How can the Air Force improve combat pilot retention?

Lt Col Jim Coe — Sun, 05 Jun 2016 11:30:26 -0400

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3776/the-usafs-pilot-shortage-has-reached-disastrous-levels?
The article points out that the Air Force is losing combat pilots. Is it all about the money or does the Air Force need to change its culture? Would developing a program similar to Army Aviation Warrant Officers help?

The USAF’s Pilot Shortage Has Quietly Reached A Disastrous Level

The Air Force is falling apart.

Response by MSgt Robert Pellam made Jun 5 at 2016 1:14 PM

MSgt Robert Pellam — Sun, 05 Jun 2016 13:14:39 -0400

As the article explains, its not just pilots and pay, its the toxic culture in the Air Force. I watched it grow before I got out and it affects Enlisted and Officers alike. Congress is adding to the fire by trying to eliminate pay to members to save a dime. The new retirement system, the re-design of the BAH that is in congress now and the tri-care system that includes having members and retired members pay more into the system, are just symptoms to a larger inept Air Force ruled by bureaucracy and politics instead of leaders.

The Air Force and Congress keep attacking the people for saving, and ensuring their own political agendas are met by increasing spending on bloated projects that have no oversight, and suits the needs of Corporations and individuals. Military is about people. You need them to fly your drones, fix your aircraft, and run your operations. Instead of leaders, and workers, the Air Force promotes politicians and managers. The new Air Force head that comes to power needs to come wielding a broad sword and remove the cancer. He will have to fight Congress, Lobbyist, Corporations, and still perform the main job of the Air Force around the world. He is going to be hard to find good leaders with in to, because many have left due to worsening conditions, better employment opportunity on the outside, or because they were force out by the establishment because they didn't fit the corporate/political mold.

What ever suggested is just a patch. Until the culture of the Air Force is changed, I don't see it getting better. In fact every Army official I talk to just talks about when the Air Force will come back under them. At the rate the leadership in the Air Force is failing, I expect it sooner than later.

Response by Lt Col Jim Coe made Jun 5 at 2016 1:23 PM

Lt Col Jim Coe — Sun, 05 Jun 2016 13:23:10 -0400

This is background to the question from my perspective. I helped with two pilot or aircrew retention studies while I was in the Air Force. Once in the late 1970s and once in the mid-1980s. I also watched the Air Force struggle with the problem in the mid-1990s. Do you see the pattern here? Yep, about every 10 years the Air Force realizes it is losing more pilots, and sometimes other aircrew members, than it wants (forecasts) to lose.

The losses in the 70s and 80s coincided with hiring in the airline industry. In the 1970s and 1980s it was largely about the money. The airlines paid better than the Air Force in those decades and offered opportunities for pilots to advance to six-figure salaries as senior captains. In those decades, making over $100K was a big deal. We also found that non-tangibles were important. When an airline pilot had non-flying days, they were essentially days off. When Air Force pilots had non-flying days, they were expected to do their "additional duties" to keep the flying squadron running. The airline pilots had dispatchers and flight planners who did most of the mundane work of planning flights, checking manifests, and filing flight plans. The airline pilots showed up an hour or so before takeoff looked over the paperwork and went to the aircraft to fly. The Air Force pilots were showing up about 3 hours before takeoff and doing their own flight planning, then going to the aircraft to fly. Aside from all that, the airline pilots didn't have to put up with "all the military crap" because they were hired to fly and if they did that well, then their company was happy. The study in the 1990s found much the same things. The pilots wanted to fly, but the Air Force wanted them to be officers (performing duties other than flying) and pilots.

Some things changed as a result of the studies. Flight pay increased making the Air Force pilot's pay more competitive with the airlines. The Air Force promised to reduce the burden of additional duties by assigning more non-flying NCOs and Officers to the flying squadron to take over some of the day-to-day work of running the unit. (Units I was in at the time acquired manpower positions for administrative officers, administrative clerks, and operations NCOs.) Automated flight planning systems came into being reducing some of the flight planning workload. In the mid-1980s, serious conversations about how to allow pilots to continue to fly even if they didn't get promoted led to offering some passed-over Captains the opportunity to stay until 20 years of service--essentially they became what the Navy calls "limited duty officers." The post-pilot training service obligation was increased from four years to five. (It may be more today.) Aircrew officers were offered bonuses if they would agree to remain on active duty after their initial obligation. The biggest external sign that the AF was trying to do something to retain aircrew members first showed up in the late 1980s: the leather flying jacket. Yes, the Air Force began issuing the leather flight jacket as an incentive for aircrew members to remain in the Service.

