Opinions on the product that Rucker produces?

[raideval42]

Since I'm new I guess I'll throw out a subject that usually raises quite a ruckus...
What do all you IP guys out there think of the product you are receiving out from good old Mother Rucker?? I know that both good and bad come from there and much of it comes down to the individual student and how much effort they put into their time there.
I have always been of the opinion that the Army has been teaching this stuff for a very long time and that it should be a smooth running machine by now, unfortunately I am also of the opinion that it will never be that due to every commander throughout the chain there and above trying to make a change or make a mark to get a good grade. I know many IP's who have been there (including myself) that have beaten there heads up against the wall so much that they finally give up and just go along quietly.
I'm not sure of the answer to fix what I percieve as a major problem. I am sure that the new flight school XXI program is not the answer. I does let new pilots spend more time in their assigned airframe but much of this will be in simulators that have yet to be developed. I think we can spend our resources better in giving them more training in the basic skills in the "legacy" airframes and making the "tough" decision to spend the money to fly the students more time in their assigned airframes.

Anyway let me jump down off the soapbox before I have to take the blood pressure meds.... I am just wondering what the rest of the community is thinking. Hopefully, since there are alot of intelligent, common sense pilots out there like myself. Maybe a solution can be arrived at that may convince the higher ups that we need to think about where we are headed....

:wall:

[Grunt]

im of the belief that a student just out of flight school should need maybe 15 hours as an RL3 aviator..had cases where its been upwards of 30.

imho a pilot coming right out of flight school and AQC should be ready for mission training and not need a whole lot of RL3 instruction - thats what the AQC is right? RL3 training?

Is this due to IPs at Rucker letting some students 'pass go' before the're ready, and assuming that 'well, the'll just get the training at their unit'? I know rucker has to 'push' students through, but perhaps some need more than 'a re-check'.

Spending mass amounts of hours on a new pilot in places like korea, where the influx of RL3 aviators is constant really puts a pinch on the ATP/battle rosters/etc.

Perhaps like you said, FS21 might seem to cure some of this. People learn different - what might take one individual 2 hours to learn, it might take a different individual 10 hours. Maybe FS21 will give rucker the flexibility to spend more time on weak areas instead of force feeding?

[palehorse18]

Speaking from nearly the end of the chain (WOBC) I can tell you that I don't see much difference between the FSXXI guys and the 58C BCS students (other than the know it all outlook from some of the FSXXI W1s). I totally agree that when I got to the unit I was full on ready to demonstrate the RL3 tasks to standard and move on (I was a 58C BCS guy in '98). I don't think that the FSXX1 program is the fix either. Yeah, they get more time in the airframe but it doesn't help in growing a more proficient aviatior in my opinion.

[cstuart]

Maybe if they stuctured it more on an individual type instead of an hour limit, also if they would switch up IP's a lot more then the student must study. That is how I saw it and I graduated in DEC from AQC

[AndyMiller]

My response pretty much echoes the first 2 respondants... more time in the 58D (FS XXI), does not necessarily make a better 58D aviator than a 58C to 58D AQC. And this is only "interim FS XXI", once the full-blown version comes out, their total flight time will be less than it is now for FS XXI.

An example is the 58C vs. 58D "BCS", we are teaching the FS XXI guys more information in the 58D in less than 2 weeks (9 training days) what the 58C guys are teaching over about 20 training days , then *boom* we're off to NVG quals, then back to the BCS stuff with NVGs, again in less time than their 58C-BCS brethren (16 training days). I don't know the exact number of training days for the 58C flight school, but I know damn well than BCS and NVG/BCS took a lot longer than 25 training days! (30 fly-days for day BCS according to my logbook I kept in flight school; 11 nights of flying during NVG phase... 41 fly-days <no, I didn't have set-backs, and yes, I am that anal>).

