NSS changes as of 04AUG08

[RockySLP]

Using "circumstantial evidence" to draw conclusions creates more rumors.

That statement is prefaced by "as an aside" with regard to lesson numbering. For practical purposes, it is unrelated to the topic at hand ("counting" CPTs and FAMs). Admittedly, your MPTS nomenclature knowledges are better than mine.

My use of words such as "I don't know," "apparently," and "appears" lead me to believe that no conclusion had been drawn in my post.

The statement made by SDNalgene is in line with my thinking: those events (CPTs and FAMs) would seem to affect the student only if they result in a marginal/unsat. The rest of that paragraph (quoted by kmac) does not seem to suggest that the new system will include them in the student's score ratio.

 

[Beans]

My use of words such as "I don't know," "apparently," and "appears" lead me to believe that no conclusion had been drawn in my post.

I don't know how else to read what you wrote. You were speculating on admittedly incomplete information. If you don't know, why guess?

 

[Kickflip89]

I don't see any evidence for this, especially given the CNATRA document that is linked above. Until proven otherwise, consider this a rumor and give it the same consideration all rumors are due: to be passed to everyone and believed by no one.

We were briefed by STUCON, who had the info from CNATRA, and I saw the new equations. TGI is being replaced by NMU. I don't remember SEEING that the sample size would be 60, but I asked STUCON guy about it, and he explained to me that CNATRA figured out they could get a wider distribution if they used 60 students and were, in fact, switching.

Also, that CNATRA document is from September of 07.

 

[picklesuit]

So one of the Ops guys briefed us on the change yesterday. Mostly I heard "blah, blah, blah, numbers, you already have P-3s, blah, blah." But the cool part was that they are now going to compute and post our NSS every WEEK. Should be interesting to watch the crowd around that bulletin board.

 

[FlyBoyd]

But the cool part was that they are now going to compute and post our NSS every WEEK. Should be interesting to watch the crowd around that bulletin board.

I'll chime in now as I have been following this thread since the start.

Projected NSS has been a strange animal for many years. Every few years a "new" way of calculating a projected NSS is presented and then eventually proven inaccurate. If my memory serves me right, this will be the third way of computing a projected NSS since 2000. The previous two were debunked and we were forbiden from even computing them and providing the info to the Studs i.e. too many 60s becoming 40s and vice versa. CNATRA got tired of defending an "unofficial" calculation. IMO, this "better" way will end up just like the previous two. Please pass the word to all those who seem to fixate on the new projected NSS and tell them their time is better spent in the books.

OBTW, I really hope I am wrong.

 

[Heloanjin]

Contrary to what you're hearing here, the above is not the case. There is (or was) no minimum NSS. 35 was a magic number that got thrown around, but it was either changed or finally followed that it was not a minimum. A 35 will warrant a PRB, but it is not the determining factor.

@Bunk:

FWIW, when Phrog and I went through, it was MPTS, but there was still the 3 strikes and you're done, so it weeded folks out. I suspect things were made more lenient because they needed bodies. Maybe now they realize that's not the best way to do it. So the pendulum swings.

I have no facts to base my assumption on, just basing it on what I saw over the years and after coming back through the pipeline as an IP w/ the newer (now on its way out) system.

A little history -

When CNATRA went to MPTS, there was a difficult transition. It was hard for IPs and commands to forget the "old" rules - pre-MPTS (TA Manual) and accept the MPTS rules. Under the "old" rules, there was a minimum 35 NSS to select/wing. Under MPTS, this rule was dropped. Primary was put under MPTS first, so no one really noticed that everyone who finished Primary selected and went on to advanced. No one really noticed because all the sub-35 NSS studs went to helos, and who cares about the helo training pipeline. As long as Tacair is getting their studs, everyone is happy.

However, when the advanced squadrons converted to MPTS, there was a shock in the training command that students with a sub-35 NSS could end up as winged aviators.

However, there was a huge misunderstanding what it all meant. MPTS attempts to set a standard to be an aviator, affectionally called MIF. If you meet MIF, then you meet the standard and you should be an aviator, regardless of NSS. That's because NSS just ranks everyone that successfully completes. Getting a 20 NSS doesn't mean you shouldn't be winged. It just means you're at the bottom of your class. Hey, somebody has to be there.

