Discussion in 'Intermediate and Advanced Training (Jets)' started by jarhead, Oct 4, 2008.
Having aircrewmen teach SNA's in the HT's would save even more money...
I've never met an NFO that ever thought he had any business teaching a pilot "monkey skills" and I never met an LSO that sucked behind the boat (or at least he didn't have a very long career as one).
I never said that an NFO could teach a pilot Monkey Skills....but an NFO can teach most pilots something.
Then you never met my Squadron LSO.
ea6bflyr- sounds like we are in full agreement. Some of the best instructors I've ever met were ECMOs. However, SNAs are not pilots (yet), they are STUDENTS and thus need other pilots teaching them the monkey skills they learn prior to earning their wings.
Going most of the way through the syllabus, the only place that I can see this work. Is Getting the instrument card (IR's in VMC conditions, and Late stage airnavs). It gives me confort knowing if i'm in the goo It gives me confort knowing I've got somebody who won't let me fuck us. If I have a NFO, I'm one bad descision away from fucking both of us. One jet will cost more money than this will ever save. If they added something to the syllabus (another stage) something that incorporated SNA-NFO training I see this as being viable, otherwise no. But everything is above my paygrade.
+1. I specifically remember a Phase II stud on a late stage IR check being forced to stand in front of the squadron and talk about how he almost killed himself and the instructor on a simple missed approach. Tried to fly them into the ground. Had there been an NFOI in the back, who knows. It was the IP that took the controls and saved them.
So in the fleet, are NFOs Instrument Checkers? Are they allowed to be (I know they're capable of it), or are checks done in the sim (or on the wing)?
Yes, and they are also NATOPS instructors who give pilots checkrides in certain communities.
Good for the fleet and the RAG, not so good for flight school.
Agreed. You have to figure at some point a dude is done being saved from himself. Orange and white jets is not where this applies.
Okay, devil's advocate...why is that? After all, you trust the cone to drive a clown jet by himself, including going to das Boat.
He's trusted with said clownjet after having an instructor PILOT teach him the monkey skills so he don't kill himself. I can't see any NFOs teaching the syllabus flights currently taught by IPs. Either they are replacing solos with INFO flights, or they are adding "NFO-Exposure" type flights after they have a safe for solo check and flight.
The way pilot training works, is a guy gets proficient enough to not kill himself, pass a checkride, then solo to do it by himself, then move on to something new. By the time the SNA is proficient enough with a certain phase to be trusted to do it by himself (aka Safe for Solo) he stops doing that particular thing.
Okay, fair enough. But I have a hard time believing that CNATRA will have the FOs teaching monkey skills. More likely they're keeping with the recent trend of pushing skills once taught in the RAG down to the VTs, and inctroducing multi-crew flying is one of them.
That being said, re: s-s's coment about having to stop saving the stud from himself at some point. Some communities (E-2s) don't seem to believe that happens until he gets his CAPC letter. These debates are more or less word-for-word some of the discussions I've been in over whether to put FOs in the right seat of the Hummer. Nugget on a dark-and-stormy Case III day needs a senior pilot with him, FOs can't provide the right backup, etc.
Yes, the Navy could train FOs to be IP's in clown jets. However, the amount/cost of that training would far outweigh any efficiencies you'd be hoping to gain. You'd basically need to train them to be pilots first, then they would probably have a relatively easy transition to IP. Just like they do with a select few SERGRADs. But are you going to take 18 months to train to that level?
A bad idea and in contradiction to how we train now. Everything is done with the single seat mindset in training, because it's easier to go to a two holer later, than vice versa. If you start training pointy nose studs, and RAG RP's now to become dependant on a back seat, you're setting them up for failure as a brand new level nothing when they hit the fleet.
In response to your quote above, I never said NFO's shouldn't be clown IP's because of experience... it's because the stud is there to LEARN TO FLY. Be it, forms, fams, weps, acm, etc. They get just enough time with an IP doing monkey-see-monkey-do training to be safe to do it solo, then move on. There is no place/time in there for an NFO. If you try and replace the IP with an NFOI, what is he going to do the first time a stud gets target fixated in the weps pattern, doesn't underrun, departs the jet, or a host of other things that happen every day in jet VT land?
Does something magical happens at winging where the single anchor guy becomes all knowing on all things pilot related.
249 hour SNA...must fly with only an instructor pilot
251 hour pilot...can fly with an NFO no problem
New pilot, senior NFO crewed together worked well in the past and still does today in the F/A-18F, for example.
I challenge that the learning never stops...front seat or back.
I get what you're saying, but trying to accept that we lost a jet and possibly aircrew because the 249 hour stud up front WITHOUT wings fuct it away and the NFO couldn't recover... vice a 260 hour WINGED NATOPS QUALIFIED RP fuct it away... I see a huge void between those arguments.
Moved as much of the non-jet stuff over here:
Tried to keep as much together as I could for consistency of the thread.
I know that I, and other pilots, can learn something from an NFO. I’m just trying to get my hands around two things ..
#1- How are I-NFO’s going to teach SNA’s the “stick & throttle” skills that are being taught to SNA’s at Meridian & Kingsville? It's one thing to teach nav/comms/radar/FLIR, but if a student isn’t grasping a concept in the jet, I can take controls and have him ride the controls while I demo the maneuver. I can also share my personal techniques with him that might be different from other pilots or what the FTI/sim dudes teach. Or, I could sit in the back, let him make the same mistake over and over, then critique him when we get back on the ground.
#2- How will the NFO save the SNA when the SNA turns on his low SA light and tries to crash either into earth or his lead? He can’t take controls (legally). And who will you blame for the mishap?
Question for the masses … who will sign for the jet? the SNA?
Another question, anybody know which flights the NFO’s instruct at the Hornet/SH RAG? The only time I remember flying with an I-WSO was instrument hops & intercept/radar hops.
Again, not bashing NFO’s … besides, it doesn’t matter what I think, it sounds like it’s been signed off and only time will tell how it will work. Embrace change, it’s good
Just curious, when they are going to have pilots teaching NFO stuff? be bop oom bop beep.....
My understand is we already do. VT-86 anyone? I can teach Radar work, Flir stuff, weapons delivery tactics, BFM, low levels, nav, etc. NFO's can't teach stick/monkey skills that clown jet studs need.
I think he was kidding!
Pilots can teach instruments (nav, comms, approaches, etc) & avionics (Flir, radar, etc) to NFO's just as NFO's can easily teach it to pilots.
The problem with NFO's instructing instruments to student pilots at Meridian & Kingsville is that, currently, the students fly in the backseat under the bag for all but 3 maybe 4 instrument hops out of around 20 or so flights, and 2 of those front seat instrument hops are student solo's.
When the T-45D comes along with it's "radar" and other "avionics", that would be a very good fit for I-NFO's at advanced.
At least in the Marine Hornet community, WSO's can get the ACTI qual, which includes instructing BFM (or "ACM" as it's called in advanced). But teaching BFM requires teaching stick & throttle skills and the 100-level "ACM" that's taught to advanced jet students requires a lot of emphasis on that - SNA's have never done anything remotely as dynamic as "ACM" and even as conservative as the IP's try to lead the flight, the students scan & SA can break down very rapidily during these flights, especially the 2v1 flights, requiring the IP taking the controls.
Just for the record ... and for the sake of the discussion ... when I banged off the end of RW 25 on LSO-Xtrain-FAM-1 heading out into the So. China Sea for God, Country & Glory ... after receiving my "quick & dirty" F-4 NATOPS ground-check (right ... ) @ NAS CUBI .... who do you suppose was in my backseat ... ???
Hint: a VERY courageous, experienced (and/or experienced, foolish w/ a death wish) VF-114 squadron RIO ...
Just for the sake of argument... what was the accident rate back then compared to today???:icon_smil
I dunno ... I was never a "safety" wonk ... I just flew "safely", but got it done anyway.
But to address your question, it's probably less today considering our "operational" losses in the combat zone(s) and don't consider the "get it done" mentality of the day in the ol' days. But to put it all into perspective ... with all the emphasis on safety and all the superior equipment that is put forth today ... you boys haven't been doin' too well lately ...
An analysis of U. S. Navy major aircraft accidents during the period Fiscal Year 1972-1974
give the server a little time to load ...
Separate names with a comma.