Flying Warrant: A success or failure?

[bunk22]

I think you should onsidert the possibility that the small number of WOs in the Navy system are statistically too small to draw accurate conclusions from.

I would tend to agree with this.

 

[Clux4]

I think you should onsidert the possibility that the small number of WOs in the Navy system are statistically too small to draw accurate conclusions from.

It appears to me that those in charge of the Navy program either don't want it to work or don't know how to make it work (and are unwilling to learn).

This appears to me to be a test with insufficient data to be conclusive but then it could be a random sampling. The intent of this test is probably the first thing that should be clarified.

Could it be that the WO's felt out of place with a bunch of 2ndLt and Ensigns? Something else I thought about was this. Most people that have gone through college have developed okay studying habits through their time in college. These WO's are most likely coming from the fleet or some night school program that is not nearly as rigorous as flight school. This coupled with learning new material(flying) as whole could be a factor.

 

[RobLyman]

Could it be that the WO's felt out of place with a bunch of 2ndLt and Ensigns? Something else I thought about was this. Most people that have gone through college have developed okay studying habits through their time in college. These WO's are most likely coming from the fleet or some night school program that is not nearly as rigorous as flight school. This coupled with learning new material(flying) as whole could be a factor.

The lack of academic experience makes sense, except that it does work in the Army. College grads go through flight school right next to guys right out of the "fleet", er..desert. The feeling out of place might be something. In the Army, the WO is the norm in flight school. Commissioned officers are not as plentiful. There is a professional network to rely upon in Army flight courses and warrants look out for each other more so than the commissioned guys do in Navy flight school. This WO "mentoring" continues out of flight school and is one of the reasons WOs have fewer personality problems than commisioned guys in the Army.

I could list reasons all day why the flying warrant program works well in the Army post-flight school, but I am still a bit unsure why warrants in the Navy are not succeeding at least up to their first fleet tour.

 

[ChunksJR]

Well, I guess I better quit now then. Obviously my background as a yo-yo for eight years in the sub community didn't prepare me to be a pilot. Guess I shouldn't be an FRS Instructor Pilot or qualified ACTC Level 500 WTI either... sigh...

Yeah, stick to making kicka$$ web forums!

 

[Clux4]

The lack of academic experience makes sense, except that it does work in the Army. College grads go through flight school right next to guys right out of the "fleet", er..desert.

From the what we know about the JSUPT, we know that the Airforce and Navy trains pilot's differently. It is probably safe to say this is the same across all services.Are the academic rigors of flight school similar across all branches? I have never been to any military flights school but in order to even suggest an apples an apples situation this is something to consider. Also, are the washout rates comparable? I have heard in time past that Army washout rates are generally lower compared to the other services. What is the Army doing differently ?

 

[IRfly]

I agree that it's difficult to statistically draw conclusions from such a small data set. Also, here's another thing--with the flying WOs doing a 36/33 sea/shore rotation, it seems that the Navy wouldn't really begin to see the benefits it's hoping for until these guys start cycling back through for their second sea tours. And then they could draw even more possibly erroneous conclusions from the limited data set.

 

[phrogpilot73]

As that is an unnatural way to fly -- the answer would, of course be a considered & decided NO ...

Umm, birds don't need runways - they do no-hover landings to a spot all the time. I think our way is more natural - needing a runway is what's unnatural.

 

[zippy]

Well, I guess I better quit now then. Obviously my background as a yo-yo for eight years in the sub community didn't prepare me to be a pilot. Guess I shouldn't be an FRS Instructor Pilot or qualified ACTC Level 500 WTI either... sigh...

Probably not, but you word in the community is you make a great staff weenie...

 

[The Chief]

Umm, birds don't need runways - they do no-hover landings .....

Au contraire, mon frère

Midway, gooney birds need runways to take off and to land, albiet most time unimproved runways. Sparrows and other little squirt birds can hover, yes.

 

[Jim123]

As that is an unnatural way to fly -- the answer would, of course be a considered & decided NO ...

If hovering is out then there is probably no point asking about sideways and backward flight...

Happy New Year!

 

[OscarMyers]

Umm, birds don't need runways - they do no-hover landings to a spot all the time. I think our way is more natural - needing a runway is what's unnatural.

If this argument can be made about natural flight, then one could say a C-172 with a 65KT headwind is a helicopter.

 

[webmaster]

Probably not, but you word in the community is you make a great staff weenie...

Unfortunately, too true... grrr...

 

[A4sForever]

Umm, birds don't need runways - they do no-hover landings to a spot all the time. I think our way is more natural - needing a runway is what's unnatural.

What's that I hear ???

Is it Orville & Wilbur weeping for the future of manned flight ... ???

Or are they just rollin' in their graves ... ???

At least jet-jocks wear U-trow when they ... FLY. That torso harness can smart when it creeps up ...

*sigh* ....

 

[HAL Pilot]

Yeah, but can you hover?

As that is an unnatural way to fly -- the answer would, of course be a considered & decided NO ...

Chunks - the question shouldn't be "Can you hover?", the question should be "Do you want to hover?". But in either case, A4's answer is still appropriate. :icon_zbee

 

[SynixMan]

I still think the program has merit in light of the Navy's push to provide more aviation capability to the SEALS. One reason TF-160 is so S.H. is that they have guys who have done nothing for the last 15 years but fly the same aircraft and mission. I think everyone here would agree that if you could keep pilots in the cockpit for an entire career, then you'll have more proficient pilots.
If the Navy is serious about dedicating a capability to the SEALS, it would be prudent to look at how the other services (ARSOC and AFSOC specifically) man their units and try to emulate that model.

My understanding was that HSC-84 and 85 were using FTS folks to make that happen. An instructor here got picked up for it.