So it bears the question... the the hell thought this was a good idea? Some O-6 who needed a good OER-1 bullet? "Devised a way to shorten flight school saving the Army $XXX,XXX a year, and helped to secure a great post-Army-retirement job with a potential simulations contractor in the process."

Oh, by the way, if you've seen the new issue of "Rotor & Wing", there is an article about the new AVCATT-A that should have the word "advertisement" underneath it; in September 2002, a bunch of us IPs from Rucker were sent out TDY to Arlington, TX to help assess the system and "validate" it for fielding. I can assure you no one in our group thought well enough of it to drop quarters in it at a mall-based video arcade, much less to field it to the Army (a whole other rant there...)

My left arm is numb, and my tunnel vision is kicking in, a sure sign my blood pressure is building to new levels...

Y'all fly safe, and also a hearty "welcome home" to our pals over in 1-82 ATK, glad you all made it home safely!

[raideval42]

Andy,
The sylabus for 58A/C BCS is 60 day and 60 flt hours. Remember though it is divided into contact, BCS, then NVG's. About 26 of those hours are Day BCS. As far as the items taught, you'll have to go visit the wonderkids at BDE to figure out why they have taken out many of the tasks once taught. I think when I first taught it back in 92 we did a good job of producing fairly competent pilots. (that's when we had ACS and BCS) Now that we only eliminate about 11 students total a year out of IERW we have lost touch with the standards that we once kept. Now they can bust 4, 5, 6 times and get extra time and move along. Many of the IP's over there now days have just gotten tired of complaining and are just going along quietly. If you want to talk to someone over in the 212th about what complaints you may have with the FS21 students coming out of the Basic Nav course they teach now give CW3 Dan MacGregor a call.(255-4043) He still likes to stir the pot up a little when given the proper ammo. Hopefully if everybody can show cause up through the system we can change it...

[Redwolf82nd]

Hello all! I usually don't put my two-cents in but what the hell...............if the Army did it like the Navy does then we would not be having this conversation! You can teach a WOJ or LT to fly and push buttons at Rucker but to truly be an RL1 pilot takes "mission training" not flying out to the Range and making "calls" to the IP and sending in spot reports to the IP......put them in a mission profile with multiple aircraft and show him hows it done. Like I told the LT in Iraq......Sir, the teaching stops here, this is the real thing. If I have to tell you to do something then your behind the curve! They learn real qucik to get ahead of the aircraft and most importantly to get a-head out of the MFD and "work a mission"! Almost everyone (I say almost everyone) coming out of AQC can fly but what takes the most time to learn is SA and how to "develop a mission". How they learn this is during multi -ship operations on "missions" with the game players involved. I know that this is not always available but what we do as IP's to facilitate this is probably the most important part of our job! Scott Nance said it best to me.....show-up and now 5 and 9 and the ATM, I'll teach you the rest! (not exactly in those terms but you get the point!) I guess what I learned the most from "real world" mission is that alot of the old way of doing buissness won't work anymore and some thinking outside the box will keep you and your wingman alive! My counter part and I have put together some info on what worked and did not work in Iraq.........if anyone is interested drop me a line.
:rockon:

[AndyMiller]

Well-put RedWolf (is that S.Hitman?).
I would love to train guys to be RL1 by time they leave Rucker; we gripe all the time around the office how we don't have the time to get into a lot of the stuff we all know they will need after leaving us (especially these days!). Unfortunately, the Army thinks otherwise. Also, the school-house-Ruckerism is that we are a qualification course, I guess we're not here to make RL1 guys. The damn syllabus doesn't give us that opportunity, as much as we would like it to. I (and most Rucker IPs), try to throw in as much "OPD" and real-world examples of how things work in the real Army as often as we can.
Think it is bad now? Wait 'til full-blown FSXXI kicks in and they are putting out rated aviators with less time than the current FSXXI! And then throw in the damn AVCATT-A and other former-field-grade-officer-turned-simulator-company-lobbyists/contractors-inspired ideas, and it ain't getting any better.

