I take it that 8 USC § 1481 is post 1942?
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Pilot shortage?
- Thread starter webmaster
- Start date
"Oh the humanity!" [Historical Factoid: There was no such thing as a screen board for DH until sometime in the '90s. Somehow Naval Aviation managed to survive for at least the first ~85 years.] YHS was never "screened" for a DH billet…I just got orders. At the time, the mantra was "Show up…see if the CO trusts you with a Department…do your best and don't fuck it up." I expect there was some time-tested detailing logic in that. When I later got to be a CO, that's exactly how my O-4s showed up as well.
Never have been, or at least never have been allowed to go much farther.
Tried that before in the mid-late '80s…called the "Aviation Career Officer" path [N.B.: I could be remembering the name wrong…Aviation Duty Officer? Something else?]. Anecdotally, I seem to recall that SECNAV Lehman designed it specifically to retain at least two admittedly great (legendary?) pilots who couldn't stay much longer otherwise. Never had any legs after his departure. Last attempt seems to have been the flying WO program. Again, no legs.
You guys sound like the plank owners of USS Constitution after her first patrol off the eastern seaboard in 1798 when observing the latest draft of Sailors and Marines to come aboard: "Shit…wasn't like this in the OLD Navy…".
I recall BzB and I were on shore party that night, got fairly shitfaced, and wept for the future.
I thought I was pretty clear that the VAQ DHs were no better or worse than the VQ(P) ones I had, I had a few real 'winners' as VAQ DHs, making it evident to me that the screen board didn't do much.
VQ(J)? It is VQ(P) and VQ(J) if you really wanted to know or cared......which I doubt
Now I'm confused. Is that correction a mistype? Did you just get corrected on your correction? But yeah, VQ(T) is what I meant. I got it confused with VT(P) and VT(J).
When I mentioned VQ, I meant E6B's post, and forgot you were also VQ, but of a different color. It sounded like you had better luck. My experience was similar to what E6B posted. It may have been exacerbated by having more than 10 DHs and only 4 real jobs for them. There were two or so strong dudes, one strong DH but that was a pain in the ass, and then a bunch of people that seemed to bump into one another trying to look important for the man.
That said, there were certainly winners and losers when I was a DH, too.
I meant VQ(T), apparently my proofreading skills aren't all that good (Tycho beat me to it on the previous page).
Last edited:
Not sure but losing your citizenship by serving in a foreign military has long been a way to lose citizenship, it has been enforced selectively though depending on the times and the country. The original Flying Tigers who flew under the Chinese flag were authorized and sponsored the US, specifically FDR, while the volunteers for the UK and other allies in WWI and WWII were officially and in some cases actively discouraged and disrupted. Nowadays folks serve in the Israeli military with few repercussions.
That's what I was getting at Flash. The AVG were mercenaries ($500 a kill). The Eagle Squadron and others were in the RAF and the RCAF. Most if not all were welcomed back into US service and were none to happy about trading in a Spitfire for a P-47.
Last edited:
That's what I was getting at Flash. The AVG were mercenaries ($500 a kill). The Eagle Squadron and others were in the RAF and the RCAF. Most if not all were welcomed back into US service and were none to happy about trading in a Spitfire for a P-47.
The Eagle squadron guys were welcomed into the USAAF, the AVG transition was much rougher with just about 5 of the original pilots opting to stay in China with the USAAF (serious personality clashes had a lot to do with it).
My point remains, just be cautious when thinking about joining a foreign military because while the rules may be selectively enforced now there is a law on the books that says you can lose your citizenship if you serve as an officer or non-com.
The Nuts and Bolts of the Pilot Training Shortage
Tucked down deep within the massive $1.4 trillion FY21 omnibus appropriations bill – the colossal spending law signed in the waning hours of 2020 – was an important section addressing the
^ USAF pilot shortage still an issue, 8 years later. The USAF has to brief Congress on the problem and its plan to address it. Congress also noted the factor of trainer aircraft maintenance. Naval aviation seems to be spared this scrutiny so far, apparently.