Now, there was concern that the training command was passing on trash and needed to screen selectors/wingers. Hence the instruction that brought in the "Command Screen." This instruction was post MPTS and was meant to ensure that the bottom of the class is in fact qualified to be a Naval aviator.

So, you can have a sub-35 NSS and select/get winged. Many have. Many will. And they should be.

To the question of 3 strikes and your out. That, as well, went by the wayside with MPTS. Because of the nature of how unsats are awarded under MPTS, it would be unrealistic and counterproductive to flush every student that get 3 unsats. Unsats are not downs. Never were and never should be considered one. Dropping the 3 strike rule had nothing to do with needing more bodies in the fleet. Again, because of the confusion during the transition from the "old" system to MPTS, there may have been Primary squadrons under MPTS still using the 3 strike rule, even though they were wrong to do it.

 

[bunk22]

A little history -

When CNATRA went to MPTS, there was a difficult transition. It was hard for IPs and commands to forget the "old" rules - pre-MPTS (TA Manual) and accept the MPTS rules. Under the "old" rules, there was a minimum 35 NSS to select/wing. Under MPTS, this rule was dropped. Primary was put under MPTS first, so no one really noticed that everyone who finished Primary selected and went on to advanced. No one really noticed because all the sub-35 NSS studs went to helos, and who cares about the helo training pipeline. As long as Tacair is getting their studs, everyone is happy.

However, when the advanced squadrons converted to MPTS, there was a shock in the training command that students with a sub-35 NSS could end up as winged aviators.

However, there was a huge misunderstanding what it all meant. MPTS attempts to set a standard to be an aviator, affectionally called MIF. If you meet MIF, then you meet the standard and you should be an aviator, regardless of NSS. That's because NSS just ranks everyone that successfully completes. Getting a 20 NSS doesn't mean you shouldn't be winged. It just means you're at the bottom of your class. Hey, somebody has to be there.

Now, there was concern that the training command was passing on trash and needed to screen selectors/wingers. Hence the instruction that brought in the "Command Screen." This instruction was post MPTS and was meant to ensure that the bottom of the class is in fact qualified to be a Naval aviator.

So, you can have a sub-35 NSS and select/get winged. Many have. Many will. And they should be.

To the question of 3 strikes and your out. That, as well, went by the wayside with MPTS. Because of the nature of how unsats are awarded under MPTS, it would be unrealistic and counterproductive to flush every student that get 3 unsats. Unsats are not downs. Never were and never should be considered one. Dropping the 3 strike rule had nothing to do with needing more bodies in the fleet. Again, because of the confusion during the transition from the "old" system to MPTS, there may have been Primary squadrons under MPTS still using the 3 strike rule, even though they were wrong to do it.

I get the jist of what you're saying but are implying all of those with a low NSS should be winged or at least allowed to move on from primary? A case by case basis? I know of at least one SNA that went on from primary that IMO, should not have been. Unfortunetly, not everyone is cut out to be an aviator. The attrition rate is small regardless. Perhaps only those who meet MIF go on, as it's supposed to be. I think th guys above meant three downs, not three unsats, meant they were gone. The old system, that unsat was a down. It's not anymore obviously. I see those UNSAT's all the time with my foreign studs. I see marginals with them quite a bit as well.

 

[Gatordev]

To the question of 3 strikes and your out. That, as well, went by the wayside with MPTS. Because of the nature of how unsats are awarded under MPTS, it would be unrealistic and counterproductive to flush every student that get 3 unsats. Unsats are not downs. Never were and never should be considered one. Dropping the 3 strike rule had nothing to do with needing more bodies in the fleet. Again, because of the confusion during the transition from the "old" system to MPTS, there may have been Primary squadrons under MPTS still using the 3 strike rule, even though they were wrong to do it.

I see what you're saying. Bunk's right, I meant three downs. Whether the UNSAT was ruled a down (incorrectly so, as you describe), I don't recall, but that was probably the case.

 

[bert]

Not wanking about the new standards (the most junior guy I fly with is usually the FRS ANI giving me my annual check) but is the concept of a "down" gone? Is the idea now that as long you don't get so many unsats that you drop below "MIF" then you will advance? Or is an unsat on a checkride a "down"? I've been semi-following this and similar threads and figured I would check my reading comprehension....

