Center for Naval Aviation Technical Training

CAPT Terry Burt
850 452452- 7163
[email protected]
Center for Naval Aviation Technical Training
29Jun 11
Mission
Develop, deliver, and support aviation training necessary to meet validated Fleet
requirements through a continuum of professional and personal growth for
Sailors and Marines
CORE PROGRAMS
‘A’ Schools > 19 Aviation Ratings, 247 Navy NECs / 81 USMC MOS
‘C’ Schools > 31 USN/USMC Type Model Series Aircraft, FRCs & Afloat ‘I’ Level
Officer Training >14 Designators for Pilots/NFOs, Aviation Maintenance, &
Aviation Ordnance
Strong
Enterprise
Alignment
Requirements based on
acquisition life cycle planning
Supports career continuum
Integrated
USN / USMC
staff/student
throughput
Military Instructors return value to NAE
Reinvest expertise in the fleet upon transfer
Maintain health of the community and sea shore rotation
Center for Naval Aviation Technical Training
2
• 22 Learning Sites
• 835 Courses (CINS) //1340
1340 locations (CDPS)
g
• Students in Training
Students in Training 6517
6517
 Initial Skill Training
3954 students
 Skill Progression Training
2859 students
 Functional
u ct o a S
Skill Training
a
g
485
85 stude
students
ts
 Officer Training
673 students
• Annual Student Enrollment – 121,108 (FY10)
53,470 (FY11 TD)
• Instructors – 2229
• Yellow Gear/TTE:
25,298 items
• Support Equipment 13,222 items
• Electronic Classrooms:
• Major Trainers:
420
871
• Total Training Assets value $1
$1.6
6B
TRST772R CeTARS
4/06/11
Center for Naval Aviation Technical Training
Navy Total
Force
Naval Aviation
Enterprise
CNP
Air Board
NETC
Total Force
CFT
CNATT
Requirements
q
ATB
USMC
ATS/Training Mgt Teams
(V-22,C-130, H-46, H-1, AV-8, H-53, JSF,
UAS) Center for Naval Aviation Technical Training
CNAF
Training Model Managers
(F/A-18, P3, H-60, E2/C2, E-6, EA-6B,
H-46, JSF, MH-53)
4

Significant configuration changes affecting major TMS through the FYDP

Aircraft transitions require concurrent training pipelines through the FYDP

Priorities aligned to NAE readiness requirements

NAE emphasis on total learning continuum

CNATT Integrated Production Plan will reduce Total Time to Train and close production gap
Aircraft
c a t Transition
a s t o Timeline
e e
LEGACY
09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
F/A-18A/D
EA-6B
E-2C
P-3C
EP-3A**
HH-60H*/SH-60F
HH
60H /SH 60F
SH-60B
MH-53E**
C-9
C-12B/F/M**
C-20A/D
Legacy Aircraft
Transition Period
NewCenter
Aircraftfor Naval Aviation Technical Training
NEW
F-35C
F/A-18E/F
EA-18G
E-2D
P-8A
BAMS
EPX
MH-60S
MH
60S
MH-60R
HLR
C-40A
C-12 Replacement
C-37-A/B
* Updated from Current APDF on 5 Oct 2010
5
NAE
CNATT
New / Increased Requirements
MQ-8B
NavPlan
N
Pl
2030
NETC/N1
F/A-18
AAG/
EMALS
F-35
H-1Y/Z
KC-130J
Instructor s
Trainers (TTE)
BRAC
TRANET
PCSIM
Courseware
Multimedia
USMC
ATSP
Electronic
Classrooms
NKO
H-60S/R
E-2D
ITRO
P-8
RQ7B
EA-18G
CH-53K
MAP
Center for Naval Aviation Technical Training
6
Aviator
Undergrad
Recruit
USNA
ROTC
OCS
Grad
Flight
Trng
FRS
FRS
FRS
T&RM
Matrix
ti
T&RM
Matrix
ti
T&RM
Matrix
ti
Aviation Technical Rating
Grad
Undergrad
Recruit
Recruit
Boot
Camp
A
School
Initial
T/M/S
CNATT
In
Career
T/M/S
CNATT
In
SEAM
CNATT
In
Service
Service
Training
Training
Training
(QPT)
(QPT)
(QPT)
Apprentice
E1 - E4
Center for Naval Aviation Technical Training
J
Journeyman
E5 - E6
Service
Master
E7 – E9
7
16,000
Rate Phasing Matrix Adjustments
IPP Goal 12,457
12,000
10,000
8,000
,
6,000
4 000
4,000
2,000
O
N
D
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
Current FIT Fill, Apprentice
IPP
Fit
ABF
AG
AS
ABE
ABH
AC
AD
AE
AM
AME
AO
AT-I
AT-O
AW-O/R
AW-S
AZ
PR
Annual Plan 15,005
14,000
NEC
Goal
Rating
FY10 Production and Goals
A
S
Center for Naval Aviation Technical Training
Fill
91.5%
93.7%
99.3%
102.0%
150.2%
122.7%
86.9%
89.2%
92.2%
92.5%
94.0%
91.1%
93.5%
93.7%
93.3%
106.3%
98.4%
96.6%
90.4%
91.6%
95.3%
89.9%
95.4%
104.1%
95.3%
95
3%
92.0%
108.0%
99.3%
91.4%
104
104.1%
1%
107.0%
102.0%
122.7%
102.7%
NETC Production Criteria
> 125%
> 90% to 125%
Between 75% to 89%
8
VFA
VAQ
VAW
F-35C
Helo/Fire Scout
Helo EXP ROC/POE
SOF/ISR
VP
FRC
BAMS
UCLAS
Security Billets
TOTAL
FY-13
-301
-33
-55
-155
60
0
0
0
0
0
0
-10
-494
FY-14
-301
-27
-55
-252
34
-421
-400
-15
15
0
-162
0
-20
-1619
FY-15
-280
-23
-55
-398
-65
-428
-400
-15
15
-160
-266
Growth
-20
-2110
FY-16
-280
-23
-55
-488
-168
-696
-400
-15
15
-520
-340
Growth
-20
-3005
FY-17
-280
-23
-55
-538
-173
-688
-400
-15
15
-520
-430
Growth
-20
-3142
Numbers are based on program estimates and do not include CVN or all training tail requirements
Center for Naval Aviation Technical Training
Source: CAPT Tom Macrae, CNAF N1
9
CNAF
Directs / Monitor
Requirements
CNATT
Trains Sailors/
Marines
Deliver the right
people
p
p with the right
g
competencies to
accomplish the right
work for the best
value ... today and in
the future
Training
Model
Manager
CNATTU CO/OIC
Demand
Signal
HPPRs, IPTs,
Fleet Feedback
WING MO
FRC
Center for Naval Aviation Technical Training
NATEC
C
10
CNATTU CO/OIC
WING MO
FRC
HPPRs, IPTs,
Fleet Feedback
C
NATEC
Center for Naval Aviation Technical Training
11 11
•
Local TRIADs
•
QPT PQS
•
Bi-annual HPRR Conferences
•
ENARG
•
Integrated Logistic Support Management Team
(ILSMT)
•
Formal Course Reviews
•
Occupational Standard Review
•
Rating and TMS IPTs
•
Acquisition FEA w/o standardized process
Center for Naval Aviation Technical Training
12
•
Shrinking budgets
•
Pressure to document training impact on
readiness
•
Reduced manning levels
•
Roll-down in pay-grade and level of experience
M
Meanwhile…
hil
•
Expanding aircraft system complexity and
integration of new platforms
•
Extending life of sundowner platforms with aging
systems
. . .more with less
Center for Naval Aviation Technical Training
13
•
Which maintenance degraders are likely
p
for training
g deficiencies?
suspects
•
What kind of skill and at what level is required to
support the required performance?
•
At what point(s) in the training continuum is the
skill acquired and at what levels?
•
Are there any gaps in the training progression?
– If so, how are we dealing with them now?
– What would it take, and cost, to fill the gap(s)?
•
Who needs to engage, and how?
Center for Naval Aviation Technical Training
14
CNATTU CO/OIC
WING MO
FRC
HPPRs, IPTs,
Fleet Feedback
•
Aligning Training to Readiness
•
Identifying Gaps
•
P
Providing
idi the
th ‘right
‘ i ht tools’
t l ’
•
Improve response time
•
Focusing Resources
NATEC
‘In
In a repeatable process’
process
