There is usually, but not always, a message buried in numbers if you look closely enough to find the correlations. Dave Pelz, golf’s short-game guru, has made a living at unearthing such messages. Statistically, there is only a very small difference between a 10 foot putt and a 30 foot putt for a professional golfer. From either distance, he needs two putts to hole out. Inside ten feet, on the other hand, the likelihood of holing that putt increases dramatically. Therefore, the goal is to stuff approach shots inside ten feet. If a golfer can’t routinely hit his approach shots inside ten feet, his practice time is best spent elsewhere. Another option is to spend $2,750 on a 3-day Dave Pelz Clinic in Palm Springs.
In baseball, home fans become annoyed when the visiting team’s pitcher throws to the first baseman repeatedly with a runner on first and two outs. The same fans don’t seem to mind when their pitcher is the one executing his pick move over and over. The reason? With two outs, a runner at first has a 14-percent chance of scoring a run. With two outs, a runner at second has a 26-percent chance of scoring a run. He’s trying to steal. If he gets thrown out, little is lost since he was not likely to score anyway. If there is a great hitter at the plate, all the better. He’ll lead off in the next inning.
In that vein, I offer the following statistics.
2013 Aviation Department Head Screen Board (FY14 Selects)
72 Navy FA-18 pilots selected for Department Head
64 Navy FA-18 pilots accepted assignment as a Department Head¹
¹60 pilots were slated for duty in squadrons. Another four were placed in the “bullpen”. Officers in the “bullpen” fill-in for those who fall-out for any reason (medical, etc.), or will slate the following year.
In summary, 89-percent of those selected for DH duty found their way to a squadron, either in the current year or the one immediately following.
2014 Aviation Department Head Screen Board (FY15 Selects)
54 Navy FA-18 pilots selected for Department Head
38 Navy FA-18 pilots accepted assignment as a Department Head²³
²37 pilots were slated for duty in squadrons. One was placed in the “bullpen”.
³Five of the 38 were screened for Department Head the previous year.
Moreover, there were three FA-18 pilots on the DH slate that were not on the DH select list for FY14 or FY15. They are good pilots, I’m sure. But let’s be clear: this is the bullpen for the bullpen.
In summary, of the 54 FA-18 pilots selected for DH, only 30 accepted the offer, which is to say nothing of those who said no up-front. That’s only 56-percent.
Working with Reduced Margins
There are 16 operational FA-18 squadrons at NAS Oceana. There are 15 operational FA-18 squadrons at NAS Lemoore, and another four at NAF Atsugi. That makes 35 operational squadrons in total. With 37 DH pilots available for those squadrons this year, the ratio of available bodies to squadrons is slightly greater than 1:1. Although the demand signal for DHs fluctuates from one year to the next, I am confident that going from 64 available to 38 available in one year is not a garden-variety perturbation orchestrated from the land of pulled pork.
I can’t tell you what the altimeter setting will be tomorrow at 1200. I can’t tell you what the dew point spread will be on Wednesday at 1600. What I can tell you is which direction the wind is blowing. I hope I’m not the only one with a decent weathervane.
A tip of the hat to reader BK for pointing out the data.
(21)Dislikes
(3)
For us non-aviation types-- how many department heads in a squadron? How long are department head tours? (i.e. what's the programmed turnover rate?)
30 months is the usual tour. You can live with 3 in a single-seat squadron; 4 is full strength. F-model guys, help me out. Six or seven?
Great question. I apologize for not offering up some of the basics for those not inside the dugout.
Back in the day I was privileged to work for one of the finest Naval officers I ever knew in a 34 year career, RADM Jim Ferris. One evening at dinner on the flagship (he was COMCARDIV 3 ), he said that he was afraid that his generation of flag officers was fated to preside over the demise of Naval aviation. Those at the table tried to disagree, but time has vindicated my beloved boss. When has there been an aviator CNO? Other than ADM Johnson who got the job because his blackshoe predecessor ate his gun? Anybody remember Tom Hayward? That was a long time ago. Anybody think the Navy would be in the perilous state it is now if warriors were in charge? To lead warriors one must be a warrior (and firing a Tomahawk doesn't count). Diversity is fine, but it can't be the Navy's primary mission, as a recent blackshoe CNO declared.
Norman Polmar's weather vane indicated looming disaster 36 years ago when he wrote the "State of the Fleet" preface to "Ships and aircraft of the U.S. Fleet." Have you by chance compared present retention/manning/fleet trends to those of 1978?
Norman Polmar. I'm familiar with his work!
F squadrons normally have 6 DH's. 3 pilots and 3 WSO's.
After looking through the slate this past weekend, I called a friend still in his DH tour to inquire about whether they'd received any word of possibly being extended because of this approaching DH gap. He said no, but did inform me that the Air Boss recently visited their base to talk to the JOs primarily about the low numbers for aviators promoted at the O4 board. When the DH conversation came up, he told them to expect, that because of the low DH numbers, the plan going forward is to have the Ops O & MO filled by O4s and the Safety and Admin jobs filled by senior JOs. It wasn't apparent if those Senior JOs would be guys at the end of their first sea tour or guys complete with their shore tour and possibly their disassociated tour who were not selected for O4.
There are so many problems with this plan that it's not worth my time to name them individually, but I haven't heard a better solution. Extending that tour just kicks the can down the road (just like the using senior JOs does) in addition to causing some FITREP anomalies that would no doubt prevent good folks from screening at their board only because they weren't in a squadron hurting for DHs and therefore weren't extended.
The Navy became a bit too arrogant about retention over the past 5-10 years, and as usual are on the end of the whip reacting to the problem rather than proactively addressing this a few years ago. When the personnel folks should have been forecasting an improving economy and the disastrous effects of extended deployments and surge cruises, they were busy chopping bonuses and advising JOs and DHs to take the hardest possible job that no one else wanted rather than one that was exciting or personally desirable.
We are our own worst enemy.
You articulated your points very nicely. Thank you.
Well, we have the DH slate. The analysis on the VFA community reveals some brutal blows to the community which will resonate for future years in the affected year group. (Hello again, T-Notch). Is this a unique situation or is this the beginning of a "new normal" where the Navy can no longer take for granted the retention of the needed numbers of senior lraders. I fear this is the new normal after 13 years of lengthening deployments and a steady reduction in job satisfaction due to micromangement and focus on anything but "warfighting first." As we are no longer fighting combat operations in Afghanistan come January 2015, how do we justify continued sacrifice doing the same missions we did 15 years ago? Some possible first & second order effects:
- Fewer DHs in the squadron and Aviation LCDRs in the Navy (duh)
- Increased workload to those 56% of DHs who elected to stay around. "Welcome to the squadron, you're now the MO!"
- You still need 17 (or 14 depending on the # of FA-18s) pilots in a deploying squadron. Where do you find those bodies? Do we bring back super JO tours? There are zero non-DH screened LCDRs so where do you find these bodies? What jobs are you taking from to fill this gap? Are you extending everyone to make this happen over a 10 month cruise?
- As younger officers see the decline in the morale of DHs as they work harder jobs for longer, why would they want to "have their bosses job?" Do we now have a vicious cycle where downtrodden leaders will further impact JOs decisions to stay navy?
- Aviation Bonusses are maxed out at $25k per year. Will the Navy try to find a different financial solution or will it try to tackle fundamental problems within aviation to address the issue?
- The Navy has 30 VFA pilots (and 11 WSOs) within this year group to spread across the Navy to meet the demands for TACAIR CDRs. Is this number enough to meet VFA XO/CO TRACOM XO/CO boat O-5 jobs, CVW OPSO?
- What happens will most of these 30 pilots get out at 20 years - do you have enough CVN COs, CAGs, Captains?
Ugh. Can any of this be addressed now or is the horse already out of the barn?
