NFO's instructing at Meridian/Kingsville

[Uncle Fester]

The idea might simply to have some FOs on staff at the Clown Jet VTs in order to get the studs some exposure. What the double-anchor types do in the Fleet and how they fit in to the aircrew concept. Otherwise plenty of studs going to multi-crew jets may get all the way to the RAG before they even meet an NFO (except maybe API).

Not my idea. Just guessin'.

 

[FLYTPAY]

Safety pilot if the guy in front is flying simulated instrument (i.e. under the hood).

I disagree with this being feasible in the T-45 as noone is eligible to be PIC in the aircraft unless they have a NATOPS rating. The T-45 would require either a type rating or an experimental aircraft authorization in order to log the time..again something that at this time does nto exist.

FAR Part 1 Defines pilot-in-command as follows: Pilot in command means the person who: (1) Has final authority and responsibility for the operation and safety of the flight; (2) Has been designated as pilot in command before or during the flight; and (3) Holds the appropriate category, class, and type rating, if appropriate, for the conduct of the flight.
FAR Part 61.51 (e) Logging pilot-in-command flight time. (1) A sport, recreational, private, or commercial pilot may log pilot-in-command time only for that flight time during which that person— (i) Is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated or has privileges;

If the Navy actually made the NFO a pilot instructor and the NFO had his CFI ticket.

In these cases, the NFO could actually log PIC......

I'd hate trying to defend it during an interview though (PIC or SIC). Or even to a friend. It sucks when they are laughing at you and not with you.

I think the FAA would probably not allow this....just a hunch.

 

[HAL Pilot]

I would argue that since the NFO instructor/CFI is qualified by the Navy to fly in the Navy aircraft (via his NATOPS qual), a type rating or LOI is not required even though he is logging the time in a civilian logbook. CFIs get to log PIC.

By your reasoning, a military pilot with a civilian license could not log any time in his civilian log since he does not have the type or LOI. But he can, he does and it is legal. Your reasoning also suggests a military pilot with no civilian license can not log any time in the civilian world.

I don't feel the need to look up the regs, but a safety pilot can always log PIC and he doesn't have to be type rated in the aircraft. A good example is a ASEL pilot logging multi PIC when he plays safety pilot in a light twin. It's perfectly legal. Similarly, a CFII who is not a MEI can provide instrument instruction in a twin and log it as PIC even though he can not provide multi engine training in the aircraft. In fact, there is one nation-wide large flight school where there is a AMEL private pilot in the front left, a AMEL private safety pilot in the front right and a MEI/CFII in the BACK seat of a Seminole with all 3 logging PIC at the same time (sole manipulator, safety pilot and instructor). Legal? Yes. Laughable? Most definitely.

The safety pilot actually has the choice to log PIC or SIC. Since the PF is under the hood, the safety pilot becomes a required crew member. A SIC does not need to be type rated or have the LOI. This would actually be defended easier and a little less laughable.

Like I said, I think it is legal but I'd laugh my ass off at anyone who did it.

 

[A4sForever]

The idea might simply to have some FOs on staff at the Clown Jet VTs in order to get the studs some exposure ..... What the double-anchor types do in the Fleet and how they fit in to the aircrew concept...

We used to do that very thing for that very reason in VT-4 (form/guns/CQ) ... except we'd do it from the Polish perspective, i.e., the other end of the "experience" ladder.

"We" put STUD NFO's in the backseats of STUD AVIATOR's on a regular but limited basis for anything/everything other than CQ.

It was a good experience from both AVIATOR/NFO viewpoints. Made for some lively debrief/bonding opportunities later at the O'Club ...

But no "instruction" nor "grading" took place, obviously ...

 

[a_m]

I think it's funny that in the span of a few hours, there hasn't been a single person to really supports this idea.

 

[A4sForever]

I think it's funny that in the span of a few hours, there hasn't been a single person to really supports this idea.

When your main criteria (perhaps your ONLY criteria??) is saving $$$$ .... it's usually a given that you have significantly limited the opportunity right out of the starting gate for "good ideas" to be front & center ...

Hope that makes sense .. I don't feel like rewriting it.

 

[a_m]

When your main criteria (perhaps your ONLY criteria??) is saving $$$$ .... it's usually a given that you have significantly limited the opportunity right out of the starting gate for "good ideas" to be front & center ...

Hope that makes sense .. I don't feel like rewriting it.

It makes perfect sense. I just don't see why those who make the decisions see it that way.

 

[bunk22]

Yeah...the WEPS pattern is a left hand pattern....something hard to teach a C-2 guy

I guess all that time spent at Angels 5 in the overhead stack (about 2 deployments worth) I was going the wrong way

 

[bunk22]

The way WEPS works is we learn the basic skills and pattern in the sims, and then in the A/C the IP in the back is basically telling us we're steep or shallow, released high or low and making sure we have the correct interval. But you do bring up a good point that if shit goes bad, ie cutting off your interval/simo run you'll want someone who can take the controls. I'm just trying to throw things out there to see how things could work with a NFO in the back.

