Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 02/11/2017 in all areas

  1. 3 points
    You guys write so many words. The art of brevity is lost on all millennials. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  2. 2 points
    Sometimes we learn our lieutenant lessons a little later in our careers.
  3. 2 points
  4. 1 point
    So is the next step for the USAF to lobby the FAA to stop the Commercial Pilot or CFI equivalency programs? That would certainly serve to place another barrier up to try and stem the tide. Should Goldfein lobby individual airlines to stop adding .3 to military resumes? Should he lobby them to stop accepting military time altogether? There are real debates to be had about the 1500 hour rule and its effects on the aviation industry. Solving the USAF's pilot shortage should not be the driver of that discussion. Goldfein is out of his lane. He should concentrate on the myriad of issues that he CAN effect WITHOUT help from the FAA or airline industry.
  5. 1 point
    Stop focusing specifically on the 1500 hour rule for a second. Try looking at the problem from a 10-year lens. Everyone on this board has been screaming for the last 5 years that Air Force leadership, Congress, and America in general has not been paying attention to the looming pilot shortage. The 11Ms have been screaming "do something, don't just focus on 11Fs!" The Guard and Reserves are saying the same thing. They are losing their experienced pilots as well. Everyone agrees that if the Air Force does not do something then we're all F'd. Boot color, Friday shirts, rolled up sleeves, and contractors are not going to solve what is becoming a national problem, and will be a national crisis in 5-10 years. You could eliminate every pilot filled 179/365 tomorrow and you still wouldn't save enough pilots to put even a tiny dent in the approximately 1500-3000 pilots a year that the guys on this board have said are going to be hired in the next decade. We shit on one another all the time about the Air Force not having a long term plan that works with Congress and the commercial sector, and now some of us are angry because the Air Force is trying to have a conversation about a national problem? Personally, I'll take having to compete with a regional guy at an airline over having all of the experience sucked out of the Air Force. Fingers is just being honest about the problem, and is having a conversation with the people who can help. Having a conversation is a good thing! Do you see that perspective? And to be clear: I agree with a lot of the comments guys have made about attacking the problem instead of the symptoms. Stupid 179s/365s still need to be abolished, I like the positive uniform changes, in active duty fighter squadrons I have personally seen contractors tackle queep jobs, constant deployments to "temporary" (ahem permanent) locations with and without pilot swaps need to be adjusted, and there are still many other changes that need to be addressed and/or implemented.
  6. 1 point
    You think the leadership problem is between the O-3 and O-6 level? Really? AFPAK Hands. Worthless 365s/179s to shitholes to do busy work. Silly additional duties. A broken, archaic promotion system. Flight pay that hasn't changed since the early 1990s. A bonus that hasn't changed since 1999. Rampant micromanagement of squadrons/groups/wings by the NAF/MAJCOM. Have those very solvable issues been fixed yet? No? How many of those things are solvable at the O-3 to O-6 level? Yeah, I didn't think management was serious about fixing things either- easier to just send your top "leader" (LOL) to whine to the FAA.
  7. 1 point
    I would say that Fingers is trying to find a way to keep adequate numbers of pilots on AD past the ends of their SUPT commitments, in order to meet warfighting requirements. The 1500 rule works directly and dramatically against Fingers' efforts, as discussed above. Rescinding the 1500 hour rule is no panacea--the Air Force will continue to hemorrhage people anyway; the economic and QOL benefits are too substantial even without it. I simply don't understand why folks on this forum are upset with him trying to do his job. There are plenty more valid things to complain about than this.
  8. 1 point
    They did. It's called the CF-5D, license built by Canadair back in the day. Bigger wing, leading edge flaps, -15 engines (J85-13 core with a smattering of -21 internal components), beefier landing gear, bigger wheels and tires. Even modded them with CF-18 HUD and HOTAS. Canadians used them as LIFT aircraft for a number of years before retiring them. They even SLEP'd their birds before putting them in storage. Great jets.
