
New study shows grim outlook for future of Air Force pilot shortage - spking
https://federalnewsnetwork.com/dod-personnel-notebook/2019/04/new-study-shows-grim-outlook-for-future-of-air-force-pilot-shortage/
======
umvi
Seems like the Air Force is trapped in a vicious underhiring/overhiring cycle.
When I was in college I did Air Force ROTC. A lot of my peers had pilot slots;
I was poised as a 17D (Cyber Ops). After graduating, my training date was put
on hold virtually indefinitely. Eventually I got an email that the Air Force
had commissioned way too many officers and were looking for people to
voluntarily leave with no commitment/obligation - seemed like a good deal, so
I took it as did a lot of my non-pilot friends.

Later I found out a bunch of my pilot buddies were reassigned to other career
fields because of overly stringent medical requirements (the real reason was
likely a shortage in the other career fields?). For example one friend
indicated he had pollen allergies on a form and was instantly disqualified
(like you would ever be breathing pollen at altitude). Another wasn't even
poised to be a pilot but a CSO - nope, disqualified because it turned out he
had a tiny benign cataract in one eye (he has 20/20 vision otherwise).

The USAF brought this upon themselves

~~~
chrisseaton
> looking for people to voluntarily leave with no commitment/obligation -
> seemed like a good deal

How’s that a good deal? Presumably you wanted to join and now that’s something
you’d never get to do?

~~~
kelnos
The deal is that when you join ROTC, the military agrees to pay a certain
amount of your your college costs (depending on scholarship, could be most of
it), and in return, you agree to a certain number of years of service.

Even if OP did really want to be in the Air Force, having an obligation washed
away like that with no penalty sounds like a pretty good deal.

------
afengr
This is just as bad, if not worse, in other career fields too. I am an active
duty EE. The Air Force paid for my undergrad then paid for my Masters. I am on
my payback tour in a research lab, and I spend more then 80% of my time
managing contractual requirements, finances, and other "inherently government
functions" that they need a warm body to do (and that I have only gotten on
the job training for). This is not even close to the unique story. Active Duty
get tapped for all of the "odds and ends" duties because they can be tasked
to, they either won't hire someone or taking the time to hire someone takes
too much time/resources.

I had a friend of mine (also with a fully paid Undergrad and Grad in
engineering) with the same experience get tapped to do Honor Guard Duty for
six months. Seriously.

------
openasocket
This is probably part of the reason why the USAF is leaning so hard towards
unmanned systems in the future, because it opens up a lot of doors here. Drone
pilots can be put pretty much anywhere in the world so they don't need to be
forward-deployed, which will probably help attract people. The physical
standards can be strongly relaxed, no need to worry about eyesight or their
ability to handle 8Gs, which increases the pool of possible pilots. You can to
some degree "oversubscribe" and have fewer pilots than aircraft
(alternatively, fewer pilots on shift, meaning pilots don't have to work as
many hours), since not all of your planes will be in the air at once. Some of
the more mundane tasks can be automated or distributed (maybe have air traffic
controllers control taxiing, takeoff and landing directly?) like in-air
refueling. It's not a panacea, and there are missions drones will not be able
to do anytime soon, but I imagine it will help with the pilot shortfall.

~~~
aurailious
> Drone pilots can be put pretty much anywhere in the world so they don't need
> to be forward-deployed, which will probably help attract people.

Unfortunately the USAF likes to put all their drone pilots at Beale which from
what I have heard isn't a very big difference in experience from Minot.

Also right now all drones are required to be full pilots and officers. This is
a big factor in the shortages problem. No one wants to through the Academy and
then sit at a desk flinging a joystick around. When I was in it was asked all
the time why not have warrant officers or let enlisted fly drones? Brass
always said no.

~~~
MockObject
I guess that's changed since 2016?

[https://www.engadget.com/2015/12/28/us-air-force-allows-
enli...](https://www.engadget.com/2015/12/28/us-air-force-allows-enlisted-
ranks-to-fly-drones/)

~~~
aurailious
Eh, the Global Hawk is more of a tell it where to go instead of flying by hand
it kind of drone.

------
nradov
The Army also has a pilot shortage, but they've done a little better than the
Air Force due to allowing warrant officers to fly. Many pilots just want to
_fly_ , they don't want to deal with all the other management responsibilities
and staff assignments that come with being a commissioned officer. When the
Air Force split off from the Army they decided they only wanted commissioned
officers as pilots and eliminated WO ranks.

