O4 List

[KBayDog]

That said, the type A nature of this business tends to attract people who want to have command some day.

Very true.

However, not everyone who was attracted to Naval Aviation for command potential still has those desires after X-number of years in service. As experiences/priorities/perceptions change, some people get out, some go Reserves (as I've gotten to know more and more Reservists, I've got nothing but respect for the experience they bring to the fight (both training and operational)), and some just hang out until retirement. This doesn't necessarily mean that they have any less desire to continue serving than their command-oriented counterparts - the fact of the matter is that the golden career path forces them to make decisions that sometimes take them out of the cockpit...and the uniform...forever.

Is a one-size-fits-all career/promotion system worth the loss of this kind of experience and investment?

 

[Jim123]

In my day BUPERS had a not so secret "rate the rater" system whereby FITREPS were recast based on known "biases" of raters. Soup sandwich.

By the way, there is actually something like that now- each individual's FITREP grades get shown with the rater's averages for that cycle and for the rater's cumulative total. (I hope that makes sense the way I wrote it.) That helps the board normalize who the Santa Clauses and hammers are... Hard to believe that this change to the system has been around for ten years already(!).

 

[Flash]

With two AF siblings I can say that Air Force aviation career progression, promotion, etc, are about a million times more reasonable than ours. The options and trade-offs are simple and clear-cut. You can easily fly constantly and lose promotion potential, or stay in one place for a long time, and generally make which trade-offs you are willing to make, all without the endless curtains of BS that we deal with (i.e. incorrectly asking the detailer or your XO about a career option that changes their perception of your undying commitment to be like them and thus your performance evaluation). Aren't there some AF on here? It seems like they don't have many similar conversations.

A huge difference with the Air Force is that they have a Wing and Group structure at flying bases with a large number of aviators on those staffs or in non-flying squadrons in flying billets. A perfect example is a buddy of mine is slated to command a audio-visual squadron but will fly with the resident group's aircraft and even deploy with them. A significant number of functions that reside in squadrons in the Navy are spread among the Wing and Group in the USAF with the attendant number of flying billets along with it.

And there are plenty of complaints from the USAF side as well, it ain't all peachy on that side of the fence. One recent one that has direct relevance to this discussion is that they are forcing out Majors before they hit 20 year retirement, not even giving them early retirement but just involuntary sep pay and showing them the door after 2xFOS. This has included pilots and navs. So much for retiring as a 'professional pilot'.

 

[hscs]

My experience that the guys leading the strikes at Airwing Fallon are usually the DHs and sometimes CO/XO. These are the guys with the strike lead quals (or they're upgrading at NFL). Regardless of whether CAG/DCAG are going to "lead" any large force event over the beach, I don't think you'll see many JOs put in charge of organizing the planning effort - they'll do the grunt work, but the guy who is ultimately responsible to CAG is more than likely going to be O4 and above. YMMV.

Concur - and while the JOs may plan it all - they still have to brief it to CAG, who can send them back to the drawing board when their plan sucks.

 

[robav8r]

The Navy also experimented before with this sort of thing within the last generation with the 'flying LDO' program. We had a few former LDO aviators when I showed up in VQ and they said it was a 'bright idea' but never worked out as planned and it was ended in the early-mid 90's.

Yep, I was one of them and in the first class. Went to API, VT-4 & 562nd FTS in 99, winging in 00. My program was called the "VP" LDO to NFO program with the idea of inserting ASW experienced, LDO/CWO's into the VP community to stem the loss of Cold War, ASW knowledge. Everyone in the first class did very well, but the LDO detailers hated the program and forced the other members of my class back to traditional AVOPS billets following their first sea duty tour. A couple guys got VP-30 and FSU, but any long-term stability as an NFO what sabatoged by the detailing system. The only reason I survived was becasue of my degree and being able to redesignate to 1320. There were two LDO's in my class (prior VP types) that absolutely should have been retained, allowed to do some sort of DH tour, but most importantly, kept in the airplane. These two WERE the epitome of Cold War ASW experience. Also, after the first class, the program did not mandate that selectees take the AQT/FAR and consequently, some folks struggled greatly with API.

 

[bert]

?..perfect example is a buddy of mine is slated to command a audio-visual squadron ...

"Command" an "audio-visual squadron".

Just wanted to be sure I read that right.

I wonder how you translate that to your resume?

 

[Recovering LSO]

Very true.

However, not everyone who was attracted to Naval Aviation for command potential still has those desires after X-number of years in service.