Anyway, throw us what you got RedWolf, either by posting here, or e-mail it out.

:wall:

[AndyMiller]

The B NAV course is being slowly changed so that the student pilots are going to be held to some sort of standard, maybe even have an evaluation at the end of the phase (what a wonderful idea, huh? evaluate the product). Anyway, they are probably going to add the teaching of some basic aviator knowledge, too. Granted it still has to be generic, but shouldn't all aviators know how to send a spot report, call for fire, etc.?
As most things are, it is a work in progress, and of course not everyone will be happy.

Speaking of eliminations, we had a student pilot get setback to my section. Smart enough guy (prior service), could spout out all the right answers for the oral knowledge, but he just could not fly to save anyone's life. Basic contact stuff (VMC approach, traffic pattern, coordinated flight) escaped him. He was awarded block of hours, after blocks of hours. Finally, even our Bn Commander recommended him for elimination from FSXXI. The Aviation Training Briagde commander non-concured, and they sent him to fly regular flight school BCS at Shell to give him yet more chances. To our Bn CO's credit, supposedly he put his foot down regarding the guy coming back to Hanchey for 58D or Apaches. On the other hand, not the Blackhawk world will get another lousy pilot. The guy may be here 'til he is a CW3, but he'll probably graduate.
:wall:

[perrinology101]

Just reading the last reply, I was amazed to see such a revolutionary idea as "add the teaching of some basic aviator knowledge". How much time is wasted both at Rucker and within the units memorizing useless information? The CW4 who gave me one recent checkride wanted me to know to what speed the wheels on a C-17 are pre-spun prior to landing, supposedly because "an aviator has to know all the capabilities of the aircraft flying around him". I continuously hear pilots groaning prior to APARTs that they can never know everything that they're "supposed" to know. Has anyone thought of just eliminating all the extraneous info and concentrating on aircraft and mission? It would require a pretty big overhaul, but possibly a worthwhile one.

[Kruser]

Hey guys-n-gals,

I'll admit, this is my first reply and may be my last but I can't sit and watch from the sidelines on this one. As far as FS XXI goes, I'm with the rest of you wondering who got the good OER for thinking or rethinking up this one. Sure the students are getting a little more time in the airframe prior to leaving Rucker but they have to wait for a WOBC class and spend upwards of two months without touching an aircraft before getting to their units. As far as the standards go and the information taught, I've taught at Lowe, Shell and Hanchey. The standards are just as high at HEY as they are at Shell (If not a little higher). The problem lies with the time available to teach the topics. Andy has it right, we get 10 training days to teach the BCS skills that the guys at Shell are given 27 training days to learn. And with no checkride (as it stands now) at the end of the day phase we find that the students don't feel the information is that important to remember. I would love to have a nickle for every time I've said, "look in the ATM, chapter 8, the information we are giving you is what you will be using for the rest of your Army career flying 58D's." And yet they just don't seem to grasp the concept of remembering information long term.

I know the feelings in the field about Rucker this, and Rucker that, but guys, we have some of the most professional IP's at HEY that I have ever seen. It's not that they don't try and weed out the bad seeds it's just that we have to grade down to the 70% level with a student and if he/she passes well then he/she passes. You know as well as I do, if a student is a 70 percter, he may forget some of what he learned in flight school. Now you have a 69% person or less. If you've read this far you heard about the student who got nearly twice the time alotted for contact and did not get eliminated but was sent back to 58A/C BCS to be given another chance. Are we that hard up for pilots that we must recycle these guys time and time again until they get through???

For those of you who know me, I sometimes stir the pot. Trust me when I say there is more than likely is a better way to do business. Most of the IP's here at Rucker will agree. The problem lies with trying to change the institutional way of thinking, it's like swimming in Jello. You don't get very far, very fast. All your concerns about the product are taken to heart as I've been in your shoes and want to send you the best we can. What I would suggest is to get to your BN & BDE commanders and let them know what you think. Remember, don't just go to them with the problem, have a viable solution to the problem and they will be much more receptive. They in tern need to get together and gang up on Mother Rucker to change the institution. If we work at it from both ends, maybe, just maybe someday we will see some changes for the better.

