NFO's instructing at Meridian/Kingsville

I weep for your future ...

Random question about NATOPS quals. My understanding is that the NATOPS qual that fam complete students have isn't a NATOPS qual per say, it just means you can sign for the jet if you are solo. Someone who is NATOPS qualed in the 45 can sit in either seat with anyone (student or instructor) in the other seat? Is this correct?

We don't do the all CAT-I/II front seat thing at all. Not even at the boat. Wish we did at some point in the syllabus.

My guess is that depends on squadron and wing SOP. The NATOPS qual we get at -129 is the no shit Prowler NATOPS qual, but as a FRP/FRECMO, we can olnly sit front seat with an instructor.

But not having gone through the T-45 syllabus, I can't vouch for what "type" of NATOPS qual single anchor studs get. The actual NATOPS qual consists of two exams and a checkride (aircraft or sim). So why wouldn't it be the actual one? You can get in knocked out in a couple of days.

Meh, what the hell, I'll play devil's advocate and throw out this question: Why not let helo bubbas instruct in the VT(j)s? I remember talking to a jet IP in my ASO class and he was appalled at the fact that it can be hard for a helo guy to get a production job while the jet VTs are hurting for IP bodies.

One would assume if a helo guy can be reprogrammed to fly T-34s or T-6s, couldn't he also be taught the T-45?

I argued that myself, and the pushback was always "P3/E6 guys fly closer to jet speeds, etc". Before I got my E2C2 transition, I tried to get to NMM or NPA as a T2/T45 IP, and was told not only NO but HELL NO.

Well, helos land on boats. Not the same as FW, but the P3 guys have never SEEN a boat half the time.

P3 bubbas who come here to instruct go through a much more thorough syllabus than a normal IP. I want to say it takes them about 6 months to get fully qualed, but I could be wrong and I don't have a MCG for that handy. I do know it's longer than the standard IUT but not 100% sure of how much longer.

I had a harder time adapting to how things were done in the T-44, even coming from a multicrewed aircraft than the T-45. The 45 is not that hard to fly. The TH-57C is harder to fly than this jet.

I struggled far worse in TH-57s doing BI/RI even with a shat-ton of civillian B206 time (very little instruments though) than I have ever struggled in the T-45. Except on the fitting in front, but that's because I am a freaking ogre.

Can P-3/E-6/Rotor dudes teach in the T-45? Yup, they have and do. Lobo Niedermair, a Hummer dude, taught 2/3 PL ACM like a kung-fu masta.

They (non FW boat dudes) take a long time to train, some students percieve a lack of credibility (not me, we had some good dudes). In the end the X production crunch always comes in phase 2 (ONAVS, WEAPS, MP ONAVS, ACM, CQ). We never have enough IP's to push the elephant through the snake there, folks did three a day and Sundays too to make wingings (buy yer IP a beer boys, they didn't have to do it.)

IP's from the rotor/P-3/E-6/some E-2/C-2 world take a very long time to get the experience it takes to teach Phase 2 stuff, but they do on a case by case basis. Some dudes just arent comfy outside the FAM/FORM/NFAM/BI/RI/AN world. Ive gotta say its a hell of a lot easier teaching PH1 and not comming a RCH from being splattered on the 50' left to right to lefts that happen in 3 plane ACM!

Are we there yet? Yup. Give the Stan-O a hug.

There are a lot of pilots that can't handle the higher A/S and NFOs that can. That reasoning is false. However, as I said earlier, pilots need to teach pilot shit. NFO can teach fleet pilots tactics, etc, but in the training command this is not the best idea that's come out of the head shed.

BTW, NFOs used to fly the base C-12s as copilot. They were given basic flight training and their C-12 NATOPS check included t/o and landing. Many NFOs went to the factory school along with the pilots and got type ratings added to their civilian tickets (if they had one). Then the pilot mafia rebelled and it went back to 2 pilots. Then the Navy started cutting back on the number of C-12s.

I knew a A-6 NFO that had almost 4500 hours of pilot time in C-12s and the Navy logged it all as 2nd pilot time in his Navy log. He flew A-6, shore tour C-12, disassociated CV tour, shore tour C-12, DH A-6, shore tour C-12 , got passed over for CDR (due to his career path) and retired as a LCDR (when they had the early retirements). He used to brag that as a NFO he had more Navy pilot time than most of the pilots he flew with. I knew him when he was the President of the Norfolk Navy Flying Club and the NAS Air Ops officer - owning the C-12 and flying it as copilot.

Hey, we see the boat all the time...from the AIMS turret!

Yep...pretty much

So y'all get the full on, no shit NATOPS qual in the Clown Jet?

I cant even begin to tell you how many times I say to myself and to others..."its a good thing we (pilots) were taught to fly by ourselves..."

Until the quality of NFO training improves, the single seat training mindset must not end. NFO's leave NPA knowing that the IP will come through for 'em if things really get ugly. I've advocated for a long time that SNFO's should get a T-34 solo. While fiscally impossible, it would teach an unforgettable lesson about responsibility and "ownership".

A-4's hit it on the head. If this was a good idea it would have already happened.

I'm again troubled at the attempts to run Naval Aviation as a business and less like a war-fighting military organization.

I do agree that this is the case, but I think that the training (at least NATOPS-wise) is due to the fact that the snfo's change a/c so often (4 in 13 months for me) that they don't really get the time to really get in-depth until the FRS. It's a bit easier for pilots since they have 2 aircraft to learn until they get their fleet bird.


That being said, SNFO training makes it way too easy to look at the pilot with 1000's of hours for advice.

This wasn't a acceptable reason (read: excuse) when pilots learned and flew T-34's, T-2's and or TA-4's/T-45s.

...And if CNATRA continues to chop away at the NFO syllabus then wont have time to learn an aircraft at the FRS either. There will be too much time spent teaching basic airmanship.

It's funny how these things work out. Back in my SNFO days, when pilots had to have 20-20, no waivers, no surgery, etc., there were more bodies available for SNFO then SNA after NAMI. The NFO syllabus was harder to get through with a much higher attrition rate than pilots. Now it seems there aren't enough SNFOs, the standards are lower, the training is much less and wings are easier.

Gator, I was just perusing my NATOPS jacket, and the only "quals" I have are the SH-60B and T-34C. I did a full-on NATOPS check in the -34 when I was doing the helo-to-strike syllabus in the VT-28 ITU, but the "checks" here and at VT-31 for the T-44 are strictly safe for solo as far as my NATOPS jacket says.

T-45 students in Meridian get safe-for-solo endorsements on the flight gradesheet prior to a solo flight. In Meridian they do not get a NATOPS qual however I have HEARD that Kingsville gives some sort of NATOPS qual. I think it is funny that studs get an instrument qual so as to solo the Goshawk in the goo.......it just seems weird when you think about the paperwork.

Sometimes you just need to ask a pilot how something feels. In -129 many NFOs will be the first to deflect a question to another pilot. "I have never flown the jet, so you should ask another pilot that."

Bless them for not BSing the answer.

But even on a late stage ACM in Advanced a lot of the coaching isn't just on the angles or getting the right sight, but on the monkey skills.

"Pull Pull Pull.........Pull harder!!!!!"