And there are career paths for that. Its in the reserves - as you've identified.

I have to be honest here and say that a lot of the people I've met who complain about the promotion/screening process are the ones who came out on the short end of it. That's natural - but if those people were really honest with themselves they would be able to identify why - and in most of those cases it wasn't the system....

Break Break

Didn't the VP and Rotory guys try the flying warrant program with less than spectacular results? Wasn't that pretty close to an Army model?

 

[MasterBates]

I think flying LDO (based on what I was told, was not there for it like you Rob) and more recently, Flying WO are/were strangled in the grave, if only by neglect.

Lets face it. We have shrinking budgets, and the planes we are buying are stupid expensive, even taking inflation into account.

Lots of guys are barely getting enough hours to stay legal, nevermind build proficiency. If we have to be prepared to operate in an austere budgetary environment, we need to get more of a bang for the buck out of our training.

@ Brett, I have not done a scientific study, and I'm sure if one was done, with typical NPC fuzzy math, they would make it justify whatever decsion they made. I can go off an unscientific poll of squadronmates who have gotten out, and even come to me for advice (scary, I know, but they didn't have to worry about me parroting "Mav is thinking of dropping his letter ASAP and going to work for Hawaiian to the front office, like they do with DHs at times) and a lot of them stated things that could be construed as "if we had a more AF like career path, I'd stay".

And no, I didn't ask leading questions.

 

[Brett327]

@ Brett, I have not done a scientific study, and I'm sure if one was done, with typical NPC fuzzy math, they would make it justify whatever decsion they made. I can go off an unscientific poll of squadronmates who have gotten out, and even come to me for advice (scary, I know, but they didn't have to worry about me parroting "Mav is thinking of dropping his letter ASAP and going to work for Hawaiian to the front office, like they do with DHs at times) and a lot of them stated things that could be construed as "if we had a more AF like career path, I'd stay".

And no, I didn't ask leading questions.

Of course you assume that NPC would have to do fuzzy math (because they're just fundamentally dishonest, right). Do you not allow for the possibility that the actual interest in such a program would be small? With no actual data to go off of (your anecdotal experiences, like mine, are meaningless), you kind of have to at least presume even odds. It's not even a debatable issue.

Nobody knows what the future holds WRT our collective budget, and I would suspect that the conventional wisdom at Air Forces and NPC would be to avoid radical changes in how we do business during periods of fiscal uncertainty.

Hey, I get where you guys are coming from, but I'm not sure I agree that this is an issue worth pursuing. You folks may feel differently, and that's... OK.

 

[MasterBates]

And there are career paths for that. Its in the reserves - as you've identified.

Yes, but we also structure our reserve far differently than them.. And being able to teach the noobs is harder when I'm in VAW-77 with guess what, a crap ton of other reservistas, than it would be if I was in VAW, HSL or VRC XXX with first tour nuggets.

I have to be honest here and say that a lot of the people I've met who complain about the promotion/screening process are the ones who came out on the short end of it. That's natural - but if those people were really honest with themselves they would be able to identify why - and in most of those cases it wasn't the system....

Mostly true. If I made LCDR, I'd probably be less vocal about my opinions about the promotion system and career path (note, not plural). Because I'd have to live within the system. As of right now, if someone gets butt-hurt about my opinion on stuff, what they gonna do, call me in to the nearest NOSC 200 miles away?

That being said, the "truth" for what is promotable, and how far off the path is survivable has been rapidly changing. There are at least 4 regular AW posters who would have, by historical benchmarks, had at least made LCDR. They FOS'd this year. Left fleet tour with at least Pack-Plus paper, if not a ranked EP. Great performance in a non-RAG, but traditionally safe for LCDR/DH shore tour, leaving with tickets punched. When I left my JO tour, I was told by people who had no reason to lie, that I was all but a gaurantee to make LCDR, and still had a good, but lower than the norm shot at DH.. Part of the screeening process when you do a NFO-Pilot or Airframe retread was to make sure you weren't a shitbag, and could handle some NOB time and still keep on trucking.

Didn't the VP and Rotory guys try the flying warrant program with less than spectacular results? Wasn't that pretty close to an Army model?

Does not seem to have wholehearted support from above. Probably going to go out with a whimper.

 

[MasterBates]

Of course you assume that NPC would have to do fuzzy math (because they're just fundamentally dishonest, right). Do you not allow for the possibility that the actual interest in such a program would be small? With no actual data to go off of (your anecdotal experiences, like mine, are meaningless), you kind of have to at least presume even odds. It's not even a debatable issue.

