dbtownley

Easy fix:

1. Grade to CTS. Most people do not when necessary, thus "passing the trash" and it only gets harder to attrite the further through you get. Flying ain't a job for everybody, but I appreciate those who try.

Please don't forget that these "kids" that we are talking about have volunteered to join the military in a time of war. They know full well that when they signed the bottom line that in the short future they will be overseas in harms way. People always say that the WWII folks are the greatest generation, but weren't they drafted? Today's military fighter is volunteer, that is true greatness. And especially today (11/11) Thanks to those that have served, are serving, and are thinking of serving. Thank you.

SaltyDog

All good discussion. Agree with much of what is stated, but offer this view from 15 years experience training aviators and being involved in a Congressional and Navy 'review' of military pilot training attrition at one time.
It is true that the washout rate has changed. Responsible factors: 1. Costs (Always primary) 2. Changes in the all volunteer force. 3. Culture shift. 4. Congressional mandates, especially significant was the fiscal year 1994 Congress mandated reductions in manpower throughout the military and the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 1995 (Public Law 103-337, Section 533) PERSONNEL READINESS FACTORS BY RACE AND GENDER that requires that the Department of Defense annually submit a report of readiness factors by race and gender as part of the annual Department of Defense posture statement.
Costs has always been a factor. Suffice to say cost is and has always been closely scrutinized and in todays environment, it is more so as the number of metrics monitored and debated have increased dramatically. What is also different is the impact the all volunteer force and culture shift has had on our target pool of candidates.
Since women have been allowed in combat aircraft roles since the early 90’s, Congress mandated that each service achieve personnel goals of certain demographics (Minorities/Women). The stated reason is simple: In the long term, the Department of Defense must continue to improve the military image and culture so that it remains an attractive option for those who serve, and those who might consider such service. i.e we need all segments of our society to freely serve in our military. Pilots in particular due to cost and military value are a national asset. For an interesting detour( the reason , in part, the military dramatically escalated obligated service times for aviators) this Rand report examines the cost and careers of USAF pilot officers. http://www.rand.org/pubs/reports/2008/R690.pdf
This Rand report from 1971 in part concludes that increasing service obligations makes pilots more cost effective.
Mixing the factors all together: Cost is important. It is expensive to wash out trainees IF there is a chance at successful completion. Now deemed more cost effective to continue flight training if successful outcome achievable. We need all segments of our population serve in the all volunteer force. To be successful, DoD must change mistaken impressions and counter negative publicity. Additionally, USAF/Navy/Marines/Army competed for the same pool of qualified and most important, women interested in flying. It was just plain tough to interest high numbers of women/minorities into these fields (culture). ( As a recruiter once explained, if I talk to 100 white males about flying, 15 would be interested, 100 women only 3 , etc. might be interested ). Once in training, if you had a FY target of 100 women/100 minority and applied a standard washout rate of x percent, then the political reality was that the washed out women and minorities would attract attention all the way up to Congress as required by law. The reality was that the standard washout criteria applied to women and minorities meant that DOD lost people they did not want to lose. They were very hard to get in the first place! The effort was then at screening better and a willingness to extend additional training. In a military act of standardization, this meant that all pilot trainees were given more opportunities to succeed. Hence, today, since the early 90’s, with all 4 factors applied, we have seen a migration away from hard and fast application of “3 downs/hooks” and out type criteria. The impact of such actions are debatable on many fronts, but the services generally trust their commanders to ultimately make the right call in each case.

CAFB 04-12

Any ideas on the influence of the IFT program? When I did IFT in 2002 it was a self-help program at the local FBO that got a fella a private pilot certificate. Perhaps the modern IFT program is sifting out those that would have normally washed out of UPT "back in the day."

When I graduated CAFB in 2004 we had only washed out 1 stud (Tweets). One stud later washed out of F-15C RTU and was reassigned to B-1s. I don't remember anyone in my T-1 class that didn't have moldable pilot skills.

I don't know that recent mishaps are necessarily attributable to poor pilot skills (C-5 Dover, and, ahem, C-17 vs KC-135 over Hawaii -- all piloted by pre-SNAP pilots if I remember correctly), however I do agree that the pilot force is less academically inclined than previous generations that were raised reading the Dash-1 while sitting alert in the SAC alert facility.

My weaknesses? Academic knowledge (especially GK involving math), dealing with en-route C2, and a deep knowledge of weather phenomena (beyond the basics). Fortunately the Sq/CC still allows me to fly the occasional 1A1 mission.

Perhaps what's missing is the desire to constantly learn and improve.

USMCFLYR

Just found out tonight that this very thing happened recently where I am stationed. A transition pilot who did average thorugh the FRS has been FENAB (gone in front of a performance board) and has been kicked out of the Hornet community. I di not know if this pilot kept his wings (I suppose he did because he didnt do anything malicious - like unauthorized fly-bys or have a Class A mishap attributable to negligence) but it was more based on tactical performance in the squadron and performance at his ground job and standing within the squadron I understand.

So to answer your question in this case KBAR; if a pilot knows that they are weak in one or more areas then they need to seek the plentiful help from within the squadron. I have seen very few ever voluntarily give up their wings (meaning giving up flying not actually having their wings taken).

USMCFLYR

Hacker15e

Nope...that's NOT the "easy fix".

The PROBLEM is leadership, not the IPs. In my experience, IPs are grading appropriately.

