Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
15 hours ago, Majestik Møøse said:

All valid, but the AF still believes in the PCSM, and they’re giving pilot jobs to people with scores that are at least 10% lower than last year and possibly 40% lower (depending on how the score was reworked) than ten years ago.

 

That’s about the performance levels we’re seeing at our fighter fleet replacement squadrons, or FTUs. Performance markedly lower all around than what was typical 6-10 years ago. 

Posted
3 hours ago, SCRIMP said:

They could also just stop making helicopter pilots. Can the W buy, turn all SMAs into sensor operators, etc and all the pilots go fly the new AT-6, etc since we have been qualified on same or like aircraft. Solves the AF’s lack of give a shit.

 

UHT is a joke and should be aborted. Quickly. The again, I’m getting out...who knows, maybe I will find a financial backer and make a bid myself. I’m gunna be Oprah rich!!

 

CH, thanks for the updates!

Yeah, just skip 3rd and take this to the eventual conclusion if they aren't going to be serious about keeping PR relevant or having the missile field mission be owned in house. The Whiskey is great and all but at some point flying a traditional helicopter into war turns into charging tanks with cavalry. I love CSAR, but the USAF showed how much it mattered when they canned CSAR-X and chose the W. 

Posted

One interesting tidbit from that document was the statements about reducing the number of ALP and international student slots....’bout freaking time!!

Posted
2 hours ago, HuggyU2 said:

What is "ALP", please?

Aviation Leadership Program; we take the best and brightest from up and coming countries (former eastern bloc, South America, Africa, etc) and put them through a 10-month T-6 only syllabus (basically T-6s twice) and then give them USAF wings and send them back home. It's a mil-pol program, because we take the young lts who show promise to become higher ranking/chiefs of staff/etc later on, so if we need to conduct ops in/need support from their country in the future (when these ALP'sters are in charge), we can hopefully cash in on the good experience/training/memories they have of the US/USAF. 

Most of them are already pilots in their home country; some of it can be pretty easy (I taught a Colombian Tucano pilot - flying with him was like flying CT, and he had gnarly stories about going after drug runners) but some can be ridiculously difficult due to language/cultural barriers or the fact that the kid may have never seen an airplane until he flew to America, so the whole concept of aviation is foreign (no pun intended).

This info is CAO 2010 from Columbus (which I think was the only base doing ALP back then), others may have more current info...

Posted
39 minutes ago, YoungnDumb said:

Vance doesn't have ALP, we just have a metric ton of Saudis and other countries (read Africa/Middle East).

Yeah, but do they do a normal UPT syllabus (T-6s and then T-38s)? Because we had the Saudis at CBM as well (along with Japanese, Italian, a couple others), but those were called international students, not ALP, and they did the same syllabus as the US students. 

Posted

Big picture difference:

ALP (only offered at CBM) students attend on a scholarship, i.e. we pay for it. T-6s only, they do all the same checkrides (just at different intervals) plus a nav check at the end. Takes a little under a year. It’s administered by the AF security assistance team for the reasons Motofalcon talked about.

“International” students attend as part of the foreign military sales program. They pay for their own slots...and subsequent extra hours if they need them. Other than that, exact same UPT syllabus as an American just on their country’s own dime.

Posted

Soooo... seeing them post yet another Retention survey, is this a conspiracy to attempt and trick people into thinking they care by producing 6-9 surveys or is this simply individual PCS/change of commands that don't like the results of last one done under previous leadership and demand a new one?

 

Posted
On 2/20/2018 at 4:15 PM, Duck said:

I actually saw the official AFPC slideshow that detailed the correlation between commanders rank, GPA, PCSM and historical success rate at UPT from a %washout perspective. I don’t recall the conclusions for the other factors, but there was a positive correlation between PCSM and washouts.

These slides are pretty dated now, but for the life of the PCSM, there's been a positive correlation between PCSM score and washout rate.

One slide circa 1998, the other circa 2002.

 

1998_PCSM.jpg

PCSM.jpg

Posted
On 2/20/2018 at 4:22 PM, BashiChuni said:

guys lets be honest does anyone washout of UPT? i think the washout rate has been extremely low for a long time now. lets not act like it was UPT BUDS when we all went thru "back in the day"

I like to post this "fact checker" whenever the real gray beards start opining about their "50% washout rates when I went through UPT in (insert timeframe here)."

3f7c27c4.jpg

  • Like 4
  • Upvote 3
Posted
1 hour ago, Hacker said:

I like to post this "fact checker" whenever the real gray beards start opining about their "50% washout rates when I went through UPT in (insert timeframe here)."

3f7c27c4.jpg

Is that after starting UPT? As in not including people who don’t make it through IFS, medical screening, or SIE before training even starts? 

