kapilot
-
Posts
81 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Downloads
Wiki
Posts posted by kapilot
-
-
I’m hearing the same thing. Hired a guard guy to our reserve squadron. Guard unit refuses to release him citing 10yr commitment and manning issues.
-
I’m not guard but I have many friends that are. In my talks it appears that at the flying unit level QOL can depend on many things. Mostly who’s running the TAG (army or air) and how much money AD is feeding, and what airframe/mission. The answers will vary. Do your homework find what fits for you.
-
Anyone have knowledge on the Beale or Shady J 120-day tanker deployment taskings for 2019? Did the deployments actually execute as 120-day orders, or were the units allowed to break those up into 60s?
From what I can find, there has been no official change with the 3-stars memo delineating 120s as the new standard. Everything I've heard that would lighten that load is heresay. The MFR remains signed and unchanged from its release 6 months ago.
You nailed it... it’s all been heresay... no new guidance post working group. Typical AF leadership, keep comm minimal in an effort to control scuttle rather than just being honest and letting people know where things stand. If I had to guess it’s all being argued inside AFRC and with AD. If you don’t have your emer plan I’d recommend putting something together sooner than later. I have a hammer in my hand and raised ready to break the glass. I’m sure every TR with a civ job is doing the same.
If this happens it’ll be an exodus.
Also...
AFRC 135 has always been on 120 days rotations but HQ cut them into 60s and divided them out. The memo is basically stating that they won’t do that anymore.
-
So..... still nothing other than... we’ll let you know when you figure something out. Tick tock clocks running.
-
Can anyone shed any light on what AFRC is doing with 135 deployments? This is ridiculous that nothing has been communicated.
-
Question from someone hopefully transitioning to the reserves soon regarding this swap out and dwell protection issue:
I think I'm tracking that if you volunteer to swap out half way through a deployment, then you're not given dwell protection. Does this mean you're not given ANY dwell protection, or you're just not given the usual 5:1? Does it get bumped down to 2:1/1:1/something else? Also, let's say your KC-135/C-130/whatever unit deploys for 120 days with several 60-day swap outs. Even though you might lose that dwell protection, your unit as a whole would still be afforded the 5:1 dwell and therefore wouldn't be asked to deploy for 2 years, correct? So even though the individuals may not be protected, odds are your unit wouldn't get asked to deploy for a while anyways. Am I applying this correctly? Would you then just be vulnerable for a onesie/twosie staff deployment somewhere?
As of today... staff tours are only being fed to units that don’t deploy regularly or in mass ie C5, C17, School houses (even FTU) etc. If you go tanker, herc, fighter you’ll most likely not deal with a staff deployment. Then again I’m sure you’ve been around long enough to know that a kick in the nuts can come at any time and in any form.
Dwell... it depends on how the community/wing has chosen to handle it. To clarify we’re only talking AFRC here not guard. It’s an important distinction bc they tend to handle deployments differently.
AFRC tends to insist on deployments that meet the laws required to entitle benefits and dwell protection. That’s why AFRC sees longer deployments generally speaking. From what I’m told 45 days (away) is the minimum that you could be “non-voled” into and still receive dwell/benefits.
To answer your question you HAVE to know how you’re being deployed by AFRC ie did you volunteer or were you a non-volunteer. The issue of dwell lies with your volunteer status. A non-vol will receive dwell whereas a volunteer does not. So generally speaking if you are correct that if a unit is tasked with a 120 day abroad that same unit won’t be tasked again unit its dwell runs out. When you here people talk about a squadrons bucket that’s what their referring to. However in reality AFRC has and will continue to (in my opinion) task units with onesie twosie crews here and there bc they won’t stand up to active duty demands and refuse to stop piecemealing crews.
