Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New study shows grim outlook for future of Air Force pilot shortage

federalnewsnetwork.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 175 posts

Re: New study shows grim outlook for future of Air Force pilot shortage

#141

Post by yutyut »

WalterBright wrote: post #88
umvi wrote: post #6

Seems like the Air Force is trapped in a vicious underhiring/overhiring cycle. When I was in college I did Air Force ROTC. A lot of my peers had pilot slots; I was poised as a 17D (Cyber Ops). After graduating, my training date was put on hold virtually indefinitely. Eventually I got an email that the Air Force had commissioned way too many officers and were looking for people to voluntarily leave with no commitment/…

Hay fever causes problems with wearing the oxygen mask. Edit: Downvote me if you like, but that's the reason I was given when I asked an Air Force pilot.

I have seasonal allergies and have never had issues with nor heard of this.

Re: New study shows grim outlook for future of Air Force pilot shortage

#142

Post by HeyLaughingBoy »

jriot wrote: post #72
chrischattin wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a former Air Force pilot and was going to writeup a long post about my experience. But, this pretty much sums it up. I loved the people, and LOVED the flying. Some of the best times of my life. But, the organizational bloat, bureaucratic BS, and constant deployments just became too much. As you can imagine, it really wears on you to be gone 6 mo's every year risking your life for a counterproductive endless war t…

As a former Air Force air traffic controller, the sentiment is similar on the enlisted side. I remember a Chief called all controllers in for a meeting to discuss his new policies, then asking the NCOs what he thought of his them. Every NCO agreed and said they were needed Chief. I told him they were counterproductive and would cause more problems than solve. He kicked everyone out of the room, and we had a one-way c…

IOW, not much different from corporate management.

Re: New study shows grim outlook for future of Air Force pilot shortage

#143

Post by drawnwren »

jwally wrote: post #14

An Anecdotal "I quit" I read a couple of years ago about the (then impending) pilot shortage: https://www.jqpublicblog.com/punching-out-latest-dear-boss-l... Dear Boss, I’ve fucking had it. I’m finally giving up on my Air Force and I’m throwing in the towel. Flying fighter jets is no longer cool enough to outweigh the bullshit, and so I’ve broken the mach for the final time. You’re going to believe that I’m leaving b…

As an Air Force vet, I think he accurately identifies the problem but I don't think the solution is what he thinks it is. The Army has been flying with Warrant Office pilots for years. They make less money, but they don't require a college degree so they have a _much_ larger pool of applicants.

The solution is to disentangle leadership and piloting. Currently, because they're all officers, pilots view themselves as leaders of men. However, as the author of this post says, the most leading a pilot will ever do is lead a flight of jets. Piloting has always been a tactical skill, and its place as an officer-exclusive job makes it incorrectly perceived as a gateway to a strategic career.

You only needed a high school degree to fly in WW2, and I honestly believe the Air Force should be hiring pilots based solely on ability to fly vs credentialism.

As a funny aside, the Air Force originally gave up Warrant Officers so that they could have have higher ranked enlisted personnnel (E-9). Afterwards, all of the other services complained that their enlisted personnel were outranked by the Air Force so they got E-9s and didn't have to give up their warrants.

Re: New study shows grim outlook for future of Air Force pilot shortage

#144

Post by aurailious »

MockObject wrote: post #103
aurailious wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Drone pilots can be put pretty much anywhere in the world so they don't need to be forward-deployed, which will probably help attract people. Unfortunately the USAF likes to put all their drone pilots at Beale which from what I have heard isn't a very big difference in experience from Minot. Also right now all drones are required to be full pilots and officers. This is a big factor in the shortages problem. No one…

I guess that's changed since 2016? https://www.engadget.com/2015/12/28/us-air-force-allows-enli...

Eh, the Global Hawk is more of a tell it where to go instead of flying by hand it kind of drone.

Re: New study shows grim outlook for future of Air Force pilot shortage

#145

Post by [deleted] »

darkpuma wrote: post #129
aristophenes wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way I see this is that the US Air Force does allow enlisted to fly. First, get a college degree, and go through the application process to become an officer. Prior enlisted with the smarts to do it are seen as better officers. Then once you've done that you can get a pilot slot. Why would I want someone who is not willing or able to get a college degree pilot my $150 million dollar jet?

Many of the best pilots in history had no university degrees. Chuck Yeager famously had none. Jacqueline Cochran had none. Amelia Earhart dropped out of Columbia. Charles Lindbergh dropped out of UW-Madison. Howard Hughes dropped out of Rice. Hanna Reitsch dropped out of medical school at Kiel. If the idea is simply use willingness to pay for / put up with university as a proxy to test seriousness and dedication, why…

[deleted]

Re: New study shows grim outlook for future of Air Force pilot shortage

#146

Post by scottlamb »

aristophenes wrote: post #112
richardhod wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's interesting how the US military copied the British class-based system of management, officers v other ranks. It does stymie a lot of creativity and talent.

The way I see this is that the US Air Force does allow enlisted to fly. First, get a college degree, and go through the application process to become an officer. Prior enlisted with the smarts to do it are seen as better officers. Then once you've done that you can get a pilot slot. Why would I want someone who is not willing or able to get a college degree pilot my $150 million dollar jet?

