hindsight2020

In short, NO. It's not easy, nor probable, and Wings have little input. **TLDR warning** There's a fundamental cost savings to the bean counters at ARPC, associated with doing this job as a civil servant vice AGR. Which is why the lion's share of the full time support in Active-Duty-Lite is ART. Within the last 3 years they had to address some of the shortcomings in pay and retirement of the civil service system (FERS won't even give them the 6c multiplier that LEO and ATC in the civilian Fed are accustomed to, forget the yearly vesting fees post 2014 compared to pre-2014, let alone CSRS), which is why the recent updates to the SSR tables and ART bonus imo fall short of the cake vice the AGR side. Specifically, the retirement is shit compared to AGR/AD. It's not the money, it's the time value of money. See my prior comment about straight civil servant 6c multipliers. Military critters are a sacred cow class in this country good bad or indifferent. If you can get federal cops and ATCers those kind of multipliers and vesting years to disbursement, you can do it for ARTs. So the answer is self-evident: They just don't want to. Which does nothing but antagonize the talent. I digress. Advantage AGR. BL, if you're chasing an AGR, you're gonna have to low crawl like many of us lifer Reservists have had to, because they're actively fighting to nodge you off that pot. That means moving if need be. I had to endure 7 years in a place I almost lost my ability to form and raise a family, if not my outright sensibilities over, in order to attain a lateral into a duty station I could actually stomach doing the rest of the time to an AD retirement and raising my family without absentee parenting oportunity costs that were non starters for me. It wasn't pretty, but I don't regret it because I know exactly what I'm after: the position of Fuck You, and AGR is the road to that in my life. All that said, ART is not a bad way of going about raising a family and homesteading; I saw dozens do just that as townies in my first CAF unit. I do admit it beats the civilian economy post corona. It's not perfect, as long as you can medically make it to your late 50s that's is. That was my main objection in staking my retirement to this medical dependent AFSC, let alone a part-B military job where the failure to maintain part B makes you ineligible for the Part A aka civil service part...something straight non-ART civil service critters don't have worry about. At any rate, that's the history of ART in the AFRC, and personal editorial on why they'll notch the proliferation of AGRs for officers like its their religion. Good luck man!

what would the phase-III formation MIF item roster look like if y'all were king? -What items would you take out (form land is already out btw)? -What would you keep? -What you you introduce that isn't currently included?

Indeed. I've made a fairly recession-proof and homesteading-friendly living as a professional shield/deflector for TRs of that bullshit as you call it. 14 years and counting. No ragrets. Based on my experience, troughers (AFRC equivalent to bums) were not immune to being bullshit handlers. Ask me how I know. Most of the time I took mandays as a trougher back in my Bush 43 Economy drought days, those days came with a lot of bullshit strings. Maybe the Guard will let ya 'fly, fvck off at the bar and go home' while on orders, but in AD-Lite I was expected to be a bullshit-handler of some sort while on a Res Code 1. At the time no sweat, beggars can't be choosers and all that. I suppose this could be MWS dependent, though I suspect it could be just another of the opportunity costs of ANG vs AD-Lite.

We all agree in principle that there'd be a credibility problem with the direct-to-PIT business. Fortunately it is the exception, at least in 38s. Lots of 2+2s abound, which is better than nothing I suppose. Also recognize there are many on here for whom the program hasn't, and never will have, any redeeming qualities whatsoever. But that's a sunk cost of working within a demographic of self-important type-As; that's just a Tuesday in pilot land. Between the time you went through the 560th halls and today, the place has been the recipient of every possible 19th concocted good idea fairy shitshow imaginable, and will be the initial cadre for UPT2.5. Manning demographics in the middle of these constant whipsaws sometimes gets lost in translation. We're all innocent in Shawshank; everybody is trying to make brick, even when the Pharaoh won't send any straw. Just some context. Now back to our regularly programmed sport-kvetching. 😄

I'm not one to look at a gift horse in the mouth. AFRC has worked out very well for my family all things considered, and that's all I care about. To each their own.

Too many 19th lurkers on here to comment more specifically, but there's a few folks in that place that think rather highly of themselves wrt that question. UPT 2.5 rollout is gonna be interesting if the personalities associated with that effort are any indication. And I'm out!

Oh, that helps a lot. It's not a distinction without difference at all. Understand many of the instances where the board meeting would be of interest to the hiring officials is when it involves an incident where the was loss of life and some criminal or administrative culpability would have been pursued. Rare but it happens. In your case (and my ex-coworker's case), nothing is in the record, beyond the Q3s associated with the training failures, if they got to the evaluation stage of the program (which it did for my ex coworker). Getting removed from a formal course with neither failed spot evals nor an FEB, is about as close to walking away scott free as you can get considering the circumstances.

Oh indeed. I'd never take those capex investments as insurance against divestiture. We've done much worse on that front btw (C-27 et al). As far as Uncle Sammy is concerned, he's playing w/ OPMs (other people's money). Remember, Congressional pork and the associated grift is not the bug, but the feature.

