USMC F/A-18 from USAFA?

[American_Ace]

my .02

I heard from a 2 dig at USAFA that kids who were below the 900-mark in the class were getting slots at UPT(Unified Pilot Training). However getting into UPT doesn't mean you'll get a plane. I talked to a KC-10 pilot who went to USAFA and he said that about 1 in 4 wash out. He also said UPT takes 13 months, and it was more difficult than the academy. I forgot how long the rest of the training takes. Also, he said in the past three months he had gotten 150 hours, and he said it was normal, the war wasn't giving him any more stick time.

Also, my dad was an intel officer. He said if I wanted to take off from a runway that would be there when I got back, fly 200 miles behind enemy lines, blow up an expensive target, and come back, with a little a2a, then join the AF. But he said if I wanted to land on a boat, use the coast line for an IP, and fly CAS or protect the fleet, then join the navy or marines. I'm relaying what my dad told me, and he was an officer for 13+ years, so I trust him. It always goes to the philosophy that I've heard from sooo many people; in the AF, pilots are first, but in the Navy or Marines, they are just supplements to the men/ships. One is not better than the other, they're just different. And yeah, I know it's a tough decision, but the AF gave me about $40,000 for college to help persuade me. Go Air Force.

 

[squeeze]

It always goes to the philosophy that I've heard from sooo many people; in the AF, pilots are first, but in the Navy or Marines, they are just supplements to the men/ships.

Semper I.
there you have it.

 

[American_Ace]

Yeah. It makes sense, too. In the AF, everyone is supporting one guy, on his rocket sled, 200 miles from any other friendlies. In the Marines, everyone is focussed on advancing the troops (expeditionary force), and in the navy everyone is worried about, well, the navy (the ships). This is just how I see it though.

 

[American_Ace]

uhhh... Just talked to my dad... shouldn't have mentioned the auditor thing... Just forget what I said about that. My dad definitely knew the type of missions each service flew, but he got out of AD almost ten years ago.

 

[American_Ace]

This is completely pointless, but it's funny http://www.edodo.org/2002/12/sd-upt.gif

I feel it fits in well here

hehe, and this one:
http://www.edodo.org/2002/12/sd-briefing.gif

here's a good one:
http://www.edodo.org/2002/12/ping-rajah.gif

 

[NozeMan]

Every time I read one of Integer's posts, I want to tear my hair out. so STOP

 

[American_Ace]

Integer does make a point about the AF. I saw on some USAFA promotional brochure or something (they sent me a f***ing ton of those things) that pilots only make up 2% of the AF, but something like 60% of the AFA become pilots. My liason officer is convinced the only reason I'm not going to the AFA this summer is because my vision isn't pilot qual (even though flying is the reason I'm joining the AF), despite PRK and it's high success rate. I'm even inelegible for USAFA's scholarships and the prep school because they want everyone to be pilot qual.

 

[manny7_99]

ha!

Every time I read one of Integer's posts, I want to tear my hair out. so STOP

At least somebody feels my pain. :icon_smil

 

[usunkmybship]

Hehe, I came across that edodo site before. Some messed up comics.

 

[HerrLURP]

A pilot slot is not guaranteed at all. It used to be that around 50% of all AFA cadets who wanted to be pilots couldn't be, because of their eyes. With PRK that percentage has changed significantly, but still it's not a guarantee at all.

 

[phrogdriver]

my .02

However getting into UPT doesn't mean you'll get a plane. I talked to a KC-10 pilot who went to USAFA and he said that about 1 in 4 wash out. He also said UPT takes 13 months, and it was more difficult than the academy. I forgot how long the rest of the training takes. Also, he said in the past three months he had gotten 150 hours, and he said it was normal, the war wasn't giving him any more stick time. .

A KC-10 is a tanker. That's 150 hours flying in circles. Between that and rubbing salt in my urethra, I'll have to get back to you on that one. Giving hours by a 3 month block seems a little weird. I will give flight hours in terms of per month, per year, or total overall, but 3 months is a weird increment, like 67.3 days. It makes me think that guy was probably participating in something unusual during that particular time.