My point was to the C-2 pilot thing only. The point is if it can be taught to an SNA, it can be taught to even a C2 or E2 pilot with flight time. The basic stuff at least. I would assume C2/E2 types don't get qual'ed on this off the bat but need some time in the jet, get other quals, to get there.

I agree with your point as well. An experienced pilot offers better SA (hopefully) and simply experience over an SNA. Now an NFO might have some good SA in the back but what about the flying experience, stick and throttle stuff? That's why there is always an experienced pilot with a young inexperienced student pilot. Nothing against FO's but in this scenario, not sure what they bring to the table. I guess I could see an experience WSO with a new nugget in the fleet though. Maybe the FRS as well??

 

[A4sForever]

Yeah...the WEPS pattern is a left hand pattern....something hard to teach a C-2 guy

I thought "the plane will only roll in to the left" was an A-6 thing ... good to see the more things change ...

To get you back to an ability to do "ambidextrous" roll-in's ... "they" need to bring back NAS Chase w/ YANKEE Target ... i.e., right hand patterns/right hand rolls for bombs, rockets, guns ...

NAS Kingsville = DIXIE Target = left hand everything.

 

[MAKE VAPES]

With 2100+ T-45C hours I can't help but chime in here...

This could work, with the best students on their best days in the best jets in CAVU weather flying with a humble great natured no double anchor angst NFO IP... needless to say efficiency/safety would be scary/sketchy at best.

I know there is a manning problem in VT's, but this solution will sooner or later put blood on whichever good intentioned clown came up with it. Not every dude flowing from their RAG instructor tour wants to go straight back to sea, offer them another tour of productivity at the VT's, offering shore tour to shore tour may hurt DH screening desire but there are ways around that.

Aren't we fighting a multi theater war right now? IA the surplus NFO's. Sorry dudes, Big Navy has no obligation to keep you smiling in the back seat of a jet, there is a new fight to fight.

The threat of IA's to single anchor IP's in NMM was a morale crushing biblical sledge hammer waiting for you every day you walked up the stairs, and inadvertantly hurts productivity. Why do that third x of the day if your boots will soon be hot and sandy?

A-4's puts good faith in those who taught before us... they weren't dumb asses... There are better ways to solve the X problem. Professional Instructor duty to 20 was thrown around a few years back?

I'll go ahead and jump on the bandwagon, this idea is IDIOTIC.

 

[MasterBates]

A few of us were discussing this the other day, and a SNA who is not a fan of P3/E6 IPs went "they are fleet JET experienced guys, yada yada yada, it will be better than a SERGRAD or Prop Dude"

I disagree and for the reasons most here do. While guys may not like the use of SERGRADs or P3/E6 types, they ARE Naval Aviators, and can take the jet to teach something or for safety as needed. Yes, I know some NFOs are civillian pilots and you get some time up front in the T-34/6 but I would rather trust a SNA who has soloed the T-45 in my back seat to land if something happens to me up front, than have an NFO kill us trying to do the same.

The only real place I can see for NFOs here, is perhaps in the future with the T-45D when they start downloading some RAG training to the T-45, having them be in the back after a student has passed a "Safe for Solo/Safe for NFO" checkride, to give them some exposure to what NFOs do, and what they can do for you so guys can make a more informed choice of wether to go single seat or muti seat.

 

[TheBubba]

The only real place I can see for NFOs here, is perhaps in the future with the T-45D when they start downloading some RAG training to the T-45, having them be in the back after a student has passed a "Safe for Solo/Safe for NFO" checkride, to give them some exposure to what NFOs do, and what they can do for you so guys can make a more informed choice of wether to go single seat or muti seat.

Which is how it works in the RAG. When you first get there as a CAT 1 or 2 pilot, your first few flights are with a pilot in ECMO 1 seat. After you pass your "Safe for ECMO" check, you fly with an instructor ECMO in ECMO 1. Even though its isn't all that feasible for ECMO1 to reach over and grab the stick (he can't even reach the throttles), I can see where it would be beneficial to have a NA in the front with a brand new CAT 1 pilot or a IP in the back of a T-45 with an SNA.

I will agree that a SNA who's solo'ed and is NATOPS qualed in the T-45 could gain some valuable experience flying with a NFO in the trunk, I just don't see it being a viable "X" producing option.

 

[picklesuit]

So, to sum up what I have read here...there are not enough IP's for T-45's right now, there are too many NFO's, so we will now take NFO's put them in the back seat, and let them talk, but not fly? This seems asinine to me (granted, I've never been over 350 kias) I think from a pure safety issue. I don't care about the money, or the career progressions, or stepped on toes, or even x's in the box...I think when it comes to Orange and White, too much shit goes wrong way too fast for us to be putting people unable to grab the stick and take control in the jet...I love me a good 'FO, they are SA Gods, but when you ingest a bird at Vr+10 and 100', it is not the time for someone who has just done sims...just the opinion of a guy who has still spent as much time in the back of the toob as the front...


If we are really this short, we can always go the AF route and make some FAIP's...or take some sticks from VT-31/35 (the COD guys that are here and have been through T-45's) send them to NQI and let the NFO sit right seat on the T-12/44...a little less dynamic, and at a lot slower A/S...

 

[MasterBates]

Sergrad ~= faip