SECNAV to Implement Sweeping Changes

[insanebikerboy]

One thing that I think is being unwittingly left out of this conversation is the competency of the pilot who flies all the time versus a pilot who hasn't.

I've never been on a shore tour since flight school and I'm an O-4 in my DH tour. Having not left the cockpit yet, I've flown with brand new guys, I've flown with LTs with one flying tour, with returning PXOs coming off of some flavor of joint staff, with incoming DHs that have been in a disassociated tour that was non flying, and a one or two guys like me that have flown the whole time.

Here's what I've observed in that time.

The more time, without breaks, that a pilot has flying the better of a pilot they are, regardless of how much total time they have. Even though a guy may have 2-4 thousand hours, they inherently lose something when they don't fly for 2-3 years and then come back. They can pick things up easier but I've seen much better, consistent, stick skills out of a guy with a thousand less hours but hasn't left the cockpit.

Experience does matter, and a senior guy with 3,000 hours has seen more so that can help his decisions and conclusions.

In the end, it boils down to what the different services need. The Army wants pilots that are good at a very specific mission (air cav/air assault/etc). The Army thinks of their aircraft as flying tanks and jeeps, and it's also why officers in the Army are considerably poorer at stick skills than the warrants, warrants fly more but the officers run the Army.

The Navy needs people who can fly but they place less emphasis on flying as they do on running the Navy. That's not to say the Navy doesn't value good sticks, but they value running the Navy more. Since we don't have flying warrants, it's gotta come from somewhere.

How's this all tie together? In my experience, folks that have breaks in flying may not be as good a stick as someone who flies their entire career, but they aren't (with few exception), unsafe in the cockpit. That's good enough for big Navy. I'd be willing to bet that the conditions are similar in other communities.

The human pool will always be there to feed the hopper and the Navy gets the numbers it needs to select for the more senior ranks. Until the Navy decides to favor stick skills over making everyone good at running the Navy, the status quo won't change.

 

[squorch2]

This goes well beyond any single disassociated tour though. I know a shooter tour isn't something an officer recruiter is going to discuss with a potential applicant, but some of you are acting as though Big Navy pulled a bait and switch. Is that really how some of you feel? For the ones lamenting the "much-hated boat jobs," was your expectation really that you'd get flying tour after flying tour after flying tour until you completed your MSR or retired? I'm just trying to explore where the expectations gap is for some of you.

(total swag here)

When PERS shifted all studs to wings+8, it created a huge rift in expectations.

Prior to wings+8 MSR, maritime and helo pilots had pretty good options:

1) get out at MSR, coming off a shore tour, with currency if you're an IP
2) show you want to stay Navy by going to the boat/other pain tour

Indeed, wings+8 folks were trained and led by people who had those options. So now wings+8 folks have the options of

1) going to the boat
2) going to the boat -

Leadership has zilch familiarity as to what that means for future lives outside the Navy, and PERS has little sympathy. So while SWO and sub people can get out on a shore tour, no such luck for aviators.

With all these factors combined, there's a big feeling that the rug has been pulled out from under you.

 

[squorch2]

(Posted from my iPhone, all errors mine)

 

[xj220]

All this discussion really comes down to the "golden path" talk that keeps rearing its head. I've been in that situation (and am in it in a way) of where you have to play the game in telling higher ups what you want next vs what you really want. You can tell them you want to keep in the cockpit with the understanding that it pulls you from the "golden path" and risks your career. Automatically, you're not seen as a team player and risk getting a lower fitrep. If you say you want command, etc then you get preferential treatment in terms of getting an EP. I understand where leadership is coming from where they want to give the guys staying in a better shot to compete but you shouldn't screw over your top guys just because they want to do something different. I feel there's a better way of doing business that we just haven't found yet.

 

[Recovering LSO]

I think AirWarriors has it's own version of Godwin's Law: The longer a thread goes the higher the likelihood of the phrase "golden path" being used.

 

[Spekkio]

I was being a bit generic when I used the term "all" in regards to that statement but I don't know too many pilots who long for the days when they're put out to pasture so they can manage some PMA-something.

