-assed.  If they actually did hire folks, watch them all be quietly dropped once the CSAF or someone moved on (like enlisted UAV pilots).

 

[jice]

9 hours ago, HeloDude said:

So a 23 year old, 50 hour CFI, who has never gone through any military training (flight or otherwise) will be better than a 25 year old officer who has gone through a commissioning source, graduated UPT (they still wash people out btw), and has successfully gone through the current PIT syllabus (which also still washed people out)?
 

 

No. I’m saying the training has to be valid and valuable. My assumption is that they will be equally qualified (as an aviator in the mighty T-6 Texan II) to a FAIP.  

I don’t think the commissioning source has much to do with their capability to instruct. It WILL be entirely dependent on the training they’re provided (which I assume will also wash people out… since that seems to be some of ya’ll’s benchmark for a quality program.)

8 hours ago, HeloDude said:

I wouldn’t call close formation and ET3 “fundamental flying skills”…and I’m pretty sure they don’t teach this in IFT.  

….As far as being a military officer, UPT is centered around flight instruction based on the foundation of military bearing, integrity, etc.  If this wasn’t necessary, then mil cap wouldn’t be a thing.  

…That all being said, my biggest concern is with the comments on this page who think this will make a better IP than those graduating from PIT…and across the board, I just don’t see it.  Do you agree with Jice that these young civilian CFIs with 50 hours of C172 IP time will be better than a UPT graduate going to PIT to be a FAIP?  
 

Nobody is saying we should plop these folks down in a T-6 and have them start teaching. The assumption is that they would receive training adequate to perform to a standard.

Re: Mil CAP: The civilian world has all kinds of names for “being kind of a sh1tbag” or “a disciplinary problem.” Humans aren’t imbued with super discipline powers because they went to OTS for six weeks. The training pipeline for these folks should be enough to weed out the people who lack the integrity/discipline/whatever to perform. It’s called having a job with high standards.
 

I would expect these folks to graduate from a T-6 “UPT” and then PIT (if the training is less, that’s an issue with the training, not a hiring program). I know plenty of folks who were 0 hour pedestrians and became respectable T-6 FAIPS in ~ 1 year. If you’d ask them what they needed to become a better IP, I bet 69% would tell you “a job where the only expectation is that I fly and teach.” 

[Ryder1587]

I fail to see the benefit of this.  So you’re gonna put someone through 1.5 years of training for a 3 year contract ?  The pay isn’t much less than a FAIP and then you can have that body for 10 years. For a staffing issue this is a terrible idea. But is anyone actually surprised?  The incompetence from “leadership” continues. The “different pot of money” argument is dumb and a cop out. 

[di1630]

If the USAF can train a pilot out of a person they had to CONVINCE at the USAFA to go to UPT because they met min quals, then the USAF can train up someone motivated to be there.

People all up in arms because it’s not how it “always was”

[HeloDude]

8 hours ago, Ryder1587 said:

I fail to see the benefit of this.  So you’re gonna put someone through 1.5 years of training for a 3 year contract ?  The pay isn’t much less than a FAIP and then you can have that body for 10 years. For a staffing issue this is a terrible idea. But is anyone actually surprised?  The incompetence from “leadership” continues. The “different pot of money” argument is dumb and a cop out. 

This

If they’re going to be “just as good” as FAIPs because they’re doing the exact same training, then why not make more FAIPs?  Oh wait…they already did that a few years ago.

And good luck training a civilian to the same standard as a FAIP when the civilian can only work 40 hours a week.  Oh, and who is going to train these civilians?—it’s not like UPT has open seats not being filled and that PIT isn’t running 2+ months behind.

 

[O Face]

On 6/8/2022 at 5:36 AM, SocialD said:

 

Same!  I'd have gladly given up my CFI gig making $13k/yr flying 152s/172s in NE Ohio to go make $50k/yr flying a T-6 in Del Rio.  I'd have quit my CFI gig, packed my bags and driven out same day.  Then hopefully executed the plan nunya highlighted.  

Add another in the “same here” category. CFI’d for 5 years during the lost decade.  Probably would’ve jumped at this gig for free. I know times are different now with airlines hiring anyone who has looked at an airplane before, but I’m betting they’ll get plenty of applicants. If nothing else those who get hired will at least get to wear a real flight suit to watch Top Gun 2 instead of their Skywest uniforms - somebody showed me an instagram of that actually happening. Still need to clean my vomit off my shoes. 

[Stoker]

14 hours ago, BrightNeptune said:

I've never seen a LT reserve IP. I'm pretty sure no UPT reserve squadron is hiring off the street. 

To that point, there was something of a bumper crop of LTs at a bunch of Reserve units during Covid times. A general came by on a road show (not to my unit, so paraphrasing) and asked why people weren't upgrading to AC... "Hard to get upgrade time with one local every other week." Asked what could be done to fix it, and one co mentioned sending excess FPs back to UPT as some sort of Reserve FAIP. The response was, absolutely not.

[O Face]

26 minutes ago, Stoker said:

To that point, there was something of a bumper crop of LTs at a bunch of Reserve units during Covid times. A general came by on a road show (not to my unit, so paraphrasing) and asked why people weren't upgrading to AC... "Hard to get upgrade time with one local every other week." Asked what could be done to fix it, and one co mentioned sending excess FPs back to UPT as some sort of Reserve FAIP. The response was, absolutely not.

That seems like a pretty good idea to me. Send new pilots to PIT and let them work as a GS FAIP and a traditional guardsman in their ANG/Res unit. 

[LookieRookie]

3 minutes ago, O Face said:

That seems like a pretty good idea to me. Send new pilots to PIT and let them work as a GS FAIP and a traditional guardsman in their ANG/Res unit. 

The reserve associate UFT IP program by AFI is required to provide highly experienced instruction. A bunch of FAIPs is not that.