Attrition is the mission?

[Heloanjin]

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).

MPTS B and MPTS C are the same as far as what an "unsat" is and how many are required to put a student on the road to attrition. It isn't 3 "unsats" that leads to a TRB and visit to see the Commodore. It takes 3 consecutive "unsats" (or an "unsat" on a xx90 event) that leads to the IPC/FPC process. If the student "unsats" the FPC, then the student is off to see the Commodore. There really is nothing in MPTS ("B" or "C") that resembles a "down" except, maybe, an "unsat" on an FPC.

Back then (under "B") there was no "down". When the old system was dumped for MPTS (not much before '00), "downs" went away. During the transition, there was a great deal of misapplication by IPs thinking an "unsat" was a "down" and few "unsats" were awarded. During that time it was difficult to attrite the poor performers since the IPs were not properly documenting performance. That persists among some IPs today since we still have lots of IPs who were trained under the old system and are having a tough time forgetting it and applying MPTS rules.

The unsat I gave the other day would have been a down in my day, as yours I'm sure.

Most of the "unsats" I gave, and there were many, would not have been "downs" when I was a student. The treshold for an "unsat" is much higher than a "down". In other words, a student can fly much better than "down" performance and still be awarded an "unsat". This is why you will see many yellow sheets in a students jacket (and why we don't want to fill them with the more serious pink sheets).

If all IPs award "unsats" when MPTS criteria calls for it, poor performing students would be attrited alot quicker and we'd spend less time and money training them.

I really don't think MPTS has a greater likelyhood of sending poor performing students along. If that were the case, when Primary instituted MPTS, we should have seen a rise in Advanced attrition. Instead, we observed a decline in Advanced attrition.

 

[Gatordev]

MPTS B and MPTS C are the same as far as what an "unsat" is and how many are required to put a student on the road to attrition. It isn't 3 "unsats" that leads to a TRB and visit to see the Commodore. It takes 3 consecutive "unsats" (or an "unsat" on a xx90 event) that leads to the IPC/FPC process. If the student "unsats" the FPC, then the student is off to see the Commodore. There really is nothing in MPTS ("B" or "C") that resembles a "down" except, maybe, an "unsat" on an FPC.

I'm familiar w/ the current rules of the system, but as far as real world application went, that's not how it was done when I went through under "B." Pink was a lot "easier," for lack of a better word, to get back then than it is now.

Back then (under "B") there was no "down". When the old system was dumped for MPTS (not much before '00), "downs" went away. During the transition, there was a great deal of misapplication by IPs thinking an "unsat" was a "down" and few "unsats" were awarded. During that time it was difficult to attrite the poor performers since the IPs were not properly documenting performance. That persists among some IPs today since we still have lots of IPs who were trained under the old system and are having a tough time forgetting it and applying MPTS rules.

Again, sounds like reality and the black and white rules were not in align, which isn't right, but the way it was. That does make sense, though, that the system didn't change that drastically, just the education of and application by the IPs that changed.

Obviously, it's irrelevant now...all except the deletion of Airnavs. I'm still bitter about that loss as an IP now.

 

[bunk22]

If all IPs award "unsats" when MPTS criteria calls for it, poor performing students would be attrited alot quicker and we'd spend less time and money training them.

I really don't think MPTS has a greater likelyhood of sending poor performing students along. If that were the case, when Primary instituted MPTS, we should have seen a rise in Advanced attrition. Instead, we observed a decline in Advanced attrition.

Every flight carried the equal amount of weight on the old system. It certainly was more subjective but a down was a down. Thus my old roomate was attrited after his FAM-2, after only 2 downs. An SNA with two unsat's by C4002 would not be gone, obviously becasue one cannot get a down on those. So if IP's went by MPTS, more poor performing studs would be gone? That seems very subjective to me then, like the last grading system. The old system, though flawed, was certainly made to attrite guys as early as FAM-2 obviously. Not going to happen with MPTS. The system is designed to get guys through.

 

[BigIron]

Every flight carried the equal amount of weight on the old system. It certainly was more subjective but a down was a down. Thus my old roomate was attrited after his FAM-2, after only 2 downs. An SNA with two unsat's by C4002 would not be gone, obviously becasue one cannot get a down on those. So if IP's went by MPTS, more poor performing studs would be gone? That seems very subjective to me then, like the last grading system. The old system, though flawed, was certainly made to attrite guys as early as FAM-2 obviously. Not going to happen with MPTS. The system is meant to get guys through.

