Good question that I will ask...
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Air Force v.s. Navy Culture Differences
- Thread starter druteague
- Start date
That's a pretty good annecdote to explain a lot of what I've also experienced. I'll say that attitude applies across the entire force. Airman Timmy isn't getting paid? CO (or CC in Air Force parlance) says, "finance put a ticket in the system, we just have to wait for it to play out."
SPINS are messed up? Well, we'll just email the staff and wait for an update.
No cold weather gear in Michigan? Sorry guys, supply says they're on it but they need a code in an AFI to change.
Naval and Marine Officers are trained to take action whenever and wherever possible in order to ensure Commander's Intent is met. AF Officers are taught to follow regulations to a T- the reg is the Commander's Intent.
After almost 20 years working in both mil aviation and the private tech sector, the degree of Ludditeism in military aviation and DoD in general still never ceases to astound me.
A couple of quick sea stories:
-Flying into Okinawa from USS Boat, we couldn’t get clearance because our flight plan was not in the system. When I finally made it in and went to the Kadena base ops, I was told that they didn’t put the flight plan into the system because they didn’t have a letter of agreement with the ship. The letter of agreement was only for fax. I asked if the ship could email them the flight plan. No, they didn’t have a letter of agreement available for email. I then asked how pilots would file a flight plan from the ship to Kadena. I was told “they’ll have to come in to base ops.”
-Bagram, Afghanistan. I was away from my FOB doing an Army administrative investigation into the death of an Airman from my unit. I was trying to hitch a return ride from Bagram to Jalalabad in a C-130 that had only a single pallet of cargo. There was plenty of space available. However, for me to ride on this particular aircraft I needed approval from the first O-6 in the chain. I was fortunate in that I had been working with an Air Force major while in Bagram that knew how to do the paperwork drill. The O-6 was happy to sign and I appreciated the eagerness for the Air Force guys to make it happen. Yet, I was left amazed at how much effort it took to get approval for something that I, as a Navy O-3 and aircraft commander, could have made without thinking twice. The cultural differences are real.
When I was flying A-7's, I figured it would be cool to get a formation shot of one of our squadron's A-7 Corsair II's with an F4U Corsair. I had worked for Rudy Frasca (https://www.flyingmag.com/rudy-frasca-flies-west/) part time in college and at that time he owned and flew an FM-2 Wildcat and was a member of the Warbirds of America. I figured he could help me get in touch with an F4U owner. I approached my CO, explained my idea, and he said to go ahead, set it up, and do it. I called Rudy, he put me in touch with Pete Parish with the Kalamazoo Air Zoo in Kalamazoo, MI, and we planned it out. At that time, Kalamazoo didn't have the 8000' of runway we required for an A-7, so we decided on rendezvousing in Ft. Wayne, IN to do our formation shot, since there was 8K' of runway plus an ANG F-4 unit to service and start our A-7. I managed to get VA-45 to send a TA-4 along as a photo plane with one of our pilots as a photographer in the back seat. My only neglect was not getting a PPR for going into Ft. Wayne. We arrived at Ft. Wayne and taxied to the ANG ramp while they were having a surprise ORI. We were immediately escorted into an office to stand at attention in front of some brass who demanded to see our written orders. They just couldn't understand that my CO just said, "Go do it." After some lengthy tap dancing with some phone calls back to Cecil Field, they finally relented to servicing and starting us with the promise to never do this again. Despite some marginal wx conditions that day for doing formation picture taking and some ANG interference, we accomplished our mission.
Last edited:
I was taking my .293 and .297 (and .299) checkride last night and I was chuckling to myself when we got to the filing questions. I was thinking about Chuck's matrix and how when I was asked, "What minimum do we need to not have to file an alternate?" I would just read the paragraph on my kneeboard card to the IP and then tell him the number. I was reading out loud more for me than him, since it's written in FAA-speak.
I guess technically Romeos when doing ASW. And the Air Force.
I guess technically Romeos when doing ASW. And the Air Force.
A lot of tiny airports in the PI and Micronesia are RNAV or NDB only. For us helos it’s not a big help since the MDAs are usually 800ish but you never know.
Sure, I'll jump in with two antidotes since I was essentially in an Air Force squadron for three years...
EDIT: These are from about six years ago, so not in the too distant past. Also, if you can find it, there was a great article written by an Air Force WSO who did an exchange tour or extended TAD with a boat going VFA as I recall. Essentially it was along the lines of that Air Force thought Navy folks (Especially fixed wing fighter as this particular story was about) were very loose with rules and cowboy-esque. Long story short, he got a new appreciation for the level of autonomy, decision making, and *GASP*, ORM that was pushed down to the pilot level especially with regards to boat ops.
-Navy guys coming into town checked in with tower, to which they responded "Sorry, we don't have a PPR so you are not going to be able to land here." Navy lead promptly came back with "We are declaring an emergency for low fuel." "Cleared to land...." Come to find they did have a PPR it was put in 32 days prior and the Air Force system only keeps PPRs for 30 days....