So if no (or few) aviators want to achieve command at sea, where do you suppose the Navy gets leadership that has familiarity with flight ops and air capabilities? We learned the hard way in WWII that we need senior leadership who understands this aspect of naval warfare, and this is even more true now than it was in the 1940s.

What I think Brett has been alluding to is that the Navy needs its most talented officers to eventually move out of the cockpit in order to maximize overall naval warfare effectiveness. This isn't about any individual's desire to have more fun flying, and everything to do with putting people with the right background in the right positions. If you stick around for 20 years being a super-LT, you're blocking a spot for someone who will be willing to step into those bigger roles. Theoretically this could be properly managed, and thus could make a guy like you more happy, but what is the payoff for the Navy to go through the hassle?

I don't think there's anything wrong with liking your JO job, but I would hazard a guess that the animosity toward the "I just want to fly my whole career" mentality stems from senior leadership believing that they have explained the above to said JOs in much greater detail, and yet they still stubbornly refuse to accept/understand their role in the organization.

 

[squorch2]

Golden path, shmolden path.

Every company/industry has its golden children. No sense getting het up about it, on either end.

 

[jollygreen07]

Golden path, shmolden path.

Every company/industry has its golden children. No sense getting het up about it, on either end.

No doubt, but does a skilled, highly trained worker at Google/Amazon/Wherever get fired for deviating from it?

Honest question.

 

[jmcquate]

No doubt, but does a skilled, highly trained worker at Google/Amazon/Wherever get fired for deviating from it?

Honest question.

In most corporate environments, you are expected to progress into more senior management positions, as opposed to remaining in a lower position and accumulate incremental pay increases base on performance or standard increases that are given on an annual basis. If you get to the point where they can hire a younger employee that will work for 2/3 they pay.................well they are in the business of making money.

 

[squorch2]

Hell yeah they do!

If a worker stuck around for 11 years and didn't produce enough value to get promoted, they'd for sure get canned in some restructuring, cause they cost more money than the new hire.

 

[squorch2]

Jinx

 

[Spekkio]

No doubt, but does a skilled, highly trained worker at Google/Amazon/Wherever get fired for deviating from it?

Honest question.

Who do you think gets laid off first more often than not? Middle aged men who are making too much money for their positions because they've been around forever.

There are also at least two main differences here: 1) Company X doesn't owe 47 year old John Smith a pension when he gets laid off after Y amount of years and 2) Company X doesn't need to promote senior executives from within before they turn 50.

 

[Python]

I don't think there's anything wrong with liking your JO job, but I would hazard a guess that the animosity toward the "I just want to fly my whole career" mentality stems from senior leadership believing that they have explained the above to said JOs in much greater detail, and yet they still stubbornly refuse to accept/understand their role in the organization.

The JOs aren't trying to be stubborn. They just feel the way that they feel and for legitimate reasons. IMHO, there is a bigger disconnect between leadership and JOs in the aviation community than one may think.

 

[squorch2]

*sotto voce*

Everyone is a cog

 

[Spekkio]

The JOs aren't trying to be stubborn. They just feel the way that they feel and for legitimate reasons. IMHO, there is a bigger disconnect between leadership and JOs in the aviation community than one may think.

I obviously can't speak to what level of 'disconnect' exists in your community. From the outside, what I've seen is a very vocal group of people leave the service and write angry-toned blogs about how a list of changes needs to be made to fit their desire to fly more without recognizing the broader need for the service to function as an efficient instrument of war to ensure this nation's national security. In order to do that, it needs to take people with flying experience and move them into other leadership roles that may not involve flying anymore. I think this level of immaturity is what makes senior leadership - people who have bought into the organization for a career - frustrated. Feeling like you want to do something fun like fly your whole career is legitimate, but refusing to understand why the Navy won't afford you that opportunity is being thick-headed.

Put another way: I don't think you could come up with an alternate model of having permanent flying jobs (Warrant or LDO) in the USN without causing a detriment to the overall effectiveness of the service, because doing so would necessarily reduce the pool of officers who have the requisite background to move into more senior leadership positions managing a major cornerstone of our Navy's capability.