V/R

[dirtyharry71]

Got into the discussion late on this one. All the points are good.

My concern is attitude. I know some units have had to go so far as to conduct FEB's (I know of two currently) on attitude. I also know the current guidance at Rucker is (KW at least) if a guy ain't cutting it, the BN Commander is conducting a full FEB. Those from the past (TH-55/ Multi-track) met many of our wash outs, who had been put throught another track (UH1) and then went on to continue to struggle (and strangle us) through life. Attitude is everything and the guys coming now have one of two.

1. I'm going to prove I know things and am going to learn as much as I can from the guys who know how to teach.

2. I'm here, I'll do what I have to. As long as I don't feel to much pain, what can they do to me.

#1 is your stud. He will continue to be your SIP unless he gets burnt out watching #2.

#2 is your run of the mill military welfare case. We are seeing a few more of these, because removing people from the process at Rucker is so intensive (and the personel guys are trying so hard to fill slots), they continue their trend at the unit, and the unit can't complete the paper trail due to OPTEMPO or other "distractors". #2 will continue to be a 70 and go guy. He will continue to proceed through life, absorb the IP's time (spoon feeding and constant retraining and prayers that DES won't ask him anything and embarrass the unit) until there is an accident. Then "Everyone" knew about it and "Noone" did anything.

A moment to climb on the Warrant Officer Soap Box: We (once either of these guys get to the unit, regardless of LT or WO1/W2) are responsible to fully train and track these guys. #1 gets my full support and resources. #2 gets my attention and usually extra no notices and development which creates a paper trail. Once in a while you save one. Other times, they will need command assistance for separation. But we all know, the average will continue on and get an early PCS. Thanks to Lee Tutin, they will not get a followon tracking course. I hope this DA help continues.

Off the box and standing by.

[dirtyharry71]

Redwolf: Welcome back.

Agreed, I learned about Pitch Cone Coupling and Transient Torque and the Power Bucket through practical experience fully loaded with a 500 pound extra waiver (not for me, for the aircraft). The Rote stuff moved to the next stage quickly after being scared a few times and then TALKING about it with the senior guys who then EXPLAINED it to me.

The Marine/ Navy also has several posts (Yuma) which has a unit whose sole job is to train units, refresh them from individual to collective joint ops, and support them. In concept, like DES but with facilities to train and assist. Your unit goes to these areas with the commanders requested focus. The unit is supported through the training by the facility and the unit trains on the focused tasks assigned.

Part of the problem this thread is talking about is caused by loss of focus and loss of focused training. My RL progression straight out of flight school was flying three times a week, with the IP assigned, with the mission to become RL1 D/N/NVG. THEN the IP continued to take you out and demonstrate things and help you refine those tasks. Now=a=days, RL progression gets lost in the calendar many times. You sometimes have to fight and compromise just to get a good guy on the schedule. Once he's progressed, for get it. The IP will have minimal time to go out and continue the learning curve in the aircraft and unless you have a good commander, will have trouble getting training time in the hootch. This continues to hinder the problem I posted in my previous thread. Now that 70 guy can really hide.

Sorry if I'm ranting, my butt is still bleeding from our "Assistance" visit. DES was great to see and refreshing. This current team is a great one and asked the same question this thread is covering. They were very receptive and fair in everything. The Safety Geeks walked in with an interesting step and left a curious smell when they left.:wall:

[xrogue18]

My 2 cents:

I just finished a hitch as a BCS IP in Nov '02....I think with every class myself and another IP tried to do at least one training period doing 2-ship mission training with the students. A lot depended on the students and time available, but for those that we got to fly in multi ship mode REALLY appreciated it and said it gave them perspective on what to expect. We actually had one (out of nine I was there for) of the classes do a formation flight training period (of course, we switched out in Florala!), but that was the rare occassion when we actually were ahead of syllabus with exceptionally motivated students...the students really liked it, took lessons learned from it, and had fun - each student got a chance to be flight lead for a leg and had to 'manage' the flight, but we didn't get a chance to do any mission related stuff.

