cgrunner
Ruble
Private Message This User: 
Posts:2
 |
| 07 May 2009 09:45 AM |
�
|
We just did the 53 process at my Det and at first they told the rated people that we didn't have to do it, but at the last minute they made us all go back in and complete it. My question is do they use the Form 53 for pilot training bases? I was told they don't.
Also I really want ENJJPT but Sheppard wasn't on the list of bases, what does that mean?
Finally someone told me a few days ago that they are now only giving ENJJPT to Academy grads, is this true?
Thanks a lot |
|
|
|
|
Shep
Private Message This User:
Posts:169
|
| 07 May 2009 04:45 PM |
�
|
First, I'm not sure I'm familiar with the "53" process... or at least not used to it being to referred to with that name.
Second, Sheppard isn't on the list of bases because you can't just volunteer to go there on your base selection sheet. The only way to get to Sheppard is to check the box on the sheet you filled out before you even got your pilot slot that says you're interested in going to ENJJPT and that you understand what that means. If you're OM is above the cutoff and you get selected to go to Sheppard, it won't matter what other base selections you had on your dream sheet... you'll come to Sheppard.
Third, that last piece is complete and total bullshit. I don't know where they're getting their information but it couldn't be further from the truth. What IS the truth, however, is that a higher PERCENTAGE of Academy grads come to Sheppard than do ROTC grads. The Academy and ROTC are given the same amount of ENJJPT slots (give or take), but there's a lot fewer graduates at the Academy than there are in ROTC, which means you have a higher chance of getting selected there.
Ask away if you have any other questions. |
|
 Click here to view my Pilot Slot Statistics |
|
|
cgrunner
Ruble
Private Message This User:
Posts:2
|
| 07 May 2009 05:52 PM |
�
|
Alright great. Thanks Shep, I will let you know if I have any more. |
|
|
|
|
ENmafia
Team WantsCheck
Private Message This User:
Posts:409
|
| 11 May 2009 10:17 PM |
�
|
Hey everyone I updated the ENJJPT Page on here with the less than popular news that MC-12s, U-28s, and UAVs have been and will continue to be assigned in abundance to graduating EN Studs. I added the official memo and an awesomely misspelled Power Point from AETC on the left hand side of the page as well. Feel free to check them out on the EN Page. |
|
| ENJJPT Class 10-08 "Tators" Click here to view my Pilot Slot Statistics |
|
|
Shep
Private Message This User:
Posts:169
|
|
ENmafia
Team WantsCheck
Private Message This User:
Posts:409
|
|
Arb|EN
Private Message This User:
Posts:67
|
| 12 May 2009 11:46 AM |
�
|
It's gonna be interesting to see how many Heavies they actually give ENJJPT in the next drop (although I heard it doesn't take effect until the drop after next). Not sure about you guys but I'd fly the U-28/C-17 any day of the week.
And ultimately this means the best thing ever, no more 40% UAS drops at assignment night. Hopefully across all the bases (T-1's and the T-38 side) the AF can find enough volunteers, or close to it, for the 100 UPT pilots they need a year. And if not, at least there will be a normal distribution of UAS's among tones as compared to the 38's now. I know at the last ENJJPT drop, 2 or 3 of the UAS's were voluntary, so hopefully that trend continues across the map.
Who knows, I might go through UPT and realize I want a tour in the UAS. Only time will tell. |
|
|
|
|
ENmafia
Team WantsCheck
Private Message This User:
Posts:409
|
| 12 May 2009 11:55 AM |
�
|
It won't be "a tour" in the UAS...it will be a career choice and you will not see a manned cockpit IMO. You will be doing great work but the cost benefit for the AF of putting you back through cockpit flying spin up training coupled with losing you in this highly demanded field does not pass the common sense test. I have not heard of a single person who was promised a follow on flying assignment since the beginning of them pulling guys from cockpits get one...I wouldn't believe that promise.
Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone with SprintSpeed |
|
| ENJJPT Class 10-08 "Tators" Click here to view my Pilot Slot Statistics |
|
|
Arb|EN
Private Message This User:
Posts:67
|
| 12 May 2009 12:59 PM |
�
|
yea, I basically wrote that to be politically correct. Great mission - not for me. Let's be honest a majority of the UAS volunteers realized family was important to them and they wanted to stay in one place, so I doubt the volunteers are too mad about it. The ones who got forced into it.... yikes.
I'm glad the Wing/CC at Sheppard pushed for the heavy selection opportunity. Seems like it was for the sole purpose of less UAS's and more EN studs in the cockpit. The tones/44's will be pissed, but they can't be too mad; everyone is just on an even playing field now. I can't tell you how many SUPT guys told me I'd be flying UAS's for going EN. |
|
|
|
|
Rynizzle
Team WantsCheck
Private Message This User:
Posts:2578
|
|
ENmafia
Team WantsCheck
Private Message This User:
Posts:409
|
| 12 May 2009 03:59 PM |
�
|
Haha Ryno I think he is like me and doesn't not fly UAVs yet If that is what you are getting at. Arbitir correct me If I'm wrong but you are on deck at EN...back on the topic at hand. I think this opens up a whole can of questions. Like how do they rack and stack Tone dudes with 38 guys when it comes to competing for a C-17 drop now? Or are they just going to divide everything up equally to all the bases? Does AMC allow a 38 guy to come straight into C17 B course? AMC and/or Tone IPs have to be upset that 38 guys can now go heavy at will and take some of their drops but they can't take fighter drops...etc...the next couple of years are going to be interesting until they hopefully make UAV a different career field catering to and recruiting people like Ryno who are stoked to do it. Being AD at EN though you have to be stoked that you can put the RCPs on the bottom of your dream sheet with fighters and heavies above them and have a better chance of serving in the capacity you signed up to serve in when you accepted your 10+ year commitment in ROTC.
*
*
Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone with SprintSpeed |
|
| ENJJPT Class 10-08 "Tators" Click here to view my Pilot Slot Statistics |
|
|
Shep
Private Message This User:
Posts:169
|
| 12 May 2009 04:59 PM |
�
|
I think I can help answer a couple of questions. For the first time ever, there were three people from the last graduating ENJJPT class to request a transfer to heavies. And it wasn't because they got UAVs, they actually got fighters and didn't want to put up with how backed up the pipeline is. They were looking at still another couple of years before they were even going to be fully trained and combat ready. So they decided they wanted to get right in the action and volunteered to be guinea pigs. They are the first to transfer from T-38s straight to heavies (as far as I've been told) and, based on their success, they may be setting a precedence for future 38 drops.
What happened was our Commander (Col Peterson) called up other UPT bases and AMC and negotiated with them to get a couple of their aircraft. As I've been told, this is common practice with all aircraft. For example, if a good student really wants an aircraft that isn't in their drop, the commander will call up different UPT bases and commands and trade aircraft around to get what they want. I'm not sure how this affects the drops for the guys in the heavy trainer tracks.
