I knew a girl (nav) who was at Ramstein and she was told to go to MCs which I think would add a 3 year ADSC after her formal training (which can take a half year or a year depending on the backlog, this was around 2008). Anyway she was committed to getting out as soon as her nav ADSC was done which was going to be 2010. She refused the ADSC, so AFPC said OK, fine we're sending you to Little Rock with a 365 enroute. A couple weeks after they told her this she played her P card. So no 365 and then she separated out of Little Rock at the end of her nav contract.

Got a hypothetical: If you're leaving Korea with 13 months left, what can they tag you with?

Anything, but depends on how much time they are willing to give up. For example: 365 can be completed in toto, so that's a no brainer. PCS to US carries a 1 year ADSC, so that's cool. PCS to a different aircraft carries a 3 year ADSC, which they can still order you to do, but probably won't since they'd only get about 6 months out of you. Once you 7-day opt (or 3 day, depending), it's up to them for the next chess-piece move.

.

AF Leadership needs to get their heads out of their asses and look at the Guard / Reserve model. AND / OR create two tracks for aircrew. One in which you grow Generals and the other where you grow Aircrew Experts. Exempt all aircrew from bullshit queep like school via correspondence followed by in-residence all while being gone 200+ days a year. Oh and checking a stupid box for a worthless Masters. If we want our Generals to be smart, then send them to AFIT and other prominent schools. Not a shit hole school formally known as Toro / TUI / Trident. If we respect our Aircrew Experts, they'll want to stay in and serve longer. Theres no reason we shouldn't be getting 30 years of great service out of Aircrew. Pay and treat them well and we would save Billions in training cost alone. Not to mention, be able to kick anyones ass in the world. I wouldn't mind capping at Major or Lt Col if I was justly compensated for time in service. I would love to fly the line / be a work horse for 30 yrs. Just let me do my job and be a Pilot.

The 2 track approach is used somewhat effectively in the private sector. Not everyone wants or can be the top tier in mgmt and is happy to a guru or SME. In my company we have 2 tracks, the technical track and mgmt track. No longer are you limited in pay and/prestige because you are happy staying in the trneches doing the work that needs to be done; this allows for continuity and deep experience to help the newbies as they enter the field...

AF Leadership needs to get their heads out of their asses and look at the Guard / Reserve model.

Are you saying the Guard makes good choices regarding who it makes General officers? Holy shit.

Theres no reason we shouldn't be getting 30 years of great service out of Aircrew. Pay and treat them well and we would save Billions in training cost alone. Not to mention, be able to kick anyones ass in the world. I wouldn't mind capping at Major or Lt Col if I was justly compensated for time in service. I would love to fly the line / be a work horse for 30 yrs. Just let me do my job and be a Pilot.

So you're thinking we should have guys in their late 40s/mid 50s flying combat sorties? In fighters and helos?

Seriously?

C'mon man, get real. That just doesn't make sense. And it is a really bad idea.

I think the idea of letting people do their job and be a pilot is a good one. I'm not sure what qualifies as "pay and treat them well" though. Not sure you can get there from here and still fill all the assignments and get the mission done.

I wouldn't mind capping at Major or Lt Col if I was justly compensated for time in service. I would love to fly the line / be a work horse for 30 yrs. Just let me do my job and be a Pilot.

Several European allies have a "career pilot" path. Funny thing is how history repeats itself. Check this link out: https://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a192791.pdf

Several European allies have a "career pilot" path.

Ever spent much time with any of these European fly only career path guys? Not that inspiring. Including the RAF.

Ever spent much time with any of these European fly only career path guys? Not that inspiring. Including the RAF.

QFT.

Are you saying the Guard makes good choices regarding who it makes General officers? Holy shit. So you're thinking we should have guys in their late 40s/mid 50s flying combat sorties? In fighters and helos? Seriously? C'mon man, get real. That just doesn't make sense. And it is a really bad idea. I think the idea of letting people do their job and be a pilot is a good one. I'm not sure what qualifies as "pay and treat them well" though. Not sure you can get there from here and still fill all the assignments and get the mission done.

We could do the same method by which Germany does it. Only the fittest stay in helos and fighters past their Capt years, the rest flow into the cargo and less physically strenuous jobs.

