If every kind of review is flawed, what do you suggest? I like the idea of peer reviews and think people are mature enough to see through bullshit and rank people accordingly. Especially in an instance like this. 

1 hour ago, ihtfp06 said:

 

 

Peer, superior, and subordinate review are all flawed. I can't tell you what the correct solution is, but popularity does not equal effectiveness. My SOS flight had 4 DGs, and only one deserved it (and being prior army enlisted and old as fack, wasn't going to do him much good anyway).

I don't dispute that, but I'm thinking of a swiss cheese model.  2 slices, or even 3, might close some of the holes that our current crop of O-6s slipped through.

If every kind of review is flawed, what do you suggest? I like the idea of peer reviews and think people are mature enough to see through bullshit and rank people accordingly. Especially in an instance like this. 

Superior review encourages brown-nosing. Peer review can cause harmful rifts (just look at the new enlisted system). Subordinate review is strictly a popularity contest.

I think peer and subordinate review would at least highlight some of the douchers.  You could put Jefferson on both sides of a nickel and he'd still be less two-faced than some of the SNCOs I've met in this career field.  And we wonder why SOs don't reenlist.

I don't dispute that, but I'm thinking of a swiss cheese model.  2 slices, or even 3, might close some of the holes that our current crop of O-6s slipped through.

Agreed.

3 hours ago, ihtfp06 said:

Superior review encourages brown-nosing. Peer review can cause harmful rifts (just look at the new enlisted system). Subordinate review is strictly a popularity contest.

If all forms of review are flawed, what do you suggest?

I don't think an entirely based peer review system would be appropriate but a portion of an overall score would be good, an issue that I thought of with this type of system would be the drive for a static close out date for all officer ranks ala the new EPR system.

Everybody would be voting all the time as someone was coming up for an OPR at sometime and probably be detrimental to the process.

Maybe it could work but it would drive further synchronization in PCS, static close out dates, etc... still putting the objective standards, relative standing based on the professional opinion of your peers and allowing commanders to have a say I think would be an improvement over the current model.  Not perfect but nothing ever is.

If only applied to RPA Line assignments, getting all the parts lined up and synched up could be done.  

On May 20, 2016 at 7:15 AM, General Chang said:

This is only the first step.  If we can get more enlisted RPA pilots to take over all non-combat RPA roles, then permanently reclassify all current RPA pilots into the RPA career field, we will no longer need to pull pilots out of cockpits for RPAs.  This would solve rated manning problems faster than any bonus increase (although A1 will continue to pursue that with Congress).  Lots of reasons to be positive, people.

You have to honestly be trying to be this ignorant and blind to the current reasons that RPAs are undermanned. What makes you think the SrA isn't going to punch at the first chance to go make six figures working as a contractor? 

3 hours ago, Fuzz said:

You have to honestly be trying to be this ignorant and blind to the current reasons that RPAs are undermanned. What makes you think the SrA isn't going to punch at the first chance to go make six figures working as a contractor? 

This, I've heard the retention of Sensor Operators is just as bad as the Pilots.

10 hours ago, Azimuth said:

This, I've heard the retention of Sensor Operators is just as bad as the Pilots.

Of course it is.  The average 4-year degree gets you a $50k job on the outside.  4 years as an SO can get you $120k+.  SrA's are seeing their peers separate, move out of their ghetto apartments, and start driving Porsches (and actually be able to afford them).  What would you do?

12 hours ago, Azimuth said:

This, I've heard the retention of Sensor Operators is just as bad as the Pilots.

From what I've seen it's worse.  I've seen 3 first term SOs reenlist in my 4 years in RPAs.  I've lost count of the separations.  My understanding is that Cannon had a 0% reenlistment rate for 1st term SOs last year.  RPAs and Active Duty just do not mix.  If we had any sense we'd hand a CAP to each state's ANG, supplement with contractor CAPs and get the regular Air Force completely out of the MQ-9 business.

3 hours ago, guineapigfury said:

From what I've seen it's worse.  I've seen 3 first term SOs reenlist in my 4 years in RPAs.  I've lost count of the separations.  My understanding is that Cannon had a 0% reenlistment rate for 1st term SOs last year.  RPAs and Active Duty just do not mix.  If we had any sense we'd hand a CAP to each state's ANG, supplement with contractor CAPs and get the regular Air Force completely out of the MQ-9 business.

