Degradation of SUPT

[ayz33]

42 minutes ago, Hawg15 said:

Lol “bad leadership”. Are you still in college? LTs are barely capable of leading the coffee pot and corn machines without getting lost on their way to work, regardless of where they went to school. We’re all morons for the first few years. Pretending like they know about leadership as an LT, or are a better candidate for UPT, because they went to the academy just makes people think you’re a tool. College performance =/= flying performance. Quality is decreasing because the # of flight hours has decreased. Nothing replaces experience. You can teach a monkey to fly with enough time. 

Are you saying it doesn't make any difference at all?

[SurelySerious]

4 minutes ago, ayz33 said:

Are you saying it doesn't make any difference at all?

Dude, there are absolute great-dude meatheads who weren’t very serious about their studies in skool who are Fighter WIC instructors. Some things click with some people that you wouldn’t expect. 

[BashiChuni]

35 minutes ago, ayz33 said:

Are you saying it doesn't make any difference at all?

Please feel free to enlighten us with your opinions that you have zero knowledge about. 

And if you think you have knowledge then state quals 

otherwise stf....ugh never mind. You’d probably get offended. 

Other poster said it. College doesn’t equal upt success. Study habits? Sure. But like mike Tyson said everyone has a plan till they get punched in the face. 

Edited September 4, 2019 by BashiChuni

[Bigred]

The VR stuff sounds like really effective chair flying, but it (in my opinion) won’t ever be a 1 for 1 substitute of actual flight time. 

VR doesn’t replicate the feeling of sweat in your eyes and now you can’t actually see lead, or when being surprised when g comes on the aircraft and you miss a radio call, etc. 

VR is helpful, sure, but it is concerning if it replaces actual flight time. 

 

[ayz33]

8 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

Please feel free to enlighten us with your opinions that you have zero knowledge about. 

And if you think you have knowledge then state quals 

otherwise stf....ugh never mind. You’d probably get offended. 

Other poster said it. College doesn’t equal upt success. Study habits? Sure. But like mike Tyson said everyone has a plan till they get punched in the face. 

I'm not saying just how somebody is as a college student will be the only thing that determines how good of a pilot they are, not sure where you're picking that up. I'm talking about combinations of all three. The TYPES of people which include lack of drive, effort, and aptitude. Are those not all important traits? Enlighten me.

[Homestar]

49 minutes ago, ayz33 said:

I'm not saying just how somebody is as a college student will be the only thing that determines how good of a pilot they are, not sure where you're picking that up. I'm talking about combinations of all three. The TYPES of people which include lack of drive, effort, and aptitude. Are those not all important traits? Enlighten me.

Just curious to know how many students you've helped through UPT?  I've been doing it for a couple years now, and I simply do not see traits like "lack of drive, effort, and aptitude" as common in UPT.  I am old enough to have flown a fix to fix in a Tweet and I really don't see a massive difference from then to now in aptitude.  It basically follows a bell curve.  I will say, however, that some of my peers believe that there isn't a top third/middle third/bottom third anymore....more like middle third/and the rest.  Not sure I agree with that assessment, but I don't have a lot of involvement with MASS scores.

VR has a world of potential for T-1 students IMO.  I sure would like it if a stud could actually fly a decent pattern by T5005 by getting a few hundred reps in a VR sim in addition to the 40 or so patterns they get in the first block of trans.

PTN is an experiment.  If leadership is concerned that it didn't work, well, that's how experiments work.

[ayz33]

10 minutes ago, Homestar said:

Just curious to know how many students you've helped through UPT?  I've been doing it for a couple years now, and I simply do not see traits like "lack of drive, effort, and aptitude" as common in UPT.  I am old enough to have flown a fix to fix in a Tweet and I really don't see a massive difference from then to now in aptitude.  It basically follows a bell curve.  I will say, however, that some of my peers believe that there isn't a top third/middle third/bottom third anymore....more like middle third/and the rest.  Not sure I agree with that assessment, but I don't have a lot of involvement with MASS scores.

VR has a world of potential for T-1 students IMO.  I sure would like it if a stud could actually fly a decent pattern by T5005 by getting a few hundred reps in a VR sim in addition to the 40 or so patterns they get in the first block of trans.

PTN is an experiment.  If leadership is concerned that it didn't work, well, that's how experiments work.

Thanks for the response. What do you consider to be the most important traits in students?

[FLEA]

37 minutes ago, ayz33 said:

Thanks for the response. What do you consider to be the most important traits in students?

I'll agree that we can't be afraid to try new things to improve training but I think the criticism VR is getting is because that improvement is being focused on reducing manufacturing inefficiencies rather than on improving the final product. At least that's the perspective I've been seeing. 