We could do the same method by which Germany does it. Only the fittest stay in helos and fighters past their Capt years, the rest flow into the cargo and less physically strenuous jobs.

I don't think it's a matter of physical strain, certainly not in the helo world. It's more a youthful acceptance of risk. We tend to get pissed at the perceiveed risk aversion in senior leadership, and I certainly think there is some of that currently, but their calculation of risk is probably also different than ours. You need your line dog dudes to be willing to charge into Satan's asshole to make the mission happen, it's leadership's job to temper that.

What about flying AF Warrant Officers?

No.

Isn't the simple fix to simply auto-promote all pilots without referral OPRs/criminal records to O-4 with an automatic offer of continuation to 20+?

Also, to bring this thread back on topic, what is the word on prior MWS dudes getting released back to real jets?

Also, to bring this thread back on topic, what is the word on prior MWS dudes getting released back to real jets?

We'll see this Fall. Several TAMI guys will hopefully go back, otherwise I'm sure quite a few will be punching!

Are you saying the Guard makes good choices regarding who it makes General officers? Holy shit.

NO! But the Guard/Reserve force as a whole, have a shit ton more morale then Active Duty.

So you're thinking we should have guys in their late 40s/mid 50s flying combat sorties? In fighters and helos?

I know Col's in their 40s who still fly fighters. But I do agree, most shouldn't & or don't want to by that point. Hemroids are a killer.

I was referring more to Heavies. There's no reason we can't have disciplined & experienced long term pilots. Millions would be saved.

I don't think it's a matter of physical strain, certainly not in the helo world. It's more a youthful acceptance of risk. We tend to get pissed at the perceiveed risk aversion in senior leadership, and I certainly think there is some of that currently, but their calculation of risk is probably also different than ours. You need your line dog dudes to be willing to charge into Satan's asshole to make the mission happen, it's leadership's job to temper that.

Hehe, are you the one guy in the helo world that doesn't have a completely jacked up back? Not a knock, just a question. We don't pull G's, but I don't know anyone that doesn't suffer from flying in a helo past the first 5-6 years. Can it still be done? You bet. Will you pay for it? Yep.

Ever spent much time with any of these European fly only career path guys? Not that inspiring. Including the RAF.

More inspiring than a FAIP in the B-course or pipeline pilot in the FLUG working on their masters/SOS in correspondence during their upgrades. I flew with pilot career path RAF and Luftwaffe dudes a few years back at TLP, saw no issues other than their Tornados sucked...otherwise professional, talented aviators all around.

I know Col's in their 40s who still fly fighters.

Not in front line high intensity combat ops you don't.

Hoping that the MWS bros get back to their jets, but for the latest VML, our assignment porch website "status of the F-15E" document still stated that UAV's were a one way street...fingers crossed that changes!!

Cheers,

Cap-10

NO! But the Guard/Reserve force as a whole, have a shit ton more morale then Active Duty.

Really? I'm guessing that is your personal observation from anectdotal data?

I've seen and heard from plenty of ARC guys who are pissed about deployments and getting their iron yanked and many other things.

I am still in frequent contact with many friends both ARC and AD. Here's my observation...the ARC is no different than the AD with regards to morale. The morale is high when people are getting what they want and it is low when they are not.

The morale is high when people are getting what they want and it is low when they are not.

Shack!

Really? I'm guessing that is your personal observation from anectdotal data?

I've seen and heard from plenty of ARC guys who are pissed about deployments and getting their iron yanked and many other things.

I am still in frequent contact with many friends both ARC and AD. Here's my observation...the ARC is no different than the AD with regards to morale. The morale is high when people are getting what they want and it is low when they are not.

True.

Moreover, AD problems are different from ARC/ANG problems. But no matter where you go, there is an opportunity cost to flying fighters that's unavoidable.

The key is choosing the set of problems that you/your family can live with the best.

Also, to bring this thread back on topic, what is the word on prior MWS dudes getting released back to real jets?

I know of one.

...and his name was Shaved Dog's Ass

Best of wingman was he.

Not in front line high intensity combat ops you don't.

Was getting ready to reply to slackline and this changed my thought process. The older guys need more recovery time or they pay the price, got it now, I'm a bit slow I guess.