Jump to content


VOLO_VRHome200Helicopter AcademyTigerTugsFrasca VRForum468
Photo
- - - - -

Why aren't selection rates higher?


  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

#1 SwissK31

SwissK31

    VR Veteran Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 77 posts

Posted 25 April 2019 - 19:16

As of April 2019, 30% of Army Aviators are eligible to retire, while 40% have more than 17 years service.  

 

It would seem to me that right now, selection rates would be near 100% if they want to tackle the approaching crisis. 

 

There must be some reason why rates have been about 50% the past 6 months.  

 

That begs the question:  What influences the selection rates the most?Because apparently high demand doesn't necessarily mean high selection.

 

I've looked over the forum and I haven't really found a clear answer.

 

I'm just curious.

 

 

Thanks!  

 

Currently, 30% of Army Aviators are eligible to retire, while 40% have more than 17 years service.  

 

It would seem to me that right now, selection rates would be near 100% if they want to tackle the approaching crisis.  

 


#2 StockTrader

StockTrader

    VR Veteran Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 812 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Trucks, Baseball, Helicopters
  • Company working for:CW2, US Army, 64 Driver

Posted 25 April 2019 - 19:45

Think second and third order effects. There are only so many aircraft and IPs at Rucker to get everyone through. If they continually pick up 100% you will run into the bubbles again of the past with people waiting 8-12 months just to class up, maybe longer.
  • Sabell44, SwissK31 and actuallyalex like this

#3 Thedude

Thedude

    VR Veteran Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 262 posts

Posted 25 April 2019 - 20:57

There also needs to be standards. The selection process is intended to weed out those who the board feels won’t be an asset to the Army and a 100% selection rate would completely negate that.

Where did you get those numbers from? They don’t match up with the composition of my company or battalion at all. No pilots in my company are eligible for retirement and less than half are over ten years total service. I can only think of a handful in the battalion that are eligible to retire or within a year or two of 20.
  • SwissK31 likes this

#4 jkray

jkray

    Student Poster

  • VR Member
  • PipPip
  • 17 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 April 2019 - 07:52

Think second and third order effects. There are only so many aircraft and IPs at Rucker to get everyone through. If they continually pick up 100% you will run into the bubbles again of the past with people waiting 8-12 months just to class up, maybe longer.

There also needs to be standards. The selection process is intended to weed out those who the board feels wont be an asset to the Army and a 100% selection rate would completely negate that.

After listening to the panel at the AAAA Summit, the reasons are very close to these answers. The panel said not many years ago they had 1 applicant for each available slot at flight school, this obviously doesnt make for recruiting the best pilots out there so they upped their game. They said that the goal is to have somewhere between 3-4 applicants per slot at flight school to make it an actually competitive process and to be able to bring on the best people to spend the money on training them. Right now it is about 2 to 2.5 applicants per slot which is why we are seeing the selection rates we are.
  • SwissK31 likes this

#5 SwissK31

SwissK31

    VR Veteran Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 77 posts

Posted 26 April 2019 - 07:53

Got it from here.  Unless I read it wrong.  It technically says "Warrant Officer Crew Members".  

 

https://www.army.mil...ess_army_pilots



#6 XIIGage

XIIGage

    VR Veteran Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 90 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Orleans, LA

Posted 26 April 2019 - 12:20

After listening to the panel at the AAAA Summit, the reasons are very close to these answers. The panel said not many years ago they had 1 applicant for each available slot at flight school, this obviously doesnt make for recruiting the best pilots out there so they upped their game. They said that the goal is to have somewhere between 3-4 applicants per slot at flight school to make it an actually competitive process and to be able to bring on the best people to spend the money on training them. Right now it is about 2 to 2.5 applicants per slot which is why we are seeing the selection rates we are.

 

Yeah this is what I have heard too. 

 

The problem with lack of pilots is due to lack of the amount of applicants willing to come to the Army. In general the military has a hard time recruiting when the economy is doing well since a lot of civilian jobs are more preferable. It isn't as simple as just lowering standards to accept more of the available applicants.

 

As we have seen come up already, the Army is trying to find more ways to retain pilots or incentivize them.


  • SwissK31 likes this

#7 SwissK31

SwissK31

    VR Veteran Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 77 posts

Posted 26 April 2019 - 17:12

Completely agree that standards should not be dropped.

 

From personal experience, I was FQ-NS on the March board. My issue was that my PT was at about 243 and my essay needed revision.  I've raised PT to 283, but I digress.

 

My point is that maybe they should make clear PT standards for applicants to meet to even become Fully-Qualified.  If that were the case, I wouldn't have wasted my time and they wouldn't have wasted theirs.

 

Maybe even raise standards such as the SIFT to 50.  



#8 Singhdrewan

Singhdrewan

    ATP Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 50 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 20 May 2019 - 22:45

I think it's for the aforementioned reason of lack of aircraft to actually train all these flight students. I joined the guard and our state is hurting for pilots so bad that they are advertising on Facebook for it. Selection rate is closing in on 100% for my right now, and I'm the only street to seat guy that the state has had in many years apparently. Even during my state aviation board interview, the board members told me they didn't even know what to ask me because they've never interviewed a civilian before.

#9 Richie88

Richie88

    PVT Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 28 posts

Posted 21 May 2019 - 03:44

My point is that maybe they should make clear PT standards for applicants to meet to even become Fully-Qualified.  If that were the case, I wouldn't have wasted my time and they wouldn't have wasted theirs.

 

Maybe even raise standards such as the SIFT to 50.  

 

That's essentially the same as the Army raising the minimum APFT standards from 180 to 240 with 80 in each event. It will never happen. There's a reason why there is a minimum, and a ton of emphasis on that word. A pilot with a 40 SIFT shows that he meets the minimum aptitude to learn to become an Army Aviator. Just as a brand new soldier coming out of BCT with a 180 APFT shows he has the minimum level of physical fitness to serve in the Army.  Now about your first point that the board should have a set APFT standard, I disagree. While it may not be preferable to have those aforementioned minimum scores, like everything else in the Army, its all about potential. From promotions, to schools, to selections its all about "do you have the potential to serve in the rank/position/unit your are applying for". And you proved yourself on the second board by improving your writing skills and your APFT, further demonstrating you have the potential to serve as a Warrant Officer because you had the personal dedication to drastically improve those two areas.


  • SwissK31 likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users



FreeFlight_Home200MaunaLoaVRHome200HeliHelmets-VR HomeBLR 200Genesys VR Forum 200LakeSuperior200Spectrum_VRHome200Guidance Home 200PrecisionVRForumHome200