-
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
Prowler FRS?
- Thread starter Rearden
- Start date
Several single anchors got them the week I selected. More to come I assume.
They are selecting both, if you throw your name into the hat for Growlers, you are also throwing it in for Prowlers as well.
True, though my week there were no Prowler slots for TW1 available.....they've been pretty few and far between for the last 5-6 months I was there
Funny how this is essentially the exact opposite of the way NFO land is doing Prowler/Growler selections.
I figured it was about time for an update on here, at least for the Prowler side of the house. The general syllabus flow is pretty much the same, with the exception of AVEWS.
Unlike before, where it was a 10wk? course for ECMOs and not run at the RAG, it's now morphed into a 3 week course run by the RAG. There are plusses and minuses to this. Pluses: it's not 10 weeks, and there isn't a beeps and squeaks portion for the ECMOs, plus the overall flow/amount of coursework isn't that bad. Minuses: The first time you'll hear emitters/scan types is when you hop in for your backseat sims, so it'll take a bit longer before you understand exactly what you're listening to.
Once you complete AVEWS, you'll roll into FAM/NAV I, followed by Systems, Tactics, FAM/NAV II, then flightside. The flow of sims/logging backseat hours is still essentially the same. However, don't expect to get much extra practice time in the sim (at least the front seat). There is only one front-seat sim here now, and getting in there for extra practice is damn close to impossible, so jump on those times if/when they pop up. The backseat sim is a bit easier to log time in, although it depends on where the classes around you are at.
As far as overall coursework, the CBTs pretty much suck. No way of getting around it. I found it a lot easier to just use the WSOM/TACMAN to learn the backseat stuff. The NATOPS CBTs are better, but not by much, you'll still spend a ton of time diving into the big blue sleeping pill.
Oh, this should be fairly common sense, but know your EPs cold, even during NTs when EPs/Systems aren't really a pressing concern. I've seen a couple of other studs get a lot of unnecessary extra attention because they screwed up a boldface test.
Unlike before, where it was a 10wk? course for ECMOs and not run at the RAG, it's now morphed into a 3 week course run by the RAG. There are plusses and minuses to this. Pluses: it's not 10 weeks, and there isn't a beeps and squeaks portion for the ECMOs, plus the overall flow/amount of coursework isn't that bad. Minuses: The first time you'll hear emitters/scan types is when you hop in for your backseat sims, so it'll take a bit longer before you understand exactly what you're listening to.
Once you complete AVEWS, you'll roll into FAM/NAV I, followed by Systems, Tactics, FAM/NAV II, then flightside. The flow of sims/logging backseat hours is still essentially the same. However, don't expect to get much extra practice time in the sim (at least the front seat). There is only one front-seat sim here now, and getting in there for extra practice is damn close to impossible, so jump on those times if/when they pop up. The backseat sim is a bit easier to log time in, although it depends on where the classes around you are at.
As far as overall coursework, the CBTs pretty much suck. No way of getting around it. I found it a lot easier to just use the WSOM/TACMAN to learn the backseat stuff. The NATOPS CBTs are better, but not by much, you'll still spend a ton of time diving into the big blue sleeping pill.
Oh, this should be fairly common sense, but know your EPs cold, even during NTs when EPs/Systems aren't really a pressing concern. I've seen a couple of other studs get a lot of unnecessary extra attention because they screwed up a boldface test.
Max the Mad Russian
Hands off Ukraine! Feet too
Gents,
One respected member of this forum, with old good Phantom-era experience, have told me that EA-6B's tailhook tended to skip the wires, bouncing from the deck notably often. The question is: why so? Weak hydraulic device that should have pressed it to the deck? That hook was not a solid thing, being divided in two parts by pivot bolt. Maybe this was the reason?
One respected member of this forum, with old good Phantom-era experience, have told me that EA-6B's tailhook tended to skip the wires, bouncing from the deck notably often. The question is: why so? Weak hydraulic device that should have pressed it to the deck? That hook was not a solid thing, being divided in two parts by pivot bolt. Maybe this was the reason?
Maybe.
Max the Mad Russian
Hands off Ukraine! Feet too
Whatever, it's always better to fix a problem which may lead to bolter. Or it was like ejection seats on A3D - everybody in NavAir understood this is possible to arrange but Douglas thought no way...
Always.
The B-66 notwithstanding, it was a design tradeoff based on weight constraints.
It was also a design that was started in 1948 so the initial concept probably predates ejection seats.
Ejection seats were specifically omitted from the design due to the designer's choice, plenty of aircraft that were designed before and during the same timeframe had them, he didn't think they were needed for that or the F3D too. Most guys who I knew that flew them disagreed.
Guess it was a weight saving issue. Apparently a widow of a crewman killed in the A3D attempted to sue McDD for leaving out the ejection seat.