Has someone looked to see if the impact is as severe within the Helo & MarPat communities?
BUPERS needs to stop prescribing medicine to treat the symptoms while continuing to ignore the root cause. Simply adjusting the number of DHs, extending tours, using senior JOs to fill O4 jobs is a big mistake and will bring with it negative repercussions. Don’t put a Band-Aid on a sucking chest-wound and call it good.
It may come as an unbelievable surprise to many senior Officers and BUPERS but the majority of Naval Aviators chose their warfare designator to become…(drumroll)…aviators. Some management/harassment aspects of the job are indeed necessary but recently have become so cumbersome that flying (especially as an O4/O5) is now a burdensome collateral duty. When a JO observes the daily life of their DHs, XO and CO they are peering into their future should they choose to remain in the Navy. For many, it’s a terrifying sight.
BUPERS needs to wake up and realize that being the Commanding Officer of a VFA squadron is not the pinnacle tour they believe it is; at least from a JO’s perspective. The current ends simply do not justify the means. How have we allowed the level of harassment between O3 and O5+ rise to its current level while at the same time the prestige of becoming a CO, CAG, Flag O has fallen? Maybe publically humiliating good people on the cover of Navy Times wasn’t such a grand idea after all. Perhaps all the ‘intrusive’ leadership from above was just micromanagement by a different name. Maybe CAG and DCAG telling bagex stories in CATCC with their feet up on AIROPS O’s console isn’t inspiring leadership.
To convince a 30 year old aviator with their whole life ahead of them to give the next decade to the Navy you had better have a real reward at the end. In the absence of that prize, you will need to make the path to get there somewhat rewarding. You can’t expect these very smart and capable JOs to stay on our team without showing them something to look forward to. Most importantly, the Navy needs to demonstrate that its values are aligned with the values of its people (are they?). When you cut short the careers of inspiring leaders you are in fact demonstrating to the masses that a delta exists between their values and that of the organization. Speaking of Delta, they’re hiring.
Well said. When I read the word delta, the first thought that came to me was that I needed to make a joke about Delta. You went there for me.
^One of the best commentaries written yet.
Bear with me here, long time listener, first time caller…
I have to say – yours is one of the best posts I’ve read yet and I couldn’t agree more. At one point, I thought I too wanted to be a Skipper, but it seems the tide has turned. Gone are the days of the larger-than-life personalities who wanted nothing more than to see their teams – their squadron, their ready room, their Sailors – succeed. The ones who prioritized war fighting over political correctness, the ones who weren’t so attached to their job and their upward mobility that they were afraid to speak honestly to their bosses, the ones who had so much fun being Skippers and being pilots that you just couldn’t help but want to be them one day.
Where have all the good ones gone?
I think some watched their ability to lead and to affect change diminish, then their ability to be themselves withered up because they spent their time fearing a single vindictive squadron member quietly plotting their demise, then they realized that to continue moving upward they had to request the set of orders with the most pain-points rather than a job that allowed them to pursue what actually professionally interested them, then it dawned on them that the Admiralty has one role and that’s to protect themselves, not their subordinates, then after all that they woke up one day and realized that it had been a long time since they liked, respected or wanted to be like any of the bosses they had had in recent memory.
On a somewhat brighter note, a few really good ones stayed in despite everything just mentioned. They found a way to motivate and inspire against all odds. There was still a glimmer of hope in Naval Aviation that the warrior spirit would endure and not end up castrated once and for all. Sadly though, the IG found them one by one and they are no longer.
The End.
Pure truth!
Good points and I'd venture it isn't even necessarily about "the prize" at the end - I think you hit the nail on the head when you said that aviators join to fly - not to become squadron CO's. Instead, a really sharp and inspired BUPERS would devise a way to program 2 aviation tracks - one for people who really DO want to be squadron CO's and one for those who want to fly and are happy taking on collateral jobs like Safety, Admin, Scheduling/Training. etc.
Thanks for the plug – we are in fact hiring! (and here's a secret...the grass is actually greener, the quality of life is better and you don't even have to write your own FITREPs...)
Just punch that timecard and do as the union rep says.
Look, I hate the direction the Navy is going and the way senior leadership treats, well, just about everyone, but if guys are going to bail, it needs to be for the right reason, not for some false hope of a 'greener pasture.' It's a pasture alright, as in "being put out to pasture." I've known more guys who have left to chase the airline dream than I can even begin to count. They're now some of the best law enforcement officers, lawyers, investment bankers, etc. around. There's a reason they spent less time in the airlines than they did in the Navy, and no, it's not because of an MSR. It's because it just ain't all that. I'm happy you found something you enjoy, but truth be told, most military aviators who transition to the airlines don't enjoy it.
PERS-43, is that you posting? The wheat harvest was good this year, comrade.... The grass may not be greener but it is a different shade, and compared to what JO's are looking at in terms of career and job satisfaction, it doesn't matter the shade as long as it's not Navy grass.
Pray tell, what is "the right reason" to bail? Vast majority of airline guys that I know love it. That union rep looks out for guys better than PERS-43 does!
I'm sure the union rep looks out for guys a lot better than the detailer does too! "So have you talked to the detailer?" -- "Uh, yeah, he hasn't returned any of my calls or e-mails." -- "Oh, ok...good luck, bro."
Well, sorry bro – that was bound to happen (you getting dog-piled on…).
Since you are apparently the expert on the quality of life in the airlines (and you have to be based off the fact that you know more guys who have “left to chase the airline dream” than you can count because if you’re a Navy pilot I’m guessing you can count pretty high), a few questions if I may:
1) Do you understand the definition of “being put out to pasture?” I get the sense that you may not – let me help:
‘put someone out to pasture’: to retire someone – OR - to make someone stop working at their job because they are too old to be useful.
So, maybe we are talking about different things – I was referring to someone who leaves Naval Aviation by their own choice because they believe the quality of life will be better for them (and their family), not people who were forced to get out and then settled on the airlines as a consolation prize. OBTW – we know the difference and it’s obvious when they submit their applications.
2) Have you ever been a detailer (be honest please)?
3) Piggybacking on disciple – what is the right reason to bail?
4) Did you ‘like’ your own post?
5) If you hate the direction the Navy is going and the way senior leadership treats everyone but are still staying in, what do you tell your JOs and/or Sailors to convince them to stay?
6) What are you doing to fix the it?
7) Are your friends who flew for the Navy, then flew for the airlines and are now investment bankers or attorneys happy? Can I have their numbers – both sound interesting as 3rd careers and if you’re right I’m bound to be unhappy soon…
No problem, bro. I fully expected a dog piling.
1)Yes
2)No. I knew my father.
3)The right reason to bail is because the bs is no longer worth the benefit of getting to fly military aircraft. It's a razor thin line for most people throughout their careers. Love to fly Navy but hate the time away, meaningless surge deployments, IAs, endless NKO, SAPR lectures, blah blah blah. One of many wrong reasons to bail is this false promise of a better life sitting in a chair with the autopilot on. Unless someone put P-8s as his first choice out of flight school, that's not what most are about. Some will consider it better, sure, but many will not. I'm not hanging out on airline blogs, nor is any other military pilot unless they're looking for job info. I've never seen an airline guy and thought that I wanted to do what he does or be part of his culture. There's a reason you're here on this blog. There's a reason airline guys hang out at tailhook. There's a reason airline guys fight for the reserve jobs to have a job that actually means something.
4) Lol, no, but that's a good one, I'll give you that.
5) I'm still in, which probably narrows me down to about 3 or 4 people. I don't tell JOs or Sailors anything to convince them to stay. That wasn't the point of my post. If I were YG-05, I'd be leaving too. My record would not have survived this past board. My point was that if someone's going to decide to leave, it needs to be because they can't deal with it anymore, not because they think the grass is greener.
6)Everything I can, which sadly is very little at this point in time. Again, not defending the Navy.
