CNO:FLEET to be SPARED

[Brett327]

I love it when you remind us all that you have a much broader understanding of how executive level decisions are made.

Cynicism breeds critical thought. I hope your ready room has its cynics and I hope they feel comfortable enough to speak their minds when it is appropriate.

I do so having spent the last 2 years working as a 3-Star EA, so I bring the experience of watching executive level decision-making on a daily basis. I say this not to sound special, but to highlight what an eye-opening experience it was and that things are not always as they seem to someone who hasn't (yet) been exposed to that world.

Cynicism is great - as long as it's not your only move.

 

[Flash]

While I agree with your statement, Brett, those kinds of misspeaks can cause real damage when folks like SECNAV and Congress take those numbers seriously and base decisions on them. Especially when the number is actually 20-25% of what was quoted.

If you think that actual decisions are made from offhand, misspoken statements then you don't have a very good grasp about how these decisions are made. Big picture and with a view towards the long game folks, that is what the CNO is focused on and rightfully so. He has got countless things on his plate in addition to naval aviation, from the LCS to the number one procurement priority for Navy (hint, it has nothing to do with aviation).

He misspoke, simple as that. BFD.

 

[SynixMan]

Trade the word "week" for "month" and now we're getting closer to reality.

Needed sim time to get my semi-annual mins in a sea tour. I shit you not.

I'll also add that this story is a nonissue. Likely a misspeak or misquote that's been taken out of context. God help us if Drudge picks this up.

 

[BigRed389]

Agree, with both. My issue for Brett though is: he HAS to know people are watching and listening to him. He HAS to know that he's got a minor green-pajama'd insurgency on his hands. And when I say "he HAS to know," I mean someone on his staff has to know. When you don't give the boss better info, and then he goes out and puts his foot in his mouth... That's a failure on a few levels. And also, not at all surprising.

OK, but within the context of the point he was trying to make to the Congressman, he's trying to make a case for the minor green pajama insurgency:

"Greenert pointed to rising dissatisfaction among pilots as one lingering consequence of sequester cuts. Pilots on the front lines are being overworked, but others are largely bored and underused if they are not working up for a deployment, he said.

"If you're deployed, you're flying 60 hours a week sometimes," Greenert said in testimony. "If you're not deployed, you may be flying 10 hours a week. And some of that, by the way, may be in the simulator. So you are sitting around a classroom looking out the window at your strike fighter Hornet. It looks really great, but it's on the tarmac. And that's not why you joined."

If an aviation Flag mixed up some numbers about how many hours were cut from sub underway time but was trying to make the overall point that they needed more funding and help, I really doubt there'd be much angst.

 

[azguy]

If an aviation Flag mixed up some numbers about how many hours were cut from sub underway time but was trying to make the overall point that they needed more funding and help, I really doubt there'd be much angst.

This. I get that it's an aviation board, but you have to realize that no one really gives a shit. 10 hrs/month, 100 hrs/month; it means nothing to a non-aviator. CNOs point was that hours are getting cut. Period.

 

[Recovering LSO]

but you have to realize that no one really gives a shit. Period.

Well, that was useful.

 

[azguy]

Well, that was useful.

Give me a break dude. Am I wrong?

All of these clowns putting their two cents in about Congress and the CNO tracking actual flight hours very seriously... Give me a break and get a clue.

 

[nittany03]

Give me a break and get a clue.

YHGTBSM. I'm pretty sure RLSO probably has at least one piece of flight gear that's been in the Navy longer than you've been out of high school. Yes, there's a reason we're not Sailor Bob with douchey power-trip ranks next to our usernames. That said, know your freaking audience before you run your suck.

 

[tk628]

*837 days and counting!!... I survived another one....yay!

 

[armada1651]

Give me a break dude. Am I wrong?

I just couldn't help myself.

 

[BusyBee604]

BzB

Give me a break dude. Am I wrong?

All of these clowns putting their two cents in about Congress and the CNO tracking actual flight hours very seriously... Give me a break and get a clue.

"Ding... Ding, we have a WINNER". Classless post of the week!
BzB

 

[robav8r]

Give me a break dude. Am I wrong?

All of these clowns putting their two cents in about Congress and the CNO tracking actual flight hours very seriously... Give me a break and get a clue.

AZG - one of the reasons it may seem that you've touched a nerve is because reduced flight hours rapidly becomes a safety and proficiency issue - one that puts many, many people at risk, both in the cockpit and on the flight deck. Yeah, people (at least on this board) pay attention to comments about the flight hour program by the CNO.

 

[Recovering LSO]

a safety and proficiency issue

This ^

Give me a break dude...Give me a break and get a clue.

First, I'm curious why you continue to stop by? Second, get the f over yourself. With those two issue out of the way, please consider this article. It's written by a SWO, for SWOs. Bottom line, when your community begins to take safety seriously, I mean really seriously - not just the handwave of ashore compliance and cursory nav-briefs, then you may begin to understand why us "clowns" in flight suits pay close attention to comments about flight hours. The easy answer is that SWOs don't live / operate with the constant threat of "crash and burn" consequences in the same way aviators do. I think that's too simple. There's plenty of room for calamity on the bridge of a ship. The issue is how you guys address it. Based on several conversations with SWOs from across the rank/experience spectrum I've come to learn that, for the most part (i'm sure there are exceptions) your culture doesn't embrace some very basic and effective means of safety and transparency: So-called ready room confessions? Nope. Encouragement to read/write for your version of Approach? Nope. Dissemination and discussion of mishap reports and HAZREPS? Nope. An honest-to-goodness standardized set of requirements / syllabus leading to warfare designation? Nope.

Did the CNO misspeak? Sure seems that way. Do his comments mean the end of the world for all of us Peter Pans who want to fly forever? Probably not. Do his comments provide the context for a conversation about how a staff builds narrative for the boss, as well as the constant battle between proficiency vs currency? Yes.

Finally, this isn't intended to be a SWO vs Aviator diatribe, though I'm supremely confident that your caustic "personality" will view it as such. Instead, this post is meant to illustrate why the following comment is so off the mark, especially in this arena.

but you have to realize that no one really gives a shit. 10 hrs/month, 100 hrs/month; it means nothing to a non-aviator. CNOs point was that hours are getting cut. Period.

Sailor Bob called; they want their mascot back.

 

[sevenhelmet]

Words...

Nailed it! I was too busy searching Amazon and Ebay for a clue on how the boss actually makes decisions and why so many are springing to defend his misspeak.

 

[Brett327]

Nailed it! I was too busy searching Amazon and Ebay for a clue on how the boss actually makes decisions and why so many are springing to defend his misspeak.

Just so we're on the same page, I'm explaining it, not defending it. What I'm at a loss to explain is why we're anchoring on this.