Marine Jets: The Good, Bad, and Ugly.

[KBayDog]

While we are at it, how about an honest assessment of what it actually means to be current, proficient, and "turn boxes green." A former TOPGUN IP squadron skipper with 2000 hours doesn't need to log a BFM code as often as the guy who just got his wingman qual.

Check that common sense at the hatch, Debbil!

 

[Harrier Dude]

While we are at it, how about an honest assessment of what it actually means to be current, proficient, and "turn boxes green." A former TOPGUN IP squadron skipper with 2000 hours doesn't need to log a BFM code as often as the guy who just got his wingman qual.

If only we had people in the squadron with sufficient experience and judgement that we could trust them with making such assessments on an individual subjective basis rather than on a collective and objective set of made up metrics.

We might consider putting such people in charge of stuff.....if they held our special trust and confidence.

 

[phrogpilot73]

If only we had people in the squadron with sufficient experience and judgement that we could trust them with making such assessments on an individual subjective basis rather than on a collective and objective set of made up metrics.

Holy shit brother, you typed what I was thinking (only more eloquently, since I'm too busy moving my house to think). This is the EXACT same argument we had with two MAWTS instructors about HLL/LLL and refreshing. Which led to one MAWTS guy saying "Fucking Reservists" as he walked away. Never mind the fact that he was talking to: 1. His classmate from USNA, who had the EXACT same career path as him, minus leaving active duty, and B. His squadron WTI. Who trained him to fly on goggles. When he was a know-nothing boot. Who decided to leave active duty.

These "metrics" only serve to make a fitrep bullet somewhere... Not to make us combat effective. Not to make us be good stewards of the gubments money...

 

[MasterBates]

So in short, someone's desire for a superior FITREP left us with an inferior product.. Again.

 

[C420sailor]

"Hey you see that red ship down there?"
"Yup"
"What does it look like?"
"A cargo ship?"
"RECCE---log it."

 

[Brett327]

If only we had people in the squadron with sufficient experience and judgement that we could trust them with making such assessments on an individual subjective basis rather than on a collective and objective set of made up metrics.

We might consider putting such people in charge of stuff.....if they held our special trust and confidence.

In effect, that's how SORTS works though, and for those who haven't had the pleasure of dealing with that world, the CO can give their "expert" assessment of what the squadron's true C rating is despite what the numbers might say. Those who have been around long enough know that there have historically been instances where readiness reporting requirements were more lax and there were also some cases where it was abused big time.

Dont get me wrong, current T&R/SORTS reporting is still a huge abortion of a mess, but at least it makes the CO weigh in on the quantitative data when making adjustments to readiness ratings, rather than giving them the ability to just generate message traffic that tells higher that his squadron is a full up round when it may not be.

 

[Harrier Dude]

In effect, that's how SORTS works though, and for those who haven't had the pleasure of dealing with that world, the CO can give their "expert" assessment of what the squadron's true C rating is despite what the numbers might say. Those who have been around long enough know that there have historically been instances where readiness reporting requirements were more lax and there were also some cases where it was abused big time.

Dont get me wrong, current T&R/SORTS reporting is still a huge abortion of a mess, but at least it makes the CO weigh in on the quantitative data when making adjustments to readiness ratings, rather than giving them the ability to just generate message traffic that tells higher that his squadron is a full up round when it may not be.

I used to be the Division SORTS officer. A "huge abortion of a mess" would be a quantum leap forward.

You're looking at it from a larger perspective I think in terms of unit readiness. I'm thinking about the T&R on a smaller, more individual level. It has grown too complicated and unwieldy in the futile and misguided aim of universal standardization.

Basically, I don't think that the Marine Corps has to quantify what makes a section lead, division lead, LAT(I), etc. We have COs and experienced department heads that can define that on an individual basis. Same with readiness.

 

[KBayDog]

We might consider putting such people in charge of stuff.....if they held our special trust and confidence.

Does. Not. Compute.

 

[Brett327]

I used to be the Division SORTS officer. A "huge abortion of a mess" would be a quantum leap forward.

You're looking at it from a larger perspective I think in terms of unit readiness. I'm thinking about the T&R on a smaller, more individual level. It has grown too complicated and unwieldy in the futile and misguided aim of universal standardization.

