going AF?

When I ran ATC undergrad assignments, I returned the system to full
merit assignment.

When was that? The (last) change back to the MARS (Merit Assignment Ranking
System) took place with McPeak in '92, so somewhere between you and McPeak it
went back to being handed your assignment. I've only heard tales from the
"forced assignment" days, mostly from FAIPs who said they were screwed by Capt.
X who had it out for him, or Maj. Y who like him and wanted him back as an IP
after graduation.

Today, the SUPT split is the big decision point.

And, if I understand correctly, one the student no longer makes, but is made
for him.

If someone wanted bomber over transport, I don't see much to
discriminate on beyond the availability of the slots to the class at
large and the individual desires.

This has gone back and forth several times since the T-1 came on-line, but I
think the fighter track (T-38s) is the "bomber-fighter" track. The B-52
community was not happy with product we were getting from the T-1 side of the
house, apparently the Bone side was not happy either, so they changed the track
program again (at least the 3rd switch since SUPT and the T-1).


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 14:59:07 -0500, Cub Driver
wrote:


Ed, the age limit has gone up to 29.5 at application and 30 by entry
into SUPT.

Some of our top guns today are old enough to be the father of a World
War II fighter pilot.


Given that some WW II fighter pilots were 20 years old, that's very
true, particularly if we are calling Fighter Weapons School
instructors "top guns". Since a pilot candidate now must get a four
year college degree first, then a commission (min age 21) then attend
a year of UPT, a couple of survival schools and operational training.
Next an operational assignment and experience leading to four-ship
flight lead and instructor pilot status, followed by attendance at FWS
(used to be a minimum of 1000 hours operational experience), followed
by another operational or maybe operational training assignment and
eventually amassing enough experience to become an FWS instructor, it
would be very common to have "top guns" old enough to have fathered a
20 year old.

I was doing instructor training for the Fighter Lead-In course at age
39-43, flying 400 hours/year at .9 hours per sortie. I could still
hold my own quite nicely with the young bucks who thought the essence
of air/air was pulling more G longer than the other guy. Sometimes
experience will trump youth.

Reminds me of the old bull and the young bull standing at the top of
the hill eyeing the herd. The young bull says, "let's run down the
hill and screw one of them." The old bull says, "let's walk down and
do them all."



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

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...

I was doing instructor training for the Fighter Lead-In course at age
39-43, flying 400 hours/year at .9 hours per sortie. I could still
hold my own quite nicely with the young bucks who thought the essence
of air/air was pulling more G longer than the other guy. Sometimes
experience will trump youth.

Experiance and gile beats youth and exuberance every time.

Reminds me of the old bull and the young bull standing at the top of
the hill eyeing the herd. The young bull says, "let's run down the
hill and screw one of them." The old bull says, "let's walk down and
do them all."

Bulls don't share.

On 22 Feb 2004 20:44:04 GMT, (BUFDRVR) wrote:

When I ran ATC undergrad assignments, I returned the system to full
merit assignment.

When was that? The (last) change back to the MARS (Merit Assignment Ranking
System) took place with McPeak in '92, so somewhere between you and McPeak it
went back to being handed your assignment. I've only heard tales from the
"forced assignment" days, mostly from FAIPs who said they were screwed by Capt.
X who had it out for him, or Maj. Y who like him and wanted him back as an IP
after graduation.

I had the ATC desk in '70-'72 (I'm so old, I knew Tony McPeake when he
was a captain!) FAIPs have always said they were getting screwed. The
big challenge during my time in that job was the SEA drawdown and the
need to funnel UPT output into other assignments. A Corona
recommendation was that each command take a straight percentage of
output based on the command's percentage of total pilot slots. That
meant the ATC suddenly had to absorb something like 28% of UPT output
immediately.

Needless to say there weren't that many folks wanting the assignment
and several of those that did weren't coming from the top part of the
class where ATC would have preferred. I argued that when ATC had these
kids for a year they ought to be able to make the job attractive
rather than a place the UPT grad wanted to escape.