It will, but not in any way specific to IFF. The airline hiring environment will be much more competitive post-Corona, especially if there are mainline furloughs in the street. In that regard having a training failure in the record is accentuated compared to the same in an environment of more lax hiring. Meeting an FEB as a result of failing a formal training course after winging does carry a higher penalty than just merely having checkride failures in your FEF. We had a guy in that situation and we were able to get him a re-assignment in lieu-of-FEB and he kept his wings. He was shortly hired by an LCC. So it really depends on the hiring environment, and much less on the nature of the failure.

-UPT 2.5 fighter track implementation potentially dilutes the old phase-III to effectively that of a shortened "warm up/fam" transition course, without solos nor the accompanying comprehensive T-38 EP pattern flying repetitions. Then off to legacy IFF. This iteration of "blended phase III" is also much shorter than legacy phase III. - UPT 2.5 does not have any changes to IFF as of the last time this topic came up (pre-Corona). The initial "blend" ask between phase III and IFF made it clear they're not wanting to play together.

My understanding was the UPT2.5 fighter track (of a total of 4 tracks) is predicated on people winging on T-6s after 7 months; no solos on -38, which means no EP flying training on the Equalizer. Ruh Roh.. Which would equate to a bastardized "transition course" on steroids modeled after what we currently give the non-fighter TPS candidates, and the make-a-wish heavy-2-fighter non-IFF background hen's teeth candidates of yesteryear. Oh and IFF ain't blending with old phase IIIers nor changing a damn thing about how they run their stand-alone. Okie dokie. But no worries, according to the big brains one here, UPT s a bunch of make-work grifters anyways and the "FTUs got this". In Sha Allah is all I'll say to that. Train, evaluate,document, punt. Call me Pontius.... 😄

There's the CBP *spits*. They fly the things for GS-11-12-13.

I'm currently waiting to begin my first facilitated on 7.0. Same limfacs as 6.0, gotta wait for the faciliated courses, one a month. Plus the whole d!ckdance that is CANVAS (they moved away from blackboard) having to wait for AUSIS to reflect grades before the windows 3.1 coded UI allows you to enroll on the next modules. 7.0 has more modules in total too, to include one more faciliated, so logistically cannot be done as fast as 6.0 by default. Have a snickers, cuz you're gonna be at this a while. As to content, Jesus, this sh%t is actually making me dumber, but I had a brick and mortar STEM masters before I decided to leroy jenkins my life and become a stick monkey for the USAF in lieu of respectable pedestrian high paid occupation. So that colors my perception of PME. They don't call me uncle hindsight for nothing....🤣 /sarc

FTFY. Not a distinction without difference to this 3-time sucker of the certified captive audience game. 😄 I liken my relationship with certified rules as Michael and the office fax machine in Office space...

Yeah, we're dealing with the same assclownery in Central TX.

Def a regional dependent thing wrt ownership, airpark living, and the feasibility of clubs vis a vis sole ownership. I own because I've never lived in a place where rentals or clubs were a viable option, or even existed in the first place. So the decision matrix was a Hobson's Choice. My life has been too nomadic to make partnerships a palatable option. At this point I'm too set in my ways to want to dabble in the opportunity cost that comes with cost sharing. Access is worth the premium to me, under-utilization be damnned. Some urban locations tend to have the density to support flying clubs, and sometimes it's the only way to attain covered storage in these areas too, since the waiting lists and hangar costs in desirable metropolitan locations are stiflingly scarce. To be clear, not all metros have the same availability of general aviation. There are socioeconomic and demographic reasons for this variability in outcome within metros of otherwise the same population size, good bad or indifferent. So again, it's all gonna be regionally dependent of an answer.

Origin story of my screen name. In short, don't do it, it's not worth it nor necessary. Let my life regret be your cautionary tale. 😄

I was rocking the last-minute cut-out fabric off my black T-shirt from the black boot days, folded through two rubber bands. Look like a ghetto Shinobi. Fit's worth a shit but hey, 'resiliency'. 😄 Sounds like sage advice for that SECNAV clown to take right about now.

What thing? Not getting promoted to O-4, or not getting continued?

Excellent point. Provided he's continued.

Unfortunately, selective continuation for passed over O-3s is only to 20. Being retirement eligible makes it an even cleaner kill from an ARPC/NGB pov. There ain't gonna be a manning deficit any time soon I can tell you that much. My host AD unit is already overmanned as of the summer based on all the rescinded separation/retirement packets that have occurred in the past 3 weeks. Everybody is running back to Uncle sammy's teet, not enough chairs to go around. We all live and die by the dick swings of the airline industry, even those of us not part of the airlines. 100% chance of not getting what you don't ask for, so by all means ask the question and position yourself as best you can. Def get your PME done/award lined up if you have time, but mentally prepare to be invol retired. Good luck man.

