going AF?

[AKav8r]

I'm a CFI and am looking at going into the AF to fly. What are my
chances of getting a jet as opposed to the good old C-130? I'm
wondering because I am going into this at a relatively older age than
most of the jet guys do. I've heard also if you don't have vision of
20/20 or close too it you will most likely end up with a prop plane.
Any truth to this? Of course this isn't official policy that I can
see, but these are the rumors I'm hearing.

-24 years old
-20/50 vision, correctable to 20/20
-white (1st thing recruiter asked if I was Hispanic or
non-Hispanic...)
-male

Thanks!

[Thomas J. Paladino Jr.]

"AKav8r" > wrote in message
m...
> I'm a CFI and am looking at going into the AF to fly. What are my
> chances of getting a jet as opposed to the good old C-130? I'm
> wondering because I am going into this at a relatively older age than
> most of the jet guys do. I've heard also if you don't have vision of
> 20/20 or close too it you will most likely end up with a prop plane.
> Any truth to this? Of course this isn't official policy that I can
> see, but these are the rumors I'm hearing.
>
> -24 years old
> -20/50 vision, correctable to 20/20
> -white (1st thing recruiter asked if I was Hispanic or
> non-Hispanic...)
> -male
>
> Thanks!

Well, I'm not 100% sure, but I do believe that not having perfect or better
than perfect vision (regardless of correction) is an almost instant
disqualification from fighter jets. I don't think that also applies to cargo
planes/tankers, etc.

[BUFDRVR]

>What are my
>chances of getting a jet as opposed to the good old C-130?

If your question is comparing fighters to heavies, I'd say its 4 to 1 (in favor
of flying a tanker or cargo as opposed to a fighter). This is based solely on a
discussion I had a few years ago with an ol' BUFF pilot, then serving as a T-38
IP. Your chances of getting a bomber are about 5 to 1 (in favor of getting a
non-bomber).

> I've heard also if you don't have vision of
>20/20 or close too it you will most likely end up with a prop plane.
>Any truth to this?

None, your vision has zero impact on you assignment (or at least it shouldn't,
SUPT grads are no longer picking their assignments like we did in the 90's,
they're being assigned to them. Maybe Ed or Walt can give us some insight on
what discussions are involved behind closed doors when the IPs pick the
students assignments?)


BUFDRVR

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

[Michael Williamson]

Thomas J. Paladino Jr. wrote:
> "AKav8r" > wrote in message
> m...
>
>>I'm a CFI and am looking at going into the AF to fly. What are my
>>chances of getting a jet as opposed to the good old C-130? I'm
>>wondering because I am going into this at a relatively older age than
>>most of the jet guys do. I've heard also if you don't have vision of
>>20/20 or close too it you will most likely end up with a prop plane.
>>Any truth to this? Of course this isn't official policy that I can
>>see, but these are the rumors I'm hearing.
>>
>>-24 years old
>>-20/50 vision, correctable to 20/20
>>-white (1st thing recruiter asked if I was Hispanic or
>>non-Hispanic...)
>>-male
>>
>>Thanks!
>
>
> Well, I'm not 100% sure, but I do believe that not having perfect or better
> than perfect vision (regardless of correction) is an almost instant
> disqualification from fighter jets. I don't think that also applies to cargo
> planes/tankers, etc.
>
>

While there are vision requirements for Air Force pilots, none of them
apply differently between fighter, transport, or other type aircraft.
I've met fighter pilots who wear glasses, and lots of non-fighter
types who have 20/20 or better vision without them.

There are no special vision requirements for any specific aircraft
that I have ever heard of during my 12 years in the Air Force, 9 of
them flying (C-130s at present).

Mike

[John Carrier]

Ever consider the Navy?

R / John

"AKav8r" > wrote in message
m...
> I'm a CFI and am looking at going into the AF to fly. What are my
> chances of getting a jet as opposed to the good old C-130? I'm
> wondering because I am going into this at a relatively older age than
> most of the jet guys do. I've heard also if you don't have vision of
> 20/20 or close too it you will most likely end up with a prop plane.
> Any truth to this? Of course this isn't official policy that I can
> see, but these are the rumors I'm hearing.
>
> -24 years old
> -20/50 vision, correctable to 20/20
> -white (1st thing recruiter asked if I was Hispanic or
> non-Hispanic...)
> -male
>
> Thanks!