By far the biggest end of course critique comment was the lack of formation flying/multi-ship mission profiles/instruction. At one point our company commander had a proposal to adjust the syllabus to allow 3 days of multi-ship training which the students would fly simulating different acft types (all in the 58C) flying those specific missions; assault/attack/scout, with each student getting a chance to fly each profile. We actually had graphics on a map for the CO to make his bid to BTN CMDR to see if he would take it to Aviation Training Brigade CMDR. I think it was shot down, or maybe it is still pending, who knows. The problem from the IP side was that not all IP's were trained/or current experience in those tasks. The hurdle was to take an IP who was originally a UH-60 or CH-47 MOS who had no experience in scout/attack collective METL's and get him to be able to teach..and vice versa for us scout guys trying to learn then teach assault tactics.

I always tried to relay the big picture to my students because the time-line for them from flight school to front line was vastly more compressed than when I grad-ee-ated (with Afghanistan and Iraq on the front burners.) We just never seemed to have time/space to do the multi-ship/mission stuff...hopefully my ex students are out there ahead of the curve and staying alive.

Brian V.

[SBelcher]

Hello to all of the IP's out there. I am a recent graduate of the flight school 21 process as of 12 June. I am very proud of the training I recieved. I realize that I see it from a different prespective than you all do but as the student going though this I think I can give a different view of things.

The B-nav portion of training was the biggest waste of time I had in the Army Aviation program. The IP's do the best they can with what short time alloted to them. After a quick check ride we are shipped out to do contact in our respective aircraft. The time we spend out at shell would have been better utilized if it was redistributed to the BCS phase of training out at Hanchey.

The FS XXI phase of training for the 58D was demanding and I learned alot about the mission and the aircraft. From my seat though, the time available to learn the bcs phase of training was very short and demanding. Terrain flight modes are the most demanding aspect of flying that i have experienced so far, and an increase in time available to learn and benefit from the experience of the IP next to me would be well apreciated. I know that in Panther flight there was no chance to get by with minimum performance but another 10 hours of instruction would not be wasted either.

I guess overall what I am trying to say is that even from a students perspective training could be accomplished a bit different. The IP's put out 110% and it is upto the individual student to do thier part, and to realize they are not done learning just because they have wings now.

[Ablkhat55]

As a FSXXI Grad.(3rd class in May01) I have a different opinion on the whole thing.
1. I went to WOCS screaming that I was going to fly OH58Ds. When they asked me after Instruments if I wanted to track KWs in FS21 I happily agreed. This is important to consider as many times the bottom of the barel gets what is left. (often 58Ds) The motivation factor kicks in when a guy is really excited about the airframe they are going to fly. If a guy wanted to fly blackhawks, do you honestly think that they are paying attention to scout technique in BCS?
2. All of my time was in the OH58D. After the contact phase, and we were in the full up KW I was pushing buttons enroute to the training area. Does that make me a better pilot? Hell no! Did it make me more comfortable in the left seat? I say yes. We were constantly being compared to students in the AQC class we were paralled with. Every DES IP, Every IPC instructor, and many AQC IPs visited us both in the classroom, and in the aircraft. Without exception, everyone of them said that we were ahead of the AQC students. Does that make me a better pilot? Hell no! Just more comfortable in the left seat.(Which is where we make our money, right?)
Do I think that FS21 gave me an advantage or an edge over my peers in AQC? Yes, but only in the left seat. I had 30 less total flight hours after completion of training. (overall hours) In contrast, I had 30 more hours in the 58D. At a total of 180-200 hours, does 30 hours behind the stick really matter? I have been told by more than one IP that it does not. What does matter is the time spent progressing to RL1. Base tasks, are just that. Base tasks. Taught at Rucker, forgotten during leave and retrained and evaluated at the unit. Mission tasks are the same. except when a guy gets there with 30 more button pushing hours under his very light logbook. All I hear about is "Anyone can fly the helicopter, the money maker is in the left seat."
All of this didnt make a lick of difference when I got here, as we had R models and I learned in the I model. So I had to R qual anyway.
In my very humble and limited experience, I think mission training is most important.
Track a guy right out of Primary. KW guys, skip instruments, and go right to 58Ds. Take the time they spend holding at Daired (sp) intersection and spend it on a screen line. All those ITOs could be OGE power checks. And missed approachs could be confined area go arounds. Flying the VOR could have been a route recon. ect.ect.ect....
Just a rookies view of the high ground.
VR
Eric Leach
3-4 Cav