~~~
richardhod
It's interesting how the US military copied the British class-based system of
management, officers v other ranks. It does stymie a lot of creativity and
talent.

~~~
aristophenes
The way I see this is that the US Air Force does allow enlisted to fly. First,
get a college degree, and go through the application process to become an
officer. Prior enlisted with the smarts to do it are seen as better officers.
Then once you've done that you can get a pilot slot. Why would I want someone
who is not willing or able to get a college degree pilot my $150 million
dollar jet?

~~~
darkpuma
Many of the best pilots in history had no university degrees. Chuck Yeager
famously had none. Jacqueline Cochran had none. Amelia Earhart dropped out of
Columbia. Charles Lindbergh dropped out of UW-Madison. Howard Hughes dropped
out of Rice. Hanna Reitsch dropped out of medical school at Kiel.

If the idea is simply use willingness to pay for / put up with university as a
proxy to test seriousness and dedication, why not ask prospective aviators to
get full-face tattoos? Surely that stunt would prove more dedication than a
college degree, and waste less of everybody's time.

~~~
larkost
One of the arguments for pilots to be officers is that they are the ones who
ultimately make the final decision on dropping bombs. The U.S. Air Force took
a heavy mental beating over the horror of indiscriminate bombings it conducted
in the Vietnam War (that was not a war...), and has internalized it.

The thinking is that officers are personally responsible for the command
decisions that they execute. If you are ordered to do something you think is
illegal it is your responsibility as an officer to refuse. Enlisted are not
expected to be held to this requirement. I understand the realities of things,
but this is the theory.

The tie-in with a university degree is that that is supposed to have exposed
you to enough other thinking that you are better (not to be confused with
"well") prepared to make those sort of decisions.

~~~
darkpuma
The supposed connection between ethical behavior and university degrees is
totally spurious. It's a post-hoc justification for blatant class
discrimination, plain and simple. I recommend you dig into the life of
Jacqueline Cochran in particular; she was far more than merely one of the best
pilots to have ever lived.

------
randcraw
Weirdly, the article says almost nothing about the impact of drones on career
pilots, especially their will to reenlist. The focus was fighter jocks, but I
doubt most will end up flying commercially -- the skills of flying passengers
or freight don't overlap much with dogfights, missile tech, or flying
invisible.

The article also says nothing about _which_ kinds of pilots are in shortest
supply (fighter, heavy, rotary, carrier-based fighters, VTOLs, etc), or which
service suffers most. It briefly mentions the cost of training fighers, but
nothing on non-fighter pilots, which must make up the vast majority of onboard
pilots, much less the cost of drone pilots. Nor does it mention the rate of
departure for all of these MOSes.

IMO, this article went to press with far too little background research. That,
or it was edited out later.

~~~
alexhutcheson
> The focus was fighter jocks, but I doubt most will end up flying
> commercially -- the skills of flying passengers or freight don't overlap
> much with dogfights, missile tech, or flying invisible.

My understanding is that the main "skill" commercial airlines are looking for
is flight hours - lots and lots of flight hours. The combat-focused skills
obviously don't transfer, but an experienced fighter pilot is still very
prepared to transition to flying commercial flights if they want to.

------
sonnyblarney
This is interesting because the military pilots I know simply love to fly.
It's an amazing opportunity to fly amazing kit, and to get tons and tons of
airtime. The pay was never that great, and young people in their early 20's
shouldn't mind deployments in the midwest or wherever.

Also, it's a very aspirational job: "Jet Fighter Pilot". They make video games
of that. Every little boy, at some point, considered wanting to do it.

Something fishy in the system, maybe a broken pipeline, because I can't
imagine anything easier to at least get people excited about.

~~~
ajmurmann
"and young people in their early 20's shouldn't mind deployments in the
midwest or wherever."

That to me sounds exactly like the kind of thing someone in their early
twenties who is ready to head out and see the world would mind. Maybe I'm just
projecting?

~~~
blunte
From my experience with pilots (family, NATO training base nearby), just the
opportunity to flight high performance aircraft is a thrill. The name of the
piece of land below you isn't as important as what aircraft you're in and what
you're allowed to do with it.

~~~
matt4077
And the spouses, naturally, are supposed to get along with the program.

~~~
mmsimanga
I am guessing when you say "I do" you must have a pretty good idea of the
person you are marrying.

~~~
Moru
Weren't we talking about people in their twenties? Do you people often get
married at that age? I thought it was more common to delay marriage and kids
to later in the career nowadays?

~~~
alexhutcheson
People in the military tend to marry early, at least partially because there
are a bunch of benefits that the military provides to spouses. If you get re-
assigned to a base across the country, the military will pay to move your
spouse, but not your girlfriend/boyfriend. If you need to be picked up from
the base after work, that's a lot easier for a spouse to do (they have an ID)
than a girlfriend/boyfriend. You also get a bigger housing stipend, they get
medical benefits, etc. If you're in a long-term relationship anyway, there's a
big financial benefit to making it "official".

