Pilot shortage?

[Tycho_Brohe]

Time for an IG. Not kidding.

I was considering suggesting that. A friend of mine at my first sea tour, who had been extended to ~45 months, was a victim of the aforementioned "glitch" a few years back; shore tour orders were cut for 29 months, to keep the PRD out of the "12 months to MSR" window. So I already have a vicarious bad taste in my mouth about the detailing process.

This more recent data point seemed like an end-around to accomplish something similar, though obviously not as severe, but frustrating all the same. Luckily this time, it'll be a non-issue due to other extenuating circumstances, intentionally left vague to protect their identity, but I wanted to make sure I wasn't off-base with the IG route; we have quite a few people in the command that might find themselves in the same boat at some point. Just wasn't sure if there was another instruction I was missing.

Regardless, that sort of behavior speaks volumes to a big reason I think people are getting out in the first place. I get the manning gap at the boat, but is it really better to send people there against their will after giving them the shaft? And how much longer do you expect them to stay in after an experience like that?

Also I'm home now, so here's the Ron Swanson gif I promised.

 

[Ghost SWO]

"and yet they reject very highly qualified applicants.....just sayin' ..."

Pro tip - When you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about, that’s usually a good time to keep your mouth shut.

I went through the OTS application process while active duty, took the AFOQT twice but never got a chance to complete the OTS application before separating. I was later rejected by USAF officer recruiters when I tried again from the civilian side. The rejection was because they would not do waivers for pilot applicants, which is their prerogative and I understand that.

The average USAF pilot candidate hovers around a 60 PCSM ("Pilot Candidate Selection Method" - The maximum score is 99 and is the primary metric for pilot selection). I have a 98 PCSM and a 97 Pilot score. According to the USAF I'm one of those, "highly qualified applicants", according to their primary selection metric but I was rejected with scores in the top 2-3%. The USN did not require a waiver for the same issue.

Feel free to bash me, call me unqualified, or hint at a cognitive ability or inability, but at the time I felt like I was highly qualified and was "rejected" by the USAF. I know the USAF is struggling for pilots and makes mention of it many times publicly so it felt counterintuitive. It's water under the bridge and I'm ecstatic about my opportunity with the Navy and wouldn't have it any other way.

 

[SELRES_AMDO]

"SHORE DUTY ORDERS WRITTEN FOR 36 MONTHS TO COMPLY WITH DODI 1315.18. PERS-43 HAS THE AUTHORITY TO DETACH AN OFFICER BETWEEN 24-36 MONTHS FOR CAREER MILESTONES AND PRIORITY SEA DUTY REQUIREMENTS."

I looked through DODI 1315.18, DODI 1315.7, and several MPM references, and nothing I've found so far gives PERS the authority to detach someone that early. There are stated exceptions to the 3-year shore tour, but none of them look like "we need more bodies on the boat."

I interpret the phrase to mean that shore tours are written for 36 months to comply with DODI 1315.18. PERS has the authority to start detaching people as early as 24 months to assign them to priority sea duty assignments. Nothing in the phrase says that 1315.18 gives PERS the authority to detach an officer. That authority is likely buried somewhere or may be just a legal opinion from their counsel.

I'm surprised big Navy even tried to justify it. They probably could have just as easily said "you belong to us, please pack your things".

 

[FinkUFreaky]

This whole "orders written for 36 months but being able to shorten to 24" has been known by those with these orders for a few years now; at least at the shore tour I was at and it'd be some front office fuckery if it weren't known to others. I'm sure they were aware..

I'm not casting aspersions about their disappointment when the clause is activated though in any way shape or form; I was lucky to be just about 6 months to a year ahead of those with the intentionally short orders, which were ahead of the vague ones. I'd be pissed were I in their shoes. I'm just saying it can't have been a surprise. As to the legality, no idea; way out of my wheelhouse.

 

[MIDNJAC]

Feel free to bash me, call me unqualified, or hint at a cognitive ability or inability, but at the time I felt like I was highly qualified and was "rejected" by the USAF. I know the USAF is struggling for pilots and makes mention of it many times publicly so it felt counterintuitive. It's water under the bridge and I'm ecstatic about my opportunity with the Navy and wouldn't have it any other way.

I'm sure the services have rejected plenty of highly qualified applicants. What we are saying here is that this is an apples and oranges comparison. New flight students aren't where the services are hurting. If that makes any sense. Congrats on the Navy gig though!

 

[Ghost SWO]

I'm sure the services have rejected plenty of highly qualified applicants. What we are saying here is that this is an apples and oranges comparison. New flight students aren't where the services are hurting. If that makes any sense. Congrats on the Navy gig though!

Ah yes, absolutely. I was focused on the accession side since that's what I know but I've heard and read a lot about the retention issue. I'll leave that to the more experienced. I've enjoyed the knowledge in this thread, this topic has steered my life for nearly a decade in multiple ways.

Thanks, looking forward to it.

 

[Brett327]

I went through the OTS application process while active duty, took the AFOQT twice but never got a chance to complete the OTS application before separating. I was later rejected by USAF officer recruiters when I tried again from the civilian side. The rejection was because they would not do waivers for pilot applicants, which is their prerogative and I understand that.