Of the retention inducements, I think the greatest would be the opportunity for pilots to fly frequently and regularly throughout their career. Many people who become Air Force pilots do it because they love flying. When the requirement to do other stuff overwhelms the opportunity to fly, they leave the Air Force and go to work for an employer who wants them to simply fly the airplane well (the airlines). These pilots don't want to be the Squadron Commander; they want to focus on being the best Aircraft Commander they can be. IMO there are a couple of ways the Air Force could capitalize on the value of these pilots. 1) Limited duty officers: At the 7-year point, pilots would be required to make a decision to follow the operations track or the command track. If they choose the operations track, then their grade is capped at O-3. They will be guaranteed at least 20 years of service and never permitted to hold command or supervisory positions. They will receive enhanced flight pay so their total compensation remains competitive with, but less than, the Command track officers. If they choose the command track, then they will continue about as pilots do today to compete for command positions and promotions. The command track pilots receive "traditional" flight pay. The number of command track pilots will be closely controlled to ensure the supply of highly qualified officers to command Squadrons, Groups, and Wings--leading to general officer status--is adequate. 2) Flight Officers: The Air Force brings back warrant officer ranks for the specific purpose to providing a professional pilot cadre. They would be referred to a "flight officers" in grades 1 through 5. Following the Army example, but not exactly, grades 4 and 5 would be Chief Flight Officers. Recruiting could focus on people with two years of college or an Associate Degree who want to fly for the Air Force. They would go through a Flight Officer Candidate School and then enter AF pilot training as a FO-01. After completing pilot training, they would be assigned to flying squadrons and compete for promotion within the FO grades based mainly on their capability as a pilot. Like Army WOs they could remain in the Service for up to 30 years. They would never command a unit.

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Jun 5 at 2016 5:56 PM

Capt Seid Waddell — Sun, 05 Jun 2016 17:56:06 -0400

Sequester has taken its toll.

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 5 at 2016 8:27 PM

Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 05 Jun 2016 20:27:00 -0400

The Navy tried a flying WO a few years ago and it did not solve anything. All flying NAVWO"s ended up getting free commissions out of it. The problem is which the article hinted at, is that we could never get out of the post cold war peacetime mindset while conducting two major operations. You and I are MAF guys by trade if they used that word when you were in. Take going overseas to do a 120 and then come back home where you have maybe a month or two before going back over. In that month or so you now are redoing all your stupid readiness crap, while flying channel runs or for us, cornonets and AE missons and other CONUS dailies. Somewhere in the middle of all that BS we were probably prepping for an ORI or a UCI to demonstrate that we could do what we do every damn week.

UCI's were a joke, they were always an exercise of just making policy memos that majority of the squadron didn't even care about. Some of them were important but a lot were just plain noise.

Yeah the article is right on. The guy going out the door every two months to actually fly the mission to support the "Boot on the Ground," as one of my DO's used to say. That guy got fucked at the boards over the guy who weaseled out of shit and stayed home to be the CCE. It was better for your career to be a cut throat politicking asshole over the guy actually doing the job we were all paid to do.

Warrant Officers, sure I suppose that could work. Another idea would be to set up a separate career track. Maybe like a restricted line officer, where you can stay in the cockpit but your max rank ever would be O5. I would be fine with that. Not like a lot of people are going to make O6 anyway. Hell Even being an Iron Major is not that bad. With the exception of a few, I knew so many of those guys who were completely content at flying the line and not worrying about the queep. They just showed up to work, went to fly and hung out until the end of the day and left.

Alright rant over. Who knows maybe our new CSAF can fix things. I met him before, he was my Numbered AF CC, I think it was 8th AF. Anyway he seemed like a really genuine personable commander. I feel usually a lot of decisions are out of their hands.

Response by MSgt Steven Holt, NRP, CCEMT-P made Jun 5 at 2016 9:01 PM

MSgt Steven Holt, NRP, CCEMT-P — Sun, 05 Jun 2016 21:01:50 -0400

Here's a thought... How about letting combat pilots BE combat pilots? Maybe if we stopped forcing good pilots out of the cockpit and into staff (ie: SQ and/or Wing CC) billets, maybe a few more would decide to stick around. Sometimes it's not all about the money or bonuses. Some of us just wanted to do the job we were trained for without having to be covered up in all the administrivia Big Blue is so fond of. In that regard, I think Lt Col Jim Coe may have hit on the very solution the AF needs to consider.