~~~
dsfyu404ed
>they get medical benefits

Hence the evolution of the species known as "Tricareatops".

------
jwally
An Anecdotal "I quit" I read a couple of years ago about the (then impending)
pilot shortage:

[https://www.jqpublicblog.com/punching-out-latest-dear-
boss-l...](https://www.jqpublicblog.com/punching-out-latest-dear-boss-letter-
decries-air-forces-lack-of-true-leadership/)

Dear Boss,

I’ve fucking had it. I’m finally giving up on my Air Force and I’m throwing in
the towel. Flying fighter jets is no longer cool enough to outweigh the
bullshit, and so I’ve broken the mach for the final time. You’re going to
believe that I’m leaving because I’m tired of deploying, that I’m sick of the
queep, and that I seek the money bags and greener pastures of the Airlines.
I’ve heard you on TV spouting those same lines over and over. Boss, I probably
will join the airlines, but that’s not why I’m leaving. I’m leaving because my
wife (I love my wife) got tired of hearing me come home every night and bitch
about how the leaders of my Air Force are running it into the ground. I’m
leaving because you took the coolest job on the planet, you, the leaders of
this job, and you ruined it. You took one of the few jobs left in the world
that kids hang posters of on their walls, and you made it so damn miserable
that thousands of guys like me are calling it quits. And the worst part is,
you have no idea HOW you made it miserable, and even less of an idea how to
fix it. You are focusing on the second and third order effects, but not the
root cause.

Boss, you were a fighter pilot. You were trained for years in how to identify
the root cause. I know you have the ability to dig past the airlines, ops
tempo, queep, and other reasons you’re currently focusing on, and find the
DFP. I know that you know what it is, I just don’t think you have the stones
to call it out in public and do something about it, so I’m pulling the
handles.

Yes, life in my Air Force has gotten tough. But the real reason I’m leaving
boss, the heart of the issue is this. I’m a leader, I always have been. People
follow me because I’m good in the Air, I have a strong act in the bar, and I
give a shit about the people that work for me. And because I’m a true leader,
I will never lead in this Air Force. Instead, the guys that are leading in my
place, and in the place of all of the others like me, are boot-licking, risk-
averse, yes men who have spent an entire career being faithful followers and
couldn’t lead a 2 ship to the end of the runway. They’ve been rewarded their
entire careers for being non-confrontational, making only safe decisions,
punishing downhill and protecting uphill, and most importantly, being loyal to
the bad leaders above them.

That’s the real problem here, boss…. loyalty has become the new CURRENCY of
your Air Force. More than integrity. More than excellence. More than tactical
ability. More than taking care of the people in your charge. Absolute loyalty
to your superiors is what gets you promoted. And in return for that loyalty,
you get protection. Protection by your bosses for every stupid, unethical,
illegal, hair-brained, vindictive decision you make that degrades morale,
drives people out, and makes good leaders like myself write this letter.

~~~
chrischattin
I'm a former Air Force pilot and was going to writeup a long post about my
experience. But, this pretty much sums it up.

I loved the people, and LOVED the flying. Some of the best times of my life.
But, the organizational bloat, bureaucratic BS, and constant deployments just
became too much.

As you can imagine, it really wears on you to be gone 6 mo's every year
risking your life for a counterproductive endless war that the American public
barely knows is happening.

~~~
jriot
As a former Air Force air traffic controller, the sentiment is similar on the
enlisted side. I remember a Chief called all controllers in for a meeting to
discuss his new policies, then asking the NCOs what he thought of his them.
Every NCO agreed and said they were needed Chief. I told him they were
counterproductive and would cause more problems than solve. He kicked everyone
out of the room, and we had a one-way conversation in which I was instructed
to never disagree with him, ever, particularly in a group setting.

While ATC isn't fighter pilot cool, it was an amazing job to have when you're
18 at the beginning of the war (2003), but after 11 years of many similar
experiences, as I illustrated above, I left. What struck me most, was when I
told my Chief, Flight Commander, and SQ/CC I wasn't reenlisting, none of them
tried to talk me into staying. I was dual rated - Tower and RAPCON (with
ARTCC) - with 4 different facility ratings plus a deployment to Balad AB where
we were pushing 1000+ aircraft a day. They could care less to keep their
experienced NCOs in, their sole focus appeared to be on their next promotion
and/or assignment. It solidified my choice while reassuring me I made the
right decision.

~~~
HeyLaughingBoy
IOW, not much different from corporate management.

------
vgoh1
I can't fathom how the answer to the pilot shortage couldn't simply be "pay
them more". They are flying $100 million dollar planes, pilot salary must be a
drop in the bucket.

~~~
a3n
But then you'd have pilots making more than Generals.

~~~
ken
I'm not sure I understand. The reason you pay more for higher ranks is because
you want to incentivize people to work to be promoted to those ranks, right?
If you have enough generals but not enough pilots, it ought to flip.

~~~
a3n
> The reason you pay more for higher ranks is because you want to incentivize
> people to work to be promoted to those ranks

Also to compensate for more responsibility and experience.

But we aren't logical beings, and pay is part of social status.

------
magduf
This story's title here on HN seems to contradict the actual news story.
According to the HN title, there is no shortage of AF pilots. It says the
outlook is grim for the shortage, not for the number of pilots, so it means
that the shortage is probably going to go away.

------
driverdan
> A recent RAND study found the cost of training a basic qualified fighter
> pilot ranges from $5.6 million for an F-16 pilot to $10.9 million for an
> F-22 pilot.

Those numbers seem outrageous to me. Why does it cost so much? Are there
frequent plane crashes?

~~~
NikolaNovak
Cost of flying F-22 for an hour is reported anywhere between $33k and $70k,
with most estimates in the $60k range. Let's assume $50k/hour to be safe - 200
hours of flight time gets you to the $10 million figure on its own, with no
other costs accounted for.

Pilot still ends up the cheap part of the equation, given ~$200mil+ per
airplane cost.

Whee - are we having budgetary fun yet :-)

~~~
driverdan
I hadn't thought about the cost of flight time. That makes sense.

To put what you said in another way, every hour an F-22 flys costs the same as
hiring someone at a middle class wage for a year.

~~~
rxhernandez
My guess is that a substantial part of those costs are probably to pay a few
people a middle class wage.

~~~
jessaustin
"A few", as in 2500? That's roughly the number of working days in a year
multiplied by the number of working hours in a military day. What are all
those people doing, and is there a distinct set of people doing those things
for every aircraft? There must be some other explanation...

------
paulsutter
Especially pilots with biplane experience, I'm sure.

Why are we building manned warplanes?

~~~
na85
We build manned warplanes because you want a human with decision making
capability on the trigger, drone communications can be jammed, and AI is a
myth.

------
BXLE_1-1-BitIs1
The AF needs to look at the software industry. Bring in hordes of newbies and
keep the ones that don't kill themselves for 3-5 years, then repeat.

~~~
dingaling
That was actually how air forces adapted to the jet era. Attrition was
horrific, about 35% of USAF F-84s and F-86s being lost in crashes through the
1950s. Actual combat losses in Korea were insignificant compared to accidents.

The 1970s-designed F-16 has a loss rate of 3.4 per 100,000 flight hours. The
two 1950s fighters were 52.6 and 44.2 respectively.

------
ramenmeal
Do they really only get paid $35k?

~~~
jackfrodo
That's the incentive bonus.

------
usapatriot111
country doesn't need that many pilots if it doesn't wage endless wars, though.

~~~
brixon
how else would we go into deeper debt? the budget deficit and debt is not
going to grow on it's own.

~~~
tomohawk
Entitlement programs dwarf military spending.

[https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-the-Federal-US-
budg...](https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-the-Federal-US-budget-is-
spent-on-welfare-spending-and-entitlement-programs)

~~~
lutorm
They're called "entitlement" because people explicitly pay into them and then
the government has to pay those benefits. That's not relevant if you're
talking about the discretionary budget.

~~~
tomohawk
I'm kinda surprised that anyone still believes this, although politicians do
say it all the time.

What actually happens is that people pay a tax. The tax goes towards covering
people who are currently receiving payouts. The collected tax does not cover
the payouts and has not for quite a while. In other words, you're not "paying
in" to anything, other than that if you pay the tax for 3 years, you're
eligible to receive benefits.

And the payouts are a really bad investment if you are a Gen Xer or younger.
You're going to get a lot less out than you put in.

It was a really great deal for the WW2 gen, as they paid in hardly anything
and got decades of payouts.

~~~
lutorm
Sure, it's not the same dollars that I pay in that I'll be getting in the
future. That doesn't change the fact that these these taxes have to go into
the SS trust fund and is not part of the discretionary budget.

When people say things like "the government spends most of its money on
entitlement programs" like it's a bad thing, they're completely
misrepresenting the situation. If they _weren 't_ spending the tax that's
explicitly supposed to fund social security on social security, that would be
a bigger story because that would be fraud.