[D. Strang]

"AKav8r" > wrote
>
> I'm a CFI and am looking at going into the AF to fly. What are my
> chances of getting a jet as opposed to the good old C-130? I'm
> wondering because I am going into this at a relatively older age than
> most of the jet guys do. I've heard also if you don't have vision of
> 20/20 or close too it you will most likely end up with a prop plane.
> Any truth to this? Of course this isn't official policy that I can
> see, but these are the rumors I'm hearing.
>
> -24 years old
> -20/50 vision, correctable to 20/20
> -white (1st thing recruiter asked if I was Hispanic or
> non-Hispanic...)
> -male

24 is in the window, especially if you just got out of college. CFI
doesn't count for anything, but you can translate that into excellent
scores in the aptitude test, and going through the part-task trainers
(switchology, etc). When I was in, if you wore glasses, or had a
record of being unconscious, you were asked to step out of the line,
and they took you to the maintenance officer :-)

Don't know what they do today, as most fighter pilots wear
night-vision goggles, and they probably can be focused for your vision,
and during daylight, a lot of them use binoculars (I say a lot, but the
helo shootdown in Iraq shows that many also don't).

The USAF has a lot of heavy jets. Most are pretty boring though, and
you should learn to knit or something, as you orbit for 15 hours, while
the C-130 guys actually fly straight-line for 15 hours (unless you're in
a combat C-130).

[Ed Rasimus]

On 22 Feb 2004 05:14:24 GMT, (BUFDRVR) wrote:

>>What are my
>>chances of getting a jet as opposed to the good old C-130?
>
>If your question is comparing fighters to heavies, I'd say its 4 to 1 (in favor
>of flying a tanker or cargo as opposed to a fighter). This is based solely on a
>discussion I had a few years ago with an ol' BUFF pilot, then serving as a T-38
>IP. Your chances of getting a bomber are about 5 to 1 (in favor of getting a
>non-bomber).

A lot has changed over the years. Now, of course, there is SUPT in
which students are multi-tracked after primary, so quite clearly a CFI
would have a tremendous leg-up in getting choice of track and
proceeding to fast-movers.

The concern with age isn't a factor at 24. Max age for selection used
to be 26.5 and max for entry to training was 27.5. Waivers were
occasionally possible for older. Right now, he's heart of the
envelope.

Real factor is college grad and getting a slot in a commissioning
program. With low requirements there are few "after graduation"
opportunities for a pilot training slot. First priority is USAFA, then
ROTC and finally the excess commitments get an OTS opportunity. Dare I
suggest that an ANG slot for pilot training, particularly in a
fast-mover equipped unit, would be the only guarantee.
>
>> I've heard also if you don't have vision of
>>20/20 or close too it you will most likely end up with a prop plane.
>>Any truth to this?
>
>None, your vision has zero impact on you assignment (or at least it shouldn't,
>SUPT grads are no longer picking their assignments like we did in the 90's,
>they're being assigned to them. Maybe Ed or Walt can give us some insight on
>what discussions are involved behind closed doors when the IPs pick the
>students assignments?)

I'm totally unfamiliar with the "closed door" program. When I
graduated it was strictly "merit assignment"--pick from the list of
available training slots in order of graduate standing. The only IP
recommendation at the time was acceptable or not for ATC IP duty. (On
UPT graduation I was not!--two years later on return from SEA, I was!)

When I ran ATC undergrad assignments, I returned the system to full
merit assignment. It had evolved to a system of "assignment groups" in
which similar aircraft were grouped in ten or eleven categories. Got
some strange combinations like A-1 and O-1 in the same FAC group, or
C-9 and C-7 in the same transport category.

Today, the SUPT split is the big decision point. Once in transport or
fast-mover tracks, the choices are pretty straight-forward and I would
think that individual preferences could get you where you want to be.
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. If one was in the fighter track, the
only real glitch would be getting routed to FAIP rather than fighters
upon graduation.


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

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

[Michael Kelly]

Ed Rasimus wrote:

[snip]
> The concern with age isn't a factor at 24. Max age for selection used
> to be 26.5 and max for entry to training was 27.5. Waivers were
> occasionally possible for older. Right now, he's heart of the
> envelope.

Ed, the age limit has gone up to 29.5 at application and 30 by entry
into SUPT. I'm 29 and have an active application in at the moment. You
can also get a one time age waiver after 30, but most persons receiving
that are active duty applicants.

> Real factor is college grad and getting a slot in a commissioning
> program. With low requirements there are few "after graduation"
> opportunities for a pilot training slot. First priority is USAFA, then
> ROTC and finally the excess commitments get an OTS opportunity. Dare I
> suggest that an ANG slot for pilot training, particularly in a
> fast-mover equipped unit, would be the only guarantee.

AFROTC and OTS are still available opportunities. With the shortage of
officers as of late a 2 year ROTC course is offered. I did that while
earning my masters degree. ROTC offer's a far better chance of being
selected for SUPT that OTS. Also, a masters degree is always a bonus
for career development, even if the current COS says that it is no
longer a promotion requirement.

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

Michael Kelly, Bone Maintainer

[Michael Kelly]

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.

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.

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.

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

AKav8r wrote:

> I'm a CFI and am looking at going into the AF to fly. What are my
> chances of getting a jet as opposed to the good old C-130? I'm
> wondering because I am going into this at a relatively older age than
> most of the jet guys do. I've heard also if you don't have vision of
> 20/20 or close too it you will most likely end up with a prop plane.
> Any truth to this? Of course this isn't official policy that I can
> see, but these are the rumors I'm hearing.
>
> -24 years old
> -20/50 vision, correctable to 20/20
> -white (1st thing recruiter asked if I was Hispanic or
> non-Hispanic...)
> -male
>
> Thanks!

[Cub Driver]

>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.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[BUFDRVR]

>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"

[Ed Rasimus]

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

[Tarver Engineering]

"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.

[Ed Rasimus]

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

[AKav8r]

Michael Kelly > wrote in message >...
> 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!

[Ed Rasimus]

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

>Michael Kelly > wrote in message >...
>> 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

[AKav8r]

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

[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

[Ed Rasimus]

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

[D. Strang]

"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.

[Mike Marron]

>Ed Rasimus > wrote:
(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 (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.

I dunno about you Ed, but as a U.S. taxpayer I would most definitely
want to see this particular AF pilot candidate in an F-22 someday...

The guy just exudes that good ol' killer instinct. ;)

[Michael Kelly]

AKav8r wrote:
> 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.

Realize that less than 10% of the OTS applicants for pilots get
selected. The first Air Force priority for pilot slots is the academy
followed by ROTC. OTS is for the overflow. Even the number of non
flying officers commissioned through has been greatly reduced due to the
larger number of ROTC students seeking commissions. That said OTS is a
shaky proposition unless you have over a 1000 hours, a PCSM over 95 and
a GPA greater than 3.7 or are prior enlisted.

ROTC on the other hand has a 60-70% selection rate, and very few ROTC
pilot applicants have over 20 flying hours, much less over 200. Getting
a masters degree while in ROTC saves you from working a full time job
while trying to take night classes and schedule classes around
deployments. Pay now or pay later...

> 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.

Not towards you PCSM score, but there is also a box on the application
that lists your total hours which the board also looks at. Who's more
competitive some one with a PCSM of 90 who has 201 hours or some one
with a 85 and 1500 hours? Hint, the board is looking for who wants to
be an officer and then who shows the greatest chance of success in SUPT.
Officership is important and flight training is very expensive.

> 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?

You need to decide if you're in this because you want to be an officer
and be part of the most power Air Force in the world, or if you want to
be paid to build hours to as Ed says "haul trash" for 6 figures. If its
the latter their are plenty of regional out there to build hours and
you'll get into the right seat of a airline faster than spending 11
years in the Air Force and getting out.

Personally I absolutely love being an officer, and turned down a job
paying three times what I make now in a part of a company that was core
to what they did. I would stay in maintenance and turn down a 6 figure
job in industry in a heart beat. Unfortunately, the only way I can stay
in the operational Air Force is by becoming a pilot due to my 2
engineering degrees. What's not so bad is that I love flying and love
tactical aviation even more. The only thing I've wanted to do my entire
life is to fly fighters or bombers. The only thing I would leave it for
is family since I think those vows are more important than my oath to
our country. Even then I would serve my commitment and find a way to
hold my family together until that time.

Michael Kelly, Bone Maintainer

> Thanks!

[Michael Kelly]

AKav8r wrote:
>>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?

That's not true. AMC airlift pilots more often than not are away from
home more than ACC, USAFE, and PACAF fighter pilots. Instead of being
gone for 90 days at a time every 15 months they're gone a week here, 3
or 4 days there, and back for short times in between. ACC is pretty
much a 8-5 five day a week operation in the states. AMC is 24/7 always.
In two years Dyess B-1's have only done one deployment(to Guam), while
the C-130 guys have been continuously deployed to austere locations the
entire time.


If you're looking for a way to build hours and be trained for an airline
job go fly for a regional. If you love flying and want to serve your
country join the military. If you fall into the latter category but
your family can't handle you being gone then you can get out in 10 years
and fly for the reserves.