End result was that shortly after I left the head-shed for a return to
fighter ops in the F-4, the shift to more directed assignments was
moving forward. The graduate assignment responsibility moved from ATC
to MPC (i.e. USAF level rather than MAJCOM) in early '72.

Today, the SUPT split is the big decision point.

And, if I understand correctly, one the student no longer makes, but is made
for him.

Last chance I had to talk with ATC types was in 2000 at River Rats
which was in San Antonio that year. Went with a close friend to visit
our old squadron, the 435th TF(T)S, doing the fighter lead-in thing at
Randolph. Got the SUPT briefing and cook's tour. Looked like a great
operation.

The student really does make the choice, although not directly. He/she
makes it through their performance in primary. Top grads get more
input to the decision. Can't imagine anyone wanting someone in
fighters who doesn't want to be there.

If someone wanted bomber over transport, I don't see much to
discriminate on beyond the availability of the slots to the class at
large and the individual desires.

This has gone back and forth several times since the T-1 came on-line, but I
think the fighter track (T-38s) is the "bomber-fighter" track. The B-52
community was not happy with product we were getting from the T-1 side of the
house, apparently the Bone side was not happy either, so they changed the track
program again (at least the 3rd switch since SUPT and the T-1).

The only constant is change.


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

Michael Kelly wrote in message . com...
AKav8r,

My advice to you would be to investigate AFROTC. While there is no
guaranty of a jet slot by attending ROTC, you stand a far greater chance
of being selected for pilot training than if you apply to OTS. There
are two year programs and scholarships available that you can pursue as
a graduate student. A masters degree is always a plus for promotions at
the Lt Col and above stages of your career, even if the current COS says
that is no longer the case.

I've already started the application process for OTS. I took the
AFOQT last week and will probably continue on the OTS path for now.
I'd like to get my master's eventually, but I'm not really wanting to
do that right now. I'm a pilot applicant and will not go into the AF
unless I do get a flight slot. That's the main reason I don't want to
do ROTC. I want to continue my piloting career one way or another.

The age and vision aren't an issue as the current requirements are 29.5
at application, 30 by entry to SUPT, and 20/70 correctable to 20/20.
Your CFI and more important the total flight time you have make you more
competitive to be selected for SUPT.

I don't think they give you any credit for more than 200 hours as far
at the PCIM score is concerned, but of course my experience would be a
plus in UPT.

Getting jets versus a C-130 is a function of how well you do in
training. Again previous experience in the air gives you a leg up on
the competition. But don't automatically knock the 130's because
they're slow and have props. They do some pretty dangerous stuff making
air assaults under enemy fire, or stuff like landing in an open field in
Afghanistan under enemy fire to resupply spec ops types. Definitely
more exciting than flying a C-5 or a tanker.

I wouldn't be too disappointed if I got a C-130 (multi-engine turbine
time), but the problem is that I would be locked into only flying the
C-130. The C-130 can do some awesome things as far as assault
landings, short/rough field ops (beta range is cool), and of course
there's the AC-130.... The airplane I would most like to fly is the
C-17. I know it would be kind of hard to go directly from UPT to the
C-17, but if I get a jet there are ways to train into different
aircraft within that category (C-5, C-141...). Of course if I got
assigned a fighter I wouldn't cry either. Although, I wonder about
the value of single-engine-turbine time (F-16) for a career outside of
the AF after retirement. Any comments on that anyone?

Feel free to email me if you have any questions. FWIW I'm a maintenance
officer who did the 2 year ROTC program as a grad student and currently
have an application in for flight training. I've been through a lot of
the process OTS, AFROTC and active duty so I have no problem sharing
what I picked up along the way.

Cheers,
Michael Kelly, Bone Maintainer

Thanks!

On 22 Feb 2004 21:48:30 -0800, (AKav8r) wrote:

Michael Kelly wrote in message . com...
AKav8r,

I wouldn't be too disappointed if I got a C-130 (multi-engine turbine
time), but the problem is that I would be locked into only flying the
C-130. The C-130 can do some awesome things as far as assault
landings, short/rough field ops (beta range is cool), and of course
there's the AC-130.... The airplane I would most like to fly is the
C-17. I know it would be kind of hard to go directly from UPT to the
C-17, but if I get a jet there are ways to train into different
aircraft within that category (C-5, C-141...).

Airlift is airlift. If you go into the heavies, you are pretty much
flexible in moving between types. If you went into AC-130 and Special
Ops, however, you are likely going to stay there. Depending upon the
system, you'll spend more than a year in co-pilot duties (maybe a lot
more) before moving into the left seat. You get to see the
world--several hundred flightline snack bars and BOQ rooms.


Of course if I got
assigned a fighter I wouldn't cry either. Although, I wonder about
the value of single-engine-turbine time (F-16) for a career outside of
the AF after retirement. Any comments on that anyone?

If you aren't firmly committed to fighters, don't consider it.

As for "career outside", I assume you aspire to be a professional
bus-driver and make huge amounts of money flogging an airliner.
Fighter folks are very desireable in that arena. They generally have a
lot of experience in decision making (managing their own system), and
often are viewed as having better aircraft control skills. Some
airlines like tactical types while some airlines prefer heavy jet
experience.

I know a lot of former tactical aviators working for United, American,
Delta, SW and Continental.


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

Ed Rasimus wrote in message

Airlift is airlift. If you go into the heavies, you are pretty much
flexible in moving between types.

Even between turbo-prop and jets? I assume you aren't refering to
"heavies" as the standard 300,000lb, but simply the turbo-fan end of
the airlift spectrum?

If you aren't firmly committed to fighters, don't consider it.

One of the reasons I was looking more at the airlift end of things was
because I plan on having a family and I've heard that you aren't as
likely to go on long TDY (3 months in Thailand, Korea,...) with that
sort of assignment as compared to fighters. Truth? Generalism?
False?

-AKav8r

"John Carrier" wrote in message ...
Ever consider the Navy?

Yes. Then I slapped myself! I'm kidding. Landing an airplane on a
boat is seriously more fun than I want to have. Not to mention that I
don't want to be stuck on a boat for months at a time anyway.

-AKav8r

On 23 Feb 2004 16:08:45 -0800, (AKav8r) wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote in message

Airlift is airlift. If you go into the heavies, you are pretty much
flexible in moving between types.

Even between turbo-prop and jets? I assume you aren't refering to
"heavies" as the standard 300,000lb, but simply the turbo-fan end of
the airlift spectrum?

When you're hauling trash, it really doesn't matter what the
propulsion mechanism is. You fly a big airplane, straight and level on
autopilot for hours at a time. If the trash breathes, eats and has
luggage, you've got more problems. Gross weight of the aircraft
doesn't change the mission. 100,000 or 450,000, it's still
truck-driving.

If you aren't firmly committed to fighters, don't consider it.

One of the reasons I was looking more at the airlift end of things was
because I plan on having a family and I've heard that you aren't as
likely to go on long TDY (3 months in Thailand, Korea,...) with that
sort of assignment as compared to fighters. Truth? Generalism?
False?

C'mon, you keep saying stuff like that and I'll begin to think you're
trolling. Fighters go TDY, and sometimes they stay home. Trash-haulers
go TDY at least as much and the very nature of the business is that
you are going to be traveling between widely separated points. This
ain't FEDEX and you won't be back at Memphis every morning.

Oh, and you get killed on any given day, whether you are hauling trash
or flying fast-movers.

Cool, huh?


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

"AKav8r" wrote

One of the reasons I was looking more at the airlift end of things was
because I plan on having a family and I've heard that you aren't as
likely to go on long TDY

Go tell the recruiter you made a mistake.

I can tell you right now, that you will never make it.