HeliFOs

[NozeMan]

Also, don't forget the S-3 long ago that was blasted with hail and knocked the pilot out. It was the NFO who made the emergency descent to save the aircraft. The pilot woke up to find the NFO setting up for the approach to land the plane.

I agree that SNAs would not get much from an NFO while they are still learning stick skills, but NFOs would be a utilizable asset in a helo just as much as anything else. Its an extra set of eyes and an extra pair of hands. Also in these horor situations that have been described in this thread who would really be dumb enough not to use those extra pair of hands in an actual emergency just because the wings have two anchors. Even with two pilots only one can fly at a given time while the other would monitor gauges, approach plates, comms, and things like that.

Finally, although you could fly an aircraft like a p-3 solo, John Trivolta was grounded in his 737 when they found out he pulled up in a dual piloted aircraft solo.

Yeah, you pretty much validated our arguement for no FOs in helos. Do we in helo land like to have an extra set of eyes and an extra pair of hands? Yes....we use two pilots. There is a difference between the "utilizable asset" you describe and two NATOPS qualified pilots in the front of the aircraft. When things sh!t the bed in the worst situation, we in helo land stand a better chance of survival with two pilots in the front.

I know you described the situation of the NFO saving the day in the S-3...in the helo it'd be totally different. The FO stepped up and flew a fixed wing aircraft to safety....for a FO to do that in our world they would have to have plent of helo experience to be able to pull that one off. In that case, why bother? Our pipeline can take an SNA and get them to the fleet as a NATOPS qualified pilot in around 2 years. Why bother putting FOs in that situation when it would take almost as long to train them only to NOT be potential HACs?

 

[BACONATOR]

Yeah, you pretty much validated our arguement for no FOs in helos. Do we in helo land like to have an extra set of eyes and an extra pair of hands? Yes....we use two pilots. There is a difference between the "utilizable asset" you describe and two NATOPS qualified pilots in the front of the aircraft. When things sh!t the bed in the worst situation, we in helo land stand a better chance of survival with two pilots in the front.

I know you described the situation of the NFO saving the day in the S-3...in the helo it'd be totally different. The FO stepped up and flew a fixed wing aircraft to safety....for a FO to do that in our world they would have to have plent of helo experience to be able to pull that one off. In that case, why bother? Our pipeline can take an SNA and get them to the fleet as a NATOPS qualified pilot in around 2 years. Why bother putting FOs in that situation when it would take almost as long to train them only to NOT be potential HACs?

Very well put.

Why put a non-pilot in the cockpit when the TTT is so short for helo pilots?

If one guy is incapacitated or something happens, it's important that there is another PILOT to fly the aircraft, especially with a crew in the back. It is by no means a ding on NFOs at all, but it just doesn't seem necessary or practical to have them in a helo cockpit.

Put an NFO or a helo pilot or someone else "aviation" trained, but not a jet pilot, at the controls of a jet in the event the PIC became incapacitated, and it is probable that they could get safely on deck with minimal damage to the aircraft and/or injuries.

Put a fixed wing pilot or NFO at the controls of a helo, and in the even the PIC became incapacitated, chances of a crash and/or injury/death are MUCH more probable.

 

[abracadabra11]

I don't want a FO sitting next to me (<-- eloquent discourse). HACs give me a warm and fuzzy.

Is that a good enough reason? Meh, probably not.

Oh well.

 

[Gatordev]

Also, don't forget the S-3 long ago that was blasted with hail and knocked the pilot out. It was the NFO who made the emergency descent to save the aircraft. The pilot woke up to find the NFO setting up for the approach to land the plane.

I agree that SNAs would not get much from an NFO while they are still learning stick skills, but NFOs would be a utilizable asset in a helo just as much as anything else. Its an extra set of eyes and an extra pair of hands. Also in these horor situations that have been described in this thread who would really be dumb enough not to use those extra pair of hands in an actual emergency just because the wings have two anchors. Even with two pilots only one can fly at a given time while the other would monitor gauges, approach plates, comms, and things like that.

It's not a matter of what's done in practice. It's a matter of what the legal and operational requirements are. As such, NFOs can't/shouldn't be flying the aircraft to save the day as a standard practice. Yes, there are stories of guys who have done it. There's NFOs who have the ability to fly well. But none of that makes it "right" on paper for aircrew to EXPECT the NFO to take the controls when needed (unless they have some sort of waiver/qual as mentioned by Hozer). There's stories of SNAs taking the controls and saving the day when an IP was knocked out of the picture. That doesn't mean they automatically earn their wings, collect $200 and get jets.

 

[S.O.B.]

That doesn't mean they automatically earn their wings, collect $200 and get jets.

They would in an episode of JAG.

 

[HooverPilot]

Also, don't forget the S-3 long ago that was blasted with hail and knocked the pilot out. It was the NFO who made the emergency descent to save the aircraft. The pilot woke up to find the NFO setting up for the approach to land the plane.

I never heard of this mishap/incident. More details please.

 

[loadtoad]

If this argument is about cost then what about the flying Warrant program? It's cheaper for the Navy to train and keep a Warrant long term than a Commissioned Officer because of the pay differences. This way instead of half assing it with a NFO (no offense meant by that) you get a "cheaper" Naval Aviator. Problem solved.

 

[NozeMan]

If this argument is about cost then what about the flying Warrant program? It's cheaper for the Navy to train and keep a Warrant long term than a Commissioned Officer because of the pay differences. This way instead of half assing it with a NFO (no offense meant by that) you get a "cheaper" Naval Aviator. Problem solved.