Michael Kelly, Bone Maintainer


> -AKav8r

[Ed Rasimus]

On 21 Feb 2004 19:42:07 -0800, (AKav8r) wrote:

>I'm a CFI and am looking at going into the AF to fly. What are my
>chances of getting a jet as opposed to the good old C-130? I'm
>wondering because I am going into this at a relatively older age than
>most of the jet guys do. I've heard also if you don't have vision of
>20/20 or close too it you will most likely end up with a prop plane.
>Any truth to this? Of course this isn't official policy that I can
>see, but these are the rumors I'm hearing.
>
>-24 years old
>-20/50 vision, correctable to 20/20
>-white (1st thing recruiter asked if I was Hispanic or
>non-Hispanic...)
>-male

Found this today, a somewhat tongue-in-cheek answer to some of your
questions:

> To Lt Col Van Wickler:
>
> Sir, I am DJ Baker and I would appreciate it if you
> could tell me what it takes to be an F-16 fighter
> pilot of the USAF. What classes should I take in high
> school to help the career I want to take later in my
> life? What could I do to get in the academy?
>
> Sincerely,
>
> DJ Baker
>
> Dear DJ,
>
> Obviously, through no fault of your own, your young,
> impressionable brain has been poisoned by the
> superfluous, hyped-up, "Top Gun" media portrayal of
> fighter pilots. Unfortunately, this portrayal could
> not be further from the truth. In my experience, I've
> found most fighter pilots pompous, back-stabbing,
> momma's boys with inferiority complexes, as well as
> being extremely over-rated aeronautically. However,
> rather than dash your budding dreams of becoming a
> USAF pilot, I offer the following alternative. What
> you REALLY want to aspire to is the exciting,
> challenging, and rewarding world of TACTICAL AIRLIFT.
> And this, young DJ, means one thing--the venerable,
> workhorse C-130.
>
> I can guarantee no fighter pilot can brag that he has
> led a 12-ship formation down a valley at 300 ft above
> the ground, while trying to interpret a 9-line to a
> new DZ, avoiding pop-up threats, and coordinating with
> AWACS, all while eating a box lunch, with the engineer
> in the back taking a leak, the navigator reading a
> Penthouse, and the co-pilot puking in his trash can!
>
> I tell you, DJ, TAC Airlift is where it's at. Where
> else is it legal to throw tanks, HMMWVs, and other
> crap out the back of an airplane, and not even worry
> about it when the chute doesn't open and it torpedoes
> the General's staff car! No where else can you land on
> a 3000' dirt strip, kick a bunch of ammo and stuff off
> the ramp without even stopping, then take off again
> before range control can call and tell you you've
> landed on the wrong LZ! And talk about exotic
> travel--when C-130s go somewhere, they GO somewhere
> (usually for 3 months, unfortunately). This gives you
> the opportunity to immerse yourself in the culture
> enough to give any local population a bad taste in
> their mouths, not something those strat-lift pilots
> can do from their airport hotel rooms!
>
> As far as recommendations for your course of study, I
> offer these. Take a lot of math courses. You will need
> all the advanced math skills you can muster to
> facilitate the calculation of per diem rates around
> the world, and when trying to split up the crew's bar
> tab so that the co-pilot really believes he owes 85%
> of the whole thing. Health sciences are important,
> too. You will need a thorough knowledge of biology to
> make those educated guesses of how much longer you can
> drink beer before the tremendous case of Montazuma
> revenge catches up to you from that meal you ate at
> that place that had the belly dancers in some
> God-forsaken foreign country whose name you can't even
> pronounce!
>
> Social studies are beneficial. It is important for a
> good TAC Airlifter to have the cultural knowledge to
> be able to ascertain the exact location of the nearest
> bar in any country in the world, then be able to
> convince the local authorities to release the
> loadmaster after he offends every sensibility of the
> local religion and culture. A Foreign language is
> helpful, but not required.
>
> You will never be able to pronounce the names of the
> NAVAIDs in France, and it's much easier to ignore them
> and go where you want to anyway. A study of geography
> is also paramount. You will need to know the basic
> location of all the places you've been when you get
> back from your TDY and are ready to stick those little
> pins in that huge world map you've got taped to your
> living room wall, right next to that gigantic wooden
> giraffe statue and beer stein collection.
>
> Well, DJ, I hope this little note inspires you. And by
> the way, forget about that Academy thing. All TAC
> Airlifters know that there are waaay too few women and
> too little alcohol there to provide a well-balanced
> education. A nice, big state college would be a much
> better choice.
>
> Good luck and see you on the SKE scope!
>