[Tri2Hover]

Did I understand you to say "skip instruments?" Wow, that is a pretty bold statement. Doesn't the weather get bad enough to threaten IIMC in Hawaii? Wouldn't have traded instruments for anything but that is just my opinion. Yeah, the 58D isn't equipped but that doesn't mean you shouldn't be.

[Ablkhat55]

I didnt say skip it. But being prepared for IIMC and flying a VOR or NDB for a month are 2 entirely different things. By the way. Instruments worked out great for my private pilots license.
I just said that training the mission in the aircraft you will fly is more important than blanket training everyone. But then again, that is just my opinion. And no, the weather is always VFR somewhere on this rock. (That was sarcasm. I fly my hood time, and much more)

[Razorback]

I have to agree with Mike. I wouldn't have traded the instrument training I got for anything. Speaking as a guy who has punched in and had to fall back on that instrument stuff, the BI knowledge and knowing attitude instrument flying is the key to keeping your a$$ alive in an IIMC situation. I agree that anyone "should" be able to maintain a heading and altitude, but we all know that it is the first few minutes of an IIMC situation that determines the outcome of the flight.

Just my 2 cents worth - keep instruments and possibly even add a little more to the AQC / FSXXI for 58Ds

[Kruser]

You guys are right in asking for more time. But think about it, the Army continues to do more with less. Cut backs will haunt us for many years to come. I would suggest a more streamline flow of training. e.g. Following instruments take the 58D guys right to Hanchey. Skip B-Nav. That's 10 training days that could be used in the KW. As it is right now, FS XXI students do 10 days of B-Nav, then go through KW contact, M-Throttle and then start the BCS phase. If they could leave instruments, go through contact & m-throttle and then have 20 training days to do BCS in a KW, the IP's could get more creative with the training.

If I were King for a day, the final checkride would be much like an APART ride with a day out night return including instruments. Problem lies with the eval being redundant from previously learned and evaluated phases. The bean counters would have a fit. The POI is set up to evaluate the learned tasks for individual phases and there are those students who flush the toilet following the phase checkride. If we could somehow use a building block approach to culminate with a final checkride like an APART the students would be forced to retain the information learned and have an idea of what will be expected in the unit. Again chapter 8 in the ATM.....bla, bla, bla

I can appreciate everyones interest in this subject just remember "You can please all the people some of the time, some of the people all the time. But you can't please all the people all the time."

[58_LTD]

An excellent point has just been brought out. The Army will continue to do more with less. Its become a standard practice. This is haveing a profound affect on flight school and army aviation as a whole. Not only are we not keeping our students in the cockpit long enough...we aren't flying our regular piots enough either. Enough of that one...