Nobody knows what the future holds WRT our collective budget, and I would suspect that the conventional wisdom at Air Forces and NPC would be to avoid radical changes in how we do business during periods of fiscal uncertainty.

Hey, I get where you guys are coming from, but I'm not sure I agree that this is an issue worth pursuing. You folks may feel differently, and that's... OK.

I mean fuzzy math, in that they have tweaked numbers on all sorts of shit to meet wickets they needed to hit, like "consistent opportunity" and such. FlyBoyd did a really great breakdown on this a while back.

What the fuck do you mean by "it's not debatable". Brett, I was in Naval Aviation, as an Officer, long enough to know enough guys that got out that makes me think this would be a feasable program. I allow for the possibility that interest may be small, but from guys I know and served with, it's not small. Maybe I just happened to be in HSL-42, VT-28, VT-31, VT-21 and VAW-121 as a winged aviator, talking with guys who were my peers who were getting out, or making plans to get out. The ONLY place I was as a winged guy with any experience where there would be less than a small interest in this was VAW-120.

I wasn't saying do a radical change.

But how would allowing another path to keep expericence in the fleet (where it is most needed, followed by TRACOM) that would be a small percentage, but allow a real savings be any less radical than the monkey-fuck games they have been playing with year and screen groups lately?

 

[Brett327]

I mean fuzzy math, in that they have tweaked numbers on all sorts of shit to meet wickets they needed to hit, like "consistent opportunity" and such. FlyBoyd did a really great breakdown on this a while back.

What the fuck do you mean by "it's not debatable". Brett, I was in Naval Aviation, as an Officer, long enough to know enough guys that got out that makes me think this would be a feasable program. I allow for the possibility that interest may be small, but from guys I know and served with, it's not small. Maybe I just happened to be in HSL-42, VT-28, VT-31, VT-21 and VAW-121 as a winged aviator, talking with guys who were my peers who were getting out, or making plans to get out. The ONLY place I was as a winged guy with any experience where there would be less than a small interest in this was VAW-120.

I wasn't saying do a radical change.

But how would allowing another path to keep expericence in the fleet (where it is most needed, followed by TRACOM) that would be a small percentage, but allow a real savings be any less radical than the monkey-fuck games they have been playing with year and screen groups lately?

By your posts, you've indicated that (or are proceeding as though) there's no possibility that interest in such a program would be low (as I've suggested). Unless we have data, that's not really a valid position to take. That's what I mean when I say it's not debatable. We have to assume that either outcome is at least possible, but prior to your last post, you seemed to be arguing from a place which ruled that out. I see you now understand.

At any rate, someone with your scientific background ought to know that one or two or 20 people's anecdotal experiences are just that, and they're no substitute for actual data. Our firsthand knowledge of people who would choose a Career Pilot option, while interesting, is nothing more than a footnote and I hope you would agree with me that it's not something upon which to craft policy from. Anyone with stars on their shoulders at NPC being presented a proposal for a change in personnel policy is going to say, "Show me the numbers. How many people will this affect? How many people do you expect to sign on to this thing you're selling me?"

The bottom line is, nobody knows until it's studied. That is also not debatable.

 

[magnetfreezer]

"Command" an "audio-visual squadron".

Just wanted to be sure I read that right.

I wonder how you translate that to your resume?

There are several squadrons that develop CBTs/courseware/audio and video for all the various A schools/technical schools/upgrade training /flight training. May be one of those

 

[MasterBates]

I still find it funny that anything in the AF is a 'flight' or squadron.

We don't call a squadron "USS Bluetails".

@ Brett, I have always realized that my data set is statistically inadequate, but that being said, I don't hold it beyond BUPERS to tweak whatever the actual numbers say to fit their predetermined solution. It's not a Navy only thing. I have to keep my bosses from doing dumb shit with numbers they don't understand and blowing up oil wells.

That being said, the bottom line is I don't see anything changing unless say some place outside DON makes us change. The people who make the decisions from a Flag level down to CDR or so have all gotten there recently (last 20 years at least) by doing about the same thing to a man within communities. Worked for them, should work for everyone. Groupthink can get pretty bad in organizations that are self growing like the military.

 

[bert]

There are several squadrons that develop CBTs/courseware/audio and video for all the various A schools/technical schools/upgrade training /flight training. May be one of those

/Stan

I learned something today.

/Stan