USAF Enlisted Pilots, The Right Stuff, Stolen Bikes, AIC, and SWO pipe dreams.

[Flash]

I'm not so certain a college degree is that great a differentiator - I'd agree most successful college students (graduated w/high GPA) probably have some study skills and techniques that might serve them well in API/Primary. Though a lot of bright successful high school graduates probably similarly have a solid start on study skills & techniques, too.

Sure we have more complex airplanes and systems than in the '50s ... there's a good reason we spend time with schematics and charts. The RAG is there to make system experts from art majors and everyone else. I don't disagree that as a group the college graduates with high GPAs tend to do slightly better, as they probably hit API with fresh and honed study skills, and I submit that a solid start in API helps throughout the rest of the pipeline so advantages go to the students w/good study habits and techniques.

API is way too late to be screening out a significant portion of student aviators, by that time the Navy (Marines and Coasties too) will have already invested a lot of time and money in training them to be officers and moving them down to P'cola for training. While there will always be attrition keeping it down a reasonable level is the point of screening folks before they even start the process.

 

[Griz882]

Rumor on the street right now in Pcola is that statement might not be entirely true. Atleast for the Marines... Not sure if the quotas for the Navy have been effected but I can’t imagine it being far behind.



Not a good arguement. Flying rudimentary aircraft from the 1950s and 60s compared to the advanced aircraft we fly today is a complete different skill set. Today’s pilots are similiar in the sense that we fly aircraft but we are way more systems, spectrum, and data managers than those pilots of the past. That in and of itself requires an intellectual and analytical ability that was not required as much by our predecessors. I see your point but the operating environment of 50 years ago does not directly transfer to current operations.

I am not making an argument, only an observation. I am split on the issue but will elect to dodge your comment about the complexity of modern aircraft because that on,y leads us back to unmanned argument and none of us want to go there.

 

[Griz882]

No, it's not. You don't say "an house," "an hedge," or "an haberdashery." "An historian" is a pseudo-British affectation that people think makes them sound more cultured or credible, by trying to convince their reader that they naturally speak with an English RP accent or something. It's like misusing "whom;" it only impresses undergrads or other people who don't comprehend proper grammar.

Using this logic you are just a pilot as the term “aviator” is just a pseudo-educational affection that navy guys think makes them sound superior to USAF and Army WOs.

But, if you would like an English lesson, and I am sure you don’t, as “a” American you can normally select which to use but it has nothing to do with affecting any sense of superiority. Typically we use the indefinite article ‘a’ before words that begin with consonants and ‘an’ before words that begin with vowel sounds. But, some of us advanced past the 5th grade grammar and realize that ‘h’ is a very weak consonant. When it’s the first letter of a word, sometimes we pronounce it (as in ‘happy’) and sometimes we don’t (as in ‘honor’ or ‘hour’), so sometimes it takes ‘a’ and sometimes it takes ‘an’. Thus, when you meet some fancy admiral you might say “It was an honor meeting you.” Not, “It was a honor meeting you.”

 

[wlawr005]

Well this thread went stupid.

College Degrees isn't our problem. Being prior enlisted myself, nothing I learned in college (or ROTC for that matter) made me an Officer...I can count on one hand the number of E-5s and E-6s I know that would make waaaay better Officers than some of the frat boy dipshits I've met since I've commissioned.

If you think college makes you a better pilot...get over yourself.

If you think a Warrant Officer can't do your job because he didn't go to college
...get over yourself.

If you agree that a college degree (rightly so) gave you the requisite credentials to get your foot in the door in a community that possesses no lack of applicants...please continue.

Additionally, college degree aside, the promotion/retention system for pilots in the military at large is stupid. Obviously we can do better, but that requires congressional intervention.

Otherwise, lock this dumb ass thread.

 

[Griz882]

How dare @wlawr005 apply logic and common sense to an AW discussion!

 

[Deleted member 24525]

I get the sense from USAF folks that they really aren't doing any better tackling the retention problem than we are, I would defer to our USAF members about this though.

Again, not saying they’re doing better, but again, they’re at least acknowledging there is a problem, and they have done SOMEthings....misguided as they may seem to be. (I.e. just throwing bonus money).
...As opposed to the Navy that doesn’t even appear to acknowledge that it’s an issue.

 

[brownshoe]

If you think college makes you a better pilot...get over yourself.

UM, yup... BZB wasn't a college grad. I kinda think he did an okay job.

And once I was flown to Yuma from Cecil with an E9 Marine as the command pilot and a Navy hinge as the co-pilot.

 

[Brett327]

nothing I learned in college (or ROTC for that matter) made me an Officer

This brings us to a good point, and I think we've been anchoring on the wrong thing here. As one of the few URL officers in the fleet who have actually done this gig without a college degree (or H.S. diploma, for that matter), I don't think that the increased complexity of our combat platforms, or the ability to navigate the increasingly nuanced ROE is what necessitates a college degree. You don't need a degree to be a good operator, but having a degree will, IMO, make you a better officer - particularly one that sticks around to become more senior. A college education, in general, broadens your intellectual horizons, enhances critical thinking, reasoning and writing ability, and gives you a different perspective on a whole host of things that contribute to skill sets expected of senior officers. I went to college in my 30s, and the experience changed me in fundamental ways - even though I thought of myself as a well developed, intellectually curious person. It also serves as the foundation for post-graduate education that most senior officers attend.

