Naval Aviations "One" Problem...

[JTS11]

…both you and I know that Marine aviation constantly over-inflates the values of quals and undervalues resumes or experience when it comes to assignments. I’ll caveat these next couple of paragraphs that I don’t envy the monitors job at all, and it is a very difficult position to execute well. It’s not personal - They get put in some tough spots.

-HMX doesn’t need to be staffed with 95% WTIs to fly what is essentially Day VFR patterns to the south lawn. No matter how much those guys ramble on about “national missions.”
-Would you rather have a quality division lead with a graduate level STEM degree background at VMX or a NSI/WTI?
-How come WTIs don’t do Air Officer or Staff tours proportional the rest of the population? (Its embarrassingly apparent +0-5)
-Would you rather have a guy who has graduate degree in program management and DAO certifications at the class desk or some rando with no acquisitions experience?
-Do our PEPs all need to be WTIs? If so, why?
-How come we will send any mouth-breather to MATSG who gets selectively scheduled as a HAC, but sending talented sticks to production is frowned upon?

There are plenty more examples. A lot of the decisions made by Manpower are bullshit and not codified anywhere. They’ll always harp on the regulations they use, but when it comes to managing needs vs desires, The Marine Corps is an intellectually lazy organization when it comes to staffing. In the civilian world, you interview and have a panel for selection on jobs that require certain skill sets. In the Marines, the monitor can make stuff up that fits their requirements and have no sanity check. We don’t use our talent appropriately. It’s probably better than the Navy’s system and more “free play” but the grass isn’t always greener.

Obviously some monitors are better than others, and I’ve been fairly lucky. I only had to pull the networking card once or twice.

No worries, and nothing personal taken. You make some good points. I'll try to address some of your points (with caveat that my info may be dated)

-HMX selection process happens after resident PME boards (very early in stating process) They are owned by HQMC Aviation. Manpower's only real input is screening their applicants for eligibility to PCS. But I agree with you about the qual hoarding.

-VMX (you've got me on that one..looks like that org has changed a lot. I can't remember if the guys we sent to China Lake needed to be NSIs...

-PEPs (no req for WTI). Kind of like HMX these tours get selected by a board process that MMOA doesn't own

-WRT production tours, I think this happens bc the monitors feed those PMOS B billets first (FRSs, VMX, etc).
MMOA did put an internal hr/qual req agreed upon with the MATSGs. That was to prevent the 520 hr HAC getting orfers there and not making it through the HITU/FITUs, which happened some.

So, yeah it's not perfect, and never will (like a lot things in the military, the IT systems could be a lot better too)

 

[ChuckMK23]

HITU/FITUs

How the fuck do you not make it through this? These are Gentlemen's courses.

 

[JTS11]

How the fuck do you not make it through this? These are Gentlemen's courses.

When the CO signs you off as a HAC (when he shouldn't have and passes you off to a FAC tour). Next, you get orders to flight school, with like one signing hour.

It happened a few times

 

[DanMa1156]

How the fuck do you not make it through this? These are Gentlemen's courses.

That has changed dramatically in the past 10 years or so and, while not designed to "weed" people out (although they do), they are fairly rigorous courses designed to ensure the instructors are prepared.

When I went through (2016) it very much felt like going through Advanced again with a focus on how to instruct. It was a very professional course.

I understand that pre 2014ish, the attitude was that it was very gentlemanly. The CDRE wanted to change that and he put in the right people to do just that. I also understand that in the past going to the HITU was where you would stash folks who couldn't be trusted with students; when I went through I can genuinely say that the folks I flew with were some of the finest helicopter pilots I have ever seen.

 

[JTS11]

When I went through (2016) it very much felt like going through Advanced again with a focus on how to instruct. It was a very professional course

Glad to hear this. Hopefully FRS's do more of this, bc it was lacking when I showed up as an IP. The big difference I saw was when the crew chief instructor division got more professional courses on how to instruct.. Same as pilot instructors, but it was worse on the enlisted side (mainly just instructing as they were taught years ago). But the syllabus got a lot better, when the IPs got more formal instruction.

