Jump to content
Baseops Forums


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 02/17/2018 in all areas

  1. 8 points
    Welcome to Baseops, random guy who just happens to use his second post to defend AETC.
  2. 4 points
    false. the air force has been very successfully producing pilots...for a long time. production is not a "significant part of the problem". that type of thinking IS the problem. if a water pipe in my house breaks i don't call the water company and tell them they need to pump more water to my house. "you're not producing enough water!" it's ridiculous when you think of it that way. someone needs to stand up with some cojones and say "no we cannot fix this with production. production is not the problem. and we will make unintended problems trying to increase production on 50 year old aircraft or cutting syllabus sorties." but that's not built into how we think in the military. every problem is "solvable".
  3. 4 points
    Nah, it’s totally Congress’ fault that I spend 40 hours a week on OPRs, awards, decs, making trackers, making trackers to track the trackers, making slides, staff meetings, responding to every single made-up tasker invented by some level of leadership, CBTs, SAPR training, commanders calls, FOD walks to make Mx troops feel validated, planning parties, attending parties, planning retirement and promotion ceremonies, forced attendance at awards ceremonies, mandatory PT sessions, forced mentorship sessions all tailored at building the next Chief of Staff which nobody wants to be, getting non-vol’d to watch other dudes dicks as they piss into cups, sitting Sup, sitting SOF, and any other 60-90 completely valid tasks. Oh , plus the 15 hours a week that I actually devote to flying related stuff. It’s kind of like a hobby of mine. But this is all due to Congress and funding. Nobody would think that any of this crap is self-induced. I trust my overlords to fix the problem they created, and cannot identify.
  4. 3 points
    The Browns have this strategy mastered.
  5. 3 points
  6. 2 points
    Very basic math shows that if the AF was to pay every single active duty, guard and reserve pilot an extra $100K/year that would cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $2.1B / year. The FY 19 AF budget is $156 B. So for a roughly 1.3% reallocation of funds the AF could be competitive with airline pay. Obviously that's very simplistic, but you get the point. Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining AF...if you value your people you need to start paying them like it. The AF just spent over $1B on NG to tell us that a square peg sensor doesn't fit on a round hole Global Hawk. GMAFB. We have the money. People say it isn't about the money...they're lying. QoL is a big factor, but there's a lot more you're willing to put up with to keep flying cool jets at the right price.
  7. 2 points
    Little Rock has some International Instructors in their LM school, right? Combined Loadmaster Initial Training?
  8. 2 points
    “Hello, AETC? Can we get a new pilot over here? This one seems broken. No idea why.”
  9. 2 points
    The Problem Statement on Slide 1, which supposedly drives the entire discussion, is fundamentally flawed. They're not even addressing the right problems. To say that the "aircrew ecosystem" has been damaged by unstable funding and will be improved by "stable and predictable funding" and "advanced technologies" shows a complete lack of acknowledgment of the real problem.
  10. 1 point
    That’s why I have all my retirement money in GoJet and Endeavour stock ....
  11. 1 point
    Pay isn’t in AETC’s wheelhouse, sure. But retention absolutely should be. Your lack of accountability for them shows how leadership has gotten away with being so toxic. Commanders at every level should be held accountable for how their actions affect pilot retention. Maybe if commanders were actually being held accountable for how they treat their people, we wouldn’t be in this mess. But that’s not how leadership works in the AF... you get rewarded for taking care of your boss, not your people. In fact I’ve been told by management that excessive pilot morale is bad optics because it makes non-pilots feel bad about themselves. Until leaders like that, in AETC and elsewhere, are shitcanned, retention will continue to plummet. As far as your point that this half-ass plan doesn’t mean that other AF leaders aren’t focused on retention, I call bullshit. Show me. Show me the AFs plan to retain us. AF leaders, above AETC’s level, are not focusing on retention at all. So when they come out with all these measures to improve the non-problem of production, they deserve every ounce of shame and ridicule they get.
  12. 1 point
    Maybe AETC should grow a pair and call a spade a spade.
  13. 1 point
    I'm beginning to wonder if the decision to eventually enact stop loss hasn't already been made. Could be the reason why retention hasn't been a focus, because they know deep down they will retain us anyway. This way they save some money regardless of what it will do to morale.
  14. 1 point
    if he is not currently an active duty officer than this process is completely different
  15. 1 point
    Bottom line the Air Force is hanging their hat on the economy turning sour and airines slowing hiring. Theyre using stop gaps to hopefully get us to the next recession
  16. 1 point
    Changing crew ratios sure is an easy way to “fix the glitch.” Even better, when the AF bought the C-17, they originally planned on a 5.0 crew ratio (AD + ARC). I heard this straight from Gen Handy when he was TRANSCOM/CC. Air Force mag quoted this same ratio much more recently. http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Documents/2011/February%202011/0211arsenal.pdf AMC will be an awesome place for single dudes who want to rack up ridiculous amounts of flying hours. Not so much for those who like their families...
  17. 1 point
    They’ll just lower the crew to tail ratio to 2.0. Spreadsheet green again and problem “fixed”. (Lowering from 3.0 to 2.5 around 2015 is why the AD MAF is so “healthy” with a “surplus” right now).
  18. 1 point
    I really don’t understand this concept in the first place. Let’s see if I have this straight.....The USAF is going to send a guy to the airline side to get training on an airframe they both operate. Presumably this will be on the 767 unless they are planning on sending new Lts straight into C-40s and C-32s, or unless United has some super secret F-16s on order. Once the guy has his type, he heads over to the AF side to complete his 10 year commitment. Now the airline gets him back with 10 years of seniority and likely has to re-train him in new equipment because they no longer operate the type he was on, or his seniority allows him to hold something else. What’s the upside for the airline? Think the union might want a say in this? This whole concept seems like a pipe dream dreamt up by some shoe clerk who literally has no fucking clue how airlines work. I imagine airline management laughed in the CSAF’s face when this was brought up in their little meeting a while back.
  19. 1 point
    I never understood why they didn't use the term "Combined", which IIRC is the term when actions are multi-national (the analog of "Joint" for multi-service actions). Since international students are trained there (and there are sometimes international instructors), it should have been "Combined Undergraduate Navigator Training" this whole time.
  20. 1 point
    SHACK. Leadership is simply unable to acknowledge the real cultural and leadership issues that are driving pilots to the door. It isn't a big mystery -- pilots are quite clear and vociferous about their reasons for leaving. Thus, there can only be a couple of reasons why leadership is failing to understand, internalize, and act on these reasons. My favorite theory is still the self-indoctrination, self-delusionary, fart-smelling, alternate reality theory that says leadership is so in denial that they are a key part of the cause (and a key part of the solution) that their worldview simply ignores these clear reasons and invents other alternate reasons out of thin air so it "logically" makes sense to them. Leadership can change their philosophy of leading and commanding. Leadership can change who they groom for promotion, who they promote, and for what reasons they promote. Leadership can re-institute a mission focus and shut down the death-by-papercuts side interests that dominate AF life. Leadership can stop the pandering and social experimentation to non-mission essential people, tasks, and ideas. We know there is a war on. We know you don't control what the National Command Authority tasks the USAF to do. We know there is suck and sacrifice in doing our duty. None of those things are why we have left or are intending to leave.