Response by SMSgt Roy Dowdy made Jun 7 at 2016 11:42 AM

SMSgt Roy Dowdy — Tue, 07 Jun 2016 11:42:15 -0400

Eliminate ancillary queep, increase Commander's Support Staff (CSS), create dual track career progression like the RAF (i.e. choice between flying duties only to plateau to O-4 or command billet track progression to FGO and beyond), eliminate requirement for useless Master's degrees (particularly from worthless diploma mills), create WO's for RPA duty, implement either in-residence PME or correspondence only (not both!), and reduce unnecessary -170 and -365 taskings for rated types who otherwise could be honing their skills in the cockpit! Of course these alternatives have been recommended time and time again, but HAF refuse to implement any of these measures for some inexplicable reason! The typical response is offer ever increasing bonuses to entice pilots to stay and like the classic definition of insanity, repeating the same behavior and expecting different results, the outcome is the same...spiraling retention!

Response by CMSgt John Momaney made Jun 7 at 2016 12:12 PM

CMSgt John Momaney — Tue, 07 Jun 2016 12:12:51 -0400

This is not a new problem. In the early 90's the Air Force decided giving pilots an leather jacket such as that worn by WWII pilots was the answer. That was a complete failure. Pilots were leaving the Air Force because their additional duties were to much. A pilot was weighted down with this. The Aur Force could never understand or deal with it. I wrote a paper while At the SNCO school that recompense establishing a Support Squadron to take over those additional duties. The Commander would be a rated officer. This would be a stepping stone to becoming a Squadron Commander. The Air Operation career field would man the enlisted positions and perform the duties that the crated officers were overloaded with. Your rated officers would now concentrate on flying only. Back then a rated officers crew duty day would be over 12 hours because of the additional duties. Flying skills were compromised.

Response by LCpl Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 7 at 2016 3:55 PM

LCpl Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 07 Jun 2016 15:55:47 -0400

Understanding the issue here requires an integral base interpretation of the Air Force and it's combat pilot program, but with the knowledge provided, I think I can make an semi-accurate hypothesis. It would appear the issue resides at the base of the very base of the chain, in the recruiting. The juxtaposition of where the recruiting is now, and where it should be is clearly off. Recruiters need to focus on encouraging combat piloting careers paths at the pre-colligate level while keeping pilot sustainability and retention in mind. Effect would clearly not be immediate, but theoretically numbers would positively increase over years.

Response by Lt Col John Tringali made Jun 7 at 2016 11:10 PM

Lt Col John Tringali — Tue, 07 Jun 2016 23:10:57 -0400

No, that's all bullshit. It's easy to say money or ops tempo on the way out the door, but that's not why we pilots leave the military in droves. First, the Air Force doesn't want pilots, it wants office managers who used to be pilots or are currently part time pilots. Unfortunately, that's two full time jobs worth of demands with only one human doing them. Flying a 14 day long mission (the same away from home time as working at a desk job for 37 days) then coming home, getting 2 days off, and then working that office job puts us at 2:1 hourly ratios. Then, we can't get good at a desk job because we change every 9 months. Then, the hours and hours of bullshit training. It's a joke and the main reason why I retired, over and over every year. I could go on, but then, at the end of the day, the AF kicks us out after 20 years anyway, then wonders why it doesn't have experienced pilots. No other organization in the world has a business model to hire, train, and use employees in their trained for rule for only a few years, then alter their jobs to something they don't like, then kick then out and replace them with untrained new hires. They they have the balls to complain about it? Screw them. Are they stupid, out of touch, or lying, because no intelligent person can look at a cyclical event and not understand why it's happening. If the USAF operated like Delta airlines, I'd still fly for them today, but I will NEVER attend another godamn commander's call because some dick head got a DUI or some douche punched his own ticket in his dorm.

Response by Capt Brandon Charters made Nov 19 at 2017 1:10 PM

Capt Brandon Charters — Sun, 19 Nov 2017 13:10:09 -0500

More money coming from the USAF isn't the answer. Pilots want to fly and not perform hundreds of additional duties. Sen Cotton asked some great questions around this topic in June's SASC Hearing.
https://youtu.be/reZ6Lgr-eE0

June 6, 2017: Sen. Cotton Q&A at SASC Hearing on the the Posture of the Department of the Air...

June 6, 2017: Sen. Cotton Q&A at SASC Hearing on the the Posture of the Department of the Air Force