• 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

Attrite From OCS due to DNF on IST runs

HAL Pilot

Well-Known Member
None
Contributor
There is a retired DI on Facebook who wrote a book about AOCS. He taught Marine Basic, Marine OCS, AOCS and the new OCS when it combined/ transitioned (while still at Pensacola). I’ll take his word when comparing all since I obviously only did one.

AOCS was more than just PT. It had all the same military and academic requirements of OCS. Then it added in all the academic and training requirements of AI. It was a lesson in time management, prioritization and stress management.

You have a lot to be proud of successfully completing OCS but if you’re getting butt hurt by my post, you are just reinforcing my points on character building of AOCS.
 

HAL Pilot

Well-Known Member
None
Contributor
The first couple of days of OCS do they still check your bed sheets to see if anyone pissed their beds because they were to scared to get out of bed to go to the bathroom?

There was always at least one in each AICS class and discovery was normally immediately followed by the magic letters....DOR....
 

Dontcallmegump

Well-Known Member
There is a retired DI on Facebook who wrote a book about AOCS. He taught Marine Basic, Marine OCS, AOCS and the new OCS when it combined/ transitioned (while still at Pensacola). I’ll take his word when comparing all since I obviously only did one.

AOCS was more than just PT. It had all the same military and academic requirements of OCS. Then it added in all the academic and training requirements of AI. It was a lesson in time management, prioritization and stress management.

You have a lot to be proud of successfully completing OCS but if you’re getting butt hurt by my post, you are just reinforcing my points on character building of AOCS.
Ill give you credit for the academic disparity. What they teach at OCS are two useless classes and then a real whammy of Watch-O. The last one was similar to the study level of current API but only lasted for about 10 days. Had I needed to study at an API level for 6 weeks of OCS that would have cranked up the pressure a notch or two.

I'm really not offended that what you went through was worse, I just think OCS gets a undeserved rep because of the usual content related to it and the generally whiny tone from the posters about it. Maybe I was just a lightning rod and got worse then the average candidate or have a low tolerance for training tactics.

Ill make a point to find out his comments on the differences and try and find some perspective out of it.

No, no bed wetters. We did have a guy lose his mind, threaten to kill his hatchmate, barricade the door, give himself a bloody gash pounding his head on the wall locker and only be apprehended while he was attempting to open the window for what I can only assume he intended to be his only navy flight experience.
 

Gatordev

Well-Known Member
pilot
Site Admin
Contributor
The AOCS PT test was a lot harder than the rest of the Navy’s. Plus there were the obstacle and cross country courses you had to complete within a certain time. AOCS had more stringent PT requirements than Aviation Indoctrination that the Academy and ROTC guys dis and the Aircrew Candidate School, but they too had to do pull-ups and the obstacle and cross country courses.
There were fire ant piles everywhere. Sure you could stop and move away from the ants but that led to much, much more screaming and PT. It just wasn’t worth it so you sucked it up and got bit.
It does kind of beg the question as to "why" that was better (ie, AOCS standards/harsh conditions). Most specifically since the USNA and ROTC guys weren't getting the extra treatment. I'm not arguing that it wasn't harder, as it seems pretty clear that it was (although there were also plenty of USNA shennagans back then, too). But was the end product markedly better 2+ years later once in the fleet? Plenty of USNA and ROTC guys were put in stress situations down the road and came out ahead. I just wonder how much an ant bite (x10) is really worth. Which isn't to say it's not worth "a lot."
 

HAL Pilot

Well-Known Member
None
Contributor
Ill make a point to find out his comments on the differences and try and find some perspective out of it.
I don’t think you’ll find it in his book. The book is basically a completion of candidate stories. When he was collecting the stories he did it through an AOCS Facebook group.

The book is “The Pressure Cooker: Forging Naval Officers Through Marine Leadership” by 1stSGT John E. Crouch USMC (Retired)
 

HAL Pilot

Well-Known Member
None
Contributor
It does kind of beg the question as to "why" that was better (ie, AOCS standards/harsh conditions). Most specifically since the USNA and ROTC guys weren't getting the extra treatment. I'm not arguing that it wasn't harder, as it seems pretty clear that it was (although there were also plenty of USNA shennagans back then, too). But was the end product markedly better 2+ years later once in the fleet? Plenty of USNA and ROTC guys were put in stress situations down the road and came out ahead. I just wonder how much an ant bite (x10) is really worth. Which isn't to say it's not worth "a lot."
Back when.... SNAs has around a 50% overall attrition rate by winging and SNFOs about a 66% overall attrition rate by winging. AOCS had a huge (about 60-65%) attrition rate. The AOCS grads were typically weeded our prior to flight training and had a lot higher winging rate. It was something like 60% for both.
 

Gatordev

Well-Known Member
pilot
Site Admin
Contributor
Back when.... SNAs has around a 50% overall attrition rate by winging and SNFOs about a 66% overall attrition rate by winging. AOCS had a huge (about 60-65%) attrition rate. The AOCS grads were typically weeded our prior to flight training and had a lot higher winging rate. It was something like 60% for both.
An interesting statistic, but I wonder how valuable that attrition was. Please understand, I'm not saying it wasn't invaluable, but stepping back looking at the big picture, generally Primary was a much harsher place than is was by the 2000's. There's always the argument that it was "better" when it was "harsher." But I wonder if that's true. I'm not sure how you could actually measure that, as there's lots of other variables, but it's an interesting question to ponder while sipping Scotch and staring at the lanai.
 

exNavyOffRec

Well-Known Member
I've heard this on and off over the last few years and the statistic always hovers around 75% but is rarely ever expanded on or qualified in any way. Its been explained to me, and that seems to be backed up with a quick google search that the three quarters of unqualified young people wouldn't all be completely unable to get in. The top 4 problems being medical, physical fitness, education and criminality. All of those factors contain situations that can be resolved on the part of the applicant (getting in shape, completing education) or excused with a waiver if appropriate.