In any case, I don't think many non-heavy airframes AF, USN, or USMC see that kind of flt time, sustained. I mean, I've had 70 and 80 hour months, but not repeatedly.

1 in 4 attrition seems a bit high for multis, but maybe I should defer to the "training at Vance or Moody" threads.

 

[American_Ace]

I talked to that guy for a while. He used '3 months' because he had been out of flight school for three months. I also specifically asked if the war was giving him more flight hours and he said it wasn't. He said about an equal number of guys go into UPT from the academies as ROTC (he gave me specifi numbers, but I forgot), and he said the AFA has an 8% failure rate, and ROTC has 16%, grand total of 24% fail. He said it was really intense and the guys failed because they couldn't hack it, not because they didn't have the heart. The reason more AFA guys survive is because they went through the 'pressure-cooker,' and now that the smack year is gone, evryone is afraid more AFA guys will fail.

 

[phrogdriver]

If equal numbers come from the academy and ROTC, and 8% of academy grads fail, while 16% of ROTC grads fail, wouldn't the failure rate be 12%?

Hey, I'm just a NROTC grad, but it seems you should average the numbers, not add them.

If he's been out of flt school 3 months, do those hours include the RAG?

 

[H20man]

holy crap... why does everyone forget about the USMMA. It is a Federal Service Academy.

You can get your commission in any of the branches of the military, so im not as limited as the ppl at the other academies or the ROTC ppl.

i dont care about flight time, i want to go to what interests me.

 

[Integer]

If equal numbers come from the academy and ROTC, and 8% of academy grads fail, while 16% of ROTC grads fail, wouldn't the failure rate be 12%?

No. Say there are always 700 students who graduate from the AFA as seniors who want to fly (of 1200 total, I'd guess.) An 8% failure rate means 644 got a flight spot.

Say there are 2000 students who graduate ROTC every year who want to fly. If 16% of them fail, that's 1680 who make it.

For the average/total failure rate to be calculated, we would also have to include OCS and other sources! Which I won't do. But the avg success rate "just between AFA and AFROTC" in my example would be: (total success/total) 2324/2700 or 86%, thus the failure rate would be 14%. So, if the statistic that AA quoted about 24% was not a statistic but he just added the two totals, that's incorrect. Also, averaging the percentages is also incorrect.

Also, statistics are just history that hopefully describe a lot of people to be meaningful. They are not applicable on an individual level. Statistics help us describe events that could be compared to the statistics of other events that happened, such as when you're comparing the history of one thing to the history of another thing. For predicting the future of society, however, they are less valuable. For predicting one individual, and saying, aww, you only had a 10% chance to succeed (based on statistics where only 1 in 10 people achieve something, etc.), it wouldn't work. That particular person could have had no chance whatsoever of getting in.

Also, even when we trust that the future outcome WILL be only a 10% chance success rate ( like say, people guaranteeing that they will allow only 10% to be accepted, something can easily happen that makes it 9.98% or 10.1% that are accepted instead of 10% ), meaning that in the end, 1 in 10 only are guaranteed success, that doesn't work on an individual level. On an individual level, the 1 in 10 only works if everybody is picked completely randomly. If that is the case, and you know that in the end, 1 in 10 are picked, then that (or any) person's chance of getting in is 1 in 10. However, that is never true in life. So, if there are 2400 qualified people for an Academy, and 1200 WILL be chosen, the odds are 1 in 2... and that is what incidentally the Academy states the odds are for strong candidates.

Are each person's odds 1 in 2? NO. There is only a very very very small chance that everybody's odds are 1 in 2, and if that situation happened, there is a good chance that it would have happened because of random selections, which guarantees (only mathematically) that there is a 1 in 2 chance for each applicant. Most people will have odds that could be 1%, 95%, etc, even though obviously only half the strong candidates get in.