going AF?

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!

"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.

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

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"

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

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

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

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

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 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