 

[Swanee]

We do far more to squander talent than just prevent spouses from working remotely or in-person. We routinely take forever to hire and fire people. Our performance review and promotion system is antiquated and selects for some of the worst leaders possible (See all of the SWO and Sub COs who've been fired over the last 15 years), and I can vouch for that from personal experience. We fuck up simple HR paperwork and don't even apologize for it (Central PSDs, NAVPERS web portals, closing PSDs, eliminating PS positions, hiring contractors for everything, etcetera). We don't invest in our people nearly enough through formal schooling (CBT instead of hands-on training and OJT instead of A or C schools) or training (Just look at the difference between the USAF Junior NCO leadership training and the bullshit PPTs we put our new 3rd Classes through). We expect our people to do more with less every single year and burn our best and brightest out. We subject them to grueling OPTEMPOs and then turn around and give them back-to-back sea tours with no rest in between. Our living conditions in shipyards and on base are absolutely atrocious. We don't actually give a flying fuck about Sailors' mental health and many punish Sailors for seeking out help or use it as a way to process them out of the Navy.

We agree on this 100%

But no, a college-educated officer and his wife who happens to be a high-power defense attorney up for partner who have to make the decision over whether or not to go back to sea duty or jump out onto civvie street are somehow the most pressing and intractable problems.

That's not what I'm saying and you know it.

but we all know what we signed up for...

Did we though? I don't think so. What got us in at 22 or 24 doesn't keep us in at 32 or 34. We spend a shit ton of money on recruitment, but not a whole lot on retention. How much did it cost the government for you to tell someone "Look man, this is what you signed up for" as a detailer?

can't even envision a future strike mission anywhere, in any situation, that this would be a preferable option

I can. I've seen them. Hell, in a way, I've been part of them. Do you really want to sit over a target in the middle of an SA threat for 20 hours in a single seat airplane waiting for that fleeting opportunity to employ?

Hmmm… if it’s 50%, asign all UAV squadrons to Lemoore and control them out of San Diego. There, I just solved the Navy’s manning problems. What do I win?

Yeah, but you still need the maintenance guys there to work on them, and probably a pilot to lead them.

This is probably a dumb question because I know literally nothing about UAV… do they need someone in the local area to control the UAV for more “dynamic” parts of flight like takeoff/landing/maneuvering due to latency from being half way across the world? Or can it truly be done 100% remote?

We do everything via satellite these days. Launch and recovery elements are going to be nothing more than a maintenance element within the next year or so.

Waiting for the E-CAC that we can keep on our phones as well as a DOD certified Bring-Your-Own solution for personal phones. That is in the pipeline for AF.

I have what's called a UBI-Key for my phone- it also works on my computer because really it's just a USB C/Apple connector dongle that has all of my CAC certificates on it. Works great and was given to me by the Wing. I can get any cac enabled website and webmail on my phone. But it means I'm always connected (blah).

Honest question: why do you think the Air Force has similar retention issues among pilots when their service is much closer to this standard (with respect to ground jobs and flying related responsibilities over a career span) than Navy/Marine Corps?

Because even the Air Force isn't immune to the bullshit, they're seeing a lot of it now. Not as bad as the Navy/Marine side. But the career broadening away from the cockpit (where you're not allowed to fly) is pretty common on the AD side. It's starting to bleed into the Guard as well.

 

[JTS11]

Typically your admin types aren’t involved in tactical or strategic planning beyond manpower calculations and facility needs (all important). While having a field experienced officer in some shops is absolutely critical, placing a tactical pilot in an administrative/personnel shop is kind of a waste (down at squadron level). The armed forces have cut, over time, a tremendous amount of administrative “overhead” out of the uniform system and placed the burden on “line” or “field grade” officers. I’m an old guy so squadron organization may have changed, but in a perfect world your fliers should be working in the Air Operations and Safety shops (and their associated offices) while Maintenance and Administration is the domain of experts who aren’t trained to fly. Of course we don’t live in a perfect world…so finish that official correspondence, get those personnel records finished, and compile those new directives!

Just reread your post and I don't think you were speaking on HQ level staffing, but i'll post this anyways...😆

Just saying that there are benefits to having fleet aviators, who know their peers and the culture, making assignments at the HQ level. From what I saw, you'd never want to turn this over to a GS-whatever, or an LDO/WO. It would be a nightmare. They have no connection to the operational forces, and would have limited understanding of the requirements, or nuances of the aviation world...IMO

There were many GS employees who worked on my floor...believe me, they were 9-5 only.

 

[JTS11]

How much did it cost the government for you to tell someone "Look man, this is what you signed up for" as a detailer?

