Highest time Apache pilot retires

[RobLyman]

Back on track with the OP, we had a guy who retired just a few years ago much like the CW5 Jones. He was a Cobra pilot in Vietnam. Made PC as a WO1. He flew Apaches in the Guard out at Craig airport and transitioned to the 60 and moved out to Cecil. He had around 10,000 hours, but not all in the Apache. "Jedi" was often used when referring to him.

 

[jtmedli]

FCP is a qual. MTP is a job.

Not that FCP doesn't usually go along with a job, but MTP is a career path. As such, there are about ten weeks of school just to get you on the basic track. Then there is RL progression and a lot of mentoring before you are set loose.

Gotcha. So MTP is more synonymous to maintenance officer progression than just the qual. Interesting to see how differently we all skin the cat.

 

[wink]

Gotcha. So MTP is more synonymous to maintenance officer progression than just the qual. Interesting to see how differently we all skin the cat.

No kidding. In this new gig I have with the Army Aviation Heritage Foundation I attended maintenance training for our Chapter's Cobra. Warrant and Regular officer pilots from maintenance were WAY into the nuts and bolts of maintaining and fixing the aircraft. And a qualified Maintenance Officer may as well be a full on mech. Our instructor was a retired LCOL and he knew it all. No Navy MO knows the plane like an Army MO. I was almost afraid to say I had been a LT Maintenance Div O. for fear they would expect too much from me. And the admin!! Seems like they have 4 separate logs or forms for every aircraft. That wasn't the case in the Navy of my time and it certainly isn't the case for an airline. One book, one form, does it all.

 

[jtmedli]

No kidding. In this new gig I have with the Army Aviation Heritage Foundation I attended maintenance training for our Chapter's Cobra. Warrant and Regular officer pilots from maintenance were WAY into the nuts and bolts of maintaining and fixing the aircraft. And a qualified Maintenance Officer may as well be a full on mech. Our instructor was a retired LCOL and he knew it all. No Navy MO knows the plane like an Army MO. I was almost afraid to say I had been a LT Maintenance Div O. for fear they would expect too much from me. And the admin!! Seems like they have 4 separate logs or forms for every aircraft. That wasn't the case in the Navy of my time and it certainly isn't the case for an airline. One book, one form, does it all.

And here I thought that I knew the helo pretty well. I guess that's the sort of mindset that you can get away with when you aren't trying to raise every pilot in the command to be the next XO and CO. Not saying that the Army is hands down better than the Navy at everything but the are some things that we learn from them.

 

[Flash]

And here I thought that I knew the helo pretty well. I guess that's the sort of mindset that you can get away with when you aren't trying to raise every pilot in the command to be the next XO and CO. Not saying that the Army is hands down better than the Navy at everything but the are some things that we learn from them.

In that way they are like VP guys then, in the absence of tactics they emphasize systems knowledge. The Army aviators I have dealt with usually have a pretty big lack of the bigger picture when it comes to military aviation outside their own specialties. It doesn't make them any less of an aviator, and there are some exceptions to the rule, but they emphasize different things in their aviators for a reason and the same with us.

 

[wink]

In that way they are like VP guys then, in the absence of tactics they emphasize systems knowledge.

The way I took this, you meant VP emphasize systems knowledge in the absence of tactics? Because what I observed in these guys was not just systems knowledge. It was actual maintenance procedures and mech skillz. I could see how a guy might not be as conversant it big picture stuff when he had his hands and brain full not just with piloting, and tactics but full on maintenance BS as well.

 

[Flash]

The way I took this, you meant VP emphasize systems knowledge in the absence of tactics? Because what I observed in these guys was not just systems knowledge. It was actual maintenance procedures and mech skillz. I could see how a guy might not be as conversant it big picture stuff when he had his hands and brain full not just with piloting, and tactics but full on maintenance BS as well.

The Army views aviation and treats their aviators much differently than the other three services. Their maintenance knowledge reflects that, where they are strong in that area they are very weak in others. It is not necessarily a bad thing, just very different than the other services. Their extensive maintenance knowledge is a reflection of that, just like the systems knowledge nerds in VP.

 

[jtmedli]

Their extensive maintenance knowledge is a reflection of that, just like the systems knowledge nerds in VP.

We have the same thing in helo land. Not as bad as VP but similar.

 

[RobLyman]

Now its all in one computer log book. An example of what we do was my latest project: installation of Extended Stores Support System (ESSS). Coordinated delivery of two sets of wings stores from PMs office, 12 tanks to be distributed to three states, bits and parts for installation, W&B for new configuration, and training on the use of the system. As an IP and the lead MTP/ME I also play a major role in training other pilots and setting SOP for the use of the "new" system. It's a lot of time in the books, on the phone and sending emails. But I do get to do a lot of flying too.

The Army views aviation and treats their aviators much differently than the other three services. Their maintenance knowledge reflects that, where they are strong in that area they are very weak in others. It is not necessarily a bad thing, just very different than the other services. Their extensive maintenance knowledge is a reflection of that, just like the systems knowledge nerds in VP.

I agree for the most part. Having been in the Navy and done a tour on a CCDG staff, I find it amazing how unfamiliar my Army peers are with what happens at higher levels. But I use the word unfamiliar as opposed to weak. You could say weak if there was some expectation of knowledge in that area. Aside from the warrant officer advanced course or staff course, there is NO expectation of knowledge outside flying the aircraft and their track. That is the realm of the "regular" officers, which I am sad to say do a poorer job of that than their Navy counterparts.

And to clarify, not all Army aviators are up on systems knowledge. It's mostly just the MTPs and some IPs. The other tracks are equally experts in their arenas.

 

[Flash]

I agree for the most part. Having been in the Navy and done a tour on a CCDG staff, I find it amazing how unfamiliar my Army peers are with what happens at higher levels. But I use the word unfamiliar as opposed to weak. You could say weak if there was some expectation of knowledge in that area. Aside from the warrant officer advanced course or staff course, there is NO expectation of knowledge outside flying the aircraft and their track. That is the realm of the "regular" officers, which I am sad to say do a poorer job of that than their Navy counterparts.

That is a much better description, with the difference in expectations being the main difference.

 

[highside7r]

Well said RobLyman, having gone from enlisted Navy to Army Warrant and now coming off a "staff" assignment/deployment. I felt the priorities of my superiors (O3/4) were not related to the bigger picture, even in a combat zone. I've pretty much worn out the "Well, in the Navy..." phrase.