So, just like our officer promotion system is set up to ultimately create a pool of officers with the qualties needed for major command and beyond, the college degree requirement for our URL officers puts them on an academic and intellectual trajectory to be competitive for that same end-state. Are there exceptions and outliers? Of course, but as a general rule, this is the primary benefit to the degree requirement.

 

[sparky]

@Flash - I believe we agree re: API is too late to screen; fortunately, we do a good job screening officer accessions. For me it seemed more about study habits, than college educations. IMO, being slightly older seemed to help.

I agree with @wlawr005 it's not about college - I had degrees in Chemistry and Economics, and was still occasionally a dumb@ss in the airplane. I got better, because of the pipeline, not any college credits.

Frankly, DH life didn't appeal to me. A three letter agency offered more than Big Navy. YMMV

If this isn't about accessions, we've gotta keep more folks flying. Enlisted Pilots are a step in the wrong direction, if compensation is a factor in aviator separations.

Though there's the unintended consequences, like who will do Shooter & Nav jobs if we keep Maritime aviators in the airplanes, longer? (JK - though there would be fallout to be managed if we did adjust a large chunk of career progressions).

 

[pilot_man]

Just to be clear, when the 22 yr old, E-5, AIC tells you to 'Commit,' you do, right? (Hint: he didn't go to college).

Just to be clear, that E-5 is telling me to 'Commit' because his SUP, or the FTAO, or AW himself is telling him to say it. (Hint: I've been in Combat on several CRUDES during large scale DCAs).

A better example would be the 18yo PC directing me on where to park the jet, or the guys in approach giving me my Case III instructions. But I am confused what this has to do with flying an airplane.

If you think college makes you a better pilot...get over yourself.

If you think a Warrant Officer can't do your job because he didn't go to college
...get over yourself.

If you agree that a college degree (rightly so) gave you the requisite credentials to get your foot in the door in a community that possesses no lack of applicants...please continue.

Don't be so emotional about this. Let's pick teams. I'll take the 25 that have a degree and played sports growing up and you can have 25 that didn't. Being a pilot takes brains and motor skills. A degree doesn't prove brains but it helps to point in that direction. I'm not saying there aren't plenty of our sailors that couldn't be pilots. I've met a few that have Masters and are working on their PhDs, but I question their common sense when they go enlisted already having a masters degree.

This thread should be locked. The Air Force isn't getting rid of the degree requirement for pilots and neither are we.

 

[sevenhelmet]

This thread should be locked. The Air Force isn't getting rid of the degree requirement for pilots and neither are we.

I agree. This thread is going nowhere. Our current manning problems are due an increase in the number of guys getting out and diminished throughput capability in the pipeline. I think we've answered the mail on the original post.

 

[wlawr005]

Don't be so emotional about this. Let's pick teams. I'll take the 25 that have a degree and played sports growing up and you can have 25 that didn't. Being a pilot takes brains and motor skills. A degree doesn't prove brains but it helps to point in that direction. I'm not saying there aren't plenty of our sailors that couldn't be pilots. I've met a few that have Masters and are working on their PhDs, but I question their common sense when they go enlisted

Cool. Tell that to most of the E-5 thru E-9 in most spec ops communities. I don't know what plane you fly but being a Navy pilot in ANY platform ain't the athletic super challenge you make it out to be.

 

[nittany03]

But, some of us advanced past the 5th grade grammar and realize that ‘h’ is a very weak consonant. When it’s the first letter of a word, sometimes we pronounce it (as in ‘happy’) and sometimes we don’t (as in ‘honor’ or ‘hour’), so sometimes it takes ‘a’ and sometimes it takes ‘an’. Thus, when you meet some fancy admiral you might say “It was an honor meeting you.” Not, “It was a honor meeting you.”

And the "h" in "historic" is pronounced. It may be a weak consonant, but it's there. Unless you're speaking with a Cockney accent, it's "historic," not "'istoric." Which means it takes "a," not "an," just like "hacksaw," "hoof," or "house."

 

[Python]

Sure we have more complex airplanes and systems than in the '50s ... there's a good reason we spend time with schematics and charts. The RAG is there to make system experts from art majors and everyone else.

I don't think the argument about modern aircraft being more complex is specific to their vehicle systems (which are, in fact, more complex). I believe it's the several orders of magnitude of difference in combat and mission systems, and the implication that complexity has on tactics and decision making. Again, not arguing the big picture point of degrees or no degrees...just clarifying the argument of what exactly has gotten more complex.

 

[Jim123]

Cool. Tell that to most of the E-5 thru E-9 in most spec ops communities. I don't know what plane you fly but being a Navy pilot in ANY platform ain't the athletic super challenge you make it out to be.

I don't think of it in terms of athleticism or physical attributes. The flight students who used to play team sports tend to fit the mold of Navy flight school better than the bookworms and cerebral types. That's mostly my personal observations after flying with a lot of them.

Some people are exceptions and being one extreme or the other isn't a sure predictor for success or failure. (Hell, I suck at ball sports worse than almost any gold winger I've ever known but I made it through flight school.) It's hard to put my finger on exactly why that is, if it's correlation or causation, chicken or the egg, I dunno.

(Getting good grades in flight school has a strong correlation to operational flying, but there are exceptions to that too; I digress.)

And I say all this with the assumption that the students who make it to the flight part have shown they have the raw mental ability. At least they've met the minimum academic standard, anyway- mental aptitude for military flying in terms of preflight study and applying it in the cockpit is it's own thing- it's some parts studying for college-level exams, part working on a big group project, part reviewing game tape and studying plays with the coach, but not exactly like those things either, as you well know...

Anyway, just my take on traits of potential aviators.