Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is amazing that some consider military service as a "right" as opposed to a duty. Most of what plagues the military today is that many serving or are considering serving in today's all-volunteer military, is a unfounded sense of entitlement.
Compromises at all levels and in all branches, in an attempt to accommodate those who otherwise would never be allowed to wear a uniform are what is undermining this nations defense capability today. Going back to the early 80's and the evaluations of various military occupations, which revealed the weaknesses and flawed proposals to accommodate
any and all who "want" (read that as those that feel they are "entitled" to serve when, where and how they wish; as in "I have a right" to be here!") to be in the military.
The ultimate over-riding concern should be "what is in the best interest of accomplishing the mission?" Politically correct posturing, accommodating those who would otherwise be considered unfit to serve (in any capacity), and compromised and reduced performance standards produce what? A military that permits and actually endorses sex-changes in their
personnel! Looks as though the defectives are winning, at the expense of all others.
The issue of military (as well as anticipated civilian aircrew) shortages is a situation which should to be addressed yesterday! The "I want to fly _____ fill in the blank" should not be the deciding factor. Rather, "I want to serve in the capacity/position I'm best suited/qualified/capable of " You are in the military to serve at the military's pleasure, nothing more!
Thanks, can't rep you again. Good to know a guy who signs up to fly won't likely be pushed off to desk duty.
How is class standing determined? Sort of an overall score, including academics, flying, and (what else?)?
Class standing is based on three things: flying ability and potential, academics, and officership. The latter is difficult to assess in a 2nd Lieutenant in training, so it's not weighted much. There is always a problem with ranking people in subjective matters, and that's the human element... some students may have more "halo effect" as we called it than others. An intense, introspective, great-hands student may be ranked slightly lower than a personable, enthusiastic student with slightly less skills; that's a consequence of being ranked by people. Some rankings are unfortunately and unfairly skewed.
There were three phases in pilot training when I went through: Phase I, aerospace physiology and learning T-37 systems; Phase II, T-37 flight line, and Phase III, T-38. In the T-38 the ranking took place. Each flying phase (II and III) had basic, contact, instrument, formation and navigation missions. Contact was all about flying the aircraft and putting it where it needed to be (aerobatics and stalls/spins), as well as a heavy emphasis on patterns and landings. There were simulators as well.
About six weeks before graduation we compiled our "dream sheet". We were also told if we were FAR or TTB. FAR is fighter-attack-reconnaissance, TTB is tanker-transport-bomber. Three weeks later we got our assignments. A student given the FAR stamp was eligible to be a FAIP (see earlier post) and stay on as an instructor. Being a FAIP, in my opinion, sucks. Sure, one gets 1000-1500 hours of experience as in instructor, but the follow-on assignments were the issue. In my class, which was anomalous, we had 45 graduates; 9 were foreign or ANG/Reserve. 36 students to the active duty, and of that 17 were FAIPs. Of those 17, only three later got fighters. Typically, a person who was FAR but wanted a heavy was given the chance to think about his decision and maybe change his mind in three years. The reality was they'd get screwed with a heavy, because SAC and MAC were tired of getting the bottom of the class all the time and wanted some better aviators. FAIPs did have an advantage in follow-on fighter training competing against lieutenants simply because they had more experience. When they showed up at a fighter unit they were captains but still only had ~100 hours of fighter time, so they still had to wait for upgrades, but they did receive more respect and even ended up as flight commanders or shop chiefs.
Last edited by SluggoF16; 05-11-2017 at 08:36 AM..
It is amazing that some consider military service as a "right" as opposed to a duty. Most of what plagues the military today is that many serving or are considering serving in today's all-volunteer military, is a unfounded sense of entitlement.
Compromises at all levels and in all branches, in an attempt to accommodate those who otherwise would never be allowed to wear a uniform are what is undermining this nations defense capability today. Going back to the early 80's and the evaluations of various military occupations, which revealed the weaknesses and flawed proposals to accommodate
any and all who "want" (read that as those that feel they are "entitled" to serve when, where and how they wish; as in "I have a right" to be here!") to be in the military.
The ultimate over-riding concern should be "what is in the best interest of accomplishing the mission?" Politically correct posturing, accommodating those who would otherwise be considered unfit to serve (in any capacity), and compromised and reduced performance standards produce what? A military that permits and actually endorses sex-changes in their
personnel! Looks as though the defectives are winning, at the expense of all others.