> Why would I want someone who is not willing or able to get a college degree pilot my $150 million dollar jet?

You could ask this same question about almost any requirement. You just finished saying that prior enlisted are seen as better officers. So why not require all officers to have previously enlisted? (in addition to college or instead of college)

And there are blanket answers to your question that apply to just about anything. souprock pointed out that a college degree takes four years, cutting short their career. And any extra hoops or delays reduce the candidate pool. Remember, the article is discussing a shortage of pilots. The answer might be "because otherwise no one will fly your $150 million jet" or "because otherwise your very few, very perfect pilots will make poor decisions from exhaustion".

Re: New study shows grim outlook for future of Air Force pilot shortage

#147

Post by Synaesthesia »

briffle wrote: post #34
driverdan wrote: post #18

> A recent RAND study found the cost of training a basic qualified fighter pilot ranges from $5.6 million for an F-16 pilot to $10.9 million for an F-22 pilot. Those numbers seem outrageous to me. Why does it cost so much? Are there frequent plane crashes?

How much do you think it costs to fill up an F-15 with Jet Fuel? Not to mention the maintenance requirements on the planes (and the ground crews to do it) and the cost of ammunition used in training (missles aren't cheap)

It’s insane the wastage that goes into the army, and the environmental destruction.

Re: New study shows grim outlook for future of Air Force pilot shortage

#148

Post by nabla9 »

umvi wrote: post #6

Seems like the Air Force is trapped in a vicious underhiring/overhiring cycle. When I was in college I did Air Force ROTC. A lot of my peers had pilot slots; I was poised as a 17D (Cyber Ops). After graduating, my training date was put on hold virtually indefinitely. Eventually I got an email that the Air Force had commissioned way too many officers and were looking for people to voluntarily leave with no commitment/…

> had pollen allergies on a form and was instantly disqualified (like you would ever be breathing pollen at altitude).

Any form of rhinitis (nose irritation or inflammation) after age 12 is disqualifying (allergic, nonallergic or vasomotor).

The reason for this is because anyone who has rhinitis has higher risk of getting the reaction at least sometimes from changes of humidity, barometric pressure, irritants like chemicals, dust, stress, etc. Having runny nose or puffed eyes is no-go for fighter pilot in a breathing mask. Spending millions to train someone who has a change of not being able to fly is not a good investment.

It's the same for the eyes. They estimate how the eye conditions develop for the rest of the career. Small things that don't matter now can become problematic later.

Re: New study shows grim outlook for future of Air Force pilot shortage

#149

Post by aristophenes »

souprock wrote: post #128
aristophenes wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way I see this is that the US Air Force does allow enlisted to fly. First, get a college degree, and go through the application process to become an officer. Prior enlisted with the smarts to do it are seen as better officers. Then once you've done that you can get a pilot slot. Why would I want someone who is not willing or able to get a college degree pilot my $150 million dollar jet?

You'd want that because a college degree is a 4-year delay during which the human body ages. Everything gets worse with age: hearing, eyesight, neck strength (needed for high-G pilots), etc. That cuts the career by 4 years, meaning that a larger portion of it is training and a smaller portion is being useful. There is then an incentive to let excessively older people keep flying, meaning a reduction in the physical s…

This is a strong argument, but that 4 year delay also helps you mature and figure out how life works and become more independent and self-sufficient. A 19 year could do a great job I'm sure. I know a guy that was flying combat missions in Vietnam at that age. From what I hear he was a phenomenal pilot. I think he made some decisions he wouldn't have made if he was a little older though.

Also I have a feeling the older guys can handle the G's ok, better than a lanky 18 year old who hasn't gotten his man-physique yet.

With the technology we have I think I'd rather have an older, wiser 40 year flying my F-22 than a 22 year old, but maybe I'm wrong, I have no stats for their relative performance.

Re: New study shows grim outlook for future of Air Force pilot shortage

#150

Post by larkost »

darkpuma wrote: post #129
aristophenes wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way I see this is that the US Air Force does allow enlisted to fly. First, get a college degree, and go through the application process to become an officer. Prior enlisted with the smarts to do it are seen as better officers. Then once you've done that you can get a pilot slot. Why would I want someone who is not willing or able to get a college degree pilot my $150 million dollar jet?

Many of the best pilots in history had no university degrees. Chuck Yeager famously had none. Jacqueline Cochran had none. Amelia Earhart dropped out of Columbia. Charles Lindbergh dropped out of UW-Madison. Howard Hughes dropped out of Rice. Hanna Reitsch dropped out of medical school at Kiel. If the idea is simply use willingness to pay for / put up with university as a proxy to test seriousness and dedication, why…

One of the arguments for pilots to be officers is that they are the ones who ultimately make the final decision on dropping bombs. The U.S. Air Force took a heavy mental beating over the horror of indiscriminate bombings it conducted in the Vietnam War (that was not a war...), and has internalized it.

The thinking is that officers are personally responsible for the command decisions that they execute. If you are ordered to do something you think is illegal it is your responsibility as an officer to refuse. Enlisted are not expected to be held to this requirement. I understand the realities of things, but this is the theory.

The tie-in with a university degree is that that is supposed to have exposed you to enough other thinking that you are better (not to be confused with "well") prepared to make those sort of decisions.

Post reply on HN