-Couple of Air Force pilots wanted to paint some more parking spaces to reserve spots. They decided they had to go through Admin which told them that they were only allowed a certain percentage of prime parking spots for active duty parking over contractors. Navy just would have (And did) just go out and buy a 4 dollar can of spray paint and solve the issue without asking for permission....
EDIT: These are from about six years ago, so not in the too distant past. Also, if you can find it, there was a great article written by an Air Force WSO who did an exchange tour or extended TAD with a boat going VFA as I recall. Essentially it was along the lines of that Air Force thought Navy folks (Especially fixed wing fighter as this particular story was about) were very loose with rules and cowboy-esque. Long story short, he got a new appreciation for the level of autonomy, decision making, and *GASP*, ORM that was pushed down to the pilot level especially with regards to boat ops.
-Navy guys coming into town checked in with tower, to which they responded "Sorry, we don't have a PPR so you are not going to be able to land here." Navy lead promptly came back with "We are declaring an emergency for low fuel." "Cleared to land...." Come to find they did have a PPR it was put in 32 days prior and the Air Force system only keeps PPRs for 30 days....
-Couple of Air Force pilots wanted to paint some more parking spaces to reserve spots. They decided they had to go through Admin which told them that they were only allowed a certain percentage of prime parking spots for active duty parking over contractors. Navy just would have (And did) just go out and buy a 4 dollar can of spray paint and solve the issue without asking for permission....
Last edited:
A very special "fuck you" to VAQ-140 for abusing this privilege about 10 years ago aboard KNUW. ? One of our Air Force exchange officers was this close to ending his tour by bringing his RV onto base, parking it across the disputed spots, and spending a day setting up a grill and cooking up free burgers for the maintenance Sailors. He should have done it.
Guys - Here is the latest DOD wide Foreflight Military Flight Bag update - this is direct from Boeing/Foreflight and was presented to my classmates and I at AF Advanced Instrument School last week. I put it on Googe Drive - if you are behind NIPR and want this file please feel free to ping me and I can send it via DoD SAFE. Its a big presentation but a very comprehensive feature and roadmap update to MFB. I'd say this is worth sharing at an AOM / Ops / All Pilots meeting. Feel free to distribute.
drive.google.com
Of note that I had to chuckle about was the discussion around import of unit level custom content - the example Sarah from ForeFlight was using is clearly the TW-5 Easten Formation Area for HT-18. NOLF Harold - love it! How little things change!
AIS Training Dec 2022.pdf
drive.google.com
Of note that I had to chuckle about was the discussion around import of unit level custom content - the example Sarah from ForeFlight was using is clearly the TW-5 Easten Formation Area for HT-18. NOLF Harold - love it! How little things change!
Thanks Chuck for posting those (and thanks for sending them yesterday to my work account). One of the biggest cultural differences between USAF and USN (and to a lesser extent USA) is what gets emphasized for instrument navigation. In a lot of ways, the Air Force is closer to commercial aviation.
-The Air Force has far more platforms that use declared distance information for mission planning. This includes TODA/TORA/ASDA/LDA. These were created for civilian air carrier operations (Part 139 runways are designed for Part 25 transport category aircraft). These values are often not identical to the actual usable runway. (See KDLH as an example)
-Continuous Descent Final Approach. I’ve talked to folks at Kingsville and Vance… the tactical guys are still teaching “dive and drive” (although not as extreme as CDFA advocates like to think). However, as other countries are promoting CDFA for the commercial guys, the USAF seems to be following. See the AFMAN 11-202v3 section 16.5.
-Usage of Jeppesen charts at “accepted” nations with MAJCOM training. This is a bit ironic/full-circle. The crew in the Ron Brown mishap was using a Jeppesen chart as approved (at the time) by the MAJCOM. That had not been authorized by AFFSA. Today, they create a list of “accepted” countries. -“The USAF refers to countries on the list as special accredited and places a very high degree of confidence in the host nation’s flight inspection, instrument flight procedure development, and instrument flight procedure publication practices.” (The big difference is that commercial carriers actually validate these procedures.)
-The Air Force has far more platforms that use declared distance information for mission planning. This includes TODA/TORA/ASDA/LDA. These were created for civilian air carrier operations (Part 139 runways are designed for Part 25 transport category aircraft). These values are often not identical to the actual usable runway. (See KDLH as an example)
-Continuous Descent Final Approach. I’ve talked to folks at Kingsville and Vance… the tactical guys are still teaching “dive and drive” (although not as extreme as CDFA advocates like to think). However, as other countries are promoting CDFA for the commercial guys, the USAF seems to be following. See the AFMAN 11-202v3 section 16.5.
-Usage of Jeppesen charts at “accepted” nations with MAJCOM training. This is a bit ironic/full-circle. The crew in the Ron Brown mishap was using a Jeppesen chart as approved (at the time) by the MAJCOM. That had not been authorized by AFFSA. Today, they create a list of “accepted” countries. -“The USAF refers to countries on the list as special accredited and places a very high degree of confidence in the host nation’s flight inspection, instrument flight procedure development, and instrument flight procedure publication practices.” (The big difference is that commercial carriers actually validate these procedures.)
Question for @kmac and others - Does Navy require flyability checks on non US instrument approach procedures? If you are a P-8 guy or a COD - is this a thing for you? Do Growler expeditionary folks worry about whether a flyability check" has been completed on a non-DOD FLIP? (@Brett327)
Also does Navy/Marines maintain "Flight Check" aircraft to continually and test instrument approaches at Navy and Marine installations like the AF does? The AF has a dedicated fleet of Challenger 605's jets - that go all over the world and fly ILS, RNAV, TACAN , etc approaches and purposely fly below glide slope (2 dots below on ILS and RNAV LPV) and well "well below glidepath" on PAR's, and below crossing restrictions on non-prec to ensure TERPS OCS is still met. Even in combat areas. In fact, a number of these crews have come back from doing flight checks in combat areas only to find bullet holes in the belly of their civillian livery Challengers - and have received combat action awards. (aircraft have been retrofitted with belly armor)
Also does Navy/Marines maintain "Flight Check" aircraft to continually and test instrument approaches at Navy and Marine installations like the AF does? The AF has a dedicated fleet of Challenger 605's jets - that go all over the world and fly ILS, RNAV, TACAN , etc approaches and purposely fly below glide slope (2 dots below on ILS and RNAV LPV) and well "well below glidepath" on PAR's, and below crossing restrictions on non-prec to ensure TERPS OCS is still met. Even in combat areas. In fact, a number of these crews have come back from doing flight checks in combat areas only to find bullet holes in the belly of their civillian livery Challengers - and have received combat action awards. (aircraft have been retrofitted with belly armor)
Last edited:
@ChuckMK23, it would only happen ad hoc when a flight procedure needed extensive waivers for inclusion into FLIP. It is not documented to the same extent as mentioned in the AFMAN 11-230. I don't know if we have any of those currently in DoD FLIP.
I asked a former NAVFIG TERPSter and received this response: some waivers do not need flyability checks for Navy. For example, increasing visibility for penetrations noted /listed VSS penetrations. Or noting the increased DG in intermediate segments as a CAUTION. But if it was something that needed a pilot's viewpoint (in our opinion) we always used pilot feedback. Most waivers are pretty meager.
Now it's a little bit different for flight inspection. The USAF/FAA team can inspect a ship's procedure (which they enjoy), but ships can also self-certify. I have done procedures for that in a C-2.
Here is a picture of the flight check for the TLS RWY 33 at Phoenix Airfield.
View attachment PA280747.jpeg
I asked a former NAVFIG TERPSter and received this response: some waivers do not need flyability checks for Navy. For example, increasing visibility for penetrations noted /listed VSS penetrations. Or noting the increased DG in intermediate segments as a CAUTION. But if it was something that needed a pilot's viewpoint (in our opinion) we always used pilot feedback. Most waivers are pretty meager.
Now it's a little bit different for flight inspection. The USAF/FAA team can inspect a ship's procedure (which they enjoy), but ships can also self-certify. I have done procedures for that in a C-2.
Here is a picture of the flight check for the TLS RWY 33 at Phoenix Airfield.
View attachment PA280747.jpeg
I was flying missions with the 422nd in Nellis and we would land at Nellis for debriefs and to drop off tracking pods after the week's events. PPR got messed up and one of our landings wasn't recorded in the system. We were met at the transient line by rent-a-cops, I mean security forces, in their car with flashing lights. We then had to sit down with them so they could records details and initiate an investigation. Mind you we were flying an EA-18G, so not like we landed in a Cessna. One of the more idiotic experiences I've had while on active duty. That's on top of the fact that the transient services people won't help fuel or do anything for non-local aircraft.
@ChuckMK23, I didn’t see your edit until just now. The fleet of Challenger aircraft are actually FAA birds. The flight check team consists of both former/active Air Force pilots and civilians. They work for both the USAF and FAA (and “wear” whichever hat is needed for the mission). It has got to be one of the best flying jobs out there. I must say that the entire team is top notch. I was fortunate to spend 3 weeks with them in New Zealand and Antarctica in October.
Not only do they fly full deflection (both laterally and vertically), but they ensure that the NAVAID signal maintains sufficient quality well beyond the decision altitude. It takes quite a bit of adjustments to each NAVAID type to provide optimal coverage. Even if you are the worst pilot on final, the work they do guarantees that your guidance will be correct.View attachment 4CE4556F-4E12-43DE-BEBD-6795ED79480A.jpeg
They also piqued the interest of the Prime Minister of New Zealand.
Mystery Flights
**Side story: An Italian C-130 was coming into Phoenix airfield and MAC Center (who handles arrivals into Antarctica) gave them the CTAF. On that freq they kept trying to contact tower. Sitting in the back of the Challenger, I thought I was on cold mic (for ICS) and had to hit the push-to-talk button to communicate with the crew. I blurted something out like “I guess the Italians don’t know what CTAF means.” Yeahhhh…. that went out on CTAF. Whoops.
Last edited: