theoriginalturk
-
Posts
39 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Downloads
Wiki
Posts posted by theoriginalturk
-
-
On 1/13/2023 at 10:10 PM, Polar Bear said:
Why wasn’t it surprising you didn’t get up by AD, I thought they were short pilots?
That hasn’t been the case in several years. There’s no shortage of inexperienced FNGs. There’s always been a shortage of people willing to stay past their ADSC, instructor pilots, staff etc, in the 11x world
-
6 hours ago, FlyingHog said:
Does anyone know the process for URT? I know it includes IFT but after that it seems to be a free for all. I've been told it is a PCS to the ultimate duty station and then TDY for training. I've been told it is a TDY from current duty station for training and then PCS to ultimate duty station after training. Lastly I have been told it is a PCS to Randolph, TDY to IFT and then TDY enroute to ultimate duty station.
How many of you put RPA as an option on the packet? I only selected RPA, trying to figure out chances of being in the 10 selected.
All URT people will PCS to Randolph for the time being. You’ll get a “drop night” it’s probably gunna look like this 99% MQ-9s 30%creech 30%canon 30%somewhere else
You’ll TDY to your training assignments and yes they bringing back IFT for the time being: after seeing how all around poorly everyone who didn’t have any background in flying and who didn’t go did/are doing
I’d reckon you’d get it if you applied. Although our manning number are looking better, RPAs are still mostly inexperienced Lts. The glut is pretty substantial. On top of that they don’t really have a vision for what to do with RPAs in the next 10 years let alone 18xers. good luck.
-
1
-
-
21 hours ago, CaptainMorgan said:
Or they could go work on the staff at ACC, freeing up experienced pilots to go back to their aircraft!
Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkThat’d be great.
I don’t see a good chance that the rest of ACC would be happy to see any additional staff jobs coded to allow 18xers: youre losing tons of talent by the time they qualify for staff on top of their general lack of a common operating picture, or shared experiences with 11x (particularly organic 18xers)
-
On 12/9/2022 at 3:25 PM, nsplayr said:
The AF at this point should stop making 18X and send everyone to UPT 2.5, but the whole thing is a mess. They also need to rapidly develop a 18X -> 11X TX course of some kind.
I agree that i think the 18X experiment seems to be failing and that theres not much at the CGO level that can be done to turn the ship around. I was wondering if you had the time to expand on why they should stop making 18Xers: i agree I just wonder what someone whos been around longer than I have is seeing that i might not be.
-
On 7/28/2015 at 7:49 PM, Liquid said:
Great discussion going on here. Let me add an alternative perspective. They said it wasn't possible to arm RQ-1 with Hellfires. Fortunately others in USG disagreed. They said you shouldn't arm UAVs and employ lethal fires without a fighter pilot in the seat that understood CAS and fires, so only fighter pilots should fly UAVs. They said only pilots had the airmanship required to fly UAVs. They said unless you went to pilot training and learned about airspace, radio calls and instruments, you couldn't and shouldn't fly UAVs. They said a fighter pilot was too valuable to fly UAVs, that it was easy, and only the worst pilots should fly them. They picked the pilots they didn't want in their squadrons to go to UAVs. They decided that we should fly RPAs from remote locations, despite the fact you could fly remote split operations from anywhere in the world, including in major metropolitan areas where families would be happy to live. They realized there was nothing unmanned about these UAVs and changed the name to Remotely Piloted Aircraft. They killed UCAV development because they think a pilot must be in the seat, even when the pilot is the limiting factor in the aircraft. They think the next generation bomber should be manned. They decided the only way to keep pilots flying RPAs relevant was to create a companion aircraft program so RPA pilots could fly real aircraft and stay in touch with real flying, but this was not feasible because flying RPAs is not an easy part time job and there is no time. They thought it would be ok assure pilots they would go fly RPAs, then return to the cockpit, with no intention of changing the manning or accessions to actually honor that promise. They told us that 18Xs could not fly RPAs. They told us it would take years to figure out how to train non-pilots how to fly RPAs. They told us nobody would volunteer to fly RPAs. They told us the bonus for RPA pilots should be less than the bonus for real pilots. They decided that RPAs were easy and marginalized the employment of lethal weapons in combat. They actually think the RPA pilot guides the AGM-114 or GBU-49/12 to the target. They denigrated the RPA mission and those who conducted the mission, regardless of how much the joint force and civilian leadership value RPAs. They think enlisted airmen cannot fly RPAs, despite direct evidence of outstanding Army enlisted and warrant officer performance. They did not think auto takeoff and landing was a valuable capability worthy of investment, and preferred to crash aircraft during takeoffs and landings due to pilot error and insufficient training at a staggering rate, while the Army successfully employs auto takeoff and landing with a near perfect mishap prevention rate. They decided that the phrase "permissive ISR" would be used to discredit RPAs by pushing the narrative that they were not able to operate in denied airspace, while avoiding the same conversation with mobility, tankers, C2, and satellites. They forgot that we may have missions when manned aircraft will not be allowed to fly and that RPAs may be the only access we have to non-permissive environments. They developed the phrase "Pred Porn" to delegitimize the FMV value to Ground Force Commanders, Joint Force Commanders and Senior Civilian Leaders. They do not understand how RPAs integrate multi-source intelligence to accomplish national level objectives. They decided "Combat Time" for RPAs employing lethal fires in close proximity to friendly forces was not combat, but orbiting a combat support aircraft near a combat zone, with no threat of enemy fire or additional danger, was worthy of "Combat Time". They decided combat support aircrew were eligible for Air Medals, while in no immediate danger from enemy threats, while RPA crews conducting actual combat missions were only eligible for Aerial Achievement Medals. They failed to recognize that there may be situations where manned aircraft may be denied access to airspace, not only because of the threat, but because of political considerations and the risk of being shot down in denied area. They think a pilot who practices killing people but never performs this skill in combat is more of a warrior than those who actually kill people. They decided to not fund RPAs, after reducing the number of CAPs in the first few years, they planned to go to zero CAPs so they could commit the money to other priorities. They decided to keep the RPA crew ratio below a sustainable level, crushing OPSTEMPO, morale and sustainability. They let RPA crewmembers separate early to meet short term manpower reduction goals, before their commitment was up, even from squadrons where the pilot and sensors were undermanned in that unit. They decided to not invest in RPA technology, stating and I no shit quote "every dollar we spend on MQ-9s is a dollar we can't spend on F-35". They are telling us they can't fix the current RPA crew shortage. They are telling us they don't know how to improve morale. They are telling us RPAs are not important to our nation's defense. They think pilots with no RPA experience are qualified to command RPA squadrons, groups and wings. They use the phrase CT/COIN to marginalize the current fight and emphasize the importance of near peer competitor threats. And they will continue to recommend we stop flying RPAs so we can invest in more important weapon systems and more important missions. When will we stop letting them make these bad decisions and give this bad advice? When have they lost enough trust and confidence of our joint partners and civilian leaders? When will we realize that "they" are actually the problem and that we should not value their recommended solutions? It is time to get ISR out of ACC, to let ACC focus on what they value and what they are the best in the world at, and most importantly, stop ing up RPAs.
It certainly has been interesting to see how little things have changed in the grand scheme of things with RPAs. There have been a few resurrected threads of late, and the reaction from manned aircrew on how the RQ-4s have been so quickly tossed aside surprises no one.
One of the things that this forum does well is allowing freedom of opinion and expression to flow across-platforms and up-and-down the ranks. When the same memorandum used to divest from RQ-4s comes down from HAF for the -9 (Spolied alert: the rumor is itll be fragged to be divested by FY25, and of course without a replacement) Id bet we would see a similar celebration from our aircrew brethren when the robots are all dead. The question will be what to do with the largest tactical aviator community. Anyone have a crystal ball that works?
-
On 1/1/2022 at 5:22 PM, OldmanUFT21 said:
It’s my number 1. Looking at future and retirement it would set me up the best after the Air Force.
Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile appPeople have been painting an unrealistically rosey picture of the state of RPAs. Wish I had some of that blue koolaid
Read the RAND reports the GAO reports and the Mitchell is tires publications. Nothing much has changed for this community, manning has gotten better. Congress was/is tracking it and when it was as bad as it was, the only way to go is up.
If you want to be a pilot, I would stay away from RPAs. You’ll only be a pilot in your tiny section of the Air Force. No one outside of it will see you as a a pilot, and likely you’ll be seen as an either a joke or a threat. If you want to fly, use your gi bill, go work for an airline, save yourself some trouble.
If you want to fly at 1g, get no FAA certifications, fight to remain relevant even despite 20 years of combat ops, fight for funding while the Air Force is buying literal t-6s with weapons on them and locally piloted aircraft, have several additional duties at the squadron level, and occasionally get a chance blow some baddies up then go for it.
-
On 11/9/2021 at 9:33 AM, Crasher said:
That’s great info. With these new changes to RPA Next, do they still do things like stand ups?
If they are still doing that stuff in RPA next just learn to play the game. There was gouge going around that pregamed most EPs just find some or build some, then memorize it and try to regurgitate it in front of everyone. If you don’t get through the EP hardly anyone cares, it doesn’t matter and everyone knows that.
The RPA pipeline is a joke. Everyone knows it’s just a cost cutting measure to spare the real pilots from the box.
-
18 hours ago, Bode said:
What is does do is lesson the already small chance of flying fixed wing in the AF. Every UPT base has a few helo dudes. Getting rid of that opportunity puts you in a more difficult position post military.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sounds like what happened to the whole RPA community.
I’ve heard argument against certifications and training that would improve airmenship, because it’s not the AFs job to give you the qualifications that would make leaving the organization easier.
-
1 hour ago, Guardian said:
What’s a BAH temporary increase rate?
If you happen to be in the right zip code, you can apply to have a temporary increase in BAH for a few paychecks.
But it’s an application process and you have to demonstrate that your living costs have gone up.
-
3 hours ago, Guardian said:
Well trogdor. Ask them. Do they say they are pilots? Kinda in the name. RPA. And there are RPA guys in charge of RPA. Not SO’s. Although some of the chiefs think they are in charge.
There are former Nav’s etc that transitioned. But they became RPA pilots in the end. And they are the A code for their aircraft.I know how that community feels. But perception is reality, and the public's perception is pretty obvious.
I only ask because 14 CFR § 61.73 is very specific that 18x are not to be counted as pilots, and if RPA drivers were trained to the same standard as UPT, there would be no need to differentiate them from the 11x community.
Being A coded, Its good its to know that theres always a future in the Air Force for drone operators, as long as its at the only RPA wing, out of the active duty force, or Canon.
The RPA community was an unwanted child that was dropped on its head by allegedly qualified leaders of a flying organization. Its been suffering ever since. Its one of several communities suffering.
The Air Force has other obligations outside of manned flying and the leadership crisis certainly extends to manned pilots. -
2 hours ago, HossHarris said:
This is why you don’t let non-pilots run flying organizations
So where do RPA officers fall then? They’re not pilots and their machines aren’t airplanes.
-
1
-
4
-
-
On 6/12/2021 at 6:57 PM, wannabe88 said:
Dude, there is definitely a chance. I was hired at 30 with 1 manned aviation hour to my dream heavy squadron. I am 32 about to be 33, about to finish UPT with a job at my dream fighter squadron. Everyone will tell you it’s not possible until you actually do it. It’s rare but if you are persistent it can happen.
Thats a great anecdote, but statistics dont lie and its no longer 2017-18. It could be helpful though, if youd be willing to share some more info about your story.
Howd you go from being hired by a heavy unit to a fighter unit? What were your AFOQT scores like? Howd you get interviewed at heavy and or fighter units with the closest number to zero hours of flight time? Who were your letters of Rec? What was your GPA, educational background? What kind of leadership positions did you occupy? Who did you work for prior to the AF?There are always outliers, like yourself. With out more published data, people can begin to falsely believe theyre in the outlier category.
-
7 hours ago, pawnman said:
Just lower the standards until you get enough pilots.
You should see the curriculum and product on the RPA side. I’d laugh if it wasn’t such a bad joke.
-
4 hours ago, jazzdude said:
Helicopter track is the odd one. Having a track select gives a bigger pool for helos to draw from, and provides a shared experience (T-6) for AF pilots.
I wonder if there was another “pilot” group that could benefit from a legitimate pipeline, with shared experiences with the rest of the Flying Air Force? Of course the first step would be to stop systematically delegitimizing and disenfranchising them.
-
Aetc recently did a podcast about it recommend checking it out
or you can read more about it here
in short, it does nothing to address legitimate grievances in the pipeline. What it’s trying to do though, is be more integrated with sensors and shorten the pipeline even further for “competent” students.
also the program was tabled do to covid shenanigans in 12th AF with regards to RPAs: so once there done fully un-f*cking it it may return.
-
That would honestly be hilarious, especially in light of the systematic delegitimization of the training pipeline.
-
11 hours ago, URTHopeful2021 said:
Has anyone heard rumors that IFT is back on for the RPA pipeline? Apparently it was off due to COVID and RUMINT was that they may canx it permanently.
It is back, they got a good laugh at the studs going through pipeline that had no flying experience and no IFT.
Its anyone’s guess as to what the future of the Air Force will look like and future budget allocations or force shaping.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, nsplayr said:
Yea damn I really wish we had that 🤔
For real though. Between this thread, the thread about whether or not your MWS affects your career opportunities, and the amount of fighter aircraft falling out of the sky, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
What will it take for RPAs to be taken seriously? Why were they bound by MTCR regulations so coalition partners couldn't have access to American products? I certainly do not know know.
If someone could lift the glass ceiling off RPAs that would be great.-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
On 6/14/2020 at 5:48 PM, nsplayr said:
Make me a king for a day and that's what we'd do.
Id vote for you
On 6/14/2020 at 5:48 PM, nsplayr said:I disagree strongly about RPA Pilots not thinking of themselves as pilots. You're flying a multi-million dollar, fighter-jet-sized aircraft in domestic and international controlled airspace, at times 500' seperated in a stack with other manned and unmanned assets and your primary job is to deliver weapons that kill people under tight restrictions. Time/fuel/EPs/airspace/weapons, etc. are all your daily concerns. Not sure how folks feel like they're not "real pilots."
I came from a non-pilot manned flying background though so maybe I don't feel the same as pure 18Xers do.
Ive had a tough time reconciling this exact point for myself, and some days are better than others, but its a perpetual battle of imposters syndrome. Its sucks when people ask what i do, and i tell them I fly for the Air Force, only to see their hype melt away when I then tell them what I fly. Through the conversations ive had with civilian and military pilots alike over the past few years, its clear that we are not held in high regard by most other pilots or public enthusiasts (there are some that are professional, but alot are still openly hostile and believe that we are garbage and so is our MWS. Its self evident that there is a huge lack of investment into branching out of our niche, which given the technology we have today we could easily do, then big AF turns around and spends monies on things like the F15X or the KC46 and continues doing business the old way despite harping about contested environments at every opporutnity)
In aviation, people value training and competence, and RPAs seem to receive the least amount of training in the quickest span (given our responsibilities) with the least cohesion. I'm not fond of self-defeating or victim mentalities, and I understand that the 18X career field is still so new that we dont have alot of organic leadership but its tough to see if there still is a glass ceiling (it is undeniable there was one several years ago). It feels disingenuous if we are not interchangeable with pilots for opportunities or training then we should drop the word pilot from our vernacular; new wings, new training, new word.
Personally I'd feel like more of a pilot if at the end of FTU i was able to walk over to the airport and rent a C172 and take my wife for flight. While 18xers are qualified to take a 10,000lb multi-million dollar machine thats the size of an a10 and can be loaded with thousands of pounds of ordnance, we are less a less qualified than a 16 year old civil air patrol cadet in terms of being a pilot in the eyes of the FAA (or alot of our peers for that matter), the organization who sets the standards for aviation in the best country in the world, and thats embarrassing. -
8 hours ago, kuhnie17 said:
I know that the instrument training in RIQ is fulfilling a FAA mandate so that 18x Pilots can "legally" fly within the US airspace.
That's the official line. However the sims are not FAA certified, and neither is the course, otherwise youd be able to get FAA credit for it like people do for going through UPT. On that note why the are we even training in T6 sims? Why the heck should i care learning to sim fly a plane that has nothing to do with our mission?
8 hours ago, kuhnie17 said:Does this mean students will get academics on VFR flying at Randolph?
Yes. Although instructors at Randolph are aware and there is allegedly something in the works to address it, although its almost 100% going to be nonsense.
8 hours ago, kuhnie17 said:If IFT does indeed get canxd for the 18x pipeline, we will be even further away from being pilots and getting real close to what rhymes with shmoperator.
When IFT does get canceled COIVD has shown alot of the hidden cards on the table. We will be systems and information technology operators. Gen Holmes has suggested it with the future direction ACC wants to take RPAs, everyone on this board says it every time the topic comes up, we arent pilots. For along time there was nothing but disrespect for 18xers and we are dangerously close to slipping back into the old way of doing business (although we'll have better manning).
Eventually it would be beneficial for our own sanity if we take that word off of our AFSC. It could be even better if we consolidated the various RPAs enterprises across the services most likely centralizing it out of the USAF. Our near peer Russia and our sister services are much more open to developing these capabilities than we are. Good thing we keep spending lots of money on projects like the KC-46, or deliberately make it difficult to integrate RPA with low-income allies and then tout the need for a manned armed overwatch light attack aircraft to fill the exact niche. Personally if the bonus is still there I'll probably take it to the max and punch out at 20, if its anything less than other pilots ill take my chances outside.
-
26 minutes ago, tarheelaviator said:
From someone who went through the AD process just do yourself a favor and find a different recruiter. You need to go before a rated board (i.e. flying job officer selection) and put pilot only. If they ask you to put ANY job other than pilot walk away and find a different recruiter. You don't have to work with someone who is in the same geographic location either FYI. Good luck.
So you claim you went through the AD process how did that work out for you? Did you put pilot only? How do you suggest OP strong arm AD recruiters as a civilian? Do you believe that recruiters are hurting for manned pilot recruits, especially given the economic environment? Should recruiters work with applicants who are unwilling to work with them? What should op tell recruiters from different regions when they ask why hes trying to apply from a different region? What will he do if they have a similar unwritten regulation? I'm just curious what your answers to these questions might be.
Obviously recruiters goals are to commission people, and we are short officers across the board. There never was a student pilot shortage, and even if OP listed more than just pilot if he was in the most qualified pool of candidates he would be considered for his top pick of manned pilot regardless of whatever else he put on the list. Listing pilot only dosent give you bonus points, or make it any more likely that you get that slot. This section of the forum seem to have a habit of conflating the exception-to-the-rule, with the actual rules. -
That’s good advice. It’s also good to note there was never a shortage of pilot applicants. The influx of new Lt pilots being attributed to AFPC experimenting with trying to outgrow their attrition problem. Like you said the private sector has takin an enormous beating. Apparently it’s better to be lucky than smart at HAF and AFPC.
-
Short term I wonder how thats working out for the 18x contractors with the combination of economic downturn and the Air Force is cutting its contracting CAPS and the Marines are operating their own MQ-9s to fulfill their mission requirements.
Also h eres a quick pic of that UPS airline. I'm sure it pays more than most quad copter jobs, but i wonder how it compares to Active duty major or even senior captain pay for an 18x.
-
Good read with a lot of the current info about the state of the enterprise. Also confirms the 19th AF putting the axe on IFT for 18xers
https://taskandpurpose.com/news/air-force-drone-school-falling-apart?fbclid=IwAR1i_EI5qXk-cF2YAe3XZ0Yaz2KY6heHOpE3NfofK-VN2vkvWruNLf1452A
An updated what are my chances (2023)
in What Are My Chances?
Posted
Ill just say that this advice, the rushing and bogidope, has been regurgitated so many times on every available channel that an increasing amount of units are no longer accepting any rushing and can usually tell applicants that have utilized bogiedopes services from those that have their own professional development.