The issue of military (as well as anticipated civilian aircrew) shortages is a situation which should to be addressed yesterday! The "I want to fly _____ fill in the blank" should not be the deciding factor. Rather, "I want to serve in the capacity/position I'm best suited/qualified/capable of " You are in the military to serve at the military's pleasure, nothing more!
Funny you mentioned the early 80s because the thread reminds me of Master Gunnery Sergeant Foley from the movie An Officer and a Gentleman describing his role for all those recent college graduates hoping to get the Navy to teach them how to fly.
I will answer those questions based on my experience, which may or may not be the current status quo.
Generally the top 50% or so of the class is considered fighter qualified. Of those, roughly half end up staying on as first assignment instructor pilots. (FAIPs) Often FAIPs were assigned to trainers so they could have experience before moving on to fighters, or they asked for heavies and were given three years "to think about it" since they were fighter qualified.
The top 10% generally get what they want, where they want. If they want a KC-135 to Grand Forks, ND, so be it. I wanted an A-10 to SE US, and got it, as I was in the top 10%.
I had one guy in my AT-38 fighter lead in class wash out, and he ended up in the KC-135. He had a problem with Gs, as in pulling too many. I have known of more than one F-16 student who washed out too, in the case of a couple of Guard pilots they either sought out Guard units that have heavies, or perhaps their state had two Guard units, such as Arkansas or Iowa, with one heavy. Generally they just did not have the situational awareness and ability to fly fighters. It's not for everyone.
The Air Force will not waste a new pilot on a desk, unless a student asks for it. (Except for the early 90s but that's a different thread.)
So what was going on in 2004/5? Was that a boondoggle time to get in?
It is amazing that some consider military service as a "right" as opposed to a duty. Most of what plagues the military today is that many serving or are considering serving in today's all-volunteer military, is a unfounded sense of entitlement.
Compromises at all levels and in all branches, in an attempt to accommodate those who otherwise would never be allowed to wear a uniform are what is undermining this nations defense capability today. Going back to the early 80's and the evaluations of various military occupations, which revealed the weaknesses and flawed proposals to accommodate
any and all who "want" (read that as those that feel they are "entitled" to serve when, where and how they wish; as in "I have a right" to be here!") to be in the military.
The ultimate over-riding concern should be "what is in the best interest of accomplishing the mission?" Politically correct posturing, accommodating those who would otherwise be considered unfit to serve (in any capacity), and compromised and reduced performance standards produce what? A military that permits and actually endorses sex-changes in their
personnel! Looks as though the defectives are winning, at the expense of all others.
The issue of military (as well as anticipated civilian aircrew) shortages is a situation which should to be addressed yesterday! The "I want to fly _____ fill in the blank" should not be the deciding factor. Rather, "I want to serve in the capacity/position I'm best suited/qualified/capable of " You are in the military to serve at the military's pleasure, nothing more!
I think this is a little off topic. The military should never compromise on its standards ... ever. The issue is that as an individual it is not out of line for me to want, and have the right as a US citizen to pursue careers that I want to do.
I don't have a right to fly fighters if I wash out and don't meet standards but as a citizen of this nation I should have a right to try if I meet the pre-quals (have the proper BS degree, AFOQT, medical, etc) and be able to walk away if I wash out. The military does not have the right to treat people like slaves or indentured servants unless said person got their degree paid for or took some other VERY significant monetary advantage (or in the case of WW3 as declared by congress and a draft is implemented but that's another topic). I think that it is sad that our elected representatives have allowed the current military contracts to exist as they do for this long.
If said candidate has gone through the expense and hassle of funding their own BS degree, studying and taking the AFOQT getting into shape getting their own PPL etc then they also have skin in the game.
Hey Sluggo, above when discussing ratings, you didn't include Helo's. Is there a separate training track for Helo pilots?
I was a S-3 mechanic in the Navy. So I only know the S-3 community. I had very close relationships with the pilots in my squadron, so I only know what they told me.
This is what they said, that pilot trainees that showed poor maneuverability skills in the trainers, would be assigned to Helo's, as high G problems, problems estimating distance at speed, quick reaction times, weren't such of a problem. The pilots that got support aircraft were the pilots that passed the training, but didn't score top of their class.
Every pilot I talked to, did not want the S-3. In the 90's the S-3 had lost its anti-surface warfare role. It was just a mini-tanker. When the S-3 was retired, some of the younger pilots did get into Hornets, but many went on to other support aircraft.
