Attrition is the mission?

[xj220]

Claimed(and seen) attrition rates are higher in Jets than HTs and VT(prop) due to one main thing.

That, and ACM attrites seem to be a good chunk of them.

USN ACM/WEPS attrites that CQ often get sent to VT-31 for Multi training to become E2C2 guys.

Not sure what happens to USMC guys though.

I can see how the boat would be a large source of attrites, but how does ACM get people? Is it airsickness or does it just require a type of skill to accomplish?

 

[MasterBates]

I can't speak to ACM...

To the boat, all I can say so far is.... Not easy at first.. Maybe when I get more than 5 hours in the sim and plane it will get easier.

 

[nittany03]

I can see how the boat would be a large source of attrites, but how does ACM get people? Is it airsickness or does it just require a type of skill to accomplish?

Flight school ACM is simultaneously very canned and very dynamic. There are really only two ways a fight can go from a neutral start, but things happen very quickly, there is a steep learning curve expected, and you can't break training rules.

Most guys I saw get downs in ACM when I went through were for training rules violations; either repeatedly busting the 10,000ft hard deck or the 500ft bubble around each jet. An especially dim view is taken of busting the hard deck and not calling it versus realizing you've screwed up and calling "knock it off" before you actually go below. Of course, if you're already scraping by, any down can hurt.

I'm not sure I ever saw anyone attrited specifically for bad ACM performance; one guy in my class got two downs and a resulting PRB in ACM. They pulled him off my boat det and made him go through with the PRB, but then it clicked. He finished out ACM, went to the next boat, and winged with us. It looked bad for awhile, but he fought through and went to Lemoore.

As for the boat, you get two looks, and I think in my time in Advanced I only heard of one person who double-DQed. Most people figured it out the second time if they DQed once.

 

[MasterBates]

In my time in the HTs (2002-2003) I probably saw ~6-7 Jet Attrites come thru..

2 were guys who just could not handle going the speed of heat, but were good sticks.

I know of 2 who were CQ DQs. One had a HUGE chip on his shoulder and did not make it out Fams before attriting out of helos. The other did OK.

Not sure on the others.

 

[squorch2]

I thought IFS was not to make better pilots, but to remove people with far below average aeronautical aptitude and people who realize they don't like flying.

That's correct, and it is hammered into you from the first day they start you in IFS. It's Introductory Flight Screening, not Introductory Flight Training. I saw people attrite for failure to aeronautically adapt and others for, well, failure to land.

 

[skidkid]

So we are allowing civilian CFIs to make a decision on SNA attrition at IFS? This doesnt sit so well with me. I know of more than a few people who had a hard time ladning a T-34 but were good Officers, were working hard and IPs could see them doing well in a squadron so they got to continue until it "clicked" adn became very successful Fleet Aviators. I dont think some Cessna CFI will have that perspective.
Anyone here familiar with the program, I obviously am not.

 

[bunk22]

Claimed(and seen) attrition rates are higher in Jets than HTs and VT(prop) due to one main thing.

That, and ACM attrites seem to be a good chunk of them.

USN ACM/WEPS attrites that CQ often get sent to VT-31 for Multi training to become E2C2 guys.

Not sure what happens to USMC guys though.

Back in 95-96, at VT-4, we had about 40 total students go through. Only 3 were attrited and all becasue of the FCLP's and the boat. Two never made it past FLCP's and one DQ'ed twice at the boat. Other than his boat grades, his overall grades were very good and was allowed to go to P-3's. The other two were attrited from the flight program altogether. At the FRS, had a few jet studs join us because of poor performance in the tactical portion of the jet syllabus. I know 2 specifically. Also knew a Marine who did good enough through everything only to DQ twice at the boat. He was attrited out of the program.

I asked today and was told for primary, the attrition rate is around 12-15% for all causes. Not sure about advanced.

 

[bunk22]

So we are allowing civilian CFIs to make a decision on SNA attrition at IFS? This doesnt sit so well with me. I know of more than a few people who had a hard time ladning a T-34 but were good Officers, were working hard and IPs could see them doing well in a squadron so they got to continue until it "clicked" adn became very successful Fleet Aviators. I dont think some Cessna CFI will have that perspective.
Anyone here familiar with the program, I obviously am not.

Judging from what I've seen from some students, IFS isn't a good indicator of performance. Some have just been so bad it blows my mind. Like others have said, I assume it's just an indicator of whether a student is aeronautically adapted for flying or just likes flying period.

 

[HH-60H]

So we are allowing civilian CFIs to make a decision on SNA attrition at IFS? This doesnt sit so well with me. I know of more than a few people who had a hard time ladning a T-34 but were good Officers, were working hard and IPs could see them doing well in a squadron so they got to continue until it "clicked" adn became very successful Fleet Aviators. I dont think some Cessna CFI will have that perspective.
Anyone here familiar with the program, I obviously am not.

Yes, but the overall methodology of military flight school is based on "getting it" within a certain time frame and dollar amount. Sure, with enough money almost anyone can learn how to fly, but the Navy can't afford to pay for people to stay in Primary for a year or two.

I am not sure, but I think CFI's get little discretion, either the students are safe for a pattern solo and a cross country solo or they are not. I don't see how that it is different than the 90% test average that was required to pass API a couple years ago or the minimum 35 NSS that is the cutoff. It's just the standard.

I think there are some NA's turned CFI's around here who are IFS instructors who may be able to shed some light on this subject.

 

[Nose]

Claimed(and seen) attrition rates are higher in Jets than HTs and VT(prop) due to one main thing.

Using 30 year old pictures on web boards? Nice Willy Fudd.

 

[Heloanjin]

That interesting.... it's the first time I have seen that stat around here. Do you know if that it is through all phases of flight school, or just Primary? Was it higher before the Navy started IFS? I have always been curious about attrition rates.

Overall attrition is around 15%-20%, that's API through Advanced. That number is a bit squishy since attrition tends to ebb and flow in each phase. But, if we took a cadre of 100 students about to start API, assumed the 100 students selected to Advaned at the current average annual Adv pipeline requirement, and applied the current attrition for each phase, then about 78 would walk away with wings. Lots of assumptions there.

Has IFS done anything to change this? I don't think anyone can really answer that question with much statistical confidence. IFS was implemented enmass. Since then, there were numerous syllabus changes and policy changes, any of which could have also had an impact on attrition. If the Navy really wanted to know if IFS was worth the money, it should have given IFS to half the students leaving the other half as a control.

Personally, as a Primary instructor who had onwings prior to IFS and after IFS, there wasn't any difference in performance after the first 4 flights.

 

[Heloanjin]

This new MPTS grading system IMO certainly makes it easier to do poorly and get through. My old roomate was out of flight training after 2 downs, attrited after his FAM-2. I've seen some jackets and see more than just 2-3 unsats in many. I had one unsat flight in flight school, in advanced, during FCLP's....granted a bit more serious in nature due to the nature of what I had to accomplish but I had to got to a PRB then on to the CO. My only down in flight school, I was a 50NSS or above in all phases of flight training, primary, intermediate and advanced but went through a lot of pain for my one and only lousy down.

MPTS does not make it easier to do poorly and get through.

MPTS is not easier than the old system. It is just different. The reason there are training jackets with mutiple unsats is because an unsat is NOT a down. Downs don't exist any more.

MPTS is just as efficient at removing a student for unsatisfactory performance as the old system. The problem is when IPs apply their old system experience to the MPTS rules. For example, not awarding an unsat unless it meets the old "down" criteria. When that occurs, then it is hard to attrite a student. But that's not because MPTS is easier. It is because the IP didn't apply the correct criteria when evaluating performance.

So, did the above happen? Unfortunately, too often, and that was a problem. As the instructional culture changed and the understanding of MPTS has grown, then things got much better very fast.

So, if you are at an FRS looking at a training record of a newly winged aviator, before you assume the guy is cat fish (bottom feeder) because he has more unsats than you had downs, make a call to one of the TWs operating under MPTS and get a little education.

 

[Gatordev]

MPTS is not easier than the old system. It is just different. The reason there are training jackets with mutiple unsats is because an unsat is NOT a down. Downs don't exist any more.

But.... Back on the previous MPTS ("B" I think, but can't remember) when I went through, 3 "downs" was a quick trip to the man. Unfortunately, I can't remember if an UNSAT equaled a down back then, so I'd be curious to see what you remember, and if it was just "different" or applied incorrectly (squadron/wing-wide it would have seemed if true).

 

[bunk22]

MPTS does not make it easier to do poorly and get through.

MPTS is not easier than the old system. It is just different. The reason there are training jackets with mutiple unsats is because an unsat is NOT a down. Downs don't exist any more.

MPTS is just as efficient at removing a student for unsatisfactory performance as the old system. The problem is when IPs apply their old system experience to the MPTS rules. For example, not awarding an unsat unless it meets the old "down" criteria. When that occurs, then it is hard to attrite a student. But that's not because MPTS is easier. It is because the IP didn't apply the correct criteria when evaluating performance.

So, did the above happen? Unfortunately, too often, and that was a problem. As the instructional culture changed and the understanding of MPTS has grown, then things got much better very fast.

So, if you are at an FRS looking at a training record of a newly winged aviator, before you assume the guy is cat fish (bottom feeder) because he has more unsats than you had downs, make a call to one of the TWs operating under MPTS and get a little education.

I understand how the new system works. I was an FRS instructor and all we saw were NSS scores for pilots. The unsat I gave the other day would have been a down in my day, as yours I'm sure. With MPTS, it was simply a yellow sheet, not a pink. In my day, as yours, if you had 3 pinks, it was not good for the SNA...probably attrition was the next step. A pink on any flight made every flight a check ride. Those pinks can now be yellow. This system is supposed to take out the subjectivity and allow for a more accurate grading of the flight. I get all that. Maybe it helps recognize or point out an SNA having issues. Regardless, it is more of a pass/fail system. This system makes it easier to get through, from what I've seen.

 

[Purdue]

So we are allowing civilian CFIs to make a decision on SNA attrition at IFS? This doesnt sit so well with me. I know of more than a few people who had a hard time ladning a T-34 but were good Officers, were working hard and IPs could see them doing well in a squadron so they got to continue until it "clicked" adn became very successful Fleet Aviators. I dont think some Cessna CFI will have that perspective.
Anyone here familiar with the program, I obviously am not.

I saw two people "attrite" out of IFS at Eglin. One of whom was a good officer in my opinion, who was really trying... I flew in the backseat with her once and didnt think it was that bad. She was "sat down for a talk" by our instructor after her second flight, and she came out of the office an hour later and DOR'd. I later found out the IP had told her there was no way she would complete Primary. After 2-3 hours in a plane? How can you tell that?


Also, same IP told me he never thought I would complete, and he told the Flying Chief I had told him I wanted to DOR. It caused a shitstorm, and he refused to fly with me again... I demanded a new instructor and managed to complete IFS (total time in IFS for me was 19 days) Plus, I'm now coming to the end of Advanced... I plan on sending the Instructor a pair of gold wings with my smiling picture at my winging*... since he said I'd never make it.

The instructors at Eglin came out and told 6 or 7 of us in class one day... that their job was to eliminate those they didn't see as fit to become military pilots.