Aviator progression in the Navy

EDIT: I didn't mean to exclude the Marines or Coast Guard from the thread title. Your response would be equally appreciated, as things are likely different from the Navy.

Fellow aviators, I'm an Army officer and UH-60 pilot here in the very initial stages of gathering some information from the other services about how aviators are trained and developed. Intent is to possibly turn this into a research paper looking at how we progress aviators in the Army, if there are significant differences.

I'm hoping that you can paint a picture for me, in as much detail as you care to give, of the typical progression (in terms of flight hours and time in service, who you fly with, and level of responsibility both in and out of the cockpit) of an Aviator or NFO in your community until becoming an aircraft/mission commander. I'm most interested in hearing from the H-60 community, the single seat F/A-18 community, and the two seat F/A-18 community. For F/A-18s, I'm especially interested in how pilots make the transition to flying without anyone at another set of controls. And at that point, how is further instruction or a check-ride conducted?

If anyone can point me in the direction of some further reading (a course syllabus, book, article, research paper, etc.) that would be most appreciated too.

As an example, I'll share with you how things look for a rotary wing Army Aviator:

First year and 100 hours, whether an O-1 or WO1, the officer is in flight school, flying with civilian instructors who have 4,000-10,000+ hours. Learn to hover, take off and land, talk on the radio, respond to emergencies, fly instruments in the civil airspace, and navigate low level.

Next few months and 50 hours are flown with Army instructors, typically with 1,000-2,000 hours. Basic tasks are covered again, plus flying NVGs and employing weapons.

After approximately 18 months and 150 total hours, the officer receives wings and goes to an operational unit.

Next few months and 50 hours are flown with instructors at the unit, with 1,000-3,000 hours, learning the local area and more mission tasks. An O-2 would usually be a platoon leader, in charge of 8-10 WO1 to CW3 pilots (including the instructors), as well as 12-15 enlisted Soldiers. The O-2 may also work on battalion staff or in a company without helicopters (dedicated to maintenance, for example) but they would still fly and progress (albeit more slowly). A WO1 or CW2 would spend all their time flying and studying, with only a small duty such as working in ALSE or maintaining the NVGs.

After 2 years in service and 200 total hours, the officer is fully mission qualified and can begin flying with non-instructor pilots as a PI (co-pilot).

For the next 300 hours and 1-3 years, the PI works toward becoming a PC (pilot-in-command). After 3-5 years in service and 500+ total hours, the PI is considered for an evaluation to become a PC. As a PC they fly with more junior pilots in the 200-500 total hour range.

In the 500-1,500 total hour range, a PC is considered for designation as an AMC (air mission commander, with overall responsibility for an operation and all of the aircraft involved). AMCs are typically O-3 company commanders, O-4s serving as battalion XO or Operations Officer, or CW2-CW4s who have attended school to become instructor pilots, maintenance officers, safety officers, or tactical operations officers.

Thanks for whatever help you can provide.

For the helo side:

• Primary flight training in the T-6: 100 hours of contact, instrument and formation training. (yes, T-34 dudes, I know, I know. whatever.)
• Advanced flight training in the TH-57: 100 hours of contact, instrument, formation, navigation and NVD training with a heavy emphasis on the instrument portion. Somewhere in here most Navy students put on O-2. Wings.
• Fleet Replacement Squadron: 45 (?) hours of familiarization, instrument, NVD, ship qual and tactical training. Achieves Level I tactics designation and Pilot Qualified in Model designation.
• Fleet Squadron: Working on H2P (helicopter second pilot) designation along with Level II tactics designation. Training flights include SAR, logistics, shipboard operations and tactics. After H2P/Level II designation, work starts on HAC (helicopter aircraft commander) designation and Level III tactics designation. 500 hour total time minimum required for HAC. Training flights get more complex and can involve multiple helicopters. Somewhere in here most people put on O-3. After HAC/Level III designation, some folks get selected to be Level IV, which means you're a mission commander... or it used to. They've changed the tactics instruction a bit in the past 6-7 years.
• You can also qualify as a Functional Check Pilot to fly post-maintenance check flights and get designated as an assistant NATOPS instructor that can give the annual NATOPS (EPs, taking off and landing, autos, etc.) evaluation. I suppose you could get designated an instrument check pilot too, but I saw that only with O-4s and O-5s in the fleet.
• All the while you're doing this, you have a ground job. The first one is usually fairly easy unless you are picked to be the Legal Officer and they progress in breadth and difficulty until you transfer to your next duty station.
• Usually leave your first tour with between 800-1200 total time.

Other caveats and nota benes: Qualified HACs fly with anyone, PQMs/H2Ps must fly with HACs with some minor exceptions. Effort is made not to send the newest HAC on a flight with the newest PQM.

People who are currently in the fleet, did I goon that up any?

I'm a single seat Hornet guy, so my info will be limited to that, though I have a tertiary understanding of the two-seater (D & F) communities. It's the same syllabus for the pilots either way, though the Super Hornet guys who are picked for -F duty incorporate some crewed flying towards the end of the FRS syllabus.

As for the training progression, you get selected for jets/tailhook, do intermediate jets in Meridian or Kingsville in the T-45, get selected for strike, and then do advanced jets in the same place (same aircraft). That all takes about a year or so, and you go from basic fams, to formation, instruments, basic bombing, some basic low levels, and some basic BFM (dogfighting), and an initial day carrier qual. All of this is basically taught with a single seat mentality, with most of the early flights being dual-ed up with an instructor, and the latter half being about half and half solo or dual. All of CQ is solo, as are about half the bomb, BFM, and form hops. Once you finish here, you get wings and select what flavor of Hornet you will be flying (or Growler).

The RAG (officially called the FRS = Fleet Replacement Squadron) is the next stop, and that's where you get qualified in the Hornet. Normally takes about another year, though mileage varies depending on where you go. The transition you were wondering about is quite abbreviated. You will do about 8 sims (I think that may have increased by a couple since I did them), then you have 3 dualed up fam flights in the jet with an instructor in the back seat, followed by a dual checkride. Your 5th flight is a solo fam out to the working area. Shortly after that, you will take your NATOPS and instrument check-rides in the simulator and will be qualified to log PIC/sign for the jet. The rest of the syllabus is about 2/3's solo, with a few dual flights in each phase (with exception of CQ which again is all solo). The instruction on the solo flights is from your flight lead, who will evaluate and grade you from his vantage point. This is aided by either HUD/radar tapes, or full up TACTS debrief depending on mission requirements. My last dual Hornet flight was about 4-5 months before I finished the syllabus.

As for the progression, again single seat, you will get to the fleet as an SFWT (strike fighter weapons and tactics) level 1. Basically you are a NATOPS qualified wingman, with some experience in the basic missions of the Hornet. This syllabus is outlined by NSAWC/TOPGUN, and will guide you through quals during your first (JO) tour. First step is level 2, which is basically just an abbreviated repeat of much of the stuff you did in the RAG. This gives you your combat wingman qual. Level 3 is combat section lead, level 4 is combat division lead. Most guys finish level 4 towards the end of their first tour. From there, you will go to shore duty for a couple of years, typically as an FRS instructor, to NSAWC, to operational test (and/or Test Pilot School), VFC, or in some cases back to the T-45 as an IP. Typically a flying tour, in some sort of pilot production billet as outlined above. I'll let a more senior guy comment on the rest, as I'm a little fuzzy on what happens after that, aside from the big wickets like department head and command tours.

Follow up questions...

Squorch2: Is the 500 hour minimum for HAC a set-in-stone rule for you guys? And does that time include the T-6 hours, or is it just rotary wing? As I mentioned, most people in my community get a look for PC (equivalent to HAC, I guess) at 500 hours, but I've heard of people who made it at 350 hours.

To clarify, all your flight time prior to this is in something other than an F/A-18? Then you get 8 simulator periods, 4 flights, and you are on your own? How many total hours would you have at this point? And how many when you graduate from the RAG?

Correct, you fly the T-34 (or now the T-6) for about 100 hrs, the T-45 for about 150 and then you are off to the Hornet. I think I had like 140 Hornet hours when I left the RAG. So yes, the RAG syllabus is pretty fast and furious at first. I had around 250 military flight hours when I started flying it. That all being said, it's just another jet, with more systems, but at first it is not that different from a T-45 in the grand scheme of things. If anything it is probably easier to fly in most phases of flight. At least until you start pushing the envelope later in the syllabus. The biggest hurdle coming out of the (comparably simpler) T-45 is building the requisite situational awareness and habit patterns needed for single seat tactical flying.

