Aviator progression in the Navy

[Recovering LSO]

I firmly believe one of the best things we could do for Navy Air would be to have guys go to a different platform for their Disassoc tour instead of being a shooter or ANAV or whatever. Shake people out of their complacency level a bit - catch guys right at that "senior LT who knows everything" level - and force them to look at things differently, see how another community does things and learn that the (my community) way isn't the only way.

CVW staffs are great place to achieve this within the existing "second sea tour" model, but you get to keep on foot in your "home" community by not actually being out of the cockpit.

Of course the folks who go to the "other communities" RAG will probably get shot in the head come FITREP time (I've seen it happen at both the HS and HSL/M RAGs) so you may end up sacrificing some good folks at the altar of the FITREP system, but that's another argument.

this seems trite and rather territorial, unless it was because they didn't actually perform.?.

 

[helolumpy]

this seems trite and rather territorial, unless it was because they didn't actually perform.?.

It was more of a "you're not from my community, so I don't have to take care of you in the same manner in which I need to take care of my communities future leaders".
The helo world did it when when HS transitioned to the 60F (H-3 pilots went to the 60B RAG) and when I was doing my RAG tour, we have a couple of HC (one H--46 and one H-3) who came to the HS RAG to form the initial cadre for the 60S FIT. Most of the JO's agreed that it was great, but the FITREP ranking did lean towards some favoritism for the host community over the outsiders.

 

[Gatordev]

The question is, how can we steepen the learning curve, bridge the gap, and challenge young helicopter pilots sooner? And should we?

The Navy/MC (and technically CG) flight syllabus is set up to make single-piloted aviators. That's how they're taught from the beginning. Not everyone excels at it, but the way the syllabus is set up is to make everyone a jet dude. I think you're looking at from the Army perspective, which just has a very different business model.

 

[Uncle Fester]

I understand what you mean with your post, but I have to ask, where are we going to get the people to fill the ANAV, Shooter, CSG Staffer and Numbered Fleet Staffers if we don't send folks there during thier disassociated sea tours? ...You're taking away some significant manpower than the Navy needs to be able to function...Of course the folks who go to the "other communities" RAG will probably get shot in the head come FITREP time (I've seen it happen at both the HS and HSL/M RAGs) so you may end up sacrificing some good folks at the altar of the FITREP system, but that's another argument.

I see what you're getting at, but I disagree. One, not all those jobs need to be filled; you know and I know a lot of staff billets exist strictly to give guys the opportunity to check a required block. Two, the jobs that need to be filled don't necessarily need to be filled by aviators. Who would you rather have as a shooter, a P-3 guy (or an E-2 NFO, for that matter) or an ABH Warrant? Three, not everybody would have to go do a 'flying disassoc', any more than everybody even does a disassoc at all these days - my understanding is a lot of Hornet guys don't due to timing. I think it'd be helpful to have a mix of experience in your DH and front office jobs. Some were shooters, some were ANAVs, some fetched the Admiral's coffee, and some flew something else.

Your point about disassoc'ing being career death is valid as long as it's a 'nonstandard' option. If it's a common thing to do, then the skippers will know how to handle it come fitrep time. You're a super-JO in his/her squadron, filling, say, an Ops or Maint or Admin job and you can be ranked accordingly. Just wouldn't be the WTI, most likely.

I don't mean this as a threadjack; the question was about challenging aviators once they hit the senior-JOPA plateau and keeping them in the mindset of learning new things. I think shaking guys out of their comfort zone is the best way to do that, and sending them on a 'mile in the other bastards' moccasains' tour does that better than a turn in ship's company. You'd learn a lot more about being an aviator, and keep the communities from becoming ossified to boot.

 

[BusyBee604]

It was more of a "you're not from my community, so I don't have to take care of you in the same manner in which I need to take care of my communities future leaders".

That's a scary assertion. I would hope that today's unit Leaders are/were above this type of bias. If not, then PC has lost one of it's few positive outcomes. Of course, an attitude like above could negatively affect command climate, and we've had quite a few problems with that the past few years.
BzB

 

[Warner]

The Navy/MC (and technically CG) flight syllabus is set up to make single-piloted aviators. That's how they're taught from the beginning. Not everyone excels at it, but the way the syllabus is set up is to make everyone a jet dude. I think you're looking at from the Army perspective, which just has a very different business model.

Yet it sounds like Navy H-60 pilots don't get signed off as aircraft commanders any faster than Army pilots (to my surprise). But you are right, I am coming from an Army perspective, and I'm asking questions of you all specifically to learn how your perspective differs.

I don't mean this as a threadjack; the question was about challenging aviators once they hit the senior-JOPA plateau and keeping them in the mindset of learning new things. I think shaking guys out of their comfort zone is the best way to do that, and sending them on a 'mile in the other bastards' moccasains' tour does that better than a turn in ship's company. You'd learn a lot more about being an aviator, and keep the communities from becoming ossified to boot.

