Army Land Nav "checkpoints" or markers were 1 foot square concrete pads set flush with the ground. But certain courses were used so often that there were trails connecting them all. Also, when you were doing a land nav problem with a group of 100 or so folks, you'd be at your marker, shoot your bearing and see a knot of people standing the appropriate distance away. So you'd put your compass in your pocket, walk over and join them. This was in the reserves and the course was for reservists. We heard stories about the land nav course for Active Duty Infantry E-7's. Each "checkpoint" had 4 markers arrayed in a square within 10 yards of each other, so accuracy counted.
At TBS, most of the points are too far apart to do any type of "box to box" navigation successfully. There was a lot of heartbreak on the courses in the early stages, but the boxes on the final land nav course were pretty accurate and pretty well marked. Only problem was that it was a pretty huge area. A lot of people found all of their boxes. The "Quantico-like terrain" was a huge help, too. I used terrain association at least as much as azimuth and pace count; which I think is a skill of greater practical importance anyway. I would say that terrain association is more important than knowing how to use a GPS any day of the week. This is where Cheater McDoucherson fails to see the big picture. A GPS will get you there, but it won't tell you what's on the other side of that ridge.
What scale maps do they use? At 1:10,000 scale 10m is only 1mm. Not exactly much room for error. Or are these mapless compass courses, and all you've got is your pace?
Absolutely. Terrain association worked very well. If you knew that you just needed to walk 1k crossing a couple draws, take a left at the creek bed and your box will be on top of the finger 300m ahead you were golden. But if you had to rely on just a straight azimuth and a pace count you had a lot more trouble.
Mapless compass course. You were shown your starting point and given a list of "Range and Bearings" (sorry, I can't shake my radar operator terminology). When we heard the story about the "hard" course, the guy telling it said you were golden if you were close to one of the markers, but hosed when your bearing and pace count dropped you right in the middle of all four of them.
And is worthless in the real world. Which is exactly why we don't do that at TBS. When are you going to be given a distance and azimuth and told to just walk to that point? That is almost as worthless as doing land nav with a GPS if you ask me.
Let's be honest here, the difference between gouge and cheating is like the difference between "fooling around" and adultery--it's all cheating. Gouge is the test answers. Why? Because you only get gouge from people who have already taken the test. Good gouge = accurate answers for the current test. The only reason users of gouge are not kicked out is because it is generally accepted and punishments are not enforced, as long as it's not too blantantly obvious. "Gouge" is just a handy euphemism to cover our own guilt. Lest ye be judged... right.
Throttle back there, Judgey McJudgerson. How about if you're about to take the Land Nav test, and the above pictured box hidden by the tree trunk is part of the course. One of your classmates who just went through passes the word, "The third point is really hard to see unless you're approaching it from the south". That's gouge - you're still doing the navigating, which is the point of the test, but someone passes info which will help you out. How about when you're in the VT's and someone who last flew with your IP lets you know "LT X loves asking about the HAPL/LAPL patterns," so you spend extra time studying that. You're still doing the studying and learning, but someone helped you focus your studying. That's gouge. What these assholes did, just copying down answers from a previous test...yeah, cheating. But there is a difference between that and gouge.
Roger that, UNC, and we've all heard: ''HEY!! That's good gouge ... '' or ''HEY!! That's bad gouge ... '' There's an ol' saying in the Navy: ''Live by the Gouge, die by the Gouge'' ... gouge is NOT cheating ... gouge is good, gouge is sometimes essential ... just make certain it's 'good' prior to using it.
So maybe you guys can help me draw the line in the sand between gouge and cheating (maybe it's more like drawing a line in the water). Photocopied answers to tests that float around most flight school/aircraft transition courses--these are commonly referred to as "gouge", but it is pretty clear that they are cheat-sheets. I have used them; I'd say a majority of students I know use them. Guys commonly come back from a course and say "that gouge is crap" or "they changed the test". I use them now to make sure I don't get temporarily grounded by blowing a test that might have questions on subjects that I consider minutia. However, if I was still under an honor code, signed a statement that I would not cheat or was given a verbal order not to cheat, I would never use gouge out of fear of losing my career like these guys did. I guarantee that at least a few of those 13 officers thought that cheat-sheet was "gouge" and were just going with what they thought was acceptable by safety in numbers. "We die by the gouge..."
Every Officer of Marines knows that what they were doing was wrong. Every student at TBS is expressly told very many times that using a MATRIX is cheating, and will not be tolerated. Land Nav isn't some knowledge exam, it is a practical field exercise. You aren't being tested on whether or not you know what resection is, or how to plot a point, you are being tested on whether or not you can actually do it. As was said earlier: Instructor X likes to talk about HAPL/LAPL. So you study up on them. Great, and perfectly legal. Now, what if there was a way for you to not demonstrate that you could execute said maneuver but still get 100% credit for doing so. That is what these asshats did. What they did was equivalent to having your buddy make 10 holes in the center of the target at the rifle rage so you can qual expert, then you do the same for your buddy. Fuck em.
IMO, having an advance, unauthorized copy of the actual test is clearly over the line. Having access to question banks, previous tests (if not specifically prohibited by the "governing authority"), talking to people who took it recently (again, unless specifically prohibited) is acceptable. I think it is also incumbent on the "governing authority" to not be lazy and keep using the same tests. (I don't know if that is the case in this instance or not.)
The Navy is far different now. But back in the day, there was "cheating" ... and then there was "cheating". Woe be the officer who didn't know the difference. It could mean either a good fitrep, or a court martial... and it did on some/many occasions. In our community, if I heard, "If you ain't cheating, then you aren't trying," once, I heard it 1,000 times. But there was in fact, "good cheating" ... and then there was "bad cheating". One was privately encouraged and sometimes rewarded; the other would ruin your career. Only experience taught you which was which. It was impossible to know beforehand. Of course for me the straight arrow, I always ignored gouge. And when an instructor stomped his foot 3 times, I also always ignored that too. (Yeah, right. No points for 2nd place, Bucko.) But as wild as some of us were, there were some simple things that none of us would ever do, nor ever approve of. These things were to JOs mostly esoteric – and most dangerous – only to be observed and learned in the real world, over time. And most all did learn it. But none would reveal it. Nevertheless, times have changed, I suppose.
Your inexperience in aviation AND the ways of the world are showing ... as you need to have a 'truth' explained to you over ... and over ... and over ... and .... so let me see if I can help. ONE more time ... ''Cheating'' involves stuff you have to hide ... and it's 'wrong' ... and you know it ... and you use it at your own peril. ''Gouge'' involves stuff you don't have to hide ... and it's NOT 'wrong' ... and you know it ... and its use is accepted and universally considered 'the norm'. It's either 'hidden' ... or it's used in the clear light of day. It's either 'wrong' ... or it's not ... You either 'get it', or you don't ... Clear ???
I never understood the "signed statement" argument. I have signed some pretty stupid shit in my short career, and I'm already getting tired of it. Like those ORM sheet about drinking and driving. I was going to go out and get hammered and see if I could get away with it, now that I've signed a piece of paper I think I'll be a good boy and get a taxi! or I was going to cheat on the test, but now that I've signed the "No Cheating" roster that was passed around at the beginning of class I think I'll just study and learn the material instead. I swear these sheets of paper where started by some hinge somewhere trying to make Commander. I can see the Fitrep bullet now, "Implemented DUI awareness program (i.e. roster) resulting in a 96% DUI free squadron." Stupid. And people that use not signing something as a reason play in the gray area just add fuel to the fire. Getting advice on how to succeed isn't anything close to cheating. Hell, if that was the case everyone on this website would be guilty. I think you truly know the difference but, for whatever reason, are just trolling. And that pisses me off even more. /rant
Yes, I cheat. I use gouge. It's the easier wrong, I guess. I also lie, "Yes, Grandma, your meatloaf does taste good." I steal paper sometimes from the yeomen. I tolerate people (more or less). Call in the honor gestapo. Tool should write a song about me.
Gouge : White Lies :: Cheating : Adultery. The line is drawn in the midst of a grey area, granted. But that doesn't mean that one side of the line is black, and the other white, any more than it means that there is no line. Is it wrong to have copies of the current EP test? OK, then I guess every NATOPS department in the Navy is committing integrity violations. Those tests are distributed because the purpose behind them is mere checking of rote memorization, and if you don't get 100 percent, you fail. Tests which are no kidding for a competitive grade (like in the RAG or flight school) are more closely guarded. But gouge is still tolerated as long as no one steals the current test. Why? Because the objective is to FURTHER STUDENTS' LEARNING, not to play gotcha with the wording of questions. I don't know why blackshoes get so uptight about this.
Completely agree with that above. Our FSXXI office has blank generic copies of every airframes 5&9 test. Most of us take them out and get them laminated so we can go over them again and again with a dry erase marker and get the memorization down perfect. I know I would not have passed the first hurdle of flightschool without them. I run through mine about 1-2 times every couple weeks just go nitpick myself on little vernacular crap and spelling. How many of us have sat in a class that was testable information only to hear the instructor stamp his foot, say hint hint, flat out tell you some peice of information is on the test. Are you gonna stick your fingers in your ears and not write down whatever he just told you in your notes because your trying to prove a point about honor? None of this precludes me from actually taking the test and proving I have the knowledge. Ive still gotta put the pencil to paper and prove I dont have my head on backwards. Now these guys just walking out into the woods with the answers writting them in and not having to actually find their points or even walk the f'ing course.... yeah F those guys. And the guy with the GPS comment is a fucking retard. Tell me how the hell your gonna do an artillery call for fire if you cant look at a map, fix your position and grid, and then fix the enemys range and direction if you dont know how to do landnav.
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2010/06/marine_cheating_060510w/ Soooo...Ballard must be a real piece of work. Take your beatings and go home pussy.
I interpreted your comment toward slug as equating "gouge" with "knowingly and deliberately cheating." If that wasn't what you meant, then I missed your point. I've occasionally overheard or read surface or sub guys seem to take a harder line towards types of gouge than most aviators. Things like talking in general terms about a test with the next class down, using old tests or lists of subjects to guide one's study, etc. I assumed it was a difference in community mentality. Maybe I just misinterpreted what was being said/written. I'm not saying I disrespect the people who took that line; just the opposite in some cases. I just disagreed with it when I heard it, felt that it emphasized the "gamesmanship" part of education over the "teach/evaluate" part, and seemed to notice it coming more from the non-aviation side of the house than the aviation side. Maybe I'm totally out to lunch, but that was just my impression, which is admittedly coming from a position of partial ignorance.
My OCS Company had about 35% attrition...TBS, we only had two, both of which got booted after they were leadership drops a second time...