Up to this point I’m not aware of AFRC dwell being reduced and HQ has been adamant in their stance that it won’t be. (What did active duty do with their dwell?) So as of now The 5:1 is in place for everyone and is also driving piecemeal crews. The more AFRC breaks up squadrons the more spread out everyone’s dwell becomes and only encourages more piecemealing. To AFRCs credit they’ve been trying to correct this but it’s difficult to do until you get a break in deployments or demand a reset/rest period.
That’s a long way to say that...Anyone entering AFRC in a operational squadron WILL deploy. If your in a high demand platform you will deploy as a squadron but if you forfeit dwell for a non-vol status you need to assume that you be hit with a onesie twosie. They’re so frequent where I’m at that a wise squadron commander created our own internal transparent system of handling them so the squadron wouldn’t rip itself apart from infighting about “who’s turn is it” -
-
So they're going to pay you to hang out in Atlanta, have beers with your DL-internal-rec bros, and hear about how much greener the grass is? Someone didn't think this through.
Was it you?
Wrong on all accounts. I’m not going, I avoid Atlanta, I have no “bros” at Robbins, and keep my opinion of civilian flying to myself unless asked while sipping whiskey.
Nice try though. -
Update to 120
No one is 100% what’s going on with 120 policy at this point. They’re not off the table with Scobee policy letter just on pause. I suspect that the mass exodus from Grissom and March? gave pause to the policy.
I do know that there is a last minute conference in Atlanta next week and AFRC 135 unit members were asked to attend.
My question.... Currently there’s nothing in writing that exists contrary to 120 policy. If the deployment policy has already “changed back” after 4AF input, how is this going to be any different? What’s to stop them just changing it again? -
Tanker demand isn’t falling, one or a combination of the following will happen.
1. Demand in AOR is curtailed and managed correctly.
2. The way we deploy changes. (ie another of the 3 picks up the slack)
3. Contract AR will explode. -
I’m confused by the 180 day rotational period for C-5/C-17s. The reserve units don’t do flying deployments, is this referring to non-flying deployments?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It’s a possibility.... (AFRC) Recommend y’all start asking about staff tours. When, where, how long? Can we split? Etc... -
Thanks for your input. The MFR was in draft until yesterday, with changes prior to official signature and release.
I personally appreciate the updates regarding the MFR. Let’s hope the changes between last month and final copy include the ability to split/share 120. Fingers crossed. -
-
To be clear... this is not sport bitching. These are legitimate concerns and frustrations being aired by people who are doing a job they love with people they consider a family. However everyone has a limit and 120s in the 135 AFRC will hit that limit for a lot and there will be a noticeable result. How many of you out there already have problems getting an AFRC 135 tanker for a local, much less a drag, when you need one? How much harder will that be after 120s are a reality?
Blanket statements, stating that military flying is the best way to a pilot career is a biased statement and poor advice. Anyone rushing for a UPT slot needs to understand that the pilot job market has changed drastically in recent years, and what was true yesterday doesn’t make it true today. The pilot job is a true market with all the fluctuations and emotions driving it that move other markets. The only constant is change. I can promise you that the likelihood of your sponsored squadrons tempo today won’t be the same as when your return from training 2+ yrs later. Doesn’t mean you should run the other way!
The reality of today, is if you want to be an airline pilot this MAY be a good path for you but then again it MAY not be. You will have to determine that for yourself by seeking conversations with honest opinions. And have enough wisdom to realize that a person further into life has a different worldview of someone in their 20s without a wife or kids.
Now back to 120s please.-
1
-
1
-
-
Yep, this is what you want to see before joining the guard to fly..
Insert name... this thread is not about the guard. Don’t assume that what’s mentioned here about AFRC applies there. The 3 branches are very different from one another. I urge you to use caution and perspective as you read these forums.-
1
-
-
22 minutes ago, SurelySerious said:
So there is no hope?