C'mon man. I never told anyone that, and no monitor/detailer would either. They've got better bedside manners than that...😆

However, at some point it gets down to brass tacks. You can either accept orders, or resign in lieu of them. Hopefully, it never got to that point, but it does in a few cases. Do you think a guy who has unrealistic expectations of their next set of orders, should hold a veto?

 

[PhrogLoop]

I can tell you anecdotally - the administrative burden on AF rated personnel (pilots, CSO, Nav, etc) is still pretty high - as is the deployment optempo - added to this the Big AF infatuation with hitting JPME blocks and postgraduate education (Masters) to just stay in. Its easy for a 12 year O-4 to do the calculus, see what their peers are enjoying outside of AD and push the button. Plenty of reserve and Guard opportunities to get to 20 if desired.

Maybe. I have a hypothesis - pilots in general are predisposed to be malcontents. You literally cannot throw enough money or nice places to live at them (us) to fix retention. Case in point, our very own airline threads.

 

[sevenhelmet]

Maybe. I have a hypothesis - pilots in general are predisposed to be malcontents. You literally cannot throw enough money or nice places to live at them (us) to fix retention. Case in point, our very own airline threads.

You may be right. But it would be nice to see the USN at least trying to work on QoL issues.

 

[Gatordev]

How the fuck do you not make it through this? These are Gentlemen's courses.

Not all of the programs were the same. @DanMa1156 spoke to the HITU side (I'd be curious to hear who the CDRE was), but on the FITU side, What WING 4 did was different than WING 5 for quite some time.

Up until 2008-10-ish (plus or minus), WING 4 didn't have a formal ITU. Instead it was done by STAN pilots at the squadron level. Some time in 2007 they sent someone out to the WING 5 FITU to see how we did business. I did one flight with him and he did a couple of others. The intent was to tighten up some of the STAN and get the IUTs away from the squadron so they could focus on training, just like the HITU and FITU did.

While I was at the FITU, we had two guys struggle quite a bit. The first one was a C-130, 500-hour AC that didn't make it through the program. A LOT of extra training time was dedicated to helping him through, but it was a bridge too far. The other guy was 500-hour -60B HAC who got an IA right after he made HAC. He came from my squadron so I knew him somewhat. It was identified he would need some extra training after his first two NATOPS flights and he went on to complete the syllabus and eventually went on to fly fixed-wing as a TAR.

I thought the training during my time at the FITU, both as an IUT and an IP, was well-balanced. You were treated like an adult and if you needed help, you would get it, but you were still held to the standard.

 

[Griz882]

The other guy was 500-hour -60B HAC who got an IA right after he made HAC. He came from my squadron so I knew him somewhat. It was identified he would need some extra training after his first two NATOPS flights and he went on to complete the syllabus and eventually went on to fly fixed-wing as a TAR.

What does IA mean in this context?

 

[robav8r]

What does IA mean in this context?

Individual Augmentee. The brain child of ADM Mullen to make sure Navy folks were part of the “fight” during OIF/OEF.

 

[DanMa1156]

Individual Augmentee. The brain child of ADM Mullen to make sure Navy folks were part of the “fight” during OIF/OEF.

That somehow hasn’t died today…

 

[Dontcallmegump]

Not all of the programs were the same. @DanMa1156 spoke to the HITU side (I'd be curious to hear who the CDRE was), but on the FITU side, What WING 4 did was different than WING 5 for quite some time.

Up until 2008-10-ish (plus or minus), WING 4 didn't have a formal ITU. Instead it was done by STAN pilots at the squadron level. Some time in 2007 they sent someone out to the WING 5 FITU to see how we did business. I did one flight with him and he did a couple of others. The intent was to tighten up some of the STAN and get the IUTs away from the squadron so they could focus on training, just like the HITU and FITU did.

While I was at the FITU, we had two guys struggle quite a bit. The first one was a C-130, 500-hour AC that didn't make it through the program. A LOT of extra training time was dedicated to helping him through, but it was a bridge too far. The other guy was 500-hour -60B HAC who got an IA right after he made HAC. He came from my squadron so I knew him somewhat. It was identified he would need some extra training after his first two NATOPS flights and he went on to complete the syllabus and eventually went on to fly fixed-wing as a TAR.

I thought the training during my time at the FITU, both as an IUT and an IP, was well-balanced. You were treated like an adult and if you needed help, you would get it, but you were still held to the standard.

Stupid question, but do you mean 500 hour total pilot time or 500 A time?