The average USAF pilot candidate hovers around a 60 PCSM ("Pilot Candidate Selection Method" - The maximum score is 99 and is the primary metric for pilot selection). I have a 98 PCSM and a 97 Pilot score. According to the USAF I'm one of those, "highly qualified applicants", according to their primary selection metric but I was rejected with scores in the top 2-3%. The USN did not require a waiver for the same issue.

Feel free to bash me, call me unqualified, or hint at a cognitive ability or inability, but at the time I felt like I was highly qualified and was "rejected" by the USAF. I know the USAF is struggling for pilots and makes mention of it many times publicly so it felt counterintuitive. It's water under the bridge and I'm ecstatic about my opportunity with the Navy and wouldn't have it any other way.

To repeat my earlier point, we're not talking about initial accessions, so your particular story is not germane to the conversation.

 

[Tycho_Brohe]

This whole "orders written for 36 months but being able to shorten to 24" has been known by those with these orders for a few years now; at least at the shore tour I was at and it'd be some front office fuckery if it weren't known to others. I'm sure they were aware..

I'm not casting aspersions about their disappointment when the clause is activated though in any way shape or form; I was lucky to be just about 6 months to a year ahead of those with the intentionally short orders, which were ahead of the vague ones. I'd be pissed were I in their shoes. I'm just saying it can't have been a surprise. As to the legality, no idea; way out of my wheelhouse.

Our group was unaware of the clause when we first got our shore tour orders. We had all heard about the shortened orders and that PERS was writing 36-month orders UFN because they got schwacked for writing them short. We found out now because this person was the only one in our group who wanted to request to extend. The clause just seemed like an end-around at first glance, and I couldn't find anything to the contrary, just a bunch of instructions saying "36-month shore tour."

Personally, I don't mind. I'm already resigned to going to the boat anyway. I was mostly just pissed it sounded like PERS was up to old tricks, and wanted to see if there was more worth looking into on my friend's behalf, but it is what it is. Like I said, it's luckily a moot point now.

 

[FinkUFreaky]

Our group was unaware of the clause when we first got our shore tour orders. We had all heard about the shortened orders and that PERS was writing 36-month orders UFN because they got schwacked for writing them short. We found out now because this person was the only one in our group who wanted to request to extend. The clause just seemed like an end-around at first glance, and I couldn't find anything to the contrary, just a bunch of instructions saying "36-month shore tour."

Personally, I don't mind. I'm already resigned to going to the boat anyway. I was mostly just pissed it sounded like PERS was up to old tricks, and wanted to see if there was more worth looking into on my friend's behalf, but it is what it is. Like I said, it's luckily a moot point now.

Oh gotcha, I guess I meant front office fuckery if they weren't filled in when they showed up at the shore tour (as if it's OK that they weren't notified upon the giving of the orders; that's a different front office or PERS issue). It was definitely a topic of discussion, at AIMs, when the orders started showing up that way. And our VT front office at least was upfront in that they didn't know what was going to happen but to plan for the orders to be modified. And if able to extend, you'll be lucky. Again, my timing was just lucky to happen before this and I def don't condone the practice (bet your ass that detailer got 36 month shore tour... and chose to stay in).

 

[ATbullfrog]

Some gouge - I don't know if it was said in any of this forum, but there is not a pilot shortage. Speaking from the first step of the program, the NIFE director said that there is about 700 student pilot selects that the Navy needs to attrite before winging. They front-load about 700 people in the beginning, assuming DOR, attritte or NPQ. FYI

 

[scoolbubba]

Yea no one gives a shit how many ensigns there are out there fucking up EPs and engaging in normal buffoonery. They care about asses in seats at the Department Head level.

 

[Python]

Some gouge - I don't know if it was said in any of this forum, but there is not a pilot shortage. Speaking from the first step of the program, the NIFE director said that there is about 700 student pilot selects that the Navy needs to attrite before winging. They front-load about 700 people in the beginning, assuming DOR, attritte or NPQ. FYI

Irrelevant to the pilot shortage topic of this thread. Do these ensigns have full qualifications and ten years of experience? No? Then it doesn’t matter.

Pilot shortage?

and yet they reject very highly qualified applicants.....just sayin' .... ^ what he said. There is zero problem of accession. It is only retention.

www.airwarriors.com

 

[MGoBrew11]

Donny is out of his element

 

[Brett327]

Some gouge - I don't know if it was said in any of this forum, but there is not a pilot shortage. Speaking from the first step of the program, the NIFE director said that there is about 700 student pilot selects that the Navy needs to attrite before winging. They front-load about 700 people in the beginning, assuming DOR, attritte or NPQ. FYI

That number seems absurdly high. I would question its source and veracity.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

This article says the Navy averages losing 465 pilots per year.

Navy’s pilot shortage may be shored up by 2023, but then the real challenge begins

With full funding the Navy can fill its pilot ranks by 2023, but then it has other issues to deal with.

federalnewsnetwork.com

700 extra ensigns for attrition is absurdly high