An APART like final check ride would be great. It may never happen but the thought is nice. Although, I remember being told that everything previously learned is testable on any check ride.
The mission training would be the best improvement to flight training. May AQC IP was constantly chomping at the bit to teach me some mission or tactical skills, but he was constantly restricted by the POI. Flight school only teaches us how to operate the aircraft as a weapon system...little time is spent in the school house teaching us how the weapon system is employed in mission profile. For some reason, those lessons are learned in the gaining unit. When I left mother Rucker I didn't feel ready to lead a KW platoon into a misson. The first time I saw the doctrine I read put into practice as in my RL2 training. We need mission training in AQC. At the pace the Army is running today our new aviators need to be able to hit the ground running...its perferable to the hit the ground, trip, break your nose, then run technique.

Just a couple of my thoughts from behind my desk. Take care.

[AndyMiller]

Eric, great post from a FS21 guy who has been in a troop for a while. Bold statement and good observation about intruments, I pretty much agree with you; NDBs, VORs, holding, etc. are not tasks we can do anyway, and like you said, that should not to be confused with flying IIMC training (which should be like an emergency procedure).

I hear you're doing real well out there, keep up the good work!

Kruser, you changed your avatar?! I liked the other one.

Lets all get the IFE course enroute to our next duty assignment! :wacky:

[Grunt]

Originally posted by 58_LTD
we aren't flying our regular piots enough either
why not?


When I left mother Rucker I didn't feel ready to lead a KW platoon into a misson. The first time I saw the doctrine I read put into practice as in my RL2 training. We need mission training in AQC
Coming out of rucker you arent expected to be able to lead a platoon - hell not even when you make RL1 - all depends on the individual. Alot of unit specific things are taught during RL2 as well, which will never be able to be taught at rucker.

Ive progressed i think 2 WOGJ's that went through FS21. Both of em were pretty quick progressions versus regular aqc folks. But you never know, it could just be a case of them both being quick learners. I dont think we can make a real comparison until everyone is attending fs21.

when is FS21 going to be in full effect anyway?

[palehorse18]

The word from the flagpole here at Rucker is that FSXXI is fully funded for FY04. So starting in October, every swingin' richard and squattin' sally is going to be FSXXI. Scary thought heh?

[kwpaquette]

No one close to the process here has any doubts that FSXXI students are somewhat better trained than AQC students. I teach AQC and occasionally fly FSXXI folks and almost always see a qualitative difference. Of course if the student is a dirtbag it matters not which program they are in, the field will receive a dirtbag (if we are unable to eliminate them).

I think our real problem is the quality of the product coming into the system. The last couple of years more Warrants left the Army than we were able to bring in therefore we get almost 100% of all applicants. Of course with that kind of selection rate you are not getting the cream of the crop. We had a similar situation in the very early 80s during the Reagan defense build up. Many of you on this site came in during the "leaner" years following the draw down after Desert Storm. I think during the mid 90s the quality of the applicants accepted was higher than it is today.

With all of that said we are always looking at ways to make the FSXXI program better. It is still very new and with each class we are seeing flaws that we need to correct in the future. Of course change here @ Rucker can unfortunately be measured in geologic terms.

PQ

[Kruser]

Not to keep beating the dead horse. But it all comes down to the individual's motivation. For you AQC guys. You learned the BCS stuff in 58A/C's and you can still recall most of it. You were motivated because you had not gotten your wings. FS XXI guys, You are motivated to learn/perform better because you have not yet gotten your wings. You can sometimes compare apples and oranges but you get fruit cocktail. What drives the individual to learn are: (excuse the IP in me)
1. Perceptions: AQC - I've got my wings so I'll get through this course. If not they can still put me in Blackhawks (that's what I wanted in the first place).
FS XXI - If I don't get this I can still get kicked out of flight school.

2. Insights: AQC - I remember the BCS stuff. I know how to read a map. I can focus on the button pushing.
FS XXI - I know what my advance aircraft is, this stuff realy does pertain to me and the mission I will be flying. If I don't get this I can still get kicked out of flight school.