7)Yes but no numbers, sorry. I'm sure you're happy doing what you're doing. That's great. My only point is that a lot of people find satisfaction in the camaraderie, purpose, leadership (their own leadership opportunities, not the Navy's leadership) of military aviation. Many will find being an employee in a job like the airlines difficult.
Believer,
Fair enough – your post is genuine and straightforward, thanks for that. I suspect from your comment that you’re senior to YG-05 and remarking that you’d leave to I find that a bit peculiar. If the reason to stay is financially motivated then I’d say that I’ve never heard anyone mention that they joined the military for the money (usually the statement is quite the opposite) but it’s funny to me how many people stay in the military for the money. If you are in the Navy (and senior to YG-05) then you have valuable experience and earning potential, front seat, back seat, whatever… If the reason to stay is because of the camaraderie, purpose, etc… then why would you advocate leaving? Is it perhaps because you see the trend getting worse, not better but you’re close enough to the finish line that you can put your head down and power through? If so, that seems to be the point of many on this blog and they desire positive change.
Oh yeah – forgive me for trolling the Naval Aviation blogs, I’ve got too much free time it seems…(no mission planning, NKO training, NSIPS inputs and the like make for a lot of time to surf the blogosphere)
A recent comment from a post VFA command tour pilot, "It was a great weekend, there were a lot of you in here working." Translation "I represent everything that is wrong with Naval Aviation."
Working on TPS reports that had nothing to do with warfighting, right? What a tool.
Former Rampager?
I don't know if it would be appropriate to comment on what squadron he bugged out of...
Fair enough. Nice 'job' of protecting his id 😉
Yeahhhhhhh......I'm gonna need you to come in on Sunday. We're kinda' trying to play catch up. Thaaaannnkkkssss.
"Most importantly, the Navy needs to demonstrate that its values are aligned with the values of its people (are they?). "
That resonates with this old Blackshoe. It appears to me that the Navy's "Values" are being dictated from its political masters.
I have also been wondering why we have DH tours for 1310 types anyway. Can't those tasks be done by WO/LDO/Chiefs and free the aviators up to, well, aviate? While I'm on the subject, my favorite hobby horse is that we really ought to allow those who wish to (my bet is there's lots of them) just fly. Allow a career track that goes to CDR, pay them flight bonuses to keep their pay reasonably competitive, and let 'em fly. No joint staff tours, no PG school, no admin crap--just fly.Let the staff pukes do what admin is really needed. Have a command track for those interested in the pain, but if you aren't you can keep flying and stay in for at least 20. That would simplify a lot of lives--including that of the selection board.
Capt Mongo, the career path you are describing above would be a dream come true for most pilots. I for one would have to be forced out at my mandatory retirement age if I could strike that kind of deal. We kid ourselves into thinking we can be experts at everything. Ask any Navy pilot which service has the best flying program and the likely response will be the U.S. Army. They allow their CWOs to be professional pilots throughout their career. There is a reason they have the best helicopter pilots in the world, not to mention the 160th SOAR. Sure they have collateral duties but they are all flying related (NVG program, Standardization Instructor, etc). If a JO in a Navy squadron was heard by the front-office making a comment like “we should just be pilots”, they would be blacklisted and turned into FITREP-fodder. Sometimes I wonder how the pilots of our future adversary nation(s) are spending their days. Are their pilots spending their days correcting grammar in EVALs and awards? Serving 3-year tours out of the cockpit to learn ‘Joint-Warfare’ from a cubicle? Doing mid-term counselling for a ‘subordinate’ MMCO who has twice as much time in the Navy as you do and understands aircraft maintenance better than you? Perhaps they’re spending their time learning/practicing new and improved ways to cut our lives short should we face each other in combat; just something to ponder I guess.
I also am a big fan of enlisted/WO pilots (which tends to do the same good things for the Navy as my suggestion and at lower cost).
I joined the Navy to drive ships, and was fortunate enough to have two ship commands. My Brethren today are really lucky if they get one. How about a twofer? 13XX do not have to command a ship to make flag. This frees up both carriers and "Training wheels" ships for those who want to command them, and allows aviators to aviate more. CAG plus Senior Aviation staff person in a BG is good enough for Flag selection IMO.
So if most aviators would jump at the chance for what I outline, who the heck is driving not letting them do that? Not SWOs or 1120 types, I would think; it'd be a win-win for them.
A possible explanation for not having the ‘career pilot’ track is that FLAG-Os in charge couldn’t possibly fathom that someone in the lower ranks is more interested in being a skilled pilot over being an Admiral someday. In my opinion, you are no less of an asset because you value leading on the tactical scale vs operation/strategic. Studies show that if you are more effective if you enjoy your job. Many air forces throughout the world (especially in the commonwealth nations) have the career pilot track. Guess what...it has been my experience that their pilots are better because of it; more hours, higher skill level, and constant proficiency throughout their career by not having to rotate into desk jobs. Those in the community that desire the command aspects also do a better job because they are getting to do what they enjoy as well.
I would bet you it's the opposite, anon. I think the Flags know that many of the best and brightest would opt for the flying path, and they'd lose a huge talent pool to run the organization at a senior level. With very few exceptions, the warriors and leaders I've respected the most have gotten out after O-5 or O-6 command with little interest in playing the game from behind a desk. It would be much worse if they allowed us to make that decision up front. As for the flying warrant, sounds to me like an excuse to pay us less to do the same job.
Not to mention cheaper... think of how much money the Navy wastes just getting us back to the minimum standards between shore tours in Newport, DC, Joint Assignments, etc. If the Navy kept pilots in planes, we would need fewer pilots to replace the ones getting out (or being forced out), spend less money and time retraining, and you could truly approach mastery of the skill.
Those Chinese F-11 drivers aren't spending much time worrying about their command climate.
Agreed there Anon (any distant relation of "Any Mouse"?). I think those 13XX types who want a path to Flag, should be able to follow that path--with all the joint staph /admin/PG stuff that entails; I just think there ought to be a track for those who don't want that. My experience is that there is no shortage of ambitious and aggressive 13XX people out there who would fill those Flag billets; but your mileage may vary on that one.
I do suspect that there more be more pilot types who would select the flying path than NFO types, which might skew the current percentages of aviation Flag types a little. So what?
Capt Mongo, if you were the Air Boss, you would immediately create record retention and improve morale in Naval Aviation by 500% Unfortunately, reasonable man theory is non-existent among our leadership. Let pilots fly???? That's crazy talk!!!!
Heh. Thanks. I am a career Blackshoe--but did enjoy liberty overseas (and sometimes in CONUS) with my Brownshoe brothers-in-arms.
But as a Blackshoe, you still "get it" so much better than most of the leadership we have in aviation, just by your professional observation. It blows my mind that the absolute reasonable theories you see so clearly can completely miss the "leadership" we are dealing with.
Despite two Pentagon tours I never really got the intraservice warfare bit which is what I suspect may be part of the issue here. Protection of one's peer group can get to be a religion for some, and preservation thereof even more so. I just pray that they fix it fast, because based on some of the comments we've lost/are losing our aviation warriors --and that would be catastrophic for the Navy--and, IMO the nation.
For everyone's SA, PERS-43 is feeling out JO's and O-4 selects thoughts on if they would be interested in doing a Super JO tour before going to their DH tour. I'm on the fence. Thoughts?
DO NOT do it unless it improves your get out timing or slides you DH timing right. F these guys. Let them sleep in the bed they made - I am sure they will have ...
Top Cover.
Wait a minute... PERS-43 is advocating for more junior officers to NOT get another competitive FITREP? (Super-JOs either poach EPs from other first-tour JOs or they do not get EPs) Didn't we learn anything from the last O-4 board where the SWOs and Bubbleheads and their multiple breakout EPs ate the lunch of half of all aviators? How will this Band-Aid approach address the greater issues facing the manning levels of a squadron?