Is attrition a bad word? I don't see anything wrong with the subjective weeding process. Is this new grading system somehow tied to efficiencies of economy?

I am not arguing your posts, Bunk, just using your post as a jump in.

 

[Gatordev]

Thus my old roomate was attrited after his FAM-2, after only 2 downs. An SNA with two unsat's by C4002 would not be gone, obviously becasue one cannot get a down on those. So if IP's went by MPTS, more poor performing studs would be gone? That seems very subjective to me then, like the last grading system. The old system, though flawed, was certainly made to attrite guys as early as FAM-2 obviously. Not going to happen with MPTS. The system is designed to get guys through.

Bunk, I've seen a similar situation here and the stud did go away. It's not just about what they've done from FAM 1, previous bad grades are also looked at. STUCON sees those trends developing pretty quick since they have to come talk to STUCON after any UNSAT, be it test, event, or just not showing up to a class.

 

[bunk22]

Is attrition a bad word? I don't see anything wrong with the subjective weeding process. Is this new grading system somehow tied to efficiencies of economy?

I am not arguing your posts, Bunk, just using your post as a jump in.

Probably a bad word for the student being attrited. From what I understand, one of the big reasons for the move was to lessen the subjectivity in grading. I guess if we follow what the difinition of MIF is, which I attempt to do, we know exactly where a stud should fall out in his flight. Yet a stud can get an UNSAT on his C4101 and C4103, two unsats, but meet MIF by end of block, good to go. An unsat on FAM-6 and FAM-8 in the old days meant a PRB and possible attrite. Some were gone by that stage. I talk with STUCON almost on a daily basis and see how many guys continue with snag after snag. Good for them but I just don't see how this system is better. It might very well be for economic or effeciency reasons, but thats just above this IP's level and thinking ability.

 

[bunk22]

Bunk, I've seen a similar situation here and the stud did go away. It's not just about what they've done from FAM 1, previous bad grades are also looked at. STUCON sees those trends developing pretty quick since they have to come talk to STUCON after any UNSAT, be it test, event, or just not showing up to a class.

Oh I know, it's the trend that is looked at. My roomate was booted by FAM-2 because of a negative trend...meaning consistent below average flights. A trend that demonstrated he was either unwilling or unable to get it, no more wasting time. My recent student, although a foriegner, just left a bad taste in my mouth. I know theres more to it but to see consistent poor performance (double digit unsats) yet still be allowed to continue is BS. Talking with STUCON, it seems that it isn't exactly uncommon, even among non foriegners.

 

[Heloanjin]

It is possible today to get on the road to attrition at C4002 (FAM-2) today. Its called a Command Directed FPC.

FAM-2 "downs" were very rare. Those who did get them were often returned to the program after the PRB process. To be attrited at that point, the student had to be really bad. Yeah, we've probably all got a story about a guy who wasn't that bad, had a bad day on FAM-2 and ended up being a shoe. But the numbers show that early FAM attrites (pre FAM-4) were rare.

Early FAM attrites are still rare, and they should be. But, to let the process work as it is designed, all IPs need to award "unsats" IAW MPTS rather than say, "Well, the flight wasn't a 'down'." When the IP waits for a "down" before giving an "unsat", then the student still gets to fly. When IPs award "unsats" when the criteria calls for it, we see IPC/FPCs earlier in the contact stage (C4100 block vice at the C4390 point).

I should say that I have not been a participant or close observer of IPs and MPTS for a little over a year. I do know that in 2000, IPs (me included) were having a tough time with it. By 2006, IPs were doing significantly better.

That being said, I should reiterate that if MPTS was allowing students to progress when they shouldn't have, we should have seen higher attrition in advanced after MPTS was implemented at Primary. Advanced attrition did not rise. The amount of flight hours spent at advanced to train a student did not rise. By objective measures, it seems MPTS did not negitively impact the quality of students who were sent on to the advanced training squadrons.