Center for Naval Aviation Technical Training
15
Triad / CNATT Response Engine
CNATTU CO/OIC
HPPRs, IPTs, Fleet
WING MO
FRC
HPRR, IPT,
Fleet Feedback
NATEC
Center for Naval Aviation Technical Training
16
NATEC ELAR perspective
•
“Unable to effectively utilize schematic drawings to
troubleshoot/ repair”
•
“Improper repair of electrical connector components”
•
“Do not have an adequate knowledge of System Signal
Flow“
•
“The technicians
“Th
t h i i
coming
i
from
f
the
th formal
f
l training
t i i
to
t the
th
Fleet have no understanding of the system”
•
Most Sailors unable to correlate OTPS instructions,
“Most
pubs, and schematics to effectively troubleshoot basic
WRA/CASS station issues”
•
Visual inspection techniques as aid in troubleshooting
is not being reinforced”
Center for Naval Aviation Technical Training
17
Aviator/aircrew training
only. No accounting for
maintainer training
Maintenance tasks
are implied in
aviator/aircrew
tasks
Combined maintenance &
aviator/aircrew p
personnel makes
metric insensitive to gaps in
aviators/aircrew
Aircraft systems only.
No accounting for
support equipment/IMRL
Source: Russell Scott, CNAL N81
Center for Naval Aviation Technical Training
18
Directly measures
contribution of
aviators/aircrew
Add logistics NTAs to
explicitly measure
logistics readiness
Directly measures contribution
of appropriate personnel in
maintenance departments
Specific to
aviator/aircrew
training
Specific to
Directly measures
maintainer
contribution of support training
equipment/IMRL
Source: Russell Scott, CNAL N81
Center for Naval Aviation Technical Training
19
 Engaged to date
 NETC COO
 NATEC
 CNAF N42
 CNATTU CO /OiCs
 COMFRC / AIR 6.0  NAE TF ESC
 AIR 6.7
67
 Next steps
R fi th
Refine
the process iincluding
l di rapid
id response
Evaluate the pilot feedback
Select candidate issues
Visit the Wings / FRCs
 Report findings. . .
Center for Naval Aviation Technical Training
20
 Maintaining legacy training while meeting new platform
q
transition requirements
 Funding requirements transfer from N88 to N1. . .
 Fleet Returnees/C School Utilization/NEC Award
“We
We will develop a comprehensive strategy for the use of high fidelity simulators in training
training. .
. provides the right balance of live and simulated training to the Fleet.”
CNO Guidance for 2011
Center for Naval Aviation Technical Training
21
 Extending Integrated Production Plan (IPP) to FRC &
USMC
 USMC Production/Time-to-Train Alignment
 Training TRIAD
 HPRR value
 Linking
Li ki T
Training
i i P
Performance
f
tto Fl
Fleett R
Readiness
di
“. . .we have an obligation to set up our Sailors for success by providing them with the
tools, training, and the time needed to deploy with confidence in their ability to accomplish
their assigned missions.”
Admiral J. C. Harvey USN Fleet Forces
Center for Naval Aviation Technical Training
22
Center for Naval Aviation Technical Training
23
Triad/CNATT Response Engine
Center for Naval Aviation Technical Training
24
Requirements to Training Delivery
g
Linkage
Technical Training Curriculum
JMETL
Defense Readiness
S t
System
Reporting
JTF
NMETL Group
NMETL
Warfare
W
f
CDR
NMETL
MESM
T/M/S MC and FMC
readiness goals
TRPPM
KSA
KSA
KSA
Key
Learning
Points
KSA
KSA
KSA
Key
Learning
Points
KSA
KSA
KSA
Key
Learning
Points
KSA
KSA
KSA
EO
Unit
NMETL
CRITICAL &
FREQUENT
TASKS
APPROVED
NTSP
TRAINING
SYSTEM ACQ
STRATEGY
PLAN
Key
Learning
Points
EO
CTTL
MASTER
TASK LIST
MPT INPUTS TO
Analysis
TO
EO
EO
EO
CONCEPT
REFINEMENT
Training System Development
RFP
Center for Naval Aviation Technical Training
25
Learning Lessons from NAE
Aviator training
CNAF Policy Message 18 Apr 06 Objective:
VADMs Zortman, Kilcline, Meyers all VADMs
Zortman Kilcline Meyers all
identified training system contribution to Aviator readiness as major analysis requirements Aviator Readiness Training
I
Inputs
t
O t t
Outputs
• NTAs
• Training
START
• T&R Matrix
System Specs
• Skills
Tool
• Cost-benefit
• Tasks
• The same process and tool should be applied for
Maintainer training
• Problem: What the Fleet needs is not well
articulated and aligned for Maintainers
• ROI
–
Alignment of the requirements across
Acquisition/Schoolhouse/Fleet is needed to identify
performance gaps.
–
A modified START process could guide acquisition of
training to fill gaps.
–
Logistics NTAs could be invoked and reported,
allocating
ll
ti readiness
di
value
l to
t Maintainers,
M i t i
as with
ith
Aviators.
Systematic Team Assessment of Readiness Training
• Process applied across 10 Navy T/M/S,
• Modified process
p
being
g applied
pp
to Marine
Air.
• $163M awarded across FYDP.
Center for Naval Aviation Technical Training
26