The Navy pouring gasoline on the fire...
I saw that option come and go a few times during my career. PERS-43 is looking at that as a way to put butts in squadron seats, I'm sure. Super JOs are not Department Heads, but they are the next best thing. You need to ask yourself three questions:
1. Is this something you want to do? If no, don't bother reading the next two questions.
2. Do you want the potential of a continuing career? If no, just do what you want to do. If yes...
3. Will this hurt you?
That's a tough one to answer. There is a chance you will get a DH job in a fleet squadron, and that would play well at the O-4 board (assuming you're not an O-4 right now). Long term, it may look like you just went back to your comfort zone, and that may NOT play well at a command screen board when compared against someone who went to CVW staff, etc.
It's your call. I'd ask you to keep this in mind: the guys in Millington talking to you right now will not be there to keep whatever promises they make down the road. "This will look great on your record" is a wish, not a guarantee.
I hope this helps, bro. You have to do what's right for you.
I am one of the lucky few who was picked up on his first look this year for O-4. By the time I get spun up at the RAG and sent to a Super JO slot, I would have put on O-4.
So, as long as the FITREP says that I am in a non-DH slot, it shouldn't hurt, right? Just take it as an opportunity to get caught up on tactics and squadron life before heading to DH, since I have been out of the cockpit for over a year.
You'll have to forgive Disciple. He forgot to take his medicine this morning, LMAO.
I don't know that there will even BE a command screen board with the current and upcoming numbers. Even if there is, the Skipper's first question is the most important. When all is said and done, no one's going to look back and think "I really wish I'd spent more time in the Pentagon, so I could have made ____ and then gotten to spend more time in the Pentagon." If it's between Super JO and a desk in a cubicle, I'd say that's an easy choice for most. If it's between staying on shore duty in a flying billet and going back to sea as a Super JO, take a good long look at just how long you'll be on sea duty, what the fam situation is, which squadron they're offering, who the CO and XO are, what the Ready Room is like, etc. If you end up in a bad squadron run by leaf eaters only to turn around and follow it up with a tough DH tour, it's going to suck. If it's a great squadron with a tactical focus and a good environment, it might be a deal worth taking. Don't let PERS sell you a used car. You're the customer, and it is a buyer's market right now.
Just choose which job you think you will enjoy the most. Here is something else to think about; if you owe a disassociated tour anyway a super-JO tour is a great alternative (more flying and not as a guest). It may or may not affect your chances at screening for XO/CO later on. However, just take a look at the abysmal numbers of folks staying in. We may not have enough flyers to command the squadrons anyway. The current requirements to screen may be reduced to the following by your board: 13xx designator, at least one operating eyeball, no more than 3-DUIs, and of course CDO Underway/Conning Alongside.
I would certainly negotiate a specific squadron to ensure you don’t end up in a bad place. Don’t roger-up to super JO without amplifying details.
I'm at my disassociated tour now. And will have already put on O-4 by then...The two anon postings above are mine and will now put a name to keep track of my posts/replies.
RT, as long as you're not going to leave your dis tour without an EP, it SHOULDN'T hurt you. WTIs in every community do super jo, typically ranked behind DHs and still do fine. There are no guarantees, of course, but if your dis tour is non-flying (based on FRS comment), I'd say your logic is pretty sound with getting back in the aircraft and back on the step. You won't have time to once you're Ops or Mo, and besides, it's never TOO early to get back into the cockpit.
Not really gonna have decent paper where I am - not competitive in the least. That's due to being an O-4 select now, but that's better than not being one, ya know? And I'll miss out on the LT Jan fitrep, so not sure if I need to go somewhere to get a competitive fitrep before DH. I don't think it will be an option since I'll roll to the RAG in the spring and the DH board will be a month or two later. Not really an opportunity to break out if I will only be at a location for 6 months or less. But then again the detailer (and current and past skippers of mine) said that one's JO tour and first shore tour make or break you for O-4 and DH.
Maybe we will return to the days of no DH boards? Every Aviator that makes O-4 will just go to some semblance of a squadron. The top tier goes operational, the second tier goes to the training squadrons. When I was a JO (originally HSC-EXP), we had more O-4's detailed to us than we had available detachments. I know we're not looking at having a surplus, but think how much money was wasted on this year's DH board!
@RT - new thread as the one above was getting too far embedded. The software cuts off comments after five layers deep.
Again, if you want to do this, I think you will be fine. You've already made O-4, which has proven to be a bigger hurdle than screening for DH. Based on the numbers we've seen of late, I feel safe in saying you are VERY likely to screen for DH. Once you're in a DH spot, you will compete on even footing with your peers, and you will be sharp in the aircraft since you got some "free" time as a Super JO. Your command screen, should you choose to stick around for it, will be determined largely by your DH performance and what you choose to do thereafter. That, my friends, is a whole different thread. Maybe we'll go there later this summer.
It's your decision, dude, for you alone have to live with the consequences. You've got a pretty good list of pros and cons from some credible folks. If I may be so bold, that's good use of this site. I don't see much downside to you taking the orders unless you're just dying to get to Newport for a year and NPC is willing to send you.
Thanks for the advice Skipper and everyone else who commented. We shall see how things shake out.
Weathervanes do little but tell you where the wind came from a second ago.... you need a longer term forecasting device. If you're using a "weathervane" to give you future trends, you'll wind up in anguishing, emotional do-loops--just chasing your tail where it was a second ago. Even the slightest breeze changes it's direction, and it may really be a passing, irrelevant breaking of wind. Think barometer....generally moves slower, and gives you a steadier, reliable reading.
On the first day of a deployment of undetermined length, very wise skipper of mine stood in front of an AOM at the chalkboard (That should date me). He put an "A" at one end, and a "B" at the other. He said "Here we are A--just underway. B--the return to home port date--is still unknown. We're going from A-to-B, fellows, and how you get there is up to you." Connecting A and B with a steep jagged sawtooth line, he continued," You can take this path, with all the emotional highs and lows, riding the roller coaster of listening to rumor, complaints, and expend a whole lot of emotional capital..." Erasing the line, he then drew in a long, undulating gentle curve, and said, "Or you can go with the flow, be patient, and focus on your job, your skills, only worry about things you can do something about, and enjoy the ride." Made sense to me then, and made sense throughout my career.
The bleats about dissatisfiers I read in this thread are no different than I heard from my contemporaries twenty, and yes, over thirty years ago. When I rolled to my first shore assignment (FRS), I thought it was a mass ejection scene. The airlines were hiring, and a lot of winged friends sought the fresher grass in the civilian sector, usually citing the same reasons I read here. I thought I must be the odd one--I'm still enjoying this stuff! So I stayed. (Many later came back in, and were welcomed when the furloughs started). Did ship's company and the right back sea in DH ride, and didn't lose my smile. I'd do it again in a minute.
Some posters seem to think that Pers-43 holds some magical powers, when their job is primarily reactionary--they put cheeks in open seats. They react to bigger Navy policy changes. Most of the predictive planning comes from the community manpower guys, and while Pers-43 does the initial processing of resigs, and they may detect growing or receding trends, their usual focus is shorter term. And they are under big pressure to fill those jobs from where they are taking heat, and so there's some salesmanship involved. Regarding keeping promises to those who take the hard fills--I know there were copious records that are passed down on matters like that--I WAS Pers-43 hisself, and I honored the promises of my predecessors, and I suspect detailers today try to do it too.
I guess the bottom line is, if you're really not happy and satisfied, and in your calculus, cons outweigh the pros, it's time for you to move on. Don't worry about the organization you left--it will be okay. Invest yourself in the next. And don't bad-mouth those staying aboard for the long haul--they've probably got their eye on some prize, and really aren't listening.