I'm not saying MPTS is better than the old system. They both have some very good qualities. For one, I missed being able to give a "ready room down" that had any teeth to it. But the old system had its own issues, not the least of which was its subjectivity. Like, by what measure was a "down" awarded other than "you know it when you see it"?

 

[e6bflyer]

Oh I know, it's the trend that is looked at. My roomate was booted by FAM-2 because of a negative trend...meaning consistent below average flights. A trend that demonstrated he was either unwilling or unable to get it, no more wasting time. My recent student, although a foriegner, just left a bad taste in my mouth. I know theres more to it but to see consistent poor performance (double digit unsats) yet still be allowed to continue is BS. Talking with STUCON, it seems that it isn't exactly uncommon, even among non foriegners.

I know who the student is that you are talking about. Without getting into specifics, the command had all the ammunition that it needed to send him packing, but was told to "give him another look", which included several ET flights and a recheck. I flew one of his ET flights and I must say that he was much improved, as most anybody would after having an extra block of flights to improve.
One thing I hate, though, is "passing the buck", which is what I feel like we did by sending him to advanced. Unfortunately, some decisions are made way above my paygrade. This student's case was more a political decision, and had little to do with MPTS.

 

[e6bflyer]

I'm not saying MPTS is better than the old system. They both have some very good qualities. For one, I missed being able to give a "ready room down" that had any teeth to it. But the old system had its own issues, not the least of which was its subjectivity. Like, by what measure was a "down" awarded other than "you know it when you see it"?

The ops directed IPC is still used, usually in the case of multiple unsats in a block of training that don't meet the criteria for an IPC/FPC. The ready room unsat in MPTS is still a good tool for sending a message and has plenty of teeth. It is rarely used, only because IPs usually don't want to send a kid to an IPC after one bad brief. I haven't used it yet, but I have come plenty close and have threatened it to onwings on a few occasions.

 

[Gatordev]

Talking with STUCON, it seems that it isn't exactly uncommon, even among non foriegners.

True, which is why we get all those emails from STUCON about documentation. It is interesting to see the train wrecks develop though. I counseled one individual for his third or fourth pink sheet and he was only on his second week of ground school (had a couple from API). Short story, he didn't make it to FAM 12.

It is rarely used, only because IPs usually don't want to send a kid to an IPC after one bad brief. I haven't used it yet, but I have come plenty close and have threatened it to onwings on a few occasions.

Concur. I never had to use it either, but did threaten it a couple of times when the brief wasn't where it should be but wasn't UNSAT.

 

[insanebikerboy]

The ops directed IPC is still used, usually in the case of multiple unsats in a block of training that don't meet the criteria for an IPC/FPC. The ready room unsat in MPTS is still a good tool for sending a message and has plenty of teeth. It is rarely used, only because IPs usually don't want to send a kid to an IPC after one bad brief. I haven't used it yet, but I have come plenty close and have threatened it to onwings on a few occasions.

Interesting to note, in my limited observations, I've seen quite a few more guys get a ready room down here in advanced than I saw in primary.

It seems to me that now that we've demonstrated an ability to fly (a.k.a., finished primary) they're a lot more strict on the briefs, and expect a knowledge level a lot higher and in-depth than what I experienced in primary.

 

[xj220]

So what exactly would get someone a yellow or pink sheet? Does it take a bunch of mistakes and no displaying of skill or desire or is it more of a "OMG if I wasn't there to barely save us, we would have died" kind of thing?

 

[NavAir42]

From what I've seen it's usually a bad brief followed by a bad flight that combines to create an unsat. The brief alone or the flight alone may have been marginal and good enough but together add up to an unsat.

I've never seen anyone down because they got themselves into a scary situation. If a student not on a solo does that, the instructor shouldn't be an instructor, at least in cases where a mishap can be avoided.

 

[phrogpilot73]

Interesting to note, in my limited observations, I've seen quite a few more guys get a ready room down here in advanced than I saw in primary.

It seems to me that now that we've demonstrated an ability to fly (a.k.a., finished primary) they're a lot more strict on the briefs, and expect a knowledge level a lot higher and in-depth than what I experienced in primary.

I compared notes with my peers that were going through Advanced in the jet world, and they were surprised just how systems knowledge oriented our briefs were. I chalked it up to the lack of an ejection seat, and how systems knowledge can save your life in the rotary wing community.