I guess they are "cheaper" for the Navy because they didn't spend the money on the Academy etc....


But from API on....I'm pretty sure they cost as much to train as an Ensign....after all, it's the same sylabus.

 

[BACONATOR]

If this argument is about cost then what about the flying Warrant program? It's cheaper for the Navy to train and keep a Warrant long term than a Commissioned Officer because of the pay differences. This way instead of half assing it with a NFO (no offense meant by that) you get a "cheaper" Naval Aviator. Problem solved.

I don't get what you're asking. We have flying Warrants. Some of them are flying helos.

?

 

[Pags]

My .02 on the matter is that if you were to put NFOs into a helo, you'd have to greatly increase the time to train in the helo pipeline. HTs and RAGs currently produce compentent copilots (or that's the goal at least), not HACs. Could the pipeline produce HACs that can go to the boat by themselves? Not without a huge change, and a lot more boat time.

Even the most junior jet guy has an LSO on the other end of the boat helping him adjust his approach to the back of the boat. Helo guys have nothing like this. There is the SGSI at some small boys, but not all ships have an SGSI. As has been mentioned, the SGSI isn't the end all be all of approach aids. For helos, the approach is a combination of instrument (esp on dark nights) and visual.

Could an NFO be useful in the ASW/ASuW role? Sure. But what about all the other mission areas helos operate in? What's an NFO going to do in the STBD D for hours on end or on an NSW mission? I regularly fly 4+hr da log runs. An NFO would have NOTHING to do on those missions. I have no radar or any sensor suite to use. I don't need an extra body whose soul job would be to calculate fuel burns.

 

[loadtoad]

I don't get what you're asking. We have flying Warrants. Some of them are flying helos.

?

Basically I was trying to get across there are ways to save money and keep pilots in the cockpit.

I guess they are "cheaper" for the Navy because they didn't spend the money on the Academy etc....

But from API on....I'm pretty sure they cost as much to train as an Ensign....after all, it's the same sylabus.

I am not saying they are saving money on cost to train for a WO in flight school. They will be saving money long term by not having to pay as large of a base pay, BAH, etc. A O-3 >6 gets paid over $1K more a month in base pay than a W-3 >6. So all in all a WO is cheaper than a commissioned NFO, and you get a qualified Naval Aviator at the stick. With that program you do not have to reinvent the wheel or "spend more to save more."

 

[bert]

I am not saying they are saving money on cost to train for a WO in flight school. They will be saving money long term by not having to pay as large of a base pay, BAH, etc. A O-3 >6 gets paid over $1K more a month in base pay than a W-3 >6. So all in all a WO is cheaper than a commissioned NFO, and you get a qualified Naval Aviator at the stick. With that program you do not have to reinvent the wheel or "spend more to save more."

The salary is not the most significant portion of a military member's "cost". All of the behind the curtain costs are still there regardless of rank. And as much as we don't like to admit it, a lot of what the Navy wants us for is the staff work further down the road, and the WO's will never offer any payback there - that is why the program is limited.

Something a lot of people don't seem to get is that one of the main points of the WO program was to find a way to get an equivalent of super-JO's into the squadrons without forking over the 1st tour LT's at FITREP time. This will allow communities to have a wider pool of successful first tour guys to start pushing through the ticket-punching machine later. (If that doesn't make sense to younger guys then keep this in mind as you ponder it: being ranked 2 of 5 is better than 4 of 20). For this reason we won't really know if the WO program is a success until we see how they integrate with the squadrons on their second sea tours, and how 1310's react retention-wise to fewer of the "good deal" flying shore tours being available.

 

[S.O.B.]

The salary is not the most significant portion of a military member's "cost". All of the behind the curtain costs are still there regardless of rank. And as much as we don't like to admit it, a lot of what the Navy wants us for is the staff work further down the road, and the WO's will never offer any payback there - that is why the program is limited.

Here's my plan: get an officer that doesn't cost 2+million to train to work the staff. Take him/her and send them on short "disassociated" tours to increase their familiarity operators and keep aviators in cockpits.

Seriously..this would seem so obvious....train less of the more expensive people, use them wisely, and retain them.

 

[phrogpilot73]

My .02 on the matter is that if you were to put NFOs into a helo, you'd have to greatly increase the time to train in the helo pipeline. HTs and RAGs currently produce compentent copilots (or that's the goal at least), not HACs.

Saying you'd have to increase the training time is an understatement. Unless they change OPNAV 3710, they'd have to get them to 500 hrs in flight school/RAG. That's an awful long time to train...

 

[Hozer]

Answer?
Super-JO. Seperate "career track", in reality probably terminal 0-4, but that's the trade-off for a career in the cockpit.
How to handle FITREP's? The same way in joint squadrons with Active Duty and FTS types. You tank seperately with your peers. Only small problem is it could be a small group, i.e. number x of 3 or 4 vs. 8 or 9.
Also, increase the SAU presence. Lot's of possibilities there. VT production doesn't happen without these folks.


Fo's in helo's? Hell the ATO is a FO. From what I recall, the nuggets in the left seat were along for the ride most of the time anyway 'til they figured out what was goin on, usually about mid-cruise. But that was when we flew 5-600 hrs on cruise. Give the aircrewman a cyclic and collective, too. Nope, not hover trim either...