I was blessed with being a member of a great profession, and was lucky to command five times. I've served subsequently in the Federal government, the big aerospace sector, in small business, and academia. And you will not find anything like the esprit, camaraderie, purpose in being, and ultimately personal satisfaction in accomplishment in the "outside."
And I'd trade places with any of you in the fleet right now.
Your comments appear very genuine, sir. I appreciate that, although I don't entirely agree.
Your remark about weathervanes is the reason I chose them for the title. There is no barometer. Not that I know of, anyway. You use what you have; ignore it at your own peril. No, PERS-43 has no magic wand and this isn't all on their shoulders. I would feel more sympathetic to their cause had I not seen a few of their briefs over the past couple of years telling the Flag Officers that Naval Aviation is in great shape and that there is no need for concern. I assure you that nothing could be further from the truth. I remember the days when there was a particular A-7/FA-18 year group whereby only one single guy did not screen for command. We don't want to go back there.
I remember those days in the ready room, too. I was there. Talk of the ATP was more prevalent than discussions of the AIM-7 F-pole. Some COs forbade airline talk in their squadrons as a result. With the exception of full-on war, cruises were six months long with an eighteen month turnaround. I can tell you the ship and air wing assignment of every FA-18 squadron in the early 90s. I can't do the same for 2013. The draw in those days was a financial one. I heard all about it. "Get out now and you'll be a Captain at United in five years working 10 days per month for $220K per year. Those days are gone. Still, the draw is there because the alternative looks less appealing. I promise you that, in your day, Flag Officers did not approve TAD travel for a squadron E-6 attending corrosion school.
I thought your use of the word bleating was unnecessarily pejorative. 1-The characteristic cry of a goat or sheep. 2-A whining, feeble complaint. What one views as being justifiably disenfranchised another views as a whiner. I get that. Just the same, every criticism has a grain of truth. Anyone interested in self-improvement ought to seek that grain of truth.
Although I have not done a good job of showing it, I'm sure, I do appreciate your comments.
Besalbob, thanks for the lifetime of service. I assume you to be an honorable person so I doubt none of your comments. However, just I did not serve in your day - you have not served in this new era either. The camaraderie and esprit de corps you remember are in very short supply. The work-hard/play-hard mindset will only get you fired. It’s all work and no-play these days. If you don’t believe me, I invite you to stop by the NAS Lemoore or NAS Oceana O club on a Friday night and see for yourself, you may find it quite a lonely place. The squadrons are exhausted from the last 13 years of deployments to the sandbox. The last thing they want to do is grab a beer (and a chance for a DUI) with the guys they have just been to sea with for the last 9-10 months not to mention the looming surge-cruise the Navy now loves to deal out. Friday through Sunday is most likely for salvaging lost time with the family before the next deployment/workup trip.
I certainly agree with your former CO’s A to B mindset, great advice. I wonder if you Skipper’s blackboard discussions also included some AOM/All Hands topics that I have had to sit through (over and over)? Sexual Harassment training (on what seems like a monthly basis), Suicide prevention, Homosexual Sensitivity training, Trafficking in Persons training, and the list goes on. I’m not claiming that life was easy in the Navy 30 years ago, I’m sure you had your fair share of problems to deal with. The difference between then and now is that the problems still remain and many of the enjoyable aspects have been removed. To show you how far things have gone, a certain VFA squadron currently deployed to a combat zone has a Roll’em policy of banning any movie with nudity or swearing. I suppose the nudity I can understand but no swearing?!?! My guess is the pilots are growing tied of watching “A Charlie Brown Christmas“ and “The Little Mermaid” on the little down time they have.
There isn’t a single person I know of that thinks the airlines are glamorous, including my friends that have left to go fly for them. Everyone realizes that flying pax/cargo can be mundane work and the perks of the past do not exist anymore. However, the same can be said for Naval Aviation. Maybe in the past guys were leaving saying “I’m going to the airlines, it’s a great life!” Now they say, “I’m going to the airlines, it may not be a great life but it sure beats this s**t.” The point of the Weathervane article and the comments that followed was to shed some light on the retention problem. It is not unfixable but the top-brass needs to listed up to those in the trenches and make some real changes.
RADM Besal,
Thanks for your input – it’s nice to get some positive energy mixed in with some posts that tend to be a bit more negative. However, I agree with the Skipper that the bleating comment was uncalled for – it should be obvious that the majority of the commenters on this blog love Naval Aviation and are frustrated by its current trajectory. They’ve taken to this medium to share their frustrations without fear of retribution. If they didn’t care, they wouldn’t waste their time and would just happily move along to their next career.
I find it fairly typical (and I suspect I too will be guilty of this someday) that retired officers, pilots, etc… are quick to give advice based off their experiences that were, in your case, 40 years outdated. Had you received the same advice when you were a JO you’d have been listening to tales of pilots 10 years prior to WWII – would their advice about how the Navy was in their time been relevant to you? Along the same lines, nowadays a LTjg who causes a mid-air collision and subsequently ejects would be dead in the water career-wise and never have the opportunity to make Flag. When you were on the line as the CO of America could you have imagined your carrier’s weekly newsletter having only 2 articles covering ‘Loud and Proud’ and Yoga while Underway – this is the case on-board the Bush right now. The Navy has changed a great deal since your time and the posts you read (and object to as whiny) are simply the frustrations of warfighters wanting the focus to be on mission success, not pandering to the PC police. The reason everyone is reading and commenting is that they don’t share your confidence in, as you say, the organization being okay. They’re the ones in the seats currently, they see the trends, the changes real time and they’re scared. I suspect you might be as well if you were in their shoes.
What scares me is the people that see these same trends and don’t speak up and instead allow the slow, enveloping acceptance to overcome them and become part of the problem rather than part of the solution. I’m even more scared of the people whose personal ambitions to move up (as you say, “they’ve probably got their eye on some prize, and really aren’t listening”) have their judgement so horribly clouded that they see only themselves and their upward mobility, rather than the good of the organization and mission success.
There’s no question that we all want the best for Naval Aviation – I believe your time would be well spent understanding the current pulse of it and the mindset of the JOs who are deciding to make a career out of it or walk away, grateful for the time spent serving their country.
A DH can cause a MIDAIR and make CO...just saying.
Division G-warm perhaps? Either way, point taken. Come to think of it, I can probably name a few more instances in addition to some really detestable sins, much worse than poor airmanship, that didn't prevent individuals from moving up the ladder.
It is awesome that you had a great career. However, we are perfectly justified in airing grievances. I dont believe that we should just get out if we dont like it. That is not leadership and it will, at best, maintain the status quo - which sucks.
My guess is you backed some of the policies we are bitching about.
I wonder if you would be singing the same tune if you were a O4 FOS with multiple EPs ...
The O'Clubs are not empty just because everyone is exhausted. O'Club is an avenue to getting in trouble. NAS Lemoore has a freaking brewery now and they still can't drum up business. The thing may be closed now.
I think the last great and maybe "safe" O'club is in Fallon...
Yes, very true, and I love the Fallon O'club, don't get me wrong, but its success is largely because just like Mayo, "I got nowhere else to go!"
Thanks all for the comments, both goods and (especially) others.--all taken aboard. Agree with many, and it's good that you all are full of the piss and vinegar I remember "back in the day." (I'd have been disappointed if you rolled over and just groaned.)
Thanks to the Skipper for defining "bleat" clearly (seriously)--that's what I thought when it was my contemporaries that did it, but you're right--when viewed from a senior-junior or old guy - new guy perspective, leadership needs to listen (I also had to look up "pejorative" to make sure I understood it wasn't something good--never went to war colidge, and with my GPA from Cow College, didn't get invited to PG school..)
