If not Pilot, NFO?

[HeyJoe]

A common misunderstanding among pilots who don't have the opportunity to fly with FOs. Trust me, with some of the flying I've done, I'm doing more of it than the nugget pilot. I know some may quibble with semantics and terminology, but I don't ride in my jet, I fly it.

Brett

The single seat types may not understand what Brett is saying...I have heard many make comments in the past and even here...I did several cross countries with legacy A-4 and A-7 pilots in both aircraft and had them say similar things along the lines of "Well, I'm not sure what NFOs do" or "When we fly a two cockpit aircraft, one guy does everything" or "I'd rather have the gas".

For those who asked for a sea story.....

So there I was in PCola getting ready for my first low level in the T-2C at VT-10 and my former boss in the Pentagon shows up as CO of VA-122 and a RAG class of A-7 pilots for a CQ det. He offers me a ride in the TA-7C so I check with the squadron and they say sure as long as I make my commitments there. So he asks “what would I like to do” so I tell him I'm up next for a low level. He brightens up and says "Let's go flying then". We file for the stereo low level route and use my charts that I prepared. The A-7 had so much gas that we flew it twice, but he wanted to give me the controls and didn't understand the concept of being "talked" through the route. I wanted to practice what I was expected to do. It was an interesting flight and I did get to practice and get some stick time as well.

I flew the low level in the T-2 that afternoon with a Marine instructor who had reputation for never giving aboves and being very harsh and demanding. I didn't volunteer that I had just flown it twice a few hours prior as I had told the squadron ops folks anyway. In the debrief, he told me he had never seen someone so relaxed in that environment like I had been there before (that wasn't my first low level as same gent had set me up with several weeks at Lemoore with VA-127 before flight school and I was flying 2-3 times a day with them during a Fallon det, which included baptism by fire in ACM and low levels). I had to choke a smile...I also got the aboves that he was reputed to be so reluctant to give. The CO returned every six weeks for CQ dets (I also got to bag traps in the A-7. on the Lex on the next visit) and we always discussed "what NFOs did".

So back to Brett's point, it is indeed the supreme challenge to win your wings of gold, but there is a difference for sure between the single and double anchors. Here is my take on the NFO perspective....a NFO is always going to be flying with a Naval Aviator (big news, huh?) and has to develop an air sense and expertise to "fly" the aircraft, especially to obtain the additional qualifications of mission commander, etc. Certainly in the two or more place aircraft, as hours accumulate in the logbook, the NFO will eventually be flying with less and less experienced pilots. I break that phenomena into 3 phases:

1) Nugget phase - you are being mentored and on steep learning curve; pilot is feeding you through a fire hose. You are the grasshopper and need to be in constant receive mode.

2) JOPA Phase - Skipper decides you can fly with another JO and not get killed or have phone ringing off the hook because you were flathatting or doing some other foolishness that would likely not play well in front of the long green table. This is the most fun phase and you should wring every moment you can out of it.

3) Mentor phase - Skipper decides you are now senior and/mature and experienced enough to fly with newly arrived Nugget pilots. This phase is rewarding, but can send a cold chill down your spine depending on who you are flying with (quality spread) or when you reflect on fact that the better you are, the correspondingly worse pilots you will be crewed with until they reach the JOPA phase at which time you get your next "project".

3a) Skipper phase - you get to fly with whoever you want - likely best stick you can find or recruit

 

[HAL Pilot]

Granted I’m just a helo guy, but I think that some junior NFOs have an identity confliction. It starts at wingings, they say ENS Schmuckately will be flying the Tomcat out of Norfolk. Is he really flying the Tomcat? When Crewman wing they don't say AWAN Stanley will be flying the H-60. I think it would be annoying to have to explain to people what you actually do in the Navy. Similar for helo guys, I make it a point when someone asks me what I do to say “I’m a helicopter pilot” not “I’m pilot” if you say "I'm a pilot in the Navy" people will naturaly assume you are flying jets off of a carrier.

For things like approach minimums, the A-6 used to be considered dual piloted instead of single piloted even though it had a NA and a NFO, not 2 NAs. I'm pretty sure the S-3 and EA-6B are the same.

I'm not saying NFOs are pilots, but they do "fly" the aircraft.

 

[HAL Pilot]

Just thought I would let you all know that I selected and sent in the form. 1) NA 2) NFO 3) SWO.

Smart move. You won't regret this.

