Enlistment of skilled personel

Does anybody know what the USAF tends to do when people with a directly
translatable skill, i.e. civilian aircraft mechanics or computer programmers,
enlist? I expect that they would have to go through basic training, but would
they have to go through the entire course of technical training that somebody
with no experience in the skill would have to go through?

Thanks.

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 16:55:40 GMT, (Steven Wagner) wrote:

Does anybody know what the USAF tends to do when people with a directly
translatable skill, i.e. civilian aircraft mechanics or computer programmers,
enlist? I expect that they would have to go through basic training, but would
they have to go through the entire course of technical training that somebody
with no experience in the skill would have to go through?

Thanks.

You have to learn to do it the AIR FORCE WAY!!!!!!

Al Minyard

Yes. Everyone becomes an 1-level student out of Basic. Some with experience,
or high aptitude scores, are allowed to self-pace and graduate early.

When you arrive at your first base, you will be an apprentice, and however fast
you want to go to journeyman is up to you. Everyone is given 1 year, I seem
to recall. You have to be 95% complete on your skills training, and have taken
a written test. They called apprentice's 3-level's and journeymen were 5-levels.
When you make NCO status, you usually are skilled enough to be a supervisor,
and they call that a 7-level. The little screw-drivers you see clipped to the
fatigue pockets, are called 7-level screwdrivers :-)

With self-pace, you can be out of tech school pretty fast, but tech school is
usually 36 weeks of party-time and lustful frolic, that I can't imagine anyone
wanting to end it early...

Unless you are poor, I wouldn't recommend enlisting. You really want to be
an officer in today's military. Trust me, I was both, and being enlisted anything,
is like being a 12 year old for life. No respect.

"Steven Wagner" wrote
Does anybody know what the USAF tends to do when people with a directly
translatable skill, i.e. civilian aircraft mechanics or computer programmers,
enlist? I expect that they would have to go through basic training, but would
they have to go through the entire course of technical training that somebody
with no experience in the skill would have to go through?

"D. Strang" wrote in message
news:_SK7c.127$zc1.118@okepread03...
With self-pace, you can be out of tech school pretty fast, but tech school
is
usually 36 weeks of party-time and lustful frolic, that I can't imagine
anyone
wanting to end it early...

Yes! And not only that... There is no such thing as a school where
you do not learn something. You are mortgaging part of your life for that
military education, don't let them get off cheap. Even at 18, I was smart
enough to pass up the accelerated deal. Smart, but naive...


Unless you are poor, I wouldn't recommend enlisting. You really want to
be
an officer in today's military. Trust me, I was both, and being enlisted
anything,
is like being a 12 year old for life. No respect.

Yes again! I joined the Navy naively thinking that I would "work my
way up to officer" and make a career out of it. It was a full two years
before I fathomed the social distinction between an officer and an enlisted
man. Ever having been enlisted taints you for life and makes you a
second-class sub-human. Yes, there are respected "mustangs" who make the
jump from enlisted to officer status, but they are seen as limited
specialists and rarely progress much past O3.

Vaughn

On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 00:27:53 GMT, "Vaughn"
disturbed the phosphur particles
on my screen with the following:


Yes again! I joined the Navy naively thinking that I would "work my
way up to officer" and make a career out of it. It was a full two years
before I fathomed the social distinction between an officer and an enlisted
man. Ever having been enlisted taints you for life and makes you a
second-class sub-human.

I'll never forget a squadron announcement posted one day in 1958:

"Officers and their ladies , enlisted men and their wives
are invited to the squadron party this weekend."




Enlisted men couldn't possibly marry ladies.
No enlisted men showed up......

"Greasy Rider" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 00:27:53 GMT, "Vaughn"
disturbed the phosphur particles
on my screen with the following:


Yes again! I joined the Navy naively thinking that I would "work my
way up to officer" and make a career out of it. It was a full two years
before I fathomed the social distinction between an officer and an
enlisted
man. Ever having been enlisted taints you for life and makes you a
second-class sub-human.

I'll never forget a squadron announcement posted one day in 1958:

"Officers and their ladies , enlisted men and their wives
are invited to the squadron party this weekend."




Enlisted men couldn't possibly marry ladies.
No enlisted men showed up......

I didn't join til '75 but I understand back then they issued wives to
enlisted men, something about getting the CO's permission.

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 17:43:52 -0600, "D. Strang"
wrote:

[stuff snipped]

Unless you are poor, I wouldn't recommend enlisting. You really want to be
an officer in today's military. Trust me, I was both, and being enlisted anything,
is like being a 12 year old for life. No respect.


And your C.O. acts like they are your daddy, mommy, and school
principal all rolled into one.

John Hairell

On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 11:31:16 -0500, John Hairell
wrote:

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 17:43:52 -0600, "D. Strang"
wrote:

[stuff snipped]

Unless you are poor, I wouldn't recommend enlisting. You really want to be
an officer in today's military. Trust me, I was both, and being enlisted anything,
is like being a 12 year old for life. No respect.


And your C.O. acts like they are your daddy, mommy, and school
principal all rolled into one.

John Hairell

Amazing. First, we've got an enlisted person who became an officer who
characterizes the treatment of enlisted personnel as "like being a
12-year old". Clearly the perception is the reality, but I wonder how
someone who rose through the ranks could perpetuate the stereotype.
Did you continue, as an officer, to treat your personnel as you
perceived you were treated? Or, is it possible that there are some
officers (I'll contend a lot of them,) who respect their subordinates,
depend upon them for support and value their expertise?

