Board stats are out, a ton of BZ selects across all designators. I know a bunch in VP, all really good dudes but only some of them would be described as water walkers. Very interesting.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
FY2018 O-4 Board
- Thread starter NUFO06
- Start date
Congratulations where appropriate. There were some good folks left behind however.
Shaking off the hangover to attend the PERS-43 brief this morning. Should be "interesting".
Shaking off the hangover to attend the PERS-43 brief this morning. Should be "interesting".
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
The cutoff date of rank for in-zone was someone promoted on Jun 1 '12. I wonder how many AZ pickups were YG '08 anyway.
Anyone have the statistics? The link on the NPC site won't work for me.
So aviators still selected at 16% below the next lowest URL designator?
How's that glitch fix coming?
They seem pretty much resigned to it, citing the longer commitments that we have.
There was some mention from RADM Meier (Asst Pers 4) at Hook this weekend about trying to move ADHSB in front of O-4 stat board. That could help, but he also mentioned a real concern and possible unintended consequence - only getting the screened DHs selected for O-4 and not the actual required number.
Regardless, the MSR thing is not new. The fact that we seem comfortable accepting it as "the way it is" bothers me. It's tough to watch IZ SWOs select at 80% while IZ 1310s select at 64%. Additionally, I think it's time we stop letting stat boards hide behind the existing cloak. When someone is not selected, a brief note should be attached to their record indicating problem areas so the individual can be debriefed. Would that be easy to do? No. Would that require some culture/process changes? Yes. Do we owe multiple EP JOs who FOS some better feedback/counseling? Absolutely.
Regardless, the MSR thing is not new. The fact that we seem comfortable accepting it as "the way it is" bothers me. It's tough to watch IZ SWOs select at 80% while IZ 1310s select at 64%. Additionally, I think it's time we stop letting stat boards hide behind the existing cloak. When someone is not selected, a brief note should be attached to their record indicating problem areas so the individual can be debriefed. Would that be easy to do? No. Would that require some culture/process changes? Yes. Do we owe multiple EP JOs who FOS some better feedback/counseling? Absolutely.
For my part, I found the almost dismissive comfort with selection rates and 1320s in general to be very disturbing. Some other concerns:
-The release process (admittedly not PERS-43's fault, but someone needs to address this).
-Guys potentially unable to compete for O-5 due to being promoted BZ (despite it being well-deserved).
-Increasing and absurdly long DH tickets in order to screen for O-5 command (anecdotally, at least).
-Massive shortfalls in production IPs at all levels, but especially O-4, because we evidently can't entertain the notion of using post-DH O-4s as IPs, even when they are not going to be competitive for command. This one is currently exacerbating the T-45 slowdown, which is driving a massive shortfall in JOs in the fleet over the next couple of years, which will drive a massive shortfall in future IPs, which will drive a shortfall in JOs... you get the picture.
Oh, and there has got to be an easier way to present the data than the ridiculous eye-chart of overlaid plots that we get every year. If we can reduce airplane performance data to a single drag curve, I find it hard to believe something similar (or at least easier to digest) can't be done for promotions and manning.
-The release process (admittedly not PERS-43's fault, but someone needs to address this).
-Guys potentially unable to compete for O-5 due to being promoted BZ (despite it being well-deserved).
-Increasing and absurdly long DH tickets in order to screen for O-5 command (anecdotally, at least).
-Massive shortfalls in production IPs at all levels, but especially O-4, because we evidently can't entertain the notion of using post-DH O-4s as IPs, even when they are not going to be competitive for command. This one is currently exacerbating the T-45 slowdown, which is driving a massive shortfall in JOs in the fleet over the next couple of years, which will drive a massive shortfall in future IPs, which will drive a shortfall in JOs... you get the picture.
Oh, and there has got to be an easier way to present the data than the ridiculous eye-chart of overlaid plots that we get every year. If we can reduce airplane performance data to a single drag curve, I find it hard to believe something similar (or at least easier to digest) can't be done for promotions and manning.