  9. 1 point
    Let's see... 1. Both the Captain and First Officer in the Colgan Air crash had well over 1,500 hrs, yet they still died. Total flying hours was not the issue. It didn't save them that day. 2. Who is flying the regional jets--mainline or regional airlines--still doesn't fix the fundamental problem--there has to be a financially-viable way for folks (outside of the military) to get to 1,500 hrs. I don't see what your solution is to this problem, other than jacking up mainline payscales so much that the financial incentives are so great that nobody will stay on AD. Seems like a concern the CSAF should involve himself with. 3. As I wrote in a previous post, rescinding the 1,500 hr rule wouldn't preclude a quality prior-mil dude from getting hired when he retires/separates (see late-90s AF retention woes). It'll just tweak the supply/demand curve a bit, so you don't get quite so much cash as you would with the rule still in place. In other words, the concerns you voice are primarily economic/financial; what Goldfein & Co. are doing to try to make is comparatively irrelevant--it's all about the Benjamins. I get it; senior Air Force leaders can/should do more to eliminate queep/refocus on the mission/etc. Objections to the CSAFs efforts to have the 1500 hr rule rescinded, though, sound suspiciously like whining. TT
  10. 1 point
    Umm, since before the Air Force was an independent service. There's a whole lotta butthurtness on this forum over something they really need not to be butthurt over. There was no 1500 hr rule in the late 90s, yet folks had no problem getting hired then. If the airlines keep hiring at the levels they're projecting, you're worth your salt, you'll have no problem getting hired--even if they rescind the 1500 rule. For Goldfein, the issue is that the 1500 hr rule screwed over Air Force pilot retention even more. At least before, there was a marginally financially viable way for folks to build their hours through the civilian-only route. Folks would take the financial risk of paying for all the training and quals, and would suck up flying for peanuts in the regionals, since they had the hope of eventually reaching the big leagues, with their big league pay. The 1500 hr rule screwed that whole path up. Once the pool of maybe 3,000 (I get this number from a previous poster--can't vouch for its accuracy) well-qualified folks dries up, where are the major airlines, regionals, business aviation companies, etc., going to find their pilots, other than the military services--most notably Air Force, but also Navy, Marine Corps and Army? Rescinding the 1500 hr rule would at least offer a little bit of relief, and at this point, every little bit helps. Goldfein faces a further problem, in that a surprising amount of the military mission is executed by civilian contractors. The 1500 hr rule thus not only makes AF pilot retention harder, but it threatens the national aviation industry, by raising the barriers to entry too high for pilots. USTRANSCOM, for instance, contracts a helluva a lot of cargo movement; what happens when Atlas, Kalitta, DHL, etc., can't fly due to aircrew unavailability? It's not like they'll be able to task more C-17s to meet mission requirements, since--you guessed it--the AD and ARC C-17 units will have been gutted by airline hiring. In my mind, it would help if Goldfein approached the problem as a threat to the national aerospace system and industry, than "simply" a pilot retention problem. TT
  11. 1 point
    How does it end, I fell asleep at 2:11.
  12. 1 point
    Look on the bright side. Flight pay hasn't changed in 69 years, so you're losing less money than if they had adjusted it for inflation over the years.
  13. 1 point
    The Air Force could make a blow job terrible.
  14. 1 point
    Why TF would the FAA give two shits about this? FAA: Why should we do this? Goldfein: All of my people are leaving for a better QOL. FAA: Your concern is noted.
  15. 1 point
    on second thought, given Russian aggression in Korea we should probably start that war! Anymore troops on the peninsula and it might capsize......
  16. 1 point
    Still would have minimal effect on AF pilots IMO. It would be easier for civilians to get hired on by regionals, but legacy carriers are hiring at well above the 1,500 hour requirement anyway (closer to 2,000 - 2,500). Most military guys aren't flying for regionals after getting out, so they aren't directly competing with low-time civilians. You could argue that this will make it easier for civilians to build time at regionals since they'll be able to get hired at a regional faster. However, they will still need to be there for a long time to start logging PIC time.
  17. 1 point
    Hey everyone. Just wanted to revive this awesome thread and ask a couple of questions if anyone is around. I'm currently in UCT, through a good chunk of the advanced side now, and starting to figure out my dream sheet. RCs are without a doubt up there on my list. My big question that hasn't been discussed in this thread yet is what are the differences in maybe quality of life, deployment schedules, and crew dynamics for an EWO vs. Nav on the jet? Just trying to see where I would be the best fit. Could someone also provide an update to the typical deployment/TDY rotations going on right now? Thank you!