[LNGH]

VR should be used to supplement time in the cockpit, not replace it. The impression I get is that leadership wants to use it to cut training costs so the overall pushback is no it's bad. It's not bad it's just being used wrong. It could be a really good tool for teaching to enhance the program, but only as it adds to it, not as it replaces things. Just my .02 as a nobody.

[MCO]

2 hours ago, ayz33 said:

Thanks for the response. What do you consider to be the most important traits in students?

Your score on whatever the hand eye coordination test thing was, and previous hours in an airplane. Abilities as a student? Mostly irrelevant. It shows a drive to succeed. Lots of “bad” cadets are great in UPT, and lots of “good” cadets are terrible.

[Homestar]

2 hours ago, ayz33 said:

Thanks for the response. What do you consider to be the most important traits in students?

Teachability (willingness to learn), and dedication to study and preparation.  Like someone else said, you can teach a monkey to fly with enough bananas.  The smart ones know that they get a finite number of bananas in the jet and that further bananas have to be earned in chair flying (and other forms of preparation).  

[Homestar]

1 hour ago, LNGH said:

VR should be used to supplement time in the cockpit, not replace it. The impression I get is that leadership wants to use it to cut training costs so the overall pushback is no it's bad. It's not bad it's just being used wrong. It could be a really good tool for teaching to enhance the program, but only as it adds to it, not as it replaces things. Just my .02 as a nobody.

I agree with this wholeheartedly.  Nothing replaces reps in the jet.  But chair flying in a VR environment is a gazillion times better than the eyes-closed or poster flying I did.  And it can prepare someone to take reps in the jet more efficiently.  If I don't have to explain the nuts and bolts of a pattern because you already know them, I can focus on getting you to land and go around single engine and 0-flap, etc.  

[Seadogs]

1 hour ago, MCO said:

Your score on whatever the hand eye coordination test thing was, and previous hours in an airplane. Abilities as a student? Mostly irrelevant. It shows a drive to succeed. Lots of “bad” cadets are great in UPT, and lots of “good” cadets are terrible.

So if you got at 69 PCSM score, you are screwed and SOL for UPT?

[BashiChuni]

6 hours ago, ayz33 said:

 Enlighten me.

No. 

[LNGH]

1 hour ago, Seadogs said:

So if you got at 69 PCSM

No you obviously got the best score, you can skip UPT

[MCO]

3 hours ago, Seadogs said:

So if you got at 69 PCSM score, you are screwed and SOL for UPT?

No, a good PCSM from what I saw was just a decent indicator. Plenty of dudes with bad PCSMs picked it up quick. My point is while even that may be an indicator there is no cookie cutter perfect every time UPT student, and a lot of what you think is important to UPT as a cadet doesn’t translate to automatic success in UPT.

Edited September 4, 2019 by MCO

[Hacker]

32 minutes ago, MCO said:

No, a good PCSM from what I saw was just a decent indicator.

There's actually a pretty close statistical correlation between PCSM and success at UPT.

Anecdotes aside, that's what the data says. That's kind of the entire point behind its existence.

To wit:

https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2011-11428-002

Pilot Candidate Selection Method: Still an effective predictor of US Air Force pilot training performance.

Edited September 4, 2019 by Hacker

[Bender]

It’s been a long time since I had to be smart, but 0.5 doesn’t seem all that exciting. If 1.0 is perfect (-1.0 being negatively perfect), wouldn’t .5 mean maybe could mean something positive but only half sure?

I do know the innovation flights do not have their class’ PCSMs (at least not at my base), but will include that along side of the final student performance when it’s said and done (just for funnies).

Do I even understand correlation? I think statistics is interesting, but kind of like a different language most of the time.

~Bendy

[Hacker]

Just now, Bender said:

It’s been a long time since I had to be smart, but 0.5 doesn’t seem all that exciting. If 1.0 is perfect (-1.0 being negatively perfect), wouldn’t .5 mean maybe could mean something positive but only half sure?

 

Honestly couldn't tell you.

I do have a bunch of undergrad education in social statistics, but much of that at this point is lost to history.  I had the pleasure of working with Dr Patterson and Dr Carretta down at Brooks back in the mid '00s while I was going through a medical issue, though, and I did hear them discuss this topic (the validity of various methodologies in selecting pilot candidates) in detail.

They had piles and piles of data that they were constantly compiling and evaluating, and were eager to tweak their algorithms when they found something new.

They were actually quite excited that the PCSM had held up with a correlation that was statistically significant over time (at that point, more than a decade of use and something like 10,000 pilots it had been used on).

Beyond that, I'm out of my depth in this discussion. I don't know if Carretta is still working for the AF, but Patterson has since retired...might want to look them up and ask the question if you're really interested in an informed answer.

