Navy Net - Royal Navy Community

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

AIB fail

Joe_Crow

War Hero
One of the things that I have learned from RumRation is that, due to differences in the various entry requirements for different branches, the Logistics officer specialisation is massively over-subscribed. This means that not only do prospective Logistics officers have to pass their AIB, but they have to get a very high pass mark to gain one of the few places at BRNC.

Why then, given that they must be the 'creme de la creme de la creme' do they often seem to be lacking in some areas. The chap on Turbs who was on Quarterlies is not, in my experience, in a small minority. Yes, I have known Engineer and dabber officers who have struggled, but in nowhere near the same proportions as the Logistics branch.

So, what is wrong with the system that the best junior lieutenants on board are invariably not the LO? Is it, as someone suggested to me, that the majority of submarine LOs are not volunteers, but the gash that the General Service wants to ditch? Is the AIB itself failing to pick the right candidates due to an embarrassment of riches?
 

WreckerL

War Hero
Super Moderator
You have a good point Joe. I've often wondered if a lot of LO's have non-job related degrees or maybe they are too "academic" (polite way of saying no CDF).

The one on Turb's seems to be well out of his comfort zone as he's only had a bomber so no dealing with local Inchcape reps in foreign lands, arranging subbies and hotels, last minute logreq's to foreign lands, duties abroad etc etc.
 

Ninja_Stoker

War Hero
Moderator
You have a good point Joe. I've often wondered if a lot of LO's have non-job related degrees or maybe they are too "academic" (polite way of saying no CDF).

The one on Turb's seems to be well out of his comfort zone as he's only had a bomber so no dealing with local Inchcape reps in foreign lands, arranging subbies and hotels, last minute logreq's to foreign lands, duties abroad etc etc.

The simple number-crunching involved for Logs Officer selection raises the bar for selection because the selection pool is far deeper due to wider parameters of eligibility.

Whilst graduate Warfare Officers are also (arguably) 'illogically' awarded virtually double wages for having a non-vocational degree, the Logistics branch takes it several steps further by financially rewarding non-relevant degrees, wider age parameters and lower medical standards. All of which increase the number of applicants from which to select. As ever, there is a shortage of submariner volunteers, so older, lower scoring male AIB passes are offered boats if they meet the Nationality criteria.
 

slim

War Hero
The simple number-crunching involved for Logs Officer selection raises the bar for selection because the selection pool is far deeper due to wider parameters of eligibility.

Whilst graduate Warfare Officers are also (arguably) 'illogically' awarded virtually double wages for having a non-vocational degree, the Logistics branch takes it several steps further by financially rewarding non-relevant degrees, wider age parameters and lower medical standards. All of which increase the number of applicants from which to select. As ever, there is a shortage of submariner volunteers, so older, lower scoring male AIB passes are offered boats if they meet the Nationality criteria.

Makes complete sense to me giving an inferior officer to a branch of the Navy which arguably would deserve and require a superior one
 
G

guestm

Guest
If they are oversubscribed, why are SUY candidates being pushed in that direction?
 

Cancho

Midshipman
Ok - this may be the wrong thread or area to ask this question (maybe should be Newbies) but here goes.

How does the AIB scoring system work?

I understand that each element of the AIB is scored and that then gives a score out of 300 (?).

Now I also understand that each Branch will have a different distribution of scores and that a 220 score for Warfare will get a different response to a 220 score for Logs and that this then drives the "level" assigned to your pass by AIB on your letter - Borderline, Optimistic (have I missed any and if so what are they?).

Then on debrief you are told that you have scored above average on all areas - how is that determined by the ACLO or is that based on concrete information given by AIB? Again Above Average could mean different things for Warfare & Logs but how relevant is this to the allocation of a place at BRNC and what other "scores" are there other than above average?

So there are three different measures / scores - AIB "raw" score out of 300; AIB indication of success in getting a place at BRNC (bordeline, optimistic and others) based upon a historical distribution of scores for your chosen branch (?) and then the measure used in the AIB debrief - above average etc.

My question is how do these relate to each other and is a set of above average a good set for Warfare or Logs (as these are the examples I have used throughout)?

Sorry for the length of this but it is something that has been on my mind for a while.
 
AIB only assess potential, it does not assure performance.

I would suggest this more a failing of the training pipeline, and Career Management by the Logs Branch. Why are people being allowed to go to a job, where they are either temprementally unsuitable, or professionally incapable? There may be some questions over the gender balance (which evens itself out after 35 or so) to ensure a deep enough pool is available, but the simple answer might be to train more people and select the best (and watch as pigs conduct an ADEX on a Tuesday afternoon!).
 

Joe_Crow

War Hero
Ok - this may be the wrong thread or area to ask this question (maybe should be Newbies) but here goes...

Good question. I hope somebody gives an authoritative answer.

AIB only assess potential, it does not assure performance....

Then the question would have to be asked, why does it appear that so many of those in the Logistics branch fail to acheive the potential that the AIB assessed them as having, especially when compared to other branches where the bar is set lower? Or is the failing in the selection process prior to AIB?

It's too easy to blame the training. Sows ears, silk purses, turds, and ME7 spring to mind.
 
I'm not sure that "so many" as you term them are failing - I'm certainly not aware of wholesale failing in the surface world, nor in the part of the RN that actively supports the Fleet. There certainly are some choppers out there, but no more or less than the rest of the RN.

Perhaps there is something about the way we employ them in SM community - do they need to be post-charge Lt Cdrs, should they post-DLO(GS) assignments?

As for setting the bar higher, I would suggest that the Warfare Branch is actively suffering because we let in the 215-225 cohorts - there is a causal problem there, and all too often they get through the training pipeline and ships at sea are left to pick up the pieces. I would suggest that we probably need to look at raising the bar at AIB, and accept the short term impact on the Fleet. The Submarine Warfare Officers are a particular example of this - instead of making them better, they keep shovelling lower quality people in at the bottom in the hope they will be able to make one or two useful watchleaders (and thus COs) out of it. The problem is, they're not!
 
G

guestm

Guest
I'm not so sure that SUY's are 'pushed' in the Logs direction, in my SUY Logs entry were 2 RMs, 1 PTI and 2 Logs branch, none of us were pushed towards Logs. The PTI opted for Logs as there is no longer a PTO's branch (as do many PTI's), myself and the other RM went Logs for the wider range of jobs available as a Pusser than as an SO(LE) in the Corps. I haven't met any SUY's who felt pushed towards Logs, personally.

Perhaps it's simply a momentum gathering gash buzz then. It seems that for a while now, everyone who has their papers raised is being told "Go loggy, they're crying out for them." Or, when at D.O's interview "Have you considered Loggie?"
 

Joe_Crow

War Hero
I'm not sure that "so many" as you term them are failing - I'm certainly not aware of wholesale failing in the surface world, nor in the part of the RN that actively supports the Fleet. There certainly are some choppers out there, but no more or less than the rest of the RN.
That could well be true from your perspective. From mine, with one exception, the only Logs officers I know have been on boats, so I have a restricted view of the picture. It is, however, a view that I think many submariners would share.

alfred_the_great said:
Perhaps there is something about the way we employ them in SM community - do they need to be post-charge Lt Cdrs, should they post-DLO(GS) assignments?
Or should they go to a boat earlier in their career, qualify PtIII, OOD, SCOOW (or get binned), go back to whatever else it is they do, and join as LO already qualified, more suited to life in boats?


alfred_the_great said:
As for setting the bar higher, I would suggest that the Warfare Branch is actively suffering because we let in the 215-225 cohorts - there is a causal problem there, and all too often they get through the training pipeline and ships at sea are left to pick up the pieces. I would suggest that we probably need to look at raising the bar at AIB, and accept the short term impact on the Fleet. The Submarine Warfare Officers are a particular example of this - instead of making them better, they keep shovelling lower quality people in at the bottom in the hope they will be able to make one or two useful watchleaders (and thus COs) out of it. The problem is, they're not!

I'm not even going to pretend I know what you are on about here, but I haven't noticed a drop in the quality of Warfare officers in boats. I have seen the odd gash skipper.
 
We are at crtical manning for Warfare(SM) senior Lt/junior Lt Cdrs, with a nearly 1:1 pull-through required from Navs to CO. This is obviously unsustainable, and the solution was to try and stuff the bottom of the pyramid to create growth all the way through. Not enough volunteers from those in service could be found, so a combination of "voluntold-ing" happened, combined with X(SM) direct entry. Unsurprisingly, the junior Dabbers looked at their Seniors, the OpTempo* they "sustained", and banged out as soon as possible, resulting in yet more pressure on the plot. The only answer to get more bodies into the system was to lower the pass mark required for X(SM), and in some cases, take those who would have nominally failed and accept them at "risk". There is a correlation between your AIB score and long-term performance (notwithstanding your comments on L(SM)). Hence the parlous state of the X(SM) community.

I'm not sure I understand the problem with L(SM) - is it with the 'L' bit (i.e. can't count blankets and beans) or the (SM) bit (can't pass Pt III, SCOOW, OOD)?

*I know of a NO who went to work on a Tuesday morning, in a boat in refit, and came home 4 months later. Possibly acceptable once, but when the same NO went to sea for a week and came back 5 months later, he and his wife had a look at what the future held and moved on from that career path....
 

Joe_Crow

War Hero
We are at crtical manning for Warfare(SM) senior Lt/junior Lt Cdrs, with a nearly 1:1 pull-through required from Navs to CO.
Wasn't aware of this, but there are lots of areas where manning is tight in boats. Perhaps the answer is fewer hulls and less operational commitment

alfred_the_great said:
There is a correlation between your AIB score and long-term performance.... Hence the parlous state of the X(SM) community.
Where is that from? Not that I doubt you, I'm just curious to know if they have other data, such as if those who score exceptionally highly also have problems with their long-term performance.

alfred_the_great said:
I'm not sure I understand the problem with L(SM) - is it with the 'L' bit (i.e. can't count blankets and beans) or the (SM) bit (can't pass Pt III, SCOOW, OOD)?
Hard to say really, as those who are struggling with the s/m bit will obviously suffer the knock-on effects in their day-job.

alfred_the_great said:
*I know of a NO who went to work on a Tuesday morning, in a boat in refit, and came home 4 months later. Possibly acceptable once, but when the same NO went to sea for a week and came back 5 months later, he and his wife had a look at what the future held and moved on from that career path....
Drink is a terrible thing.
 

Cancho

Midshipman
As for setting the bar higher, I would suggest that the Warfare Branch is actively suffering because we let in the 215-225 cohorts - there is a causal problem there, and all too often they get through the training pipeline and ships at sea are left to pick up the pieces. I would suggest that we probably need to look at raising the bar at AIB, and accept the short term impact on the Fleet. The Submarine Warfare Officers are a particular example of this - instead of making them better, they keep shovelling lower quality people in at the bottom in the hope they will be able to make one or two useful watchleaders (and thus COs) out of it. The problem is, they're not!

ATG - so going back to my question from yesterday does the "215 - 225" cohort refer to the AIB score?

If so that is interesting as I am sure that the Warfare branch (both GS & SM from what I have heard) is looking at lower scores than that.

Also what is the current setting of the "bar" for Logs then? Obviously Logs is not broken out into GS or SM until after BRNC (?) and is volunteers first (again ?).
 

Seaweed

War Hero
Book Reviewer
I've been looking at my own entry's AIB results for Officer-Like Qualities (Noah was in the term just ahead) and can't see ANY correlation between AIB and subsequent career. The three I (and the rest of us) would classify as completely useless were in the middle of the AIB 'pass' bracket. Three who went plodding on to pension unpromoted were at the bottom of the ladder but did the Queen good service in their day. One who didn't get in because Supply & Secretariat was over-subscribed had a good OLQ pass, took a re-scrub three months later, got in and became a Captain. The only correlation I can see is between lowish educational scores and washing out at Manadon, so perhaps the educational bar should have been set higher for the plumbers.
 
Cancho - I thought the pass mark was 220, correct? My wider point is that we are willing to take those who are below the set standard in order to attempt to recruit the right numbers, which carries a significant training risk.

Seaweed - correlation, not causal. I wouls suggest that the majority of your entry who were promoted well (Capt RN+) had relatively high AIB scores. N_S has posted on here that AIB Scores (and RT Scores) are used as a predictor for future employment when people are MBOS'd from service (obviously weighted dependent on where they are in their career).
 

Cancho

Midshipman
Cancho - I thought the pass mark was 220, correct? My wider point is that we are willing to take those who are below the set standard in order to attempt to recruit the right numbers, which carries a significant training risk.

ATG - I may well be wrong but I was under the impression that the pass mark to even be considered for a BRNC place was 180? It is my understanding that the score you achieve is then measured against an historical distribution of scores for the chosen branch to determine the applicant's probability of being offered a BRNC place within the lifetime of the AIB pass (12 months?).

This is where the Borderline, Optimistic etc comes into play - hence my original question.

We know that a 220 for X(GS or SM) may be top end and lead to an immediate offer but for Logs it may be Bordeline. Does anyone have any view on that and how it works and what each band is broken down into for each branch?

I could be going off on completely the wrong tack here but I find it iinteresting to understand how this works as there appears to be a possible issue with Logs that may be exaccerbated by AIB scores?
 
I doubt that kind of information will be made public - if only to stop candidates beating down the door to their AFCOs complaining about not being selected. Without being harsh, there are 2 options - submit a FOI request, or just accept that for Logs the AIB score required is significantly higher than other branches. If we only need x of you and x+lots apply, then lots of people are going to dip out!

Or you could actually join a branch that the RN needs, as opposed to a bunch of wannabe secretaries who totter around the dockyard flirting with Admirals whilst avoiding going to sea or on Optour.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
S AIB fail - join RNR? Joining Up - Royal Navy Recruiting 7
B Joining as a rating after AIB fail. Advice needed Joining Up - Royal Navy Recruiting 27
G Fresh from AIB fail... Joining Up - Royal Navy Recruiting 8
D Story of an AIB Fail Joining Up - Royal Navy Recruiting 36
Olly013 AIB fail due to university? - Some advice please Joining Up - Royal Navy Recruiting 2
TotalAlien AIB fail and a 12 month wait you say? Joining Up - Royal Navy Recruiting 6
M AIB fail to rating entry, no wait? Joining Up - Royal Navy Recruiting 10
B Waiting time for Rating after AIB fail Joining Up - Royal Navy Recruiting 14
Norther If AIB is a fail, join as a Rating? Joining Up - Royal Navy Recruiting 29
R Fail officers AIB what would you then be offered???? Joining Up - Royal Navy Recruiting 9
N Virtual AIB Joining the Royal Navy 6
R Issues with waiting times for AIB and lack of communication from AFCO Joining Up - Royal Navy Recruiting 24
P AIB wait for priority roles Joining the Royal Navy 3
MoD_RSS CMA letter to AIB NI on a breach of Directions given under the SME Banking Undertakings MoD News 0
G AIB Joining the Royal Navy 11
SeaBiscuit RFA Officer Cadet Interview and AIB RFA 1
T Officer Inreview Questions Pre-AIB Joining the Royal Navy 1
C AIB revision Joining Up - Royal Navy Recruiting 1
R Selection after AIB Joining the Royal Navy 1
D Warfare Officer AIB Feb 2020 Joining Up - Royal Navy Recruiting 17
S Failed AIB - 12 months wait to retry Joining Up - Royal Navy Recruiting 19
A AIB waiting time Joining Up - Royal Navy Recruiting 67
O Aircrew AIB - February 2020 Joining the Royal Navy 1
J How soon after AIB (FAA) is the Aircrew Medical? Joining the Royal Navy 1
A Failed AIB - Considering Rating route Joining Up - Royal Navy Recruiting 5
C AIB study books - current and good Joining Up - Royal Navy Recruiting 1
C June AIB Joining Up - Royal Navy Recruiting 1
B Aircrew Officer Pilot - Upcoming AIB Prep. Joining the Royal Navy 1
C AIB swimming test Joining Up - Royal Navy Recruiting 14
C AIB pass rate Joining Up - Royal Navy Recruiting 9
J Upcoming AIB for TMO Joining Up - Royal Navy Recruiting 4
TheMau5e Failed AIB entry for warfare Joining Up - Royal Navy Recruiting 4
Y AIB Layout Joining Up - Royal Navy Recruiting 6
L AIB and aircrew medical Joining Up - Royal Navy Recruiting 1
H AIB Prep - What are the keys to success? Joining the Royal Navy 4
G How often do the AIB interviews take place? Joining the Royal Navy 5
C AIB - no return Joining the Royal Navy 3
G AIB 21st may 2018 Joining Up - Royal Navy Recruiting 0
woody28 AIB score?? Joining the Royal Navy 4
H PANDORA / T Score - FATS/AIB Joining Up - Royal Navy Recruiting 4
D Does anyone have experience with the JobTestPrep guide for AIB? RFA 4
C AIB - 2018 Joining Up - Royal Navy Recruiting 1
A AIB Joining the Royal Navy 3
Kelvin AIB Diary - 2018 Format Joining Up - Royal Navy Recruiting 14
W AIB Current Royal Navy Operations Joining Up - Royal Navy Recruiting 18
W AIB Questionnaire and Final Prep Joining Up - Royal Navy Recruiting 7
W Passed AIB however told selection unlikely Joining Up - Royal Navy Recruiting 6
J Passed AIB with a near Perfect Score, what can I do while I wait? Joining Up - Royal Navy Recruiting 41
photface New AIB format fitness Joining Up - Royal Navy Recruiting 16
W AIB Interview Questions Joining Up - Royal Navy Recruiting 25
Similar threads














AIB




























AIB








Top