Air Force is hiring for civilian T-6 IPs

[HuggyU2]

Well, I stand corrected.
I had comms with AFPC and there is a meeting with OPM next month to discuss the program.

More to follow. 

[Biff_T]

22 hours ago, HuggyU2 said:

Well, I stand corrected.
I had comms with AFPC and there is a meeting with OPM next month to discuss the program.

More to follow. 

UPT locations are a hard thing to sugar coat.    

[SocialD]

21 hours ago, Biff_T said:

UPT locations are a hard thing to sugar coat.    

 

Given that we're a "total force" now, I've always said they should move AETC to the ARC.  While some wouldn't care to teach UPT/FTU, many would.  It's a ANG dream, no deployments, no chem gear, much easier job to maintain as a part timer...it's a no brainer from that perspective.  You'd have no problem filling squadrons and keeping great experience around to teach the young studs.  Free up all those AD IP's to fill the spots in AD squadrons.  Rotate a small number of AD pilots through to keep a fresh look/perspective, but that will naturally happen as we hire AD pilots anyway.  If we had something like that, I'd probably still be in.  

[Clark Griswold]

 
Given that we're a "total force" now, I've always said they should move AETC to the ARC.  While some wouldn't care to teach UPT/FTU, many would.  It's a ANG dream, no deployments, no chem gear, much easier job to maintain as a part timer...it's a no brainer from that perspective.  You'd have no problem filling squadrons and keeping great experience around to teach the young studs.  Free up all those AD IP's to fill the spots in AD squadrons.  Rotate a small number of AD pilots through to keep a fresh look/perspective, but that will naturally happen as we hire AD pilots anyway.  If we had something like that, I'd probably still be in.  

Damn genius Gump
If you could move or remission the existing Wings to easy driving distance to major domiciles, CLT-ATL-MIA-DFW-DEN-PHX, boom manning problems solved
Like Bluto’s grade point average, about the same chance as happening
Split the work, basic skills in one or two bases, studs get PPL INSTM and ME done there, move on two two or more bases to do the MIL flying (one training aircraft my suggestion is to move to a PC-21) and get winged. IFF for some, pre AMC, AFSOC, AFGSC, Heavy ACC for everyone else, Rotary to Mother Rucker


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DirkDiggler]

2 hours ago, SocialD said:

 

Given that we're a "total force" now, I've always said they should move AETC to the ARC.  While some wouldn't care to teach UPT/FTU, many would.  It's a ANG dream, no deployments, no chem gear, much easier job to maintain as a part timer...it's a no brainer from that perspective.  You'd have no problem filling squadrons and keeping great experience around to teach the young studs.  Free up all those AD IP's to fill the spots in AD squadrons.  Rotate a small number of AD pilots through to keep a fresh look/perspective, but that will naturally happen as we hire AD pilots anyway.  If we had something like that, I'd probably still be in.  

HC-130J FTU is following this model at Kirtland now.

[Biff_T]

2 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Damn genius Gump
If you could move or remission the existing Wings to easy driving distance to major domiciles, CLT-ATL-MIA-DFW-DEN-PHX, boom manning problems solved
Like Bluto’s grade point average, about the same chance as happening
Split the work, basic skills in one or two bases, studs get PPL INSTM and ME done there, move on two two or more bases to do the MIL flying (one training aircraft my suggestion is to move to a PC-21) and get winged. IFF for some, pre AMC, AFSOC, AFGSC, Heavy ACC for everyone else, Rotary to Mother Rucker


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

45 minutes ago, DirkDiggler said:

HC-130J FTU is following this model at Kirtland now.

The MH-139 dudes at Maxwell are doing something similar.   

https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/3918915/mh-139a-grey-wolf-participates-in-first-training-event/

Edited November 27 by Biff_T
Article

[HuggyU2]

2 hours ago, DirkDiggler said:

HC-130J FTU is following this model at Kirtland now.

And they were taking ~11 months to get a new co-pilot through the syllabus.  
Unsat. 

[DirkDiggler]

15 minutes ago, HuggyU2 said:

And they were taking ~11 months to get a new co-pilot through the syllabus.  
Unsat. 

The syllabus was expanded at KABQ for MC/HC-J training, especially on the sim side, compared to what it looked like in the legacy.  Main reason being students in the legacy airframe used to go to KLRF for Phase 1&2 training (which typically took about 5-6 months) before they came through Kirtland, which then generally took another 5-6 months.  For the J model students now come straight to Albuquerque from UPT/UCT/Tech school.  So overall the FTU pipeline estimated duration has stayed about the same.

