Aviation Training System

In May 1943 Navy LT Norman Fetzer logged 111/2 hours in a simulator at the Link Training Facility, Atlanta, GA. He could not possibly have imagined, 67 years ago, the magnificent virtual training capabilities available to naval aviators in May 2010. How can Marine aviation best capitalize on these advanced training technologies? What can we envision—and for what should we begin preparing—67 years from today? Technological developments and budgetary realities require a transformational approach to aviation training. The Marine Corps aviation training system (ATS) is leading the way. (See sidebar at the end of this article.)

Marine Corps Order and Navy-Marine Corps Directive 3710.6 (MCO and NavMCDir 3710.6), released in June 2008, guide the implementation of ATS and how this training system investment will be organized to train Marines. In a world of increasing costs and reduced budgets, return on investment (ROI) and metrics to measure ROI are essential. Consequently, the mission of ATS per MCO 3710.6 is to: . . . develop a completely integrated training system across all of Marine Aviation that links training cost with readiness in order to provide the MAGTF commander with combat ready units.

ATS is a sweeping program. The transformation it aims to bring to the Marine Corps will not be complete for many years to come. But what began as merely a vision for more efficient and effective training for the warfighter is today achieving concrete results in the form of organizations, facilities, and procedures. The concrete benefits of ATS and its mission will soon be realized as each MAW implements the NavMCDir and as Marine aviation training system sites (MATSSs) at each air station stand up and begin to weave broader working relationships with the Operating Forces. But change is underway.

ATS is cultural change, intended to fundamentally alter Marine Corps aviation training beliefs, behaviors, and organizations in order to generate greater ROI, training standardization, and synchronization of training system acquisition with Operating Forces requirements. As in any group, organizational change of this nature in Marine Corps aviation is challenging. Each community and occupational field has unique and established ways of conducting business, to include training methods, management, and standardization. Marines’ willingness to accept major changes to these practices is frustrated by a number of realities. These include the high operational tempo, introduction of new aircraft, personnel turnover, and a seemingly endless introduction of computer-based information management systems.

In this already challenging work environment, introducing ATS intended to transform aviation training is understandably being met with skepticism, particularly among the program’s intended customers—aircrew, maintainers, air controllers, and aviation support Marines. To captains and corporals alike, the language of NavMCDir 3710.6 is high sounding but vague, as are statements like “linking costs with readiness,” “concurrency management,” and “comprehensive realignment of aviation training.” The general perception among Marines is that ATS is yet another “good idea,” and that the program, like many other similar initiatives in the past, is only transitory. Marines are still asking, “What’s in it for the Marine Corps?” Answering this fundamental question is the purpose of this article.

Marine Corps aviation training methods and management have vastly improved since the days of Marine Corps aviator number one, A.A. Cunningham, approaching 100 years ago. But for each aircraft community and aviation support unit, improvements have occurred often in different directions and sometimes in inefficient ways. Rounding up disparate interest groups—10 aircraft communities, 11 nonaircraft communities, and hundreds of civilian and contract support personnel at 11 air stations—and convincing them to willingly accept the constraints of a revolutionary new training system is a veritable case study in cultural change. Despite many challenges facing this effort, ATS continues to strengthen its foundations and incrementally build credibility among Marines and civilian employees. Success thus far is primarily due to increasing Operating Forces’ awareness, persistent Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) support on policy implementation and, most importantly, the staffing of MATSS facilities with qualified and energetic Marines who have the experience and preexisting relationships with the fleet necessary to make the program a success. There is still much work to be done. But change is underway.

In Ready Rooms

As mentioned previously, the capabilities of simulators are expanding dramatically due to advances in technology. Proper management of these complex and increasingly numerous devices was the raison d’être for establishing ATS—aircrew having access to the most advanced simulators necessary to prepare them for the dynamic battlespace of tomorrow. The vision is that a substantial portion of future training will be executed in networkable, highly realistic simulators. But for most aircrew the simulator is still just “the sim.” For the most part these devices are viewed with indifference or even disdain by aircrew. Reasons likely include a combination of stressful simulator experiences in flight school, the fact that many simulators are not motion based and have poor graphics, that simulators have historically been focused on 1000-level events in the aircraft community’s training and readiness (T&R) program, and the reality that aircraft upgrades are often afterthoughts in training system upgrades. The bottom line is, especially for postfleet replacement squadron aircrew who fly legacy aircraft (all aircraft for which the production line has shut down), the use of simulators is largely of peripheral interest. And if given the choice, even for missions that would constitute better training or would be far more realistic if flown in a simulator, most aircrew would prefer to fly the actual aircraft. Simulator hours have historically been of peripheral importance to actual aircraft flight hours. With increasing device fidelity, networking capabilities, and T&R manual changes to capitalize on these enhancements (some 50 percent of the F–35B readiness is planned to be sustained in the virtual environment), simulator flight time will be perceived by aircrew as more valuable in the future.