500hrs total time (including fixed wing time from primary) is the hard, fast, and set in concrete minimum. Some guys will make it right at 500 while others may take a bit longer. The delta there may have to do with a bunch of unrelated factors such as deployment, pilot skill, and community as it seems that each navy helo community approaches the HAC designation a little differently. For instance, in my community it was expected that you made HAC as close to 500 hrs as possible, but it was pretty much unheard of for guys to make HAC while deployed due to the fact that we sent out dets run by O-4s and the HAC board is usually administered by the XO. So if you were in the middle of a cruise when you hit 500hrs then you weren't going to make HAC until you got home, which might put you closer to 6-700hrs, depending on how much your det is flying.

Warner, keep in mind that things are run pretty differently across Naval aviation. Each community is a law unto itself, with the general guidelines of the 3710. Type wing commodores and FRSes make the rules.

One downside of that system is that each community kinda tends to become inbred and believe "everyone does it our way."

I wish we could make this statement an R&I for everyone in naval air...

Students get exposed to solo flights in Primary flight training, where they will do a minimum of 3 flights on their own without the instructor. In jet advanced the number is much higher (jet guys will have to give you the rough #) prior to showing up at FRS and being let loose on fam 5.

In helicopter advanced you get 2 solos, one of which is an out/in to an airport.

Just to add one thing to this for clarification: only a very small handful of the dual RAG flights require that the instructor be a pilot (as opposed to a WSO), and I believe only 1 or 2 require an IP with controls in the back. So on your second flight in the jet, you can be the only person with the ability to influence flight controls. But it is definitely true, I think, that the F/A-18 is very easy to fly - managing all the systems and the data they throw at you, and employing the jet tactically...different story. But in terms of actual flying, I think it's the most pilot-friendly of anything I've flown.

I remember totaling my solos in the T-45 when I finished, and I had something like 43 solo flights logged in it. A good portion of those were FCLP's getting ready for the boat, but either way, it is quite a bit of solo flying. That and on a lot of the dual flights, the IP didn't really say or do anything during the flight. By the time you hit the Hornet, you are pretty used to being the only dude in the jet. I remember having an IP give me a "WSO appreciation" hop towards the end of advanced.......it was one of the more confusing experiences of flight school. Nav stuff getting moved around, bingo bug moving on its own, radalt getting reset on its own, conversations with ATC that I didn't remember because I wasn't making the calls.

Thanks for all of the responses.

One of my suspicions is that those of us who fly in a two pilot cockpit could learn a lot from the way single seat fighter pilots are trained. Ultimately, I think one of the key skills required to be a HAC/PC is the same required of a single seat fighter pilot: being able to do everything yourself if necessary (shooting a difficult approach while talking to the ground forces, the Apaches overhead, and your sister ship... and remembering to do a before-landing check), or at least being able to distribute your attention to ensure that your co-pilot is getting all his stuff done while you are busy with your own stuff. For single seat guys, it must be a steep learning curve to get to that point by necessity. I think that the growth of many young Army (and Navy?) helicopter pilots is stunted because it's easy to just sit there and focus entirely on the narrow set of duties assigned to you by the HAC/PC, trusting that he's not going to foul up any of his duties... unless you fly with people who enjoy being a trainer and playing the game of "I'm fresh out of flight school and you are the PC today." I think the unanimous opinion is that everybody plateaus in the 300-500+ hour range and doesn't learn much more until they start flying as a PC with younger pilots, but that is a large gap to bridge, often requiring a leap of faith from the other pilots in the unit.

The question is, how can we steepen the learning curve, bridge the gap, and challenge young helicopter pilots sooner? And should we?

I firmly believe one of the best things we could do for Navy Air would be to have guys go to a different platform for their Disassoc tour instead of being a shooter or ANAV or whatever. Shake people out of their complacency level a bit - catch guys right at that "senior LT who knows everything" level - and force them to look at things differently, see how another community does things and learn that the (my community) way isn't the only way.

I understand what you mean with your post, but I have to ask, where are we going to get the people to fill the ANAV, Shooter, CSG Staffer and Numbered Fleet Staffers if we don't send folks there during thier disassociated sea tours?

You're taking away some significant manpower than the Navy needs to be able to function. With the drawdown in numbers since the Reagan years, staff billets have been cut way back. (Folks who are senior O-6's right now came in during the 600 ship Navy; there were lots of billets created to give those folks jobs to go to when they PCS'd off the ship/out of the squadron)

We are going to go through it again with staffs being directed to take a reduction in manning (but no reduction in work load, if anything they are going to get more tasking) but those billets still need to be filled for the Navy to function.

I see your point about the cross-polination, I've seen it work best at the RAGs. Having another opinion in the RAG caused good discussion within the FRS and this is the hub of each community. If you can get the RAG to advocate for new positions/ideas, then it is more likely to have a greater impact on the community than influcing only a couple of fleet squadrons.

Of course the folks who go to the "other communities" RAG will probably get shot in the head come FITREP time (I've seen it happen at both the HS and HSL/M RAGs) so you may end up sacrificing some good folks at the altar of the FITREP system, but that's another argument.

CVW staffs are great place to achieve this within the existing "second sea tour" model, but you get to keep on foot in your "home" community by not actually being out of the cockpit.

this seems trite and rather territorial, unless it was because they didn't actually perform.?.

It was more of a "you're not from my community, so I don't have to take care of you in the same manner in which I need to take care of my communities future leaders".
The helo world did it when when HS transitioned to the 60F (H-3 pilots went to the 60B RAG) and when I was doing my RAG tour, we have a couple of HC (one H--46 and one H-3) who came to the HS RAG to form the initial cadre for the 60S FIT. Most of the JO's agreed that it was great, but the FITREP ranking did lean towards some favoritism for the host community over the outsiders.

I see what you're getting at, but I disagree. One, not all those jobs need to be filled; you know and I know a lot of staff billets exist strictly to give guys the opportunity to check a required block. Two, the jobs that need to be filled don't necessarily need to be filled by aviators. Who would you rather have as a shooter, a P-3 guy (or an E-2 NFO, for that matter) or an ABH Warrant? Three, not everybody would have to go do a 'flying disassoc', any more than everybody even does a disassoc at all these days - my understanding is a lot of Hornet guys don't due to timing. I think it'd be helpful to have a mix of experience in your DH and front office jobs. Some were shooters, some were ANAVs, some fetched the Admiral's coffee, and some flew something else.

Your point about disassoc'ing being career death is valid as long as it's a 'nonstandard' option. If it's a common thing to do, then the skippers will know how to handle it come fitrep time. You're a super-JO in his/her squadron, filling, say, an Ops or Maint or Admin job and you can be ranked accordingly. Just wouldn't be the WTI, most likely.

I don't mean this as a threadjack; the question was about challenging aviators once they hit the senior-JOPA plateau and keeping them in the mindset of learning new things. I think shaking guys out of their comfort zone is the best way to do that, and sending them on a 'mile in the other bastards' moccasains' tour does that better than a turn in ship's company. You'd learn a lot more about being an aviator, and keep the communities from becoming ossified to boot.

That's a scary assertion. I would hope that today's unit Leaders are/were above this type of bias. If not, then PC has lost one of it's few positive outcomes. Of course, an attitude like above could negatively affect command climate, and we've had quite a few problems with that the past few years.
BzB

Yet it sounds like Navy H-60 pilots don't get signed off as aircraft commanders any faster than Army pilots (to my surprise). But you are right, I am coming from an Army perspective, and I'm asking questions of you all specifically to learn how your perspective differs.

No worries. The discussion is relevant. As you all know, the Army is all about putting us O-grade aviators in different (read: non-flying) jobs, while the warrant officers remain in place forever. The warrants end up accumulating a lot of operational experience that is very specific to their mission set, along with becoming great pilots, but some of them do noticeably lack an understanding of the rest of the service and their role in it. As O-grades we tend to know more about the other branches, the grand strategy, and how we fit into the picture, but tend to lack the technical and tactical knowledge needed to be great leaders in an operational aviation unit. I love your idea. Broadening experiences that involved going to fly another type of airframe, or flying with a sister service for a while, would almost certainly make us better aviators as well as more worldly and well-rounded. But I think that most broadening or staff jobs exist only as a place to put someone while the next guy gets their turn at flying/command/etc. The problem where I come from seems to be too many officers and too few key flying/leadership positions. A lot of it goes back to the poor retention rates during the height of the Iraq war and subsequent surge of commissioning new officers.

But isn't the disassociated tour designed to challenge senior LTs and to develop them furtheATMs officers? at this point in their careers they're adding increased leadership and management responsibilities to prepare them for DH, CO, Major Command, and eventually Flag. I tend to see it as Big Navy putting the emphasis on leadership and management development over aviator development. It seems that At this point in an aviators career it's expected that he have the airmanship skills he needs and the brain power to learn the new stuff.

Instead of having squadrons know how the other guy works, the navy has the staffers to handle this at the level above the squadron, thereby allowing the squadron to focus on fighting their respective platforms.

Fair enough, but isn't diversifying your experience as an aviator why we have P-3 guys as shooters? Otherwise, what does it do for you professionally? You should arguably already have learned how to run a division. ANAV gives you a good chair to watch how the Boat is run at the big-boy level, but does that necessarily make you a better leader or aviator?

This idea is in Fester's brainscape because I had a couple of DHs who went to fly EP-3s as super-JOs. How they worked that out, I'm not sure, but they sure as hell knew a lot about what the VQ bubbas could and couldn't do and how to make best use of them. I learned a lot as a padawan E-2 guy talking to them. I think the Navy's goal ought to be developing tactically proficient aviators and finding new and better ways to do that, and I don't think the current career track does that, or necessarily develops leadership and management, either...just an asshole Reservist's opinion, so take it for what it's worth.

Then where are you going to get the folks to fill the billets for the Staffs if they're not pilots (and NFOs) on staff tours? Part of the experience is learning how Big Navy works since every LT has the potential to be a future CNO.
Unless you want to develop a career pilot program (like the CWO program in the Army), Officers will need career exapanding opportunities and you do not get those by staying in the cockpit for your career.

When we ask that question to Pers-43 (Ham Tallent at the time) his response was that for every Warrant Officer you "create" to do a job, you have to provide that Warrant a career path to include shore assignments and promition opportunity.

Then you would need to figure out what to do with all the LTs you now have running around. For every Super JO position you create in the squadron does that equate to one less seat available for a nugget?
This will restrict the ability for the CO to give an EP to a first tour guy since the Super JO is sucking up the EP. And if the Super JO does not get the EP, then that will need a lot fo explaining since you just tubed the career of the Super JO by not breaking him out against folks who aren't really his peers...

I agree. Back when there were two VF squadrons in the Air Wing there were lots of NFO's doing disassociated sea tours but not the pilots. Since the NFOs were doing them, it couldn't be because the Community pushed back, it must have been for another reason. Since many of my TACAIR friends went from their shore duty to DH tour, it must be timing.

I guess this is the core of our disagreement. The disassociated is not designed to make you a better aviator, it's to make you a better Navy Officer.
I know I learned a whole lot about Naval Aviation by doing strike planning down in CVIC. Hearing what the Hummer, Hornet, Prowler and Viking folks were doing gave me an idea of the bigger picture as to my role as the helo bubba. Cross polination will work great, but the Navy will be very reluctant to move away from the disassocaiated sea tour since they need aviation folks in those positions we mentioned.

As for how to cross polinate, I'd love to see more exchange opportunities with our sister services. Having only 1 Navy Officer flying with the Air Force really doesn't give us much insight into how a sister service does their mission. If we are going to fight as a Joint force, then we need more interoperability.
Second, I stand by my thought of having cross-polination occur at the RAG. This is the center for each community, so it's the best place to introduce the "why do you do it that way" discussion. The RAGs typically write the NATOPS and are involved in Tactics D&E (supporting NSAWC, the VX squadrons and Weapon Schools). Finally the RAG is typically where the community will try to send its better folks. Getting a bunch of smart folks in the same room talking is usually a good start to solving a problem.