  Kirtland on the flightline has almost always trended behind in the 21 years I’ve been involved with the program, as both a student, FTU IP, and now sim CI.  The reasons vary, but weather during the winter is a factor, manning on the AD has been a challenge lately (see the new airline thread) and since it’s AETC Kirtland is the last priority for parts.  MX usually has manning issues, and the personnel here tend to be on the younger side.  There’s also a lot of tactical incompletes given on sorties nowadays due to the decreased training guys/gals are getting in UPT (more on that below); this gives guys/gals additional rides to make up for the lack of initial training they’re not getting in UPT.  Add in unforeseen events like 100% of your contractor workforce getting laid off for a month this year and you can see how they’re constantly digging themselves out of a hole.

  AFSOC (really just old Tony B) in its infinite wisdom decided the fix for all this is to just cut the syllabus by 47% and push a large number of tactical events down to be taught by the line units.  The product we’re getting from UPT is much less polished (students coming through the pipeline now are T-1 sim only; the last time they flew an airplane was T-6s).  The line units aren’t manned appropriately to pickup the slack and the IPs in the line units are getting younger/more inexperienced because we’re upgrading them quicker out of necessity.  It’s a real problem that hopefully won’t manifest in a series of Class As.

  So far ACC hasn’t cut their FTU syllabus, which in my opinion is a good thing.

[brabus]

9 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

CLT-ATL-MIA-DFW-DEN-PHX,

The FAA reps at the initial pitch meeting:

[Clark Griswold]

44 minutes ago, brabus said:

The FAA reps at the initial pitch meeting:

I get it (DFW based) but reasonable driving distance is probably outside the Bravo or under it’s outer and tallest shelf.  Most in base dudes I fly with seem to live around 30+ miles from the AA mothership, I’m guessing the other airline crew dawgs are similarly around their airline base.

Besides you’ve got a lot of other choices besides the big bases I rattled off there, major cities that are smaller domiciles for some carriers (BNA, BAL, MSP, MCO, etc…) or cities which used to be domiciles (STL, MCI for instance) that are easy commutes and would likely support a viable training location

Edited November 28 by Clark Griswold

[brabus]

Unless there’s a large enough existing MOA with capacity, it’s a non-starter. The FAA is horrendous to work with - it’s their kingdom and they don’t give a fuck about training, readiness, national defense, etc. To top it off the AF majorly bent the knee to them a few years ago and slammed some huge nails into its own coffin on the airspace front. 
 

Edit: I love the hypothetical idea, just am too jaded by the reality of bureaucracy that would immediately crush a good solution to a problem. Now if Elon gets involved, maybe we’re on to something!

Edited November 28 by brabus

[Clark Griswold]

38 minutes ago, brabus said:

Unless there’s a large enough existing MOA with capacity, it’s a non-starter. The FAA is horrendous to work with - it’s their kingdom and they don’t give a fuck about training, readiness, national defense, etc. To top it off the AF majorly bent the knee to them a few years ago and slammed some huge nails into its own coffin on the airspace front. 
 

Edit: I love the hypothetical idea, just am too jaded by the reality of bureaucracy that would immediately crush a good solution to a problem. Now if Elon gets involved, maybe we’re on to something!

Fair enough and understood all too well about the Borg Cube that is any part of the federal government pre DOGE, post DOGE might be different…

Imagining it and trying to be semi realistic, I see this as a Reserve idea and probably not involving the Guard.  Not that the Guard could not do it but if the AF wanted to really push this, it would be simpler legally and maybe a bit politically 

[raimius]

7 hours ago, DirkDiggler said:

The product we’re getting from UPT is much less polished (students coming through the pipeline now are T-1 sim only; the last time they flew an airplane was T-6s).

Don't worry.  The T-1 sim is going away.  They'll go straight to the FTUs from T-6s.

...leave it to the AF to "save money" by getting rid of the T-1, so people can do their training in the (oh, so much cheaper) C-17, KC-135, etc...

I knew the AF had problems, then I got assigned to AETC...

[SurelySerious]

Don't worry.  The T-1 sim is going away.  They'll go straight to the FTUs from T-6s.
...leave it to the AF to "save money" by getting rid of the T-1, so people can do their training in the (oh, so much cheaper) C-17, KC-135, etc...
I knew the AF had problems, then I got assigned to AETC...

What’s $69k/flight hour amongst friends?

[LiquidSky]

15 minutes ago, SurelySerious said:

What’s $69k/flight hour amongst friends?