3. Motivation: AQC - Let's see...I didn't make top grad through flight school and still got 58D's. I already know where I'm going. My family is getting tired of the South. PT, what's PT stand for again?
FS XXI - If I get top in the class I get to pick my duty station. This aircraft is cool to fly. I can still get kicked out of flight school.

I hope I did not piss anyone off with my comments but it all comes down to the individual and his/her personal motivation etc.. It's hard to tell and or teach someone that their mission is to go out on a screen for 8 hours and not get lulled into false security. I did a JTF mission back in 97 with a guy who came to me and said someone had stole his gameboy. When I asked where it was when stolen, he told me in the aircraft. He had been sitting on the mountain playing gameboy instead of using the MMS to look for IA's. After a few choice words I informed him that I wished who ever took it well. And I did not want to hear about his lost little gameboy again. There are those with the born mentallity of being a scout and then there are those who aint got a clue. Somewhere in the middle we all must meet and become the eyes and ears for the commander. There's something about talking directly to the ground commander and him saying, "You saved my ass, I owe you a beer when this is over".

Patience is a virtue that can't be taught in flight school. The clay that is molded in flight school still has the rough edges. It's up to the senior W2's, UT's, IP's, and SP's to finish the molding and make it a KW pilot. All of us would like little mini-me's because we know what it takes to be a good scout pilot. Just remember, you can feed some with a fire hose and they do well. Others need to drink out of the water fountain and take a bottle with them to keep reminding them of what they learned.

Ouch!...I just fell off my soap box.

C-ya

[Ablkhat55]

That was put much better than I could ever do.
Now, I have an empty glue bottle, can we squeez this horse for a drop or two?
See you all on the high ground.

[Grunt]

well put kruser

[rugger58]

Just a thought for those that are comparing AQC vs. FSXXI guys at the moment -

Currently, about 2/3 if each IERW class is going FSXXI and 1/3 is going BCS. How do they split it? The top 2/3 of the class vs. the bottom 1/3. So you already have those that are more challenged academically, are less motivated to be here, or just generally have a harder time at it than the others. So, it makes sense that the product will be less motivated/skillful. Not really a product of AQC, but rather of how students are getting picked for AQC.


Side note: I am in BCS for 58D FSXXI now. I will second the notion that B-Nav was very pointless - what I wouldnt give to have those hours to spend in the 58D. The difference is this: in BNav, you are not flying, you are holding a map, tracking your tickmarks, looking at terrain, and looking for the shape of the field. Not too difficult or task saturating. You're IP fought in Vietnam. In 58D BCS, you also navigate a route - but you are doing the flying, or conducting a route recon on the way, or attempting to land the aircraft while staying masked, or performing actions on contact while trying to find said field - very task saturating. You're IP got back from Iraq last fall. Whoever decided the former was better training was way off.

[WOJG(SW),USA]

I have asked many UH-60 IPs the difference. They say it is night and day when a new FSXXI WO1 or LT shows up when compared to a AQC accession.

It has to do with the exposure aspect I believe. I have been told that in the 60 community, the FSXXI students are ready to go RL1 to PC in fairly short order. We have roughly 50 more hours than a AQC student. We are graded to the the ATM standards.

I know that most of you could give a thought less about 60's, but it appears that some of the FSXXI programs are pretty good. Suposedly, the UH-60 program is going to go to pot starting next year though, when FSXXI will transition to 75% simulator time. What a shame that is all in the name of the mighly dollar.

[ski bum]

Thank GOD we don't have a simulator :D

[AndyMiller]

Originally posted by ski bum
Thank GOD we don't have a simulator :D

One is coming soon

[psychoscout]

Originally posted by ski bum
Thank GOD we don't have a simulator



Originally posted by AndyMiller
One is coming soon

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!:wall:

[psychoscout]

Though if it's on the same timeline that the Comanche was on (or, dare I say, ARH?), I don't think we have to worry for a while.........:wacky: