US Military critical pilot shortage
 

Good article regarding the 'raiding' of the US military by the US airlines, who are desperate to replace the many thousands of retiring airline pilots. You would think CX management would be smart enough see the coming tidal wave of options for pilots. Oh, wait....

Stop-Loss an Option for Air Force to Keep Departing Pilots

Well, I guess they know that trainers will keep on training the retirees' replacements, so CX is still a better option than, say, Air Asia for people without US passports/ green cards

My, my, my...the general is gettin' a little testy ?

"The goal of the meeting will be to find ways to solve the exodus of Air Force pilots to the industry in a way that is mutually acceptable for the U.S. military and the airlines — without the Air Force having to resort to 'stop-loss,' a means of forcing Air Force personnel to stay in the service beyond the period of their commitment.

Everhart said he has already told airline executives that stop-loss is an option. 'I said to the industry … if we can’t meet the requirements, the chief could drop in a stop-loss — and you need to understand that,' he said."

:-))))

Trafalgar, please remind me. Since when do you see a major pilot shortage just about to happen?
Is it 5 or 10 years?

Read the article Sam. The US general says that they are already suffering from a crisis, and the US airlines say that within a few years they will not be able to fill enough of their seats after taking into account retirements. What is your point?

Traf
Their will be never a crisis at cx for pilots, standards just get lower and lower and you will keep on training them up !
Simples

Not me, don't lump me in with the trainers trying to take zero (or near zero experience) pilots into the right seat of widebodies. That will never happen with my help. An A320 or 737 is one thing, this is entirely different. B747s should not be flown by those with double or triple digit flight hour experience. Period. Full stop. The notion that these neophytes belong in these cockpits is absurd. Any arguments to the contrary are truly fake news.

On what grounds do you base inexperience being more dangerous in a 747 than an A320 or 737? Is it the lack of sectors in a wide body?

Having flown both widebody and narrow body I would much rather see a low hour pilot go into the wide body. That said with the proper training I don't see the issue with either.

What exactly makes a narrow body a better place for these low hour pilots?

The politicians would claim that the problem is too many military aircraft.

More responsiveness on short final for starters. Less inertia for easier correction of handling errors.

Put it simply. What's easier?
Cessna 172 or PA-44?
PA-44 or DHC-8?
DHC-8 or B737?
B737 or B747?

Pretty simple math, my lady. Sure, full automation might be easier on larger and more complex aircraft, but aside from that, the job gets harder, not easier.

A330 vs A321??

The other issue that everyone has missed is narrow bodies tend to have short sectors and often fly during the day when the capt is wide awake . We fly 5-7 sectors on heavy freighters most of which are back of the clock for HK crews
Landing a heavy 744 after a 12 hour flight is a very different animal to a 737 after a 2 hour flight

And I would argue that I've been more tired flying domestic narrow body flights than long haul. Each to their own I guess.

Uh, yeah. You must be new to this, Juliet. Keep at it for a few more years. Have a few kids, become RQ, maybe a failed marriage and/or financial pressure, sleep less easily as you get older; then tell me which flying creates more fatigue. You come across as very young.

How about, when you are landing three times a day, you build your proficency more quickly than when landing three times a month. Then your total time really means something besides hours spent sleeping and reading.

Jesus you guys are defensive. I've got a different viewpoint, doesn't make either of us right or wrong.

Unfortunately I've had the divorce, have the usual financial pressures, have the kids and been doing this for over 20 years now so frankly I do know what I'm talking about. Long haul, short haul and military, I have enough experience to know what makes me fatigued. Others will be different, but for me short haul narrow body ops has been the worst.

If some of you did a bit more listening and were open to other views you might find it beneficial.

Agree entirely. The other side of course is you are more exposed and have less time to devote to planning each sector. I find on long haul we were able to cover more eventualities during the course of the flight so that we had everything planned out. Less ability to do that on short haul but of course you end up flying, as you said, more often and into the same airports more frequently.

I found my systems and SOPs knowledge was better long haul, but my operational manipulation skills were better short haul. Maybe it all balances out.

Absolutely, fair point. I'm just trying to highlight that short haul, narrow body ops are generally busier. Again, personally I would take a single 12 hour sector over a 4-5 sector 11 hour duty day. Each to their own though.

And now the general appears to have had a change of heart ? Or maybe it was a steep increase in his pilots submitting separation papers to beat the threatened "stop-loss" that would interfere with their chance of hitting the big US hiring surge on the upswing ? Amusing...

"The Air Force moved quickly last week to quell concerns that it would force pilots to stay in uniform beyond their agreed-to separation dates."

Stop-Loss Rejected By Air Force - AVweb flash Article

A bit more. Gee, do ya really think so ?:

"The Air Force feels that implementing a stop-loss policy would cause pilots to flee the Air Force before the door closed, and they won't stick around to see if things improve."

https://www.airforcetimes.com/articl...-retain-pilots