By no means are we in a situation where 75% of young Americans could not ever serve, rather as they are and by an interpretation of the standards they are not presently qualified. This is a failure of preparation, not an impossible situation.
Physical fitness is the one that could be fixed, but ones like education and criminal are in part due to the military raising their standards and that is a good thing as jobs are getting more technical. I would say AO is a great example, a rate that went from guys that just needed to know how to man-handle a bomb onto a plane now have to know electronics.

The fact is that it is harder to get into the military than it is college.
 

HAL Pilot

Well-Known Member
None
Contributor
An interesting statistic, but I wonder how valuable that attrition was. Please understand, I'm not saying it wasn't invaluable, but stepping back looking at the big picture, generally Primary was a much harsher place than is was by the 2000's. There's always the argument that it was "better" when it was "harsher." But I wonder if that's true. I'm not sure how you could actually measure that, as there's lots of other variables, but it's an interesting question to ponder while sipping Scotch and staring at the lanai.
I don’t know if it is published anywhere but that’s the rough numbers they gave us way back when. There was always talk of making more Academy/ROTC aviators and less OCS (I.e. AOCS) aviators. Then they’d pull out these numbers.

Another interesting statistic from that time that I remember being told (as someone was always trying to save money by getting rid of AOCS but CNATRA always fought to keep it and gave these briefs). Back then you had regular and reserve commissions. Regular got to stay active duty, were protected from RIFs, etc. Reserve had to request to stay on active duty and could be denied, could be RIFed, had to “augment” from USNR to USN by O-4 or were gone, etc. Academy was always USN. I believe ROTC 3 & 4 year scholarships were too (there were a lot fewer ROTC scholarship back then and many ROTC had none). A certain top percentage (10% I think) of OCS and ROTC were regular. At least 75% of those commissioned Navy wife were USNR. A higher percent AOCS grads eventually augmented to USN than ROTC or regular. OCS. And I believe a higher number stayed past their commitment than other commissioning sources.

I always thought it was interesting that NFO training back then was harder than pilot training.
 

Gatordev

Well-Known Member
pilot
Site Admin
Contributor
Another interesting statistic from that time that I remember being told (as someone was always trying to save money by getting rid of AOCS but CNATRA always fought to keep it and gave these briefs). Back then you had regular and reserve commissions. Regular got to stay active duty, were protected from RIFs, etc. Reserve had to request to stay on active duty and could be denied, could be RIFed, had to “augment” from USNR to USN by O-4 or were gone, etc. Academy was always USN. I believe ROTC 3 & 4 year scholarships were too (there were a lot fewer ROTC scholarship back then and many ROTC had none). A certain top percentage (10% I think) of OCS and ROTC were regular. At least 75% of those commissioned Navy wife were USNR. A higher percent AOCS grads eventually augmented to USN than ROTC or regular. OCS. And I believe a higher number stayed past their commitment than other commissioning sources.
Prior to '94, everyone in ROTC that were scholarship (and not ECP) got USNR commissions. I'm not sure if that class ranking to USN was still a thing in the mid-90's, but that doesn't mean it didn't exist. USNA switched to USNR for the class of 98. You had to augment by year 6. Since I was a year ahead of my peer group in my squadron, I had to request the augment, but all of the YG99 guys were automatic due to GWOT.

There was one exception. One of guys who was scheduled to be a HAC on my det was struggling with the HAC board process and he was a '99 guy. He was a decent stick and a smart guy, but sometimes a little too smart and would get into his head. I think he ended up doing 3 boards but started to see the writing on the wall if he didn't make the last board so he requested an augment with me so he couldn't get kicked out. I think the chances of him actually getting kicked out were pretty low, but again, he was in his head. He ended up making HAC and augmenting to 1310 a year early.
 

DanMa1156

Land of the rising sun. Literally. There's no DST!
pilot
Contributor
1. When I went through API attrition was too high (this led to a reshuffling of API's Chain of Command from what I understand). From what I understand, we're short 40% of our pilots and aviators compared to the traditional YG size. All that I see as a result of that attrition is that fast forward 9 years and almost everyone and their mom made O-4, so I assume they were scraping the barrel a bit more than they had, say in years when my SWTI Super JO didn't screen for his first look. I can be convinced that a certain level of attrition is a good thing, but at some point you have to prove its worth. Not saying AOCS was in the wrong, but 50% attrition through advanced seems fairly excessive, or that they were recruiting the wrong people.

2. What was the impact of USNR commissions? Not sure I get the whole "augment" thing... When I was first signing up for USNA/NROTC, this was still a thing, but went away by the time I commissioned in 2010. As it was explained to me by my ROTC "recruiters" was that it was a pretty trivial administrative peculiarity that made no difference in reality.
 
Top