Some on here will say that flying is flying. That isn't the case. A fighter jet can do some amazing things. Pilots have to WORK to fly a fighter. 8 to 9 G's is one heck of a force on the body. They also train on using guns to strafe targets, drop bombs, fire missiles. They get to go to Nevada and take part in simulated fighter vs. fighter combat. There is more to flying fighters than just the cool factor. It's like comparing a taxi driver, to a formula one driver.
Hey Sluggo, above when discussing ratings, you didn't include Helo's. Is there a separate training track for Helo pilots?
I was a S-3 mechanic in the Navy. So I only know the S-3 community. I had very close relationships with the pilots in my squadron, so I only know what they told me.
This is what they said, that pilot trainees that showed poor maneuverability skills in the trainers, would be assigned to Helo's, as high G problems, problems estimating distance at speed, quick reaction times, weren't such of a problem. The pilots that got support aircraft were the pilots that passed the training, but didn't score top of their class.
Every pilot I talked to, did not want the S-3. In the 90's the S-3 had lost its anti-surface warfare role. It was just a mini-tanker. When the S-3 was retired, some of the younger pilots did get into Hornets, but many went on to other support aircraft.
Some on here will say that flying is flying. That isn't the case. A fighter jet can do some amazing things. Pilots have to WORK to fly a fighter. 8 to 9 G's is one heck of a force on the body. They also train on using guns to strafe targets, drop bombs, fire missiles. They get to go to Nevada and take part in simulated fighter vs. fighter combat. There is more to flying fighters than just the cool factor. It's like comparing a taxi driver, to a formula one driver.
There was a totally different track for helicopter pilots, and I can't tell you what it was like, other than one student in my pilot training class was a helo driver, as was my FTO at field training... they went through Fort Rucker for training. I have about 2.5 hours in the front seats of an OH-58, and that is real work (I have about 30 minutes stick time). Not an easy task flying one, I respect those guys, pure flying.
I flew A-10s with a captain who had spent several years in the Navy, flew the A-4 and the S-3. In our doofer book he posted a picture of an S-3 with the caption "THIS IS AN S-3. IF ANYONE EVER TELLS YOU TO FLY THIS, TELL THEM YOU'D RATHER TEACH SHIITE MUSLIMS HOW TO F**K PIGS." He obviously didn't care for the Hoover.
The modern day military contract system is an artificial construct in order to manipulate people, it is dishonest as someone does not have the option to walk if they are not picked up for flight, they have to serve in some other capacity, thats an issue as it is dishonest.
I got out of ROTC because it was a blind contract, I got out of the guard because it was a blind contract and after getting an engineering degree and having an engineering job I was in no mood to go be hazed again in OCS after already completing basic training. You can say what you want but those were my terms, as a skilled degreed person who almost had their professional engneering licence I get to have some terms, you can say what you want but its my life, I get to choose what I put up with.
I have some idea where you are going with this and that is part of the reason the military is suffering, intellegent people dont put up with passive aggressive manipulation. It should be that you come in on a pilot contract and if you cut it you cut it if you dont your washed out and can go get a civilian job, govt job or chose to stay in, but that should be the service members decision not the military.
You speak of an intolerance for hazing. While much of traditional ceremonial hazing has been toned down in the modern military, there are still formal training activities that are done for a legitimate reason, that resemble hazing. Survival training comes to mind. To my knowledge, aviation candidates in all military branches, must endure and pass some variation of this training. Your ROTC hazing experience will pale in comparison.
Yes and said draft would depend upon a FORMAL declaration of war by a quarm of the house and senate. If we are not in a formal declared war for our own national sovernty why shouldn't military members be able to walk away if they wash out of flight?
IF we are not in a fight for our lives we don't NEED these people to go be whipping boys in some sub par job if they wash out of flight, they can go live their lives with their bachelors degree and get a civilian job (or stay in govt service as a GS depending what their degree is).
The existing construct is pure manipulation and control.
What you're asking is for the military to change it's culture and regulations to suit you. Not going to happen.
Actually, I read an air force study about this very issue, and graduates, particularly pilots graduating at the top of their class, were asking to be assigned to support aircraft for their advanced training rather than choosing fighters. Support aircraft gave the pilots more time with their families, less deployments overseas, and less combat rotations, enabling them to have a career and, for the military, a decent work/life balance. So, yes, some of the AF's best pilots were asking not to be assigned to fighters.
Quality of life drives the desire for certain airframes, both in and out of the military. Ask a civilian pilot what his favorite airplane is; "which ever one pays the most". A passionate desire for the latest and greatest airplane is a fanboy thing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