 

[kmac]

To get an unsat for a flight, there must be an item that is below MIF. Keep in mind that for any given flight MIF will be specific to the individual maneuver (General Knowledge may require a 4, or good, whereas a High Altitude Power Loss may require only a 3, or fair). That means there will be individual grades within 1 flight and an overall grade given (pass, marginal, or unsat) for that flight. There are 2 ways to get an unsat: systematically and subjectively. I use the term systematically because of the rules created within MPTS. If a student isn't up to snuff on an end of block flight, or if the student has regressed on two types of maneuvers that required a higher MIF in the previous block, then an unsat will be automatic. There are a few other rules, but they all fit into the "system." The other type of unsat comes from subjectivity. If the IP feels that the performance was so horrendous that the student shouldn't pass the flight, he/she can grade it as unsatisfactory. A common one in this case would be a student that does not know the procedures in the FTI. The grade for General Knowledge would be below MIF, but if we were to take only the MPTS criteria system the student might be able to pass the flight. This is where the IP comes in and grades it as an UNSAT, even if only 1 item is below MIF.

Of course there is also the Ready Room Unsat. It's tough to get below MIF on a flight that you don't fly, so the RRU comes in when the student can't even get through the brief.

To answer Bert's question about the concept of "Down," I'd say that indeed a down is no more. Like those have said in the previous posts, the grading system now allows a student to "fail" and continue on much easier than with the old system. It's like the difference in blowing a tire or losing a transmission. Either one of you is going to be a roadblock, but the weight of the former on getting to your destination is a lot less than that of the latter.

 

[Gatordev]

Not wanking about the new standards (the most junior guy I fly with is usually the FRS ANI giving me my annual check) but is the concept of a "down" gone? Is the idea now that as long you don't get so many unsats that you drop below "MIF" then you will advance? Or is an unsat on a checkride a "down"? I've been semi-following this and similar threads and figured I would check my reading comprehension....

Kinda sorta, but in a different way. You could give a stud a "down" in the brief, and you weren't going flying, but a down in the brief also immediately initiates an IPC (Interim (?) Performance Check). Basically an admin review of the record and then, depending on the event/reason for the IPC, an IPC flight. Generally, a stud is "allowed" one IPC and then one FPC (Final Performance Check). Often times, the FPC is used to ask someone not to come back, but it's also a way for the stud to regroup and come back and make it through.

...Kmac beat me to it....stupid phone and "work."

 

[bert]

...words...lots of them...followed by a KLANG...

Further proof that the Navy can make anything hard (insert Beavis and Butthead joke here). Thanks to Kmac and Gator.

 

[FlyBoyd]

Finishing Primary with a sub-35 NSS is easy. The SNA only meets MIF at the end of block and not before. They would be a textbook definition of a bottom feeder. They never fail/Unsat a flight but just scrape by meeting the required proficiency just in time. This scenario generates a sub-35 NSS every time. MPTS provides a means to highlight and subsequently attrite these students. An OPS directed IPC and subsequent command directed FPC can be given for this type of performance. It is there in the fine print if you look. Unfortunately, these are few and far between due to the fact that sufficient documention on the ATFs and proper justification for normal breaks in training become an issue when the CO and Commodore forward their recomendation to CNATRA. Very often these type of students are identified too late and the proper paperwork can't be put together that withstands the legal filter at the CNATRA level. Read this as the guy who would have to defend against subsequent legal action by a student's lawyer. So you forget and put the word good when you grade it a three? Every gradesheet is scrutinized and more students are recycled through training as a result of improper ATFs and inadequate documentation.

Keep in mind also that the goal is to attrite as soon as possible. Attriting a stud in the 26th week of a 27 week syllabus gets expensive and most of the time the squadron/wing caves to the pressure of the selection needed to meet IPP.

I am not saying this is right...it is what it is.

 

[Tom]

Kinda sorta, but in a different way. You could give a stud a "down" in the brief, and you weren't going flying, but a down in the brief also immediately initiates an IPC (Interim (?) Performance Check). Basically an admin review of the record and then, depending on the event/reason for the IPC, an IPC flight. Generally, a stud is "allowed" one IPC and then one FPC (Final Performance Check). Often times, the FPC is used to ask someone not to come back, but it's also a way for the stud to regroup and come back and make it through.

...Kmac beat me to it....stupid phone and "work."

I think IPC is intermediate progress check.

 

[FlyBoyd]

IPC = Initial Progress Check
FPC = Final Progress Check

Any MPTS version CNATRAINST 1542 shows an expanded definition.

https://www.cnatra.navy.mil/pubs/instruct.htm