For the time being, aircrew attitudes regarding flight simulators remain largely neutral. This is not helped by the reality that many Marines are not even remotely cognizant of the multimillion dollar support structure that exists behind the scenes to procure and sustain these devices. These widespread misconceptions are mainly due to simulators and other training support contracts historically being managed by a few uniformed supervisors at air station headquarters, whose names and activities were practically unknown to the fleet. Ask a pilot, naval flight officer, or crew chief about how simulators are upgraded, who revises training courseware, or what a contracting officer representative does, and you will likely get a shrug. Ask which entities manage training funding and requirements, and the response is likely to be “MAWTS,” or “HQMC,” or simply, “the Pentagon.” The trouble with this pervasive lack of awareness is that many good ideas—in some cases, the best ideas—never get off the ground, because they are not communicated to the appropriate support or acquisition entity. But change is underway.

Simulation capabilities available to Marines are improving exponentially from year to year, particularly with regard to realism and networking. As a result, more than 50 percent of T&R events for newer platforms like the KC–130J, MV–22, and F–35 will be or are achieved in simulators. Higher rates of simulator-achieved readiness are likely in the future, with the full implementation of the Marine Corps’ Tactical Environment Network (TEN) and Aviation Distributed Virtual Training Environment (ADVTE) Network. Coordination for the communications infrastructure necessary to support ADVTE operations has already begun. This network, when complete, will link all aviation simulators in the Marine Corps across the United States. Scheduled to reach initial operational capability in mid-2010 with KC–130 simulators at Cherry Point networked to MV–22 simulators at New River, ADVTE and TEN will revolutionize MAGTF training, especially once they are able to interface with Marine ground combat trainers and the simulator networks of other Services.

Awareness among aircrew about this exciting new simulator technology, as well as knowledge about ATS, its objectives, facilities, and influence, is growing steadily, especially in 2d MAW where MATSS facilities have had the most time since inception to mature. Greater knowledge about ATS has generated increased aircrew support of the program. But to truly overcome residual skepticism among aircrew, ATS has to show genuine ROI. One means by which results are occurring is MATSSs assuming management and scheduling of simulators and generic aircrew training courses via the training management and event scheduling system (TMESS).

TMESS, like the ATS concept, was introduced at MCAS New River. For several years, the New River MATSS has been using this web-based program to schedule and manage simulators and classes like Instrument Ground School, the Night Imaging and Threat Evaluation Lab, and the Basic Instructor Training Course. Creating an information system that accommodates the particular needs of each aircraft and aviation support community at multiple air stations is a challenging work in progress. But thus far, proliferation of TMESS beyond New River, first to Cherry Point and Beaufort and then to other MAWs, has been a success. Particularly from the aircrew perspective, the consolidation of simulator and generic aviation training class scheduling in an easy-to-use interface is appealing. Capabilities of this system are increasing steadily and in the future will also include the incorporation of all unclassified aviation-related training courseware via a common learning management system called the Marine Corps aviation learning management system (MCALMS). MCALMS is intended to eventually provide a standard learning management system solution for all of Marine aviation that will enable a single LMS for aircrew and aircraft maintenance, reduce costs for software and operational manpower, and provide a standard Operating Forces configuration for learning software user data.

With the introduction of ATS, Marine aircrew are beginning to see incremental improvement in flight training standardization. The flight leadership standardization evaluator (FLSE) program will be coordinated by MATSSs in the future. Already, the FLSE program has increased intracommunity dialogue and adherence to standing operating procedures, doctrinal publications, and Naval Air Training and Operating Procedures Standardization. When ATS reaches full operational capability (planned for fiscal year 2013), all tenant aircraft communities are planned to have an FLSE program coordinator assigned to each MATSS. Unlike the current situation, where FLSE program managers are typically MAG staff officers, highly qualified Marine aviators assigned as MATSS FLSE program coordinators will facilitate the synergy of standardization in both the live and virtual training environments for Marine aviation. Once MATSS assumes these FLSE responsibilities, wider integration of training standards among the MATSS at each air station will ensure a higher quality of flight leadership across the MAWs. Provided the MATSSs are populated with appropriately qualified aircrew, the idea of consolidated, standardized FLSE program management at MATSS has been well received by the Operating Forces.

Most importantly for aircrew, various type/model/series communities have begun to realize the benefits of having uniformed experts at MATSS interacting on a daily basis with training support and acquisition organizations. In contrast to uniformed acquisition professionals assigned to various program offices, testing facilities, and higher headquarters, MATSS staff officers fly and interact regularly with local squadrons and thus are keenly aware of each community’s actual simulation, courseware, and other training needs. In addition to their integration with the Operating Forces, these staff officers are simultaneously articulating the Operating Forces’ training requirements to the acquisition program management activities. MATSS’ unique role in this regard is beginning to pay dividends. An example is MATSS Cherry Point’s support of the EA–6B community’s transition to Improved Capability III aircraft. The movement of three simulators, increasing of the EA–6B contract instructor training capabilities, and creation of more than 200 hours of computer-based courseware and lectures required extensive coordination between the transition team at MAG–14 and acquisition and support entities. MATSS Cherry Point has been vital in bridging this gap, capitalizing on resident acquisition expertise and preexisting relationships with the EA–6B squadrons, Naval Air Systems Command, and HQMC. Recent MATSS support of the Marine EA–6B community is illustrative of ways in which the MATSS at each air station will be integral to the comprehensive transition of Marine Corps aviation from legacy platforms to next-generation aircraft, such as the MV–22 and the F–35.

So, one of MATSS’ primary roles is to identify, prioritize, and articulate the requirement and provide the operational expertise for the identification and introduction of training systems solutions. This is necessary in a world of decreasing defense budgets and fast-paced technological change. If the Operating Forces do not participate energetically in the acquisition process, especially the requirements definition processes, it is unlikely they will obtain the training products or services they actually need.

According to an article published by the Defense Acquisition University (November-December 2009 by LtCol Dan Ward, USAF) the Requirement Shelf-Life Ratio Theorem states that: . . . if the amount of time spent developing a system exceeds the sum of the requirements’ shelf-life, the resulting system will be operationally irrelevant and/or technically obsolete when delivered.

It is an ATS mission to ensure, through active participation in the training system development processes—with engaged, motivated, and Operating Forces-experienced MATSS Marines, that the Requirement Shelf-Life Theorem is not validated by Marine aviation because of lack of effective coordination and management of operational training system requirements. Operational input to the training acquisition cycle has been inconsistent in the past. But change is underway.

In Hangars and Workshops

Although Marine aircrew are generally optimistic about the introduction of ATS to the aviation training process, nonaircrew members of the MAW are decidedly more skeptical about the achievable scope and objectives of the program. Performing the six functions of Marine aviation is a costly business. And the majority of those dollars have historically been spent on aircraft, simulators, flight hours, and other aircrew-centric expenses. The robust funding and managed training support structure in place for aircrew is mirrored to some degree for training maintainers and other aviation support MOSs. However, unlike the support for aircrew matriculation, skills progression, and currency, funding and training management available for nonflyers is dramatically reduced for postinitial accession Marines. Witnessing the fact that funding has been allocated historically in support of procuring and maintaining high-expense items, and a legitimate perception of the centrality of fixing and flying aircraft, has perpetuated the belief among nonaircrew aviation MOSs that there are scant resources available to address their equally important training needs.

They are used to “doing more with less” and continue to rely on locally produced (i.e., cheap, low-technology, rudimentary) solutions to fulfill training needs. Whereas the Air Force F–22 program trains maintainers using multimedia courseware and classrooms that exploit commercial-off-the-shelf, leading-edge technology and methods used in the Boeing 777 training program (available at http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/f22/f22train.html), most Marine squadron maintenance departments and support activities rely on paper-based training aids, ad hoc presentations, and word of mouth on-the-job training. The ATS vision of a library of concurrent, applicable, high-fidelity, and standardized maintenance training classes, available immediately to be presented on modern electronic classroom equipment—even on the hangar decks—will pull aviation maintenance training into the 21st century.

Likewise, ATS integration with aviation maintenance and its advanced skills management (ASM) system to be used for all aviation maintenance training documentation will enhance aviation maintenance training and standardization. ASM will improve the quality and efficiency of aviation maintenance training by providing the capability to identify individual maintenance task requirements, perform realtime assessments, identify training deficiencies, and access training tools. According to CAPT Jonathan Dowell, USN, Commander, Naval Undersea Warfare Command, Keyport, FL, the developer of ASM:

[ASM] provides a more useful, effective tool for managing complex aviation maintenance assignments as well as significantly reducing the administrative burden on air wings. Resources saved in [aviation maintenance] scheduling, planning, and administration can be redirected across the naval aviation enterprise.

Increased standardization of aviation maintenance training through ASM integrated with ATS will mean Marines who hold qualifications, such as collateral duty inspector, and transfer to another air station ultimately will not waste man-hours revalidating these qualifications. While improvements to leadership and process standardization have occurred, there is still much to be done. But change is underway.

Marines in air control, maintenance, and support roles do their jobs magnificently. But they have done so for many years with a paucity of the training resources, funding, and standardization that ATS promises to bring to their communities in the future. Marine Corps-wide, MATSSs, in conjunction with Training and Education Command (TECom) Aviation Training Branch, have begun to forge relationships across all of the Marine Corps’ aviation communities through the annual training management process (TMP). Training management teams representing each aviation platform and community meet at least annually to develop and articulate high-priority training needs to TECom, and ultimately to the Deputy Commandant for Aviation (DC/A). The TMP establishes a process in the development of training requirements. It will help aviation training issues compete on a level playing field when funding decisions are made. (See Figure 1.)

Discovering the purpose of ATS and the role of each MATSS, and receiving much needed assistance in identifying training requirements to HQMC and acquisition organizations, nonflyers are slowly beginning to realize the advocacy and coordinating power of the MATSSs. Although these relationships and lines of communications need time to mature, dialogue has begun. The productivity of MATSS coordination with maintenance, controller, and support units will increase substantially in the future, especially when MATSSs are supplemented with nonaircrew staff members, planned when ATS reaches full operational capability in fiscal year 2013.

Despite the organizational tasking delineated by NavMCDir 3710.6 extending the reach of ATS to nonaircrew communities and increasing awareness on the part of these Marines about the program, barriers still need to be broken down. Yet some barriers already have been breached. For example, MATSS Cherry Point assisted Marine Air Control Squadron 2 in procuring a Link–16 data link transmitter and facilitated the installation of a networkable RQ–7 Shadow unmanned aircraft system simulator for use in joint controller and aircraft training. Widening MATSS’ influence to bring every Marine in the MAW under the ATS “umbrella” must occur in order for the benefits of ATS to Marine aviation to be fully realized. Efficient, standardized, and high-technology training is now within reach of all aviation MOSs. The timetable and degree to which these capabilities are achieved in large part depends on the participation and near-term relationships established by those communities with their local MATSSs. Many institutional barriers remain. But change is underway.

A Vision for the Future

For its time, the Link Trainer described at the beginning of this article was transformational. It helped naval aviators like LT Fetzer experience the rigors of instrument flight, risk free and safely bolted to the deck before being thrust into actual weather conditions in real aircraft at sea. Yet nearly 67 years ago, sweating in the cramped cockpit of the stubby-winged simulator in Atlanta, Fetzer could hardly maintain level flight in his elementary training device, let alone envision how far aviation training technologies would advance by 2010. Nanotechnology, visual systems, distributed mission operations, advanced distributed learning, tactical environment network, and systems approach to training were all words and technologies yet to be invented. Likewise, what are 21st century Marines not envisioning—what training capabilities have we not yet envisioned—that will exist in 2077? If LT Fetzer’s experience is any indication, the answer is plenty.

Suffice it to say that by 2077 we might expect our training world to be at least as different as LT Fetzer’s 1943 world was compared to today. Given the far more rapid pace of technological change now, we should plan for aviation training capabilities in 2077 to be bounded only by the limits of our imagination. Imagine joint and combined virtually networked strike packages in a lifelike tactical environment (stimulating not only the human tactile, aural, and visual senses, but also the olfactory sense). Imagine fully functional and realistic, yet simulated, command and control nodes and virtual enemy weapons systems that accurately stimulate the simulators’ aircraft survivability equipment and air defense sensors and weapons. Imagine virtual reality so “real” that determining the difference between the virtual world and the real weapons or maintenance training system will be nearly impossible. Imagine a boundless virtual training environment minimizing, if not eliminating, the need for real impact ranges and training areas. Imagine live operations networked to virtual operations to gain synergy and maximize the effectiveness and efficiency of training. Imagine full virtual rehearsals prior to conducting real missions—rehearsals where every possible contingency is simulated against a realistic enemy order of battle prior to risking irreplaceable national assets, both Marines and equipment. Imagine a world where mixed MAW—even joint—operations are so routine (through the opportunities afforded by realistic networks of high-fidelity simulators) and standardized that U.S. Air Force, U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, and U.S. Marine Corps aircrew and controllers have trained with each other so often that our Nation’s fighting forces realize levels of readiness like never before.

While training standardization as articulated in NavMCDir 3710.6 is a major aspect of the ATS concept, ATS exists not as some may have perceived to foolishly standardize or to become, as Ralph Waldo Emerson suggested, the “hobgoblin of little minds.” Instead, ATS was intended to provide warfighters the resources, the organizational structure, the leadership, the potent acquisition pathway, and the comprehensive and visionary thought necessary to transform Marine Corps aviation. In doing so ATS will help Marines envision—and prepare for—the brave new world of aviation training, a future where the virtual environment across all aviation platforms, communities, and specialties will provide a majority of the MAGTF’s readiness to win battles. Full acceptance and realization of the ATS vision promises to be challenging. But change is underway.