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

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: going AF?
>From: Ed Rasimus
>Date: 2/26/04 6:21 AM Pacific Standard Time

>>I'm a CFI and am looking at going into the AF to fly. What are my
>>chances of getting a jet as opposed to the good old C-130? I'm
>>wondering because I am going into this at a relatively older age than

From what I hear from the pilots at Nellis, "good hands" has something to do
with it.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Ed Rasimus]

On 26 Feb 2004 14:32:58 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

>>Subject: Re: going AF?
>>From: Ed Rasimus
>>Date: 2/26/04 6:21 AM Pacific Standard Time
>
>>>I'm a CFI and am looking at going into the AF to fly. What are my
>>>chances of getting a jet as opposed to the good old C-130? I'm
>>>wondering because I am going into this at a relatively older age than
>
>From what I hear from the pilots at Nellis, "good hands" has something to do
>with it.
>
>
>Arthur Kramer

Y mas grande cojones.


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

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: going AF?
>From: Ed Rasimus
>Date: 2/26/04 6:50 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On 26 Feb 2004 14:32:58 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:
>
>>>Subject: Re: going AF?
>>>From: Ed Rasimus
>>>Date: 2/26/04 6:21 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>
>>>>I'm a CFI and am looking at going into the AF to fly. What are my
>>>>chances of getting a jet as opposed to the good old C-130? I'm
>>>>wondering because I am going into this at a relatively older age than
>>
>>From what I hear from the pilots at Nellis, "good hands" has something to do
>>with it.
>>
>>
>>Arthur Kramer
>
>Y mas grande cojones.
>
>
>Ed Rasimus
>Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
>"When Thunder Rolled"
>Smithsonian Institution Press
>ISBN #1-58834-103-8


Das ist immer wahr.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[D. Strang]

"ArtKramr" > wrote
>
> >>I'm a CFI and am looking at going into the AF to fly. What are my
> >>chances of getting a jet as opposed to the good old C-130? I'm
> >>wondering because I am going into this at a relatively older age than
>
> From what I hear from the pilots at Nellis, "good hands" has something to do
> with it.

Props and jets take the same set of hands. If you want to make General before
you retire, your chances are greater anywhere outside of fighters. If you just have
to be a single-place pilot, then plan on getting RIF'd at Captain, or making
Major on the second cycle.

Most of all, have fun, buy all the life insurance you can afford, as you will
probably die in battle.

[D. Strang]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote
>
> Y mas grande cojones.

and no hemorrhoids.

[BUFDRVR]

>If you want to make General before
>you retire, your chances are greater anywhere outside of fighters.

Which Air Force is that? The current Air Force leaders (3 & 4 Star) are
affectionately dubbed (by us "non-fighter" types) "the fighter mafia".

>If you just have
>to be a single-place pilot, then plan on getting RIF'd at Captain, or making
>Major on the second cycle.

???? No pilots were hit in the last RIF (1992), and while I'm sure they're out
there, I've yet to meet a passed over (for O-4) fighter pilot.

>Most of all, have fun, buy all the life insurance you can afford, as you will
>probably die in battle.

The last 3 conflicts show you've got a greater chance of being killed in a
training accident then in battle.


BUFDRVR

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

[D. Strang]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote
> >
> >If you want to make General before
> >you retire, your chances are greater anywhere outside of fighters.
>
> Which Air Force is that? The current Air Force leaders (3 & 4 Star) are
> affectionately dubbed (by us "non-fighter" types) "the fighter mafia".

Every time I go to Wright-Patterson I see a lot of old cargo pilots and
Engineers (not flight) in the various General ranks.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: going AF?
>From: "D. Strang"
>Date: 2/26/04 4:50 PM Pacific Standard Time

>Every time I go to Wright-Patterson I see a lot of old cargo pilots and
>Engineers (not flight) in the various General ranks.

Every time I go to WRught-Pat I see a B-26 Martin Marauder looking bold and
glorious. It is what memories are made of.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[BUFDRVR]

>Every time I go to Wright-Patterson I see a lot of old cargo pilots and
>Engineers (not flight) in the various General ranks.

Of course, I see Doctors, lawyers, personnelist (is that a word?), logisticians
and even cops wearing stars at the Pentagon, but that doesn't mean it's common
throughout the Air Force. The facts are, a large percentage of our General
Officers, particularly at the Lt. Gen and Gen ranks are fighter pilots.


BUFDRVR

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