Nothing compared to that $75M hard landing.

[SocialD]

10 hours ago, brabus said:

Unless there’s a large enough existing MOA with capacity, it’s a non-starter. The FAA is horrendous to work with - it’s their kingdom and they don’t give a fuck about training, readiness, national defense, etc. To top it off the AF majorly bent the knee to them a few years ago and slammed some huge nails into its own coffin on the airspace front. 
 

Edit: I love the hypothetical idea, just am too jaded by the reality of bureaucracy that would immediately crush a good solution to a problem. Now if Elon gets involved, maybe we’re on to something!

 

 

I'm in agreement that this will likely never happen and there are lots of issues with it.  But on your point, we did successfully created a temp MOA about 25 miles from base.  It's turning into a published MOA in the near future, so it can happen...after a monumental effort lol.

[busdriver]

53 minutes ago, SocialD said:

I'm in agreement that this will likely never happen and there are lots of issues with it.  But on your point, we did successfully created a temp MOA about 25 miles from base.  It's turning into a published MOA in the near future, so it can happen...after a monumental effort lol.

Temp MOAs annoy the FAA for some reason.  They'd prefer permanent.  But those are harder to establish due to NEPA.  And the hippies will always complain.

So the trick is to make a temp MOA, use it alot until the FAA gets pissy and offers to make it permanent.  Profit.

[brabus]

2 minutes ago, busdriver said:

Temp MOAs annoy the FAA for some reason.  They'd prefer permanent.  But those are harder to establish due to NEPA.  And the hippies will always complain.

So the trick is to make a temp MOA, use it alot until the FAA gets pissy and offers to make it permanent.  Profit.

It used to be easier, but now even an ATCAA (way less environmental impact vs. a MOA, temp or perm) will take 2-5 years to create under the new, draconian process. MOAs are advertised as a 10 year process (with a massive asterisk that says “never going to happen”). It’s a very anti-mil process and the FAA loves every bit of it. 

[busdriver]

1 hour ago, brabus said:

It used to be easier, but now even an ATCAA (way less environmental impact vs. a MOA, temp or perm) will take 2-5 years to create under the new, draconian process. MOAs are advertised as a 10 year process (with a massive asterisk that says “never going to happen”). It’s a very anti-mil process and the FAA loves every bit of it. 

I guess what I mean is going through the temp MOA seems to remove the asterick.  It's still beyond slow.

NEPA for a new activity in an existing MOA is 2-3 years or so.  In that process (exercise EA) we got a temp turned permanent.

DM has been working an expansion of a MOA since 2018 or so.  I haven't heard anything about it in a long time, so may well be DOA.

[Biff_T]

On 11/27/2024 at 8:56 PM, raimius said:

Don't worry.  The T-1 sim is going away.  They'll go straight to the FTUs from T-6s.

...leave it to the AF to "save money" by getting rid of the T-1, so people can do their training in the (oh, so much cheaper) C-17, KC-135, etc...

I knew the AF had problems, then I got assigned to AETC...

We could save even more money by getting rid of UPT all together.    AFA/ROTC/OTS straight into Viper or C-17.   No need for the T-6 or those  sweet UPT locations.   Let the operational units figure out how to train them.   The money we saved from UPT can be used to regenerate all those MWSs we lose during the pilot training process.   Also, give everyone in the AF wings.    They (non combatants) all know how easy flying is anyways.    Shit let's just call every airman a Pilot.   No more Pilot shortage.  

Edited Saturday at 07:28 AM by Biff_T
AirmAn

[SurelySerious]

We could save even more money by getting rid of UPT all together.    AFA/ROTC/OTS straight into Viper or C-17.   No need for the T-6 or those  sweet UPT locations.   Let the operational units figure out how to train them.   The money we saved from UPT can be used to regenerate all those MWSs we lose during the pilot training process.   Also, give everyone in the AF wings.    They (non combatants) all know how easy flying is anyways.    Shit let's just call every airmen a Pilot.   No more Pilot shortage.  

Based on the current trend…Biff is only 6-9 years early on his satire becoming reality.

[contraildash]

I’m still confused what problem big blue is solving by sending people to a civilian school (for PPL, instrument, multi-eng), then to T-6s. Other than some artificial bubble where they can say ‘look, we’ve reduced the T-6 pipeline by 6-9 months.’

