FY-15 ADHSB

[Brett327]

Let's be honest: The VFA (and VAQ?) numbers aren't going to meet the requirements. The ugly truth shows this: DH billets are going to be filled with guys that have no business or experience required to fill those billets. First tour JOs will suffer as the training that they should receive goes to re-training guys coming back from aide and other non-flying tours. Nights at the boat will be scarier on average and night arrivals into Atlanta will be better on average.

Completely agree. The question is, what tools does NPC or Big Navy have at its disposal to change what is likely a short term retention problem? I understand all the complaints about the state of our culture in Naval Aviation, but we need to be realistic about the institution's ability to change. Maybe some baby steps are in order on that front (remember, little victories), and that's probably all any of us can do to nudge this ship back toward a happier place.

 

[ben4prez]

Completely agree. The question is, what tools does NPC or Big Navy have at its disposal to change what is likely a short term retention problem? I understand all the complaints about the state of our culture in Naval Aviation, but we need to be realistic about the institution's ability to change. Maybe some baby steps are in order on that front (remember, little victories), and that's probably all any of us can do to nudge this ship back toward a happier place.

What makes you think this may just be a short term retention problem? Historical precedence would generally support your contention, but it seems many of the same complaints/concerns voiced by the bow wave of o4 YG VFA DH-selects who are turning down their selection is being echoed by the 05, 06, 07 etc year groups (I heard the same rumor about half turning down the job). Of course we won't know either way for years, but the warning signs are there.

I've had this conversation with my 4-star boss numerous times, and it seems the only thing that solved the short term retention issue in 2000 was 9/11 -- if it takes a major attack on our country to keep people to stay in, that says something about the underlying culture/policies in place.

As for what NPC can do -- reforming the FITREP system, allowing more flexibility in career path, make policy recommendations to Congress to change things like Goldwater Nichols...all of these will take time, and you are right that big change is hard. I think VADM Moran has actually been very forthright about the issue, and is listening, even if change is slow. The first step is getting senior leaders to acknowledge the problem, and start the conversation. If they don't, the voting with you feet will continue unless another attack on our homeland occurs.

 

[Recovering LSO]

As for what NPC can do -- reforming the FITREP system

Let's hear some suggestions...

 

[ben4prez]

Let's hear some suggestions...

1. Make them more like the USMC FITREPs. I did a tour at VMFAT-101 through 2013 and was amazed at how superior their ranking/evaluation system was. First of all, its all digital and online -- no NAVFIT98 and lost FITREPs on a terrible online database. Next, timing doesnt matter as much (although it still matters some). You don't get #1 of 1 kisses on the way out because you are always being ranked against everybody else that reporting senior has ever evaluated. If he is the best s/he has ever seen, they can put you at the top of the stack of folks. If you are mediocre, you end up middle of the pack versus all other people ever being ranked by that person. Also, the reporting senior's boss also ranks you. This really helps in the situation like you see among squadrons in an air wing -- if you have 2 SH DH's, one of them is going to get the kiss of death #2 no matter what, and if you have 2 terrible DH's, one of them is going to get the #1. CAG could theoretically rank the 2 SH DH's over the 2 terrible DH's thus mitigating that issue.

2. Instead of doing periodic FITREPS and CoC FITREPS, just have 2 bi-annual FITREPs. That way ticket length doesnt come into play as much, which is in many cases determined by the dumb luck of when you check in or check out.

3. Make the graded items actually matter -- right now they are simply adjusted to meet the averages and rankings the Boss wants to get for his people. USMC FITREPs have clearly defined objectives (and have many many more quantatative blocks than we do) for how each item should be graded...and reporting seniors actually grade accordingly.

This doesn't address FITREPs persay, but the following have foundational effect on how they are managed. Indeed, many of our personnel policies in general shape how we rank, detail and stack people:

4. Eliminate year groups. An individual and his detailer should determine when someone is up for a board, not some arbitrary timeframe based on when you graduate. This would eliminate the oft heard phrase "this guy needs an EP for an upcoming board, and you have more time left to make it up, so we're giving you the MP." It would allow folks to progress either faster or slower. There would need to be bounds -- i.e. you could only defer your O-4 board until say 12 or 13 YCS, but this would also enable folks to deviate from the golden path and not get a head shot. Say I want to do the Olmstead Scholar program...instead of fearing the impact of a NOB, I can still do a competitive second sea tour, then do Olmstead and delay my promotion board. Or, I'm a SH guy, I could get an EP after 2 years in a squadron -- and then early promote would actually mean something. At the very least, we should reshuffle lineal numbers after promotion boards based on performance.

5. Speaking of which, the Navy is one of the only services that doesnt actively early promote anybody below zone. There are a few outliers of course, but their miniscule numbers actually calls the practice into further question (see the attached spreadsheet I made last year looking at AZ, IZ and BZ promotion rates - note it hasnt been updated for this year). The Army and USAF do 3 percent or so. And yes, there are follow on problems with early promotes -- but that is an issue with the system and year groups. If you eliminate year groups, you dont have the Early Promote dead zone problem.

6. Furthermore, promotion should be job, not rank based. I should not put on O-4 until I screen for DH or failing that, another job that requires an O-4 billet. Just like I should not screen or put on O-5 until i get picked up for CO. We have the administrative/statuatory board process backwards. This is partly a Congressionally mandated issue -- which is why our personnel policies are stuck in the Industrial Age when the Information Age is passing us by.

7. Why do flag officers put on their next rank 3-4 months after being selected ( I see this all the time in my office), but most of us wait 15 months to get the pay raise Congress and the military say we are entitled to because of our superior performance?

That's enough for now...i'm only getting started, but look forward to comments/thoughts.

 

[ben4prez]

NMCI browser is so out of date, it wouldnt let me attach the spreadsheet i referenced...will attach from home later

 

[Recovering LSO]

@ben4prez Lots of good stuff there. Some of it is better than others (IMO), but all thought provoking.

We have a problem with truth in reporting. FITREPS are largely judged by what they DON'T say instead of what they DO say. Not everyone is a rock-star. Some folks show up and do their job pretty well, and that's great. EVERY organization needs a solid base of these people. But, if a reporting senior writes a FITREP that says that (this guy did his job pretty well), it's more or less a punch in the nose. We've all come to know what adverbs and adjectives play stronger than others. And, this is fueled by the statutory / administrative board paradox. They don't both value the same metrics. When a CO, particularly in a smaller ready room, is writing his DH's high-water FITREPS, he's basically choosing who is going to be competitive for O-5 and who is also going to be competitive for command. Maybe one guy blew the other guy out of the water, but the CO feels compelled to give the other guy the best shot possible at O-5. So, PRDs are adjusted, reporting period length becomes artificially important, and, in the end, the CO in a way kicks the can to the tank. He's not going to say the number two guy shouldn't be a CO, he's going to force the boards to read between the lines. Will the board get it right? Again, it becomes a matter of what is NOT written vs what is written.

I'm not suggesting that CO's begin chopping JOs off at the knees because a dude was a late-bloomer, but we've got to find a way to encourage truthful assessments. Until that happens all of the things you wrote about will continue to plague the process.

Some sort of NPC initiative to recalibrate FITREPS will undoubtedly cause some short term angst, but if orchestrated properly with well written precepts the effort could go a long way to restoring a sense of honesty to the process.

 

[ben4prez]

@ben4prez Lots of good stuff there. Some of it is better than others (IMO), but all thought provoking.

my philosophy is to throw as much crazy stuff against the wall as possible, and inevitably something will stick ;-). Aim for the impossible, and be content when you get 25 percent of it!

 

[PhrogLoop]

my philosophy is to throw as much crazy stuff against the wall as possible, and inevitably something will stick ;-). Aim for the impossible, and be content when you get 25 percent of it!

Ben4prez, I like your suggestions and I would add a 360 evaluation multiple. How does that work? You aggregate the quantitative responses and if the CO and the 360 eval results agree that the FITREP receiver walks on water, then that is a 1.0. If the CO loves the FITREP receiver but the rest of the world thinks the FITREP receiver is toxic, then a (say) .75 multiple reduces the CO's scores so that the CO's #1 EP gets appropriately diluted. Of course the 360 eval inputs would have to be statistically significant (i.e. more than 30 valid surveys: 10 subordinates/10 peers/10 superiors or something like that).

 

[nittany03]

Less radical answer: shitcan the lockstep timing issue. Your clock does not start upon commissioning. It starts when you hit a fleet squadron. You don't get looked at for DH until you have 6-8 years of documented experience in the fleet. The lineal list becomes based off of time in the fleet on a month-by-month basis. You don't get racked and stacked in the tank until you've had an equal amount of OBSERVED FITREPS.