  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, drumkitwes said:

Is that after starting UPT? As in not including people who don’t make it through IFS, medical screening, or SIE before training even starts? 

There was no IFS during this time, and of course its after starting.

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, matmacwc said:

There was no IFS during this time, and of course its after starting.

Flight screening has been around for a long time. Before DOSS IFS, it was IFT (probably what you did). Before that it was T-3s at Hondo. Before that it was T-41s (Big Spring, TX?). Hondo was happening in the mid-90s. The T-41 goes back to the 60s. Not sure if there was anything else between those two or if everyone had to attend that training.

 

https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/129834/officials-announce-t-3a-firefly-final-disposition/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_T-41_Mescalero

Edited by Seriously
Posted (edited)
On 2/21/2018 at 2:53 PM, VMFA187 said:

That’s about the performance levels we’re seeing at our fighter fleet replacement squadrons, or FTUs. Performance markedly lower all around than what was typical 6-10 years ago. 

It doesn’t help that they cranked up the DQ rate with the computer eye test in that exact same timeframe.  Tighten the crank too far on one thing and something that matters has to give...that something is aptitude.  Sister services aren’t exactly crashing a/c left and right with old school tests.  Bros on waivers wouldn’t have made it through the front door today.

EDIT:  I notice you have a VMFA tag, so not sure what the USN/USMC issue would be unless they did something similar.  Point remains for the AF pipeline.

Edited by gimmeaplane
  • Like 1
Posted
9 hours ago, Hacker said:

I like to post this "fact checker" whenever the real gray beards start opining about their "50% washout rates when I went through UPT in (insert timeframe here)."

3f7c27c4.jpg

My class circa 1991 didn't lose anyone.  We had two wash back for medical but both went on to graduate. 

I also had to do FSHPOT (I think that was the acronym), even though I had a PPL at Hondo Fld when they still had the might T-41 Mescalero.  I  know we lost a lot of people but I don't remember the rate.  When we were finished they made all go take a bunch of computer tests (math problems in the center display while using your hands to control a line), I am assuming that was part of the baseline for the testing they do today?

Posted
8 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

I am assuming that was part of the baseline for the testing they do today?

Not sure if addressed at me, but I was talking about a computer color vision test.  The AF DQ rate is now significantly higher from what the docs report vs the old tests, and this is a win in their book.  Navy allows the same computer test now, but with a lower passing score.

Don’t want to derail the thread, but min acceptable standards should apply to every “gatekeeper” standard, e.g. if the somebody who’s an inch below/above some anthro standard can do the job, then we should adjust that standard.  Then we’ll DQ the least number of otherwise high aptitude candidates.

Whether or not we can identify/measure aptitude is a different problem.

Posted
Soooo... seeing them post yet another Retention survey, is this a conspiracy to attempt and trick people into thinking they care by producing 6-9 surveys or is this simply individual PCS/change of commands that don't like the results of last one done under previous leadership and demand a new one?
 

It’s a trap. But just like a woman who got away from an abusive husband. We ain’t coming back. And the Air Force didn’t realize what they had until we left.
Posted

It’s a trap. But just like a woman who got away from an abusive husband. We ain’t coming back. And the Air Force didn’t realize what they had until we left.

Well the dumba$$es lost one of the surveys about a year or so ago. But they said before they lost it that there was “nothing groundbreaking” but since they lost it they couldn’t release it.
Posted
Flight screening has been around for a long time. Before DOSS IFS, it was IFT (probably what you did). Before that it was T-3s at Hondo. Before that it was T-41s (Big Spring, TX?). Hondo was happening in the mid-90s. The T-41 goes back to the 60s. Not sure if there was anything else between those two or if everyone had to attend that training.
 
https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/129834/officials-announce-t-3a-firefly-final-disposition/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_T-41_Mescalero

There was no such program in 2004. AF used to pay for 40 hours of flight time if you didn’t have your PPL. That program went away when IFT/S was implemented
Posted
Not sure if addressed at me, but I was talking about a computer color vision test.  The AF DQ rate is now significantly higher from what the docs report vs the old tests, and this is a win in their book.  Navy allows the same computer test now, but with a lower passing score.
Don’t want to derail the thread, but min acceptable standards should apply to every “gatekeeper” standard, e.g. if the somebody who’s an inch below/above some anthro standard can do the job, then we should adjust that standard.  Then we’ll DQ the least number of otherwise high aptitude candidates.
Whether or not we can identify/measure aptitude is a different problem.

I fail that test wholesale, and have an indefinite waiver for colorblindness. It turns out being able to tell the difference between green and slightly darker bluer green has no effect on my ability to operate an aircraft.
Posted
3 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

I also had to do FSHPOT (I think that was the acronym),

It was "FSPOT" - Flight Screening Program for Officer Trainees.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...