A few reasons: 1) The cost to build a modern experimental doesn't pencil out on a resale basis compared to the fully discounted acquisition price of a 40+ year old legacy spam can 4/6 seater. Which is why I was so hot after the primary non-commercial category (and of course the FAA snuffed it). RV-10s on a resale basis make no sense compared to a used up SR-22, Saratoga SP or F33C. Granted, I'd take the RV-10 any day based on the maintenance and parts allowances alone.... but not for housing money, which is where both the RV-10 and the SR-22/Toga/F33C live. Builders are of course, generally insensitive to that argument. I personally don't like that litmus test, which is why I have a bone to pick with the 51% rule, but that's for another day. In a perfect world (and that's where MOSAIC comes into play), EAB resale owners would have the legal ability to inspect their personally-owned experimental in the same way they are allowed to do so with a repairman-inspection certificate in the E-LSA realm. But that's a tangent, it still doesn't address the acquisition price non-starter between the few 4-seaters in EXAB land and old certified 4 seaters. As much as I detest the certified rules, and have my seasonal bouts with wanting to chuck the thing, the reality is that I'm orders of magnitude of money ahead with the spam can on a total yearly outlay than attempting to capitalize an RV-10. Not even close. That's unfortunately the way the cookie crumbles in my world where cost is an object. It is what it is. It is certainly no small part of why the hobby is dying with the younger generation, and I digress. 1a) To be clear, the cost delta to assemble a 4 seater and a 2-seater fixed gear airplane is trivial. The engine choice cost is also trivial. Yes a 4-seater would call for a bigger engine to be competitive, but a Lycoming 540 is no more expensive to overhaul in its parallel valve variant than a Lyco 360 of angle valve variant. Hell, a 540 is cheaper to overhaul than a Lyco 390, with insanely priced jugs. BL, it's not a materials or engine cost. It's merely a CAPEX one because of the prevailing depreciated price of certified 4-seaters. 1b) Very few builders are interested in assembling the equivalent of an experimental grumman Tiger (essentially a 4-seater RV, aka putting a 4 banger on and RV-10 and making it a 3-seater like all sub-200hp certified 4-seaters are and why they're priced the way they are). Nobody in builder land does that, which is why there's no affordable 4-seaters in EAB. The only other options are oddball Velocities with T-38 runway requirements, equally horrid high DA performance specs and family unfriendly cabin volumetrics, or hen's teeth fiberglass constructed offerings in the orphan "plans-built" market I wouldn't strap in on if the choices were that or get COVID-19. 2) Demographics. Good bad or indifferent, the preponderance of the experimental market is empty nester boomers, or childless couples. The heads of household who do partake do so where the decision was made the spouse was not interested in flying, or there was never going to be a willingness to travel with the children. As such, the market essentially settled on 2-seaters, for those without the aptitude, inclination and/or time to build in order to escape certified hell. See 1b for the feedback loop of why demographics feed the outcome of the offerings. Everybody else with flying-friendly families is stuck in certified land, myself included. Conversely, the few heads of household with young children have no interest in building outright as a function of life stage financials and time, which makes it a catch-22. That's a good initial crack as to why there's no affordable options for 4-seaters. The current trend in certified is the loss of airframe OEM support until it becomes uneconomical to maintain. I won't mention specific make/models as that just triggers the type cults. The fixed gear trainer-lineage airplanes like C1xx and non-retract PA-28s will endure for a long time because of the sheer number of salvage samples and active flight training market that still enjoys 3rd party vendor support. But the antiquey retracts and twins are in a world of hurt already, and maintaining them under certified rules going forward will continue to be an exercise in watching a terminal patient decay without having someone mercy kill it already. To each their own on that. It's always been a lone-wolf hobby in practice, and current rules don't help the cause. I have my theory as to why the FAA doesn't want to release certified cans into primary non-commercial, but that's my conspiracy theory and for another thread.

You're looking at early model 35s like that orphaned K model, but think/ponder/worry an all-metal riveted fixed gear Lycoming powered experimental rules 2-seater is gonna represent an inflection point on a mx and qualified mx-personnel accessibility basis? You got it backwards.

Yup, non-airline employers wipe their rear with USERRA. I went through that fork 12 years ago, and chose the full time route in the Reserves. Never looked back. I have a plethora of co-workers and acquaintances with similar experience. It's not worth the trouble to me, considering I don't want to work for someone I have to sue in order to work for in the first place. The fact is that aircrew jobs in the ARC are designed to be compatible with large-department employers like the airlines, where you're one of thousands and won't generally be missed while pursuing mil duty. Small employers are anathema to aircrew work imo. What sucks for you is the waiting due to covid et al. When I was in your shoes I was fortunate to go from my crappy broke graduate school existence right into OTS and a steady paycheck. Though I troughed through a portion of the Lost Decade, I generally haven't gone without a paycheck thanks to the military. I owe my ability to start a family on this job, and look with pride back at the time where I chose to stop tilting at the windmills and vacate the pedestrian job market for full time reserves. No one size fits all answer for sure, but for me it wasn't worth the trouble getting on the userra crusade in calvinist right-to-get-fired America. I'm in a much better financial and career position by focusing on being an full time AF pilot. Good luck to ya.