That's the training pipeline I remember…Semper Fi right back at you...
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
IFS down the tubes?
- Thread starter Carny
- Start date
Tonkovich.J
Member
I'm not really sure what you're tasking MB for. e6bflyer flew with them (as did I) and they didn't solo. I'd let them do all the same stuff as well as T/O and land (usually with help, but not always). In the fleet, I'd let them land and take off in the -60, as well as fly around. Generally I frown upon doing spins in the -60, so I didn't let them do that.
e6bflyer made it sound like they had an advanced flight training after their primary so I wondered about that and if they soloed there. And I was wondering what the typical FS does when they fly (since I figured you guys flew with them at a training command where the rules might be different).
Ahh, gotcha. Jim/Kbay/et al would have more info on that. I know they go fly at the HTs (and try to hover). I can't remember if they go on to VT(j) for a syllabus there.
When I headed back to Corpus as an IP in 2008, I believe the brief we got said there had been minimal impact on pilot attrition since IFS was introduced. My guesses on why its still going are either there was a defined period of time they wanted (it's not been just over 10 years since everybody started doing IFS), or they want to see if there's a change once everyone is in T-6s.
As a multi-engine IP, my best student had 2000 hours, prior regional pilot before picking up an ANG spot. Next best was pretty close in talent, way ahead of the rest, and had only IFS.
I don't think IFS makes a huge difference in performance in flight school for the vast majority of students.
As a multi-engine IP, my best student had 2000 hours, prior regional pilot before picking up an ANG spot. Next best was pretty close in talent, way ahead of the rest, and had only IFS.
I don't think IFS makes a huge difference in performance in flight school for the vast majority of students.
As an update, IFS is still on hold due to lack of funds. It might open back up with new quarter starting March 1st since this could mean the allocation and shifting of some money. The idea being floated around that waivers could be granted so that students would start API without IFS has been "relatively squashed" (words from Divo).
Figuratively, A Pool just got a water feature to enhance the fun factor in the form of more waiting around as spring rapidly approaches. Let the beer flow like wine.
Figuratively, A Pool just got a water feature to enhance the fun factor in the form of more waiting around as spring rapidly approaches. Let the beer flow like wine.
Isn't the whole point of the ASTB to gauge aeronautical knowledge/aptitude, and to predict applicants' likelihood of attrition during OCS/flight training? Sure, it's not the same as actually sitting in the cockpit, but still, it's something. As for determination and motivation, I would think that most of the people who aren't determined or motivated to become NA/NFO's would wash out in OCS, before they even get to Primary. I don't pretend to know much (anything) about whether IFS is helpful or not in screening applicants before Primary, but it just seems a bit redundant to me, especially given the budget situation. It makes more sense to drop IFS and raise the bar a little bit on the ASTB if the Navy is so worried about attrition.
At least in theory. Again, since there's no info on how IFS is at predicting/preventing attrition in Primary, it's hard to say for sure. Just my thoughts.
The new version of the ASTB should be rolling out in March/April timeframe the last time I went in and was a guinea pig for testing. Per the A Pool Divo, there have been some studies done that show with IFS there was a drop of 4 to 5 percentage points with regards to attrition in the T-6 II during Primary. The ASTB is a meh basis (IMO) since you can easily cram that knowledge into your brain and then dump it after scoring high enough to stand out to a board. Especially with the massive amount of gouge on this site and others for the current versions.
With the stick and throttle portion being added with the Math, Reading Comp and Mechanical being revamped, I think there will be a noticeable drop in the number of truly high scores (8-9 range). I know my scores would be nowhere near as high after seeing the example used during my time as a NAMI statistic.
For motivation, I would say yes and no about the OCS factor. Everyone's OCS experience is very different whilst still going through the same program. Some truly do have it easier than others.
On a somewhat related note for that, congratulations on the Pro-Rec. Keep your eye on the closest alligator to the canoe and you will be fine at OCS since the suck is guaranteed.
I would agree to an extent. From what I hear, it's meant to test aptitude more than knowledge, so there's only so much that can be done by cramming. I know the reason I did as well as I did is because I've been essentially studying it for three years (my degree is Aero Sci).
Yeah, I have to wonder if the timing isn't more than a coincidence, that is, the stick-and-throttle being added and the IFS being put on hold. Of course, the IFS part is probably more due to the budget situation, but it'd still dovetail pretty nicely if they end up getting rid of it completely.
Thanks
phrogpilot73
Well-Known Member
I asked our flight surgeon when I was still in the fleet about their training pipeline. She said that they do something similar to API, then plug them in into whatever squadron can fit them, be it VT or HT. She said that some of them get to fly the T-34/T-6, some get to fly the TH-57, generally they don't get to do both. We had this discussion shortly before she hovered for the first time in her life. And I was working my ass off as the HAC...
ASTB scores really doesn't have any bearing on how a student does in flight training- one could argue that it projects success at API, but API isn't flight training. When it comes to stick skills- some guys got it, and some don't and some guys are in the middle. Officer accession programs and flight training are very different beasts. Being successful in the former doesn't mean you'll be successful in the latter and vice versa.
I wonder if it's dependent on the timing of their training track. There was a guy that came through VT-6 as a SFD and I flew a couple of events with him (he had his private and actually flew at the same field I did growing up). He said he was going down to NDZ next. After a few weeks/months, he showed back up as our assigned flight doc. Maybe he just had time. Also, good dude and the "right" kind of flight doc.
Several years ago (in the mid-2000s), the flight surgeons did both VT and HT. I remember the ones going through HTs talking about how they'd flown the T-34s a few weeks prior. Since then, a lot of them did either/or... which is a shame. The low level nav flights (one syllabus flight) and night fams (also one syllabus flight) we did with them in the HTs were probably the most valuable and eye-opening "exposure" flights they got in the training command- I'd like to think that that those particular flights really drives the point home of what kind of focus is required in a cockpit... and that the experience would figure into a decision whether to write an up chit or a down chit. JMHO.