No worries. The discussion is relevant. As you all know, the Army is all about putting us O-grade aviators in different (read: non-flying) jobs, while the warrant officers remain in place forever. The warrants end up accumulating a lot of operational experience that is very specific to their mission set, along with becoming great pilots, but some of them do noticeably lack an understanding of the rest of the service and their role in it. As O-grades we tend to know more about the other branches, the grand strategy, and how we fit into the picture, but tend to lack the technical and tactical knowledge needed to be great leaders in an operational aviation unit. I love your idea. Broadening experiences that involved going to fly another type of airframe, or flying with a sister service for a while, would almost certainly make us better aviators as well as more worldly and well-rounded. But I think that most broadening or staff jobs exist only as a place to put someone while the next guy gets their turn at flying/command/etc. The problem where I come from seems to be too many officers and too few key flying/leadership positions. A lot of it goes back to the poor retention rates during the height of the Iraq war and subsequent surge of commissioning new officers.

 

[Gatordev]

Yet it sounds like Navy H-60 pilots don't get signed off as aircraft commanders any faster than Army pilots (to my surprise). But you are right, I am coming from an Army perspective, and I'm asking questions of you all specifically to learn how your perspective differs.

True, but you're not quite getting how the training track works, but I understand that your intent here is to better understand it.

In Army school, you show up pretty much already having selected helos, so your syllabus is geared towards flying them as we all fly them (CRM, multi-crew, etc). On the Navy side, people show up not knowing what they're going to fly. The Navy/MC model is to have everyone work towards being a single-seat jet dude. The entire first part of the syllabus in flight school (we haven't even got to the -60 yet, let alone helos) is geared towards this mentality. Of course not everyone will have the aptitude and the Navy/MC doesn't have the room for everyone to be a jet guy, so the cream rises to the top, guys select jets and they continue on doing the single-seat thing.

Now the helo/multi guys go on (we're still in flight school) to learn their basic jobs in a multi-engine or helo, to include CRM and multi-pilot stuff.

Then, after all that's done, they go to the fleet and learn the actual operational platform (-60, P-3, E-6, etc). This is another departure from the Army model where you guys still fly the operational platform while still at Rucker.

 

[Pags]

I don't mean this as a threadjack; the question was about challenging aviators once they hit the senior-JOPA plateau and keeping them in the mindset of learning new things. I think shaking guys out of their comfort zone is the best way to do that, and sending them on a 'mile in the other bastards' moccasains' tour does that better than a turn in ship's company. You'd learn a lot more about being an aviator, and keep the communities from becoming ossified to boot.

But isn't the disassociated tour designed to challenge senior LTs and to develop them furtheATMs officers? at this point in their careers they're adding increased leadership and management responsibilities to prepare them for DH, CO, Major Command, and eventually Flag. I tend to see it as Big Navy putting the emphasis on leadership and management development over aviator development. It seems that At this point in an aviators career it's expected that he have the airmanship skills he needs and the brain power to learn the new stuff.

Instead of having squadrons know how the other guy works, the navy has the staffers to handle this at the level above the squadron, thereby allowing the squadron to focus on fighting their respective platforms.

 

[Uncle Fester]

Fair enough, but isn't diversifying your experience as an aviator why we have P-3 guys as shooters? Otherwise, what does it do for you professionally? You should arguably already have learned how to run a division. ANAV gives you a good chair to watch how the Boat is run at the big-boy level, but does that necessarily make you a better leader or aviator?

This idea is in Fester's brainscape because I had a couple of DHs who went to fly EP-3s as super-JOs. How they worked that out, I'm not sure, but they sure as hell knew a lot about what the VQ bubbas could and couldn't do and how to make best use of them. I learned a lot as a padawan E-2 guy talking to them. I think the Navy's goal ought to be developing tactically proficient aviators and finding new and better ways to do that, and I don't think the current career track does that, or necessarily develops leadership and management, either...just an asshole Reservist's opinion, so take it for what it's worth.

 

[helolumpy]

One, not all those jobs need to be filled; you know and I know a lot of staff billets exist strictly to give guys the opportunity to check a required block.

Then where are you going to get the folks to fill the billets for the Staffs if they're not pilots (and NFOs) on staff tours? Part of the experience is learning how Big Navy works since every LT has the potential to be a future CNO.
Unless you want to develop a career pilot program (like the CWO program in the Army), Officers will need career exapanding opportunities and you do not get those by staying in the cockpit for your career.

Two, the jobs that need to be filled don't necessarily need to be filled by aviators. Who would you rather have as a shooter, a P-3 guy (or an E-2 NFO, for that matter) or an ABH Warrant?

When we ask that question to Pers-43 (Ham Tallent at the time) his response was that for every Warrant Officer you "create" to do a job, you have to provide that Warrant a career path to include shore assignments and promition opportunity.

Then you would need to figure out what to do with all the LTs you now have running around. For every Super JO position you create in the squadron does that equate to one less seat available for a nugget?
This will restrict the ability for the CO to give an EP to a first tour guy since the Super JO is sucking up the EP. And if the Super JO does not get the EP, then that will need a lot fo explaining since you just tubed the career of the Super JO by not breaking him out against folks who aren't really his peers...