Basically, I don't think that the Marine Corps has to quantify what makes a section lead, division lead, LAT(I), etc. We have COs and experienced department heads that can define that on an individual basis. Same with readiness.

Concur. I've seen some of the other service's SORTS reporting requirements and they make ours look like a walk in the park. Ultimately, it's a bureaucracy's solution to unit level readiness, not the other way around.

I'm not familiar with USMC reporting (and maybe this is a bad example), but our various quals (sect/div lead, etc, etc) aren't "justified" through the T&R or SORTS systems. Wickets for the qual are managed by TypeWing/Weps School, then once the qual is earned, you add it cumulatively in SORTS. Same for ACTC numbers. Is your different than that?

 

[Harrier Dude]

I've been out of the qual loop in the Harrier for awhile, but essentially there are X number of T&R codes that must be completed before a pilot can get a qual. Some of them are very poorly thought out, irrelevant to current requirements, and do not allow sufficient intervention by leadership to either speed up a guy who's ready, or slow down/eliminate a guy who's not.

Best example is the A/A stuff. There are multiple codes required to make SL, when it's not required for current deployments, is a completely perishable skill set, and detracts from essential training in a resource constrained environment. We had a bunch of guys (like Squeeze) stuck at "almost section lead" for months while we were short on qualified flight leads. This ended up flying the crap out of department heads like me (thanks, ops!) while the very guys who actually needed the hours were stuck waiting on training that they really didn't need.

A CO ought to be able to make designations like that without subjecting the designee to the wrath of a MAWTS IP on subsequent quals.

It also leads to resource sucking quals like ACT(I) that drain the squadron of aircraft and flight time just so we can make more of the same useless quals later.

 

[Brett327]

In my world, the CO signs almost every qual letter (except Lvl 5 and NVGI), so he's ultimately "the decider" on those things. YMMV, apparently.

 

[Harrier Dude]

In my world, the CO signs almost every qual letter (except Lvl 5 and NVGI), so he's ultimately "the decider" on those things. YMMV, apparently.

Signing the letter and being the decider are two different things, sadly.

 

[phrogpilot73]

...essentially there are X number of T&R codes that must be completed before a pilot can get a qual. Some of them are very poorly thought out, irrelevant to current requirements, and do not allow sufficient intervention by leadership to either speed up a guy who's ready, or slow down/eliminate a guy who's not.

Truth.

In order to be "CQ" you have to do unaided FCLPs/CQs. But even if you never do them, you can fly passengers out to the boat.

 

[pourts]

I've been out of the qual loop in the Harrier for awhile, but essentially there are X number of T&R codes that must be completed before a pilot can get a qual. Some of them are very poorly thought out, irrelevant to current requirements, and do not allow sufficient intervention by leadership to either speed up a guy who's ready, or slow down/eliminate a guy who's not.

Best example is the A/A stuff. There are multiple codes required to make SL, when it's not required for current deployments, is a completely perishable skill set, and detracts from essential training in a resource constrained environment. We had a bunch of guys (like Squeeze) stuck at "almost section lead" for months while we were short on qualified flight leads. This ended up flying the crap out of department heads like me (thanks, ops!) while the very guys who actually needed the hours were stuck waiting on training that they really didn't need.

A CO ought to be able to make designations like that without subjecting the designee to the wrath of a MAWTS IP on subsequent quals.

It also leads to resource sucking quals like ACT(I) that drain the squadron of aircraft and flight time just so we can make more of the same useless quals later.

On the Hornet side, the T&R is pretty relevant and appropriate for individual syllabi. In my opinion, the problem is with reporting squadron readiness and keeping the boxes green. These aren't the exact figures, but lets say some document somewhere says you need 8 pilots current (having flown within 90 days or something like that) in low altitude Self-Escort strike. It doesn't matter if one of those 8 is the brand new guy who got thrown into the event at the last minute and told "just don't lose sight." It also doesn't matter if you have a double patch-wearer Mission Commander who did the event 91 days ago. The nugget counts toward readiness and the more experienced pilot doesn't. Nevermind the fact that if the squadron did the mission for real the guy who didn't get counted as being current would be one of the guys who actually head down range.

 

[ElFuego]

@ usmarinemike, I show up to Cherry Point in Feb, start in April. Good this is, I heard that they stopped making newly winged aviators stand duty.