Originally Posted by
BlueScholar
The question is how relevant are those numbers? There are many possible explanations behind that trend. Maybe after several decades of UPT, we're getting better at making our training more effective. Maybe as training costs rise, we have become more selective about who we bring into UPT. Maybe technology like glass cockpits has made flying easier. Maybe tools like the internet and youtube and VR and flight sims make it more likely that students that would have washed out 40 years ago are now understanding aviation concepts better and they are able to graduate. Maybe the focus is less about how many screws are in some obscure component we can't see or control and more about flying the damn plane.
Were pilots and retirees in 1996 clutching their pearls about the washout rate being reduced by ~40%? Did that mean the AF was broken and a massive safety hazard from 97-07? Somehow I don't think that is the case.
That's all part of the report about wash out rates and the changes in the percentages. Part of the big push, that's been stopped, then re-invented, about getting candidates more flying time before they get to SUPT was having your PPL was a predictor of better success. Instrument rating even more so during my service years, CFI, or more, was even better. Years ago the typical SUPT candidate my unit hired had something like 800 hrs. Back then that was typically a CFI that had switched to flying MEL or regional jets/truboprops. Most did very well, a couple were midpack FAR'd and only one that I know of didn't get FAR'd and was able to get a transfer to a non-fighter ANG unit. No guarantee, just related to more likely to succeed.