Go med down with something big? Either you get better and deserve a fair shake, or you're NPQ and it's a moot point. Want to go to grad school? Take forever to get through flight school? Great. That time just doesn't count for promotion. NOBs don't count against you, so your performance once you hit the fleet will be graded on more of an apples-to-apples basis. The "penalty" for doing things like grad school will be the money you lose in not getting promoted as quickly, because you don't make your gates. Take two years in the classroom? Slide two years to the right to be looked at for DH. I've run into aviators who've had significant time in the proverbial healing chair. Does that make them bad officers? Then why hose them due to "timing?" Give everyone the same amount of rope to hang themselves, and then rack and stack purely on FITREPS.

More radical answer: combine this with the idea that your billet equals your rank. Shitcan all statutory boards. Roll the JPME/Masters/Underwater Basketweaving PQS requirements for senior rank into appropriate community screen boards. The flexibility in letting people take NOB years could encourage in-residence graduate programs at NPS, NWC, or civilian universities to meet Masters requirements. Or another thought: Pad the time between screen boards to account for in-residence grad school, and tie the FITREP ranking for that reporting period to your class standing or GPA.

For aviators, no SNA/SNFO has any sailors to supervise, so why are they commissioned officers? You get gold bars with gold wings, just like Neil Armstrong and company did. Bring back the NAVCAD ranks, or else make SNAs/SNFOs warrants or senior midshipmen. Option 1: you pick up JG when you graduate the FRS. You pick up LT on reaching your shore tour. Option 2 is better: You pick up JG on reaching ACTC Level II or equivalent. You pick up LT upon making ACTC Level III or the equivalent. You'd know instantly in a group of JO aviators who has the credibility. Then you can make it so two full tours as a LT is required to be looked at for LCDR; there's your shore tour and second sea tour. You then go to the DH board, screen, and put LCDR on right when you check out to report to your DH tour. Then require two full tours as a LCDR to screen for command, and you put CDR on just before you check out to assume command.

Still working on the "Batshit Crazy" answer. That involves combining all of the above with letting bosses hire their people, but I'm still trying to come up with an argument that doesn't suck from the get-go. I've read "Bleeding Talent," but I don't agree with all of it. Blowing up Title 10 requirements requires making Congress care about the officer promotion process, which is probably pie in the sky anyway.

 

[Beans]

NMCI browser is so out of date, it wouldnt let me attach the spreadsheet i referenced...will attach from home later

NMCI Internet Explorer version formula: (newest IE version) x 2/3 = NMCI IE version

Lemme guess... V 7, 8?

 

[Brett327]

I know the FITREP issue is only one dimension of this problem solving effort, but it would be helpful (in my mind) to more precisely define what we're trying to fix. Why is the retention problem so much more pronounced in the VFA 1310 world? Are they really all going to the airlines (as many have asserted)? Is there any data on that? I'll be most interested to see the detailed results of the recent Retention Survey this fall. Seems like the "timing" factor is a problem for a lot of people, but timing can mean lots of different things. Are people griping about a scenario where two rock stars show up at once, yet only one can have a reasonable chance of getting a ticket punched? Legit gripe, IMO, which ought to be addressed differently in the FITREP system. On the other hand, I've heard a lot of people complain about/not really understand why a guy who just shows up to a command, rock star though he may be, probably isn't going to get an EP. I think there are a number of good reasons why we have people go through a progression like that, but there are lots of ways that could be changed too. At any rate, we ought to really understand what we're trying to changeand what behavior we're intending to modify.

For the record, this is one of the best threads in recent memory... and we're not even at each other's throats.

 

[ben4prez]

I know the FITREP issue is only one dimension of this problem solving effort, but it would be helpful (in my mind) to more precisely define what we're trying to fix. Why is the retention problem so much more pronounced in the VFA 1310 world? Are they really all going to the airlines (as many have asserted)? Is there any data on that? I'll be most interested to see the detailed results of the recent Retention Survey this fall. Seems like the "timing" factor is a problem for a lot of people, but timing can mean lots of different things. Are people griping about a scenario where two rock stars show up at once, yet only one can have a reasonable chance of getting a ticket punched? Legit gripe, IMO, which ought to be addressed differently in the FITREP system. On the other hand, I've heard a lot of people complain about/not really understand why a guy who just shows up to a command, rock star though he may be, probably isn't going to get an EP. I think there are a number of good reasons why we have people go through a progression like that, but there are lots of ways that could be changed too. At any rate, we ought to really understand what we're trying to changeand what behavior we're intending to modify.