The weathervane will change direction--frequently--that's the point I tried to make up top. I am sure I would have a difficult time with the PC stuff,. The "PC 'was different in my time--certainly nothing about social experiment issues of today. Keep the faith, and keep the watch for the long-term barometer rise--it will happen. The current regime won't live forever.
You just made me laugh out loud, sir. I meant what I said previously. I appreciated your comments then as I do now, whether or not I agree with them in their entirety. Even when I was typing my comment in reply, I was thinking "I bet I'd enjoy having a beer with this guy".
For what it's worth, I stayed in too.
Thanks again for stopping by. Please come back, and please comment.
From the salt mines...grab some coffee its a long one
I thoroughly enjoy the conversation that this article has produced. As a recent PERS-43 employee (Placement O), I might have some thoughts that will help add to and maybe clarify some of the points being discussed:
1) No one is more upset about the recent LCDR promotion results more than the detailers and placement officers inside PERS-43. Quite simply, the LCDR board has made a liar out of the detailers. PERS-43's personnel are not allowed to participate in any fashion with the promotion board. (DH and CMD boards are different from promotion boards and I will address those boards a little later.) Thereby, the detailers are tasked with dealing with the wreckage of the LCDR board in which they had zero input or even observations. They are tasked with developing post-board analysis for the fleet based on the same promotion info that you everyone else is privy to. The detailers do have more fitrep information (break outs, jobs, locations, education, etc) on each individual, which allows them to come up with their in-depth analysis that they then share with the fleet. It is through this post board analysis (along with post board analysis of the CDR board and the DH and CO/XO and Major staff boards) that helps them to develop the "ideal" career path model.
2) Detailers have a set of priorities for filling billets. Those priorities are handed down to them and the top priority from the star in charge of Navy Personnel Command. The top priority is and will continue to be sea going operational units over all others. There are never enough people to fill all the empty billets assigned to aviation. Therefore the sea going billets will be filled first followed by all others. So when it disassociated sea tour time, the detailers must fill the operational sea going billets first. The detailer, as aviators from their own community, understands the individual desire to continue to fly and get the primo location, unfortunately they have guidelines that they must operate under. This is why an individual is not able to just to continue to fly until he/she can retire.
3) The detailers and the placement officers of PERS-43 have been warning of arrival of a retention problem for at least 3 years. Unfortunately, the message gets lost or diluted the further up the food chain it goes. One quick example: The most recent DH board marks the 2nd year in a row that VAQ did not meet its pilot quota. It was the first year that VFA did not meet its pilot goal. But for both VAQ and VFA NFOs the DH board were and continue to be bloody (approx. 50% screen rate). Therefore, when looking at the overall DH screen rate for both VFA and VAQ, the final number looks "better" than what we all know reality to be. Worse yet, VP DH screen rate for pilot or NFO is traditionally worse than VFA or VAQ, regardless of how you slice up the stats. The final outcome is that the overall board screen rates looks closer to the 75% rate that is the target. But it would be an extreme disadvantage to the individual and the squadron to screen additional P-3 pilots and have them serve a DH tour in a VFA or VAQ sqdn. So without the fidelity on the individual community and designator screen rates and total screen numbers, the problem remains hidden. And unfortunately, for Flags fighting budget battles to keep air wings, carriers and flight time, they do not get the level of detail needed to understand the retention problem at the individual community level. (Of course the worse option, is that the Admirals do get it and just choose to ignore the problem...the optimist does not want to believe this option.)
4) #2 and #3 combine to make the salt miners of PERS-43 very busy people. They are where the rubber hits the road for not enough bodies. Believe me it is apparent to all the detailers what the implications of not promoting/retaining enough people means for successive milestones. Smaller screen groups = higher selection rates = people getting into positions based solely on availability and not merit. The more immediate to fix the holes produced by this LCDR board will be left up to the detailers to using the rules that dictated to them. Super JOs, longer tour DH tour lengths, reduced number of DHs per squadron are all options and I imagine a combination of all three will be used...but how each aviation community will use them will verily based on individual community needs. I suspect that there could be some wide variations across all of aviation.
5) Super JO tour: Lots in this blog about super JOs. The official line for PERS-43 and Super JOs is the right person, in the right place, at the right time. Translation: who is the Super JO quals/experience (WTI, FAC(A), HAC, LSO, etc), and rank/promotion status (LT, LCDR(sel), or LCDR); what are the specific needs (quals & experience) of the squadron receiving a Super JO; and what is the timing both for the SJO promotion, squadron FITREPs, and current JO fitrep flow, current DH rotation, and the squadron deployment/FRTP cycle timing. In the end there is no perfect SJO fit but the detailer, the placement officer, and the gaining command CO are all looking at the above items to see if a SJO makes sense. Assuming that these items have been properly address/mitigated the SJO gig usually is neutral in terms of career progression. Boards expect SJOs to get the top EP as a LT upon day one in the squadron, expect SJO to be a pack player in any group of LCDR(sel)s, and a SJO is expected to be at the bottom of the LCDR summary group. Deviations from this "norm" will be good or bad for your career based on the type of deviation.
6) The limits of the detailer. The detailer as stated in #2 have a set of priorities handed to them wrt filling jobs. They also have an overall requirement to keep an individual tracking towards promotion. To do this, detailers rely on ideal career path models that have been developed over several years worth promotion and selection boards. Everyone realizes that this year's LCDR board was a tragedy and has large scale ramifications as it's screen group progress through its naval career. But we all must remember that it is only but a single data point (a really, really bad data point, but only one data point) Therefore, I would not expect to see extreme changes in the "ideal" career model based on this one board. Everyone up to and including the Air Boss realizes the dire situation of this LCDR and of the need for it to not be repeated. Therefore, I would expect to continue to hear similar responses to career questions that would have been given prior to the LCDR board. I will caveat by saying that with fewer aviation LCDRs, the job options and opportunities for those affected (both selects and non-selects) will significantly change simply because the pool of people to fill those jobs has dramatically shifted from traditional levels. And again, it is the detailers job...his job...to keep the individual tracking towards career progression while ensuring that all sea going billets are manned before other billets get filled.
I will end by saying that his is much longer than I intended. I feel strongly that aviation's retention issues have been ignored or suppressed for too long. I am glad that this forum is available to discuss such issues. I hope that some readers will have a better understanding of what your detailer can and cannot due and what PERS-43 should and should not be blamed for in all of this. I am standing by for all slings and arrows and will be monitoring this blog for any follow-ups questions, comments, or critiques.
Looks like the lever for fewer DH's per squadron has already been pulled.
My offer to go back for a 2nd DH tour still stands. 'Chu gots my e-mail and phone number.
Thank you for the well thought out post - I'm still stuck on how this O-4 board happened in the first place. While the results were terrible, I am most concerned that this may happen again without systematic change. Why did PERS actual not throw out the results when they came to his desk? Are the losses considered "acceptable" in the current manning construct?
I've seen angst over the past 15 years or so but nothing approaching what this past O-4 board has wrought. Put this angst with a solid economy and a bleak future of long deployments drilling holes in the sky in between SAPR training - why stay Navy?
Unfortunately, PERS-43 actual (a post major command CAPT)has no authority over the LCDR promotion board. He gets the results at the same time as the rest of the fleet. PERS-8 runs all promotion boards for the Navy. The results of the promotion boards get signed off by the board's president then to CNPC (2-star admiral), then CNP (3 star admiral) then CNO, SECNAV, SECDEF offices. Then they are finally off to the Senate for confirmation if so required by laws (all officer promotion boards are required to have Senate confirmation). As long as there was nothing illegal about the board, the results stand. The important point is that bad results are not the same as illegal.
That is why all of PERS-43 including PERS-43 actual have no authority to change the boards results. The good news is the system was built that way on purpose. You do not necessarily want one individual to have the power to overturn some or all of a statutory board results because he/she does not like the sone. some. or all of the results. The bureaucracy is a double edged sword that definitely swung hard against aviation this time around.
