• 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

A-Pool info

Hopeful Hoya

Well-Known Member
Contributor
I find this hard to believe. He's stated repeatedly that he wants attrition earlier on than later on because of cost and time to train. Under the old system, it was frustrating how many failures one could have in flight school - we were routinely winging people with 8-9 failures and they may have never been triggered for SMS or had to redo an event; in other cases, we had people failing multiple times that required re-fly's and it was a huge use of resources (flight hours and IPs with STAN quals in some cases). I think his point was more along the lines of "there's probably something going on if you're having that many failures, let's take a look under the hood; if you're not cut out for this, let's make that decision earlier than later because we are really spending a lot of extra time and money on these low performers with a big backup of people chomping at the bit to replace them."
I completely agree, and I realize that making it through flight school is not only a function of can you be safe in a plane, but can you do it in x number of events and y number of hours. But from the students' perspective what we worry about is the 3 and out rule of the new system. If you fail a test in API, have a bad day in Primary, and have another bad day in advanced you're probably going to be attrited under the new system, at least how we understand it. And at least from what I've been hearing anecdotally it sounds like attrition is already rising at the advanced squadrons.
 

sickboy

Well-Known Member
pilot
I completely agree, and I realize that making it through flight school is not only a function of can you be safe in a plane, but can you do it in x number of events and y number of hours. But from the students' perspective what we worry about is the 3 and out rule of the new system. If you fail a test in API, have a bad day in Primary, and have another bad day in advanced you're probably going to be attrited under the new system, at least how we understand it. And at least from what I've been hearing anecdotally it sounds like attrition is already rising at the advanced squadrons.

The three cumulative just drives an IPC (or FPC if there's already been an IPC,along with all the other things that traditionally did). I haven't seen anyone attrite because of it yet. I'm sure it will happen eventually. For the guys in API right now, I'd be more worried about the academic side of things. Two academic failures, straight to FPC, do not pass go.
 

DanMa1156

Land of the Milk and Honey.
pilot
Contributor
I completely agree, and I realize that making it through flight school is not only a function of can you be safe in a plane, but can you do it in x number of events and y number of hours. But from the students' perspective what we worry about is the 3 and out rule of the new system. If you fail a test in API, have a bad day in Primary, and have another bad day in advanced you're probably going to be attrited under the new system, at least how we understand it. And at least from what I've been hearing anecdotally it sounds like attrition is already rising at the advanced squadrons.
To be clear, it used to be this way as well, and it also included OLQ Pink sheets which it doesn't now... Like @sickboy said, it just drives an IPC or FPC situation depending.

Also, yes, attrition probably rose immediately after the plan was implemented but has normalized now. Why did it go up (anecdotally?)? Because the people who already had 3+ failures failed another event and they finally went to an IPC, failed it, then failed an FPC. One of the SNA's we kicked out was sent straight to the Commodore because he failed an event after having already so many failures he had an FPC in our squadron under the old rules. From what I remember, it was his 5th failure, and it was like his 2nd or 3rd academic and/or Ready Room Unsat... he just wasn't studying enough or effectively. Sorry, but he's not right for the program. Under the old system, he would have been told to re-take the test after a day off and probably continued to struggle; I do not think he would have made it past his instrument check and would have been booted then. So far, everyone who was kicked out was someone I think we all knew was going to eventually under the old system; now we can identify their problems earlier.
 

DanMa1156

Land of the Milk and Honey.
pilot
Contributor
How much of this do you think stems from the fact that the MPTS program is in origin an AF program? In the AF, there are airplanes/places that you can send a well below average student where they won't ever had to do anything other than the airline pilot type flying. My brother talks about guys who he went to flight school with who were bottom feeders, failed many times, and went on to fly small TRANSCOM airplanes doing what Navy/Marine types do on a B-Billet as a station gig. Or they get sent to C-5s, where they fly one route- Dover to Germany- for an entire tour.


By our much smaller nature we don't have that. Hell, take my example- two DQs at the boat in the RAG and I'm deemed unworthy to be in a cockpit of ANY manned airplane. (Which I still think is a waste of training and resources, but that's neither here nor there). Same thing happened to my buddy who just couldn't figure out the whole BFM thing.

