The surface navy has a PQS for everything under the sun. I'm pretty sure they have a cake drier PQS. I could go on for awhile about the SWO proclivity to treat a sign off as a chance for the signer to demonstrate his smarts...
-
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
Really stupid questions about life as a SWO and anything else not aviation related [mod dog wuz hərə]
- Thread starter Wiley
- Start date
The cake drier PQS is tricky business and not a route sign-off. There's a lot to go into deciding how much gets dried and to whom. Obviously we all know that almost all cake SHALL be dried, but the level of dryness is directly proportional to the O-level the food will be served. Class of ship is usually irrelevant, as generally the higher the O-level/deck requires more cake drying. Really, it's a science and an art.
Again, this all depends on where you are and the guy signing the designation letter. There's no reason a competent 1st tour AEGIS Divo can't knock out SUWC. I always thought this was a much more worthwhile watch station than the usual CICWO. On the other hand, there's no way a 1st tour LHD guy is ever going to qual CDO.
My original point is that no Divo can ever really claim to be "done" with quals and it's a good practice to keep learning and helping out the watchbill. Being a good EOOW makes you a better OOD, being a good SUWC makes you a better TAO, etc.
This is the real reason the Navy needs STEM majors, because they will be able to figure out the cake height:dryness relationship. The political scientists just get surprised each time...
exNavyOffRec
Well-Known Member
run out of oil absorbents, just use some cake instead.
I tried for SUWC and I was widely discouraged and told to just get CICWO. Nevertheless, having an AEGIS CICWO letter sets you up overall for success., especially if you are attached to a Carrier.
A couple of the more out of the main stream quals are VBSS Boarding Officer and GLO (Gunnery Liaison Officer). And both are a lot of fun.
Sure, but I'd toss those in the same pile as ASWE or Strike ECO. All great schools, fun watches, and they make that ENS an instant SME in the wardroom, but they're not "quals" per-se that a hard charging JO can work on after watch or on a duty day.
Yup, ship dependent. On my ship, SUWC was set aside as the make or break for Weapons First Classes trying to make Chief. JO's were...not encouraged to get it.
Doesn't mean it's not a worthwhile qual for a JO to get, but EOOW is a tracked career requirement, while nobody's got any visibility on whether or not you picked up SUWC as a JO. And everyone goes through the same refresher for TAO.
It turns into a special kind of clusterfuck when you're the only SME onboard for a given PQS. And you just finished doing the events for INSURV live demo and warfare area certification. And 2 live ASW exercises. But...signatures.
Last edited:
When you get down to brass tacks, a first tour JO should be focusing on SWO and EOOW. Everything else is a distraction until those are completed. And as far as EOOW is concerned, I'm talking about actually qualifying to stand the watch, not just get the letter and move on.
As a "got my letter and moved on" guy, I don't take any offense. I think I had more to offer on the bridge than in Central - my CO and SWO agreed.
At the end of both Divo tours, I left with TAO and EOOW, so I met the Millington/careerist expectations of what to do (and I get first choice at DH billets to boot). But I think it's important to broaden your horizons when you have the time -- a DH doesn't have the time to go out and learn other areas of the job in depth like a SWO qual'd Divo can. I think not
I have seen DHs both succeed and fail to get TAO. All the SWO COs I have observed saw the TAO board as a chance to really open up on you knowledge wise.
Certainly no offense intended on my part. Almost every SWO I've known who has qualified EOOW did exactly what you did. I just don't happen to agree with it and think it's actually a disservice to the individual's long term professional development. Frankly, I don't understand PERS' requirement for the EOOW letter if folks aren't really qualifying to stand the watch. It's basically a pointless requirement.
I'm sure you and they did. My views on this go against the prevalent culture. I see no reason why JO's can't qualify to stand the watch, actually stand it on their own 10 to 15 times, and then cycle in a couple watches a month after that to keep their skills/knowledge current. I don't care watch watch we discuss, you never learn as much standing the watch as a UI as you do on your own.azguy said:
My opinion only here, but those SWOs that have a strong knowledge of engineering (theory, routine operations, and casualty control) make stronger TAO's and OOD's.
Last edited: