jice

Thanks for the info and IP demo of the never briefed, rarely practiced flip-phone, T9-word-degraded BODN post.

Is each aero club an entity unto itself or is there some part of ‘big air force’ that sets policy for everybody? In other words, who is responsible for taking the fun out of flying for fun, and who can call them a cockbag on the telephone without serious repercussions?

Is the job commutable in any sense? Any folks live out of town in the off-season and in the area during fire season?

Not a helo guy, but will pass this piece of advice on: Don’t base your preferences on current downrange ops; by the time you get there it may be completely different. Set yourself up to train to a mission set you are excited about. You’ll likely get to execute it. (Except, we hope, for nukes.)

Totally agree! And here’s the REALLY funny part: in many circumstances that appears to be biologically programmed as well. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_equation ALR extreme mission (with clear intent) = huge payoff for the ‘tribe’ = massive opportunity for propogation of similar genetic material (over the ‘tribe’ we might be sacrificing ourselves to destroy) Sitting in a faceless bureaucracy = unhappy mate = no benefit at all to my genetic material’s propogation (through my own reproduction or opportunity for the tribe.) As it turns out, for beings built to fvck, it often comes down to fvcking! (Again lots of caveats [and philosophical issues not to touch], but the issue is much more complicated than changing individual minds over and over again. In any case, more money wouldn’t hurt a bit...)

Spot on. Furthermore, the leaders who say “stay in because your country needs you” just don’t understand the dynamics. I’m 100% of my family’s father and husband population. They need me more. Until the situation is better (or at least similar) for the family when folks stay in the Air Force, most will choose to get out. That means the money has to be close. It’s programmed into us genetically. Risk of death? Bad. Provide for kids so that they can continue to spread 50% of my genes? Good. Keeping the wife happy? See risk of death. It’s not selfish to pursue greener pastures. It’s selfish to stay in to satisfy ‘quality of service’ at the expense of a family. There’s always volunteering for the Boys and Girls Club or Coast Guard auxiliary... on my brand new 30’ boat. (Lots of caveats: some families value that quality of service as a unit, some people are psychopaths, some people don’t have families, some people didn’t bald and bloat at 35 and can get new families, etc.)

No! Don’t be so emotional. Don’t forget that people read these forums and take away things like “more money isn’t even worth the effort.” It absolutely matters. Would it have been better if this never came up? Sure. Did HAF/A1* breach the trust? Absolutely; those douchebags! But! Having cooler craniums prevail re: the policy (with negative fallout likely for the ‘perpetrators’) is a big deal. That’s the difference between a complete meltdown and a brief release of radioactive policy. The gulf between is massive. Edit to correct AFPC to HAF/A1.

Perfect! In that case, this sounds like one of the best deals in the Air Force for a young guy/gal. B-2s quit doing this for a while; bro-gouge was they didn’t like not having control over the product. Those single-minded -38 SPs would be better off selecting FAIP unless there’s some assignment protection on the back side of the CTP gig (sounds like there will be). The fundamental element is a guaranteed INTERVIEW with the U-2. Landing the jet is hard. Some people don’t fit in. Claustrophobia is real. As a -38 stud I wouldn’t bet my ability to win the interview against potential to have an RQ-4 as my initial MWS. Sounds like they’re getting it right (actually have considered how establishing incentives influence behavior) and that bet is going to be N/A.

Not a dumb question! Super awesome question. Everybody should ask it! There were a couple non-flying IMA positions as of May. I don’t think that’s changed.

Trust me, no dog in the fight either.(Mostly). Also love cupcakes. Always wished they would have made cake tube food. Or just frosting. I think this is a great idea; the questions were mostly meant for somebody like @AZwildcat to show up and do the rest of the selling for the single-minded proto-recce-warriors on the fence. You’re right. Completely different. Couldn’t be more different. The point is to keep this towards the top of somebody’s dream sheet rather than the bottom. Without some type of fence put up around these dude’s assignments, you’re asking somebody to select into an 11R pool (with guaranteed U-2 INTERVIEW) over the 11F ADAIR fighter pool and over the T-38 FAIP CAF pool. This closes doors, and I think the quality of the applicant will suffer as a result. Even if Lt Snuffy has wanted to fly the U-2 his whole life, he’s still got to pass the interview flights. What if his second choice isn’t RQ-4/E-3/E-8/RC-135? If you want guys at the top(ish) of their class to pick this program you have to preserve options for the non-recce CAF. (Or bar FAIPS from applying to the U-2). Otherwise, Snuffy just picks FAIP to keep his options open and this goes to a less qualified candidate who didn’t have the same class rank/ability to choose. I’m sure one of the bros with a solo number can tell us that there’s a plan for that.

Follow-up questions for somebody in the know: Is this new program available only for folks out of the T-38 track? Why should a 2Lt considering the U-2 commit to this rather than doing a FAIP tour? What other reasons does flying the T-38 at Beale beat the pants off flying it at Laughlin? With the ADAIR LTs now being assignable outside of Raptors, any consideration to sending these guys to IFF prior to Beale? That way, you could dump these guys into the same assignment pool in case the U-2 doesn’t work out (or they don’t want it). That would eliminate perceived loss of FAIP/ADAIR opportunity disincentives.

The best way is to make going to staff as a flyer even less palatable with a de facto half-decade ADSC if they want to fly again.

But that would admit fallibility. Wouldn’t want to sew seeds of doubt. Might damage credibility... Does anybody have SA on real labor-force experts being commissioned on a long-term basis on the retention issue? A task force of pilots/personnellists is an anecdotal perspective; the behavior of a unique/specialized labor force is probably not intuitive or conducive to analysis from untrained folks whose in-group perspective prevents objectivity. I bet a rigorous, multi-disciplinary assessment (as opposed to the process-as-product spreadsheets and voice-of-the-Uncited PowerPoints we tend to produce) would be an interesting read. Like to see it if it exists.

Where it exists, please actively and strategically educate this rumor away in your place of business. Though surely unintentional (right... right?!) , it functions like an element of PSYOP. For a young guy whose first thought of requal ADSCs is a mistaken “tacking onto the end” concept, replacing it with the new rule doesn’t seem so bad. “What’s the big deal?” they might say. That young guy may completely miss the collossal foul that is changing a rule, without pre-change messaging, without post-change explanation, and without an apparent understanding of effective incentive structures beyond authoritarianism [bad labor economics!!], which will have significantly negative implications for both individuals and the force. (Read: Loss of trust, more 7 days, lower quality staff, X to fill [X-lots] non-vol 365s etc.) Don’t allow anything to persist that normalizes this environment or teaches the next generation of leaders that it’s OK to implement bad policy without doing the math or talking about it as long as it doesn’t seem like anybody will notice.

And furthermore! if the rules are subject to change in sneaky, spineless ways who’s to say the rest of the calculus holds? I can stand on my cranium for 10 years... but if there’s a X% chance of surprise total game-rule change, my family isn’t going to be held hostage.