Last edited:
I typically don't post around here but I follow several topics very closely and might have a little to offer here:
No one is dismissing selection rates for aviators. The results were released barely a day before the PERS-43 address at Hook. It takes time to sort out the results from statutory boards and figure out what to do next.
Valid points. As has been mentioned before, statutory boards are controlled by federal law. Changes can be made but the process is measured in years and requires significant involvement from lawmakers that typically have bigger fish to fry.
Just one guy's opinion but I consider this a good thing. Command is still VERY competitive. As long as COs understand the process and pay attention, the average ticket length out of a board doesn't matter. They just need to know who their top DH is and write decent fitreps.
This concerns a lot of people although I would argue the JO IP inventory is a much bigger concern than O-4.
This is already happening and has been for a little while.
I can't help you here.
No one is dismissing selection rates for aviators. The results were released barely a day before the PERS-43 address at Hook. It takes time to sort out the results from statutory boards and figure out what to do next.
Valid points. As has been mentioned before, statutory boards are controlled by federal law. Changes can be made but the process is measured in years and requires significant involvement from lawmakers that typically have bigger fish to fry.
Just one guy's opinion but I consider this a good thing. Command is still VERY competitive. As long as COs understand the process and pay attention, the average ticket length out of a board doesn't matter. They just need to know who their top DH is and write decent fitreps.
This concerns a lot of people although I would argue the JO IP inventory is a much bigger concern than O-4.
This is already happening and has been for a little while.
I can't help you here.
Last edited:
Copy, but not a very good answer, sorry. The numbers are bad, guys are leaving, and strong records are left on the cutting room floor without a feedback mechanism. None of this is new, and the "it's a stat board" shoulder shrug, while in your mind this might be a good answer, rings hollow to the herd who's looking for some information to plan their lives with.
Again with the stat board shoulder shrug... I'm not trying to be an ass here, but trying to give you some sort of idea how that response is received. But if that's what we want to talk about let's talk about it: what initiatives are being put forth by PERS-actual to N1-actual WRT proposed changes to those laws.
Again, it's no secret that there's a problem, and if we're being really honest with ourselves, much of it is a self-imposed combination of MSR, ADSHB -v- O-4 board timing, and a continued belief that the AF's approach of throwing money at the problem will work. Layer on top of that the larger messaging piece when combat/cruise experienced pilots are left out in the cold seeing SWOs screen ~ 80% year after year. Yeah, we get how/why this happens, but put yourself in the shoes of a JO who left fleet tour with #1 EP, got selected for TPS, successfully completes TPS, and then checks into VX squadron without time for breakout FITREP prior to O-4 board. You can explain to him how it happened all day long, but he's been delivered a pretty clear message by "the Navy" about what it values, and how much it values him.
Maybe I misread or misunderstood what you wrote here, but "average ticket length out of a board doesn't matter"!? Then A) why is it part of every ADHSB Lessons "Learned" brief, and B) no front office in Naval Aviation (at least not TACAIR) believes they're going to make a CO with a anything less than six month FITREP. FITREP length matters, by extension the average length of screened records matters, if for no other reason than the next round of CO's look at that brief and draw conclusions from it. You might not think the average is important, but that's not the message RS's are hearing. Is this a good jumping off point for some more information on proposed new FITREP system...?
Can we work with you directly to get guys those orders because it seems like you're the only one at 43 who thinks it's doable...
@sevenhelmet has offered a pretty decent bit of feedback... Try?
This.
@Armo325 Let's talk about the pilots who took a "tour with industry" and went to ACSB with very competitive records - how's that worked out for them? Those are stats that would be useful to the fleet in their decision making.
And this.
Let's talk about the overarching mentality that command is something that someone needs to serve a "pay back tour" for... I look around at the guys on my flight line who are finishing command and they're f'ing cooked - and those are the ones who are doing well.... Then to be staring the VERY real chance of an Air Boss, Big Opso, Navigator, Flag Air Ops job in the face....