One of the IPs here posed an interesting question. If these guys going straight from 38s to C-17s are successful and do well, what does that mean for the heavy track? Because basically you're saying that the T-38 can adequately prepare you to fly a heavy the same as a T-1 or T-44. |
|
| Click here to view my Pilot Slot Statistics |
|
|
Rynizzle
Team WantsCheck
Private Message This User:
Posts:2578
|
| 12 May 2009 05:06 PM |
�
|
The T-38 certainly prepares a guy to fly a heavy. Right before I went to UPT everybody flew T-38s and then went off to fly whatever. A T-38 guy will have no issues flying heavies. They will have to unlearn a few habit patterns and the single seat mentality and learn to work with other people and not think of "relying" on other crewmembers as being a vice. It's not "the same" as having come from T-44s or T-1s and the T-38 guys probably won't be as good at flying instruments or strange field ops for the first couple weeks but it won't be hard to adjust. It won't be a problem. |
|
 Click here to view my Pilot Slot Statistics |
|
|
Arb|EN
Private Message This User:
Posts:67
|
| 12 May 2009 08:29 PM |
�
|
"On deck" for EN is a loose statement, haha. My start date is in October, so it'll come around slowly. I've waited this long so what's another five months :-P I'm definitely interested to see how everything plays out however. The next EN drop should be sometime this month, you know the date Shep? |
|
|
|
|
Shep
Private Message This User:
Posts:169
|
| 12 May 2009 08:44 PM |
�
|
Yea, the drop is actually this Friday. I'll be posting it under the Track/Drop Thread. Also, I know a few guys in your class already. You should definately hit me up when you get here. |
|
| Click here to view my Pilot Slot Statistics |
|
|
runnergc
Private Message This User:
Posts:7
|
| 27 May 2009 09:52 AM |
�
|
Alright I have another question, my CTA from Field Training said he didn't get ENJJPT because his AFOQT score was to low, I thought they just looked at your OM? I doesn't make much sense for them to look at your AFOQT score because I scored average on it but my PCSM is a 96. So does the board break down your OM? Thanks for the help! |
|
|
|
|
ENmafia
Team WantsCheck
Private Message This User:
Posts:409
|
|
Arb|EN
Private Message This User:
Posts:67
|
| 27 May 2009 11:26 PM |
�
|
sounds like an excuse to me. The PCSM is weighted heavily in favor of the TBAS... so if his PCSM was low he probably bombed both portions.
But if your PCSM is outstanding, if you nail the CC's ranking/have a decent GPA/are physically fit, you are golden. You can fly a UAV next to mafia and I!
|
|
|
|
|
Sweepin' BoneMan
Private Message This User:
Posts:36
|
| 31 Aug 2009 08:46 PM |
�
|
On the topic of Heavies/Fighters for the TONERs/T44 guys ... The issue is on a much broader scale, there should probably be a separate thread for it ... The issues lie in the ACC/AMC categorization ... I had a crusty explain to me how back in the day, cross-platforming was easy because SAC was it's own MAJCOM that included Tankers, Heavies and Bombers. ACC was always the "Fighter" MAJCOM ... When Bombers were adopted by ACC it categorized them via the Fighter track, thus taking away most of the cross-platforming but also requiring T-38s in UPT.
His theory, and I'm not bashing anyone here, was that T-38s were "over-qualified" for Heavies/Tankers and it was "easier" for them to across the lines .. NOW, I don't believe that at all, frankly i think its BS, but I wasn't going to tell him that ... But you could get the understanding that some people might have that idea in the right positions that could influence how things happen ...
I do see how it would be cost-ineffective to have a TONER/T-44 guy almost completely retrain for a "single-seat" role - but I don't think it would cost that much more to have one go to bombers, the crew is already there and the flying is slightly similar ...
I'm interested to see if and when Fighters/Bombers get dropped at UPT bases to T-1 guys ... |
|
|
|
|
Hacker
Team WantsCheck
Private Message This User:
Posts:190
|
| 01 Sep 2009 06:49 AM |
�
|
It all has to do with supply and demand. Right now, there is nearly *zero* demand for inputs into the fighter training pipeline. That's why you're not going to see studs from anywhere but the T-38 track go there. On the other hand, there is an excess supply of pilots going through the T-38 track and no capacity in the T-1 or T-44 track to absorb them. This necessitated being able to assign T-38 students to other airframes that had the availability.
In addition, we know that at some point once F-35 comes on line, we'll need a supply of more experienced T-38 trained (a.k.a. "fighter qualified" ) pilots to tap into. The SUPT pipeline and the existing pool of current/qualified fighter pilots just won't be able to provide pilots of higher ranks and experience levels (yes, that will mean the return of the Fighter Crossflow board).
By the time there is more demand in the fighter pipeline than the "T-38" track can handle (ergo, the Lightning is operational), then I predict we won't have a 2-track UPT system anymore. Either we'll be in the "wing 'em after the T-6" era, or the '38 and T-1 will both have been replaced with a single Phase III trainer. |
|
|
|
|