For the record, this is one of the best threads in recent memory... and we're not even at each other's throats.

As one of the guys at the very heart of the Retention Survey, we should have some interesting data, although it doesnt quite get to the VFA retention issue despite a lot of data from VFA guys. I'm working on a deeper dive on that as we speak, and should have a good look in a few weeks.

I will say that in a lot of the comments and my own experience, its the OPTEMPO that is the biggest factor (at the end of the day, all else considered, that's what pushed me over the edge - despite my above rant against the FITREP system, I've come to peace with all the crap we put up with...i grudgingly acknowledge there is good reason behind it in general, even if it leaves a lot of messes). People will whine and complain about leadership, admin burden, but when it comes down to it, they don't want to leave their families and spend 8-10 months on a boat numerous times for the forseeable future. Why is this hitting VFA hardest when all communities have had high OPTEMPO? Great question -- but the general OPTEMPO discussion is beyond the control of our uniformed officials and gets into national strategy, growing obligations without a commensurate increase in resources, etc. That is a conversation that needs to elevated beyond our ability to influence -- and it goes to what the American public expects and who they elect.

If true, that OPTEMPO thing is an incredibly hard nut to crack, primarily that's because it's what were here for. We are a voluntary, expeditionary force. We deploy. If guys and girls dont want to do that anymore...what happens?

 

[Gatordev]

I understand there's the VAQ world, which has/had a few more bodies, and there's the two-seat VFA world, but on average, aren't there fewer VFA 1310 bodies per unit than all the other communities? Just doing some anecdotal math in my head, the Helo world has two 1310s for every aircraft/crew/mission where as the VFA world has one. If 50% of a given helo unit/YG/SG/whatever gets out (just using a rough number), you still have 50% left to compete for DH, which isn't an insignificant number. But if 50% did that in the VFA world, wouldn't that leave fewer bodies left for the DH pool, by comparison?

Honest question, I don't know the answer, so that's why I'm asking. If true, seems like it makes sense that community is getting hit the hardest.

 

[Flash]

I understand there's the VAQ world, which has/had a few more bodies, and there's the two-seat VFA world, but on average, aren't there fewer VFA 1310 bodies per unit than all the other communities? Just doing some anecdotal math in my head, the Helo world has two 1310s for every aircraft/crew/mission where as the VFA world has one. If 50% of a given helo unit/YG/SG/whatever gets out (just using a rough number), you still have 50% left to compete for DH, which isn't an insignificant number. But if 50% did that in the VFA world, wouldn't that leave fewer bodies left for the DH pool, by comparison?

Honest question, I don't know the answer, so that's why I'm asking. If true, seems like it makes sense that community is getting hit the hardest.

I think the size of the wardroom is a big reason that VFA 1310 retention is hurting, in a single-seat 'C' Hornet squadron I think there is an average of 15 aviators (including CO/XO and 3-4 DHs, leaving only 9 or so JOs) and about 3-4 LDO/CWOs. Those numbers sound about right? Compare that to a Prowler squadron of 26 or so (including the 2 or 3 LDO/CWOs) or a VP/VQ squadron with a wardroom of 50-75 officers. In my VQ squadron the work required of my ground jobs was minimal except for when I was SkedsO, in my VAQ squadron I had a bit more work but the workload was still comparitively light with only a single ground job at a time. Throw in all the quals you have to get during your time in a VFA squadron just to get to Level III and a pretty high and less 'stable' OPTEMPO and you have a first fleet tour that can grind a lot of folks down no matter how cool the flying is. That is the info and impression I have gotten from the VFA guys I know.

 

[Recovering LSO]

Why is the retention problem so much more pronounced in the VFA 1310 world?

Ever heard the joke about CSFWP Det Wall Street? It's a joke, with some truth behind it. I'm going to piss off a whole swath of folks with this comment, but I believe there is a lot of truth behind it:

Put "TOPGUN graduate" on a resume. Put "carrier aviator" on a resume. Put the words "fighter" and "pilot" on a resume. There is a certain something that comes with that background that makes these guys very attractive to folks who often fancy themselves as swashbuckling, hard-nosed, aggressive risk takers. Whether it's fair or entirely accurate doesn't matter. These guys have options, lots and lots of options beyond the airlines - and I believe more so than 1310s from other communities.