The Nuts and Bolts of the Pilot Training Shortage
Tucked down deep within the massive $1.4 trillion FY21 omnibus appropriations bill – the colossal spending law signed in the waning hours of 2020 – was an important section addressing thewww.realcleardefense.com
^ USAF pilot shortage still an issue, 8 years later. The USAF has to brief Congress on the problem and its plan to address it. Congress also noted the factor of trainer aircraft maintenance. Naval aviation seems to be spared this scrutiny so far, apparently.
Barring any new disasters, the way airlines will be hiring at the end of this year/early next year, this problem isn’t going to solve itself any time soon.
...And on the Navy side, 11 month cruises with no “real” port calls won’t help.
I wonder if they'll ever recalibrate the training pipelines to produce a lot more and reorganize the operational forces to be more horizontally manned. 20 years ago the winging commitments were 6-8 years in the services (20 years before that it was even less), nowadays they're 8-10 years plus whatever backdoor skullduggery the detailers can do with PCS orders to eek out another year on top of that.
Just spitballing', because what they've been trying ain't working. The definition of insanity is what again?
Just spitballing', because what they've been trying ain't working. The definition of insanity is what again?
Turns out 3+ years of training to bang out a 36 month sea tour before heading to production ain't a recipe for success anymore. Hurts even more when that 36 month tour is rife with maintenance phases, poor management of resources, a sham of a T&R reporting process, and PERS/FITREP shenanigans all around. Especially when that 3+ years of training gets you paid some very real $$$ in the real world.
The traditional formula may not be perfect, but it works a lot better when the details are not as they are today. I recognize the post 9/11 world changed a lot the Navy only responded to. But it isn't training time, 3 year sea tour and 3 year shore or even the commitment that is the most pressing problem. It is optempo during that sea tour. It is the golden path where good deal shore tours kill your career. It is lack of flexibility in orders timing and more. It is cookie cutter. Seems like everyone who manages a reasonable path to 20 years has done the same sort of stuff at all the same gates. You know what is coming early on. If it doesn't suit you, you will leave as soon as you can. Grad school, exchange program, LNO job, cushy staff job in Europe, station pilot, helos to CMV-22, VP to VQ. No chance paddles. So you may as well depart the pattern.
PMRF Barking Sands CO?
I cannot believe the amount of time and money that gets poured into making a patch only to have them go do something else shortly after they graduate from school. Dudes are peaking and becoming IPs, division leads, and patch wearers towards the end of that 36 months. Maybe a 12 month extension. Then they go do something else.
Dudes getting out with 1,000s of hours of experience. All that ability and experience gone, only to be replaced by a dude with 100 grey jet hours. It's not just the quals; its the experience of deployments and advanced training like Red Flags.
The lack of ROI is mind blowing.
Most problems are leadership problems, and some problems can be solved by changing the incentives/ throwing money at them.
Something the Navy (with Congress) could consider doing from an HR perspective:
Something the Navy (with Congress) could consider doing from an HR perspective:
- Change the MSO for aviators to be 12 years from date of commissioning, rather than 8-10 years from winging.
- Then, also change it so that 2xFOS for O4 no longer means you’re out, it just means you have to finish the rest of your 12-year active duty MSO at O3, i.e. spend 8 years as an O3. This probably gives the Navy one extra PCS tour at O3. The average # flight hours of O3s would increase statistically because you’ll have some 6- and 7-year O3s in the fleet.
- Consider changing the rules so aviators start getting a 3rd look for O4, if aviation is undermanned at O4.
- Build-in a new, optional $100k untaxed cash bonus at the 12 year mark - when the MSO ends - for aviator O4s in exchange for 4 more years of MSO (paid $25k annually). That cash will entice more people to stay to 16, at which point it’s on them to choose to leave so very close to 20, to make O5, or opt to ride it out at O4 if they fail to make O5.
- Make the rule so that the new 12 year MSO from date of commissioning for aviators doesn’t go away for someone who is a flight school attrite at any point after NIFE - they will be asked to redesignate but still honor that MSO, which will slightly improve manning/retention in other designators, thereby easing Navy recruiting needs slightly, and allowing recruiters to focus slightly more time/attention on aviation.