Flight School backed up

[FlyNavy03]

@FlyNavy03 Personally I wouldn't ask you to publicly defend the program that you're in charge of, as that's not fair to you. The fact that you're coming here to give some first hand knowledge is appreciated. That said...

I briefly considered talking about the HAC question here, but decided not to. I mean, it’s nothing classified or even confidential. It’s just that the option I think is best is someone else’s idea and I don’t want to publicly put it up for debate on a forum they don’t participate in.

The current policies surrounding COPT-R, however, I have no problem defending since I do play a role there. Heck, in a way I kind of am COPT-R. Seriously, Google “COPT-R” and see what comes up. Thanks to CNRF’s PAO, the C in COPT-R could just about stand for, “CDR Allen”. I look at marketing the new program as part of my job.

Besides, I like reading people’s concerns. So far I haven’t seen anything new, but any program can be improved and so I welcome all criticism. That’s how we improve. I just don’t want the debate to drown out folks, especially SMA’s, who have questions about the program. Maybe I should start a new thread dedicated to that so we can continue the whole, “Restricted Naval Aviator” debate here.

 

[MemphisBell]

While you and I might agree, I don't think PERS sees it that way outside of VTJ.

VT-J IP's are now being affected by this too. Before, due to manning, there was an agreement with the VT-J CO's and PERS that IP orders could not be cut shorter than 33 months while the other VT's were 30. Now, we have VT-J IP's that have had their shore tour orders cut to 24 months to get a 24 month sea tour out of them on the backside.

 

[Gatordev]

I briefly considered talking about the HAC question here, but decided not to. I mean, it’s nothing classified or even confidential. It’s just that the option I think is best is someone else’s idea and I don’t want to publicly put it up for debate on a forum they don’t participate in.

Understood. I can see what you initially typed and I have my own thoughts on it, but completely understand not wanting to speak out of turn.

Maybe I should start a new thread dedicated to that so we can continue the whole, “Restricted Naval Aviator” debate here.

There are actually two other dedicated COPT-R threads here and here if you're interested.

 

[Flash]

I love the Navy, but I've flown with a lot of Army pilots in my day and I'm not sure I've seen any evidence that this is inherently true. What are you basing that on?

Working with the Army and Army pilots along with anecdotes of how different things are between the Army and the other services, to include quite a few here on AW. It isn't a difference in piloting skills, Army pilots can be just as good or bad as any other, than it is in a much of the other stuff that goes along with operating in a joint environment and more controlled/restricted airspace.

And the Army itself doesn't seem to really help things by often seemingly treating their aircraft and aviators as an afterthought. A regular Army officer pilot once described the Army's attitude of aircraft and pilots as 'just another vehicle, like a truck or a tank, and pilots as just another driver'. That attitude seems to pervade the service and most folk's attitude towards aviation in the service.

 

[Griz882]

A regular Army officer pilot once described the Army's attitude of aircraft and pilots as 'just another vehicle, like a truck or a tank, and pilots as just another driver'.

Within the confines of Army Doctrine, this is trueish. It doesn’t discount the value of tactical aviation rather it simply sees TACAir as another Fires element wherein an O-3 naval aviator (or army pilot) isn’t much different than an O-3 artillery battery commander - both have a job to do within the spectrum of fire support. As a former infantry guy I never really cared where my “boom” came from as long as it was on target and the right size for the mission (sometimes, in OEF and OIF, a bomb was better than a Hellfire and sometimes an 80mm mortar was better than a bomb).