Three, not everybody would have to go do a 'flying disassoc', any more than everybody even does a disassoc at all these days - my understanding is a lot of Hornet guys don't due to timing. I think it'd be helpful to have a mix of experience in your DH and front office jobs. Some were shooters, some were ANAVs, some fetched the Admiral's coffee, and some flew something else.

I agree. Back when there were two VF squadrons in the Air Wing there were lots of NFO's doing disassociated sea tours but not the pilots. Since the NFOs were doing them, it couldn't be because the Community pushed back, it must have been for another reason. Since many of my TACAIR friends went from their shore duty to DH tour, it must be timing.

You'd learn a lot more about being an aviator, and keep the communities from becoming ossified to boot.

I guess this is the core of our disagreement. The disassociated is not designed to make you a better aviator, it's to make you a better Navy Officer.
I know I learned a whole lot about Naval Aviation by doing strike planning down in CVIC. Hearing what the Hummer, Hornet, Prowler and Viking folks were doing gave me an idea of the bigger picture as to my role as the helo bubba. Cross polination will work great, but the Navy will be very reluctant to move away from the disassocaiated sea tour since they need aviation folks in those positions we mentioned.

As for how to cross polinate, I'd love to see more exchange opportunities with our sister services. Having only 1 Navy Officer flying with the Air Force really doesn't give us much insight into how a sister service does their mission. If we are going to fight as a Joint force, then we need more interoperability.
Second, I stand by my thought of having cross-polination occur at the RAG. This is the center for each community, so it's the best place to introduce the "why do you do it that way" discussion. The RAGs typically write the NATOPS and are involved in Tactics D&E (supporting NSAWC, the VX squadrons and Weapon Schools). Finally the RAG is typically where the community will try to send its better folks. Getting a bunch of smart folks in the same room talking is usually a good start to solving a problem.

 

[zippy]

Yet it sounds like Navy H-60 pilots don't get signed off as aircraft commanders any faster than Army pilots (to my surprise). But you are right, I am coming from an Army perspective, and I'm asking questions of you all specifically to learn how your perspective differs.

Helo guys can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think a pilot has 24 months from the arrival to their fleet squadron to become qualified as aircraft commander (PC in your terms I believe). From an hours standpoint, maybe not much different but it seems that the 2 year timeline is a lot quicker then the 3-5 year timeframe the Army goes through.

 

[helolumpy]

Helo guys can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think a pilot has 24 months from the arrival to their fleet squadron to become qualified as aircraft commander (PC in your terms I believe). From an hours standpoint, maybe not much different but it seems that the 2 year timeline is a lot quicker then the 3-5 year timeframe the Army goes through.

3710 give an individual 24 months to make Aircraft Commander (HAC). After 24 months the individual is supposed to go to a FNAEB.
Most folks in my experience can make HAC in an Airwing squadron in 12-16 months.
For the expeditionary folks, I think it might be shorter. I have heard that you won't deploy until your an 2P so you will have about 6-9 months to make it from when you check into the squadron. In an Airwing squadron, I've seen it go longer since we don't self-impose the 2P requirement on folks for a long cruise.

 

[Gatordev]

I've seen it go longer since we don't self-impose the 2P requirement on folks for a long cruise.

You may find that it's changing with the new Superhawk. I don't know what the Sierra book says, but since you're talking Airwing, which kind of, sort of equates to Romeos now, you can't do very much until you finish the RAG now (which is ridiculous) and you can't really do much stuff operationally until you're a 2P.

I think the HSC guys have more leeway, based off Pags and Otto's description of how you can go assault downtown Bahgdad with a full Delta Team and all you need is a 2P and a guy who plays FS X a lot.

 

[MasterBates]

The cross pollination I think would be a good thing, as someone who flew two very distinct fleet platforms. (SH-60Bs as a JO, E-2Cs as a SuperJO)

It did open my eyes as to the way different people could do stuff. And it also showed me that a lot of the stuff taught by WTIs about what Hawkeye is and what it can do for you as a 60B pilot (and vice versa) was oh, about 94% wrong.

Problem is the getting shot in the head by the "host" (or in my case new) community on FITREPS.

I was the SWO and QAO, and doing outstanding in both within 12 months of checkin. I made CAPC/PC faster than community norm, despite the retarded rules they put on it (could not go up for CAPC, until the guys who checked in even a day ahead of you had a shot, regarless of how good you are or bad they were)

I still got below CO average MP for my last pre-LCDR board FITREP because I was "too new" which killed me on making LCDR.

It has potential to be a bonus, but as long as guys get shot in the head, it's going to not be as helpful.

 

[Pags]

I think the HSC guys have more leeway, based off Pags and Otto's description of how you can go assault downtown Bahgdad with a full Delta Team and all you need is a 2P and a guy who plays FS X a lot.

Kill Me.