And, then, we've got another stereotype--the C.O. who acts like
"daddy, mommy and school principal". Well, certainly there are
instances in which the age of the commander and the youth (and
concommitant immaturity) of the lower ranking enlisted merits such
treatment. But to extend the metaphor to establish the standard is
patently absurd.

Let's acknowledge first, that most C.O.s deal through chain of
command. Their attitudes, information, and reactions are filtered
through levels of junior officers and NCOs. There are some
organizations in which the C.O. does deal with the lowest ranks, but
in most units, there are several levels. Or, maybe you didn't mean
C.O., but rather simply meant "supervisor"--then you've still got to
deal with different ages, levels of maturity, and degrees of technical
expertise.

"Daddy, mommy and school principal" are responsible for enforcing
discipline and achieving results whether in the military or the family
or corporate America. If required, that's sometime the way it is. But,
in most successful organization respect is a two-way street. Show me a
unit which routinely demeans the enlisted personnel without respect
for their capabilities and I'll show you a failed unit.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

"Ed Rasimus" wrote

Amazing. First, we've got an enlisted person who became an officer who
characterizes the treatment of enlisted personnel as "like being a
12-year old".

I should have said that this treatment mostly comes from higher-rank
enlisted personnel. The reason I wanted to become an officer, was
because of several role models (we'd call them mentors today). One
was a Major, another was a Captain. During my first combat tour, I
was basically fearless. I found that most of the people who got killed
were always doing the wrong thing. The Captain told me I had the
right instincts, in that when it looks like you are going to die, then the
best thing to do is attack. If you circle the wagons (go defense), you
die. The enemy has the coordinates of people standing still :-)

Clearly the perception is the reality, but I wonder how
someone who rose through the ranks could perpetuate the stereotype.
Did you continue, as an officer, to treat your personnel as you
perceived you were treated?

One of the first things I learned (it wasn't obvious), was that you end
up mothering your men. The object is to get them through their tour.
There's always one guy who has the IQ of a turd, and these guys are
always popular. You have to really brow-beat the men and find ways
to get their attention. Especially after losing five or six guys in one
battle. They are either very depressed, or very ****ed off, and it takes
constant commands to focus the battle. If you're lucky you have at
least one NCO, who is meaner than you could ever be.

My experience as an enlisted man was very bad (outside of combat).
When you are in the states or some overseas cesspool, just putting in
time, then everyone wants a piece of you for slave labor. I was once
grabbed off the street, and found myself unloading railroad cars. We
had a couple radar troops with us. They felt they were just slaves.
You would never find officers doing that kind of work. But you
would find college graduate highly technical specialists just cannabolized
for the body count. We broke a lot of stuff just to get even.

Or, is it possible that there are some
officers (I'll contend a lot of them,) who respect their subordinates,
depend upon them for support and value their expertise?

It all makes sense until you see the daily detail list. E-7's driving bus,
E-8 inventory the clothing store, E-5 waxing the bowling alley, etc.
Then you go to your real job.

And, then, we've got another stereotype--the C.O. who acts like
"daddy, mommy and school principal". Well, certainly there are
instances in which the age of the commander and the youth (and
concommitant immaturity) of the lower ranking enlisted merits such
treatment. But to extend the metaphor to establish the standard is
patently absurd.

During my commanders welcome meeting in his office, we all sat at
his table and told him he had a terrible moral problem. I wasn't there
a week, and I found the place a disaster. He looked us square in the
face and said he will make sure all of us would wish we were never
born, jumped-up and yelled to get the hell out of his office. He
lasted another month before the Colonel got rid of him, but the
damage was done, and we were just enlisted people, so suck it up.

Let's acknowledge first, that most C.O.s deal through chain of
command. Their attitudes, information, and reactions are filtered
through levels of junior officers and NCOs. There are some
organizations in which the C.O. does deal with the lowest ranks, but
in most units, there are several levels. Or, maybe you didn't mean
C.O., but rather simply meant "supervisor"--then you've still got to
deal with different ages, levels of maturity, and degrees of technical
expertise.

In my example above, the higher enlisted ranks were almost never to
be found. The commander had no eyes and ears. I agree with you
on this.

Show me a
unit which routinely demeans the enlisted personnel without respect
for their capabilities and I'll show you a failed unit.

All I have to do is go into a squadron and look at the detail list, or watch
all the enlisted troops picking up trash with their garbage bags dragging
behind them to know that nothing has changed.

On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 17:19:21 -0600, "D. Strang"
wrote:

All I have to do is go into a squadron and look at the detail list, or watch
all the enlisted troops picking up trash with their garbage bags dragging
behind them to know that nothing has changed.


I don't know where and when you served, but clearly you've got a
wealth of experiences. I can only say that during my 23 years with the
company I seldom saw that sort of thing going on. That included
stateside TAC and ATC (plus MAJCOM), PACAF two tours in combat ops,
and USAFE (operational and Hq).

Throughout, there was mutual respect for the support troops and high
morale. Long hours and harsh working conditions occasionally, but
there was always a strong sense of mission and a keen awareness that
it was the whole team that made it happen.

My final tour on active duty was Air Liaison Officer with the 4th ID
(mech), where I got some insight into Army operations. The differences
in numbers (and hence ratios) of officer to enlisted were very
apparent. Clearly there was more room for the sort of thing you
describe on the green side of the house, but the successful units
maintained the same sort of relationships that I saw on the blue side.

The days of traditional European conscript (18th/19th Century) "rank &
file" versus officer corps--"keep a stiff upper lip" seem pretty much
over.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8