Maybe we were better off on the above/below system.
Yeah, I'll believe your theory about the USAF. However, we implemented our own rules about downs and what not, so that's on us. When I went through flight school, we had MPTS, but it was 3 total failures or OLQs of any variety and you were going to see the man about if you should be retained or not.

Under NFTS, I'm under the impression we are moving back to an above/below system with a standard for what is "average" for a particular block and it will supposedly weigh early blocks of training less than later blocks when a lot of the non-prior-flyers inexperience has caught up with the guys who show up as CFIs.
 

Jim123

DD-214 in hand and I'm gonna party like it's 1998
pilot
Officer Like Qualities?
Yep. Here is the unofficial formula:

be a big enough shitbird (on base or out in town) = don't get your wings

The official instruction phrases it in more clinical terms.


Some clarification and full disclosure on my previous comment about my intuition for what my students' finishing grades would probably be- It's mostly about which people best fit the mold for naval flight training and seeing the patterns (patterns like personality in the brief and in the cockpit, not the landing pattern). I had already done two IP tours in advanced (HTs) before instructing in primary. That's a little more observation than a standard IP, coming to the training command after a single fleet tour, in one squadron/coast/community/service.
 

wlawr005

Well-Known Member
pilot
Contributor
Knowing the Navy, I bet it's a reversion to the previous Below/Average/Above system.
 

DanMa1156

Land of the Milk and Honey.
pilot
Contributor
Interesting. Do you have SA as to what the changes are or what it’s all about?
Just what the Admiral himself has said and a bit of "scuttlebutt" from his staffers that I'll keep private. What the Admiral has said is that he wants something that's transparent, defensible, and standardized. Among the changes (of which I'm sure I'm butchering):

1. Go back to above / below, but with a CTS type system like we have, however, what's "average" is what is "average" for that block of training. That "average" increases in difficulty as you progress (think BAW gets better over time).
2. Less or no off-ramps for which flight one is eligible for - only eligible for one flight at a time to make things more standard. Everyone should have the same flight school experience.
3. No progressing after a failure. A failure stops progress and one must get past it.
4. No "optional" items / less ways to manipulate NSS.
5. He's mentioned trying to standardize the same number of landings / passes / attempts at a maneuver one gets as well, but hasn't released specifics. He's said he's tired of onwings hooking up their SNAs with extra time/incompletes/maneuvers, etc. while other onwings are flying what they are supposed to and their SNA's struggle relatively.
6. Weighting the beginning blocks less than the later blocks.
 

DanMa1156

Land of the Milk and Honey.
pilot
Contributor
Knowing the Navy, I bet it's a reversion to the previous Below/Average/Above system.
Yeah, but it seems to be in name only and the Admiral isn't like "this is the new hotness," it's more like "we had something that worked better than what we have now, let's take the best of both," is the impression I got.
 

Gatordev

Well-Known Member
pilot
Site Admin
Contributor
1. Go back to above / below, but with a CTS type system like we have, however, what's "average" is what is "average" for that block of training. That "average" increases in difficulty as you progress (think BAW gets better over time).
Good luck defining that. CTS alone will be it's own volume.
 

sickboy

Well-Known Member
pilot
Just what the Admiral himself has said and a bit of "scuttlebutt" from his staffers that I'll keep private. What the Admiral has said is that he wants something that's transparent, defensible, and standardized. Among the changes (of which I'm sure I'm butchering):

1. Go back to above / below, but with a CTS type system like we have, however, what's "average" is what is "average" for that block of training. That "average" increases in difficulty as you progress (think BAW gets better over time).
2. Less or no off-ramps for which flight one is eligible for - only eligible for one flight at a time to make things more standard. Everyone should have the same flight school experience.
3. No progressing after a failure. A failure stops progress and one must get past it.
4. No "optional" items / less ways to manipulate NSS.
5. He's mentioned trying to standardize the same number of landings / passes / attempts at a maneuver one gets as well, but hasn't released specifics. He's said he's tired of onwings hooking up their SNAs with extra time/incompletes/maneuvers, etc. while other onwings are flying what they are supposed to and their SNA's struggle relatively.
6. Weighting the beginning blocks less than the later blocks.

Our interpretation was that they're just changing 2-5 to A-D, just with the sliding CTS scale. We'll see what happens when the instruction hits.
 
Top