 

[S.O.B.]

I here a lot of talk about how NFOs are actually “flying” the jet, if this is true then why does the Navy not fill those positions with Pilots vice NFOs? I agree somewhat in that if you have controls in front of you and you manipulate them you’re “flying.” If you don’t have controls in front of you then I’m sorry but no matter how bad you want it to be true, you’re not “flying” the jet. Any TACAIR pilots want to weigh in on this? Don’t take this the wrong way, the nugget pilot may not be able to fly without the seasoned NFO and he is obviously vital to the mission but moving the controls = flying the jet.

 

[HAL Pilot]

I here a lot of talk about how NFOs are actually “flying” the jet, if this is true then why does the Navy not fill those positions with Pilots vice NFOs? I agree somewhat in that if you have controls in front of you and you manipulate them you’re “flying.” If you don’t have controls in front of you then I’m sorry but no matter how bad you want it to be true, you’re not “flying” the jet. Any TACAIR pilots want to weigh in on this? Don’t take this the wrong way, the nugget pilot may not be able to fly without the seasoned NFO and he is obviously vital to the mission but moving the controls = flying the jet.

Although I was a P-3 NFO I am now an airline pilot. I would say the NFO in the right seat of the A-6, S-3, EA-6B or in the back seat of the F-14, F-18 is doing as much "flying" as the non-flying pilot in a helo, C-9, P-3, C-130, E-6 or any 2-piloted commercial aircraft. Do you think the non-flying pilot in these aircraft are not really "flying" the plane since the other guy is moving the controls?

If you don't think they are "flying" in this situation, than you need to remove from your logbook any second pilot time you have.

 

[S.O.B.]

Although I was a P-3 NFO I am now an airline pilot. I would say the NFO in the right seat of the A-6, S-3, EA-6B or in the back seat of the F-14, F-18 is doing as much "flying" as the non-flying pilot in a helo, C-9, P-3, C-130, E-6 or any 2-piloted commercial aircraft. Do you think the non-flying pilot in these aircraft are not really "flying" the plane since the other guy is moving the controls?

If you don't think they are "flying" in this situation, than you need to remove from your logbook any second pilot time you have.

I would expect that the non-flying pilot could fly the aircraft at any moment and in any situation. Could you say the same for an NFO?

 

[TurnandBurn55]

Any TACAIR pilots want to weigh in on this? Don’t take this the wrong way, the nugget pilot may not be able to fly without the seasoned NFO and he is obviously vital to the mission but moving the controls = flying the jet.

I don't think there's a pilot in my squadron who would bat an eyelash if a WSO said "I fly F-18s"...

I find the only people who take issue with this (semantic) point are single-seaters or non-TACAIR types...

At the end of the day, it's the mission that counts... flying isn't an end unto itself...

 

[HeyJoe]

I would expect that the non-flying pilot could fly the aircraft at any moment and in any situation. Could you say the same for an NFO?

Depends on whether they have controls or not...in aircraft that do, they are been cases of RIOs doing exactly that (one RIO brought back an Adversary TA-4J when pilot was incapacitated), but that is not the point here. The NFO in all cases has just as much responsibility for mission execution (even more in case of EA-6B, P-3C and E-2C just to name a few). Under crew coordination and the way FNAEBs work, the Navy puts just as much responsibility on the shoulders on the NFO so if someone says they "fly" such and such aircraft, I think they earn that right.

 

[Brett327]

I here a lot of talk about how NFOs are actually “flying” the jet, if this is true then why does the Navy not fill those positions with Pilots vice NFOs? I agree somewhat in that if you have controls in front of you and you manipulate them you’re “flying.” If you don’t have controls in front of you then I’m sorry but no matter how bad you want it to be true, you’re not “flying” the jet. Any TACAIR pilots want to weigh in on this? Don’t take this the wrong way, the nugget pilot may not be able to fly without the seasoned NFO and he is obviously vital to the mission but moving the controls = flying the jet.

I know many a RAG Instructor ECMO and more than a few fleet ones who have reached over and grabbed the controls to prevent something untowards from happening with a junior pilot.

Brett

 

[Harrier Dude]

I don't think there's a pilot in my squadron who would bat an eyelash if a WSO said "I fly F-18s"...

I find the only people who take issue with this (semantic) point are single-seaters or non-TACAIR types...

At the end of the day, it's the mission that counts... flying isn't an end unto itself...

As a single seat guy, I never appreciated NFOs simply because I never had one. You learn to do without (like a second engine). Turnandburn and I went 1v1 a few weeks ago about this, but that was all good natured ready-room trash talking, and I'm sure he knows that. Don't expect that to change.

As a RAG instructor, I was often in 2 seat Harriers with another IP doing FAC(A) for studs. It was purely a simulation for the benefit of the students as the TAV-8B is not a tactical asset. When a two seat wasn't available, we did it single seat.

I cannot tell you how much easier it was in the T-bird. One guy would work the stack and the other guy flew the jet. It is still doable single seat, even in a tactical environment (see FAC/SCAR thread), but much easier with another aircrew in the cockpit.

That was when I saw the utility of having an NFO. I often said that flying an F/A-18D must be the easiest job in the world. It's a force multiplier having someone else to build SA and task-share.

As far as whether or not they're flying goes, I think it's all semantics. They definitly contribute to the mission. If it demeans them to relegate them to passenger status then pick your comments wisely. I'd honestly have to say it's airframe specific. I've seen F/A-18Ds go out on combat sorties (OIF-1) with empty back seats. They will tell you that they are FMC without them. A Prowler, though is all about the NFOs. The pilot (from what my buds tell me) is just driving the bus. Ditto E-2s. I have no idea about P-3s or any other FO platforms.

For you NFOs out there, as long as you keep your remarks in the realm of where you contribute (which can be plentiful) and not try to take credit for things you have no control of, most pilots will give you the respect you deserve.

For you multi-crew pilots out there, be good to your NFOs if you want them to be good to you. You'll reap what you sow.

For the rest of us arrogant single seat Varsity types, ROCK ON!

T/B55......is that coffee done yet?:icon_mi_1

 

[MasterBates]

There has been on-again and off-again talk about trying NFOs in the 60B and 60R. The big issue is do they replace the ATO (currently manned by a pilot, we qual for Pilot and ATO), the SO (Enlisted AW, who doubles as the crew chief, and door gunner) or both.

To contrast with the P3, our ATO acts as the TACCO and Mission Commander, while the Pilot drives. Both seats have full flight controls, but only the left seat has the computers.

 

[zab1001]

I'm wasted maybe I'll add something tomm.

 

[Brett327]

I'm wasted maybe I'll add something tomm.

Ditto.

Brett

 

[HAL Pilot]

I would expect that the non-flying pilot could fly the aircraft at any moment and in any situation. Could you say the same for an NFO?

You have "NFO" issues....

It is well document that there are fewer accidents in aircraft with pilot/NFO crews than in single-seat aircraft.

I read countless mishap reports where a single-seat accident was blamed on the pilot losing situational awareness and flying into the ground/water because of tasking overload.

NFOs have saved the day many times in their "non-flying pilot" role. I've heard many stories from pilots (not the NFOs) who said this. Common scenarios include commenting when the pilot loses his scan and fixates on one instrument during approaches to minimums or when landing at the boat. Running the emergency procedures while the pilot controls the aircraft is another one.

You have too narrow a view and too big of an ego. It's a team effort for the pilot/NFO to fly the plane. I doubt that any pilot of a tactical jet requiring a NFO thinks the NFO is not "flying" the plane.

 

[HAL Pilot]

There has been on-again and off-again talk about trying NFOs in the 60B and 60R. The big issue is do they replace the ATO (currently manned by a pilot, we qual for Pilot and ATO), the SO (Enlisted AW, who doubles as the crew chief, and door gunner) or both.

To contrast with the P3, our ATO acts as the TACCO and Mission Commander, while the Pilot drives. Both seats have full flight controls, but only the left seat has the computers.

During my timeframe of my DH tour, there was even talk in the VP community of changing the P-3 crew make-up to 2 pilots and 3 NFO. A new NFO qual would have been to sit the right seat during non-critical phases of flight. (cruise and onsta above 1000 feet agl). There was a pilot shortage and it was a money saving suggestion. It was cheaper to train/qualify senior NFOs in the squadron for these duties than to have a 3rd pilot. The initial training of NFOs is cheaper, NFO squadron qualification is cheaper, and the NFO would not need things like DFWs, etc to stay current. The thought was it worked for VS so why not for VP. Eventually the single anchor mafia won and the idea died. But the death was not because anyone thought the NFOs couldn't do the job, it was more of a "you can never change back if you don't like it" worry and a politcal decision.