If 40% of Naval Aviation are helos, what percentage overall are helo pilots?

[Gatordev]

Just realize that you will in all likelihood never have to do carrier quals because getting tailhook is a minority selection. Just playing devil's advocate.

This information has been thrown around a couple of times lately, and in the interest of putting out good gouge, I thought I'd correct it (I thought the same thing until recently).

Navy helos actually are only 40% of the aviation force. I don't remember what the Tacair number is, but I believe it's close to that. This comes direct from a recent brief from CNAF/CNAFR. I'm not sure where the 60% number that people throw around comes from. It might be a Marine number or a combined Navy/Marine rotary number, but the belief that Navy rotary makes up the majority of the aviation forces is incorrect.

I'll see if I can track down that brief and get the exact numbers. The bottom line for helo guys is if you stay in, plan to remain employed in the cockpit more than what has historically been the case.

 

[FlyBoyd]

This information has been thrown around a couple of times lately, and in the interest of putting out good gouge, I thought I'd correct it (I thought the same thing until recently).

Navy helos actually are only 40% of the aviation force. I don't remember what the Tacair number is, but I believe it's close to that. This comes direct from a recent brief from CNAF/CNAFR. I'm not sure where the 60% number that people throw around comes from. It might be a Marine number or a combined Navy/Marine rotary number, but the belief that Navy rotary makes up the majority of the aviation forces is incorrect.

I'll see if I can track down that brief and get the exact numbers. The bottom line for helo guys is if you stay in, plan to remain employed in the cockpit more than what has historically been the case.

The 60% comes from the selection distribution...I think. That is what I remember when I worked selections. Two per helo at 40% of total force can add up quick.

 

[Gatordev]

The 60% comes from the selection distribution...I think. That is what I remember when I worked selections. Two per helo at 40% of total force can add up quick.

Okay, that makes sense. My STUCON days are becoming a distant memory.

 

[BACONATOR]

Okay, that makes sense. My STUCON days are becoming a distant memory.

Yeah, I'd been curious about the numbers that didn't add up, but it makes perfect sense when you think about it, whatever the ACTUAL numbers are.

Jets may be 40% of the fleet, or whatever the real number is, BUT, if you compare the following:

10 jets = 10 pilots

10 helos = 20 pilots

it begins to make sense how the numbers make sense wrt "Jets make up X% of the fleet, vs jet pilots make up Y% of the fleet"

 

[HeyJoe]

Yeah, I'd been curious about the numbers that didn't add up, but it makes perfect sense when you think about it, whatever the ACTUAL numbers are.

Jets may be 40% of the fleet, or whatever the real number is, BUT, if you compare the following:

10 jets = 10 pilots

10 helos = 20 pilots

it begins to make sense how the numbers make sense wrt "Jets make up X% of the fleet, vs jet pilots make up Y% of the fleet"

You're falling into the trap akin to Plato's Allegory of the Cave. Manning is derived by crew seat ratio, which is not 1:1. It gets set in N88 and may have a higher combat number and a steady state number that detailers/placement work against to staff ideally prior to turn-around training. Ask any of folks who have been in squadrons about how many aircrew there are relative to seats. It's more than 1:1.

 

[phrogpilot73]

Ask any of folks who have been in squadrons about how many aircrew there are relative to seats. It's more than 1:1.

T/O USMC CH-46E squadron (and I'd guess, similar numbers for a MV-22 squadron): 12 aircraft, 28 pilots.

 

[eddie]

I believe I once saw something on here to the effect of:
USAF: 30%
USMC: 25%
USN: 21%

for jets (it was a reliable source/poster).

I have no idea if that was airframes or pilots, but as long as we are tossing out verbotten numbers...

 

[BACONATOR]

You're falling into the trap akin to Plato's Allegory of the Cave. Manning is derived by crew seat ratio, which is not 1:1. It gets set in N88 and may have a higher combat number and a steady state number that detailers/placement work against to staff ideally prior to turn-around training. Ask any of folks who have been in squadrons about how many aircrew there are relative to seats. It's more than 1:1.

You're absolutely right about manning to aircraft numbers. I was simplifying it by talking strictly about required crew (pilots) per airframe. So while there may be 5 pilots per 3 jets, and 10 pilots per 3 helos, the basic same principle applies that there are twice as many pilots for the same amount of helos as jets. Of course the numbers aren't going to work out to exactly the same ratio, but the simple premise is all I was after.

 

[squorch2]

T/O USMC CH-46E squadron (and I'd guess, similar numbers for a MV-22 squadron): 12 aircraft, 28 pilots.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, my last squadron (USN MH-60S) was 15 aircraft, 70 pilots. So YMMV.

 

[HeyJoe]

You're absolutely right about manning to aircraft numbers. I was simplifying it by talking strictly about required crew (pilots) per airframe. So while there may be 5 pilots per 3 jets, and 10 pilots per 3 helos, the basic same principle applies that there are twice as many pilots for the same amount of helos as jets. Of course the numbers aren't going to work out to exactly the same ratio, but the simple premise is all I was after.

Otto, you're reaching. It's determined by the crew-seat ratio that can and does vary per community and not a generic multiplier so your simple premise is not workable. Best wait until you've "been there, done that" a bit more.

 

[ea6bflyr]

I thought the typical manning was approximately 1.5 crews per aircraft. This used to hold true in the Prowler community until the downsizing in preparation for Growlers:
4 jets, 6 Pilots, 18 ECMOS.

-ea6bflyr

On a side note, I had always heard 60-65% of all Pilots were Helo Pilots.

 

[BACONATOR]

Otto, you're reaching. It's determined by the crew-seat ratio that can and does vary per community and not a generic multiplier so your simple premise is not workable. Best wait until you've "been there, done that" a bit more.

Fair enough. I just found my corner, and I'm parking it.

 

[nugget61]

While we're talking about manning issues, will sna's be able to select P-8's or will those slots be going to current P-3ers that are transitioning over?

 

[Gatordev]

While we're talking about manning issues, will sna's be able to select P-8's or will those slots be going to current P-3ers that are transitioning over?

Yes.

 

[webmaster]

While we're talking about manning issues, will sna's be able to select P-8's or will those slots be going to current P-3ers that are transitioning over?

That is a really good question. Right now we are under COA 1, with all SNAs selecting Maritime will be sent to P3 squadrons through FY23 while currently qualified ACTC Level 300 and above Pilots in the Fleet are transitioned through the existing FIT syllabus based upon NAVPERs 1336 approvals. There is the option on the table for 1 of 42 initial Pilot cadre slots to go to recognized strong performing SNAs based upon VT former P3 instructor recommendation, but that could be a crapshoot when dealing with cross gradient rank structures.

John