PCS and/or TDY costs to send them to these civil schools certainly has to be more expensive and result in a longer timeline than just going to UPT. Also not sure how it is going to scale up from a SGTO to 1300+ students a year. Great cash cow for the civ schools though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[hindsight2020]

Once again, it's about duty location basing. Also known as Occam's razor. That variable is also above the entire HAF paygrade. It's Congressional big boy pork barrel we're dealing with here; it's a non-starter. 

As I've stated ad naueam, RegAF non-vols will continue to be the placeholders for this mission set. With almost 2 decade lived experience, and current intimate knowledge of the UMPR on the ARC side of the very enterprise in question, all due respect some of you guys are speaking from ignorance or wishful thinking if you think the ARC or civilians can ever take over this mission set. Certainly not on an Active Associate basis. 

BL, you need desirable MSA-colocation/adjacency period dot, for any non-REGAF majority manning COA to ever breathe on its own. And you won't get the former from Congress. When they say thank you for your service, this is what those uppity civilians in affluent low-servicemember per capita desirable areas of the Country really mean. Whether some of us do this concessionary shit to our families for Country or for economic transaction (aaand I plead the 5th on that, at this juncture in my so called career), it matters none. To Congress, this Hobson's choice is not the bug, it's the feature.

Edited Saturday at 01:10 AM by hindsight2020

[Clark Griswold]

Once again, it's about duty location basing. Also known as Occam's razor. That variable is also above the entire HAF paygrade. It's Congressional big boy pork barrel we're dealing with here; it's a non-starter. 
As I've stated ad naueam, RegAF non-vols will continue to be the placeholders for this mission set. With almost 2 decade lived experience, and current intimate knowledge of the UMPR on the ARC side of the very enterprise in question, all due respect some of you guys are speaking from ignorance or wishful thinking if you think the ARC or civilians can ever take over this mission set. Certainly not on an Active Associate basis. 

BL, you need desirable MSA-colocation/adjacency period dot, for any non-REGAF majority manning COA to ever breathe on its own. And you won't get the former from Congress. When they say thank you for your service, this is what those uppity civilians in affluent low-servicemember per capita desirable areas of the Country really mean. Whether some of us do this concessionary shit to our families for Country or for economic transaction (aaand I plead the 5th on that, at this juncture in my so called career), it matters none. To Congress, this Hobson's choice is not the bug, it's the feature.

Unfortunately I find that argument fairly ironclad

I’ll argue pointlessly for the AF to be bold and push for major changes if the long term payoff is there and the operating environment calls for it. I think you could make that argument now and move UPT basing to strategic locations for manning but the juice must be worth the squeeze and an even swap to the CODELs in terms of economic footprint.
Money saved by retaining IP cadre being the main argument I see in this case. If you save say 2 mil (WAG) in training costs per qualified IP, how long till that makes it worth it?
Long term retention effect in the AD by not having to non-vol X number of pilots to UPT? How do you WAG this?

Question- has the pot been sweetened to entice ARC long tour volunteers? 3 year tours with bonus?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[hindsight2020]

2 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Question- has the pot been sweetened to entice ARC long tour volunteers? 3 year tours with bonus?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'll save the UMPR inside baseball details given the medium, but yeah man the pot has been sweetened to the point of pre-diabetes. As close as it gets to taking cash straight from the register, and making a mockery of the JTR.

...we're nowhere near healthy manning at the garden variety locations. T-1 divesture upended a lot of lives, though bolstered the T-6 manning, temporarily. Pointy side we've been on the street for a while. At Mecca the manning is the diametrical opposite, and we get our hiring pools constantly poached to add insult to injury; the epitome of my freggin' point about basing in the first place.

The air reserve technician program is ill-suited to handle these basing problems. I looked at big New england, hell even sunbelt metro first responder retirements, and realized we're getting so screwed on the Fed side. FERS is a joke. There should be no reason a 2181 occupational code GS should have a lesser retirement multiplier than a FDNY stripper pole waxer, or ATC or CBP/AMO for that matter. Don't get me started on the health insurance.

That COA was ran out of town and they had to turn it off in disgrace, when they tried it here over a decade ago. AGR is the best bandaid they could throw at it and it's not enough in present circumstances, mainly due to the money printing of 2020-2022 leaving the DoD pay tables behind. 

They're not gonna upend the entire ART program over a half dozen Chernobyls they can't properly staff anyways. So we'll keep doing the semi-legal shit we're doing and see what sticks, until something fails too visibly and/or a congressperson or Service Chief/Secretary gets embarassed.

This stuff isn't complicated. The regaf exit polls are clear: people don't want to do this shit to themselves and their families, when the airlines offer the pay in short order and dwelling flexibility.