  21. 1 point
    To answer your question Huggy, it's a left over from older, non-digital autopilots whose failure mode out of NAV wasn't a CWS mode, but HDG. At your current employer on the Boeings, it has a little to do with class II nav, where some very specific things are done with the heading bug passing a fix. Many of the Captains you fly with come from the larger jets where maybe the heading bug fixation is a bit of a vestigial remnant of oceanic flying. Maybe. (Guppy drivers are required to do the same thing, compliance is pretty low.) Center it up, or leave it alone - both sound awesome to me. No wrong answer. Here's what's concerning: no PM should touch a damn thing on your MCP when you're flying and the automation is engaged, except the altitude knob. If you're flying and some Captain reaches over and centers up your heading bug, you should remind them that you're flying, the autopilot is on, and would they please not touch your heading bug. It's easy for me to say this wearing four stripes, but the behavior you're describing (Them grabbing your heading bug) is a violation of SOP and should be called out every time it happens. As the HF folks say, what you practice or permit, you promote. Glad to see you're back! I'm totally bummed I missed flying with you when I was SFO based. We'll have to figure something out.
  22. 1 point
    The 345th Bomb Squadron at Dyess AFB, TX is happy to announce that we are having a Summer hiring board to select applicants to join the “Desperados.” Applications will be accepted through 22 June 2018 and interviews for those invited will be held on 27 July 2018. This board will be to hire both off the street and rated aviators to become B-1 Pilots. Attached you will find the requirements to help you assemble your application package. Questions can be sent to 345BS.Hiring@gmail.com. Good luck to all that apply! 345th Bomb Squadron Request for Applications_2018 Summer Pilot.docx
  23. 1 point
    Way behind in total salary (maybe), but are you accounting for the amount of insurance required of private doctors? It can be enormous from what I understand, whereas the cost to someone accepting any of those bonuses equals precisely $0.00. You account for $200-300K of med school debt, are you doing the math on $0.00 of med school debt to a mil doc? Difference between these positive and negative numbers begins to add up pretty quickly. We always talk about bringing doctors "in". Do doctors need to be in the military? Does a base located in city X "need" a whole ing hospital? Why don't we just outsource our healthcare to the civilian sector and pay market price? I grant that there are certain specialities that the military needs for reason X, but we do not need the medical infrastructure that we currently have set up to be able to accomplish our mission. There is an awesome (sarcasm) thread on the CAF Fighter Facebook page that is basically just a swinging dick contest between doctors and 11Fs. The point missing from the whole thing is that there is a separate 'sub-economy' in the USAF wherein pilots > doctors: because mission. So it doesn't matter what the USAF pays doctors relative to pilots. If this was a janitor's union, and our mission was sweeping the hallways of junior high schools, no one would care if some of the "help" who checked janitor's balls (who had tons of expensive education) wanted more pay or "deserved" more pay. The mission is hall-sweeping, not ball-checking. Yes.
  24. 1 point
    ACES, It is NOT possible to hijack this site's flight planning resources. Why? Well, for the official resources: NOTAMS, ASRs, FCG, METAR, TAF, etc... I simply provide a link to the official (government) site - i.e. the DOD NOTAMS website. All of those sites are at least 128-bit SSL encrypted (but allow access outside of their firewall). Even if you were on base, you navigate to these sites by going outside of your firewall, then back in (as if you were at home). So, in short, for a large part of the homepage of baseops.net -- all I did was provide a (current) directory of external links to mostly official websites for flight planning purposes. Additionally, for security purposes (having designed several DOD and AF.MIL websites myself), I kept such things as cookies and javascripts, frames etc. to a minimum (monkeyplan uses frames). What bothered me wasn't that there were individuals out there with questions regarding the site and/or its security -- what I considered insulting was the acrimonious and vindictive way in which the matter was pursued. I think that any of us that have spent any significant time in the military can recognize when authoritative figures are taking it "over the top" in trying to quell a good idea from an innovative volunteer such as myself. 'nuff said.
  25. -5 points
    I think many people are missing the point to a degree. Yes, this is a retention problem. However, there is also a production problem, too, because retention has gotten so bad. This is proposal (of several hopefully) to fix part of the entire problem. And it isn't focusing on culture, support, dwell, or money because this is AETC, the command responsible for producing pilots, trying to figure out how to increase production. Obviously things need to get better, but let's not shit on the people looking at different ways to fix a significant part of the problem.