[Muscle2002]

38 minutes ago, Bender said:

 

It’s been a long time since I had to be smart, but 0.5 doesn’t seem all that exciting. If 1.0 is perfect (-1.0 being negatively perfect), wouldn’t .5 mean maybe could mean something positive but only half sure?

I do know the innovation flights do not have their class’ PCSMs (at least not at my base), but will include that along side of the final student performance when it’s said and done (just for funnies).

Do I even understand correlation? I think statistics is interesting, but kind of like a different language most of the time.

~Bendy

 

A correlation coefficient, or r, of .5 indicates there is a moderate correlation between PCSM score and UPT completion.  Even an r-value of 1 only indicates a strong correlation but not a direct causal relationship. 

[Bender]

A correlation coefficient, or r, of .5 indicates there is a moderate correlation between PCSM score and UPT completion.  Even an r-value of 1 only indicates a strong correlation but not a direct causal relationship. 

 

Okay well if we’re just stating things without source, Google told me 0.2-0.4 is moderate and 0.4+ is relatively strong. I’ve seen a number of charts, and there does seem like there is something there. (That sounds like a fascinating conversation I wouldn’t be able to turn back off, Hacker. Soft pass.)

 

That said, the correlation targets elimination rather than specific performance. Trends can be bucked, we see it all the time (which was the previous point), but it makes sense as part of a selection process as a variable, if not overly relied on (probably just like VR itself).

 

With the innovation efforts, the students with high flight time are doing well (that stat is available to the flight(s), but again not significant as I’ve watched high time students struggle hard out of the gate to get to above average and also struggle the whole way...kind of a crap shoot that depends on the individual’s personality.)

 

Specifically to the VR integration, is there as much push back on the use of oculus products pushed left on the timeline to prep students? I’m probably the biggest naysayer in my neck of the woods when it comes to the Warthog HOTAS, but I think the oculus VR’s affordability, portability, and teaching potential is amazing. The fact the AF hasn’t spent millions of dollars developing VR software to train pilots in their down time just baffles me.

 

Almost every major company has been into this game for a while...particularly with things like “critical events” that are too dangerous to practice.

 

Personally, I would love to watch a T-6 pilot turn, climb, clean, check, shut the engine off with the firewall shutoff handle and high speed ELP down through a 2k overcast cloud deck to a safe landing on a 3k foot runway.

 

I’d probably watch it more than once...or twice...

 

~Bendy

 

[jazzdude]

Bendy, I think you make great points, but the AF has been heavily investing in training for critical events for a while.

VR and the Oculus bring the cost down for sure, and probably has a place in training. But the AF has invested tons of money into simulators, something a lot of companies couldn't afford to do until the newer VR technologies came along and made that kind of training cheaper.

The T-6 OFTs are pretty amazing, plus a full cockpit mockup with working gauges is a pretty amazing training tool, and probably a better training tool than the Oculus probably could ever be, at least in the near future. Visual displays, tactile feedback, etc. Just expensive, and expensive to operate.

[Chida]

But but I was PTWOB! or I was a SOAR IP! therefore due to my superior cadet status I should skip UPT!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[brickhistory]

On 9/3/2019 at 10:57 PM, Hawg15 said:

Lol “bad leadership”. Are you still in college? LTs are barely capable of leading the coffee pot and corn machines without getting lost on their way to work, regardless of where they went to school. We’re all morons for the first few years. Pretending like they know about leadership as an LT, or are a better candidate for UPT, because they went to the academy just makes people think you’re a tool. College performance =/= flying performance. Quality is decreasing because the # of flight hours has decreased. Nothing replaces experience. You can teach a monkey to fly with enough time. 

Knew it was buzzing some random synapse in the skull:

 

[Springer]

On 9/3/2019 at 3:32 PM, StoleIt said:

I was bottom of my ROTC class, had a gentleman's 2.7 GPA, and (still) questionable leadership...but I did somehow manage to fly a bunch of members of congress around the world and pass my OME last week. 🤷‍♂️

 

On 9/3/2019 at 3:09 PM, Danger41 said:

 Sometimes collegiate performance translates to piloting ability. Often it doesn’t. I put zero stock into someone’s pedigree when I make my assessment.

Bingo, how low can we go?  Long haired surfer/sailing dude from Hawaii, 2.3 GPA, 2 yr ROTC program an after thought, UPT DG, Phantom driver, ret DAL.  Who would have thought.

Ayz33, don't sell short Homstar's remarks about chair flying.  I locked myself in a room and chair flew each and every flight for hours while classmates were out playing water volleyball.

 

Edited September 6, 2019 by Springer