Yes, and it's not that CNATRA is hurting for anyone, it's that Marine Aviation was not meeting its commitment to training Naval Avaitors, specifically caused by a shortfall of company grade Marine aviators.
-
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
How does Navy determine # of IP's ?
- Thread starter satpak77
- Start date
Yes, and it's not that CNATRA is hurting for anyone, it's that Marine Aviation was not meeting its commitment to training Naval Avaitors, specifically caused by a shortfall of company grade Marine aviators.
Ah. This makes far more sense now. Thanks.
Nope, not understanding at all.
I'm not in Kingsville and my manning issues in VT land are billet based, not bodies (for the moment at least).
VT-J's issue is finding bodies to fill available (and reprogrammed) billets on both the pilot and NFO side.
You have your answer already, it makes no sense to teach BFM and other strike-fighter related stuff to IP's then have them turn around to teach studs. Same reason fixed wing types don't go to HT's. When I went through not even E-2/C-2 types could get orders there, much less a VP or helo type. And VT-86mflies only jets so there is that too....
Last edited:
There have been a few occasions in the past where the Navy has used RW pilots to fly in the VT(J)s. Will it ever happen again? Who knows.
That has been a pretty rare occurrence in the pilot VT(J)s but to my knowledge hasn't happened in VT-86 because they focus generally more 'tactical' stuff over a much shorter syllabus of flights.
Far from an expert on the jet syllabus but at least for NFOs advanced training has shifted towards a much more tactical focus. VMTS at 86 studs focus on AUWIs, BFM and strike missions with red air being controlled from a ground station via the APG73 like RADAR simulation... Need ducks to train ducks...
Not to worry. We are merely days away from the deadline for twice passed aviators to complete the paperwork drill to escape. Soon there will be a supply of pilots unable or unaware of their need to separate. They will mold the future aviators we need.
In the early to mid 80's there were a few USMC helo types instructing in T-2 Buckeyes with VT-23/Kingsville. They never instructed in CQ, Guns, ONAV or OCF, but they were everywhere in the Fam, BI, RI, and Form stages.
RadicalDude
Social Justice Warlord
Yes.
I don't think it's so much that a helo/prop guy couldn't IP at -86; it's that they're coded for VFA/VAQ types, and they rarely have trouble finding bodies to fill them. Short of very extenuating circumstances - co-lo, maybe - you're pretty much never going to get a community detailer to give up a coded billet if he can fill it. I've seen BNRs by the gaining skipper get turned down by Millington because the requestee and billet codes didn't match and the detailer didn't want to play.
There really is very little point at all to create instructors to teach something they have never done when you have a large and ready pool of folks who are already trained and willing to do the mission. It would be a waste of time and money, period.
I actually know a guy who wasn't a jet guy but got written orders to 86 and the CO refused to take him because he wasn't qual'd to do the job, he got his written orders changed as a result.
Not disagreeing with that. Just saying that it's the billet codes that's the show-stopper, not some inherent disdain for non-pointy-nose types. In this case, there's a valid reason why those billets are coded that way.