Jump to content


Registered User
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

867 profile views

Av8's Achievements

Crew Dawg

Crew Dawg (2/4)



  1. UPT select, my CFM said they wouldn't release me, but I made it through somehow! I was shocked when I heard the news 95 pilot/90 PCSM & PPL with 300+ hrs
  2. Submitted as well. Every time I see the email that says "UFT Board [Incident #" I get a little worried haha, but all seems to be good so far. Does anyone know if they are skipping straight through your career field's opinion this year, or does your career field still get to decide if they will release you for training? I remember a few years back they told all CFMs they didn't have a choice and had to release someone if they were picked up.
  3. Yep, on my 2808 it says "pending successful completion of MFS-N"
  4. I do believe this is the case. Correct me if I am wrong or if anyone else has seen differently. Mine says "FCI approved pending completion of MFS"
  5. The issue at hand is not with the model itself, it is a sound predictive model. The old adage goes, "all models are wrong, some are useful". Obviously there are factors left out, but to increase throughput by 10% equates to ~1000 more pilots produced from SUPT from 2011-2018...imagine if we had produced that many more pilots without spending an extra dime or degrading the curriculum. We would now have more guys to fill white jet roles, more Capts in squadrons, and much healthier manning. It is a simple solution, but it is also a start at thinking differently about the problem, and instead of shortening timelines and reducing flight hours, maybe we can think outside the box to come up with a different approach where it all begins...the selection to attend UPT. @ViperMan is correct that we need to see the actual analytic results from the study to start coming to conclusions about which things to look for in an applicant, and I'm sure that can be obtained. However, this is an initial look at the predictive model and its power to help solve the issue, not a descriptive model aimed at analyzing past performance (even though we can gain insights from it). We are in a destructive cycle trying to produce more pilots at the same standard with less, and every time someone is unable to make it through the UPT process, the problem is compounded.
  6. Graduation rates for 2011-2018 with an overall rough average of 84%...imagine if our average graduation rate was 94% without degrading the curriculum. 10% seems like a small change, but that equates to hundreds of extra pilots each year through the pipeline. The quality of the program is another question, but this model is agnostic to that program quality. It is a tool to create a new vetting process to improve who we select to go to UPT in the first place. There are shortfalls in terms of its dependence on the 2010-2018 UPT process, but it is definitely a worthwhile discussion to have, and an alternate way of solving the UPT backlog crisis.
  7. I also just fixed the link in the original post so the full text should be viewable now 👍 sorry about that
  8. You are correct about the fact that the model uses previous data, but that is not survivorship bias. Survivorship bias is when you throw out the unsuccessful candidates and only use those who were successful, but this model actually emphasizes the unsuccessful events to draw insight from them. The fact about data showing women not completing training in the 80's is actually acknowledged within the article, specifically with regards to race and gender parameters, but the results still remain valid. If we could have 94% of the studs passing UPT, compared to where we are now, that's hundreds of extra pilots through the pipeline each year that we aren't currently getting. These added efficiencies come with essentially no change, except for the selection process.
  9. This was a quote that summed up the conclusions obtained. Basically, the USAF/AFR/ANG currently is performing much lower than 94% of selectees making it through SUPT by relying on AFOQT/PCSM/etc. If we can identify beforehand those who will be successful via these techniques then we can eliminate the $ and time waste of sending someone through training who washes out. @jazzdude The data included those selected from UPT from 2010-2018 and the authors used a machine learning model to attempt to determine who would succeed and who would not. The model was 94% accurate at this. There is some other interesting reading on whether or not the SUPT process itself is working correctly, which is supplemental to the main point of the model: to determine the most efficient ways for the Air Force to choose candidates to complete SUPT. @brabus Degree type was in fact the most significant variable. PCSM etc. were not the least (there were many more variables tested), but the PCSM and AFOQT scores were less accurate predictors of who would/would not complete SUPT. Graph Below: This is a prospective candidate's "score" based on the model presented in the article and whether or not they completed SUPT.
  10. Interesting read on a scientific approach to determining success at UPT using machine learning methods. BLUF: They were able to predict to 94% accuracy a UPT candidate's success in UPT (from 2010-2018). The following were the factors deemed most significant to success in SUPT. Predicting success in United States Air Force pilot training using machine learning techniques
  11. Hey @Tstark0816 this is the forum for those currently in active duty USAF looking for information on the active duty UFT board. I do know that there is no active duty UPT board for civilians trying to join the Air Force this year. I don't think I can answer any of your other questions.
  12. A general bit of advice from someone who is in this situation currently. Ask the right questions upfront, don't just shoot out an app without visiting or making contact with the squadron. I had to learn this the hard way as I was able to secure quite a few interviews with fighter squadrons only to find out later that the reason I wasn't hired was because my civilian peers who are the same age or older have a leg up on me solely because they do not have Air Force officer experience. For example, if two applicants are completely equal throughout the process with similar scores/interviews/personality, the squadron will most likely pick the guy with no officer experience over the one who is an AD officer. With some squadrons receiving upwards of 200 qualified applicants, and everyone interviewing with scores in the upper 90s, the chances are near 0...but there's a chance. What I should have done is contacted the hiring POC and ask them the tough questions upfront (i.e. Are you willing to hire an active duty captain? How many positions are you hiring for?). That's 100% on me for not asking those questions, as my mentality was more along the lines of 'throw a bunch of darts and see which ones stick'. Now I am more intent on rushing/asking questions early in the process and only applying to those squadrons I have first connected with.
  13. Hey, great question and I'm wondering the same thing! I'm basically in the same situation, been on the roadshow for about 18 months now (started as an Lt) and its time to pick up an assignment as a non-rated Captain that will extend my ADSC 2 years. Bad News: I have asked for feedback from every interview and every single time it is the same response..."we were just looking for guys who can come in as Lts, not Captains"...paraphrasing of course. Basically, we have a steep uphill road to climb to get selected solely because we already have rank. Good News: It sucks to hear that you didn't get the slot because you are an active duty captain, but it's likely we are coming out of the lull in Air Force pilot hiring as airlines ramp up their pilot numbers, guard/reserve guys go back to airlines, and many squadrons are transitioning to new airframes (i.e. guys don't want to take orders to learn a new a/c when they are close to retiring). All this info combined with the Air Force always being a few years behind the pilot manpower curve signals that there may be a chance again soon for us, and 2 years might be the sweet spot. Honestly, I've been fairly discouraged as almost all the guys/gals I've met so far in interviews have gotten slots with fighter units. However, it's been a fun ride interviewing and getting to know some of the squadrons and other applicants...connections are priceless whether you get the job or not. My question is: Will squadrons entertain your application if you have 2 years (non-rated) ADSC left?
  14. Yes, T-Mobile is IMO cheaper and more value than Verizon or ATT. I went from ATT to T-Mobile about 3 years back and it's like going from a crappy credit card to the Amex Platinum...so many benefits included (MLB TV, 1hr of airline internet, international data, and more). The cell reception is getting relatively better too, many people said Verizon was the only provider you needed to get in my area when I PCS'd, but then hurricanes hit and everyone with Verizon was SOL andT-Mobile was up soon after. YMMV on the reception though depending where you live
  15. The new PSDM just dropped today with a 5 October 2021 deadline and the board meets 16-18 November. Best of luck for everyone applying!
  • Create New...