Thank you. Great message. I fear that what you wrote is lost amongst my archives. Would you have opposition to me making your comment a post of its own? Maybe I could run it this weekend. Unless you object, I could refer to you as a "recent placement officer at PERS-43". I think people would like to read what you have to say. It's very factual and unemotional, and more importantly, free of propaganda.
Please feel free to repost as desired. A "recent placement officer at PERS-43" is a fine title. Thank you for having this forum.
A lot of your points sound familiar. I believe that "one time" statement and we are alarmed about this situation were made after the FY14 board. Did the flag panel at the Tailhook convention not mention how it was a problem and they were working to "fix" it? (I may be mistaken on this.) And as a side note I know several LCDRs who did not screen in past years that called BUPERS and said they would do a VFA DH tour to get back in the fight fully realizing it would not change their poor/no chance of promotion. They were told by BUPERS that they were "handling it internally", which offended said LCDRs because they still see themselves as part of the VFA community and they were offering to take on a lot of pain to help with no or little reward career wise. On a positive note I am sure there will be a lot more aviation reservists to activate and send to crappy staff jobs (which are often filled by non-screened LCDRs or post OP-T DHs) after the Navy told them they weren't good enough to stay active duty.
You are correct. Not to defend the Admiral Panel, they are capable of doing that for themselves. But a little background may add context to why the mitigation effort that was put in (and ultimately failed on the FY15 LCDR board) was chosen and enacted after the FY14 LCDR. This year's URL LCDR target promotion rate was 70% regardless of designator. This was either the 2nd or 3rd year that the 70% rate was used. For a long time (I do not have exact numbers but am confident in saying at least the 5 previous years), the target promotion rate was for the same board was 80%. Whether the rate the target rate was 70% or 80%, aviation as a whole promoted below the target rate. Not by much but somewhere between 5-8% points below the target rate. So when the target rate was 80%, aviation was under-promoting but still promoted enough individuals to fill all of their requirements and then some.
However, in the first years of the target rate changing to 70%, aviation still under promoted by the traditional 5-8%. Not alarming from a big Navy point of in the sense that things seemed to remain the same except fewer individuals were being promoted. However, this 10% hit to aviation resulted in the loss of all buffer bodies and now aviation was approaching 1 for 1 on bodies to LCDR billet requirements. (Different communities were at different stages of approaching 1 for 1, which only served to screen the problem from the NAE. See my post above for more on this). By the second year of this new 62-65% screen rate, the squeeze was beginning to be noticed by the NAE. This is why at Tailhook '13 the flag panel said they were aware of the problem and working to correct it. Realize what they were trying to do is gain back 10% points in retention numbers...essentially trying to get aviation to promote at or slightly above the target promotion rate of 70%.
So when viewed through the NAE eyes a "major" mitigation strategy was not necessary. So they implemented what turned out to be weak controls (some might say counter productive controls). The result was that instead of aviation LCDR promotion rate getting incrementally better, things got much worse.
The true tragedy of the situation is exactly what everyone has been writing about. The building retention/promotion problem that was so apparent LCDRs and below went unnoticed at teh highest levels within the NAE. Now that a true shock to the system has occurred, solutions will be painful and unpopular because the solutions will have a hard time fully righting the "wrong" for most of those that are already affected.
By no means am I defending anyone's actions in all of this. This is just one persons opinion/analysis on how we got here. The hope is that we learn from it so that maybe we will be able to implemented some fixes immediately and (equally important) avoid this situation in the future. But for now we still have this issue...
Great background info...thanks for taking the time to explain what was going on behind the scenes.
I'm also glad you elected not to defend the flag panel. Noticing a 10% reduction in promotions amid a strong airline hiring spree and ridiculous deployment tempo, then failing to implement strong controls to preserve the health of the community is a tough position to defend. ACCP bonus take (or lack thereof) rates should have been another strong indicator.
Would you be willing to share some of the 'weak controls' implemented? I'll be honest, we'll probably armchair quarterback the heck out of them, but if we call it 'bringing out the learning points in the debrief', then that should be cool amongst a bunch of aviators, right?
This is the third year in a row of 70%, RPO@P43, and that's the root cause of all of this in my opinion. Mathematically, almost 1 in 3 LTs Navy wide (more than 1 in 3 for aviation) will be kicked out after a decade of service and a decade of having done everything right. I have nothing more than a hunch / conspiracy theory to back this up, but I suspect that the rationale for lowering the select rate from 90% (what it used to be until about 5 years ago) to 70% is to reduce the number of officers who can make it to 20. While I understand that personnel costs are high and the forecast for the future has them eating up too much of the budget, what I don't understand is why the 800,000+ strong DoD GS ranks don't get thinned but actually continue to swell. Those numbers get counted in the very DoD manpower costs which influence decisions such as promotion rates. If we need to reduce manning, the guys who never deploy, never PCS, etc. should be absorbing some of that blow. I also don't understand why none of this was communicated in advance. The select rate dropping to 70% was a better kept secret than who killed Bin Laden. Giving people a heads up that this was coming rather than expecting everyone to read the precept for the board (it's too late by then and I don't think expecting guys to read the board precept to know their chances is the right way to do business) could have alleviated at least some of the anguish and frustration.
To be honest, I don't even know who sets the select rate. NPC? OPNAV?
CAVEAT: I'm a disgruntled 2x FOS despite EPs (sometimes competitive double-taps) at every command. I thank The Skipper for encouraging rants... I wouldn't normally post my whining as a blog comment.
----------
I agree... the detailers shouldn't face the brunt of the fallout, but don't tell me that yellow, amonia-scented shower is rain.
Hrumph to Fear & Loathing's comment referencing the PERS brief at Tailhook...the writing was on the (very public) wall after the FY-14 board (and PERS had probably been tracking it long before that). I'll admit I've been too busy (trying to find post-Navy employment) to go back and review the video of the brief, but my recollection is something to the effect of: 'we're facing a DH deficit due to the inability to get sufficient numbers of aviators promoted to O-4. We're expanding the zone to cast a larger net, but that's not a viable long-term solution...we can't just keep reaching deeper into the lineal numbers.'
Since that September brief, it seems our leadership not only failed to find a solution, but also allowed the problem to grow much worse. I can't wait to see the next DH screen/slate...what a flail-EX that's going to be. So, senior leadership didn't fix the problem, but they won't hesitate to direct detailers to do some disastrous combination of the following (see detailers, I'm not blaming you...but please try to hang on to your integrity when you start selling these poop popsicles):
1) Shoehorn super JOs into squadrons as ADMIN and Safety O's, thereby crushing first-tour fleet JOs' FITREP dreams). We can't get dudes promoted with #1EPs...how the f&#% do you think you're promote anyone when even your best players have low EP/high MP high water marks. Retention problems anyone?
2) Extend DH tours to cover the gaps. Congrats DHs...not only are some of you inept because our community didn't get a say in who we screen since there was no screen...now you'll ALL have the timing to get a long #1EP (we'll figure out how to distinguish our Command Screen players later), AND you'll have time to do 2 (or maybe even 3) 10-month deployments!! Retention problems anyone?
3) Assign squadrons fewer department heads resulting in overlapping responsibilities. I'll never get to be a DH, but I can't imagine you get to do much flying when you're the Operadmin DH or the Maintafety DH. Combine this with the 'inept' argument from #2, and it doesn't take a Human Factors board to predict a rise in the number of mishaps. Do more with less...that's been working out really well for the Navy. Retention prob...eh, you get it.
Obviously none of these are viable long-term solutions...our senior leadership seems to have a finely-honed knack for finding those kinds of 'solutions'. I would say they aren't even viable short-term solutions. Combine this with airlines hiring like mad, Blue Angels getting fired for standard squadron antics, vacant O-clubs, PG roll'ems, etc... and even an LSO can see Naval Aviation is destined for dark days. Don't get me wrong, it will get better...eventually, but not before ruining the careers of a bunch of great dudes.