  18. 1 point
    Soooo, Germans (assuming here based on the accents) like big schwanzes. Or maybe they were Russkis. Good to know. Watch out Poland!
  19. 1 point
    shack. There's a gold mine of info here thanks to the OP's question.
  20. 1 point
    He's in UPT. He wants info on airframes and associated lifestyles. Actual pilots in those airframes have commented with information that could be helpful in the future. Hence the term "valuable information". Unless you know about the lifestyles of every airframe in the Air Force... In which case, by all means. Enlighten us.
  21. 1 point
    On your second post, you're going to bash someone who asked an honest question and by all accounts... has helped contribute valuable information to the forum? Seriously? Indeed.
  22. -1 points
    I'm not sure what "valuable information" you're referring to. You should reread his comment history. Seriously.
  23. -1 points
    @tac airlifter so you upvoted @daynightindicator's post and so did I...guess we can agree after all! BL: no need to go crazy war-hawk and start threatening to nuke Russia, but no need to tickle Putin's balls either. Several previous admin have tried a middle ground somewhere in between those two, I guess now we'll see how far kissing the ring gets us...
  24. -1 points
    Well, at least you recognize that your legal opinion isn't on par with federal appeals court judges (neither is mine FWIW). Clearly the 9th circuit feel that the plaintiffs' claims are valid, i.e. that Washington State and the other plaintiffs will suffer harm should the EO be in place. The likelihood of this decision being sound is fairly high since the three-judge panel ruled unanimously, concurring with the lower court decision that originally halted the EO's enforcement. We'll all get to find out what another 8 judges thinks here shortly... Because the defendant in the case, the President of the United States, claims specifically that this is happening due to the enforcement of the EO being halted by the courts. He also went ahead and pre-blamed the judiciary for any future attack that might happen for good measure. He went from "may be pouring in" on Feb 4th to "pouring in" with some greater certainty on Feb 5th. On Feb 8th he claims (citation needed...) that there's a big increase in traffic (i.e. immigration) from "certain areas," which we're left to assuming are the 7 countries the EO addresses. This is something that is either true or it isn't, and the State Department and DHS, who work for the President, could provide the data to say conclusively one way or the other. So long story short, I completely agree with you that it's very unlikely that terrorists are suddenly flooding into the U.S. I also completely agree that we need to thoroughly vet all refugees, immigrants and people seeking temporary visas before they come to the U.S. Maybe the administration should request Congress appropriate more money for the State Department's consular operations since consular officers are on the front lines abroad actually reviewing and approving individual immigration and visa cases. But as evidenced by his public statements, the defendant in this case that's bound for SCOTUS seems to believe that perhaps there is a specific threat from one or all of the 7 countries in question, that the threat is increasing while the EO is stayed, and that federal judges rather than the CINC will be to blame if an attack were to occur. Mr. President, good luck making that argument in front of the court!
  25. -1 points
    You guys are 100% correct that the President has a ton of latitude here. The fact that this EO is hung up in the courts and not currently in force is due almost solely to the administration's sloppiness and incompetence. If they really want this thing to stick because it's so GD vital to national security, they absolutely rescind the JV version 1.0 and re-write something that makes a little more sense and is on firmer legal ground. Exempting green card holders and those with approved visas (i.e. they've been vetted already), include countries where terrorists have actually come from, give new and specific instructions to the State Department on visa approvals and DHS on screening at ports of entry, etc. For those that think this will win at SCOTUS on the merits of the case, I guess we'll see. As was stated above, once the 90 days are up I'm sure they'll have figured out a much stronger vetting system and this can just fall by the wayside right? Or they could almost immediately end the litigation by rescinding the original EO and writing a new one that more competently accomplished the stated goal. I mean, the President said that bad people are pouring into our country right now under his watch right...shouldn't he be quickly drafting a new EO to stem the tide and beat back the mongol hordes? I for one am not holding my breath on either of those outcomes, because at this point it's just a pissing contest, and the President doesn't seem to take perceived insults or losses lightly.


×