Yeah its the one with the tail wheel all the way back like the BlackHawk. I love it, but with all the computers, its more crap that can break.....they are rolling out the armed helo version for us to take a look at in a week and a half, should be interesting, just sucks I probably wont see it in the Fleet until my Department Head Tour....
-
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
New Gouge on Pilot Careers, straight from the 0-7 level
- Thread starter El Cid
- Start date
- Status
NOSWO said:
Are you kidding? As opposed to round dial electro mechanical instruments that have been overhauled so many times that their Mean Time Before Failure is only a couple of hundred hours?
Your view of "break all the time" I would say is not correct. The digital avionics in the MH-60S is way superior than anything in the 46.
while superior in some ways maybe, but man the gremlins we have running through some of our birds are just insane...all computer related...and dont let a Phrog guy hear you say that anything with a tail rotor is superior to a 46....would not be pretty sight lol..........................and I dont see where I said break all the time, just more **** that can break........
The Phrog was way past it's prime - I have over 1200 hours in the thing. I for one am happy to see it retire. It was a beast of burden in my opinion. Two engine failures, an engine fire, a hydraulic emergency, a cabin door coming off in flight - and horrid support from Boeing. It also killed two claqssmates of mine. The H-46 although a stalwart figure in Naval Aviation true - and it served us well over 30 + years but in hindsight it was a dangerous machine.
Sure it made a great vertrep platform - but it also held back the HC community in thinking their mission was just vertrep and nothing more. The '46 severly limited our prospects of growth - in mission areas that had better funding and were better appreciated by the war fighters.
The fact that you guys have the MH-60 is nothing short of victory -it will lead to the HC guys getting in the fight and getting the missions that will result in personal awards, recognition, better careers and most importantly, budget!!!
Sure it made a great vertrep platform - but it also held back the HC community in thinking their mission was just vertrep and nothing more. The '46 severly limited our prospects of growth - in mission areas that had better funding and were better appreciated by the war fighters.
The fact that you guys have the MH-60 is nothing short of victory -it will lead to the HC guys getting in the fight and getting the missions that will result in personal awards, recognition, better careers and most importantly, budget!!!
More semantics here....
An E-6 with warfare quals getting commissioned would be an LDO, not a WO. A WO would have to be a Chief first, which raises the question (in probably a majority of the cases), what happens to age maximums for starting flight training? I have seen my fair share of LDO's "the sh!t hot E-6s" and I can tell you with confidence that past performance is not necessarily indicative of future performance. Hell, I've seen my share of priors who picked up ECP and STA-21 who are also abysmall. I wish I still had the email I sent out that had farewell messages from a (literally) half-retarded SA and an ENS...the grammar was so bad in both that my family and friends couldn't tell who wrote which one.
Another semantics issue....carriers and their playmates are no longer battle groups, they are "strike groups" (CSG).
I digress, though. I agree that just about anyone can be taught to fly, and fly well. If the screening process rests too heavily on warfare quals for the enlisted, though, I see "failure" written all over it. Too many good people never get the chance to get ESWS or EAWS quals, and for others the process of getting that pin is far too easy.
All in all, I think giving flight hours to CWOs or LDOs by taking them away from guys who went through the USNA, ROTC, and OCS will only result in JOs dropping their letters at the first opportunity.
An E-6 with warfare quals getting commissioned would be an LDO, not a WO. A WO would have to be a Chief first, which raises the question (in probably a majority of the cases), what happens to age maximums for starting flight training? I have seen my fair share of LDO's "the sh!t hot E-6s" and I can tell you with confidence that past performance is not necessarily indicative of future performance. Hell, I've seen my share of priors who picked up ECP and STA-21 who are also abysmall. I wish I still had the email I sent out that had farewell messages from a (literally) half-retarded SA and an ENS...the grammar was so bad in both that my family and friends couldn't tell who wrote which one.
Another semantics issue....carriers and their playmates are no longer battle groups, they are "strike groups" (CSG).
I digress, though. I agree that just about anyone can be taught to fly, and fly well. If the screening process rests too heavily on warfare quals for the enlisted, though, I see "failure" written all over it. Too many good people never get the chance to get ESWS or EAWS quals, and for others the process of getting that pin is far too easy.
All in all, I think giving flight hours to CWOs or LDOs by taking them away from guys who went through the USNA, ROTC, and OCS will only result in JOs dropping their letters at the first opportunity.
El Cid
You're daisy if you do.
There's no requirement that WO's come from the >E-6 bracket, they are just chosen that way because of the billets that they currently fill. As far as past performance goes, you can't second guess decisions. Sure some hot runners cool off once they feel the pressure of higher rank but those guys are a tiny minority. As long as you put tight restrictions on who gets picked up and who doesn't the majority of sh*t bags will filter themselves out by themselves.
I thought a requirement to be CWO in the Navy was that you be a CPO first?
El Cid
You're daisy if you do.
To the best of my knowledge you do not... but I don't have te keys to the Universe so I might be wrong. I just think that chiefs usually have all the time in service requirements and professional wickets met. They could also completely rewrite the "aviation" WO requirements all together. Because you are right... those would be some "old" pilots by the time they started!
Cid, you've got some experience. How many CWOs have you met that were not Chiefs before they got commissioned? I know there are always rules for things, and if you're in long enough, you meet someone who is an exception to some rule. This one, however, I have never met anyone who was an exception to it. If ANYONE knows of an Navy CWO who was not a Chief first, please correct me. Until that time, however....
Threadjack over.
Threadjack over.
From BUPERS website, such a wonderful source for info. I had to look it up because I was almost sure they had to be CPO and above. Anyways:
----
a. Be a Chief Petty Officer (E-7 through E-9), including E-6 personnel, when notification has been received by the commanding officer that the individual is a selectee for Chief Petty Officer or that advancement to Chief Petty Officer has been authorized, and serving on active duty or as a member of the Ready Reserve in a drilling unit (pay or non-pay) for inactive duty applicants.
----
Looks to me like all WO's are E-7 and above. They cannot apply until selected for E-7. If timing if perfect between CPO selection and CWO class-up date, they may very well still be an E-6, but that is me just thinking too much.
Cid, probably best to give Road the benefit of the doubt. After all, CWO's are part of the wardroom on ships, not to rehash old memories of your SWO days Road
----
a. Be a Chief Petty Officer (E-7 through E-9), including E-6 personnel, when notification has been received by the commanding officer that the individual is a selectee for Chief Petty Officer or that advancement to Chief Petty Officer has been authorized, and serving on active duty or as a member of the Ready Reserve in a drilling unit (pay or non-pay) for inactive duty applicants.
----
Looks to me like all WO's are E-7 and above. They cannot apply until selected for E-7. If timing if perfect between CPO selection and CWO class-up date, they may very well still be an E-6, but that is me just thinking too much.
Cid, probably best to give Road the benefit of the doubt. After all, CWO's are part of the wardroom on ships, not to rehash old memories of your SWO days Road
El Cid
You're daisy if you do.
Like I saidflynsail said:Cid, probably best to give Road the benefit of the doubt. After all, CWO's are part of the wardroom on ships, not to rehash old memories of your SWO days Road
Now I know one more thing for sure. Thanks for doing the "dirty work" flynsail, but they can always change the instruction especially for something so different from the norm.El CId said:
I would think that they would probably adopt something similar to what the Army has in place. In the Army, E-4 and higher can apply for an aviation spot. The other MOSs are reserved for those E-5 and above. I know it's still different than the Navy's, but if the Navy were to adopt this program, I would expect to see something at least similar.
In the army we use the early model to assess warrants. Meaning guys can come in right off the street to fly. In my flight school class all but one guy was prior enlisted. In all other Army Warrnat MOS's ( we call them walking warrnats) you have to be at least an E-6 like in the Navy and Marines. Aviation Warrants have very little in common with there ground counterparts. Infact the chief of staff will be seeing a plan to make some Warrnats LDO's. Many people are thinking Aviation would be the best choice. Also in the army any enlisted MOS can apply for flight training. This makes for a very colorful and experienced unit.
Cid,
I am not saying that they would keep the eligibility requirements the same should they start up that program. Just posted the quote from BUPERS to support the original post by Road, which said a WO must be a CPO first, and you seemed to discount at first and pulled a Kerry on your following post
.
Yes they would have to revamp the instructions should the Navy start a program like that. My thinking would be that the age limit for flight training stays the same, therefore, they would have to lower the paygrade prerequisite.
For the purpose of the thread though:
What would be interesting is how the training pipeline would be adjusted, if changed at all, for these new WO's-SNA's. Would they streamline the pipeline for them and just send them to advanced helos after API? If they did that, it seems like the Navy would have to create a separate advanced helos syllabus for them, thus allowing them to acquire the skills needed/taught in primary. After all, what would be the purpose of a regular pipeline for them in fixed wing if they will be strictly used for helos? It would be cost ineffective to have the same pipeline, and it seems like the Navy has been very sensitive to the issue of cost.
If they pull from the enlisted ranks, the WO will make more than the average Ensign. If they pick them from off the street, the WO will make slightly less than O1. Of course the O will eventually make more money in the long run. There are pros and cons to the program should it come to fruition. Does not seem like a feasible program that will have long term benefits. An entertaining concept at best. Keep in mind these are just thoughts of a JO new to the ranks; I neither make policies nor have anything to do with the policy-making decisions.
I am not saying that they would keep the eligibility requirements the same should they start up that program. Just posted the quote from BUPERS to support the original post by Road, which said a WO must be a CPO first, and you seemed to discount at first and pulled a Kerry on your following post
.Yes they would have to revamp the instructions should the Navy start a program like that. My thinking would be that the age limit for flight training stays the same, therefore, they would have to lower the paygrade prerequisite.
For the purpose of the thread though:
What would be interesting is how the training pipeline would be adjusted, if changed at all, for these new WO's-SNA's. Would they streamline the pipeline for them and just send them to advanced helos after API? If they did that, it seems like the Navy would have to create a separate advanced helos syllabus for them, thus allowing them to acquire the skills needed/taught in primary. After all, what would be the purpose of a regular pipeline for them in fixed wing if they will be strictly used for helos? It would be cost ineffective to have the same pipeline, and it seems like the Navy has been very sensitive to the issue of cost.
If they pull from the enlisted ranks, the WO will make more than the average Ensign. If they pick them from off the street, the WO will make slightly less than O1. Of course the O will eventually make more money in the long run. There are pros and cons to the program should it come to fruition. Does not seem like a feasible program that will have long term benefits. An entertaining concept at best. Keep in mind these are just thoughts of a JO new to the ranks; I neither make policies nor have anything to do with the policy-making decisions.
El Cid
You're daisy if you do.
Easy with the insults... comparing me to Kerry!?! That's low... :icon_tong I wasn't pulling a 180 I was thanking you for the upgrade and knowledge and commenting on the next item. I agree that things will be different... that's why I started this thread.flynsail said:Cid,
I am not saying that they would keep the eligibility requirements the same should they start up that program. Just posted the quote from BUPERS to support the original post by Road, which said a WO must be a CPO first, and you seemed to discount at first and pulled a Kerry on your following post
- Status