..If you re-look at how drones are tasked, you can solve manning problem and job satisfaction. Ask crews when they feel mission is "fraud waste and abuse".  Remove that feeling and things may change. IMHO of course. 

I've read that paper too.  A lot of this community's problems are customer driven.  However, the primary problem most pilots flying RPAs have is that their flying RPAs.  Shiftwork in a box is inherently miserable.

Are pilots coming back as contractors? Or is it that miserable they leave altogether? 

Are pilots coming back as contractors? Or is it that miserable they leave altogether? 

STFU!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

1 hour ago, scoobs said:

Are pilots coming back as contractors? Or is it that miserable they leave altogether? 

Some come back as contractors.  Increased pay, vastly decreased queep and the ability to walk away make for a vastly improved QoL.

This, I've heard the retention of Sensor Operators is just as bad as the Pilots.

The number I've heard thrown around recently is 2% retention. In typical Big Blue fashion, their eye is on the closest obstacle (RPA pilot manning) and they can't see the brick wall just beyond that we are flying toward (Sensor manning).

We all shook our heads 2 years ago when we forced out qualified SOs based on crap they had done years before as an A1C. Then they cut the re-enlistment bonus completely and only just recently reinstated it for first term SOs. What did they expect would happen? I saw this happening at least 2 years ago.

I wonder how senior leaders will explain away the RPA sensor operator manning crisis that will immediately follow the RPA pilot manning crisis.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The number I've heard thrown around recently is 2% retention. In typical Big Blue fashion, their eye is on the closest obstacle (RPA pilot manning) and they can't see the brick wall just beyond that we are flying toward (Sensor manning).

We all shook our heads 2 years ago when we forced out qualified SOs based on crap they had done years before as an A1C. Then they cut the re-enlistment bonus completely and only just recently reinstated it for first term SOs. What did they expect would happen? I saw this happening at least 2 years ago.

I wonder how senior leaders will explain away the RPA sensor operator manning crisis that will immediately follow the RPA pilot manning crisis.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

HOTAS

Kidding...but only kind of.

The number I've heard thrown around recently is 2% retention. In typical Big Blue fashion, their eye is on the closest obstacle (RPA pilot manning) and they can't see the brick wall just beyond that we are flying toward (Sensor manning).

We all shook our heads 2 years ago when we forced out qualified SOs based on crap they had done years before as an A1C. Then they cut the re-enlistment bonus completely and only just recently reinstated it for first term SOs. What did they expect would happen? I saw this happening at least 2 years ago.

I wonder how senior leaders will explain away the RPA sensor operator manning crisis that will immediately follow the RPA pilot manning crisis.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"Well... What had happened was that the Airlines... It wasn't our fault...service before self...leadership 101...er...Congress(mommy) can we stop loss EVERYONE now?"

In actuality they will just blame it on the "improving economy " and miss the opportunity to make the place better or learn from the consistent mistakes that keep getting us in these positions.

I'm not an RPA dude but I still don't get why they can't park GCUs at Hickam, Luke or maybe even Europe if our civ leaders could twist some arms. Why the must we park them in terrible locations?

Better yet, park them in garden spots and spread them all out 4-5 timezones apart. 

Boom!  No one has to work nights. No more shift work.

Better yet, park them in garden spots and spread them all out 4-5 timezones apart. 

Boom!  No one has to work nights. No more shift work.

Take your logic and kindly leave.

6 hours ago, HossHarris said:

Better yet, park them in garden spots and spread them all out 4-5 timezones apart. 

Boom!  No one has to work nights. No more shift work.

They would love to.  The price tag would, at a minimum, be hundreds of millions of dollars and would double the manning/footprint required across the enterprise.  Also, 10:1 odds that the instant that happens, someone would recognize the increase in capacity using current state ops and immediately grow the caps to match.

We already have perfectly serviceable bases in Hawaii and Guam.  Those locations already have all the support stuff in place (medical, finance, etc) and there would be no SOFA issues.  Find a couple buildings to plug some fixed facility GCS's into, some room for satellite dishes and away we go.  We don't need to reinvent the wheel here.  We'd have to get good at handovers to people who aren't the LRE, but that isn't that hard.  Let every base work 2 shifts, not 3.  Mids is what's literally breaking people.

I couldn't agree more, the job still ain't the best, but if the AF could get us some better locations, better hours, and treat it as a true A tour with a legit hope of going to back to a cockpit after the 1 tour was up I (and I think many others) would do the job without us kicking and screaming the entire way.