It is UPT Wing Commanders that are the problem, plain and simple. There is probably a root cause higher in the AETC/19th AF command structure as well...but for the sake of Commanders being responsible for what happens at their wings, I'll point the blame at their level.

UPT Wing Commanders judge their "success" based on how many of their students graduate the program. Students washing out is seen as a failure of the instruction, not as a failure on the part of the student. As such, it is in a Wing CC's best interest to reinstate every washout that they possibly can. That minimizes washouts and paints their training wing as having a "successful" training program.

When I was an IFF IP, we gauged our success as a squadron on how well our graduates were prepared for follow on training, e.g. FTU. When one of our graduated students washed out of an FTU, we were all briefed on what happened and looked at how we could have changed our training to keep that from happening again. Leadership NEVER cared how many students we washed out (that was a reflection on how well/poorly UPT prepared their graduates for our program)...they were only concerned if a bunch of students we had put the "seal of approval" on washed out of the FTUs.

As mentioned earlier, though, even the IFF units have had to submit to this ridiculous measure of "success" now that they've become part of the UPT wings. Friends I have that are still IFF instructors relate to me that EVERY student bust HAS to be run through the DO first! Even worse, they tell me that about half the time the DOs will pressure them to NOT bust the student.

So, until UPT wings STOP measuring success on how many students graduate, we will not see a change to this problem.

SaltyDog

Agreed per my post above, the metric of success for leadership is NOT washing out. It is the same in the Navy. Upside down, but the history I posted is accurate.

skyward80

I am lucky enough to be in squadron filled to the brim with old heads. These guys were all around "back in the day". I am part of the newer/kinder USAF and it SUCKS. Bring back the old Air Force!

We had a couple of boneheads get through training. These guys were so bad our instructors had to tell us to chill out on assisting them through things like stand up, test prep, etc. I remember during a sortie debrief one afternoon my flight partner (we'll call him Dopey) interrupted our LtCol IP to ask if he could go microwave some food. I turned 20 different shades of red and waited for what I was sure would be his demise. Unfortunately, this toad was excused from debrief.

These guys couldn't polish boots, busted boldface during the final weeks of training, were in a constant state of remedial training, and somehow made it through.

The USAF is hurting itself by allowing this to happen. Part of the issue is my generation (I'm late 20s) is full of people who can't take criticism, people who require somebody to wipe their tushy for them, and somebody else to tell them how they're special and different from all the other little pilots. This is the freakin' military! Don't tell me how I made a good effort etc. Tell me how I messed something up, how to fix it, and I will do so. If you can't take a little instruction from Fear and his friend Intimidation, you DO NOT BELONG.

Sorry for the rant. At least this wasn't a thread about my generation's idiotic sense of entitlement to everything around them as though they deserve good living in the US instead of having to work for it. That would really get me going.

Skyward80

ClipperJet

It's been said before, but the washout rate is all about cost.

Of course, all of this assumes that they do, in fact, meet standards before they get to the front lines. Letting incompetent guys get mission ready is another issue.

If a student is already into Phase 3 (T-38/T-1) the govt has invested a HUGE amount of money into this individual's training. If that person runs into trouble, the commander is faced with two options: 1. To wash him/her out, and, 2. Give him/her additional training so they can meet standards.

A good commander will take the most effective and cheapest option.

To replace a washed out student, you have to bring another kid all the way through UPT to place they are in the syllabus. That’s big money, and lots of time. When you compare that to a couple of extra review sims/and sorties it's often the correct decision to give the addition training. The goal is to get a competent war fighter to the front lines a quickly as possible.

I spent many years teaching in white jets, most of that in Check Section and Stan Eval. Never once did a supervisor try to influence they way I graded a specific sortie. "Call it like you see it..." was the mantra, no matter the washout rate du jour. It’s not the line IPs job to decide if that individual should get more training or washed out, and it shouldn’t be.

I’ve never heard of a wing commander being “graded” on the washout rate. I think their career path is pretty much already decide BEFORE they are given a wing. As long as they don’t, ahem, mess up big time, they are already “chosen children” and picked for the fast track. A couple of washed out students won’t make a difference.

I agree totally that the entire outlook of the military has changed, though, not just UPT. I read a while back that trainees at basic training could call for a "timeout" if the Drill Sgt was being too tough on them, which I found to be unimaginable.

HercDriver130

Well said Skyward80.

If its all about costs.... what about the weak one who slides thru and later destroys a 100 million ( or substantially more ) airframe and kills a few...hum.. i know... thats a different pile of money so its not AETC's problem.
Hell like I previously stated we graduated 27.... and one of those should never have...... at least in comparison to those who did.

SoPinesHeel

I have been very critical of the air force at times but I will speak to the C-130community that I know. I actually think the pilots coming out now are actually better!

I was a traditional copilot when I came through training in 2000 and now the C-130 uses the MPD program where new pilots are left seat trained from the start like in other airlifters. When I was a young copilot I was always told how much better and tougher it used to be. When the new MPD pilots started showing up in 2005, the old head Majors/Lt Cols also complained how bad they were, how easy they had it, how they didn't know how to talk on the radio, pilot training was so much tougher when they went through etc. etc.

Man I wish I had video of some of those old dudes when they were new Lts in the 80s...

After flying with the MPDs for a couple of years now I actually think they are better hands on pilots then I ever was in their position because they were pilots from the start and not copilots.

From my parents to pilots on this forum, everyone always thinks they had it tougher and it was better back in the day...funny thing though is that if it was then we would all still be living in caves and trying to hunt/gather our food.