The only "hope" remaining is that enough people walk when this 120 nonsense formally drops to wake up institutionalized zombies into listening to people at the reserve squadron level... and for once come to terms with the FACT that in this environment... YOU WILL NOT RETAIN PILOTS (and for that matter, aircrew in general) BY TAKING RIGID APPROACHES IN YOUR DEPLOYMENT POLICIES. People clearly have options and WILL execute them faster than AFRC can reverse their poor management choices. I'd tell anyone with a star on a shoulder that you'd better start listening and offering some flex to the membership because between FAMILY/CIVJOB/AF.... AF, AFRC, ANG is gonna loose that every time for foreseeable future. Then again that assumes that anyone with a star on their shoulder cares... a strong assumption at this point.
-
Imnotarobot and MaryAnn make great points. After reading your post I went and looked at her bio and from the looks of it... she’s only ever worked for the AF full time. Doesn’t take long poking around AFRC leadership bios to realize we are being run by folks who never really left their active duty mentality. How in the hell can people who’ve never been a traditional reservist with a civilian job (and deploy) lead and set policy for thousands who live that lifestyle?!? That is insanity!
I’ve said for a long time that AFRC is active duty’s second chance. They may be wearing AFRC patches but no part of them knows what that means. No one should be allowed to lead citizen airmen unless they’ve had a civilian job and had to balance work/business, family, and military. -
Exactly! We’re being told we’ll the fighter/bomber/herc’s are already doing 120s gone, it shouldn’t be a problem for 135s. WTF has anyone taken the time to look at their manning numbers compared to ours?! We’ve been at or over 100% the past 10 yrs. This is going to put us at 80-85% in one years timeframe. Everyone with a job and within 1 yr of 20 and those over 20... gone... (=experience). We’ll go from 100% to 80-85% within a year. Two years... who knows. This all compounds the problem... manning drops now most in the squadrons are being pushed out the door as soon as dwell allows. Oh by the way... who controls dwell? It’s an AFI! Time to vote with feet.
Any reserve fighter/bomber types wanna throw in? What are y’all doing?
-
How does this change things for you tanker guys?
In the Guard airlift, we get 120 deployments during our AEF rotation cycle (~2.5-3 years), and we've always been allowed a half-time swapout if we had the crewmembers to do it. The rumor we're getting is no more 60 day swaps to save money. Our next AEF is right around the corner and a lot of our over 20 guys have their finger on the button in case it becomes official.
Torq
Reserve 135 has been living the same rotation as you except under different orders with less leniency. We’ve had 90 day orders WITHOUT the ability to swap halfway through. (We use to swap half through prior to 2008 on 30 day in country, that kept people around forever). What’s changing is we’re being forced into 120 days in country without the flexibility to swap half through.
So now we’re looking down the barrel at 5 months gone from work 4 months away from home every 2 years. I can see the writing on the wall with multiple units entering conversion for the KC46 it’s placing a strain on the remaining 135 squadrons and block 40 tails. I personally believe that under this structure they’ll have to reduce dwell to keep it going. Which would be 120 every 1.5 yrs roughly or even less depending on what they do.
The simple answer is to allow members the flexibility to swap. If that were permitted it wouldn’t look any different to the squadrons and manning would stay the same.
I’m curious how would your manning change now if the guard said “no more swaps if you get a 120 your gone 120!”?
I don’t buy the cost savings excuse. We all know that’s a load.-
2
-
-
Sorry fat fingered that one... Grissom
-
No more rumor, it’s happening. Announced at BFR today. Everywhere else tomorrow. They’ll be the first to live it. Seems like the formal announcement was put off to allow names to go in with minimal time as to avoid exodus. 120 requirements not allowed to be split like the guard. Their data says (and I can’t make this up) that we like deploying and it won’t be a problem.
Word is the WG and OG types fought for us but their input feel on deaf ears. Told to sell as a “good deal”.
Welp we’ll see ya... -
Spill what you know.
-
-
If anyone at Robbins happens to be on here for the Love of all things blue please stand up at a meeting and proclaim that we’re not active duty
U-2 Dragonlady info
in General Discussion
Posted
Still taking reservist?