pawnman

On several occasions, I would have been able to point across the table and say "Well, sir, would you like to address this issue with my squadron commander?"

"Man, we can't keep anyone current for night A/R" "Why can't we schedule these flight lead sorties?" "We're having a really hard time getting people through FIC, I don't understand why."

No...I'm saying that's what should happen when a GP/CC tells you, during the instructor cert, "If you don't want to be here, get out, I can find a hundred other people who want your job".

You can put a real quick stop to that by a show of solidarity among the instructors. "Why haven't we graduated any MQT students?" "Well, sir, you pulled the instructor certifications from 50% of the instructors".

We can't all fall back on the airline pilot gig to fill in the gaps in full-time employment.

Again, if they're willing to pay me to show up and do a less than half-hearted job, that's fine with me.

Any word on 12X? Specifically, 12B?

I'll give you three guesses as to how well I would perform in requal if you called me back a decade after my retirement date.

Maybe it will all be sorted out by the time you get to the operational Air Force.

Our FTU is less than 50% manned. The VML webinar AFPC put on for the bomber guys said that staffing the FTU was the number one priority...but the FTU has a more significant shortage than any other squadron, in both the B-1 and B-52.

We could certainly use you.

Well, we're already sending 11Bs and 12Bs to fill 11F staff billets. One may wonder why we would even bother sending an 11M through a B-course to just put them on staff.

Lasers move faster than missiles.

If it's the normal ACSC and not the OLMP one, it was not materially different. A paper, some discussion posts every week. The new introduction was the first week you have to find an article you think is worth discussing in class and submit it, along with your questions. Then the instructor will pick 3-4 of the submissions as the discussion posts for week 3. If your article is picked, it becomes your job to moderate that discussion but you get to tap out of the other threads.

So General Goldfein already believes we have less than half the training we need, and you want to shorten the FTU by another 10%? I don't see any possible way that can go wrong. Also, flying that third go requires enough manpower that you can make it happen and still maintain crew rest, brief and debrief, provide a SOF, provide a Top 3, and do academics and sims. Not to mention the MX costs.

We have a shortage of 500 fighter guys, haven't you heard?

It never gets old.

If you're a select, you literally can't sign up for correspondence. Now, if you're not a select, who knows if your leadership chain is using correspondence completion as a factor when they decide if they should push you or not?

But somehow, we don't have enough fighter pilots to fill fighter cockpits?

We don't need mobility pilots, right? That's why we RIFed so many a couple years ago.

Ours was 11B and the reserve squadron on the same base already has him on their books. He's been flying with them regularly on weekends because they aren't at full strength yet.

They denied a guy in my squadron with less than a year.

We get them at the B-1 schoolhouse as well.

Our FTU is losing these pilots (and WSOs as well) at a pretty steady clip. Most of them are second-assignment, with the occasional Lt Col on the sunset tour. There are very few of the instructors who plan to stick it out until twenty years, including one or two who have 7-day opted IDE in-residence because they don't want the additional service commitment.

It would definitely be an insult to pursue the ability to offer $60K, then only offer $48K this year. Probably not the move you want to make if your goal is retaining pilots. Would the extra $12K make that much difference in the number of takers? Probably not. But offering less than the amount the Air Force asked congress for certainly sends the message that the Air Force isn't actually serious about fixing this problem yet.