Last edited:
I wonder if command is still VERY competitive. What I mean is, the selection rates are still low (competitive) for the group, but I wonder how groups now compare to groups 4-5 years ago. As we are barely able to make the dept heads we need, we are pulling more and more from the bottom of the stack. Now we are making DHs out of people we wouldn't have several years ago and that has to be dragging down the average of the overall talent pool. It makes me wonder if a guy who had no chance of being a CO 5 years ago does now.
A couple of other things from the PERS-43 brief:
The last 2 years we have seen graphs that show we have just made or didn't make our DH requirements for VFA / VAQ 1310s. What are we doing to address this? This is basically the OBOGS issue of Naval Aviation manning. I don't want to hear about sabbaticals and industry job opportunities. I'm sure these have an impact on a couple of people, but they are very niche and don't apply to Naval Aviation at large. Our bonus take rates are abysmal and that indicates that things aren't getting better. And I don't see things changing drastically between 25 and 35 grand. And the AvIP increase from $850-1000? Meh. People are always very quick to say "it isn't about the money". I don't know what fools have been telling them this but it is about the money. Yes, it's about a bunch of other stuff too but people will put up with all kinds of crap if the money is right. Otherwise the Navy is competing with an industry that pays a lot of money, doesn't take you away from your family for 6 months at a time, and has way less bullshit, all at about 16 workdays a month.
And the Aviation Command Retention Bonus is a joke. It's almost an insult. I have a feeling we are going to see some drastic reductions in the take rate for that bonus amongst 1310s as long as the airlines keep hiring like they are now.
Maybe this was a can of worms better left unopened (by me, at least) but I'm happy to chat. That said, a lot of these discussions aren't really appropriate here and I have a pretty strong aversion to discussing contentious topics with strangers on the internet. In this case, we aren't really strangers. I suspect I know a lot of the folks here and don't know it. I'm pretty sure a few know who I am, too. Bear in mind this is all just one person's opinion. I am not what anyone would consider "high level leadership" that actually makes policy decisions on any of this stuff.
Understood and I agree. The intent was meant less as a shoulder shrug and more to say "No one knows anything yet because PERS-43 doesn't get the board results before the fleet but they're working on it." There is a pretty common misconception that PERS-43 is involved with the process and has answers to the various "whys" as soon as results hit the streets. I know it has been discussed here in the past but worth a reminder.
My answer was poorly explained but you got to it at the end of the quote above. Ticket length absolutely matters but, to the original poster's point, the actual number of months doesn't. Whether it's a 6-month, 9-month, 12-month, etc. ticket is less important than the community knowing what the number is. This is where the COs come in. When a Skipper has a 5-month and a 7-month ticket with two DHs getting their high-water fitrep, for example, he has a decision to make. If he isn't paying attention to the board results, through no fault of his own, he might split them and tell both guys they're going to be COs one day. There are no absolutes in this business but, in today's climate he's probably wrong, community dependent, of course. When that same CO was a JO, it may have been true.
I'd love to talk up the new system but I don't know anything about it. There is a new fitrep (report itself) that I have heard a little about. The policy that will come with the new fitrep is something that hasn't been discussed (at least at my level) yet.
The comparison to aircraft performance charts is unreasonable, in my opinion. For starters, aircraft performance isn't summarized in a single chart. Certain, specific aspects can be but the more information you want to cover, the more complex the explanation gets. Similarly, manning an organization as big as the Navy is a very complex process. I always roll my eyes when someone tells me something is complex as a way of telling me I can't understand it. That's not my intent here. It can be understood but it takes some effort. For starters, there are a lot of different communities within the NAE. All are facing different issues. We all have a natural tendency to draw from our own experience and assume everyone else is seeing the same thing. In some areas that's true but not all. A VFA pilot and E-2 NFO have very different communities and career paths. This is also why people see contradictions that aren't necessarily intentional. When someone says "the NAE is healthy" he isn't necessarily wrong when talking about all of Naval Aviation. Specific communities have different stories, though. It's pretty hard to get the entire NAE's current state in to a single slide AND make it easy to read in 15 seconds. A simpler slide with ultimately just mean less information is provided. The Tailhook audience is pretty varied and everyone wants to know something different so that complex data satisfies a pretty large group.
Here's the more important issue, in my opinion: Aircraft performance is both predictable and consistent. PERS-43 is dealing with people. Despite the common sentiment, it is not ignored that these are people with families and goals and a million other things that make them different from one another. Trying to find single widespread solutions to make them all happy is difficult, if not impossible, to do.
Those stats are available. Let me know if you need me to send them to you.
I think you answered your own question as to whether or not command is competitive but your point is valid. Quality is MUCH harder to define and quantify. When it comes to people, it also isn't objective. I wonder the same thing you do about how COs now stack up to those in the past.
The changes to the bonus program are still being ironed out so it's hard to say what's coming. My personal opinion is that the (proposed) changes are an improvement but anything I say here would be incomplete information so I'll leave it at that.
Understood and I agree. The intent was meant less as a shoulder shrug and more to say "No one knows anything yet because PERS-43 doesn't get the board results before the fleet but they're working on it." There is a pretty common misconception that PERS-43 is involved with the process and has answers to the various "whys" as soon as results hit the streets. I know it has been discussed here in the past but worth a reminder.
My answer was poorly explained but you got to it at the end of the quote above. Ticket length absolutely matters but, to the original poster's point, the actual number of months doesn't. Whether it's a 6-month, 9-month, 12-month, etc. ticket is less important than the community knowing what the number is. This is where the COs come in. When a Skipper has a 5-month and a 7-month ticket with two DHs getting their high-water fitrep, for example, he has a decision to make. If he isn't paying attention to the board results, through no fault of his own, he might split them and tell both guys they're going to be COs one day. There are no absolutes in this business but, in today's climate he's probably wrong, community dependent, of course. When that same CO was a JO, it may have been true.
I'd love to talk up the new system but I don't know anything about it. There is a new fitrep (report itself) that I have heard a little about. The policy that will come with the new fitrep is something that hasn't been discussed (at least at my level) yet.
The comparison to aircraft performance charts is unreasonable, in my opinion. For starters, aircraft performance isn't summarized in a single chart. Certain, specific aspects can be but the more information you want to cover, the more complex the explanation gets. Similarly, manning an organization as big as the Navy is a very complex process. I always roll my eyes when someone tells me something is complex as a way of telling me I can't understand it. That's not my intent here. It can be understood but it takes some effort. For starters, there are a lot of different communities within the NAE. All are facing different issues. We all have a natural tendency to draw from our own experience and assume everyone else is seeing the same thing. In some areas that's true but not all. A VFA pilot and E-2 NFO have very different communities and career paths. This is also why people see contradictions that aren't necessarily intentional. When someone says "the NAE is healthy" he isn't necessarily wrong when talking about all of Naval Aviation. Specific communities have different stories, though. It's pretty hard to get the entire NAE's current state in to a single slide AND make it easy to read in 15 seconds. A simpler slide with ultimately just mean less information is provided. The Tailhook audience is pretty varied and everyone wants to know something different so that complex data satisfies a pretty large group.
Here's the more important issue, in my opinion: Aircraft performance is both predictable and consistent. PERS-43 is dealing with people. Despite the common sentiment, it is not ignored that these are people with families and goals and a million other things that make them different from one another. Trying to find single widespread solutions to make them all happy is difficult, if not impossible, to do.
Those stats are available. Let me know if you need me to send them to you.
I think you answered your own question as to whether or not command is competitive but your point is valid. Quality is MUCH harder to define and quantify. When it comes to people, it also isn't objective. I wonder the same thing you do about how COs now stack up to those in the past.
The changes to the bonus program are still being ironed out so it's hard to say what's coming. My personal opinion is that the (proposed) changes are an improvement but anything I say here would be incomplete information so I'll leave it at that.
magnetfreezer
Well-Known Member
AF decided to take a different approach to O-4 retention: http://www.afpc.af.mil/News/Article...s-100-percent-promotion-opportunity-to-major/