I can't see well, but I can hear fine and from what I heard of your post:
1) Your observations are spot-on.
2) Your predictions are spot-on.
3) The results of your predictions are spot-on.
My prediction: Despite not being allowed to remain in Naval Aviation despite your desire to do so, you will excel in whatever you end up doing wherever you end up doing it. You will find a satisfying and professionally rewarding job, specifically one that appreciates and respects you for your sacrfices.
Thanks for your service.
P.S. - As for your post: (TMPIM) (HIC) (HCDAR) -> OK into the 3.
Thanks Paddles!
I agree that the writing on the wall has been there for awhile. I also agree that Senior leadership did not give the retention/promotion issue enough supervision pre or post Tailhook '13. I can only assume that their attention was elsewhere (reference any of the reactionary PC issues here and/or the everlasting budget/sequestration battles).
I do take on exception to the "shoehorn a SJO" comment. Sending a SJO to a squadron is a conscious decision made between the Squadron commanding officer, the placement officer, the detailer, and the individual being considered for a SJO. Undoubtedly, there will be more of them in the fleet by absolute necessity (thank you very much FY15 LCDR board), but I can tell you that both the CO and the detailer are very aware of what it is doing for their JO fitrep flow for their first tour JOs. There should be a plan...ultimately this plan in on the Skippers. That is why the fitrep timings and promotion status of the SJO are looked at so closely prior to sending a SJO to a squadron.
By no means is SJO placement a perfect system. And yes someone will get hurt but the percentage is much smaller than if the detailers and COs were not in close communication. I can tell you that in my time at PERS-43 the answer was "no" more often than "yes" when a CO came inquiring about a SJO. When the answer was "yes", the CO and the detailer were sure that the a fitrep plan was in place to take care of the SJO and the first tour JOs. I admit that I was not privy to all SJOs throughout the fleet, so I am sure that there are examples of where SJOs went wrong, but I always felt good about the ones that I placed. Finally, the most recent LCDR board will require more SJOs to be used without the fleet. Statistically, one cannot escape the fact that this means that more people will be hurt by SJOs than have been in the past...its a pure numbers thing. But the converse is true as well, more aviators will be flying in fleet squadrons for their second sea tour than in the past...and I think we can all agree that keeping aviators flying in their primary platform longer a small win. All we can really do is hope that the percentages of people getting hurt fitrep-wise don't increase with the increase in SJO usage...and PERS-43 is acutely aware of that.
To your points in #2 and #3....yep and yep. The canned response is that it has been done before, but that does not make it good, right, or healthy. The sad fact is that the worker bees within the bureaucracy are poorly equipped to cope with large shifts in the underlining assumptions. The much more troubling facet is that those that control the policies which makeup the bureauracy seemingly have taken no or weak actions to correct the below glide scope condition.
The examples you provided about detailers and Skippers mitigating the impacts of a SJO are in the past and, in my opinion, not likely to ring true during the looming DH shortages. I believe that Skippers and detailers will attempt to minimize SJO impacts to first-tour JO FITREPS, but I don't trust they'll be successful. They will likely balance the health of the JO FITREPS against shoring up the middle management health. It will be a compromise, and there will be no winners....only losers. I think you captured this in your comment "one cannot escape the fact that this means that more people will be hurt by SJOs than have been in the past," but I wanted to elaborate.
Regarding "more aviators will be flying in fleet squadrons for their second sea tour than in the past": if that is a good thing, why haven't we been doing it more in the past? It's because it comes at a cost. Namely, those first-tour JOs who "will be hurt by SJOs [more] than...in the past". When those guys get to their O-4 board and need to compete against their SWO/Sub/EOD/etc counterparts, how's that #1MP going to work out for them? It's difficult to stay in the cockpit after you fail to select for O-4...trust me. Further, back-to-back sea tours will burn out your SJOs. I don't have the data, but I imagine the truth is there if we could look at SFTI retention rates. These guys are the best and brightest in our community, but most of my SFTI buddies have been leading the charge to punch out. Most cite a litany of reasons-for-leaving mirroring what CDR Snodgrass wrote in his white paper, but the most common reason is the prospect of doing a Training-O tour immediately followed by a DH tour. With 10-month deployments, I can't blame them.
So, I feel the SJO 'solution' is just as short-sighted and poorly thought-out as the other two. If these are the only option available under the current system, then maybe you should look at the system.
Come on paddles. I thought a guy got the underline on his last trap
Good point, my bad - change APARTS to read: NC _OK_.
SHB _OK_
Skipper, as a recent former detailer I will add some thoughts to help vector the conversation.
The community managers in 43 know very well what the future requirements in the fleet will be over the next 3-5 years. It just takes time and spreadsheets to figure it out, and that is what they have loads of. I'm sure the managers in 41 and 42 have the same SA. Because of this the question was asked why the PERS-8 run statutory boards couldn't be broken down into URL/RL, community, and community specific tanks for O-4 promotion? The answer always came in 2 parts. 1) It's too hard. And 2), It's too hard.
Hard at a macro level because of existing statutory promotion laws, and hard at the board level because it would require changing something (the structure of a board).
I would argue that changing the structure of the board would be hard for about 1 month. In that time PERS would have to coordinate the requirements from every community, colate them, and incorporate them into the board precept. I would be shocked if community managers couldn't produce this info in between their morning coffee and lunch. Could this breakdown of tank requirements be seen as advantaging warfighters first, who operate forward, in billets at sea? Potentially. Does anyone have a problem with that? If so please explain.
The second part is the law. Admittedly this could be much tougher. But in the current fiscal environment there may be no better time to highlight the waste and abuse that is the O-4 board. A weapons school and TPS grad who was the #1 MP, #3 overall, in a JO tour doesn't get promoted to O-4? That is waste. Literally millions of dollars of waste. Thankfully the paste-eating-no-load-1XXX-who-couldn't-get-the-quals-but-lat-transfered-to-Info-dominance picked up O-4. We need them. More importantly, our leaders should be addressing the statutory promotion laws because they do not support the current and future needs of the fleet.
I'd challenge the IG that this fiscal waste is something actually worth their time, but then I'd be investigated for sleeping with my wife last night and my career derailed.
I have to disagree. The waste is not the guy who got the MP. Clearly his skipper didn't think he was the best or brightest. By giving him a high water MP he was sending a very clear message to the board.
The waste is the WSO who was a fleet EP, FRS EP and then Admirals Aide but didn't select O-4.
Because FITREPS are always so objective over subjective...
I have to second this one. A warning to anyone who decides to check the FY-15 O-5 and O-4 restricted line selection lists. You'll see a few names you recognize from flight school or your first fleet squadron that managed to make O-5/O-4 as a member of a different community. It's depressing for those of us that stayed on the path and weren't as successful.
Imagine if lat transfer and promotion selection was offered to officers who failed to select for promotion in their primary designator, following the board. The board could still rank the non selects and PERS could offer that option in rank order. Instead of pushing the lat transfer earlier in the career when applicants are already typically DIW. Better performing officers would have better oportunites at careers, and options, and the gaining communities would also get stronger talent.
Exactly...I could have had a longer Navy career by washing out of flight school or the FRS, but....I hate the taste of paste.
No, it will look like you did a tour that you did not progress. If it were all aviators on the board, they would know you were doing God's work as a Super JO. But, the SWO's and Nukes on the board will just see a throw-away tour where you got to be an arogant hornet pilot.
I did a Super JO tour, and my detailer warned me not to because of the way it will look on the screen in the board. I said I was willing to take my chances because I knew I was short for active duty, so staying in the cockpit was all I cared about. Worked out fine for me since I do not need to screen as a VFA skipper.