O4 List

[scoolbubba]

I made knocking the gear out of battery in the E-2 a sport.. We have to "cushion with power" at the in-close for normal landings and FCLPs above 46,500, (normally a waveoff in close, that touches) And if you just kiss the wire with the main mounts.. BLINK BLINK BLINK goes the gear.

We don't normally fly an AOA pattern, but if you pick a landmark (cough the arresting gear cough) and fly a nice AOA approach, you can usually get pretty close with a nice flair.

 

[Recovering LSO]

and we're going to IA you AGAIN .

Really? Two IAs? I'm not calling you dishonest - just want to make sure I'm reading that correctly...

I've seen friends personal lives crumble because their family just couldn't take a 'competitive' shore tour, followed by an overseas dissasoch, only to end up in a hell hole for a "filler" job, then to not make DH and be exiled to another shite place (El Centro).

They have no one to blame but themselves for this. Put your career (especially this one) before your family and you very well may have neither before too long...

 

[MasterBates]

Yes. Two IAs. I know two guys it happened to personally. I'm sure there are others.

 

[helolumpy]

Few can clobber a pattern like a RAG P-3. You could do it for a lifetime. Go forth and clobber...

And then they'd complain about everything....

 

[Recovering LSO]

Yes. Two IAs. I know two guys it happened to personally. I'm sure there are others.

Then one has to ask WTF was wrong these guys for a) having their names show up on a list of people that the detailer might pitch that two b) WhereTF was their chain of command to tell the detailer GFhimself and c) where was this dude's spine when it was to time to tell the detailer to GFhimself?

If Fetus is reading this... We really love detailers... Really

 

[MasterBates]

One of the guys (he's out now) got the 'FNG with no quals/time here' bone twice. Once out of VTs, second by a RAG when he was in a "wait for DH results" set of orders.

 

[Flash]

Then one has to ask WTF was wrong these guys for a) having their names show up on a list of people that the detailer might pitch that two b) WhereTF was their chain of command to tell the detailer GFhimself and c) where was this dude's spine when it was to time to tell the detailer to GFhimself?

I have known it to happen to a handful of guys as well, some volunteered but one was a VS to VQ guy who was cannon fodder from the day he stepped into his VQ squadron.

 

[Recovering LSO]

I have known it to happen to a handful of guys as well, some volunteered but one was a VS to VQ guy who was cannon fodder from the day he stepped into his VQ squadron.

Volunteering for it is one thing. Being told - that's quite another and absolutely unsat on the part of the bureau and chain of command.

 

[Flash]

Yep, I get it and concur. I think Naval Aviation has done a poor job of embracing the talent and contributions of those that just want to be a "technical expert" in their respective career fields/platforms. I have met officers from other countries (Canada, UK, Aus, Nor) that seem to have better opportunity for those that just want to fly. Some of the best ASW aircrews I have ever seen were Canadian, CP-140 Aurora crews who would routinely "spank" US crews in ASW exercises. Why? Because they stayed together and flew together - ALL THE TIME. I understand the US Navy's philosophy of "up or out", and I understand my responsibility to either play within that system or punch out. I certainly don't have all the answers, but offering someone to stay a permanent O3/O4 as long as they perform (fly, teach, deploy) seems like a logical way to capitalize on that individuals skill set.

This was a common point of debate wherever I have been in the Navy with the example of our English speaking cousins often coming up. I think the idea has some merit but the big complication is size, when it comes to sheer size we dwarf any other country when it comes to equipment and personnel. When the UK just decided to retire their Nimrod fleet they were only planning to have a dozen operational after getting their 'new' birds. Canada has only two squadrons of 18 CP-140s, Australia has only two squadrons of 18 AP-3Cs too and Norway a mere 6 P-3s. So when it comes to scale the US Navy is dealing with a much larger group of folks that we have to manage, having career O-3/4 aviators would be a much harder animal for the US Navy to wrestle with from a personnel perspective than our 'cousins'. So while a good idea I just see it being very hard to manage from a personnel perspective, something a lot of folks don't seem to realize when they argue for it.

 

[Flash]

Volunteering for it is one thing. Being told - that's quite another and absolutely unsat on the part of the bureau and chain of command.

Agree, fortunately that bad a screw job seems to be a rare occurrence though.

 

[MasterBates]

This was a common point of debate wherever I have been in the Navy with the example of our English speaking cousins often coming up. I think the idea has some merit but the big complication is size, when it comes to sheer size we dwarf any other country when it comes to equipment and personnel. When the UK just decided to retire their Nimrod fleet they were only planning to have a dozen operational after getting their 'new' birds. Canada has only two squadrons of 18 CP-140s, Australia has only two squadrons of 18 AP-3Cs too and Norway a mere 6 P-3s. So when it comes to scale the US Navy is dealing with a much larger group of folks that we have to manage, having career O-3/4 aviators would be a much harder animal for the US Navy to wrestle with from a personnel perspective than our 'cousins'. So while a good idea I just see it being very hard to manage from a personnel perspective, something a lot of folks don't seem to realize when they argue for it.

I don't see how it is any harder. It's a scalable issue, that actually should get easier in a bigger organization, because one guy is a smaller part of the puzzle here than in Norway.

It's a "that's not how it's been done here, and we have the money to keep on training new guys at the near-cyclic rate" issue more than "too hard".

 

[CommodoreMid]

I think that's why ICS disconnect was invented.

Hot mic is the default in the T-6 (at least when I was in primary). Unless you make your stud do otherwise, you'll get to hear all of his thoughts

 

[Flash]

I don't see how it is any harder. It's a scalable issue, that actually should get easier in a bigger organization, because one guy is a smaller part of the puzzle here than in Norway.

It's a "that's not how it's been done here, and we have the money to keep on training new guys at the near-cyclic rate" issue more than "too hard".

In a much smaller organization you can make sure the right people stay in the right place for a lot longer, a terminal O-4 'professional pilot' might be a great deal for both the Navy and the pilot for some but for others it would only be a good deal for the pilot. I know plenty of guys who would have loved to do the terminal O-4 operational thing but those folks would have been corrosive to the command and their fellow aircrew had they done so, it would be a lot harder to deal with those folks in an organization 5-10 times larger than those that do it now. It may be a scalable issue on paper but it is a lot harder to manage from a 'big Navy' perspective than an RAF/RCAF/RAAF perspective.

 

[MasterBates]

By that same argument, how do we get rid of corrosive talent that looks good on paper, but their peers/subordinates hate them?

I refuse to believe that our problems are "Too Big/Too Hard" in this day of damn near instant communication, documentation for about everything, and that there would be no mechanism to get rid of an "asshole" 18XX (whatever the "professional pilot" designator would be).

Having worked for corporations whose size and manpower structures rivaled DOD at it's peak.. If they can make a "professional engineer" vice a Engineer to Management track work, DOD can.

I feel it's mostly institutional inertia and they don't WANT to. And since the average dude making the call won't see the results of the manpower/training savings in his tenure in his billet.. Not going to happen anytime soon.

 

[Flash]

By that same argument, how do we get rid of corrosive talent that looks good on paper, but their peers/subordinates hate them?

I refuse to believe that our problems are "Too Big/Too Hard" in this day of damn near instant communication, documentation for about everything, and that there would be no mechanism to get rid of an "asshole" 18XX (whatever the "professional pilot" designator would be).

Having worked for corporations whose size and manpower structures rivaled DOD at it's peak.. If they can make a "professional engineer" vice a Engineer to Management track work, DOD can.

I feel it's mostly institutional inertia and they don't WANT to. And since the average dude making the call won't see the results of the manpower/training savings in his tenure in his billet.. Not going to happen anytime soon.

Having been part of small and large organizations personnel and other issues were a lot easier to deal with in the smaller ones than the bigger ones, it was much of the same in the two communities I was in when in the Navy. Great idea on paper, the implementation is what would bite you in the ass though. Just look t the OP-T DH thing, we are still trying to work that out.

You can't get someone's rep from paper either.