RiseR 25
Well-Known Member
Thanks, at least it's spelled out on a form.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Failure the First Time Around
- Thread starter Surf
- Start date
Thanks, at least it's spelled out on a form.
Yeah, being squared away in one collateral is exactly what I meant, to hell with all that "team/command player, well rounded" BS. >_>
I already explained how it works via PM. If history on AW proves anything, let leave it at that.
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
Tiz, no animosity here and I think the discussion is good for the wannabes looking at the thread. It's good stuff and I think that your perspective from the supply/skimmer side of things is valuable.
What I understand that you meant is that you think there is an assumption that every officer's tactical knowledge, leadership, and capablity is constant at the O-3 to O-4 level, and what will separate the ones who screen for XO/CO at sea vice the ones who will be finding employment elsewhere is effectively managing one's administrative/collateral duties.
First, I will tell you that history is not on your side (our submarine COs tactically sucked at the onset of WWII, the last metric we can use where they were being shot at). I wish I could tell you that every O-3 divo transferring from a sub was equal when speaking from a tactical/operational expertise standpoint and getting performance out of their Sailors, but if I did I would be lying. So the underlying assumption that the majority of O-3's/O-4's have achieved an equal level of tactical/operational expertise, and that the only thing to separate the men from the boys is how one manages collateral duties is simply not true.
Secondly, we should back up a bit. The comment I quoted was geared toward people applying for a commission. The ability for a DH plan for and train his dept. to excel at the ship's next scheduled operational milestone is germane to this discussion; what is important for wannabes is the life as a DIVO since they will have plenty of time to observe community life for himself before they commit to a DH tour and beyond. It really doesn't matter that skimmer 2nd tour JOs and DHs are 'daywalkers' because the wannabes won't be DHs until much later. What matters is that, as a JO in the sub force, when faced with a choice between reviewing a program binder that is 'good enough' or reviewing tactical guidance on how to conduct the mission op we will conduct tomorrow/procedures for the next engineering evolution, the latter should take precedence every day and twice on Sunday.
I can't speak on where SWOs or aviators place their emphasis; I can only speak on where we place it, which is on being able to safely and stealthily conduct mission operations. At the DH level it requires more of a balancing act between watch and 'other', but as a JO the 'other' is so easy that it isn't going to make you stand out. It is quite clear that, if anything, this discussion has reinforced my point: that different communities do things very differently, and that one should not apply to become an officer based solely on the fact that we wear the same rank and do similar paperwork.
What I understand that you meant is that you think there is an assumption that every officer's tactical knowledge, leadership, and capablity is constant at the O-3 to O-4 level, and what will separate the ones who screen for XO/CO at sea vice the ones who will be finding employment elsewhere is effectively managing one's administrative/collateral duties.
First, I will tell you that history is not on your side (our submarine COs tactically sucked at the onset of WWII, the last metric we can use where they were being shot at). I wish I could tell you that every O-3 divo transferring from a sub was equal when speaking from a tactical/operational expertise standpoint and getting performance out of their Sailors, but if I did I would be lying. So the underlying assumption that the majority of O-3's/O-4's have achieved an equal level of tactical/operational expertise, and that the only thing to separate the men from the boys is how one manages collateral duties is simply not true.
Secondly, we should back up a bit. The comment I quoted was geared toward people applying for a commission. The ability for a DH plan for and train his dept. to excel at the ship's next scheduled operational milestone is germane to this discussion; what is important for wannabes is the life as a DIVO since they will have plenty of time to observe community life for himself before they commit to a DH tour and beyond. It really doesn't matter that skimmer 2nd tour JOs and DHs are 'daywalkers' because the wannabes won't be DHs until much later. What matters is that, as a JO in the sub force, when faced with a choice between reviewing a program binder that is 'good enough' or reviewing tactical guidance on how to conduct the mission op we will conduct tomorrow/procedures for the next engineering evolution, the latter should take precedence every day and twice on Sunday.
I can't speak on where SWOs or aviators place their emphasis; I can only speak on where we place it, which is on being able to safely and stealthily conduct mission operations. At the DH level it requires more of a balancing act between watch and 'other', but as a JO the 'other' is so easy that it isn't going to make you stand out. It is quite clear that, if anything, this discussion has reinforced my point: that different communities do things very differently, and that one should not apply to become an officer based solely on the fact that we wear the same rank and do similar paperwork.
I see no problem putting in your officer package that you want to be a pilot. Hell, the guys who sit on a board aren't dumb. If pilot is your number one choice, you probably wanted to be a pilot.
If I were sitting on a board, and if all applicants were equal..the guy demonstrating his passion for aviation is going to get the nod over the "Officer first pilot second" spiel. It's EXPECTED to be good in the airplane...the Officer part is what separates people, but this is something to work on after you're already commissioned and learning your craft. Pilot's don't even come into contact with enlisted sailors until almost two years into their careers...somehow I think that is misrepresented and doesn't fit in putting an OCS package for a guy wanting to be a pilot.
If I were sitting on a board, and if all applicants were equal..the guy demonstrating his passion for aviation is going to get the nod over the "Officer first pilot second" spiel. It's EXPECTED to be good in the airplane...the Officer part is what separates people, but this is something to work on after you're already commissioned and learning your craft. Pilot's don't even come into contact with enlisted sailors until almost two years into their careers...somehow I think that is misrepresented and doesn't fit in putting an OCS package for a guy wanting to be a pilot.
RiseR 25
Well-Known Member
Thanks Sooner. My OR and I went over this before he submitted the packet. He wanted to make sure that pilot is in fact the only thing I wanted when submitting the packet. I was advised that had he had advance notice on HQ calling, he would have went over the details of what is considered an excellent response for the case. Unfortunately (or who knows maybe fortunately) that wasn't the case and I had to go on the fly. I definitely got the point across that I wanted to be a pilot, and did this as politely as possible while attempting to keep the Officer portion in good standing. Not the easiest thing to do I'll admit.
There isn't too much to discuss here. Three different communities, three differing opinions of what it is we do. I can only guess wannabes can now see they should gear their interviews and statements to their audience accordingly.
Just put what you want, and let the chips fall where they may.