FY'07 Flying Warrant Officer Program

[Pitchlock]

Interesting, thanks for the info. On that second part, I'm not too clear... Are you saying that the Army gets more flight time in general than Navy, so there's more room for the WO program?

This thread has a good discussion on the topic:
http://www.airwarriors.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14538

 

[HAL Pilot]

A JO calling a Dept Head by his first name? Never happen.

My first tour in west coast VP (back when there was a significant difference between coast), we called the DHs by their first name all the time in certain situations. On the plane (whole crew was first name on the plane), on det and in the squadron spaces when there was no one below Chief or above LCDR around.

My DH tour on the east coast (VP-30 was just going away and the cross pollination was just beginning), I got reamed because I let the JOs call me by first name in the same situations. I never said "call me HAL", it just kind of happened. Probably because we had a LT pilot that was a AW2 in my first squadron and knew how I was raised.

Since I was told on my check in interview I was west coast scum and never going to break out as a DH, I took the reaming and let it keep happening. There was no breakdown in discipline because of it. In fact, I think I was more respected by the troops and the JOs because as the CMC once told me, I was more "approachable".

 

[Flash]

Interesting, thanks for the info. On that second part, I'm not too clear... Are you saying that the Army gets more flight time in general than Navy, so there's more room for the WO program?

No, different mission focus for the flyers. Army aviators are in a support branch while Naval Aviation is one of the main branches of the Navy. WO's in large numbers could diminish the 'political' ompf (for lack of a better term) of avaition in the Navy at large and lessens the pool of Aviators that can make command. This is important because Aviators command the biggest ships in the Navy and are one of the three (and a half, if you count SEAL's) communities where unrestricted line Admirals come from.

The fewer flight hours and other opportunities for Navy Aviators who later have command and make Admiral could have adverse and far reaching impact that I thnik the Navy has not taken into account. Why we don't just let commisioned officers become 'professional aviators' with less bonus money, a terminal O-4 rank and retirement at 20 would probably cost just as much. Why the heck the ANvy doesn't do that I have no idea why.......

 

[HAL Pilot]

Now my thoughts on the whole flying CWO thing.....

The overall number of pilots and NFOs in a squadron will not change. For example, instead of 30 JOs you will have 10 CWOs and 20 JOs. So the JOs will do just as much flying as they did before.

The CWOs will not be without ground jobs. The competition for the "key" ground jobs that every JO wants to punch their tickets will now be among 20 JOs instead of 30. There will be just as many DH and XO/CO slots but again the competition will be among fewer officers so selection opportunities will increase.

They tried a similar program they called ADO or Aviation Duty Officer in the late 80s / early 90s. Instead of CWO they offered ADO redesignations to post first tour JOs. These JOs would rotate between shore and sea flying jobs with no chance of command and a career limited to CDR but most likely LCDR. A 2x failure to select to O-5 ADO was to be automatically given a waiver to stay to retirement. The program lasted only a few years. I'm not sure why it died but I know there were not many in it. The arguments I gave above were the ones they (Aviation Admirals) gave us when they started the ADO program. (Except they had a few more rules that limited O4 & O5 ADOs from taking away operational billets from non-ADOs. If I remember, at this point in life these guys would be basically training command, NARF, etc.)

 

[robav8r]

Enough

Warning: Diatribe inbound!

You know, this whole notion of having a "cheaper" and more "cost effective" solution to keeping Naval Aviation healthy is systemic to a much larger problem plaguing our military today. Granted, there are certain "best business" practices that have a time and a place for our military, but the bottom line is: Combat Readiness is not cost effective. I've seen this problem manifest itself in many different forms for a long time. An effective military is one in which the members are well trained, properly motivated, and adequately compensated. Perhaps the flying CWO program will offer some fiscal benefits to the Navy down the road in a few years, but this focus on Naval Aviator/Flight Officer "cost savings," will, in my opinion, hurt the military in the long run.

Out . . .

 

[East]

I think that among the enlisted ranks there are eligable men & women who are able to complete flight school without a college degree. Primary focus on flying and an example what you can achieve in the Navy for HARD work. Those CWO programs aren't easy to qualify for. Only the best of the best will make it.

It's kinda hard to see Officers being afraid that their flighthours being 'consumed' by CWO's. The same happens to guestfliers from higher commands (0-5 and up) to keep their wings and qualification as a Naval Aviator, but no one talks about that. Think about others instead of yourselves. Think united instead of divided.

In the Royal Netherlands Navy the best experienced pilots were among Commissioned Officers as well as Warrant Officers.


Be happy for those CWO candidates who get their dreamshot years after they made a commitment to their country. Most of you Officer-types knew to be in cockpits before your commission. The CWO candidate did not and get his/her opportunity while serving.

 

[Pitchlock]

I think that among the enlisted ranks there are eligable men & women who are able to complete flight school without a college degree. Primary focus on flying and an example what you can achieve in the Navy for HARD work. Those CWO programs aren't easy to qualify for. Only the best of the best will make it.

It's kinda hard to see Officers being afraid that their flighthours being 'consumed' by CWO's. The same happens to guestfliers from higher commands (0-5 and up) to keep their wings and qualification as a Naval Aviator, but no one talks about that. Think about others instead of yourselves. Think united instead of divided.

In the Royal Netherlands Navy the best experienced pilots were among Commissioned Officers as well as Warrant Officers.


Be happy for those CWO candidates who get their dreamshot years after they made a commitment to their country. Most of you Officer-types knew to be in cockpits before your commission. The CWO candidate did not and get his/her opportunity while serving.

I have the utmost respect for the Navy Enlisted Corp, more so than the Officers.

That said, my point is that the problems with the P-3 Navy officer career path cannot be 'fixed' by adding WO's. Long term the Navy will have to revamp its thinking on the whole Officer/Enlisted relationship. Warfare is becomming highly technical and the 'brains' are moving further and further down the chain of command.

I would be in favor of all flying billets transitioned to WO's. Its the mixing of the two in the current o/e scheme that doesn't make sense.

Oh, academy guys do not know if they will get aviation slots before committing to the navy for 9+ years.